tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64622211280792778642024-03-06T15:32:50.884+11:00The Outer LifePolitics and current affairs: a peripheral perspectiveLucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-30178377616622203302008-04-17T11:37:00.005+10:002008-04-17T14:49:41.322+10:00Capital IdeaSo it's been awhile since I blogged, and it seems a little strange to jump back in with this particular discussion, but some news from this morning seems worthy of discussion, so why not. The news in question: the International Herald Tribune <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/17/america/17scotus.php">reports</a> that the US Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional Kentucky’s preferred method of capital punishment, a particular form of lethal injection.<br /><br />The Supreme Court's ruling is, prima facie, a <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2189284/">blow to the anti-death-penalty campaign</a> in the U.S. Having seemingly jettisoned as unpopular the argument that capital punishment is in itself unconstitutional, anti-capital punishment forces had turned their hopes to outlawing the death penalty in its variously practised forms as inhumane. It is a telling fact about the American justice system that in this particular case, <em>Baze v Rees</em>, the prisoners were arguing not that the death penalty or even lethal injection per se breached the Eighth Amendment, but that Kentucky's particular <em>form</em> of lethal injection, in which three separate drugs are administered, was unconstitutional. Lethal injection, once touted as a humane method of killing people, has come under all sorts of scrutiny in recent years; there is a body of evidence that suggests that it can be both a slow and a painful way to die. The procedure used in Kentucky also happens to be the method of choice for most of the 38 states in which capital punishment is still an option. As such, the last few months have seen a moratorium on capital punishment in the US while the honourable justices considered, once again, the issue of the death penalty vis-à-vis the Bill of Rights.<br /><br />Well, that's over. By a 7-2 majority, the court <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-5439.pdf">reaffirmed</a> Kentucky's use of lethal injection as constitutional, because there's not enough proof that it causes undue suffering. The standard by which the Court adjudicates the cruelty of a given punishment is, given the subject, remarkably clinical. "An execution method violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain," the court ruled sternly. "Judged under that standard, this is an easy case". Right. Don't lose any sleep over it, then. It's only somebody's life.<br /><br />Not just somebody, either. As Kentucky, so go the other States: death is back. It looks like a big step back for the anti-death penalty movement as a whole; which has claimed a number of judicial victories in recent years. Certainly, it is a great personal tragedy for the condemned prisoners in question, Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr.<br /><br />And yet… and yet. In Justice Stevens' opinion – an assenting opinion, mind you – we find the resurgence of a seemingly outdated idea. After reluctantly agreeing to the majority view that lethal injection is not, as far as killing methods go, particularly cruel, Stevens devoted the second part of his "concurrence" to a deeper question. Could it be, he remarked, that the death penalty itself is unconstitutional? Does capital punishment in any form breach the eighth amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment"?<br /><br />In the context of recent US Supreme Court history, this is more radical than it might appear. To someone who has never known an execution in her own society, the idea of debating the humanity of this or that method of killing someone is more than a little dissonant. But that's the way the debate in the US has been framed. Even Justice Blackmun's famous refusal to "tinker with the machinery of death" was based on pragmatic, rather than philosophical, objections: fairness of trial, consistency of application, and the like. Did Blackmun believe that killing people was always cruel and unusual? Possibly, but it's impossible to tell from his 1994 dissent. "The problem", he concludes, "is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution".<br /><br />To those of us who were unaware that the Constitution required <em>any</em> sentences of death, the opinion of Justice Stevens comes as a great rhetorical, if not legal, progression. Stevens was one of the justices who upheld the death penalty in 1976, and he invoked the three "societal purposes" that were used in that case to justify the death penalty: incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution. Since then, Stevens notes, there has been considerable revision of public opinion on all three counts. The first two he deals with easily: the evidence continues to mount that the remote possibility of being put to death deters nobody; and life without parole, enforced properly, is nearly as incapacitating as killing somebody and a lot less traumatic besides.<br /><br /><br />That leaves us with retribution, and, as Stevens notes, "it is the retribution rationale that animates much of the remaining enthusiasm for the death penalty". Stevens' argument here is more nuanced: vengeance, he says, is an innate human drive, and the death penalty is motivated primarily by the desire to inflict on the criminal the kind of suffering that he (and it's usually a he) inflicted on his victim. But by progressively reducing the level of suffering which accompanies an execution, the judicial system has, in effect, done away with the state's ability to inflict suffering on the offender equivalent to the suffering experienced by the victim. (Almost no non-state murderers anaesthetise their victims before killing them.) Thus, says Stevens, the retribution justification has been diminished just as surely as the other two.<br /><br /><br />This seems like convoluted reasoning, and it earned an acerbic retort from the majority: "we would not have supposed that the case for capital punishment was stronger when it was imposed predominantly by hanging or electrocution." But what Stevens is getting at - which he says, much more clearly, a little later in his opinion - is that the human thirst for revenge is unquenchable, at least by any action that would leaves the state's humanity and moral authority (such as it is) intact. And if it's unquenchable, under current laws, it's pointless to try to quench it. So the retribution rationale is undermined, not because it's immoral, but because it's unachievable.<br /><br />Having thus dismissed the rationale he endorsed in 1976, Stevens was unequivocal on the utility of the death penalty, describing it as "the pointless and needless extinction of life with only negligible social or public returns." It took him awhile to get there, but Justice Stevens is entirely correct. Two hundred years after the eighth amendment was ratified, state-sponsored murder remains hardly less cruel and significantly less usual. It has no place in a civilised society, regardless of the crime, regardless of trial procedures, regardless of the method of execution.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-6720266102117637902008-02-21T10:39:00.002+11:002008-02-21T10:57:27.370+11:00Commies in our SchoolsMy housemate revealed yesterday that at his primary school, the powers-that-be had eschewed bells, hippie-like, in favour of music. Which music? Well, there was the <em>Chariots of Fire</em> theme, and then there was this:<br /><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yt73ZOcH1XA&rel=" width="425" height="355" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed><br /><br />Muscovite propaganda. In the late eighties. In <em>Tasmania</em>. Course, it's just an Olympic theme, but it certainly <em>sounds</em> communistic. The Howardians were right all along – primary schools are hotbeds of leftist indoctrination, or at least they were under the Hawke government.<br /><br />This never would've happened when Dr Nelson was the education minister.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-3034116412479441522008-02-13T15:47:00.005+11:002008-02-13T16:33:32.131+11:00Thoughts on the Apology- Rudd was pretty damned good. He can never entirely escape his inner technocrat; even on this most emotive of occasions, he felt the need to bring up policy reform and procedural objectives and special cabinets. He's no poet, but somehow it worked. I, along with many others, was moved to tears.<br /><br />- If there was ever any doubt that Rudd's prime ministership would be different from Howard's, it should now be banished. One of the best parts of Rudd's speech was his repudiation of the idea that acknowleding blemishes in our history constitutes a "black armband view" - it is, as Rudd said, "just the truth". Ah yes, truth: I remember the concept. Rudd might not be a raving lefty, but his moral compass is sound.<br /><br />- Jokes about post-reformation theology: a surprise hit?<br /><br />- I have little doubt that Dr Brendan Nelson is a good man. Really. He was clearly affected by the notion of taking children away from their parents, by his experiences in indigenous communities, by the emotional presence of dozens of members of the stolen generation. His task today was utterly thankless. But it was also self-inflicted. Had he stood with Malcolm Turnbull, weeks ago, and said unequivocally that he would support an apology offered by the government, he could today have given full voice to the compassionate doctor within. He could've played gracious statesman, transcending partisanship to right an old wrong. But he did not. So he was stuck blending compassion with occasional, strange detours into petrol-sniffing and ANZACs, obvious bones to the dogs of the hard right. And he pleased nobody.<br /><br />- Watching Nelson squirm as Rudd announced the Bipartisan War Cabinet: solid gold.<br /><br />- My hero: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/13/2161853.htm">Tom Calma</a>. I've had the pleasure of meeting him, and it's hard to imagine someone whose decency and intelligence and compassion are more clearly and immediately in evidence. If he weren't so busy healing race relations, and if I weren't a republican, I would suggest him for Governor-General.<br /><br />- Paul Keating was in his element talking, post-apology, on ABC TV. Eloquent about indigenous disadvantage, generous about Rudd, scathing about John Howard. His view on Howard's non-appearance: it's a disgrace that he wasn't there, but consider the alternatives. To show up in support would've been rank hypocrisy; to show up in protest unthinkable. So his staying away was the best that could've happened. Still, for shame.<br /><br />- And speaking of shame, the black list of Opposition MPs who didn't show:<br />- Wilson Tuckey (who nonetheless managed to make it to the Lord's Prayer, directly before)<br />- Alby Schultz<br />- Sophie Mirabella<br />- Don Randall<br />Add to that Chris Pearce, who remained seated throughout and <i>read a magazine</i>. I'm not saying we should steal their kids, but a keyed car or two wouldn't go astray.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-34314399977500214722008-02-13T15:38:00.005+11:002008-02-13T15:44:56.263+11:00The Hardest Word<img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5166319656957138610" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 269px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 188px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="193" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpNCRClJNzwpBTsoUGhGUwMcxy_-LvT_Vzzl8Tmb-Ltsol1f0GBXBcKuFHb4zMm33m7u4SZQgAG3FjxBLc48fgRCNKfeOttciU8KzZlTk7AWHR8KIih4SUKNr0Ki2Lda5CPjoQrVc6TA6d/s400/Aboriginal+flag.bmp" width="227" border="0" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilDhz-wt55HKImQeYR08QS0viA7RlCZj7uynRnw_1kjRsutm8ELlFaSgOdRHmkSOQO_QnWzdaEVWxRx6MtAXV2xtKN2V2XaY_iE07Qo9BZJ0zAWwLmtAr0ohOWAZMoMny-3ocd9V_4PXh1/s1600-h/sorry+kev.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5166320129403541186" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilDhz-wt55HKImQeYR08QS0viA7RlCZj7uynRnw_1kjRsutm8ELlFaSgOdRHmkSOQO_QnWzdaEVWxRx6MtAXV2xtKN2V2XaY_iE07Qo9BZJ0zAWwLmtAr0ohOWAZMoMny-3ocd9V_4PXh1/s400/sorry+kev.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5166320610439878354" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguDMSe0AAJ9hYHpZEM6aBY1uYoULq3Ze2LkvRMNS4R9uuq1tZtaksxI51Dkqo2ZDb-gqXN12HXbAOyrg1xF6bw_iSL9UB1yNt8WhxAr2eIbp1OFe0h3yHrXciMTJNzcBgIGpFVlYkFPKEb/s400/sorry+brendan.bmp" border="0" /><br /><br /><div>Sorry.</div>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-10781755842909999002008-02-05T16:17:00.000+11:002008-02-05T17:21:16.862+11:00Keelty UpdateSometimes, you just wish you hadn't opened your big mouth, right, Mick?<br /><br />With his quasi-totalitarian suggestion of a media blackout during terror cases, Keelty has managed to unite, in one fell swoop, a number of disparate groups. Well, one might expect those bleeding hearts in the Council for Civil Liberties to be against it. And the Rudd troops have demonstrated much less squeamishness over the Haneef case in government than it did in opposition: first McClelland, then Rudd himself condemned Keelty's argument.<br /><br />But then, to add insult to injury, the Opposition's justice spokesman, Chris Pyne, joined the chorus. Pyne is, to be sure, one of those Libs - they do exist - whose past record has a faintly suspicious whiff of humanity about it; he's a moderate who's been known, for instance, to voice <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/12/1089484305293.html">concern</a> about certain aspects of the Howard government's immigration policy. But that was as a backbencher; now, he is speaking in an official opposition capacity. If Keelty can't rely on the Libs' spokespeople to maintain their support, who <em>can</em> he turn to?<br /><br />Of course, there's always someone. And that someone is, as usual, <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/keelty-not-getting-a-fair-hearing/2008/02/04/1202090365986.html">Gerard Henderson</a>. Ah, Gerard: lone voice in the wilderness, brave contrarian flying the flag for the AFP, taking the fifth-estate consensus and ripping it apart with nary a care for his own interests. In these confusing, apology-offering, Kyoto-signing times, it's good to know that some things will never change.<br /><br />So what's the argument? Sez Gerard:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Journalists, editors and producers are invariably willing to advise police how they should behave but do not appreciate being told what they themselves should do by police.</blockquote><br />I see. There is a distinction between the media <em>advising police how they should behave,</em> which is non-binding and constitutional, not to mention part of <em>the intended function of the media,</em> and the police suggesting, seriously, that the media should be dealt blanket <em>legal restrictions</em> forbidding them to publish details of terror cases on the off-chance that what the media has to say might damage the credibility of the case put forward by police. One is part of the checks and balances of a democratic society; the other runs directly counter to them. But never mind. Next objection?<br /><br /><blockquote>Also, many in the media do not approve of Australia's updated national security laws which were passed by the Howard government, with the support of the Labor Opposition, following the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001.</blockquote><br />All true. Lots of us, even outside the meejah, don't approve of Australia's 'updated' national security laws, which were, apart from anything else, of dubious constitutionality. I, for one, would rather expect laws expanding executive power and suspending habeas corpus to cop a hiding in the press. But we're not really talking about an interpretive matter here: Keelty is mostly peeved that <em>The Australian</em> - the Australian! - published a <em>full transcript</em> of the Haneef interview. To quote from the great cop himself:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>... we are now witnessing these records of interviews being leaked to the media to add weight to public campaigns. When a "record of interview" is given to the media with accompanying commentary, we run the risk of jeopardising the accused's ability to receive a fair trial when the matter reaches court. It is also only one part of the greater body of evidence, and when considered in isolation it may serve as a public relations tool in the short term, but it has the potential to severely harm a case in the longer term.</blockquote><p> </p><p>Translation: this is not merely a crusade against soft-on-terror writers of opinion pieces. It's <em>factual reporting</em> Keelty is opposed to. Get it?<br /><br />Look, Gerard. We all understand that you're feeling a little beleaguered in the post-Howard era. There are certain socially acceptable remedies available to you; one would understand if you felt like turning to the bottle, or perhaps kicking the cat around a little. But defending Mick Keelty's call for a media blackout is not the way to cope. It makes you look silly, and it alienates you from your peers. Chris Pyne has proven he knows which way the wind is blowing. It's probably time you took heed.</p>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-50982917790466715422008-01-30T13:46:00.000+11:002008-01-30T14:01:37.324+11:00What Your Reading Material Says About You: Dodgy Facebook Stats EditionIn a feat of statistical analysis only a market researcher could love, <a href="http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/">these people</a> have correlated Facebook users' self-reported favourite books with their colleges' mean SAT scores. Yeah, I know, but it's all in good fun. And there's a lot to like about the results, even if the methodology's suspect: <em>Lolita</em> and García Márquez are awesome, <em>1984</em> is way better than <em>Animal Farm</em>, and the less said about university students who still list "The Holy Bible" as their favourite book, the better. Also, turns out crappy schools are more likely to attract people who don't realise <em>Hamlet</em> is a play, not a book. Sounds about right to me.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-80805754341512737802008-01-30T12:05:00.000+11:002008-01-30T13:44:27.915+11:00Mick Keelty and the Logic of Public Scrutiny<p>Is it just me, or has cop-in-charge Mick Keelty been acting a little… unhinged ever since the Mohammed Haneef case?<br /><br />Exhibit A for the prosecution: Keelty's <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23130173-5006784,00.html">address to the Sydney Institute</a> last night, in which he criticised the media for reporting on high-profile terrorism cases and subjecting the powers-that-be to rigorous and sometimes unfriendly scrutiny. You know the drill. I think it's known in some circles as "doing their job".<br /><br />Keelty's complaint is that the media have been so busy reporting on cases such as the Haneef prosecution, airing facts in the public sphere, humanising the would-be defendants, and so forth, that the judicial process doesn't stand a chance. Which is just a little rich on a few different levels. Namely:</p><p>1. Time and again, the media has wielded its opinion-making power in a way that is most favourable to the public prosecutors. I'm looking at you, Murdoch press. One hardly needs to open the Daily Telegraph to encounter an example of journalists and editorial writers whipping up a public frenzy against the minor recalcitrant du jour. Due process? Forget it. Keelty might be disappointed that this handy little coin has a flip side, but he can hardly claim to be surprised.</p><p>2. Er, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty, as the legal phrase has it. The media are <em>supposed</em> to cover criminal cases as though the defendant is innocent. Remember? If the cops can't make the case for the defendant's guilt in the face of a little media scrutiny, they can't make the case at all.</p><p>3. Re. the Haneef case: it's been so long that perhaps our collective memory of the events is a little hazy. So, a little refresher on Haneef-case chronology. <em>First</em>, the AFP themselves released highly selective excerpts from the interview, the cumulative effect of which was to <em>lie</em> about Haneef's association with terror suspects. <em>Then</em>, Haneef's lawyer, Stephen "Atticus Finch" Keim, released the whole transcript <em>to set the record straight</em>. Now, it's understandable that the AFP were embarrassed by the release of the full transcript, in all its <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/not-going-according-to-script/2007/08/24/1187462523676.html">computer-illiterate, geographically shaky, Ramadan-ignorant glory</a>. But that's hardly the media's fault. Is it really Keelty's contention that justice would've been better served had the media's knowledge of the case been based solely on AFP-approved "facts"?</p><p>4. While we're on the subject of extraneous bodies influencing judicial matters, how about a little shout-out to then Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, who, at the behest of the Australian Federal Police (yes, <em>that</em> AFP) cancelled Haneef's visa, thus effectively overriding the decision of the judiciary to grant Haneef bail? Or are we not supposed to be concerned about <em>that</em> kind of extrajudicial interference?</p><p>5. If you purport to be concerned, as Keelty does, about the erosion of public confidence in your institution, you're probably not doing your cause any favours by waxing totalitarian. So rather than calling for "a halt to criticism of public institutions", how about you focus on cleaning up your own act? The media can only report on what happens, after all.</p><p>Attempting to preserve secrecy is not, of course, an uncommon reaction to the threat of terrorism. But it is an irrational one. The seriousness of the charge lends more, not less, weight to the importance of due process; and the heightened powers of the police render it more, not less, important that the media scrutinise that process. Confidence in public institutions can only be achieved if the workings of those institutions are exposed to the public. In the Haneef case, the AFP and Andrews failed the accountability test miserably. But that is cause for greater accountability, not easier tests.</p><p align="center">* * * * * * * * * * *</p><p align="left"><strong>UPDATE:</strong> Writing in Crikey for us subscriber-freaks, Greg Barns has a similar take: "The idea that Keelty and his colleagues should be allowed to brief editors of media outlets on a secret basis in terrorism investigations, while at the same time preventing lawyers acting on behalf of those being investigated speaking to the media, is so absurd, that one wonders if this man has really lost the plot."</p>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-54506854506462874872008-01-11T14:57:00.000+11:002008-01-11T15:15:21.602+11:00US Candidates: The Issues<div><div>Doing the rounds of the internet at the moment: a <a href="http://www.electoralcompass.com/">political compass test</a> for US presidential candidates. See how you compare!</div><div></div><br /><div>Here are my results:</div><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5154066303211393586" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIalcFWUpCvFnKvc1hsj3ViIKNm2adhvAJFSwIw2ZmXNm55jx_jft1CqnGMqhaWwnj-zDhBkSxwOQib4XGVlG6W_4JyE4TmQkay-YhYNlCtZMalVWef1pXNz3R1hsbRb_1DhpIsvk9DGMm/s400/us+pres+candidates.bmp" border="0" /><br /><div></div><br /><div>Rather comforting, actually. After all the commentary I've read about John Edwards being the true progressive in the race, I was beginning to worry that my Obama/Clinton leanings were informed by white liberal guilt, or feminist overcompensation, or misplaced nostalgia for the Clinton era, or the fact that Obama looks good behind a lecturn. Well, they probably are, but at least now I can claim 81% policy convergence with Obama, and 78% with Clinton. John Edwards is just behind; Bill Richardson, whose staffer emails I have unaccountably received all campaign, is my least favourite Dem (but he dropped out this morning, so that's ok). And I detest everything Fred Thompson stands for, which is fine by me.</div></div>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-28588485813581486072008-01-09T15:08:00.000+11:002008-01-09T16:06:34.784+11:00New Hampshire IntrigueFor those of us who just can't get enough of politics, US primary season is already up and running. (And we complain about our six-week election campaigns.) The commentariat was abuzz on the weekend with the twin surprise out of Iowa: Huckabee over Romney, Obama over Clinton. Now we're in New Hampshire, where John McCain has won in a big way, and Clinton has reversed the tide yet again with a narrowish win over Obama, just as people were beginning to predict an Obama domino effect. Isn't politics fun when you have no vested interest in the outcome?<br /><br />Conventional wisdom in much of the non-US world has it that Barack Obama does not stand a chance: the American electorate is just not ready to elect an African-American president, especially not a Democrat. Obama, though, is a uniquely appealing candidate for people who might otherwise be subconsciously wary of electing a non-white. He's young. He's nonthreateningly handsome. His rhetoric is cerebral rather than muscular. He speaks not with the populist outrage of John Edwards – that would be a bridge too far – but inspiringly, optimistically. He loves to invoke lofty ideals like unity and "post-partisan politics". He makes people feel good about voting for him.<br /><br />And perhaps as a result, moderate Republicans don't hate him; at least, not nearly as much as they hate Senator Clinton. Obama's big achievement in Iowa was to mobilise self-identified independent and even Republican voters. Pretty good for a guy who voted against the Iraq war from the outset. Of course, the campaign hasn't been entirely free of nastiness - the 'rumour' doing the rounds that Obama is a 'secret Muslim' comes to mind - and one can certainly expect an escalation of this kind of thing should Obama win the nomination. But so far, so good, at least as far as race-baiting goes.<br /><br />Now Obama's problem, such as it is, appears to take a somewhat different form: people – certain people - don’t take him seriously. I'm calling this phenomenon Obama's Jonathan Franzen problem. Franzen, you may remember, was <a href="http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/10/26/franzen_winfrey/">none too pleased</a> when Oprah endorsed his critically-acclaimed novel <em>The Corrections</em> as part of her book club. The author felt this cheapened him as an artist, robbed him of his intellectual credibility among the elites he felt to be his natural readership.<br /><br />Famously, Oprah has now endorsed Obama for President, providing him with a useful injection of popular support. Oprah is staggeringly influential, and when she says Vote Obama, people - certain people - listen. (The cultural implications of this I will leave for a later discussion.) But it's also had the effect of tagging Obama the Oprah Candidate, which, while not particularly damaging in itself, manages to encapsulate a lot of the arguments of the anti-Obama camp: too young, too inexperienced, style over substance, celebrity over policy.<br /><br />Much of this criticism is valid; 46 is young for a President, and one term in the US Senate is not exactly a substantial resume. But Obama is no fresh-off-the-turnip-truck naif, either. Besides, as job descriptions go, being POTUS is utterly unique. Every other 'experience' up to this point can hardly be expected to prepare the candidate for the actual presidency - even, dare I say, the experience of being married to a two-term prez.<br /><br />At any rate, given the New Hampshire result, the race for the Democratic nomination is looking suddenly more interesting. Meanwhile, those crazy Republicans vacillate between McCain and Huckabee… it's nice to see the conservatives riven by internal conflict for a change.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-26426197669433454562007-12-13T09:49:00.001+11:002007-12-13T11:03:02.930+11:00Freedom '08The Herald has an <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tough-laws-to-protect-pope/2007/12/12/1197135558228.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tough-laws-to-protect-pope/2007/12/12/1197135558228.html">exclusive</a> today about the New South Wales Government's plan to enact emergency laws during next years World Youth Day conference. Leaving aside the religious aspect, I have to say I'm getting a little sick of having my civil liberties periodically restricted just because I have the hide to live in a temperate, good-looking city. I'm all for encouraging tourism, but not if that entails John Watkins <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/13/2117443.htm?section=australia">acting like Pervez Musharraf</a> every time a big event comes to town. Emergency laws? Excuse me, but an appearance by a leading religious figure does not constitute an emergency.<br /><br />Perhaps the most alarming aspect of all this is the muted response laws like this seem to generate. Oh, sure, people grumble, in much the same way people grumble about their local council cracking down on overhanging branches. But the potential for abuse - and the precedent set by the government enacting new, authoritarian legislation whenever they feel like it - doesn't really seem to hit home.<br /><br />I'm not trying to pull a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html">Naomi Wolf</a> here. I don't really think Supreme Leader Watkins is about to start sending in the army every time someone stages a protest, and heaven knows Iemma has neither the drive nor the competence to do so. But people are getting so accustomed to having this or that event invoked as a pretext for upping the city's Laura Norder quotient, one begins to suspect that such an action would barely raise an eyebrow. It's sad, and it's dangerous. Remember <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKT51mXOEHI">these images</a>? They're out of place in any democracy, let alone one with a supposedly proud anti-authoritarian tradition.<br /><br />Of course, the NSW Opposition, many of whom would be quite happy as members of Generalissimo Franco's goon squad, didn't object to the laws per se, at least not as the bill was being debated (to their credit, the Legislative Review Committee did raise serious objections). Instead, the Libs' Jonathan O'Dea took the opportunity to provide a few helpful suggestions of his own:<br /><br /><blockquote>In light of the recent APEC experience, I particularly urge the Government to consider better ways of dealing with the ABC Chaser team. The boys are quick and imaginative in their endeavours to amuse television audiences. Asking them to sign a post-APEC good behaviour bond would only set their minds in overdrive. I therefore suggest that the New South Wales Government provide funding to get them out of Australia for the week. How about sending them to the Kalahari Desert to investigate humour in 45 degrees heat or to Russia for lessons on how to behave solemnly? Perhaps they could be sent to China and India, as Premier Iemma was before the recent Federal election to save Kevin Rudd from further embarrassment.</blockquote><br />Quite. The Chaser provided the only moment of sanity of the entire APEC saga. It cannot be allowed to happen again.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-74937248883999739842007-12-12T07:45:00.000+11:002007-12-12T11:42:48.211+11:00Doris Lessing's War on EverythingSo Doris Lessing has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/net-dumbs-us-down-nobel-prize-winner/2007/12/10/1197135340009.html">used</a> her Nobel Prize acceptance speech to hit out at the internet. The internet! What is behind this? Could it be a simple case of viewing one <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Wikipedia-lolcat.jpg">lolcat</a> too many? Or was Doris, like <a href="http://xkcd.com/214/">so many of us</a>, just annoyed to have found herself spending an hour idly clicking around Wikipedia, touring through the pages on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamander">salamander</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism">mercantilism</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_darin">Bobby Darin</a> only to lose track of her original purpose?<br /><br /><br />Oh no. Lessing is worried that the internet is leading us to our ruin, specifically by <em>dumbing us down</em>. We are turning into a society of ignorant, barely literate, jaded automatons. People specialise in one thing - computers, most gratingly - and don't stray from their field of expertise. Nobody reads anymore. Young people know nothing, and also quite probably chew with their mouths open, although Lessing doesn't find time to mention it.<br /><br />Could she be right? I think, if anything, I read more - and more widely - than I would if the internet had not been invented. Here is a snapshot of browser windows I had open when I chanced upon the Lessing article. (Please note it was a quiet-ish day at work.)<br /><br /><br /><strong>1. The Sydney Morning Herald - "Net dumbs us down"</strong><br /><br /><br />Even without the internet, I would almost certainly read a print newspaper every day. I always used to. But equally certainly, I would read different stuff. The article on Lessing would probably never have reached me, hidden as it was in the Tech section, which is generally of no interest to me, and gets thrown out every Saturday, when I <em>do</em> buy the print <em>Herald</em>. In fact, in eradicating the physical barriers between interest sections, the online version probably leads to more branching out of one's interest area, not less. What's more, when I buy the print <em>Herald</em>, I read it on the bus, which takes away time I would normally spend... reading a book.<br /><br /><br />On the other hand, when I have the paper in hard copy, I always end up doing the cryptic crossword, which I don't like online. It's too hard to mark up, and too easy to cheat.<br /><br /><br /><strong>2. The Guardian, </strong><a href="http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/classics/story/0,,2224031,00.html"><strong>A Hunger for Books</strong></a><br /><br /><br />The full text of Lessing's speech, which I googled on reading the article to ensure she wasn't misquoted or taken out of context by the Herald. Checking the context seemed like the fair thing to do. One hardly needs to point out... oh, go on then: this would not have been possible without the internet.<br /><br /><br /><strong>3. The New Yorker, </strong><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell"><strong>None of the Above</strong></a><strong>, by Malcolm Gladwell</strong><br /><br /><strong></strong><br />A neat summary of a debate about the statistical IQ gap between races and its implications, with particular reference to the Flynn Effect. I have been following this issue with some interest, although without any scientific expertise. See, it all started when Slate published a <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/">series of articles</a> by William Saletan in which he argued that the racial IQ gap was genetic and immutable. This did the rounds of the blogs, including <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/race_science.php">Matthew Yglesias</a>, where I was alerted to it, and naturally sparked a great number of fiery arguments, particularly when it <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178703/">turned out</a> that Saletan's reportage was informed largely by fruity white supremacists. (Duh.)<br /><br /><br />Being kind of a tosser, I can easily imagine that I would spend perfectly good caipirinha money on the print <em>New Yorker </em>in the absence of an online version. So I would've read Gladwell's article. But I would have had no context outside what the article provides - I wouldn't have read Saletan, nor would I have any idea of the uproar his work had caused. I could have <em>guessed</em>, but I wouldn't have experienced it myself. Also: it was reading Gladwell's blog, as well as the Freakonomics <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/">blog</a>, that convinced me to buy his books "The Tipping Point" and "Blink". Do we still think the internet discourages reading?<br /><br /><br /><strong>4. </strong><a href="http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLD_en___AU225&q=150+uk+pounds+in+euros"><strong>150 UK pounds in Euros</strong></a><br /><br /><br />This is actually for work. I am the office converter of pounds to Euro, miles to kilometres, etc. I keep trying to tell my colleagues about Google Conversions, but they insist that I "do it quicker". This is quite possibly the result of belonging to a generation that has never had cause to doubt that the answer is at our fingertips. If something unfamiliar - a place, a person - comes on the news, someone immediately goes to the computer (that would be the <em>spare</em> computer, beside the television) to find out about it.<br /><br /><br />How can this mean we know less? We might retain less arcana, because we know we can always retrieve it later. But I even doubt that part, because the internet lends itself to broadening the search, so that each piece of trivia eventually gets a context, something to link it to all the other stuff we've found out about. There's no better way to remember something than to relate it to what you already know. I read that online somewhere.<br /><br /><br /><strong>5. The Economist, <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10251226">Defeat for Hugo Chávez</a></strong><br /><br /><strong></strong><br />Like the <em>New Yorker</em>, the <em>Economist</em> is something I can imagine reading in print... or half-reading in print, and then leaving, crumpled, under the passenger seat of my car along with the half-read, crumpled <em>New Yorker</em>. (This is slightly more than just an educated guess. I hereby apologise to the old-growth forests of Tasmania that have died for my sins.) The refined classical liberals at the <em>Economist</em> take a dim view of Mr Chávez, but that's okay, because John Pilger thinks he's God's gift to poor people, and I saw Pilger's film too. It's all about balance.<br /><br /><br /><strong>6. Programme for International Student Assessment, </strong><a href="http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html"><strong>2006 results</strong></a><br /><br /><br />I was led to this through an Economist <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10251324">article</a> outlining the educational attainment of various countries. I wanted to check how Australia measured up. Not too badly, it turns out - our achievement band contains some reassuringly Scandinavian countries, as well as some Asian New Economies. Our performance in reading is slipping, though. Must be all that internet surfing.<br /><br /><br /><strong>7. Crikey: </strong><a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20071211-Brendan-Nelson-Man-without-honour-rat-coward-or-liar-you-decide.html"><strong>Brendan Nelson: Rat, coward or liar... you decide</strong></a><strong>, Guy Rundle</strong><br /><br /><strong></strong><br />Crikey is irreverent, contrarian, openly non-objective, and obsessed with the insiders' world of politics and media. It publishes contributions from Gerard Henderson and Robert Manne and GetUp and David Flint. It gets down and dirty with polling-by-electorate data and publishes anonymous "Tips and Rumours" from deep within Canberra's bowels. Its readers - who can and do comment on each story - are sometimes morons and often astoundingly well-informed. In short, Crikey epitomises much of the internet's effect on political discourse. Would we be better off without it? Like hell we would. Consider the Lie Matrix in the Rundle article I linked, showing the rather unpalatable choice of interpretations one has regarding Brendan Nelson's backflip over "never voting Liberal":<br /><br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5142870361520439186" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="115" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTP4DCJ92qSyPsylcX49YWD2zwWT8wQynlO3scbXINc3KkrPCmgY5hs2p8JC3z_LLvXtSgbucOzgHehoNyeCilXDumzKdaJ2FxXl04DJojxeucDbpmsDbB-7xvEoAEgN1I2Xf70JJxMMsk/s400/noname.bmp" width="431" border="0" /><br /><br /><p>You don't get <em>that</em> in Doris Lessing books.</p><p align="center">* * * * * * * * * * *</p><p>It's probably too easy to take an 88-year-old to task over her views of the internet. It's certainly easy to wax nostalgic about books, and I share her wish that more people would read more literature. But this notion of a past populated by erudite book-readers is at best overly romantic, and saying the internet is dumbing people down is erring dangerously close to grumpy-old-lady knee jerking. People still read. People still read <em>books</em>. As for the internet, it is what you make it: there's a lot of crap out there, but there's a lot of useful things, too. We need to spend less time bitching about Yoof These Days and more time teaching people the difference.</p>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-83662589070444368912007-11-30T09:37:00.001+11:002007-11-30T10:08:25.218+11:00Rich BusinesswomanI was googling for other examples of rich businesswomen married to successful pollies, and, well:<br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5138397585241819330" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFNMJoT9WEFENNgoM3SaJFnxvhDkc_u26nvEvxzgEc4-WASFNdG5w-DiOevnJ0eieDPzaMrT_Bxz19jdjmHzsh9d9tqRACA8Jc1TD2VU2s0h4AouxXgJtdmIVEucjIOp-Ud8L20s6afF9F/s400/rich+businesswoman.bmp" border="0" />Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-73200526955636276002007-11-29T17:45:00.000+11:002007-11-29T20:37:13.389+11:00Women's Business<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/its-the-political-battle-of-the-sexes/2007/11/29/1196037056509.html">Much is being made</a> of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is suddenly <em>OMG a woman</em> and that her opposite number, a <em>Tor</em>y for chrissake, is also of the female persuasion. Kevin Rudd is also rather proud of the fact that there are four women in the Labor <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudds-team/2007/11/29/1196037050718.html">cabinet</a> - Gillard, Jenny Macklin, Nicola Roxon and Penny Wong - which tops the female count of even Howard's most feminine cabinet.<br /><br />It's a brave new world. One would expect nothing less from a man who, apropos his wife's dodgy industrial relations practices, proudly <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/therese-rein-was-a-stayathome-mum/2007/05/26/1179601714978.html">asserted</a> that his wife was no appendage of her husband. Nosir, although she did subsequently <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/26/1179601711711.html">sell</a> her multi-million dollar business in deference to her husband's political career, apparently content to spend the next God knows how long obsessing over curtains à la her Lodge predecessor. Oh, well. I suppose if manchester doesn't prove fulfilling she can always fill the time planning her Hillary manoeuvre.<br /><br />Nor, when you think about it, is four women in a cabinet of twenty much to write home about. Forty years since the Second Wave, and we're only at 20%? Germaine Greer will be outraged, if she ever snaps out of her current Oz-dissing, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631496604.html">young-boy-admiring</a> daze.<br /><br />I'd like to think we've progressed beyond the stage where a leader has to explicitly state that he didn't choose women for his cabinet just for the hell of it. But the fact is, however much we may snigger at the Coalition MPs who've suddenly discovered the joys of family life after all these years, politics is damned unfriendly to those who want any kind of balance in life. The hours are ridiculous, the job stressful, the travel requirements strenuous. I think that, more than, say, a lack of ambition or qualifications on the part of women, or sexism on the part of men, is the reason for the current gender imbalance in politics. Until the paradigm shifts to a point where women and men actually do share the business of child-rearing equally, women are going to be underrepresented in Cabinet, in the outer ministry, in Parliament.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-1983132997437856672007-11-29T13:09:00.000+11:002007-11-29T14:00:31.836+11:00Brendan NELSON?I guess they thought Malcolm Turnbull's policy agenda was just far too likely to be well-received for the modern Liberal Party to take on board. Turnbull has all these crazy ideas about republics and reconciliation and signing Kyoto and failing to hate on brown people. It's Just Not On. Not what liberalism's About. Just <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/ready-to-go-like-a-bull-at-a-gate/2007/11/28/1196036982626.html">ask Miranda Devine</a>. I'm not saying Nelson is a right-wing maniac - I don't think he is - but his election as Liberal leader, with the support of the Liberal right faction, is a clear sign that the Liberals have no intention of learning from their mistakes.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, the Libs have gone insane. Contrary to current conservative wishful thinking, this election was about more than a repudiation of John Howard, the man; witness <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/went.htm">Turnbull's results</a> in Wentworth and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/kooy.htm">Petro Georgiou's</a> in Kooyong versus the debacle in, say, Bennelong or Lindsay. Hard right doesn't work; moderate liberalism does. It's what people want. But to admit as much would be to take on much of Rudd's centrist agenda, thus, in the view of some Libs, depriving the party of its raison d'etre. I get that, but turning right just for the sake of opposition isn't going to get them elected. It'll just turn them into a bigger version of the NSW Libs. And then there's Tony Abbott's dark warning that he might challenge for the leadership at a later date. For a Howard man, he doesn't seem to place much stock in leadership stability.<br /><br />Serious questions about the future of the opposition aside, though, this existential crisis they're going through is highly entertaining, wets vs. dries vs. crazy uglies; my personal favourite moment was when Tony Abbott declared (with, one pictures, a hand over his heart): "I always regarded myself as the honorary president of the John Howard fan club." Aww. True believers can be so cute sometimes.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-76939382506476363812007-11-26T13:48:00.000+11:002007-11-26T16:37:36.348+11:00Oh Happy Day<p>Democracy works. It really does. I have never experienced such a jubilant mood, post-election: our <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/dons-partied-like-it-was-1969/2007/11/25/1195975870453.html">Don's Party</a>, nervous at the outset, quickly gave way to a mess of cheering, dancing, heckling, bloodthirsty speculation over the Liberal Party leadership, referring to one another as "comrade", and drinking penalties every time one's local member was spotted on the TV (much to the distress of the lone Joe Hockey constituent in the room; it seems the man cannot bear to be offscreen for more than a few seconds at a time).<br /><br />Some thoughts:<br /><br />- Maxine McKew mightn't be a seasoned politician, but she has star quality by the bucketload. Charming, articulate, natural. Her infectious speech on Saturday was the best moment of the evening. Guy Rundle summed it up in Crikey: "If the real deal happens, and John Howard is replaced by a FEMALE, LABOR, ABC JOURNALIST, how could you not see, in her sparkling eyes, a reflection of the light on the hill?"<br /><br />- By contrast, we got bored and turned the music back up in the middle of Rudd's acceptance speech. He might be Third Way, but Tony Blair he ain't.<br /><br />- If I say I'm glad Turnbull survived the bloodbath, do I get stripped of my True Believer credentials? I just think we need all the socially moderate Libs we can get right now, so we can forget that Howard's culture war years ever happened. The last thing this country needs is a hard-right, God-bothering opposition.<br /><br />- For the same reason, Tony Abbott cannot be allowed within 500 metres of the Liberal leadership. He'll rewrite the party charter to include excerpts from the Book of Revelations and run on a platform of banning condom sales and instituting Compulsory Mass for the Dole.<br /><br />- Quote from a "senior Liberal", post-Bennelong debacle: "f-cking Chinese". Dearie me: have they learned nothing?<br /><br />- The Queensland electorate of Leichhardt topped off a <a href="http://theouterlife.blogspot.com/2007/11/nothing-leicha-dame.html">highly entertaining</a> six weeks by posting the biggest swing to Labor in the country. A bravura performance all round. But the title of most entertaining seat this time around must go to Wentworth. It had everything: silvertail businessman Malcolm Turnbull versus human rights lawyer George Newhouse, the political retaliation of an embittered ex, anti-Zionist campaign managers, the accipurpose revelation that Turnbull had sworn at the PM over Kyoto, an illegitimate candidacy and subsequent suppression of vital documents, the "girl talk"/political interference intrigue of Caroline Overington versus Danielle Ecuyer, and the soap operatic culmination on polling day, when Overington actually slapped Newhouse. Ah, the eastern suburbs.<br /><br />- The talk is all about the Liberal implosion, but a secondary question - whither the Nats? - is equally salient considering Saturday's <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/sop.htm">primary vote</a>.<br /><br />- One gets the impression Alan Ramsey has been waiting a long time to file <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/howards-cronies-should-join-him-in-the-wilderness/2007/11/25/1195975868447.html">this piece</a>.<br /><br />- <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/divisive-leader-who-squandered-australias-hopes/2007/11/25/1195975870462.html">Ditto Paul Keating</a>.<br /><br />- Between the seat losses and the leadership quitting, we have quite the star-studded death list: Howard, Costello, Vaile, Brough… hate to sound greedy, but couldn't we have squeezed Danna Vale in somewhere?<br /><br />- Interesting times: the balance of power in the Senate will likely be shared among independent South Australian Nick Xenophon, Family First's Steve Fielding, and his mortal enemy, the Greens. God only knows what kind of under-the-table legislative deals we'll see this term. </p><p>- I know you're probably as worried as I was about how David "The Australian people are too smart to throw Howard out" Flint was handling the electoral heartbreak. Worry no more: apparently <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/Election-2007/20071125-Flint-The-conservative-coalition-will-be-back.html?display=thankyou#comments">he survived</a>.<br /><br />- The young NSW quasi-fascist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Hawke">Alex Hawke</a> is now a federal MP. He's an <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/05/17/1116095964742.html">unashamed critic</a> of the small-l liberal faction of his party and is said to have been instrumental in the downfall of John Brogden as NSW opposition leader. Be very afraid.<br /><br />- Primary vote in Lindsay, home of the leaflet scandal: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/lind.htm">38% Liberal, 52% Labor</a>. Combined elected representatives of Pauline Hanson's party, One Nation, and the Muslim-bashing Christian Democrats: 0. We're getting there.<br /><br />- In what may be an early sign that Rudd's prime ministership will, indeed, restore some compassion to the electorate, I actually feel a little sorry for Peter Costello right now. But I'm sure it will pass.</p>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-87591582094850155852007-11-22T16:53:00.001+11:002007-11-22T17:02:23.739+11:00Holy Crap<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXz7xPPvZ6Nw05KPjzupwhRtc28IpKHQ1WopA9LLuV4dspjlLJjuRGcqTEjuIklVxhzlOGa6-NCu_iEqMkKLXm-b_hIECzcuM5m2HdcJCxtIpuFXySRqlYQc7whFEhiZku4huDOEFhNQCg/s1600-h/0,,5763547,00.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5135538987045627362" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXz7xPPvZ6Nw05KPjzupwhRtc28IpKHQ1WopA9LLuV4dspjlLJjuRGcqTEjuIklVxhzlOGa6-NCu_iEqMkKLXm-b_hIECzcuM5m2HdcJCxtIpuFXySRqlYQc7whFEhiZku4huDOEFhNQCg/s400/0,,5763547,00.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Er, that would be the DAILY Telegraph.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-61166383459878553272007-11-22T11:47:00.000+11:002007-11-22T16:23:22.650+11:00Ala AkbaApart from anything else, a <a href="http://www.news.com.au/files/leaflet.pdf">leaflet</a> taking on the voice of Islamic activists is rendered somewhat less convincing when the signature <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir">rallying cry</a> is misspelled. Upon reflection, it was probably a deliberate style choice, but that doesn't make it any less dumb.<br /><br />Amusingly, Howard's in damage control mode, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22802021-601,00.html">condemning</a> the leaflets as racist, which is just a bit rich for my delicate sensibilities at this hour of the morning. After all, the man is not above encouraging bigoted fringe groups himself when he gets a spare moment, and both his policies and his past rhetoric leave him open to the charge of race-baiting. It's just the execution of the leaflets that was a bit off. He's condemning the blackface while upholding Jim Crow.<br /><br />This episode has made front-page news out of a long-existing fact: there are some scary folk in the hard right faction of the Libs. Sometimes I wonder how they can coexist with a man of <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Why-we-need-a-new-policy-on-refugees/2005/05/25/1116950753630.html">evident conscience</a> like Petro Georgiou. Fine, it's a big tent, but surely there are limits? Is a middle-class upbringing and a heartfelt devotion to cutting taxes really enough to keep these people together?<br /><br />I'm not entirely sure it is. If the Libs lose office, the post-election fallout is going to be vairy interesting. Stay tuned!Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-50629121580337581152007-11-19T16:18:00.000+11:002007-11-20T13:56:05.147+11:00Race for the BottomFor those of us who like to make a big deal out of our triennial accountability moments, the Senate group voting tickets are available online. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/groupvotingtickets.htm">Read</a>. Research. Vote below the line. Truly, it's exhilirating.<br /><br />I know roughly how my preferences are going to go, but I'm yet to work out the final details, in particular, who will win the coveted spot at the very bottom of my ballot paper. In the race:<br /><br /><strong>The Christian Democratic Party</strong><br /><br />Fred Nile's disciples want a moratorium on "Islamic immigration", citing a highly <a href="http://www.cdp.org.au/fed/mr/0703013f.asp">scientific</a> Daily Telegraph online poll which claims 99% community support for the initiative. Then, hilariously, they claim in the very next paragraph of their leaflet that "the Christian Democratic Party stands for religious freedom in Australia and worldwide". Religious freedom as long as you're, you know, Christian.<br /><br />To me personally, this is all the more injurious because one of their candidates, Paul Green, is from Nowra. Indeed, he's the Deputy Mayor of the Shoalhaven City Council, where he no doubt introduces a certain godly <em>je ne sais quoi</em> to the quotidian business of bypasses, garbage collection, and development approvals.<br /><br />Also, there are grammatical errors in their leaflets.<br /><br /><strong>The Citizens' Electoral Council</strong><br /><br />These people are beyond bizarre. Allow me to demonstrate:<br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5134729514559350226" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="399" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9YhocK5jK1uRc1Qa7RkB-LbyN0GD-fj7RI7KLH08xBc9Lok8txfsdh8dyG0v0cNlogj7fgHC2ZkRbg75acZ4q3qVfbcNLgUUiJfCcBblvtICyExKIi3BkQ1bULbRzJ-40XUd2buL7FYKk/s400/NEWCITPAGE1.jpg" width="277" border="0" /><br />The CEC are affiliated with the anti-Semitic LaRouche Organisation. They have also likened the scientific consensus on global warming to "<a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22071629-30417,00.html">Hitler-Nazi race science</a>". I'd explain the link between global warming and eugenics, but I think you have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand it. Sorry, folks.<br /><br /><strong>Pauline Hanson's United Australia Party</strong><br /><br />Evidently think "<a href="http://www.paulinehanson.com.au/">Pauline: You Know Where She Stands</a>" is a <em>good</em> thing. Well, the rest of Australia might've forgotten how much damage Pauline did in her pre-Dancing days, but I haven't. Onto the list she goes!<br /><br />In a touching concession to its likely visitor stream, her website asks rhetorically "Did you know that the Senate can say 'No' and overrule the government?" Actually, I did, in common with most of my primary-educated counterparts, but thanks for asking.<br /><br />So there you have it. Pauline Hanson: #1 representative for people without a goddamn clue.<br /><br /><strong>One Nation</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />It's just not the same without Pauline, is it? Still, according to One Nation's <a href="http://www.nswonenation.com.au/">own website</a>, we should vote for them because that way... they can do exactly the same stuff Howard's been doing without them anyway! Well, the race-baiting stuff, anyway. As calls to action go, it seems somewhat lacking to my ear, but then I am probably not One Nation's target audience.<br /><br />Clicking on "The Principles and Objectives of One Nation" will get you a <a href="http://www.nswonenation.com.au/www.zipworld.com.au/~triumph/obj.pdf">404 Not Found</a>, which I thought was vaguely amusing.<br /><br /><strong>The Nats</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Just cos I'm mean, and it would be funny.<br /><br /><br /><div align="center">******</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="left">With so many genuinely bad-crazy candidates to choose from, it looks like the garden-variety or single-issue right wingers - Family First, the Libs, the Shooters, et al - are not even in the running. (Neither are the Nats, if I'm being completely honest.) It's really a pity when they work so hard at being objectionable. But hey, there's always next election.</div>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-72076452009240213422007-11-19T11:37:00.000+11:002007-11-19T13:22:24.741+11:00Avendanos versus Andrews<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/11/18/1195321608999.html">Another distressing story</a> from the dark corners of the immigration department. After everything - the wrongful detention of Cornelia Rau, the deportation of Vivian Alvarez, the impassive response to hunger strikes by Baxter detainees, the cancellation of Mohammed Haneef's visa on 'character' grounds, the seven-year limbo of the stateless asylum seeker <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kateb_v_Godwin">Ahmed Al-Kateb</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Qasim">and so on</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_overboard_affair">and so on</a> - it should come as no surprise to anyone to discover yet another instance of merciless bureaucratic stonewalling. But it angers nonetheless. This family has lived here for 23 years. Their son, Rainiel, an Australian resident, is a 19-year-old with an intellectual disability. Because of the refusal of immigration ministers - first Vanstone, then Andrews - to intervene on behalf of the Avendanos, Rainiel faces the choice of moving to the Philippines with his family, or staying in his country of birth without them.</p><p>This is profoundly wrong. Whatever interest Australia has in securing its borders, however strong a 'message' it wants to send out to would-be illegal immigrants, there is no justification for such cavalier treatment of any human being – let alone a family that has resided here peacefully for almost as long as I have been alive.</p><p>Kevin Andrews hasn't had long as Minister for Immigration, but in his short tenure he has proven himself quite Amanda Vanstone's equal as far as embarrassing Immigration portfolio incidents are concerned. My friends and I sometimes play a sort of parlour game: which Howard cabinet member would you get rid of, given the chance? I've always been an Abbott girl myself, and Abbott's performance of the last few weeks hasn’t done a great deal to dissuade me. But if I were playing the game with a completely open mind, minister for minister, Andrews is as good a reason as any to vote the Howard government out on Saturday. Unfortunately, his is a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/menz.htm">safe</a> Liberal seat - but an Andrews on the Opposition benches is infinitely preferable to Andrews as Immigration Minister.</p>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-45467899635007369412007-11-15T18:09:00.000+11:002007-11-16T12:06:15.029+11:00Newsflash: Talkback Caller Has Reactionary Views<p>I'm not entirely sure why the AAP felt the need to dedicate a news story to a talkback call by a diehard Liberal, but <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/rudd-skirts-round-gillard-grilling/2007/11/15/1194766822747.html">here it is</a> in all its trivial glory. Looks like the subtext of the Libs' message – DON'T TRUST THE LESBIAN COMMIE REDHEADS - is getting through, at least to their <em>Land</em>-reading, John Laws-listening 'base'. Of course, the Coalition is probably hoping that their scare campaign about the deliberately barren, non-skirt-wearing communist union boss Gillard will transcend the redneck ouvre, but I wouldn't count on it. Gillard is a pet target of conservative politicians and pundits, but actual voters, it turns out, quite like her. Michelle Grattan, peace be upon her, had a good <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.smh.com.au/am/2007/09/30/index.html">piece</a> about this dichotomy a few weeks ago.</p><p>In other beatup news, Kevin Rudd does not hate the Australian flag, in fact he loves it dearly, but doesn't feel the need to drape himself in it at every occasion. Nice deflect. I would add that I find it bizarre the way uber-patriots expect the flag to be waved at every conceivable opportunity. If anything, I would expect a patriot to be offended by the idea of the flag being appropriated for such a transparently partisan cause as a Labor Party launch - the implication being that Labor faithful are <em>more Strayan</em> than their Liberal/National counterparts. Surely that's not what the flag is for?</p><p>Then again, what would I know? I don't even like the Australian flag.</p>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-56256848479222242902007-11-02T16:54:00.000+11:002007-11-02T17:27:12.319+11:00How Do You Say "Quelle Surprise" in Urdu?From the <em><a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22688973-601,00.html">Australian</a>:</em><br /><br /><blockquote>CONFIDENTIAL emails between top AFP agents and a senior public servant advising Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews indicate that there was a secret plan to thwart a decision by a magistrate to release then terror suspect Mohamed Haneef on bail. The emails show the AFP was aware of a weekend "contingency" plan to ensure the Indian doctor would remain behind bars by having Mr Andrews revoke his visa under the Migration Act in the event of bail being granted by Brisbane magistrate Jacqui Payne on the following Monday. </blockquote><br />No shit.<br /><br />This goes back to what I was saying earlier about public confidence in politicians. I don't know a single person - not a single one - who will be surprised by this revelation, or whose opinion of either Kevin Andrews or the Australian Federal Police will change as a result. We know now, after all, that the 'contingency' <em>did</em> arise, and that Andrews <em>did</em> revoke Haneef's visa. In doing so, he was merrily disregarding, constitutionally speaking, the longstanding principle of separation of powers, and functionally speaking, the even longer-standing principle of habeas corpus. Here's a rule of thumb: if you think what you're proposing might contravene the Magna frigging Carta, you ought to consider the possibility that <em>it's a very bad idea.</em><br /><br />Not Kevin the Lesser, though. He's <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22689943-26103,00.html">adamant</a> that he and his department acted impeccably throughout the Haneef case. Labor's Tony Burke, who at the time couldn't support Andrews quickly or loudly enough, is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/judicial-inquiry-essential/2007/11/02/1193619107891.html">calling for</a> a judicial inquiry, presumably one unaffected by political interference. And so the world turns: the outraged among us grow a little more outraged, the minister concerned ducks for cover, and the apathetic continue not knowing or caring. Plus ça change.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-81644782895726472742007-11-02T16:38:00.000+11:002007-11-02T16:41:56.888+11:00Parenthetical of the DayGuy Rundle writing in <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/Election-2007/20071102-Rundle-groping-for-grace-in-the-catacombs.html">Crikey</a> about Tony Abbott:<br /><blockquote>(Mind you, Howard’s unfortunate follow-up to cancer insensitivity – ‘well Tony’s taken his lumps’ – can only be described as Anglican par excellence. Dame Edna would be proud.)</blockquote><br /><p>Snigger.</p><p> </p>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-90646162671311410982007-11-02T11:29:00.000+11:002007-11-02T16:46:31.264+11:00Nothing Leicha DameWho knew the far-north Queensland seat of Leichhardt could be this much fun?<br /><br />Leichhardt, you'll remember, is the site of the unusual tri-partite contest between the Liberals' Charlie McKillop, the Nationals' Ian Crossland, and Labor's Jim Turnour. It has already caught our attention once this election campaign when Crossland <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22597854-5012863,00.html">opined aloud</a> that although he was no sexist, Leichhardt is "no seat for a woman". And meant it.<br /><br />Now McKillop is once again the subject of no-fault-of-hers controversy. Ben Jacobsen, Family First candidate for Leichhardt and every bit as far-right as that implies, has been <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/01/1193619061412.html?s_rid=smh:top5">rebuked</a> by Steve Fielding for insisting that McKillop make her sexuality a matter of public record. McKillop must be cursing the day gender stereotypes were invented; they've bitten her from both sides during this contest. Can't a female ex-prawn trawler be left to campaign in peace?<br /><br />One would've imagined that Family First have been hoisted on the sexuality-publicising petard <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/28/1193555533377.html">quite enough</a> for one week - Steve Fielding evidently thinks so - but that's the trouble with pathological homophobia: you never know when it might rear its ugly head (cf: Bill Heffernan).<br /><br />And that's the point here: Jacobsen's statement wasn't a one-off gaffe. Impolitic it certainly was, but claiming that people have "the right to know" about a candidate's sexuality is really just a logical extension of the entrenched Family First principle that consensual sex between adults is everybody's business. Hence, banning pornography and prostitution; hence banning gay marriage and denying gay couples the full complement of rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. Philosophically speaking, the "gaffe" and the policy are coming from the same place. Politically, Fielding's rebuke is the right thing to do, but ideologically it makes no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />Incidentally, rare props to Peter Costello, for saying, explicitly, that this "doesn't reflect well on Family First". Damn right, it doesn't.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-65263142164615460042007-11-02T10:51:00.000+11:002007-11-02T16:47:26.715+11:00I'm Not Sure They're Fully Grasping Her Concern #2A heartfelt <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/beauty/medias-ugly-looks-obsession/2007/10/31/1193619030819.html">piece</a> from Kate Seear in the Life & Style section of smh.com about the media's treatment of powerful women. Seear is concerned about the way in which women are evaluated not for their contributions to public life, but rather for their looks, bodies, hairstyles, clothing, etc.<br /><div><div></div><br /><div>I pretty much agree with Seear's sentiments, which might be why I found it so laughable that smh.com concurrently ran a poll - <em>in the same section</em> - asking readers to evaluate the "political styles" of various politicians. And no, they don't mean rhetorical or managerial or policy styles:</div><div> </div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5128073636673889474" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMa94k0xb9oWNq2wl3Qdp7QCaYjFDKP4HsyXQRtbUizwEId-VQKmkihcPhDXSbYym54b4UQAkWQfNifys8HRvIe81N61dvbDucHrRB3EaqWoWKiOxrEqgDcsqk81Y0s7aISHlH6K2gA1Ar/s400/poll.bmp" border="0" /><br /><br /><div></div><div></div>The good news, I guess, is that it's not confined to women - it's also about men who dress like women. I don't think Alex Downer is ever living down those fishnets.<br /><br /><div></div></div>Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6462221128079277864.post-43632545816983285932007-10-31T16:11:00.001+11:002007-10-31T16:36:47.334+11:00The Best Reason to Celebrate HalloweenLetter to the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1">Herald</a>, reprinted verbatim:<br /><br /><blockquote>Australia is rich with its own unique culture, customs and traditions. Why introduce Halloween, which has strong roots in paganism, witchcraft and devil worship? Our Christian heritage teaches us to have no part with the occult.<br /><br />Parents, do you want your innocent children involved in dangerous evil tricks, deception and Satanism?<br /></blockquote><br />I'm satisfied. American or not (and it's not), Halloween has all the right enemies. Trick-or-treaters, go forth and multiply. There are gold coins at my house if you're in the neighbourhood.Lucyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08985569265800851409noreply@blogger.com1