China Vice

After the hurried talk we were herded out of the room and through an area that felt more like a work site than anything. And then, we finally stepped into the studio.

The audience was already waiting in the middle section of a small group of seats. And the set was not quite as I remembered it (I assume it is changed a bit from year to year) and was much smaller than it appears on TV. I’d just sat down when I was told that I was on the first show of the year and got up to take my place in the champions seat – if I was not quite so overwhelmed I would have noticed my name in front of one of the seats. One of the other guys from the bus, Jay, was also up first.

We sat in our seats whilst they checked the camera shots of us and adjusted our hair and make up. I needed a dose of bronzer as my skin is so pale. Jay reflected that this was the last time he was going to look this good as he was just going to get older and he was in make up. I observed that it was probably the last time that it would be appropriate for him to wear make up as well. To which he responded, “Not necessarily, I’m from Sydney.” There was also a mad flurry to try and find the final contestant, Trish, and ensure that we had all signed our contracts.

I reflected that whilst one of the previous grand champions, Sunil, had commented in his SMH article that the set seemed cheap and make of ply wood, it seemed fine. Comfortable and finished enough with screens to change graphics and some sort of Perspex contraption in the box behind where Ed stands to make up the background. (Whilst there I finally realised that the set is made up of a series of boxes with the finalists prizes in them and one section that has a screen for most of the show and reveals the giftshop when a contestant answers the giftshop question correctly. I think they’re meant to resemble old-fashioned shop-fronts, but I’m still not sure what the box behind Ed is meant to be).

We then went around the corner from where we were to be seated to be escorted in by “the models.” We all got to have a bit of a chat to the male model (who as per Zoolander was ridiculously good looking and very petite!) who was talking about how he is getting into presenting on a travel show – I want his job! I had to go in twice, I’m not entirely sure why but I think it may have had something to do with a miss-read autocue. Also the first time I realised that I could hardly hear Ed and Livinia, they were just talking at normal volume and I was the other side of a room with a cheering audience in the background. I had no idea what they were saying about me except something about politics. I deliberately didn’t put too much on my profile about politics, except that if I couldn’t be a trophy wife (plan B), I would like to be the first female PM (plan C). The second time around I noticed they had also included some off the cuff half-serious comment I’d made about Monty Python and Oscar Wilde… oh well. Jay I noticed they mentioned was into lots of sports and wanted to write his own song and Trish, the final contestant was some sort of web developer and had eloped to Texas.

For the first round of questions, I felt like things were moving really really quickly and was a little overwhelmed. I can’t remember if I tried to push the buzzer or not, but didn’t get any questions in and then Trish won the first gift shop – an Apple Air Book. Awesome prize and she didn’t think twice about taking it.

In the second round I managed to get a few questions in and was even in the lead for a while, before winning the first “who am I?” which was pop-singer Rhianna. A lucky guess, but as it was a recent singer and I think I finally buzzed in after they mentioned a song that I vaguely recognised as hers, it was an educated guess and correct one. In keeping with the pop music theme (Amy Winehouse had got me 5 points earlier), I chose Madonna on the Famous Faces board and got the lock out. A bit disappointing as both the people next to me seemed pretty decent an I’m not actually competitive enough to go out of my way to prevent some one else from winning. I chose Trish as she seemed to be on a role, although I think Jay ended up getting all of the following questions.

Again our scores went up and down, with me getting in early on some questions, being the only one to know others (I came in late on the Queen Victoria question, because my first through was Queen Mary II) and bummed out on another one. I think that R will never tire of telling me that SMS is short message system, not silent.

Never the less, I then managed to get the question for the next giftshop. It was a holiday to Vanuatu, being offered for $10 (eg 10 points off my score). I had said to R that I wasn’t going to play for the lot, if I had a chance at a holiday or golf-clubs I would take it, but in the end, I was only 10 points ahead and it was a close game. So I decided not. Ed did say that usually Scott does the trick with selling the holiday (he’s the male model, he was pretty much wearing short boardies, which if you’re into men that look very very nice, would be very very enticing), and I said, “It’s not like he’s coming!” Possibly my only mildly amusing remark.

There were a few more questions and I was ahead when it came to the Vault. For those not in the know, the Vault is where you get to sacrifice $15 and when you press the buzzer, the computer randomly generates an amount between $1 and $10,000 which the player gets to keep as prize money. It was a real dilemma for me. And then… there was a huge break whilst they fixed up some technical difficulties.

I tried to get R’s attention to see what to do, every one kept telling me to take it. I wasn’t sure – did I want to win or did I want money or could I get both? I finally got R’s attention and he nodded at me. I still wasn’t sure. And in the end… I took it. It didn’t quite register for a while that I had won almost $8k in cash. I missed the next few questions, I think that’s where I bombed out on a question about a book with “six stones” in the title, thinking it was the new Indiana Jones movie, and then just wasn’t fast enough in the final 60 second round. The final 60 second round also threw me a bit as the other fast money rounds were only 20 seconds, so it felt like it was going on for an eternity.

So in the end… I lost. Trish won and poor Jay, who is actually a really lovely, intelligent guy got a pen.

We were hurried off the set and had to sign off on a sheet which listed our prizes, with Ed and Livinia very pointedly thanking us on the way out. We were seated in time for the final shots showing off the grand prizes and also for Trish to answer her final 10 questions for the cash jackpot and deciding to return the next night. She did really well! And I forgot to mention that she had actually appeared on Sale of the Century (although I had thought that she looked too young to have been on!)

I immediately resolved to reapply for Temptation so I could have another shot now I had experienced it once (although I have to wait for two years after the airing of my show – which will be the 1 December 2010).

I stand corrected...

So I previously bagged Springborg for coming up with the giving people free transport if they swipe off between 6am and 7am or 7pm and 8pm. I didn't like it because to me it was thinking too small - we do need more transport infrastructure all over the state - we'd be getting a lot of free loading students getting into uni early and staying until late and once again I wouldn't benefit and would have to pay for every one else getting a free ride (as Milton Friedman says, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" or in this case train fare).

Last night I got to speak with the candidate running in my area and apparently party polling indicates that the initative is actually quite successful. Once again I mistake Joe Public's response.

If you're every not sure what to cook for Dinner...

I find the Cheap Thrills recipies quite good - I first found out the chef responsible knows how to make a wicked Saltimbocca with a very simple recipe a few years back

The Temptation Experience – Getting Ready to Film

Once at the studio we were given our own dressing rooms in the ‘artists’ section of the studios. For some reason I noticed the names “Millsy and Angela” on my door. I knew it wasn’t me as none of the other contestants had a name on their door and when my make up was being done I noticed one colour kit was labelled “The Mint.” Apparently the last episode of The Mint was shot on the weekend – which I mentioned to R as he loves that show. I have to say it has amused me a lot when I get home late after a big night out. I just don’t get a broner from Millsy.

Once we’d arrived we got shuffled into the “Image” Department. In front of a room of mirrors with lights all around them, I had the dark circles under my eyes and the blotches on my cheeks covered up, my make up applied flawlessly and my hair styled by a woman who did hair styling for Neighbours longer than most stars were on the show.

Whilst waiting for a friend to be made up, one of the girls started reading the trivia questions from a paper. “How many horsemen of the apocalypse were there?” “Four!” I blurted out, forgetting that I shouldn’t seem too smart or self-assured in front of the other contestants. But I still managed to get her other trivia questions correct. They were heaps easier than the Qantas Magazine (which is some of the hardest Trivia I’ve seen to date).

Whilst in there a petite blonde woman rugged up in a jumper and scarf came in and talked very familiarly with all the hair and make up girls. She was later joined by a tall brunette woman and a guy who was cute in a little school boy sort of way. They guy kept looking at me, which made me worry that there was something going wrong with the make up or that he was freaked out at a larger sized person in a workplace which seemed to boast a lower than average BMI (but not an unhealthy one by any standard). Although in retrospect I was probably spending a bit of time looking at the blonde woman wondering who she was. I realised later that she was Livinia Nixon, the show’s hostess and the other two were the models from the show! My bad – they just seemed quite unassuming and fairly ordinary rather than like well heeled celebrities.

After being done up I headed back into my dressing room to chat to R and sign a contract which didn’t really have any surprises (except that I wouldn’t divulge the outcome of the show) and read through the rules. I also found out that the other woman from Qld, who I was sharing a dressing room with had previously been on a reality show (and won a substantial sum of money). Other contestants were in and out of each other’s rooms chatting and enjoying themselves. R kept commenting on how we were all extroverts and must be on a high – I thought I kept that part of me pretty much in check rather than letting it get too out of hand!

Once we were all finally scrubbed and made up (the guys included), we headed into a small room to be debriefed by the outgoing contestant co-ordinator Jess, who was helping to hand over to the incoming co-ordinator Fiona. We were told that we had been selected as contestants who stood out in the auditions as people that viewers might relate to. We were supposed to enjoy the experience, take the cash if we were the leading point scorer and were offered the vault and not to bad the prizes as we were on commercial television and they were our sponsors (who obviously made it possible for us to be on telly). The contestant co-ordinators were introduced as being there to help and advocate for us. And that as we’d passed the quiz to get on the show, we should have no trouble answering 90% of the questions asked of us as they were a bit more simple to account for the fact that we would be under just a little bit of pressure. We would also have a bit of ambient noise to deal with from the audience, crew etc and we would have to listen carefully to Ed Phillips as he would only be speaking at normal volume from across the room. We were also instructed to be present and alert for the whole so and not to look down at the card in front of us with the names of the celebrities on the famous faces screen if we correctly answered the “Who am I?” question. Nifty idea as I had always wondered how the contestants remembered the names of the people on the board, as I didn’t know who half of them usually were.

And on that note, we headed in to the studio where the set and audience awaited us.

Some one in the audience asked the MC where Livinia got her dresses and if contestants had to wear their own clothes. Last year, after noticing some contestants looked fantastic and some contestants got their clothes from the sales rack at Rockmans (what can I say, I often remember garments), I figured that contestants were responsible for dressing themselves rather than having the services of an image department.

Is Deficit a Dirty Word?

There’s been a lot of talk about how the Federal government will pretty much be in deficit by the end of the reporting year, even if the budget is not. The NSW government is essentially bankrupt after overspending so much and now, apparently, Queensland will follow suit. I’m not sure how this can happen in Queensland as we have so much GST revenue and we’d have a pretty significant income stream from mining royalties, even if mining production is reduced somewhat. But times are bad and we all have to tighten our belts. This includes the government. Their spending needs to be checked and double checked to ensure that it is not squandering our money.

I know that typically in hard times governments do think that they have to spend. It’s not a classical or neo-classical, it’s somewhat Keynesian and as such grates on my sensibilities (funny how many things are doing that lately). I find it funny that in the good times we do tend towards the more libertarian theories of economics and in the hard times we become more restrictive. But the underlying idea of why governments need to change their habit is that taxation, interest rates and public projects can help boost the private sector to get through the hard times (as opposed to keeping wages and prices flexible to adapt to demand and economic conditions as the neo-classical would advocate). And I’m actually tempted to say if it gives consumers confidence go ahead. Reduce taxes and increase public works.

However what is disturbing at present is that taxes are not being reduced and public spending rather than public works is being increased. If we want to put more money in the hands of people to spend to boost the economy, the most obvious way for the government to do this is to reduce taxes. That way people take home more of what they earn. However in order to increase what people are spending the government has been increasing welfare, which is kind of disturbing. First of all because the increased money to back this is not coming from increased revenue, but will have to come from borrowing or dipping into the savings from previous years. Secondly money that has to go through the government before it is distributed to individuals and families is subject to what I have heard labeled as churning. It means that the middle class that are paying out tax are also receiving it back in the form of welfare, however they don’t get the full benefit as some of the money is extracted to redistribute this money. The preferable option for these people is actually to just significantly reduce the tax rate as a dollar received back in welfare actually equates to anywhere between $1.10-$1.40 if left in people’s pockets. Essentially increasing welfare spending instead of reducing tax is the least effective way to stimulate spending. But also it’s the borrowing to fund welfare that is not so good. The bulk of the federal budget is welfare. But to borrow to support it is really just wasting money. It’s the equivalent of the government doing what Gen Y is criticized for doing – spending up on the credit card to get a new pair of shoes or iPod and only having a very disposable item to show for it. It is fine for governments to borrow to complete big infrastructure projects – they are expensive however generally provide significant benefit to taxpayers. In fact during previous economic downturns big infrastructure projects have been of great benefit to the country not only in providing much needed improvements to people but also in boosting employment. The equivalent personal finance equivalent is that you only borrow to increase your assets or income, not to buy depreciating or disposable items. But this is exactly what our state and federal governments are doing with their increased spending. NSW is possibly the worst with things like standing by ridiculous policies like heavily discounted transport for various parts of the population. And don’t get me started on how stupid it is for the state and federal governments to be spending so much on computers that will just have to be replaced in 2-4 years, especially when a high proportion of families have home computers and all schools have a computer lab (meaning that all Australian students have access to a computer).

So it is reasonable that we may see some deficits in our government budgets in the next few years. It’s not ideal, but it can be helpful. However it is far from ideal and even verging on down right negligent for government deficits and borrowing to come about because of welfare spending.

The Temptation Experience – On the Way

I thought I'd let you all know how my Temptation experience went. It was filme in March and I will warn you that I can not divulge how the actual show went until after it goes to air, so I will stick to the experience of the day for now and the rest will come later. There's lot's to tell and it was quite exciting, so I'll do more than on entry. I know one of the grand champions wrote about his experience in the Sydney Morning Herald recently, and was fairly accurate, but obviously every one's experience of the show is different.

On Monday morning I left work a little early to catch a plane to Melbourne. Not a highlight of my year as I seem to average about 26 flights a year for work (probably 30 by the end of this year), but I will say I was delighted to go through security and not have a laptop to take out of my bag or a weeks worth of clothes to check in.

In fact all I had was 3 outfits as per the Temptation email, which is to ensure any successful contestants didn’t look like complete dags if they were successful and appeared on more than one night. A whole week of shows is filmed in one day. It felt like too much for a night, but my thoughts were just preoccupied by the fact that if I embarrassed myself the next day, it wasn’t just in front of an audience, like when I public speak, it was in front of 1 million prime-time viewers. And also I’d told most of my friends that I would be on the show so there was no escape!

After a fairly uneventful flight, R and I were picked up from the airport by a car, which for a few brief moments on the walk to the car park, I thought might be a Chrysler (was the very plush Holden next to it). And then we checked into the Crown Promenade Hotel in Melbourne’s Southbank. To our good fortune we were upgraded two levels from the room booked by the production company to a Studio room, which was spacious and overlooked the city. It also had some of the comfiest pillows I’d slept on.

I didn’t actually sleep very deeply and woke up a bit tired from that and having to get up in the dark at 6:30am – 5:30am Qld time (damn daylight savings). Even though I didn’t have to do my hair or make up I still took half an hour to get ready and had to rush down to the hotel restaurant for a buffet breakfast before checking out and being ready for pick up at 7:30am. Being more nervous than I thought I was, I didn’t eat quite so well as I usually do when I have breakfast in a hotel.

After 15 minutes of waiting in the foyer, treating every passing person destined for a tour bus with suspicion in case they were a fellow contestant, I finally found my car in the car park. There were 7 of us – 4 contestants and 2 supporters. One contestant was from Sydney, one from Hobart and two of us from Queensland. All fairly full of energy and excitement that we had been chosen to appear on the show. I found out that my fellow contestants had been asked the same question I had by their friends, “What if it doesn’t go to air?” This is a bit of a hot topic at the moment, because I know some bingo show did not air all of it’s episodes and did not pay any prizes to the people who were in the axed episodes. Apparently there is a lawsuit in the works. From what I have heard about this story, they had actually signed an agreement as such, which seems fairly logical. It’s commercial television, they’re only going to give you something if they get their advertising revenue! Just another reason to read every contract you sign carefully. Most of us had dismissed this concern because unlike other shows, Temptation requires continuity, champions carry over from one show to the next and it would not only be confusing for viewers if a show was left out, but they may have to re-film several episodes. Also having started as The Great Temptation, transforming into it’s best known form Sale of the Century and after a few years off becoming it’s present show Temptation, I’d be surprised if it was axed suddenly. They’d probably also annoy a lot of very generous sponsors.

Arriving at the studio was amusing as our South African driver dropped us off on the pavement after refusing to go into the gated area of the studio as he didn’t trust anywhere he couldn’t get out of. Logic that would be useful in ZA but not really warranted in Australia… …unless he gets some dodgy clients.

I <3 The borg - grrrrr

I’m pretty sure that we will have a change of government here in Queensland at the next state election, and I’m pretty sure that the LNP will win office. I’m just concerned that a lot of the campaign is about Lawrence Springborg – or “The Borg” as he has managed to convince some immature people to call him. It has really grated on my sensibilities and has put me off somewhat for the campaign this time. I do find him to be something of a hick but more importantly the LNP campaign is not about him, it’s about the LNP being able to serve Queensland better than the ALP. We can’t put all our hopes on one person. First of all because people fail and secondly it’s one of the biggest criticisms we’ve had of the Beattie and now the Rudd governments. There seems to be no room for the team in the face of the giant ego of the “leader.” The Liberals and Nationals aren’t meant to be like that, we’re meant to be a bit more about the team, the people and also have some decent policies rather than just relying on the charisma (or perhaps the hubris) of one person. I also find all the ridiculous photos of him over everything and with people happy to promote 'the borg' campaign (asopposed to the LNP campaign) is kind of nauseating and juvenile.

The other thing that I’m slightly concerned about is that we seem to be launching small policies – travel subsidies, public transport discounts etc – without looking at the bigger issues such as transport infrastructure and increasing rural access to government services. There are a couple of other parties that I have noticed dwell on the small policies and they are far from successful – ONP, Family First and to some extent the Democrats. It usually shows that people aren’t really thinking from an ideological base as well.

Perhaps I’m just in a bad mood and perhaps I’m just over cautious as Springborg as he has led the side through more than one unsuccessful campaign. And it may also just be that I despise the term “The Borg” being used anywhere out side of that famous bastion of the geeky – Star Trek.

Me and the CEO of World Vision

Just to show that I do occasionally do things that have nothing to do with politics, I got a photo with Tim Costello who spoke at the 130th Anniversary Dinner for St Andrews at South Brisbane. I'm working on a write up of the event.

Robbed Twice

One of the principles fundamental to society working in harmony and growing in prosperity is a solid system for the upholding of property rights. As a small ‘l’ liberal this is something that should not be compromised upon. And one the keys to making the system work is that people are entitled to the property they earn – ie a worker is entitled to their wages. Liberal or not I don’t see how any society can function well without this principle.

From time to time, our society has given workers something of a raw deal. In Victorian England, for example, even though slavery had been abolished, most of the working poor were little better than slaves. They were essentially owned by their bosses who were responsible for them and their behaviour as well as feeding and clothing them. Very few were paid much of a wage and had to engage in backbreaking labour for the term of their contract with their master. It was still a step up from the poor house as often workers were taught skills in trades, but not always as was the case with factory workers who also worked in circumstances that were dangerous to their safety.

It would be nice to think that we moved on from this and that sort of thing hasn’t happened in Australia. Sadly it’s not true.

In the Australian series of “Who do you think you are?” I saw a fascinating episode where Cathy Freeman traced her ancestry – it was varied and intriguing. One of the sad things I learned was that one of her grandfathers or great grandfathers was fighting in one of the wars. His wage was being used by his wife to support the family back in Australia. However the government actually stopped most of the payment, as they were allowed to back then, if they thought an Aboriginal was at risk of squandering their money. There were records of the wife writing to the government pleading for the pay not to be withheld so that the family could be supported. It was quite angering as really, people can do what they like with the money that they earn. Taking payment off people just because they’re from a particular ethnic or racial background is nothing short of racist and completely immoral.

The sad thing is, the more I look at it, it’s not just enlisted personnel that were affected.

Underpaying or not paying Indigenous workers was actually widespread in a number of states, largely in pastoral settings by private organizations and the government and it occurred as late as the 1960’s. It gets worse as well. Like Victorian era apprentices and factory hands, the right to leave for not being paid was also taken away from Indigenous workers, as they were rounded up and returned to their bosses if they decided to leave. It was nothing short of slavery. No wonder there is so much resentment and mistrust between black and white Australians. I’d be surprised if any Aboriginal Australian was ever willing to work for a white Australian again!

This week Aunty Jean from my church was pictured in The Courier Mail as part of a protest. The Queensland government, instead of paying the people or the ancestors who did unpaid work for them that they owe money to, initiated and now went back on setting up an Indigenous Education Fund. The fund was apparently aimed at improving the numbers of Aboriginal young people finishing schools. Again this is just as racist and just as wrong as not paying workers. First of all it denies workers their property rights. The people that did the work are owed their wages. It doesn’t matter who they were they are owed that money and if they have passed away their families could quite reasonably be said to be entitled to their wages. Not paying people now because they were Aboriginal is just as racist as not paying them in the first place. Also using the millions that are owed to individuals for an Indigenous Education fund is also addressing the issue of the poor education retention rates of Aboriginal students. If more money need to be put towards the issue, then that money should come from the money set aside for Education by the state government. It should not be used as a premise to redistribute wealth. Being in the same ethnic group as someone does not entitle them to any of the property earned by another member of the same ethnic group.

All in all it shows that people in authority not only are not sorry for what has happened in the past but are willing to commit the same mistakes again and again, approaching Indigenous Australians with mistrust and suspicion.

It also brings me back to one issue in our society that has really bugged me lately and that is that there seems to be recurring themes in the media that people’s entitlement to their money and their property seem to be dependent on their morality. It is not. If someone works or invests they are entitled to their money and their return on their investment.

It really does make my blood boil and it really does give me complete sympathy to the arguments that Aboriginal Australians have been robbed of their wages twice – once when they earned it and then again when the government finally set the money aside and was set to give it to those who are entitled to it.

A north Queensland Indigenous rights campaigner has welcomed the State Government's decision to reopen the stolen wages fund, but says the payments are still too small.

Aborigines and Torres Straight Islanders whose wages and savings were controlled under previous government schemes, and who have not already made claims, can now do so.

Those eligible will get payments of either $3,500 or $7,000, depending on when they were born.

Townsville stolen wages campaigner Florence Onus says the compensation on offer is nowhere near enough.

"No, according to all the records and family records of what was owed to them, the $7,000 is just a drop in the ocean compared to what should have been paid back to them," she said.

During the 20th century, workers won continued improvements to their wages and conditions, including in the pastoral industry. Yet one group of pastoral workers, despite being continuously described as essential to the survival of the industry in rural Australia, were kept in conditions of virtual servitude and abject poverty. These were the Aboriginal men and women who, in their thousands, provided the unpaid and underpaid labour upon which pastoral profits depended.

Their conditions, again to quote officials in various states and the Northern Territory, were analogous to slavery. Physical abuse, starvation, sickness, injury and overwork were constantly charted on official files. In the 1920s Queensland officials said many pastoralists provided better amenities for pet horses than for Aboriginal workers. In the 1930s South Australian officials wrote of the practice of 'breaking in' Aboriginal workers like 'taming wild animals'. In 1940 Western Australian officials conceded the shortage of Aboriginal labour was due to widespread injuring and maiming of workers.

In the NT and WA women, children and the elderly were all forced to work for their rations which were commonly so meagre malnutrition was said to by 'destroying the race'. In these two jurisdictions many workers received no cash wage at all until the 1960s. In Queensland, WA and the NT workers who deserted this regime during the 20th century were hunted by police and brought back in chains.

In Queensland, where Aboriginal workers were often described as more skilled than their white counterparts, the duplicity of a two-thirds wage parity struck in 1919 deteriorated to outright robbery as the government indentured Aboriginal men and women at rates as low as 30 per cent of the white rate. Mandated minimal conditions counted for nothing because no systematic inspections were ever made to enforce them. Exploitation of this captive labour force fractured families as men and women were contracted to remote stations for 51 weeks a year. This system continued in Queensland into the late 1960s.

The pastoralists profited from cut-price labour and the Queensland government profited by taking direct control of up to 80 per cent of the wage through their agents, the police protectors. Large amounts of these private earnings were lost or stolen under the government's watch, despite countless warnings from auditors and public service inspectors. For more than 40 years after 1933, to increase government profit, most of these private earnings were sidelined in investments. Meanwhile workers and their families struggled, and died, in poverty.

Governments around Australia gave themselves power to seize Aboriginal earnings and control Aboriginal spending. They also intercepted child endowment, inheritances, workers' compensation and pensions.

Killer...

Battle of the Sexes

It put me to mind of another friend from my post-grad study who always, always came to my birthday parties until this year. I especially needed him as I had 4 single girls attending and only one single guy.

R informed me that it may have something to do with bringing along a wonderful boyfriend to the party last year. They were probably interested and got scared off.

Perhaps I’m in denial, because I actually enjoyed many of the friendships I have with these guys! That and I still have a lot of single gal friends so it’s kind of useful to have even numbers on the few occasions I ask every one to come out for dinner (I will clear myself of any attempts at matchmaking here as I know that most of my friends don’t get along with/like each other so I don’t even try).

Anyhow, I shall have to find out if this is a universal principle or it’s just coincidence that I seem to be hearing from my friends less. If it is true, it’s also very confusing as I really got the impression that most of my male friends weren’t interested in that way. Is it really true that men and women can't be friends?

Does Liberty Lead to Decadence

I recently entered an essay competition where the topic was "Does Liberty Lead to Decadence?"

Sadly I didn't win, but I've pasted my effort in here as I was quite proud of it. It's 2000 words so it will be a long entry!

"Decadence is a difficult word to use since it has become little more than a term of abuse applied by critics to anything they do not yet understand or which seems to differ from their moral concepts." - Ernest Hemingway

The concept of liberty applies to societies rather than individuals in isolation or even communities within a sovereign state. It means that a society or an is free from excessive interference both from the government but also other organisations and individuals. Broadly it applies to social interactions and economic activities, but does have other facets. Liberty is supported by a legal framework that includes property rights for individuals, universal suffrage and transparency of government. The concept of liberty in reality is not an absolute, but generally relative to other societies at the time. Essentially liberty means that all members of a society enjoy the freedom to make their own choices about their lives and their property with little restriction.

Decadence is, for all intents and purposes, a moral judgment, often used to condemn those that have an opposing way of life, particularly if the individual or society in question engages in frivolous or undesirable behaviours. It implies moral corruption and degenerate conduct. It is also associated with vast social inequality. It is quite hard to evaluate any particular society or even person in terms of decadence with any degree of objectivity, as what is undesirable or degenerate is actually particular to the point of view of the one making the judgement.

Hence to assess if liberty leads to decadence it must be established that in all or most cases the freedom of choice and undue interference from external parties in society or the market leads to frivolous, degenerate or corrupt social and economic practices.

Rather than immediately seeing if societies that embrace liberty are decadent it is valuable to look at the underlying ideas as to why people and societies are called decadent. Today and for much of the past 90 years since the Russian Revolution, Australia is considered part of the decadent West. Although the claim by Lenin that the West is decadent, in decline and capitalism will fail is now very much empty rhetoric given the fall of the Communist regime. The criticism continues to live on in the present through radical Islamic understanding of the outside world[1]. The description of liberty and capitalism (which can be considered a form of economic liberty, synonymous with the free market) is described as decadent only by those who are looking for a binary opposite for the rhetoric of more authoritarian societies. It is not practical to go into a full definition of binary opposites as expounded by Ferdinand de Saussure or différance which has been written about extensively by Jaques Derrida, however the concept of the binary opposite – defining a concept by what it is not – is a particularly useful one in this case. To quote Derrida, “différance is the name we might give to the "active," moving discord of different forces, and of differences of forces, that Nietzsche sets up against the entire system of metaphysical grammar, wherever this system governs culture, philosophy, and science[2].”

Countries like the United States of America and Australia are labelled as decadent by Communists and Socialists because they want to create a stark contrast, appearing to treat each member as equal, efficient and functioning for the advancement of the whole society. Radical Islam is quite political in the ends it seeks but uses religious discourses rather than political arguments. Decadent refers to the fact that the West is generally more affluent than most Islamic countries and that it is morally permissive. Australia does not discriminate against homosexuals, supports single unmarried women and does not restrict access to alcohol or pornography. Religious ends are not the concern of the government – in fact France, for example, is committed to being secular[3] – instead pluralism, social and economic freedom are the primary ends. These things are degenerate and decadent, as opposed to Islam, which by contrast submits to the way of Allah and is morally upright. As is shown, more liberal societies provide convenient contrasts for more restrictive societies to not only demonstrate that they have the moral high ground, but that they are in discord to the society making the judgement. However the difference comes about purely because of discourse and social constructions, not because there is anything fundamental about liberty implying decadence, any more than having a beard implies an affinity with Osama bin Laden.

Decadence often linked to great social inequality in a society, where the gulf between the wealthy and the poor is insurmountably wide and mechanisms exist to protect this gap. Corruption of the market such as cartels, monopolies and manipulation of prices in the market place are often perceived to be the vehicles to protect the market of organisations that are linked to economic inequality. “Decadent societies are often prosperous but usually have severe social and economic inequality, to such a degree that the upper class becomes either complacent or greedy, while the lower classes become hopeless and apathetic[4].” Logically, these concepts are not ones that are in the spirit of the free market and countries like Australia and the United States have a system of laws in place to uphold this commitment to competition and market mechanisms. Whilst the extreme argument is that these laws themselves represent government interference in society, not having them provides a mechanism for other agents wishing to exert undue interference in the market place – it is not just government that interferes with liberty and the law supports this.

One organisation that springs to mind in manipulating prices through manipulating supply to maintain market position is OPEC. Until very recently global oil prices in the market rose rapidly and to highs never before imagined. On more than one occasion when prices, were set to go down based on demand, OPEC announced that they would reduce output[5]. This is an action that represents corruption and decadence in the market. It highlights that OPEC does not embrace the free market and aims to manipulate prices to their own ends. Upon closer examination, it is quite clear why the organisation wants to control the market – OPEC countries are amongst the least free in the world (see Table 1.0). It is possible to speculate at this point that the reason these countries work together to manipulate the market is because they are less free and potentially believe that market manipulation, government intervention and extensive legislation is needed to provide an equal footing for all players in the market and protect the interests of the otherwise disadvantaged, however extensive analysis of the market and government of all 13 countries would be needed to establish this, which is not the intention of this paper. However almost 50 years of working together to control the market has not actually resulted in wealthier or more modernised countries for many of the member states of OPEC – in fact their members in Asia and South America still have some of the most economically disadvantaged people in the world. And as for the member states in the Middle East, Francis Fukushima notes, “Islam is the one major world culture that arguably does have some very basic problems with modernity. For all the sophistication of Muslim societies, they can boast only one working democracy (Turkey), and have not seen any economic breakthroughs like Korea or Singapore.” Hence this goes to show that the corruption and decadence that is perceived to go hand in hand with liberal economies and supposed to create social inequity, comes not from liberty, but attempts to command and unduly influence the market.

Country	Joined OPEC	Location	Freedom score	Status
Algeria	1969	Africa	5.5	Not Free
Angola	2007	Africa	5.5	Not Free
Ecuador	rejoined 2007	South America	3	Partly Free
Indonesia	1962	Asia	2.5	Free
IR Iran	1960	Middle East	6	Not Free
Iraq	1960	Middle East	6	Not Free
Kuwait	1960	Middle East	4	Partly Free
SP Libyan AJ	1962	Africa	7	Not Free
Nigeria	1971	Africa	3.5	Partly Free
Qatar	1961	Middle East	5.5	Not Free
Saudi Arabia	1960	Middle East	6.5	Not Free
United Arab Emirates	1967	Middle East	5.5	Not Free
Venezuela

Temptation Experience - The Show