Archive for the 'Politics' Category
Who To Blame
Well the Dow has turned down again. Technically it was overbought so this was due to happen, but we are also seeing the rumor mill go into overdrive with everything from “leaks” of the financial stress tests over at the Turner blog, to theories of China trying to escape toxic US debt.
Underlying this is the continual blame for this mess on the credit market meltdown. Well folks you are looking at the car wreck and blaming the telegraph pole. As I began discussing back in Park Bench Mortgages the meltdown in the credit market is a symptom not a cause. You should be asking yourselves why the driver didn’t see the pole in the first place.
The financial meltdown occurred because the pressure came off the housing market resulting in a situation where the value of the assets was not rising enough to cover the loans. All those “Sub Prime” loans were perfectly good as long as the demand for housing kept up. It would not have mattered if our friend on the park bench defaulted. The lender could have sold the property and covered themselves.
The real issue is the fact that demand for housing slowed and no one saw it coming and for that I have to blame the absolutely crappy level of mathematics education amongst our business, economics, banking, financial and political leadership. How many of them have at least two years uni level mathematics – or in fact how many of them have good enough high school mathematics to even get into first year uni math….
To see where I am coming from remember back a bit to all those home improvement shows that swamped TV a few years back during the real estate boom. “Auction Squad”, “Room for Improvement” etc. We were at a period in history in which the Baby Boomers were in the family home and their children where getting married and buying their first homes. Both these groups were competing in the same housing market. Once the after boomers had their new home their minds turned to having families and the demand cooled. At the time you could see the pregnant bellies morph into new mothers turning up at work to show off their latest, which morphed into masses of prams on the sidewalk, then pushers and demand for day care centers.
All of this is was predictable to anyone with even the slightest level of mathematics. Population versus age data is obtained by all the departments of statistics across the western world. All it would have taken to work out that the real estate demand was going to cool off and to adjust lending and risk management appropriately would have been for someone to look at the data.
It would not have been hard to ask “what do people in the twenty to thirty age group do”. “What will the effect on real estate of the baby boomers children themselves settling down be”…
You could literally see it happening around you at the time.
Why the mathematics? Quite simply because the leadership of the western world are mathematically challenged. They can not think in terms of data that is represented by anything more complex than 
. They don’t think first to look at the data and try to understand cause and effect. Statistics to them is a tool to highlight their opinion rather than a tool that should be used to form the opinion in the first place.
This is all compounded by the fact that all these guys have MBA’s. They all have masters level degrees implying a higher level of education. Did they learn anything or was it simply a case of paying their $20k for a ticket to senior management that the universities were happy to take…..
I don’t know about you, but I have known a lot of these guys. They are not smart. Well connected, well spoken and aggressive yes. Some of them are canny and street smart, but you wouldn’t want them in control of anything more complicated than a profit and loss statement for a fish and chip shop.
These guys aren’t good enough. Your lives depend upon their decisions. They make a mistake you get hurt.
Get rid of them – aggressively.
April 21 2009 | Economics and Market and Opinion and Politics | No Comments »
Or Keystone Cops.
In NSW over the last weeks there have been well reported crackdowns on “Outlaw” biker gangs. What is interesting about all this is that these crackdowns have not occurred under the anti association laws that were passed through the state parliament without any debate. The crackdown has occurred under existing criminal law.
The police correctly have been raiding biker premises where drugs, firearms and other criminal activity has taken place. They have been pulling over armed bikers etc etc. Things they could have done at any time over the last five years.
So now we find our civil liberties have been taken away by the “saviours” in state parliament. The state opposition provided no opposition as usual and we find that we didn’t need these laws in the first place.
All we needed was for the NSW police to do their bloody job instead of crying out for more and greater powers.
If they knew these guys were manufacturing drugs and had piles of illegal firearms, and they knew not only what these guys were doing, but the addresses that the drug factories and weapons stockpiles were located at, what the fuck were they doing.
So the police for whatever reason turn a blind eye to the activities of these guys until it became so popular that all the Middle Eastern crime gangs that were targeted by police, morphed into “Biker Gangs” that were left alone by police, the whole thing hits a crisis point with bombings, bashings and shootings becoming the norm and everyone else in the state looses their Liberty as a consequence.
Remember these laws will be on the books for a long long time after the last Middle Eastern Hells Angel and his bomb making associates enter a retirement home.
A knee jerk reaction by a struggling and unpopular government to protect us from hobgoblins that they created by having the police allow these guys to get out of control and the concept of personal liberty is pushed even further from the grasp of the average Australian.
New South Wales. The unemployment capital of Australia and now an even less pleasant place to live. Last one out turn off the light methinks.
(Middle Eastern Bikers? believe it or not. Middle Eastern and Pacific Islander actually, many apparently don’t even ride bikes. A consequence of changing demographics, there are simply not enough Anglo Saxons left to recruit from.)
April 11 2009 | Law and Politics | No Comments »
The Outlaw
Most of you probably have never met a biker and to be honest the last time I was in the vicinity of them was quarter of a century ago in South Australia when the Barbarians were still a recent memory and the October long weekend if I remember correctly meant three days of madness at the Ponde music festival and another year to get the taste of diesel chook out of your mouth. (Recipe: Pile up twenty or so of chickens in take away foil bags, cover with diesel, add a match – sell to party goers with the munchies).
While you justifying the anti biker actions when people being arrested are apparently committing an illegal act on the higher end of the scale what are you going to do about this guy:
He is a stereotype biker. Rides a somewhat street legal Harley, wears a patch, owns some guns, smokes some weed. He runs a custom bike shop or works in one. A blokes bloke rather than a metrosexual he is an outlaw because he isn’t main stream.
In fact he is probably no different in many ways to the ferals up at Byron and thereabouts who perhaps eshew the guns and bikes, but also wear scruffy cloths, bath occasionally, have long hair, tatoos, partake in various substances and also have no time for the rat race. He has analogs in the surfer crowd who have long hair, scruffy clothes, partake in various substances, may own a surf shop and is somewhat less than reliable when the surfs up.
He doesn’t sell drugs – too much hassle, but probably knows where to get them. He, like our feral from Byron and surfer from Bells beach isn’t exactly law abiding when it comes to the state dictating his moral behavior, but he – like the junk yard dog isn’t dangerous unless provoked.
With a wife and a couple of kids you are going to lock him up for years because he talks to someone.
Have a serious serious think about this.
Do the ‘Bra boys and surfer associates down at Maroubra and our ferals up at Byron have anything to worry about. What happens when the religious right of the NSW Liberals control the state parliament.
Is it possible to control the organized crime aspects that have crept into the biker scene using existing laws? Have you talked to our gun toting, pot smoking, patched up custom bike shop owner to find out his opinion of the new breed, addidas wearing, thinks a knuckle head is his silly mate and a shovel head is a road worker wannabe in a patch who really should be hanging out at Hip Hop bars with his “Crew from da Hood”.
April 04 2009 | Law and Politics | No Comments »
Let’s See What Happens To Justice.
The topic of the Anti Biker legislation has really got under my collar.
As reported last night the NSW Premier Nathan Rees has has seen an opportunity to feed upon the fear created by the media on the biker gang issue and is racing to save us from the two wheeled marauders. It seems they have worked out that if they ban bikers all organized crime in NSW will come to a stop. So far no mention of going after street gangs and or the Islander, Middle Eastern, Chinese, Vietnamese or Korean variations on the Mafia.
While Mr Rees and his saviors race to save us there a few things they need to keep in mind, some of which South Australia fails abysmally on.
Proof of Guilt.
South Australia bypassed the whole unpleasant issue of having to prove that a group of people were guilty of an offense by making the offense that needs to be proven before a court only that someone has associated with the banned organization. Whether the organization is guilty of any crimes is only a matter for the state Attorney-General (Think District Attorney if you are from the US) as per the following from the act.
(4) The Attorney-General may, for the purposes of making a declaration under this
section, be satisfied that members of an organisation associate for the purpose of
organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity—
(a) whether or not all the members associate for that purpose or only some of the
members (provided that if the Attorney-General is satisfied that only some of
the members associate for that purpose, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that those members constitute a significant group within the organisation, either in terms of their numbers or in terms of their capacity to influence the organisation or its members); and
(b) whether or not members associate for the purpose of organising, planning,
facilitating, supporting or engaging in the same serious criminal activities or
different ones; and
(c) whether or not the members also associate for other purposes.
Evidence
And while we are discarding due process and normal standard of evidence check this out. Not only do we have people being punished by the state in a manner that bypasses the courts. The evidence used as a basis for this decision is not publicly available.
(1) If the Attorney-General makes a declaration or decision under this Part, the
Attorney-General is not required to provide any grounds or reasons for the declaration
or decision (other than to a person conducting a review under Part 6 if that person so requests).
(2) No information provided by the Commissioner to the Attorney-General for the
purposes of this Part may be disclosed to any person (except to a person conducting a
review under Part 6 or a person to whom the Commissioner authorises its disclosure)
if the information is classified by the Commissioner as criminal intelligence.
And the media was complaining about Guantanamo bay for what reasons exactly…
Guilt Through Association.
This one is nasty. Consider there was a war on and a soldier decided to undertake a reprisal against a non combatant that was known to associate with enemy forces. The cry for them to be bought up on war crimes coming from the same media that is currently screaming for anyone who associates with bikers to be imprisoned for five years would be deafening. The logic of “person A is a known criminal, person B associates with person A therefore person B is a criminal” defies belief in this day and age. I don’t know if the social engineers in their attempts to save us from ourselves have short memories of not, but freedom of association is fundamental to western law and society.
Geneva Convention
To understand the cultural values and to see one of the fundamental documents where these principals are put down lets have a look at an important line in the fourth Geneva convention section( 1) paragraph (d)
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Magna Carta
I know it is obsolete but lets have a look at section 39 the Magna Carta
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
Australian Constitution
Not a bloody lot I am afraid. As I have stated many times before “Liberty” is something Australians simply don’t get. They historically have not had the need to be protected from their own government and as they haven’t needed it they haven’t demanded it.
While Mr Rees and associates come riding to our rescue, we once again have no opposition. Perhaps people have forgotten, but the role of the opposition in a Westminster system is to oppose. To oppose means to call out all the problems with proposed laws.
The best our mob can do is resort to name calling and attempting to find fault with the sex lives of the government while not bothering to defending what most Aussies would consider the most basic of rights.
One day Australia someone will take away your personal freedoms and you won’t know what hit you. Although some would argue that day already occurred when you said a bloke could not go down to the local pub, have a beer, a cigarette and read the newspaper.
March 29 2009 | Law and Politics | 2 Comments »
Dangerous Bikers or Dangerous Policy
South Australia once known for it’s liberal legal enlightenment on issues such as womens rights, marijuana laws and the lack of political parties at local council level has taken a dangerous step back into fear mongering and restriction.
It’s hard to miss the “Biker Wars” issue at the moment. It has been played out in the headlines and talkback shows for weeks now. The politicians are feeding upon the public fear of outlaw biker gangs and are calling for national anti biker laws in the style of South Australia’s recent legislation. Sounds good eh. A stroke of the pen and no more violence, no more shootings, no more drugs, no more big scary guys with tattoos.
It brings to mind a statement I saw yesterday to the effect that
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins.”
Which is pretty much the same as;
“The nature of government is to feed demons and create hobgoblins from which the Saviours within the state can rescue us.”
How the South Australian government is going about saving the poor crow eaters from the bearded tattooed hordes that have them all cowering in their cellars at night is with the Serious and Organised Crime Act. This is legislation that boils down to the ability to proscribe organizations and individuals that the state believe are conducting criminal activity. The evidence of such activity does not need to be proven to normal legal standards. Rather it uses balance of probabilities and it also relies upon secret evidence.
I would suspect the intent of such secret evidence would be to protect the source and ongoing operations but how the hell are you to challenge an accusation if – and here I am quoting the legislation
“Information forming the basis for the making, variation or revocation of a public safety order must not be disclosed to any person (except to the Attorney-General, a person conducting a review under Part 6, a court or a person to whom the Commissioner authorises its disclosure)“.
Note: the emphasis on must is mine..
Once this is done if members of this organization meet more than 6 times they can be imprisoned for 5 years. The meetings don’t have to have anything to do with criminal activity. For example two Hells Angels playing for two different 8 ball clubs who meet more than 6 times in a year would be in breach of the law. In fact reading the act if you are not a member of such a proscribed organization but knowingly associate with someone who is you can be imprisoned for five years.
“A person who associates, on not less than 6 occasions during a period of 12 months, with a person who is— (a) a member of a declared organisation; or (b) the subject of a control order, is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.”
Looks like the whole 8 ball team are criminals simply by association. This law by the way strikes me as unworkable. Making it impossible for OMCG members to associate with anyone else leaves them very little option about who to associate with.
To my mind this goes against the very essence of modern western justice that only allows people to be punished for committing offences that can be proven before a court. You could not even be forced to pay a parking fine without the requirement existing for the state to be able prove your offence.
Where this legislation is nasty is that the only thing the state needs to prove is someones association with a group they declare illegal. They do not need to prove the criminality of the organisation itself.
Freedom of Association
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
or
“Evil would by no means be so foul if it’s face was not so fair.”
The problem though is a little thing called Freedom of Association. The outlawing of outlaw motorcycle clubs because as we all know outlaw bikers are all dangerous criminals is no different to banning Catholic mass in Australia as it was in the early 1800′s because as we all know the Irish are all criminals.
Banning the bikers is in a sense no different to banning various Islamic schools (think philosophical school not blackboard school) because as we all know the Lebanese are involved in organized crime. While we are at it let’s outlaw the Calabrian and Sicilian festivals because as we all know all the Southern Italians are all somehow involved with the Mafia.
The issue of organized crime is real, no doubt about that at all. It is normally dealt with via various versions of racketeering laws such as the US RICO act that was of concern back in the 1970′s. Australia has similar powers under the Australian Crime Commission.
Before the other Australian states – with the exception of Victoria who can’t implement such laws because they violate the Victorian bill of human rights – madly rush into further restricting basic freedoms I really would like to know why the existing legislation is not up to the task. Is it because there is insufficient evidence for the existing organized crime task forces to act upon. If there isn’t the evidence how is it we are so certain that these organizations are as they are portrayed? Perhaps the claim is the police are either incompetent or somehow in league – a la Underbelly – with the Bikers.
An Interesting Exception.
The law specifically states that the powers contained in it are not to be used to diminish the freedom of persons in SA to participate in advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action. This means that provided the organization meets for a political purpose it is legal. Imagine outlawing people gathering for a political purpose…..
The Painters and Dockers and the Builders Labourers unions can rest easy, unless they wear a patch.
I wonder why I can hear the defense echo of “But Your Honor we was just having a political meeting”. In fact I think there will be lots of “Political Meetings” at lots of rallies, runs, club houses and bars that will be very hard to argue against.
In effect the SA government has created a situation that has forced the very organizations they don’t like to work together in a united political context. I am not sure if that was the intent, but the previous disparate organizations are now united at least on this topic.
Perhaps now that the OMCG community are forced to work together they themselves will deal with the rogue elements. So perhaps there will be some benefits.
Bikers All Innocent Cherubs?
Not bloody likely. It is an absolute certainty that some bikers are involved in crime, particularly the outlaw crowd. Note the second to last word in that sentence. They like their weed, their women, their bikes, their beer and they don’t particularly like the mainstream. They choose to deal with internal issues in a manner you and I probably would not desire. We all know that.
From my view as long as it doesn’t impact those of us that don’t choose to live that lifestyle I don’t care if they play catch with a live hand grenade while wearing a pink tutu, crotchless knickers and football boots. None of my business and the Army probably already has dibs on that one.
The question is whether the organization itself is involved in crime. This is a hugely important distinction and a non trivial one. The US tried a RICO case against Sonny Barger and the Hells Angels in 1979 and lost because they were unable to prove the organisation itself was criminal.
In fact this makes sense. Outlaw motorcycle clubs are international businesses certainly but they are not criminal per se from what I can see on the evidence publicly available. They attract criminals but as organizations they are more marketing, branding and fashion. The biker pays his dues in one manner or another and gets to wear a patch and the associated status. They are a testosterone fuelled version of Gucci that Richard Branson’s marketing genius would be proud of. They are in a sense accessories to the Harley Davidson brand itself.
I think a key issue here is whether outlawing the biker clubs will reduce the crime level or will the criminals simply find somewhere else to play. Once again it is a question of whether the organisation causes the crime. Does the existence of the organisation create crime or does it simply attract people who were going to commit crimes anyway. Does the organisation create a context where someone who normally would not act in a criminal manner changes?
So where next?
If the issue of Civil Liberties, Freedom of Association, Personal Freedom concern you I would have a look at FREE Australia. It started as a South Australian political party in reaction to the SA legislation, but has now opened a NSW branch. I would expect a lot of beards, tattoos and patches at their sign up days. I would also expect a lot of people to sign up to create a defense under the allowed political gatherings clause, but the broader issue of Liberty is at stake here. At some point we as a society have to tell the Nanny State we don’t need nor appreciate their Hobgoblins and Demons.
A final thought for you to take with you. In order for you to have your Liberty, a word Australians are only just learning to spell, you have to accept that;
“The price you pay for your Liberty is your obligation to defend the right of another to live their life in a manner you don’t agree with.”
Me
March 25 2009 | Politics | 1 Comment »
