Another piece with mammoth hidden meaning
Just what does this guy mean? Believe it or not, he's talking of granting rights for gays, lesbians, etc, to adopt children. Here's the quote. "This affects our entire social fabric. At the Anzac day dawn service, Australians need to question is this what our diggers went to fight for? Is this where Australia's going? Is this what we want?" (Dean Logan from the Australian Christian Lobby, quoted on ABC News website, PM 8 May 2003 http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s850031.htm). Arguing against recognition gay families where children are concerned is one thing. How does Anzac Day relate to this? Actually, what I've heard of the Anzacs suggest that they hated war, and doubted their leaders, after their experience of WW1. It radicalised plenty of them. Could this be why the left was so strong earlier in the century? (It could have also been to do with the famed effectiveness of the organised Soviets in the 20s, while the West was sinking into depression).
06 May 2003
Language in the modern political state
There's so much spin, it's hard to appreciate. We're in a war, they tell us, so lines like Operation Iraqi Freedom are accepted at face value. Why is it there's spin even in operational names? It's obvious why. Because it spins well in an accepting media. But it's not just in names. Here's choice bit of code to disentangle. I heard this this afternoon on ABC (Australian) Radio National. "The Taliban being the political articulation of the views of Al Quaida" (Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Alexander Downer, in interview, broadcast on ABC Radio National ~5.42pm, AEST, 6 May 2003). I don't know the details, but I think that is a very big claim to make. But I do know that if accepted, it makes the invasion of a country, and replacement of its political structure and leadership a justified action for an increasingly frightened populace. Why is it that the right is presiding over this growth of fear, wars, security and militarism? Is it all so easy; is the answer simply "evil"? I doubt it, as do many others, but we have been effectively silenced.
There's so much spin, it's hard to appreciate. We're in a war, they tell us, so lines like Operation Iraqi Freedom are accepted at face value. Why is it there's spin even in operational names? It's obvious why. Because it spins well in an accepting media. But it's not just in names. Here's choice bit of code to disentangle. I heard this this afternoon on ABC (Australian) Radio National. "The Taliban being the political articulation of the views of Al Quaida" (Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Alexander Downer, in interview, broadcast on ABC Radio National ~5.42pm, AEST, 6 May 2003). I don't know the details, but I think that is a very big claim to make. But I do know that if accepted, it makes the invasion of a country, and replacement of its political structure and leadership a justified action for an increasingly frightened populace. Why is it that the right is presiding over this growth of fear, wars, security and militarism? Is it all so easy; is the answer simply "evil"? I doubt it, as do many others, but we have been effectively silenced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
