Illinois ex- Governor Blagojevich

Amended 19 February 2020.

As you will see I wrote this quite a time ago – 10yrs to be exact – but the dear ex-governor has now had his prison sentence commuted by President Trump. I’m staggered. But there we are – a good example of “draining the swamp”?

----///----

Okay!  “The governor of Illinois has been arrested on charges of conspiring to sell Barack Obama's recently vacated US Senate seat.

The news that Illinois Governor Blagojevich was taken into custody complicates the matter of filling the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Governor Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were also accused to trying to "induce purge of newspaper editorial writers," critical of him at the Tribune Company, the US attorney's office said in a statement.

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement...” (From ‘The Australian’ web site 10 December 2008).

I know that politics is often considered a ‘dirty’ game and I am no great respecter of politicians, of any persuasion. Just because they hold the positions they do does not mean that I respect them – they have to earn my respect. They can say what they like, it is what they do that counts and which may, or may not, earn my respect.

In this case I am just amazed at the audacity of someone like the governor. Does he (or did he) believe that as governor he is (was) above the law? He is just a man of straw – not worthy of the office of governor. He is just a common felon and a con-man to boot. He fooled the electorate of Illinois into electing him. But what staggers me more than anything is the lack of moral understanding; the lack of the appreciation of values and  that any conception of ethics seems to be totally wanting from his psyche, from his understanding as to what it is to be a human being. Maybe he now has an appreciation of the law of cause and effect!

As governor he is obviously not short of money. He has one of only fifty such positions, so he is already in somewhat rarefied atmosphere in American politics – he is head honcho in the state - he has authority, he has power. Very obviously that was not enough.

He must believe that his sole reason for existence is to make money – and the more the better. Now I am the last person to say that having a desire to make money is wrong, because I like money as much as the next person, but not at any cost. Does this bloke actually LIKE himself? When he looks at himself in his bathroom mirror in the morning when he shaves, what does he see? Can he honestly say to himself, if positions were reversed, “ I would like to be governed by me?”

What also alarms me is the is the possible answer to the question, “Is this what unbridled capitalism breeds?” Laws, no matter how tightly enforced will never cover all human failings. There has to be self regulation (self discipline) there has to be trust; there has to be respect not only for yourself but for others. Laws are essential but unless they are applied and followed from the bottom up (and not just enforced from the top down) anarchy will prevail and the ‘rule of law’ will not be worth the paper it’s printed on. 

I am going to watch this one with great interest. I hope and trust that my respect for politicians generally is not reduced any further and that he gets what he deserves.

And this is something wrote a few days later - also in 2008:-

The latest on the Illinois Governor case is that the Illinois House of Representatives has voted to begin an impeachment inquiry into Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell the US Senate seat vacated by president-elect Barack Obama.

The inquiry, approved 113-0, will be placed in the hands of a special committee. 

If it determines that impeachment is warranted, the House would vote on whether to impeach, to be followed by a trial in the state senate.

If convicted at trial the governor could be forced from office.

It seems that no one wants to be seen to ‘like’ this bloke any more!!

Is “Civil"-"isation” in jeopardy?

At this time of year when we wish for “Peace on Earth and goodwill to all”, I ask the question, “Is civilization as we know it in jeopardy?”

Today, December 23, 2018, trust is “missing in action”. Trust has been absent without leave – AWOL - for quite a while and trust is desperately needed. Right now. And trust is such a subjective, fragile thing. It cannot be bought or sold. It has to be earned.

Trust in governments; government trust in the electorate; trust in parliaments; trust in politicians; trust in financial organisations; trust in big business; trust in religious institutions; trust in all these, so vital for the smooth running of societies is no longer there. In consequence no one is considered trustworthy.

Trust evaporates when secrecy prevails, with closed meetings, and when cameras are banned from recording; trust evaporates when money takes precedent over humanity; trust evaporates when greed takes precedent over compassion; trust evaporates when veniality is condoned or simply ignored; trust evaporates when those in positions of power tell lies; trust evaporates when meaningless words -“spin”- take the place of policy action; trust evaporates when there is an attempt to indoctrinate with lifeless words.

People – the populous – citizens (the “civitas”) are not stupid. For any leader to consider them as such is a massive mistake. For any leader, anywhere to ignore the will of the people is to do so at their peril. The old saying, “even the worm turns” is very true.

The answer, in my view, is very simple – just treat people, others, the way you would like to be treated. It is an ethical thing.  That is what a “civil” society is based on. That is what “civilisation” is based on. Being “civil” to each other. No matter what colour or creed the “other” may be. All are Human Beings.  That is why it's called the "Golden Rule". 

Is that so difficult?

Oh! And Merry Christmas.

Voting for a lie and Compulsory Voting.

In relation to the examples of the current crowd of self-serving, venial, crassly stupid politicians in Canberra (in my view) I offer the following for those who may be interested. 

My question: Why am I forced to vote for a lie and liars (on pain of a penalty for NOT voting)? I personally have yet to be convinced that compulsion is comfortably associated with democratic principles. 

As a concerned citizen I regard the impact of certain measures and policies the current Federal Government (the LNP) has outlined since the election that we were not asked to vote for – and I might add this applies also to previous administrations – as unacceptable.

My concerns are about what we are told (promised?) prior to an election but then are told after the election that what was promised were not “core promises” (Re: Tony Abbott in 2014 - what is a “core promise” pray tell?). Why do politicians bother to say something (“read my lips”) but then conveniently forget or ignore or use “weasel words” to deny that it was said at all?  Surely a tax is a tax and promise is a promise in any language?

My concerns are about what are we compelled to vote for – a lie? Is this morally and ethically acceptable? Is this legal? Is this democratic?   

Most people are well aware that trust takes a long time to develop but may be lost in an instant - recall the (Howard era) “Tampa” affair and the “children overboard” allegations; recall the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government “flip flop” on a “mining tax”; recall the lack of transparency, the secrecy, the want of compassion and kindness enveloping the LNP’s activities relating to “illegal” refugees and the events on Manus Island and Nauru, (all done in the name of Australia – i.e. in MY name); note the blatant unfairness of many current budget measures - and so it goes on!! 

To understand what I am getting at it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about morals and justice some twenty-five centuries ago (The Analects – trans. Simon Leys):- 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

In light of the astounding levels of abuse of position, the lying and lack of moral leadership shown by many of this country’s leaders, I truly believe that it is time for every politician to stop, take a step back and really examine their actions to see whether they make any sense. 

As an example, I was told in a letter, (in my possession and dated 9^thJanuary 2014) from Malcolm Turnbull (in reply to my concerns) that (and I quote):- 

“I would like to take this opportunity to assure you the Government does not have any current plans to privatise or reduce the ABC’s funding. The Government understands the significant relationship the ABC has with the Australian public and is committed to maintaining its quality, performance and efficiency.”

In the 2014 Budget (only some four months after this letter) the LNP reduced the ABC’s budget allocation by hundreds of millions of dollars – described as an “efficiency dividend”! They are still doing this – still cutting the ABC’s funding in both the 2017 and 2018 budgets.

And we HAVE to vote? Please!!  

Another curiosity - I notice that in the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) website in the FAQ section the last point in the ‘Arguments in Favour of Compulsory Voting’ states: “The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.”

I find this an astonishing statement – it is of course true, but somewhat defeats the purpose of compulsory voting!

Furthermore I notice that (Federally) informal votes average round about 5 per cent. This, in actual numbers for the 2016 election, equates to about 720 000 people who for various reason “spoiled” their vote. 

There were approximately 630 000 people “missing” from the electoral rolls. That’s a lot.

Now if you add “spoiled” papers to those “missing” this equates to about 1.35 million people who didn’t actually vote out of the about 16.8 million Australians who were eligible to vote or about 8 per cent. That’s also a lot of people.

Also there was a record low level of voter interest in the 2016 federal election, and record low levels of satisfaction with democracy and trust in government. Only 60 per cent of voters were satisfied with democracy in Australia, the lowest level since the 1970s. Apparently.

It appears that about one in five people (20 per cent) believe that politicians who they voted for won’t make any difference, up from 13 per cent in 2007. University research also finds some weakening in the perception that people in government can be trusted to “do the right thing”. Strange that!

There has to be a reason for this and I suggest that “disenchantment” with politicians is the prime cause. If politicians did not have the comfort of knowing that their margin was X% (because of polling data and compulsory voting) they might actually get out on the road and “stump” their electorate and find out what their electorates real concerns are. As an example, I emigrated to Australia in January 1982 – in the intervening years I have lived at five locations in and around Perth (Western Australia) yet no Federal candidate has bothered to call at my house; only in the last few years, since moving to a retirement village, has a candidate’s “flyer” even landed in my mail box! 

If they show that much interest in me, what level of interest should I show in them?

I suggest that the AEC consider recommending that “compulsory” should be removed from the Electoral Act particularly as we are “not compelled to vote for anyone”? The candidates would then “be compelled” to do the rest! 

A possible reversion to the 1911 compulsory enrolment concept (all eligible people were required to enrol as voters) may be a good alternative. Many people may not be aware that France has a highly efficient registration process. At the age of eighteen, all French youth are automatically registered. Similarly, in Nordic countries all citizens and residents are included in the official population register, which is simultaneously a tax list, voter registration, and membership in the universal health system. This is also the system in Germany (but without the membership in the health system) – with an 86% average voter turnout. [I referred to Wikipedia for some of this information].

Compulsory voting in Australia is an unnecessary “impost” on the population.

Such a change, as recommended above, would I believe, still fulfil the AEC’s primary role in ensuring that it delivers a free and fair election.

Such a change would also free up resources wasted on prosecuting those who did not bother (or refused) to cast their vote – for a lie!

Arouse the electorate’s interest and people will vote – the blatant lies, the unfairness, lack of trust, disinterest and boredom, and the crass stupidity of some parliamentarians, are the problem - it is a case of “the same old, same old”. 

And we HAVE to vote??

Robots revisited - a "Workless" future

Now that driverless cars are a reality and the US Air Force has pilotless planes – not just drones or UAVs – but unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), I’m sure the armament industries around the world will soon produce driverless tanks, driverless self-propelled automatic radar controlled self loading artillery, armed robots to replace foot soldiers and who knows what else is on the artificial intelligence (AI) robotic horizon.

Anything to save the cost of people – soldiers needing to be trained, uniformed, fed, housed, then possibly injured or killed.

But then we need to ask the question – who will these robots be trying to kill?

This robot and AI problem applies also, of course, to commerce and industry. Many of the jobs that American politicians want to bring back to America will never eventuate. The days of the old unskilled, labour intensive jobs are numbered. We are told that within 10-20 years many, if not most, of the unskilled laboring will be gone. As an example there is a giant 3D printer in China that can “print out ten houses on a block of land in 24 hours - the houses were built in Shanghai by WinSun Decoration Design Engineering. Each house was 10 metres wide (about 33ft) and 6.6 metres high (about 20ft) using a mix of cement and construction waste, with walls being constructed layer by layer, like making a cake.” This construction can be seen at work on a YouTube video and refers only to the walls. The roof is a separate construction by men. Also on YouTube is a video of the Tiger Stone Paving Robot that lays a road at four times the speed of a team of human workers. (These quotes are from book called ‘Why the Future is Workless’ by Tim Dunlop). I’ve seen the videos – amazing!

So the world is changing – what was will no longer be – the status quo has evaporated.

So what is the solution? Certainly some “service” jobs will still need individuals – cleaning, cooking, nursing, teaching, child-care and such like – but many others will be automated or performed by robots.

Just consider the impact on the poor and middle class in the USA. Even now, with the globalization of work, there are more workers than there is work for them to do (i.e. the “rust belt” in the USA). In a report by Carl B Frey and Michael A Osborne from the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University (full report is available free on line - Google it) they examined 702 jobs in the USA and determined that 47% are vulnerable to automation within the next twenty years. The main finding is that “algorithms for big data are now rapidly entering domains reliant upon pattern recognition and can readily substitute for labour in a wide range of non-routine cognitive tasks.”

A similar conclusion was arrived at by MIT scholars, Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee in their research paper, “The Second Machine Age”.

Basically these reports say that the only “safe” jobs will be those that require social intelligence – the ability to interact with other humans in an intuitive way; those that require creativity – a deep understanding of what humans want from their creative tasks to be effective; and, surprisingly, the ability to manipulate objects in unstructured and cluttered environments (i.e cleaning jobs).

Many, if not most politicians, and the “ruling class”, may be horrified at the obvious solution – give everyone, and I mean everyone – employed or unemployed – give everyone a “Universal Basic Income”. This universal basic income is already in place in the city of Utrecht (Netherlands) and is being actively considered by the Governments of Finland, Switzerland, India, Canada, New Zealand and, as mentioned, the Netherlands.

A world that no longer revolves around full time paid employment, one underpinned by a universal basic income, opens up the possibility of a life of, for instance, more civic, social and community engagements – using our skills for personal satisfaction and free exchange rather than channeling them into the need to earn income or profit.

This is no joke! If a large percentage of people in the USA – or any country for that matter – are unemployed and are unable to see any possibility of future employment, what are they supposed to do?

Anger and frustration will consume many people, especially when they are made aware that currently (2016) the inequality gap between the wages of the typical worker and that of the typical CEO is 200 times. That is right  - the typical CEO in the USA earns 200 times the wage of the average worker!! In Japan it is 16 times.

To me it is a no brainer that people – millions of people – will swamp their governments for assistance. If all Governments adapt and are proactive they will plan for this eventuality and the only option is to pay everyone, repeat, everyone a “Universal Basic Income”.

Many right wing politicians and those in the “ruling class” will fight such a policy but they will be outnumbered by the millions of unemployed, destitute, poor, frustrated and angry people clamoring at their doors, clamoring for assistance.  

This is the future  - and it’s coming soon – get used to it.

Moral high ground

The moral high ground is when you think you are better than anyone else, or from a national point of view, believing that your country is guided by something higher than mere people and that all others are lesser beings because of this.

Problems are inevitable when this thinking prevails. This is pride, this is hubris to a high degree, and a fall is inevitable – such a high ‘standard’ can never be sustained. We have seen quite a lot of this recently.

There have been the Rugby League shenanigans – excessive alcohol consumption and sexual misconduct; British politicians rorting their allowances; former US President George Bush and his very ill advised invasion of Iraq; US policy of ‘rendition’; prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison; the on-going saga of incarcerating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (‘Gitmo’); the Israeli treatment of the inhabitants of Gaza (attacks and sixty years of blockades); the shocking treatment of the harmless minority ‘Falang Gong’ by the Chinese Government, and of course their treatment of Tibetans; and then of there have the various reports in Australia and elsewhere on paedophilia, sadistic physical, sexual, emotional abuse, neglect and brutalisation of children, perpetrated by priests and nuns from various Catholic Church orders and organizations culmination in the recent Irish, Ryan Report about similar abuse in Ireland’s industrial school system (run mainly by the Catholic Church, particularly the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy).

It is a massive report – five volumes with a total of about 5 000 pages. I have not read the entire report, and I do not suppose I ever will because it is very distressing (it is available, in full, on the internet). Apart from the incalculable physical and mental harm to the children all the reported abuse diminishes the perpetrators and reduces them from being the upholders of a noble Christian ideal – care for and provide succour to the distressed, the lonely and those in need - to being criminals who used and abused those most vulnerable in our society, our children and who need to be brought to justice. These people and the institutions they represent have lost all moral authority to tell anyone, anywhere, what to do and how to behave. For them it is obviously a case of ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ This is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

I think President Obama has got the message and is doing his best to restore some semblance of moral authority to the US Government’s activities.

I am not sure the Israeli’s have learned anything and still follow their rather primitive Old Testament dictum of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’

Rugby League and British politicians are cleaning up their acts purely and simply because it hurts their wallets, not because they actually believe they have behaved in an antisocial or unethical manner. Their standard response is ‘but I have done nothing wrong’ or ‘but she asked me up to her room.’

The Ryan Report highlights the truly astonishing level of abuse that some 800 priests and nuns are accused of perpetrating over a period of about 70 years in Ireland, UK, Australia, Canada, Gibraltar, India and the United States to many thousands of unfortunate children, now men and women. I am not at all sure that the Catholic Church has the inclination to really change.

You can lose a reputation in a second – and it will take a very long time indeed to restore.

“Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men’s Eye much wrong:
Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a song.”

(Quatrain 69, Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Edward FitzGerald translation)

Trust

What is so important about trust? Just think about it – without trust society as we know it would disintegrate. And the core of trust is love; love for one’s fellow beings – all fellow travellers on the road of life.

Without it the situation would arise where trust between child and parent would be absent. Domestic animals trust that we will care for them. What about trust between partners – husbands and wives? I remember reading somewhere, Time magazine most probably, about an English couple, newly married – both lawyers of course – who drew up a bizarre ‘contract’ between themselves wherein everything they did had to be compensated for. If one made the breakfast the other had to do the dinner, if one washed the car the other had to do something to ‘balance’ things, and so it went on. There was obviously absolutely no trust between them, and I can’t believe there was any love either. I have no idea whether the union lasted, but I can’t see how it would.

Of course in business trust is paramount. When trust fails chaos reigns as is currently very evident. Banks don’t trust anyone at present, so credit dries up – and business relies on credit.

Trust also depends on people’s ethical conduct and behaviour. Unethical behaviour is the antithesis of trust. I mean, who would trust someone who lies, who is dishonest, whose behaviour belies all that most people consider to be good and decent? No one does – we use the rather disparaging phrase “honour among thieves” to express our distrust of those who we have categorised as untrustworthy, but who deal between themselves. As an example, who trusts the wiz-kids in Wall Street now-a-days? Who trusts the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to very dubious CDOs and sub-prime mortgages? Who trusts the banks? But they all deal, or dealt, between themselves didn’t they? They all dreamed up the (basically unethical) schemes which have brought the world economy to its knees.

Now, to regain trust, people, particularly business people, must be ethical. They must remember, or re-learn, or be taught, what ethics means and why it is so important. They must be made aware of the importance of morality, of the virtues and of holding fast to values which support their moral precept and virtues, which are only evident by their behaviour (ethical, or unethical).

We cannot see into someone’s mind, so how they think, (and thoughts governs their morality, their understanding of virtue and what they value) can only be evidenced by their actions, which, of course result from their ethics.

I consider ethics to be the glue that holds societies and groups of people together. That is why it is so important, why trust is so important.

The truth - always the truth

I am amending this old post as I have had another look in Pascal’s “Pensees” and I cannot find the reference. What I can find is that Leo Tolstoy quotes the saying as by Pascal, buts that’s as far as it goes. 

The sentiments expressed, I will admit, sounds like something Pascal would write – very pithy and very apt. So I have kept it.

How about this for as true an observation as you will ever read:

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) in his ‘Pensees’, it is here assumed that he wrote:-

 “There is no greater unhappiness than when a person starts to fear the truth lest it denounce him.”

I wonder if any politician; any businessmen; any cheating husband or cheating wife; any schoolyard or office bully is prepared to stand up and be counted?

And likewise how about this one – again quoted by Tolstoy.  And again, something that Pascal would write I believe:-

‘Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.’

Tolstoy also wrote, in about 1880, that:-

"Men of our times believe that none of the absurdity and cruelty of our lives, with the ridiculous wealth of a few and the embittered poverty of the majority, and the arms and wars, is seen by anyone and that nothing prevents them from continuing such a life."

You see, Justice and Ethics have been a passion of mine for as long as I can remember. And I will fight injustice when and wherever I see it.