Prologue: Historical Background

In the period from roughly 641AD to the so-called Triumph of Orthodoxy in 843, the Byzantine Empire, based in modern Istanbul, went through a period of instability, both internal and external. The period is known as the Byzantine Dark Age or the Iconoclastic Controversy. As a result of the rise of Islam and its expansion, the Byzantines lost the rich eastern provinces which they ruled since the first century BC. The Byzantines lived in a religious age, and so to explain this collection of failures, they turned inward.

Specifically, they believed that they had lost god’s favour because of some sin or other. The sin that the Emperors of this period chose to focus on was Idolatry. Orthodox Christianity assumed an increasingly visual form as it evolved across the centuries. Depictions of important religious figures, including Jesus himself, were common. This many in the clergy, and eventually the government, saw as idolatry.

Iconoclasm in the ‘Modern’ World, Part One: ISIS

During 2015, as they waged war on anything non-Islamic, the so-called Islamic State destroyed precious historical buildings and statues. The world quite naturally responded with revulsion. Here we saw the destruction of buildings and monuments because they did not fit into a group’s preconceived ideas. In this case, it was religion which has quite the history of cultural destruction in the name of faith, but religion is by no means unique. Ideology, with its rigid demands that reality conforms to it rather than the reverse, creates the desire to destroy any icons/images that are antithetical. ISIS was just a particularly egregious example. This is but one example of people’s feelings getting hurt having widespread destructive consequences.

Iconoclasm in the ‘Modern’ World, Part Two: Literature

As recently as 2019 (although this controversy is quite old) we witnessed attempts to ban classic works of literature from study at school. The targets were Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird and Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Their crime? Use of the N-word dramatic chord. These gems of American literature – the land of the free home of the timid it seems – contained ‘language’ that ‘made some students feel uncomfortable’. As Harper Lee herself noted, the irony of refusing to study books with anti-racism themes over the use of racist language is explosive. The language is designed to make people feel uncomfortable. It exposes the horrific nature of racism.

Refusing to study this book because it contains a particular word is a form of iconoclasm. Even if we do not burn the book itself, because people are uncomfortable with it we must exclude it from the curriculum. What is the difference between the Byzantine Iconoclasts destroying images they saw as blasphemous, ISIS doing the same thing and these literary examples? In all three cases, something has to go because muh feels. Screw – you. The world is not required to accommodate your feelings. Things are going to make you uncomfortable. Get used to it. Cotton wool is not a sustainable living environment. Grow up.

Iconoclasm in the ‘Modern’ World, Part Three: Entertainment in 2020

The example I am about to discuss, that of the Fawlty Towers episode The Germans, has been abandoned and the episode remains available. I want to discuss what I see as the Iconoclasm at play here, so some background is necessary.

There were demands that the BBC remove the Fawlty Towers episode The Germans. This is where Basil (John Cleese) famously does a parody of Hitler including a funny walk reminiscent of The Ministry of Silly Walks from Monty Python. It also includes this brilliant exchange around ‘the war’

German Customer: Will you please stop talking about the war?

Basil: ME? You started it!

German: We did *not* start it

Basil: Yes you did you invaded Poland

Calls to ban this episode, like those with Lee and Twain’s books, utterly miss the point. First of all the ‘you started it’ scene is brilliant and typical of the misunderstandings common in Fawlty Towers. Second, the ‘woke mob’ misses the point that Cleese is making fun of Hitler by speaking gibberish and walking around like an idiot. Cleese’s physical comedy adds much to the scene.

Analysis: Missing the Point

The fact that the mob utterly missed the point of the scene and saw ‘comedy around Hitler’ and yelled ‘BAN IT’ says much about the current state of popular culture. Comedies about World War 2 abound: Hogan’s Heroes, ‘Allo ‘Allo and Dad’s Army among others. These comedies were actually part of the grieving process after the war. Through satire, these shows demystified the war. They portrayed on screen a version of what it was like (edited appropriately for television).

This concept of missing the point actually applies, in two ways, to all forms of Iconoclasm discussed here. First, you cannot kill an idea. You may destroy statues, you may censor books from the curriculum, you may get comedy episodes banned, but the ideas live on. No matter how many books you burn (give them time) the ideas behind them are not going anywhere. The tighter your grip, to paraphrase Leia, the less you hold onto.

The second way these ‘woke’ clowns miss the point is their failure to ascertain the message behind what they seek to ban. Whether it was satirising and criticising racism with Lee and Twain or satirising Hitler with Cleese, failure to understand satire does not invalidate it. There is a saying that if you do not like what a sign is advertising, do not buy the product. The modern, pithier version of this is keep scrolling. People are going to say things you do not like. No individual is the arbiter of what is acceptable. Moving to ban things that even large groups of people find offensive is not the height of ‘wokeness’, it is the height of ignorance and virtue-signalling. This leads to my conclusion.

Conclusion: Wokeness as Distraction

Prediction: there will be support for this new Iconoclasm from both the corporate sector and the corporate politicians. We have already seen this in the case of the protests around Black Lives Matter. Corporate politician Nancy Pelosi as well as corporate big-wig Jamie Dimon both ‘took knees’ in solidarity. Pelosi’s fake wokeness is well known, and the reason for this is simple. Solidarity with the protests, and even supporting banning certain things, keeps the focus away from the corrupt kleptocracy that passes for a government in the west.

So I have two gripes with the new Iconoclasm: you criticise art without understanding it and you are way too easily manipulated.

America’s Dad Bernard Sanders has ‘suspended his campaign’, which is politician speak for dropping out. The result is that former Vice President Joe Biden is the Democratic Presidential candidate for 2020. I wish you luck, Mr Vice President, for you shall need it. But I digress. This piece is about the Sanders campaign, the lessons to take from it and its legacy. I am going to lay some blame at the foot of the media; I do not think we can legitimately deny that the media’s bias against Sanders played some role in his lack of success.

That said, any suggestion that I writing an apologia for Senator Sanders and his campaign will hopefully be mollified by the criticism I will level at both him and his campaign. They, and indeed Senator Sanders himself, were far from flawless in their campaign strategy. Both proved inflexible and to some extent politically tone-deaf in their reactions to circumstances on the campaign. I am sad that his run is over, but there are lessons to learn. Some of what follows may not be pleasant for Sanders’ supporters.

Dad Drops Out: What Happened

Folks are well aware that, following the simultaneous withdrawals of Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar, Biden did extremely well on Super Tuesday. Following his predictable win in South Carolina, the former Vice President had the momentum. The withdrawals of Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar and the establishment coalescing around Biden is what Secular Talk’s Kyle Kulinski called Bloody Monday. Sanders stayed on, however, despite petulant screeching from the establishment that he drop out. Well, you got your wish, you bastards. To paraphrase Sir Robert Walpole, you have your candidate, I wish you well.

Dad announced his withdrawal, citing the painful truth that no viable path to the nomination exists. He is behind by 300 delegates and the numbers simply do not work. These are the facts of the situation, facts that he expressed very eloquently and I encourage you to read his statement.

Dad Drops Out: Why, Part One: The Media

We need to consider many factors to explain why a candidate who is in line with mainstream American voters’ opinion faced such a struggle. Note that I said voters’ opinion. Mr Sanders’ policies are popular among the people (even a Fox News audience cheered for M4A). The corporate sycophants in the media, who are as corrupt as the politicians, could never support a populist. So the media consistently portrayed Bernie in the most negative light possible. As critical as many people are of the media (guilty), we must accept that they do have a wide range of influence.

Despite terrible levels of trust in the media, they still have massive amounts of influence. Like it or not, the way the media portrays a candidate shapes their image. The flagrant dishonesty in the media’s coverage of Sanders is well known, but this example I think illustrates it well. Sanders praised former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro for his literacy programme. Naturally, this drew outrage from the professional pearl-clutching brigade and suddenly it was ‘Sanders loves Dictators’. What he actually said, if you intentionally dishonest actors could remove your heads from your rectums for a moment, was that Castro’s literacy programme was a good thing. That is all. Sanders still condemned the regime, he still said authoritarianism was evil, still said political prisoners in gaols was inappropriate. But the media did not care.

The N-word and the F-word are no longer what you think they are. Instead, they are Nuance and Facts. Both are every bit as taboo as ngger and fck and neither has a place in ‘polite’ and ‘civil’ corporate media conversation. The narrative is what matters, in this case, Sanders Bad. The media has much to answer for in the fall of the most popular candidate in recent memory.

Dad Drops Out: Why, Part Two: Strategic Flaws and Weaknesses

For all the flaws of the media, and they are legion, the Sanders campaign, and indeed the Senator himself must bear ultimate responsibility. In the early states, meaning those before Bloody Monday, Sanders’ strategy had been to secure a solid 30% of the vote. This is because, simply put, that was all he needed in such a crowded field.

But once it was a 2 man race, the strategy needed to evolve; and it did not. Sanders’ stump speech did not change, not did his labelling or marketing. He continued to appeal mostly to younger voters, openly calling himself a Democratic socialist. In addition, he started the #nomiddleground campaign. This portrayed him as uncompromising and, yes, somewhat of an extremist. Right or wrong, this would not play well with older voters, who are the more likely voters. These were major strategic blunders on the part of the campaign.

Dad Drops Out: Why, Part Three: Tactical Problems

There were tactical blunders, too. When Sanders was asked if he thought Joe Biden could beat Trump, he responded ‘I do’. Wrong answer, Dad. You were in a primary, Sir. When the media asks you if your opponent can fulfil the role the two of you are competing for, you say No. You say that you are the better candidate. What kind of alternative says that the other guy can do the job? The primary is a job interview for the role of Nominee. If you were at a job interview and they asked you ‘Do you think the other guy can do the job?’ you answer ‘I am the best candidate’. You make your case, which you did not do. Your inability or unwillingness to make your own case cost you dearly.

Finally, Sanders displayed considerable personal weakness on the campaign. He frequently referred to Joe Biden as ‘my friend’, called him ‘a decent guy’ and so on. This lack of a ‘killer instinct’ crystalised in his utter refusal to call out Biden’s corruption. Biden openly said that he had ‘prostituted myself’ to moneyed interests. Bernie allowed his personal friendship with Biden to get in the way of doing his political duty, which was to expose Biden for the corrupt corporate insider that he is. Sanders had no such problem exposing Mrs Clinton’s corruption. No friendship there, I guess.

Bernie Sanders as Prophet: The Way Forward

As critical as the previous paragraphs were of America’s Dad, his campaign is still a watershed moment in American History. As Chomsky said, Sanders has fundamentally changed the conversation. Ideas that were unthinkable even two years ago are now part of the conversation. The media largely dismisses them, but the very fact that they have to respond at all speaks volumes. Politicians, too, are forced to respond to the ideas of M4A, tuition-free public college and eliminating student-loan debt. The conversation is changing. Sanders’ focus on the issues, sometimes unfortunately to the exclusion of smart politics, has brought that style of campaign back to the forefront of politics. Long may this continue.

The Sanders campaign also received donations not from Wall St or other corporate interests, but from regular Joe and Jane citizens, averaging, per his suspension statement, $18.50. Thus a populist campaign funded by small-dollar donations is possible. With a few minor tweaks and adjustments, great success may be had using this model.

Bernie Sanders is the canary in the coalmine, setting many a useful precedent for his successors to follow. Who those successors are remains to be seen, and we must acknowledge that a void in left leadership does exist since Sanders will not run again. The Presidential campaigns of America’s Dad Bernard Sanders represent major milestones in American history. His legacy is considerable and must not be forgotten. Forward, Progressives. Dad showed the way, and it now falls to you to pick up the baton.

Krystal Ball of Rising on The Hill TV recently made a comment that perfectly encapsulates Joe Biden and the Democrats. I want to give her comment, delve into the details and extrapolate a little.

The Krystal Ball Looks into You, Part One: Swing that Axe!

On a recent edition of Rising, Krystal offered this pearl of wisdom on Joe Biden. For full context, he was on MSNBC doing an interview about COVID-19 among other topics. Krystal said:

He [Biden] is actually perfect. He’s a perfect emblem of a dying, gasping, hollow husk of the Democratic establishment. He’s the perfect emblem and mascot for that. When I see him out there [in the media] I think ‘Yeah. This is exactly what they want. It’s exactly who they are. Just some empty husk, reading from notes so that they can push and direct in the right direction. Ultimately what is he promising? Nothing will fundamentally change. You don’t need to do anything. Just man the ship, and put the regular people back in place. That’s all that they’ve ever promised

That was a barbed-wire wrapped sledgehammer strike to the skull. What a brilliant encapsulation of the rotting hulk that is Joe Biden and the Democratic Establishment. Ok – praise over, let us delve into this.

In Biden, we have a rich, old, white, corrupt candidate who is politically illiterate and quite incompetent. He openly serves the donor class (see this segment about his donors having veto power over his VP picks) while paying lip service to the liberal base through identity politics. He promised to put a black woman on the Supreme Court and pick a woman for his VP. Could there be a better encapsulation of the Democratic Establishment? Corporatist economics under a veneer of wokeness.

The Krystal Ball Looks into You, Part Two: A Propped Up Puppet

Krystal has provided insight into Biden’s true role in this process. His role is basically as a puppet for his younger VP pick. Mr Biden has clear cognitive decline, and it looks increasingly unlikely that he would serve one full term, never mind two. His Vice President, whoever it may be, would likely serve out his term when his cognitive decline renders him unable to serve.

Krystal and Saagar (her co-host on Rising) also discussed the possibility of a Reagan-Bush style situation, where the VP becomes the presumptive nominee to replace their boss. The result would be twelve years of Democratic rule, specifically of the neoliberal variety. When Joe Biden told a room full of wealthy donors that nothing would fundamentally change, his role was thus crystalised: he was a status quo manager. He was not an agent of change (even Obama had the good sense to run on that)

Showing how little she cares for the norms of Washington DC, Krystal even added that Biden’s role was to ‘put regular people back in place.’ A sort of ‘return to normalcy’ if you will. See, these inept and out of touch clowns think that Trump is the problem. His lack of civility and mean tweets (ignore his policies since they agree with him there) are the problem. If we can remove Trump, even if we have to put the corpse of Joe Biden in there, things will return to normal. Why Joe Biden though, you may ask?

The Krystal Ball Looks into You, Part Three: Status Quo Joe

Extrapolating from Krystal’s comment slightly, Biden’s coronation at the expense of Bernie Sanders is easily explained. In contrast to Trump, who has the annoying habit of saying the quiet part loud when it comes to Washington serving the corporate elites, Biden knows the score. The former Vice President has been in this town for nearly half a century and knows (or used to know) how to do the elites’ bidding without being so open about it. Trump lacks that subtlety. Sanders was never an option for the corporate media since he represents the people and not the corporations. So Biden was the only option. He will restore dignity to the oval office. He will say ‘America’ as he bombs the sh*t out of brown people. Biden will say ‘freedom’ as he cuts corporate taxes. He will put a corporatist black woman on the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: Joe Biden, the Base and the Future of the Democratic Party

Never wonder why various lefties, notably Kyle Kulinsky of Secular Talk, are saying not to vote for Joe Biden. It does not matter, they say, whether you live in a swing state or a safe state: do not vote for Biden. Lest you think this is sour grapes for the establishment screwing Bernie Sanders, what motivation does the left have to vote for Joe Biden?

He does not agree with them on policy, which is what they care about the most. Biden said he would veto M4A because of ‘its price tag’. That is such a bogus talking point since M4A actually saves money. I ask again: why should the left vote for Biden? Because Orange Man Bad? What policy-based argument do the Democrats have to entice their base to vote for Biden? The party is not, contrary to their own beliefs, entitled to the votes of their base. They must earn them, something Biden has no intention of doing.

Joe Biden thus represents perfectly not only the ‘dying, gasping, hollow husk’ of Krystal’s comment, but the wider disconnect between the Democratic Party and its base. The base is focused on policy, and they have a very specific agenda. Failure to meet them where they are, to say nothing of being openly hostile to their agenda, does not bode well for the future of the party. In addition, no amount of shaming them, or threatening them with Trump if they do not vote ‘the right way’, will bring them on side. The fundamental disconnect between the Democratic Party and their base could not be starker. Joe Biden is the perfect representation of that disconnect. Do not be surprised, Democratic Establishment, when the base does not vote for you when you gave them no reason to.

The acolytes of neoliberalism are likely to view this piece as politicising the current crisis. I care not. For decades we have been told that coddling big business and the rich will generate a prosperous society for all. This was always a lie, but until recently the oligarchs have been able to get away with it. The ever-increasing demands of the petulant child that is modern pseudo-capitalism have been tied successfully to the prosperity of the wider society. Any attempt at reform, to actually distribute some of the prosperity to the peasants was decried as socialism. This while these hypocrites gladly partook in consistent corporate socialism. As I stated in a previous post, socialism per se is not the problem; it just has to go to the right people.

The COVID 19 pandemic has exposed the utter failure of neoliberalism. Whether it is the utter obsession with getting the peasants back to work, up to and including sacrificing lives to the market gods, or the refusal to lock down countries because freedom, this philosophy is exposed. Even Morrison said that his measures to stimulate the economy, more than half of which were for the banks, should not go so far as to ‘bury the budget for a decade’. He is still obsessed with his blessed budget surplus. Neoliberalism is thus exposed as a fair-weather philosophy. When everything is fine and the economy (the stock market) is doing well, it and its advocates are fine. But when a crisis hits and the government is actually required to, you know, do something, they are utterly out of their depth.

The Failure of Neoliberalism, Part One: Government Fails because we Broke It

There is an old rightwing trope that says

The nine most dangerous words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’

Government is not the solution, so the logic went, it is the problem. What they did not tell the rubes to whom they sold that snake oil was that the reason government did not work is that they broke it. They defunded the various agencies (looking at you Trump for firing the pandemic experts at the CDC and cutting its funding among many others) which created the situation of their not working. This is the charge often levelled at the right of creating their own success. They break government, usually by defunding it, so it is ineffective and then say it does not work so this function of government must be privatised.

It is noteworthy that it is only ever those aspects of government that help the ordinary Joe and Jane that are undermined though. If an aspect of government can help the donors of the corporate cuckolds who currently occupy the majority in the representative body, that will be funded to the hilt (quite literally in the case of the armed forces). This is yet another version of socialism is not the problem, the wrong recipients are.

The Failure of Neoliberalism, Part Two: Profit Motives in Essential Services

As I stated in a previous post, certain essential services such as health, the armed forces, prisons and so on have had a profit motive built into them. The private sector does everything better because competition, they whined. This turned out to be a lie, of course. The result was policy being guided towards increasing the profits of these industries. Famous examples include private prisons demanding that laws be changed to place more bodies in beds. In the context of the current crisis, the for-profit health industry in the United States is the most egregious example. One woman, for instance, received a bill for nearly $35k for her COVID 19 treatment. Yes she had an underlying condition, but still, it takes a particularly ghoulish governing philosophy to profit off people’s sickness, but this is what the American health system has done. Tieing private profit to public services is yet another of the major failings of neoliberalism.

Where to Now? The Next Order

When the world eventually recovers from COVID 19, serious structural questions will be asked, at least by those outside the corporate establishment. Clearly, neoliberalism was not equipped to handle the crisis that was COVID 19. Demands for structural reform will come thick and fast. Here is a list of suggestions for these reforms. A new Bill of Rights so to say

1. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, at the local, state and federal level, shall be duly elected by the people. The electoral process shall also be funded by the people through tax revenue. Any and all donations from any third-party source for any reason, are hereby deemed unconstitutional and will be prosecuted. Elections shall be clean. Any previous rulings, legislation or executive orders/actions on this topic are hereby voided. This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action.
2. There shall be no monopolies, whether of media or any other commodity. Pre-existing monopolies shall be broken up. This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action.
3. The financial industry, including but not limited to, banking and investment firms, shall be limited in terms of their value. This will be known as the ‘too big to fail, too big to exist’ clause. This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action.
4. A minimum hourly wage shall be set, and chained to inflation and productivity. In addition, a Universal Basic Income shall be instituted. This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action
5. The social contract shall be enforced; education to all levels, universal healthcare and generous pensions/social security shall be paid for out of tax revenue. This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action
6. Tax evasion by corporate entities shall be investigated and, if a violation is discovered, prosecuted and the revenue recovered three fold. This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action.
7. Free-trade agreements from previous times are hereby declared null and void. No agreement of such a nature shall be entered into under any circumstances. This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action
8. The domestic rights of free speech, freedom of the press, assembly, protest and petition for redress of grievances shall be upheld.This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action
9. The use of military force, under the supreme command of the Executive, shall only be undertaken in response to an immediate and materialised threat; pre-emptive war shall not be undertaken under any circumstances. Such actions shall be grounds for impeachment of the Executive. This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action
10. The privacy of the people in their persons, papers, effects, residences, electronic devices shall not be violated without a warrant obtained from an impartial judge under strict scrutiny with probable cause. Extraordinary circumstances shall not serve to circumvent this provision, nor to lower the legal standard. This provision shall not be overruled by Executive, Legislative or Judicial action.

Pipedreams? Perhaps, but it is wise to ask for much more than you hope to get.

The bias of the media, but particularly MSNBC, against Bernie Sanders has seemingly reached its zenith. Host Chris Matthews compared Bernie’s win in the Nevada caucus to the Nazis entering France in June of 1940. You heard: Matthews compared an electoral win by a Jewish candidate, whose family members died in the Holocaust, to the Nazis. Stay classy there you political hack. In this piece, I hope to do three things. First, I want to look at Matthews’ remarks in a wider context, for he is hardly alone. Then I want to respond to calls that he should be fired for these remarks. Finally, I want to look at the great secret that this saga reveals.

Chuck Todd and ‘Digital Brownshirts’: Evidence Of A Larger Problem

Matthews is the current focus of the ire of the politically sane. But he is by no means the only pundit to make a Nazi reference about Bernie Sanders. Chuck Todd quoted an article wherein Sanders’ online supporters were called ‘Digital Brownshirts’, a reference to storm troopers in Nazi Germany. Todd went on to ask ‘what if you can’t win the presidency without an online mob’. That insidious remark requires some dissection.

What these petulant media types refer to as ‘an online mob’ is actually a passionate base of supporters. These people see ridiculous or uninformed takes that establishment types put on social media and they school them with the facts. These establishment types, not used to being people calling them on their lies, are lashing out because there is now a counternarrative. So-called Legacy Media (read establishment papers and TV) no longer have a monopoly on the flow of information. The advent of social media, for all its flaws, has broken this monopoly. Since Legacy Media cannot counter with facts, all they have is smear tactics and character assassination.

This explains the ‘Bernie bros’ narrative, where the media demonises Sanders supporters as nothing but angry white men. This is false as Sanders has a widely diverse coalition, but never let the facts get in the way of the narrative. But there is a contradiction at the heart of this strategy. The very voters they are demonising as ‘angry’ and ‘uncivil’ are the same voters they would demand fall in line and ‘unify’ around the media’s coronated nominee. Shaming voters for daring to support a non-corporate candidate then expecting them to fall in line behind a corporate candidate is madness. To demand unity after demonising voters is delusional. The Democratic establishment has clearly lost its mind.

The ‘Online Mobs’ Explained

To Chuck Todd and his fellow media midgets: why do you think Sanders and Trump have these passionate online followings? It is because, unlike you corporate shills in the media, these men have actual appeal. Now, who they appeal to and the basis of that appeal is totally different (no false equivalence here), but they are populist candidates who appeal effectively to their bases. These people are not ‘mobs’, they simply believe in their candidates and provide counterpunches to your deluge of corporate nonsense. Granted Sanders’ supporters are much better informed and their critiques of the media go beyond that great clunker Fake News, but the principle is the same.

HALT!: Chris Matthews and Cancel Culture

Matthews’ on-air antics have become increasingly unhinged following Sanders’ recent political success. The host infamously feared execution in Central Park under a Sanders Presidency in light of his wealth. Matthews looks increasingly like a child on whom it is dawning that some of their toys are about to be taken away. Matthews’ reaction is every bit as petulant as that child. He knows that part of Sanders’ agenda is a wealth tax, which is a small tax on wealth above a certain amount. The point of this is to partially pay for the populist reforms on which he ran. Taxing the good to benefit the poor?! The outrage!

Following the occupied France comparison, calls came thick and fast for Matthews’ termination from MSNBC. This has become standard in recent years: someone says something outrageous; the mob bays for blood and then claims moral superiority when the offender jumps or is pushed. This need not be the case regarding Chris Matthews. Instead, let him stay on the air and continue to expose the increasingly petulant oligarchy that America has become! Let him continue to make outrageous comparisons to gas chambers and other elements of the Nazi regime about a Jewish candidate! Let the corporate media structure commit suicide in public at the prospect of an actual populist candidate who wants to serve the people instead of the corporations!

In other words, my advice to anyone calling for Matthews to be fired is to play the long game. Between Matthews, the rest of the corporate media and the increasingly out of touch faux saviour Bloomberg, the establishment is doing your job for you! The establishment’s increasingly unhinged defence of their own privilege and wealth is a real-time political ad for revolution in America!

Conclusion: The Not-So-Hidden Secret

The petulant behaviour of the establishment, as well as the nature of their attacks on Sanders, shows that they are worried beyond measure. In addition, it shows that they have nothing of any substance to say in refutation. This is the great secret of this entire media tantrum: the peasants rejected your propaganda. They had the nerve to vote for the non-corporate candidate. You have no sway anymore. Hell, one woman even said she voted for Bernie Sanders precisely because MSNBC was so hostile to him. A useful real-time demonstration of propaganda rejection. The media has lost control of the narrative and they are lashing out like the thwarted children they are.

In the Style of Our Late Master, Mr John Clarke

Brian: Now, your name is De Pledge?

John: My name is De Pledge, yes Brian, good evening

Brian: Have you got a first name?

John: Saye

Brian: Saye De Pledge. Is your brother Sine De Pledge?

John: That’s right Brian

Brian: Alright, Saye, your special subject tonight is nationalism

John: You mean, Patriotism, don’t you Brian?

Brian: No – it definitely says nationalism

John: Oh – alright then – basically the same thing anyway

Brian: Good luck, Saye, your time starts now. How did the parliament vote on Tanya Plibersek’s proposal to have school children pledge allegiance to Australia?

John: The right way, Brian

Brian: And what way was that?

John: They voted in favour of that great patriotic idea, Brian

Brian: Is it wise to have kids at school reciting some jingoistic slogans without understanding them?

John: I think it is, Brian. It gets them ready for voting when they’re older

Brian: Correct

John: Correct

Brian: Have there been any comments on the pledge or its content?

John: Well I did hear one bloke say ‘How good is a pledge of allegiance?’

Brian: Has anyone said anything critical of the pledge?

John: There actually was a fair bit of unpatriotic behaviour, Brian

Brian: Hang on – you just equated being critical of a pledge of allegiance with being unpatriotic

John: Correct. It’s good being on Team Australia, isn’t it, Brian?

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is running for President on the Democratic side. Mr Bloomberg, despite corporate media’s kvetching, is, in fact, an oligarch attempting to buy the nomination. He has spent more than $300m of his own money so far on advertising and plans to double that moving forward. Van Jones of CNN once said that Hilary Clinton ‘lit a billion dollars on fire’ in reference to her 2016 campaign. Mr Bloomberg is on track to do the same and more. But what is it that Bloomberg actually represents? What is his record? How did he govern in his former role and how does that translate to being President of The United States?

Refloating the Bloomberg, Part One: Stop and Frisk

It is perhaps useful to start with the most infamous aspect of Bloomberg’s record when he was Mayor of New York City: the notorious Stop and Frisk programme. This was a dramatic increase in the powers of law enforcement to stop citizens on the street and ‘pat them down’ in search of contraband. No warrant was required: looking suspicious (whatever that means) was grounds prima facia. Well, it turns out that there is, in fact, a definition of ‘looking suspicious’: having brown or black skin. If you think this hyperbolic or rhetorically charged, there is statistical data to back up the fact that stop and frisk was prejudicial and clearly racist. On average, 78% of stops from 2003-2013 were of black or brown-skinned people. Until quite recently (understood as just before he decided to run for President as a Democrat), Bloomberg defended this policy.

Stop and Frisk Exposed: Attack of the Facts

Leftie commentator Benjamin Dixon has unearthed such a defence from as recently as 2015. The audio that Dixon exposed contains the following gem that would, in any sane world, render Bloomberg’s political career terminal

95% of your murders – murderers and murder victims – fit one MO. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities sixteen to twenty-five. And that’s where the real crime is… You wanna spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets. Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighbourhoods.

So virtually all murders are committed by, and against, minorities. Not just in New York, but in every city. It is the definition of a hasty generalisation to assume that because a statistic holds in a particular location that it can be generalised to ‘every city’, and Bloomberg is a fool for saying so. Also, put the cops where the crime is, which means minority neighbourhoods? Wow. So minorities (read non-whites) commit crimes because that is just how they are. He either does not know or does not care what a total frickin racist he sounds like. As I said before the quote, in any sane world Mr Bloomberg’s political aspirations would be rendered terminal by such comments, but we do not live in a sane world.

Refloating the Bloomberg, Part Two: Which Party Is He Anyway?

This section comprises two parts: Bloomberg’s endorsement of Bush 43 at the 2004 Republican Convention and his financial contributions to Republicans in the 2018 midterms.

First, the GOP Convention in 2004. Mr Bush had been appointed President by the Supreme Court in 2000 amidst much chicanery in Florida where his brother was Governor. Bush started the Iraq war on false pretences and utterly politicised the fear of the post 9/11 world. He was, in short, a terrible President. Mr Bloomberg’s decision to endorse Bush in 2004 after all of his blunders in office suggests either rank partisanship, bandwagonism or woefully inept political assessment. His political affiliation also changed with the times. Bloomberg was formerly a Democrat until he changed his affiliation in 2001 to become a Republican to run for NYC Mayor. He then endorsed a Republican President in 2004, and now expects to be taken seriously as a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Spare us, Mr Mayor: you are a political weathervane.

The second example of Bloomberg’s political opportunism concerns the 2018 midterm elections, with particularly nasty consequences. Bloomberg spent more than $10m to aid in the re-election of a Republican Senator in New York. The candidate won by 1.5 points over the Democrat. The result was Republican control of the Senate. This led to the nomination and confirmation of right-wing ideologue Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. This shaped the Court for decades. In the future, all the 5-4 decisions that strip away, say, abortion rights, can be laid at the feet of one Michael Reubens Bloomberg.

Refloating the Bloomberg, Part Three: Rundown of His Record and Proposals

During his time in politics, Bloomberg put in place/supported some of the following policies

1. He has taken diametrically opposite positions on the issue of the minimum wage. He both blocked an increase as mayor of NYC and recently supported an increase. Given that the minimum wage is one of the New Left’s major issues, it takes a great deal of nerve for Mr Bloomberg, with his record, to expect them to support him.
2. He banned so-called ‘Big Gulps’, that is large servings of sugary drinks. It had a series of loopholes through which a truck could have been driven, and it was ultimately struck down by a court. A remarkable example of nanny-state authoritarianism on which the New Left would not support him.
3. His own issues page says that as President he would ban so-called flavoured e-cigarettes as well as menthol-flavoured tobacco products. His rationale is that the companies who make these products are profiting off the health of America’s children. Will somebody not please think of the children! Mr Mayor, you are either shortsighted or silly: that same rationale could be used to ban many things! It is also noteworthy that he did not say he would ban all tobacco products. Consistency, thy name is Bloomberg

Conclusion: Be Gone, Oligarch!

My message to Mr Bloomberg is as follows:

In an era of anti-establishment politics, the image of an oligarch (and that is what you are) attempting to buy an election through a personally funded media campaign will go down like the Hindenburg. Also, you have nothing to sell that will counter Trump. You are a standard corporate neoliberal running on values and all the other substance-free crap of which corporate Democrats are so fond.

To paraphrase Cromwell as I did in an earlier piece

Depart, I say, and let us have done with you!

In The Style of Our Late Master, Mr John Clarke

Brian: Now, your name is Reid?
John: My name is Reid, yes Brian, good evening
Brian: And what do you do, Reid?
John: I’m a Doctor, Brian. I work in the department of health
Brian: Right – and what’s your surname, Reid?
John: Alldebooks
Brian: Reid Alldebooks
John: That’s correct, Brian. Good evening
Brian: Now, I understand that the government is issuing a health warning?
John: Yes, Brian. The Minister thinks there’s not enough fear in the electorate to guarantee a coalition victory at the next election, so a warning about a non-existent threat was deemed necessary, and health is always a good target area. It was that or Muslims
Brian: Why would the government issue a warning against a non-existent threat?
John: Government research has found, Brian, that when people are afraid they tend to fall in line easier, and since the government doesn’t have any actual policy to crow about, fear was deemed the next best thing.
Brian: Right. And what is this threat, Reid?
John: Well Brian, it’s a fairly rare disease called Oppositionitis. It’s an inflammation of the Opposition.
Brian: Right – and what are the symptoms?
John: Symptoms, Brian, include protesting, particularly around traditional industries. Um – forgetting your place and not acknowledging your superiors, particularly in the religious and political spheres – that’s another major symptom of Oppositionitis. Symptoms also include social media criticism of the Prime Minister and the government generally
Brian: Like the hashtag scottyfrommarketting?
John: Are you feeling alright, Brian?
Brian: Yes, I’m fine, Reid. What does the government plan to do about this disease?
John: Well, they’re introducing laws to counter the symptoms of the disease
Brian: Such as?
John: Well the Religious Discrimination Bill for one. This establishes a clear religious hierarchy in Australia
Brian: I thought free exercise of religion was protected in the Constitution
John: It is, Brian, but it turns out that the protections don’t define religious exemptions to existing laws that are inconvenient to religious bigots
Brian: Right. What about the other symptoms? What is the government doing about them?
John: Well the government plans to introduce laws restricting protest, particularly against traditional industries such as coal and the horse-and-buggy industry
Brian: Restricting protest? People don’t have a right to voice their opinions?
John: Of course they do, Brian. Just in designated areas…far from where they can be seen or heard.
Brian: Reid, why doesn’t the government cure the overall disease instead of targeting the individual symptoms? The symptoms you describe could easily be cured by some policy changes
John: Brian, the body doesn’t adapt to diseases. It uses its immune system to rally the troops and excise the disease permanently. Whoever heard of the body adapting to a disease?
Brian: What does the government hope to get out of this?
John: As a result of infringing on the basic rights of Australians to criticise their government and generally be free, Brian, the government expects to be returned to office, of course.
Brian: Reid, thanks for joining us.

The Morrison Government is in a unique state that combines chaos and suspended animation. The Prime Minister himself is, as David Speers pointed out, stuck in a holding pattern, unable to act if he wanted to. Speers, despite his previous work for Sky so-called News, has penned a useful piece for the ABC website. However, it does not quite go far enough and warrants some analysis.

First Serve: How is She Still Here?

Speers opens with this summary of the current situation involving Senator McKenzie

Bridget McKenzie, remarkably, is still in her job. The Minister won’t resign. Nor is she willing to publicly defend herself, leaving the Government bleeding over the sports rorts saga as Parliament prepares to return.

This is the basis for the ‘holding pattern’ claim referenced above. The Minister refuses to resign but refuses to be interviewed. Indeed, she turned down four requests in a fortnight from Leigh Sales of 730 on the ABC. There is an old adage that the right-wing loves to throw at the peasants when they protest the latest round of privacy encroachments: if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. A follow-up to this is the suggestion that avoiding media interviews means you do not want to answer inconvenient questions. An obvious implication is that she does not have sufficient answers for these questions and so seeks to dodge the bullet.

Let, Second Serve: Speers and the Unspoken Truth

Returning to David Speers, he adds this reflection on the better times of the past:

There once was a time when ministers causing this much obvious damage to their own side would see the writing on the wall and walk.

There once was a time when prime ministers would stem that damage, show some authority and give their marching orders to a minister who’s done wrong.

These days, however, staring down critics and refusing to give an inch is seen as a virtue.

These days, prime ministers outsource decisions on whether their own ministerial code has been breached.

We always remember the past as better than it actually was, but much of this criticism of Morrison and his Menagerie of Mental Midgets is true. In particular, the part about dying on the hill of your own political incompetence and alleged scandals. But there is one major factor that Speers is ignoring: the Morrison government is a tory government. Speers has either forgotten, or refuses to publish, the fact that tory governments are held to entirely different standards not only to the peasants over whom they rule but to the rest of the political class as well.

Changing Ends: Labor Misuses and Double Standards

Anyone unsure about this should consider the cases of Peter Slipper and Sam Dastyari, both forced to resign when it served the political agenda of Tony Abbott to bring down a Labor gubmn’t that should never have been elected in the first place. For misuse of what is, in comparison with the current scandal a pittance (which they either offered to or actually did pay back). These scandals are barely comparable, not merely in terms of the amount of money (roughly $2500 against $100m) but motivations as well. Dastyari and Slipper misused the funds, yes, but for purely personal use: travel mostly.

Senator McKenzie, on the other hand, politicised government grant money. Colour coding was used to identify marginal and safe coalition seats and the pork barrelling began. The applications were not even considered (she never had access to them) so the applications were not, by definition, based on merit. The corruption is amazing! This scandal makes the case for the creation of a federal corruption watchdog. Now you might say that all governments spend money (or promise to) in electorates to win votes. Perhaps, but not so blatantly.

Morrison’s Achilles Heel: The Report

Morrison’s decision, which is pretty standard for politicians, to hide behind ‘the report’ into the scandal has actually created serious problems. He cannot, as Speers said, pre-empt its findings by saying anything before it is handed down. He is therefore left twisting in the wind created by his own lack of leadership and sheer blockheadedness to stick by members of the tribe come-what-may. The government has officially taken the form of a Yes, Prime Minister sketch. The cynic in me is inclined to suspect that the reason Morrison is willing to hide behind the report (aside from the time it buys the government) is, as Humphrey said, never commission a report if you do not already know what it will say. Gathering facts is one thing, but at least put an argument forth. McKenzie’s decision to effectively go into hiding creates a dangerous vacuum for the government. What to do?

Yes, Prime Minister: The Government Changes Direction

Speers notes that the government has been using two chief talking points to respond to this scandal and both are crap. The first was the idea that all projects funded were eligible (which the colour-coded allocation referenced above renders nonsense). The second was a blatant attempt to hide behind gender politics by saying the grants were increasing female participation in sport. This latter claim was rendered absurd by the fact that many genuine applications for funding for this very reason were rejected and that some clubs that did get money for women’s facilities that did not have a women’s team.

The Prime Minister’s latest talking point is to say:

You know, politicians, ministers, members of parliament, we’re part of our community. We know what’s happening in our community. We’re in touch with our community. We know the things that can make a difference in our community.

Really? This government is trying to argue that it is in touch with the community? The sheer lack of self-awareness in that statement is breath-taking. This has to be the most out of touch collection of elitist, upper-class twits trying to pass themselves off as a government in living memory. Perhaps Mr Morrison’s best course of action is to simply follow McKenzie’s advice and keep his increasingly foot-infested bazoo shut.

Speers Through The Heart: Journo Responds to Govt Crap

Speers takes a different angle on this nonsense, taking it apart in the following way:

Is the Prime Minister really saying the Minister overruled Sport Australia’s merit-based recommendations and pumped money into marginal seats because she’s more “in touch” with community needs?

In a strange irony, yes. Morrison does not mean this, but McKenzie could be said to have done this because she was in touch with the needs of the community – the community of the Liberal Party. Speers goes on:

Is he [Morrison] really suggesting deserving clubs in safe seats missed out because McKenzie had a better understanding of these communities than the experts at Sport Australia who weighed the merit of each application?

Strange, is it not, to think that Speers once worked for Sky so-called News? That statement was the equivalent of a shovel to the side of the head, not that Morrison does not warrant that in spades. The utterly political nature of these grants renders Senator McKenzie’s position, in both the cabinet and the parliament, terminal.

The media has made much in the last day or two about the allegation that Trump warned Republican Senators, who serve as the jury in the impeachment trial, that if they did not vote to acquit him, their heads would ‘be on a pike’. Like the elitist snowflakes they are, the media clutched their pearls and moaned about the outrage of it all. President Bad Man used naughty words again! Such a scandal!

Pipe down you increasingly irrelevant relics of a bygone era! In no conceivable way were Trump’s words a real, physical threat! To interpret his words as anything other than a metaphor for ending the political careers of those Senators who did not vote to acquit him is to be intentionally ignorant on partisan grounds! There is no reason or excuse for this. People talk in metaphor and analogy all the time, and for you not to see that borders on the ridiculous.

Hidden Message: How to Play Politics

Trump is, whether the media chooses to acknowledge it or not, playing hard and smart politics. He is immensely popular with the Republican base, and he is using that to his political advantage. If he supports a primary challenger to a sitting Senator, the incumbent would, in all likelihood, be turfed out. Trump’s popularity with the GOP base is such that if he so much as tweeted about a Senator who dared to vote their conscience rather than serving him, they would not be long for this political world. This is what Trump meant when he said that their heads would be on pikes. They went against an extremely popular President, a politically dangerous thing in a democracy. The fact that it is Orange Man doing this (and his motives – to save his own skin) is irrelevant: it is still hardball politics and smart politics. The President is counting on these shameless political hacks valuing their poxy political careers over following the much-idolised Constitution.

Watch and Learn: The Lesson for the Democrats

There is a lesson in this for the Democrats. A popular President can use his popularity to achieve political goals. Now Trump is using it for self-serving political ends, but the principle still stands. A President who is popular with the base can use this to convince Congresspeople and Senators to fall in line. Consider Medicare4All, for some reason a contentious issue. The so-called Blue Dog Democrats (Blue politicians from Red States) were the votes that turned Obamacare into the right-wing trash it ended up being. What Obama should have done, and what I encourage America’s Dad Bernard Sanders to do if he wins, was say

Nice political career you got there – shame if anything were to happen to it. I am immensely popular with the base. You were elected as a Democrat. Start voting like one. If you do not support my agenda, I will go to your state (or district) during the midterms and campaign for a primary challenger against you. How about that?

This is how you play politics. This is how you use the political capital that comes with popularity fresh off an election. You hit your opponents where it hurts by threatening their political careers and all the perks that go with them. This need not only apply to corporate Democrats. Many Republican voters support Dad’s agenda too even if their corporate streetwalker politicians do not. Presidential support for a Democratic primary challenger to an incumbent Republican politician could also work.

Advice to Dad: Observe and Take Notes

Senator Sanders, I encourage you to play hard politics like this if you are elected. As a life-long independent you are not beholden to either member of the corrupt duopoly, even if you must temporarily assume the label of one of them to run. Your independence works in your favour, Sir. You are able to play hard politics against both sides, strong-arming these corrupt corporate sellouts to do the bidding of the people if they will not do so voluntarily.

Now, such an approach to politics would, of course, generate no end of pearl-clutching outrage as the media reared up to defend the corporate structure. The solution is to attack them too if necessary. You are anti-corruption, Sir. It extends to the media as well. The symbiosis that characterises the relationship between politicians and the media is something you can use to your advantage. You (would) have the Bully Pulpit – use it. YouTube, Twitter and other non-traditional media can be, as Trump made them, your forum to communicate with the electorate directly. Legacy media is just that: a brat who insists on sitting at the adults’ table because their family has been around for a long time. Unearned, privileged access to the halls of power by virtue of their sheer awesomeness. That is what legacy means, certainly in the academic world (consider a Harvard Legacy with terrible grades but who gets in because their father went there), and the media is no different.

Conclusion: Pikes, Politics and the Way Forward

The outrage of the media is fuel for the fire of a popular President. This is partly how Trump came to power originally. The media was so outraged at everything he did and he played them like a fiddle. Trump exposed how broken the media truly was. Granted it was in a ridiculous way with that clunker Fake News, best understood as anything unfavourable to him, but it worked.

Senator Sanders, you would be (and are) treated in the same way. Your response is to combat the endless barrage of nonsense by focusing on policy and not engaging them. To get around the endless propaganda and sensationalised crap, go to independent media. Do interviews with Secular Talk’s Kyle Kulinsky, TYT, Joe Rogan and others. Use your own platforms of Twitter and YouTube to break not only the media but the corrupt politicians also. Shame them with their votes. Tell their constituents about their Congresspeople’s votes against a popular agenda. You take their corruption and you break them with it! Put their political heads on the same pikes that Trump talked about and let the pathetic media rear up and defend the corrupt duopoly. Fighting against this approach will be the equivalent of fighting a fire with gasoline.

It used to be said that conservatism was essentially selfishness manifested as a political ideology. This ideology took the form of the quip ‘for me and mine, not thee and thine’ in terms of the benefits of society. This defined conservatism, particularly in the three main western pseudo-democracies the US, the UK, and Australia, for some time. Whether Thatcher and Reagan, Howard and Bush or Morrison and Trump, these born to rule ideologues have become increasingly zealous in their self-serving and corrupt corporate socialism. The time has come to refine the definition of tory slightly. While all of the above is true, a new element requires focus. These idea-free ideologues also manifest what psychologists call the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Dunning-Kruger Explained

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias that is best understood in terms of perceived competence or ability versus actual competence or ability. Generally, people who are actual experts in a field have the humility to realise that they do not, in fact, know it all. Yes in the early days when they learn a little bit about a field (typically in first or second-year university) they become cocky and think they know it all. But as they continue to study and learn that there is far more to their field than what the first-year textbook (typically a surface-level introduction) told them, they settle down and learn some intellectual deference and humility. Indeed, the more study one undertakes, the less one realises one actually knows.

People suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect typically rate themselves as scoring far higher on tests and generally performing much better than they actually do. Boiled down to its essentials, Dunning-Kruger says that the stupid are too stupid to know how stupid they are. They double down on their beliefs come what may in terms of contrary evidence. They are always right and never need to learn anything since they are the smartest people in the room. Actual experts (particularly those who contradict the ideological narrative) are elitists and eggheads to whom no deference is due.

Dunning-Kruger in Action, Part One: Australia

Climate scientists, for example, have been telling the world for decades that the situation is worse than the worst-case scenario. But Australian National Party leader Michael McCormack knows far more about climate science and its effects on bushfires than some corrupt scientist. He knows more than the veteran fire chiefs who wrote warning letters to the Prime Minister seeking a meeting about what turned into the most destructive bushfires in living memory.

Lest we think this is limited to Morrison and his Menagerie of Muppets, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott once called climate change ‘absolute crap’. The fact that Mr. Abbott and his tribe of tin-eared tory troglodytes receive huge donations from the fossil fuel industry? Media bias! The more these people are proven wrong by research, facts and reality the more militant they become. Petulantly rearing up on their hind legs to protect the corporate structure that put them in office, they expose themselves.

Dunning-Kruger in Action, Part Two: The United States

Our northern cousins are by no means immune to the arrogant ignorance that is Dunning-Kruger. Whether it is Trump lying every time he opens his mouth or, in the most famous incident of Dunning-Kruger in recent memory, a Republican Senator brought a snowball into the Senate House to argue against climate change, they have their share. Corporate corruption is rife in the US as well, so it should come as no surprise that Dunning-Kruger is on full display over there.

The focus of the piece thus far has been climate change, and I do not apologise for that. The sheer destruction that this existential threat to the earth has caused recently has not shocked the non-existent consciences of these corporate streetwalkers into taking action. We continue to hear the same tired crap and observe the same feet-dragging. Conservatives are, as Buckley once defined them, those who stand athwart history yelling stop. In other words, progress is inevitable, and the job of the conservative, if they cannot prevent it, is to delay it as long as possible.

What these clowns either do not know or are ignoring is that progress has always happened and society has not only survived but thrived. Consider the movement from the horse-and-buggy to the automobile. Jobs related to the horse-and-buggy industry did become obsolete, that is true. But they were replaced by jobs in the new industry. The only reason these corporate whores will not legislate the move away from fossil fuels is that they are paid to preserve the industry. For this, they should be ashamed and consigned permanently to the scrapheap of history.

Conclusion: Dunning-Kruger and Political Discourse

The consequence of this ever-present cognitive bias for political discourse is marked. Sound political discourse should be about the facts. The Dunning-Kruger Effect, whose sufferers have their own facts that they cling to with an arrogance befitting an ill-informed child, is not conducive to constructive discourse. All humans have cognitive biases, but these men (and it often is men) are disconnected from reality to such an extent that conversation with them is no longer profitable. They are not open to facts either because they believe the uninformed drivel they spew or they are paid to say it. Unless and until corporate/private money is banned as a source of campaign funds, western countries will continue to be governed by their respective Dunning-Kruger Parties.

We pick up with Mr. Albanese and the trained monkey already in progress

Interview, Part Five: Albo Stumbles

Asked if his policy would involve a higher reduction target than the government (itself a nonspecific question – reduction from what year’s levels?), Mr Albanese offered the following non-answer

We will take climate change seriously

Nope – not good enough, Mr. Opposition Leader. Stick to your guns if you hope to be taken seriously. He then made the following extraordinary statement

I’m trying to be generous to them [the Morrison government]. Hopefully, they’ll wake up tomorrow and go, ‘There could be something in this climate change thing’ and take action.

Yes – and hell might freeze over too. The Tories will never take action on this issue because they are paid not to. Money talks, Mr. Albanese, and everything else walks. This is, I suspect, part of the reason people see you as weak. You speak of hope that these bought and paid for streetwalkers for corporate Australia will see the light because – what – one of them read something? The only way to get a Tory to care about an issue is for it to affect them personally! Until one of their (many) houses burns down, they will not care a fig for this issue! Play hard politics, Sir. Take their arrogant inaction on this global threat and break them with it!

Interview, Part Six: The Recovery

Asked about his support for the Adani mining project, Mr. Albanese said that it was a project by a private company and not the government. In other words, politicians’ opinions are irrelevant. An artful dodge, but in response to the trained monkey’s question about Labor losing support in Queensland for being ‘wishy-washy on supporting our [Queensland’s] coal industry’, Alabo did offer this very useful piece of insight

People in Queensland and everywhere else who are involved in the industry know that the industry…continues to provide. The questions that you had before about our target, be it our emissions reduction target or renewable energy target. If you have got a 50 per cent renewable energy target, by definition, there’s 50 per cent coming from fossil fuels. So, let’s be realistic there about what the framework is domestically and internationally. Of course, there will continue to be coal exports.

Right. This is a good retort to the strawman that climate policy seeks to eliminate coal by Thursday. The point is transition rather than immediate, radical action. The jobs that are connected to the coal industry would be phased out over time as the industry is phased out. Retraining and income support for those no longer employed in the industry would be a necessary element of the transition policy. But full credit to Mr. Albanese here: he reframed the issue, confronted the strawman and gave a truthful, punchy response.

Interview, Part Seven: International Influence

The next question concerned international influence in Australian domestic politics, with a focus on China. Albanese noted the carious difficulties that the Tories have had with gifts from Chinese representatives, specifically the infamous gold watches. He then said it was a ‘both sides of politics’ issue. Respectfully, Sir, there is a difference between Sam Dastyari and a minor incident involving paid travel (which he repaid but was forced to resign anyway because Labor exists) and Gladys Liu and the scandal around her. Degrees matter, Mr. Albanese. Attempts to influence Australian politics may impact both sides, but it is misleading (and overly generous to your opponents) to say ‘both sides do it’.

Conclusion: Labor Rebuilds

The last political question was about Labor’s rebuilding after the election loss in May of 2019, which Mr. Albanese dealt with in suitably lofty terms. It was not a bad answer, just the standard ‘we took a hard look at ourselves’ line that you hear from many parties rebuilding after an election loss. No mention of the media. No mention of the complete snowjob that they did on Bill Shorten. It was an entirely internal assessment. Sad, really.

Overall, a terrible series of loaded, misleading and horribly framed questions which the Sky website mined for soundbites to quote out of context. This propaganda outlet has no place in Australian political discourse.

Federal Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese (Albo) has, for some reason, spoken to Sky so-called News. I want to do an analysis of both his remarks and the interview itself. I have dealt with every aspect of the interview except the last question on Mr. Albanese’s family life, which I consider irrelevant to political discourse. This post is a monster so I have broken it up into two (hopefully) manageable chunks.

Interview, Part One: Franking Credits and Negative Gearing

In case it was not clear, Sky so-called News conducted this interview. It started with the following horribly framed question

Let’s talk about some of the unpopular policies that Labor took to the election. Franking credits. Reform of that in any form? Dead, buried, cremated?

The policies of the Labor Party were unpopular, you say? Nice poisoning of the well from the start there. Mr. Albanese correctly noted that the next election is not for two years (at least) and that it is not the job of the opposition to produce policies now. He went on to say that Labor would not be taking the same policy to the next election. Asked if that meant he would ‘grandfather’ franking credits to existing shareholders, he simply restated his original position. Typical politician speak, but somewhat justified in light of the terrible and openly right-wing framing of the question.

The next question dealt with negative gearing. Albanese effectively batted it away by saying that policy is decided in the shadow cabinet and caucus rooms.

Interview, Part Two: Health and Education

The right-wing propaganda continued with the Health and Education question

Let’s talk then about these billions more for health and education. Because I guess that argument kind of didn’t work. Do you think that you will be moving away from that, ‘get the tax here, spend billions more on health and education’ type of policy?

The propaganda is strong in this one. The ‘argument kind of didn’t work’ because the media was quite openly partial towards the Liberal Party and against the Labor party. The COALition’s ‘campaign’ in the last election can be summed up, appropriately enough, in a three-word slogan: We’re Not Them. Also, what does ‘get the tax here’ mean? What an utterly stupid statement. Expenditure is a function of revenue. Anything that the government funds, including the private school funding on which the LNP are so keen, comes out of tax. It is not merely Labor policies that cost money, you Sky so-called News hack.

Albo quite rightly responded to the question ‘Would you envisage no new taxes, no increase in taxes, on the platform you run with?’ by saying

I don’t shy away from the fact that in a civilised society, you need taxation in order to fund schools, in order to fund hospitals

Amen. Taxation, unpopular as it is, and despite conservative propaganda to the contrary, is necessary to fund society. The hypocrisy of the conservative movement on tax is not difficult to see. They are quite willing to fund their priorities using tax, but anything that does not somehow benefit them or their corporate mates magically finds its way into the too-hard (or too hard to fund) basket. They are not anti-tax, they are anti-tax on them and their mates. Mr. Albanese is right and the tories’ petulant clinging to their ‘trickle-down’ lie delegitimises them as a governing party.

Interview, Part Three: The Economy and the False God Surplus

For the next question, it is worth quoting the exchange in full from Mr. Albanese’s website

CLENNELL: Do you believe in surpluses?

ALBANESE: I of course believe in surpluses, but over a period of time.

CLENNELL: Over a period of time, not every single year?

ALBANESE: Well, it depends on the circumstances. Were we right to respond to the Global Financial Crisis in the way that we did? Yes. Should there be a surplus this year? Yes. Had Labor been elected, would we be having a surplus? Yes, we would.

Incredible, is it not? The idolatry around the false god Surplus is beyond absurd. There should be a surplus ‘every single year’? Such blind adherence does not account for natural disasters, wars, terrorist attacks or anything that requires a government to spend a dollar more than it takes in. Mr. Albanese’s response was nuanced when he said that circumstances should dictate whether a surplus is justified. He fell off the wagon a bit when he said that there should be a surplus this year: the conditions in the economy do not appear to justify that, Sir. Buying into the conservative framework does not serve your purpose, Mr. Albanese.

Interview, Part Four a): Climate Change

The loaded and misleading questions continue with this gem

Okay, let’s talk about climate change. Now, Scott Morrison has a point doesn’t he, when he says that no matter what we do on our own emissions on this front, China will take up that slack in just a few days. I mean, if you believe climate change is a major cause of the bushfires, which you do, aren’t we in serious trouble, no matter what happens in domestic politics?

Is Scott Morrison not right when he says… – seriously. This is what passes for journalism? The bias of Sky so-called News is remarkable. Even if Mr. Albanese said that climate change ’caused’ the bushfires, which I seriously doubt, that is wrong. A cause is that which, in the absence of which, something would not occur. Essentially, the fires would not have happened were it not for climate change. Nobody appears to have said that. The right-wing noise machine made that up.

In addition, there is a difference between establishing conditions for something to be much worse than it would have been and causing the event. The fire season began earlier and was more destructive because of climate change – that is an aggravating factor, not a cause. Finally, the idea that Australia is such a relatively minor contributor to global emissions is seriously flawed, and a multi-pronged rebuttal can be found here.

Mr. Albanese’s response was to rightly criticise the government, specifically Angus Taylor, for being what he called ‘a handbrake’ on global climate action by his actions at the recent Madrid climate conference. According to Mr. Albanese, Taylor partnered with Saudi Arabia to argue for less action.

Interview, Part Four b): More Climate Change

The trained monkey then asked this whopper

Okay, fair enough. But what’s wrong with you just saying now, which you’ve been reluctant to do in recent days, ‘We are sticking to this 45 per cent reduction target by 2030’? Why are you afraid of endorsing that target that you took to the election?

Albanese’s response was quite good, complete with a humorous reference to Doctor Who

That was in 2015. That was a 2015 target established for 15 years’ time. Guess what, Andrew? There’s no Tardis. I can’t go back in time and say in 2022 our 15-year target will be very different, by the way, 15 years from 2022 is 2037, not 2030.

Albo is quite right: no TARDIS here. The question is also either intentionally misleading or just plain stupid: 45% reduction target from 2015, clown. Thanks to the last six years of tory government, Australia’s emissions have actually increased, so to meet the target set in 2015 would actually require a more aggressive policy than the ALP previously announced. Also, unlike the tories, Labor policy tends to adapt to circumstances rather than being taken as a holy writ to which reality must adapt. Counter-intuitive, I know.

More of Mr. Albanese and this trained monkey in Part Two