How do those of us on the left (and both rightwingers wedded to reality – jk) fight the right? How do you have a constructive policy-based debate with people who are immune to evidence, have no shame or standards and do not acknowledge the legitimacy of their political or ideological opposition? How is it possible to hold a debate and reach compromise with such people?

The Divine Right, Corporate Socialism, and Political Survival: How?

In recent history, the right-wing has become increasingly politically inept, openly authoritarian corporate socialists. They despise the poor and the middle class and they have no qualms about showing it. Whether it is drug-testing or otherwise demonising welfare recipients, gutting health services (freezing the medicare rebate or sabotaging the ACA) or spending without limit on the armed forces and corporate subsidies, the platform is pretty clear. They are brazen corporate cuckolds who care not a fig for anyone making less than 6-figures per annum.

Now, in a democracy (laugh along with me) a platform that is so openly hostile to the majority and favours the minority would not be long for this world. But we in the west have not been democracies for almost half a century now. This goes far to explain the continued political existence of a movement so hostile to the people. But there are other factors at play too.

Secret Weapons of The Right, Part One: Immunity to Evidence

As the title suggests, the two chief weapons of the modern right-wing are their complete immunity to evidence and their utter shamelessness.

The fact that the right does not care about evidence utterly nullifies the chief weapon of the left: facts. Whether the issue is climate science, the economy or anything else, the right is not interested in any countervailing opinion. Whatever they have decided (or been told to say) is already correct and the opinion of a communist is not worth listening to anyway. They do not care what the facts are: ideology comes first and the facts must be bent or otherwise distorted to fit. Simply put, to the extent that they believe in evidence at all, the right believes in policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy. Examples abound, but Mr Morrison on climate change is perhaps the most blatant: he either does not know or does not care. Either way, he has no business in politics.

Secret Weapons of The Right, Part Two: Utter Shamelessness

The second great weapon of the right is their utter shamelessness when it comes to pedalling their lies. When Morrison left the country earlier this week (because that’s what a good leader does mid-crisis), his department lied and said he was not there. Mr. Morrison has since cancelled his holiday and will return, but I hope the damage is done (again, laugh along with me). Previous efforts on his department’s part to use national security (the age-old cry of the oppressor as Captain Picard said) to hide his whereabouts were even debunked by the Errorgraph. Ok – when a Murdoch rag debunks your lies, you need to get better ones. But the point here is the utter lack of shame in their lying. This renders them immune to any and all charges of hypocrisy, lying and other transgressions. They do not care what the facts say (up to and including their own words), we have always been at war with Eurasia, ie the truth is what we say it is at any given time.

Secret Weapons of The Right, Part Three: Deny the Legitimacy of the Opposition

The modern right continually denies the legitimacy of their opposition and has done so for some time. Whether the GOP uses the term ‘Democrat party’ (something Bush 43 made up) or the LNP dismisses out of hand anything that anyone says that deviates from their preconceived ideas, the right does not see any value in the opinions of their opposition (or even their existence). They do not see the value in a conversation with someone who does not already agree with them. They expect lockstep compliance with everything they say and any talk of reform is socialism. They claim to be all about free speech and the exchange of ideas. Indeed: as long as they already agree. You know there is much to be said for Bill Maher’s quote

Whenever a Democrat seeks ‘common ground’, he always seems to find it where the Republican was already standing

Other western tories are no different: their opposition is illegitimate and compromise is treason. Indeed, the term ‘compromise’ only ever seems to apply to their opponents. Tories are the stereotypical entitled partner in an unhealthy marriage: there is compromise alright – the other one compromises and they get what they want. As with such a marriage, this is not a healthy model for politics, since the other partner eventually grows tired of the situation.

Conclusion: Fighting a Political Hydra

We return to the question asked at the beginning of this piece: how do you fight such an enemy? If facts and evidence do not matter, and you cannot shame them or in some other way convince them to change their minds, and they are not even open to considering other opinions, how do you make progress? This is where I would usually insert some thought out potential solution, but I have nothing. I am genuinely at a loss.

The chief weapons of the left, namely evidence, the political dialogue, and our opponents’ better natures, are all nullified. The modern right hates the facts (and the media is on their side anyway) and they cannot be shamed or otherwise convinced to change their minds. The right-wing is a modern political hydra: every fact you present and every quote of theirs you offer just results in more heads growing.

The disappointment is strong in this one, but we must fight. The only problem is – I do not know how. Even with a competent opposition (which Labor and the Democrats are not), it is not clear how to kill this hydra of ineptitude, proven lies, and reckless (and ruthless) planetary destruction.

If anyone has any ideas, I am all ears. A new strategy is required, but I am not sure what it is.

The NSW Education Department (the Department) guidelines say that between thirty minutes and an hour per week must be set aside for ‘special religious instruction’ (SRE). SRE is defined as instruction in a particular religion. This is quite different from General Religious Instruction (GRE), which is more of a comparative religion course. The latter should be encouraged, the former should not. To qualify that last clause, this is not because I am non-religious. It is based on the idea that if you want your child to receive religious instruction in your chosen faith, a venue exists for that: church (or other religious building). Even if the Department claims that the provision of SRE is not government funded, the fact remains that the schools are. Since this instruction is taking place in the schools, which are government-funded, this claim is misleading at best.

The Problem: Religious Propaganda as Education

It is my intention to use the christian example, as this is the religious text with which I am most familiar. Using just one example of a scope and sequence (a connected series of bullet-point descriptions of lessons across a term), we can see the great issue at the heart of this.

As an example, consider the following, aimed at stage 2 (years 3 and 4)

Aim: To help students to understand that Jesus is the centre of God’s plan of salvation for everyone. ·

Outcomes: Students learn about

1. How events in the Old Testament make promises about Jesus in the New Testament
2. Stephen, who spoke the truth about Jesus, even though he knew there could be extreme consequences.

Outcomes: Students will learn to

tell others about Jesus as Saviour, even when it is difficult.

Reflection and Analysis

Of all the issues with this, the greatest is perhaps the utterly uncritical nature of the content. All of the biblical text, and its claims, are presented as fact. Of course, jesus is the saviour, of course, the old testament makes promises about jesus. It is all taken as assumed fact. The reality is that the so-called prophecies in the Hebrew text about jesus were no such thing. As one example, Isaiah 7:14 about the ‘virgin conceiving and bearing a son’ is a mistranslation of the Hebrew almah (young woman) into the Greek parthenos (virgin), which informed the Latin vulgate in its virgo. Also left out is the fact that the ‘prophesy’ says that the child was to be called Immanuel and not Jesus. None of these facts that fly in the face of the christian narrative are pointed out.

Finally, of course, is the little gem where ‘Students learn to tell others about Jesus as Saviour’ – seriously. This is quite the admission that the purpose of these ‘classes’ is to ‘make disciples of the nations’ – to proselytise – to turn these children into little door-knockers before they learn critical thinking. Get ’em while they’re young.

Now you might say ‘this is aimed at years 3 and 4’. On the last point about telling others about Jesus as Saviour, that is precisely the point. But the larger issue is that religious beliefs are being taught as fact on the public dime (despite the Department’s claim). My issue is not with belief – you are free to believe whatever you wish – but academic content should be grounded in the facts. If the purpose of SRE is not academic then it has no place in education. To clarify once more, I am not trying to stamp out religion or whatever other strawman anyone would care to throw at me. I am simply asking that unexamined beliefs not be taught as fact.

The Solution, Part One: Academic Study of Religious Texts

I do have a solution though, lest I should come across as purely negative. You could examine the beliefs of any given religion from a philosophical, historical, literary or another critical perspective. Another method might be to look at what the text means rather than simply parroting what it says. As examples of academic study related to the bible, you could consider the Synoptic Problem, that is the relationship between the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark and Luke and the various source-critical hypotheses (including Q) that have been put forward. Or you could consider the historical jesus and the various models put forward to explain that, from cynic sage to apocalyptic prophet to political revolutionary and beyond. These are genuine academic inquiries that teach students methods of thinking rather than what to think.

The consideration of context, literary types (prose/verse, letter vs chronicle etc) as well as the search for bias (the anti-Petrine bias in Mark for instance) are useful skills to impart to students. This is somewhat covered in history, but applying such skills to other texts, including the bible (sorry christians, no exceptions) is an invaluable skill. Remember, this is a society in which over 70% of the print media is owned by a rank right-wing partisan named Rupert Murdoch. The ability to look for bias is critical when you live in such a society.

The Solution, Part Two: Comparative Religion

A comparative religion course (perhaps taught over several years) would outline, using the relevant text, the central tenets, beliefs and practices of many different religions. The point of such a course is not to provide propaganda (which, unpopular among the religious as this may be, is what SRE does) for any religion, but to teach the facts about them and allow students to make a choice. The structure might be to spend a term on each religion in no particular order. If desired, members of the faith could be brought in and given a chance to say ‘this is what we believe’, with strict instructions not to proselytise.

Conclusion: Religion in School

Even as a non-believer, I acknowledge that religion, for all the harm it has caused, does have a place in society. As a consequence, this gives it a place in education. However, much like how the wider society effectively neutered religion by taking away its political power, the education system needs to keep a close eye on religion in the schools (and not just the catholic priests). On a slightly more serious note, knowledge of what multiple religions believe is useful information in a pluralistic and multicultural society. However, an iron fist is needed to maintain the bright red line between stating facts and proselytising.

This is more a reflective piece on a personal quandary than anything else, but I hope it provides some food for thought.

Brexit has become, since its inception in 2016, the issue of British politics. It toppled a Prime Minister and even brought the Queen into politics. It is such a divisive issue, with calls for second referenda coming thick and fast. There is one aspect of the issue that has not been considered, at least that I have seen. This will be controversial, but I hope to provide maximal clarity for my position: Brexit needs to Happen.

Explanation, Part One: They Voted for It

This may seem like a copout, but the British people ultimately did vote for this. If the term Democracy is to have any meaning at all, its results must be carried out, no matter how terrible they may be. If the political class were to overrule the electorate and scuttle Brexit, what is to stop any other election result from being similarly overruled if the political class deemed it unpalatable? Politics, like the law, is built on precedent. Overruling an election result voted on by the people sets a very dangerous political precedent. A vote is a vote and a political class that overrules its people may well find itself on the receiving end of electoral anger. Democracy is, as Churchill said, the worst form of government there is except for all the others.

Explanation, Part Two: Rebutting ‘They Were Lied To’

One argument you hear against Brexit is that the leave campaign was a tissue of lies, particularly around the NHS. It is true, the campaign deceived the people. But this also sets a dangerous precedent.

Think about it: every contested election campaign is, to some extent or other, based on lies. Strawmanning your opponents, inflated policy promises and so on. If dishonesty in campaigning is grounds for invalidating an election result, no government would ever be elected. I am afraid I do not buy the notion that since the leave campaign lied to the people, the result of the referendum is somehow invalid. The argument against ‘they were lied to’ boils down to ‘all politicians lie in campaigning and the result still stands. why is Brexit any different?’

Conclusion: Reflection

Detractors of this piece might see me as a Democratic extremist – and perhaps I am. However, I cannot get past the precedent that a second vote or simply scuttling Brexit sets. A Democracy where results only stand if the political class approves is a Democracy in name only.

To end, a disclaimer: like Smith in his Wealth of Nations, I am appalled by the argument that I have set out here. This is not what I personally want to happen, or even believe should happen, but principles trump any one man. If Britain claims to be a Democracy and not an oligarchy with meaningless voting, this result must be implemented.

I have done this before: meeting Scott Morrison on his own biblical turf and ripping him a new one on how his pseudo-christianity is about as far from Jesus as it is possible to be. However, in light of the recent push for drug-testing of welfare recipients and broad discussion of extending the so-called ‘cashless welfare card’ to other payments, a refresher course is necessary. It is fair to say that the Prime Pharisee, as I shall now call him, would be chief among the goats of the parable. Depart from me, ye cursed.

The Christian Bible and The Poor, Part One: The Greek New Testament

The christian scriptures are quite pro-immigrant as I have said before, but the poor also get a good showing in the text. Rather than simply quote these texts, I think some discussion is warranted also.

We start with the first epistle not written by (or to) John the Apostle, chapter 3, verse 17

Rich people who see a brother or sister in need, yet close their hearts against them, cannot claim that they love God

In other words, if you have means (the Prime Pharisee would say blessings) and do not use them to help the poor, you cannot claim to be a servant of the god you say you love. You might claim this Jesus guy as your saviour, but your attitude to those less fortunate refutes any claim that you have internalised his message. You represent that legalistic, judgemental and bigoted side of religion typified by the Pharisees of the new testament. Hence my new title for you: Prime Pharisee.

The Christian Bible and The Poor, Part Two: The Hebrew Bible

Lest we think that doing the right thing by the poor was a new testament notion, consider parts of the Hebrew text. We proceed with a couple of lines from Leviticus 19:9-10. That is right, Prime Pharisee, this book is good for something besides being anti-gay and k*lling every second person with whom you interact.

The text says

“When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God

This we might see as leaving some portion of one’s crops unharvested in case someone in need should come by. Applying this to the treasury of a nation, some insignificant amount of support for the poor should be something that you, as a self-professed christian, do with joy. Instead, you attach stigma and prejudice to it.

This – THIS – is how you treat the poor? If you would be perfect, he said, sell what you own and give to the poor. Even accounting for the idea that this was an interim ethic, a temporary state of affairs given that the world was supposed to end on Friday, the sentiment is still a good idea and supported by multiple citations throughout the text by which you claim to live.

A Modern-Day Pharisee

Perhaps some explanation of this new title for Morrison is necessary. The Pharisees, as depicted in the gospels, were strict legalists who memorised the Pentateuch (1st five) and were the religious leaders of their day. These were the guys who debated what ‘work’ was for purposes of the Jewish sabbath. A fun group to be around.

The blind legalism and adherence to tradition of this group of extreme religious conservatives is perhaps best demonstrated by the words put into the mouth of Jesus in the gospel attributed to Matthew, 23:23

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former

This we may see as paying attention to the little minor details of the law and not seeing the big picture that, as the epistle to the Romans would later say, love, is the fulfilment of the law (13:10). These guys are the type to quote the text at people saying how many steps you can take on alternate Mondays when the moon is full, but care not a fig for the poor. Ok, I might have made part of that up, but you get the idea.

These guys do the little things and (implicitly) say ‘how righteous am I’ while being as unrighteous as it is possible to be. Relating this back to the Prime Pharisee, he gives his 10% and raises his hand in the air every Sunday, sure. However, he then turns around and orders and implements the most callous, inhumane policies possible. This man is a hypocrite of the highest order. Prime Pharisee indeed.

Faith, Works and The Poor

The epistles in the Greek New Testament have quite a lot to say about caring for the poor. The epistle of James, for instance, says the following (2:15-17)

if a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead

Ignore here the clear implication that you should only do this for your fellow christians (brother or sister has an implied ‘in christ’ attached to it). Regardless, the point is clear: if you claim to have undergone some form of christian transformation, the change cannot be mere words. Rather, it must be reflected in your deeds. Saying the right thing, without actually doing the right thing, is meaningless. Bringing this home to the Prime Pharisee, he says that he loves Jesus, but his actions do not reflect any form of fundamental self-change. Faith without works, as the text says, is dead.

Works Without Faith: The Other Side of The Sheep and The Goats

I imagine most are aware of this parable, but you may not have noticed this. When the king says to the so-called righteous

I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me…

it is noteworthy that what these people believed is not mentioned. Rather, the issue is how they had treated, as the text says, the least of these my brothers. To bring this home to the Prime Pharisee, how you treat the least of these is how he will treat you.

Conclusion: Prime Pharisee

The man calling himself the Prime Minister is the very worst example of the political pseudo-christian. These clowns preach Jesus with their mouths, but their hearts are far from him to paraphrase the gospels. Callous behaviour towards those less well off members of society is in direct contravention of the faith you claim to have.

May I suggest dusting off your translation of the text and reading it once in a while, Prime Pharisee.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott spoke at CPAC Australia recently, and his remarks deserve some deconstruction. His level of self-awareness is as high as ever, and he continues to live in a parallel universe from the rest of reality.

First, Some Framing: The Media

The opening lines of the sourced piece aptly reflect the state of the Australian media:

At the first-ever Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Australia, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that what enabled the right-leaning Liberal Party of Australia to win the recent federal election is that they were “less ideological” than their left-leaning Australian Labor Party opponents.

What utterly garbage framing. There is an amazing false equivalence here: the Liberals are ‘right-leaning’ and the Labor Party are ‘left-leaning’, so it is all a wash. No. The Liberals do not ‘lean right’, they are far-right ideologues determined to create a neo-feudal society of lords and serfs. The Labor party are only marginally better, being centre-right in their politics.

As for ideological motivation, the Liberal National Party (LNP) is quite possibly the most ideological government in recent memory. The party views every issue through the lenses of politics and personal gain. But the bigger issue here is the media framing. To portray the Australian Labor Party as ‘left-leaning’ is laughable. They are centre-right at best. Now, in fairness to the media, centre-right when compared to the hard-right LNP must look like ‘left-leaning’, but please be honest in your framing. The Labor party are not really left-leaning: the reality is that the LNP have shifted the conversation so far to the right that the tepid, centre-right Labor party looks left-leaning. But I digress from ranting about the media, and move on to Mr. Abbott.

Abbott Speaks, Part One: Delusion

Mr Abbott took an interview at the conference and said the following:

Look at the recent election campaign here in Australia. The Labor Party went into that election with a highly ideological agenda on tax, on climate, on unions, and on big government. We won the election because we said, ‘We’re not that,’ and because we weren’t obsessed with climate. We were able to address more meaningfully the cost of living pressures that people faced.

The ALP went to the election with an ideological agenda? As opposed to the LNP who went to the election with nothing but complaints about the fact that the Labor party still existed? As for the issues he mentioned, tax reform and a climate policy are necessary. I know you will be dead before the most destructive impacts of climate change hit, Tone, but you could show some empathy for future generations. Your daughters have to live on this dying planet – do you not care for them and their future? Sociopath.

There was one element of truth in what he said, even if it was unintentional. He said that the LNP won the election ‘because we said we’re not that’. Indeed. The relentless message of ‘vote for us because we are not Labor’ was part of the reason you won the election. That, and brazen media bias, the power of incumbency, and the fact that Bill Shorten did not have good answers to some legitimate questions. The point is that he is right when he says ‘we’re not that’ was part of their election victory. But not for the reasons he says.

Abbott Speaks, Part Two: Lies and Spin

Abbott went on to say the following – sigh

Because we are not ideologically geared toward big government, we are able to reduce taxes and reduce regulations in ways that make our economy stronger. And because we’re not obsessed with gender and identity, we are actually able to bring Australians together in a way that our opponents simply can’t.

Reduce taxes, you say? Notably, Mr. Abbott does not say for whom taxes will be reduced. An analysis penned in the Fin Review states the following ‘In pure dollar terms, people earning $200,000 and above will be the biggest winners’ out of this package. So, the well to do are the main beneficiaries of conservative tax policy – just for something different.

Reduce regulations, you say as if it is a good thing. Regulations in this context refers to environmental, wage, health and safety laws as applied to business. These inconveniences tend to get in the way of profits, you see. Forcing the Holy Big Business Conglomerate to not pollute the environment, to pay their workers adequately and ensure their health and safety is just such a burden. The Liberals believe in lifting burdens for business (while imposing them on the people – cashless welfare card anyone?).

The gender and identity bit does not deserve much attention, other than to note the amazing hypocrisy on display. The Liberals are not obsessed with gender and identity? Using Senator Cory Bernardi as but one example, the LNP has been all over these ‘cultural issues’ for a long time. You know we can see you in there, right Tone? Liar

Abbott Speaks, Part Three: Seriously!

Abbott also added this:

As Liberals, I like to say we support smaller government, greater freedom, lower taxes. As conservatives, I love to say we support the family, small business, and institutions that stood the test of time. But above all else we are patriots. We love our country [cheers and applause]

None of these terms has any meaning attached to it whatsoever. Just a series of meaningless buzzwords that make the sheep bleat. Some translations though: when he says, ‘we support the family’, that has a very precise meaning. It means the traditional (read heterosexual) family and nothing else. When he says they support ‘institutions that have stood the test of time’ I suspect he means religion (by which he means Christianity). Finally, he actually appealed to patriotism, which, as Samuel Johnson said, is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Conclusion: Lack of Self-Awareness on Display

To end on a lighter note, Abbott said this in the same interview:

If we are true to our instincts and beliefs, there’s no reason why we can’t be wonderfully successful.

This from a guy who lost his seat at the last election. Sideshow Bob – meet rake.

In a recent New Rules segment, HBO’s Bill Maher went on a rant about Trump Fatigue. Maher coined this phrase to represent the idea that people are fed up with Trump and it is this fatigue that will lead the Democrats to victory in 2020. Sigh. No substance, no policy, just Orange Man Bad. Democrats, take heed: Vote Blue No Matter Who and Orange Man Bad are not effective campaign slogans. I want to delve into Maher’s rant and explain why I think he is wrong.

Trump Fatigue

The setup for the Trump Fatigue line was a comparison between the ratings that the President drew for an interview as compared with some game show. Not a good start, but then it got worse. Quote Maher

Fatigue is the best thing we’ve got going for us [Democrats]. The majority of Americans aren’t tired of ‘winning’, they’re tired of looking at his fat f*cking face.

In a strange irony, Maher is actually right in terms of fatigue being the best thing the Corporate Democrats have going for them. They sure as hell have no policies so they have to go with ‘aren’t you tired of this impolite and bigoted orange bully?’. This is a terrible approach to election campaigning. People do not wish to be told what (or who) you oppose, they want to know what you are going to do for them! Maher’s strategy (which many Corporate Democrats mirror – see John Delaney and others) is to essentially continue the status quo (with maybe some very minor reforms) as if Trump is the problem. If you remove Trump then everything returns to normal. Out of touch, elitist w*nkers.

Maher’s Elitism and Dig at The Left

Maher continued with this gem:

The voters that Democrats need to win: moderates who have Trump fatigue will vote against the good economy I think just to get back to normalcy. But they won’t trade it away for left-wing extremism

76% of Americans live paycheque to paycheque. Half of American workers make $30,000 a year or less. Wages have been stagnant for nearly forty years! What good economy? The ‘good economy’ to which he refers is the unemployment rate (under 4%) and the stock market. Those figures are deeply misleading, since unemployment does not measure the type of jobs being taken, nor does it take into account those who have stopped looking. In addition, the stock market is only an indicator of how the shareholder class are doing. This is not a useful indicator for the wider economy. In other words, Bill Maher and his cocktail circuit friends are doing just fine.

As for getting back to normalcy, this was a term coined in 1920 by Republican Presidential candidate Warren G Harding, and it referenced a return to life as it had been prior to the Great War. Intentional or otherwise, in Maher’s comparison, Trump is the equivalent of WW1. You may think that a stretch, but Maher, as a history major, is informed enough to know the full context for that line.

Maher’s dig at ‘left-wing extremism’ is a reference to the policies that are now popular among the Democratic base (and even, in many cases, the wider electorate). He went on to say that to implement policies ‘you have to get elected first’. What he does not know, or willingly ignores, is the fact that, in a democracy, advocacy of popular policies gets you elected! It is remarkable how conservative this once liberal firebrand has become.

Maher’s Election ‘Analysis’

The crap continues:

This election is about two things: fatigue and fear. We have fatigue, he [Trump] has fear: fear of socialism, fear of open borders, fear of getting rid of private health insurance, fear of higher taxes. He’s running on ‘the communists are coming! Sh*t yourself!’ We should run on ‘elect me and we can stop talking about him!’ All the Democrats have to do to win is come off less crazy than Trump!

These alleged ‘fears’ are all nonsense. Which of the Democrats has said an-ny-thing about socialism? Bernie calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but the order of the words there is important – Democracy first. Open borders? Once again, none of the Democrats said that! Maher is quite literally reading GOP talking points! As for getting rid of private health insurance (another Republican talking point), what Medicare4All actually does (and Sanders would know since he wrote the damn bill) is allow for supplemental private care to cover elective procedures. So no, private health insurance is not vanishing entirely. Fear of higher taxes is next. Sanders does plan to forgive student loan debt through a speculation tax on wall st. Extreme behaviour, is it not, Bill? Taxing wall st to forgive the debt of the majority?

Perhaps the greatest crime here is the last line: to win, all the Democrats have to do is come off less crazy than Trump. As I said above, no policy, no substance just ‘we are not him’. One of the reasons Mrs Clinton lost in 2016 was that she came across as entitled to the Presidency, as though the election were a mere formality. Trump was obviously such a clown that her victory was a foregone conclusion. This arrogance led to the election blowing up in her face. Learn from history or repeat it.

Maher and the ‘Unserious People’

Maher then accuses the Democrats whose policies lean more to the left of being ‘unserious’. Sanders and Warren have the simple intention of having America catch up to the rest of the developed world in having a single-payer healthcare system, to end the wars and the rest of their popular policies. It is, in no small irony, Maher himself who is unserious. He is violating the first rule of politics: do not abandon your base.

Speaking of the base, Maher then adds this gem:

I’m sick of hearing how Democrats need to ‘excite the base’ – TRUMP EXCITES THE BASE!

Indeed – the Republican base. He is a constant source of red meat for those poor, dumb manipulated bastards as Keith Olbermann once said. But while Trump may inspire those poor rubes to vote for him, the policy-driven Democratic base is not excited to simply Vote Blue No Matter Who because Orange Man Bad. Trump might excite contempt and hatred from the elites because he rips the mask off, but the Democratic base wants to vote for policies. The last election demonstrated what happens when politicians take their base for granted. Hint.

Conclusion: Policy over Politics

It is a fact that the policies of the progressive left are popular with the electorate. The Democrats can run on them and win, or they can run another corporatist PC outrage campaign and hand this dangerous criminal another four years of power. The choice is theirs.

A public servant who operated an anonymous Twitter account that was critical of Australian government policy has lost her high court case over her termination. The Court ruled that her conduct breached the Public Service Code of Conduct. It also denied her application for compensation.

Public Service, or Government Servants?

Let us first look at an example, which the ABC cites, of her Twitter activity. She tweeted the following in May of 2012

@ABCNews24 After the lies about 9/11 and Iraq, why would anyone give credence to ANYTHING said by those who have their own immoral agenda?

This is typical of the anonymous criticism of the government that came forth from her account. All she is doing here is questioning whether, after a government had provably lied, their claims about another issue should be taken seriously. Neither side of politics was mentioned, but for the record, the government of the time was Labor. This is the most tepid criticism you are likely to read, but apparently any criticism of the government is grounds for termination as a public servant.

Defence in Depths: Freedom of Political Communication

The public servant appealed her original termination to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which ruled that her ‘implied freedom of political communication’ rendered the firing illegitimate. This was a strange ruling, since, in our infinite wisdom, we never quite got round to the whole Bill of Rights thing. Hence the High Court’s ruling that no such freedom exists: because it does not. Suffice it to say, if you need to put the word ‘implied’ in front of a freedom, it is not real.

Implications of the Decision

Outside the Court, the public servant’s attorney said the following, again per the ABC:

The implications don’t stop at the boundary of public servants. The implication is that for any employee-employer relationship, if the employee is critical of the employer’s position on some politically relevant social issue, they can be sacked…[Mr Anforth said today’s High Court decision effectively meant anything a public servant did had to be] “with loyalty to the government” and not critical of it.

Sounds very damning, but it also happens to be true. There are restrictions on what people can say on social media based on their job. A dear friend of mine is a mental health practitioner. If he were to make posts on social media disparaging his employer, or worse, advocating suicide to the depressed, he would hardly be long for his job. Such restrictions on speech (ignore the ethics of the suicide suggestion) come with the territory, and he knew that going in. He would have precisely no grounds to oppose any termination. This leads into a brief recap of the Folau mess and contract law, leading back to the issue at hand.

An Inconvenient Suggestion: Contract Law and the Folau Comparison

To briefly raise the ugly head of Folau again, his contract was torn up because he breached its terms. It really was as simple as that. As I suggested in another piece, contract law cares not a fig why you breached the terms of your contract, merely that you did so. It is for this reason that Folau’s religious persecution claim is such crap. A contract is a contract.

Why is this case any different? This woman presumably entered into a contract with the public service. This contract would have contained the equivalent of a ‘don’t be a dickhead’ clause which generally means to not blacken your employer’s name. Now, even if we agree with what she said (I do), her contract, like many others, prevents her from criticising her employer or blackening their name. Are we suggesting that there is a different standard when the employer is the government? What is it that is different about this case of contract law as opposed to the Folau case? Like Folau, this woman appealed to a non-existent legal freedom to justify breaking her contract (intentionally or otherwise).

Brief disclaimer: do I necessarily agree with the implications of the two previous paragraphs? No. But like Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, I merely observe the situation and report what I see.

Further Implications and a Slippery Slope

A little more from the attorney for the public servant

It [the decision] is basically saying that if you take the Queen’s shilling, you surrender your rights to participate in the political process.

This idea of loss of political participation was even taken so far in one Facebook meme as to question whether public servants would be allowed to vote soon. This is clearly a slippery slope, as all public servants can vote like any other citizen, but you can see the basis for the question too. Voting against the incumbent government is criticism of their policies. The difference is that, while social media is public, the ballot is secret. Voting does not bring the public service (or the government they serve) into disrepute.

Silence and A Strawman: The Reaction

The silence of the right-wing free speech advocates who defend Bolt and the rest of the Bigot Brigade is deafening. Crickets. Where are you now, you bellicose belugas? Seems freedom of speech, like any other legal protection is, as is so typical for conservatives, for them and theirs, not you and yours. One wonders if their reaction would have been any different if the partisan makeup of the parliament were different, but I digress.

As for the strawman, Nadine Flood is the National Secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU). She issued this statement in response to the decision:

The notion that the mum of a gay son who happens to work in Centrelink can’t like a Facebook post on marriage equality without endangering her job is patently absurd.

That example is not comparable to this case, and is a strawman of the facts, even of the government’s position on the issue. Contrary to the conservatives’ 10,000 men put forth in defence of ‘tradition’, marriage equality is the law of the land. So this claim is wrong on the facts. But even so, liking a facebook post is quite different from sending thousands of tweets, some of which contained the type of inside information that only a government employee could possess.

Conclusion

The true implications of this case will play out over time. But at the moment, based on what I have read, this is a case of contract law. She violated the terms and suffered as a result. As a case of black letter contract law, the Court is right on this – as much as I hate to say it.

The industrial revolution, for all its flaws and all the misery it caused, was a major step forward in human civilisation. Goods were now available cheaper than ever before and greater movement of population took place as people moved to what would later become factory towns in search of work. The creation of industries around producing certain goods created competition to build a better mousetrap. However, the extension of industry, with its desire for profit, to encompass essential elements of society is part of the reason we are in the situation we are now. From healthcare, to prison to the very defence of the nation, the involvement of industry in society’s essentials is a true problem.

Problem Industry One: Health Insurance

Perhaps the most egregious example of private industry involved where it is not wanted is for-profit health insurance. When there is a direct link between company profits and people’s health – you know, their continued existence – we have a problem. America is the most serious example of this, where rapacious, for-profit companies make money by, to paraphrase Bill Maher, screwing people out of coverage. It is in their interest to deny as much coverage as possible, because paying out claims is a running cost, and those tend to eat into profits. The very purpose of business is to make money, and as much of it as possible for the precious shareholders choir.

I am not advocating for banning all insurance companies, but merely limiting their scope. Supplemental care – that is optional extras (usually voluntary procedures) – is a good place for the private sector. In this context, all fees, premiums and other outlays are voluntary. But there should be a baseline of essential care that is provided by what is currently being advocated by Bernie Sanders and the pretenders auditioning for the part: Medcare4All. This is essentially a massive national health insurance plan where costs are largely (if not completely) covered by tax revenue. The average amount of money paid into the scheme is actually less because the insurance pool is so much larger. Unlike the private insurance company, a government run system does not answer to shareholders and has no desire to turn a profit.

Problem Industry Two: Prisons

Only marginally less egregious than a profit motive around healthcare is one around keeping people incarcerated. Those with such a motive are part of what is called the Prison Industrial Complex. These are businesses whose profits are tied in with the size of the prison population. This is not merely those who run the actual prisons. It is the security firms, those who manufacture the weapons, the uniforms, the clothes and meals for the inmates and all the associated items. All of these have to be paid for, and the more people in prison the wider the profit margin.

The very idea of linking profit to taking away people’s physical freedom is almost as outrageous as linking it to their health. This is a true perversion of the very idea of industry. Industry was intended to produce goods quickly and cheaply for commercial products. This refers to products like mattresses, video games, squash rackets and so on. Actual commercial goods. There is no place for the government in any of those items and their design, production and distribution. But when it comes to certain essential elements of society, if there is to be a place for private industry, it must be heavily regulated due to the profit-motives that are built in.

Problem Industry Three: The Military

The final industry worthy of mention is the military. In his farewell address, former US President Eisenhower warned against allowing undue power and influence to what he called ‘the military industrial complex’. Clearly, the Prison Industrial Complex mentioned is derived from this. During the war, the creation of a permanent armaments industry was seen as necessary, with factories being converted to the production of tanks and planes. However, it never actually stopped following the end of the war. US foreign policy post WW2 has been highly interventionist, with many countries being invaded, some multiple times, for purposes of extracting resources and installing corporate friendly governments.

As just one example, see the coup in Iran in 1953 to install the Shah. The immediate context for the coup was the previous government’s moves to nationalise the oil industry and distribute the proceeds to the people. Western corporations could not tolerate that, so the coup was staged and a tyrant installed. Remember, this is from the society that claims to be in favour of democracy and human rights. Indeed is all I have to say to that.

Conclusion: The Way Forward

You can see the problem and its solution coming, can you not? The issue is corruption: money in politics. Corporations would never have been granted the degree of influence they have were it not for our corrupt politicians. The deregulation and increasingly fascist relationship between corporations and government would never have been allowed to happen if it were not for corruption.

The purpose of this piece has been to outline three main industries were profits are determined by negatively impacting people’s lives: health, prison and armed combat. As long as these facets of society remain subject to the rationales of private industry (profit at all costs) there can, and will, be no progress.

To end, two quotes from people who get it

Jailing people, really, when you think about it, turned out to be a for-profit industry. I don’t know how we didn’t see it all these years

Bill Maher

But my favourite has to be Star Trek DS9’s Quark, who said

No-one ever went broke selling weapons

SATIRE

Upon being informed that ‘something called Islam’ is also a religion, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has decided to abandon the proposed Religious Discrimination Act ‘pending further review’

‘I had no idea that there were other religions’ Morrison told BS News

‘I mean – everyone believes in Jesus, right? He died for our sins, praise him’

‘I had never heard of this ‘Islam’ before, and I had no idea that it would be protected under our Christi – no – sorry – Religious Discrimination Act. This policy is now suspended pending further review

A couple of items from the establishment media in the last few days have led to the suggestion in the title. Senator Warren appears to be the ‘left-extreme’ among the Democratic candidates. This is a highly relative term given how far to the right the American establishment is. I define ‘left-extreme’ as follows: she is as far left as the corporate establishment is willing to tolerate. It looks like the establishment is setting up Senator Warren as a sort of ‘left gatekeeper’ against the actual progressive candidate in the primary, Bernie Sanders. Please note that I am not criticising Senator Warren herself. Rather, the problem is the media outlets and the establishment using her in this way.

Item One: The Politico Article

In a remarkable piece of condescending propaganda, Politico recently tweeted this:

In poll after poll, Sanders appeals to: lower-income and less-educated people, men and younger people who vote less frequently. While Warren’s camp consists of: people with postgraduate degrees, women, and seniors who follow politics closely

The contrast in how Politico depicts the two camps could not be more stark. The poor and less educated (mostly men) who are less engaged in politics are likely to support Bernie. There is a distinct tone of elitism there that is dismissive of Sanders’ supporters. To paraphrase Jimmy Dore, if you are an idiot who does not ‘really know how politics works’ (read you do not know your place), you will support Bernie. There is a definite air of deligitimisation of Bernie and his supporters in that statement: as if it is the dregs of society, the lower orders, the peasants who support him. As someone with a PhD, I support Bernie Sanders, and I am not alone.

Turning now to Warren’s supporters, these are people with more formal education, women and seniors who pay more attention to politics. We might understand this group as those favoured by the elites: the right kind of people. People with postgraduate degrees are likely to earn more money and be less worried about the issues of concern to Sanders. It must be noted that possession of a degree is no indicator of your level of intelligence, how informed you are about politics or anything else. The political opinion of someone with an MA or a PhD carries no more weight than that of a tradesman. The bias on display in this comparison of the two candidates’ respective supporters is thus clear.

Item Two: The MSNBC Segment

On a recent segment on The Contenders on MSNBC, Mimi Rocah offered the following statement on the comparison between Sanders and Warren

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren next to each other will really highlight…because – for me as – again I’m not a political analyst, but just – as a woman, probably considered a somewhat moderate Democrat, I…Bernie Sanders makes my skin crawl. I can’t even identify for you what exactly it is, but I see him as a…not pro-woman candidate. So, having the two of them there – like – I don’t understand young women who support him, and I’m hoping that having him next to her will help highlight that, because those are the people that, if I were her, I would want to say ‘why are you supporting him and not me if you’re gonna choose between the two of us?

Wow – where to start? First, if you are not a political analyst, as you yourself admit, what are you doing on a political talk show? If you have a personal opinion, go on social media and display it for the world to see. But if you are not a political analyst, why should I take your opinion seriously? Second, she admitted there was absolutely no substance to her criticism of Sanders! He ‘makes my skin crawl’ – what does that mean? Pathetic, substance free, feelings-based crap. Third, he is a ‘not pro-woman candidate’ – Hitchens’ Razor: that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Having feelings-based verbal diarrhea does not constitute a political argument. Fourth, she says she does not understand young women who support Sanders, the implication being that there is a perfectly good female candidate right there in Warren.

Identity Politics Rides Again

If you think that last point a stretch, look at her next sentence ‘why are you supporting him and not me’; she said that directly after she said she does not understand young women who support him. I do not think that is a stretch: support her because woman; if not, you sexist. I have intentionally used caveman style broken English there to convey the simple-minded garbage that is this brand of politics. Policy substance did not even enter the discussion! She clearly implied that Warren should be the candidate of any self-respecting woman based, appropriately enough, on dick!

A quick question for Ms. Rocah and those who agree with her: how did that work out last time you tried it? This was the precise strategy that Hillary used in 2016. Remember ‘I’m with Her’ as the red arrow pointed to the right (a great political Freudian slip)? You have tried the ‘support her because woman’ approach before, and you lost! The electorate does not like being told who to vote for based on gender, or race, or sexual orientation. They care about policy!

Contrary to your insulated, bubble-world opinion, these women (or anyone else for that matter) who support America’s Dad are doing so because they agree with his policies! They do not care if he is the dreaded straight, old, white man. His policies would help them in their day-to-day lives much more than screaming Russia Russia Russia!

Conclusion: Warren as Corporate Compromise Candidate

The point of the respective treatment of Warren and Bernie here seems clear enough. The corporate elite have seen that the energy in the Democratic party is in the populist wing. They have thus chosen a compromise candidate: one who is populist enough to excite the base but who will ‘play ball’. Senator Warren is also a woman, so identity politics becomes a viable weapon against her detractors.

To end, I reiterate that this is not a critique of the Senator herself; she is merely running her campaign for the nomination. It is the media who are to blame here, cynically manipulating her campaign in an effort to bring down Bernie Sanders.

The suggestion that the current President of the United States is a racist and an intolerant bigot is hardly original to me. A quick scan of his twitter feed is all the evidence you need. The US House of Representatives (the House) voted recently to condemn Trump’s racist comments against four Democratic Representatives of colour. To set his more recent remarks in context, I want to delve into Trump’s bigoted past, and show that his current behaviour is nothing new. This is not to excuse it, but to show that he has not really gotten worse, he is the same bigoted dolt he always was.

Housing Discrimination, Part One: Race

In the 1970s, the Department of Justice sued Trump and his father for discriminatory housing practices. Translation: they did not want to rent to black people. If you think this seems extreme, consider these recollections from people involved in the case

ELYSE GOLDWEBER: What they had done was send “testers” – meaning one white couple and one couple of color – to Trump Village, a very large, lower-middle-class housing project. And of course the white people were treated great, and for the people of color there were no apartments. We subpoenaed all their documents. That’s how we found that a person’s application, if you were a person of color, had a big C on it..

For the people of colour there were no apartments – indeed. But Trump could not just deny black people apartments. He had to mark their applications with a giant yellow sta – no – sorry – a giant C. Remarkable: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been the law for nearly ten years by this point. But bigots like Trump and his old man do not bend to the law; that is for peasants. We do what we want. The case was settled by what the lawyers call a ‘consent decree’ – essentially the accused makes restitution to the plaintiffs and the case goes away.

To put the issue beyond doubt, there is this gem from Trump after the settlement. Quote John Yinger, another lawyer

Trump had some interesting language after the settlement: He said that it did not require him to accept people on welfare.

Yes, because all black people are on welfare. Trying to keep this one G-rated folks; it is a struggle. The racism, condescension and prejudice just oozes from every pore of his being. I do not hate anyone, but this man makes it hard.

Housing Discrimination, Part Two: Disability

Lest you think that Trump’s bigotry only relates to race, here is another story told about the Bigot in Chief

We met with the architect to go over the elevator-cab interiors at Trump Tower, and there were little dots next to the numbers. Trump asked what the dots were, and the architect said, “It’s braille.” Trump was upset by that. He said, “Get rid of it.” The architect said, “I’m sorry; it’s the law.” Trump’s exact words were: “No blind people are going to live in this building.”

Amazing, is it not? This man has no empathy, no conscience. He has no concept of compassion. Even ignoring all that, as the architect said, it was the law to put braille dots in elevators. There are two major aspects to this. First is the the massive prejudice and ‘f those who are different to me’ mentality. Thus far we have no blind people and no black people. Gee I wonder what his preferred candidates were?

The second, and far more important, is the overarching sense of ‘the law does not apply to me’. Trump believed then, and certainly believes now, that he is able to do as he pleases and that no laws or restrictions apply to him. He thinks of himself as a modern day king or emperor: above the laws to which mere mortals are subject. The great tragedy, as the last seventy-plus years show, is that he is right. There have been, and continue to be, precisely no consequences for Trump flagrantly and frequently violating the law. As with any child, he learned what he lived: wealth, privilege, power. He learned that he could do what he wanted and face no consequences, so that is what he came to expect. And society obliged.

The Central Park Five, Then and Now

The article I am using as the basis for this piece is much longer, and details many incidents with similar primary evidence quotations. I have chosen what perhaps are the more obscure and distant examples of his racism and prejudice. I want to end on the well-known case of the so-called Central Park Five.

In April of 1989, a woman was raped in central park. Hysteria was such that five young men, four African-Americans and a latino, found themselves arrested and charged with the crime. However, before the trial had even started, Trump took out full page ads in all the major newspapers calling for the death penalty for these young men. Ignore the barbarity of the death penalty, and its use on teenagers. Ignore too the fact that, for all its viciousness, rape is not a capital crime. These young men were not even convicted of the crime! Trump was attempting to blatantly taint the jury pool (voir dire would have been scintillating). The young men were convicted, but spared capital punishment. There was, as usual, no punishment for Trump for his blatant tampering with the justice system.

In 2002, DNA evidence exonerated the young men and they successfully sued the city of New York for millions. In 2016, some fourteen years after their exoneration, Trump still believed they were guilty. He is clearly not amenable to facts, he does not change his thinking on an issue once his mind is made up, and we have always been at war with East Asia.

Conclusion: Bigot in Chief

The media and the corporate Democrats are going after Trump and passing meaningless resolutions in the House condemning him for his racist tweets. There is actually a far larger point at play here, and it shows how truly dangerous Trump is.

Consider briefly the definition of the word bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudice. Related terms include doctrinaire, fanatic, sectarian.

All of these terms have one thing in common: proponents lack that quality which being President of the United States most requires: mental flexibility.

This is what makes Trump so dangerous: not his racism, not the fact-free nonsense he spouts on a daily basis, but his simplistic, dogmatic and rigid world view. His inability to learn, to change, to adapt. For all the vile crap he has said in and out of office, look beyond that and see the true danger: the man in charge of the largest military in human history is not capable of learning anything.

We live in troubled times, as Green Day said.

Former leader of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) Lyle Shelton has come forth with yet more of the persecution narrative. This time, the issue is the ‘suffering’ that christians have faced following the passage of marriage equality. Ah yes, the great and crushing suffering that takes place as a result of having your privilege removed. How utterly oppressed you are, you petty, empty-headed bigot. Let us do this.

The Non-Suffering Servants

Vile decided to go on the conservative echo-chamber of choice, sky so-called news, to spread his lies. He told the host

We ploughed ahead with the change the definition of the marriage based on the Yes campaign saying there were no consequences. I’m going to say that was a lie and not true. There’s big complications and implications for people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion and parents’ rights about gender indoctrination at schools

The parliament proceeded with the extension of marriage rights (which is all it was) because there were no consequences. All that was happening was that an institution, which humans made up, was being extended to a group of society previously denied access for arbitrary reasons. For no other reason than that they were gay, otherwise loving couples were denied access to marriage (and all the rights that came with it) in the same way blacks were half a century ago. The parallel is apt.

Vile then proceeds, without evidence, to say that the claim from the yes campaign that there would be no consequences was a lie. There are, this ill-informed and quite openly bigoted moron said, ‘complications and implications for people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion’. Sigh. Freedom of speech – in marriage equality? What, Vile, are you not allowed to say ‘burn faggot’ in public anymore? Is it no longer socially acceptable to say ‘gays need not apply’? Can you no longer advocate for the murder of people because they violate carefully selected tenets of a book of bronze age mythology? Grow up and get over yourself!

Tellingly, the SBS article said that Vile could not name a single incident of actual christian suffering. Could that possibly be because – oh I do not know – no such incidents exist!?

Placating Petulant Children: The Religious Freedom Review

You may recall that, in response to this long overdue piece of social progress, the government ordered a review into religious freedom. I imagine that this was designed to make sure that christians’ right to dick people about because bronze age book was not restrained by social progress. The government handed the review to former LNP Attorney General Philip Ruddock. Nothing quite says impartial, apolitical review quite like handing it to one of the boys. But even this stacking of the deck could not get ‘the right outcome’. Ruddock said he ‘didn’t find a lot of evidence of actual material discrimination that would be of concern’. In other words, Vile is full of crap.

Devil in The Detail

However, never one to let facts get in the way of the agenda, the Morrison government has decided to pursue some form of Religious Discrimination Act by the end of the year. Is it not ironic that, for once, a piece of legislation has an accurate title? Since this law, if the details are accurate, would indeed allow discrimination by the religious?

So, what little gems does the government have in store? Details are sketchy, but here are some details I have been able to find. We start with the guy calling himself the Attorney General, (Non) Christian Porter.

This weasel told The Guardian that

[The Bill] would provide an overarching rule that places limitations on what an employer could do by way of general rules that affected all of their workforce, if those general rules, in an unfair and unreasonable way, had a negative – or what the legislation calls a disadvantaging – effect on a person of faith

So the government is going to tell corporations how to run their businesses if any of the rules they put in place have ‘a…disadvantaging effect on a person of faith’. This government, the so-called small government crowd, are going to dictate the terms companies can put into their own contracts, if the government thinks those terms disadvantage a person of faith. Seriously. What happened to getting the government off the backs of businesses? Greasy hypocrites.

The second point to note here is that this is, as the more secular among us have been warning for months, about legislating religious privilege. If you do not believe me, note please that the restrictions to the terms employees can put in their contracts only apply if they effect ‘a person of faith’. So if the terms of a contract affect a non-believer, they have to live with it. But there is now, as we warned, separate rules (and thereby separate contracts) for people of faith, lest their delicate sensibilities be troubled by the fact that it is not 1364 anymore. This is crap and needs to be fought against with every fibre of force possible.

Conclusion: Y’aint Oppressed!

A message to Vile and the rest of the persecution posse: you are not oppressed and you are not entitled to different status under the law. You privileged pendejos have sat atop the social pyramid for millenia and are annoyed that others get to share the same space.

Spit your dummy out and grow up.

The increasingly ridiculous situation around Israel Folau is once again in the news. A little context first, and then a systematic deconstruction of this nonsense. I try to be impartial, but there is something about this situation that makes me want to sharpen the axe.

Background: Folau’s Social Media Screwup

In April, Israel Folau posted a photo to instagram which said, among other choice things, that homosexuals were going to hell. Such a post represented a breach of his contract with the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) which, like many other contracts, includes a ‘don’t be a dickhead’ clause. He had made such posts in the past, and the ARU warned him. He chose to do so again, knowing that the previous example of such conduct was a breach of his contract. The ARU punished him and he now has the nerve to play the victim. Contract law does not care why you breached your contract, merely that you did so. Claiming the right to breach your contract because religion is to seek religious privilege. He then planned to sue the ARU for unfair dismissal on religious grounds. I have dealt with this ‘religious freedom’ issue in another piece on this site.

From GoFundMe to Guardian Angels

Despite being a multi millionaire, Folau set up a GoFundMe campaign for his suit against the ARU. Suspicion surrounded the campaign from the start, and the company ultimately suspended it. This naturally fanned the fires of persecution common among conservative christians once they realise they must tolerate the existence of people who are not like them. Enter stage far-right the Australian Christian Lobby. As masters of the persecution gambit, who better to serve as Folau’s guardian angels than these clowns?

This group of christian fundamentalists created a pledge on their website to fund Folau’s campaign. It raised – wait for it – more than $2mil from approximately 20,000 donors. Quite the average. Folau himself, backed by the torn ACL, frames the issue of his termination as taking place as punishment ‘for my religious beliefs’. No – you are not being punished for your beliefs. You are free to believe as you wish. What you are not entitled to do is tell people who are different from you that they will burn in eternal fire! Religious freedom (whatever that means) does not extend to ordering people to repent because they are not like you!

Muh Freeze Peach!

Inevitably, the right has attempted to turn this into a free speech issue. As an example, consider this screed in the Canberra Times. After saying that the issue when silencing speech (which no-one ever discussed – there is a difference between consequences for speech and silencing it) was whether it does harm, the author went on to say

First, apologies for the gap. Much going on. Now to the plot.

There is a noteworthy trend in contemporary politics: the leaders have not adapted to the new technological age. They still believe that it is 1950, where what you say behind closed doors stays there. Or that there is no way to factcheck, in real time, their often false claims. For them, the ability to lie to achieve their goals is still the order of the day. They have not adapted to the technological reality: every person has a video camera and a microphone in their hands and can use it to provide a record of what you actually say. The public can use this evidence to question or refute claims you make. Your response is often to blame the source, an illegitimate tactic. As the evolutionary imperative says, adapt or go extinct.

A Political Generation Gap: AOC vs Trump

In another place, I wrote about AOC’s use of social media to promote herself and more importantly her policies. Since she is a millennial (she is 29), and has grown up with social media, AOC is aware of its power, as both a communication tool and more importantly as an archive. Social media is an archive of what an individual has posted online. Their very words can be used to refute current claims, and no amount of screeching fake news or ‘media bias’ is going to change that. To paraphrase Keith Olbermann, quoting your own words back to you is not a cheap shot, nor is it media bias. AOC knows the archival power of social media. The current President does not.

There are a plethora of Trump tweets that have not aged well. Whether it was his claim that the electoral college was ‘a disaster for democracy’ when it looked like he would lose in that vote, to praising the electoral college as ‘actually genius’ when he won. Or his claim that Mr Obama would ‘start a war with Iran’ because he was ‘desperate’ to now seriously escalating towards his own war with that country. Now you might argue Trump’s stream of consciousness approach disregards hypocrisy. Maybe. But the wider society (excluding the MAGA cultists) does not. They have the opportunity to look at the evidence and see his thousand-and-one backflips, hypocrisies and outright lies. Trump’s 1984-style ‘we have always been at war with Eurasia’ approach might work on the older generation, but the social media generation is better informed than any before them. This will not work on them.

Tonkin to Hormuz: Some Suspicious Events

Governments have often taken advantage of the lack of information available to the people. It was long suspected that the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident, which led to US involvement in the Vietnam War, was a false flag incident to justify yet another foreign war. Recently, declassified documents proved that this was the case. Times have changed and so has the nature of available evidence. In the 1960s it was not so easy to challenge the government narrative. If they said something happened, counter-evidence was not usually ready to hand. The government narrative was usually the only version of events available.

More recently, however, the nature of the available evidence has shifted to the point where it is possible to create counter-narratives to the official position. This often takes place in the field of independent media (frequently on youtube), since corporations own establishment media and so the coverage tows the line on the latest foreign adventure. Examples of such counter-narratives include Jimmy Dore and The Real News Network. The use of social media as a means to get actual facts out there to counter the government propaganda is noteworthy.

This brings us to the recent attack on two oil tankers in the straits of Hormuz off the coast of Iran. The Trump Administration seems eager to turn this incident into another Gulf of Tonkin to justify going to war. The politics of this are complex, with the Iran Nuclear Deal signed under Mr. Obama subject to violation and ultimate scrapping by Trump and his goons. However, after the recent incident in Hormuz, a counter-narrative came forth disputing the Trump Administration’s claim that ‘Eye-Ran done it’. Great independent media reporting from Kim Iversen on youtube seriously calls into question the government narrative, and I encourage you to check it out.

Bringing It Home: Australia

This very network is an example of independent media running facts counter to the outright lies our government pedals. Morrison and his regime do not have good relations with the facts, so printing facts provokes their ire. The go to case here is Emma Alberici’s searing critique of the great lie that is corporate tax cuts are good for the wider economy. Greg Jericho aptly responded in the Guardian, skewering the government for its attack on Ms. Alberici. These pseudo-fascists forced the ABC to pull the piece and publish a ‘revamped’ version of it. He who controls the past, controls the future; he who controls the present, controls the past.

Conclusion: The Role of Independent Media

Governments’ reactions to critical coverage clearly shows that it hits a nerve. Whether Spud screams media bias, or Trump screeches ‘fake news’, this should encourage us. We should continue to speak truth to power. They know they are losing the war and so they screech louder. Forward, my friends. Let us show these dinosaur politicians the true power of the information age.

In a speech about Democratic Socialism, Senator Bernie Sanders brilliantly redefined the old buzzword ‘freedom’. Frequently, we have seen this screeched by the right with ever-increasing volume whenever they want to silence disagreement. Such a term makes the heels click; it brings people into line. Typically, when the right uses the term ‘freedom’ it is best translated as ‘shut up’. On a deeper level, it has come to mean corporate and right-wing freedom to say and do as they please with impunity. Freedom has long been, as Keith Olbermann once said, a brand name. Something that a politician says when they want to get away with its opposite. Freedom is slavery.

Dad Rebrands: Bernie and Freedom

As part of his speech, Bernie, who is known affectionately as America’s Dad, said the following

Ask yourself: are you truly free if you cannot afford to go to a doctor when you are sick, or face financial bankruptcy when you leave the hospital? If you cannot afford the prescription drugs you need in order to stay alive? Are you truly free when you spend half of your limited income on housing and are forced to borrow money from a payday lender at 200% interest rates? [What about] f you are 70 years old and forced to work because you lack a pension or enough money to retire? Are you truly free if you are unable to go to a college or a trade school because your family lacks the income?

He goes on, but you get the idea. For all the screeching of ‘freedom’ from what is an increasingly radical right-wing, the reality of the situation is that everything that Bernie said is true for essentially half of the US population. This reality exposes the great lie that is ‘freedom’, at least as it is used by the right. Freedom does mean ‘shut up’. It does mean ‘know your place’. Freedom does mean ‘I get to do what I want and you get to STFU’. Freedom for the right people. As the late St George Carlin said ‘It’s a big cub, and you ain’t in it’.

Bernie’s Solution: The Second Bill of Rights

Channelling the spirit of FDR, Bernie went on to define what he called the new Bill of Rights. After briefly outlining the political rights that the US Constitution supposedly guarantees, Dad said this

That is why today, I am proposing a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights.

 

A Bill of Rights that establishes once and for all that every American, regardless of his or her income in entitled to:

 

• The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
• The right to quality health care
• The right to a complete education
• The right to affordable housing
• The right to a clean environment
• The right to a secure retirement

Speak it, Brother. Defining what we may see as ‘the basics’ of life – healthcare, education, housing etc as rights is brilliant framing. This is truly transitional thinking, even if the idea is an old one. Sanders is tapping into the American (and indeed Western) tradition of rights while extending the definition to cover more things. Lest we think this is merely pie in the sky (which is how the media will portray it), he referenced in the speech policies that his campaign has, and continues to release on these issues: Medicare4All, tuition free college etc. He has thought about this and has very specific policy ideas to achieve his goals.

Forewarned is Forearmed: Dad Pre-Responds to his Critics

In a useful act of foresight, Bernie pre-responded to the withering array of non-attacks that will doubtless be peddled by the liars in the media. First, he quoted harry Truman’s brilliant definition of socialism

Socialism is their [the oligarchs’] name for almost anything that helps all the people

That is a great line. From unions to social security to basically anything that helps someone making less than six-figures per year; it was all socialism. Sanders took this line and ran with it, eviscerating the contemporary oligarchs and their hypocrisy on socialism when he said

President Trump and his fellow oligarchs attack us for our support of democratic socialism. [However],they don’t really oppose all forms of socialism. They may hate democratic socialism because it benefits working people, but they absolutely love corporate socialism. In 2008, after Wall St.’s greed, recklessness and illegal behavior created the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression, Wall Street’s religious adherence to unfettered capitalism suddenly came to an end. Overnight, they became big government socialists and begged for the largest federal bailout in American history.

Is there anything this man cannot do? Even acknowledging that that appeals to hypocrisy (which this is) are not sound arguments, the point about their hypocrisy still stands. They may have the right to complain about Democratic Socialism, but I am not obligated to take them seriously. Comrade Bernie (a term of endearment) has put what I said in a previous post about Conservatives and socialism in the crystalised and succinct form: they do not hate socialism, in fact they love corporate socialism. The takeaway from this is that socialism itself is not the problem, it just has to go to the right people.

Conclusion: Bernie as Political Genius

This speech from Bernie, of which I have analysed a tiny fraction, is brilliant and should be seen as a model for the new left. Sanders is concise, clear and policy driven. His framing of ‘economic rights’ and his questioning of the great buzzword ‘freedom’ is political genius. Substantive counter-arguments to his position are not immediately obvious. Which is why the corporate media will bitch about ‘how will you pay for this?’ – even though that never comes up about the military budget, the bailouts and the subsidies.

Forward, Dad: give these oligarchs what for!