Avasay

Avasay is my attempt to create the ultimate in democracy. This website is not only where I am going to have a whinge, but also to encourage everyone else to do so.

You will see a lot of polls on this site. To make it as open as possible, everyone can vote. Everyone can leave a comment (just give a name and email) and everyone can post their thoughts (by registering name, email and password).

Got something on your mind? Post it here.

Think the world isn’t quite perfect? You’re not Robinson Crusoe, Jack. Tell us about it.

The site’s going to look a little rough around the edges, -and probably worse in the middle- ’cause I ain’t no geek. By no strange coincidence, my attempts at carpentry also look like they were done by a boilermaker.

All I ask is for all posters/ contributors to show a little common courtesy. Disagreement is great, personal abuse will not be tolerated.

There’s only one rule we all should live by: Treat everyone the way you would like to be treated.

Let’s start the ball rolling.

I have 2 children. My parents worked hard to give me a better start in life than they had, and I’ve tried to do the same for my kids -as do we all. But now I’m worried.

Back in the 80’s, we went from a forty hour week for most trades, to a 38 hour week, and for office workers, a 35 hour week. Now we’re working longer hours, and it takes 2 breadwinners in every family, instead of one.

There has always been an enormous gap between rich and poor, but never as big as it is today. While the pollies love to tell us the ‘average’ wage is over $56 kpa, the median wage (that’s the wage exactly 50% of us make less than) is only around $35 kpa ($35,000. a year).

I’m guessing about 70% of us don’t make the average wage, and don’t we enjoy being told that?

Meanwhile, the people we pay to represent us get around $127k a year, plus perks and allowances. One of those allowances is being increased by $4700 a year, to about $32k. That’s right, we pay them an allowance that’s almost equal to what 50% of us get in total, on top of their $127k.

Guess which tax bracket gets the biggest tax cut in the next budget?

Or compare the median wage of $35 thousand, to the likes of Allan Moss; former CEO for Macquarie bank. Almost 34 million dollars back in 2007.

2007 was the most recent year I could Google for highest paid statistics. Cop this:

“The average earnings of Top 300 chief executives were up significantly, from $1.99 million to $2.56 million in 2006-07. This equates to $49,231 a week – close to average yearly earnings for the wider workforce at $56,732.”

$49,231 a week. About $14k more than the wages 50% of us pull in a whole year.

Is this progress? I do not consider myself a socialist, or a communist. I’m a firm believer in everyone owning their own home, and for those inclined, the chance to own their own business.

But how can anyone justify owning a thousand homes, when a thousand people own none?

 Loading ...

I don’t know about you, but I think this system sucks.

Of course, I don’t do anything important for my median wage. I work on a farm. I just feed people.

Allan Moss earned his 34 million. He worked out new and innovative ways to get people into debt.

We’re told Communism just doesn’t work. People employed by the Government just don’t work as hard as in private enterprise, we are told.

What’s the difference between working for a government, and working for a global corporation that’s financially bigger than most governments?

Down in the bottom two thirds, I’d put it in two words.

Job Security.

Apparently, the best way to get people to work hard, is to keep them in fear of losing their jobs.

That’s it in a nutshell. Our current system relies on keeping people in fear.

Has anyone else noticed a growing number of reports of whackos blowing away their families, before topping themselves?

I would suggest the defining characteristic of humans is their capacity for empathy.

It’s not about being clever (is a smart person more ‘human’ than a dumb one?) or able to make great tools and toys, it’s about being able to imagine what it’s like to be in someone else’s shoes.

I doubt if any animal can do that.

By this definition, there are a lot of critters walking around on two legs, that just ain’t human.

Avasay is about the forbidden subjects; Politics and Religion. About being Human.

And it’s about the future.

We need a better way.

 Loading ...

This is a thought-provoking piece I found somewhere on the internet which I felt worthy of reproducing here. Any thoughts?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
Paul E. Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover. He wrote the following article in February of 2006.
Why The Peaceful Majority Is Irrelevant
By Paul E. Marek
I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very few people were true Nazis” he said, “but, many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is, that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is, that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The Average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a war mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of Killing that included the systematic killing of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

As one who has on several occasions been forced to accept the dole, I know how pitifully inadequate it is to maintain a family. I was of course still very grateful to the taxpayers of Australia to receive it -as well as humbled if not humiliated, in the process.

So you might be surprised to learn that I honestly believe we should end the dole, forever.

I don’t understand the logic of forcing our children from a very young age to ‘work’ at school five days a week, plus homework on weekends, up to a certain age when they are able to get paid to sit at home watching TV, until such time as they can get a job. Is this a continuation of their education? How to adapt to conditions of poverty?

I have children at high school, and at TAFE. I have been constantly amazed at how much work they have to do, and the long hours they put in at their studies.

Without pay.

Meanwhile, I am at the other end of the spectrum. At 53, I have qualifications in several trades and skillsets; sadly all involving a certain amount of physical labour. I believe I have reached an age where I should be able to find a more sedentary occupation, but the money involved in doing extra courses is prohibitive, and if I have to take time off work to do them, almost impossible.

Howard, under the guidance of his Guru, George W., insisted that workers need to be more ‘flexible’, in the modern, rapidly changing workplace. All very well and good, but how?

The truth is, all of us are working longer hours than ever before, with worse conditions and less security. Where can we find the time or the money to further our education, and improve our lot?

Over a hundred years ago, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins declared that workers should be paid a ‘living wage’; ie a minimum sum which allowed a ‘decent’ standard of living.

It seems we were more civilized a hundred years ago, than we are today.

I suggest everyone over the age of eighteen be eligible for a basic wage -on an hourly rate basis. To earn this basic wage, they must perform community service, maybe army reserve, or do a course, at school or TAFE or university, to improve their chances of employment. The hourly rate gives them the flexibility to spend as much or as little time at their studies as they need, to either spend more time looking for work, or accelerate the process of achieving their qualifications.

Most -if not all- modules in tech courses these days have a time rating; how many hours it should take to complete the module. For those in remote areas, or who have reason to stay at home should be paid on a module completed basis.

This one basic rate should apply equally to all people, unemployed and pensioners alike; although in special cases, such as being over 65 or a carer, a certain number of hours a week would be considered to have been performed.

Employers would have to compete against this basic wage to get workers.

This would achieve a smarter, more flexible workforce. It would introduce school leavers to the idea of better recompense for application, and no free lunches.

It would take people off the poverty line, and give them a chance at a better life and a little self respect.

Schools could become more than places of education, but venues for networking between skillsets; putting potential accountants, lawyers and business managers in touch with tradespeople, inventors, innovators and small business proponents. Schools would also be de facto employment agencies, as the ideal venue for putting the right people into the right jobs, and offering a ‘one stop shop’ for employers.

Could we afford it? No, not under the current system.

So let’s change the system.

In the same vein, I think we should stop all cash payments in overseas aid; but that’s a story for another day.

 Loading ...

For me it is the prevention of the extinction of the Human race.

This requires several actions which can be addressed right now.

1. An end to war.

2. Protection of our habitat. (So obvious it’s almost inconceivable there should be any argument).

3. Making some serious plans to get off this rock (the planet). We have all our eggs in one very fragile basket.

In the more immediate sense, my goal is to try and provide a better world for my children -but not at the expense of anyone else’s children. This goal is -or should be- completely in harmony with the preceding 3 points, but sadly…

Does anyone truly believe the Inuit chose to live in the arctic wastes, just because they preferred a cool climate?

Or that the Pitjinjarra chose to live in the Australian desert, because it was good for their asthma?

When we think of pioneers, I think many of us start thinking of words like strength, resilience, fortitude etc, etc. and I suppose some pioneers were adventurers. But history suggests most pioneers were refugees, or outcasts. It seems at some point, people find it easier to compete with a fresh new environment, than with their -more established- peers.

Have we really changed so much, from our ’slash and burn’ ancestors?

I am very much afraid we humans will not make a serious effort to colonise space until we have made this habitat uninhabitable.

And by then, for all but a very select few (if any), it will be too late.

One of the great problems with representational government is that some -very necessary- reforms are just never going to happen, and others will take a ridiculously long time.

Why? Because in our system, we have career politicians, and they ain’t ever gunna vote themselves out of a job, or vote themselves less money, or vote themselves less power.

Witness the Republican Debate. I would suggest a clear majority of Australians are in favour of an Australian Republic. So why did we vote against it? Because the only models on offer were those favoured by our pollies, and which supported their status quo.

We might consider Australia to be one of the most over represented nations on Earth, with pollies at the local, state and federal level, at a huge cost to tax payers.

Why not get rid of the states? Because our career politicians will never vote themselves out of a job.

Hence this category. People’s Initiatives. We the people need to be able to make demands of our representatives about what we want.

You want the world to change? You think the world needs to change? Well get off your butt and make it happen, cause no one’s gunna hand it to you.

Feel free to make a suggestion here. Who knows, if you tell enough people about it, and they agree with you, we might be able to put together a petition.

It’s high time average Aussies stopped just laughing about how useless and corrupt our pollies are, and started doing something about it – even if it’s only pressing a ‘vote’ button.

As a house owner, and one who fervently believes in the right of every person to own their own home -and start their own business, I am clearly not a socialist. Still, I have to question the sanity of all the valiant fighters against socialism, who defend our current model of free market capitalism.

How is working for a -democratic- socialist government any worse than working for a global corporation that is larger than most governments?

In a democracy, the rule is one person, one vote. In a corporation the rule is one share one vote, and the employees of the company aren’t even guaranteed a share in the company they work for.

How can anyone justify owning a thousand homes, when a thousand people can’t afford to own one? The arch capitalists claim the right to excel, and to profit from their excellence by unrestrained expansion.

Let’s look at this a little more closely.

If a small town has two tyre services, chances are one will be more profitable than the other.

If the town is relatively wealthy, the more profitable business may offer better service, but sell a slightly more expensive product.

More commonly, the more profitable company will offer the cheapest product; and the way it does this is by underpaying it’s staff (witness Walmart) or by cutting it’s service (witness Australian Telcos).

Current capitalist philosophy holds that this more ‘efficient’ company should be able to buy out the only other company in town. Then they can charge whatever they like; up to where it becomes cheaper for the consumers to drive to the next town to buy their tyres. At which point, the ’successful’ tyre company is free to expand into that town also.

Under a system such as this, a lowering of the standard of service and an increase in profits to those who lower services, is inevitable.

And we have seen it.

 Loading ...

There are several aspects of the current global economic meltdown, and more than a few problems. First is the idea that The Market Should Be Free To Regulate Itself.

This makes as much sense as saying There Should Not Be Any Road Rules, Drivers Should Be Able To Do As They Please.

What happens in the absence of regulation? This is a ‘must-see’ video.

The other essential problem is, these banks and corporations are simply too big.

Too big to be ‘allowed to fail’ in fact.

So how are they addressing this problem? “We’re not big enough” they tell us. GM wants to merge with Fiat.

This is the Great Lie of laissez faire capitalism. A system that relies on competition, yet to be successful, you must eliminate, destroy, buy out or merge with your competitors.

Is there a better way?

Bloody Oath.

At the first suggestion of of a new Government regulation, the clarion cry from

capitalists is: “FREEDOM!”

This begs the question: Which is the greater freedom?

Freedom from exploitation, or the freedom to exploit others without scruple or mercy?

It seems fairly well established in the zeitgeist that drug dealers are more morally reprehensible than drug users, who are often looked upon more as victims than criminals.

The person who sells ‘speed’ (amphetamine) to teenagers is considered to be a villain of the first order; a predatory fiend interested only in profit; thoughtless of the misery, financial hardship, even incidental death that so frequently accompanies the use of his product.

‘Speed’ is an apt name.

In what subtle manner is the selling of the drug speed, in any way morally different to selling cars capable of speeds of 200 kilometres an hour or even more, when it is illegal to exceed 110 kph, anywhere?

We recognise the dangerous age for drivers, from 18 to 25 years. Insurance for people in this age group is ruinously high.

I would argue that wars are made possible not so much through male aggression, as by the young male certainty of immortality. If young men believed that ‘it’ was going to happen to them, and not to someone else, we would have far fewer soldiers for old men to send to war.

This same certainty, -keyed into our genes by the evolutionary need to compete for partners- that ‘someone could die, but it ain’t gonna be me!’- makes young men particularly susceptible to the lure of using dangerous, high speed machines.

Almost every day we see newscasts of death due to high speeds and high speed chases by police officers, called on to risk not only their own lives, but inevitably risking the lives of innocent bystanders and other road users.

By what twisted moral standard are car manufacturers less culpable than drug dealers?

Both parties can absolve themselves by claiming: “hey, I don’t force anybody to use my product”.

Both parties prey on the inbuilt weaknesses of their victims.

From 1979, all states in Australia recognised this problem in regard to high powered motorcycles. Young riders were dying, in statistically significant numbers, due to inexperience with large, powerful bikes.

The manufacturers’ response? When legislation was introduced to restrict the size motor cycle learner and permit drivers could ride:

“Mr G. Roff, Editor, Royalauto, explained in evidence:

‘Manufacturers have responded to the challenge of marketing motorcycles. When the legislation was introduced and the 250 cc motorbike, which produced 25 or 26 horsepower became the limit, a lot of research went into producing motorcycles with approximately the same power output as 750 cc motorcycles had 10 years ago. By limiting motorcycles to 250 cc with no other controls on the way they were developed, a situation developed where bikes are actually quite difficult to ride.’ ”

(http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc/1993cycle/ch4.htm)

The problem was eventually resolved by further legislation, crossing ‘t’s and dotting ‘i’s, using performance standards, rather than mere motor size.

This makes a mockery of car manufacturers’ strongest argument for technological ‘freedom’; that of progress and development.

Legislative restrictions directly stimulated development.

In the current crisis of global warming, it is this sort of legislative vision we desperately need.

By legislation, we could have a new vehicle class.

We have the technology to create a ‘five star’ safety system; safety not only for the driver, passengers and other road users, but for the whole planet.

A five star car would have:

• speed limited to 110 km per hour

• only two seats

• powered by at least lpg, or motors even less polluting

• high safety standards

This class of vehicle could be the only cars drivers under 25 would be allowed to drive.

These vehicles could attract significant discounts in registration fees, sales tax and insurance costs.

With one simple piece of legislation, we could:

• reduce pollution

• save lives

• make transport more affordable for the young and low paid

• set an example to other road users, and the whole world.

One could reasonably hope that by the time most of these drivers were eligible to drive more powerful, more polluting -and more expensive- vehicles, they would have grown out of the desire to do so.

A four and a half star vehicle could have the same standards, but with four seats, so responsible family people of all ages could also join the revolution.

These cars need to be not only cheap, but also cheaply financed, so low income earners can trade in their smoky old clunkers which would have to have a one star -or less- rating. Regardless of which side of the AGW debate you are on, surely no one would argue that pollution is good, for anyone.

It’s said ‘you can’t judge a book by it’s cover’. While it may be true not every rich person goes around flashing their wealth, when you see someone driving around in a vehicle worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, you know they aren’t losing much sleep over starving children in Africa.

By owning and driving vehicles of this class, one would be proudly proclaiming: “we care, and we’re doing something about it.”

Thus far, the Rudd government has shown about as much flair and colour as the stereotypical CPA.

In a time of radical change -if not impending doom- we desperately need people of vision, not bean counters.

We need legislation which will guide technology in a socially responsible manner.

We need to tell our representatives that we want to do something concrete about global warming.

We want to make our roads safer.

We want to keep our kids alive.

 Loading ...

In the time of my five decades of life, we have seen such changes. We have seen the Western world take on the monstrosity that is discrimination. We have seen women achieve equal rights, after thousands of years of discrimination. We have seen black people and indigenous people, in Australia and other western countries, finally be recognised as simply “Human”. I would not suggest that these fights have been won; but we have definitely seen great progress.

And yet, I would suggest the most egregious discrimination is still in front of us. This discrimination is so ubiquitous, so all pervading, we don’t even see it. We take it for granted, every day.

Every day, we judge each other.

We -or at least, the more rational among us- judge each other not by our sex, or by the colour of our skin, or even by where we were born.

We judge each other by how much money we can put -and keep- in our pockets.

The more discerning reader might note the care I took, to avoid saying: “how much money we produce”. This is because, in this age, if anything we discriminate against people who produce; if you have to get your hands dirty to make a buck, you can’t be very bright.

I believe history will judge this age, as the time when some of the richest people were also the most useless. A great many of the richest people in our age produce nothing. They create nothing, they build nothing, they make nothing.

In fact, worse than nothing. They create debt.

Out of thin air.

In our current system, new money is created when a person, business or government walks into a bank and says “if you give my money today, I will give you back MORE money than I borrowed”.

Currently, minted money accounts for only about 3% of all money in circulation. The other 97% exists only in bank ledgers, as IOU’s from borrowers.

Almost half the price of most of the items we buy, can be attributed to interest on loans; by the producer, manufacturer, transporter, retailer etc., etc.

And the profits from this interest taking ends up, not in the coffers of democratic governments, but in the pockets of a few privileged individuals.

 Loading ...

The Crap we are fed.

How often have we been told by Governments of both persuasions that we must have investment? They make it sound like a gift.

Last I heard, investors put money into something, with the very real expectation of taking considerably more out; over a given -or sometimes, almost unending- period of time. The smartest investors obviously, achieve the best return for the lowest outlay.

What should we do then?

Hang a big sign outside Sydney Heads:

We live in a world which produces enough food for everyone. That’s right; we produce more than enough food for every single person on the planet, yet around 30,000 children die every day, from hunger, bad water and diseases all directly attributable to their lack of wealth.

And today, because the western world is facing a paper crisis, that number of fatalities, that number of children tried, convicted and sentenced to death for the crime of being poor, is set to escalate.

A paper crisis.

Not a shortage of paper. Not a shortage of resources, or willing labour, or technology, or intelligence, -although that last point is arguable.

A lot of people, living breathing children, women and men are going to die… because bankers can’t make their figures add up.

And the reason they can’t add up, is because they were essentially nonsensical to start with.

We have devolved into a simple two class system; those who pay interest, and those who collect interest. The collectors of interest are -ultimately- all individuals, whereas the payers of interest can be entire nations.

The poorest nations on the planet cannot afford to feed their own people, yet they are still expected to pay back loans to the richest nations.

“For every $1 in aid a developing country receives, over $25 is spent on debt repayment.” Source

Far from the rich helping the poor, the poor are working -and dying- to make the rich even richer.

After decades of pondering, I have decided to classify myself as a ‘Jesuan’. (I would have preferred ‘Jesuit’, but apparently that has already been taken).

Why Jesuan, and not just Christian? Simply because I believe there is a wealth of wisdom in the Gospels, -if you just ignore the crap about gods and angels, Heaven, hell and demons.

There is also a small problem of reality. For instance, I would claim my four greatest heroes from history to be: Jesus of Nazareth, Arthur of Camelot, Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest, and Mahatma Gandhi. Sadly, I am only certain of the physical reality of one of them. This to my mind, in no way negates the value of the stories. True perfection after all can only exist in the imagination, so this seems a fitting place for legendary heroes. I would have to say I was deeply disappointed to read some of the words of the young Gandhi, regarding ‘coolies’, for instance.

Good stories are always embellished, inevitably. I choose to believe all the stories of our legendary heroes are based on exceptional individuals, who fully deserved to be remembered; perhaps even lied about.

If the stories of Jesus were the product of many minds, it just means there existed more than one good mind.

We are all prisoners of our preconceptions. When we are raised virtually from birth to accept things as being beyond question, the step from inside the box to outside, can be very long indeed.

The first step I would suggest is to adopt an objective, rather than subjective, stance; or, as Jesus put it, ‘Before you attempt to remove the splinter from your neighbour’s eye, first remove the plank from your own’.

In his recent book, ‘the God Delusion’, Richard Dawkins belabours the point that we (who were raised as Christians) don’t actually derive our sense of morality from the Bible; in fact, rather the opposite. We use our -innate?- sense of morality to pick and choose which parts of the Bible we should take literally, and which to treat as allegorical, or just plain crap.

This is a can of worms indeed, as there are so many moral viewpoints. Even the Christian, or Catholic Church specifically, has taken some fairly shaky interpretations of the Word Of Their God. For instance, Jesus stated very plainly that it was impossible for a rich man to go to Heaven; specifically: “I tell you again, it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.(Matthew 20.24.) This demonstrates very clearly that the words “rich christian” must be oxymoronic, yet our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, claims to be a fervent Christian despite being a multimillionaire, and the Pope in Rome, the ‘first under God’ lives amidst splendour that can only be the envy of kings and potentates, and rules a corporate empire richer than many countries.

To avoid any accusations of exaggeration or taking words out of context, I think it appropriate to quote the entire passage:

19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good
thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?  19:17 And he said
unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that
is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder,
Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not
bear false witness, 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from
my youth up: what lack I yet?  19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt
be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou
shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away
sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That
a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God.

So how can this be, and what is so wrong with being rich?

In the first place, the church in almost all it’s forms has always felt the need to awe and impress, just as secular leaders, the ‘kings and potentates’, have; despite worshipping a man who had nothing more than the clothes on his back, and the sandles on his feet. Indeed, it could be argued the church has been, willingly or not, consciously or not, the very tool of oppression, offering solace to the poor even as it condoned the decadence and hypocrisy of the rich.

Even in Australia, a young country in terms of Christian culture, I have seen outback townships where all the houses were built from corrugated iron and clapboard, and the only brick building was a church.

What is so wrong with being rich?

According to the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus was asked by an expert in law: “teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?” Jesus replied (a man of his times, and as superstitious as any) “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it. Love your neighbour as yourself. All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Obviously, atheists would choose to disregard the first rule entirely, Wiccans and other nature worshippers might choose to substitute Nature, or Gaia, for God. This in no way invalidates the second rule.

The ‘expert’ then asked: “Who is my neighbour?” Jesus went on to relate the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’, which I would like to address a little later. Suffice to say, Samaritans were the enemies of the Jews, yet Jesus advocated loving them, and all enemies, as the only way to break the cycle of retribution.

In other parts of the Gospels Jesus, the sublime teacher, tried to clarify and simplify even more by adopting the ‘Golden Rule’; “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Even I, as a Jesuan, cannot claim this was original. Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, the ancient Greek philosophers, Mohammed, virtually all the world’s religions somewhere, at some time, refer to some variation of this very simple, very fundamental rule.

So ask yourself this simple question: if you were the parent of one of the thirty thousand children who die every single day, simply because they are too poor to live, how would you feel about the very concept of billionaires?

Or even millionaires, like the fervently Christian Kevin Rudd.

We’re talking here about the accident of birth, and this is where the story gets really sickening.

That other mob, the Jesuits, have a saying: “there, but by the grace of God, go I”. This is a simple admission that not one of us, ever, has chosen the place, time or manner of our own birth.

We don’t choose our genetic inheritance, our nationality (of birth), our sex, our adult height, looks, physical or mental characteristics, the place where we grow up, the schools we attend, our teachers, even the local pool of individuals we can dip into for close personal friendships.

In short, we have no control over any of the things that make us who we are.

So what is ‘really sickening’ about this?

The fact that Christians, along with all the other religions which believe in a personal God, can say this is ‘God’s will’.

It’s not our fault.

It’s the way God must want it.

God caused me to be born into a wealthy environment, therefore God must want me to be wealthy.

It gets worse.

The very same Christians who believe in the sentiments of those last sentences, are the ones who can’t understand atheists.

They are the ones who are inclined to say: “ if there is no God, no Heaven, then what is the point in being good? Like, what’s in it for me?”

Can you imagine the sort of world Christians like that would create?

Oh, wait a minute; you don’t have to.

Step outside the box, for a second.

All those of us who were raised as Christians were told almost from birth that “God gave his only son”. We were told that “Jesus died for our sins”.

How does that work?

As a parent, imagine for me.

Imagine a situation where you would be prepared to deliberately allow your child to have his hands and feet nailed to a wooden cross, and then left to die of slow suffocation, as his own weight, suspended from nails through his wrists, slowly crushed his lungs.

In order to prove you are compassionate.

What sort of example does that create?

That it is noble to sacrifice your children to a ‘higher purpose’?

Is this why we have had the absurdity of two ‘Christian’ countries, both praying to the same God for victory in war, against each other?

Now imagine a Jesuan world. Imagine moving from the place where you grew up, to a totally new town. Imagine wanting to make new friends. Imagine being able to just go to a meeting hall on a Sunday morning, and find a whole congregation of people who share your core values.

Values like caring for others, and being kind, compassionate and generous; not for the sake of some eternal reward, but simply because to do otherwise would be unthinkable.

Rather than meeting a whole bunch of people who regard religion as nothing more than a death insurance policy.

Imagine being able to make new friends instantly, because you can identify people who believe in the same values as you do.

Anywhere in the world.

In a world like that, how could war be possible.

That’s how it’s supposed to work.

G’day.

We keep being told what a high standard of living we have. How we have had a ‘boom’ time, through selling minerals to China. How the ‘average’ wage has grown to $58k.

The median wage in this country is about $35k. That’s the figure exactly 50% of Australians make less than.

Meanwhile, our politicians are getting an extra $4,700 pa in their pay packets, in the form of an increase in an ‘allowance’. This allowance is now abut $32k, on top of the $127k plus they receive in wages, paid for by us.

These people are supposed to be our representatives. They have become so representative, they have to commission university studies, to find out what working class Aussies are thinking.

Does anyone else think their representatives are out of touch with real Australia?

 Loading ...

How much are they worth?

Have you heard the one about all pay rises must be linked to increases in productivity?

What do we pay our representatives for? How do we measure their productivity?

I would suggest we pay them to look after our best interests. In short, we pay them to find ways to improve the basic standard of living for ALL Australians; not just the privileged few. Since Malcolm Fraser declared: “Life wasn’t meant to be easy”, the gap between rich and poor -and politicians and their constituents- has grown monstrously, through successive governments of both persuasions.

And just as in Fraser’s day, when he said “we must all tighten our belts”, not long before granting all federal pollies a 9% pay rise, today, when we are facing the worst economic downturn in 70 years, our noble representatives are doing it again.

Incredibly, a few of our brilliant pollies have defended their pay rises with the claim that ” we have to offer big money, to attract the best talent”. This clearly indicates that all the existing politicians, who joined up before the pay rises, must be no talent bums who should immediately resign to make way for the new, talented pollies.

History indicates offering big money to politicians attracts people who are really interested in -and really good at- lining their own pockets.

If pay increases should be linked to productivity, how about this? Our representatives get a pay rise (dollar for dollar, NOT percentage) when the median wage rises.

In other words, we reward our representatives with a pay increase, when they manage to get us one.

 Loading ...

I quite liked this article in Ambit Gambit: Politics, Power and Pay.

I don’t think we can ask our pollies to do it for nothing, however…

These are the people who choose to send our children overseas, to places like Afghanistan and Iraq, to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country; their very lives.

What are our politicians prepared to sacrifice?

In Christian or Jesuan terms, how can our representatives ask our children to make such a sacrifice, if they themselves are not willing to do as much?

While our children sacrifice their lives overseas, our representatives stay home and discuss how much of a tax cut they should award themselves, or how much they can increase their bonuses by.

We have tried paying our politicians more (and more) and all it has achieved is better tax scales for the wealthy, and an increase in the gap between rich and poor.

Why not put them on a pension?

They will be in no danger of starving; they should still get travel allowances, and all the other allowances that are necessary for their job.

And if they find they still can’t live on the pension, then they will know how pensioners feel.