Red Rag

Two quick thoughts on the spying thing:

• Would everybody please stop talking about “bugs”. They intercepted phone calls as they were transmitted to satellites; they did not sneak into Kofi’s office and stick microphones in the pot plants. It doesn’t make it right, but it’s nonetheless an important distinction.

• Why did Clare Short wait until after the war to out the warmongers’ dirty tricks? It would have been far more effective to have raised the issue when it was happening, and it might have changed the course of history. I’m a bit disappointed.

Young conservabot Alan Anderson has finally toed the party line on those bloody poofters that are plotting the downfall of civilisation. I usually disagree with Alan, but then again at least his arguments are usually internally consistent. This time he’s chucked that out in favour of earning some cheap conservative cred.

First, he says that the term “marriage” should be ruled out for same-sex couples because “a marriage is and always has been a union between a man and a woman.” He goes on, “Should bigamists be allowed to register their multiple marriages?” Well, no, I don’t think they should, but thanks for offering that example, Alan. There certainly was a time, and there are still some places where “marriage” extended to a man and his several wives. We can conclude therefrom that the definition of “marriage” is flexible and has been altered over time to meet our social needs.

That’s really academic, though. Alan doesn’t even believe that homosexual couples deserve the equal rights that could be called a marriage, let alone a civil union. Why? Because gay people can’t reproduce. This has always struck me as an odd proposition. We know that Australia’s (and most Western nations’, for that matter) birthrate is falling, because people don’t want to have children any more. Are childless relationships worthy of the “marriage” moniker?

What about infertile couples — or do they get points for trying? Alan argues that “Rights to IVF treatment… flow from the child-raising function”, which is funny because if your “child-raising function” was operating properly you presumably wouldn’t need IVF in the first place.

I’d like someone to explain how offering equal rights to gay couples would cause heterosexual marriages to be any less secure. If Fred and Bob get married, does that mean George and Mary down the road have to file for divorce? It’s not a zero-sum problem. If we can increase Fred and Bob’s happiness and security without hurting George and Mary, we should do so.

Keith Windschuttle, late last year:

The responsibility of the historian is … to stand above current political squabbles and aims and objectives and to try and get at the truth.

What the historians of Aboriginal Australia have done is they’ve taken sides in disputes.

They’ve supported one faction over another.

Keith Windschuttle, yesterday:

Windschuttle told a conference in Perth yesterday the indigenous communities were the legacy of a 100-year-old policy of segregation that was continuing to fail Aboriginal people.

He said Aborigines would be better off in urban centres where they could have access to jobs and social services.

[…]

Yesterday, addressing a convention of the West Australian Pastoralists and Graziers Association, he mounted a spirited defence of the state’s 1930s chief protector of Aborigines, AO Neville.

Windschuttle said Neville was portrayed in the film Rabbit Proof Fence as a heartless, calculating bureaucrat, but he in fact was the opposite of racist and had properly supported the integration of Aboriginal people into the wider community.

Speaking before his speech, Windschuttle claimed Neville was right to seek the closure of remote Aboriginal communities.

“Remote communities are a legacy of our past,” he said.

“In the 1930s Neville advocated getting rid of them and it is a tragedy they have continued this long.”

If that’s not taking sides in a dispute, supporting one faction over another, I don’t know what is. Windschuttle is getting involved in “current political squabbles and aims and objectives”, which is the main accusation he levels at his opponents.

He doesn’t hold himself up to the same level of academic scrutiny as he demands of his opponents, and he doesn’t hold himself up to the same standards of political neutrality as he demands of his opponents.

The man is a hypocrite.

Update: When I first read about Windschuttle’s comments, I suspected he was launching an attack on native title. That was, after all, the reason he published his controversial book. Sure enough, that’s what he was on about, according to a story on page 6 of today’s West Australian:

Remote Aboriginal communities were a failure and native title claims were based on misrepresentation of Aboriginal culture, historian Keith Windschuttle said in Perth yesterday.

That Windschuttle’s understanding of Aboriginal culture is fundamentally flawed has been thoroughly demonstrated in the blogosphere. Even Ron Brunton rejects his pathetic attempts to deny that Aboriginal people had a concept of land ownership.

But what of his claim that we should simply move people off their traditional lands? I reckon that’s a cop-out. Most of the problems faced by Aborigines are found in both the cities and the bush. Health and education prospects are worse out back, but the same goes for whites who live in the country. Imagine the outrage if we said remote white towns were a failure, that their citizens were voting with their feet and moving to the cities, and that we should close them down? It’s fundamentally wrong, and we need to look at ways to revive remote communities generally.

In my opinion, the narrow rights that native title confers are the real problem with land rights. If that title confered real, economic title to the land, it might go further (but by no means all the way) to making those communities viable. But that’s just what Windschuttle wants to avoid.

Geoff Honnor, who can’t decide whether he wants to see the Passion flick, sums up my earlier post thus:

From what Rob can work out, it’s not entirely clear that Jesus was a Revolutionary per se, but he shapes promisingly as the sort of guy who would be a reliable Left faction vote in a tight corner.

Stephen Hill responded with one of the funniest comments I’ve read:

Jesus will never make prime-minister if he’s in the left. Although after Judas ratted on his faction and switched to the right it seemed all over for his leadership hopes. That was until Jude’s leadership prospects plummeted when it was discovered he pocketed 10 silver coins, which allegedly motivated his decision to cross the floor and support Herod’s stick-them-on-sticks act. This leaves the right looking for a new candidate, maybe they’ll lock in Mary Magadalene to pick up the womens vote.

Mind you Jesus’s curing lepers policy is getting some resonance among the community. However, this hasn’t stopped the left favouring the installation of Matthew for his tax-and-spend policies. Whether they’ll be able to knock Pilate of in the polls (despite his unpopularity) is still uncertain, there seems to have been some tension at the last supper.

Very good. A nine out of ten, at least.

My suggestion that Jesus was considered a political threat was based on an essay I wrote for a unit called “Society and Politics in the Time of Christ,” under the tutelage of Professor Brian McGing of the School of Classics at Trinity College Dublin. It was one of the most fascinating units I’ve taken. I’ve reproduced the essay (with a few minor grammatical alterations) below, if you’re interested in the subject.
Read the rest of this entry…

After nineteen (maybe twenty) mainly Chinese immigrants were drowned in horrific circumstances at Morecambe Bay, a Conservative MP made a joke about it:

[Ann] Winterton referred to two sharks who were sick of eating tuna and said: “So one said: ‘Let’s go to Morecambe for a Chinese.’”

Although Winterton refused to apologise, her leader stepped in and “effectively sacked” her from the party:

Howard described Winterton’s remarks as “completely unacceptable”, adding: “such sentiments have no place in the Conservative Party”.

“I deplore them and I apologise for them on behalf of my party.”

I tried to imagine what our own conservative leader, also a Howard, would have said in that situation:

Look, I wouldn’t necessarily make a joke like that, but you have to realise that there are people out there — ordinary Australians — who find that sort of thing funny. I welcome the fact that people can now make jokes about certain things without living in fear of being branded as insensitive or racist.

If only our Howard borrowed as much from his British counterpart as Latham does from Blair…

I haven’t seen Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ, but I’m looking forward to it. I’ve taken a casual interest in the debates about its alleged antisemitism, so I was interested to read Miranda Devine’s review of the film. She argues that the Romans come out of the film looking almost universally cruel, whereas the Jews exhibited both good and evil traits.

However, I was struck by her dismissal of early criticism of the film:

According to the New Yorker magazine, the scholars demanded 18 pages of changes, including that the two men crucified with Christ be described as “insurgents”, and not robbers. Much furore appears to have been whipped up by Christians whose ideological hatred of conservatives such as Gibson in their churches has overwhelmed their faith.

Eighteen pages of suggested changes, and she picks this to demonstrate that the critics were driven by a hatred of Gibson’s politics?

It’s pretty much a matter of historical record that the two sinners crucified beside Jesus were not mere petty crooks. Crucifixion is a time-consuming, expensive, and public punishment. It wouldn’t have been used to execute “robbers”, because it simply wouldn’t have been worth the effort. Insurrectionists, on the other hand, would almost certainly have been crucified. At a time when the Jews were becoming increasingly unhappy with their situation, the Romans would have killed suspected rebels in the most excruciatingly painful (and public) way possible.

It’s likely that Jesus himself was crucified because he was considered a political threat. That’s why the Jewish leaders tried to trap him into claiming he was the King of the Jews. There was plenty of circumstancial evidence, too — Jesus was forever speechifying about the new Kingdom that would follow the current one, he took his followers into the desert to do who-knows-what kind of training, and it is believed that his closest companions included a former member of the Sicarii (a group known for assassinating political leaders). I’m not saying that Jesus was a revolutionary, just that there was enough evidence for the Romans to be concerned, and ultimately to crucify him for claiming sovereignty over the Jews.

Maybe the critics do hate Gibson, but the example offered by Devine shows that they wanted the film to reflect the best available history of Jesus. She should be thanking them for their help.

Michael Totten and Tim Blair have slammed Adbusters‘ Kalle Lasn for his latest editorial. I’d like to join them.

Adbusters raises a lot of problems with consumer culture — over-reliance on medication, the commodification of human relationships, etc — without really offering any solutions. The fact that it responds to the scourge of glossy marketing with (wait for it) more glossy marketing, says a lot. Still, the problems themselves are worth thinking about, so I usually pick up a copy when I see it on the news stand.

Not any more. Not after this absolutely disgraceful editorial:

Here at Adbusters, we decided to tackle the issue head on and came up with a carefully researched list of who appear to be the 50 most influential neocons in the US (see above). Deciding exactly who is a neocon is difficult since some neocons reject the term while others embrace it. Some shape policy from within the White House, while others are more peripheral, exacting influence indirectly as journalists, academics and think tank policy wonks. What they all share is the view that the US is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image. And half of the them are Jewish.

Who gives a shit? It’s not the fact that they’re Jewish that makes their politics repugnant. If Adbusters can’t be bothered debating the issues, if it would prefer to make antisemitic references to a sinister Jewish cabal, then I’m fucked if I’ll give them my money again.

Thankfully, most people have responded similarly. While many of the comments at the Adbusters site are from right-wingers (who no doubt found the site via Totten and Blair), a great many are not. The opinions of
Jonathan Dresner, Sanjay Wagle, Kim Richards, Jeremy , Abby , and Andrew Sain were interesting. Here’s my brief response to Lasn’s atrocity. I pretty much agree with Dan. I would encourage you all to add your own.

After all, if it’s good enough for Mr Mahatir bin Mahatir of Malaysia…

The latest Newspoll reveals that about 50% of voters think the top rate of tax is too high. It also shows that about 72% of voters think spending on health and education should take priority over tax cuts. The Australian, which commissioned the poll, has long been lobbying for tax cuts at the higher end of the scale.

These results create a problem for them — a bare majority agrees with the paper’s tax views, but an overwhelming majority thinks the paper’s priorities are wrong. Never fear, there’s a simple way to avoid dealing with the problem: blame political correctness:

As pollster Sol Lebovic points out, voters may be giving the “socially acceptable” answer on what they want the Government to do with the surplus. In other words, while their consciences may be uneasy about cutting back the welfare state, their gut instincts are telling them we should be cutting back taxes. Mr Howard and Mr Latham would be well advised to respect the voters’ instincts.

It would be reasonable to conclude that while people would like to pay less tax, they would prefer to have decent health and education systems. But don’t let logic stand in your way — just blame PC and claim people don’t really mean what they say.

I finally managed to configure my computer so that I can use the wireless network at university. Matt’s worked with a little bit of tinkering, Manas’s brand new machine worked with no tinkering at all, but mine stubbornly refused for a couple of hours. I tried everything — except turning off the static IP that I’m using on the home network. Yep, it’s usually the simplest thing that gets you.

Here’s an interesting report:

A large majority (83 per cent) [of more than 1300 parents of school aged children surveyed] said they were satisfied or very satisfied with their child’s school. But in a survey of a further 1500 people who were not parents of school-aged children, less than half believed that standards of primary and secondary education were of a good quality.

In other words, Those who actually have contact with Australian schools think they’re doing a good job.

Meanwhile, those people who rely on second-hand information about our schools — such as the Prime Minister’s “some people in the community think our schools are crap” sledging — think they’re crap.

I wasn’t going to comment on the Redfern riots because I’ve been too busy to follow the story in any great depth. However, I’m going to take the unusual step of jumping in to defend John Brogden, who said:

I’d bring the bulldozers in because I think allowing this to happen every couple of years, which is what’s going to happen, will never fix the problem.

Chris Sheil claimed that

the sound of the NSW opposition leader urging the government to immediately adopt Israel-style tactics ah la the Palestinians was a shocking thing to hear.

Alan Grieve was closer to the mark:

The Brogden statement (I think he means The Block, not the whole suburb of Redfern) grimly exposes the guy’s inexperience and his willingness to jump anything, including the shark, for coverage, any coverage.

The fact is, Brogden turned existing policy into a hyperbolic sound bite. There can be no doubt that the physical environment in slums like Redfern contributes significantly to the social problems there. If razing the Block is necessary to replace it with something that approaches community standards, so be it. When people are proud of their neighbourhood, they’re less likely to tolerate this kind of behaviour.

In fact, that’s a point on which the Opposition, the Government and the Aboriginal community agree:

[Bob Carr] said the government was committed to ensuring redevelopment of The Block was sustainable and financially viable.

He said 68 of the original 91 houses on The Block had been demolished during the past seven years.

Only three of these houses still stood on Eveleigh Street and only one was still occupied.

All three of the houses would be demolished as soon as the resident was relocated within the next four weeks, Mr Carr said in a statement.

A further 20 houses on Lewis, Carolyn and Vine Streets would be demolished when plans were completed for the stage-one redevelopment of The Block next year.

Mr Carr said the state government did not own the land, which was why it was working closely with the local Aboriginal community and the Aboriginal Housing Company on redevelopment plans.

“The redevelopment of The Block is part of the overall redevelopment plans for Redfern/Waterloo due out in the next few months,'’ Mr Carr said.

“It will involve 62 new houses, greater open space and will incorporate all the latest approaches to crime prevention and community safety.'’

In forceful terms, Brogden argued that the necessary and ongoing redevelopment of Redfern would reduce antisocial behaviour. He’s right — but he’s counting on knee-jerk responses like Chris Sheil’s to make it look like Carr disagrees.

(Of course, redevelopment alone will not solve the problems in Redfern. Moreover, the question of police racism is entirely separate. I don’t know whether it’s a serious problem in Redfern, but the locals certainly think it is. It should be thoroughly investigated — not just in relation to TJ’s death, but in terms of day-to-day practices and attitudes.)

Update: Christopher Sheil’s thinks Brogden’s comment was more sinister:

Over at Kick and Scream, my friend Robert Corr has suggested that Brogden’s statement was merely a hyperbolic expression of existing Redfern redevelopment policies, which are supported by the NSW government, the opposition and Aboriginal representatives. This is incorrect. Brogden has called for the complete bulldozing of the Block and the dispersal of the Aboriginal population into other parts of Sydney, a policy condemned by Aboriginal leaders.

I didn’t read Brogden’s comments that way, but since Christopher is in Sydney and is no doubt getting blanket coverage of the riots, I’ll defer to his judgment. If Brogden is indeed calling for the dispersal of the Aboriginal population, then he is a fucksnap.

Last night Manas and I went to see Trio Toykeat and Karrin Allyson perform in the Perth International Arts Festival.

Allyson didn’t stand a chance after the manic Finns took to the stage. They played unique renditions of standards like The Girl from Ipanema, as well as their own compositions — everything was insanely hectic. They were awe-inspiring. And funny.

Unfortunately, they’ve finished their Australian tour. That means the only reader who stands a remote chance of seeing them any time soon is Vaara.

Oh, and a quick message to Ryan, who gave us his two $45 tickets: thanks, mate. It was a fantastic show.

With regard to federal pollies’ superannuation, Tim Blair asks:

So where’s the backflip? When Mark Latham first raised the superannuation issue, Howard — as Matt Price reported — promised to analyse Latham’s proposal. Which he’s now done. If he first rejected Latham’s proposal then later agreed with it, well, now we’re talking backflip.

Where’s the backflip? Are you blind, Tim?

Don’t pretend that Howard has always been open to reforming the system. He has consistently defended the status quo against all critics. It’s only when Latham threw in his two bob’s worth that he said he’d think about it, and eventually rolled over. As Matt Price reported elsewhere:

[I]it’s taken Howard 30 years in parliament, including eight as PM and five as treasurer, to come to his senses.

[…]

Only last month, in an interview with The Australian, Howard emphatically ruled out changes to the super scheme.

The speed of yesterday’s flip flop had heads spinning.

And again:

Asked why he had ignored repeated written requests by minor parties and independents to slash the scheme, he said the issue had become very sensitive.

“This debate, because of the decision taken by the Opposition, has become the focus so far as public interest in remuneration is concerned and I have decided to take it out of that focus,” he said.

Tim pans the “Sydney Latham Herald” (hyuk hyuk) for calling a spade a spade. What does his own paper say about it?

Why, that Howard’s done a backflip, of course.

John Howard’s decision on Thursday to bend over backwards to try to steal Mark Latham’s policy proposal on reducing superannuation for new politicians and judges is an extraordinary exercise in opportunism. The community views the superannuation entitlements of politicians as a capital-r Rort, but despite being in office for eight years the Prime Minister had not bothered to address it until the Opposition Leader promised he would. So much for Mr Howard calling his Labor opponent “Mr Flip Flop” for his frequent floating and often silent sinking of policy ideas.

Even Howard’s caucus saw it for what it was:

“So much for the Man of Steel,” one participant said yesterday. “Here we are, confronted with a problem in the first week of the parliamentary session in an election year against a new leader. And what does Howard do? He runs away at a million miles an hour.”

Howard’s spent thirty years (eight as Prime Minister) defending the scheme, but suddenly changes his mind when Latham says it’s rotten. The Liberals can see it was a backflip; Howard admits it was driven entirely by politics. Blair, though, tries to come up with technical arguments to avoid facing the bleeding obvious.

Pretty sad, really.

On 3 February, John Howard spoke in no uncertain terms about his tough on drugs position:

We have an uncompromising approach to people who are involved in drug trafficking…

Later that day, he popped in to launch the Liberals’ campaign in the seat of Stirling, offering praise for their candidate, Paul Afkos:

We (the Liberal Party) have in our marginal seats, seats we are hoping to win from Labor, … three very capable and very different candidates, all of whom have special links with their communities.

Each of them has something that is very important to national politics and that is life’s experience.

It appears that Afkos has some very special links with the community indeed: His life’s experience allegedly includes befriending a convicted drug trafficker, lending him your ute to cart around his drugs, and borrowing $300,000 of his drug money to finance your business ventures. Naturally, the Liberal Party disendorsed him.

Oh, wait — no they didn’t! He resigned, but the Liberal Party still thinks he’s a “high-quality, community-based candidate for Stirling”. So much for “an uncompromising approach to people who are involved in drug trafficking”.

Incidentally, Howard’s speech at Afkos’ campaign launch — at which the PM reportedly described his candidate as “in every sense a wonderful citizen of this country” — is not available at the News Room. Rewriting history, hiding his past, should publish every speech, yadda yadda yadda.

So, Howard took a baby-step towards Mark Latham’s eminently sensible proposal to cut politicians’ superannuation. At the press conference, the best question was surely this one:

Prime Minister, is this a flip or a flop?

Congratulations, Matt Price.

Runner-up? Michelle Grattan:

You’re not tempted to give away some children’s books now?

This is going to be a very entertaining year.