Rainbow Lorikeet

A young Crimson Rosella found in Corrimal, NSW, Australia

 The Associate by John Grisham

     This 2009 spy thriller has a lot of bite. The ending works though it may not fuller satisfy the reader. Two huge law firms have gone to war over a government contract for a special jet fighter. A young man coming out of law school finds himself in the middle of the action, forced to steal secrets for an unknown agency, his handler clever and mysterious. Thanks to an indiscretion from his past Kyle must do as he is told until he can figure out a way of saving himself from disgrace and possible prison. 

     All Kyle wants is the life of a small town lawyer like his dad. Unfortunately, he has to go in for a big time law firm as as associate with miserably long hours and duties that damage his sense of pride in himself. Can he get out of the mess he has been thrown into? Could those who were there when the indiscretions occurred help save him from a cruel fate? All answered by the end of the book though perhaps not in an expected way. 

     Are there law firms in existence in New York like the one Kyle is made to work for? I suppose there is that possibility. If I were a lawyer I certainly wouldn't care to work for them. 

     Among other things, Grisham's knowledge of New York and also how the law works in the USA comes to the fore. He also has a great grasp of modern gadgetry including spyware and bugs.

     The Associate is a great read, highly recommended.   

                    RIGHTS OF MAN by Thomas Paine

     Paine's take on the Rights of Man came after both the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Back in the 1990s, good friend Don Boyd urged me to read what Paine had to say on the matter. I have since done so, digesting Paine's views on why a democratic government is superior to governments based either partially or completely on Monarchy.

     It appears Paine was writing before the French Revolution got bloody and long before the Napoleonic wars. In the beginning both the American and the French Revolution must have seemed the ideal way to go and Paine can definitely be marked down as an idealist.

     There was a lot wrong with how France had been governed before the revolution. The aristocracy didn't have to pay tax and so the tax burden was mainly put onto the shoulders of the developing middle-class. There had been previous unrest in France but this time the peasants had the middle-class on their side. Otherwise there could not have been success. The clergy remained, for the most part, on the side of the aristocracy and so paid the price for being so. To this day religious items are not welcome in civic buildings. There is still the separation of state and religion.  

      Among the accumulated woes of a century were wars that had gone badly for the French and disastrous money making schemes to do with colonization that had sent the Monarchy broke. The king tried on numerous occasions to get the Aristocracy to vote for their properties and general incomes to be taxed but they would have none of that. Meanwhile life in cities such as Paris were deteriorating. The uprising could have been prevented but that is not what happened. 

     Investing ultimate power in one man or one woman is argued against by Paine. Also he found the idea of providing a king or queen with millions to spend each year, out of the pockets of those being governed, an unjust expenditure. According to Paine, Washington wasn't paid to be president of the USA but did a great job anyway. Regardless, he had wealth and therefore security others of his day did not have.

         Paine makes much out of the aristocracy of a Monarchy being generally self-serving and yet, in this day and age, in order for someone to become president of the USA, it takes capital that has to come from somewhere including those born into wealth and wish to become wealthier. It also takes funds in the UK and Australia to run for Prime Minister as well as party support. People need to know who they will be voting for and why. Successful campaigns, especially in the USA, are not free. They have to be funded. So does this make those with money equivalent to the aristocracy of the past? I would say yes. 

     It should also be noted the role freemasonry played in US history. Benjamin Franklin, for example, was a freemason and cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. owed their financial prominence to Freemasonry. This doesn't seem to factor into any of Paine's arguments for Democracy, American style, being better than Monarchy. What's more, Freemasonry has also played a role in Australian society and no doubt also that of Canada and Britain. The compass and other symbols of freemasonry can be found today on buildings in various parts of Sydney, New South Wales as well as Bulli on the south coast of New South Wales.

     Paine remained hopeful that democracy together with capitalism would eventually outshine and replace Monarchy and dictatorship throughout Europe if not the entire world. The saving grace of democracy is that it is flexible and no one can be president or prime minister for life. There are elections and so the possibility for improvement always exists. Communism, as far as I understand it, can only work in small communities and not for any great length of time.

     One of the things Paine was interested in introducing to the British was the old age pension which would come about approximately a century after Rights of Man. He worked it out to be affordable and for the general good of all.

     Today the old age pension in Australia and no doubt elsewhere is slowly being replaced by superannuation. When I asked an economist a  few years about the money  already gathered by taxation for the old age pension for people reaching 65, I was informed it had already been spent by the government. 

    For generations now taxation has been the means of providing the poor right up to the middle classes with a way to live in their declining years. Can superannuation really provide an adequate safety net? 

     I know of a worker who had his super so reduced thanks to collapsing insurance companies and banks in the USA he had to continue working long after he wanted to retire. Could this happen again?  It is quite possible and so there may always be the need for an old age pension.