According to this article 2 boys aged 9 and 11 have been gaoled for at least 5 years for a sadistic attack on 2 other boys.
As a Comensalist, I hold that equality lies not in everyone being the same, but in everyone not getting a choice in the circumstances of their birth.
Certainly, it is unbelievable to think anyone would choose the parents of these children for their own.
Why are these parents not in gaol?
The article states :
“The court heard how the brothers watched ultra-violent movies as part of a “toxic home life” of “routine aggression, violence and chaos”, while one of them smoked cannabis from the age of nine and drank cider.”
What is most frightening to me is that in years to come, these ‘torture boys’ could become fathers of their own children.
Is it possible to rehabilitate someone who has strayed so far from the norm of human decency?
I have always believed there is a worse crime than murder. Worse than rape, worse even than child abuse.
That is the crime of teaching children to hate.
While the other -undeniably heinous- crimes affect one or a few individuals, teaching children to hate or despise on the basis of race, colour or creed can  affect literally millions, for generations.
But this crime seems to be of a different order; not so much focussed hatred, as monstrous indifference.
This is the most egregious example of breaking that one most important law in human society;
“Do Unto Others, As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”.

I know a bloke who drives trucks for a living. Come to think of it, I know a quite a few blokes who drive trucks for a living. This particular bloke taught me a valuable lesson.

He’s only a young fella. He’s got a young wife, two young kids, a house, a mortgage, a shiny four wheel drive; he wants the best for his family. He wants to ‘get ahead’.

So he took on a job deep in the Outback miles to buggery from nowhere. He makes good money; over a hundred grand a year.

But he still wants more.

On his travels around whoop whoop he stumbled across some blackfella artists, creating big canvases of traditional themes. He did a bit of research, checked out some galleries and tourist dives, and discovered they sold this stuff for up to 10 or 12 grand a pop. One bloke told him he’d give him 3 or 4 grand a canvas, on the spot.

So he went back to the blackfellas, and offered them $300. for each canvas. After a little bit of haggling, they took the money.

As he said: “no one’s really being ripped off. To them, 300 bucks is a lot of money.”

Now what does that mean, exactly? Can you buy more, with $300 out there, than you can closer to the coast? Doubtful. It seems more likely the 300 bucks was a lot of money to ‘them’ because they had very little money, and therefore needed it more. If they had money, they wouldn’t have needed money so much, so he would have had to give them more money.

That’s breakfast cereal logic.

Now I find that total lack of morality (not to mention the prejudice involved) a little disturbing.

I’d like to think the two contenders in the recent election for the top job in this country, John Howard and Kevin Rudd, would also be disturbed by this story.

But obviously, neither of them would be.

Both pollies are in the top tax bracket of more than 180 grand a year. the PM currently gets around 330 grand a year, plus lurks and perks.

Both pollies think they are paying too much tax, but the workers’ mate Kevin was prepared to put off his tax cut for another year. (not give it up, just put it off).

We’re talking about roughly an extra hundred bucks a week in their pockets, by the way.

What sort of tax cut are they offering the battlers? About 10 or 15 bucks.

After all, that’s a lot of money, to ‘them’.

Isn’t this what capitalism is all about? Buy as cheap as you can, and sell as dear as you can.

This presents a problem. On the one hand, you want to pay the producers of goods as little as possible, to keep products affordable. On the other hand, you need highly paid consumers with plenty of money in their pockets.

Several companies, like Blundstone most recently, moved their production overseas; got ‘them’ to produce the goods, in other words; after all, to ‘them’ a smaller wage is still a lot of money.

Perhaps they are the more honest ones.

Once again we are falling into a two class system; producers and consumers. We are once more sinking into a world where those who produce, create or manufacture products, cannot afford to buy the goods they produce.

Perhaps the greatest -unsung- strength of the Westminster system of government is the division between the popularly elected representatives, and the public service.

The theory used to be, that representatives did not have to be lawyers, economists, business administrators or accountants. They could be carpenters, plumbers, shop owners and workers. Their most important attribute should have been simply that they were ‘average’.

They were representative.

Unfortunately, the most recent, and glaring example of this kind of representative was Pauline Hanson; but witness how quite remarkably popular she became; I would suggest in many cases despite, rather than because of some very dodgy policies (which the Liberal party were happy to adopt/steal).

The role of the representative was to formulate policy, based on the wishes of their constituents. Implementing that policy was the job of permanent public servants; the dreaded “Sir Humphrey Appleby”s. These public servants were supposed to be well educated, highly trained and experienced in their portfolios.

And as such, very well paid.

I would suggest the rot began with Malcolm Fraser, and his infamous “life wasn’t meant to be easy”. Only a few days after he told the producers (workers) in this country they had to tighten their belts, parliamentarians awarded themselves a hefty (was it 9%?) pay rise.

Currently, our politicians are in the top 5%, highest paid wage and salary earners.

Remember, our current PM, the ‘honourable’ church going Christian Kevin Rudd, “shocked and revolted” by looters in flood ravaged Emerald, earns more than $300,000. a year, plus expenses.

His wife is a millionaire in her own right. Clearly, Kevin’s church doesn’t dwell too much on Matthew 19:16-21, or Matthew 7:24. These politicians have become so non representative, they have to commission studies, to find out what ordinary Australians are suffering. We give these politicians the power to send our children to war. They expect our children to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country; their very lives.

And what are the pollies prepared to sacrifice?

Well, Kevin Rudd did nobly sacrifice that scheduled tax break for top earners such as himself. For twelve months.

We accept so many things, simply because, as the cow in the movie ‘Babe’ put it: “the way things are, is the way things are.”

Where is the justification? How do politicians justify pay rises as a percentage of their already excessive, non representative wages, rather than on a dollar for dollar basis? How do they justify their wages at all?

The classic justification was, “We need to offer more money, to attract the best talent”.

Does that not mean all the current crop of pollies, who were attracted by less money, are no talent bums who should resign immediately to make way for these talented people? What does that tell us about the likes of John Howard, who was in parliament for around thirty years, when parliamentarians’ salaries were considerably lower?

I don’t think we need worry about J curves, bell curves, fiscal or monetary policy to get a fairer go for the producers (workers) of this country.

If our self serving pollies were restricted to only getting more money -on a dollar for dollar basis- when the basic or median wage went up, we would see some very rapid changes.The remarkable thing is, in a democratic country, we (the majority) are letting them (the very small minority) get away with it.

Why?

If you can explain this to me, or have anything to add, please do.

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 ...

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.

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.