Notice: Undefined index: hide_archive_titles in /home2/chesterf/public_html/wp-content/themes/modern-business/includes/theme-functions.php on line 233

Author: Arthur Chesterfield-Evans

26/11/2024

Social Media Ban misses the point- it’s about Algorithms

25 November 2024

Social media is not a fixed thing to be either accepted or banned.

I was surprised to find my son in favour of a ban, thinking it would stop communications between kids. He assured me that with groups able to be formed easily on WhatsApp, kids could still exchange whatever social relationships or information they liked.

It got me thinking about why social media might be harmful. Presumably kids can gang up more easily as they can all see what others write, just as minority groups can find and reinforce each other for good or ill. But this would also be a problem on WhatsApp.

The key point was one that I made a few posts ago. The object of social media is to keep people online so that they will see the advertising and make money for the social media owner. The way that this is done is to put people in touch with people like them or who believe things like them, particularly if their views are unusual. It is also helpful to upset or disturb people as while they are stimulated they will stay online.

The converse of this is that calming people down, or giving them sensible information has no financial advantage.

What viewers get in their feed is determined by algorithms, which are AI (Artificial Intelligence). These algorithms could be set to give good o]knowledge to anyone who asked for it or was open to it. Google searches often give a series of ads where someone paid to be the first thing found in the search, followed by a ‘top pops’ of replies or hits. It could rate the academic reliability of knowledge sources and give greater weight to more credible sources.

The same principles apply to social media. It is about what the object of the algorithm is, and thus what content it favours and directs.

Algorithms are of course ‘commercial in confidence’ which is code for ‘making money and therefore unable to be accessed or interfered with’. In other words, making money is more important than any social distortions or effects are merely tough luck for those affected.
But it seems to me that a more intelligent approach is needed to social media.

It’s about algorithms stupid!

www.change.org/p/oppose-australia-s-proposed-social-media-ban-for-under-16s

06/11/2024

The Revolution Has Happened- no one noticed- Just that Trump Won

6 November 2024

Trump won the US election. A convicted felon, who achieved nothing positive in his last time in the White House except perhaps the only boast that was true, ’I didn’t start any wars when I was President’.

Trump will win the dodgy electoral college system, which gives small states more votes than they should have based on their population. Someone said that the US has 36 Tasmanias, which is not a bad simile. But he may also win a majority of the popular vote.

Why? everyone asks. ‘He had no policies’. ‘He was totally inconsistent’. ‘He seemed not to know and not to care that he didn’t know’. ‘How could he be trusted?’ ‘Even those who had worked with him in high positions came out against him’. ‘He was lazy and self-indulgent’. ‘He did a lot of dodgy business deals’. ‘He never paid his contractors’.

The biographical movie, ‘The Apprentice’, (which is still on at the Palace Cinema in Leichhardt) is about Trump’s early years and shows him coming under the influence of an amoral lawyer, Ron Cohn. Cohn won by recording conversations and blackmailing judges, especially gay ones at a time when homosexuality was illegal. Cohn used his methods to get rid of some bills and taxes for Trump and teaches his 3 principles:

Morality is an option,
Truth is whatever you say it is, and
You must never admit defeat because you must believe that you are a winner so that you can convince everyone else that you are.

At the end of the movie, having betrayed even Cohn himself, Trump, unkeen to talk to a would-be biographer states these 3 principles.

So why did people vote for him?

Because there has been a revolution that no one has noticed. People no longer believe that the government can or will help them. Consider this. The rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer and the gap between the two groups have continued to grow. With the world turned into a market, US jobs in the steel industry and the car industry went offshore. Manufactured goods were increasingly imported, while working Americans lost their jobs. The welfare and health system in the US are quite inadequate for a decent life, yet taxes to the rich are cut. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans seemed to care. Bernie Sanders tried to point this out and looked like winning the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016 and even 2020, but the party put in Hilary Clinton and then Joe Biden to stop him. The Republicans did not want Trump, but could not stop his populist campaign. Most of them were scared to speak against him, and when he won the nomination and looked a chance to be President again, they all supported him.

Trump spoke whatever suited him at the time. He used racial scapegoats for the national problems, but still recruited blacks and Latinos, presumably because of his speaking to their economic pain. When he did not win in 2020, he simply accused the other side of cheating- true to the 3 Cohn principles. He principally criticised the Establishment and said that he would change it. That was the key point. He was going to change the Establishment. That was what people wanted to hear. He was right in the key issue. The Establishment had not fixed the problems of declining living standards. The wealthy were getting wealthier. Their benchmarks of economic growth were doing fine, and the mass media and business pages trumpeted their success. But a lot of people were hurting and no one seemed to care. Trump criticised the Establishment and said that he would fix it.

Harris said that the election was about Democracy and Trump’s character. But Democracy is an abstract concept and has not delivered material benefits for them. As far as a lot of people were concerned, if Trump could deliver they did not care about his character flaws.

So there was a revolution. People rejected Government as it has been practised by both Democrats and conventional Republicans. It is just that no one has yet noticed that it was a revolution, and unfortunately the rebels have Trump instead of Sanders to lead them.

31/10/2024

Why Trump May Win

31 October 2024

The situation is the logical consequence of turning the world into a ‘market’. This was always favoured by big business, but it got turbocharged by the idea that competition for markets caused the two World Wars. Thus the object of world political policy was to turn the world into a market, so that the rich could get richer without wars over markets and virtue would be rewarded.

The US had a huge percentage of world markets and a huge say over it all- what could possibly go wrong?

In a hierarchical system, those at the top set the prices and the wages, whereas those at the bottom are in a perfect market of labour, so take whatever prices and wages they can get. Money therefore movies upwards as in a Monopoly game.

The whole situation was turbocharged by a number of factors. As trade became cheaper, goods travelled and workers competed with workers from other countries, so workers in more developed countries were not able to compete on price and the owners of capital moved their industries to cheaper countries, which gave these countries something of a leg-up, but most of the profit went to the owners of capital. Technology also advanced, so fewer workers were needed to produce anything- mechanisation was here. We could produce much more than we could ever consume. Business developed built-in obsolescence, so goods would wear out or become unfashionable, so they needed to be bought again. Marketing became immensely significant, so we were no longer to consider what we needed, but what we wanted.

Increasingly most of the goods being manufactured needed to be sold, but did not need to be bought. Western consumers were actually in the box seat with all their needs met, so needed to be persuaded to consume for status or whim. Marketing was largely up to the challenge. As Dave Ramsay famously put it, ‘We buy things we don’t need with money we don’t have to impress people we don’t like’.

Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor continued to grow between countries and within countries, a general recipe for social and international malaise. The residue of colonialism remains. Nigeria is oil rich, yet its resources are foreign-owned and its main employment industry is scamming. South America has had its governments frequently act on behalf of foreign companies. The result of the problem is seen as ‘illegal migration.’

So just as the inexplicable ‘Brexit’ vote was a longing for an earlier time and a rejection of the Establishment and the status quo, so Trump is seen as a disruptor. He wil tell them all to ‘get fu..ed’ That is enough. He speaks to the pain of rust belt Americans who saw their jobs in steel, cars or manufacturing disappearing through no fault of their own and their standard of living falling. He is a demagogue who tells them what they want to hear. The migrants caused the drug problem, and every other problem. If it is not consistent or even coherent, it does not matter; they listen to the shock jock. Again, technology is relevant. Policy is no longer broadcast, it is selectively narrowcast with truth an early casualty. Trump ads tell Jewish voters that Harris is pro-Palestine while other Trump ads tell Muslim voters that she is pro-Israel. Whatever it takes. The country is very polarised and there is even talk of civil war. Marx believed that revolution would happen in an advanced capitalist system because the logical end point of unfettered capitalism was that a few people would end up with all the money and the majority would be unhappy. (We had better not mention who said this).

The American voting system is as bad as its health and welfare systems. The politicians set the electoral boundaries in a huge gerrymander, and the electoral college gives each state the same voting rights, whether they have large or small populations. The Constitution is fossilised, with 36 Tasmanias, states that are declining relatively or cannot pay their way. These are the States that will determine the election.

The polls are neck and neck in these ‘swing states’, but the betting favours Trump, and the betting has been generally more correct than the polls. A financial friend of mine told me that the bond market is behaving in anticipation of a Trump victory.

Things are not always pleasant, but there is usually an explanation.

31/10/2024

The Effect Optional Preferential Voting had on the 2023 NSW State Election

19 April 2023

Preamble

Preferential voting gives a more democratic system and avoids the electoral distortion of ‘First Past the Post’ which favours those with bigger primaries and can give huge distortions of the vote, such as occurs in the UK where there is an effective north-south division between Labour and the Tories, and a very polarised system, as non-major parties get far fewer seats than their share of the primary vote.

NSW has ‘optional preferential voting’ which is an anomaly in Australia, which Federally and in other States have compulsory (or mandatory) preferential. This simplifies the voting system, but also distorts the results towards a ‘first past the post’ system. It was introduced by Neville Wran in 1980 as part of some excellent reforms, but it might be wondered if the less democratic Optional Preferential was introduced to make it difficult for the Liberals and Nationals when they had ‘3 cornered contests’, i.e. Liberal, National and Labor. If so, it is backfiring now, as on this analysis optional preferential voting has given NSW Labor six fewer seats and an extra 3 Independents would have been elected in the 2023 election.

This paper looks at some seats and tries to quantify what difference a change to the compulsory preferential system would have made to the result of the NSW election.

This analysis suggests that Labor would have gained an extra 6 seats, and Independents an extra three. Labor would have gained Drummoyne, Goulburn, Holdsworthy, Oatley, Ryde and Terrigal. The Independents would have gained North Shore, Pittwater and Willoughby, (though WIilloughby would have been already Independent after the 2022 by-election.)

Method

Where a candidate gets an absolute majority, clearly they have won the seat. If the final margin of victory is less than the exhausted vote, there is a possibility that if the votes had not exhausted, the result may have been different. The question is which candidate would the exhausted votes have favoured. A reasonable guess is that the voters who exhausted would have voted the same way as the voters who filled in all squares for their primary vote.

If this is applied to a number of electorates with close margins, a reasonable estimate of the effect of compulsory voting can be made.

This paper looks at some electorates that have final victory margins less than the exhausted vote number, and multiplies the ratio of known preferences for the last two candidates by the number of exhausted votes. This is then compared to the current margin of victory to see if the result would have been different. These results can then be examined to see the change in the composition of the Parliament that would have resulted from a change to compulsory preferential voting. The seats that would change below are in alphabetical order.

The record for each seat shows the number of Formal Votes (FV), the Final Margin of Victory (FMV) and the number of votes that Exhausted (E).

The tables for each seat show the results for the successful candidate and the second candidate. They show the Primary Vote count (PV), then the Final Vote (FV) count after preferences have been distributed. The difference between these is the number of preferences that the candidate received. The Total Distributed Preferences Distributed (TPD) are added and the ratio between them determined as an index of how the preferences flowed. These ratios are then multiplied by the number of Exhausted Votes to see what the final count is likely to have been if preferences were mandatory.

(A more detailed description of the tables is in an Appendix at the end if it is required).

Drummoyne

Total Formal Votes 51,639. Final Margin of Victory 1,285. Exhausted Votes 2,308.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Di Pasqua Lib	24,526	25,308	782	0.1691	390	25,698
Little Labor.	20,182	24,023	3,841	0.8308	1918	25,941
		FMV = 1,285	TPD= 4,623		E= 2,308	New Result -243

Comment:

If there were compulsory preferential voting, Labor would have won this seat. It is remarkable how few preferences flowed to the Liberals- only 16.9%. 83% of the Exhausted votes would have gone to Labor, winning it the seat.

Goulburn

Total Formal Votes 50,775. Final Margin of Victory 1,170. Exhausted Votes 5,575.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Tuckerman Lib	20,737	23,185	2,448	0.3804	2,121	25,306
Pilbrow Labor.	18,028	22,015	3,987	0.6196	3,454	25,469
		FMV = 1,170	TPD= 6,435		E = 5,575	New Result -163

Comment:

Goulburn would have changed hands from the Liberals to Labor if there had been compulsory preferential voting.

Holsworthy:

Total Formal Votes 48,791. Final Margin of Victory was 331 Votes. Exhausted Votes 4,404.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Ayyad Lib	20,449	22,359	1,901	0.4092	1,802	24,161
Maroney Lab	19,284	22,028	2,744	0.5906	2,602	24,630
		FMV = 331	TPD= 4,645		E = 4,404	New Result 469

Comment:

The result is that with compulsory preferences the 2nd candidate, Maroney of Labor, would have won by 469 votes.

North Shore

Total Formal Votes 48,177. Final Margin of Votes was 3,658, The Exhausted Vote was 6,808.

	Primary V	Final V	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh. V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Wilson Lib	21,308	21,987	1,901	0.0802	547	24,161
Conway Indep	10,308	18,329	7,802	0.9199	6,261	24,630
		FMV = 3,658	8,481		E = 6,808	New Result 469

Comment:

The result is that the Independent, Conway would have won with compulsory preferential voting. Note that the primary of Conway was 21.9%, less than half of Wilson at 44.2%, but the preference flows to Conway were 7,802 votes, 92% and Wilson 697, only 8%.

Ironically, the current 2 Candidate preferred, which favours Wilson by 55.69% to 44.31%. makes it look like a safe seat, but this is because of the Exhausted Votes, as the existing system looks only at the Final Vote Count.

Oatley

The total formal vote was 50,196. Final Margin of Victory 754. Exhausted Vote 3,032

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Coure Lib	22,877	23,959	1,082	0.244	740	24,698
AmbihaipaharLabor	19,851	23,205	3,354	0.756	2,292	25,497
		FMV = 754	TPD= 4,436		E = 3,032	New Result -799

Comment:

The result would have been that Labor would have won. The heavy preference flows suggest that a majority of people do not want the candidate that was elected.

Pittwater

Total Formal Votes 49,511. Final Margin of Victory 754. Exhausted Votes 3,387.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Amon Lib	22,137	23,365	1,228	0.1970	667	24,032
Scruby Indep	17,754	22,759	5,005	0.8030	2,720	25,479
		FMV = 754	TPD= 6,233		E = 3,387	New Result -1,447

Comment

Again, the Independent, Scruby would have won if there were compulsory preferential voting because the Liberal got only 19.7% (667) of the Exhausted Preferences. On the preference ratio Scruby would have got 80.3% (2,720). Since 754 + 667 = 1,421 is less than 2,720, Scruby would have been elected by 1,299.

Ryde

Total Formal Votes 53,840. Final Margin of Victory 54. Exhausted Votes 3,032.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Lane Liberal	24,383	25,431	1,048	0.1933	586	26,017
Howison Lab.	21,004	25,377	4,373	0.8067	2,446	27,822
		FMV = 54	TPD= 5,421		E = 3,032	New Result – 1,804

Comment

This seat had a re-count and aroused a great deal of interest.

Again, the result would be changed and Howison of Labor elected if there were compulsory preferential voting, because the majority of preferences would favour Labor. Few preferences went to the Liberals who in this case were greatly helped by the lack of preference flow due to Optional preferential voting.

Terrigal

Total Votes 50,470. Final Margin of Victory 1,467. Exhausted Votes 2,703.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Crouch Liberal	23,507	24,467	960	0.2107	569	25,036
Boughton Lab.	19,703	23,300	3,597	0.7893	2,134	25,434
		FMV = 1,467	TPD= 4,557		E = 2,703	New Result – 398

Comment: Boughton of Labor would have won if there were compulsory preferential.

Willoughby

Total Formal Votes 52,830. Final margin of Victory 2,450. Exhausted Votes 5,826.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
James Lib	23,032	24,727	1,695	0.1711	997	25,724
Penn Indep.	14,064	22,277	8,213	0.8289	4,829	27,106
		FMV = 2,450	TPD= 9,908		E = 5,826	New Result -1,382

Comment:

Penn, a well organised Independent had massively more preferences than James, and would have beaten him with compulsory preferential voting. In contests with a strong 3rd candidate, in this case Labor, the preferences are crucial.

Conclusion

If current political trends to minor parties continue, a change in the voting system to compulsory preferential is likely to make an even greater difference in future and this is likely to favour both minor parties and Labor.

Appendix:

Definitions:

1st (Successful) Candidate’s Primary Vote = 1CP

2nd Candidate’s Primary = 2CP

After distribution of preferences

1st Candidates Final Vote = 1FV

2nd Candidates Final Vote = 2 FV

Final Vote Margin of Victory FMV = 1FV – 2FV

Exhausted Vote = E

If E > (1FV – 2FV), then the seat must be considered as able to have had its result changed by having the Exhausted vote preferences considered if preferential voting were compulsory.

The number of preferences P which went to each of the last 2 candidates are:

Ist Candidate 1FV – 1CP = 1P

2nd Candidate 2FV – 2CP = 2P

Thus Total Preferences Distributed 1P + 2P = TPD

The ratio of preferences received will be:

1st Candidate = 1P/TPD

2nd Candidate = 2P/TPD

So if the Exhausted votes followed the primaries of those who gave preferences the extra votes received by the candidates (EVA) would be:

1st Candidate 1EVA = 1P/TPD x E

2nd Candidate 2EVA = 2P/TPD x E

If the Exhausted Votes Added (EVA) to the second candidate is greater than the Final Margin of Victory, FMV (=1FV – 2FV), then compulsory preferential voting is likely to have changed the results. This is noted as a New Result, with a negative sign if there is a change to the existing result.

So the key to the tables becomes:

	Primary Vote	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh. V Added = Ratio x E	New Total FV + EVA
Successful 1st Candidate	1CP	1FV	1P	1P/TPD	1EVA	1FV + 1EVA
2nd candidate	2CP	2FV	2P	2P/TPD	2EVA	2FV + 2EVA
		FMV = Final Margin of Victory = 1FV – 2FV	TPD= Total Preferences Distributed = 1P + 2P			Result = (1FV + 1EVA) – (2FV + 2EVA)

20/10/2024

An Explanation of Corruption in the Building Industry

20 October 2024

The key enabler is the privatisation of both the project and the inspectorate.

https://michaelwest.com.au/cfmeu-whistleblower-on-gangsters-unions-and-workers-entitlements/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2024-10-20&utm_campaign=Today+s+news+from+Michael+West+Media

25/08/2024

Sydney Harbour as an Investment Opportunity

25 August 2024

You may not be aware that there is now a new lobby group to reorganise moorings in Sydney Harbour. With a limited number of moorings, they are likely to become a new investment opportunity, and it might be noted that foreign interests, who were very active in buying expensive houses, not living in them and waiting for am easy capital gains profit may be targeting moorings or marinas now. The government in theory controls all this, and Eddie Obeid has some schemes for marina developments.
In Woolwich, there are new plans for a marina extension, and over in Lavender Bay near Waverton they have been fighting Marina developments for some years. As an observer, most of the boats are not used much, so they is actually a parking lot for rich people’s toys. As the areas to travel become smaller and more constricted, it is harder for rowers and people who want to get around the harbour. As a rower, I can attest to this. Moored boats are a problem, and moving boats are also worse the closer they get in the shared space. If people want to go boating every now and again, perhaps an encouragement of hire schemes might be a good idea. Obviously a few days a year, like the start of the Sydney-Hobart race might lead to shortages, but this does not justify turning the harbour into a yacht parking lot all year.
In Woolwich, the local Independents have been fighting this for years, and the local Liberal, who did nothing, tried to put herself prominently in the photo but did not succeed.
Here is the write up in the SMH today:

WATERWAY PRIVATISATION
‘Existential battle’ with marina developer

Lucy Macken SMH 25/8/24

Prestige property reporter

The well-heeled folk of Hunters Hill have been known for their strident stance against overdevelopment since 1971, when about a dozen local mums joined with the late union organiser Jack Mundey and his ‘‘green bans’’ movement to stop Kellys Bush becoming a housing estate.

So an application to the council to almost double the size of Woolwich Marina met a groundswell of opposition in what is being billed an ‘‘existential battle’’ against the privatisation of a public waterway.

On the drawing board is a proposal to expand Woolwich Marina from the current 45 berths to 79 and to moor larger vessels, including 35-metre superyachts.

The estimated cost of $8.5 million seems to be the least of the hurdles facing the marina’s ultimate owner, Hong Kong businessman Chan Hoi Li, given it was unanimously rejected by both Hunters Hill Council and North Sydney Local Planning Panel.

The next step will be an on-site conciliation meeting with the Land and Environment Court on September 19 and 20.

Chief among the 11 grounds for refusal – including maritime, Aboriginal and bushland heritage concerns, visual impacts to state heritage-listed Kellys Bush Park, the existing use of public space and public consultation – are what former mayor Ross Williams cites as the privatisation of a public waterway and the safety risk to children sailing in what is already a congested section of Parramatta River.

Then there are the heritage concerns of a native kelp forest and a shipwreck in the river, as well as the endangered White’s seahorse recently found at Cockatoo Island.

Less represented among the local community groups objecting to the proposal are casual boat users and kayakers.

‘‘They’re not organised, but there are a lot of them,’’ local David Griffith said in his submission to the planning panel. ‘‘The only winner in all this is the owner, who will get a wonderful financial windfall from privatising a public waterway.’’

Marina manager Idy Chan, daughter of the owner, referred queries to architect Micheal Fountain, whose firm designed the proposed expansion and who said any comment would be inappropriate given the matter was before the Land and Environment Court.

Chan family corporate interests bought the marina in 2015 for $10 million. The historic Glen Mahr residence behind it was added in 2019 for $6.6 million.

Idy Chan made no secret of her plans, telling Good Weekend in 2018 that she had a waiting list of Chinese emigres wanting berths for their smart yachts.

There were 406 submissions to the council about the proposed new marina. Of the 289 in support, the 285 form letters were counted as a single submission. The 117 objections included a formal objection by the elected members of Hunters Hill Council.

Rallying behind

the vocal locals, opposing community groups include Lane Cove 12ft Sailing Skiff Club, Greenwich Flying Squadron, Hunters Hill Sailing Club, Friends of Kellys Bush and Hunters Hill Trust.

‘‘Even the kindy P&C are involved one way or another. It’s a proper community outrage,’’ said Chris Stannage, president of Hunters Hill Sailing Club.

‘‘We already exist alongside the ferries, party boats and everyone else on the harbour, but we also have fairly substantial duties of care, and if it means our sailors will be put at undue risk then we would have to look at where we sail.

‘‘That has turned this into a pretty existential battle from our perspective,’’ Stannage said.

08/08/2024

A Realistic Assessment of the Middle East Situation

8 August 2024
None of the Anglo Countries will say ‘No’ to Israel.
https://johnmenadue.com/the-awesome-power-of-the-israel-lobby/

04/08/2024

Gains by Rebel Groups in Northern Burma/Myanmar

4 August 2024

The struggle in Myanmar has dropped out of the news, but it goes on.

I visited Myanmar in 2017-18. There were almost two societies. The people said very little and seemed about 80% of the population. They obviously hated the army but no one said so. The army and their ilk seemed to be about 20%. They knew that they were hated, but were defiant and aggressive.

The government was theoretically under the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Ky, the Nobel laureate, but the army had kept all the major portfolios so she could not act much. Arguably the Junta had accepted her 2015 win only because of sanction pressure on the country.

Yangon (ex-Rangoon), was a pretty dirty 3rd world city, with almost no expensive hotels and diesel generators outside even modest hotels, shops and restaurants because of the unreliability of the power. As the old capital, Yangon had a building that should have been the Parliament, but the capital had been moved north 3 hours drive to Naypyidaw, away from the population centres.

Naypyidaw was a very modern city with 6 lane modern roads and almost no people, built largely with Chinese money. You could have played tennis on the main highway. There were a number of big modern 5 star hotels in an enclave away from where the locals lived which were remarkably cheap, around $US25 a night and had almost no guests at breakfast and few lights in the rooms in the evenings. The ‘National Library’ was small, modern and served by a infrequent bus service. There was almost no one there. The staff spoke good English but did not say much beyond information about the library.

In Mandalay, the second city, there is an old and not-well-maintained palace in a large fortified compound complete with moat. Tourists are vetted at the gate by surly military and may only walk up the central drive to the palace- all the rest of the compound is for the military and it is mostly neglected lawn.

They were trying to develop a tourist industry and there were a lot of new vehicles, mostly right hand drive in a country where they drive on the right. i.e. the drivers are on the wrong side. This was apparently because cheap cars were available from Japan. This industry has largely collapsed since.

There was an election in November 2020, which resulted in a huge victory for the National League for Democracy and Aung San Suu Ky, but there was a military coup immediately after. Aung San Suu Ky was arrested on trumped up charges, one of which was having walkie-talkies for her staff that were not able to be eavesdropped by the junta. Some people were killed in ensuring demonstrations but more systematic military resistance has continued ever since. There are a lot of different ethnic groups and unity within the country is a long-term problem that no one wants to talk about, but they all oppose the military junta and are cooperating against it.

www.irrawaddy.com/news/war-against-the-junta/myanmar-junta-surrenders-third-town-to-tnla-in-northern-shan-state.html

21/07/2024

DVA Still Screwing Veterans

21 July 2021

A recent article shows that the Dept of Veteran Affairs is still making it hard for injured veterans to get redress.

This is entirely consistent with the way that governments try to minimise all welfare payments.

Centrelink is a bureaucratic nightmare. They will not pay until you have absolutely no resources, and the amounts are not enough even to pay rent in capital cities. Morrison claimed that he had cut the rate of people being granted the Disability Support Pension by two thirds. All the people refused have to keep sending off job applications as part of their ‘mutual obligations’. I see these people. They have virtually no hope of a job and are wasting their own and employers’ time.

I work in the State area of workers compensation and CTP injury. SIRA (State Insurance Regulatory Agency) is chiefly concerned that insurers do not pay out too much, so that the government can boast that premiums are low. There’s not much danger of insurers overpaying. They refuse a large number of investigations and treatments that are standard elsewhere.

Veterans Affairs used to be a special welfare system for returned service personnel and was set up after the world wars as a system to look after heroes. But wars lately have been neither popular, nor in Australia’s interest. The Vietnam war was unpopular, as were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vietnam was a mistake, but the more recent ones were merely done to please the USA, who also should not have been there. Our troops have lots of PTSD and because negative media coverage was stopped after Vietnam, the veterans cannot really talk about what happened to anyone who understands. Their suicide rate has been high. But consistent with the lack of willingness for any sort of welfare, the veterans also have a bureaucratic nightmare, which delays payment as long as possible, often till their death by suicide.

The market-obsessed late capitalist system in which we live simply creates greater inequality, and the only way to maintain a harmonious social fabric will be to support disadvantaged people, whatever the cause of their disadvantage. It has been said that the Left tries to lessen inequality and the populist Right tries to defend privilege or finds scapegoats. As we watch the US unravel or see our government and opposition blame migrants for the housing shortage it is hard to argue with this proposition.

In the meantime, the veterans need help against the government’s lawyers. And the population should try to stop us being drawn into very silly wars. Taiwan looks like the next danger.

Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide confronts lawfare, cronyism and a bureaucratic nightmare

21/07/2024

Israeli Parliament votes down Two-State Solution 68-9

21 July 2024

Israel has been settling people, largely poorer folk from Eastern Europe on hilltops on former Palestinian occupied land since 1948. Because they did recognise land title before the declaration of the State of Israel, they can claim that no one owns this land, which is of course nonsense, as the Palestinians had been occupying and farming it.

They have continued to pretend that a peace could be negotiated as they gradually took more and more land, and built roads to all the settlements so that the army could come and help the occupiers if the Palestinians resisted. They called the Palestinians terrorists, basically to undermine their legitimacy.

Now there is no land that could be a Palestinian state- there are about 750,000 Jewish settlers in the West bank in fortified villages, and they are educated in Hebrew only, so they cannot go anywhere even if they agreed to.

Israel has pretended for years that there could be a two-state solution because it has been playing for time to make it impossible. Now, because the world is calling out for a peace solution, the Knesset has said that it will not have a two state solution. The Palestinians obviously have nowhere to go. Gaza is rubble and the land on the West Bank is largely Jewish-owned.

Jeff Halper in his book ‘An Israeli in Palestine’ recognised this problem more than a decade ago and said that there would have to be a one-state solution with and post-Apartheid type of reconciliation similar to South Africa’s. Good luck with that now!

It is hard not to believe that the hard right who control the Israeli Knesset wanted the Gazans either to die or to flee to the Sinai, but Egypt did not allow the latter, as they knew that they would be refugees there forever. The Gazans knew it too, though we might wonder what they would choose now as Israel bombs them and blockades them till their children starve.

This is colonialism and genocide more obvious than it has been in public memory, and the Knesset has just shut the door on the peace process that Australia and many other governments have been vainly clinging to.

https://johnmenadue.com/israeli-lawmakers-vote-against-palestinian-statehoodpic-zeev-elkin/