Suburban Scrawl

For years I have taken pleasure in semi hostile relations with far left political groups. This dates back to 1999, my first year at university, where I found the work so menial yet could not find part time work, so took to stirring up political extremists. The only political extremists at Griffith University Nathan campus were those of the far left. I subsequently found out the reason for this was that far left organisations were taking about $50,000 a year out of our student fees for protests.

Monetary motivations for using Griffith University for recruits aside, I enjoyed a bit of a tussle with the far left. Political groups of the far left over the years have usually centred on socialism, calling themselves "Socialist Left", "Socialist Alternative", "Socialist Alliance", "Green Left" and assorted similar names. No matter what the event or the politics of the time, the far left was there to protest and complain.

The double whammy of 1999 in my mind was the Kosovo conflict in the Balkans and East Timor. The groups of the far left protested against UN involvement in Kosovo, where Serbs were invading and killing lots of Albanians. Then a couple of months later, the same groups protested that we were doing nothing about East Timor, where Indonesia was killing lots of East Timorese. It was a contradiction of protests, and one that invalidated any good cause the far left had that year. I believe that many people in the far left are very angry and do not do their cause justice.

Since those early days, the love hate relationship I have had with the far left has continued. The far left and I have a lot of common ground in that I acknowledge serious flaws in capitalism, but we disagree on the solution. I have had many a conversation where I have pushed the far left to reveal what exactly their picture of society is, and found it to be vague, dream like and completely incompatible with modern culture. A fan of realistic and progressive reform, the picture of revolution based on beliefs with practically no public support quite rightly appeared invalid at this time and place.

Given my stirring of the far left, I remain a sympathiser of many of the causes of the far left. This is because I do not view their politics as dangerous and believe that many have their hearts in the right place. But the far left have a very small following in Australian society. The far left is largely responsible for their own lack of acceptance and following in Australia. These are my suggestions for a more successful and respected far left political movement.

Protests Are Regarded As Jokes

Protests are only taken seriously if they have popular support, like the Iraq ones before the invasion. At all other times protests are nothing more than a minor inconvenience to a few people. The average person sees a protest, perhaps tries to work out what it's about, then usually passes it off as some group of crack pots. This is particularly the case if it is "anti capitalism" or similar far left causes that no one else cares about. Most of your protests do not further your cause. They might make you feel that you are achieving something by releasing your frustration, but they get your cause absolutely nowhere.

One protest I saw once involved blocking the Griffith University administration over a non issue with chains and a small padlock. Most students sat back and laughed. Talking jovially to a security guard watching from afar, I mused that where I live, we have bolt cutters for chains and padlocks like that.

Speeches Assume Supportive Audience

Practically every speech I have ever heard from the far left is targeting at a supportive audience. You are speaking to your own kind, not the average person walking along the street who thinks you are a joke. It is one thing to claim "John Howard is a lying, deceitful bastard" or similar, but it is another to walk the talk. To get people to follow or at least respect your causes, you need to walk the talk. You need to explain to people the logic behind your position rather than speak to the already converted.

People Do Not Understand Socialism

In the mind of the average person, socialism is linked with communism and countries like Russia, where socialism collapsed. Fear based politics of the Menzies era resonates for many who believe, without any analysis, that socialism is intrinsically bad. Furthermore, socialism is usually, and fairly, associated with the evils of regime's like Joseph Stalin's Russia and China now. You may be promoting 'democratic socialism' but most people are only familiar with 'socialist dictatorship'. The average person does not know what you stand for, except that it is bad.

Perhaps consider names with words other than 'socialism', that might have better associations in the minds of the average person. Failing that, you need to get a better impression across about socialism. Educate people as to what exactly you mean by socialism, and present a comprehensive, clear vision. If you are going to present some utopia that is a figment of your imagination, then you are only going to reaffirm perceptions of your causes being a joke.

Avoid Champagne Socialists Stereotype

There is nothing that gets up the noses of many more than middle or upper class university kids living off Mummy and Daddy, running around in Mummy and Daddy's car, not doing any part time work, and spending their time on far left political causes. Those that live off the spoils of a fortunate upbringing to pretend they represent those that are less fortunate. Those that congregate in trendy cafe's and pubs sipping latte's and Champaign while discussing the horrors of social classes. Living around suburbs with real problems needing real solutions, this common picture in certain trendy area's of Brisbane agitates me immensely. While real people struggle and work hard to make it in life, the champagne socialists born with a silver spoon in their mouth sit around and talk about a better day.

The fact is that these people exist and disgust those who socialism would benefit. Few socialists are, in reality, the 'champagne socialist' kind, but those that are severely damage the cause of the far left. The 'champagne socialist' stereotype is to some extent perpetuated by those who hate the far left in principle, but it must be fought. Show yourselves to be normal people leading normal lives and doing normal activities. Do not let yourselves be seen to be 'champagne socialists'.

Pick Your Fights

It is always interesting to look at what the far left is promoting, to see what is the 'protest of the week'. Having so many causes, most of which have no public support, the far left gains little overall. You could achieve a lot more by focusing on particular issues, promoting them and generally informing people. Instead of achieving practically nothing on many causes, you could focus on achieving much on particularly important causes. This is the art of picking your fights.

Support Positive Actions

The left do an excellent job of whinging, complaining and slinging mud about things they are not happy about. What they are not good at is giving credit where credit is due, particularly to politicians. The far left even slings those who have made great contributions to the left side of politics. I have read items by far left groups slinging Gough Whitlam's government, which did more for moderate left principles in three years than anyone else since 1950. The far left slings Mark Latham, when his left social values present a far brighter future than the right wing authoritarian Prime Minister John Howard. The far left must learn to give credit where credit is due rather than being angry with everyone and everything. It would bring a much needed level of credibility to the far left.

Dress Up

Business clothes can be bought cheaply at Big W, K-Mart and similar stores. They will do you well not just now but in your chosen career. It is time to invest in them rather than appearing daggy during attempts to gain public support. I know people are fantastically shallow to judge people on what they wear, but this is the real world and we all live in it. Get some better clothes as to present yourselves in a better light.

Do Not Use Violence

There is nothing that invalidates far left causes more than the use of violence in protests. The media are not interested in your causes, but they love to report on violence. Do not give the media what they want with uses of violence. Not only does the use of violence violate the politics of the far left, but it gives the public a fantastically twisted version of what the far left is about. Let the police and other authority figures use violence and then face the media. That is extremely good for your causes. Do not be the ones to start or contribute to the violence.

Adopt Realistic Goals

You are never going to be able to achieve all the goals you set down for society unless they have popular support. You need to set goals that are achievable given the framework of society. Do not push notions of a fanciful and silly violent worker revolution when not only would this be horrid from a humanitarian point of view, but it is just not going to happen. Push causes that are plausible, believable and credible.

Conclusion

Far left political groups have many issues that mean they have a minimal contribution to society. There are many reasons for this situation, a lot of which related directly to actions of the far left itself. To be of value to society and improve the public debate, the far left must work differently and smarter. While I will never be a full supporter of far left politics, I believe that the far left can do far better and lift itself from being an insult to moderate left wing causes.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:07  0 comments

The 'third way' has been promoted in recent times to be the solution to the problems of far right wing economics and governments. The 'third way' is best known by the approach of the Labor government in the UK. Mark Latham, current leader of the federal opposition Labor Party, is a supporter of the 'third way'. The first I read about the 'third way' was in Mark Latham's book "From The Suburbs".

The logistics of the 'third way' is something that I have avoided placing a firm commitment on until now. I regard the 'third way' as, sadly, the only way in our current world environment. The 'third way' is a far superior direction than pure, frightfully dangerous, right wing economics running our society. In today's world, we need to be strongly competitive, fair and open in terms of trade, yet utilise this situation to provide the best outcomes for all of us. Right wing economics definitely will not, the 'third way' probably will not either but it a more comfortable position.

One of the biggest problems I find with the 'third way' is that it not very well defined. The best I could summarise from generalised reading is that it attempts to utilise the right wing economics underpinning our society to bring a level of good to all people in a community. To reap the rewards of competition and distribute these rewards effectively. It tends to work towards more community based initiatives, shifting society towards 'us' and away from the current 'me' obsession. The concepts are honourable but the means to achieve them on the vague side. Some impressively innovative ideas have been circulated with the 'third way', particularly involving improving communities, some of which have worked quite well.

The 'third way' remains the speak of those 'in the know' in Australia. It is not the subject of quality debate, let alone between beers at barbecues. There shall be a lot of work for any political party to bring the 'third way' to the mainstream. If such an attempt is to be made, and this would by the Labor Party, the 'third way' must be better defined. I suggest promoting the third way as a modern economic method of achieving important social goals. Achieving the social goals of the left using the economics of the right. The Australian 'third way' need not be one of the various incarnations seen in other countries.

My general support of the 'third way' put aside, I am concerned about the economics. The 'third way' promotes ownership by all, but I consider this concept to be somewhat flawed. In theory, everyone accumulates shares (or similar) so that they have partial ownership of companies. This, in turn, promotes a level of equality of wealth.

The first problem is that the more someone earns, the larger proportion of their income is going to be available for investment. For example, someone on $100,000 a year will be able to invest more than twice what someone on $50,000 a year. This means that without other equalising factors, like effective taxation, inequality of wealth will continue to exaggerate under the 'third way'. While intending to encourage fair ownership and distribution of wealth, the 'third way' alone can not be expected to achieve this goal.

The second problem is that the situation appears to encourage a wasteful vicious circle. Surely it is a waste for companies to pay employees as little as possible, then distribute part of their profits back to the workers. Why can we not simply have companies rewarding a good day's work with a good day's pay? The 'pie' of economic wealth in a country is of a certain size and it is silly that we have to play with the pie so much when we could just make a fair allocation in the first place.

My concerns about the economics of the 'third way' do not necessarily have a better alternative. I do not have ground breaking ideas that can stop people from being fantastically greedy and self cantered, the only way to create a truly fair and equal society. The reality is that the economics of the 'third way' is far better for the average person than the alternative of hard right wing economics.

The 'third way' is not absolutely clear in concept or execution. However, as experience is notched up by certain governments around the world, a wealth of knowledge on what works and what does not is being accumulated. The economics of the 'third way' is far from perfect and relies on strong backup, particularly in regards to taxation. In a greed riddled society, the 'third way' is indeed by the only sensible way. Hence while the 'third way' is at best 'good', it deserves support.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:15  0 comments

Capitalism is by far the best system we have for the economic organisation of society. The reason for this is basic human nature. No other system can work as effectively given the nature of humanity.

To start with, it must be appreciated that we are all animals out to make our own nest better. The natural mind set of a human being is to care first and foremost about themself, then their family and friends. Few ever care about more than this direct set of people with which they feel a connection. People are fundamentally greedy and selfish, which is more of an observation than an insult.

Selfishness and greed is the force that makes capitalism so successful. Capitalism rewards innovative thought, new ideas, and finding ways to minimise costs to maximise profits. There is no more powerful influence on a person that the potential to feather their own nest.

Without selfishness and greed, capitalism would fail. However, capitalism works well because it so well appeals to these aspects of humanity. Capitalism is so effective that even those who do not earn a lot of money benefit from the fruits of the system. The benefits in efficiency outweigh the negative effects of inequality when capitalism works.

Capitalism is a mechanism where the most evil of human characteristics are harnessed to provide a benefit to all. The benefit to all is not the purpose of the base capitalism and only occurs due to the work of diligent governments. Capitalism requires inequality of wealth and left to it's own devices, capitalism also breeds gross inequality and poverty. This leads to the necessary involvement of minimum wages, workplace health and safety and other entities resented by business to effectively transfer the fruits of capitalism fairly in a society.

The effective working of capitalism in a country is dependent on finding the best equilibrium point between motivation to work harder, innovate and so forth and for a fair dispersal of wealth. The two main sides of politics in most western countries differ in where they believe this equilibrium point sits. Parties of the 'right' believe in more inequality as a means to a better economic end while those on the 'left' believe in maintaining motivation but providing a more equitable society. The extremes of the 'left' and 'right' are both immersed in unrealistic ideals. The extreme left means no motivation to excel and the extreme right ends in civil war due to insane inequality of wealth.

Capitalism has other inherent weaknesses that I have discussed at other opportunities and will not repeat them here. Suffice to say, it is important to preserve competition to ensure long term fruits from capitalism. Forces must act to do the right thing by all in society, which is not naturally compatible with the pure profit objective of a business.

Systems based on complete equality of wealth like socialism are always doomed to failure because of human nature. If you remove the motivation to excel, innovate and feather ones own nest, progress will not occur. Living standards are retarded by the lack of progress. The only way such a system can work is in a society where people are motivated by the 'greater good for all' rather than the 'greater good for me'. The reality is that such a society is not happening in a hurry. Hence, while humanity remains true to it's animalistic selfish originals, capitalism will remain the most effective system.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:08  0 comments

"The Datamonitor Personal Lending in Australia 2004 report found the average balance on Australian's credit card jumped 70 per cent to $2466 in 2003, from $1445 in 1999... The report said combined total debt per Australian adult rose 60 per cent to $35,674 in 2003, up from $22,158 in 1999."
- "Credit Card Debt Hits Record High", April 1 2004, http://www.news.com.au

"Today's figures reveal that families purchasing their first home now represent just 12.7 per cent of all new home loans, a figure that has halved in the past two years. This is the fifth successive monthly decline, and now represents the worst figure on record."
- Simon Crean, Federal shadow treasurer, Australian Labor Party.

There is a looming financial crisis of sorts in Australia. The reason is simply that we are living too far beyond our means. For the benefit of short term increases in standard of living, we are securing a lower standard of living in the future. The obsession with 'buy buy buy' is making us feel comfortable in the short term, but danger is on the horizon.

Any number of minor economic changes is going to send devastating ripples through the finances of many people in this country. This is not a question of 'if' by rather a question of 'when'. An economic downturn or increase in interest rates are the most likely sources for a disaster. We are so far in debt, whether that be credit card, housing or other debt, that any minor shock through the system is going to literally destroy people.

We operate in a society based on markets. These markets go through cycles, the most extreme of which are known as booms and busts. Housing has gone through a boom, and living it up people have borrowed against perceived value in their houses and other people have been taking out increasingly excessive loans in the hope of owning a home. People are paying a record percentage of their incomes in mere interest payments on loans. From rising costs of home buying, rents and general costs of living, a lot of people are operating on dangerously thin financial ice.

The people who are going to hurt when the economy takes a down swing is not the wealthy housing investors who sent housing prices through the roof in the first place. Two distinct groups of people are going to hurt. First is the middle class people who fell for the pie in the sky instant millionaire garbage perpetuated by those who stood to make the most money from the scene. The second, and more personally disturbing, is young overextended home buyers will face complete financial ruin.

The government in power at the time of the eventual collapse will cop the blame, and I can only hope it will be Howard's Coalition government. Howard and friends have sat back and watched their business mates and wealthy friends get filthy rich while first home buyers burn and a razor's edge situation developed where any economic shock will mean economic destruction. Howard let this situation develop and the responsibility for this dangerous situation lies completely on his government's shoulders. I would like to see how right wing non interventionalist economic logic justifies the imminent destruction of the livelihoods of many thousands of Australians.

We are living beyond our means and the chickens are going to come home to roost. When they do, there is going to be an absolute outcry but we have no one to blame but ourselves. Those who wanted us to spend and buy up houses had the most to gain and the least to lose from our financial destruction. Expect bankruptcy, expect bank repossessions, expect an absolute mess. At least for a good ten years people will realise that falling for opportunistic market fads like housing is a phenomenally bad idea.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:06  0 comments

"anti. preposition. Opposed to; against."

- http://www.dictionary.com/

A vocal group of particularly conservative politicians and their supporters like to throw around the word 'anti-American' in regards to Mark Latham, the Labor Party, and supporters of Mark Latham and the Labor Party. Surprisingly effective, many people genuinely believe that Mark Latham and associates are anti-American. This game has gone on long enough and it is time to put the myth to rest.

There is a major flaw with conservation logic on this subject and it is called an "oversimplification". The conservative logic attempts to present there being only two types of people. Those who are pro-American and love America does and those who are anti-American and hate America. Those who love America support absolutely everything that America does and everyone else hates America. There is a glaring logical fallacy that oversimplifies complicated issues.

Questioning your friends and allies is an important part of international relations. America is a very powerful country and it is important for countries to question and generally keep America honest due to their massive power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and a pragmatic approach must be taken to the world's only superpower.

The relationship we have had over the last two years with the US, which involves us blindly supporting every single action and bit of hollow rhetoric from the US, is called subservience. We do not have a relationship or friendship with America, they are the master and we are the slave. A business relationship of convenience, not a coming together of equals. The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that was dangled in front of us for participation in Iraq has been boasted about in the US Senate for how they screwed us over.

Mark Latham and the Labor Party has criticised US policies in Iraq and some of the current Republican Party leadership in the past. This criticism has not been on the American people, the ideals underlying American culture or America as a country. When Mark Latham referred to George Bush as the "most dangerous and incompetent president in living memory" during the debate on Iraq ages ago, he was attacking Iraq policy and Bush's response, not America!

Far from being anti-American, Mark Latham and the Labor Party are merely talking about a more honest and open friendship. A friendship based on mutual respect, trust and the benefits of free and open debate about policy. Surely this is the basis of a far better relationship that the superficial subservience we have at the moment.

If America was genuinely under attack, we would be there to help America out. This is the case under any government of Australia, now and in the future. If Australia was under attack, America would be likely to help us out, though United Nations (UN) action would be more likely and appropriate.

There may be people in Australia that are anti-American, but the Labor Party and it's supporters are overwhelmingly pro-American. Many are anti-Bush and anti-Republican, which is the same as many people are in America. The anti-American claim is hollow, incorrect and tired. It is time for us all to move on and remain friends with the great country that is America.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:06  0 comments

There are a number of characteristics leading to a substantial lowering of standards in Australian universities. In this document I discuss the forces that have in the past and continue today to drive down the standard of university education in this country. I believe that it is important for the future of this country for us to have a decent university system that provides quality education of an excellent standard.

Mass Market Education

Making university education the domain of the majority of people has meant that the standards have dropped to accommodate the greatly increased number of people. The level of intelligence of people to get into university had to be lowered and therefore the standard has also decreased.

Funding Arrangements

University funding is centred around the number of students within the university, with some complicated confusions from this point. At the core, universities need to retain students if they want their funding. This creates a pressure to pass more people in subjects, and to lower the standard of subjects so that more people will pass. If too many people are going to fail a subject, the pass mark is lowered and pressure placed on staff to lower the standard in general.

Necessity

Most jobs require a university degree, even if the degree functions as little more than a piece of paper. The necessary nature of university education makes students less willing to put in a genuine effort and rather indifferent to the whole process. With students not putting in their best, the standard is clearly not near it's potential.

School Standards

University standards are also suffering as a result of lower standards in schools. Teaching is no longer an honourable career and our standard of teachers is suffering. Students have more rights than teachers and the undisciplined and somewhat out of control school environment thwarts learning. A pervading culture of school being a pain rather than a privilege hinders quality learning. The easy going, laid back, student freedom education system means children often lack the encouragement, determination and drive to reach their potential. Lower standard school graduates means lower standard university entrants.

Students Taking Easy Subjects In High School

I was involved in some research for a university in late 2002 where I came across some interesting statistics. Across Australia, the number of people taking high level mathematics in later high school (eg. Mathematics B in Queensland) has decreased substantially through the last ten years. There is no reason for this other that copping out and laziness, because the basic potential of people does not change. The practical effect of high school students taking the 'easy way out' but universities still needing students is that subject requirements to get into university are reduced. More of first year university becomes revision of what students should have learnt in high school than genuine education. Taking easier subjects in high school inevitably lowers the quality of university education.

Funding Squeeze

The Howard Liberal/National government has actively reduced university funding, even in nominal terms, since 1996. This has been done in the belief that 'competition', 'markets' and so forth will do wonderful things for the efficiency and international standing of our universities. The practical effects are of a completely different nature. Less qualified staff are put into senior positions because the funding is not there for high level academic staff. Pressure is placed to spend as little time with students as possible to save money, meaning university education involves larger classes, less interaction and smaller semesters (the 13 week semester has replaced the 14 week semester). Academic staff are often pushed to the point where the time for genuine teaching is severely compromised.

University Concept Regression

The Howard Liberal/National government is doing it's best to implement Brendan Nelson's education reforms. These reforms are based on ideological right wing economics ideas that education should be a 'what you get is what you pay for' arrangement, as well as the standard market and competition mantra. In a lot of ways the reforms aim to move back to the days before the Whitlam government abolished university fees in the early 1970's. The reforms raise HECS (higher education contribution scheme) charges for those that get into university based on ability while allowing up to 50% of places to be full fee paying ($30,000 or so a year). This means that ability to pay is taking on a larger role while ability is taking on a lesser role, meaning those with wealthy parents will displace capable students without the financial ability. The natural effect of these changes will be another lowering of the standards as students entering university will be of a lower standard.

Solutions

So it is clear that declining standards in our universities is a significant structural problem. Fighting against this tide of ineptitude is not going to be easy and will involve some decisions that will be very unpopular. I personally support a hard line method of sorting out this mess from many different angles. Possible techniques include:

Abolish Full Fee Paying Positions For Australians

The best way to guarantee that the best students enter university is to make people enter on merit and not money. This way the standard does not have to lowered to children of wealthy families who buy their way into university.

Adequate University Funding

Universities are to be funded appropriately by the federal government. Ideological rubbish that supports 'competition' and 'free markets' is only going to harm the standard of our universities and is never an excuse. Forcing universities to run as businesses is the enemy of free thought and genuine learning.

Set Firm University Entrance Requirements

It must be made absolutely clear to people that to enter university, they need to have certain subject qualifications. Enough of this training students things in university that they could and should have learned in high school (or failing that, at a TAFE). If students know they must do certain subjects to get into university they will study them before coming to university. The current ploy of low entrance requirements and then teaching material people should know anyway is a complete waste of resources.

Fail Lots Of People

If students do not make the grade, the standard should not be dropped or pass mark made lower. It should be absolutely clear that if you do not make the grade you are going to fail and there is no excuse. Of course there must be some leway for extreme situations, such as when examinations are on unknown material and other ridiculous situations. But for the majority of the time, there simply needs to not be an acceptance of low standards. We should not have the standard of university education dictated by a low standard of students. If lots of people need to fail then let them fail. In the same way, if lots of students deserve to pass then let them pass.

Make University More Relevant

Universities are still, to a large extend, focused on their academic origins rather than the practical needs of people entering the professional work force. It would help the status of universities to provide more practical and hands on education. Students are more likely to apply themselves if they understand and appreciate that they are learning valuable skills rather than just trying to get a piece of paper.

Conclusion

This review looks at but a subsection of the issues facing universities and their possible solutions. We need to work differently, because our standards are dropping and we are moving towards the extreme inequality and ineffectiveness of the business run US system. The idealism of running universities as pure businesses is inherently dangerous to the field of education. We are obsessed with quantity rather than quality in our university education. We need to make some firm decisions and set the bar at a reasonable point rather than lowering it to suit financial constraints. University education in Australia deserves a better future than the one painted at this moment in time.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:17  0 comments

When we have a storm out where I live, in a semi rural area with five acre blocks, we expect to lose the power. With substantial amounts of overhead power lines and an indifferent council that rarely deals with the trees near the power lines, the results are predictable. People in the inner city complain when they are without power for more than a couple of hours but for us it is normal.

In the past few months I have spoken to a few people about the realities of underground power lines. In many places, these are extremely desirable because of the associated reliability. However, the fact is that underground power lines are nothing but a dream given the current nature of government, business and commercialisation in this country.

The reason underground power lines are not going to occur is pure business. The objective of business is to gain profit by providing the minimum service that it's customers will accept. Our electricity services are privatised or at least corporatised, so they function as businesses. If it is cheaper to put power lines above ground then this is what will happen. People are willing to accept unreliable power supplies and above ground power so only an insane business will pay to put the power lines underground.

The only time underground power lines will be found is when it is cheaper or necessitated by government. This means that only in highly populated area's where powerlines would be severely impractical, will there be new underground systems. For the rest of us, nice cheap above ground services are the default.

So get used to problems with your power supply. Our average service is knocking a couple of cents off our bills and filling the coffers of a few companies. The interests of the businesses operating electricity services are not the same as your interests. Your service will continue to degrade until it gets so bad that you will not accept it. Such is the nature of capitalism (not that we have any better system).

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:08  0 comments

There is a good lesson about modern 'democracy' contained in today's "Australian Financial Review". The lesson is that when you question big business, bad things happen to you. Mark Latham has questioned big business and big business own newspapers slap you, hard. Latham attack on the front page, full page Latham attack on the back page and more biased run of the mill big business mantra to boot.

People have a right to feel disturbed by how cosy big business is with governments. Being employers of large numbers of people and contributing significantly to the economy, big business is extremely powerful. Big business is powerful to the point that they get political perks, influence and power well beyond that of the average person. Although democracy is meant to be founded on equality of all, if you are a big business person, you have far more clout. Big business is so ingrained with the US government at the moment that companies that are conveniently linked with government representatives have conveniently been getting large contracts to reconstruct Iraq.

The problem with the cosiness of big business and governments is that the interests of big business and the people that the government is meant to represent is often completely different. When you are big and powerful, you can make the numbers say whatever you want and big business can easily beat it's own drum. The role of a business is to make money, there is absolutely no social imperative.

Given the general apprehension at how cosy business and governments are, today's "Australian Financial Review" is absolutely disturbing. Here is a big business owned and operated newspaper clearly attacking policies to restrain the excessive power of big business. Latham speaks about well needed reform to minimise excessive power of big business and gets hammered for it. Not only does this demonstrate the extreme bias of the media, but how big business behaves when it does not get it's way. It is an Australia wide tantrum aimed to impose a set of convenient beliefs of big business upon media readers.

The "Australian Financial Review" can be written by the best experts in the world, it does not make it right. What it fails to mention is the long term consequences of a small number of big players in a market. The newspaper rightly contains quotes that at the moment we have high levels of competition in markets like the retail grocery sector. However, it negates the fact that this competition is to gradually weed out competitors, leaving a small number of big players. These players then maximise their profits by raising prices, which is easily done when you are a large player who can easily buy out any competitors. This eventual result of uncontrolled capitalism does not involve competition, is fantastically inefficient, is absolutely no good for consumers and leaves a trail of destroyed businesses and people along the way. However, this final result is the ideal for big businesses and one worth active pursuit.

In line with the inevitable eventual result of games between small numbers of big players, it is essential to keep at least some small business operating. Small business is the force to keep the big players honest and provide a genuine alternative if one is needed. Hence Latham's proposals, as set out in the "Australian Financial Review":

• Strengthen section 46 of the Trade Practices Act to stop big businesses from using their market power to damage competitors and in particular to stop predatory pricing.
• ACCC to be given cease and desist powers to immediately stop anti-competitive practices.
• Companies that habitually abuse their market power to be broken up by courts.
• Big companies will be stopped from buying our smaller companies if it starts undermining competition.
• ACCC will be able to 'bundle up' similar complaints made by franchisees to take court action against the parent company.
• Regular reviews of the TPA will be build into the Act and a new process will be introduced to ensure all appointments to the ACCC are free of political interference.
• ACCC will be required to report on how companies are complying with promises or 'undertakings' they give in order to get clearance for a merger or takeover.

These changes are not only a good idea, they are necessary to preserve long term competition and it's associated benefits to consumers. At the moment big business has too much power and this will be damaging in the long term, as already detailed. Maybe modifications will be needed to make sure that the ACCC does not abuse it's power with spurious litigation, but this reform has a solid foundation.

Today's "Financial Review" was nothing more than irrational big business fears and clichéd statements attacking a system that is not completely in their interest. One thing is for sure - no consumer need lose any sleep over the tantrums from big business over this reform. Labor's reforms will ensure competition 40 years from now, as opposed to a powerless population under the control of large, inefficient, self serving big businesses.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:07  0 comments

The benefit of hindsight tends to put fashion trends of the time into perspective. For instance, it is now undoubted that the mullet, big hair and other general looks of the 1980's were a gross error of judgement. It is with this fact in mind that I present the latest round of idiotic trends in international fashion. This particular violation is being currently perpetrated by young female celebrities. As examples, consider:

• Christina Aguilera
• Britney Spears
• Paris Hilton

The phenomenon, in case you have not realised, is Anglo Saxon ladies doing their best not to look white. These are women who look and are fundamentally fair skinned white people of Anglo Saxon original. Yet they use large amounts of fancy make up to try to look closer to the Mediterranean skin (think Spain, Italy or Greece) or, more usually, the Latino look (think South American, like Brazil).

The problem is that the look comes across as completely unnatural. The combination of light coloured hair (or fake darker coloured hair), light eyes (or fake darker eyes), Anglo Saxon facial structures and olive skin looks absolutely ridiculous. It is far from a good look and one that nature clearly did not intent to utilise. There are beautiful Latino women, beautiful Mediterranean women and beautiful Anglo Saxon women, but this is not beautiful. It is an abomination to nature! The look is an insult to beautiful olive skinned women!

This fashion trend of 2003 and 2004 is one that history will mock. I am pleased this is the case because this look is almost as effective at making beautiful women look ugly as those heinous moments in fashion from the 1980's. In the mean time, those of us with style and substance shall continue to shudder at the fake olive skinned look.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:06  0 comments

I live in the city of Brisbane, a city a fair way from the equator but close enough to make things fairly hot in a sunburnt country. Yet on any given day in summer a walk around Brisbane reveals people wearing long shirts, long pants, socks, shoes and occasionally even underwear. This manner of clothing is completely inappropriate to the hot, humid climate of Brisbane. In an attempt to compensate, we install these large air conditioners that use insane amounts of electricity. Brisbane is a town screaming for more appropriate clothing.

That's right! We need to all be wearing thongs. Not the American version of the thing, but what people overseas know as "flip flops". Thongs are the ultimate solution to cooling down in a hot climate. The reasons for the adoption of standard thong wearing in Brisbane are extensive and compelling. Thongs are the way to go out in Brisbane.

Air In Your Toes

Wearing shoes keeps a substantial amount of heat inside your shoe. Between your socks and shoes, heat gets stuck and amplifies the feeling of heat in your entire body. When you wear shoes, you get the advantage of air surrounding your feet. Excess heat is not stored with your footwear, but exchanged. Your feet can communicate with nature in the natural and proper way.

Less Foot Sweat

As well as keeping less heat in the area of your feet, sweat is deal with ina far more appropriate fashion. Since there is less heat, there will be less sweat and this sweat is then exchanged with the surrounding environment. Having this free exchange of fluids with the natural environment means you do not feel as much grotesque discomfort from excessive heat and sweat combined in the region of your feet.

Less Weird Infections

The effects of putting your hot feet in a restrictive environment and combining it with sweat are predictable. Weird fungal, bacterial and other infections haunt the lives of those who treat their feet with such ill manor. Letting your feet be free to be themselves is not only natural but combats these foul shoe induced diseases.

Toe Exercise

There can be no crueller action to a toe than to permanently be encapsulated in such a small compound for long periods of time. Shoe culture is not the friend of toe freedom. Thongs, the progressive force in toe freedom, are essential for your toes. Do not let your toes cease to exist in their free flowing and freedom loving format by imprisoning them. Exercise your toes, for toe exercise can not possibly be bad for your health and blood supply.

Feet In Public Is Acceptable

We have moved on from the days where the slightest show of skin was improper and demeaning to one's personal reputation. We can safety show our feet in the brazen society we have created. It becomes our responsibility to show our naked feet in all their splendour!

Cheaper

Shoes might be a flirtatious symbol of well to do breeding, but since everyone is using them they are not really so condescending anymore. Rather than continue old traditions, you may as well convert to a cheaper form of footwear in the form of the thong. Plenty of money is to be saved by conversion to the cheap yet far superior thong design.

Emulate Me

Imitations is the best form of flattery and thong wearing became so much more popular at Griffith University after I had been there for a few years, including as a university tutor. Following my large and twisted footsteps can be made one step easier by adopting a healthy respect for thongs.

Conclusion

There is a convincing and compelling argument for the widespread use of thongs in our Brisbane, Queensland climate. Now all that is required is for us all to have the presence of mind to apply our common sense to our daily lives. Long live the mighty thong and I shall be seeing your thongs around.

[Addendum - 8 December 2004]

Carlo reliably informs us that it is now safe to cycle in thongs, if you pick up some SPD Sandals! In my day, we managed to ride in normal thongs... or barefoot! :-)

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:17  0 comments

"Two Wongs don't make a White"

- Arthur Calwell, Leader of the Australian Labor Party, 1960-1967.

Here in Australia we have a fine historical role for racism. It was only four or so generations ago that one could shoot aboriginals, the native Australians, like wild pigs. Racism in Australia comes in two quality forms in what we dished out to Aboriginals and what we threw at immigrants. Both breeds are fascinating tales that reveal the pathetic nature of humanity.

Our opening quote from a leader of the progressive force in Australian politics, the Australian Labor Party, demonstrates how ingrained racist views have been in Australian society. Many members of the Australian community, particularly those who are older, still hold these types of views today. Arthur Calwell was the last of his kind in the Australian Labor Party. The next Labor leader and prime minister from 1972 to 1975, Gough Whitlam, appreciated the common humanity of people and always worked hard to remove government directed racism.

From 1901 to Gough Whitlam's Labor government immigrant law changes in 1973, we had the "White Australia" policy. This limited people from certain places from coming to Australia but encouraged others. We have always had major hang ups about Asian people in Australia, and the first form of White Australia was to take care of the Chinese influx from gold discoveries in the 1850's. Interestingly, in the 1950's, people from Mediterranean countries like Italy, Greece and Malta were viewed as white enough, but not Asians. Hazily drawn lines seem to be drawn for who and what was acceptable and what was not.

These raw facts say little about the ground level nature of racism. The fact that some people who have never met an Aboriginal can pretend to be experts that know that Aboriginals are bad, rude, criminal, alcoholic, destructive, ungrateful, inferior beings. Usually it comes down to Joe at the bar having met an Aboriginal once about fifty years ago. Knowledge of particular subsections within society is often so incredibly poor that the people talking about it have no idea at all.

I have always been fascinated by the notions of racism. Quite simply, I have never accepted it and this goes back to my earliest memories. As a toddler, I have vague memories of being around a group of disabled young children as my sister was one of them. Physical disabilities were a normal part of life. In the context of the debilitating conditions I saw as a young child, things like skin of colour never seemed to matter. Being half Maltese and still seeing 'racist' references to 'wogs' every so often, rarely directed at me, it was even harder to accept. There was a child in primary school, of Malaysian origin, who I remember using racist words towards, but they were in retaliation for the tormenting he gave me. I did not like him because he was a mongrel, not because of his skin colour, a fact reinforced by a friend on the bus who happened to be Aboriginal.

I have never bought racist attitudes due to my family and experiences. That does not mean I have not been exposed to racist attitudes. Far from it, racism was always around, I just never chose to accept it. Not harbouring preconceived ideas on people of different races, I have been lucky to learn things that a closed mind would never learn about other cultures.

At the age of 19 in 2000 I happened to be working with a Muslim, who's first comment on his religion to me was something like "we are not all terrorists!". Slightly taken aback, I erred a little before commenting back, because it was a long way from my mind. Islam taught me the virtues of ordering a make your own pizza at the Pizza Hut Express in the city.

On September 11, 2001 terrorists drove passenger planes into building in the USA, in a shocking act of destruction. The next day at Griffith University I was about to start tutoring programming. I ended up watching a display on the attacks that a few people were watching on a computer screen. I commented to the guy next to me about it being "dreadful" or similar. He was a guy I had never talked to before, and he commented to me that it was "definitely Bin Ladin's work... I'm Arab". I had seen the guy around the university many times and had never even considered that he was an Arab.

Such is the nature of my personal attitude towards race. The colour of someone's skin is no more relevant to me than their eye colour, accent, sexual preference or preferred colour of underwear. I scope people based on their personality and, in particular, their level of self centeredness. When I meet people, features like skin colour are nothing more than a characteristic. I have no significant preconceived links of skin colour to anything else, and I think this is the way we should be.

Now my position is clear, below is a review of the reasons why racism has been and continues to be a part of human culture. Understanding the reasons is the key to fighting off the effects.

Fear

People tend to fear what they do not know or understand. Fear is easier than developing an informed point of view. The clincher in fear is media and political exploitation of fear. A person is drawn to fear like a moth to a burning flame. Fear sells newspapers and fear encourages subservient support for governments, so will always be used. There is nothing better to bring a group of people together than a hatred of a common enemy, even if they are not sure who or what that enemy is, like in the cases of communism and terrorism.

Fear plays an important role in the propagation of racism. Some believe Aboriginals are to be feared because they are going to take all the country off "us", because they are violent, or any number of other irrational thoughts. Certain groups of immigrants are going to "swamp us", "invade us", "take our jobs", "rape us" and who knows what other fear of the week. Do not forget that boat people are terrorists despite all logical evidence to the contrary.

Simplistic Views

People like simplistic views because they remove that annoying need to think about a situation. There can be fewer greater examples of people's need for simplistic views than when it comes to the practical application of racism. Views like "they are not civilised", "they are bad", "they are going to swamp our country", "they are all terrorists", "they eat their babies" and other twisted notions dominate racist mantra. Complex issues that require complex understanding and complex solutions are a lot more annoying that simple racist views.

Self Perpetuating Stereotypes

Racism and prejudice thrives off itself to continually create a stronger and more menacing beast. Take for instance the view that immigrants are bad because they do not assimilate into Australia and live in "their" own areas. We perpetuate this situation by having such prejudices which sent a clear message to immigrants that they are not wanted. Of course people are going to have trouble integrating into Australian society if they are not welcome, and it should hardly be surprising that this happens. Clearly similarity of cultures, family ties and other factors also apply, but the prejudice that comes with stereotypes amplifies the issue.

Stereotypes of different races and cultures are usually set in people's minds as children by their friends and family. The attitudes are based on scant information, brief interactions and irrational fear. When people believe a certain group of people are bad, they will avoid having interaction with that group. If they do have interaction with this group, it will be brief and insincere because they do not want to be friends with those "sort of people". These avoidance techniques perpetuate small minded attitudes because the person never gets into situations where they have to question their naive world view.

Exaggeration Of Differences

No two people are the same but people are more obsessed by our differences. Every two human beings have more in common than they have a part but we spend large amounts of time make a big deal out of minor differences. Racism thrives on the irrational exaggeration on our differences.

Indifference

It is very easy to practice indifference towards people from minority groups. Many people do not really care about anything except themselves, and even if they do, the care only applies to select family and friends. It is very easy to not care in the slightest about the plight or conditions of those of different races and cultures. Most people are sufficiently detached that they really do not care what effect simplistic and naive world views have on minority groups.

Selfishness

People are fundamentally selfish. Many people, by their actions, prefer to kick people when they are down rather than offer a helping hand. Selfishness is easily harnessed in the name of political or other gains. Selfishness easily justifies not spending tax payer money working on problems that exist in minority groups in Australia such as Aboriginal communities. Thankfully society is a lot more compassionate now than it used to be and a lot of money is spent trying to fix the problems among Aboriginal communities. Unfortunately now we are approaching full circle and need to work smarter now rather than simply throwing money at problems and hoping they go away!

Conclusion

Racism is an easy phenomenon to induce but a headache to work against. All racism takes is simple views dropped into the minds of young people and simple minded adults and it burns for years. Once a racist attitude is developed, it is virtually impossible to stop because the person is unlikely to ever find themself in a situation where they need to question their world view. The prevention of racist attitudes infiltrating society is always going to be a fight. At the moment we are losing, because racist attitudes previously applied to Asians are now being applied just as small mindedly to Muslims. Due to the human characteristics outlined here, the pursuit of the truth and it's subsequent maintenance will never be easy.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:15  2 comments

The debate on illegal immigrants to Australia is dominated by a devastating lack of information. This article is a review of the situation and explanation of the Labor Party point of view.

What Are Illegal Immigrants?

Most people associate illegal immigrants with those people who travel to Australia on boats from north of the country. This type of immigration is illegal in that it does not go through the standard accepted channels. Most people staying in Australia illegally are VISA violators who simply come to Australia on a plane and do not go home. That is, the majority of 'illegal immigrant's are VISA violators, not boat people.

Types Of People

A lot of negative insinuations have been made about the 'type of people' being let into Australia. Prior to 2001 the suggestion was that we were letting all these bad 'Asian' people into the country while now the same irrational fear is being places on people of Islamic origin. As at 2001 there were approximately 200,000 Islamic people in Australia, yet somehow now the subtle inference that they are all terrorists actually pulls some weight. This is a violation of common sense.

The 'types of people' let into this country will not change depending on whether Labor or the Coalition is in power. This is because any scheme that dictates we prefer certain 'types' of people in racist. Racism is not currently acceptable policy, even for the conservative political parties in Australia. The preference to certain 'types' of people was the basis of the embarrassment that was the "White Australia" policy. People from certain countries where white enough, but people with similar pigments of skin were not.

Are Boat People Terrorists?

The short answer to this is "highly unlikely". Why would someone risk life and limb travelling around on boats that could well sink when they could just catch a plane? Terrorism is far better planned than putting a few people on a boat and hoping they will find some place somewhere in the vicinity of 6 to 36 months later. It does not make sense for a high technology, cunning terrorist organisations to adopt these techniques. They have absolutely no need for even considering such a strategy while we happily let terrorists into our countries on planes. We need protection from terrorists, not boat people.

Do Immigrants Steal Our Jobs?

Overall immigration levels do not differ between the major political parties. Speaking from a purely economics point of view, it is invalid to claim that immigrants 'steal our jobs'. This is because immigrants consume and well as work. Immigrants must buy food, shelter and other essentials, which creates jobs. In turn, immigrants take jobs so that they can earn money to consume. Immigrants take jobs, but also create jobs. In fact, immigrants who work for below the average weekly earnings technically give more to the economy than what they get. The important point is that the claim that immigrants steal our jobs is based more on xenophobia than legitimate economics.

Send Them Back Home

There is a popular feeling that people who come to Australia on boats should be sent home. 90% of people who come over in boats are not immediately set home and are released into the Australian community. The reason for this is because they are judged genuine refugees by the United Nations (UN) criteria. Despite the claims of boat people being illegitimate because of payments made to get to Australia, they are still genuine refugees. The situation is not so simple that we can say "send them back home".

The Pacific Solution

The pacific solution is a piece of pure politics that has proved popular with large sections of the Australian community. The Howard government's pacific solution stops boat people from being processed within Australia. This is to deny boat people access to Australia's legal system and to ensure that these people never have permanent residency in Australia. People who come to Australia on boats are evaluated every three years until they can be sent back to where they came from. The human toll on people and families subjected to this system is immense. These people live in fear of their three year review, knowing that they will eventually be uprooted yet again and sent back to the horrors they left in desperation.

The pacific solution is extremely expensive, because of all the transport and maintenance of offshore processing facilities. The tax payer cost is immense and the gains mostly political as people feel they are 'safe'. Boat people are not the demons that the government would like us to believe. If you want to be scared, look up how many people are violating their VISA's, and check out whether terrorists travel on planes or derelict boats.

Labor will remove the pacific solution, because it is expensive and cruel. We are getting less boat people in Australia now because of better fighting of people smugglers, not the pacific solution. Labor will not play politics with people's lives, even if they are from some far away country. Labor believes in fighting people smuggling, not the unfortunate people desperate for a better life that are caught in the middle.

Mandatory Detention

Mandatory detention is necessary as we need to know the sort of people we are letting into the country. Irrespective of the government in place there will be mandatory detention. The Howard government does not want people knowing what goes on inside these centres and, extremely sadly, this is because it is horrible.

The television shows pictures of illegal immigrants protesting. The obvious thought is 'if these people are escaping such horrors, why are they complaining?'. There are a few points that much be understood in the situation for these events to be appreciated. Firstly, these institutions are run by private enterprise, meaning they are operated on the cheapest basis possible. When you delegate any human service to be run as cheaply as possible, bad things happen. These facilities are under staffed, under funded and under resourced. Secondly, it is painful on a personal level for people to be treated as criminals for long periods of time without knowing their future. There are some people who have been in mandatory detention for years. Finally, the media report what they do to get viewers or sell newspapers. Stories of good but sad illegal immigrants is boring news, but big, bad violent protests are great for sales. The newspapers are showing a small and distorted view of the mandatory detention situation.

The mandatory detention situation is therefore a lot more complex than the Howard government and media would like to present. It is only now that the true horrors of events swept under the carpet in these detention centres are coming to light. Violence, sexual abuse and who knows what else has occurred while the businesses operating the centres have no financial interest in fixing the problems and the government turns a blind eye.

Labor's solution keeps mandatory detention but fixed the flawed nature of the current system. Detention centres are to be managed by the government to restore accountability and responsibility. 90% of people are to be evaluated within 90 days, lessening the human impact of the detention.

Conclusion

The situation with immigration and particularly boat people is a lot more complex than what is presented in mainstream media and by the Howard government. Popular perceptions are based on misinformation, fear of others (xenophobia) and the Howard government's political opportunism. Boat people are not terrorists, most boat people are legitimate refugees and immigrants do not steal our jobs. Labor offers a realistic alternative that features accountable mandatory detention, efficient processing of boat people and a more humanistic and understanding approach. No more boat people or immigrants will come to Australia under Labor, the people will simply be managed in a more practical and compassionate way.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:08  0 comments