on a roll

Well, I have finally updated my blogroll, so hopefully I've caught all the moves and shakes that have happened in the blogosphere in recent months. Now, for some blogging...

woe is imre

Interesting. Imre Salusinszky, a rightie in a rightwing newspaper, going ahead and calling the Liberal Party's leadership woes "woes" for once*. Pretty funny actually, the seat of Bennelong getting more a view of Struggle Street at a time when, after ten years, lil Aussie Battlers like myself can justifiably ask, what has Howard done for us lately, or at least for the past decade? In some ways its good that he's been in charge for so long because for once there's a reasonable prospect for holding a leader and a party accountable, for immediate and medium term negative change, I mean.
Salusinsky quotes former deputy PM John Anderson as being “profoundly upset” by the Australian Electoral Commissions’s proposals: “With all the sincerity I can muster, I urge the Electoral Commission to look again at this.”
The Salusinsky story makes me wonder. Geez, with something so serious (or just seriously humiliating)—the page 2 story’s called “PM at risk of losing seat” after all—you wonder how the Rodent’s going to handle this one. Get heavy challenging the AEC’s decision? NSW Liberal state director Graham Jaeschke forshadows the defence to Salusinsky: “We’re concerned that the margin has been cut for no apparent reason.”
No apparent reason? I dunno. That doesn’t really sound like the AEC to me.

*Sorry, but for some reason, my computer crashes if I try to view News Limited sites, so I won't attempt to link to the story in today's Australian.

words spoken last night

Evening, on the couch. Me, tired red eyes, messy hair with about three inches of regrowth. Him, stroking my cheeks.
"Mum's beautiful eyes...mum's beautiful face....mum's beautiful hair..."
*
Dinnertime, at the kitchen table. Me, flourishing a dish that has taken several hours to prepare. Him, turning up his nose without even a trying a single mouthful. Expressed with the polite regret of a five star maitre'd,
"Harley can't eat that one."
*
Late evening, on the couch. Me, reading a book called I Love Cats.
"I love cats. Stripey cats. Spotty cats--"
"I love dogs."
Me, crafty.
"Oh, that's nice. And do you love your mum, too?"
"Love dogs."
*
Late evening, in bed. Him, sleepily looking at photos.
"...and we'll see your dad again soon, too."
Grin.
Me, teasing. "Who loves his daddy?"
Big grins. "Harley loves Daddy."
Then, casually: "Harley loves Mum."
Ahhh! Ain't coaching grand?

argh

So much to say, so little time. I'm sure I'm the most frustrated writer in the world right now. And it seems to be getting worse. For the past few weeks I haven't even been able to find the time to read a newspaper, or catch more than sniplets of the telly news, though I'm amazed at the way my ears prick up and I can stop whatever I'm doing whenever I hear the words "John Howard". He really is the Prime Minister I love to hate. I really heart John Howard after all, in some weird dysfunctional way.
(My son made me laugh the other day when I attempted a quick switch from a Wiggles DVD to Parliament and, after strangely tolerating it for a few moments he said, a little hopefully, "Big Brother?". Ah yes, it's a little embarrassing, but he's only two years old and he's already addicted to reality TV. The problem with Big Brother of course is that there's a lot of required viewing involved if you want to be able to properly overanalyse it to death. And as I'm sure any parent of a small child will tell you, seven in the evening is a really bad time.
Anyway, I still remember my Blogger password, so that's good. Back soon with some stuff. I live in hope.

show me the money

I thought we only had three dollars left to our name right now, but hey, we're rich! So, where can I dump this stock?

My blog is worth $45,163.20.
How much is your blog worth?

(via Gerry.)

PS. Go ahead, make my day...

chicken soul for the soup

A friend tells me he's helping out in a mate's chicken factory. I think he must mean the kind of place where desperate creatures peck themselves to death. But he reckons these particular birds, farmed for meat, have a comparatively good life. "All they do is eat and sleep, eat and sleep. They're happy enough."
I say it reminds me of something I read a few months ago, how scientists have found a way to grow steak in the lab. "Wouldn't that be the solution to all the cruelty?" I wonder.
But he shrugs. "I dunno. What if we're consuming more than just flesh when we consume animals?"
"You think we're consuming soul?" I say. He says maybe.
"Well, maybe the soul grows with it," I say.
Is it a soul worth savouring, though, if all the poor critter's doing is eating and sleeping all the time? (I'm jealous. Especially of the sleeping part.)
Later I dig out the clipping. Sun-Herald, undated, entitled "Fries with that lab burger?" It reports how, according to the journal Tissue Engineering, scientists at the University of Maryland in America have developed a technique of "scattering adult skeletal muscle satellite cells on a scaffold or carrier, such as a collagen meshwork...on thin membranes. Layers of flesh could be harvested to create edible steaks. Fish and poultry could also be made using the technique."
It's not quite GM green eggs and ham, but it's close. Actually it's closer to Gary Larson's Boneless Chicken Ranch, or that urban legend involving the fastfood chain using farmed mutant chicken torsos. But anyway...would you eat it, Sam-I-Am? I reckon I would, if it meant an end to animals suffering for us.

blog's not dead, it's only sleeping

Which is more than I can say for me and my insomniac two-year-old. Life's been...er..challenging for the past few months but there's light at the end of the tunnel. Hope to be back tending my blog very soon. I've been dwelling on the childcare debate (don't you hate the whole faux "mummy wars" thing? Talk about divide and conquer) and on the John Howard Party's problems with cloning Johnny Howard. Also enjoyed the schadenfreude courtesy of the Queensland conservatives last week, as I'm sure others did...So anyway, more of the same soon. Probably insanely boring to some, but as a blogger I get to please myself!
Hope you're all well.

they gotta be joking

Funny, isn’t it, how pro-Liberal journalists don't see leadership issues as "woes" when they're talking about the John Howard Party, even though I doubt Costello's a shoo-in (notwithstanding the single poll Tim Dunlop mentions).
In the Weekend Australian, Christopher Pearson was commenting on Liberal Party leadership dilemmas. It seems Treasurer Costello is safe--they're stuck with him; so loyal, such a magnificent Treasurer, so patient, etc. Geez, he's been heir apparent so long, even I want him to get his turn.
And pro-Liberal journos are aware that despite Costello's obvious problems, he's the best of a bad bunch. I mean, look at deputy leader, which Pearson debates. He is keen on Tony Abbott (loyalty, passion, man of conviction, etc.) To this end, he downgrades Downer (AWB, alas) and Brendan Nelson, describing Nelson as "flaky", "trendy", "cheesy" and "smarmy", someone whose "star is waning". (Ah, I love it when the Right attacks their own.)
So, looks like the Libs, according to Pearson, are stuck with Abbott & Costello after all. Funny, Beazley's suddenly looking like a serious contender.

hello, i mustn't be going

This site is in danger of looking abandoned, but the truth is far from that. Got waylaid but I'll be back here soon. If anyone's still reading by that stage (thanks guys).
Meanwhile, I assume I'm the last kid on the writer's block to have found out (courtesy of the Weekend Australian) about lulu.com. What a fantastic idea for frustrated writers. I've only dipped a toe into it so far, but I love it. Coming soon: the book of the blog as standard option for readers to purchase? Why not!
Also while I'm here just wanted to bookmark this whimsical site by a St Kilda artist, Julie Shiels, who I saw interviewed yesterday on Sunday Arts. I share her obsession with text so I feel an instant affinity to her work. Kind of reminds me of Arthur Stace and his chalk Copperplate Eternity.
See you all soon.

mass liberal exodus foreshadowed

Liberal minister Jackie Kelly confirms that the John Howard Party has no John Howard exit strategy:

"If Howard was to leave I couldn't see any point in staying on," she said yesterday.

Talk about a vote of no confidence in any of Howard's potential successors. And they make fun of the ALP's leadership dilemmas!

this is not my beautiful seachange

Culture shock and exhaustion from the move to town, a month with just a few hours break from parenting, and the fact that my new-old computer was killed by a power surge a day after we got our new phone line connected...all have meant blogging has been a distant dream lately. Unfortunately I lost loads of material, some nearly ready to post, when the computer karked it, not to mention digital photos and even a new site template with an updated blogroll (apologies to those who've changed their blog address in recent months and have yet to be updated here). So, a real bummer. At least this old-old computer still seems to work (touch wood...).
Still, things are settling down a bit and Harley starts daycare this Friday so I hope to get back into some kind of normal routine again soon.

P.S. How's Teflon John! The guy's unbelievable.

going down

We are moving in the morning so the computer's about to get switched off for a week or two. I'm told our new house does have a phone line, it's just that the wall socket is smashed up. Telstra has kindly offered to instal a new plug for $75, whereas my dad has kindly offered to instal one for free. Either way, I should be up and running again within a week or two. I might as well have a little holiday.
This has been our last night of living so close to the ocean you can hear it breathe at night. I'll miss it alot, but we're looking forward to adventures of a different kind. Meanwhile, take care and see you soon, with a bit of luck.

the whole grain of truth

You feel a sense of the pendulum swinging on the wheat scandal. Lately the conservative media has been scrambling to regain some credibility in their coverage of the wheat scandal. It’s like they’ve woken up and remembered that, oh yeah, the truth does matter. Now even the pro-Howard media scoffs at Howard as he squeals, “I did not have kickback relations with that dictator, Saddam Hussein!” Usually Howard-friendly, Murdoch’s Australian seems particularly peeved that it supported him on Iraq, only to be embarrassed by this scandal and have its political loyalties so awkwardly compromised:

This newspaper has always believed in the case for toppling Saddam and staying the course in Iraq - as well as backing the hard-working members of Australia's defence forces who put their lives on the line on behalf of all Australians. Which is why the detached attitude of the Prime Minister, and the frankly mealy mouthed explanations of senior government officials such as Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, are not enough. That any Australian, be they employed by the AWB, the commonwealth Government, or any other institution, might have been involved in funnelling money to Saddam that could have purchased bullets to use against coalition troops (or Iraqi civilians) is an outrage, and shows the real danger of a public service culture where plausible deniability means never having to say you're sorry.

The editorial sizzles away in irritation about the Government’s ‘woeful management’ and ‘continued mishandling’ of the AWB scandal and betrayal of the Australian people. In recent weeks the same newspaper was falling over itself to laud the Prime Minister as the best thing since sliced Liberal bread. Now it fumes, “The man ultimately responsible - the Prime Minister - fails to condemn the outrage but rather sits back and hopes the whole thing goes away.” Not so very "consummately effective conservative statesman" after all, eh?
Predictably, the Australian soon reverts to type with a wild attempt to sheet home the blame to Labor, imploring Howard to take up the only exit strategy they can think of: When all else fails, even if it’s abundantly clear to everyone that your party ‘incubated the monster’, blame the Left.
Howard has clearly been playing for time on this issue, waiting to see if he can divine something from polls and public sentiment, waiting to see how things unravel before taking up the thread, but time’s run out for him. What’s the bet we’ll see him take Murdoch’s advice and change tack, come over all faux-outraged, lament how he inherited this whole problem from Labor, and pledge to undertake long-needed reform? Still, he’s got a hard road ahead of him. Even Dennis Shanahan is predicting more doom and gloom for the Liberal Party. In a nice metaphor, Shanahan’s story is headlined "Drug Mule Defence to Hit PM" and in it he reports AWB is likely to try to reduce culpability by blaming others, namely the Government. Shanahan writes, “AWB is no long saying the Government didn’t know…Even if this is desperation from AWB, then desperation could suddenly make it much worse for DFAT and the Howard administration.*"
Reading the papers over the weekend couldn't have given the Rat any satisfaction, not when he's got his paws so painfully caught in the toaster.

[*Is it just me, or does the phrase “the Howard administration” sound unfamiliar to the Australian ear?]

all Liberal eggs in one basket

Despite their best efforts, the Right hasn’t managed to get much traction on Labor’s factions, have they? Why? Because the public is not stupid and knows that the Liberal Party is completely in the glasshouse when it comes to leadership woes. Let’s face it, conservative success has been handed to Howard on a platter. When Michael Duffy praises conservative success, it’s telling how much is invested in the great Liberal Party savior.
“John Howard gets this,” he writes triumphantly. “Labor doesn’t.” Have you noticed how it's always John Howard v. the ALP these days? Maybe the Liberal Party should be given a new name too: The John Howard Party.
Still, it is probably true that rebranding Labor will be essential if the Liberals are ever to be booted out of office. As the conservatives say, such rebranding in itself isn’t the worst thing in the world. As Duffy explains, “In 1944 the floundering United Australia Party, our main conservative party, accepted its irrelevance and dissolved itself. It was replaced by a fresh political force, the Liberal Party. The rest is history.” Whether or not rebranding must include the seemingly pointless step of dissolving and immediately reforming under a different name is debatable.
The John Howard Party has its own leadership problems ahead, so it seems particularly absurd for conservatives to dwell on internal Labor Party upheavals. It’s not as if Labor is the only party with slim pickings for seconds. Sadly for conservatives, none of the rest of the Liberal honchos are John Howard, and everyone knows it. What’s more, if Howard gets the Liberal Party all covered in wheat dust, they’re all going to get hoovered away with him as quick as you can say in cahoots with Saddam.
Desperate to divert attention from their favored party’s woes, Howard’s sympathetic media continue to hype up Labor’s leadership issues. Me, I don’t see the recent dramas as a long-term problem for Labor. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Sure, Beazley is turning out to be not much more than a political seat-warmer. Right from the start, he has felt like an “acting Opposition leader”. Yet, I don’t think the Liberals can count on Labor fatally imploding before the next election. One man can completely reverse a party’s fortunes, remember? If Howard can singlehandedly reinvent the Liberal party to the extent that Paul Kelly can argue Howard has created a whole new Liberal Party ideology” (related posts to come), then Labor has an equally good chance of repackaging itself and making itself attractive to voters too.
I agree with Tim Dunlop that the only real contender Labor offers right now is Kevin Rudd. It’s clear Julia Gillard is too untested, and still tainted by Latham, at this stage. She also generates such passionate opposition such that the merest television interview causes thousands of negative words to be written about her. Such polarity can be a good thing for a leader, since it indicates that her supporters are likely to be just as passionate. But she’s clearly too inexperienced.
And what future for the Liberal Party, post-Howard? Peter Costello "has resigned himself to not being recognised in his own country", surmised Dennis Shanahan in a recent interview. It doesn’t sound like someone much motivated to campaign for office. Unless he’s trying to ingratiate himself with feigned humility, a tactic that works a charm for Howard. Howard’s probably given Costello a very gentlemanly deadline by which he must warm up the public or put his leadership hopes aside. It’s also likely that Costello figures he may as well give PR a chance (kicking off with the Australian values speech, and seeking out recognition from the fluffy media). George Megalogenis describes Costello’s recent outings as a popularity pitch, playing the "patriot card to grey voters with the attack on Muslim fundamentalists, and the SNAG card to families", though there are doubts within the Liberal Party as to whether he is at all credible on these issues. Megalogenis reports that Costello is less popular with voters than Beazley, which seems hard to fathom.
In the end, Shanahan’s comment inadvertently reinforces the impression that Costello’s entire being reeks of half-heartedness. And Shanahan’s colleagues aren’t happy with Costello either. A recent editorial titled 'Simply too much tax' savaged him with lines like, "Treasurer PC must wake up to the facts", "whatever Mr Costello wants to claim", "however Mr Costello wants to slice and dice the numbers" and "the Treasurer’s statistical jiggery-pokery". Lookin' good, Pete! The newspaper editorialised, "The truth is the Howard Government is a high-taxing, big-spending, vote-buying Government". Remember this is the Rightwing media we are talking about.
While humbly bragging about his economic miracle to Shanahan-- ‘Costello looked back at his achievements as Treasurer and liked what he saw’, ‘suddenly…a record of unprecedented economic success in Australia and realised he’d achieved success beyond his wildest dreams’--yet Costello’s GST by his own reckoning has failed in its fundamental purpose and is essentially rendered pointless in retrospect (no doubt the states would disagree).
If not Costello, who? Or are we to imagine Alexander Downer getting another go? The conservative media doesn’t like him much either, if ‘frankly mealy mouthed’ is anything to go by.
This is surely the best time for what’s probably inevitable for Labor: big change. All in all, I remain optimistic we’ll see the John Howard Party given the flick at the next opportunity.

the shorter j-bo

Julia Baird in the Herald the other week argued ‘brevity is wit’ (not published online), for example in the case of blogging. I have to disagree. Some subjects are too complex for oneliners or for instant spin, just add links. Whether it’s critique or original thought, some ideas need space to be thought out and blogs are the perfect place for that. One of the best things about blogging is not having a word limit. Naturally, snappy wit is appreciated, but we can equally appreciate the lengths many bloggers go to at times to explain something or reason something out with us. That’s the beauty of having a scroll-bar. It’s liberating for online writers that a blog post can be as succinct as a few words and links or as long as an essay, if need be. I reckon long-windedness is fine so long as the answer is blowing in there somewhere. We are actually lucky we don’t have to fill a designated space each week, but simply create the space we need, as we need it. No wonder journalists get a little jealous of bloggers.
Which is all just a preamble to saying--some longwinded posts will be up soon. (So scroll me, Julia.)

crunch time

Sorry for the long silences, but I've been too busy to write (or read) much lately. Things have been getting a bit farcical around here, what with the construction fence going up around us yesterday and some hand-demolishing already starting in the adjoining house which my neighbors vacated a week ago. Meanwhile the bulldozers are champing at the bit and we've been packed up and boxed for two weeks, which is unsettling and irritating. As soon as the fence went up, passing tourists started stopping to gawk, and I'm inclined to put up a sign saying Don't Feed the Animals.
Still, the good news is that we finally move next week. The bad news is that the new dwelling doesn't have a phone line installed. So it may be awhile before I get to post some of the hundred posts I've been thinking about lately (you'll be happy to hear that a couple don't mention Tim Blair at all). Where there's a will, or an internet cafe nearby, there's a way. Right?
Anyway, thanks for dropping by and see you soon.

shunning stunt

Interesting. Tim Blair today quite freely admits to "shunning" Muslims:

Shun Australia’s 281,575 Muslims and you’re intolerant. Shun four million Howard voters and you’re progressive.

At least he's out of the closet, I guess.

hard reign oughta fall

Another conservative writer I can't take remotely seriously is Currency Lad. The other day, Naomi at Larvatus Prodeo drew a long bow, I thought, in generalising from an exceptional case of murder to society at large, concluding that "women just aren't safe in this society, not even from the men who claim to love them".
But quick as a flash, Currency Lad seized the opportunity for some mindless Left-bashing, with the idiotic comment:

"Progressives have trivialised marriage, life itself, turned education to mush and scoffed at any notion of absolute moral values. It’s hardly surprising there is a culture of death in our society."

Amazing that the Left has achieved this in just one decade of Opposition. Apparently far more influential in shaping social outcomes than the ruling Right. Geez, imagine what the Left will be capable of when it returns to power...global genocide, maybe?
A culture of death? Makes me wonder if, back in his formative years, Currency Lad switched off the telly before Bob Hawke got to complete his famous speech and heard only, "By 1990, no Australian child will be living--".

ass laughed off

Tim Blair continues to provide a laugh a minute. In this post, he jokes of thirsty East Africans that "at least they won't be travelling far" to get water, because it's raining in West Africa. Hey, why don't we cut Blair's water off and make him walk to Perth for a drink? C'mon, stop whingeing, it's not that far, surely.
Meanwhile, funnily enough, still nothing at Australia's funniest blog about the Prime Minister's latest lack of intelligence. Blair evidently cares more about George Bush's fake turkey than the real one running our country. Gobble, gobble.
Well, I could stay on Tim Blair all day, but my cheeks are starting to hurt from laughing so much, so I'd better go sober up with some more intelligent comment from other bloggers.

john who?

Imagine how much traction this guy would be giving this issue if we were talking about a Labor Prime Minister?

war on sex

In the comments thread on Tim Blair’s predictable bitchfest about Maureen Dowd, there’s an amusing tangent. A commenter wittily calling himself Christian Bin Laden, writes:

"The thing is there are women in country towns in Aust with little or no access to birth control, family planning services etc…. There are ALOT of real issues for Feminism to fix, but Modo is still fixated on the Monica Lewisky scandal of what 8 - 10 years ago???? Hello!!!"

(Don’t make the mistake of assuming the commenter is a genuine feminist. His or her earlier comment about Dowd was, "You can see by the look on her face what she’s really after is a good thwacking".)
What made me laugh in disbelief was the solution offered by Blair’s US-based blog administrator, Andrea Harris, who promptly responded:

"You mean they [Australian country women] have no access to the word "no"? Heck, this is a problem. They’re the best birth control device in existence, and they’re free. I’ll ship a crate of "noes" down there pronto. Until then, advise the young ladies to use the aspirin treatment (take one aspirin, place between knees, hold knees firmly together to keep the aspirin in place).
PS: you might want to check the closets of your local progressive "feminist" group for the various noes and spines they’ve removed from young women throughout the years in their campaign to make every woman on earth available to any passing male (under pain of being considered "frigid," "virgins," etc.), despite the fact that studies have shown that women who don’t have sex are not, in fact, in danger of dying from some painful disease or going mad. We let this campaign of theft go on for too long in the US and we still have a huge problem with bevies of young spineless women who can’t say "no." Don’t let it happen to your country!

Yeah, well preaching abstinence really works. In Harris's country, as a visiting American academic, Dr Jean Kilbourne recently told Paola Totaro, "at school the only sex education message [children] receive is a ‘just say no’ total abstinence message. That doesn't work, just as it didn't work for drugs. One of every 10 girls under the age of 20 becomes pregnant in the US."
And note, it’s commercial interests selling sex, not feminists.
Sorry, but young Australian women are not spineless if they are having sex. And in any case, who says the women in question are "young"? Older, maybe even (heck!) married women might need access to family planning services. But no, Harris thinks country women should just close their legs. Either that or issue chastity belts to girls on entering puberty, I suppose.
Harris displays a breathtaking ignorance about feminism when she writes that feminism has been about "making every woman available to any passing male". My fellow feminist readers and writers, could I just ask you, exactly how many times have you argued that women should be sex machines and not frigid virgins?
I hope Andrea Harris is doing the gene pool a favor and taking her Aspirin like a good girl each night.

dimple envy

Ha,ha. George Clooney has invoked Tim Blair’s ire by revealing "he is proud to be denounced as unpatriotic for questioning US policy because he wanted to be on "the right side of history". The interview Blair refers to was conducted to promote Clooney’s new films, described in the linked story as an "unflinching look at the ways extremism and political instability are fostered by the interests of big oil". Blair, who would clearly rather flinch, wants to fob Clooney off as just a pretty face.

"George, if you hadn’t won the genetic chin lottery, you’d be on the serving side of a McDonald’s drive-thru. You ain’t in the movies for your mind, boy."

Take that, George! On the chin!
If you read what Clooney actually said, he sounds rational enough. And this is the crux of it:

"If it's an attack, it's because you're asking questions," Clooney said.

The Left isn’t allowed to ask questions, because if they do, they’re "lunar", "vitriolic", "politically correct" and "unpatriotic".
Oh, and now "too good looking", as well. I guess we can live with that last one.

puffed up piece

It’s a bit silly to have to point this out to the Australian newspaper’s political editor of all people, but Dennis Shanahan is simply ignoring the fact that only about half the Australian people actually voted for John Howard. For example, I think the following edits are necessary to this paragraph:

John Howard is…someone half the Australian people have elected four times. He is the one half the people identify with and he is the one they half the people trust (even if they disagree with him) to be steady and to admit mistakes [say what?-Ed].
This is the Howard whose record, complete with backflips, blemishes and blots, they half the people accept as legitimate. This is the Howard who has established two-way communication with half the Australian people and who instinctively understands their the concerns, interests and aspirations of half the people like few leaders before him.

When Shanahan writes, "[Howard] has had more vitriol directed towards him than any prime minister since Billy Hughes" it just doesn’t ring true when you remember how much Paul Keating copped. And why must genuine criticism from the Left always be repackaged as "vitriol"? Is our democracy so feeble that the Prime Minister must be regarded as above reproach by all sections of the electorate?

"Much of what is thrown at Howard is, by extension, thrown at the Australian people: they are too stupid to vote the right way, they are racist, they are boorish, apathetic and conservative. The people take exception to this elitist view, and Howard understands them instinctively.

"By extension"? By whose extension except Shanahan’s? I mean, since when is a direct criticism of the Prime Minister’s behavior a criticism of Australians generally? When and where exactly have the political failings of John Howard—Iraq or AWB or ‘children overboard’ or whatever—been attributed as failings of the Australian people? It just doesn’t wash.

"Howard has used hostile media to cement his relationship with the voting public and reinforce the view that he is one of them."

What about the friendly media, like Shanahan himself? Isn’t it useful to Howard to have people like Shanahan endlessly reinforcing stereotypes about the Left, ie. of elitism, political correctness, vitriol? It’s the friendly media who does Howard a huge favor by endorsing his philosophy that it’s best to be pragmatic rather than principled in the real world, so lying, buck-passing and sticking your head in the sand are all acceptable behaviors. The thing is, the Left is not being pointlessly "vitriolic" when it stays on Howard on issues like AWB or Iraq. It is vastly important that Howard is held to account, not least because he only acts for half of us.

"By portraying Howard as a prisoner of his own conservatism, his opponents profoundly underestimate his capacity to change."

Well, I don’t agree that the Left does portray Howard that way. I think the Left is well aware that Howard chops and changes at his leisure. In the example Shanahan gives,

"After years of opposing Medicare and promoting private health insurance, Howard decided that the universal health insurance scheme was a pillar of Australian society that could not be undermined."

I wonder if, after years of opposing the Left, Howard will turn around and "decide" that the Left and "the mob"--for this is what the majority becomes when it disagrees with Howard--was actually right about Iraq. And then I guess we’ll be treated to puff pieces from the friendly media praising Howard for his quiksilver ability to move with the times.

happy birthday two you

Happy birthday to the love of my life, Harley, who turned two on Saturday. Best two years of my life so far, without doubt.

this is our life

Apparently I'm a Fourierian. Alain de Botton explains in the weekend Sydney Morning Herald (no link available) that Charles Fourier was a "fascinating and slightly crazy French political thinker of the 19th century":

In Fourier's ideal world, one might kick off with gardening in the morning, try some politics, shift on to art at about lunchtime, spend the afternoon teaching and wind things up with a go at chemistry at dusk.

Yeah, that's us. Only, over the next month there's going to be a lot of "kicking off with househunting in the morning" and a lot of "packing boxes at dusk". We have to move in three weeks and don't yet have a new address, which is scary. This place is getting bulldozed to make way for another row of holiday apartments. We've had quite a while to find a new place, but unfortunately houses rarely come up for permanent rental around these beaches and when they do, they are usually out of our price range. Fourierians find it a bit hard to scrape together $650 a week for rent.
Anyway, posting will probably continue sporadically for a bit longer. I really miss it...

we kid you not

Muslims do have too many children, insists rightwing columnist Angela Shanahan, who incidentally has nine children herself (happily, none of whom are Muslim.....yet).

"DANNA Vale's comments this week were a classic case of someone saying something everyone is thinking, but no one will say….Vale stated the obvious: that people who have children will be more numerous in the future than those who don't."

Well, no. What Vale actually stated was that Muslims—specifically--are out-breeding us.
Here, Shanahan begins by making the no-brainer case that Muslims have more children because (wait for it) they begin matching and hatching at a younger age, which is a consequence of their religious faith. It’s funny, actually, because Islamic women are doing exactly what Angela Shanahan has often prescribed for Australian women as the solution to declining fertility: be devout, marry young, have lots of kids, and forget about a career (those are for the menfolk). You’d think she’d be congratulating Islamic women on their lack of emancipation.
But Shanahan is deeply concerned about those fanatically-breeding Muslims. She warns, "Islamic fertility is an issue with economic and security ramifications." That’s right, security ramifications. Think of all those little terrorist babies being created. She spends the rest of her column elaborating about Muslim welfare dependency and entrenched unemployment, crime and potential terrorism.

"One of the biggest problems associated with high Islamic fertility [is] the explosive combination of highly concentrated numbers of young people and almost endemic unemployment."

Note that choice of adjective, "explosive". Somewhat loaded, with its connotations of terrorism, wouldn’t you say?

"If Australian Muslims were a prosperous community this wouldn't matter so much. However, unemployment is now affecting a the third generation. And continuing high fertility means that large numbers of children are growing up in households where no one has work."

She repeatedly states that problems of disadvantage amongst Australian Muslims are caused by high unemployment, yet she does not advocate trying to find ways of improving employment prospects for Muslims. All she offers is the vague conclusion that we need to "remove our PC blinkers and look at this growing, disaffected population of young people." I’m unsure what she would like us to do besides 'look at' (read: watch) these people. Chemically sterilise them, perhaps?

beyond the vale

This morning Alan Jones announced his support for Danna Vale’s extremist views. If it weren’t for the fact that Jones is generally conceived of as an important conservative opinion-maker to the masses, I would leave my response to epithets hurled at the television set, and move on. But it is disturbing that Jones is intent on validating and legitimising Vale’s statements. He seems to want to paint her as the second coming of Pauline Hanson, someone brave enough to "voice the very question that millions of Australians continue to ask" (ie, ‘will we all end up Muslim?’). Jones first explains that the Danish cartoon controversy proves that Islam is bad, dangerous and spreading, then goes on:

"Well, fast forward to Australia in the last 24 hours and the Federal Liberal MP, Danna Vale, is now under siege by the politically correct brigade because she dared to say that an annual abortion rate of 100,000 could result in Australia becoming a Muslim State in 50 years time. And that's all she did say. If the publishing of the cartoons is defended on the basis of free speech, where do Danna Vale's utterances fit in?"

Well, Alan, since you ask, I think they would best fit into a nice shady spot where the sun doesn’t shine. Certainly in the extremist margins, on the lunatic fringe. And honestly, aren’t we all sick of seeing that ‘politically correct brigade’ tag hauled out every time someone disagrees with a conservative? Are Vale’s colleagues Amanda Vanstone or Jackie Kelly also being ‘politically correct’ when they distance themselves from her views? Or does the nifty little label apply exclusively to the Left?

"The reality is, whether we like it or not, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world…Danna Vale was questioning what kind of nation we would be in 50 years time. But here we go again. Danna Vale is now paraded as the problem."

Jones, we get your drift. Islam heaps bad. Abortion heaps bad. Both killing off White Australia.
So, where does he want to go from here?

kicking back

Greg Sheridan writes that naïve members of the public who are shocked by the AWB scandal should face the fact that everyone’s paying bribes to dictators because that’s the way you do business in this world. In other words, we should assume that our companies are acting corruptly overseas. Curiously, the opposite applies to our leaders:

"It would be a very bad day if the Government operated on the basis that our companies were assumed to be corrupt. The Government is entitled to assume that companies are behaving OK."

Um...until they're told to the contrary, what, for the hundreth time? Well, I don't know if I like my nation being run by a bunch of wide-eyed innocents who don't even know as much as Greg Sheridan.

the wheat of the moment

It's interesting to see Tim Blair ("Australia's funniest/most popular blogger!") lambasting Michael Leunig for focusing on the wheat scandal instead of drawing cartoons about the beleaguered Danish cartoonists. Look, the Mohammed cartoons issue is also very interesting and important, but I can't believe Blair can't even manage the slightest bit of outrage at the idea that our Government either knew and lied about it or turned a blind eye to transferring funds to a regime we were risking Australian lives to overthrow. It just makes the mind boggle at how the Government thought it could sweep this one under the carpet. Like Tim Dunlop I was surprised to see Murdoch's usually pro-Howard Australian run such a savage editorial. It made up the pathetic one I read a few weeks ago which lavished praise on John Howard for invading Iraq while niftily avoiding a single mention of the word "war". Instead, it was all about our wonderful "engagement" with Iraq on humanitarian grounds. One thing I've never understood is how the pro-war Right can turn a blind eye to other dictatorships around the world who we really should be invading and liberating. FOr example, when I heard on the news that a million Nigerians had "disappeared" in a year, and that people were "surviving on insects", I had to ask myself why people like Tim Blair weren't trumpeting about how we should invade Nigeria on humanitarian grounds, which is what the Iraq adventure has been post-emptively reframed as by the Right.
The whole thing makes me sick about our Government. And it makes me wonder just exactly what else is going on out there that John Howard doesn't know about, or doesn't care to know about.
By the way, I don't think the famous nickname "Rat" suits Howard nearly so much as "Ostrich" would.

late for a very important date

Gee, at this rate I may need to rename this site The Quarterly Blog...hopefully it won't come to that. I shouldn't have given myself a deadline though. I think now that my son is entering the fabled Terrible Twos phase, deadlines can be pretty much chucked out the window for the moment. I fell into the trap of thinking, "Sure, maybe some people talk about the Terrible Twos, but my own child is angelic and therefore it's impossible he'd ever drive me to distraction like that." And yet, he made a grown mum cry the other day when for the first time ever he rejected my offer of a cuddle and then appeared to sit back to judge the effect on me (being: bewilderment, despair, guilt and feelings of complete failure as a parent. I had PMT at the time which didn't help).
Sigh. There will be more blogging...eventually.

i still heart blogging

Lots to come soon, hopefully over the weekend. Meantime, take care everyone.

those three years

Yesterday marked the start of my fourth year of keeping this blog. Wow. Thanks to all my lovely readers, especially those who've been along for the ride from the start. Here's to the next three years.

husbands and husbands and wives and wives

Talk about living in a nanny state. It's not enough for the Australian Government to discriminate against its gay citizens by refusing to allow them to get married in their own country, now it emerges that the Government is wasting taxpayer funds and everyone's time in infantile efforts to obstruct gays from marrying in other countries where it's legal (ie., the Netherlands, Canada, Spain and Belgium).
Why doesn’t Philip Ruddock just call a spade a spade, and call his certificate-of-refusal-to-issue-a-certificate a "Certificate of Impediment to Marriage (Gayness)"?:

The embassy provided Mr Kakucska with a stamped "certification" that stated:
"Following the advice of the Australian Attorney-General's Department we herewith certify that Australian law does not allow the issue of a Certificate of No Impediment to Marriage to persons wishing to enter into a same-sex marriage." He got a similar document saying the embassy could not provide a Single Status Certificate.

C'mon, at least have the balls to say "I'm Homophobic and Proud of It!" Because let's face it, you are.
Still, even if our Government, for moralistic reasons, can’t bring itself to issue a Certificate of No Impediment, it should still be able to provide basic demographic information to a foreign nation that’s asking—namely, that one of our citizens is considered to be 'single/never married' in this country. Either a citizen is considered to be legally single in Australia or they're not. That's all that's being asked of our Government. And yet, we have this underhanded style of intervention that reaches all the way around the world to try to control citizens’ behavior elsewhere.
Since if a gay person gets married overseas, that marriage would presumably not be legally recognised on Australian soil anyway, I do not get why the Australian Government even cares?
To withhold information like this is a pointless strategy in any case. In the Netherlands case, the Dutch government accepted the certificates of refusal as proof of singledom (and our Government’s homophobia), and the marriage still went ahead. So the whole thing is just a childish waste of everyone's time.
Elsewhere, Tim Blair’s mocking Islam for having rules, acting as if its different in that regard from any other religion, or for that matter, even from living in a Conservative run democratic society. Rules just differ depending on your worldview of choice. For example, in John Howard and George Bush’s Christian worldview, there are rules on the specific kinds of genitals that are allowed to be in your underpants as you approach a marriage celebrant. Weird, huh? And this from the Government that Blair touts as being about the supreme rights of the individual. Doesn't extend to freedom of sexuality eh.

around the traps...
Tim Blair's attack on me, in which he argues that because extremist fanatical Islamists are evil, our Government is immune to criticism of any kind, by simple virtue of paling into insignificance beside madmen. Great argument!

Tim Dunlop thinks along similar lines as me but takes it further.

the thought that counts

Thinking alot, but not typing much. MOre soon.

first action hero

It's either a coincidence, or she has stumbled across my blog somehow: a friend gave Harley a Batman cape for Christmas. He liked the look of his new cape, even though he has never heard of or seen anything Batman-franchise related yet.
"You're Batman," I explained to my kid. "He goes"--I turned to my friend, helpless--"What does Batman do again?" I punched a fist in the air. "KAPOW!!!!...Wait, I think that's Superman."
My friend shrugged. "I don't think it matters much at this point."
My son doesn't yet know about action heroes with superpowers. His heroes are still the working class variety: bus drivers, crane operators, firies, bulldozer drivers. He is obsessed by cars and trucks, and while people love to explain this is because he is a boy, I have my suspicions that it's actually because we don't have a car ourselves, so that they have a special mystique.

update: I’m told posting photos on my main page slows things down so from now on I’m just going to add pictures to this separate page, and just link to that if I update it.

update2: I wanted to congratulate Ken and all the others at Troppo for having won Crikey!’s Blog of the Year award for 2005. Well deserved so good on 'em. (Hope they got a nice statuette of a naked blogger too). But since they have gone and redesigned their site, I am perplexingly unable to view it anymore. I know it’s the fault of my dodo computer, but until I can afford to upgrade (which may or may not occur next century)(hang on, let me go get my wee violin…) this update will have to suffice as congrats to all the Armadillos.

it's all about meme

Happy New Year, everyone. Seems I’ve picked up one of those friendly little memes from a blog called Foxhow. Since I’ve resolved in 2006 to take Jozef's advice and take a few more risks (and finally stop giving a damn about whether I’m an insufferable narcissist by publishing a personal blog), I’ll distract myself from my lack of hangover for a minute and have a go...

Ten years ago:
Getting over some guy. Starting uni. Working in legal admin and pissing money up the wall. Going out dancing a lot. Obsessing over some guy.

Five years ago:
Getting over some guy. Working in the legal dept of Andersen during the whole Enron meltdown. Finishing uni. Obsessing over some guy. Getting over him.

One year ago:
Spending time with my inconceivably wonderful son. Swimming in the ocean a lot. Making new friends. Obsessing over and getting over some guy (0K, now I’m just playing for laughs...)

Five yummy things:
Oma’s Berliner Krapfen (traditional German New Year’s deep-fried jam rolls) and Stollen (Christmas cake).
Oma and Opa’s sourdough bread (my preference is for Opa’s, as he includes whole grains and makes square loaves). Particularly good with Leberwurst or honey from Oma and Opa’s bees.
Cheese.
Olives.
Wine.

Five songs I know by heart:
Strawberry Fields Forever
Emotional Rescue
Everybody Must Get Stoned
Hey, Ya! (was playing through Pethidine as I gave birth to my son)
She Sells Sanctuary (naturally)

Five things I would do with a lot of money:
Enjoy not being broke for a while.
Buy music, books, computer equipment, art materials and maybe a live model.
Get my roots done.
Donate a bit to good causes, hopefully.
Piss most of it up the wall, probably.

Five things I would never wear:
Panty-hose.
Gold jewelry.
A lacy black and red nylon crotchless teddy.
Hairspray.
Handcuffs.

Five Favourite TV shows:
Big Brother, Aussie Idol, anything featuring ‘ordinary people’ (haha).
Front-up (Andrew Urban)
The 7:30 Report
Australian Story
The Wiggles

Five things I enjoy doing:
Drawing.
Writing.
Singing and dancing.
Frolicking in surf.
Walking with my boy.

Five people I want to inflict this on:
1. Tim Dunlop
2. Tim Blair
3. Francis Xavier Holden
4. Helen
5. Rob Schaap. (Come on Rob, when you gonna reemerge from the shed? Vi haf vays....)

merry christmas from your resident pagan

Photo copyright: my dad.

Your blogger, Christmas circa mid-70s. They tell me that's chocolate. I hope that's chocolate.
Anyway, hope people are having a wonderful time with loves ones. Also can't help sparing a thought for the families of last year's tsunami victims for whom this must all still seem surreal. Yet for us, life has marched on. Can't believe another year has passed...Looking forward to getting back into a more regular blogging routine next year. Things got a bit chaotic towards the end of this year and I got a bit lazy/distracted. Would like to try and do some more original writing too, rather than just complain about what other people say or write or do all the time. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Imagine if everyone agreed on everything...ugh....
Anyway, I also bought a digital camera the other week (Kodak Easyshare, a measly 3.2 megapixles, but only ninety-eight bucks at Harvey Norman, so who's complaining?). So hope to put some more visuals to the story soon. Yes, if you can't beat Julia Baird, join her.

last action hero

Miranda Devine, writing in the Sunday paper yesterday, had roughly this to say: The fact that one Sydney preschool has decided to ban the wearing of Superhero paraphernalia because of injury fears is another shocking sign of the feminisation of education which aims to cut the balls off boys. Feminists have made learning 'girly'. Boys need Superhero outfits to become men, and if they don't get them, they'll grow up to riot in Cronulla.
It's funny though, I would've thought close to 100 per cent of the rioters had not experienced Superhero outfit deprivation at preschool, since it's such a dangerous new development by feminist educators?

update: I just read her article again, and is it just me, or does she completely nullify her own argument when, in trying to argue there is no negative effect, she quotes a psychologist as saying,

"[T]here is no scientific evidence that a superhero costume or logo on a pencil case causes any measurable change in a child's behaviour.

No measurable change means no change, whether good or bad. Ergo, wearing or not wearing the costumes is not going to affect their future manly behavior either way.

unrelated update: And yes, there does seem to be a problem with comments, which must be at Haloscan's end since I haven't touched anything. So, if you can't comment now please try again later.

let's get mystical

One of those weird coincidences happened the other day. One night, I'd been thinking about a girl, Anna M., who I hadn't seen, or thought of, in about ten years. It hadn't really been such a flattering context, actually; I'd been musing about how some people can intimidate you just by the way they look at you, and it reminded me of how she'd always made me feel small when she fixed her penetrating gaze on me.
Anyway, the next morning Harley and I set out for a beach we don't often go to, just for a change of scenery. And lo and behold! As we are leaving, up walks Anna M.
You want to believe you are psychic when these coincidences occur, but my rational mind tells me there's probably a perfectly logical explanation. Such as, I had seen her out of the corner of my eye the day before, perhaps only peripherally as she drove by, and not processed the information until I was thinking about the subject of intimidating people that night, when my mind supplied her image and name.
Anyway, I didn't find her at all intimidating this time round. Might have something to do with the smugness I always enjoy experiencing when I tell tourists that we live here...

the rat on lambs, skunk and chimps

Just when I was thinking of Howard in terms of his slippery rat-like cunning, he reverts to nerd. Allow me to give you The Shorter Sunday Telegraph Exclusive with our Prime Minister (no link avail it seems):

"I am tense and uncomfortable about three things: nativity scenes disappearing from shopping malls, cannabis and politician's low salaries."

It's the bit about religious iconography that I find especially hard to swallow.

"John Howard wants to see more nativity scenes in shopping centres to put religion back into Christmas. He says he has contempt for arguments Christianity should be downplayed at Christmas in case it offends those of other faiths or non-religious people. "You don’t demonstrate tolerance towards minorities by apologising for your own heritage. [Nativity scenes] seem to have disappeared in recent years and you have this, sort of, "Oh, we don’t want to offend anybody (attitude) [sic]. Actually, you’re offending a lot of people who think it’s a great pity they’ve disappeared. Even if they’re not especially religious themselves, they like the association. It’s part of the culture and the history and the nature of this country."

What does this mean? That it’s okay to wish to try to avoid offending people so long as they’re the majority? I mean, here Howard is himself exhibiting his despised 'oh, we don’t want to offend anybody attitude'. It’s just that the people he doesn’t want to offend are white Christian Australians, who he claims are the majority.
Why does Howard care if God isn’t found in shopping malls at Christmas-time, anyway? People wanting nativity scenes need only go as far as their local Church to view one. Why does Howard want to link commercialism to the religious aspect of his religion?
Not quite sure who Howard is mad at here, either. It’s not Muslims or Jews, as they "respect the fact that it’s a Christian day". So he must be blaming shopkeepers and/or secular society for this wanton removal of religious icons. It must be frustrating for Howard to witness the market forces of a secular society causing the diluting of the amount of Christian religious iconography being displayed in public places.
You know, we value-less atheists who do celebrate Christmas don’t do so out of hypocrisy, greed or some other immoral purpose. We celebrate it because we’ve never really had any choice not to, so we’ve made it our own. After all, what’s not to like about time off work, eating and drinking and being merry with loved ones, and shopping for gifts to celebrate each other? We just leave off the bits that don’t make sense to us, basically the religious mythology that is the traditional background to the festival.

see also more discussion on this at Road to Surfdom.

surf 'n' turf

Well, it is a sad day when our State Premier has to warn families to stay away from their local beaches lest they ‘interfere with a police operation’. Crikey. All because of a couple of hundred thugs.
Is it a sign of underlying racism and failure of multiculturalism? Probably not; as others have noted, every country has racists; we do too. They're hardly a representative group.
Is it related to John Howard's policies? Possibly. Howard’s position on race-related issues is discussed in the correspondence to the Brett essay that I talked about below. One correspondent, David Corlett, was writing before the South Sydney riots but his words make sense in their context. They also articulate my vague suspicions that the Howard years have created a climate where people are more righteously territorial and more suspicious of Others. And so the extreme element of that is expressed by ignorant yobbos of all colors. Corlett wrote,

“The Howard Government legitimised, at the centre of political power in this country, a sort of racism that is not based on biology but on culture.”

Judith Brett does not agree that racism has ‘entered the heart of the state’, but rather that Australians are particularly concerned with territory; with policing their fences, with turf, with borders, with being a castle with a moat. In a reply, Don Aitken writes that ‘Our politicians, from both sides, cater to [the] large group [mainstream voters who chiefly care about family and security] by lowering the bar, reducing appeals to idealism and reaassuring, placating, and soothing…” To which I’d add, the Liberals have become adept at instilling fear and paranoia in citizens. When people point out we are more likely to be killed by a bee than a terrorist, they are shouted down as unpatriotic.
All the drama and controversy of the new terror laws--a controversy that was surely designed to take the heat off IR debate--helps to nurture fears of the Enemy Within, the Other In Our Midst, now On Our Beaches, and soon, probably, Under Our Beds...

tense and uncomfortable

It’s not clear whether David Kemp is the only Liberal who responded to Judith Brett’s recent Quarterly Essay on Howard, but in any case, his is the Liberal voice published in reply in the latest edition*. He has, as he puts it, just ‘niggles’; you know, why doesn’t Brett credit Howard & Co. with the prosperity that has accompanied his governance, etc. He does approve of Brett placing Howard in the mainstream of Liberal tradition. My guess is that Liberals are eager to welcome her reading (continuity over rupture) because otherwise Howard could be seen as being just as much of a radical, loose cannon as Labor's Latham was, if a much more successful one. This statement of Kemp’s, though, is completely lacking credibility:

“It may be a Liberal defect to look closely at the impact of policies on individuals, and to be less enamoured of collective symbolism, but I don’t think so.”

So I guess Anzac Day, the diggers, Gallipoli have nothing to do with collective symbolism. Kemp need only read Brett’s response to the correspondence, where she reminds us how good Howard is at using symbolism:

“[He] evoked the widely shared symbols fo the Australian legend, the symbols of mateship, easygoing informality and the fair go, to present himself as the protector of national culture against the social engineering of the lftwing elites who had got their hands on state power. And as prime minister he has most identified himself with that most potent bearer of a nation’s past -- its military history.”

Kemp also insists that Howard “has great interest in the role of [the] ‘elites’. Indeed, he has time and again emphasised the imortance of the ‘battle of ideas’ in politics…” To me, this is a tacit admission that the Howard governments believe that politics doesn’t belong to the punter, that it is an elite sport, that the mob needn’t worry it’s pretty little head too much about little ole politics. That’s the flavor of the Howard years—paternalistic condesencion. (Incidentally, on the subject of voter disengagement with politics, when another correspondent, Don Aitken mentions that political party membership is down in ‘all Western developed countries save Japan’, I want to know why not Japan? What’s special about them? Is it the particular charisma of their young and attractive PM? Did ‘generational change’ work for them?)
The Labor voice in reply to Brett is offered by former Labor heavy, Graham Richardson. He attributes Howard’s success to external factors--“very, very good luck”--but it’s obvious that alot also depends on how you play the hand you’re dealt, and as we’ve all seen, Howard is a skilful poker player. Richo does acknowledge the skill but places more emphasis on luck. He also doesn't miss the opportunity to put the boot into Latham by mocking his ‘ladders of opportunity’, though to me, that was actually one of Latham’s ideas that did seem to fall under the rubric of the large economic theme.
Richo’s mystified as to why Howard’s gone from being ‘all at sea when it came to working a crowd’ and ‘awkward to the nth degree’ to moving around at photo opportunities ‘with consummate ease’. Didn’t Richo watch Australian Princess? Isn’t he aware of what even 12 weeks of deportment, eyebrow grooming and etiquette lessons can do for an average schmuck? And he’s had twenty years of it. Me, I’m not at all surprised he’s been transformed from nerd to Australian King.
To what extent is current prosperity a consequence of Howard’s governance and Liberal policies? Both parties lay claim to it. Don Aitken hands it to Hawke. Kemp, of course, wishes to claim it for Howard.
And is the the answer for Labor to focus on economics like the Liberals do, because the punter just wants to be able to pay his mortgage? Then it’s open to complaints about political convergence on economic issues.
Richo writes, “Australians see economic policy as the core, and social policy as what can be afforded after the real work is done.” I see it slightly differently. I think if Australians see economic policy as the core, it’s because social policy depends on its success. It’s not some kind of extracurricular activity, as Richo’s comment implies.
Whether or not Howard can take the credit for current economic propserity, ultimately as Brett points out it wasn’t so much an election won on Liberal economic management as lost on Latham’s lack of leadership credentials. The “Learner Latham” ad campaign was cunning, and devastating for Labor.
To wrap this up for now (I think I’ll have a few more comments to come), I think it’s an interesting discussion between Brett and her correspondents as to whether Howard shows more continuity and adherence to Liberal traditions than rupture and radicalism. My guess is that he chops and changes from both when it suits him, according to current conditions. I see Howard as a shapeshifter—notice how he always gets that worried frown which hangs around until he has had a good sniff of the voter mood and formulated an appropriate (safe) position. I see him as a huge opportunist. And to me this, coupled with tthe fact that it was Latham who lost the last election, just shows the huge, if quixotic, influence of the personality of individual political leaders.
Brett’s conclusion is the same (optimistic) one I came to after reading her essay.
“Now Howard’s speaking with the voice of the economic elites, Labor is back on its home ground.”
Anyway, as I said, hopefully more soon.

(*Looking forward to reading this edition's essay by John Birmingham, "A Time for War". He also has a blog, apparently.)

I also wrote about the Brett essay here and here, if interested.

baby, you're so vicious

Tim Blair’s smarting that an artist won a recent ‘best blogger contest’. Blair doesn’t know much about art but he knows what he doesn’t like, and that is bridges that sing.
I can understand Blair’s pain at being robbed of the ten big ones. I, too, had already written my acceptance speech. I had described how none of it couldn’ve been possible without the generous support of my friendly blogging community. I had remarked on how heavy the statuette was. I had even thanked God, despite being an atheist. (OK, I’m cheap.)
I had lain in bed at night and fantasised about what I would do with dem ten thousand bucks. Rather generously, I had decided I would allocate half to donate to other bloggers who, I was going to graciously announce, were equally if not far more deserving than I of the prize. As I lay in bed stroking my ego about my enormous win and good fortune, I was now also able to admire myself for my generosity and altruism.
Meanwhile, I also fretted about winning. I was pretty sure I couldn’t hack the pressure to perform, once I’d won. I imagined strangers turning up at my site for a quick gawk, leaving a few disgruntled comments about my lack of worthiness, and then pissing off again. I felt very depressed about it all.
When I woke up, I thought, phew, I’m glad I’m not Jodi Rose.
Although I agree with Blair that inclusion of a Saab fansite in the 'top 11' is most peculiar, I still think it pretty churlish of Blair not to be a good sport and congratulate Jodi Rose on her win. My feeling, swallowing sour grapes and all, is that Fairfax was probably courting controversy, and blog inches, in choosing a postmodern coneptual/performance artist. But never mind. Jodi Rose, whether or not we understand or appreciate her art, is definitely using the blog medium as a tool for her art, combining sound, visuals and writing, in a way that does highlight the incredibly flexible nature of the medium. In that sense she is representative of what the form can achieve; the content is almost irrelevant.
I had really hoped someone like Margo Kingston or John Quiggin or Tim Dunlop would win. Something about ‘the sane blogger as antidote to the insane mainstream media’. But I mean...okay, as if! This was being judged by Fairfax, after all.
Still, it’s impossible for anyone to be judged ‘Australia’s best blogger’ just as it would be impossible to speak of “Australia’s best author”. There’s just too many genres, too many idiosyncratic geniuses out there.
But more power to Jodi Rose. Yes, it is art.

economic rat

It just doesn't make sense to me:

Mr Howard hopes small to medium firms will have a new incentive to hire labour after removing the right of employees to claim unfair dismissal in businesses with fewer than 100 employees.

It's not logical. Either you agree with this right and you think it is fair for all employees to have a right to claim unfair dismissal, or you don't. How can an employee have any less access to this right just because their employer employs less than 100 people? You have the right to be treated fairly. How can that be variable across employers?
Either 'the right of employees to claim unfair dismissal' is universal, or you're taking it away from some Australians in order to privilege a section, a part, an interest group, namely 'small business owners'. Or?

say all the things that people say

And in happier news...I'm chuffed to report that my 21 month old son, for those who have been following his progress here since he were a twinkle in me eye, has just started making his first three and four word sentences. His first four word one was the very practical, "Cat cans all gone!". But Mum's keeping her ears peeled for "I wuv you, Mum"....can't be far off now....stay tuned....

the error of their ways

This morning, I realised that the only good thing that can come out of Van's execution is for the Singaporean people to have witnessed, as we all did, the enormous suffering of his equally condemned family. Maybe this will give them pause for thought. I guess if their Government is to change their laws, it won't be because outsiders call them barbaric. It will only occur if their society goes through a similar process of change as ours did before our laws were changed in 1973. Unfortunately, this is hard to imagine occurring in a 'benevolent dictatorship' like Singapore, and in 2006 instead of the socially progressive 1970s. God help them.

oh, my god

A close friend’s children were involved in a crash which tragically claimed four lives from another family on Monday. My friend’s kids are fine, but their mum and auntie and cousin remain in serious and critical conditions in hospital.
Liam was well enough today to come along as his dad (who was't involved in the accident) gave me me lift to daycare and back, to collect Harley. Harley's little mate was quieter than usual. He got in and out of his dad’s car gingerly, like an old man. He showed me the bruises on his belly. In the car, I pestered him. Was it scary? I asked. Isn’t he brave to be in a car again so soon? I finally decided to let the poor kid be and said, apologetically, “Well, I bet all the kids at school will be asking you a hundred questions, too,” and he nodded and smiled politely.
I think of what he must have witnessed. I address his dad.
"Just think. You could’ve been organising his funeral right now," I say.
"I would’ve been organising five funerals," he points out. My friend is strangely upbeat; cheerful, even. I caution him he might be in shock but he waves me away. I insist he should call me if he wakes with nightmares. Post-traumatic stress and all. He says he’ll be fine. He says it would’ve been far worse if his ex-partner hadn’t had the foresight to see what was happening and manage to slow down before impact.
"Did you hear that," I marvel to my son. "Liam’s mummy saved their lives. Liam’s mummy is a hero.” I have no idea how to relate to eight year olds, but I suddenly remember how it feels to have your mother in hospital. My mother was hospitalised for some time when I was a small child, and I have those ‘flash-bulb’ memories of leaving her behind in a hospital bed.
My friend recalls, "Liam remembers his mum and his aunt saying "Oh, my god!" at exactly the same time." It sends shivers down my spine, and I hold my child's hand tightly.

no noose is good noose

I continue to be utterly repulsed by this Friday's scheduled execution of Van Nguyen. Not only is capital punishment barbaric, but it's also deeply unjust. Why does Singapore have to punish Van's family and friends for his crime? Why must it ruin the life of his mother Kim Nguyen by killing her son? How is that fair? How has she deserved this pain and anguish? No, it is morally flawed.
I don't accept John Howard's piss-weak rationalisations for not continuing to fight on Van's behalf. Sure, any applications to international courts would perhaps fail. But until Van is executed, his Government should be doing all it can to try to save him, right up until the final whistle. At least for his poor mother's sake.

what would Jesus do?

Just a little Christmas message to the Singaporean and Australian Governments.

Image stolen from Remo, where I would do all my Christmas shopping if I were solvent. (By the way, the sign's on my Christmas wishlist, if anyone's got a spare three hundred bucks.)

wringing hands and necks

How slack is this. The Australian Government gets advice from two Australian international law experts that Van has a chance with an application to the international courts. Downer's office emails it off to another expert in England, who then emails back, giving it the thumbs down. As such, the Australian Government regrets to inform us that there's no point bothering with any further action as they apparently don't have a chance.

The Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, said the legal opinion from Dr Ward and Professor Rothwell had "seemed at least, prima facie, to be at least worth examining". But the assessment by his department and the Attorney-General's Department was "pretty negative".
"But I thought, bearing in mind that this is a question of life or death, it was worth referring these ideas one stage further to Professor James Crawford, who is a professor of international law at Cambridge University. "He has emailed back today saying that on the basis of the ideas that have been put forward there simply was no basis for going to the International Court of Justice."

Based on one guy's opinion, when two others gave hope? A life comes down to that, to a few emails? Give it a go, at least. What can that hurt?
John Howard's refusal to more credibly intervene is saddening. In fact, it makes me think he is cringing on the subject because to call Singapore barbaric is to call America barbaric by proxy, since Uncle Sam still cheerfully kills people off too.
How convincing can John Howard ever be on the matter, anyway, when he describes his efforts to reduce drug-related crime and suffering in Australia as another War? See, you can kill people off when you're at War. You're just allowed to. There's casualties, State-sanctioned crazy barbarism. That's war. And as we know (and Judith Brett explains), deep down Howard loves war. Hence the crocodile tears.
So it's trafficker-emptor [er, or should that be caveat-trafficker?-Ed]. I initially reckoned the Bali Nine had stupidly brought their fate on themselves, but very soon realised the error of my thinking. Of course our Government is morally culpable in having dobbed these young people in, to a country known to impose the death sentence for drug trafficking. I mean, if our Government is prepared to do that, then as if they're going to lift a finger to do anything to help the poor Australian fools who get their lives caught up in these terrible situations--guilty or not. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be pleased they're considering negotiating with Indonesia and Singapore on future prisoner-transfer treaties.

the joy of atheism

I emailed Julia Baird to ask what I wasn't getting about her column about atheists and she took the time to reply, which is nice of her:

”With the atheism column I was trying to say that many atheists, by historically opposing all forms/ systems of belief, might need to shift in a time of increased religiosity - they protest people
dragging God into political debates, but forget that there are different views on what God has to say. By constantly viewing believers as either brainwashed, or conservative, important alliances are weakened. I have writtten a lot about what is wrong with the church too - I just think it is a good debate to have.”

I remain unconvinced. Atheists have always opposed all forms/systems of belief—the ones that involve a deity--because that’s what atheism, by definition, means. Our belief system is fundamentally incompatible with those of believers. Regardless of the different brand of deity or the different interpretations of what that deity might think. Atheists happily tolerate the belief systems of others, just not where they start to influence outcomes that affect non-believers as well. Politics is for all of us, remember? That’s why God shouldn’t be dragged into political debates. (Quite apart from the fact that He might not appreciate being dragged somewhere.)

honey, we shrunk the babe

Oops, was it something I said? This week, Julia Baird is only half the woman she used to be. At this rate, within a few weeks she'll be a leprechaun. I was only teasing, Fairfax, bring back the full-page Baird spread. She's hot!
While looking for a link to one of Baird’s stories I found this item in the rival Australian:

FOLLOWING our piece on the ever-changing wardrobe of Good Weekend writer Julia Baird, who may be the first hack to have a large full-length pic byline, comes news The Australian's new glossy, Wish, is getting in on the act. In the second issue, out tomorrow, columnists Anna Fenech and Nick Baylis are also featured in a full-length picture bylines, but in both cases they are wearing exactly the same clothes as last month. We understand Baird and her editor, Judith Whelan, will put a stop to the fashion show as soon as they can, without making it look like a reaction to the criticism.

Ah, so that’s why Baird’s shrinking. It’s funny though; sex really must still sell. I didn’t know the newspapers so desperately needed sexing-up but clearly they do. I guess there’s no real reason why a print journalist can't trade on her looks when TV reporters always have. Still, it makes me feel a bit sorry for Fairfax's less-gorgeous but equally talented scribes who aren’t getting the same kind of profile.

party of hope

I reckon Judith Brett’s Quarterly Essay is optimistic for Labor because it highlights, to me, how little substance there actually is to either party and therefore how easily Labor might reinvent itself. The parties have changed their images many times. In recent times, as an example, Howard has stolen ‘reform’ from Labor, the original ‘party of hope and reform’. Of course, he had to tweak it a little: the Liberals are now the party of fear and reform.
Recently Alan Ramsey wrote about how adman John Singleton has been complaining about the lack of difference between the major parties. I get the impression people assume this is Labor’s fault, but as Brett demonstrates, it’s actually Howard who has been busily blurring the boundaries since he took office; if Keating pushed the Liberals to the right, Howard has surely been pushing leftwards from his base camp in the middle. He has attempted to appear more progressive on a number of issues, for example indigenous issues and multiculturalism.
Howard's recent stance on multiculturalism is interesting. John Howard’s original dismissal of it always came across to me as a fear of difference. As a Whitlam-era import to Australia, I grew up innocently thinking multiculturalism itself was an important shared value in a young country made up of settlers, migrants and indigenous people. So I hada rude awakening when I found out that Howard couldn't comprehend that difference could be a central value, actually a critical part of the Australian identity, as much as being "laconic" or "self-reliant" or "unpretentious", or whatever.
Anyway, no wonder it’s hard for us to perceive a difference between the parties when so much depends on a given party leader. For example, Brett writes:

"It seems to me that it is not obvious, except in hindsight, that the new social movements should have attached themselves to the Labor Party. A Liberal Party led by Don Chipp would have offered them a congenial home."

And not only is it about the vagaries of personality and style of individual leaders, the parties are also always being repositioned in relation to each other and to the social context and the ‘changing electorate’. For instance, an anxious global climate perfectly suits Howards’ style of leadership. Brett is at pains to emphasise the continuity and traditional roots of John Howard’s behavior in the job, but in the end, you can’t help feeling that politics just boils down to who has the better marketing skills.
I wonder what Howard offers us that he regards as uniquely Liberal. Howard’s philosophy kind of boils down to something like, ‘You, your home, and your country’. So Howard wants to force Labor into its traditional negative position on those things, when there’s no reason Labor can’t equally own them. The real point of difference between the parties is in the Liberals’ denial of social contexts and the existence of groups or classes.
Howard sells the Liberals as being about the free individual. But none of us is really free; our lives are embedded in contexts. Brett explains how Howard’s view is that being Australian requires affiliation only to family and nation, nothing else. On the other hand, Labor accepts the existence of "large historical forces shaping national destiny" and the resulting "circumstances that limit the individual". The Liberals just seem to be in denial about this.
Class is an established point of difference between the parties. Historically the worker's party, Labor is damned by the Liberals as being the party of the part, the section, the group, the collective, the union. In contrast the Liberals reckon they govern for all of us. But the Libs have their class and eat it too, as Brett shows (I love the bit about Menzies’ second eye). It’s good to be reminded that the Liberal Party traditionally regarded the Labor Party as made up of "workers [who] were not fit to govern" because of their lack of education.
There are other differences between the parties that can be made salient again. As I said the other day I think Howard’s Industrial Relations reform is a boon to Labor. Suddenly we know what Labor stands for again. Post-Latham, running with Beazley, Labor's probably still up shit creek, but a least now they’ve got a paddle.
Incidentally, it seemed a limitation of Brett’s essay (though maybe she expands on it in her books, which I'd like to read one day) that the qualitatitve research included at the end didn't juxtapose four Liberal voters with four Labor voters. Maybe something could be learnt from hearing why people vote Labor, too. I can’t help thinking that the popularity of John Howard is blown out of proportion in the mainstream media. The difference between winning and losing government doesn’t come down to many votes. We don’t all love the guy.
I also would've liked to know more from Brett about why people vote differently at State and Federal level. There’s got to be lessons in that for Labor marketing.
Well, I’ll come back to Brett another time as I do have some other comments but the baby has just woken. The essay certainly gave me a lot of food for thought.

and so to baird

Julia Baird is certainly spunky enough to warrant being the Good Weekend’s new page three (or so) girl. Is it my imagination or is there a new photo of her every week, looking cute with that button nose, in her sexy designer jeans with those legs that go up to here? It’s making me wonder if sanctuary shouldn’t have a brand-new photo of its columnist every week. Maybe it’d make my writing more interesting too. OK, I’m just jealous of those legs. (Where she might be described as a filly, I might be described as a Clydesdale.) What it does show though is she’s clearly happy to participate in raunch culture. Well, if you’ve got it, flaunt it, I guess.
To drag myself to the subject of her writing, though. I’ve agreed with her in the past, but last weekend I found myself getting quite cranky about her latest column, "Beyond Disbelief"*.
It’s not atheists with the problem. It’s not atheists who need to "rethink the value of religion" in these apparently increasingly religious times. Baird suggests we need a "pluralistic atheism, allowing for different sorts of belief." Where has she been? My atheism has always been pluralistic; it has to be, because we’ve got no choice but to accommodate the fact that other people believe in some pretty incredible stuff. Some of our best friends have imaginary friends; we don’t mind at all. Most believers are very harmless and most central tenets of religion are positive and well-intentioned. So whatever floats your boat is fine for most atheists. I feel like I’ve spent my life being expected to deeply respect other people’s freedom to believe in whatever, but there hasn’t been that kind of respect extended to atheists. And now we’re intolerant? Please. It’s not atheists who have a problem with tolerance. We put up with a lot. It is difficult to get away from religion in our culture. Every day, our lives are influenced by the various belief systems of others, from terrorism to the Fair Pay Commissioner’s need to consult with his God about his work. Politicians love to come out and accuse atheists of lacking values; our Treasurer likes to talk up Western-branded religion when given an opportunity, but piously tells other religions to remember that Australia is a secular place. It’s we atheists who are hemmed in from all sides, by other people’s belief systems.
Baird finishes her column with this:

"As Muslim extremists continue to plot ways to bomb and maul the innocent, and Bush claims the war on Iraq has the imprimatur of God, surely it’s a good time for a robust debate about pluralism. Openly articulated tension between belief and non belief can only be a healthy thing. Let the air in."

I am unsure what she means with this. That atheists need to engage in more futile debate with believers? How can we ever really defend against religious fanatics who want to kill us for being infidels? And when we do engage in debate with religious moderates within our own culture, we are accused of not respecting their beliefs. If we say Intelligent Design can't be taught in Science class because it is not scientific, we are told we are intolerant of alternative views. See the Herald's blog today, where The Contrarian writes:

"Intelligent Design deliberately contests conventional wisdom -- in this case Darwin's theory of evolution.
...
As Allen Orr wrote recently in The New Yorker, intelligent design also accommodates much of Darwin's evolutionary theories.”

So it contests the theory of evolution while also accommodating much of the theories? Sounds like a complete god’s breakfast to me.

(*Sorry, no link available. What’s the story with your endless missing columnists, Fairfax?)

union city blues

Whether he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder from having had parents who were small-business people or whether it's John Howard's intellectual vanity that motivates a desire to take down something so central to Labor’s historical roots, either way IR might well be Howard’s big mistake As Judith Brett argues* in the current Quarterly Essay, reform can’t just be bold, it also has to reassure people. And frankly I just don’t think John Howard’s succeeding in that department. No amount of cheery yellow ads showing bosses hugging workers will convince us that there’s no power differential between the two. Still, at least the Howard reforms have given Labor a way to clearly differentiate the parties. Be curious to see how the rallies go today.
(*Some more thoughts on Brett when I get the chance. Found it quite optimistic for Labor supporters.)

$#%*@#$&%?!!

"Cock," he announces proudly in the general store. I look up and find the clock on the wall. "Oh, yeah, Harley. There is a clock up there." I glance at the staff. "Gotta be careful how you say that one, buddy," I joke.
What's worse is he’s been saying "fuck", with intent, for months. The first time he said it—"faahhck...?"--it sounded so plaintive and adorable that I made the mistake of laughing while at the same time being genuinely aghast. Now where did he pick that up! I'm sure I've only sworn occasionally, like after stubbing my toe for the nineteenth time.
"No, no," I smiled in horror. "Don't say fuck!". This made it worse. He offered again, a little more assertively, "fuck!".
After he’d said it about a thousand times, I decided maybe I’d better intervene. I told him that even though Mummy didn’t mind if he said "fuck", Daddy mightn’t like it. And I'm pretty sure SuperNanny wouldn't like it.
I find it hard to be too outraged at the word though. And I don’t really mind if the child gets to know that words have different weights, that some words are special, like "fuck". Better still, "love". I guess one day he'll surprise me by telling me he loves me, too. I hope!

royals, flushed

Australian Princess is surely the best ad for a republic since It’s a Royal Knockout. You wonder how on earth Joe Public could ever be charged with sedition for rubbishing the monarchy when the royals and their hangers-on do such a fine job of rubbishing themselves. I’m finding it fascinating to watch these celebrity royals and affiliated society types in action on this reality show. It’s not often we get them up on stage.
I can't decide whether they take themselves seriously or not. They must be hamming it up, but then at times you appreciate their snobbery is genuine, such as when Jane Ferguson contemptuously inquires of the contestants who they think they are. Early on, when even a photo of the Queen Mother drew a series of blanks from the Aussie contestants, the royals appeared to react with genuine shock and horror.
It's a little embarrassing how the girls have to suck-up so they don't get booted from the show. On the other hand, maybe they're artfully playing the game. Keeping their eye on the prize, which includes diamonds, free overseas travel and a date with a prince of uncertain nationality (maybe Molvania?).
What strikes you is the excruciating triviality and banality of the royal world. Talk about sweating the small, anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive stuff. Last week the former royal butler Paul Burrell, who seems to style himself on Basil Fawlty, was hopping about in yet another fury over yet another sin of etiquette. The issue? "The spoons are above the forks!". These people are loony.
The thing is, royalty and their hangers-on don’t just expect deference and reverence from the contestants on some half-baked reality TV show; they expect it from all of us. And I still don't get how a class-based system of a monarchy can be compatible with John Howard's desire for a classless nation (more on the Rat soon).
Anyway, can’t wait for Wednesday’s episode of Princess. You might have seen the promos, which feature a contestant bitching about some royal: ‘Mate, you are the biggest dickhead I’ve met in my life." Ah, you go, republican princesses.

(Elsewhere...love the bit about Burrell.)

rocking around the clock

I'm starting to have a lot of sympathy for the nannas who complain about their curtains fading faster on account of daylight savings. Ever since we so arbitrarily changed the clocks last weekend, my little boy has decided he can continue to wake at dawn, but then stay up til ten and get by with about four hours sleep for the night. Wonderful. Just when I wanted to finish a bunch of new posts, too. Hope to get them up here soon.