Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Quite so Alison Jobling, quite so!

Or in my case: too many interesing books, too many threads, so few decent reds.

Justin Obodie: "As I write this I am listening to the Business Report on SBS. It is all based on the American scene. I have just learnt that the US Census Bureau reports that another 1.1 million Americans slipped into living in poverty this year".

I would like to know how poverty is measured? Is the poverty the "1.1 million Americans have slipped into living" the same as the poverty millions of Africans face everyday?

Hypothetically if we take the the lowest earning 30% of the Australian population and call it "living in poverty" the numbers can only move with increases or decreases in population. Rising overall standards of living will have nil effect.

It would in fact be possible for America's people to be "living in poverty" in their own nation but yet be amongst the worlds richest 30%. Always be skeptical because as you no doubt are aware statistics can be presented in many different ways.

Unless a clear definition of what rates as poverty and how the measurement of it is obtained it is merely more meaningless statics and jargon to be added to the campfire.

Malcolm, we can leave helping ladies across the street to boy (and girl) scouts. According to Alison there are plenty of people out doing the anti-globalisation grunt work and good luck to them. It's a sub-culture, it's not going to go anywhere and it's likely to grow, in response to increasing corporatisation of daily life.

There are two solutions to this that I can see. The first is to teach the big-boy globalists something about humanity, which you can do if you strike a big enough electoral nerve. It can't be done by disseminating Chomsky to Howard's battlers. You've got to talk to people on their own terms and play the game properly.

The second solution is to find a way to give bleeding heart talent like Margo the resources she needs to do the kind of work she needs to do. First I think she needs permission from her support base to go out and be a greedy capitalist, cut-throat, neo-leftie, corporate woman.

In the hopes of silencing some of my critics, I feel the need to gratuitously point out that this was the conclusion I was working towards in my own thread. Craig, as usual, made the most constructive criticism and told me that the corporate world will seek to "incorporate or crush" individuality in favour of a myopic world-view. I'm quite certain he is right, however, I also believe that such myopic folk are poor businessmen at heart. An example is the way Fairfax managed to alienate one of their best journalists and couldn't keep a hold of her.

Margo, is brimming with talent and she's managed to get herself only a phone call away from some of the big-boys and girls in this country. I think the connections are there, it's just a question of generating the wealth. This is a woman that voted for both John Howard and John Hewson. She isn't a leftie, as far as I can ascertain. Note the way she plucks out right-wing folk as her favourites. She picks Noelene, despite the relative laziness of her posts compared to the long-suffering and more analytical Webdiary leftists.

Michael Park, thanks for the link to Democracy Now. Will read the article later on, and maybe even report back, after chasing down some other ideas.

Thankfully my brother has contacted family and is OK. Don't think he has a home to go to anymore, but at least he - and the hounds - are OK, which is more important.

Anyone here used the Political Compass? It's a thought provoking take on the inadequacies of left-right, and indeed other simplistic labels like "neocon".

Might be useful to contextualise our debate. I'll out myself as +2 on Economic Left/Right and -4.75 on Authoritarian/Libertarian.

That makes me a secular humanist economic rationalist I believe...

GE Caroline: We went through Political Compass love-in about a year ago, David... A number of Diarists posted their profiles here.

David , Political Compass lumped me in with Ghandi and the Dalai Lama. It was depressing since I was trying to aim for a centre right position, to make a point.

Solomon Wakeling, Oh please. Darl, you poor love. Come on, I need a giggle. Please point out anywhere where "the relative laziness of [my] posts compared to the "long-suffering and more analytical Webdiary leftists."

Honey, the "leftists" I have met on Webdiary are definitely insufferable, but they are anything but analytical. More like a motley crew of op-ed page "intellectuals" who talk a good game, when the game they choose to play is "polemicist ping-pong."

Polemicist ping-pong is a thoroughly tedious game where The Usual Suspects respond to one's argument by hitting you with a "You should read Chomsky, Pilger, Fisk, Robert Manne, Anne Summers" or some other low-rent op-ed page circus performer, before pushing "PLAY" on their revolving CD of "Amerikkka sucks," "Howard is a racist," "Paul Keating still runs the economy," "The High Court said Howard is a war criminal," "Elvis Presley was an arch-neoconservative."

Please.

For convenience I re-post what I'd posted on the thread Kerri kindly provided a link to:

*

I was first prompted to complete the politcalcompass by Antony Loewenstein's Counterspin blog earlier this year. I recall that at that time I scored somewhere in the vicinty of - wait for it - His Holiness The Dalai Lama. I've completed the questionnaire again tonight and obtained a similar result.

Yet whilst I do admire the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize recepient, I have disagreed with some of the things the spiritual and temporal leader of the Tibetan people has said. I also don't think His Holiness would have voted the same way as I have over the years in the seats of Parramatta, North Sydney, Higgins and more recently Gellibrand.

To be fair the authors of politicalcompass point out that I may not actually be on the same political wavelength as the world's most important monk. Indeed it is only the view of a diverse professional team that assessed the words and actions of globally known figures to give us an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.

To my mind the compass test is OK at measuring a general tendency or temperament and I believe that whilst many of us may generate similar scores, we will still discover diffences to be discussed and explored through thoughtful conversation.

Reverting to type now I'll sign off for another day with a quote from Ghandi I'd used in the conversation started by Robert Bosler about our need to recognise we are each a blend of types:

"Civilization is the encouragement of differences. Civilization thus becomes a synonym of democracy."

*

Solomon as you can see we are "same but different".

Is anyone able to articulate exactly what Noelene's last post contibuted to the debate?

This person's propensity for derision, epithet, condecesion, dismissal of any source not of her view and rank irrelevance knows no bounds. All this whilst failing to address an issue, respond to other posts or answer questions.

Why are such posts published?

Craig: Michael I can't speak for the other editors without first asking them, but as for why I click 'Publish' on Noelene's posts I can say it is because I hope that one day Noelene will drop that propensity you've observed. By the way, my father called the other week and pretended to be Noelene's lawyer telling me to lay off persistently asking Noelene to answer questions. I couldn't believe it, my father reading Webdiary that is, and I thought if it wasn't for Noelene my father and I wouldn't have had as interesting a conversation that evening.

Jay White I take your point about statistics, what is it ? lies damn lies and statistics and I also take your point regarding the definition of poverty however this link to the US Census Bureau will give you the definitions of poverty thresholds in America for the 2004 year. It also provides links to the thresholds for previous years to 1985. You will find that a four person household in 2004 with an annual income of $19,484 ($374.69 per week) or less is considered to be living in poverty.

I will also add that the poverty rate in America has risen for the last four years. You can do your own research on that but I very much doubt you will be able to refute this fact based on the above definition. In 2003 by definition there were 12.5% of the US population living in poverty. Last year there were 12.8% of the population living in poverty.

I think the most important point here is that if globalisation is such a good thing and is supposed to raise living standards across the board as some American rich guy said on TV last night well where is the evidence to support this 5 second sound bight? Maybe you would be kind enough to supply such evidence Jay. I’m sure the Corporate Mafia of America would love to privatise the US Census Bureau and provide a more favourable set of figures however until that occurs we will have to do with the figures provided by what appears to be uncorrupted census data.

Having said that Jay I will stick to my earlier assumption (based on fact) that globalisation produces winners and an increasing number of losers. At the moment it would appear both of us are doing quite well under globalisation and feel it is a good thing. Personally it leaves a sour taste in my mouth knowing I live this comfortable lifestyle at the expense of other human beings.

I will also say (again) that sooner or later you (or your children) will also be losers. How you prepare yourself is your business, but somehow I feel if we work together on this one then we will be in better shape to mitigate the greedy and dishonest agendas of those powerful, cynical and compassionless bastards who will total f**ck this planet; if we let them. After all is that not what Craig Rowley & Margo and others are trying to get into our heads? Together we have a future for our children, divided we are f**cked.

PS, Jay maybe you would like to research the poverty thresholds in Australia and let me know if your family could survive with that income without cheating the taxation or social security laws. In other words could you survive on about $400 per week and do it legally? I will be most interested in your reply.

Noelene, doll-face, I'm still on your side here. Alright maybe "analytical" is the wrong word but they sure say a whole lot. It is actually difficult to find anywhere where anyone has said anything except "[Somebody else] says..and I agree", on this thread. Ian Mcpherson has an original take when he says that it's just not sustainable because of peak oil, but I've already been down that road and it's a dead-end.

Solomon Wakeling, I did the political compass thing too. The first time good Justin answered the questions and I ended up near Ghandi & the Dalai Lama just as you did. I did it again and got bad Justin to answer the questions and ended up along side Hitler. Maybe you should do the same and split the difference;-)

PS, how is your chess game going with Malcolm?

My father would have thoroughly enjoyed this were his last few years not debilitated by Alzheimer's Craig (can't say he'd pretend to be Noelene's lawyer though). Can't hold even a one way "conversation" with him now – we buried him last Friday week.

Have many conversations Craig - interesting or less so - keep having them.

Craig: Sage advice. Thank you. I will. My sincere sympathy to you, all your father's family and friends.

Justin, I'd like to say our chess game is a deadly game of cat & mouse but in reality I have no idea. I'm a reckless chess player. I tend to sacrifice too many pieces, too soon, and make snap-decisions before I know quite what I'm doing. Sometimes it works out beautifully, other times it creates some glorious failures. It's the best way to lose, anyway.

Solomon I have often dreamed of being able to play chess yet I am yet to win a bloody game. Maybe the important thing is to choose your opposition carefully. I suspect I would be no match for you let alone a wily scotsman.

David Eastwood, if left, right and neocon are simplistic, I’m left wondering what that Political Compass thing must be. A right waste of time, I’d say. Trying to prove that useful everyday terms are simplistic by proving itself to be stupid is pretty dumb.

It placed me somewhere between the Dalai Lama and Ghandi too. And I would as soon support George Dubbya’s simplistic “With us or against us” as I would equate civilisation with democracy.

If you feel like wasting a little time on something intriguing—its owners reckon it’s an experiment in artificial intelligence—Google up 20 Questions.

Back to the subject, a little sidebar to Joe Stiglitz: "The Globaliser Who Came In From the Cold" by Greg Palast.

He's (Stiglitz) been mentioned before in the thread, but this is a neat summary of the World Bank's (and IMF) four step "recovery programme" and "Country Assistance Strategy."

A quick summary:

"Step one is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, ‘Briberization.’ Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank’s demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

"After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is ‘Capital Market Liberalization.’ In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the 'Hot Money' cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.

"Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, ‘The IMF riot.’ The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up.'

"Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture."

Intriguing that much of the above is also in Craig's "Forbes list" earlier in the thread. Much (if not all) of the above is also contained in Bremer's 100 "non-negotiable orders" for the Iraqi economy. Iraqi ethno-religious groups are busily arguing over the earnings from said economy (among other matters). How much will they really see of it?

Craig: Guess what? Mr Stiglitz is in Sydney to talk to a few people, they are in our Opera House right now perhaps.

Craig: "Guess what? Mr Stiglitz is in Sydney to talk to a few people, they are in our Opera House right now perhaps."

Back in the fold is he? Or is the one somewhat dissenting voice that provides "balance"?

Possibly he's globalisation's "David Hicks" and has been detained within this forum for some years?

Ahhh - Political Compass got an airing during the BLANK period. Bill Avent thanks for the constructive comment.

Some other well-known Jewish neocons: George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Francis Fukuyama, George Soros*...

*Jewish, but definitely not a neocon.

Justin Obodie thanks for the reply. The link you have provided certainly does seem to be a reasonable way of measuring financial poverty.

First point is that $19484 US is $25930 AUS for comparison with Australia.

"I think the most important point here is that if globalisation is such a good thing and is supposed to raise living standards across the board as some American rich guy said on TV last night well where is the evidence to support this 5 second sound bight?"

The best way would be to compare the figures against nations that do not support globalisation such as Cuba and North Korea along with a few others.

"I will also add that the poverty rate in America has risen for the last four years. You can do your own research on that but I very much doubt you will be able to refute this fact based on the above definition. In 2003 by definition there were 12.5% of the US population living in poverty. Last year there were 12.8% of the population living in poverty".

Does the increase take into account people living in the nation for four years or less? It stands to reason that a person moving from a nation of poverty where the average income is less than the poverty threshold, will need a period of time to accumulate wealth.

"Having said that Jay I will stick to my earlier assumption (based on fact) that globalisation produces winners and an increasing number of losers".

Poverty in places such as Africa and Asia did not exist before globalisation? I suspect people in many of these areas living on under a dollar a day were not dancing in the streets. I also suspect that the on comming firestorm of globalisation was not their major concern.

"I will also say (again) that sooner or later you (or your children) will also be losers".

Why is that? I dont have a nice job of which I am afraid about losing out to a little competetion. I have been in business competeting against many of these things you call globalisation for a number of years now.

Along with the competetion I have also had to deal with backward looking rules and regulations, mountains of red tape, Government departments doing nothing more than justifying their existence and obscenely high and confusing tax scales. I survived and it made me a stronger person why should I expect anything less from my children?

PS, "Jay maybe you would like to research the poverty thresholds in Australia and let me know if your family could survive with that income without cheating the taxation or social security laws. In other words could you survive on about $400 per week and do it legally? I will be most interested in your reply".

At the moment I could not survive on less than $400 a week. I suppose I would be faced with the choice like so many others of either cutting down the spending or earning the money. Pretty simple really and you dont even recieve a medal for working it out.

Than again I pay full dump for everything, not a concession to be had. I also pay private health insurance after paying the medicare levy and enough tax to pay a few of those that $400 a week. All that and I still have not committed fraud yet. Guess what you dont recieve a medal for that either.

I am not here to tell you life is just peachy. It never has been and never will be. With or without the Greens and their cobbled together 16 year old student policies. Those that believe that should stick to selfhelp guides and get rich quick schemes.

Just for interest if people must commit fraud to survive on $400 a week how do people in the world go surviving on $400 a year? It must be a easy social securtiy system and tax system they cheat?

Michael Park, OK. You are right, I DO do all those things. I think it serves a very important role on Webdiary; it's called keeping you bastards honest. Communities like this will always run the risk of lapsing into back-slapping group therapy sessions, which is not healthy or enjoyable or challenging for anybody.

Also, this is not my only party trick. Some other members have had to pull their own finger nails out and concede that I also give great informed, researched and argued post as well. But you are correct, lately y'all have been subjected to far more honesty keeping than research and information; more heat than light as it were.

As I explained to Margo, hubby is O/S at the moment, uni essays are piling up, and one of the kids has got nits, ot "kooties" as I like to stir him, causing him to run around the house with his fingers in his ears screaming "la, la, la, la, I can't hear you!"

So, I haven't been able to steal enough time to respond soberly and at length to many of the threads. But enough other members have been hissing and fuming, so as of this afternoon, I shall start appearing on Webdiary in Librarian drag!

Craig Rowley. your revelations about your father have really spooked me! Are you for real? I really WILL clean my act then. On the other hand, if my shtick is a cause of Australia-wide familial reconciliation and harmony, perhaps I should dust off my "No More Ms. Nice Person" boilersuit and let her rip!

Solomon Wakeling, Oh, you ARE a honey. But it would be unfair if I showed favourtism and gave you a free pass, while I minister to cerebral indiscretions of others, wouldn't it now, sweetie? ;)

Michael Park and other 'Diarists may be interested in a Stiglitz opinion piece republished in the Financial Review today. His argument - what I think is from a alter-globalisation or altermondialisme position - is that the intellectual property regime should be re-examined by the globalists and that they should take a development-oriented perspective. TRIPs (from the Uraguay round) he says was a mistake - the trade negotiators were either unaware or uninterested in the consequences of what they were signing up for.

There are some interesting messages finding a way out of the private (publicly secured) Forbes performance at our Opera House. The Fin is reporting some of them.

It is just a shame that the 300 hundred (remember the other historical 300 hundreds!) are too fearful of us to talk freely amongst us. When I say us, by the way, I'm not sure myself whether it is all of us or just a few citizens who take protesting too far that they fear. It will be interesting to look back after the Forbes folk have jetted back home and see what we got for our money.

Oh, and Michael, that other poster seems to be doubting my honesty when I speak of my father (a bit hurtful given I know he reads this). I'm following your lead from another thread now in saying 'that other poster' I will publish but not engage with until things change.

Jay White, thank you kindly for your reply. I suppose when all is said and done we will simply have to wait and see what the future has in store for us. Regarding your other queries I will leave it up to you to do that research for yourself. If you wish to share it then I would be most grateful. Cheers mate.

Jay White and Justin Obodie, have a look at this link to OECD PPP stats from August 05. Pretty easy to come to a poverty threshold for Australia based on that - a rough estimate. I'm sure the ABS has their own version.

Sadly this data doesn't include the developing world to any meaningful extent, but if you look at the figures for the less developed OECD members, say the Eastern European ones, then you get some clues. Their cost of living is half ours.

Extrapolate to the third world and you get to the fundamental comparative advantage assumption that drives globalist thinking. $400 a week would probably feed a whole village in Bangladesh, whereas in Sydney it would just about feed the average Vaucluse feline.

David Koch on Sunrise Ch 7 this week called protestors at the Opera House "whingers". Others would presumably agree. Are they whinging about the whingers? He sounded very parental. Are protestors childish?

If there's no place to protest war, then is there ever a place for protesting anything? "Thou shalt not protest"?

I think we should only protest in emergencies, and war is an emergency. Otherwise we should invest our time in creating a wholesome society that doesn't create the need for protest.

"I'm following your lead from another thread now in saying 'that other poster' I will publish but not engage with until things change."

May well be the go Craig. Said poster just cannot seem to leave it out or - as the Poms would say - "leave off."

Possibly some form of 'linguistic masturbation' leading to 'premature articulation?

Can't recall who to attribute that last term to - was it Keating?

Noelene: "I DO do all those things. I think it serves a very important role on Webdiary; it's called keeping you bastards honest."

No it isn't. Rebuttal and constructive debate "keep the bastards honest." Posts such as the one I referred to are simply diatribes that serve to satisfy the childish "na,na-na-na-naa" thing you seem to carry around. The purpose it serves is all your own.

"I also give great informed, researched and argued post as well." That would be those liberally laced with such gems as:

"Also, there is no way on god's earth that you would ever be able to understand Victor Davis Hanson. He's a Classicist for christ's sake!"

"Damian Lataan - or He Who Is Terminally Deaf to the Posts of Others Who Know More Than He Does"

"On Chavez, you should also be told that it was the CIA who provided financing to right-wing Venezuelan trade union leaders in the Venezuelan oil industry."

And on that last, why should I "be told?" I raised the issue of Chavez and am well acquainted with story – having followed it since Bush came to power and began painting him as all things black. You presume too much.

And: "I haven't been able to steal enough time to respond soberly and at length to many of the threads."

Then don't until you do have the time.

Jay: "The signs of democracy are also beginning to be seen in other areas of the Middle East."

Egypt would of course be one of those "other areas" where democracy is beginning to be seen? You may wish to read Robert Kagan - hardly a "Fiskian," loony, left leaning Bush hater – writing for Carnegie Endowment on the upcoming exercise of "democracy" in Egypt:

She (Rice) went on to spell out some of those standards. Opposition groups 'must be free to assemble, and to participate, and to speak to the media. Voting should occur without violence or intimidation. And international election monitors and observers must have unrestricted access to do their jobs.' Most important, Rice took aim at the emergency laws under which Mubarak has ruled since 1981 and which he has used to harass, lock up and otherwise silence all opponents. "The day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees -- and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary justice.

"Perhaps Rice did not mean that the day must come in time for the approaching Egyptian elections.

"For as it happens, Mubarak has not suspended the emergency decrees. The 'rule of law,' therefore, will not be in place as Egyptian opposition figures attempt to compete in an electoral system that remains entirely stacked against them. As for Rice's explicit demand for election monitors and observers, Mubarak has rejected that, too. At the moment it appears that there will be no independent monitors of any kind, foreign or Egyptian. Nor is there a free media for opposition groups to speak to. As the Saban Center's Tamara Cofman Wittes noted in a recent report, 'Despite Egyptian government promises, a new law this spring confirmed that prison sentences can still be imposed for defamation, and other speech 'offenses', committed while covering a political campaign'.

Oh, dear. Doesn't really sound like Mubarak wants to suffer the outrageous "slings and arrows" of the demos just yet eh? Then there's this little gem of an observation: "So do Egypt's citizens really have what Rice called 'the freedom to choose' their rulers in this election? By her own 'objective standards,' the answer is no." Ouch!

Why set yourself (Rice, the US) up for a fall like this? Because it's always easier to talk these things up than actually implement them as Kagan notes. As well:

That's a risk, of course, (a win by the 'Islamist' Muslim Brotherhood) but if the Bush administration isn't willing to let Islamists, even radical Islamists, win votes in a fair election, then Bush officials should stop talking so much about democracy and go back to supporting the old dictatorships. It was precisely that kind of logic -- that friendly dictators are preferable to potentially radical alternatives -- that helped produce so much radicalism during the Cold War and, more recently, a healthy movement of Middle East terrorists. Bush supposedly has rejected that kind of logic. But if the decisive moment in Egypt passes without change, many will ask what, exactly, is new about the administration's approach."

One would the same approach as always. Deal with "dictators" that stay on the leash, not messy democracies where the outcome is not as predictable.

Jay White: you suggest comparison of the globalised world with nations that have rejected globalisation, such as Cuba and North Korea. This wouldn't be as simple as it sounds, since there are a huge number of variables defining globalisation, and you'd have to work out all of them, and whether or not they applied to the 'non-globalised' countries. Then there are a huge number of other variables which might also affect poverty rates etc. For instance, Cuba has been subject to very stringent economic sanctions by the US for forty-ish years, which has skewed things a bit.

The net result of all this is that making a meaningful comparison would be hellishly difficult. There may even be correlation, but that doesn't imply causation. A gorgeous illustration of this is that, apparently, global warming is caused by a decrease in pirates. See this Wikipedia entry for the proof, along with a lovely picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I've been dying to post this since I discovered it, and now I've got an excuse, albeit a feeble one. There's a glorious rendition of the Sistine Chapel, slightly amended, to show Man being "touched by his noodly appendage".

Another point to remember, Jay, is that poverty is not solely the province of the unemployed. The US has a burgeoning sub-class known as the "working poor". They hold down one job, or sometimes two, yet still can't make enough money to pay utilities, buy food, pay rent etc. This has something to do with industrial relations laws in that country: very low minimum wages, poor conditions, very little enforcement of what laws they do have etc. So your suggestion of getting a job to earn money wouldn't be much help to them.

Michael Park: You have my sympathy. A close relative of mine had Alzheimer’s, and it was heart-breaking.

Noelene: once more unto the breach... I'll trust Solomon for now, when he says that you're capable of more than you've demonstrated the last week or two. But I do have to correct you on one point: "keeping the bastards honest" means questioning assumptions, challenging logic, and otherwise ensuring healthy debate. It does not mean childish insults based on gross generalisations. If you're so short of time, then don't post.

And I'm still waiting for you to justify some of the claims you've made. Shouldn't be too hard, should it?

Justin, my wearily flapping friend, once again you're putting things into perspective. If we all could step back and consider the situation dispassionately (yet also compassionately), we might perhaps see that many of the changes convulsing our world might be better stopped, slowed, or reversed. Many people (including, sometimes, myself) spend too much time looking at the micro level, dealing with each issue separately, and simply responding to whatever their media presents to them.

Perhaps we should all step back and ask what we want our world to be like. I'm not talking a hippy, New Age, group hug kind of thing, but what general ends we wish to work towards. I for one would like to see an end to the arms trade that maximises human misery to profit a few, while using precious resources that might otherwise be used for people. I'd like to see us focus on people rather than economics, because as the original article says, economic action was not always given such pre-eminence in human affairs. I'd like to see some recognition that we live in a finite world and are fast squandering the natural wealth. Water shortages, overfishing, soil degradation, deforestation, are all evidence that we're consuming our natural capital, and we can't continue to do that. I can't remember who said it, but it's quite true that "anyone who believes in infinite growth in a finite world is either a fool or an economist" (apologies to sensible economists out there).

We could, after all, solve many of our current problems, if we wanted to. It would require some revolutionary changes, and some evolutionary ones, but it's possible.

Martin Gifford, I'd consider protestors childish if they weren't protesting about anything in particular. That may be the case down at the Opera House. It's important that protests happen, but I'm one who holds the view that protestors' agendas and motives must be transparent. A lot of the anti-globalisation protest I've seen over recent times flaunts this IMHO.

Thank you Alison. Such a thought from someone who has seen it and to whom I am not known is most kind.

I mentioned it only by virtue of of the fact that Craig had written about talking to his father. Such things are still striking certain nerves. I constantly wonder at those who refuse to speak with their parents.

In reality I hadn't been able to converse with him for near on two years. I'm beginning to think that's why I "converse" here so frequently!

Justin Obodie "thank you kindly for your reply. I suppose when all is said and done we will simply have to wait and see what the future has in store for us. Regarding your other queries I will leave it up to you to do that research for yourself. If you wish to share it then I would be most grateful. Cheers mate".

This sounds about right to me Justin. I guess we do not agree on globalisation however that is not to say we disagree on every single issue. I just can’t understand why people only see the bad side to what can be a great thing for Australia.

On the subject of research on Cuba and North Korea: I am finding it impossible to find any comparable research. I might leave these sorts of tasks to the skills of, say, a C Parsons.

Noelene, sweetie, you can minister to my indiscretions any time you want. ;) Hmm, sorry, this is getting a little Freudian. I don't know about you but being a university student nowadays means that people constantly throw information at me. Most of it is trash, so I have to duck and weave around it. Textbooks and course-work is often slapped together, as filler, so I have little sympathy for time-wasters or indulgences.

I remember last year I was getting slightly aggressive with some lecturers, which is not like me at all. There really isn't time for leisurely exploration of ideas, so you have to learn how to go for the jugular. It's not how I approached first year, at my peril, so I no longer feel like I have to justify being ruthless in the judgements I make about different sources. Experience or intuition aren't the best methods of evaluating sources, but it's quick and right more often than not, given how repetitive and puerile most academic work is. My policy is not to read anything unless I can quickly see some reason why I should.

It's frustrating, too, because I feel as if I'm not learning anything. I'm told by some that have deferred that once you're out you realise how much you were learning, so I'm hoping that it's just a matter of perspective.

Part 2 – the continuing conversation of JOHN and BRIAN
(Part 1 here)

A flash of light and a puff of smoke.
John reappears wearing a tuxedo.

BRIAN: Thanks for coming back, Mr Murray.
JOHN: Sorry I had to rush off , Brian. I had to attend a benefit dinner.
BRIAN: Whose benefit?
JOHN: Well Brian, the International Brotherhood of Bankers holds a bit of a bash each year to recognise the efforts of their senior staff. Nothing too flash, you know. We keep it under $1000 per head, plus the plane.
BRIAN: You hire an aeroplane?
JOHN: Of course. It’s much more economical to charter a jet if you’re taking 200 people to Paris.
BRIAN: (incredulous) Paris? Why did you have to go to Paris?
JOHN: Lots of sound financial reasons.
BRIAN: Such as?
JOHN: Mmmm…effective use of executive resources, optimal time management, networking, etc …plus the fact that John Travolta was already over there and was on very good terms with the maitre de. We had a great time.
BRIAN: (astounded) What was John Travolta doing there?
JOHN: I’m afraid we bankers are a rather conservative, traditional lot. John has a regular gig at our functions, belting out a few numbers from ‘Grease’ and ‘Saturday Night Fever’. It’s a hoot to see 200 fifty-somethings grooving (if I may use the term) to ‘Staying Alive’ There’s usually at least one cardiac arrest.
BRIAN: But couldn’t you have held your benefit dinner a bit closer to home?
JOHN: No, we’ve tried Bali and Singapore, but the customs people are so touchy there . It takes hours to get out of the airport. The cost of executive time wasted is prohibitive.
BRIAN: Wasted executive time? Flying to Paris. Dining in some posh hotel. Being entertained by John Travolta. The whole trip is a rort!
JOHN: Language, Brian, language… I must ask you not to use the R word in my presence.
BRIAN: Well, what would you call it?
JOHN: We have battalions of highly trained accountants to find appropriate descriptions for these kinds of miscellaneous expenses. For example, ‘consumables’, ‘staff development’, ‘benchmarking investigations’ and of course that old favourite ‘research and data analysis’.
BRIAN: But surely the auditors see through that, Mr Murray. After all, they are accountants too.
JOHN: Not a blip on their radar, Brian, not a blip.
BRIAN: But you have just admitted to spending at least two hundred thousand dollars on an all expenses paid trip to Paris for a slap up dinner.
JOHN: Yes, a trivial amount.
BRIAN: How can you say it’s trivial? It’s more than most people earn in a year!
JOHN: Brian, we are definitely not ‘most people’.
BRIAN: Obviously.
JOHN: It’s a trivial amount in the larger scheme of things. We have a turnover measured in billions. Our reported transactions are rounded down to the nearest million. Anything less than that doesn’t even rate a mention.
BRIAN: But how can you justify it to your shareholders?
JOHN: Most of them will never know. But to answer your question - globalisation. We are part of a global economy, Brian. We have to keep abreast of what’s happening elsewhere. Obviously ‘globalisation’ implies a bench-marked level of globe-trotting too.
(His mobile phone rings) Yes, nearly finished. OK.
Sorry, Brian, have to go, my wife’s waiting, we’re off to a conference in the Caribbean.
BRIAN: Jamaica?
JOHN: Brian, I will not be a part of your feeble attempt to recycle that old joke. Goodbye.
BRIAN: Thanks for your time.

Alison Jobling, I know that you are extremely busy dropping names and acting as though your job here is akin to a salesgirl in Angus & Robertson, but when you get a mo' I'm still very keen to hear your views on Benny Morris and Norman Finkelstein.

It would be particularly powerful to hear your views in light of your having read the 10 Chomsky books on your bookshelf. I am impressed. I don't think I have read 10 books by anybody; except if you count each of Shakespeare's works as an individual 'book.'

David Eastwood, but sometimes it's hard to be rational. I remember a friend's wife donged him over the head with a saucepan - pure emotional frustration and a valid form of feedback about his dry rationality. People can use rationality to divert the discussion rather than to make things clearer.

It's funny because simple violent emotional lashing out like war is masked in so-called legal justifications for war, whereas rational reasons for not going to war gets transformed into emotional lashing out because the pro-war people have established the rational agenda. If you argue rationally, then the debate becomes nitpicking over the logic.

So the best solution is to establish the agenda first. But once war is underway, emotional demonstration in numbers seems to be the only option.

Even people seeming to be out to stir things up are giving us feedback about our actions or the world we have created. If this was a good wholesome happy world, then people wouldn't be bothered protesting.

Noelene Konstandinitis. Given that your avowed mission as a participant in Webdiary discussion is to "keep [us] bastards honest", I am sure you will not object to a gentle reminder that you, too, are accountable. Have you finished your essay yet? When can I expect your detailed critique?

{light bulb in head lights up} So that's what you meant when you said I was dropping names, Noelene! I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were uncomfortable around people who read books. I'll try not to be so brazen in my erudition in future.

I've not read Finkelstein, and I've read only articles by Lewis. Now, how about producing evidence for your claim that Chomsky advocates the disbanding of Israel? And evidence for your as-yet-unsupported claim that Zionism is indistinguishable from the state of Israel?

Aijay Vandenberg: another nice skit. I particularly liked the bit at the end about not being drawn into that old joke.

Martin Gifford: I'm not sure that I'd agree that war is "simple violent lashing out". I think, with the Iraq war at least, it was a dispassionate exercise to gain profit in various ways. Although the architects of the war did have to whip the populace into a fury using the propaganda of fear and hate, if that's what you meant.

Noelene, the thing is, I like Angus & Robertson sales girls. If I were going to chat someone up, Brogden-style, I would never go to a nightclub/bar, since they are always so crowded and noisy it's almost as if they are designed to stop you from meeting people. I'd go to Angus & Robertson, find a sales girl, then ask to see her Chekhov. I don't see why Alison shouldn't recommend books, since I'd rather read the source material than someone else's regurgitation of it.

Alison Jobling, just as I've persuaded you to wake up and realise that I have never claimed that Chomsky called for "destruction" of Israel (after 2 weeks), you then turn around and say I claim that Zionism means the Israeli government! Lord, give me strength!

Darl, I will give you a considered response anon, as I am running around like a blue-assed fly at the moment.

Solomon Wakeling, I don't mind people recommending books either. But I'll be buggered if I'm going to go and buy books when I see no evidence that the recommender knows WHY I should.

Noelene, I think you're just a tough customer. I reckon you should go for some mills & boone. Sit in the uni cafe. Put on some lipstick. Let your hair down. Let all the little kiddies run around with their Chomsky and their Monbiot.

Craig, any chance you might collect your thoughts and further this topic in another thread? This issue is one that resonates with me, given my youth and all the decisions ahead of me. When I was younger I sought to avoid multi-national corporate work like Mcdonalds, etc, thinking that I would be better off seeking real-world exposure in unpaid voluntary work, etc, only to find that even in that area the only way to get anywhere is if you already have the skills/life experience to start with and that nobody really knows how to train you or has the time to spare. Just trying to crack a response out of some businesses was extremely difficult and I gave up on that plan, in lieu of learning some kind of skills in my degree, so that I would have something of use to bring out in to the world.

Craig: I have a draft piece pending titled - 'The Tempest', a storm in a teacup, and a hurricane bringing hell on earth - covering an explanation for the title of the last piece (which no-one seemed to pick up on), the blustering about tax cuts (perhaps a storm in the making) and the need to learn from hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (instead of bickering about which political party is most at fault).

Now that all my eggs are in the university basket, I'm in increasing despair at how little of real-world value I'm actually learning here and it makes me wonder why I bother at all. I am perfectly competent to do a lot of things, if I had the proper investment placed in me to start me off, but I couldn't simply walk in, knowing how to do all the kind of stuff that only comes with practical experience. From what I can gather, there seems to be a general expectation that people come pre-packaged, with ribbons tied around them, knowing how to solve someone else's problems for them. I've spoken to people that are nearing the end of their degree and they say they feel like they just haven't learnt anything. I know how they feel. It's not going to bother most, but it bothers me.

I'm in a quandary and it makes me wish that I'd played the game when I was younger, so that I'd at least have been able to establish myself in the world in some form, working in sales or something like that. There are a lot of stupid salesmen out there, I'm certain I could do a better job than most.

You know, what if I just allowed myself to be a cog in the big globalisation wheel. Right now I feel totally outside of it and it's almost as if the system is set up to block you getting inside, rather than to facilitate it. It's like falling off a ship, at first you try and swim back to it, hoping that someone will rescue you, but as it gets further away, you grow tired, stop struggling and then drown. I mean that almost literally; I often stand by a gorge, over-hanging a river, trying to think of a reason not to throw myself in to it. I've never found a reason and I'm still looking for one, though I always turn back home because I'm patient by nature and an optimist, even despite my despair.

I'd run away but there is simply nowhere to run away to. I'd just be hit with the same problems anywhere I went; That's global corporatisation. It has an inside circle and the closer you are to the centre, protected by your money and your friends, the safer you are. If you're on the outside of it, you simply can't be admitted, no matter where you go, unless you can prove in some way that you are of use. It's not too hard, for most, so long as you can keep the pace; If you fall of the edge of the world it becomes increasingly difficult, which is why we live in a country with both inter-generational welfare dependency and labour shortages.

If I ever make it on to the inside, I'm sure I'll be successful. The gross irresponsibility and inability of most people to think for themselves or make their own decisions, that I see in this world, would give me an intrinsic advantage that most don't have. I'm at the point now where I think: Why fight it? Why not simply aquiesce to the will of the big corporate machine world? Put on a ribbon. Walk and talk like a trained dog. No-one will notice or question me because they are doing the same, pretending they have some idea what is actually going on in the world - which is the other trouble, from watching those that have made the effort and plugged themselves comfortably in to the big structure, I see chronic shallowness coupled with chronic loneliness, due to time constraints and leisure time wasted on facile entertainment. It would be the fight of my life, for no reward.

If I put on a display of good-natured selfishness or ambition, which is what is required if you want to get by in this world or if society is going to function at all, then people try and drag me down, with their 'isms and their 'critiques'. Maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with the way the world is structured but most people's lives are too precarious now for them to risk trying to change anything, or even to think about it. I'm in as good a position to effect change as anyone else, however, I'm hair's breadth away from leaving everyone to their own devices. All the little bees seem to be about as happy as they are ever likely to be.

Craig: Solomon, please don't despair. The 'local' can be wonderful and needs good people to help it remain so in the face of the down side of some global changes. It really needs good people to help it make the most of the up side of global changes.

Craig , I'm not in total despair. I've been around long enough to know that it will simply pass. I'm waiting for the world to come to its senses, then I'll participate. I'm speaking more for others, who won't speak for themselves, than for myself. I wish I had taken some of my earlier insights to their natural conclusion when I was talking about Young Liberals, the pressures to perform and suicide and predicted a Brogden breakdown. No-one expected that, not even those close to him. He strikes me as someone that internalised his problems and kept them hidden. I think there are many more like him, not just in politics, but in every field.

I'm not like him; I make decisions in my own best interests. Few do, until circumstances force them in to it. I need to say this because whilst there are issues I want to raise, I don't want to cause concern about me personally, since that isn't why I'm saying it.

Re title; I figured the island nation was Australia and that the globalists were multi-national corporations. The title of your second piece raises more questions than it answers but I like it. Is it a reference to Shakespeare? I'm looking forward to it.

Craig: It is.

Craig, just a brief note to suggest that readers here - if they haven't already read John Ralston Saul's previous book, On Equilibrium - might like to check out a review of it I wrote at thenewhumanities.net as it has (many) lengthy quotes from same... so, the reader'll get a very good sense of exactly what Saul argues.

Solomon Wakeling, don't despair my sweet. If you have some money saved up or a credit card, go down to Calibre on Castlereagh Street or take a stroll up Oxford Street in Paddington. Buy yourself a divine black suit by Dolce & Gabbana or Prada, Calvin Klein, or perhaps Jasper Conran.

To complement a stunning black and masculine Italian, or perhaps American, suit you can't go wrong adding a twist of the dandy by teaming it with a french-cuffed shirt from either Thomas Pink or Richard James in London.

I'm not sure of your colouring or build, but I adore Pink shirts of black be-suited men. Simple Thomas Pink silk cufflinks will be fine, and of course a Richard James tie is always just the ticket. My husband regularly shops at both over the web. Delivery and after-service are impeccable.

OR you could give the dandy the flick if you are going tom-catting hoping to snare an Alison Jobling bookshop-girl type. You could get your hands on a well made T-Shirt replete with Lichenstein/Warholesque Pop Art print captioned "Foucault A-Go-Go" or one that I used to wear at uni, which gave my mother a pink fit one weekend when she fished it out of my bag to do my washing. It said, "Fuck Art. Let's Go Shopping!"

For the feet, in this weather, Gucci loafers are a no-brainer.

Ever so lightly aroma your ensemble with your scent of choice, jump on the Tangara, and charm your way into as many boudoirs from Marrickville to Leichardt you can manage.

This will lift your spirits immensely!

Ah Noelene, I don't know if I have it in me to dandify myself, though I'm willing to be convinced by a pretty face. When I first came to uni I had long, long hair and looked like a beatnik Kerouac creature after having tried, and failed, to abandon NSW altogether and run off with some half-crazy girl. I'm through with rebelling against the establishment. It would take a lot of effort to get me to come out of the wilderness and be a fop, but all the essentials are there. I'm a tall, scrawny (though that seems set to change, from here on in), smart and polite, law student. I'm a blank canvas, for a girl that would want to dress me up for presentation. I've got half a mind to let someone do their worst and leave abyss-gazing to the amateurs.