Showing posts with label Philippines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philippines. Show all posts

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Israel - the right to exist

Share |
There are a great many people in the world....mostly unthinking liberals with scant regard for principles who feel compelled to attack Israel but withhold complete moral condemnation from Palestine or Syria. This is a grave injustice

Generally speaking, Israel is far superior ethically to Palestine. Israel has democracy, Syria and Palestine are products of their own stupidity, i.e. No rationality, no democracy, no respect for the rights of others. Israel only disrespects the rights of those who repudiate its right to exist. Does Aside from indignant Arabs who repudiate the right of Israel to exist, Israel does not kill other people. By contrast, Arab fundamentalists will kill foreign 'infidels' with impunity. That is why we don't holiday in the Arab world. Many Arabs of course don't support such extreme views, but they don't have the freedom or courage to repudiate those fundamentalist views either. Their existence is reason enough to avoid making general statements. At the end of the day, people ought to either repudiate values they disagree with, or if they are terrorists, physically extricating yourself from them, and refusing to finance them, even if that means leaving the country.

The interesting element of this argument is of course that we refuse entry to these people when they apply for visas to live in Australia. I personally think we should be helping them preserve justice in their own countries. Instead the US continues to provide the Arab states with legitimacy by propping up the existing regimes.

This is not an attack on Islam. All religions are misguided, along with a great many philosophies. Muslims are as much subject to flawed political systems as the West; none more so perhaps than the Muslims of the southern Philippines island of Mindanao. In fairness however to the Philippines government - Islam seems not too different from Christianity, so is there any compelling reason for political differentiation. Any campaign for self-rule therefore seems to be purely a political game.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, September 15, 2008

Unbloody believable - corruption under Bush

Share |

Being a supporter of small government, you might have expected me to be a supporter of the Republicans, however my contempt for Bush and the Republicans has sunk to a new level. I was reading about Alan Greenspan's forecast for the US economy. For the life of me, I don't know how Greenspan could be so blind or repressed, to be unable to see the consequences for his own actions. He talks down the economy, but he otherwise seems oblivious to the fact that he caused it. He is not alone. My mother's boyfriend, also a conservative seems to be suggesting that the Labor Rudd government is responsible for the weaker Australian economy. As much as I think Rudd has been a disappointment, I would have to conceed that he hasn't had the chance to really do any damage yet. I would love to be the journalist who asks Greenspan what part he played. I could retire after asking that question. It would be worth being blacklisted by every media outlet. Talking of blacklisting. In an interview on Dateline, George Negus was implying that Naomi Wolf was being sensational by suggesting that the USA had become a fascist state. Ask yourself why a bestselling author would now be blacklisted by the media. Why is she only showing on foreign media by a government TV channel, which has a reputation for political independence? I can't imagine that George Negus would have been bought off, though I guess he has worked before with the large private TV stations. Does he owe someone a favour. Read his transcript for his interview - it struck me as highly impartial. Poor interview as well, and quite condescending. I note that the media is particularly critical of the Independents in the Australian politics. Its true that some of these players are very unpolished. I guess for the media, unpolished politicians are a little uninteresting. Scandal though is valued when it comes from the main parties, but quashed when it comes from Independents. In the Philippines they of course kill critical journalists.

But in a related article I learned something shocking about America which I did not know. The government controls an appropriations committee which dolls out money to politicians around the country. We have this in Australia too, though its much more blatant in the USA. They function as personal investment funds, and there is evidence of course that these funds are used to pay backhanders to the sponsoring Senators. The bulk of the money goes to marginal seats, helping to keep the government in power. Just like campaign funds the burden of these dispersements are increasing each year.

I don't know how anyone can argue that we are not within a period of fascism. Would you like another example? Malaysia is benefiting from a resurgence of popularity by Anwar Ibrahim, the would-be prime minister of Malaysia, who was jailed by Mahathir cronies for sodomising his driver. Mahathir has long since disappeared after a long rein in Malaysian politics. But Anwar has again been charged with sodomy just prior to the leading party vote. I would not be surprised to see Anwar assasinated or jailed against for sodomy. And I would be surprised if this results in riots in Malaysia. So you would think that Western politicians would be outraged by these events in Malaysia, but no! Very little commentary at all. Why? I think its because they are scared to become under criticism themselves. I don't know if you realise the dichotomy that our elected officials have created. They have liberalised markets, and I guess you could argue they have increased market competition. But in politics they have entrenched their own parties position. Global governments support dual-party systems despite the fact that these are rife for collusion. You might think they are competitive, but understand they play in a certain way. There are rules of engagement. They know they will have power roughly half the time, and if they opportunity only comes once in a lifetime its worth it. It need not be a dual system. In Japan, its the omnipotent Democratic Liberal Party that has controlled government for 75 years, aside from a very short hiatus. The conceals the fact that the DLP comprises factions that distribute gratuities like its Xmas.
The Philippines is so corrupt its amazing. Its beyond comment. Its guilty by reputation. I notice that governments do seem to have rules of engagement. It was when evidence emerged that the Philippines government was engaging in political killings that the US government actually stepped in and said something. As far as I can see there are secret rules of engagement. They will permit anything but political killings. Clearly the reasons for this are self-serving. Imprisoning a person is OK under these rules. That's why no one cared when the 'red racist' Pauline Hanson was imprisoned by Tony Abbott in Australia, and no one cared when Anwar Ibrahim was imprisoned in Malaysia on trumped up charges, and will again. I would not be surprised if President Obama is assasinated by the Republican Party. Of course they will pay a white supremist with self esteem problems to do the damage, and then they'll kill the evidence trail. Its all very predictable if you look at the trend. That is of course if Obama is any different. Kennedy didn't want to play ball, so he got assasinated. There is no reason to believe that Obama is anything but a fascist team player. There is hope because he has been in politics for less time. Any idealism in him though will be corrupted or he will be eradicated. The rules change if you don't play by the rules.
The most cynical aspect of this presidential campaign I have seen so far is the appointment as Senator Palin as the Vice President nominee. Aside from the fact that she appears to be a credible candidate, I would make the following points:
1. Palin attracts the female vote that Obama snubbed when he shot down Hillary, which was the right thing to do. Hillary is a control freak who would never have played 2nd-in-command.
2. Palin supposedly a strong force against party corruption. I personally think that is political spin because she comes from the state (Alaska) which receives the greatest funding by 'earmarks' These funding instruments are a scam story in themselves. Alaska gets 10x more funding from 'earmarks' than any other state. That makes her vulnerable to the Republican party appropriations committee. So she is a puppet.
3. She is a gun-totting politician

I conclude that there is so much spin on Palin that she is not going to know which way is up. Just ask yourself why this woman from nowhere is elected. Its all politics of managing perceptions. The Republicans are vulnerable on the female vote and corruption. The media has painted this woman as the party sheriff who is going to clean up corruption. As soon as the election is over, the party will pull her aside and say 'If you don't play by the rules' we will cut funding to her electorate in Alaska. Global politics have become so dirty, and there are few places in the world where its so 'clean' and slimy as the USA. In the Philippines its far more impersonal. They just shot you from a distance.

What is more concerning to me is how the general population is so indifferent to these issues. They just turn off. Their attitude is - I can't do anything about it - so i'm going to look after number one. My problem is that these political parties are going to get a little desperate and start killing opponents. What will these compliant voters say then? The old idea that you can always vote them out is nonsense. These fascists are in both parties. No one represents the workers anymore. That is the rhetoric. Those union leaders who don't play ball are either paid off or removed by the upper echelons. There are few unions with any power anymore. This is not new. Union leaders in Japan have for decades been paid off. They were even given positions on the company board of directors.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Philippines pandamonium

Share |
This blog is raising a storm worldwide, but particularly in Australia, the Philippines, the USA and HK. Its having repercussions on so many levels - Manila 'high' society is under the spotlight, and then there is the power of the internet to smear or expose.
This blog reveals the inner secrets of Manila's richest people in a 'tell all' by a gay Australian man who had a Filipino boyfriend who stole $70,000 from him, according to the blog. The guy is Brian Gorrell, and his ex-BF is 'DJ'. This guy is getting 50,000 hits a day as a result of the detailed research he offers. TV stations even interviewed him.
http://delfindjmontano.blogspot.com/2008/03/western-union-dj.html

The interesting aspect of this blog is that the author is really implicating himself. One has to respect him for standing up to the guy whom he accuses of stealing $70,000, but is he really standing on firm ground. Would he reflect on them just as badly if he was not screwed over by one/all of them? Is he not just snubbing them because they snubbed him by tacitly supporting his former BF. That strikes me as a typical 'human' trait by today's standards. People seldom stand up for truth. They defy objective reality in an instant to retain the confidence of other people. These people have just less sense of reality because they are buffered by their money, just as school kids are buffered by the safety of their institution, the military and academics are protected by lifelong tenure/pension, and welfare recipients sometimes offered unconditional payments.

I think if this guy was really the saint people are professing to be, then he would not be living among them. He would not have gained their confidence. Anyone who rejects these people or is rejected by them, knows the division of values involved. Those alienated by 'high society' are the real saints because they have preserved their intellectual freedom or independence. Is this guy a saint because he implicated them? Is he a changed man because he is now critical of this 'high society' he embraced just months ago. I think not. Is his rejection of these people over a very concrete $70K a sign of his intellectual conversion. Nope. I think its just vengence. Brian Gorrell is the same guy he was several months ago - just he knows the poisonous chalice he holds.

Brian was a victim of the same values which he holds. He was just too innocent to know. How else would be gain their trust. These are perceptive people - they know when an outsider has breached the walls. I know because I was never able to permeate the walls, as much as I tried as a youth. In time I realised that I could not be that way, that I had to preserve my intellectual independence and integrity, and hope that would lead me to 'my type of people'.

Brian has strayed from home, but I dare say he will find his way back to something that looks remarkably like the home he left, just a more familiar one in Australia.
-----------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?