A most unlikely President

 

The Winner Barack Obama

Barack Obama’s candidacy forced the US to confront the worst of their 9/11 fears and their lingering racism. Barack Hussein Obama was, arguably, the country’s most unlikely candidate for highest office.

He embodied, or at least invoked, much of what America feared. His color recalled its racist past. His name was a reminder of an anxious present. His spiritual mentor displayed a streak of radical Afro-nationalism. He knew domestic terrorists and had lived in predominantly Muslim countries. There was hardly a specter lurking in the American subconscious that he did not call forth.

And that was his great strength. He robbed fear of its ability to work through quiet insinuation. He forced America to confront its own subconscious. Obama actually is black. His middle name actually is “Hussein.” He actually does know William Ayers. He actually was married by Jeremiah Wright. He actually had lived in Indonesia. These were not smears, though they were often used as such. They were facts. And this election was fundamentally about what happened when fear collided with fact.

For the first time, America had to articulate what exactly it feared. Did it truly believe that the middle name “Hussein” suggested a terrorist threat to their country? Well, no. Did it genuinely think Obama a radical Afro-nationalist who had dedicated his life to serving a country he loathed? Probably not. Did it actually seem plausible that Obama wanted to become president so he could finish the job the Weathermen started? Unlikely. The shadowy terrors that animated American politics in the dark aftermath of 9-11 receded. Time had passed. To borrow a line, it was morning in America, and their country looked different in the clean light of the dawn. And so too did its problems. As did Rudd with Howard.

In Washington, residents poured into the streets. Hundreds of people gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, dancing and cheering. George W reportedly lounging in a chair eating cake whilst watching the election unfold on TV.

As the 44th president he is the first African American elected to this position and could well take race out of politics in much the same way as Kennedy took religion out of politics, as the first Catholic to be elected president. Perhaps now the fear mongering that has been dished out to us for so long, will evaporate.

For a run down on who won what, if your interested, click here.

Pokies under threat from Family First

 

 

Thing of the past?

The Australian pub industry and registered clubs are in a state of deep panic over two bills which were recently introduced in the Senate by Senator Steve Fielding of Family First.

When Fielding introduced the Poker Machine Harm Reduction Tax (Administration) Bill on February 14 and the Poker Machine Harm Minimisation Bill on June 19, they passed under the radar of the media and the liquor and gaming industries.

But Fielding’s motives turned clearer with a Sky TV interview in which he said his aim was to banish all pokies from Australia’s pubs and clubs in 10 years. In future, he said, pokies should be restricted to dedicated gambling venues such as casinos and race tracks. Now the liquor industries have fine tooth-combed the two bills and found to their horror that the Fielding plan spells financial doom for pubs and clubs and revenue disaster for state governments which have become dependent on the gaming tax dollar.

Here are just some of the proposals in Fielding’s poker machine harm minimization legislation:

Poker machines to be re-engineered to accept a maximum $20 note bet. NSW machines currently accept $100 notes. Poker machines to be modified to accept no more than $100 of credit at a time. NSW machines currently allowed up to $10,000 at a time. Poker machines in future to have no more than one pay line. Current machines have up to 25 pay lines. Poker machines to allow a maximum of a $1 bet per spin. In NSW the current max bet is $10 per spin.

Senator Steve Fielding; Family First party

The maximum jackpot to be limited to $1,000. The current maximum in NSW is $10,000. Future machines to be adjusted to have a spin rate of five seconds. NSW machines currently have a faster 3.5 second spin rate. ATMs in pubs and clubs to pay out a maximum $100 per cardholder per day.

To put these measures into some kind of perspective, consider this:

If the bet is reduced from $10 to $1 (a 90 per cent reduction), the game spin is slowed from 3.5 seconds to 5 seconds (a 30 per cent reduction), the amount that can be fed into a poker machine reduced from $10,000 to $100 at a time (a 99 per cent reduction) and note acceptors reduced from $100 to $20 (an 80 per cent reduction), these combined measures would reduce gambling revenue by half.

In the 2006-2007 financial year, the NSW Government received $1.1 billion from poker machine tax. This would be halved. In his harm minimization tax legislation, Fielding proposes a new Commonwealth tax on gross gaming revenue in 2009 of 1 per cent, growing to 4 per cent in 2012, 10 per cent in 2015 and then 5 per cent per year until it reaches a maximum of 30 per cent.

A spokesman for the NSW liquor and gaming industry has said Fielding’s taxation schedule and his plans to modify poker machines would lay waste to pubs and clubs and wipe many of them out of existence. Each year Australians put more than $7 billion of their hard-earned into pokies in pubs and clubs, a figure which is a national scandal. While every right-thinking individual wants an end to Australia’s pokie dependency, Fielding’s plan is shallow populism.

Let’s see what Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull can do about it.

Comments welcome.

Texting via SMS

Gosford Chamber is considering utilising a members mobile phone number to communicate important dates to remember or as a luncheon reminder.

Good idea, or do you prefer not to receive SMS from the chamber. Mobile numbers are not given out to third parties unless you have authorised this or it is felt giving it to someone who needs your service will benefit you. Even then we respect your privacy and would seek approval before giving out your number.

The idea of blanket texting has an associated cost to it and chamber is not in the habit of wasting valuable cash so before we look to implementing anything of this nature your input is desired.

The question is, “Would you read a text from the chamber or would you delete it as spam?”