Australians - What Are We? How Do We See Ourselves? How Do Others See Us?
Commonwealth Lecture, Australian National University
Monday 30 April 2007
by Malcolm Fraser
My remarks today will reflect on relationships with the United States and domestic issues which influence the fundamentals of Australia. There has in recent times been a major attack on traditionally accepted Australian values. This also impacts on our reputation in our region and in the wider world. This is particularly damaging because the Bush government is on the way out and, within the United States, those who have supported it strongly will, in the next Administration, be regarded as pariahs. This is also likely to apply to the current administration’s closest and most unquestioning allies.
Policies now applied suggest that the Rule of Law and due process for all people, regardless of influence, race, religion, colour or country of origin, is under threat. We used to believe that those in positions of political authority would respect and work to protect the rights of all Australian citizens. We now know that to be naïve and incorrect.
I would like to recall some changes that have taken place in the last half century.
The post war years were the beginning of a new age of enlightenment despite some serious backward steps. In spite of the difficulties and rigours of the Cold War and the dangers that that involved, much greater than anything we face today, it was an optimistic period. The United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were all established, collectively designed to establish a fairer and a more peaceful world. Colonialism would be outlawed. People would look after their own affairs. The techniques of modern economics gave hope to governments worldwide, that unemployment could be banished. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into being in 1948. Many Conventions were negotiated, designed to give legal force to its high aspirations, including the Refugee Convention which Menzies signed onto for Australia in 1954.
In Australia political parties did not play politics with race or religion. Political leaders of those years, both in Australia and in many overseas countries had experienced the depression of the 1930s and the terrors of the 2nd World War. They knew the world had to do better if civilization was to survive. They in effect established a new and more liberal age, a time of hope and optimism, a new enlightenment.
It was recognised that on sensitive matters of race and religion, those in authority had to give a lead and make decisions and that it could be unwise to ask for a popular vote. If the people of Melbourne had been asked if they wanted their city to become the biggest Greek city outside Greece, they would then have voted no. Now that it has happened they would overwhelmingly vote in favour of it.
If we had asked Australians in 1975/76 if they wanted to accept large numbers of Vietnamese and others from Indo-China, refugees from the war in which we had been an active participant, they would have said no. They would have been fearful of difference. The governments argued on ethical grounds that we had no option and broadly that was accepted.
In these years we did not have detention centres, which should more properly be called jails, because they have all the necessary attributes. Refugees were in the community, able to buy coffee, able to work. Because they seriously wanted a new home, they were not going to abscond. It was an open, liberal society. Multiculturalism came to be accepted.
Every migrant group that I have met has always placed Australia first, understands the necessity to abide by Australian laws and customs, but appreciates, I believe, the openness with which their old customs can still be celebrated. We really believed in strength through diversity and that the acceptance of diversity would bring Australians closer together.
What led to change? In the middle to late 1980s a debate was started about Asian immigration. At the same time a labour Minister for Immigration decided new boat people should be placed in what he called detention centres, in jails. The Liberal Opposition accepted that fundamental change. The harshness of our refugee regime begins from that point. It has been fine tuned and made significantly more inhumane in the years since.
Pauline Hanson came on the political stage. Many roundly condemned her for saying turn the boats back. When the current Government turned the boats back, it won the Tampa Election, a substantial change in attitude. An undeserved respectability was given to Pauline Hanson’s words.
We had forgotten that the right to free speech is not absolute. Without a sense of responsibility, of community, and of judgement, free speech can become divisive and destructive, as it has in relation to race.
One of the small reasons for change is that now opinion polls often drive policy. Both the Government and Opposition use their internal party pollsters on many issues to find out the basic views of Australians. Such polls can lead to extraordinary error, especially if the questions asked are ones about which there has been no public debate and which are therefore likely to attract an emotional and not a considered response. But all of this is not enough to justify or to explain the changed attitudes. Why have governments chosen to follow and not lead?
Political events in the Middle East and also Afghanistan were causing large numbers to flee. Upwards of 400,000 were arriving in Europe each year. 4, 5 or 6,000 came to Australia. At the time the Government was not doing well in the polls. It certainly needed an issue. The defence of Australia’s borders, proclamations about deciding who would come here or who would not, sought to arouse a chauvinistic response. Boat people were demonised as evil, as queue jumpers, as prostitutes, as drug peddlers, even as potential terrorists and as having no appropriate family values.
I don’t believe there was ever an explanation of the terrors from which these people fled, of Afghan families wanting a life for their female children knowing they would have none in a Taliban dominated Afghanistan. A father in such a family, if he had initiative and enterprise would do everything he could to get that family out of Afghanistan.
We sometimes forget the Tampa occurred before 9/11, much longer before the invasion of Iraq. The possibility of terrorists coming to Australia on refugee boats was only raised after 9/11. The terrible events in the United States of 9/11 occurred a couple of weeks after the SAS were placed on the Tampa. From these points on the politics of fear dominated the domestic environment.
What we do not know we often fear. What we do not understand we fear. People from a different religion we often fear. And what we fear becomes a threat. The politics of these issues was exploited by the Government and has bitten deeply into the Australian psyche.
This reminds me of the bitterness, even hatred, between Catholics and Protestants generated by Prime Minister Billy Hughes during the First World War. His actions over the conscription debates in attacking the Catholic Church and the Irish were irresponsible and scarred Australia for over 50 years. Catholics were accused of being disloyal to the Empire, of opposing the war against Germany, both of which were untrue. There were far too many who believed the unfounded allegations that came from Prime Minister Billy Hughes. Even in my lifetime I can recall people saying that Catholics are not true Australians because they owe their first loyalty to the Pope. That is not now said of Catholics but similar allegations are made against followers of Islam. The bitterness against Catholics was extreme and in some quarters has not entirely died.
Those in charge of our affairs today seem not to understand this experience. There have been suggestions that this next election will be the Muslim election, as a while ago it was the Tampa election. Too many in positions of influence have used language that creates a divide between the rest of the community and Islam. While the Pauline Hansons of this world cannot be easily contained, there is certainly a responsibility on government not to repeat the mistakes and the errors made by Prime Minister Billy Hughes.
The War against Terror is important, although it should not have been called a war because if terrorism is going to be overcome it will be overcome by wise policy, much better intelligence than we have had to this point and by good policing. But it is a threat and I do not want anyone to construe my remarks as denying that threat. Our strongest weapons against terrorism are our own principles and belief in liberty. We do not need to overthrow our principles. To the extent that we do, we give a weapon to the terrorist.
In your mind prepare two lists. One, what should you do to maintain a broad-based coalition in the fight against terrorism, of the kind open to President Bush after 9/11 and another list, what should you do if you wanted to reinvigorate the terrorist movement and drive the West towards a decades-long war against Islam.
On the first list I would have said to continue to act on our own principles, to maintain honest and open policies and to behave fairly to all people and to encourage strongly a peaceful resolution of problems between Israel and Palestine. Under current American policy that was never an option. The United States ran out of targets for its bombers in Afghanistan and then wanted a more emphatic demonstration of United States power and so it went to war in Iraq.
President Bush’s closest advisers, neo-Conservatives, foolishly believed that it was within America’s power to force political change in the Middle East and create a democratic Middle East in the process. Democracy imposed by force in Iraq would be followed by democracy in surrounding countries. It was from that point an aggressive war without analysis, thought or reason. The damage done to United States influence and prestige around the world has already been enormous and America still refuses to take the necessary steps without which an end to conflict will be impossible. An active, diplomatic engagement of all Iraq’s neighbours is critical to a final resolution of this unhappy conflict.
I am opposed to an arbitrary date being set for a full American withdrawal but only on condition that the diplomatic process is set in train. If it is not, continuing American military involvement will only lead to greater calamity, to greater disaster and to an even greater destruction of American reputation.
The war in Iraq has made it extraordinarily easy for fundamentalist groups to recruit would-be suicide bombers to fill the ranks of the terrorist armies. But it is not only from Iraq and from Islamic countries that such recruits can be drawn. The West’s attitude to Islam is now capable of being depicted as so antagonistic, so destructive and hypocritical that it is possible to raise recruits from countries such as the United Kingdom. When Prime Minister Blair says he has made Britain safe and the prosecution of the war in Iraq is fundamental to the preservation of British freedom, he shows how little he understands the consequences of his own action and the damage that war has done within Britain itself. It has also made it difficult for moderate Islamic Leaders to maintain their moderation, especially in the face of other breaches of principle by the West.
President Bush established Guantanamo Bay to enable the United States to put prisoners alleged to be terrorist beyond the reach of the American legal system, beyond the reach of the Geneva Conventions and beyond the reach of any element of international law. By executive decree, he established Military Tribunals which the United States Supreme Court struck down on the basis that the President had exceeded his powers. Congress passed a law establishing new Commissions, a law that has not yet been tested in the Supreme Court. It is certain, however, that that law could not apply to American citizens because the Rules of Evidence allow evidence that would not be accepted in the normal civil or military justice system in the United States and, for that matter, would not be acceptable under the Australian code.
The future of the Commissions probably rests on the judgment as to whether or not such laws can be passed in relation to non-citizens. Its Rules of Procedure are utterly inconsistent with the Rules of Procedure in the normal justice system of America or of Australia. The loose use of hearsay evidence and evidence obtained under harshly intrusive questioning is allowed. It is left to the President to define how far that intrusive questioning may go.
This is the system established to try David Hicks and other people from Guantanamo Bay. In my view it was a system designed to achieve a guilty verdict on the basis of evidence that would be totally unacceptable if applied to American citizens or to an Australian citizen within Australia. The circumstances surrounding the Hicks trial, if one can call it that, and the plea bargain support that view.
For around a year, perhaps for longer, David Hicks had been kept in solitary confinement, no access to the sky, to the outside, to other people, inadequate exercise, a lighting system controlled from without the cell and also, we are advised, temperature changes from extreme cold to heat, could be part of the regime.
There were attacks on Major Mori and his credibility and the way he was conducting the Defence, all undertaken by the Prosecution, even at one point implying that Major Mori could be charged. At the arraignment proceedings itself, Hicks’ civilian lawyers were barred from the process because they wouldn’t sign a blank cheque agreeing to rules for the conduct of Counsel, which the United States Department of Defence had not yet drafted.
These processes collectively were designed to put Hicks under intense mental pressure, perhaps for a very specific reason. While the United States Government, and for that matter the Australian Government, seemed to want, as Stephen Charles indicated, a guilty verdict, the evidence they had available, even after five years imprisonment, was weak and could not have been successful for a United States citizen in a civilian court or in a normal United States Court Martial.
Justice Susan Crawford, Head of the Military Tribunals, struck out the more serious charges, including the charge of murder. It was the more serious charges that were used by United States personnel, by the Government of Australia, by the United States Ambassador to Australia, to suggest that that Hicks was amongst the worst of the worst. Quite recently the Ambassador said that Hicks would kill Australians and Americans without blinking an eye. There was only one charge remaining, that of providing material support for terrorism. The maximum sentence for that offence is reported to be seven years. This charge was corruptly imported from the United States civil system, it was retrospective in its impact and the particular law, because of retrospectivity, would not meet normal judicial standards.
The United States authorities would not have wanted the weakness of their evidence publicly exposed, even in a fraudulent Military Tribunal. Even though cross-examination would have been extremely limited, it could still have exposed the secrecy by which evidence had been collected. The Defence would have exposed the fact that they were not properly advised of the evidence, of the means by which it was obtained, that it was in fact a very secret process, designed to achieve one verdict. If the process had gone to open court, each hour would have demonstrated that justice was not being served, that this was not a court of law. The best alternative for governments, with some semblance of their credibility preserved, was to have Hicks under such pressure that he would accept a plea bargain. This does explain the solitary confinement of over twelve months. It does explain the other pressures placed upon him, pressures which would have included the threat of continuing jail in Guantanamo Bay for twenty years or more. What person amongst us would not have accepted a plea bargain that achieved some element of freedom at the end of nine months?
This is made all the more evident in the final stages of the Tribunal process. Ten colonels had been flown in from around the United States to determine sentence, they determined the maximum allowed for that particular offence, seven years, only to find within fifteen minutes that they had been ordered to participate in a total and absolute farce. Within fifteen minutes they learnt that there had indeed been a plea bargain and the maximum sentence was nine months, less than many courts would give for a drunk-driving charge. They learnt that the plea bargain had been consummated in Washington, by-passing the Prosecution, by-passing the Tribunal and its Judge two weeks earlier. Whatever this process reveals, no sane person can call it an exercise of justice.
So David Hicks will be home by the end of the year, partially gagged. The gag order which was undermined by information provided to the British Government and subsequently published in his application to become a British citizen and subject to the same treatment as other British citizens formerly held in Guantanamo Bay.
And so this story comes to an end but at what a price. The main story is not David Hicks. The main story is a willingness of two allegedly democratic governments prepared to throw every legal principle out the window and establish a process that we would expect of tyrannical regimes. That our own democracies should be prepared to so abandon the Rule of Law for an expedient and, as I believe, evil purpose should greatly disturb all of us. But how many are concerned? Too many are not concerned because they believe that such a derogation of justice can only apply to people who are different, in some indefinable way.
Only the other day I was speaking with somebody who quite plainly believed that Hicks deserved anything that was meted out to him because he was what he was; the Rule of Law did not need to apply. For somebody who has done terrible things, why does he deserve justice? That denies the whole basis of our system, the necessity of a civilised society which cannot exist unless there is an open, predictable justice system that applies equally to every person.
David Hicks at the best was clearly a very foolish young man. He was terribly misguided and may well have done some terrible things. I do not know. But if our Government says he has had his day in court, he made a plea bargain, therefore he deserved what he got, it only emphasises its lack of commitment to the Rule of Law for all people.
If the Government believes it to be expedient, we now know that it is prepared to push the Rule of Law aside. That is a larger issue than the tragedy of David Hicks.
A number of Liberals have spoken out about these and similar issues in relation to asylum seekers or refugees, or people improperly treated in Department of Immigration detention centres. Too many have remained silent. Does silence connote acquiescence, acceptance or fear, being fearful of standing and saying what they know to be right? A Liberal who fails to recognise the central importance of these issues for the maintenance of a fair and just democracy, bears no resemblance to the Liberals of Menzies’ day and to the Party that Menzies founded.
We now have a growing number of people who appear not to matter to those in authority. Not only David Hicks, Cornelia Rau, Vivien Alvarez Solon. Not only our indigenous population whose problems seem low on the government’s agenda, but increasingly refugees or potential refugees. We know the government sought to excise all of Australia from our migration zone. In the process the government would have broken a promise made only last year to keep children out of detention. This time it was going to be detention in some offshore prison. Out of sight, and the government would have hoped, out of mind.
Because some members of the Liberal Party would not accept these changes and the Labour Party was prepared to oppose them, this particular legislation was withdrawn.
These are groups which, under current policies, have no adequate protection under the law. The administration has avowedly pursued policies designed to deny access to the law to increasingly large groups of people.
A civilised society is be judged by its adherence to the rule of law, to due process and the ease with which all people would have access to the law. It is judged by the way it treats minority groups. Australia would be judged badly. Today for a variety of reasons, but not least because the government has sought to set Muslims aside, discrimination and defamation against Muslims has been rising dramatically. Too many have taken the easy path and accepted the government's contentions that Muslims aren’t like us and therefore it doesn’t matter if discrimination occurs and if access to the law does not apply. We have forgotten that discrimination, once it starts, spreads. This situation is already leading to increased discrimination against Jews. If we do not arrest it, it will spread from minority to minority.
We would do well to heed the words of Israeli Professor Naomi Chazan in the recent Gandel Oration in Melbourne: “There is one standard and one standard for all, and the challenge that is posed by terrorism is how to defend the rights of those that we don’t agree with? ... How can we defend the rights, the basic human and civil rights, of those whose ideas we simply abhor? It is the system, the process, the courts, it is the measurement of justice that determines the nature of our civilisation.”
Our reputation as a successful multicultural society is threatened.
In other ways our legislators, both Government and Opposition, have transgressed. The new security laws, supported by both parties, diminish the rights of all Australians. I do not know of any other democracy that has legislated for the secret detention of people the authorities know to be innocent. You are not allowed to make a phone call. You cannot ring your wife or husband to say where you are. You just disappear. You are not allowed to ring a lawyer unless that is specifically conceded in the warrant for your detention. If you answer questions satisfactorily that’s fine. If you don’t, you can be prosecuted and go to jail for 5 years. There is a defence against that prosecution, if you can prove you never knew anything, it is not an offence, but how can you prove you did not know something if you don’t even know what they are talking about? We do not know how much these laws are used because the law itself prevents any public reporting or discussion.
There are many other things. We have control orders and preventative detention provisions reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and which are almost certainly a serious error in the fight against terrorism. Both devices would forewarn any potential terrorist that a certain person has been blown. The cell or group would disappear. It would be better policy to continue surveillance, to collect evidence, hopefully to make a charge at a later point.
Some aspects of the Control Orders appear to be utterly ludicrous and counter to our national security interests. As I am advised, one Control Order prevented somebody ringing Bin Laden. If we seriously thought that person might have been able to ring bin Laden, we should have allowed him to do so, collect more evidence and perhaps pinpoint where Bin Laden was.
Last year there was been a report by a group, established by the government itself, to review the Anti-Terrorist Legislation. This review preceded and takes no account of later proposed changes to our refugee provisions.
The review emphasised that recent events have had a profound impact on Muslim and Arab Australians. The committee points out that there is a considerable increase in fear, a growing sense of alienation from the wider community and an increase of distrust of authority. These concerns are more likely to lead to an increase in terrorist activity rather than in a diminution of terrorist activity. The review committee strongly recommends that efforts be made by government to combat these concerns.
One of the themes of this speech involves the departures from the commonly accepted rule of law, which is the only real protection of civilised society. Another theme involves discrimination which so often flows out of departures from the Rule of Law. Unfortunately discrimination keeps spreading and is gaining a foothold in the wider Australian community. Such circumstances diminish Australian society.
Unfortunately, if economically people are reasonably well off, and if there is a belief that these issues don’t touch me, don’t touch my family or my friends then it is easy to conclude that these issues don’t matter too much. We should remember that as governments maintain support by playing on the politics of fear, so too they tend to exaggerate the fear and to expand the concerns of people.
This process leads to a further exaggeration of fear and to further alarmist reactions. If current polices led by the United States are to prevail, supported as the United States has been by Britain and Australia, then we run two risks. A decades long war against Islam with the possibility of extraordinary destruction throughout the world, and the possibility that our government will build within individual Australians a fear and concern of Islam that will take decades to eradicate.
The spin of a "bridge too far".
While the Howard "New Order" claims that their "fairness in WorkChoices" (isn't that an oxymoron?) legislation will "ensure" that employees are "adequately compensated" when they either - sign off their benefits or lose the employment - one has to wonder how anyone could believe them. IF the employee does NOT agree to the "offer" - there is NO job - there is no AWA - and their is NO fairness test either. Struth.
Even IF (and that is some IF) the private enterprise employed by the Howard government tries to act on an unfair AWA, the matter is resolved when the employee is sacked.
IF they are desperate, like Hicks, they will agree to anything and WHO will be the judge of the Corporation's behaviour - the Corporations' government. Fair dinkum.
Let's look at what we know:
But enough of Howard's dishonesty and arrogant disregard for the wedged voters in this once proud Nation.
Let's have a reality check"
I have written that there is "dirty days" to come.
With almost unlimited Liberal, Corporation and taxpayer funds to plunder, the Howard "New Order" is not going to give up peacefully to the will of the people.
The sad fact is this - IMHO - it no longer matters what this predatory Howard government of depraved indifference promises - no matter how attractive and Australian it may appear to be - and irrespective of its false compassion and dignity - we can "Never Ever" trust the "New Order". Their objective is for the advance of the Big 8 - and at the cost of our future.
NE OUBLIE.
Time to say 'Sorry'
John Pratt: "How we treat aboriginals is a good indicator of what we are. "
Well, for a start, John, we spell 'Aborigines' with a capital 'A' - and we don't call them 'aboriginals'.
And for Heaven's sake, isn't anyone going to call the Prime Minister 'Johnny regrette rien" while there's still time? I mean, do I have to do everything for you?
How we treat Aboriginal people is a good indicator of what we ar
[Paul Kelly in The Australian]
Since the 1967 referendum we have failed to improve the status and lives of Aboriginals.
[AMA]
The AMA has given us a path to follow we need governments to act this has been on the backburner for far too long.
No, Thank You Jenny Hume
Well thank you, Jenny Hume. It is always nice to have something one writes, elicit a positive response.
Not really, just a decade or so experience on and off similar forums. Not being interested in politics does have its advantages. Not even a registered voter - think the last time I voted, was for high school class President. All politicians read from the same script.
I think you are right. At the moment, even with PSA deals, it is just not a good deal. One cannot do business in a war zone - black-market exempted. My view is you will in the coming couple of years begin to see moves in the north. Kurdistan will be a definite place of interest. It is generally peaceful, and even more importantly is seeking to do business - unlike much of its Iraqi neighbors. Let's say, it is making all the right noises. Gazing into my crystal ball; I can see this causing a state within a state, and a separate economy within an economy. Really not unusual, and if one has visited LA, they will know what I mean.
Yes, Iraq is certainly in one hell of a mess. With crime statistics one finds (at least the ones I have read); the higher the level of poverty in a given area, the higher the rate of crime. Also, crime committed in these areas, seems predominately crime against other residents. This appears to be the case the world over. The universal reason generally given is lack of opportunity.
Everyday that Iraqi oil remains in the ground is a day of lost opportunity. Some may well say; it is saving for the future, unfortunately for Iraq, and the chaos it faces, there may not be a future to save for.
When the US withdraws
Paul, ultimately the US will withdraw from Iraq and there could be a period of all out civil war when that happens, as with the former Yugoslavia. In that environment little business of any kind will be possible irrespective of any PSA, contracts or agreements of any kind.
Ultimately we may see a similar resolution to that with the former Yugoslavia conflict. It may be that Iraq's future will lay in some sort of division into semi autonomous zones. As you say the Kurdish areas are reasonably stable though that may not last after the COW does withdraw. The real risk is that Iran or Syria will step in as Syria did in Lebanon in the event of all out civil war. Turkey will also be rather nervous given its attitude to the Kurdish question. It will resist any independant Kurdish state and has a pretty bad track record when it comes to genocide of the Kurds.
It may take a joint Arab/Persian force to intervene as NATO ended up doing with Serbia, acting under the UN. And if that was made up of both Sunni and Shia forces it might just restore the balance in the region. Though I would not be overly optimistic, having seen during my year in Pakistan, the extent to which Shia and Sunni antagonise each other. But they have and can live together if they really make an effort. As you say, poverty is a big social disrupter. Yet Iraq has the capacity through its oil to be a wealthy nation. So poverty should not be an issue in a stable Iraq, provided the oil revenue flows through to benefit the majority rather than the corrupt few.
But that is another issue. Cheers.
rats
Subtitle: King Cnut[1]
Am I a Cnut?
Nope.
I am a Pnut. (Not to be confused with a peanut; Oh, no!)
-=*=-
In my C/P scheme, the 'C' is from "neoCon®" and the 'P' is from 'progressive,' the currently preferred term for "lefty."
In this scheme, the 'neoCons' - the 'con' was originally from 'conservative,' but a) these so-called conservatives do not conserve so much as plunder and dissipate[2] - these neoCons are blamed for the mess (massive understatement) that is today's (post Saddam) Iraq, b) 'convict' would be more apt, if only we had an honest policeman (or three), so c) 'conman' is even more apt again, because of their methods; the main one of which being pretending to noble causes whilst executing the utterly basest, namely - Ta ra! Murder for oil.
-=*=-
Whadda'bout the rats? Well, chezPhil is being encroached upon by aerial rats, aka Indian mynahs[3]. I suspect some ill-informed people encourage these pests; by feeding & watering them, say.
-=*=-
The 'key' to the current economic paradigm is, in a single word, growth. ("More, more, I'm still not satisfied!")
Quite simply, more of everything will mean more TVs, more SUVs, more coal and more oil. In other words, more CO2; and consequently a ever more accelerated death for our once jewel-like planet's previously comfortable human support system. None other than a climate-change catastrophe, the greedastrophe®.
And so we see the neoCons' current prime growth project, the brutal colonising of Iraq (perhaps millions dead), predicated on oil-theft. More oil, more CO2. Not just ever-more CO2 spent on killing (the US military itself is, if my recall is accurate, the world's 4th largest CO2 culprit; double that for the rest of the world's killing machines), but more oil for all those ever-more SUVs etc.
(One could say hold on; the oil would get burnt anyway? But that's a non sequitur; we've got the war, and we've gotta stop it - and stop the neoCons doing the theft-killing, since it is those very same neoCons who are most driving the unsustainable growth. See?)
-=*=-
We the anti-wars were accused of 'supporting' Saddam. We didn't, we just wanted no war, no killing, and no oil-theft. Those who support the illegal invasion now become brutal occupation, however, are supporting the 'more' model, and are thusly supporting the coming catastrophe.
Supporting the invasion/occupation is just like feeding & watering the aerial rats, except that the neoCon rats are thieving murderers, and the s**t that they leave behind is a mass-murdered population and the CO2-greedastrophe.
-=*end*=-
PS Who is crazier; the Pnuts or the Cnuts?
Ref(s):
[1] Cnut variant of Canute. Canute (also Cnut or Knut) (d.1035), Danish king of England 1017–35, Denmark 1018–35, and Norway 1028–35, son of Sweyn I. He is remembered for demonstrating to fawning courtiers his inability to stop the rising tide; this has become distorted in folklore to suggest that Canute really expected to turn back the tide [Oxford Pop-up]
[2] dissipate 2 [with obj.] squander or fritter away (money, energy, or resources). [ibid.]
[3] The Indian mynah, feathering other birds’ nests
[Mark David/Mynahs]
"The devil is in the small print"?
It never fails to amaze me that the Republicans and the Howard "New Order" Liberals always try to claim the moral high ground, because "God is on their side".
Morality is private but much to costly for Howard's mob of depraved Lawyers.
Someone once wrote about Howard that he had carefully crafted his Cabinet and Ministry with people of a like image to himself. I have been gathering some of the crimes, rorts, lies and incompetencies of the "New Order" Ministers, now and in the past, and the result their continuation in government either confirms our apathy or a lack of reasoning capacity.
I was interested in a recent T/V movie about Christopher Marlowe and "Dr. Faustus" so I looked it up on the net.
I consider "Doctor Faustus: Precursors" as similar even now in our world ruled by fear and hatred. And I quote:
So, what has this to do with the Republican government in the U.S. and the "New Order" in Australia?
"The devil is always in the small print" and "to be forgiven, you must agree with the dictates" of the Elite.
"Never ever" trust the Howard "New Order".
NE OUBLIE.
TV dinners for life
[Courier Mail]
We all get old and some of us will end up in retirement villages. Could you imagine a life where all you get to eat is TV dinners? Our elderly citizens deserve better than this. The federal government is responsible for the standards in these villages. Is it too much to ask that they should have kitchens? Working in the aged care industry I know that a lot of clients, who choose residential care, have the quality of the meals high up in importance. You would get fed better in a jail.
It's not about economic rationalism
[The Age]
An Aboriginal leader is calling for Howard to stand down. He is right;
PSAs Part I
Craig Rowley: "With respect Paul, you know my actual question was different to the one you say should not be asked. As you know my actual question was ..."
This is certainly true. I changed the question from individuals to business. The reason: Difficulty in answering the original question without clarifying statements, from any of the people (CEOs) on this topic. I can only hold a personal opinion as to what a person may or may not believe. It was not an attempt to take anything away from the original question.
Once again your questions are complicated, and not easy to answer.
Craig Rowley: "I think the answer is simple. Far too many people in societies across the world have under-developed critical thinking abilities. They generally believe what 'authority' advises them to believe. If they are told foreign business investment in Iraq's oil industry is necessary and good for the Iraqi people, they tend to accept that as true. Even if it is not true."
I have never written, nor thought, investment in Iraq's oil industry is a bad thing. I happen to think it is a good thing. Investment in any under-developed and potentially very lucrative industry, is a good thing. The arrangement of the investments - is more the point here.
What I have said is: I do not think PSAs are democratic. Business is not democratic, and neither are business deals. The only people even hinting that they may be, are politicians - and one chooses to either listen to them or not.
As to how other people think, I really cannot say with any certainty. From my experience on forums, such as this one, most seem to think investment in Iraq is a bad thing. Whether or not this is a commonly held view - again I really could not say with certainty.
Craig Rowley: "So I'm wondering now: What do you think of PSAs as a citizen, Paul?"
I believe PSAs as a business instrument are neither good, nor bad. They are a business arrangement, and should be judged on individual merits. Like all business arrangements they differ from contract to contract. To make an overall assumption that all PSAs are simply "bad", is a preposterious notion. The equivalent of saying all pizza is bad; because one does not like pepperoni.
Profit is certainly the motivation of any business, not just oil. It however; does not necessarily follow that because profit is a motivation, there must be a winner and loser. It is very conceivable that all parties involved can be winners. Indeed, this is the very factor, that the entire capitalist system is built upon.
PSAs deals are risk management arrangements. Deals made in an attempt to create some certainty - a hedging arrangement if you like. That being said: It does not neccessarily follow, that these arrangements are automatically a sure-fire guarantee of success. Like any hedge; things can not only go wrong, things can go, very wrong. I note: Not one major oil company has yet to formally enter into any arrangement, in any major way. There is hardly a mad gold-rush like scramble at this point in time.
The factors for signing (for a company) onto such a deal, are not to avoid taxation and enviromental issues - such things cause very little problem in nations that are poor, and for the most part have high levels of corruption. More precisely, PSA deals attempt to insure against such things as: wild changes in regimes, internal strife (wars), the forced hiring of locals (many less than skilled), corrupt officials, incompetent internal management and so on and so forth. More importantly, they are seen as way of keeping a companies competitors at bay - this did not turn out to be the case, for the Russian companies involved pre-Iraq war.
My own opinion is that: Very few companies expect to see out the life of any arrangement made. That is why, PSAs are top heavy toward the company involved, from the beginning of the contract. As the life of the contract grows so does the monetary share toward the nation. Nations such as Iraq are highly unstable. It would be a natural consideration; that a company may put time and money into building something, only to have it taken away, with nil compensation. That would not be good business - and business is about profit.
Note: I pay no attention to any of the forward profit projections making the rounds. The factors effecting the profitability of the oil industry over thirty years, are so numerous, as to make the projections incalculable. Business is always a risky venture, make no mistake about it. Any venture entering into a life of thirty years, has great risk attached to it. Whilst a PSA may well insure against "some" of those risks, it by no means insures against all - and anyone saying otherwise, has little knowledge about this subject.
My answer to the original question is in short: All proposed deals should be judged on their merits, with all factors considered. It would seem this type of deal would not be in the interests of Australia. Though, Australia, is not Iraq, is it?
Thank you Paul Morella
Paul, it is indeed refreshing to have another perspective on this subject. And I see you are a fast learner here.
You will find that on the subject of Iraq some people here are stuck in a track like the old grammaphone needle and nothing you do will shift them. With them it is wise to simply not try to engage, otherwise you simply end up in a track of your own. But be prepared to take some flak. As I see it, no one is obliged to answer questions that one perceives will not advance a discussion.
There is no doubt that Iraq is in a mess and one can draw up all the contracts in the world. Whether they can be delivered on post the civil war is another matter.
I think the US had valid reasons for feeling concerned about Iraq, but it failed to recognise the risk to the region of destabilising what has always been a delicate balance between competing countries, sects, ethnic groups and tribes. It is paying a heavy price for upsetting the balance of power as have the Iraqi people. I would not put too much store on any contract in the current situation.
But ultimately the balance was going to be upset. Saddam Hussein, like Tito kept a tight rein on disparate groups through oppression of one or more of those groups. When oppressors are removed there is always a period of chaos when scores are going to be settled, usually violently. The war has tipped the scale earlier rather than later and clearly the challenge is going to be how to bring the militant jihadist elements under control. Their target is not just the US, but all those who do not share their view of the world. They are in effect anarchists and they exploit existing communal divisions for their own advantage. That is what appears to be going on in Iraq.
Lebanon is their latest playing field and it will not stop there. They have their own agenda but they are the useful pawns of the big players. It is not surprising that the US is rushing arms to Lebanon right now and the situation in Lebanon suggest there is considerable risk in seeing the situation in Iraq as solely a US caused problem which can be solved simply by cutting and running.
Cheers.
Howard's negative politics again.
Howard has always depended on the U.S. style negative politics to destroy the character of his opponents.
He is so dedicated to this type of "third world" behaviour that he has even stooped to attack the families of those he wants to discredit. Rarely does he allow any discussion about his failures - in fact he always accuses his opponents of doing what he is really doing.
So, in the run-up to the 2004 election he attacked Mark Latham in every possible way including; using his ex-Wife's criticisms; the story that 18 years before 2004, Mark Latham had tackled a Cabby who was taking-off with Mark's possessions. Of course the spiteful little schoolboy would consider that un-Australian in his lifestyle.
After Mark Latham left politics with serious sickness problems, the Howard media continued to harrass him, even in a Takeaway while dining with his children. Fair dinkum.
Now, we have all seen the attacks on Kevin Rudd's religion (by the "monk"), his childhood memories; his unpleasant but legal removal of his Mother and her family from their home, after the death of the Father, and the work that it provided; and the "dismissing" of his claim that his Mother's death subsequently was in part due to the terrible burden she was forced to carry.
No thanks to Howard or his "New Order" ministry of brown-noses nor his "doglike" backbenchers ---- the attacks this time caused outrage in the Australian people.
So now, who have they got? Oh yes Kevin Rudd's Wife, Ms Rein and her business dealings.
Let's have a good look at what is reported in the media - I quote here The Age, along with my opinions:
Now desperate "Jolly Joe" [I make up these numbers] Hockey will robustly investigate this situation! Fair dinkum.
While you do that Joe, robustly check on every one of your boasted 350,000 individual AWAs that will NOT receive any of your TEMPORARY "Rock solid and iron clad" Safety Net.
And will you also check why your 1400 pages of WorkChoices legislation left them open to expoitation - and when did you decide that those 350,000 were cheated by the Corporations - and what will you do about it?
Howard's other mean trick on Australian workers was to con us into believing in the removal of unfair dismissal laws from - at first less than 10 employees - then less than 20 and then 100.
Joe has followed that by claiming his WorkChoices legislation that it created 100,000 JOBS. After not being challenged for substantiation by any of the media, he personally raised that to 200,000 JOBS. Then we copped that "sly sledger" Andrew Robb (aptly named) who calmly claimed that it was 300,000! Struth.
Howard states that WorkChoices must stay.
Then let us all make sure that he and his sycophants don't stay.
There is no truth - just the Howard mean and tricky spins.
NE OUBLIE.
Negatives
a pot-boiler
Subtitle: WYSIWYG; What you see is what you get.
-=*=-
A procedural note: I have carefully crafted the following to exclude mention of any specific person. This is held to be important by more than just me; in this case (as in the more general), it's toadally® unimportant who says anything, it's what's said that counts, just as at the next stage, it doesn't matter what anyone says so much, it's what they actually do that counts.
-=*=-
A question was posed; I and two others posted in response, discussing various aspects of the theme as it developed, and further questions were posed in return, however no substantive response was received to any of the return-questions (except for a belated one, and that only after the 'core conversation' was unilaterally terminated). C'est la vie? Well, could'a been better.
Along the way, aspersions were thrown. Of course, I could completely ignore any and all such apparent slurs, but there's a principle involved; so now is as good a time as any to 'make a stand.'
First, the standard injunction: I've said it before in this exchange but IMHO it's always worth a repeat: this is an opinion forum, as opposed to a Darlinghurst courtroom. However.
Then vis-à-vis aspersions, it might be useful to review WD guidelines, especially this bit:
[Editorial Policy]And what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander... one might'a thunk.
I have the highest regard for WD - after all, daaarlings, why else would I contribute here?
Then: whatever I say is either a report of what I've seen somewhere; in the (venal!) MSM in particular or the blogosphere in general (I'd never qualify for membership in a typing pool, however much I'd like to be surrounded by lovelies - ooops! Married...) - so pretty-well anything I relay to this forum is 'copy_n_pasted' from some source, or is my own 'single digit' opinion.
So. Any person, either in our wide-brown or anywhere else, is welcome - encouraged - to challenge anything I report - after all, I am a declared seeker of truth; my opinions are my own but may be contested in fair discussion.
-=*=-
The theme is my 'usual,' i.e. murder for oil, and the specific question was directed to the 'theft' aspect.
A quick summary; lies were used as the purported 'justification' for an illegal invasion now turned brutal occupation, one of the end-results of these actions is thought to be the control of (when not outright theft of) Iraq's 'patrimony,' aka massive oil-wealth. Some fine detail of the theft is thought to be manifest in the 'oil law' now being foist on the Iraqi ('puppet') government by the so-called 'leader' of the Anglo(Christian)CoW®, aka the US; the other 'partners in crime' being the UK and Aus (with Israel as a 'silent friend'); when we add the Israel Lobby to this 'mix,' we get: the wannabe world hegemon plus its illegal sprog and the poodle with dag, all mass-murdering to enable theft (of oil, land and water).
The actual methodology of the long-mooted oil-theft is currently thought to be PSAs, whereby the oil-majors (mainly US and some UK, most others being 'under the gun' excluded) - these oil-majors will 'extract' (Haw!) considerably more (massive understatement) than any possibly judged 'fair share' of the proceeds.
Whether any or all of this process is legal or not seems to depend on viewpoint; the (criminals?) proposing the ghastly rip-off obviously think it's OK (or somehow avoid any resulting cognitive dissonance), others don't (more massive understatement). A 'minor detail' accompanying the purported coming oil-theft is the killing (some say murdering) of upwards of a million Iraqis. But by whatever means (US, sectarian rivalry or Al Qaeda, say (we can't mention 'bl**k-ops')), they are all dead, mostly well before their 'time' - Saddam or not.
So.
Just so, or unavoidably so? That, daaarlings, is basically up to us, we the sheople®; no-bloody-other entity seems to be prepared to even start stopping the rot.
Even then, there's nothing much one can actually do about this alleged 'murder for oil' aka criminal scurrilousness, except expose it to the light of reason, fairness and decency. As I try to do.
-=*=-
One further point, and here I again request forbearance (n. patient self-control; tolerance): a specific mention must be made, namely the gratuitous link to the Jayson Blair affair ...
This is a bewdy; a real bloody-bottler, mate!
[wiki/Jayson Blair]
(Not just by-the-way, I neither plagiarize nor fabricate. This is another false allegation - amongst the many - which must be, according to my interpretation of WD guidelines, either justified (IMHO can't be) or withdrawn. Hmmm? Note: If no-one is prepared to do anything about this then tough; I repeat WYSIWYG.)
But prey [sic®] tell, just what's so good about this Jayson Blair ref?
Well, daaarlings, for any of those who've been away some other-where (or had their heads stuck up some dark place 'where the Sun don't shine') for the last four years or so, we've had an illegal invasion now become a brutal occupation - all premised on lies, and the 'secret plan' to steal Iraq's oil. (It had to be kept secret; because it's so glaringly obvious, the only way that they could hide it is in plain sight, all the while denying it: "Wot, me steal oil? Don't be so ridiculous! That must be one'a those nutty-wutty conspiracy theories!" (Could come from Cheney, say - or Rumsfeld. Haw! Try "9." say. There's a lot, just like the dkos item. Ever heard of pushing s**t uphill with a pointed stick?))
The proof of oil-theft will be seen when it happens; and the oil law being foist by the US on the Iraqi puppet government is a concrete step in that direction. Again the challenge to any and all: just prove it ain't 'murder for oil!'
Ridiculous indeed, but "What else is new," I hear you mutter?
Just this: it was the NYT, with Judith Miller 'leading the charge,' along with the other big "Paper of Record," the WP (this is neither to forget nor minimise the efforts in deception contributed by 'Faux News,' say, or the sordid and venal MSM as a whole), but it was the NYT which acted as one'a the primary conduits and amplifiers of the neoCon-associated undemocratic 'putsch' which shovelled all those utter BS-lies at us, to send us off to that murdering war. (Possibly millions now dead!)
[George Monbiot/Too much at stake to let climate-change sceptics bluff the world]High praise, perhaps; but only in a deeply black, cack-handed sort'a way of course, for me to be bracketed with the likes of that horrid 'élite' sort, where in this case élite means the dregs.
Only one tiny little (insurmountable!) problem, though, is that - as my record quite clearly shows - I act as a seeker of truth; by citing articles and inviting comparison with what we actually see happening out in the real world, I act to counter that dreadful, filthy and lying pushed paradigm propaganda. Harrrumpf!
-=*=-
That's the current 'state-of-play,' with various 'armchair warriors' bitterly contesting, and some using 'cleaner' methods than others. You, dear reader, are as always free to evaluate any question as you see fit; to help in any such evaluation, I have included dictionary entries of certain keywords at [1] to [9] below.
-=*end*=-
PS Does any of this matter? Should I care? Well, obviously. Those who defend the current 'pushed paradigm' do so for reasons of their own; I've suggested either a) ideology (IMHO of the blind and mistaken type) or b) there's 'something it it for them;' better said, as in the case of the MSM, say: venality and corruption. In plain Aussie-English, (b) could be paraphrased as "Of course they're on the take, mate!"
Over time, I have directly challenged various people to prove it ain't 'murder for oil;' each has so far point-blank refused. In addition and in more general terms, I've posed my 'domestic siege' analogy; why was it necessary to completely destroy Iraq to depose Saddam, and continue the horrendous destruction, including now perhaps millions of hapless dead Iraqis, looong after Saddam was deposed and eventually lynched? Now we have the question turned around, demanding that I prove that the US intends oil-theft (Haw! What else?) I have put up various reports, see the record. As Faux-News might put it: I report, dear readers, you decide. Tip: "Follow the money!"
PPS You may care to consider this quote:
(The article itself is worth a look.)
If we consider the oil-theft sceptics' proposition: that the illegal US invasion now brutal occupation of Iraq ain't about 'murdering oil-theft' - then we need to see an until-now, as far as I'm aware, non-existent proof. Anyone?
PPPS So, let's have it please: "time to put up or shut up;" a specific invitation to all, to challenge any report in all of my posts.
PPPPS The final question; the biggie: do we (the sheople of our great and lovely wide-brown) really wish to live in a world dominated by lies, cheating, theft and mass-murder? Truly - apart from you'n yours, natch: in a world without love?
Ref(s):
[1] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. [POD, and all following]
[2] invade v. (-ding) (often absol.) 1 enter (a country etc.) under arms to control or subdue it. 2 swarm into. 3 (of a disease) attack. 4 encroach upon (a person's rights, esp. privacy). invader n. [Latin vado vas- go]
invasion n. invading or being invaded.
[3] occupation n. ... 3 occupying or being occupied. 4 taking or holding of a country etc. by force.
[4] murder —n. 1 intentional unlawful killing of a human being by another. ... —v. 1 kill (a human being) intentionally and unlawfully. 2 colloq. a utterly defeat.
[5] steal —v. (past stole; past part. stolen) 1 (also absol.) take (another's property) illegally or without right or permission, esp. in secret. 2 obtain surreptitiously, insidiously, or artfully (stole a kiss). 3 (foll. by in, out, away, up, etc.) move, esp. silently or stealthily. —n. 1 US colloq. act of stealing or theft. 2 colloq. easy task or good bargain. steal a march on get an advantage over by surreptitious means. ... [Old English]
stealth n. secrecy, secret behaviour. [Old English: related to *steal]
[6] theft n. act of stealing. [Old English: related to *thief]
[7] conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire]
conspiracy of silence n. agreement to say nothing.
[8] slander —n. 1 false and damaging utterance about a person. 2 uttering of this. —v. utter slander about. slanderous adj. [French esclandre: related to *scandal]
[9] innuendo n. (pl. -es or -s) allusive remark or hint, usu. disparaging or with a double meaning. [Latin, = by nodding at: related to *in-2, nuo nod]
Democratic? Certainly not
Well the short answer to that question Craig is: No. Or more precisely, they would have little opinion, nor care either way. I am certainly not aware of any of these people making statements to the contrary. As individuals we all have our personal opinions - executives as private citizens would be no different. As heads of a company; they do have a role to play, and that role is - what is best for the company.
Through a geographical coincidence; most of the world's mineral resources, are located, in some of the most unstable regions - especially oil. History proves successful business in these regions has not always been conducted by the most pure of heart, nor politically or socially sensitive. Very few would claim, for example, that big oil and fine moral ethics have always been comfortable bed-fellows.
Those looking for a business entity (something built with profit as its main motivation) to cure all democratic ills will be sadly disappointed. A business entity (as opposed to the individuals that form it - both good and bad) is a position structured entity, not a democratic one. The workers answer to a manager, the manager to a CEO, the CEO to a board of directers, directors to the shareholders - even the individual shareholding vote, is on a financial basis. All involved in the structure have one motivation as the prime motivation - need I ask what that is?
Business has a natural distaste for government - all government. For business; government is something to be more endured as a forced upon evil, much more so than respected. Business (big oil being one) can just as easily deal with a dictatorship, communist regime, theocratic regime, as it can a democratic one. The consideration is not the type of government, the consideration is the deal being offered. The environment favored will often change from; nation to nation, government to government, and from situation to situation. Shell, for example, can just as happily be allowed to deal in Iraq, as it is unhappy not being allowed to deal in Iran. The politics of any situation is seen more as a constant irritant as much as anything else.
The question being asked should not be: is business helping in the pursuit of democracy? It should be: why any person could ever be lulled into thinking it ever was? Business is about making profit, as long as that is allowed, the politics of the system is of no importance. Business has no understanding of democracy (PR spin aside), what it does understand is laws and rules. And these laws and rules are looked upon through one context - that being profit.
Democratic solutions can always be found in life - are indeed found everyday, all around the globe. They will, though, never be found by business, through business, unless of course in the interests of business - read profit.
I hope that goes someway to answering at least part of your question.
PSA deals and democracy II
Thanks Paul Morrella for going someway to answering part of my question.
Part of that answer was particularly interesting: "The question being asked should not be: is business helping in the pursuit of democracy? It should be: why any person could ever be lulled into thinking it ever was?"
With respect Paul, you know my actual question was different to the one you say should not be asked. As you know my actual question was:
But that aside, I can see how it is an important new question to ask:
Why would any person be lulled into thinking big business has any interest in helping to build democracy in Iraq?
I think the answer is simple. Far too many people in societies across the world have under-developed critical thinking abilities. They generally believe what 'authority' advises them to believe. If they are told foreign business investment in Iraq's oil industry is necessary and good for the Iraqi people, they tend to accept that as true. Even if it is not true.
What would your answer be, Paul?
BTW I agreed with your answer to my original question.
You and I share the point of view that the executives of corporations pushing PSA deals would probably have little opinion, nor care, whether the people of Iraq secure a democratic future.
And you've affirmed the commonly held view: Business is about making profit.
Adding: "Business has no understanding of democracy ... what it does understand is laws and rules. And these laws and rules are looked upon through one context - that being profit."
I basically agree with those reaffirmed common understandings as well. Particularly when we consider the idiom: "Actions speak louder than words".
In the particular case of the Iraqi oil industry the (loud speaking) action taken by 'Big Oil' corporations is to push for PSA deals. They do so because these PSA deals promise greater profit to them. They can make greater profit because PSAs are instruments overriding domestic environmental, tax and safety laws for many years and more money can be made when law, the regulatory regime that the citizens had called for can be swept aside.
And I can see why 'Big Oil' corporations so value the certainty they get in having those environmental and safety laws overridden. They can focus on the money making and forget about the need to protect the environment and the safety of their workers. That certainly helps keeps cost contained and profit maximised, returns to shareholders growing in line with expectations, etc.
And overriding the tax law means that the government meant to serve the national interest, the people's interest, will find it difficult to use taxation to extract a better distribution to the non-shareholder stakeholders, i.e. the people whose national resource is being depleted.
So I'm wondering now: What do you think of PSAs as a citizen, Paul?
What would you think of an Australian government that agreed to allow our uranium resource to be mined and enriched and sold by foreign businesses under a PSA deal that overrides all Federal and State environmental, tax and safety laws for more than half a century?
What if the mining boom that's made us more prosperous this past decade, supplying all that tax to make for surplus after surplus, was not available because a PSA had signed our rights away?
Standards
Phil Kendall, calls me:
It is called having standards. Incoherent political rambling, mixed with poor attempts at sarcastic wittisms, do not take away from your attempted deception. Most people (on being caught) would accept it, and learn from it. It would seem you are not most people. I suggest you read the link carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair.
This really is my last post to you.
Prosperity? For whom?
Since 1996, the Howard Liberals have been wedging and dividing our communities with lies; obfuscations; diversions; sectarianism; Racism; the Haves and the Have Nots; and most of all - secrecy.
Howard's intention to squeeze Australia into a haven for foreign ownership has the "funnel" working "well" towards Globilisation.
Unfortunately for them, the small business community, probably due to its membership with the lobbyist Peter Hendy's (read Reith) Chamber of Commerce do not seem to realise that this intention will only succeed with the massive reduction in the number of small businesses.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Bankruptcies administered under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 were as follows:
It would seem logical to me that, given that the Big Corporations and their foreign shareholders are receiving huge commodity boom profits, the bankruptcies would most likely be small business owners.
It also seems to me that, since Howard's "New Order" took office in 1996, there has been an average of about 26,000 bankruptcy hearings each year. That is moving towards a total of half a million.
This of course does not include the increasing number of Homes being re-possessed and auctioned nor the Elderly "reverse mortgaging" to try to maintain their twilight years in the "Pre-Howard" Australian way. Another example of lack of duty of care from this government of depraved indifference.
There is no truth - just the Corporations and their government.
NE OUBLIE.
For whom
Ernest William, how would you like to be working for Kevin Rudd's wife at the moment? Shades of things to come if Rudd wins. I would have thought you would have had your Union mates marching in the streets over this rort. This matter really does show the hypocricy of the Labor Party.
Are we to believe that Kevin Rudd and his family will receive no benefits from his wife's business? Perhaps she is going to donate the earnings to "The Home for Old Union Delegates".
rude, crude and ...
.. socially unacceptable? Unattractive? Nah, uninvited.
[Professor Smartass/Big OIL plan to rip off Iraq for 30 years cited on floor of House]Bye Paul Morrella; and thanks for nothing, for IMHO that was the sum contribution your posts made 'in here.' You asked many questions - which were courteously responded to by two others apart from me, but of the questions posed to you, you answered none. A big, fat zero.
To conclude your sorry chapter 'in here,' Paul, the answer as to whether the US intention always was to steal oil is hardly controversial; the clear intent of the 'oil law' the US is trying to foist upon the Iraqi parliament shows that the prior intent to steal oil is being earnestly pursued (no surprise), and as one of Bob Wall's excellent linked items shows, there is no intent to remove the brutal US Jack-boot from the Iraqi neck, just no plans at all: "we have published no orders saying come up with a complete plan for total drawdown." As to whether one wishes to quibble over main, in amongst the obvious lies, stupid diversions or the Israel Lobby's poisonous effects, well that is exactly that: quibbling. What is for sure is that it could be millions murdered by the US, so far. So the penultimate 'last word' could be this, previously quoted by me from the dkos blog:
That's actually 30 (or 40, why not 100?) years from whenever big-oil signs (mainly US/UK, most others being locked out - 'under the gun,' one could say. Haw? - Hardly.) As we know, no-one wants 'in' until they can be reasonably assured of not being blown up. Might take a bit more decimation of the hapless Iraqis, eh? Now the last 'last word' from the dkos blog:
[ibid.]This ties in to Craig Rowley's question re: PSA deals and democracy. The US Congress and the venal MSM deliberately avoid any/all mention of the coming oil-theft, quite possibly the largest "Don't mention the Elephant" in the world's history.
What the whole Iraq-invasion-occupation imbroglio shows us, apart from the hideous US permanent, continuous policy of murder-for-spoil (for additional detail see "Economic Hit Man") is that the democracies of the Anglo(Christian)CoW® are toadal® shams. We the sheople® may have the vote - but are largely ignored and even worse: the bipartisan support for US murder/theft leaves us, the voters abso-bloody-lutely no choice.
The sheople, although often TV-dozing, are not quite that dumb (yet, but see today's ONA quote.) And remember, that we the sheople® bear responsibility for the carnage, as it was our representatives who sent us to war on lies, and then we (but 'Not in my name,' we the anti-wars said, so in this case it was 'you the sheople') gave them a 'green-light' by re-election of the now as then criminal perps.
We all know what the US is up to, we just shake our heads that the rest of the world seems to do nothing effective to even slow the vicious US mass-murder for oil.
What was that again, about the ugly American?
Reminder.
Paul Morrella, in lieu of answering questions at this time from Phil and Craig perhaps you could now address matters I raised with you a couple of days ago. To remind you, here is an extract from my post of 22/05 at 10.22 pm:
As you made the statements posted above it should not be too difficult to provide the information I requested.
Wasting my time, man
Phil Kendall, the link provided to me relates to order 39. All resources were exempted from this order - including oil. You claim to be a "truth seeker". Perhaps you might like to start by telling some?
I think it best, I make my fifth post to you my last. Rather than correct a simple error or exaggeration, you appear to employ dubious methods to prove a point. This is a waste of my time, and an attempt to treat me as a fool.
Craig Rowley I am hardly an "insider" - just a very small fish, in a very big sea. I cannot offer an insiders account, I can though offer you my opinion relating to your questions. It is difficult at the moment; however, I would be most interested in answering your questions at some later stage.
alcohol
Jenny, there was little alcohol in the young (non-church) groups that I was in either, but I assign this to: (1) age of majority of 21. I still perceived myself as evolving into an adult rather than being one;...it was changed simply because of Vietnam, and I still think it's a mistake; the gap between leaving school and becoming an "adult" is valuable (2) years of observing the revolting 6 o'clock swill ensured that drinking and glamour were antonyms; (3) no surplus money; (4) little social life for school-age teens made social contact post-school fresher; (4) fewer role models via tv and film to fall short of.
God, mental illness, democracy, refugees
Jenny, my only objection to Christianity is that they request that you make an effort to believe in their religion. All the ancillary benefits are worthwhile - social skills, theological education, developing social criticism and simple literacy. My church even seemed to ignore the wine-drinking in the scripture for fear of giving license to drink. I treated my time there - over a year - with perhaps more sincerity than the whole process deserved. I said as much to a wicca girl I met earlier this year and was surprised to hear myself say it: it was the truth.
I feel freer now that I have left it and more honest with myself. With all the benefits, what such an environment denies you is an honest engagement with yourself, the universe, and your peers. I was never an atheist before, and I am not one now, but no longer do I feel as if I am putting on a charade. No-one in particular is at fault, my honesty was always appreciated, however my presence there ceased, after a time, to be justifiable. I was no longer myself but rather someone that I did not know. I observed myself and wondered who exactly it was that was speaking in this utterly foreign language and foreign terms.
The Christians I knew were thoroughly educated, largely intelligent and thoughtful people. They behave with more class and self-control than your ordinary secular young people, which I expect is why they appeal to an aristocrat like Miranda Devine. I think there is nevertheless something damaging about it, or at least, limiting. Some people are content to operate within those limits, and, far be it from me to seek to deny them that. None of this has anything to do with God, which is probably the point. There is a difference between religion at a social level and religion at a spiritual level. I felt, in the end, that my religion was divorcing me from the spiritual, rather than bringing me closer to it. This was never the purpose of the church but it ended up being the result, at least for me, because the "terms of reference" so to speak, within which Christianity operates, are too narrow for my wandering, nomadic heart.
The churches nevertheless provide sanctuary to the lost and the more beautiful passages in the bible - I bought KJV just recently, for the love of language - cater to this feeling. The best way to explain "Schizophreneform psychosis" or whatever my current diagnosis is (I haven't been told) is as a feeling of being lost - your grip on the world is fragile, from day to day, and as such you are vulnerable to having your notions of reality usurped by episodes of fear, which distort the objective world in to a world of complete subjective terror. It is not an intellectual disability and your intellect can in fact be your worst enemy, in particularly vulnerable times.
Mental illness and substance abuse are intertwined. There is a strong argument in psychiatry that substance abuse itself is a mental illness, rather than merely a potential cause. This is a puzzle that I have chosen to explore for a journalism subject this semester. In total I have spent longer in a mental health ward than I did in Paris and as such was in a position to meet many young (and old) people with acute mental illness, and drugs were often the reason behind their incarceration. It is hard to say whether people self-medicate with drugs or alcohol because of a pre-existing condition or whether such consumption actually manifests the illness. Ultimately it really doesn't matter in terms of treatment, once we move beyond criminalisation as appropriate social policy on drugs. God help us on that score.
There is also a correlation between religion and mental illness. I made an effort when I admitted myself this year for insomnia to interrogate all the doctors about their religion, including some poor Muslim doctor named Mohammed. I asked him if he believed the Angel Gabriel came down to the Prophet Mohammed and he said yes. I said "so do I" but this was a lie. I have a certain bitterness towards religious expression, knowing as I do, that such modes of thinking may or may not be symptomatic of deteriorating mental faculties, or, simply because my history of psychosis means that I am not permitted to voice similar execesses of interpretation of the world, because doing as such may mean the deprivation of my liberty, even despite the laws that exist to protect religion from contributing to a diagnosis of mental illness. Once caught in the system, you remain caught, like a fly stuck in a spider's web. You lose certain of your liberties, like your freedom to think and to express yourself, not overtly, but as an inevitable by-product of the system that controls you.
Once you have been through something like that it becomes difficult to tolerate people that insist, in perfect health, that the Devil is a real entity and his malevolent, destructive intention behind what would otherwise be considered normal human behaviour.
The question becomes: why am I here, whilst all the other lunatics run scot free? The answer is because I could not control myself, and that whilst the system is cruel, its purpose is to equip you to self-regulate and to function within society, even if that means ascribing you with heavy prescription drugs. In hospital I would swallow my pills with Hamlet's prayer:"May all my sins be remembered". I am not at all convinced that there is any substantive difference between prescription drugs and other kinds of drugs, ethically, when they are used for the same purpose - to alleviate depression, calm the mind and allow for rest and relaxation. The question becomes one only of effectiveness and clearly prescribed medication is better than destructive alternatives.
Yet they are not without peril. Early on after my release this year the fire alarm went off in my dorm and I realised I would struggle to wake myself up in order to flee, were there a real fire or threat, because the medication was so strong. I was reminded of the disturbing fact that Zelda Fitzgerald, who suffered from schizophrenia, died when the mental hospital she was in burnt down. Medication is a brute instrument. Those in the field seem to want to combine brutality one one side with excessively soft treatment like counselling and social work on the other. I described the effect of the meds as being "punch-drunk" and it is truly like you've been knocked around a bit. I have other queries and questions about how I have been handled and will elaborate further in the future. Suffice to say that I have drawn no conclusions but wonder at the ease with which the system appropriates your destiny. I am being encouraged to tell my story by my journalism lecturer and it is actually a relief to begin to start saying what is on my mind. There are portions of my story that are quite remarkable, on reflection.
I have been exploring the issue in terms of the immigration regime and from that, as well as discussion with Lynda Crowley-Cyr, I have come to understand that there is a philisophical difference between the use of medication for "Behaviour modification" and appropriate treatment. The mandatory detention regime has been shown to deteriorate the mental health of detainees, who may already be suffering from trauma; I am writing a feature on the way in which this denies them natural justice, as they will struggle to participate meaningfully in their legal proceedings. The issues of how people are treated and their right to natural justice are treated seperately in most of the literature I have read - it does not appear to have occurred to anyone that the two issues are in fact inter-related, with the former having an incalculable effect on the latter. The use of drugs for inappropriate "Behaviour modifcation" could potentially unbalance the legal system in favour of the state.
More profoundly it occurred to me today that appropriate mental health care is more broadly fundamental to democracy. What if the use of mood-altering prescription drugs affects our perception of the performance of leaders? Could over-prescription of such drugs create unecessarily positive attitudes to the current government? Could a lack of treatment create an unjustified negative impression of a government? Could there be a correlation between areas of socio-economic disadvantage - where there can be an over-representation of mentally ill people - and the level of treatment that they recieve? Could mental health funding that targets particular electorates be a kind of pork-barrelling that may inadvertently alter the very consciousness of the citizens of a country?
According to the Brain Mind and Research Institute: "Up to 1.6 million Australians, representing 8 per cent of the population, are either permanently or transiently affected by depression or other mental illnesses during the course of a year, and about 60 per cent of them do not respond to standard treatments."
8% is enough to swing an election, surely. It gives a whole new meaning to the term "swinging voter". The fact that around 60% are not responding to standard treatments is also a remarkable statistic. Treatment that works can mean the difference for that individual between democracy and fascism. I mean that in more than one sense - in some people, including myself, their perception of the entire system of governance in which they live will alter according to their treatment. Alternatively, treatment may make the difference between a person who is an active citizen and one who is passive and disengaged and at the mercy of government and the majority. I did not vote in the state election because my levels of energy were at the time not up to making the effort to find a polling place, deciding that my most immediate need was rest. Think of the profound disengagement of those with more debilitating mental health problems and the mulitplicity of ways in which they may be denied the ability to inform themselves, engage in politics, or cope with the destructive adversarial political system in which we live.
Refugee law applies an objective test, requiring that there be a reasonable fear of persecution. Mental illness alters the framework in that a person may have an unreasonable fear of persecution, but nevertheless their dysfunction if they are returned to such a place can be just as acute. Applying a subjective test would not allow "economic refugees" in but it would allow for humane treatment of those that, due to their current mental condition, are not able to make rational decisions about the risks their presence in their own (or another) country carries. There is the old aphorism that we have "Nothing to fear but fear itself". For some people this is literally true - for others, there are truly other things to fear, but it is wrong to repatriate people who do not have the facility to make those kinds of assessments. I think in our calculations as to whether or not we repatriate refugees to their country, there ought to be a consideration as to whether they will be treated with appropriate mental health care, so that the alleviation of their purely (or largely) subjective fears - which are just as tormenting and worthy of our compassion - are allowed for.
There are provisions in the immigration act that allow for a detainee to have their health assessed, if this is relevant to their claim for asylum. Presumably this was designed to cater to people who are persecuted because of their health status. I sincerely doubt that it could be construed so as to apply to someone who would not suffer persecution but who would not recieve treatment for their condition, as this would undermine the objective test, as it derives from the UN charters etc, which were drafted when issues of mental health were less well understood.
Such a policy change as I have described is unimaginable in Australia where the research has shown that our immigration policy actually harms the mental health of immigration detainees. We clearly cannot guarantee proper treatment to those who seek refuge on our shores, let alone try and compare ourselves favourably to other nations. The Cornelia Rau case is a poignant failure of our immigration and mental health systems combined. In some countries the right to health care is protected by their constitution. This, too, is unimaginable in Australia, though if you truly consider the ways in which poor health care disenfranchises citizens, it ceases to be tolerable that this is not a fundamental right to be cherished and protected.
Past and present
F Kendall, yes it was different back then in so many ways but where we have come to I do not think is really a better place for our young. Nothing ever remains the same, but sometimes the pendulum swings too far. I am glad I grew up at the time I did. No one pushed alcohol at me, and drugs were completely unknown. Sex at age 14 or even younger was almost unheard of.
What has changed too is the wealth that now exists at most levels of society. Kids can just be out there enjoying the fruits of their parents' labours. They have far less responbility put on them to contribute and their boundaries are very elastic if they exist at all. It is no wonder many of them are at risk.
Solomon, I read of your stuggles with sympathy and all I can say is that I do understand the difficulties you face. I have intimate knowledge of the mental health system, its strengths and its weaknesses and how once in the system, it is hard for a person to ever be free from it.
My first job was in one of the old mental health institutions when I was 17, back in the 50s. Since then I have had to work with the system for family members who were ill, and finding the balance between helping the person to get well and protecting their freedoms and rights is not always easy. I more than anyone appreciate how hard it is for a person suffering from delusions and paranoia to acknowledge that the reality they live in is not shared by those around them. Asking them to critically examine their reality and challenge it is so difficult when the very organ they have to activate to do that is the one creating the problem for them in the first place. Very many are never able to do that.
If anyone were to walk in here and tell me that what I was seeing in front of me was not actually there, and what I was hearing was just voices in my head, I would find that very frightening. And I would do everything I could to reject such notion.
Modern drugs have made it possible for those suffering from mental illness to live and function better in the community, but yes, they have side effects that can be very unpleasant. Illegal drugs only exacerbate the problem. We are all aware of the debate over the role illegal drugs might or might not play as causative agents in mental illness. and the lines are becoming increasingly blurred when you get drugs like ice on the scene.
I won't pursue the role of religion in relation to mental illness here. I have seen mentally ill people helped by it, but for others it has had very negative outcomes.
Take care of yourself Solomon.
PSA deals and democracy
G'day Paul Morrella, seeing as you're an insider with a firm doing business in Iraq (not Halliburton[1]) and we don't often get to have conversations with people in your position, I've a question for you:
Do you think executives of corporations pushing PSA deals truly support the people of Iraq in their pursuit of democracy?
The reason I ask is this: Aside from questions about who profits, I understand that PSA deals usually override domestic environmental, tax and safety laws for years—sometimes for more than half a century.
As I understand it, if conflicts arise between the companies and a government signed to a PSA the deal usually contains clauses placing dispute resolution power with private arbitrators in London or Paris, circumventing the local courts.
So it looks to me like PSA deals are a trap that restricts the sovereign power of the Iraqis to write laws and control their own natural resources. And it seems to me that makes PSAs questionable not just on the flow of financial benefit (to the corporation; away from the Iraqi people), but also because they are anti-democratic instruments.
Note:
[1] And I've not worked for a Halliburton Group company for almost a decade now - Hallelujah.
not my job, man
G'day Paul Morrella.
What you call a Politician's speech is this:
[Professor Smartass/Big OIL plan to rip off Iraq for 30 years cited on floor of House]
Notice the heading: "KEY EXCERPTS FROM CONGRESSIONAL RECORD." Of course, just like on the internet, one can probably find anything in the CR. But it's not 'just' a politician, it includes work from "AlterNet, in the United States, and a major Sunday story this week in The Independent." So. Notice the discussion of PSAs. Notice the 'sharing' of the wealth to outsiders, not Iraqis. Notice, notice, notice... just how long the brutal occupation might last?
Then there's this:
[ibid.]
Notice 'Bremer, CPA?' There you have at least two of your questions (partly) answered; then please recall what I wrote in my 'you sorry; me sorrier' on May 21, 2007 - 8:41am: "we try to identify any pertinent facts which might confirm or deny such theories, by comparing any discovered facts with what we can actually see 'out there' in the real world, say."
"Professor Smartass" is a blog/discussion, a bit like WD is. People put up stuff, and discuss it. I pointed you to that resource, and as a 'bonus' gave you the Google query, yet you don't seem to be able to use either?
I cited hit#2, what of hit#1? Did anyone bother to look?
[Destroy and Profit/Wars, Disasters and Corporations/A publication of FOCUS ON THE GLOBAL SOUTH/January 2006]
Mr Morrella, I pointed you to my 'Benchmarking Solomon' but you decline the offer. Why? There's pertinent information in it, almost as if it was just for you:
Mr Morrella, your words: "Throughout the stages of the proposition, all theories, at some stage, directly come into conflict." You've been asked for an example of your "conflicting theories," we are yet to see even a skerrick. How about it, hmmm?
PS To your Smart[arse] improvement "the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet " - well, they'd have to say that, wouldn't they? I mean, if 'they' lied us off to war, lied us into murder for oil - with MSM help, then any 'they' (same or different) could pretty-well say what ever suited them, eh? Just as long and the $s roll in...
Referral
G'day Phil on re-reading your link, I did find this interesting link . I'm certainly not claiming I agree much of what is written, it is at least, another side to the story.
One quoted section:
I hope you enjoy my Professor Smart[arse] improvement. I understand about the: (Accursed, detested Ameri-speak; spit! Spit!) thingy :-).
Alcohol
John Pratt, I agree. Alcohol sells itself. There is no need for gratuitous marketing, it is purely out of greed that this is allowed. Tax revenue. The purpose of alcohol advertising is often to target new drinkers like teenagers.(He's drunk/He tastes like candy he's so beautiful/You've got your youth/Don't waste your money yeah its awful - Courtney Love) It irks me when it is marketed as a social lubricant when in actually fact all it does is obstruct your ability to communicate. I wrote in '05 that nightclubs etc are designed to stop you from meeting and forming any kind of meaningful relationship with someone and I still believe that. It might be fun as an escape from the pressures of life to interact - to dance, perchance to dream - but it does nothing to form any lasting connection.
I think one reason Middle-eastern males may become alienated is because they know that much of the time they will be denied entry to pubs/clubs, on the grounds of their sex and their appearance. Alcohol advertising helps reinforce noisy, expensive and crowded places as the best way to meet people. So does popular Hollywood film. "Going out" which, in actual fact, amounts to "Going in" is one of the heavy pressures on young males and females. You have to know how to dress and also you have to be able to afford to dress that way. You have to enjoy music that is repetitive and designed to appeal to someone that is intoxicated or drugged - rythmn rules out over melody and harmony, in mass-produced, cheap synthesised music that is sexually suggestive in a cheap and obvious way. Yet it is all designed as a tease with innuendo ever ruling out over consumation. The only people that win are the business people.
I am beyond moralising about alcohol consumption. People can make their own decisions, so long as it is an educated decision. Yet I am irritated by alcohol myths, constructed and reinforced by advertising and media. It doesn't, in the long-term, make you happy but rather it makes you depressed, because it is a depressant. It slowly burns away your health and appearance and helps you put on weight. How is this going to make you more attractive to people of the opposite (or same) sex?
Hell, the whole process does not even teach you properly to dance (And all the white folks shake their asses/Looking for the two and four/I'll have mine in martini glasses/ Because I can't take it anymore - Sheryl Crow). It teaches you to flay about and be thoughtless and unco-ordinated in your movements. The shoes you are required to wear make it impossible to dance without injuring yourself - heels for girls, little prissy shoes for boys. I flirt with alcohol more often than is good for me but I think I have convinced myself to leave off it entirely - I am going to wear Nike shoes and go jogging. F--k sweatshops, I want to live.
RE: Clarification
G'day Phil, yes facts are certainly very important.
I could never (really) blame Google. A wonderful piece of ingenuity.
Phil, I think I will pass on your suggestion regarding previous posts. As I have previously said: I think it would be best, if I were to concentrate solely on what is addressed to me.
Now about this summary:
The link provided took me to an article written by a "Professor Smartarse". The writer uses excerpts from a Politician's speech - not on my favorites list - Politicians that is. This could well be down to my error; however, I cannot find one mention of repatriation of 100% profits, anywhere. In the spirit of facts - and I would not like to get any wrong, would you mind posting the quote regarding the profits?
Bob Wall, yes I am aware of the Iraqi Oil and [Gas] law.
you sorry; me sorrier
G'day Paul Morrella.
Sorry myself, I must'a misinterpreted your 1st post. Rather than blaming Google, you might consider putting it to use to fill in your backgrounding in the facts of the matters.
I'll even start you off, "Web Results 1 - 20 of about 124 English pages for iraq cpa psa full profit repatriation. (0.23 secs)" 2nd 'hit:'
[Google]
I see that Bob Wall has weighed in on this and put several valid requests up (thanks & g'day); in similar spirit perhaps you'll accept a small clarification. While of course we do consider theories 'in here,' at the same time we try to identify any pertinent facts which might confirm or deny such theories, by comparing any discovered facts with what we can actually see 'out there' in the real world, say. You might care to take this into account when composing any response?
Also, in an attempt to avoid some repetition, you might care to review my 'Benchmarking Solomon' in this thread.
Time to ban alcohol advertising!
See here. A high percentage of Australian children at risk and the government is going to “study the impact”. This is a national disgrace, we have lost our values and our kids are suffering. We should be spending more on drug education and take a good look at the effects of
Emergency departments
John, yes alcohol abuse by the young and even the very young teen is now becoming a very big concern. Emergency departments in hospitals are very aware of how serious binge drinking is becoming.
There is something wrong in our society that so many kids seem to think that life's pleasures have to come out of a bottle or a bong or a pill.
It never ceases to amaze me that we accept advertising of alcohol at sports events, on prime time TV, everywhere - inviting people to drink. So kids think to drink is cool and macho and 10% of them become its victims while others later succumb to liver and other diseases. The cost to society is enormous.
We banned cigarette advertising on the basis that smoking kills. Well so does alcohol, and leaves countless others with life long disabilities, not the least being from road accidents. There should be warnings on every bottle and advertising should be severely curtailed.
Parents should also be more proactive in knowing where their kids are at night, and what they are doing. And above all they should not be giving alcohol to their kids in the home. We need to develop a culture that teaches the young that the stuff is best left alone. There should be more jugs of water on the family table and fewer bottles of wine and less drinking in front of the kids.
Alcohol was never a part of our church fellowship where a hundred teenagers used to gather every Friday night. Maybe we need to get them back to church as well, less gatherings in the Malls.
I do not feel that the decline in religious belief and church attendance has been a positive in the lives of our kids, quite the contrary.
But I know views differ on that.
Cheers
Aussies may become vegetarian so others can eat!
See here. With statistics like this, maybe we will all have to become vegetarians so others can just eat.
Details?
Paul Morrella, you are asking Phil Kendall (G'day) for clarification. Fair enough. However, I note that in your posts you have made statements without providing details so perhaps it is fair enough to ask for clarification from you.
So, here is a paragraph from your first post:
Perhaps you could inform us what these theories are and also provide some of those "reasonable answers". This would be of great help in clarifying what you understand of the situation in re Iraq and oil as a basis from which to develop further discussion.
On another point, in your second post you wrote:
I note that Phil in his post of 20/05 at 1.14pm - his response to your first post - wrote:
He seems to have already answered your question. Are you not aware of this oil law?
I look forward to your clarifications on these matters.
Oil theft?
Phil Kendall, I apologise if I have misrepresented you. I was doing some piecing together of my own - three of your posts. To stave off future confusion, I shall only reply to posts addressed to me.
Phil, you ask me to "exclude oil theft" as a motivation. It is not possible for me to comply with this request; at this time. I am confused about, and you do not make clear; whose motivations you are asking me to defend. This is the clarification I seek, and the reason for my original post. My impression is of a rather scatter-gun approach, taken by you, in relation to this topic. I would be most appreciative, if we could concentrate solely - on Iraq, and the question of oil theft.
Are you suggesting that a PSA (production sharing agreement) is definite proof of theft? If so; how do you come to this conclusion, and what specific PSA agreement are you referring too? Perhaps, you could refer to the agreement that you claim; expatriates 100% of profit?
Since, I have asked questions of you, it would be appropriate I answer the question asked of me. All seperate theories relating to this particular subject of oil theft, are mutually exclusive. They are mutually exclusive, because all propositions are very different. Throughout the stages of the proposition, all theories, at some stage, directly come into conflict. This cannot under circumstances lead to an identical outcome - that is; the perfect oil fraud - where all conspirators, have all their expectations quenched.
The answer to your other question: is that because of my career; this topic interests me. I am employed by a firm that completes contract work for a large company involved in Iraq (not Halliburton). My reality is very different to many others when it comes to this topic; it interests me to hear others perspectives on it. Blame it on Google.
Certainty - only death and taxes?
Subtitle: from doubting[1] to heresy[2].
-=*=-
G'day Paul Morrella, this is an opinion forum, as opposed to a Darlinghurst courtroom. However.
-=*=-
Paul paraphrases me: "the time for arguing the theft of Iraq's oil is over".
Me: My (short-handed) intention was, of course, to say that with the US-inspired 'oil law' being introduced into the Iraqi parliament (aka foist by the US upon their puppet), the penultimate step, i.e. the actual method of the coming oil-theft has now been established (i.e. privatisations, ultra-low taxes, 100% expatriation of profits, PSAs), so the time for arguing about oil-theft is over.
Paul: "Certainly, it is not over, if every person must accept this is as the unquestioned truth."
Me: People can argue till the cows come home; my point is that IMHO, any further argument is pointless. "...must accept ... unquestioned truth:" - I don't 'must' anyone, I just say 'use your eyes.'
Paul: "Not every person accepts this was the main intention of the war."
Me: 'Scuse? Did I say that oil theft "was the main intention of the war?" (My emphasis.)
Quite simply, where did your 'main' come from? I have recently used 'prime,' see snip below[3]. Are you arguing about what proportion is oil-theft? If so, then whadda'bout 'half-pregnant?' Are you saying, Paul, that there are circumstances where murder for oil is somehow justified? If so, I'd be pleased to hear your logic.
Paul: "I have found on closer examination that although it may appear this way, the theories are in fact mutually exclusive."
Me: 'Scuse? May we please know which 'mutually exclusive' theories you are talking about?
Paul: "I am very much a doubting Thomas about this subject."
Me: May I enquire, as to your purpose 'in here,' Paul?
(Me: Four looong years now going plus; circa 5% of all our lives.)
-=*=-
Chomsky:
[Noam Chomsky/It all comes down to control]
Chomsky again:
[Noam Chomsky/The Israel Lobby?]
Blum:
[William Blum/The biggest lie of all is never mentioned]
(Me: Four times now; three should'a been enough, no more arguing.)
Comment: Oil was never the 'only,' but it was never 'not.'
-=*=-
Conclusion: We've had all the excuses, from highest of exalted to foulest of criminal. What we do know is that they (B, B & H et al.) lied, and lots (mostly Iraqis, perhaps since '91 now millions) died. Recently we've had an attempt to classify the lies as noble, on the basis that they (i.e. the perps) know some compelling secret (what, in a democracy, in this internet age?) Oil theft will take place - unless the US is toadally® ejected from Iraq, or hell freezes over (actually more likely, the lid to come off; thanks, greedastrophe®.)
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] doubt —n. 1 uncertainty; undecided state of mind. 2 cynicism. 3 uncertain state. 4 lack of full proof or clear indication. —v. 1 feel uncertain or undecided about. 2 hesitate to believe. 3 call in question. in doubt open to question. no doubt certainly; probably; admittedly. without doubt (or a doubt) certainly. [Latin dubito hesitate] [POD]
[2] heresy n. (pl. -ies) 1 esp. RC Ch. religious belief or practice contrary to orthodox doctrine. 2 opinion contrary to what is normally accepted or maintained. [Greek hairesis choice] [ibid.]
[3] From my 'doing nothing is not an option ...' on April 29, 2007 - 2:54pm:
«Now, Angela quoted from Bob's citing of Liu. This is an important 'find,' here's The Complete Henry C K Liu. (A certain 'noter' may also be interested in this: "the so-called Enlightenment was a European phenomenon whose brilliance is questionable", from The Abduction of Modernization. It's not the article so much as the snip; then citing the Enlightenment idea "and their desire to see practical change to combat inequality and injustice" as a justification for the invasion of Iraq is simply risible, given the impossibility of excluding oil-theft as one, if not the, prime motivation.)»
As an exercise, Paul, perhaps you'd like to try 'excluding oil-theft as one, if not the, prime motivation,' hmmm?
Not all things are always as they may seem
Phil Kendall you said, and I paraphrase: "the time for arguing the theft of Iraq's oil is over". Certainly, it is not over, if every person must accept this is as the unquestioned truth. Not every person accepts this was the main intention of the war. I am very much a doubting Thomas about this subject. Nothing in the numerous articles I have read; has alleviated my doubts.
Numerous theories and questions abound regarding the theft of Iraq's oil - some of those questions justified. It is equally true to say; many reasonable answers to those questions are to be found for those interested in delving. Many of the theories out there overlap, and this may give the impression of making a water-tight case.
I have found on closer examination that although it may appear this way, the theories are in fact mutually exclusive. Numerous theories pieced together, does not necessarily make for indisputable evidence of an intentional and planned misdeed.
Craig R: Welcome to Webdiary, Paul.
Do not adjust your mind; reality is at fault
Subtitle: What, me worry?
-=*=-
A theory; ... pretty insidious, and I think that I have an 'answer' as to the 'why' of the false-thinkers (sometimes better: non-thinkers); they fall for ploys designed just for them (and 'their ilk' target groups). Nothing really insightful; we know that the 'fat-cat think-tanks' have been beavering away, and that they pack all sorts of stuff into TV (yeah; my own same-old same-old.) I came upon this with the torture meme; a purportedly fictitious (no spell-checker likes 'fictitional?') TV-drama has a suspect who 'knows,' a bomb about to go off, and the 'goodies' triumph by torture. Sooo, it's obviously OK in the 'real world' too, since the sheople® won't - or worse, can't - discriminate. Trivial? When explained, yes. These people (the kleptocracy® truth/sheople manipulators) may be the ultimate pragmatists; they know what they want and develop multiple strategies for getting it.
Too simple? Dunno. What started me off? This in theAus:
[theAus/opinion]
The writer concludes an associated piece with: "Perhaps it makes Hamilton happy to sit in his office pondering how to make me happier by stopping me from consuming. But what makes me happy is to take my kids to laugh our heads off through the new Pixar movie, stop in at Time Zone to bust some moves in a video dance-off and put in an order for the new Harry Potter before wolfing down a Happy Meal."
Me: Look at the language, and the doing. All scripted in Hollywood.
My point, Q: Does it matter to this person that Iraqis are being murdered? A: Doesn't look like it.
-=*end part one*=-
PS what is sooo distasteful in the particular case above is that the writer claims to be a "former NSW Labor staff member." As if theAus is saying "See? How even bad Labor people may ultimately see the 'right' light!" Such surreptitious and filthy propaganda, and it comes as an avalanche from everywhere incl. the AusBC & SBS.
Intermezzo:
A short introspection followed over how the false-thinkers (sometimes better: non-thinkers) react or defend; one assumes that they (like most, one assumes) are convinced of their own correctness, then a good defence can be to go on the offence. And so we can see, also 'in here,' some strange arguments appearing. Why that? Dunno. Desperation? Nothing to lose? Nah, just hides like Elephants (plus the 'birds of a feather' effect. Ooops! Flying Elephants!!?)
-=*part two*=-
"I can see clearly now, the rain..."
Subtitle: WYSIWYG: Elephants.
-=*=-
My expression is 'pushed-paradigm propaganda;' partial truths are 'sold' to the sheople to push a largely hidden - mostly greedy when not criminal - agenda, an agenda usually based on rip-offs if not outright theft - and as we all ort'a know by now, not even shrinking from murder.
-=*=-
A short list of Elephants.
Iraq (no surprise). The myth: "Democracy, freedom!" The truth: "Murder for oil."
Afghanistan. The myth: "Terrorism, al-Qaeda!" The truth: "Murder for oil pipeline, Opium/heroin."
Interest rates. The myth: "Low is good!" The truth: "Record indebtedness."
House prices. The myth: "High is good!" The truth: "Many permanently priced out."
Economic management. The myth: "Coalition good!" The truth: "Costello created the exact circumstance (½ CGT) for humungous house price inflation."
Telstra. The myth: "Privatisation is good!" The truth: "Naked monopoly practices; consumers ripped off."
Medicine. The myth: "Privatisation is good!" The truth: "Health for profit; lots'a sheople out in the cold."
Qantas takeover (failed). The myth: "Efficiency!" The truth: "Privatisation of profit; the sheople would'a lost the tax income."
Tax 'cuts.' The myth: "Bewdy!" The truth: "Der. It's your dough they're not even giving back, just taking slightly less than planned - and all the time actually taking (much!) more than before. Der, indeed!"
There's a loong list, consider getting your own 'lie-detector.'
One 'lucky' last. The myth: "Truth, justice and the American way!" The truth: "See 'der' above; they lied us into an illegal war, they're mass-murdering Iraqis to steal oil - needed for their alternately over-heated/over-cooled McMansions, with gas-guzzling SUVs/4WDs out the front."
All this with the greedastrophe® getting ever-more unavoidable.
My suggestion: "Get real!" (Accursed, detested Ameri-speak; spit! Spit!)
On the blind critiquing of 'Bastard Boys'
Subtitle: The 'pushed paradigm' propaganda of asserting left-wing bias in 'our' AusBC.
[theAus/opinion]I can give a much easier (i.e. even more brainless) way of rating the AusBC and/or "Bastard Boys" as being biased (also without seeing it), see [1].
This is absolutely par for the right-whinger course!
(It's just sooo simple, that even a fool can do it! And lots do.)
First, assert an indelible, ineradicably left-wing-biased AusBC, then:
a) If the AusBC says something 'nice' about the ALP, shriek "See! Tol'ja! Left-wing bias!"
b) If the AusBC says something 'nasty' about the ALP, shriek "Probably only the half! Less, even! Left-wing bias, see?"
c) If the AusBC says something 'nasty' about the Libs, shriek "Oooh! Can't be true! Not! Nasty left-wing bias!"
d) If the AusBC says something 'nice' about the Libs, shriek "Must be doubly true! In spite of their left-wing bias!"
Comment: Funny, but I thought that propaganda had a bad name, at least from those darkest of days courtesy of Goebbels&Co. Also, that in a properly functioning democracy, the sheople are sovereign? That would require that we the sheople® should be completely and accurately informed, as opposed to propagandised? Sadly of course, not so. Boo! Hiss! (What ever happened to those high ideals, eh?)
Well, the right-whingers only smirk. Quite obviously, they're getting something (just that little bit extra, eh?) out'a the current system (and yes of course that's corrupt, also par for the course) - so it actually pays them to propagandise us. Just another way of cheating, another way of ripping-off; in one word: filth!
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] Cut & paste: Aunty unloads a shipload of bias on the waterfront
14 May 2007
Deputy Sheriff supporting drug lords!
See here.
US policy in Afghanistan has replaced the Taliban with Drug Lords; our troops are putting their lives on the line, to keep these people in power. It’s time we pulled the blinkers from our eyes and realized our actions in these distant countries are often causing more harm than good. We are not the world’s deputy sheriff it is up to the Iraqis and Afghanistan’s to solve their internal problems. The West has been meddling in these countries for centuries without success.
War coverage
Phil, Interesting to note that according to some studies the MSM coverage prior to the war seem to have created more apprehension about the war and created more positive impressions about Iraq.
Benchmarking Solomon
Subtitle: slowly, slowly...
-=*=-
First, thanks and g'day to Andrew OConnell; your mention of Cheney will be extended below.
Then on to Solomon Wakeling, and thanks for the 'murder for oil' serve. To avoid any chance of mist-communication®, I will tend to 'better safe than sorry' and try to spell things out clearly, in an attempt to avoid any charge of innuendo[1], say. Or cleverly veiled slights. OK?
Solomon, in your 'Blood and oil' you mention figures, many of which are dated. Well, I dug around a bit, and found this in something I submitted on or around 15Jul'04:
«Profits? What profits?
[James A. Paul/The Iraq Oil Bonanza: Estimating Future Profits]»
I think US$9trio looks a bit low by modern standards; and everyone points out that any such figure is based on 'proven/unproven reserves,' which may be vastly underestimated. So I looked for an update, and Ta ra! I found the same article as Andrew linked to over on globalpolicy.org, which also turns out to be the same as one Bob Wall (g'day) linked to too. Small world; but thanks both to Andrew and Bob, clearly their hearts are in the right place.
Your argument is looking a bit thin, Solomon. If we estimate the total eventual cost of the war (to the US), we see figures as high as US$2trio, but the estimates on possible Iraqi-oil-theft profits also 'blow out' to something in the region of US$16.2trio (suspected reserves). Still, business is business, eh?
But also still, that (the figures) are not all that's wrong with your argument, Solomon. I've heard a few reasons as why it couldn't be oil, like the 'conspiracy' theory which goes something like: "If it was oil they didn't say so, so that's a conspiracy theory - and we don't 'do' conspiracies - because they tell us don't be so ridiculous!" (The telling being done via the MSM. Ooops! - but that won't be the only ooops.) Another one runs "It can't be the oil because they denied that oil was the reason!" (The denying being done via the MSM.)
If we summarise your argument, Solomon, we get something like this: "It can't be the oil money, because there's not enough oil money there to be had!"
Solomon, does your argument fit this?
["Straight and crooked thinking," Robert H. Thouless.]
I'm sure that anyone could find plenty of neoCon quotes saying "It wasn't the oil;" Here's one from "trust me! Tony" (quoted from again below) "in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues." But we know now that Tony lies, as do each of B, B & H. What about something that corresponds more to reality? Well, here:
[(Andrew,Bob)Michael Schwartz/The Struggle over Iraqi Oil]
Or here:
[TheInd/Future of Iraq: The Spoils of War]
The oil law is being forced on Iraq by the US; it is called a 'benchmark' which Iraq must meet, so that the US will (continue!) being nice to Iraq. Haw! All this stuff is transmitted to us via the MSM, in its propaganda-conduit when not amplifier-mode (which is an important point, Solomon; the venal and corrupt MSM. You wanna work there?) What sort'a viewpoint does one need to so distort the truth, eh? Wanna try again, Solomon? On the other hand, perhaps you better don't bother. In a post to Ian MacDougall et al. (noted!) I said that the time for arguing any of this is over; and so it is. All we can do now is observe the filthy, murdering criminals in action.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] innuendo n. (pl. -es or -s) allusive remark or hint, usu. disparaging or with a double meaning. [Latin, = by nodding at: related to *in-2, nuo nod] [POD]
I use the Oxford; reminds me of a time once when it was 'dictionaries at ten paces,' hers a Webster's. Long story short; she put a lot'a lovely 'English' on the expression 'horizontal dictionary.' Delicious!
What Price Slaughter ?
Posted because it should be read by all ! ... Comment/s anyone ?
What Price Slaughter?
by Tom EngelhardtWhat value has a human life? We usually think of this in terms of sentiment — of memories, grief, love, longing, of everything, in short, that is too deep and valuable to put a price upon. Then again, is anything in our world truly priceless?
As anyone who has ever taken out a life insurance policy knows, we humans are quite capable of putting a price on life — and death. In her book Pricing the Priceless Child, Viviana Zelizer reminds us that, starting in the 1870s in the U.S., in that era before child labor laws, the business of insuring working-class children, who were then quite valuable to poor families, achieved enormous success. For a few pennies a week, ten dollars in all, you could, for instance, insure your one year-old against the future loss to the family of his or her earning power.
The courts weighed in, assessing the literal value of an earning child to a family. In those days, poor urban children died regularly in staggering numbers under horse’s hooves, the wheels of street cars, and trains. In an 1893 editorial, the New York Times referred to this as “child slaughter,” and juries reacted accordingly. When Ettie Pressman, just seven years old, died under a team of horses in 1893, while crossing New York’s Ludlow Street with her nine year-old sister, a court granted her father $1,000 to compensate him for “his daughter’s services and earnings.” (”Yes,” her father testified, with “what I earn and what the children earn used together we have enough. They earn three dollars each week.”)
Richard: Simon I've cut the piece short for copyright reasons. People will follow the link if they want to read the rest.Blood and oil
Phil/Andrew, Iraqi oil is not even expected to pay for the Iraq war.
If the war was designed for profit and spoils this was grossly misguided. Rosen puts the figure at $320 billion dollars, in May 2006. It is not being funded by tax increases but rather by deficit spending. The US budget is something like $354 billion dollars in deficit this time last year.
The war is unpopular on the domestic front and there is little chance of any resolution to the violence or creation of order or stability for the Iraqi people. I think it is being fought not for profit but rather out of a mix of idealism, revenge and stubborness.
Murder for Oil
Phil K (G'day) here is an excellent summary of the venal Bush administration's strategy for stealing Iraq's oil (with the Iraqi population nothing but collateral damage) for their criminal corporate cronies. It may not tell you anything you don't already know, but it lays it all out neatly.
Cheney's recent visit to heavy the Iraq parliament is one of their final plays - the purpose to demand that they pass the oil law handing over control and profits to foreign corporations.
However...
dialectic Mk2_1891
SW: I give my imprimatur to the free market of ideas,
PK: We are not talking about 'ideas,' rather truth vs. lies; whether what is dispensed (MSM) is an accurate image of reality - or not.
SW: as a necessary part of our national security function.
PK: any mention of 'national security function' is a total furphy.
SW: Consider what would happen to individuals if they found that their beliefs were not reflected in the MSM, or in an easily accessible place. How would you respond to such a world?
PK: We are not talking about 'beliefs,' rather truth vs. lies; whether what is dispensed (MSM) is an accurate image of reality - or not.
SW: In an era where you can watch Al Jazeera on pay television (or Al Qaeda on Youtube) I think criticisms of a lack of media diversity are absurd.
PK: I said nothing about diversity.
SW: The "war for oil" argument was one that spread like wild-fire post 9/11 and I am content for you to accept it,
PK: Prove it's not murder for oil.
SW: along with your Zionofascist conspiracy theories, or whatever it is you were sprouting on the Hicks thread.
PK: I said nothing of any conspiracy. Prove USrael is not murdering for spoil.
SW: The world in which you inhabit appears to be one of fundamental charades at all levels, by all the world's most influential actors, all the time. I accept this a legitimate response to the world in which a studied insincerity is the norm and which truthfulness is trumped by the demands of the market, or worse, the demands of rank self-interest. I am simply less horrified by such a world, accepting people as they are, rather than as I think they ought to be. I don't feel a need to evangelise my convictions (in truth, I don't share your convictions) but am content to muse, with as much sincerity as I can muster, about my own experience.
PK: WYSIWYG. Did B, B & H lie? What 'market?' How does 'murdering for spoil' connect to any market: "I don't care if it's yours - gimme!"
PK: I have no 'self-interest' in here, apart from as a seeker of truth.
1984
Phil Kendall, I give my imprimatur to the free market of ideas, as a necessary part of our national security function. Consider what would happen to individuals if they found that their beliefs were not reflected in the MSM, or in an easily accessible place. How would you respond to such a world?
In an era where you can watch Al Jazeera on pay television (or Al Qaeda on Youtube) I think criticisms of a lack of media diversity are absurd. The "war for oil" argument was one that spread like wild-fire post 9/11 and I am content for you to accept it, along with your Zionofascist conspiracy theories, or whatever it is you were sprouting on the Hicks thread.
The world in which you inhabit appears to be one of fundamental charades at all levels, by all the world's most influential actors, all the time. I accept this a legitimate response to the world in which a studied insincerity is the norm and which truthfulness is trumped by the demands of the market, or worse, the demands of rank self-interest. I am simply less horrified by such a world, accepting people as they are, rather than as I think they ought to be. I don't feel a need to evangelise my convictions (in truth, I don't share your convictions) but am content to muse, with as much sincerity as I can muster, about my own experience.
Indeed Malcolm - What are we?
We are a nation that is being exploited, to the extreme, by a Corporation's government depending on a debt laden false economy.
The debt laden false economy of the Howard "New Order" is not too hard to understand when you consider that, with the complicity of the Banks; lending institutions and loan sharks, the American style of a plastic card economy has become a fact in Australia.
The point is that it is a "cashless" economy and, as such, is unsustainable, as I understand it.
The Howard "New Order" has allowed enormous borrowing from overseas which has created Howard's "GOVERNMENT foreign debt" of $520,000,000,000 and rising at $50,000,000,000 a year.
What does that mean to our "back pocket"? So many wise economists are now voicing their concerns that WHEN, not IF, the crash comes, the people who will suffer the most are the Australian middle to low income earners of this once "Lucky Country".
As John Pratt wisely advises - get out of debt now.
So, Howard's "New Order" will yet again, go to the polls on their "economic record"! Fair dinkum.
The scam of the Karl Rove theories seems to be: hit the voters with so many diversions, wedges and rascist conundrums and they will be too busy to see the "rotten trees for rest of the forest".
All Australians are, with varying degrees, feeling the "pinch" of this government of depraved indifference. But Howard's taxpayer funded Media "comments" tells you that "you have never had it so good". Struth.
It seems to me that the foreign "investors" in our Nation, are merely exploiting the "garage sale" of our country's assets.
Why would any democratic government want to intentionally divide a Nation into two opposing forces? One with all the wealth and the power that it brings with it and - another group which is denied organised representation, so that the 12 million middle to low income employees are treated as 12 million defendants by their prosecuting employers.
If a significant number of our people believe in the "New Order" theories of "stuff you Jack I'm inboard" - please remember that the Hitler "New Order" started by concentrating hatred on a perceived enemy (Jews) [and with Howard the Muslims] and then increased until it covered everybody - even the U.S. clowns who built the Krupps Ammunition works.
But, that was just "business".
Then we have to ask ourselves - to WHO does Australia belong?
When we reach a situation (and we have) where foreign mining and "private equity" monopolies - with media moguls, dictate the way that our Nation will be governed - where is the democracy?
The "ravenous cancer" created by the Howard "New Order" cannot be satisfied, nor sustained with just the current "working poor".
Let us not be taken in by the theory of the man who fell from the 30th floor of a building and - as he passed the 15th - he thought -so far so good!
The bottom line is - "never ever" believe anything that the Howard "New Order" promises - core - non-core - changing circumstances - or rock solid and iron clad.
Just remember that the obvious "pork barrelling" of this government of deprave indifference would have more effect if we refused it - but then - will it ever happen?
NE OUBLIE.
thank you Solomon ...
.. but I do not regard myself as being confused at all, and certainly not about any demarcation between facts and opinion (your words). Suffice it to say (your communications studies notwithstanding), you leave me none the wiser. Are we surprised? Haw! And of course by your default, you give your imprimatur (whatever that may be worth) to our current MSM/AusBC mess. Haw again!