Saturday, February 4, 2012

Tony

"The French Enlightenment ended up concluding that all standards and all judgments are essentially arbitrary "
"The values of the New Testament have turned out to be more profound than those of the French Revolution"
"The Enlightenment, with its rejection of tradition and authority, has had more influence on intellectual fashion"
"The legacy of the permissive society – broken families, mental illness and entrenched welfare dependency – suggests that the old social taboos might have had some point"
"In Australia as elsewhere, one of the great totems of liberation from authority has been abortion on demand. Spurred by film of 12 week old unborn babies being dismembered, some women's activists have started to question the abortion culture. Abortion may not be the precise moral equivalent of infanticide..."
"Since 1996, contrary to political correctness, the Australian Parliament has overturned right-to-kill laws and (almost) banned gay marriage".
" Perhaps a political constituency may even be starting to emerge to ban abortions after 20 weeks..."
"An intellectual justification for traditional moral values is easy enough to rediscover. What’s much harder, in the absence of religious faith, is the motivation to adhere to them"
-Tony Abbott

Even the late Kenneth Clarke, in his magisterial defence of the catholic church, which he misleadingly called ‘Civilisation’, admitted that ‘The Enlightenment’ pushed European civilisation some way up the hill. As a consequence of its philosophy, we were no longer supposed to burn witches, or imprison and torture members of minority groups or those with opinions contrary to the establishment.
At a time when Popes and Kings used their direct line to god to justify their perpetration of almost unbelievable atrocities, and their retention of unquestioned political power, the philosophers of the Enlightenment fought for toleration and justice. Lord Clark summed the situation up by saying “When you ask the question does it work?…instead of, is it god’s will ? you get a new set of answers” These philosophers and scientists revealed the christian religion to be the work of a handful of well-meaning Jews, replete with the mistakes and inconsistencies one would expect from an ignorant, pre scientific people. Luther showed that the church interpreted and re-interpreted holy writ for its own convenience and profit. The authority of the church was not stripped by societies reaction to its paedophile heirachy, but by its adherence to an unfeeling and inhumane set of values anchored in patent nonsense. As we witness the squirming, uncomfortable attempts by the religious authorities to reconcile scientific facts with revealed truth it is easy to understand why the link between political power and the church was broken by the Enlightenment. Lord Clark also recognised that practical changes in society, such as those which lead to an increase in material welfare, or efficiency, may come about even under a reprehensible, totalitarian regime. After all, we all know what it takes to make the trains run on time.
Nobody would venture to suggest that the evolved, liberal, democratic society of the West today, is perfect. We may, however, agree with Churchill, that it is the worst system, except for all the others. As a direct consequence of the Enlightenment, we enjoy a freedom which would have been almost unthinkable in any earlier age.
We have been able to combine social cohesiveness with the exercise of individual freedom, and have achieved the ideal sought in the Roman dictum “We submit that we may be free”
If you want to get an idea of what it was like to live in pre-Enlightenment catholic Europe, with a pervasive and cruel religion imposed by a corrupt and venal establishment, you can do no better than to consider the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan. A pre-Enlightenment leader observing Afghanis being murdered as a punishment for breaching some arcane religious teaching, would probably conclude that the punishment was necessary and appropriate and a quite reasonable response by the state, as well as being scripturally sound. Some echoes of this view have, of course existed until quite recently, even in the West. Until the time that the Italian state claimed the rump of the papal possessions, the catholic church ran an extremely efficient secret police, and citizens were encouraged to report on any of their neighbours who had failed to attend mass, or who had uttered unpious statements. The union of the Fascists and the catholic church in Spain existed to repudiate the ideals of the Enlightenment.
So if this movement can be counted as one of the shining achievements of humanity, and its values and concerns have been celebrated as the basis of our society, what sort of person would set himself to criticise its ideals ?
The sort of person for whom a deep seated, unquestioning religious commitment is the paramount fact of his existence. The sort of person who thinks that the fact that the Archangel Gabriel smote the Samsonites, or some such thing, gives him the right to impose his personal religious values on other people. The sort of person who lauds a comforting attachment to the familiar, but fails to notice that the familiar has often been sexism, violence, corruption, arbitrary rule and institutionalised racism. The sort of person who decries the number of abortions in Australia, and the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies, but who vehemently opposes the United Nations suggestion that all children, regardless of upbringing, are entitled to some form of sex education, and who grows apoplectic at the idea of condom vending machines in high schools. The sort of person who thinks that forcing terminally ill people to suffer appalling and prolonged agonies is good for them . The sort of person who thinks that discriminating against homosexual people is not only necessary and desirable, but is to be celebrated . The sort of person who expresses admiration for an anti women, anti gay, anti freedom pontiff who would not recognise compassion if he tripped over it. I was amused to note by the way, that the present infallible incumbent of the vatican, recently commented that imprisoning Galileo for suggesting that the earth revolved about the sun, and not the other way around, was “rational and just”
The sort of person in short, who would be better off with a career in the church, rather than in politics. Some time ago, Mr Abbott was at pains to draw a distinction between the Enlightenment, as it was practised in Scotland and England, and the Enlightenment as it operated in France. He forgot to mention that Britain was the only major European country not to experience the Inquisition. Perhaps this might have had something to do with the historical reaction to a system which could punish non-attendance at Mass by cutting off your nose and ears ! (Don't get any ideas Tony)
I suppose to be consistent in our admiration for the Enlightenment, we should follow Voltaire’s supposed dictum, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, however another of Voltaire’s sayings seems more appropriate in this case “Ecrasez l’infame ! “

Hairy leg milonga

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Yet more thoughts

Thank God for the clergy
If it hadn't been for an enthusiastic cabal of catholic, muslim and mormon clergymen, I would have remained unaware of the threat posed by same sex marriage to the very fabric of our society. I had naively thought that by allowing same sex marriage, all we were doing was giving to same sex couples the same rights, privileges and recognition which the rest of us have always enjoyed, but apparently this is not the case. Our society is based exclusively upon an indissoluble union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of begetting children in fact. Any other combination would spell disaster for us all. One has to admire the scrupulous honesty of these clergymen, who have time and again confirmed their dedication to fairness, and their determination not to attempt to force their scripturally based values on people who do not share their faith. On the contrary, their scientific and philosophical researches have always been the basis for their recommendations, and the fact that these unbiased studies have accorded in every detail with the teachings of their various cults is merely the most amazing coincidence.
I should pause at this stage to pay tribute to the anglican archbishop of Sydney, for his contribution to this discourse, and whilst I suspect that some purists may struggle a little with the presence of 'anglican' in his title , I should point out that at least he hasn't advocated the adoption of sharia law for Australia. Yet.
A couple of ladies live just down the road from me in Daylesford, and they have been together for eighteen years. I haven't asked them yet, but I am sure that even they would be impressed by the clergymen's assertion that a Kardishan marriage has greater value for society than their relationship.
Now the clergymen have been at pains to point out that marriage is a religious institution, and I am sure that they are right, although I do remember from history books the phrase “Caesar's wife must be above suspicion” which suggests that Caesar himself must have been married. Of course, he died in 44 B.C.E., approximately 77 years before the invention of christianity, 625 years before the invention of islam, and 1875 years before the invention of mormonism, which leads one to wonder what the pagans have to say on the subject.
Now the clergymen have also confirmed that only marriage can secure the future of our society, by being the only institution which can produce children. I better let my brother know, because he and his girlfriend appear to have produced a couple of ankle biters without actually getting married. I think he must represent one of those threats to our country against which we have been so so appositely warned .(Better not mention my divorce)
One of the things which I admire most about the clergymens intervention, is their consistency. I was impressed when they correctly suggested that the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1960's would mean ruin for us all, and how they accurately predicted societal collapse in countries like Canada and Spain and the Netherlands who embraced same sex marriage. They are infallible !
I was equally impressed the other day, when one of the clergymen announced on television that he would not like to see a society in which the institution of marriage was degraded by allowing same sex couples to participate in it. Well, inspired by his forthright example, I thought to myself, I wouldn't like to see a society in which it was possible to flagrantly and lawfully discriminate against women. After all, we have laws to prevent that sort of thing don't we ? Well it turns out that we do, but surprisingly, one group is exempt from these laws, and I bet you can't guess who it is - the clergymen of course !
Surely, it can't be evil, immoral and wrong to discriminate against women, unless you are a catholic, in which case it is AOK. If you want to offer somebody a job in Australia , the position must be open to all people, unless you are a muslim or a mormon, in which case 'penis equipped only' is perfectly legal.
The most exciting thing about the same sex marriage debate, is the fact that we must all be grateful to the clergymen for having so rigorously established the precedent that religious groups have the right to influence society, even those parts of society who do not share their superstitions. Without the decisive contribution of these men of faith, I might still have been labouring under the misapprehension that in a secular society, religions' freedoms were guaranteed by their independence from the state, and that the states impartiality was guaranteed by its independence from religion, and in turn, freedom of religion implied freedom from religion. But apparently I am mistaken.
So, I would like to make a couple of humble contributions to the same sex marriage debate.
Firstly, following up the clergymen's philosophical insight, I think that anti-discrimination and anti-hate speech laws must now be uniformly applied, without regard to the race, or sex or religion of those involved. This would simply mean that religions could have all the priests, rabbis, imams, preachers and popes that they want, but only on the condition that those positions are made available to women, as are all other positions of employment under Australian law. Likewise the bible and koran would have to be drastically censored to remove hate speech elements, and exhortations to murder and violence. The book of mormon would also have to be censored, of course, but in this case with the added motivation of establishing some heretofore absent literary merit.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Trade Practises Act must be also be fully and fairly applied. If I manufactured a dish washing liquid, and claimed on the packet that it was biodegradable, then it had better be biodegradable, or I would leave myself open to prosecution. Similarly, if you claim that something that looks like a biscuit, and smells like a biscuit, and tastes like a biscuit, is actually part of somebody's leg, then you had better be able to prove it. I am sure that no self respecting clergyman would suggest that their deity is incapable of satisfying the same standards of proof one would apply to a dish washing liquid.
Is'nt it wonderful to think that these long overdue reforms could be applied as a consequence of a group of clergymen coming together to teach us that there is no practical difference between society and religion, and that each has the right to impose its wishes on the other.

Further thoughts

No need to Frac off.
Have you ever seen the hills around Queenstown in Tasmania ? They are bare, blasted, sterile walls of rock, devoid of topsoil and inhospitable to all vegetation. The hills and valleys of the region were once thickly forested, and home to an enormous variety of flora and fauna. The present condition of the area is a legacy of the mining industry. A lethal cloud of poisonous gases was created as a by- product of ore processing, which, when released in to the atmosphere , descended on to the surrounding hills and killed everything it enveloped. The Mount Lyell Mining Company, amongst others is responsible for this environmental catastrophe, but who do you think will ultimately be responsible for cleaning up the mess ? You and me in fact, not the shareholders or employees of the mining companies, who, for the best part of a century, took their profits and wages home, with little regard for the environmental consequences of their actions.
How is this relevant to the current debate about the coal seam gas industry ? Well, I think that it highlights the fact that private industry can be supremely good at generating profits, but can also be supremely good at avoiding responsibility for the non financial, non quantifiable effects of their activities (the carbon tax argument)
Opponents of the coal seam gas industry point out that the worst case scenarios of massive water table pollution, caused by fraccing could destroy farming, endanger communities, and potentially cost billions of dollars to rectify. The amounts of money in question may in fact exceed the capitalisation of miners and insurance companies alike. Who then would repair the damage? You already know the answer – the taxpayer!
Perhaps the question is an academic one, after all the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association tells us that fraccing is perfectly safe – check out their website, We want CSG, yay !
But what if it isn't safe ? What if our worst fears are realised ? I suppose that the companies involved could fail, the shareholders could lose their investment, and the employees could lose their jobs, but all of this would be of cold comfort if we taxpayers ended up paying for the clean up. Modern approval processes implicate us in a companies decision making “ Yes its all gone pear shaped, but the government gave us permission, so its really their fault !” And don't forget that we have a queue forming of conservatives like O'Farrell, Bligh and Bailieu desperate to grant that permission for anybody to mine anything, anywhere, anyhow.
There is perhaps a way forward, however, which could be the key to rational development in this area. Don't forget by the way that fraccing is perfectly safe. Companies in Australia are generally formed under rules which limit the liability of the shareholders of that company. If you invest a few dollars in a company which makes some mistakes and goes belly up, the most you could lose would be your investment. Your liability for any losses incurred by the company is limited to your stake in it. But what if in this specific case they were not ? What if the CSG Industry were required to operate in conditions of unlimited liability ? How about we say that the shareholders and employees will be held financially responsible for any and all costs associated with negative environmental impacts. Don't forget as you consider this idea, that fraccing is perfectly safe !
As a shareholder, what could be the worse thing that would happen ? Well if the clean up costs exceeded the value of the company, the government would be entitled to seize your other assets, your cash, your super, your house – but don't forget fraccing is perfectly safe. I suppose that if the clean up costs exceeded the cost of the total shareholder and employees assets, which they well might, then shareholders and employees would be reduced to a near slave like future existence, unprotected by any bankruptcy laws, and with their income garnisheed in perpetuity. Of course I am certain that this would have no impact on investment decisions, after all fraccing is perfectly safe.
One of the exciting effects of this policy would be to limit taxpayers exposure to potentially enormous costs, and since at least one Australian political party has as its raison d'etre the minimisation of personal taxation, particularly for millionaires, I am sure this proposal will meet with their ardent approval. There is another thing I am certain of, and that is that mining companies will be falling over one another to sign up for an unlimited liability opportunity to indulge in fraccing, which as we know, is perfectly safe. The true integrity of these operators will be demonstrated when they they enthusiastically, embrace on a personal basis, the risks to which they are currently exposing farmers, landholders and the community.
One coincidental side effect of my researches into CSG is the amazing revelation that a rich, exploitable reserve of CSG may in fact exist under Mr Baillieu's Brighton home. Luckily, in this enlightened State I don't need his permission to enter his property, and start digging up his garden, in fact, I don't even have to tell him I'm coming, so I'll be there tomorrow with my drill rig, and lets get fraccing (which is perfectly safe)

The thoughts of Chairman Dave



Blogging is contagious. Or addictive. Or something.

Qantas !
Yes, I admit it, I am a Dinosaur. For some people, the word denotes failure, after all the Dinosaurs are extinct, and we are not. I feel it necessary however, to point out that whereas Homo Sapiens might be regarded as a dominant world species for between one hundred thousand and two hundred thousand years, Dinosaurs were the dominant world species for approximately one hundred and thirty million years ! We could do with that sort of failure ourselves.
In fact I am so antediluvian, that I actually think we would be better off as a nation if Qantas didn't call Kuala Lumpur home, and flew occasionally with Australian pilots in machines maintained by Australian engineers. Now I appreciate that the argument that the present Qantas board is an unusually egregious example of incompetence, dishonesty and untrammelled self interest, would be difficult for anybody to refute, and that the Qantas unions are more short-sighted than Mr Magoo is clear to everybody, but surely it is obvious that the real blame for the current debacle lies elsewhere. Imagine privatising an industry which had for years grown up behind a network of regulation and protection. Imagine further saying to this newly 'liberated' identity, go out and compete with people who do not have your pay scales, or safety standards, or maintenance culture, and who are often protected by their own governments as you used to be, Oh and by the way if you sink, it will be your fault ! The guilty men are not called Seamus or Shaun or Dermot or whatever (I can't actually remember the name, but I can't get the accent out of my mind) , they are called Bob, Paul and John. If I was given the option of on the one hand having an Australian Qantas while paying a few extra dollars for my airfares, or on the other hand enjoying supercheap tickets from the various Kamikaze-Air rustbuckets on offer, I would choose Qantas every time.
See what I mean about being a Dinosaur? My contrariness extends to wondering (in private of course) whether Steve Jobs is quite the irreproachable candidate for sainthood that is plastered over the world's media. Here is a man who cleverly marketed the iPlonk, which we could all live without, while at the same time making himself immensely wealthy by effectively moving tens of thousands of American jobs into cheap labour, and for the most part, undemocratic Asian nations. But perhaps the hype emanates from the Apple marketing department, and is motivated by the imminent release of the iPlonk2, who knows?
Of course, looking at the specifics of a company like Qantas, or the failures of One Steel, or Telstra, or Ford, shouldn't blind us to the big picture. Keynes was fond of pointing out that the passionate rants and posturings of politicians, could often be traced back to the once fashionable theories of some now defunct economist. The present paradigm, embraced with embarrassing fervour by both of our major political parties, is that reform is good. A combination of free trade, privatisation and deregulation is good for us all, particularly if the dish can be served up, seasoned with a dash of social conservatism. The real argument at a federal level is about who can be trusted to most efficiently apply the policies of Margaret Thatcher to the Australian economy.
Am I alone in not liking this trend ?. Deregulation is like beer, a little is socially lubricating, and releases one from sometimes unworthy inhibitions, but too much makes you vomit, and leaves you with a headache the next day. Any economist will tell you that in a free trade relationship, wages in trading countries will equilibrate over time. Well, there are one thousand million Chinese, and twenty million of us – hands up anybody who things that their wages will tend towards ours, rather than the other way round. But, an economist will remonstrate, the doctrine of comparative advantage means that we will be able to take advantage of our respective skills and abilities , and by specialising, we will jointly maximise our benefits. It is a pity to see such an attractive theory aground on the rocks of reality. Ok, our manufacturing industry is in the throes of collapse, but thats no bad thing, after all it will free up resources which can be deployed in other sectors. Like farming for example, although the carrots I just bought from our local megamart were grown in China, and the only orange juice available was reconstituted from prime Chilean oranges, while the plantations of the Riverina are knee deep in rotting fruit. Well perhaps farming was a bad example, but what about insurance ? Thats a growth area after all, but it turns out that the European companies who own our insurance sector are, rather unsportingly keeping the profits they make out of us while scrambling to outsource as much of their Australian businesses as possible. Maybe financial services would be a better sector in which to invest all that liberated capital, but it turns out that banks make insurance companies look like amateurs when it comes to minimising Australian employment. How about telecommunications ? Has anybody tried ringing Telstra recently ? I've got a great idea, why don't we fall back on the mining sector ! Alas it turns out that this capital intensive, non- renewable industry is mainly owned by the foreigners to whom we flogged the mineral rights, and it uses its overseas made machinery, to dig up our dirt, and transport it offshore for processing on foreign flagged ships, while at the same time so distorting our balance of payments, that for every job it creates in mining it destroys two in tourism.
How on earth did this happen to us ? Like everybody else, I am never reluctant to blame our politicians, and looking at the present squabbling bunch, holding them criminally responsible seems both beyond criticism and fun at the same time. However, even I have to admit that it must be something more than the toxic atmosphere of the Parliament which seems to turn seemingly sensible people in to raving right wing wierdos the minute they enter its doors.
Unfortunately, the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. I feel a little guilty, juxtaposing the following anecdotes, but they do seem to me to strike at the heart of our problem.
I was working in a caravan park in Tasmania, when the Gillard government made the decision to supplement income tax contributions to help pay for the Queensland flood disaster. At morning tea, one of my fellow workers was apoplectic with rage at this modest impost. “It is a disgrace, it is socialism (Julia Gillard=socialist is she kidding ?) it is threatening our whole way of life” “Hang on” I said “ The extra money wouldn't buy us two cappuccinos a week. After the nations most expensive natural catastrophe, this seems quite modest to me” “Don't be ridiculous” she replied, “This is all part of a plot to rob us of our freedom” Now my interlocutor was not some American inspired Katter-clone wacko, but a sensible, down to earth, hard working Taswegian. I suggested that if Tasmania had suffered to the extent that Queensland had, she would be pleased to have their assistance. She looked at me and said “If that happened here we would look after ourselves”
In the wake of the financial meltdown and debt crisis in Europe, the right wing French government recently announced a small increase in income tax, to be borne by the richest French taxpayers. A French TV channel did a vox pop exercise in Paris asking passers by for their reaction to the tax increase. A lady who admitted to being amongst those slugged said “France is in trouble, and we must help her. Nobody likes paying extra tax, and I hope that the increase will be removed as soon as possible, but in the meantime, we must all make a contribution”
Is it facile to draw conclusions from these disparate reactions ? I don't think so, because although capitalism has been defined as 'An organised selfishness' it seems to me that in this country we are setting new records for self interest, and our unprincipled politicians are merely falling over one another to cater to our insatiable national greed.
Winston Churchill once observed of neutral countries who made concessions to the fascists, that each hopes that if they feed the crocodile, it will eat them last. We are like that. We don't care if the farmer down the road goes bust, think of the cheap mangoes ! If our neighbour loses his job in the clothing factory, we console ourselves by buying only the cheapest shirts from China. If the manufacturing sector disappears, and my job doesn't, then I can afford not one, but two iPlonks. Wonderful !
I don't really have to look back to dinosaurian antiquity for a model which I feel might be more appropriate for Australia today, the policies of the last Menzies Government would do me, but alas they would be far too left wing for todays Labour Party to stomach.



The whole trip