![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 29 to 53 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by Estella on May 8, 2006, at 5:48:14
In reply to Re: Estella and Zazenduck, posted by Bobby on May 7, 2006, at 21:11:47
> I'm part native american--doesn'that give me free reign to get rid of the europeons?
what do you think?
was anybody in the us before the native americans?
reperation... i think you are owed one hell of a lot in reparation.
a lot of what was done to the american indians was shameful.
giving them blankets infested with small pox and relocating them to canada... stuff like that.
a lot of things like that happened in nz too. to the maori (indigenous people of nz). don't think anybody was here before them (though that is a bit arguable).
they were invited to church at which point the doors were barred shut and the church was set on fire.
they are owed reperation imho.
years of racism thereafter...
they are owed reperation.
but then i also think... that all human beings have a right to life. my understanding was that your ancestors were pretty nice and friendly to the immigrants to america. your ancestors got f*cked over. badly. that sucks. but imho... don't perpeptuate the cycle. there are people from mexico and africa etc etc who are having a little trouble.
remember your roots...
i know people think i'm crazy...
but better to die with a clean conscience
but that being said
i understand the rage
Posted by Estella on May 8, 2006, at 10:07:26
In reply to Estella and Zazenduck, posted by henrietta on May 7, 2006, at 20:57:16
you are beautiful hen.
i'm sorry we didn't get the chance to talk more.
i have some idea how much it means...
oh yes indeed i do.
take care.
Posted by henrietta on May 8, 2006, at 15:00:09
In reply to Re: Estella and Zazenduck » henrietta, posted by Estella on May 8, 2006, at 10:07:26
Thank you, Estella Star.
You're beautiful, too. Please take good care of yourself. I'm going to try to stay away, not even lurk. But you'll be lurking in my heart, dear. ((((EstellaK)))))
hen
Posted by Estella on May 9, 2006, at 4:17:46
In reply to Estella, posted by henrietta on May 8, 2006, at 15:00:09
top 10% over half the wealth of the country...
why is it that there isn't more money in social services...
?
the average joe thinks the average joe must suffer if this and that happens
but the top 10% have over half the wealth...
the problem isn't shortage of wealth IMHO
it is a problem in the distribution
I don't think the US needs more money (it is the richest country in the world)
I think the US needs to worry about a fairer distribution (the top 10% don't need all that money. and people... good hard working americans... illegal immigrants... those are the ones that suffer)
Posted by Sobriquet Style on May 9, 2006, at 7:05:33
In reply to Re: Estella, posted by Estella on May 9, 2006, at 4:17:46
>I don't think the US needs more money (it is the richest country in the world)
I used to think that, but it isn't exactly, depending on how you're viewing who richest using GDP, per capita and/or GNP.
http://www.aneki.com/richest.html
http://www.economist.com/theWorldIn/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005
http://worldatlas.com/geoquiz/thelist.htm
Interesting read...
~
Posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 13:00:49
In reply to Re: Estella, posted by Estella on May 9, 2006, at 4:17:46
You know, when I get to thinking about that, I usually end up saying, "How much money does someone need, anyway?" And "How does someone spend all that money?"
But then, I'm often called an idealist.
gg
Posted by wildcardII on May 9, 2006, at 13:02:55
In reply to Re: Estella » Estella, posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 13:00:49
~i often wonder how that 10% can spend so much on things when so many are suffering???????????
Posted by Estella on May 10, 2006, at 1:43:12
In reply to Re: Estella, posted by Sobriquet Style on May 9, 2006, at 7:05:33
that is interesting.
and yet still...
http://www.aneki.com/billionaires.html
and so when it comes to the distribution of wealth within the country...
i could be wrong...
but my understanding is that the USA has the biggest imbalance in the distribution of wealth (from within the country) in the developed world.
Posted by Estella on May 10, 2006, at 1:49:47
In reply to Re: Estella » Estella, posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 13:00:49
> You know, when I get to thinking about that, I usually end up saying, "How much money does someone need, anyway?" And "How does someone spend all that money?"
I think more money buys you more power and social status. So if you have one billion more than that person down the road that probably buys you more power and social status than that guy down the road...
I don't think they spend all that money.
I think now matter how much you have...
People probably still live in fear that it will be taken away.
From their decsendents...
From their future generations...In fact... Sometimes I think the less you have the less you have to lose (so long as basic needs are met...)
But power...
I think it is about power and status really.
I mean... Imagine if you got to nay or yay research funding...
Imagine if you got to be known as a generous donor
Imagine the power in being top CEO
The company vehicles flights holidays conferences
Funny how those with money...
Don't seem to need to spend much of it...Hmm
HrmBut IMHO it isn't the middle class who need to lose out in order for everyone to have their basic needs met...
But would we be able to learn to be happy with being middle class...
Without the dream of hitting the top, without the dream of our descendents hitting the top?
Being a millionare... Being a billionare...
The potential for that.Is that what freedom for the pursuit of happiness means?
Or is that one interpretation on freedom for the persuit of happiness?
Pursuit of happiness at what cost????????????
Posted by Estella on May 10, 2006, at 1:58:24
In reply to yeah » gardenergirl, posted by wildcardII on May 9, 2006, at 13:02:55
> ~i often wonder how that 10% can spend so much on things when so many are suffering???????????
Sigh.
Well...
To be fair...
I manage to waste money quite nicely on coffee and concerts and movies and clothes etc etc etc...
When I could sponsor a starving child with that money.
Why do I do that?
Because sometimes I think we are under an illusion of what we "need" to be human...
Because out of sight out of mind as the saying goes.
IMHO redistribution of wealth...
Is about redistributive taxation.
I know the USA has that already...
But IMHO it isn't fixing the situation (because there is still a radical imbalance)
Why isn't it working?
Probably because (not sure if I get these the right way around) But probably because tax 'avoidance' is illegal (that is avoiding paying your taxes) wheras tax 'evasion' is not illegal (and you just need the money to hire a good tax lawyer to shuffle stuff around within the company and take advantages of family trusts and charitable trusts and donations and things like that to 'evade' paying your taxes).
If you have money... Easy enough to keep / make money...
And thus the middle class tend to be hit the hardest on their taxes. While those wealthy ones... They manage to 'evade' paying their taxes (if i got those around the wrong way then i apologise - genuine error).
And the rich get richer...
And the middle class aspire to be rich...
And the middle class think the lower classes are threatening their lifestyle, their way of life, when really IMHO it is the upper classes who manage to keep the middle class under their thumb whereas if the middle class and the lower class united...
And IMHO politicians should be on an 'average' salary.
Why?
Because they are supposed to be civil servants.
They are supposed to be serving *you* hence representing the common man.
Posted by Sobriquet Style on May 10, 2006, at 5:30:22
In reply to Re: Estella » Sobriquet Style, posted by Estella on May 10, 2006, at 1:43:12
That caught my eye too with the number of billionaires, although 249 is a very small number of individuals compared to the American population as a whole, it is still a very big number compared to other countries internationally. Also, 'millionaires' are quite common these days not only in America, but becoming more common in other countries too, give or take the currency exchange rate, but whos counting when you have that much!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire
>but my understanding is that the USA has the biggest imbalance in the distribution of wealth (from within the country) in the developed world.
I think you're right, although I could be wrong too, but i've heard that you can live a very comfortable life if you do well in America - financially/materially - but if you don't and you're poor, then, you're *poor* bigtime. Although this is the case in other develped countries, I've heard that it is a more pronouced case in America, in black and white extream terms. Of course there is a middle ground inbetween though.
One important factor to take into account is the *individuals* who become milionaires or more rare - billionaires. Eg. How did they obtain their wealth? Right from millionaires made over night weekly from lottery's, to rags from riches business people who started off right on the poverty scale and worked their way up, right time, right place, motivation to get there etc, and just a *little* touch of luck! Some can be said, to be described ruthless and cunning in some repsects of business and getting what they want and how they get it. (I'm not syaing they all are, or even if they are, to keep things civil, for the rules :)You may find details of some of those rich here.
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-billionaires
http://www.forbes.com/forbes400/
There is a man called Nicholas van Hoogstraten who was/is thought to be worth about 500 million in Great Britain, he has been linked with murder and has a close relationship, who is speaks highly of, Zimbabwean - President Robert Mugabe. I'm sure you've heard of him, but if not, he's worth a google if you haven't.
Then there are millionaires/billionaires made through the illegal drug trade which is thought to be worth hundreds of billionaires of dollars, ranking close to oil internationally. These people won't be published to openly though.. If the drugs were made legal, I think they would compete fairly well with pharm (legal) drug companies, unless of course those companies took over the illegal drug business..
Finally you have well-known wealthy people who are very generous with their wealth setting up charities and ways to fund poor countries and help the extream poor people of the world.
One thing worth mentioning as well, which is very important IMHO, is how much you value, not wealth of money status, but your wealth of happiness. If you had to choose between happiness or money, I'd choose both! Seriously, if it was a choice, either or, happiness would be more important to me personally. I say this because of a recent study whereby Americans suffer from a high scale of illness compared to the UK, and for reasons which some are unknown.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_he_me/sick_america
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4965034.stm
Notice too, that from the other link above, of the poorest countries in Africa, and ranked 13th as the poorest in the world, it may have the percentage of the highest wealth of happiness..
http://imomus.livejournal.com/188921.html
All in all, theres a yin to every yang...
~
Posted by Estella on May 10, 2006, at 6:28:27
In reply to Re: Estella » Estella, posted by Sobriquet Style on May 10, 2006, at 5:30:22
> That caught my eye too with the number of billionaires, although 249 is a very small number of individuals compared to the American population as a whole, it is still a very big number compared to other countries internationally.
Yes. And it is the top 10% that has over half the wealth of the whole country... Those people average something like 14 million in wealth (which is thought to be a more accurate assessment than net worth because some individuals come up in negative wealth because of huge debt). Those people could be taxed so that they would still be in the top 10% and there could still be the current hierarcy within that to 10% and yet... Bobby wouldn't have to worry about benefits to his descendants. There could be a good quality of free healthcare... housing... education... housing... for all citizens of the usa. you know... the minimum wage could even be raised so that it would be possible to meet ones basic needs and the basic needs of you and your dependent family...
> i've heard that you can live a very comfortable life if you do well in America - financially/materially -
yes. the american dream... especially given the exchange rate. i mean... imagine being a billionare in NYC. i can just see the inner city apartment. the limos... the plays and shows... the lifestyle... or in california... a hollywood mansion or too... maybe a holiday home on the developed side of some third world tropical island...
> but if you don't and you're poor, then, you're *poor* bigtime.
yes. with minimal welfare and free healthcare etc.
> Although this is the case in other develped countries, I've heard that it is a more pronouced case in America, in black and white extream terms.
yes. i think the welfare system... and the absense of good quality free healthcare and education and housing comes into play...
> One important factor to take into account is the *individuals* who become milionaires or more rare - billionaires.
is that relevant to the fact that 10% of the country have over half the wealth of the whole country? I mean... are those people *that much* more deserving than joe the illegal immigrant busting his balls for less than minimum wage so he can send his money home to mexico to look after his family 'cause there isn't enough work in mexico? and mexico aside... how about tom busting his balls working for minimum wage in some non tippable job doing a 14 or 18 hour day so he and his family can live in some tenemant as working poor? are these men less worthy or less deserving than anyone in the top 10%?
how about their wives?
how about their children?IMHO
people were created equal (in the sense of being equally deserving or equally entitled to a reasonable standard of life)
and so when there is such an imbalance in wealth... when people are supposedly equal in the above mentioned respects... then isn't something going wrong? and shouldn't steps be taken to remidy the situation?
> Eg. How did they obtain their wealth? Right from millionaires made over night weekly from lottery's, to rags from riches business people who started off right on the poverty scale and worked their way up, right time, right place, motivation to get there etc, and just a *little* touch of luck!
IMHO more than a little luck is involved... More than a little... IMHO those cases of people 'working their way up' they happen just enough... and are publicised one hell of a lot so that... it supports peoples belief that anyone can make it so long as they are hardworking enough... so that people keep struggling and keep believing that it is possible for them and their descendents if only they keep working hard... and when people devote their lives to trying to become one of the millionares / billionares via slogging their guts out... via buying the odd lotto ticket just in case they can manage to strike it lucky... then the focus is on preserving the radical imbalance and longing to be part of the elite rather than thinking that maybe the whole system needs a radical overhaul and maybe forgoing the 'opportunities' of becoming one of the elite especially when the cost to others of ones own 'opportunity' is so high...
> You may find details of some of those rich here.
i'm not interested...
i don't aspire to be...
i'm more interested on looking to the poor and disadvantaged and trying to figure out how to help them.
the wealthy...
why help the rich get richer?
why buy the magazines to learn about who paris is f*cking now?
even the charitable donations... how many are done under the advice of a tax consultant?
i don't want to preserve the status quo...> Notice too, that from the other link above, of the poorest countries in Africa, and ranked 13th as the poorest in the world, it may have the percentage of the highest wealth of happiness..
right. though how much harder to be happy when you are starving...
i think there is something to be said for pursuit of contentment rather than pursuit of happiness via material possessions / accumulation of wealth.
studies have shown that despite what people are inclined to think...
the more choices one has...
the less likely one is to be satisfied with the choice one actually makes...
too many choices... can lead to a decrease in happiness...
Posted by Sobriquet Style on May 10, 2006, at 9:08:37
In reply to Re: Estella » Sobriquet Style, posted by Estella on May 10, 2006, at 6:28:27
>is that relevant to the fact that 10% of the country have over half the wealth of the whole country?
Well, it wasn't wrote in conjunction with the above subject, more just expanding and focusing on the wealthy, not as a group, but as individuals.
>I mean... are those people *that much* more deserving than joe the illegal immigrant busting his balls for less than minimum wage so he can send his money home to mexico to look after his family 'cause there isn't enough work in mexico? and mexico aside... how about tom busting his balls working for minimum wage in some non tippable job doing a 14 or 18 hour day so he and his family can live in some tenemant as working poor? are these men less worthy or less deserving than anyone in the top 10%?
Well, yes and no. Firstly, you mention they are *illegal* Immigrants, therefore they are breaking the laws of the country in which they are choosing to migrate to. Secondly, the fact they are choosing to migrate maybe because of the politics in their own country. I know little about Mexican politics... So, if in your example the man is entering a country, and by doing so breaking laws of that given country, he is then extracting money on the basis of which is initially illegal to then export to his country of origin. On the flip side, this is decreasing opportunites for minimum wage workers who are legal citizens of their country trying to get by on minimum wage to provide income for their familes in America.
>people were created equal (in the sense of being equally deserving or equally entitled to a reasonable standard of life)
>and so when there is such an imbalance in wealth... when people are supposedly equal in the above mentioned respects... then isn't something going wrong? and shouldn't steps be taken to remidy the situation?
This is what politics is all about - what the politicians try to put forward, they are going to do something, to get votes, and the results are what you see today..
>IMHO more than a little luck is involved... More than a little
Using the *little*, with '*' this is what are was saying, kind of in a sarcastic sense - "Like, you need just a *little* bit of luck to win the lottery!"
>IMHO those cases of people 'working their way up' they happen just enough... and are publicised one hell of a lot so that... it supports peoples belief that anyone can make it so long as they are hardworking enough... so that people keep struggling and keep believing that it is possible for them and their descendents if only they keep working hard... and when people devote their lives to trying to become one of the millionares / billionares via slogging their guts out... via buying the odd lotto ticket just in case they can manage to strike it lucky... then the focus is on preserving the radical imbalance and longing to be part of the elite rather than thinking that maybe the whole system needs a radical overhaul and maybe forgoing the 'opportunities' of becoming one of the elite especially when the cost to others of ones own 'opportunity' is so high...
Thats very interesting..
>i'm not interested...
Me neither to be honest. Although when you see how some of the rich are involved in politics and their influence, with them, like the example of Nicholas van Hoogstraten who is quoted as saying
"He has spoken warmly of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, whom he once described as "100% decent and incorruptible". He holds vast fortunes in the African country and once said: "I don't believe in democracy, I believe in rule by the fittest."
Then, right down the scale of Robert Mugabe looking after the people of his country, I find it becomes an important factor. After all, if where talking about wealth distribution, its interesting to see how Mugabe lives and his money, compared to the people he serves. I won't go into too much detail, but the facts are out there. For example, he made homosexuality illegal in his country with a penalty of 10 years in prison. Some have described him as a dictator. But, i'm going off on a tagent..
>i'm more interested on looking to the poor and disadvantaged and trying to figure out how to help them.
I think one of the most rewarding things, if you're interested, is going to one of these countries and doing hands-on-work. There are numerous programmes available to do this, it has to be more rewarding than giving money to charity, which when someone like Robert Mugabe recieves it, it may end up in his bank account or palace etc On a larger scale, there are other ways too I guess - This may be, for instance, looking how the politics in the poor countries is run, and ways to improve it, this may eventually result in some being taken out of power, although at the rate things are elsewhere in the world, it doesn't seem top priority on the world leaders agenda's or if you like conspiracy theories - the Illuminati :-o lol
~
Posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 9:57:16
In reply to Re: yeah » wildcardII, posted by Estella on May 10, 2006, at 1:58:24
> And IMHO politicians should be on an 'average' salary.
>
> Why?
>
> Because they are supposed to be civil servants.
> They are supposed to be serving *you* hence representing the common man.That's one of the things I like about US Rep. Ted Strickland, D-OH, who is the current frontrunner for governor of Ohio. He has refused the House healthcare benefits while he's served in Congress because the same or an equivalent level of healthcare benefits are not available to his constituents. I admire his integrity.
Oh, and did I mention he's a psychologist? :)
gg
>
Posted by Declan on May 10, 2006, at 20:07:56
In reply to Re: yeah » Estella, posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 9:57:16
A member of the House of Reps here (Ted Mack) resigned just before he was eligable for the pension and the other stuff, all sorts of things. He could easily have stayed on being very popular, but he just thought the benefits were unjustified. He was an independant (naturally enough).
Declan
Posted by tealady on May 11, 2006, at 0:48:48
In reply to Re: yeah » gardenergirl, posted by Declan on May 10, 2006, at 20:07:56
Now I'd gone for the benefits Dec:)
and then donated most of em to charities or to people/ things that needed help .. whther an official charity or not :-).. better to distrbute the wealth to the needy causes maybe?
Posted by tealady on May 11, 2006, at 0:51:59
In reply to Re: yeah » gardenergirl, posted by Declan on May 10, 2006, at 20:07:56
meant to add.. guess maybe the tax might have meant it not worthwhile doing in his case?
Posted by gardenergirl on May 11, 2006, at 11:26:25
In reply to Re: yeah » gardenergirl, posted by Declan on May 10, 2006, at 20:07:56
Good for him! What was the response of his constituents?
gg
Posted by Declan on May 11, 2006, at 18:51:13
In reply to Re: yeah » Declan, posted by gardenergirl on May 11, 2006, at 11:26:25
.
Ted Mack - The Independent
PROFILE
In the early 1970s the North Sydney Council made a big mistake in annoying 40-year-old Edward Carrington Mack. Plans to build a 17-storey office block against his back fence transformed the quiet government architect into the public persona and political whirlwind known as Ted Mack.
It is conceivable, but only just, that some people outside of New South Wales haven't heard of Ted Mack the independent with a capital “I” from Sydney's lower north shore. Ted is the guy who resigned from state parliament two days before becoming eligible for a $1 million superannuation payment, because he believes politicians already get too much. Sounds like an interesting fellow? He is!
Ted Mack was born in 1933, at the height of the depression. This was the lucky generation, he says. Mack explains that this is the only period where the birth rate actually fell. “At each point in my life I've had less competition; there were smaller classes at school, and when I went to university to study architecture, there were only nine students.”
Too young to fight in the war, he reached maturity in the early '50s, when life was very different from today: no unemployment, cheap housing and less pollution.
Except for two brief periods, once overseas and once in Wollongong, Mack has never lived more than four kilometres from the Sydney Harbour Bridge, a bridge he refuses to drive across since the steep hike in the toll to pay for the tunnel.
The Australian “dream” of a house, a good job and a few kids was Ted Mack's reality. Robert Gordon Menzies had lulled the country to sleep and Ted Mack, like most of his generation, had no particular interest in politics. “I was the last person you would have expected to have gone into public life.” Enter the typically insensitive council.
Hard to label political commentators have found Mack hard to tag, although that hasn't stopped them trying. By turns he is reckoned as anything from an anarchist to a right-wing conservative. Mack says he has no political philosophy but has strongly held principles. He has simple but powerful ideas such as: “People have a right to be involved in every decision that affects them”.
Mack can't readily think of any early political influences but remembers being very impressed with Jack Mundey's activities. “I remember a Sydney Morning Herald editorial in about 1970 thundering at the Builders' Labourers Federation at this notion that builders' labourers had a right to take some social interest in what they were doing. Jack defended that by quoting the Nuremberg trials at them.
“That struck my historical interest because that's what Nuremberg was all about, the whole notion of individual responsibility, that every person is responsible for their own actions. So I guess I've proceeded politically from these very basic principles: everybody is responsible for their own action, everybody has the right to be involved in every decision that affects them. That led me to a total open government position.”
Mack is all about the processes of government as opposed to single issues. He parades his anti-elitist view provocatively: “I believe that the public has the right to commit suicide”. But, he says, it is equally important that people be enabled to make informed decisions, and for that they need access to information.
Elected to North Sydney Council in 1974, Mack became mayor six years later. He immediately sold the mayoral Mercedes and bought community buses with the proceeds. With the support of others, he instituted mechanisms to make open government possible. This led to the creation of numerous residents' committees and the use of referenda. Four thousand public meetings later, the council became the most open in Australia and remains that way to this day.
Sydney's north shore is the Liberal Party's laager. It was not impressed when, as an independent, Mack wrested away the state seat of North Shore in 1981. Worse still, he did it again in 1990, taking the safe federal seat of North Sydney from born-to-rule Tory toff John Spender.
After 20 years, Ted Mack retired from public life.
During this time Mack has taken a hard line against politician's perks. He returned his gold passes, has never taken an overseas trip at public expense and has collected only that part of his superannuation that he personally contributed.
Referenda Mack is a keen supporter of the Citizens Initiative Referendum project. Such referenda nearly made it into the constitution in the 1890s. He points out that Labor supported the idea until 1963. “They hate it now because the Labor Party has become totally elitist.”
Opposition to citizen-initiated referenda comes from those who are saying that people can't be trusted, Mack argues. “If they can't be trusted to make a decision on a specific issue that's well ventilated, you're really arguing that we should take away the right to vote. How can the public make a decision in a general election, when there's a whole complex of obscured issues?”
As the only person to serve as an Independent in all three tiers of government in the past 50 years, Mack's fly-on-the-wall position confirmed for him how hopeless the system is. The two-party system has become “so rigid that it's overwhelmed any sense of democracy. Really all we have is an elected dictatorship. The parliament as such is just a piece of window dressing ... power resides in the executive, which totally dominates parliament.”
But he's optimistic. Democracy is a relatively new institution, he says, and is still evolving. The idea that people have a right to know, a right to make their own decisions has become a commonplace and is represented in the consumer movement, the environment movement, and worker participation. “That's why you're seeing all these little rebellions around the world against governments.
“In every country people want more power than their governments are prepared to give them. Everywhere governments are on the nose; governments have never been so unpopular”, he says with undisguised relish. The fairest voting method exists in Tasmania, with multi-member electorates under the Hare-Clark system, and should be universalised, he believes.
Paul Keating's threats to make election to the Senate less representative drew a warning from Ted Mack. Gareth Evans is a “total elitist”, he insists. “Evans is saying `we [Labor] should get together with the Liberal Party and agree to have single member electorates, which would get rid of the Democrats, the Greens (WA) and independents'. What Hitler did was just that ... I'm just amazed at Keating and Evans ... it just shows that they don't really believe in democracy.”
In federal Parliament, Mack has made known his opposition to “fundamentalist economic rationalism”, unilateral tariff removal policies, sale of public land, sale of the Commonwealth Bank, GST, Australia's involvement in Bougainville, the nuclear industry and limitations on free speech.
What was he able to achieve in federal parliament? “Very little, because I don't think parliament is very relevant to any particular achievement”, he responds with an ironic chuckle. He is quoted as saying that the “whole place is so seductive, like any self-serving institution, the only defence against it is not to be there”.
Mack's was often a lone voice in the House of Representatives. His was the “only vote against the Gulf War, the only vote against the sale of Qantas, the only vote against the third runway and the only vote against having a nuclear establishment at Lucas Heights”.
The concentration of media ownership and unfettered economic globalisation are two of the biggest threats to democracy today but, he says, that will be for others to fight. Looking surprisingly fit and relaxed for a man who only a few weeks ago was rushed to hospital with heart trouble, Mack is dubious about writing an autobiography. “Books tend to be self-justifying”, he says, and “the record of such books is not good”.
One of the most traumatic decisions for the snowy-haired campaigner was selling his beloved 1951 Citroen of 33 years, which he did recently. His distinctive set of wheels became a symbol of his independence, which he exploited in his election campaigns. The sale was “a bit like the picture of Dorian Gray, to sort of kill off my public persona”.
Source: Frank Noakes
Ted Mack was Independent Member for North Sydney from 1990 to 1996, an Independent MLA from 1981- 1988, and Mayor of North Sydney from 1974-1980.
GO TO: Australians are disillusioned with poor governance
Posted by tealady on May 11, 2006, at 19:36:59
In reply to Computer ignoramus does copy and paste » gardenergirl, posted by Declan on May 11, 2006, at 18:51:13
I agree with his view on the mentioned subjects :)
Posted by Declan on May 11, 2006, at 20:57:22
In reply to Re: Computer ignoramus does copy and paste » Declan, posted by tealady on May 11, 2006, at 19:36:59
I did NOT mean him. There have been a few such as him too.
Posted by Bobby on May 11, 2006, at 20:57:54
In reply to Apology, posted by henrietta on May 6, 2006, at 0:53:19
It is I that owe you an apology. That is never my intention here---just need to vent sometimes. Believe me when I say that I'm not some rich snooty pig. We all struggle with money---even rich people worry in their sleep. I've wondered where my next meal was coming from as a child----where was Santa this year---moved 33 times in 30 years( one cabin as a child had a dirt floor in the bathroom.) Still, I'm luckier than most----family and friends who love each other. Well, all I can say is I'm sorry to have upset you and If I am ever so unfortunate to do so again--please do not hesitate to inform me so that I may bow out gracefully.
Posted by tealady on May 12, 2006, at 21:54:31
In reply to Talking about clueless » tealady, posted by Declan on May 11, 2006, at 20:57:22
> I did NOT mean him. There have been a few such as him too.
I KNOW Declan, and I agree :-)
I'm just not real good at making myself clear I guess.Then again I call a spade a spade when it needs to be called a spade, and when calling it anything else, in case of hurting any group or individual's sensitivies, would do a real lot more hurt and damage to many more groups and individuals sensitivites (and likely more than just their sensitivities); as well as not presenting the truth and trying to halt the damage, let alone partly reverse it:-)
Hence I disagree strongly (as stated a couple of times before in Admin) with any set-up (the board and the censorship) that does this. It's the continual lack of voice and purpose that fosters the beginnings of terrorism... and I think you garee there are some things that , if you do state them, would be "hurting some indefinable group's sensitivities".. but It's fine to say precisely the same about some other group, ya know? I do realise the large persentage of audience is considered more important, but maybe they should be listening more, maybe if they discussed the issues instead of censoring them , then there would be some point?
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2006, at 9:09:09
In reply to Re: yeah » wildcardII, posted by Estella on May 10, 2006, at 1:58:24
> And the middle class think the lower classes are threatening their lifestyle, their way of life, when really IMHO it is the upper classes who manage to keep the middle class under their thumb
Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to jump to conclusions about others or to post anything that could lead others to feel accused, could you please rephrase that?
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:02:34
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Estella, posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2006, at 9:09:09
forget it.
people can disagree...
but you are trying to minimise disagreement huh.
what are we supposed to do over here?
pat each other on the back?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.