“Ask not what your country can do ….”

I know that in many Americans homes there hangs a plaque with the famous statement by the late John F Kennedy:

“Ask not your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country”.

The truth, and this may be unpalatable for many, is that John Kennedy was not the first to use these famous words. That honour goes to the famous Lebanese Arab/American writer Kahlil Gibran (December 6, 1883 - April 10, 1931) – he who wrote The Prophet.

In an essay, written obviously before he died in 1931, originally in Arabic, but translated into English with the title “The New Frontier” Gibran wrote:

“Are you are a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country”.  

I found this “fact” in a book, published in 1965 containing a collection of works written by Gibran called “Mirrors of the Soul”. The essay from which the quote was taken, was written in 1925 - most certainly before Kennedy used it in his famous speech.

So there we are. Just thought you might like to have the record set straight – sorry if you are disappointed or disillusioned.

Supposed season of good cheer!

Australia – as with many developed countries is a wealthy nation; high standard of living; high standard of education and the under-privileged are (relatively) well cared for. But we have a blot on our Nation’s Escutcheon – that of our treatment of those “illegals” – “queue jumpers” – “boat people” or whatever other derogatory name they are given by politicians. They are still people in need.

This time of year – Christmas time – is a time to reconsider our commitments and the one time of year, if at none other, when we should help those less fortunate. Sometimes it is good to remind ourselves of what others have said about this.

The following quote is from Charles Dickens timeless “A Christmas Carol” (written December 1843):

“But I am sure that I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come around – apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that – as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.”

We need to closely attend these wise words. We need, also, to recall that these  people, politically diminished voyagers from another country, are fleeing persecution or abuse; they are human beings; they are not aliens. They have hopes and aspirations just like you and I. And just like you and I they bleed when hurt. And just like you and I they can be emotionally scarred by the actions and behaviour of others.

What are we doing to ourselves by our nation’s politically motivated mis-treatment of these unfortunate people?

We are diminished as a people and as a nation.

If Mandela had been a refugee.

At last I have established the name of my one loyal reader – he wants to be known as Archie. So Archie it is.

Now Archie asked me a very valid (if hypothetical) question. What would have happened, Archie wanted to know, if the late Nelson Mandela had arrived on a boat in Australian waters under the new government’s (rather grandiosely named) operation “Sovereign Borders” policy? What if Nelson Mandela had also arrived, on this boat, with no documentation or identification?

Would he have been immediately categorized as an “illegal” immigrant; would he have been immediately transported to an “off shore” detention centre on Manus Island or Nauru? Once there, of course, on these “off shore” detention centres, as has been widely advertised, the Australian Government has sworn that no “illegal” will ever come to Australia or become an Australian citizen.

What would Australia have done with this “undocumented” Nelson Mandela? Make an exception and give him a visa; put him on a plane straight back to South Africa; keep him waiting, possibly, for years before making some determination about his character and “worthiness” as a human being?

Archie knows as well as I do that this is a hypothetical question because the very well-known and widely respected world leader Nelson Mandela is no longer with us. But it is valid for three reasons:

Firstly: the current “Sovereign Borders” policy is allegedly costing us (the taxpayers) about AUD$1.00 billion to implement (but the Australian government is claiming “poverty” and will be making drastic cuts to the budget), and

Secondly: there is currently a paucity of people prepared to do the more menial and manual jobs in the aged and disability caring roles, in the hospitality and service industries and in the agricultural sector (fruit picking etc).

Thirdly: if “Sovereign Borders” is so important why not spend the AUD$1.00 billion on foreign aid to support the countries the “illegal” boat people are fleeing from?

So to get back to the original question, if someone did arrive without identification papers and was of a similarly high calibre moral standing as Mandela how would anyone know?

What would Australia have lost? What has Australia already lost with their “Sovereign Borders” policy? Many possibly, intelligent, well educated, high calibre people desperate to leave a dangerous country and who are prepared to make the arduous and possibly life threatening voyage from Indonesia to Australia in a small, ill-equipped fishing boat?

Not only is the current “Sovereign Borders” policy incredibly wasteful in monetary terms it is also wasteful in that most important aspect of all – Human Capital. Many Australian country towns are dying – young people are moving to the “big smoke” for education and more fulfilling work.

Archie suggests, and I concur, that we should let these people in with the stipulation that they spend at least three years in a country town and work!

Don’t waste any more money or “Human Capital” (Vale Mandela).

Now it is Assad for Syria – what if …?

Recent reports in the media indicate that analysts now consider the best option for Syria (and for stability in the Middle East) is if Assad regains control of Syria. Well now – isn’t that good news!

Ooops! Sorry we made a mistake!

I have said before (as my one loyal reader has pointed out) the Syrians are an intelligent people with a very long, if rather turbulent, history going back millennia. As I also pointed out it is very poor policy to try and pick winners when it comes to any country’s governance, but particularly in the Middle East. And then what about the one hundred thousand (and counting) Syrian casualties later?

For the sake of humanity and in the name of whatever you consider God to be, leave Syria to the Syrians and back off!

And now there is Afghanistan. The Afghanis are an intelligent people with a very long, if rather turbulent, history going back millennia. They have fought off invaders ranging from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan to the more recent Soviet invasion and prevailed. Once more – trying to pick winners in this area of the world is an impossible, and pointless task.

In their recent history the Afghanis have lost many uncounted thousands of civilian casualties to the Taliban, the Soviets and NATO (read USA) actions. More importantly are the people any better off with NATO interference? 

The Afghanis are capable of sorting themselves out, one way or another. Just leave them alone. Back off!

Will this be another “Ooops” moment? You bet.

Now, just for a moment let us speculate. What would have happened if former President G W Bush and his cronies had come to a similar conclusion about Iraq? Maybe, just maybe, Iraq (and stability in the Middle East) would have been better off under Saddam Hussein. As afore mentioned, it is very poor policy to try and pick winners when it comes to any country’s governance, but particularly in the Middle East. And particularly for the five hundred thousand plus (and counting) Iraqi (and US and allied) casualties later.

Just like the Syrians and Afghanis, the Iraqis are an intelligent people with a very long, if rather turbulent, history going back millennia. Mesopotamia – the Land between the Two Rivers – was the cradle of civilization and extends at least as far back as recorded history, to about 3000 BC (remember the Babylonians?).

Ooops! Sorry we made a mistake! But was the mistake about the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or was the mistake about invading Iraq in the first place?

Or maybe both? Why can’t we (that is the USA and the West) just leave well alone and back off?

Henry Ford was right!

I believe it was Henry Ford who famously said that “workers should be paid enough so that they could buy what they make”. This is actually quite a profound statement. It certainly applies today when retailers and manufactures of consumer goods are complaining that people are not spending money. And economists are lamenting the fact that the “economy” is not growing fast enough to reduce the rate of unemployment.

In business circles today wages are a bone of contention. The unhealthy imbalance between the highest paid and the lowest paid is causing concern worldwide. There is a widespread push to increase the minimum wage to a more reasonable level; fast food companies in the USA are being pressured to increase minimum rates of pay. This is being resisted by business and industry leaders as “unaffordable and unreasonable” (we hear the same argument in Australia).

Economists speak about the “economy” of a country as if it were some disembodied entity. They forget that the “economy” is made up of people – alive, breathing, hungry people. Economists develop "statistical models" that use a mythical "rational consumer" to test their theories. There is no such animal as a "rational consumer" - it doesn't exist!!

Now, as I understand what Henry Ford was getting at is that if retailers and manufactures of consumer goods want people to spend money and buy what they are trying to sell they (the people), rather obviously, have to have money to do so. Right?

But, if the economy is skewed (as it is in many countries, including the USA and Australia) with 5% very rich; with the, previously, large middle “class” shrinking in numbers because of the economic down turn and manufacturing moving “off shore”; with the current “minimum wage” kept low (at possibly a level arrived at many years ago) – where is the purchasing power going to come from? 

Who will buy the goods and what with? The wealthy don’t buy expensive items and consumer goods every day. Sure they buy food, but what they buy does not compensate for the reduced purchasing power of the rest of the population. In any country.

So to carry on with Henry Ford – pay those who are at work enough to buy what they make and Bingo, money starts to circulate. People start buying, factories are re-opened to start manufacturing again – more employment – more money – more items purchased. The housing industry picks up – more consumer goods – more money – more items purchased.

The problems are created by people who “hoard” money; people who want more than they need. This creates a “blockage” which reduces the amount of money in circulation. The less money in the economy, the more the “hoarders” resist spending and the more they try to hold on to what they have, at any cost. Employers reduce staff numbers or reduce wages and so the cycle starts all over again!

Henry Ford was right! And don’t believe the economists. Economists read statistics not the mood in the streets!