We’re sitting around powerless as we enter a period of democratic despotism. I’ve ranted many times about the various mechanisms of influence and untruth through which we are controlled in the modern world, and particularly under this Howard government. None of this is new. In fact, it’s increasingly as predicted by George Orwell in 1984, although he saw the dangers in Stalinist communism, rather than a manipulative form of democratic capitalist despotism. How prescient he was!
No doubt, many will see this as ranting based on misconceptions. After all, we voted; we chose this; this is a democracy; we’re a fair and sensible people; we’re not given to ideologies; we are the people of the fair go and common sense. But Hitler was elected, and the German people agreed with, or at least acquiesced to, what followed. Much has been written on the complicity of the German people with Nazism. I haven’t read it, but Karl Jaspers argued soon after WW2 (The question of German guilt / Karl Jaspers. Greenwood Press, 1978) that there are “four categories of guilt: criminal guilt (the commitment of overt acts), political guilt (the degree of political acquiescence in the Nazi regime), moral guilt (a matter of private judgement among one's friends), and metaphysical guilt (a universally shared responsibility of those who chose to remain alive rather than die in protest against Nazi atrocities)” (quoted from the editorial review on Amazon). I fear we are now guided by our bad side in much the same way as the German people in the 1930s, although not yet to such extreme actions.
So what are the images of the future that I’ve seen in recent days? They are both throw backs to a forgotten and despised past, which I fear we are returning to.
Dogville
I could see why Nicole Kidman’s film was not taken to heart by her adoring public. View the cast list (John Hurt, Lauren Bacall, James Caan) and start wondering why it was not better received. Start with a stage set representing the backwoods US town of Dogville. Notice this is a European production. This is a complex view of the dark side of America – back woods town life meets gangster power. I was confounded by the emotions from both sides. The shallow, self-serving justice of the people of Dogsville v. the power of the gangsters and their own twisted ethics. The untested philosophy of Tom and the (temporary) acceptance by Grace. It left me a bit confused with the complex themes, but enlivened by the complexity. At first, I thought Bowie’s Young Americans was inappropriate to finish this morality play, but against the backdrop of (presumably true-to-life) depression-era pics, it served to illuminate the horror that Howard’s radical marketplace and conservative social policy is taking us to. The upcoming IR legislation is just one component in his creation of our little America on Australian shores.
Dogville / written and directed by Lars von Trier. Zentropa Entertainments, 2003.
God under Howard
What is our bad side? Marion Maddox’s book on Howard’s use of religion in Australian politics speaks of the “Us and Them” approach to divide and rule the nation. How Howard sounds reasonable and secular, but subliminally speaks to our emotive side. Howard talks up our good feelings of ourselves, while promoting our worst actions, but…
“we lack the churchgoers and atheists who might resist a peculiar type of racist politics. Firm in our belief in our own reasonableness, benevolence and common sense, most of us may have few resources to resist frightening stereotypes. That is just the sentiment that Howard has so skilfully cultivated. We pay a price for our religious naivety.” (p. 142-3)
God under Howard : the rise of the religious right in Australian politics / Marion Maddox. Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2005
10 July 2005
09 July 2005
Feeling good but remaining ignorant
I was reading this today, and I was struck by the similarity of comments of the historian, and the academic on the interface of politics and religion. Here’s the first quote -
“Although Howard acknowledged that ‘there is certainly a need for Australians to understand their history better’, the effect of his rhetoric is not to inspire historical curiosity but to reinforce historical prejudice. He suggest that the ‘real’ history of Australia is to be found by dismissing ugly versions of the past as ideological and embracing more positive ones because they rest on ‘the facts of history’. But these ‘facts of history’ are never specified – it is a history lesson for people who know no history, bvut who want to be assured that Australia’s past was not as bad as it is said to be.”
The use and abuse of Australian history / Graeme Davison. St Leonards, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2000, p. 6.
So, Howard attacks his opponents on the grounds of their understandings of history, but offers no specifics on his understandings. It’s a history for those ignorant of history. As such, it’s a confirmation of their uninformed prejudices, and an invitation to be relaxed and comfortable (and uniformed and prejudiced).
Now, this parallels what is said in the following quote, concerning the conservative Howardian approach to discussion of values. He doesn’t state what values there are, just confirms the existence of values in his listeners. All this, as he confirms the essential commonsense, good will, and belief in the mythical Australian Fair Go by his listeners. There’s a lot of discussion on this topic in Marion Maddox’s book, but this quote gives the idea. The quote specifically relates to utterances of Peter Costello, but it seems a common conservative rightist approach.
"Between these two conversations, there was growing talk about ‘values’. Everyone worried about who’s got them, who needs them and how to impart them; but no one said what they were. All the talk assumed that everyone knows what ‘values’ are. No one questioned them: apparently everyone does know what everyone else means when they talk about ‘values’. Except me."
God under Howard: the rise of the religious right in Australian politics / Marion Maddox. Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2005, p. 184.
“Although Howard acknowledged that ‘there is certainly a need for Australians to understand their history better’, the effect of his rhetoric is not to inspire historical curiosity but to reinforce historical prejudice. He suggest that the ‘real’ history of Australia is to be found by dismissing ugly versions of the past as ideological and embracing more positive ones because they rest on ‘the facts of history’. But these ‘facts of history’ are never specified – it is a history lesson for people who know no history, bvut who want to be assured that Australia’s past was not as bad as it is said to be.”
The use and abuse of Australian history / Graeme Davison. St Leonards, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2000, p. 6.
So, Howard attacks his opponents on the grounds of their understandings of history, but offers no specifics on his understandings. It’s a history for those ignorant of history. As such, it’s a confirmation of their uninformed prejudices, and an invitation to be relaxed and comfortable (and uniformed and prejudiced).
Now, this parallels what is said in the following quote, concerning the conservative Howardian approach to discussion of values. He doesn’t state what values there are, just confirms the existence of values in his listeners. All this, as he confirms the essential commonsense, good will, and belief in the mythical Australian Fair Go by his listeners. There’s a lot of discussion on this topic in Marion Maddox’s book, but this quote gives the idea. The quote specifically relates to utterances of Peter Costello, but it seems a common conservative rightist approach.
"Between these two conversations, there was growing talk about ‘values’. Everyone worried about who’s got them, who needs them and how to impart them; but no one said what they were. All the talk assumed that everyone knows what ‘values’ are. No one questioned them: apparently everyone does know what everyone else means when they talk about ‘values’. Except me."
God under Howard: the rise of the religious right in Australian politics / Marion Maddox. Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2005, p. 184.
01 July 2005
Water and dishwashers - an occasional interest of AginSpin
Here's a reply sent recently to ABC Radio National following my annoyance at hearing something from Michael Duffy on Counterpoint. You may know that Michael Duffy is the conservative answer to Phillip Adams. He's not bad, but the temptation for everyone on the right these days seems to be to assume, rather than argue, the superiority of their arguments, and denigrate the opposition. Too easy. Too many weak arguments and too much name calling. (MD even hosted a session on fox hunting in Australia which showed just how much the right is in reaction mode. What possible reason to do a segment on fox hunting, other than in response to moves to ban it). As if they have a right to be! After all, they run the English-speaking Western world, and a good chunk of the rest. They should be thinking more of their policies being successful, than to imagine they are the underdogs. In this vein, I heard another radio show the other day where the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) presenter was painting the CIS as this little, poorly funded group of independent thinkers up against the might of the a university system which was totally controlled by the post-Marxist radicals. This was clearly his line. He was attacking the person. The arguments of his counterpart, from one of those despised departments of sociology, was reasoned and thoughtful, and, I thought, justified. To me, it seemed that one was engaged in a thinking process, and the other was involved in propaganda. Is this a sign of the coming end of conservative domination? Hope so...
Date - 21/06/2005 9:52
Subject - Dish washers & water use
Remark - I heard your query about dishwashers and your denigration of north shore environmentalists. (This was a pretty poor dig, and I think unworthy of you and your show). My understanding is that dishwashers are as efficient in water use as dish washing by hand, providing dish washers are fully loaded when used. I have dish washed by hand for many a year, and only fairly recently took to using a dish washer. I must say, it's not a bad invention As for effective use of water in Australia, there seems to be a move to identify cities (showers, toilets, dish washers, car washing, etc) as the culprit. I had confirmed recently by a local in the water industry that we would have few problems with water in Australia if it were sensibly used, e.g. no rice on the Hay Plains, and similar. And this is further confirmed by a CSIRO report to a Parliamentary Committee which I remember reading (sadly, I've lost the reference). Also a recent article in the SMH stated that 21,000 litres of water are used to produce 1kg of rice. I find this figure a bit hard to come to grips with, but if true, I think there's little argument for this industry, at least in the dry areas of Aust.
BTW, keep up your show. I am an not of your political persuasion, but I value discussion on both sides, and I remain committed to testing my beliefs, understandings and assumptions. But please avoid the cheap quips. It seems to me that, despite tirades against PC, the Right is so comfortable these days they don't even see their own cockiness and name calling of others. We must all remain honest to testing our own beliefs and understandings, and I trust you are committed as am I. Eric
Postscript. Sure enough, it's been admitted there was a mistake by the CSIRO in its report regarding the amount of water used in producing 1kg of rice in Australia. The CSIRO and industry has agreed that the figure should be 1,500-2,000 litres of water used to produce 1kg of rice. I reckon that must be a phyrric victory. We now have industry agreeing with researchers on a level of water use which is lower, but still crippling. Now, remind me, what does a kg of rice sell for?
Media release for the correction -
http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=WaterUsageFigures&style=mediaRelease
The original report -
http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/balancingact/
Date - 21/06/2005 9:52
Subject - Dish washers & water use
Remark - I heard your query about dishwashers and your denigration of north shore environmentalists. (This was a pretty poor dig, and I think unworthy of you and your show). My understanding is that dishwashers are as efficient in water use as dish washing by hand, providing dish washers are fully loaded when used. I have dish washed by hand for many a year, and only fairly recently took to using a dish washer. I must say, it's not a bad invention As for effective use of water in Australia, there seems to be a move to identify cities (showers, toilets, dish washers, car washing, etc) as the culprit. I had confirmed recently by a local in the water industry that we would have few problems with water in Australia if it were sensibly used, e.g. no rice on the Hay Plains, and similar. And this is further confirmed by a CSIRO report to a Parliamentary Committee which I remember reading (sadly, I've lost the reference). Also a recent article in the SMH stated that 21,000 litres of water are used to produce 1kg of rice. I find this figure a bit hard to come to grips with, but if true, I think there's little argument for this industry, at least in the dry areas of Aust.
BTW, keep up your show. I am an not of your political persuasion, but I value discussion on both sides, and I remain committed to testing my beliefs, understandings and assumptions. But please avoid the cheap quips. It seems to me that, despite tirades against PC, the Right is so comfortable these days they don't even see their own cockiness and name calling of others. We must all remain honest to testing our own beliefs and understandings, and I trust you are committed as am I. Eric
Postscript. Sure enough, it's been admitted there was a mistake by the CSIRO in its report regarding the amount of water used in producing 1kg of rice in Australia. The CSIRO and industry has agreed that the figure should be 1,500-2,000 litres of water used to produce 1kg of rice. I reckon that must be a phyrric victory. We now have industry agreeing with researchers on a level of water use which is lower, but still crippling. Now, remind me, what does a kg of rice sell for?
Media release for the correction -
http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=WaterUsageFigures&style=mediaRelease
The original report -
http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/balancingact/
Disencumbering the improductive burdens - Quadrant caught out
Here's a letter I wrote some time ago to Quadrant magazine. It's written in the particularly arcane language of Quadrant at the time. I'm one of those bleeding heart types who left with Robert Manne. I'm sure I'd be despised by the continuing readership. But you can see here how I learnt to despair of conservative argument. This is an early incarnation of my concerns over conservative political correctness and Orwellian language.
Sir: I must reply to Simon Ley's Open letter to the Governor-General (Quadrant, September 1995, p. 19), where he comments on Hayden's speech to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians of 21 June 1995.
Hayden was widely reported as supporting the redefinition of the family to include homosexual couples and voluntary euthanasia. On the issue of euthanasia, Leys quotes the G-G as arguing "Succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered of some improductive [sic] burdens", and later repeats the quote as "disencumbering of improductive burdens". On reading this, I was both stunned at such a statement by the GG, and stuck by the use of "improductive", which seemed such an obscure word. On investigation, the word did not appear in the Macquarie or unabridged Webster's dictionaries, and the definition in the Shorter Oxford seemed particularly inappropriate.
When I checked a copy of the speech which I had requested earlier from Government House, I found that the paragraph containing the quote is highly qualified by the last sentence of the preceding paragraph: "I speak only for myself in saying the following" and further that the actual quote in context reads somewhat differently from the meaning suggested by Ley, and sounds personal: "This loss of personal control, of autonomy, of human personality for me would destroy my sense of human dignity. Moreover, having had a full and satisfying lifetime there is a point when the succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered - to coin a clumsy word - of some unproductive [sic] burdens. That is why I support voluntary, medically assisted euthanasia and the provision of a living will."
Leys seems to have seriously misrepresented the intention of Hayden, and I feel mischievously suggests Hayden's position is simply a short step from "providing every household with special garbage bins in which elderly relatives could be hygienically discard and collected for recycling into pet food". In fact, several times in the speech, Hayden questions less extreme utilitarian approaches to our aged populations!
I remain unconvinced by several of Hayden's arguments elsewhere in the speech, especially those on the redefinition of the family. These seem to simply argue that given that we have decriminalised homosexuality, we should accept that the family should be redefined to include homosexual couples. However, Ley's apparent misrepresentation serves himself and his argument poorly.
Sir: I must reply to Simon Ley's Open letter to the Governor-General (Quadrant, September 1995, p. 19), where he comments on Hayden's speech to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians of 21 June 1995.
Hayden was widely reported as supporting the redefinition of the family to include homosexual couples and voluntary euthanasia. On the issue of euthanasia, Leys quotes the G-G as arguing "Succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered of some improductive [sic] burdens", and later repeats the quote as "disencumbering of improductive burdens". On reading this, I was both stunned at such a statement by the GG, and stuck by the use of "improductive", which seemed such an obscure word. On investigation, the word did not appear in the Macquarie or unabridged Webster's dictionaries, and the definition in the Shorter Oxford seemed particularly inappropriate.
When I checked a copy of the speech which I had requested earlier from Government House, I found that the paragraph containing the quote is highly qualified by the last sentence of the preceding paragraph: "I speak only for myself in saying the following" and further that the actual quote in context reads somewhat differently from the meaning suggested by Ley, and sounds personal: "This loss of personal control, of autonomy, of human personality for me would destroy my sense of human dignity. Moreover, having had a full and satisfying lifetime there is a point when the succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered - to coin a clumsy word - of some unproductive [sic] burdens. That is why I support voluntary, medically assisted euthanasia and the provision of a living will."
Leys seems to have seriously misrepresented the intention of Hayden, and I feel mischievously suggests Hayden's position is simply a short step from "providing every household with special garbage bins in which elderly relatives could be hygienically discard and collected for recycling into pet food". In fact, several times in the speech, Hayden questions less extreme utilitarian approaches to our aged populations!
I remain unconvinced by several of Hayden's arguments elsewhere in the speech, especially those on the redefinition of the family. These seem to simply argue that given that we have decriminalised homosexuality, we should accept that the family should be redefined to include homosexual couples. However, Ley's apparent misrepresentation serves himself and his argument poorly.
Just what planet do economists live on?
I admit I am uneducated in economics. I can be horrified by some economists, but impressed by economists with a broader view of serving society than just optimising the marketplace. I perused an introductory undergrad text book the other day, and I was comforted by the breadth and reasonableness of the approach. However, I remain worried about a number of things: underlying assumptions; a readiness to proclaim on all aspects of society; perhaps the limitations or ideological bent of the professionals who have so much say in our lives.
Then last Sunday I read a headline proclaiming "Petrol won't hit $1.20, says expert" (Canberra Times, Sunday 26 June 2005, p. 3). This was in the context of recent price rises in petrol, given the highest ever price recorded for oil (~$US60 per barrel). The "expert" was Chris Richardson, of Access Economics. Access Economics is the economics consultancy that's amusingly referred to as the "Treasury in exile", and has done work for both Liberal and Labor Parties in the past. I read on, and this stunned me: "He said he believed the crude oil price of $US60 per barrel was unsustainable, with $US40 a more likely long-term figure". I have no doubt this statement will be shown to be wrong.
Why? The arrival of peak oil (maximum world oil production) was predicted for 2010. We're hearing now that it may have already arrived, due to unexpectedly strong growth in China and India. What will happen to prices when demand is up, and oil production is down? I expect it will lead to higher prices. And, virtually inevitably but a bit further on, it will also lead to restriction of supply for essential purposes, including government, military and air travel. We've only used oil this way for a century or so, and we're so close to peak oil, it doesn't matter. We ramped up slowly, and we're already at peak oil after just a century? That suggests to me that scarcity is only a matter of decades away, possibly sooner. So how does CR think that prices won't go up in the "long term".
It makes you wonder about his, and his profession's, definition of "long term". Stock markets measure time by milliseconds, and I guess their long term is a 3-month profit reporting period. But I hope that professional economists will have a much more human view of time than that.
I apologise if he's been wrongly reported, but if not, CR needs to think a little more closely about that beloved market principle of supply and demand, and about what long-term really means.
Then last Sunday I read a headline proclaiming "Petrol won't hit $1.20, says expert" (Canberra Times, Sunday 26 June 2005, p. 3). This was in the context of recent price rises in petrol, given the highest ever price recorded for oil (~$US60 per barrel). The "expert" was Chris Richardson, of Access Economics. Access Economics is the economics consultancy that's amusingly referred to as the "Treasury in exile", and has done work for both Liberal and Labor Parties in the past. I read on, and this stunned me: "He said he believed the crude oil price of $US60 per barrel was unsustainable, with $US40 a more likely long-term figure". I have no doubt this statement will be shown to be wrong.
Why? The arrival of peak oil (maximum world oil production) was predicted for 2010. We're hearing now that it may have already arrived, due to unexpectedly strong growth in China and India. What will happen to prices when demand is up, and oil production is down? I expect it will lead to higher prices. And, virtually inevitably but a bit further on, it will also lead to restriction of supply for essential purposes, including government, military and air travel. We've only used oil this way for a century or so, and we're so close to peak oil, it doesn't matter. We ramped up slowly, and we're already at peak oil after just a century? That suggests to me that scarcity is only a matter of decades away, possibly sooner. So how does CR think that prices won't go up in the "long term".
It makes you wonder about his, and his profession's, definition of "long term". Stock markets measure time by milliseconds, and I guess their long term is a 3-month profit reporting period. But I hope that professional economists will have a much more human view of time than that.
I apologise if he's been wrongly reported, but if not, CR needs to think a little more closely about that beloved market principle of supply and demand, and about what long-term really means.
30 June 2005
OPEN LETTER TO SENATORS – VOTE AGAINST THE IR CHANGES
I request you to vote against the Industrial Relations changes that have been outlined by John Howard.
Why?
Firstly, I am fearful of changing the balance of power so far in favour of the employer. There has been a balance carefully crafted in Australia over the last century between the employer and employee. Despite granting more power to the employer over recent years, this remains the basis of our concept of a fair go. And this is threatened by this very significant move of power from the employee to the employer. Given the low unemployment rate, the punitive controls over social welfare payments, productivity increases over recent years, and the debased power of unions, I feel that arguments for this being necessary are specious. Thus, I consider this must be an ideological obsession of John Howard, and a throwback to a time when unions were far more powerful than today.
Secondly, because of the details of the changes. The key changes are: the removal of the no disadvantage test for AWAs; the removal of unfair dismissals rights; the creation of a group of unelected, chosen officials to form the Fair Pay Commission to replace a truly independent judicial body; the reduction of matters required for employment conditions to very few matters; and low standards within those matters that remain. The results of this combination are clear. If a worker does not accept an AWA, which may be at great disadvantage, s/he can be dismissed. The hopes of the Government in creating the Fair Pay Commission are also clear. Given that the Govt has sided with business at most, if not all, IRC hearings, it is clear what the expectations of the Govt are for the Fair Pay Commission. Like the Employment Advocate before them, this title is truly Orwellian and the intention is deceitful.
Thirdly, I challenge the whole concept of fair negotiations of contracts between people in uneven circumstances. It seems a reasonable idea that individuals can make their own agreements, but it doesn’t work that way where the power of the participants is uneven. I have no doubt that you, as a politician, are aware of this. It is a specious argument that a fast food server or a check out attendant can negotiate on an equal basis with a rich franchisee or a multinational employer. Even more so, when we are removing social welfare and other supports, thus enhancing the desperation of the employee, and the unevenness of the negotiations.
It is quite possible that this will lead to improved economic indicators. But what do these indicators measure? Economics are important, but “for what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and lose his own soul?” We need a more true set of indicators for society, eg, the Genuine Progress Indicator promoted by the Australia Institute of similar. Politics has a mania with simple (and often trivial) economic measurements. We need broader measures.
I plea for you to vote against Howard’s IR changes. There is no-one else left. The Senate is in the hands of conservative parties. You cannot blame anyone else if you choose to move this balance of power so far to the employer. This is a time to take a stand. I believe most politicians enter politics because they are concerned for society. They may have a hard time maintaining their commitment to society, and mostly they can blame another party for what happens. This is not the case now. This is a major change. It will result in a much more unequal society - with some winners and many losers. Your vote will be making a little US over here, with its significant underclass and poverty. This is probably the biggest challenge to the Aussie Fair Go.
I implore you to think to your conscience. You will be responsible for the outcomes. You no longer have any excuses.
Signature
PS. BTW, I think this marks the start of the end for this Conservative rule. Howard will give Labor something to agree on; something which is eminently sellable to the population; something which will allow Beasley to divorce himself from being just a follower of the Howard line; something which undermines the support of the “Howard Battlers”; something which gives the Unions the moral high ground.
I do not give you permission to record anything in your databases as a result of this letter. (There’s another issue for another time – why aren’t political parties subject to privacy laws?)
Why?
Firstly, I am fearful of changing the balance of power so far in favour of the employer. There has been a balance carefully crafted in Australia over the last century between the employer and employee. Despite granting more power to the employer over recent years, this remains the basis of our concept of a fair go. And this is threatened by this very significant move of power from the employee to the employer. Given the low unemployment rate, the punitive controls over social welfare payments, productivity increases over recent years, and the debased power of unions, I feel that arguments for this being necessary are specious. Thus, I consider this must be an ideological obsession of John Howard, and a throwback to a time when unions were far more powerful than today.
Secondly, because of the details of the changes. The key changes are: the removal of the no disadvantage test for AWAs; the removal of unfair dismissals rights; the creation of a group of unelected, chosen officials to form the Fair Pay Commission to replace a truly independent judicial body; the reduction of matters required for employment conditions to very few matters; and low standards within those matters that remain. The results of this combination are clear. If a worker does not accept an AWA, which may be at great disadvantage, s/he can be dismissed. The hopes of the Government in creating the Fair Pay Commission are also clear. Given that the Govt has sided with business at most, if not all, IRC hearings, it is clear what the expectations of the Govt are for the Fair Pay Commission. Like the Employment Advocate before them, this title is truly Orwellian and the intention is deceitful.
Thirdly, I challenge the whole concept of fair negotiations of contracts between people in uneven circumstances. It seems a reasonable idea that individuals can make their own agreements, but it doesn’t work that way where the power of the participants is uneven. I have no doubt that you, as a politician, are aware of this. It is a specious argument that a fast food server or a check out attendant can negotiate on an equal basis with a rich franchisee or a multinational employer. Even more so, when we are removing social welfare and other supports, thus enhancing the desperation of the employee, and the unevenness of the negotiations.
It is quite possible that this will lead to improved economic indicators. But what do these indicators measure? Economics are important, but “for what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and lose his own soul?” We need a more true set of indicators for society, eg, the Genuine Progress Indicator promoted by the Australia Institute of similar. Politics has a mania with simple (and often trivial) economic measurements. We need broader measures.
I plea for you to vote against Howard’s IR changes. There is no-one else left. The Senate is in the hands of conservative parties. You cannot blame anyone else if you choose to move this balance of power so far to the employer. This is a time to take a stand. I believe most politicians enter politics because they are concerned for society. They may have a hard time maintaining their commitment to society, and mostly they can blame another party for what happens. This is not the case now. This is a major change. It will result in a much more unequal society - with some winners and many losers. Your vote will be making a little US over here, with its significant underclass and poverty. This is probably the biggest challenge to the Aussie Fair Go.
I implore you to think to your conscience. You will be responsible for the outcomes. You no longer have any excuses.
Signature
PS. BTW, I think this marks the start of the end for this Conservative rule. Howard will give Labor something to agree on; something which is eminently sellable to the population; something which will allow Beasley to divorce himself from being just a follower of the Howard line; something which undermines the support of the “Howard Battlers”; something which gives the Unions the moral high ground.
I do not give you permission to record anything in your databases as a result of this letter. (There’s another issue for another time – why aren’t political parties subject to privacy laws?)
14 November 2004
De Tocqueville scores again
From David Marqand. Decline of the public. Cambridge : Polity, 2004, p. 120:
"In a haunting passage in Democracy in America Alexis De Tocqueville warned that democracy was menaced by a new and subtle find of despotism, in which the "immense and tutelary power" drew its authority from popular election.
'That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labours, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness ....[W]hat remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people'
[Alexis De Tocqueville. Democracy in America. Ed. Alan Ryan. London : Everyman's Library, 1994. pp318-319.]
Think "relaxed and comfortable".
"In a haunting passage in Democracy in America Alexis De Tocqueville warned that democracy was menaced by a new and subtle find of despotism, in which the "immense and tutelary power" drew its authority from popular election.
'That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labours, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness ....[W]hat remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people'
[Alexis De Tocqueville. Democracy in America. Ed. Alan Ryan. London : Everyman's Library, 1994. pp318-319.]
Think "relaxed and comfortable".
19 September 2004
Reading lists
I've read some fascinating books recently, and have been remiss in writing for the blog. These have explained a good bit for me about Australian politics of historical interest, and with resonances to recent politics. Highly recommended, all three.
Judith Brett. Australian liberals and the moral middle class: from Alfred Deakin to John Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 2003.
The Liberal Party (and its anti-labor precedents) and the moral concepts underlying its support. Initially a party for all Australians (unlike the labour movement which clearly identified its own class self interest), protestant and dutiful. That is, until the move of the moral, disinterested citizenry to the Labor Party in the 1970s ... and Howard's move of the Party to the right, and its representation for the self-interested classes, Howard's so-called battlers. A fascinating and satisfying read.
Alison Bronowski. About face: Asian accounts of Australia. Carlton: Scribe, 2003.
Face, or self-image, is presented as of key importance to the Asian mindset. Bronowski describes how Australia undermines its own relevance and influence in the region through the face it presents, as good blokes in an innocent country. But also how views of Australia are manipulated by Asian political elites for their own purposes.
Marion Sawer. The ethical state: social liberalism in Australia. Carlton: Melbourne Univ Press, 2003.
The standard neo-classical economic theories are not new, and this is not the first time they have been tried, and criticised. Sawer presents the social liberal argument (incl. the benefits of investment in poverty relief, and the lack of justice in contracts between parties of unequal power) which was influential in 1890s England. Unlike England, with its rigid class system, Australia was then seen as the place of opportunity for development of these very principles - so we were early with extended suffrage, fair pay, 8-hour days, etc. Sawer is moderately optimistic about a return to these principles, but not particularly convincing.
Judith Brett. Australian liberals and the moral middle class: from Alfred Deakin to John Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 2003.
The Liberal Party (and its anti-labor precedents) and the moral concepts underlying its support. Initially a party for all Australians (unlike the labour movement which clearly identified its own class self interest), protestant and dutiful. That is, until the move of the moral, disinterested citizenry to the Labor Party in the 1970s ... and Howard's move of the Party to the right, and its representation for the self-interested classes, Howard's so-called battlers. A fascinating and satisfying read.
Alison Bronowski. About face: Asian accounts of Australia. Carlton: Scribe, 2003.
Face, or self-image, is presented as of key importance to the Asian mindset. Bronowski describes how Australia undermines its own relevance and influence in the region through the face it presents, as good blokes in an innocent country. But also how views of Australia are manipulated by Asian political elites for their own purposes.
Marion Sawer. The ethical state: social liberalism in Australia. Carlton: Melbourne Univ Press, 2003.
The standard neo-classical economic theories are not new, and this is not the first time they have been tried, and criticised. Sawer presents the social liberal argument (incl. the benefits of investment in poverty relief, and the lack of justice in contracts between parties of unequal power) which was influential in 1890s England. Unlike England, with its rigid class system, Australia was then seen as the place of opportunity for development of these very principles - so we were early with extended suffrage, fair pay, 8-hour days, etc. Sawer is moderately optimistic about a return to these principles, but not particularly convincing.
21 July 2004
More on that wall
Today I heard of the UN General Assembly vote on the Israeli wall. Apparently, it was US, Australia, and a few island states (whose poverty-sticken votes, I guess, were somehow influenced) who sided with Israel. Just Australia standing with the US against the world. That's today's Australia for you. Some would look with pride. I don't.
And that was followed by our Foreign Minister concerned with the vociferous complaints of East Timor, which should be so happy with Australia's recent military actions (that, at least, was a fine hour for Australia, even if it was rather late). They should negotiate in confidence, he argued. (I thought, "like good businessmen, commercial-in-confidence, the new Australian form of political accountability"). This was in light of Australia's refusal to accept a role for the International Court of Justice, or an independent third party (New Zealand was suggested), to assist the two countries to reach a resolution. Rich country, poor country. This is not even negotiation for a fair contract, it seems to me.
There's more every day, if you just open your ears ...
And that was followed by our Foreign Minister concerned with the vociferous complaints of East Timor, which should be so happy with Australia's recent military actions (that, at least, was a fine hour for Australia, even if it was rather late). They should negotiate in confidence, he argued. (I thought, "like good businessmen, commercial-in-confidence, the new Australian form of political accountability"). This was in light of Australia's refusal to accept a role for the International Court of Justice, or an independent third party (New Zealand was suggested), to assist the two countries to reach a resolution. Rich country, poor country. This is not even negotiation for a fair contract, it seems to me.
There's more every day, if you just open your ears ...
Cricket: the new history of Aboriginal Australia
It's more with despair than anger that I write this entry. The Canberra Times yesterday recorded the excitement at the National Museum of Australia in the purchase of a boomerang which was supposed to be used by the first Australian cricket team in Britain, which happened to be a (very successful) Aboriginal team. Well, it's an interesting story, and the purchase of a historical artefact like that is a good thing to celebrate. But it was obvious from day 1 that this is the new view of Australian history - the white blindfold view.
So, the history of Australian Aborigines will now be celebrated as one of assimilation of those poor deprived souls into an all-conquering and civilised European (specifically Anglo) culture. The merging of cricket and converted blacks appears to be just too, too much for the NMA to resist. It's the new, relaxed (and blind) view of Australia's history of mateship and a fair go. The Howard view writ large. Sad, but so transparent. And I can imagine the view of the much-revered Australian mainstream becoming relaxed and comfortable with the good deeds we have done, and continue to do, for our poor, backward cousins, as we offer tham a hand-up to our rich, civilised culture.
Several years ago, I could have been swayed, but the "Bringing them home" report on the Stolen Generations changed all that. I was a parent of young children at the time, and close enough to cry at the thought of children removed from their mothers and family and culture. Most defenders just attacked the report as overly emotive, and denied there really was a stolen generation. They called it "political correctness" to use such terms (despite having learnt so well the lesson of controlling thought through language). And there were even those defenders who recognised these events happened, but argued it was for their own good. Paternalistic, and confirmed to remain ignorant of their own thought processes. Look at LO'D, they'd say, or some other successful black who had made it good given a white upbringing and education. But listen to LO'D and you had a different view.
Remember, I was a parent of young children. For once, rationality could not overcome emotional grief at the stories of children being taken from parents. Too, too close to home. They lost me on that one. And the amazing thing it that it just confirmed my disbelief in so many of their other claims.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
But I open today's Canberra Times (Doubts over tour boomerang's origin, by Robert Messenger, in Canberra Times, 21 July 2004, p. 1-2) to amusement with a front-page article on doubts on the authenticity of this very boomerang. Amusing and appropriate. Apparently there were two cricketers called Twopenny, and this boomerang may have been used by the wrong one! Trust some academic in Canberra to report this. As the local Canb Times editor (Jack Waterford) often states, there's an expert on every subject in Canberra. That's perhaps why we're not so easily fooled. (Although Howard's "mainstream" probably thinks that's why we are so easily fooled!)
This new ideological broom is sweeping political correctness from the National Museum, and I despair, but I can laugh at their little mistakes.
So, the history of Australian Aborigines will now be celebrated as one of assimilation of those poor deprived souls into an all-conquering and civilised European (specifically Anglo) culture. The merging of cricket and converted blacks appears to be just too, too much for the NMA to resist. It's the new, relaxed (and blind) view of Australia's history of mateship and a fair go. The Howard view writ large. Sad, but so transparent. And I can imagine the view of the much-revered Australian mainstream becoming relaxed and comfortable with the good deeds we have done, and continue to do, for our poor, backward cousins, as we offer tham a hand-up to our rich, civilised culture.
Several years ago, I could have been swayed, but the "Bringing them home" report on the Stolen Generations changed all that. I was a parent of young children at the time, and close enough to cry at the thought of children removed from their mothers and family and culture. Most defenders just attacked the report as overly emotive, and denied there really was a stolen generation. They called it "political correctness" to use such terms (despite having learnt so well the lesson of controlling thought through language). And there were even those defenders who recognised these events happened, but argued it was for their own good. Paternalistic, and confirmed to remain ignorant of their own thought processes. Look at LO'D, they'd say, or some other successful black who had made it good given a white upbringing and education. But listen to LO'D and you had a different view.
Remember, I was a parent of young children. For once, rationality could not overcome emotional grief at the stories of children being taken from parents. Too, too close to home. They lost me on that one. And the amazing thing it that it just confirmed my disbelief in so many of their other claims.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
But I open today's Canberra Times (Doubts over tour boomerang's origin, by Robert Messenger, in Canberra Times, 21 July 2004, p. 1-2) to amusement with a front-page article on doubts on the authenticity of this very boomerang. Amusing and appropriate. Apparently there were two cricketers called Twopenny, and this boomerang may have been used by the wrong one! Trust some academic in Canberra to report this. As the local Canb Times editor (Jack Waterford) often states, there's an expert on every subject in Canberra. That's perhaps why we're not so easily fooled. (Although Howard's "mainstream" probably thinks that's why we are so easily fooled!)
This new ideological broom is sweeping political correctness from the National Museum, and I despair, but I can laugh at their little mistakes.
16 July 2004
Israel and that wall
"In pursuing this course, Prime Minister Sharon, a long-time patron of extremist settlers, has led Israel down a path of unprecedented peril. His policy behaviour has substantially weakened Israel's moral and political positions in world politics. Under Sharon, in the words of the recently retired speaker of Israel's Knesset, Avraham Burg, Israel today lacks both 'a just path' and 'an ethical leadership', and 'the Israeli nation rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice'. Burg also concludes that 'the countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun'". ("Israel likely to pay a high price for its defiance on West Bank wall", by Amin Saikal, in Canberra Times, 16 July 2004, p. 15).
Selective service is not the draft ... just ready for it
The US is fully prepared to draft young men for war. I was stunned to find this site: Selective Service System. Registration of virtually all 18-26 year old men is in place, and all it needs is a vote of Congress to activate the draft.
Just another suggestion of a US obsession with guns and power and war. How can so powerful a country appear so fearful? Especially when they spend more on defence than the rest of the world put together. To my mind, the US needs to display more of its good side - its culture, its passion, its commitment to bold political ideas, and also more generosity. I trust it's there. They'd find other cultures warming to them, and they'd ultimately have more influence than they presently have with their current warlike, fearful and self-opinionated stance.
Just another suggestion of a US obsession with guns and power and war. How can so powerful a country appear so fearful? Especially when they spend more on defence than the rest of the world put together. To my mind, the US needs to display more of its good side - its culture, its passion, its commitment to bold political ideas, and also more generosity. I trust it's there. They'd find other cultures warming to them, and they'd ultimately have more influence than they presently have with their current warlike, fearful and self-opinionated stance.
10 July 2004
To know history
"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men ... The government of Iraq, and the future of your country, will soon belong to you ... We will end a brutal regime .. so that Iraqis can live in security". It was a new on on me when I read it this morning. The speaker is General FS Maude, Commander of the British Forces to the people of Mesopotamia, 1917. Just goes to show the importance of knowing your history, and the truth of the adage "whoever doesn't know history, is bound to repeat is" or thereabouts.
03 July 2004
An apt quote
This is not one I had read or heard before, but it's particularly apt for the AginSpin blog. It's quoted in a review of a book on war correspondents (Denise Leith. Bearing witness: the lives of war correspondents and photojournalists. Random House, 2004) which further quotes Susan Sontag from "Regarding the pain of others". "[A]fter a certain age [no one] has the right to this kind of innocence, of superficiality, to this degree of ignorance, or amnesia". And yet, I contend that our politics, and especially this current Australian government, are trying to do exactly that. "Relaxed and comfortable" has a meaning, and this is it. As the National Museum falls into the cricket, ANZAC and explorers view of Australia, we see our cultural blindfold settling. What of the future? Or in the shorter term, what of this coming election?
02 July 2004
A universal aim of the power hungry is to stifle dissent
Tony Fitzgerald's speech for the launch of Margo Kingston's new book "Not happy, John!" has the title "Howard a 'radical'". I have always thought of Howard as an economic radical, but a social conservative. Given the change, the return to the future model he's having us digest, perhaps he is radical all round. To me, he's ideological, and prepared to trash our institutions to insinuate his ideologies. The frightening thing is that this may not be one-sided. I certainly don't feel comfortable with a Latham alternative, despite any hope for Howard to be rolled this time around.
See the text of Tony Fitzgerald speech "Howard a 'radical'" on Margo Kingston's SMH Webdiary
See the text of Tony Fitzgerald speech "Howard a 'radical'" on Margo Kingston's SMH Webdiary
01 July 2004
Empiricism or rationalism?
This was an eye opener for me. I had always thought myself rational, although I had recognised that a logical structure built on false assumptions is valueless, and possibly dangerous, and thus we have to continually test our assumptions. I interpret it this way: by all means, use logic to build your expectations, but continue to test against observations (I was about to write "reality", but that's a loaded word these days, too) and be aware of your assumptions. In science, I guess this would be finding the best current approximation to reality (here I'll use the word!) through testable hypotheses.
"The philosophy of experience is known as empiricism. Empiricism says that a concept is valid only if it is derived from, or is testable by, experience. The alternative theory is ‘rationalism’, the view that truth cannot be attained otherwise than by reasoning from self-evident first principles. The rationalist paradigm of knowledge is logic, the empiricist paradigm is science. Empirical knowledge is less certain than logic; it is tentative, responsive to new evidence and better research, always open to test. It is therefore the very embodiment of the spirit of preparedness to learn. Outside the formal disciplines of logic and mathematics there are no absolute certainties -- except of course in religion, which abounds in them, to the extent that people commit murder for their sake. But the experience of history always shows the danger of dogma. What additional bitterness of experience is needed before we learn to return dogma to the kennels of history whence it came?"
The reason of things : living with philosophy / AC Grayling. London: Phoenix, 2003. p.159
"The philosophy of experience is known as empiricism. Empiricism says that a concept is valid only if it is derived from, or is testable by, experience. The alternative theory is ‘rationalism’, the view that truth cannot be attained otherwise than by reasoning from self-evident first principles. The rationalist paradigm of knowledge is logic, the empiricist paradigm is science. Empirical knowledge is less certain than logic; it is tentative, responsive to new evidence and better research, always open to test. It is therefore the very embodiment of the spirit of preparedness to learn. Outside the formal disciplines of logic and mathematics there are no absolute certainties -- except of course in religion, which abounds in them, to the extent that people commit murder for their sake. But the experience of history always shows the danger of dogma. What additional bitterness of experience is needed before we learn to return dogma to the kennels of history whence it came?"
The reason of things : living with philosophy / AC Grayling. London: Phoenix, 2003. p.159
Missile defence: physicist says it all
The scientists have been consistently open on this issue, ever since its first incarnation under Reagan. They're the one's who'd know. Who am I to say otherwise. Here's a recent quote.
"'This is perfectly reasonable, since a non-working missile defense system should be sufficient to deter a non-existent threat from Iran or North Korea.' Bob Park, editor of the American Physical Society's "What's New" newsletter, on the US Senate Armed Services Committee's decision to deploy the missile system without independent tests to prove it works (18 June)"
Quoted in New scientist, Vol. 182, no. 2453, 26 June 2004, p. 12
"'This is perfectly reasonable, since a non-working missile defense system should be sufficient to deter a non-existent threat from Iran or North Korea.' Bob Park, editor of the American Physical Society's "What's New" newsletter, on the US Senate Armed Services Committee's decision to deploy the missile system without independent tests to prove it works (18 June)"
Quoted in New scientist, Vol. 182, no. 2453, 26 June 2004, p. 12
30 June 2004
Not happy, John
I borrow the title from a recent book by Margo Kingston, which I have yet to read, but it fits so appropriately. I think "not happy, ..." is also in current usage in the UK. Seems appropriate, despite the application to different sides of the political spectrum. But this heading is mainly for a perfect quote from last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald. Alan Ramsay quotes from an email he had recently received. I read it, and blushed to think that someone had said exactly what I so often feel. I'm waiting for the true liberals to come out of the woodwork. There are issues of principle here, and power does not justify the extent ot which Australians have been misinformed and maipulated.
"Then there was the email from an old Liberal Party friend on Thursday, which read: 'Congrats on your piece on the opinion polls. I'm constantly bemused by the Canberra press gallery's laziness in its reporting and analysis. It's tribal, superficial, out-of-touch with real life. Above all it's so predictable, bogged down in the excruciating detail of daily political combat. Only a few seem to want to hold the Government to account for its deeds and words. They seem to prefer the contest - the slippery, weasel words, the insults - to actually reporting fact and separating it from propaganda. Was it always thus? I think not.
"Have not changed my mind about the outcome of this eight-month election campaign. Howard will lose, not because he's personally hated (like Keating was by many) but because normal people are getting tired of the constant fear-mongering, the lies, the over-the-top propaganda, pathetic use of flags and soldiers in uniform, the wedge attempts, kids locked up, the shrilly desperate Downer, the revolting Ruddock (he used to be a liberal), and above all the old-style poilitics of say anything, do anything, deny everything. Jesus, it looks and sounds so tawdry.
"It is eerie watching CNN or Fox cable news. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft; it could be Howard, Costello, Ruddock. The words and symbols are identical. By Christmas it will all be over - in both countries.
"Sorry about the rant. It comes over me when I get deeply depressed.'
"Many of us know exactly what he means."
My comments? I also feel that depression. There are issues of democracy that this politics is threatening. Howard is not the first - Labour has used a good few of these tricks - but the extent to which they are used is blistering. Deceit, or at least manipulation, minimally spin. Implication, rather than explanation. See, hear, do no evil, where really the ministerial buck stops here. I don't think it's so obvious that Howard will lose, though. There are new generations out there with different concerns - not even the environment, let alone social justice. To some degree, Howard's relaxed and comfortable has been successful. Come to think of it, it's a version of that Australian classic, "don't you worry about that" [= trust me, I'm a politician]. As for Liberals mimicking US pollies, well it does make a mockery of the attempt to paint Latham as a plagiarist. Liberal politicians have been following the lead of the US republicans for years over Iraq and other issues: "cut and run" and "elites" are just two populist and effective arguments that are in my mind just now. For now, I long for some true liberals to come out of the woodwork, and let their philosophy triumph over their unprincipled desire to hold power, regardless. Be very scared where politicians tell you someone is "unAustralian" or any other un-acceptable thing. The next one could be you.
"Then there was the email from an old Liberal Party friend on Thursday, which read: 'Congrats on your piece on the opinion polls. I'm constantly bemused by the Canberra press gallery's laziness in its reporting and analysis. It's tribal, superficial, out-of-touch with real life. Above all it's so predictable, bogged down in the excruciating detail of daily political combat. Only a few seem to want to hold the Government to account for its deeds and words. They seem to prefer the contest - the slippery, weasel words, the insults - to actually reporting fact and separating it from propaganda. Was it always thus? I think not.
"Have not changed my mind about the outcome of this eight-month election campaign. Howard will lose, not because he's personally hated (like Keating was by many) but because normal people are getting tired of the constant fear-mongering, the lies, the over-the-top propaganda, pathetic use of flags and soldiers in uniform, the wedge attempts, kids locked up, the shrilly desperate Downer, the revolting Ruddock (he used to be a liberal), and above all the old-style poilitics of say anything, do anything, deny everything. Jesus, it looks and sounds so tawdry.
"It is eerie watching CNN or Fox cable news. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft; it could be Howard, Costello, Ruddock. The words and symbols are identical. By Christmas it will all be over - in both countries.
"Sorry about the rant. It comes over me when I get deeply depressed.'
"Many of us know exactly what he means."
My comments? I also feel that depression. There are issues of democracy that this politics is threatening. Howard is not the first - Labour has used a good few of these tricks - but the extent to which they are used is blistering. Deceit, or at least manipulation, minimally spin. Implication, rather than explanation. See, hear, do no evil, where really the ministerial buck stops here. I don't think it's so obvious that Howard will lose, though. There are new generations out there with different concerns - not even the environment, let alone social justice. To some degree, Howard's relaxed and comfortable has been successful. Come to think of it, it's a version of that Australian classic, "don't you worry about that" [= trust me, I'm a politician]. As for Liberals mimicking US pollies, well it does make a mockery of the attempt to paint Latham as a plagiarist. Liberal politicians have been following the lead of the US republicans for years over Iraq and other issues: "cut and run" and "elites" are just two populist and effective arguments that are in my mind just now. For now, I long for some true liberals to come out of the woodwork, and let their philosophy triumph over their unprincipled desire to hold power, regardless. Be very scared where politicians tell you someone is "unAustralian" or any other un-acceptable thing. The next one could be you.
08 May 2003
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).
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)
