* I noticed that ABC radio host Richard Glover made a tweet about being a victim of sexual abuse (he was commenting about the George Pell matter.) Given that he talks about his own life a lot in his books and columns, I was surprised I hadn't heard him claim that before, and Googling the topic I see that I missed that he had published an autobiography in 2013 which apparently dealt with it, but was mainly about his highly eccentric parents. (I have a vague feeling I had heard him talking about his mother before.) Anyway, I listened to an interview he did with Richard Fidler in which he talked about it, including briefly about a period of sexual abuse which occurred not as a child, but at 19. He did have a unusual early life, yet he has had only one long term partner and two sons who he has written affectionately about for many years. His life story is really one of resilience, then, as he makes plain in the interview. Quite interesting, really.
* Speaking of ABC radio personalities, it was hard not to be moved by the Good Weekend article about Red Symons and the difficult life issues he has recently faced. (His son dying, after battling cancer on and off since he was 4; his own medical crisis; losing his job for unclear reasons; and a marriage breakup - although that last one appears to have been of his own doing.)
* Can't everyone stop talking about the Pell conviction until the appeal is heard? 4 Corners is going back to the topic again tonight, although I gather it may be more about the nature of the investigation and the Church's role, rather than on the details of the Pell cases. Still, I think everyone should drop the topic until an appeal is heard.
* Not this weekend, but the one previous, I heard a fair bit of a BBC radio documentary about the quite high success of machine learning to detect susceptibility to suicide attempts. Here it is - "Predicting Suicide". I see that this topic got some attention late last year, but I missed it. I must find a good written article about it.
* Crying "SOCIALISM!": I continue to be dismayed that Right wing punditry and politicians in the US has convinced their "base" that any policy that would formally just have been called a centrist one favoured in successful, capitalist, social democracies as PART OF THE TYRANNY OF SOCIALISM. I think it's a mistake for young Democrats to deal with this misuse of the term by saying "well, if that's socialism, count me in!" No, don't concede to the sloppy (or ridiculous) re-definitions of the pathetic excuses that now pass for Conservative intellectuals. Here's an article that is a little helpful in that regard, from WAPO: Five Myths About Socialism. The only thing is, I don't think it really goes in hard enough, and still gets too tied up in definitions. Someone in comments takes the line I am more inclined to argue:
The truth is it doesn’t matter whether socialism is good or bad for democracy because nobody in Washington with any kind of a voice is advocating actual socialism - ie government ownership of the means of production. So most of this article is fluff.
I think it’s a huge error for AOC, Sanders and the rest to not use the true term for what they are advocating, which is social democracy, not true socialism.
Social democracy is characterized by a strong social safety net and a mixed economy in which both private and public actors operate, (with more or less government regulation of the market to avoid monopolies or price gouging, employment protections, and sometimes employee slots on boards of directors) with private operators producing consumer goods, and public actors generally producing public goods such as education, public transportation, a functioning energy grid, and management of the healthcare sector. There are many examples of stable Western societies which practice social democracy in many different formats. Even the United States for all one side’s religious worship of the god Market, is still a mixed economy with free public education up to a point, some government-managed healthcare (Medicare) and a few oddball public operators like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Or state universities.
The key here is the term “democracy”. As a matter of fact, there is no inherent conflict between socialism as such and democracy - the British had both for much of the 60s until they decided they wanted to try something else, which happened without revolution. The reverse tends to be true: dictators who gain power take control of the commanding heights of the economy and claim that what they are doing is socialism, when in fact it is theft.
But “socialism” has been such a bogeyman in this country for so long that it’s politically dumb to try to repurpose the term, inaccurately, to describe social democracy.
Or this:
Why not begin the discussion with the generally accepted definition of socialism found in most dictionaries and economics books?
so·cial·ism - /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit noun -- A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
I lived in Sweden for over three years, a country that many people would consider socialist. It's not. Over 95% of businesses are privately owned in Sweden.
Sweden is a capitalist country with high individual taxes to pay for social programs. It's easier to start a business in Sweden than it is in the US. And business taxes are very low there, also. The government encourages the growth of private business.
Individual tax rates are high, topping out at 54%. Those high taxes are used to support excellent schools, excellent medical care and a social safety net which are values that the public supports.
2 comments:
Why not begin the discussion with the generally accepted definition of socialism found in most dictionaries and economics books?
Come on Steve you are old enough to know that the use of the word is entirely for pejorative purposes. You want to take away their fun, make them them accurately about definitions?
Can't everyone stop talking about the Pell conviction until the appeal is heard?
No! But how long until the appeal anyway?
Post a Comment