This business of the Panamanian leaks is turning out to be quite the treasure trove. It is, to be blunt, quite a spectacular outing of a whole bunch of people who can now no longer deny they are tax-dodging crooks.
Caught in the web of leaked emails so far are:
- Vladimir Putin, and all his crony Kleptocrats in Russia. The Russians have hit back and said this is 'Putinphobia".
- Xi Jinping of China. Turns out it is no ordinary sum that he' got sheltered in the Mossack and Fonseca network. Naturally the topic of these Panama papers is blocked in China.
- David Cameron's father. David Cameron won't disclose if he or his family still have money offshore with Mossack and Fonseca.
- The Prime Minister of Iceland Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson.
- President Mauricio Macri of Argentina
- Petro Poroschenko of Ukraine.
- Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan
- King Salman of Saudi Arabia
- the former emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and its former prime minister, Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani; FIFA;
- and the Argentine soccer star Lionel Messi
- Not that he's all that important but...Paul Hogan. Who had money with Mossack and Fonseca that he needs to payback the ATO for his tax settlement.
I think it's quite excellent to see these people exposed. All these people probably thought they were as safe as banks with the security surrounding their dealings but in this digital age that's proving to be illusory. it's not even ironic that the first entry after my 'Mr. Robot' entry is to do with a massive data leak that essentially changes our understanding of global tax avoidance by the rich and powerful.
If you want more detail, here it is.
How Bad Is Abbott's Legacy? Catastrophic
Peter Hartcher had this article here today.
"It's only a hypothesis, but I think there's been a peaking of interest or concern" in matters related to climate change.
"It's seen as something a bit from the past, as if getting rid of the carbon tax meant we'd got rid of climate change. It's a funny one."
This is partly an achievement of Tony Abbott and the climate change sceptics and deniers who were among his most fervent supporters.
Australia had a bipartisan consensus on climate change under John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull. The consensus was that climate change was real and that pricing carbon through an emissions trading scheme was the best way for Australia to respond.
Abbott shattered the consensus. He rode to power a conservative reaction against climate change action. He used it to destroy Turnbull's leadership and then Rudd's and, finally, Julia Gillard's.
Together with his footsoldiers in politics and the media, he succeeded in muddying the public's understanding of climate change in the process. The conservative reaction intimidated some scientists, news editors and commentators. And Turnbull, in fear of reviving an angry conservative rearguard, has bound himself to the Abbott policy.
The net result today is Australia's muted debate and confused response to climate change.
Actually, the whole 'debate' seems to be on ice, and is going to stay on ice until after the election. The electorate's fatigue about the issue is palpable, and while the need to do something has only increased, everybody is aware that Malcolm Turnbull at least is not in any position to do much about it - and that being the case, it's a waste of breath to even start discussing what the Coalition need to do about it because they got elected on the ticket of deny it was even a problem and dismantling the carbon price.
That Tony Abbott managed to wreak so much havoc upon the consensus is at once alarming but also strange. Especially because back in 2007 Kevin Rudd came to power with a solid mandate to do something. In the 9 years since, we've gone from that mandate to this current abysmal arrangement of paying polluters to stop, while not enforcing any accountability. It's hard to see where things can go from here because if Turnbull wins the next election, he's still going to have his hands tied by his right-wing-loony colleagues, while if the ALP manage a win, it's anybody's guess how they setback to an ETS without the Coalition behaving like utter wreckers once again.
It's staggering that the current Coalition don't want to do what is right. They want to fight tooth and nail for the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby instead. You sort of wonder why they even have an Environment Minster when they clearly don't believe in any science.
That being said, hope springs eternal;. The ALP slipped ahead of the Coalition in the polls, apparently.
Laughable It Has Come To This
Yes, that's right. None other than the Murdoch rag the Daily Telegraph is concerned that we've become a nation of Anti-Intellectuals.
When asked what they want to be when they grow up, kids reply: “famous.”
And what about the number of people who brag they haven’t read a book since leaving school?
My heart breaks.
Topical TV discussion shows use celebrities, sportspeople or someone from the station’s stable of stars to discuss controversial issues eschewing experts and reducing complex subjects to clickbait.
Why aren’t academics and other experts used anymore?
Simmonds explains “…as a country we are hostile to those who are well-educated. We prefer homespun wisdom to years of research. Our language is peppered with vitriol reserved for those who think for a living: ‘chattering classes’, ‘latte-sipping libertarians’, ‘intellectual elites’.”
Universities are changing as a consequence of anti-intellectualism. Instead of teaching students the joy of learning and critical thinking, we train them for jobs.
An anti-intellectual society is a fearful one. Lacking reason, it seeks action and reductive explanations, abandoning emotional maturity and, as Niose notes, is “prone to violent solutions”.
I've never heard of 'latte-sipping libertarians' myself. That's a bit of a new one right there.
The predominant anti-intellectualism as characterised by the likes of Kyle Sandilands has always been around. The Daily Telegraph complaining about it is ironic because they themselves exercise the very same anti-intellectualism in their editorials. Not to mention Rupert Murdoch owning other things in their stable like Fox News which spreads anti-intellectualism very happily.
Most days, it suits the right wing to have an uneducated unquestioning populace who buy all the bullshit sold by the media owned by the wealthy. To that end, these same powers have lobbied their conservative politicians to cut education and make it less inaccessible to the majority of people. The same media outlet that pushes that wheelbarrow for those interests can't very well complain about the anti-intellectual landscape it worked very hard to creating its own interest.
I mean, really... It's nothing short of laughable.
Lois Lane Rides Again
Here's something completely different!
Pleiades sent this one in. It's actually long and it's a doozy. It's a piece written by Margot Kidder, about how the Clinton campaign bought state Democratic Parties wholesale. 33 of them, to be exact.
What do billionaires like Esprit Founder Susie Buell of California, and businessman Imaad Zuberi of California, and media mogul Fred Eychaner of Chicago, and Donald Sussman hedgefund manager from New York and Chicago real estate mogul J.B Pritzker, and gay activist Jon Stryker of NY, and NRA and Viacom lobbyist Jeffrey Forbes and entertainment mogul Haim Saban all have in common?
They all appear to be brilliant business people who have all given millions to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and to her various PACS. And they all gave the Montana State Democratic Party $10,000 each in 2015. It is doubtful that many of them have any interest in Montana politics, or that they have even bothered to visit.
None of these are awful people; they are simply awfully rich. And they like their friend Hillary and want her to be the president. And if some of their millions will buy her way into the White House then so be it. None of this is illegal. But it makes a mockery of Ms. Clinton’s pledge to further the cause of campaign finance reform.
And the Hillary Victory Fund’s marriage of convenience with the Montana party negates Governor Steve Bullock’s eloquent insistence that he will do anything necessary to overturn Citizen’s United. And the coldness of the deal’s intention of doing anything it can to further Hillary Clinton’s chances for becoming President brings Senator Jon Tester’s stated neutrality in the Democratic primary into a sharp and unflatteringly hypocritical focus.
One doubts that most of these one percenters adore fly fishing. Or care much about mountain climbing, or skiing, or collecting morel mushrooms along the edges of the Yellowstone river in the fall. We can safely assume that they will not be raising buffalo for meat in the near future, or buying an organic farm next to Senator Jon Tester’s. In fact we can probably assume that most of them have never been to Montana.
It's kind of cool that Margot Kidders doing this today. I like how she's not writing one-sentence paragraphs either.
No comments:
Post a Comment