The PIS

Tuesday 13th April in the PIS

2010-04-13T11:17:00.001+10:00

Welcome back PIS members one and all! I trust you had an enjoyable and not overly hardworking Easter break – as always a great many things have occurred in the past week, so we might have to leave some for next week.

Keep an eye out for the PIS Trivia night, always a raucous time - it shall be on in a couple of weeks, with political themes and general knowledge to test your wits!

But first, this week the PIS will return to Alice Hoy 102 for lively discussion over biscuits on the following issues of the day, followed by chips and wedges at PA's, as is our custom:

The Turnbull Tale

Last week the erstwhile Malcolm announced his retirement from Federal Politics. Ever the controversial figure, his career was a political rocket, from defeating the long term incumbent for Wentworth pre-selection in 2004, Environment minister until 2007, Opposition Leader and then that whole CPRS/ETS thingy. Had Malcolm run his course? Have the Libs lost a valuable politician or rid themselves of an unneeded divider?

Rudd the Tough Man

Last week came the surprising pronouncement from the Rudd Government that processing of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan was to be halted, owing to the changing situation in both countries. Is this simply a political ploy? Will it function to deter people smugglers? Can it practically function without putting added pressure on Christmas Island and the detention centre in Darwin?

The Teaching/Parenting Revolution

The Australian Education Union appears to be up in arms about the Government's plans to publish the NAPLAN test results on the My School website – and they're threatening to strike – and not supervise the tests. Julia Gillard has proposed asking parents to stand in as supervisors for the tests – practical? Political? Idiotic? Legal issues? Opinions? Etc etc.

Labour's Long Goodbye

Gordon Brown has finally announced the date Britain will go to the polls – May 6th. The Labour Government in the UK has been in power for 13 years, and despite disastrous polls through most of last year, somehow seems to be possibly in reach, with the real likelihood of a hung parliament resulting. The Conservative Party are running on a Change theme, whilst the Liberal Democrats have possibly the nation's most respected politician/economist in Vince Cable. Who's going to win? Who should win and why? Discuss.

So come join for lively discussion as ever :)

Once again the plan is for me, your Secretary, to chair the meeting – I will endeavour to actually attend this time, and apologise for my non-attendance previously.

ChriSec

Tuesday 30th March in the PIS

2010-03-29T22:27:00.000+11:00

This Tuesday the PIS will meet at 1pm in Alice Hoy Rm 330 to discuss our usual assortment of politicking and global issues, whilst munching on our wealthy capitalist sweet biscuits. Please note this is a room change for this week only, as our usual room is unavailable.

Just for a change and partly for kicks, Madame President Megan will be taking a break from chairing the meeting this week, to be substituted for by myself, your not-so-erstwhile and otherwise overbearing Secretary. So, to the topics:

The Great Health Debate

Last week Messrs Rudd and Abbott stood in the National Press Club and had a political slanging match that almost rivaled the PIS's livelier moments. What did we think of this debate? Was there a policy point to it or was it a clever political trap from Rudd/Abbott?

Google's withdrawal from China

Early last week Google announced it's withdrawal from China as an internet search provider, citing it's refusal to continue to acquiesce to Chinese Government demands to censor its search results. There's a number of issues here – from the generic internet censorship angle, to the specifics of companies being required to follow such governmental directives, and whether Google is right to withdraw from China, or whether it would have been more useful for them to work from within.

Abbott the Exercise Addict

Yesterday Tony Abbott successfully completed an Ironman event (basically a swim/cycle/run lasting 14 odd hours). He becomes only the second federal politician to complete such an event, after Independent Rob Oakeshott. Is this sort of dedication to exercise a praiseworthy attribute for an alternative PM, or a dangerous distraction for an Opposition Leader?

Benedict and the predator priests

Yes I know that's a combative title, but seriously, here we go again with a flood of controversy over sexual abuse within clergy, this time focused on Ireland and the USA, and with the spotlight very much on Pope Benedict as to his actions (or inactions) as the Cardinal in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the church body responsible for sexual misconduct of the clergy. What do we think? Should Benedict take responsibility/is he actually responsible for the cover-ups etc? Where does the buck stop in this issue?

Following the meeting we shall wander down to PA's to finish the bikkies and eat chips and wedges, and, given as I'm chairing the meeting, I imagine I will be supplying a jug or so also, maybe Pimm's.

As always, if there's a topic you would like to discuss, either tell Megan or myself, or send us an email and we'll pop it on the roster.

Toodles til Tuesday,

ChriSec

The Blog

2010-03-16T12:40:00.000+11:00

The PIS has a blog!! Yes that's right, we are with the times and this interweb crazy thing!

Heritage members may actively recall the blog has been in existence for some time, but it has fallen a little silent recently, but now back it comes.

All info on PIS events and general happenings will be published on the blog.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to encourage all members, new and old, to feel free to post on the blog anything in particular you fancy about politics, just ask Megan or myself to add you to the contributors list. This way if you just can't wait til the next tuesday to say your piece, you can do it immediately, and hopefully we can facilitate discussion even over those periods where (shock horror) the PIS doesn't meet, a la holidays :)

Whether you wish to pose a question, or have your say on a particular event, or what have you, you are welcome to do so.

So pop http://mupis.blogspot.com on your favourites list and keep your eyes peeled for everything new and interesting :)

Chris

Election Party #1 of 2010!!

2010-03-16T12:23:00.001+11:00

South Australia and Tasmania go to the polls this Saturday 20th March, and the PIS will be there to see them. No this is not some dark magic, but rather through the miracle of the interwebs.

PIS will be following the results, laptops in hand, from 6.30pm on Saturday, at the Dan O'Connell Hotel, 225 Canning St, Carlton (Off Princes St, North-East of Melb Uni, between Rathdowne and Nicholson Sts.)

Come along for politics, drinks and dinner, and IF YOU HAVE A LAPTOP, BRING IT, the more we have, the more stats we can watch at once :)

Chris

Tuesday 16th March in the PIS

2010-03-15T13:42:00.000+11:00

The Political Interest Society meet this week at 1pm Tuesday in Alice Hoy 102 for our usual biscuits and arguments, then hang out at the Prince Alfred Hotel on Grattan St from 2pm onwards.

On Saturday night we will also be getting together to watch the vote counts for the South Australian and Tasmanian state elections. We’ll have more information for you tomorrow on the time and venue, so keep an eye out!

As always, if there are any topics you particularly want to see on the agenda to be discussed at the official club meeting, email polintsoc@gmail.com or just mention it to me on Tuesday and I’ll try to remember.

This week, the PIS will discuss:

Protest in Thailand

Will the massive anti-government protests in Bangkok this weekend result in any positive change for Thailand?

Paid parental leave

We now have Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott shouting at each other over the issue of parental leave. Do we support parental leave? Does Abbott’s proposed scheme, of paying parents on parental leave at their usual rate of pay, seem fair or equitable?

Anti-whaling activism

It’s hard to find people in Australia who aren’t opposed to Japan’s ‘scientific’ whaling practices – although nothing in this club would surprise me any more – so we’re probably all inclined to support the actions of groups like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, aggressively interfering with whaling boats. But given that they are often quite simply breaking the law, can we justify defending them when they get caught?

Upcoming state elections

The polls are dead close in South Australia and Tasmania could end up with a hung Parliament. This is going to be an interesting Saturday night. Who do we want to win, and who’s going to win?

Tuesday 9th March in the PIS

2010-03-08T13:45:00.011+11:00

This week, the Political Interest Society will meet again at
1pm Tuesday in Alice Hoy 102 for biscuits and arguments. After
2pm we will then wander down to the Prince Alfred Hotel on Grattan
Street.

English as the national language
Should we make English the national language of Australia? Should
non-English speaking migrants be expected to meet a minimum
standard of fluency in English? Should bilingual education be
allowed? If we get bored with this, we can talk about the national
curriculum instead.

Do we need state government?
If the federal government can step in and take over the running of
hospitals, traditionally the territory of state governments, what
will be next? Are state governments necessary, or do we just hold
onto them for sentimental reasons of state identity? Might we be
better off with a two-level system of government?

Israel: should we scrap it and start over?
I think that's pretty self-explanatory.

Things we think might be bullshit: Marriage
For years there's been ongoing noise about giving same-sex couples
equal marriage rights with heterosexual couples. But really, what
use is marriage? Might equality be achieved more easily by
scrapping marriage altogether?

If you think the above topics are absurd and I must be losing my
mind, good news! In two months or so we will have the club's Annual
General Meeting, where you will have the chance to replace me with a
less ridiculous President. You could even run for a position yourself
and help the club to be more spectacular.

Even if you can't make the meeting at 1, feel free to join us at
PA's any time after that - you can tell which table is us because
of the Centenary of Federation Commemorative Biscuit Tin on the
table. Unless someone runs away with it. Then you'll be able to
tell which table is the PIS because there'll be a short girl
drinking beer and shouting at everyone. (That's me.) I may also
be drinking beer and shouting anyway, but please don't let that
put you off. I'm very friendly.

By the way, a note for all our members: if there's a topic you
really want to talk about in a meeting, feel free to email me and
ask me to put it on the agenda. I may not put it on the next week,
but I try to include all topics that are requested by members as
long as they're sensible. And sometimes even silly ones. For
example, the first topic this week was requested by Simon.
(It helps if you give me a question, though, and not just "I think
we should talk about Israel." That's how we end up with topics like
"Israel: should we scrap it and start over?")

Madame President

Reminder: Chris Berg tomorrow at 6:30!

2009-05-20T08:59:00.002+10:00

The PIS Presents
Pub Politics with Chris Berg

Thursday 21 May, 6:30pm

INU Bar, 1st floor Union House

Free Entry!

Chris Berg, researcher for the Institute of Public Affairs and regular columnist for the Sunday Age, speaks to the PIS about the Rudd Government's proposed internet filter and other current political issues. Bring your friends, and your questions, too.

This week in the PIS

2009-05-11T06:55:00.001+10:00

The Political Interest Society will meet at midday this Tuesday in Doug McDonell 711 to watch TV. From 1pm we will hold the usual bitching-and-biscuits meeting, where we will discuss:

Defence white paper
The government's white paper on defence has caused a bit of a stir. Is an expansion of our military warranted or necessary? Is there a risk of a country the size of Australia fuelling an arms race, as some have suggested?

Medicare and IVF
Funding for IVF treatment through Medicare may soon be reduced. Is IVF treatment something that should be fully funded?

Jumps racing
Dangerous and cruel, or a good way to keep retired racehorses occupied?

Branch stacking
Following the revelations of corruption in Brimbank Council, branch-stacking is starting to look like a widespread problem in Australian politics. Are we concerned about branch-stacking? Is this kind of corruption inevitable in representative democracy?

Followed by a trip to the pub, where we will eat, drink and be merry until we run out of change

This week in the PIS

2009-05-03T18:11:00.000+10:00

The Political Interest Society meet this week at midday in Doug McDonell 711 to watch TV, probably more of House of Cards provided Chris can bring it along again. I look forward to it.

Following that, the regular meeting will begin at 1pm, where we will discuss:

Influenza pandemic
It's been practically the only news story of the past week: a potential flu pandemic beginning in Mexico and spreading to the rest of the world. How serious do we think the threat of swine flu is? Have the Australian government done enough to prepare us?

Australian publishing and protectionism
The Productivity Commission want to lift the ban on parallel importing of books in Australia. Publishers claim this will stifle local publishers and authors; supporters of the proposal say it will bring book prices down. Is it worth bringing down the prices of books if it means decimating local publishing?

Somalian Piracy
President Obama was widely praised for his action on the rescue of a US captain held hostage by Somalian pirates. However, Somalian piracy has been a growing threat for some time. Is there any way to combat the overall problem? Are pirates simply criminals or is Western intervention in Somalia partly to blame?

Victorian Transport
There's been a lot of attention on the proposed bushfire-related spending in the upcoming Victorian Government budget, but transport is quickly becoming one of the biggest issues for Melbournians as our public transport system becomes increasingly dysfunctional. What's wrong with public transport in Melbourne? Can we see a straightforward solution?

After which we will adjourn to PA's where members may feel free to try to find a way to impeach me before the AGM.

In other news, the Law Students Society is hosting a free public lecture regarding human rights:

An Australian Human Rights Act: Dispelling the Myths
A public lecture featuring The Hon Catherine Branson QC, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

6:00pm–7:00pm, Tuesday 19 May 2009
Room G08 (Ground Floor), Melbourne Law School, 185 Pelham St, Carlton Vic 3053

Attendees are invited to RSVP on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=93183484273.

For further information and for other Social Justice Seminars, see http://www.mulss.com/social-justice/.

2009-04-06T16:50:00.001+10:00

The Political Interest Society meet again this Tuesday at 12 in Doug McDonell 711 for the appreciation of amusing politically-themed TV shows. As usual, we'll decide what to watch when we get there. I have The West Wing and Hollowmen - if anyone has something different they can bring along, like Yes, Minister, Party Animals or something else I haven't even heard of, feel free. (The room has VCR as well as DVD equipment, by the way.)

From 1pm in the same room we will have our regular weekly meeting to discuss:

China
Is Rudd too close to China? Is improving relations with China a wise course of action or could it damage other foreign relations? (ie with the US?) Is the debate about China just a beat-up in the wake of the Joel Fitzgibbon kerfuffle?

Faked figures in hospitals
Is it a concern that hospitals are falsifying records in order to meet targets? Can this be solved by replacing hospital staff, or is it a problem with the system?

G20 and free trade
For once maybe we'll talk as much about what's said at G20 as we do about the protestors. In a time of recession, is free trade a sensible international policy, or do we favour more protections and the rhetoric of 'buy Australian'?

Bikie gangs
In light of the bashing at Sydney airport several weeks ago, several states have moved to ban certain motorcycle gangs which are seen as criminal. However, Victoria's Charter of Human Rights may make such laws impossible in this state. Do we support the right to freedom of association, or would we rather see these groups banned here, too?

To be followed by cheap drinks and free food at the pub, perhaps long into the afternoon.

In other campus news, on April 21 there will be a lecture at the university by Tom Mann, a congressional scholar, on US politics. It's free, although bookings are necessary. More information can be found here.

2009-03-30T18:38:00.001+11:00

The Political Interest Society will meet in Doug McDonell at 12pm this Tuesday to watch amusing politically-themed TV shows. Most likely Yes Minister or Frontline this week, though we're open to suggestions. Feel free to bring your lunch, too.

From 1pm we will be having our regular discussion meeting, where we will eat biscuits and argue over:

Euthanasia
Do we want to see legislation allowing assisted suicide? Would such legislation be too open to abuse?

Palestine Solidarity Week
This week is Palestine Solidarity Week at the Student Union. There has been some controversy over the union's financial support for PSW. Should the Student Union be picking a side in a conflict in the Middle East? Should they put money towards partisan political functions at all? Or should they stick to providing student services?

Some background information for those of you who are newer to student politics and have some time to read up:
Palestine Solidarity Week events: http://union.unimelb.edu.au/ed-public/palestine-solidarity-week
Students for Palestine blog: http://union.unimelb.edu.au/ed-public/palestine-solidarity-week
Petition opposing the use of money from the UMSU Welfare and Education budgets to support PSW: http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/umsu-students-council.html

And for those who can slog through meeting minutes, there is a discussion of this issue on page five of the most recent Students Council meeting: http://union.unimelb.edu.au/file_download/671/Minutes+SC+M3+12-02-09.pdf

Foreign aid
Recently there was some debate over Australian foreign aid programs supporting safe abortions in Third World countries. Should foreign aid from the Australian government be akin to charitable donations, with no strings attached, or is it acceptable to attach conditions to them?

Internet Filter
Do we approve of the government's proposed internet filter? Is the legislation even likely to succeed?

To be followed by discount drinks and free chips at the Prince Alfred Until 5-ish.

The new saviours

2009-03-28T01:28:00.000+11:00

I simply could not resist.

This week in the PIS - an unexpected change of meeting place

2009-03-16T14:44:00.000+11:00

Since the introduction of VSU mid-2006, and the Melbourne Model in 2007, the Political Interest Society has been embattled and sometimes struggled to survive. There have been drastic measures such as the 'infinity percent tax rise' of the $2 joining fee, and setbacks like the failure to produce an edition of our journal, Audi Alteram Partem, for 2009. (If there are any students in the club with journalistic ambitions who would like to help get it off the ground again, we'd love to hear from you!)

This week, we almost suffered another setback of this difficult era in the life of the politically interested when we lost our booking Alice Hoy room 242. Once again, the politically interested masses of the University of Melbourne find themselves estranged from the traditional homeland of Alice Hoy.

Fortunately, after hours of searching through the harsh wilds of Parkville Campus, your PIS committe have found another place where we can eat biscuits and shout at each other, all the way next door in the Doug McDonell building.

So, for this week, and for the rest of semester barring any more similar difficulties, the Political Interest Society will meet at 1pm Tuesday in Doug McDonell Room 711. Don't be put off by all the scaffolding out the front, the place is still open; you can access it by the fire door at the front of the building or the entrance to the lower floor on the northern side.

This week's topics to shout about:

Peter Garrett
Peter Garrett made his name as the frontman of radical green-left band Midnight Oil, but is now a minister in a government that supports policies which are nothing like those he used to support. Is this hypocritical?

Pakistan
Where do we stand on the crisis in Pakistan?

Robert Doyle, Lord Mayor
He wants the bogans out of the city, wants to ban hailing taxis at night and now says Adelaide should be shut down as it has no redeeming features. How do we like the new Lord Mayor so far? And will he ever act on anything he says?

Queensland state election
Is it at all possible for Labor to lose this election? Can Pauline Hanson win a seat standing as an independent or is her time up?

Followed by drinks at the pub from 2pm until we run out of change - which will be later than usual since our trips to the pub now come with free bar snacks - chips, wedges and nachos at the pub will now be coming out of the Political Interest Society's budget instead of your wallets.

2009-03-09T17:05:00.000+11:00

The Political Interest Society will meet this week on Tuesday in Alice Hoy 242. The traditional discussion and consumption of biscuits will commence as usual at 1pm. However, as we fortunately get the room from midday onwards, at 12:15-ish we'll have a play around with the DVD player in the room and try putting on some politically-themed DVDs. Exact screening to be decided - but it'll probably be The West Wing.

After the regular meeting finishes at 2pm, we'll all head off to the pub where we'll either keep arguing or talk about all those things I didn't put on the agenda.

The topics for discussion this week:

An Accident in Zimbabwe
The Prime Minister of Zimbabwe was injured and his wife was killed in a car accident a few days ago. Is this a bad sign for the stability of Zimbabwe's government?

Governor-General
Quentin Bryce has been criticised for being too proactive in her role as Governor-General. Is there room for our head of state to meet with leaders from the ADF or meet with other leaders overseas, or should she stick to signing Bills?

Trouble in Northern Ireland
Real IRA have claimed credit for a shooting in Northern Ireland. Is this an isolated incident or the end of twelve years of peace?

Bushfire funds and insurance
Should victims of the bushfires who didn't insure their homes receive more support from charitable donations, or the same amount as other victims? Should home insurance be compulsory in bushfire-prone areas?

Watch the US election with the PIS!

2008-11-02T18:56:00.002+11:00

Join the PIS for drinks as we watch the vote count for this historical election on CNN and drink beer!

10:30am until later
Maori Chief Hotel
118 Moray St (corner of Moray and York streets)
South Melbourne

You can get there by taking the 112 tram (leaves from Spencer St in the city) towards St Kilda and getting off at stop 117, the corner of Clarendon and York Streets, and walking a few blocks east along York St to pub. You can find a map at http://www.maorichief.com.au, along with other useful information like their menu. See you all there!

As free as China?

2008-11-01T14:25:00.003+11:00

Although Australia still waits on broadband for all, its politicians are planning to provide this just in a 'clean' fashion. Clean is the euphemism used to disguise internet censorship on level with free, democratic countries like China, Cuba or Iran.

Please take some time to inform yourselves and take action. The cases of Dr. Haneef, Dr. Moeller and even the Benbrika case are alarming examples that those claiming to represent Australian citizens systematically dismantle democracy.

The internet expanded the connectedness of the little big island Australia, the planned internet censorship returns Australia to the beginnings of this country: Being a large prison.

PIS 'cluboscope' in Farrago edition 7

2008-08-19T12:10:00.003+10:00

Greetings to anyone who took an interest in the advertisement for the Political Interest Society in Farrago, and thank you for checking out our blog. Unfortunately the item in that magazine contained a small but important error - the room in which our meetings are held. This semester we hold our meetings, not in Alice Hoy 109, but in Alice Hoy room 330. At least the building was right.

We do hope to see some new faces at future meetings - people of all political backgrounds and opinions are welcome. The door is always open. Except when other students are being rowdy in the corridor and we can't hear each other. Then we might shut it. But you can always knock.

Keating! the Musical at Federation Square, Wednesday 20 August

2008-08-18T22:42:00.001+10:00

Keating! the Musical is a show much loved by many members of the PIS, and which many other members wish to see. It charts the rise and fall of Prime Minister Paul Keating in song, through laments about life on the backbench, election debates in rap, victory songs in reggae and a ballad bemoaning Keating's loss to John Howard. It also has Alexander Downer in stockings.

After a long touring season, the final performance of Keating! will take place in Sydney this Wednesday. However, we will not miss out on this great event, as this last performance will also be streamed live to Federation Square.

The screening will not be on the big outdoor screen, which I presume will be showing the Olympics. Instead it will be in the cozier, less drafty, indoor public space known as the Atrium, which can be accessed from Flinders street as shown on this map. The Atrium also has a bar, Beer Deluxe, just one more advantage it has over the big, windy bit that the sports fans will be watching.

So please come and join the PIS for this great event! Meet at the downstairs bar at 7pm for drinks and laughs before the final show begins at 8pm.

Semester Two - The Honeymoon Is Over

2008-07-24T19:07:00.000+10:00

Semester one was a tumultuous time for the Political Interest Society, first with the exile from our traditional homeland, the Alice Hoy Building, and then the resignation of President Fettling, but with hard work and determination we weathered that storm and the new President Rocke came to power with the promise that the biscuit tin would never again run empty, and no politically interested student would ever be left behind.

In Semester 2 we return again to the Alice Hoy building, this time to the loftier heights of Room 330. But there are many challenges in the months ahead, and after two months, the Rocke Administration's honeymoon is over, and they are going to have to produce results.

(Welcome to our new members for Semester 2. We all hope to see you at meetings soon, and I assure you, we aren't always this silly.)

The first weekly meeting of the semester, complete with biscuits for all tastes and ideologies, will be at 1pm Wednesday 30 July in Alice Hoy 330, followed by the traditional drinks at PA's. Another email will be sent out in a few days with the topics for discussion.

This will be followed the next day by the 2008 PIS Non-Annual Trivia Night, so come along and show off your political knowledge, or just come for a laugh. The Trivia Night will be held on Thursday, July 31 at 6:30pm, INU Bar, Union House. Entry is free and there are some great prizes to win.

Audi Alteram Partem is the biannual PIS journal, showcasing a range of political opinions and exchange of views. Matt, the AAP Editor, is currently putting together the Semester 2 Edition, and the deadline for submissions is Wednesday, August 6. If there's any political or social issue that you're passionate about, anything from emissions trading to the US elections to curfews for cats, we want to print it! For more information, contact Matt at m.incerti@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au

.

That's all for now, but this semester still has many things to come, including the Society's tenth anniversary celebrations and the US Presidential Elections, so come along and get involved!

Annual General Meeting 2008

2008-05-27T19:34:00.002+10:00

This year's AGM was memorable. We spent ages hanging around waiting for enough people to make quorum and ended up with at least ten more than we needed by the end of the meeting. There were barely enough candidates to fill the committee positions. Michael Pountney accepted his life membership with a spectacular display of grandiose waffling. Lindy provided us with lots of biscuits, and we finished twenty minutes early to rush off to the pub, where we all had lots of celebratory beer.

And yet, I have neglected to announce the results of that great election to those unfortunate members who couldn't join us! Please accept the heartfelt of apologies of this new, untested but devoted President.

So, as voted at the Annual General Meeting on April 30, the PIS committee for 2008-9 is as follows:

President: Megan Rocke
Secretary: Charlie Goodman
Treasurer: Stacey Nguyen
Publications Editor: Matt Incerti
Speakers Officer: Alex Davis
Publicity Officer: Simon Coles
Social Secretary: Dean Hallett

Thanks for the fish

2007-11-24T23:36:00.000+11:00

I know, I already promised to stay away from this blog, and probably I managed to scare away all other potential contributors from it, but hell, why shouldn't I be allowed to change my mind?

And actually, it's more meant like a reminder to those who'd like to engage in the PIS committee. Rule 1: Never question whether casting your valuable shining light in a small bag (your vote) changes anything. The PIS is bipartisan, if you dare to leave to holy left-right paradigm, you will be ostracized.

So thank you, Lindy, for reminding me that's it's inadequate to laugh at blatant lies of the soon former Prime Minister, when he's spruiking blatant lies. Thank you for silencing dissent expressed by laughter. Being not brought up in this splendid society, which, unlike Germany, is still f*cking proud of its genocidal history, it makes me laugh to hear any PM stating that all Australian live in prosperity, while during his time as PM more than 10 percent of its population fell below the poverty line.

But laughter seems to be an illegitimate way to air dissent, and is obviously considered offensive when its spontaneously erupts at the wrong moment. I certainly admit that alcohol contributed to the fact I was less inhibited to laugh at JH's lies. I just wasn't aware how socially unacceptable it is within the PIS to react in this way to preposterous lies of the current "leader".

I don't mind losing my bet to Charlie. Although I don't think Australia has any version of democracy that is less phony, corrupt and full of nepotism than any other "free" country in the western world, I'm glad to see that it takes less time (though still way too much) to identify utter incompetency than in my home country, which reelected its conservative government like a roo in the spotlight for 16 years (before experiencing an unprecedented redistribution of wealth towards the owning class under a "left" government).

However, reality-denying statements like I heard on this election night by the happy loser John Howard simply made me laugh. I still fail to see why Lindy felt obliged to tell me off for laughing, and who would be offended by a guy laughing out loud in a pub. I do recall earlier moments that night where I certainly have even been personally offensive with much more tolerant reactions. (I dont wanna mention ur name here, it's all a bit embarassing and confusing for me, but hey, I dearly appreciate your patience and tolerance, no matter how culturally inappropriate I might have behaved more than once we met.)

So I'd like to say thank you to all the people I met in the PIS for all the insights I could gain from some strata of the Australian society, especially to those who don't like me. Your ideas about Australian political reality will no longer be disturbed by a German anarchist (should I mention here how ridiculous the labels "german" and "anarchist" look next to each other? It takes a believer in representative democracy to say this without an ironic smile)

Unless some current members want to take on some committee positions, the PIS will face difficult times. The president cannot be reelected (two term clause), I will step back as treasurer (with a big smile like Costello), as the Melbourne Model encouraged me to dream larger, and learn something different somewhere else. Even the secretary might leave MU (more honourable than me) before being able to finish another turn. Australia wanted a change in government, the PIS change in leadership is inevitable.

Labour managed their grab for power tonight, promising new leadership. Some implications I would like to see (though Labour hasn't promised all of it) within the first 100 days would be:
* Abolition of the IR laws
* Reinstatement of Dr. Haneef working visa
* Signing Kyoto and agreeing in Bali to a target that involves a reduction of CO2 emissions (Kyoto Target is 107% of Australias 1992 (?) emissions until 2005 or 2015 (hell, ask Robin Eckersley, she's the expert at MU for those nasty details))
* Revoking the Anti-Terror-Legislations

What I'm expecting is far from impossible, yet highly unlikely. I consider these expectations to be desirable, yet you might not agree with me (which saves you, as potential labour supporter, from finding excuses why certain promises could just not yet be implemented). The euphoria about the new leadership in Australia prevented any discussion about accountability issues in politics, and demanded piety for the departing leader.

My mission failed, I give up. Claim another victory. Democracy is so much cosier than personal responsibility, which is much more often required than each three years on election day. Follow your leaders. Don't question authority, never ever.

Fear of Reason

2007-09-01T15:41:00.000+10:00

(cross-posted)

This month, we will commemorate nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks of September 11th 2001. We will not commemorate the million civilian victims killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the 25,000 humans that starve daily, unspectacular, far away from the prying eyes of a sensationalist media.

From a psychological point of view, the unfortunate victims in New York belong to our ingroup. We know little to nothing about the cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan, which easily qualifies them as outgroup. We know even less about the people living in the heart of Africa, the common origin of all tribes of Homo Sapiens that populate this planet.

As humans most care about their perceived ingroup, they can be blatantly ignorant to the faith of their outgroups, even if our genetic heritage does not justify the popular idea of different human races.

The anti-terror laws, that have been introduced in most parts of the world in the aftermath of 911, the Madrid, Bali and London bombings, have already achieved their goals. No terrorist will be able to attack the free world anymore, after the Magna Charta and the rule of law have been suspended to fight the war on terror in most parts of the world, including Australia.

Civil liberties end now where national security starts, and national security is so important that it can’t be defined precisely but falls into the discretion of our wise politicians. Democratic tenets like the decision of independent juries or the separation of judiciary and executive powers were sacrificed, even in countries that have not experienced any terror attack themselves.

The images of the destruction of inner-city skyscrapers makes it easy to transfer the fear into the hearts and minds of anyone who lives in a country that displays the wealth of corporations in the midst of their cities. Fear, however, incapacitates reason, and reduces most decisions to fight of flight. This certainly increases the attraction for someone offering to go to war, even it will last generations.

The war on terror will certainly be perpetual, unless the people of the planet, who have to pay for this war with their taxes and even their life, step back from their fear and start using reason again. Because the war on terror can never be won, no matter how hard you try.

Terrorism lacks a commonly accepted definition, but it’s a fairly save bet that historical figures like Jesus Christ, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Ghandi would end up in an American torture camp like David Hicks, or be kept in solitary confinement like Dr. Haneef, or at least suffer from a constraint order like Jack Thomas.

Don’t get me wrong; I just used David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef as example to illustrate the loss of the rule of law and civil liberties in Australia, not to sanctify them. However, unlike traditional wars against a well-defined enemy, the war on terror fights a method. Addition is a method to relate two numbers in a specific way, frying eggs is a method to prepare them as food.

Do you really believe the war on frying eggs could ever be won? Considering the well-educated audience of the blogosphere, I would be surprised to hear a single yes to this question, but you’ll never know. People develop all sorts of anxieties, and fried eggs might be one of them, but it seems less suited to spread a common fear amongst the majority of the population than the terrifying expression “terror”.

Nevertheless, the Australian government spend already billions of taxpayers money on this war on frying eggs, and will not stop doing so whether Howard remains PM or not.

Western governments fell into a hole after the end of the cold war. The threat of mutual nuclear destruction justified maintaining civil liberties, as those did not exist in the communist world. The tangible enemy allowed direct comparisons, so the Western World carefully refrained from arbitrary jurisdiction, secret prisons, restrictions to the right to strike or have a rally wherever you wanted.

As communism faded away as archenemy of the Western World, the necessity to keep up the illusion of a free society vanished with it. Yet, without fear as motivator for the abolition of rights and freedoms achieved mainly by social movements and direct action, reason might have caused an outrage about the introduction of anti-terror laws.

We are constantly reminded that the terrorists are out there to get us, terror suspects are arrested en masse, foiled terror plots and the memory of 911 keep the fear alive. The constant reinforcement of terror paranoia is designed to stop anyone to use reason to assess the size of the risk.

While we read often enough about the arrest of terror suspect (They are coming to get us, and they will use fried eggs if we don’t stop them!), we hardly hear about convictions. In the US, the two convictions that have been achieved for homegrown terrorists are as convincing as the case of Dr. Haneef.

Although the latest terror attack in Britain luckily didn’t kill anyone, and the perpetrators fit into the terrifying scheme of “home-grown terrorists”, biometrical visa will make the UK safer. However, passports cannot be the problem. Although the contents of the World Trade Centre were mysteriously blown to smithereens on 911, the passports of some of hijackers, which were used to officially cross the American border while being on terror watch lists, were found.

Reason cannot really explain why biometrical identification of every citizen helps defeating terrorism. And reason cannot explain why the WTC 7 collapsed on the afternoon of September 11 2001, although it was not hit by plane. The building closer to the World Trade Centre building 1 and 2 were severely damaged, but did not collapse. Unfortunately, the complete account of everything that led to 911, the 911 commission report, fails to explain why WTC 7 collapsed as well.

But thinking that they will come to get us might stop you from wondering why three massive steel-framed high-risers crumble in freefall speed to bits and pieces, although this never happened before and since then. And it might stop you from wondering whether less than 100 Australian victims, who were killed in the Bali attacks in 2002 and 2005, justify spending far more taxpayers’ money than about 2,500 people that commit suicide each year in Australia.

If they Australian government makes “securing Australian life” its priority, shouldn’t it use statistics to assess the size of the problem? It takes two weeks of suicide to have the same amount of life lost as in all terror attacks, which killed Australians in this century, and about three weeks in road accidents.

As long as you drown in fear, my comparison of the war on terror to a war on fried eggs might appear extremely inappropriate. Once you start using reason again, the advertising campaigns to suspect your neighbour seem like an outrageous waste of taxpayer’s money.

The US went to one war, along with Australia, before it even started an investigation of the events of 911, and to another one, before the results of the dubious 911 commission were known. Yet, both wars were sold to the public as a reaction to the events of 911.

Let me put this in other words for you. Without knowing the results of a forensic analysis (which didn’t really take place in the 911 commission) of the biggest crime case in the 21st century two wars, that killed about a million innocent people by now, were started. Not only did Australia participate in this unjustifiable wars, the cases of David Hicks, the Barwon 13, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef demonstrate that human rights and the rule of law are disregarded in this country, due to the (myth of the) global threat of terror.

When I use reason to analyse this situation, I think there is something utterly wrong with this picture. About one hundred people starved to death while you were reading this. They will not be out there to get you. Enjoy your fear.

although attack australia australian commission dr eggs fear haneef human killed liberties life people reason rule start stop terror terrorists victims war world

created at TagCrowd.com

PS: Somehow the 21st century seems not to have arrived in the PIS. The interactive and participatory part of modern digital communication media (such as blogs) remain a mystery to the majority.

I am a bit tired to entertain you here. And I don't want to create the impression that my views would be representative for the club. Or even being said aloud in meetings. However, feel free to check my rants from the centre of the future (which is the fringe of contemporary society) either here, here or here.

Taking care of history

2007-08-24T14:22:00.000+10:00

History is written by winners, that's why Australian history starts with the time the first settlers arrived. Writing history after a conflict is usually straight forward: The own effords can be heroised, the enemy demonised, and another clean just war (with some unfortunate civilian causualties) is added to the collection of fairy tales, commonly called history book.

I encountered a more immediate rewriting of history when I participated the G20 protests last year. Ten minutes of escalation were exaggerated to "Melbourne's most violent day", and no mainstream medium offered "fair and balanced" coverage of this events.

However, Chomsky's propaganda model offers insights into the constraints of mainstream media, so it's not too surprising that representatives of corporatism get in line against the Global Justice Movement (which is what is widely called with the derogatory and misleading term "Anti Globalisation Movement").

Yet, not all sources of information and reference are traded, some of them are free. Although we are constantly reminded to by our tutors not to use Wikipedia in academic context, we all know (and probably use) it.

"It is entirely legitimate for your personal political staff to make changes of a factual nature, but to engage public servants to go out there and re-edit history, it strikes me as odd to say the least."

That's Kevin Rudd's comment on the war on history fought by the Howard government. I wouldn't call it odd, just a typical sign of a nominal democracy that lacks sufficient checks and balances.

Dr. Haneef lost his visa because he visited a distant relative. John Howard confers with the Exclusive Brethren, his mate sold visas for cash, but his "character" is not in doubt. Have fun electing your next master - it's not the person Howard, that is particularly bad, it's a system that allows the ruling class to get away with more than its populace ever would. Baaah

To me, the following piece is an indication that history might repeat itself.

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. "In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation," assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.
For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, "because the government's established by the Lord, you know. And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith. That's what's stated in the scripture."
Civil rights advocates believe the amount of public cooperation during such a time of unrest may ultimately depend on how long they expect a suspension of rights might last.

Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law is the title of the youtube clip below.

The origin of the Al Qaeda myth

2007-08-13T22:46:00.000+10:00

I realised that quite a lot of the Australian people are caught in a kind of hypnosis - with the keyword "terror" used to sell the abolition of civil rights. Yet, once you forget your fear for a short while and dare dealing with the topic "terror" in depth, with analysis instead of the fear-mongering offered by main stream media, you might be able change your attitude, and your habitual reaction the next time somebody tries to sell you fear.

The video is a snippet of the (imho) excellent BBC documentary The power of nightmares, which was shown earlier this year on SBS. With a broadband connection you might watch this on Google video, if you missed it on SBS. I happily burn you a disc containing the three parts, if you're interested and not scared about the brainwashing a BBC documentary might give you.

Nobody told the Germans that they were living in a fascist state while it happened. I encountered while travelling the globe that this 12 dark years of German history still dominate the opinion about Germany and Germans. Hitler is better known than Goethe, Beethoven, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger or Heine. I met more admirers of the Gröfaz (Grösster Führer aller Zeiten / Greatest leader of all times) outside Germany than inside. (That doesn't mean that there's no Nazis in Germany, just that people don't share there racist opinion as easily as elsewhere.)

Nobody told the Germans in East Germany that they were living in a totalitarian state (which was called "German Democratic Republic" (GDR) and had compulsory voting). However, in Nazi Germany there were people like Schindler, who didn't need historians to tell them that something is utterly wrong with the proceedings of their government, but hadn't lost their empathy for other human beings and endangered their life by acting against the "law", and weren't brainwashed by governmental propaganda.

No government ever spread the word that they wanted to screw their population as good as they could, though historians have no problem digging up examples when this happened. Nowadays, we are conditioned to believe in "experts", and unless experts have more airtime to state that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, we dare not to compare the current situation with what we could have learned in history.

Nazi Germany and the GDR used their secret services to suppress democracy, dissent and governmental criticism. Secrecy due to "national security" was the cornerstone of their tyranny, and empowered the Gestapo and Stasi to arbitrarily detain people. Probably that causes me to get suspicious when I hear Philip Ruddock talking, who thinks it's okay that people don't get presented any evidence when they are charged for major offenses. Or to keep them in prison without charges. Or to accept the jurisdiction of fascist courts under the Military Commissions Act.

Another cornerstone was surveillance. Without the support of IBM, the census required to determine the arian or jewish origin, would have been hardly sufficient to kill millions of innocent people. Providing unique identification, which is nowadays done by fingerprinting, DNA sampling or similar biometric means, helped the Nazis to identify their targets.

East Germany, however, wasn't as rampant as Nazi Germany to kill opposition. "Just" those who wanted to leave the country were killed by automatic killing machines or vigilant guards. East Germany didn't have the technology to trace anyone by their DNA, that's why their secret service collected sweat samples of each and every citizen to chase dogs on them when necessary.

My parents fled East Germany, when my dad rejected to pay the union fees. Flyers were distributed in the area they were living, claiming my dad was a traitor to the working class for asking what the unions did for him.

I'm happy that my parents didn't wait 30 years for the Berlin Wall to come down, but fled before this dreadful thing was build. Fighting the system in East Germany was virtually impossible. It didn't kill you (unless you encountered vigilant border patrols or killing machines), but it thoroughly destroyed your chances to participate in society.

My dad (may his soul have a pleasant life after death) didn't wait until historians analysed the mechanisms that created the unjust society that emerged in East Germany after the war, but interpreted the disparity between government propaganda and everyday experience in a rational way.

However, fleeing your home country is no longer an option. Even people from Iraq and Afghanistan are send home, no matter what dreadful fate is waiting for them. What has changed is the opportunity to access information and to organise resistance against ostensibly "democratic" governments.

Although I'm known to you as the "German anarchist", I think that democracy is something worth trying. I might know what makes me happy, but I'm simply not sufficiently arrogant to state I would know what "everyone" makes happy. Unfortunately, I haven't encountered too many politicians in socalled "democratic" societies that share this point of view.

Democracy needs participation, and most advances for the life of "common people", like universal suffrage (for non-property owners, women, native people) has been achieved by direct action. The greek model of democracy just allowed property owning males to vote, females are just allowed to vote since New Zealand introduced it about 120 years ago, less than half a century ago Aborigines were allowed to vote in Australia.

(West) Germany has a longer history of universal suffrage than the US or Australia, yet the legalized feudalism in the US is used as an impeccable example for "democracy". (Does anyone remember Rosa Parks?)

We, the people, have been withdrawn from power or influence for most of the time in history. Germany was happy to have exchanged monarchy for democracy after WW I, yet it just took 15 years, less than a generation, to convert democracy into fascism.

We, the people, have been subdued to unjust governments for most of history, yet my fellow students take democracy for granted, and ridicule those who engage in activism.

We, the people, are now asked to give away the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the rule of law and the right to strike. All of this for the phony "war on terror", which poses a lesser threat than to be killed by lightning.

Enjoy your unsubstantiated fear, or choose to think for yourself.

I took my pick. And I don't mind if you shout out loud: "Godwin's law!". History has repeated itself over and over again, and if you think "political correctness" prevents this, dream on. It is so comforting to forget that a nominal democracy (like in Germany after WW I) smoothly slid into fascism, and to assume that a nominal democracy is inherently safe from fascism.

(In Australia, Faheem Lodhi is imprisoned for a "thought crime" for 20 years. Lodhi was convicted on the basis of alleged future intentions. No actual plans for a terrorist act were uncovered.)

I don't want to convert you into any political camp, as I'm not adhering to anything that deserves this name. I'm more than happy to meet anyone who dares to think for themselves. Dissent is the essence of democracy, which prevents proselytizing. I'd just like to encourage you, if you have more than two brain cells, to assess for yourself whether "terrorism" is a big enough problem to give away the basis for any democratic system.

Frankenfood or saviour of mankind?

2007-08-12T14:09:00.000+10:00

Jason Koutsoukis lobbies a lot for GM food in The Age lately. He quotes a governmental report that claims that GM food poses no danger to human health and the environment.

The US and Canada, two nations that engage a lot in producing transgenetically engineered food, don't label GM food as such, which makes it virtually impossible to determine which impact on individual health this food has.

Cross-pollination with conventional crop spreads the transgenetic material around - nature is no lab. Genetic material from GM corn in the US was already found in remote areas of Mexico, which has not allowed planting of GM crops.

Per definition, organic food can not make use of GM food, which means that there will be no more chance to produce organic food in the long run, or just on a very limited scale.

GM canola probably looks and tastes like conventional canola, but it is sufficiently different from it to deserve being patented. Basically, it is a new species. Australia has some experiences with introducing new species into its ecosystem, as far as I know hardly any positive experiences. There's lots of toads here naturally, so the cane toad can't harm.... There's lot of canola here, so GM canola can't harm...

The way Jason describes the customer's desire for GM food is quite interesting as well. The acceptance has risen, he states, but mentions no statistics. Was the rise from 10% to 11%? Leaving out precise figures nourishes the suspicion that most customers don't want GM food. Asking customers whether they would want to pay more for non-GM food is not really an objective way to find out about acceptance, and maintains the myth (also known as sales promise) that GM food can be produced cheaper, and the consumer would as well pay cheaper prices. Somehow this contradicts the capitalist mantra of maximising profits, but it nurtures the myth of benevolent corporations.

If you suspect that I don't want GM food to be introduced here, you are right. In Germany, illegally planted GM crops have already cross-pollinated adjacent crops, and thus destroyed the livelihood of organic farmers. Monsanto sued a farmer in Canada whose crop was affected by cross-pollination and made him pay for things he didn't want to have in first place.

Although I'm quite happy with your implicit consent to my prior postings, I'm curious about your thoughts about GM food.

Do you want it? Do you think the introduction of a new species into the Australian ecosystem is a good idea? If GM food isn't labelled, can we with certainty conclude that it has no health impacts? Isn't it a reduction of consumer's choice, if "the whole world" plants GM crop? Wouldn't there be an enormous advantage for Australia to be one of the few countries to still produce organic food?

Dynasty

2007-08-05T14:06:00.000+10:00

A decent tyranny needs an evil family, willing keep the power in their hands, no matter what happens. Fidel gave his power to his brother Raoul Castro, Saddam Husseyn would have made one of his sons the next leader, and feudalism used inherited leadership systematically.

It comes as a bit of a surprise that in the US a single family got hold of the presidency twice. Yet, this will for power stems from the grandfather of the current US president, Prescott Bush.

Prescott Bush married into a wealthy family, which provided him with the job to organise financial support for Nazi Germany. At the end of the second world war he was found guilty of supporting the enemy, but was not penalised. The money earned in this nefarious activities built the basis for the wealth of the Bush family.

Prescott Bush's support for the Nazis was just consequential. A BBC documentary followed the traces of an attempt to assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. There are very familiar names among the conspirators that planned to turn the US into a fascist country like Germany.

GWB has created enough Presidential Orders and Directives to declare himself as a dictator (in case of a national emergency, which is anything the president defines as such). He cannot be reelected, but he might simply cancel the elections.

The reason could be a terror attack, this time certainly done by terrorists from Iran, maybe even nuclear or chemical, in a place like LA or San Francisco. While the inevitable nuclear retaliation annihilates Iran, going to vote is uncertainly impossible. I hope I'm wrong.

I just wonder whether you still think democracy is healthy in the US when the next elections get cancelled, or another country gets attacked.

Semester 2: Revenge of the PIS

2007-07-29T21:36:00.000+10:00

The PIS returns! Here is the agenda for this week's meeting, which takes place Wednesday at 1pm, in our new location of Room 109, Alice Hoy Building.

No smoking
Why is it that, if you is sitting in a drinking establishment with politically interested people, you can play devil's advocate on all manner of issues - defend the Iraq war, agree solemnly with the PM that fighting climate change must not be at the expense of the economy - but if you refuse to agree wholeheartedly with this new smoking ban of Bracksy's in bars and restaurants, you are looked at like you have just escaped from an asylum?
Is it possible that this ban is actually lousy policy?

Pakistan
Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's semi-benevolent dictator, is in a spot of bother. A few months ago he dismissed a judge, as dictators are inclined to do, but all hell's broken loose ever since, both with Pakistan's democrats, and, more worryingly, with its Islamists. Tensions reached a new high just the other week, with the storming of the Red Mosque. And the latest Newspoll finds he has made up hardly any ground on Kevin Rudd.
To take all this instability and supersize it, the Bush Administration, defying the general hope that its dumbest ideas are behind it, is planning on sending American troops into Pakistan.
What's going to happen in Pakistan? Is Musharraf going to have to get off the fence, and choose between a long-promised return to genuine democracy, or a metamorphosis into all-out dictatorship? Or, will Pakistanis choose to overthrow him first?
And: should America's policy of supporting Musharraf as an ally in the 'war on terror' be revised? Has it contributed to this whole mess?

Marriage
So less people are getting married, and those that do are getting married later in their lives. Is this regrettable? Or is there an upside? For example, maybe if our PM had remained an ineligible bachelor and hadn't tied the knot to Lady MacBeth, we would have been spared 11 years and might still live under the rule of law... Discuss.

Federal politics
Are the Coalition going to lose?
Should they switch to Costello?
How 'bout this Haneef business?

To be followed immediately by Hawkey Card-priced beer at PA's, on Grattan Street, from 2:15.

Previously, at the PIS ...
PIS President Dave Fettling won his second term. It was the narrowest election margin in the history of the Society.
One week later, he was inaugurated under a bleak overcast sky and with a record low turnout. While running the meeting that week, he was frequently interrupted and contradicted, leading to whispers he may already have become a 'lame duck PIS President'.
Despite this the President was talking big: 'Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it', he told the assembled media at the Prince Alfred hotel.
Meanwhile the PIS's mascot, the two-headed dog, was hospitalised again at the end of May, spending a night in Eltham East Veterinary Clinic. Flowers, get-well cards and Schmackos from concerned members of the Political Interest Society poured in. The dog is beloved by the PIS.
Blanche, wife of former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who agreed to become the official patron of the Political Interest Society in February of this year, wrote an apologetic letter to the PIS Committee apologising for her husband's poor attendance record at the club. But as she explained, "he's been hitting the turps pretty bad ever since the Keating! musical became a hit".

What sort of semester is it going to be for the PIS? There's ample evidence that the club is headed for disaster.
The Young Liberals on campus, who attempted to crush the PIS four years ago, 'like the Soviets into Czechoslovakia in 68', as their then President described it, have been growing alarmed at the leftward turn in the Society's emails. While the Libs cautiously welcomed the election of Dave Fettling back in 2006, they have noticed of late his growing tendency to don army fatigues, smoke cigars, talk about a 'politically interested utopia', and refer to his Secretary, Eddie Clarke, as 'Raoul'.
We tried to get a quote from the Young Libs, but they didn't answer.
Then we tried again and they answered and they said that they were all gay.
After being released from the vet in June, the two-headed dog has returned to the ranch he calls home, but has been feeling dizzy and lethargic. All PIS members are to pray for him.
Thomas Friedmann in his regular New York Times column has asked the question, 'Is Dave Fettling the PIS's Mikhail Gorbachev?' Friedmann pointed out that the Soviet Union was going swimmingly until Gorbachev launched 'glasnost', which is Russian for 'going to the pub', and 'perestroika', which is Russian for 'stupid emails'. Gorbachev, says Friedmann, 'attempted to reform the unreformable...as a result, the whole Empire came crashing down'. Hmm.
And the University of Melbourne Student Union has launched an investigation after two rank and file PIS members were caught breaking into the Clubs & Societies office and tampering with files.
But I'm sure it's nothing.

A win for justice?

2007-07-28T13:20:00.000+10:00

The case against Dr. Haneef crumbled to bits and pieces, after Howard, Ruddock and Andrews celebrated this witch hunt as victory in the "war on terror". Now, without a visa, Dr. Haneef has to pay about 120$ per day for his detention, until he goes back to India. As he couldn't pay his rent while he was held without charge, he has lost his flat, which was searched by about 300 police forces to find no evidence.

No one as yet is willing to take responsibility for this act that concerns all foreigners in Australia. The anti-terror laws have no regulations for compensation, as they seem to be designed to make anyone a terrorist, no matter how flimsy the evidence is.

Dr. Haneef isn't the first one who felt the injustice of Australia's anti-terror laws. The Barwon 13 still wait for their trial, after more than a year in solitary confinement in a high-security prison. Faheem Lodhi will spent 22 years in prison for something, that can't even be described as a thought crime. Jack Thomas, by the media prejudiced as Jihad Jack, still suffers from a constraint order, being subjected to a curfew and restrictions which means of communication he is allowed to use.

And finally, David Hicks, who was subjected to five years in American torture camps, is held as a terrorist in jail, and will enjoy a similar constraint order like Jack Thomas, once he is a "free man" again.

David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef are not allowed to talk about their treatment, which would be essential to determine how Australia treats basic human rights. Human Rights Organisations consider solitary confinement as a form of torture, especially over long periods of time, and all of the former experienced this totalitarian treatment.

So much I would appreciate Philip Ruddock taking his hat for his repeated abuse of the anti-terror laws, I don't see this happen. Mick Keelty might end up to be the scapegoat, and/or Kevin Andrews, but this seems as well not too likely. However, it would satisfy my concept of justice and accountability in a democracy to see some heads rolling, though it wouldn't make up for the damage done to the victims of the witch hunt, nor would anyone pay back the taxpayers money used to pursue this paranoid trials.

Just personal responsibility could move Ruddock, Keelty or Andrews to resign, legally there is no reason. All of them can hide behind the anti-terror laws, which are the core of the problem. This legislation opened a back-door to circumvent to the rule of law, and thus can be abused by anyone in a position of power.

Although the media, especially The Age, played an important role to prevent the next innocent man being subjected to a life in prison, it is far from being innocent. Terrorists are an extremly rare breed, luckily, and the threat posed by them is far less than the threat by car accidents or suicide. However, reporting permanently about terror related topics maintains fear among the population, and the illusion of a real threat. But this paranoia is never backed up by numbers, because the numbers speak simply a different language.

I'm really curious who, if anyone, will take responsibility for this abuse of power. As mentioned, I would appreciate simply abolishing the anti-terror laws, which would automatically prevent especially Ruddock from interfering with the judiciary system.

The damage done to the life and reputation of Dr. Haneef can not be undone. He is one of 20,000 foreign physicians working in Australia (out of 50,000), and at least people from muslim backgrounds might no longer be willing to take the risk of supporting the Australian medical system.

Well done, Mr. Keelty. Well done, Mr. Andrews. Well done, Mr. Ruddock. Well done, Mr. Howard.

Risk assessment

2007-07-16T12:49:00.000+10:00

I got my numbers wrong in the previous posting, sorry for that. Let's do the math again.

New York, 9/11/01: 2974 casualties
Bali, 10/12/02: 202 casualties
Madrid, 3/11/04: 191 casualties
London, 7/7/05: 52 casualties
Mumbai, 7/11/06: 209 casualties
Glasgow, 6/30/07: 0 casualties

Total: 3628 victims of terror, so I should I have said far less than 5,000 people were killed by terror in this century in the western world.

According to the Food and Agriculture Administration of the UN, more than 25,000 people starve daily. The daily loss of life due to our economic system is five times higher than the death toll due to terror in the last six years.

About 2,000 to 2,500 people annually committed suicide in Australia in this millenium.

According to the Lancet study, 655,000 people were killed in Iraq from March 2003 to June 2006. Assuming a similar rate of killing for the period from July 2006 until now brings the number up to 850,000 (conservatively). The estimate of about 150,000 to 250,000 during six years of war in a country with more than 30 million population seems very conservative, however, as both areas are still war zones just estimates are possible.

The use of Depleted Uranium and daisy cutters bombs increases civilian casualties even without actual fights, intoxicates former arable land and turns farming into a deadly adventure. The website Afghanistan after Democracy gives you an idea of the mutations caused by DU (warning: very graphic images).

Although the US rulez "war on terror" killing game is far from over, it is virtually impossible to catch up for the terrorists.

Terrorists: 4,000 Governments: 1,100,000
Corporatism (death by starvation): 60,000,000
(all estimates for 21st century)

I consider myself in first place as an Earthian. The winner in this cruel game are corporative interests fostered by governments, the loser is humanity.

And all of that because of the myth of scarcity. In the height of the cold war, 1983, Richard Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century stated:

In 1970 it could, for the time, be engineeringly demonstrated that, applying the most advanced know-how to the conservation and use of the world's resources, we can, within ten years of from-killigry-to-livingry reoriented world production, have all humanity enjoying a sustainably higher standard of living than any humans have ever heretofore experienced. It could be further demonstrated that we can do this while simultaneously phasing out all further Earthians' use of fossil fuels and atomic energy.

Bucky Fuller, Grunch of Giants (emphasize not in the original)

PS: I kind of feel very uneasy as international student in this country right now. The way in which Dr. Haneef is treated reminds me very much of the dark times in Germany. He is - in the view of the government, represented by Mr. Andrews - guilty by association, and while being here an temporary visa, the century old legal principle of "guilty until proven innocent" seem not to apply any more in Australia. While Ms. Payne, the judge that tried to keep up legal principles, granted him bail, because there is simply no evidence backing his alleged support of a terrorist group, the minister of immigration knows better than a judge.

This arbitrary interpretation of legal principles scares me a lot. I wouldn't be surprised, if in the near future the slogan "Don't buy at muslim shops" is propagated. It seems like the government has decided to scare skilled immigrants off. I'm used to live in a relatively free society and to speak my mind. But neither the Liberals nor Labour seem to have a problem to mix up legislative, executive and judicative powers, so that one of the basic principles of democracy, the separation of powers, has been abolished.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niemöller

I don't know whether one of you will speak out, when someone comes for me. But as long as terror paranoia can justify arbitrary decisions like in the case of Dr. Haneef, without any public outrage and severe consequences for those in government making their own rules, I feel like history is repeating. And I still doubt that 88 Australian victims in Bali justify the abolition of civil rights and centuries old legal principles.

PPS: Obviously, 2002 was the climax of terror victims from an Australian perspective. Rational Fear provides data as it was collected by the World Health Organisation. For your convenience, I pulled the data for people between 20-24 for this year to help you a bit in your personal risk assessment.

In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for men in that age group were:

1. 84 (0.012%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 48 (0.007%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
3. 18 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
4. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, traffic accident (V031)
5. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours - Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours, unspecified place (X679)
6. 15 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified, unspecified place (X429)
7. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
8. 13 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
9. 12 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)

In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for women in that age group were:

1. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 8 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
3. 7 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
4. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Myeloid leukaemia - Acute myeloid leukaemia (C920)
5. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
6. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, passenger, traffic accident (V436)
7. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
8. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)

I'm very tempted to kindly ask the next one, who wants to remind me of the threat that terrorism poses, to commit suicide. The age group 40-44 which pushes suicide to the second place (for males), but just because the counting distinguishes between different methods of suicide. Once you made it to 55, the suicidal tendencies decrease. Women tend to be less suicidal, but it's still the primary reaper for females between 15 and 30.

Let's hear some experts

2007-07-13T22:26:00.000+10:00

Most of the club members are well aware that I don't believe the official myth of 911. And I'm well aware that some of you are pretty annoyed whenever I bring up the topic, while others happily use my different opinion on that matter for ad hominem attacks and put the tinfoil hat of a conspiracy nut on my head.

However, I feel mature enough to stand the heat and not to give in to peer pressure. Especially as I don't spread any particular conspiracy theory, but ask for explanations of physical phenomena that insult my understanding of basic principles of science.

One of the key issues remains the question why and how the trade center building 1, 2 and 7 collapsed. The most intelligent reply I heard about this topic asked for some statements by engineers (thanks, Sophie), which might have a better idea about structural integrity of building, and the ways and reasons why buildings might collapse.

A lot of literature has been published about 911, and you might happily say by conspiracy nuts to make a big buck. But it when comes to making money out of 911 other names come to my mind. Larry Silverstein for example, the lease holder of the WTC complex made several billion dollars just a few months after signing the lease contract for the buildings. Or Halliburton, which overcharged the US government for the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, but remains a primary supplier for the US army.

And probably you'll think it's just a publicity stunt, when celebrities like Charlie Sheen or Rosie O'Donnell raise their doubts about the official story. They lack - just like me - the professional credibility assumed by anyone the media calls expert.

Yet some experts use their knowledge to investigate on their own, with the little evidence that is left since most of debris of the collapsed buildings was sold off as scrap metal to China. Pr. Steven Jones, physicist, got hold of samples from the debris of the WTC, and found in it the chemical signature of thermate, an explosive used for controlled demolitions.

Richard Gage, an architect that designs steel-framed highrisers, held a lecture at the Sonoma State University to explain why he came to the conclusion that the buildings WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down in a controlled demolition. You can find the link to the presentation on the left side of the "Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" website, and although the quality of the video is not too stunning, it is well worth watching. For a quick fix in better quality check the the first part of the lecture held in Canada.

The chairman and final editor of the 911 commission report, Philip Zelikow, is not only a participant of the occult Bilderberg meetings and co-author of a book with Condoleeza Rice (and thus not really "independent from the government"), but also, according to Wikipedia, an expert for the creation of public myth. Decide for yourself who might be more competent to explain why fire can or cannot destroy a huge steel construction in a neat, symmetrical fashion.

So for those of you who want to hear some expert opinion about the collapse of the World Trade Center building, have a look at the Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth or Scholars for 911 Truth website, before you refrain to the next unsophisticated ad hominem attack when I mention this topic.

You may wonder why I bring up 911 so persistently, which is easy to answer. 911 is used as a general excuse for abolition of civil rights world wide and the murder of about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia will spend 10 billion dollar on its "war on terror" in the next 5 years (according to The Age), which resembles more and more the endless war described in Orwell's 1984.

I think its absurd to claim to live in a civilised society when more tax payers money is spend on war than on education or health. Unless you buy into the doublespeak idea that citizen are civilians, which can be bossed around like the Aboriginal communities by the army.

We study at one of the most prestigious universities of the world, which implies that we will (possibly) earn better wages and therefore pay more taxes than average Joe. This means we contribute more to support governmentally initiated murder.

Less than 10,000 people were killed by terror in the 21th century in the western world (none in Australia), whereas western governments killed about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And historically seen, most governments abused their population at will. Full suffrage for all citizens just happened in the 20th century, in Australia less than 50 years ago. Good luck in numbing your conscience with luxury and trusting the government.

In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs that fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, "just to keep the people frightened".

Orwell, 1984

Brave new world

2007-06-27T22:26:00.000+10:00

“I think a lot of people would be really disturbed by what’s happening. People have this rose-coloured view of Australia as a democratic country. But we are seeing measures which have more in common with the Stasi or a police state. University is a time when people traditionally question things and open up and learn about the world. That spirit of inquiry is now under threat.”

These are the words of the President of Sydney University's Student Representive Council (SRC), Angus McFarland. His SRC fellow David Jones was approached by the police to spy on his socialist activists comrades.

There's quite some socialism activism in Melbourne as well, and many are annoyed hearing and reading about the socialist world revolution. However, a closer look unveils a very non-threatening crowd. It is hard to imagine that Sydney's socialists pose more of a threat than our own.

This raises some questions. Why does the government want to prevent activism? Who is the spy among the Melbourne socialists, or is there none? Is it illegal in this country to be against consumerism, conformism and neo-liberalism?

Who much freedom is left in a country that puts you in jail for dissent?

Never ending story

2007-06-20T19:26:00.000+10:00

As long as there are civil rights to be taken away, the universal excuse 911 will be used. Like it happened in the last six years while about a million people were killed as retaliation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A lot of people all over this planet doubt the official account of the day that changed the world. But as long as they are just someone, most people won't listen. The list of prominent people asking for a reinvestigation of 911 gets longer.

Rosie O'Donnell lost her chance to talk about the mysterious collapse of WTC7 on the show The View, she left the show in June. The left documentarist Michael Moore joined now the ranks of those thinking that 911 could have been an inside job.

Moore mentions explosions in the World Trade Center buildings, and wonders why we haven't seen any footage from the more than 100 video cameras capturing the Pentagon. Explosions were reported by several eye witnesses, yet the most confusing eyewitness account just broke.

Jason Bermat and Dylan Avery, the heads behind Loose Change, one of the most popular Google video since its existence, chased up somebody who has been in official mission in WTC7 just after the first plane crash into the north tower of the WTC.

Parts of the interview have been prereleased on Alex Jones Prison Planet, the interviewee will remain anonymous until the final release of Loose Change, which is due later this year.

Mr. X wanted to see Mr. Guiliani in the New York City Office of Emergency Management, which was located on a fortified floor with bombproof windows on the 23rd floor of WTC 7. Just minutes after the first hit the emergency team has fled their control center in an apparent hurry.

The lifts were no longer operating, on the way down via a staircase he nearly fell into the gap ripped by an explosion. When he finally made his way into the lobby, "it looked like King Kong stepped through it and destroyed all".

Mr. X had been talking to the 911 commission, but his account was ignored in the report. Of course, you can imagine that this is nothing but a marketing scam for a long expected film. I'm quite curious which celebrity will come out of the closet after Michael Moore and this new evidence.

Citizen under siege

2007-06-13T22:44:00.000+10:00

Ed and Elaine Brown from Plainfield, New Hampshire look just just like the nice, friendly, elderly couple that they are.

The Browns believe in the American constitution, and like many others they despise the 23rd December 1913, when President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, which handed the privilege to print money to a handful private banks.

As a consequence the government pays the Federal Reserve to print its money and interest for the connected loans. In the US, the income tax is used to pay for the cost arising for the circulation of money, and the IRS is the muscle used to get it.

The IRS claims that the congress had given them the power to collect income tax, but according to the constitution the congress has not the power to introduce such a tax. Aaron Russo, the maker of the documentary America: From freedom to fascism took his time to investigate to strange legal situation of the income tax.

The Browns refuse to pay take income tax, because they assume that the constitution has highest legal authority. But the IRS stroke back. Their home is besieged since last week with armored vehicles, drones spy out their properties, snipers creep around their house.

Just a coincidence might have saved their lives when a SWAT team was about to move in on thursday morning. Danny Riley, a friend of the Browns, discovered the teams while walking their dog.

Electricity to the house is disrupted, phonelines disconnected and mobile phones get jammed. Several independent reporters have interviewed the Browns, while the rest of media shows no interest at all. The armoured vehicles and SWAT teams still hang around.

This style of law enforcements reminds of overly violent Hollywood movies, but not of a free society. The free American society, however, has been abolished with the Military Commission Act of 2006. The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive finally grants the American President the right to introduce martial law when he like it.

Naomi Campbell joins those concerned about the slide towards fascism in the US. Her article inspired retired judge Peter Gebhard to reflect about the shutting down of democracy in Australia.

America is well prepared for a dictatorship, Halliburton received last year a $385 million contract to build detention centers in the US. And Australia builds its own Guantanamo-like facility far out on Christmas Island.

Your vote is a valuable thing. What you say often enough becomes true. And I hope the siege of Ed and Elaine Browns home will not to be next the Waco, but so far the publicity, especially by Alex Jones radio show, has prevented anything bad happening.

When the elite meets

2007-05-29T15:52:00.000+10:00

Economic summits create usually a lot of attention, both from the media and protesters. Last years G20 summit in Melbourne is a good example, like this years G8 summit in Germany, where democracy has been abolished to protect the participating politicians. Hearsay provided enough evidence for the German police for lots of unwarranted searches and arrests, the demonstrations planned for this events can't take place at the events site, but miles away from it.

German chancellor Merkel felt quite uneasy, when Putin reminded her that the way Russia deals with dissent is remarkably similar to Germanys stance towards G8 protests.

Though they are still two weeks to go before the G8 summits starts, it has raised already some attention. 146 article pop up on factiva with the keyword G8 for Australia in the last three months, yet not all of them related to the summit.

But if you search the Australian media for information about the Bilderberg group, you will find only one article, and it doesn't even mention that the next meeting of this mysterious group will take place next weekend in Istanbul, Turkey.

Is there no public interest in a meeting with the Queen of the Netherlands, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Jean Claude Trichet, and other noteable figures from politics, and the oil-, telecommunication-, media- and banking industry?

Paul Wolfowitz was initially invited to this event, but might not attend as his reputation suffered a little lately. But his planned successor as World Bank president, Bob Zoellick will be there for sure, like in 2003 and 2006.

And Gordon Brown will be there as well, and not for the first time. Did I mention that Blair attended some Bilderberg conferences, before he was elected? Even Angela Merkel was invited in 2005, some months before the German elections.

Of course, probably the participants simply enjoy meeting up with old mates, well protected by the CIA, and exchange stories about family, food and vacation. Yet in this case the extreme secrecy about this meeting would not be neccessary.

However, participants from the media (Economist, Le Figaro, NYT to name a few insignificant ones) are obliged not to report about this event. But then, does the public has any right to know what happens behind closed doors, when the World Bank president and the head of the European Central Bank have a friendly chat with the CEOs of the biggest commercial banks?

I think there is significant public interest in this meeting. But then, I'm sure it will go relatively unnoticed by the global mass media. And you, my dear friends from the PIS, can feel free to label this post as conspiracy, and go back to sleep, dreaming about democracy.

The presidential election in the US in 2008 will show much democracy remains in the western world. If the currently most popular Republican candidate (Ron Paul, in case you didn't know) is allowed to run against Hillary, there might be hope. If it's Rudi Guiliani, the man who is responsible for the death and disease of thousands of rescue workers (he sent them knowingly unprotected in the toxic waste pit of Ground Zero), the US empire will strike even more.

American diversity

2007-03-22T19:40:00.000+11:00

While the American President tries again his dictatorial powers, not every American happily agrees with his follies.

One of the icons of investigate journalism, Seymour M. Hersh, asks in his article The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?

His analysis of the situation in the Middle-East, and the connection of terror groups with Vize-President Cheney's office should reap some mainstream media echo, but the media simply ignores Hersh.

Hersh broke the story about the massacres in My Lai during the Vietnam war, and build a network of contacts during his long career that makes even unnamed sources credible. His named sources include more than two sides of this complicated constellation.

Something seems to be wrong with the American government. Even talk show host Rosie O'Donnell joined the conspiracy nuts, or rather asks in her blog why WTC 7 collapsed. Besides other doubts about the latest propaganda coming out of Brain-Washington.

And again, mainstream media doesn't care, besides labeling her as insane. Instead of no longer trusting the government, most people decide to rather no longer trust their neighbour. Terror(tm) is per definition linked with islamic fundamentalism, and to assume that the CIA or even Cheney financed these groups.... is a thought crime.

That doesn't stop talk radio host Alex Jones in his aerial info war. He fights tyranny where ever he can find it, and that's in a lot of places. Paul Watson's take on the Khalid Sheik Mohammed confession offers a good insight of the mysterious world of government sponsored terrorism.

It looks like activism is rising again. Maybe we don't live yet in a world as happy and sterile as our daily soaps suggest. Government seems out of control, but some people still believe in a better world for all human beings, even though they have the 21st century motherf***er blues.

PS: I didn't want to end this posting with a nasty word, so I'd rather plug the dytopian article Survival At The Pleasure Of The President.

Clash of fundamentalism

2007-03-09T11:24:00.000+11:00

Not everyone agrees with Huntington's idea of the Clash of Civilisations. The British author Tariq Ali rather calls the current situation Clash of Fundamentalism, and his analysis about the diversity and history of the Muslim communities world wide, and its parallels in the Christian world provides probably a better background to the Middle-East conflict than the daily news yarn.

But not matter how you call this historic (or hysteric) era we live in, Islamophobia is noticeable even in multicultural Australia, and undoubtedly people in Afghanistan and Iraq won't embrace the attempt to mold their societies after the American ideal of freedom and democracy.

Politicians seems to have failed to find a peaceful solution to this conflict, but maybe people can have their voices heard if they unite. Online petitions become more and more popular, and personally I like the petition to Stop the clash of civilisations .

Of course I don't assume that this idea is endorsed by the PIS, but maybe some of you feel inclined to do a little bit more than nothing, and have at least a look at the compelling video accompanying this petition.

Global Warming - Global Conspiracy?

2007-02-28T00:32:00.000+11:00

When I checked news from good old Germany I stumbled across a discussion about global warming. The discussion was sparked off by an article comparing global warming sceptics with creationists. The strategies seem indeed similar, the sceptics will find some convincing specialist on internet, whose genius unveils that the 450 scientists working for the IPCC are nothing but fools.

The arguments of the Global Warming Deniers sound nearly religious: Man is not important enough and too impotent to influence our climate. Global Warming is just a hoax devised by big companies to make more money from the little man.

Now that's what I would call a great conspiracy theory. Manipulating climatologists, oceanologists, metereologists, geologists and physists worldwide to spread the evil lie of Human Caused Global Warming. I just wonder which global player would profit from a change toward more environmental friendly policies. And I wonder if I can ever get paranoid enough to believe somebody would push scientist all over the planet into 'Faking it'.

A reduction in CO2 emission could harm some businesses though, those producing and dealing with the commodity oil. Though they might already plan an exit strategy for their core business (Shell and BP research a lot into photovoltaic technology), the oil giants have some vital interesting that the consumption (and pollution) patterns of oil don't drastically change. But maybe that's just another conspiracy theory.

Some of the posting I read were simply hilarious, but I was amazed how some of GW-sceptics referred to their pseudo-scientific single sources on the internet. One article, written by a German physicist, sounded quite convincing, but luckily I found a reply to his yarn. A Professor Rahmsdorf, who works for the IPCC, managed to rebut his arguments with sufficient foundation, while being very comprehendable.

Stefan Rahmsdorf, oceanologist and member of the German Advisory Counsil on Global Change, published as well an interesting essay about the strategies of The Climate Sceptics. It deals with their primary pseudoscientific arguments and critics, and serves as a good example how to deal with dogmatic attitudes about the Unspeak expression 'Climate Change'.

Listening Tour

2007-01-23T13:30:00.000+11:00

One day in December, Kevin Rudd and I went to Queensland. Somewhere in the clouds after leaving Canberra and Melbourne, respectively, the newly elected Opposition Leader and I, in anticipation of landing, each turned back the clock. Watches and mobiles reconfigured for the absence of daylight savings time, we were both ready to land.
Rudd, with entourage, was going to Brisbane to begin his ‘listening tour’ in the state Labor must make inroads in at the next election. I, with entourage, set off by hire-car to the caravan park at Mon Repos Beach, north of Bundaberg, site of a sea turtle rookery, for a more typical tour. At 6.45 pm, according to my watch, it was getting dark. I stood surveying the place, the tents and caravans and cabins behind me, the beachside national-park ahead, irritated by Queensland recalcitrance on time, envying Rudd his Brisbane electricity.
‘Yeah, I been comin’ here forty years’, said Les, suddenly next to me. He was maybe 60, grey-haired, grey-stubbled. ‘Up from, ah, Maryborough’.
‘Yeah?…’ I said. Les stood with his arms folded staring out at the ghostly line of white waves in the blue-blackness to the east.
‘…It seems like there are a lot of places to see round here’, I said. ‘You don’t go to the Sunshine Coast or Fraser Island some years?’
‘Nah’, said Les. ‘…Nah, this place is good. Quiet. Beach for the kids. Good showers and all that’. He looked around. ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke, y’know?’
I said, ‘We’re just up from Melbourne. Came here to see the turtles come up to the beach’.
‘Melbourne?’ Les said. ‘Ah yeah…Yeah, the kids scare ‘em off a lot of the time, the turtles, goin’ on the beach just before dark. They ban people from the beach after six o’clock, but…’
That was news to me. ‘They should really put up signs or have rangers around or something at that time. There were people all over the beach before’.
‘…Yeah’, he said, carefully and somewhat suspiciously considering my proposed change. ‘Maybe…’.
I discreetly analysed my new acquaintance. Probably his group, like mine, had left the lantern home and so couldn’t play Uno. And as he was a Queenslander, I figured I was very probably in the presence of a "Beattie-Howard voter". For ten years of elections, Queenslanders have opted for the combination of a John Howard federal government and a Peter Beattie state government.
Les, too, was watching me with an analytical gaze.
I said, ‘After this we’re gunna go down to Hervey Bay’.
‘Hervey Bay’s bloody horrible, said Les. ‘All developed. Was good once. We was there in ‘74. Wasn’t bad then,’ he said, pausing meditatively. ‘But ah, no, not anymore’.
We stood in silence, bar the rasping bush heartbeat of the crickets.
‘But this place’, said Les. ‘This place hasn’t changed. See, in the eighties they, ah, wanted to develop this whole stretch. Big complex right on the beach. Make it like Noosa. But those turtles, they can’t have artificial lights. Screws ‘em up somehow, I dunno exactly how, but, yeah, it does. So there was this huge fight, dragged on for years, and in the end they banned any sort of development, ‘cept for this caravan park, ‘cos it’s been here forever and it don’t interfere that much’.
Except that, surely, Mon Repos had changed in forty years. An hour ago I had strolled about, in the last of the light. An asphalt road that looked newly paved was bordered on one side by a sugarcane plantation, sprinklers chugging water over the green stalks. The road was dotted with flattened corpses of cane toads.
I inched Les towards the subject of politics.
‘Well, I liked Hawke until that thing with the air-traffic controllers. When he sacked the air-traffic controllers, well, that did it for me, I couldn’t vote for him again’.
I asked what he thought of Keating.
‘Keating! Him and the bloody Indonesians! Keating and Suharto were bloody buddies for Christ’s sake. The Indonesians don’t like us, don’t respect us; and Keating was just falling over himself to please ‘em. He had’ve won again we’d all be eatin’ with chopsticks’.
Whitlam?
‘Whitlam! He was just a fool. Just ploughed ahead with any change he could think of. Didn’t matter to him if it was good change or not or what else it stuffed up. And he didn’t explain half of it to his own Guvvamunt, let alone the rest of us’.
The inner-city Sydney-Melbourne perspective tends to see the Howard Government steadily eroding the painstakingly-formed mountain of progress, whether whittling away one hundred years of industrial relations safeguards through WorkChoices, or eight hundred years of the rule of law in its attitude to David Hicks. But another perspective, common in Queensland, is that it is ‘progress’ which is eroding the world as they like it.
I hoped that, down in Brisbane with his electricity, the new Labor leader, as he enjoyed drinks with Queenslanders (or, for all I know, played Uno with them), was receiving a similar serve. Les doesn’t mourn the ghosts of Labor past: one who didn’t see a need to announce his economic policy at an election prior to implementation; another who hardly bothered to explain and justify dictator-coddling to the electorate; another who crashed through with all the subtlety of the Looney Tunes Tasmanian Devil, and to hell with any collateral damage.
Too often, the ALP gives the impression of not realising, first, that not all change is inherently good, and second, that change should be articulated and explained to Maryborough. For too many, the Labor Party and its policy initiatives seem like legislative cane-toads hopping brazenly into backyards.
Howard, and also Beattie, buck the trend in the minds of many – in Les’s words, they’re ‘Alright’ – and are rewarded with the caravan park vote.
My watch said seven thirty. The sky was black, aside from pinpricks of stars. Almost time to go turtle-spotting. I said to Les, ‘What’s with this no daylight saving up here?’
Les said, ‘Mm. Yeah. Well, there have been referendums on it.’
‘Have there?’ I said.
‘Yeah. Beattie said just the other day, he reckons he’ll hold another vote on it soon’.
‘Really?’ I said.
‘Personally I think it’s a good idea’, he said.
‘Really?’ I said.
‘Well, yeah. Ya have daylight saving, ya get home from work, ya get an extra hour of light to, y’know, do the garden or whatever. Seems a good idea to me’.
‘So you’d support it if it were put to a vote?’ I asked him.
‘Well…’ he said. ‘I’d certainly consider it’.
Rudd, who is a Queenslander, even though he has taken to adjusting his watch in October and again in March, is a good candidate to perform a very necessary task, to reconcile the literal and metaphorical time difference between the states and peoples of Australia. If he achieved nothing else of consequence in government, it would in itself make him a successful Prime Minister; and it could serve as a useful platform for Rudd Labor to bring about permanent and popular-mandated change.
If he never becomes Prime Minister, Rudd will be a useful Labor leader if he makes the federal party realise that their long period in opposition is partly their own fault. Adolescent romantics aside, it is probably more sensible to ensure you will actually crash through and not simply crash. And, when skiing downhill, a full set of skis and poles are generally preferable.
Rudd may find inspiration from Les’s choice for State Parliament. Peter Beattie, member of a new generation of less tub-thumping Labor leaders at Premier’s desks, has paved the way to reconciling change-mongering with ‘relaxed and comfortable’, reconciling Les with the latte set, and maybe soon, Queensland with daylight saving.
In thongs we walked to the beach and joined the rangers, me with my tertiary-educated posse, Les with his grand-daughter. My watch and Les’s both said 10pm. It felt to me like 11, but as we all loitered and shivered on the deserted beach, awaiting prehistoric reptiles to materialise from the crashing waves, the clock’s importance faded. The wind whistled; the surf hissed; the moon was full. The hillside was pitch-black, development-free, just the way the turtles from South America, and Les from Maryborough – and I – liked it. Then, digging her flippers into the wet sand, humping awkwardly up the beach, was a green sea turtle.
The Queensland State Government has implemented a useful change at Mon Repos. A short way up the black hillside, behind the grassy sand-dunes, there is a tiny light. Without disturbing the turtles, it shows people, in the dark, the path to the caravan park. It is the light on the hill.

Afghanistan - an example of democracy

2007-01-16T20:05:00.000+11:00

The war in Iraq isn't over yet, and the US is already longer engaged there than in World War II. The 'new strategy' the of US, trying harder to do the same things that caused this disaster, has just been confirmed. Condi Rice uses all her Unspeak skills to redefine the increase of invasion troops as 'augmentation'.

Obviously, an augmented sense of reality is needed to support the American efforts for world domination. War always yields incredible suffering among innocents, and depending on the weapons the suffering might never stop.

The quagmire in Iraq distracts attention from Afghanistan, but how does Afghanistan after democracy look like? The average life expectancy is 44 years for females, 45 years for males.

Outside Kabul warlords rule the country, rape women and children, abduct children to harvest and sell their organs, and the opium trade (which was stopped by the Taliban in areas they controlled) is at an all time high, supported and organized by American military.

But besides the lack of government, which creates anomy (not anarchy) and poses the daily threat of sudden death for most Afghan people, another legacy of the 'liberation' produces a creeping genocide.

Mohammed Daud Miraki, a social scientist engaged in helping people in Afghanistan, travelled during March and April 2006 through this country and collected photographic evidence of the long-term consequences of the use of DU ammunition. Following the link to his photos is nothing for faint-hearted persons, and I wish I hadn't done this myself.

But images of such 'alien babies' will probably appear in most areas where DU ammunition was used, though not everywhere will be people caring enough to publicise them. The half life of DU is about 5 million years, and it has been used abundantly in former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and the US forces considered using it in their Australian bases as well.

Nobody would seriously call Saddam Hussein or the Taliban just rulers of their countries. However, it is embarrassing for the Western World that it managed to worsen the life of millions of innocent people by attempting to liberate them. And whereas people from Iraq and Afghanistan could look for asylum before their countries were invaded, they will now by send back to a fast death due to chaos, lawlessness and unexploded bomblets, or a creeping death by the intoxication by DU ammunition.

Let's just continue to close our eyes and support the biggest mass murderers of the 21st century, George Bush and Tony Blair. Let us not blame John Howard and Alexander Downer for going arm in arm with them, 100 victims of the superior Australian race in Bali easily justify such horrible retribution. Or not?

PS: You can see an interview with Mohammed Daud Miraki in Alex Ansary's Outside The Box public access TV show. In case the link doesn't show up, just search for 'Outside the box #84' on Google video, unless you're afraid of alternative media.

Corporate social responsibility

2007-01-10T20:37:00.000+11:00

The Age had an interesting article about declining sales of Australian produced cars. Due to some incompentent management decisions (neglecting the fact that more Australians favor more economical and fuel-efficient cars) their sales plummeted, and now they ask to

pump an extra $1 billion into the car industry.

In 2006, the same car manufacturers axed 1000 jobs, which equals to one million dollar as bonus from the government for each slashed job. Somehow, this begging for money from the government for multinational corporations doesn't fit IMHO into the idea of free markets, a credo propagated by the Liberal Party.

On the other hand, a lot of education instutions suffer from under-funding. And as neither Holden, Ford or Toyota are Australian companies, I wonder why the government should even consider bailing out this companies, who drove themselves into problems.

A billion dollars invested in the education system might help growing an educated workforce, which isn't as much distracted from the market reality as the management of these companies obviously is.

How free is the Australian market, and can subsidies for multinational companies really do any good for Australians? There are certainly markets, where home-made products could be sold worldwide, like environmental friendly technologies that reduce CO2 emissions or alternative energy generating technologies.

But those emerging markets don't have the same lobbying power as established industries. And probably will never have, as they don't follow the paradigm of one size (of gas-guzzling status enhancing vehicles) fits all, but require providing solution that fit into local conditions.

Does corporate social responsibility mean the government has to reward incompetent managers of non-Australian (ie multi-national) companies for slashing 1,000 jobs?

Blood for oil?

2007-01-09T01:09:00.000+11:00

Finally, Operation Iraqi Liberation, the original name for the invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the Greedy, oops, Coalition of the Drillers, oops again, Coalition of the Willing (to sacrifice international and human rights) has shown its real purpose.

I'm not really surprised to catch the American government with yet another lie. Allegedly the most valuable resource of Iraq, oil, should help to finance the reconstruction of the devastated country. This was at least the spin from Cheney & Co to excuse incarceration of innocents in Guantanamo Bay, torture in Abu Ghraib, random slaughtering of civilians and raping of women and children by the occupation forces.

Now the puppet government in Iraq, which already had a favorable timing to sentence Saddam (just before the election) and killing him (just when about 3,000 US troops were officially killed), gave away its oil wells.

The Independent published a report detailing how the oil industry, which was nationalized in 1972, is handed over to the evil overlords, ooops, liberators of Iraq.

I wonder how long Australia will feel comfortable being in bed with the American war criminals, as all the myths that eased an Australian engagement in Iraq crumble away like castles made of sand. WMDs? No, none there. Al-Quaida connections? Not while Saddam was in power. Human rights? That's what the Military Commission Act officially got rid of, so that torturers working for the US can no longer be prosecuted.

What remains, is blatant corporate greed, and Australian soldiers, who engage in the robbery of oil in Iraq. And of course, Alex Downer, who just can't get enough of Australian involvement in this bloody, unjust occupation.

Trust your government, it wants just your best. Your blood, your life, your integrity and your money.

Trusting the government

2006-12-18T12:39:00.000+11:00

Some heated debated we had lately in less formal PIS meetings revolved about the question, how trustworthy governments are and what they would or would not do to their people.

As an anarchist, I tend not to trust governments, and as Media&Communication student I learned already a lot about the quality of news.

Chomsky's propaganda model of the media provides a scientific account how media coverage was manipulated in several cases to justify wars. Understanding this model helps determining how much factual background the daily news yarn owns.

However, I noticed an apparent lack of critical thinking with some fellow debaters, which seem to assume benevolent governments axiomatically.

In my political science lectures I learned about the concept of the post-911 world, although I managed to score a H2A for an essay that claimed that 9/11 has hardly changed anything in global politics.

Nevertheless, 911 has been the prime excuse to illegally invade countries and to massively restrict civil rights. And whenever some myth are blown away, like the existence of WMDs in Iraq, the responsible actors claim to have been wrongly informed.

Of course, admitting outright lies means political suicide, even though the voting sheep don't care too much about the integrity of their rulers.

Here is an account about the knowledge available to British MPs before they send their soldier to die, spread death, torture and devastation in Iraq, or, to use the Unspeak terms of the media propaganda, to liberate Iraq and spread freedom and democracy.

The lies of the American president are legion, the UK government knew how harmless Iraq was, and Tony Blair spun the same lies than his American collegue. I'm sure, John Howard is innocent, maybe a bit too gullible, and sent Australian soldiers in the battle just to protect his homeland.

Undergrad Reflections

2006-12-15T18:45:00.000+11:00

A quick bit of auto-trumpet on my part. After six years at Unimelb, next Wednesday I finally graduate. To mark my transition from student to ex-student, I'm writing my Undergrad Reflection on my modest little blog. You might like to have a read, and better yet, leave a comment.

Here 'tis.

Just some short wrap ups

2006-12-06T22:09:00.000+11:00

The PIS is alive and kicking, and even though only four of us remained on topic, our noise level nearly emptied the pub. A cornucopia of ideas spilled across the room, which should probably inspire some articles for the next AAP.

But to keep it up short, I just like to throw in some missing links. One of our topic was Depleted Uranium, an environmental hazard and toxic legacy that is increasingly used all over this planet.

While taking about war segueing into the evil overlords comes natural. Ari had not heard about the Bilderberg Group, which might come closest to be something like the secret rulers of this planet. I started investigating the mysterious group myself, and tried to research the participants. It's definitely work in progress, yet global politics and events appear already in a different light.

The last referral is to the background of ubiquitous terror theme. Somehow, links to Google Video seem not to work here, so simply search for terrorstorm and enjoy an alternative analysis of events of global events.

And the club website got a small makeover to create a bit more of corporate identity for our advertising efforts. Hope you like it, because you have live with it :)

Four More Years

2006-11-28T00:24:00.000+11:00

There are two ways for people who care about state elections to spend polling night. You can watch the numbers roll on TV while blogging, trying to beat the professionals to some unique insight on the unfolding drama. Or you can watch them in a pub drinking beer with fellow politics wonks. Going with option 2 proved an inspired choice, since it helped break the blogging drought I've had since the last legislative horse-race. So here I am, competing with a hundred other desktop psephologists to dissect Victoria's Choice.

It's not the thrilling stuff of US mid-terms. Granted, 'modest swing to the Liberals' doesn't have the same ring as 'Republicans get their asses handed to them on a plate'. But I'd hoped for something more than a mirror image of the 2004 federal election, with the opposition kept two cycles from a realistic bid and the incumbents left with a wafer-thin majority in the upper house. The foretold Day of the Minor Parties was a non-starter, with the Greens failing to come through, the Democrats consigned to oblivion and People Power nowhere in sight. Family First's relatively respectable polling just shows that other groups are waking up to the 'values' niche that Howard has been working for a decade. All told, the LegCo results were an uninspired outcome for the biggest constitutional shakeup in the state's history. Instead this election's 'historic' nature was pinned to it being the second time Victorian Labor has won three consecutive terms. My heart beats faster...

More noteworthy was Labor's ability to hold regional Victoria, or rather the Libs' inability to gain traction there. It's the latest instance of a much-remarked trend that sees country voters drifting from the traditional conservative parties, while battling suburbia becomes Liberal heartland. The driving factor? Reaction against change - neoliberal economics on one side, multiculturalism and 'political correctness' on the other. You want tariffs and subsidised services? Don't vote Coalition. You want government that will roll back black-armband history and lock up the Muslims? Then do.

Taking this further, perhaps the state-federal divide really is hardening into a fixed feature of the nation's political landscape. The major parties have staked out their territory, and a party trying to climb the other hill has to struggle either against urban masses fearful of their identity and lifestyle being eaten away by globalisation, or a hinterland resentful at being cut adrift by coastal metropolises increasingly linked to the outside world. It can't be coincidence that in the face of the Bracks' government's failures, country Victorians confirmed their 1999 decision to throw out the party which sank tax dollars into Melbourne landmarks pitched at city sophisticates and tourists.

Admittedly the parties aren't helping themselves, with their penchant for eleventh-hour dumpings of seasoned leaders in favour of glamorous neophytes (think Quinn-Flegg and Beazley-Latham). Yet another lesson driven home on Saturday; Baillieu's song-and-dance routine was fun for a while, but it proved what US Republicans learned earlier this month - dominating the campaign doesn't translate into votes. It certainly can't blot out this litany of errors:

- Refusing to shave your share portfolio, when your nickname is already the Toff from Toorak.
- Refusing to discuss a coalition that your party needs to govern.
- Promising to scrap the state's renewable energy scheme while the federal Libs scramble to deal, or be seen to deal, with global warming.
- Promising a river-killing dam, in lieu of said renewable energy scheme.
- Promising free public transport for the age-group that is so pleasant to be around on trains and trams.
- Trying to outbid an incumbent, in-surplus government on tax cuts.
- $285 million costing holes.
etc.

The Libs definitely seem to be getting the worse of the talent drought, having turned over management in 7 of 8 states and territories within the past half-year (all 8, if you go back a full year). Coming so soon after the Queensland rout, Saturday's outcome and the Bracks-Costello sniping that followed shows what to expect from Australian politics over the next decade, assuming that Canberra and the High Court don't bludgeon the states into irrelevance: federal-state jousting as a substitute for policy differentiation. It might be a healthy balance, but for COAG's inability to get work done on health, water or indeed anything.

Small wonder that the only cheering in the James Squire on Saturday night was for 'Four More Beers!'.

Like Sheep Among Wolves

2006-11-06T00:56:00.000+11:00

The GOP ascendancy has spawned an anthropological smorgasboard on the strange creatures who populate the American right. The latest offering is Andrew Denton's God On My Side, in which Australia's least-flappable journalist tours an NRB convention to discover how these infamous Evangelicals really think. After sitting through this 90-minute parade of nice people explaining with absolute conviction that we're living in the End Times, that Islam is the devil's counterfeit and that separation of Church and State is not part of America's constitutional heritage, born-and-bred progressives may think that Denton has done Al Gore one better on the 'scariest film you'll see this year'.

Having been raised in an offshoot of this culture, I didn't learn much from Denton's suave but somewhat bland feature-doc. I would have liked to see more time spent on the relationship between faith and politics, which is what really concerns those who aren't offended by what evangelicals believe per se but do care once it starts affecting the rest of us. Australians haven't yet had to deal with drives to bring creationism into classrooms or amend state constitutions to ban gay marriage. But with federal money earmarked for chaplains in state schools and a church-based party holding the senate's balance of power, we ought to start thinking about the use of worldly power to advance God's Kingdom.

It's surprising that Denton didn't push his subjects on this question, given the mounting evidence that faith and politics haven't mixed well under the evangelical presidency. David Kuo's expose of the GOP party machine's real attitude towards its Christian base has been followed by scandal upon scandal among the leaders pledged bring morality back into government. Throw in the run-of-the-mill misgovernance that has pissed off the non faith-based community, and one would expect a hint of disillusionment on the religious right with the Bush administration and the Republican congress.

Indeed, one can discern in the polls a growing sense among 'moral conservatives' that they've been led by the nose - that the Republicans of '94 and the 'Compassionate Conservative' of 2000 have proved devoted to nothing more than the political (occasionally sexual) bottomline. Concerns have been raised that Christ's elect have gone sheeplike into the wolf-infested den of politics without heeding His caveat, viz. to be shrewd as snakes while doing so (Matthew 10:16 - as said, I was raised on the Word). We're now hearing the old refrain that the Church's lack of spiritual grounding has led it to follow wolves in sheep's clothing, who talk the talk of values while walking the political lowroad, which currently involves painting Democrats as pro-paedophile or as miscegenating Playboys.

So the average Republican strategist has reason to fear David Kuo's call for Christians to take a 'sabbatical from politics'. One can picture their party's base walking out through the various -Gates (Abramoff, Foley, Haggard) that have opened in the GOP edifice over the past year. The danger is not that these people will morph into Democrats on Tuesday but that they won't turn out to vote Republican, at least not in the numbers that clinched victory in 2000 and 2004.

And yet, 48 hours out from D-Day, word has it that the Master Strategist sleeps soundly. You don't have to be Karl Rove, or to indulge in conspiracy theories about his perfidy, to understand why the GOP can still depend on the constituency that Bush staffers reportedly mock with four-letter expletives. It's fun to watch partisans of the 'moral majority' tie themselves in knots defending each new impropriety - to the point of extolling hypocrisy as a virtue - but at the end of the day the values crowd is unlikely to accept the alternative, whatever the intellectual arguments. The tribal character of US politics is what got the GOP into power and it's the only thing, under current circumstances, that will keep them there. Just listen to the House Speaker, he of the cybersex-coverup:

"If I fold up my tent and leave," Dennis Hastert [said], "then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we'd have no ability to fight back and get our message out."

It's depressing that this bankrupt, purely partisan appeal may underpin another Republican victory. But that's the only way by which America's evangelicals will stem the tide of other-people's-choices threatening their self-conception, and fight their war against the judiciary and sundry other organs of atheistic government, notwithstanding all those Biblical verses about obeying authorities that the Lord puts over you and rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. To paraphrase the elderly Texan speaking to a polite but mystified Andrew Denton, they know what they know what they know, and no number of scandals or mismanaged wars is going to change that.

So while half of America will treat Tuesday's vote as a referendum on Iraq, the other half is likely to view it as just another battle for the soul of God's own country (did you think that was New Zealand?). With the row over Family First preferences still smouldering, Australians could observe and learn a thing or two. But in true national character, most of us will be watching the races instead.

Postscript

Of course, not everyone approves of how we Aussies spend the first Tuesday in November.

(cross-posted)

A Fireside Blog Post From Your PIS President

2006-10-31T15:46:00.000+11:00

My dear friends,

In a mere eight sleeps, it will be the politically interested Melbourne Uni student's version of Christmas Day: the United States elections. All of the House of Representatives and one third of the Senate is up for the grabs, and George W Bush's Republican Party is bracing itself for disaster. After Wednesday week, the Democratic Party may have the capacity to block Bush administration legislation and to launch investigations into Iraq, Katrina, and so on.

The Political Interest Society is offering election coverage on Foxtel, good company, alcohol, and food all in the one place…

The PIS Watches The American Elections
When: Wednesday, November 8th, from 12 midday onwards
Where: James Squire Brewhouse, Cnr Little Collins and 115 Russell Street, CBD

Now, I realise that it is the official beginning of exam season for most people in a tad less than ten sleeps (not me, however: I am on "working vacation" at my Eltham ranch, clearing brush, playing catch with my two-headed dog, Fala, and enjoying being deferred). But invariably, you will all need a break at some point: Wednesday week is as good a day as any. And from an educational standpoint, I guarantee you'll learn more from watching BBC World than you will studying for some bloody Derek McDougall subject.

Hope to see you there,
Yours not-up-for-re-election-this-November,
President Dave M Fettling

How did the towers collapse?

2006-10-12T19:58:00.000+10:00

I did something probably considered to be politically incorrect, which might happen easier during the after hours of club meetings.

I aired my some questions about 911, and was thus very fast classified as conspiracy nut. Stephen had at least the fairness to refer me to wikipedia to find out why how the WTC tower collapse, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.

In fact, there is a wikipedia entry for the Collapse of the World Trade Center, but it doesn't answer the question I raised.

According to the NIST report, which is part of the 9/11 commission report, it took WTC 1 and 2 ten resp. eleven seconds to collapse. This is about the time it takes for an object to drop from the top of each tower to the ground, obstructed in its path just by the resistance of air.

Physically seen, this implies that about 70 floors, which carried uninterfered the same load they used to carry since the buildings were constructed, had effectively the same resistance like thin air.

One of the basic laws of thermodynamics is called conservation of energy. You need energy to transform a physical object, this means energy is transformed while the WTC is obliterated to bits.

The only energy source available, however is gravity. Given just air resistance, it'll take 11 seconds for the top of the tower to hit the ground. The destruction of the lower floors requires energy, and would therefore transform the gravitational energy. The collapse would have to be slowed down.

However, we know that the more than 70 floors build by steel, filled with desks, chairs, computers, cabinets, maybe even safes, posed no resistance at all to the collapse of the building.

The account given by NIST offers no explanation for the speed in which the Twin Towers collapsed, and it avoids offering any theory at all when it comes to WTC7.

WTC7 collapsed on the afternoon of 911, and too smaller fires and no apparent impact from debris were visible. This 47 storey building collapsed in less than 7 seconds, without any plane hitting it.

Today a plane hit a NY building, and even though you had 50 storey building, hit by a plane and with raging fires, it didn't collapse. WTC7, not hit by a plane, with less raging fires, fell neatly in its footprint, in less than 7 seconds.

I'm not too sure about the amount of science students in the PIS, but anyone with sufficient background knowledge can earn 1 Million US$ by proving the feasability of the theories in the NIST report.

However, the only conclusion I draw from the knowledge that the 911 commission report told some bold lies is that a more thorough investigation about this event is required.

It took the Bush regime more than a year to start any investigation of 911, and before the report was published two wars were already waged. I could make up a nice conspiracy theory up for you, but I'm only interested how the building collapsed.

The available evidence, as for example scrutinized by Scholars for truth, suggests strongly the use of explosives to bring down the building. This surely raises a bunch of other questions, and none of them offers to many reassuring answers.

However, I don't mind if you prefer labelling me as a conspiracy nut rather than trying to convince me (or make up your mind). Yet, the last tyranny on German soil ended just in 1989, and a way too familiar stench is wafting over from the US.

But I'm really curious if you manage to come up with an explanation, how the buildings collapsed so fast without the use of explosives.

Enemy at the Woodward-Gate

2006-10-02T23:15:00.000+10:00

Cross-posted.
______________________________

It's a rare journalist who can claim credit for two national scandals, the second of which carries his name. Five weeks out from Mid-Terms and with the ink on the leaked NIE barely dry, Hurricane Woodward is shaking the administration to its roots, despite the Bush PR team's best efforts to look blase and spin furiously at the same time. The book has already sold a million copies on the promise of insider gossip, some of it old meat (George believes in himself more than good advice), some red (everyone from the generals to Laura wanted Rumsfeld fired). With Baghdad under lockdown and Condi asking the Saudis for help, Bush needs some inspiration from the last successful Republican war president, or at least a stoic quip - 'if there is a place worse than Hell, I am in it'.

The difference between Bush and Lincoln in hell, of course, is that Bush put himself there. As far as one can tell from media blitz on a yet-unpublished book, State of Denial confirms what I've suggested is Bush's flaw as president -

John McCain was asked whether Mr Bush had ever asked him for his views on Iraq. "No, no, he hasn't... As a matter of fact, he's not intellectually curious.'

It's bad enough that the US is being run by a man convinced his job is to lead and not think, at least not when things start going wrong. But when he creates an institutional culture in which no one else wants to think, you end up with self-muzzling, dysfunctional government. No one in this 'MBA presidency' seems to do anything under delegation, whether managing hurricane relief or the War On Terror. Perhaps the most disturbing of Woodward's insights is into how the generals running the mightiest military machine in history ended up too cowed to do their jobs -

Abizaid's old friends were worried sick that another Vietnam or anything that looked like Vietnam would be the end of the volunteer army. What's the strategy for winning? they pressed him.

"That's not my job," Abizaid said.

No, it is part of your job, they insisted.

No, Abizaid said. Articulating strategy belonged to others.

Put these tidbits with a raft of other anectodal evidence - like Eric Shinseki's treatment - and you're left with an eerie image of Stalin purging independent-minded generals from the Red Army before June 1941. Stalin took about six months to recognise his errors, twelve to put his house in order and another thirty or so to win the war. Bush is approaching the same length of time and hasn't yet resolved to sack the guy whom everyone in the know seems to blame for Iraq.

Inevitably, a book that shows Bush improvising war and dissembling to the public has brought out the lynch mob. When Woodward wrote nice things about the White House, he was feted by everyone right of Ted Kennedy and Atrios. Now he has an 'agenda', just like the 'agenda' to leak the NIE and the 'agenda' of the ex-Bush officials whom Woodward interviewed. At the next press conference, someone should ask Tony Snow how many ex-Clinton officials have come forward to denounce their administration's incompetence. Not that it would make much difference. By this point, I doubt the Bush cheersquad will ever accept that smoke means fire and not just a reason to close your eyes.

After all, the administration has been coming clean over Iraq, albeit by lowering the bar for communication -

Since late last year, Bush has spoken more openly and directly about the nature of the enemy in Iraq and the scale of the challenge in building a peaceful and democratic nation. Snow himself quoted Bush at length at a press conference in Chicago in July saying, “We’ve lost obviously a lot of lives here in the homeland, and we lost lives overseas.” Snow added that Bush had been telling the American people that “it’s a war that’s going to outlive his presidency.”

Well, that makes it all better.

Down under, the Cole Inquiry's final day was another victory for truth in government, with our new Trade Minister leaping into his portfolio and contracting an instant case of AWB-related amnesia. In fairness to Warren Truss, a bribe-greased trade policy review was the least of the day's misdemeanours, if you thought concentration-camp jokes were reserved for South Park -

the extent of the scandal was revealed in the email by executive Daryl Borlase, who said Iraq wanted to build 2000 concrete bunkers, ostensibly to store grain, but "the bunkers will have cement walls and floors so they are actually designed for burying the Kurds -- under the cement?"

"They intend to build them with fumigation capability so the mind boggles as to whether they are fumigating insects or any other pest that pisses them off," the email says.

It continued: "On a serious note, they will have cement flooring ..."

Saddam is currently on trial in Iraq for the genocide of 182,000 people in a 1987-88 campaign against the Kurds.

And if you remained an optimist through that choice revelation, you would have been treated to the sight of AWB's (ex)MD crying in the witness box.

As they say, the truth ain't pretty...

Addendum

Tim Dunlop has an interesting take on the media' cognitive dissonance over politicians.

Pontifex Tactlessness

2006-09-18T20:10:00.000+10:00

(cross-posted)

The latest uproar over a perceived slight to Islam isn't going quietly into the night. One week on it's spawned its own wikipedia entry, a slew of rants throughout the wingnut blogosphere and obssessive mainstream media coverage. A speedy resolution hasn't been helped by Muslims round the the world again deciding that the appropriate response to barbs about their faith's peacefulness is to bomb churches and issue death threats.

Nor by the fact that this time the offending observations came not from a Danish newspaper but rather the head of the Catholic Church, albeit wrapped in a theology lecture (full text here). It's unfortunate that the Pope couldn't make a point about faith and reason without a reference to jihad. And he couldn't even do that without quoting that bosom buddy of medieval Catholicism, the Byzantine emperor -

Naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war... [he] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature... But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.

This passage amounts to the following claims: a) spreading faith through violence is irrational; b) Islam teaches violent conversion; c) Islam teaches an irrational approach to faith. The Pope's speech has to be read as tacit endorsement of all these propositions. You don't use quotes to illustrate a point unless you believe the quotes to be true in substance, even if you find their expression 'startlingly brusque'. And you can't seal yourself off from controversial assertions by putting them in the mouths of medieval monarchs, or by protesting that the statements were tangential to your main point.

The issue here is not whether the claims about Islam are true. The Pope is an official figure and as such doesn't have the freedom that he enjoyed as Joseph Ratzinger, Professor of Theology, to comment on the teachings of other religions. He has the right to say what he wants, but also responsibility for the consequences, especially when pointed observations about the religion in question have a history of generating violence. This isn't 'political correctness', it's political common sense. The pontiff can no more wash his hands of this than politicians who accuse foreigners of stealing jobs can divorce themselves from a xenophobic backlash in the electorate.

Pope Benedict would have done better citing the example rather than the ideas of the said Byzantine emperor. Manuel II may have argued that Islam is disposed to violence, but he and his Muslim interlocutor were debating the issue with words rather than swords (not that Manuel had much choice, at a time when the Turks were tightening the noose round his beleagured 'empire'). One might have expected some progress on interfaith relations over the intervening six centuries. Instead they seem to be heading back to an era captured by the opening scene of Alan Savage's Ottoman, in which Manuel II's son is presented with the severed, uncircumcised penis of a Hungarian knight as proof of the fate of the last crusade.

Thirty Years On

2006-09-12T00:41:00.000+10:00

(cross-posted)

_____________

The 30th annivesary of Mao Zedong's death has come and gone in China much as the 40th anniversary of the Cultural Revolution did four months ago - with a deafening silence, at least from the organs of state. But politics aside, perhaps we really don't yet have the distance for a discriminating appraisal; as one of Maos' colleagues remarked about the consequences of the French Revolution, it's too soon to tell. And as for any historical giant, a just verdict would require a book, preferably in several volumes. So here I'll just sketch some thoughts on the man whose face will always dominate 20th century China.

Westerners, accustomed to think of Mao in terms of a totalitarian trilogy with Hitler and Stalin, are baffled by the status that he still commands within China. We resort to conventional social science explanations - China's lack of anything comparable to the 'de-Stalinisation' that the USSR went through under Kruschev, nostalgia for the simpler and less unequal society that Mao supposedly presided over, etc. It's easier than conceding that, beneath the official bombast about kicking out the imperialists and allowing China to stand up, there flows a stream of genuine emotion. Foreigners still don't grasp the depth of humiliation and suffering inflicted on China during the century 1840-1949, and the credit accrued by the Communist Party and Mao specifically in bringing that century to an end.

Despite what was said above about hindsight, Mao was clearly the man for the hour. Steeped in traditional education and raised in the hinterland - barring one short trip to Moscow, he never left China in his entire life - Mao had an empathy with the country that the foreign-educated Sun Zhongshan and Jiang Jieshi seemed to lack. As a young man he was scholar enough to disdain the unwashed masses, but he matured to tap what's been called the deep-seated chiliastic impulse of the Chinese peasantry: that fiery underground river ready to burst forth and consume the old order. All it needs is a messiah, and in Mao it found one par excellence, a man who said that the People could achieve anything and who sought continuous revolution until the promised earthly paradise was achieved.

Small wonder that two and a half decades after his cult was officially disowned, Mao has been inducted into the folk pantheon that still flourishes at the roots of society (despite the best efforts of Communism). Mao built his political philosophy on social contradictions, yet was himself a contradiction, a product of the 'feudal culture' he spent his life trying to destroy; a man who quoted Chinese history and literature as much as Lenin or Marx, and spent his last bedridden days poring over the Chinese equivalent to Pride and Prejudice.

In material terms, Mao's record was less benighted than popular myth holds. His aversion to Soviet-style centralism preserved China from the worst of the economic distortions that brought down its superpower neighbour. Collectivisation and the Great Leap Foward were unmitigated disasters, but a balanced assessment must note that a) there is a dearth of evidence to prove the scale of mortality, in particular textbook claims about the 'worst famine in history'; b) the experiment coincided with some of the worst natural disasters of the century; c) the degree of economic damage is ambiguous, especially given that it's unlikely any strategy could have maintained growth in China's circumstances in the late 1950's. Nor should the overall failure of Maoist developmentalism obscure its achievements, such as the vast improvements in general health or the creation of an industrial base from virtually nothing.

It's safe to say that Mao had no small opinion of himself or his place in history, as apparent in this oft-quoted poem from his Yanan years:

But alas! Qin Shihuang and Han Wudi
Were lacking in literary grace,
And Tang Taizong and Song Taizu
Had little poetry in their souls;
That proud son of Heaven,
Genghis Khan,
Knew only shooting eagles, bow outstretched.
All are past and gone!
For truly great men
Look to this age alone.

Thus he came to commit the deadly sin of conflating his personal vision with the good of those he governed, or (worse) with the shape of history. This exagerrated sense of self led Mao to inflict greater misery on the laobaixing than any god-potentate of old. It led him to destroy men of greater integrity than himself, or who had at least as much legitimacy as Mao did - Peng Dehuai, Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping come to mind - and to strip millions of their humanity on the basis of arbitrarily-defined 'class'. It led ultimately to the apocalypse of the Cultural Revolution, tearing apart China's social fabric while the Americans were putting men on the moon.

For very large numbers of Chinese for the foreseeable future, Mao will remain a flawed hero. But for me at least, the final judgment on the Great Helmsman must be that he steered China onto the rocks.

1421 and All That

2006-08-08T01:52:00.000+10:00

(Cross-posted.)

Australia's history wars may take on a whole new dimension. While the education minister was writing her speech about bringing Captain Cook back into our classrooms, Four Corners was busy exploring the claim that the Chinese got here first. Last Monday's program was nothing new to afficionados of 15th century history, but for most viewers it would have been a startling introduction to Gavin Menzies and his notorious book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World.

Not that it's first time this revisionist tsunami has reached the local news. Hu Jintao's announcement to federal parliament during his 2003 visit that Australia was discovered by his people didn't escape notice. More recently, Melbourne University's decision to fete Menzies in April drew a fair amount of comment. Overall though it's provoked surprisingly little discussion for a theory that, if accepted, explodes the traditional narrative of antipodean history (as usual it's fallen to New Zealand to take the lead). Especially given that Menzies' claims go beyond discovery to encompass Chinese colonies from Port Philip Bay to Darwin and miscegenation of the Aboriginal population.

It's these sort of assertions that have sent experts worldwide into apoplexy, in one case to the point of dragging Menzies' publisher before the UK's Consumer Complaints body for marketing the book as 'non-fiction'. Menzies' Melbourne lecture featured an extraordinary tirade from the head of the university's history department, who read from a prepared list of points to show that the man is a fraud (the MC cut him off after number one). Four Corners tactfully declined to broadcast that part, but they did interview the professor in question as the local rep in a string of academics striving to outdo each other in disdain for Menzies' theories and, in most cases, for the man himself.

Both lecture and program gave salutary insights into why academics often lose in the court of public opinion. At the lecture, Professor Wheatcroft's bluster fared badly against Menzies' poise and the array of presentation technology used to make his case. But that's why we have investigative journalism, which probes through the stage management with which Menzies has (by his own admission) cloaked this pseudo-academic enterprise.

Four Corners revealed the dapper ex-Royal Navy commander as a charlatan, who conveniently forgets blackmail threats against his critics, admits that he doesn't check evidence and defends himself by citing the number of books he's sold. The program was denounced by Menzies as a hachet-job, an accusation that may sting with the stench of Forest-Gate still in the air. But given the chance to defend himself, Menzies managed to appear not merely a crank but a fraud and a white-collar thug, traits born out by his tactics against critics and presence on the English vexatious litigant list. Any hope that he makes up for this with academic rigour is dispelled by a visit the official 1421 website. 'Sophomoric' is a generous description; it would certainly never have passed my VCE history class.

I knew that both Menzies' claims and his academic method were dubious, but to see the man himself articulate them on Four Corners was surreal. I think he lost me with the claim that the Chinese fleet sailed up the Thames and presented Henry V with a set of underwear, an event that has left no surviving records (at least, none discovered yet). Or maybe it was when he waxed lyrical about Marco Polo touring Hudson's Bay in the 1200's. Or maybe it was one of his converts enthusing about the remains of 45 junks washed up on the New Zealand coast by a tsunami, itself caused by a meteor. The same meteor that wiped out Chinese settlements around the New World, leaving it free for the Europeans to colonise a century later.

Four Corners pertinently observed that since 1421's publication the claims have steadily ratcheted up, from the 'discovery' of the Liu Gang map early this year through to the Henry V and Marco Polo revelations. Not surprising, since by Menzies' own admission this has been a marketing exercise from day one.

"[I] hoped that there would be lots of critics there, and they'd all lambast it, and it would make excellent publicity. And therefore, I'd be able to clinch a sale for my book. So, really, it was a public relations exercise on my part, to hopefully create a lot of controversy and sell literary rights."

Of course there's nothing wrong with hyping revisionist history, so long as it's not bunkum. But the fact that Menzies' case is an academic sieve raises serious ethical questions about his PR spin, especially given the lengths that his publisher went to in bolstering his credentials to write on Chinese maritime achievements (like incorrectly claiming on the dust jacket that Menzies was born in China).

The irony is that this marketing blitz targets the very demographic that ought to be most sceptical, and with great success. I knew about the criticisms of Menzies and his book before I bought it, but priding myself as a world history buff I felt a need to have it on my shelf. In other words, my intellectual ego drove me to subsidise the quack history that I've been denouncing in this post. Lest I be further hoist by my own petard, I should stop wasting time on things like blogging and sit down to dissect Menzies' 'evidence' for myself. I've yet to get past the book's third chapter, despite the army of editors provided by Bantam Press to make his manuscript readable.

Further pontification -
1421 Exposed
Debunking Gavin Menzies
China History Forum
Salon

There Should Be An Amendment To The United States Constitution Forcing Republican Populists To Read 'The New Yorker'

2006-07-14T22:29:00.000+10:00

For the love of God, click on the link and read 'For Which It Stands' by Hendrik Hertzberg, who was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and now writes for The New Yorker, talking about the proposed amendment to the United States Constitution banning flag-burning. Wonderful writing, superbly articulated argument...

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060703ta_talk_hertzberg

So Why Did That Chicken Cross the Road? - Uncut

2006-06-29T16:03:00.000+10:00

For light holiday reading, here's a chicken-joke special I did for the 2005 summer edition of AAP, including those that failed to escape the editor's space-saving buzzsaw. Some of them are a little dated by now, but not too much.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Philosophy major: To get to the other side.

Adam Smith: The comparative advantage of chickens lies in crossing roads.

John Kerry: The chicken crossed because this President was fighting the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Swift Boat Veteran for Truth: I was there and I can assure you, that chicken did not cross that road.

Steve Bracks: The impact of the chicken’s road-crossing on the state's finances meant the Government had to make a difficult decision. The decision to fund the road by a toll was not made lightly, but it is the responsible decision for the future.

John Howard: In a world where chickens cross roads, who do you trust to manage the economy and keep interest rates low?

Lee Kuan Yew: The chicken’s behaviour illustrates the moral breakdown of western society.

John Stuart Mill: So long as the chicken’s action does not harm others, it is at liberty to cross roads.

Michel Foucault: This was the chicken’s journey of self-actualisation, an act of mapping its own external reality in resistance to the hidden normative. By crossing the road the chicken shows how power is socially constructed, bottom-up and inherently diffuse.

Ralph Nader: Our two-party system left the chicken no other choice.

Phillip Ruddock: Given the suspicious circumstances of the chicken’s crossing, the Americans were quite justified in locking it up for three years without charge.

Dan Rather: After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in the fact of this chicken crossing the road that would allow us to continue vouching for it journalistically.

Deng Xiaoping: Black chicken, white chicken – if it crosses the road it’s a good chicken.

Thucydides: What made the crossing inevitable was the growth of the farmer’s power and the fear which this caused in the chicken.

Noam Chomsky: The chicken’s action is another step in the expansion of the US hegemonic system.

Rush Limbaugh: I mean, before we even get a proper report about this chicken, naturally America is already the guilty party!!

Franklin Graham: I believe that road-crossing is a very evil and wicked religion. I don’t believe chickens are evil because they cross roads – I personally have many friends who are chickens – but I decry the evil that has been done in the name of road-crossing.

Osama bin Laden: It is a sacred duty of all Muslims to kill chickens that cross roads.

Thomas Hobbes: Because life for chickens is nasty, brutish and short.

Mark Latham: Chickens cross roads because they don’t have a ladder of opportunity. There are two types of chicken on this road, slackers and hard workers, and we need to ease the squeeze on them and practice democracy in the raw.

Pentagon spokesman: We can neither confirm nor deny that a chicken crossed the road.

Donald Rumsfeld (1): It’s a misunderstanding to see that image over and over, of a chicken crossing the road, and say ‘You didn’t have a plan’. Freedom’s untidy, and that chicken is free to make mistakes and cross roads.

Donald Rumsfeld (2): The Army leadership is sensitive to the fact that not every road is as clear of chickens as would be desirable, but you go to war with the Army you have. It’s essentially a matter of physics.

Lenin: Any act of the chicken was justified, if it advances the revolution.

Homer Simpson: Mmmmm, chicken.

Chinese Communist: This chicken was clearly taking the capitalist road, as part of a hypocritical imperialist effort to split the sovereign Chinese nation. The Chinese People will never bow to such blatant aggression but will resolutely pursue the Four Modernisations along the scientific materalist path of socialist spiritual civilisation, adhering steadfastly to the Four Cardinal Principles and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence while fortifying their minds with the unshakeable dictates of Marxist-Leninist-MaoZedong Thought!

Team America, World Police: Who gives a f--k? Let’s f-----n blow the G-dd-mn sh-t out of it!

Return Of Ozone Man

2006-06-25T16:59:00.000+10:00

Follow the link below to a very good article by one of the Guardian's top writers, Jonathon Freedland, interviewing a previously ridiculed US Democrat - American comedian Bill Maher said he ran in the 2000 campaign "on a platform of ending charisma as we know it" - who is very suddenly back in vogue as a presidential candidate for 2008.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1786438,00.html

Abolish full-fee places…and raise HECS

2006-06-17T19:50:00.000+10:00

Universities need money. To be world-class, as the University of Melbourne aspires to be, requires lots of money. And government is steadily decreasing the amount of money it supplies. That means, inevitably, this shortfall will have to be filled, at least in part, by the students who attend.

I see nothing particularly evil about this. Why should education be free, or even cheap? Education sets you up in life: most courses more or less guarantee you a relatively prosperous career path. And the fact that in Australia, students are not charged while they are studying and hence impoverished, but take on a no-interest loan until they are earning enough to pay it back, sweetens the deal further.

But it’s simply wrong to lower academic standards to get money, as is the current situation. Students, international and domestic, with lots of up-front cash, can get into uni with lower qualifications than those with more smarts but less money.

I say, all remaining hold-outs should reach the conclusion that the basic formula, of students having to pay their university more money to ensure its quality, is the only realistic one. But instead of a double-standard of entry to unis, a more equitable solution is to progressively phase out full-fee places, while significantly raising HECS fees - doubling or tripling them, probably - to make up the shortfall.

Affirmative action for public schools?

2006-06-17T19:45:00.000+10:00

I don’t actually agree with the Labor Party that funding for private schools should be slashed and put into public schools. It’s reasonable to think government schools need more money – very reasonable – but this should come from elsewhere in the coffers. The only immediate effect of taking funding away from independent schools would be to cause their fees to rise, and so drive away everyone except the rich. The only major effective change, then, would be to make some worse off without making anybody much better off, as there’d be no real improvement in school quality from the cash redistribution in the short term.

For a better way of redressing the ugly imbalance that is a two-tiered school system, why not affirmative action for government schools? Defenders of private schools and the taxpayer money that sustains them are always banging on about how parents who make the private ‘choice’ are not actually trying to buy a high ENTER score. They say it’s much more than that: better facilities, better students and staff, and, of course, ‘values’. Well, let’s test it. Let’s start adding, say, five, even ten percent to the ENTERs of students from government schools, as a way of addressing the obvious inequality, fixing the skewed entry to uni, without reducing the (supposed) quality of private school education.

It wouldn’t damage the goal of a meritocratic education system, either. The old analogy comes to mind about two sports players, one fully fit, the other recovering from illness, and both seem relatively even in ability at training. The coach, having to pick a single player for the upcoming season, chooses the one not fully fit – the one with potential to get better.

The Taiwan Strait War, 2013

2006-06-13T22:32:00.000+10:00

Fast-forward to June, 2013. Consider the following sequence of events -

The Republic of China's president, a DPP independence hawk with a legislative majority, announces his intention to seek a constitutional amendment changing the island's name to the Republic of Taiwan. Despite PRC warnings, the US government's response is watered down to 'non-support', in the face of overwhelming sympathy for Taiwan from Congress and the American public.

Amidst mounting rhetoric from Beijing, two US carrier battlegroups are despatched to the waters east of Taiwan. The ROC government unveils its constitutional changes, which - in another unpleasant surprise for Washington - exclude any part of mainland China from the new republic, amounting to irrevocable rejection of the 'One China' principle. The PLA is mobilised.

With the American media howling 'appeasement', the US president reiterates that an attack on Taiwan is a matter of grave concern for the United States. All Washington's regional allies declare neutrality; Japan and South Korea even deny the US use of military bases on their soil. China's central bank floods the market with US treasuries, sending Wall Street and the US dollar into tailspin. Congress passes a landslide resolution pledging to defend Taiwan.

The PLA occupies Jinmen and Matsu, and in response the two US carriers enter the Strait. China announces a blockade and fires a hundred missiles into Taiwan; the ROC airforce hits back at mainland targets. The penny drops when US and Chinese forces engage. Who shot first remains in doubt, but the Chinese simultaneously launch an electronic warfare offensive, cancelling the traditional US information dominance of the battlefield.

A US carrier goes to the bottom, with almost all hands. The American public cries for blood and US planes join the ROC airforce to plaster targets along China's southeast coast. Both Washington and Beijing put their strategic nuclear forces on maximum alert. Urged to send the B2's against Beijing and Shanghai, the US president blinks at armageddon and calls his Chinese counterpart, who's also getting cold feet. China lifts the blockade and withdraws its forces on a number of conditions, including the resignation of Taiwan's president and the opening of reunification talks. Faced with a threatened US withdrawal, Taipei buckles.

In the aftermath, the US severs diplomatic ties with China and slaps a total ban on commercial intercourse. The US and the world economy suffer, but not as much as China, which for a while looks ready to descend into chaos. But the Communist Party clings on and settles in for a new cold war across the Pacific, which three decades later is still going strong. After a decade of talks, Taiwan joins China in a loose confederation.

At this point I should confess that this cheerful scenario isn't my own work, but a summary of the second chapter in America's Coming War with China. It does happen to tally almost exactly with an essay I wrote last year on the ominous trends in the 'Taiwan problem'. Unless some serious political lifting is done, we're more likely than not to have a war in the Strait within the next ten years.

That lifting needs to come from both sides of the Pacific. At a general level the whole power structure of the Asia-Pacific needs a makeover, as I argued a while back on this blog, if Sino-US conflict is to be averted. On Taiwan specifically, the US needs to junk 'strategic ambiguity' in favour of a tougher stance towards the governments on both sides of the Strait. The key elements of the above scenario are Beijing's readiness to attack Taiwan upon a decisive bid for independence, and Washington's failure to preempt such a bid or squash it the moment it happens (as happened to Taipei's nuclear program). A clearer US commitment to the status quo wouldn't guarantee against this situation, but it would help.

It's high time that someone with foreign policy credentials spotlighted this issue, in the form of an accessible read. So kudos to America's Coming War With China, even if in other bits it shows up the incapacity of Western commentators to get basic China facts straight. Memo to Mr. Carpenter: it wasn't the Ming dynasty which occupied Taiwan in 1661.

Scoff at this scenario if you like, but recall that September 11 was unthinkable before it happened. (Whether some people foresaw the use of passenger jets as weapons of terrorism is besides the point). By contrast, analysts have been warning for the better part of a decade - Carpenter's book was published in 2001 - that the 'Taiwan problem' is heading towards a violent resolution. We even had a dress rehearsal in the form of the 1996 Straits Crisis, which played out along similar lines to Carpenter's scenario. Since then the PRC's military position has strengthened, vis-a-vis the US and especially the Republic of China, which has elected a president who rejects the basic principle underpinning Beijing's approach to the problem.

And yet we're sill waiting for some creative thinking in Washington about management of the Taiwan issue and relations with the PRC more generally. Instead we've got a 'China Threat' literary industry, long on hysteria and short on knowledge of contemporary China, let alone the country's history and long-term prospects. At the official level we now have a US strategy for 'full-spectrum dominance' and the cleansing of terrorism from the earth, into which China is expected to fit meekly. The issue of Taiwan's independence gets once sentence, and it doesn't offer concessions to Beijing.

Next to the potential consequences of this war, the threat posed by Islamic extremism pales into insignificance.

The Red Shadow of the Past

2006-05-21T14:10:00.000+10:00

The Communist Party of China is big on anniversaries. When I visited Bejing in 1999, half the city was locked down after 7pm to allow dress rehearsals for the PRC's golden jubilee. China's tumultous history for the first half of the 20th century provides lots of nation-building material - the May Fourth Movement, the Nanchang Uprising, the Liberation itself - all suitably commemorated with flag-waving children, goosestepping soldiers and overdecorated floats.

After 1949, the anniversaries stop. So this Thursday is likely to pass quietly, notwithstanding that it marks forty years to the day when a Peking University lecturer kicked off the Cultural Revolution. Nie Yuanzi was a radical forty-five year old when she stuck up her 'big character poster' denouncing the university authorities. She's now a pensionless eighty-five year old who shares a borrowed apartment with her pet cats and her memories, sharpened by seventeen years in prison; a victim of the monster she helped unleash.

China must have a dialogue about the Cultural Revolution, says Nie, who was one of the Five Leading Red Guards but fell from grace when the political winds shifted in 1968. The reason is less therapeutic than prescriptive, to avoid a repeat catastrophe springing from a flawed understanding of history. One gets the impression that those scarred personally are past the need for reconciliation; the scattered but growing number of voices calling for a national debate talk about the future, as much as the past.

Certainly the responses one gets from people who lived through the "Ten Years of Chaos" remain laconic, even casual. Like a tutor of mine recounting how as a child she watched her father (a university lecturer) paraded through the streets in a dunce cap past baying mobs. Or a friend's father making off-hand references to his years as a teenage 'barefoot doctor' in one of the hundreds of rural counties that the Red Guard generation was exiled to from 1969, in an attempt to expiate the madness.

On top of the human cost, there's a need to confront the most comprehensive effort yet seen to destroy a nation's cultural heritage. I remember admiring the coffin of an Empress at the Ming tombs outside Beijing, complete with an apologetic sign explaining that it's a replica, the original having received the attention of axe-wielding Red Guards during the swinging sixties. Left-leaning western college students may still find the mass mobilisation and ideological fervour inspiring; Chinese intellectuals view it the same way that cultured Germans view the Nazi rallies at Munich.

But within China itself, the subject remains taboo. As far as the Party's concerned the matter was closed on June 27, 1981, with the Central Committee resolution pinning the blame on Chairman Mao and the counterrevolutionary clique behind him. Nie's is one of the few voices to penerate the blanket of censorship that still lies across the country, smothering even the one private museum dedicated to the Cultural Revolution.

The root problem is that reevaluating the Cultural Revolution means reevaluating the role of Mao Zedong - and by extension that of the Communist Party - in the nation's history. China has yet to go through an equivalent of Russia's de-Stalinisation process. Instead the verdict on the Great Helmsman remains frozen in Deng Xiaoping's 70-30 formula: 70 per cent right, 30 per cent wrong. An honest discussion about the historical black hole from 1966-76 would open a pandora's box, one that the Party has tried to keep shut with the weight of economic growth.

So this is just another instance of the CCP's propensity to sweep its problems under the carpet of history, if necessary by waiting for the main protagonists to die. Last year saw the exit of both Zhao Ziyang and Zhang Chunqiao, the last survivor of the Gang of Four. Neither the baggage of the Cultural Revolution nor that from the June 4th Incident seems to have impeded China's headlong rush to modernity; one of Zhao's proteges even happens to be Premier, while the memorabilia of Mao's personality cult now furnishes trendy cafes. But faced with the mounting contradictions of marketisation within the framework of a Party-State, China's leaders may eventually find that the cherished goal of national stability requires them to use history as a mirror, a lesson they readily dispense to China's neighbours.

As was observed about another national cataclysm, one that festered for a hundred years after the violence ceased:
"The past isn't dead. It's not even past".

(cross-posted)

Meet the 2006-7 PIS Committee

2006-05-10T22:06:00.000+10:00

Thanks to all those who turned for the club AGM this arvo. And congratulations to the new committee on their election:

President - David Fettling
Secretary - Michael Crozier
Treasurer - Stephen Bain
Speakers Officer - Charlie Goodman
Social Secretary - Sophie Wilson
Publications Editor - Aditi Gorur
Publicity Officer - Lutz Golbs

Don't miss the biscuit-tin swearing-in ceremony next Wednesday.

Standard minimum sentences, anyone?

2006-05-07T18:30:00.000+10:00

MUDS are having a public debate on Thursday, and it promises to be interesting:

Public Debate 2006

In the lead up to the Victorian State election, the Melbourne University Debating Society proudly invites you to a debate on a central election issue...

Come and hear expert speakers talk about Law & Order and sentencing issues of the Victorian criminal system.

If you do the crime, you should do the time....
That we should have standard minimum sentences for criminal offences.

Speaking for the Affirmative

Mr Peter Ryan, MP
Leader of the Victorian National Party
Shadow Attorney-General

Dr Kevin Donnelly
Former Chief of Staff to Kevin Andrews, MP

Speaking for the Negative

Mr Ian Gray
Chief Magistrate of Victoria

Ms Jenny Mikakos, MP
Victorian Parliamentary Secretary for Justice

Time: 7:30pm
Date: Thursday 11th May, 2006
Place: G08, Law School, University of Melbourne

The debate will be followed by a light supper.

Click here for more info.

Solomon Islands and the WTO

2006-05-01T14:14:00.000+10:00

Even though it sounded quite incredible to some participants of last weeks meeting, the Solomon Islands are indeed one of 149 member states of the WTO, and this since 26 July 1996.

Why do I mention this, and what does it imply? The libertarians in PIS certainly like the efforts of the WTO to enable free trade. Personally, I see the triumvirate of World Bank, IMF and WTO way more critical. For one thing, the structural changes imposed by those organisations ruined the economy of quite some countries, especially in South America, Asia and Africa. That this happened, is not even denied by the WTO, it is just seen as unfortunate.

The major critique against this institutional axis of evil is its entire lack of democratic control. By signing agreements with the WTO governments lose their sovereignty about areas like environmental and energy politics, their autonomy about social systems and education.

The issue of the dependency from the WTO will become into the international focus soon, when Bolivia has its new constitution, which will reorganise land ownership and reverse privatisation - just, of course, if Bolivia's new president Evo Morales stays in power for long enough.

Michel Chossudovsky was written some books elucidating the mechanics of WTO, IMF and WB, and is well worth reading if you're interested in finding out how democracy is undermined by this triumvirate.

The Battle that Saved Australia - or not

2006-04-26T20:35:00.000+10:00

Further to today's discussion about Steve Barton and the Kokoda controversy, see these threads at Larvatus Prodeo and John Quiggin. See Barton's original Australian piece here, last night's Lateline interview here, and an older piece with some additional details here (looks like debunking the Kokoda 'myth' is an ongoing project of his).

No new Epoch in US-China relations

2006-04-23T16:16:00.000+10:00

Cross-posted. For a different angle to the US MSM and blogosphere, see this running CHF thread.
__________________

When not handing out propaganda at Melbourne's train stations, the Epoch Times folks keep busy heckling the Chinese president. It was shaping up as a bad day for Hu Jintao, what with being snubbed dinner at the White House and the MC announcing "the national anthem of the Republic of China." But official visits don't get much worse than being told "your days are numbered" before the world media, by an advocate of a sect your country persecutes, while standing next to the President of the United States.

Nor was it a great moment for the hosts. The Bush administration got things off on the wrong foot by not according this the status of a 'state visit', as Clinton did for Hu's predecessor. Then there was the small matter of confusing one's guests with their archenemies across the Taiwan Strait. But the ultimate gaffe was to let a Falungong practitioner not only slip security but abuse Hu for three minutes before the secret service hustled her off, leaving bureaucrats and thinktanks around the country to stress about how those inscrutable orientals will react (inside word says they're not happy).

Whoever was giving out press passes obviously didn't do their homework on the Epoch Times, a Falungong-linked paper with a prophecy fetish and a big chip on their shoulder called the Chinese Communist Party. The ET has disowned Dr Wang's actions, but the fact that she heckled Jiang Zemin in Malta five years ago should have tipped someone off. The State Department's woes didn't end there, however, with Bush and Hu later trying to hold dialogue over the chants of the Free-Tibet crowd across South Lawn. Clearly the event planners didn't watch how the Brits handled Hu's London trip last year, either.

Hu stayed all smiles, but used the occasion to teach Bush a lesson about negotiating with the Chinese that American businessmen learned long ago: expect much gilded language, but no progress unless you hand over something first. Faced with the high expectations held of this 'official' (not 'state') visit by a swathe of US lobbies, George also resorted to the fine art of using many words to say nothing, in which he is of course well practiced.

Bush said, "We would hope there would be more appreciation'' in allowing the currency to rise with market forces.

[Regarding Iran] the United States and China are in a position to ''work on tactics'' to achieve that goal, Bush said.

"We don't agree on everything but we are able to discuss our disagreements in friendship and cooperation,'' Bush told reporters.

So the bottom line is that noone's happy, least of all Hu Jintao. Having finally clawed his way to the top of the Fourth Generation leadership last year, when he eased Jiang out of the old man's last bastion in the state CMC, Hu doubtless felt entitled to 'state visit' recognition and a black-tie dinner at the White House. Instead he got a luncheon of halibut and dumplings to the strains of the Nashville Bluegrass band, after half an hour watching soldiers prance past in Continental Army uniforms.

No visiting head-of-state can have been this disappointed since the secret service ruled out Kruschev's trip to Disneyland.

Non Sequitur

I never thought I'd see an American columnist arguing the US would be better off under a parliamentary system. But then I, like Thomas Friedman, never thought I'd see a US administration determined to jump from an Iraqi frying pan into an Iranian fire.

Blogging in the End Times

2006-04-20T15:55:00.000+10:00

The internet is a crowded place these days. Type in this blog's name wrong and you still end up somewhere: mupis.blogsopt.com. Or better, mupis.blogpsot.com, some of whose material I've extracted below. Sounds a lot like the stuff I was fed at church camps as a kid -

THE SOON COMING CLIMAX
(BIBLE PROPHECY—PROOF THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND
WE ARE NOW IN THE LATTER DAYS) and HOW TO BE SAVED
(A brief summary)

This message may be called a road sign of warning. Some may look at a sign that reads—THE BRIDGE IS OUT, and say, "Oh, someone is just trying to scare us into taking another road; let’s go on the same way." They go on and plunge to their death. The sign was not meant to scare people, but to warn them of impending danger. The sign was put there, because someone cared and didn’t want others to perish.
God wants you to know, WHEN YOU SEE THESE THINGS COME TO PASS (the prophecies from the Bible in this message), KNOW YE THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NIGH AT HAND-Lk 21:31.

Will Russia and some Arab nations invade Israel and the U.S.A. become involved? Yes.
Will 1/4^th of the world’s population die? Yes.
Will there be a one-world system or global economy? Yes.
Will diseases increase such as AIDS? Yes.
Did you know the Bible tells us about what is happening?

Would you like to know more? Read on...

Containing Iran

2006-04-14T04:20:00.000+10:00

Just further to the discussion in the meeting yesterday, here's one analysis of the Iran situation which pretty much sums up my position:

All the war games and simulations that I have seen have concluded that it isn't possible to disarm Iran by airstrikes. Learning perhaps from what happened to Saddam's nuclear plant at Osirak, the authorities have dispersed the program widely and put a lot of it underground. Nor can the Israelis be expected to do much by proxy: They would have to fly over Iraq this time, and it would be even more obvious than usual that they were acting as an American surrogate. Professor Edward Luttwak claims, in the Wall Street Journal, that selective strikes could still retard or degrade the program, but this, if true, would only restate the problem in a different form.
...
This means that our options are down to three: reliance on the United Nations/European Union bargaining table, a "decapitating" military strike, or Nixon goes to China. The first being demonstrably useless and somewhat humiliating, and the second being possibly futile as well as hazardous, it might be worth giving some thought to the third of these.
...
But they have a crucial vulnerability on the inside. The overwhelmingly young population—an ironic result of the mullahs' attempt to increase the birth rate after the calamitous war with Iraq—is fed up with medieval rule.
...
So, picture if you will the landing of Air Force One at Imam Khomeini International Airport. The president emerges, reclaims the U.S. Embassy in return for an equivalent in Washington and the un-freezing of Iran's financial assets, and announces that sanctions have been a waste of time and have mainly hurt Iranian civilians. (He need not add that they have also given some clerics monopoly positions in various black markets; the populace already knows this.) A new era is possible, he goes on to say. America and the Shiite world have a common enemy in al-Qaida, just as they had in Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, and the Iraqi Baathists. America is home to a large and talented Iranian community. Let the exchange of trade and people and ideas begin! There might perhaps even be a ticklish-to-write paragraph, saying that America is not proud of everything it is has done in the past—most notably Jimmy Carter's criminal decision to permit Saddam to invade Iran.

Hitchens is something of a hawk, being strongly in favour of the Iraq invasion and frequently critical of the "anti-war" left (I put that in scare quotes because it's his contention that many peace activists are actually in favour of war, when it's done against US/Israeli). But he's not at all in favour of a military attack on Iran. I think his analysis comes from a position of some authority and it accords with other analyses I've read.

To Get Rich Is Glorious

2006-04-12T19:32:00.000+10:00

Chris Berg, one of our guest speakers at Pub Politics a few weeks back, was on last night's Insight program defending materialism as a road to happiness. Good libertarian that he is, his cumulative minute and a half of airtime can be picked out by the keywords 'choice', 'preference' and 'capacity'. Indulge yourself - read the transcript...

The Political Objectives Test

2006-04-12T00:36:00.000+10:00

There are all sorts of interesting online tests of your political beliefs and ideology. A friend of mine, Daniel (or "Originaluddite") has composed a new test and it's worth a try. Check it out here.

This is how it described me, and I think it's a fair assessment:

Liberal-Conservative
You scored 21 Equality, 78 Liberty, and 64 Stability!

Your commitment to both liberty and stability puts you in the hazy area that exists between the Liberal and the Conservative. You value liberty particularly in economic life and embrace private enterprise. You also recognise the value of traditional culture and institutions. Occasionally your economic and cultural positions may clash but in general you will find practical ways to reconcile them.

Anyone else care to bare their soul in the comments section?

The Prime Minister on Whom the Sun has Set

2006-04-04T08:20:00.000+10:00

Here's a take on Smiling Tony by Scott Cresswell, who's currently doing a polsci Ph.D thesis on the EU policy of the Conservative Party.

___________________________________________

Few British Prime Ministers since the Great Reform Act of 1832 have dominated British politics as has Tony Blair. Blair's parliamentary majorities have been unsurpassed (in normal circumstances at least) and his personal popularity has never quite gone through the troughs that dogged that other twentieth century Titan, Margaret Thatcher. There is a quite viable argument that Blair is the most successful British prime minister of the century, predicated on the size of his majorities and the lack of rancour he has inspired. And yet, Blair's premiership is over.

Blair is, to use words that haunted the Major premiership, 'in office, but not in power'. Reports in British newspapers have him definitely gone by Christmas; autumn (spring in Australia) looks more likely. Every piece of speculation brings the date closer. The Guardian, the staunchest of Labour newspapers, has bid him gone now. He will not go of his own accord, pushed out by his Chancellor, Gordon Brown, a dour Scotsman. Indeed, since the last election (2005) Blair and Brown have been in a sort of transitional phase, the two old rivals (dating from the 1994 leadership election) in an uneasy embrace termed the 'dual premiership'. Admitting the mistake of announcing his retirement prematurely (and yet annoying a twice jilted Brown by not naming a date), even his vaunted political judgment looks to have left him. The final years of his premiership, mirroring Thatcher's in many respects, have been a failure at best, at worst a farce. The mistakes of Iraq, the suicide of weapons scientist David Kelly, and the infamous weapons dossier do not bear re-telling. They have diminished him, his standing in the country, in the party, and, I think, the most important of all, history. His errors have emboldened the Labour left, once cowed into submission, into the rediscovery of its voice and its power. Editor of the Spectator Matthew d'Ancona writes in the Telegraph, "It is not simply factional warfare - bitter as that undoubtedly is - but full-scale fragmentation. Labour's National Executive Committee and parliamentary party are flexing their muscles recklessly. Last week's industrial action by council workers showed how emboldened the unions have been by the Government's travails."

This is crucial, as the whole 'New Labour' project was the transformation of Labour from an unelectable socialist rabble (its 1983 election manifesto, a grab-bag of socialist measure, was called by a Labour MP "the longest suicide note in history" and so it proved) into a modern, professional, ruthless, and centrist party. Power was shifted from the party and its institutions to the leadership.

This point bears expanding for those unfamiliar with British politics. On election day 1992, with the polls putting Labour by up to 10 points in front, the Murdoch owned Sun newspaper printed a front page, headlined "If Kinnock wins, will the last person to leave Britain turn out the lights?" Labour lost. Not because of the Sun ("It was the Sun wot won it" arrogantly appeared on the front page the following day), but because Labour was still struggling to throw off the vestiges of Tony Benn, the Militant Tendency, and every other loony left-wing organisation that had infiltrated it since Thatcher's win in 1979. Blair exorcised all of those ghosts and made Labour electable once more. It is worth noting that in 1997, 2001, and 2005, the Sun backed Labour, not the Conservatives. (Well, allegedly, anyway. I don't know if any Sun readers bother reading past page 3.)

(There's an old joke, with variants for each country. "People who read The Times think they run the country, people who read The Financial Times own the country, people who read the Mirror don't care who runs the country, people who read the Daily Telegraph [me!] think that the country should be run by another country [America], and people who read The Guardian think that it is." It is at this point in a 'Yes, Minister' episode where Hacker enquires about the Sun readers, to which Bernard replies, "they don't care, just so long as she has big tits!" Touché.)

This newly found confidence on the left has dismayed Blair and loyal Blairites. They are, in all honesty, less comfortable with the old Labour tradition, seemingly personified by the tax-and-spend Brown, than even with Thatcherism. With his departure announced and the left poised for control, Blair has spent much time trying to shore up his legacy. The civil (public) service, the health system, and the education system have all come in for Blair's newly found zeal for addressing the stuff-ups he's spent the last ten years ignoring. Why? Because Tony Blair, the great social democrat, has discovered 'the market'. 'Market-orientated reform' has become the Blairite buzzword of the moment.

It is personified in the attempt to reform the education system. A White Paper was compiled, under the auspices of the Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, a Blair loyalist. But Blair, too weak to withstand a Labour left openly flouting his leadership and for whom the measure was too radical, was forced to neuter the bill. (It was reported in last week's Spectator that rebels are confident enough even to plot in front of party whips!) Yet not even that was enough for the rebels, who voted against the bill in droves. It passed, but only with Conservative votes. Blair being forced to rely on the Conservative leader, David Cameron, a Blair in the making (and seen as Blair's true heir by some Blairites and even the man himself reportedly), to shore up his legacy is indeed rich in symbolism. With Parliament due for summer recess and the scandal of the loans for peerages affair taking whatever lustre was left, Blair will go unfulfilled. And unloved. It is one of the ironies of British politics that when Thatcher left, she organized for the succession of John Major, thinking he would be a proper heir. He was not. She had to wait for Tony Blair, who was/is closer to Thatcher than either Major was or Cameron is. (Thatcher reportedly is very fond of Blair and he has reciprocated publicly.) Blair may get his serve of irony as he waits to see whether Cameron will be his heir.

Summing up Blair's legacy is not for me, I lack the in-depth familiarity with the period to nail my trousers to any masts. But one point is, I think, illustrative, sticking with the Thatcher – Blair theme. When leaving London I was given a going away present by the hippie playwright mother of a friend of mine, a kilt of MacDonald tartan, in recognition for my numerous (and good natured, of course) jokes about Scotland and her Scottish-ness. In return, I left her a copy of Thatcher's Downing Street Years (she positively despises Tories, I am merely tolerated). Apparently, it's going to get thrown at me next time I'm in the general vicinity. Whether for better or worse, I can't see anyone throwing Blair's memoirs about (except Gordon Brown…)

The Universality of Human Rights

2006-03-24T20:39:00.000+11:00

Following up the 'Asian values' debate at the last meeting, here's a not-so-old essay of mine - minus footnotes, introduction and conclusion - on drawing the line between human rights and culture. This issue happens to be getting the media glare right now, with the impending execution of an Afghan citizen for converting from Islam to Christianity.

I'll try to follow this up with something more specific on 'Asian values', assuming I have any energy left to think after homework, job applications and LSS tutes.

Cross-posted, as usual.

______________________________________________________

Human rights must have legitimacy if they are to be realised within a given community. The widespread perception in Muslim countries that human rights are ‘un-Islamic’ or a tool of western imperialism, for example, makes it difficult for governments to implement human right or for rights advocates to gain social and political traction. In developed states like the US, opposition to judicial enforcement of economic and social rights stems more from perceptions that they are not bona fide ‘rights’ than from persuasive separation-of-powers arguments. Attempts to give human rights an objective basis, for instance by linking them to economic development, have met little success; implementation of human rights depends on a cultural choice by the community in question, a choice that can only spring from cultural legitimacy.

The basic problem faced by the global human rights movement is that the very concept of human rights, defined as inalienable claims by an abstract individual upon society, lacks legitimacy outside the western world. If one attempts to ground human rights in religion or moral philosophy, they appear as a western cultural construct. Even accepting that numerous belief systems recognise the inherent human dignity on which human rights are founded, many manifest practices that are inconsistent with ‘international’ human rights norms; certain principles in Islamic jurisprudence, for example, conflict directly with the rights to freedom of belief, freedom of speech and equality before the law. A strong argument can be made that other key concepts underpinning human rights – the individual’s autonomy from society and the cosmos, for instance – are specifically western cultural developments. As such, their introduction into non-western societies presupposes that these societies are either culturally deficient or on an evolutionary path that will turn them into facsimiles of the contemporary west.

Nor have positivist approaches to human rights given non-western peoples the sense of cultural ownership that grounds legitimacy. The core of international human rights, expressed in the Universal Declaration, was articulated by western states in the context of the ideological struggle with communism. On an ongoing basis, Western states are perceived to serve vested commercial interests by promoting civil and political rights over economic and social ones, abandoning even the former when inconvenient (take Australia’s reservations to the ICCPR regarding federal implementation and juvenile detention). Non-western governments stand accused of using communitarian conceptions of human rights to justify internal repression. In this context, the non-western world at large has unsurprisingly developed a cynical understanding of human rights.

Yet despite the rhetoric of cultural distinctiveness from their elites, non-western societies are taking an evolutionary path similar in many respects to that of the west: industrialising, evolving powerful bureaucracies, developing market economies. In this changing social context, human rights are necessary to shield ‘authentic human life’ – whatever cultural expression that life may take – from the corrosive effects of modernity. Freedom of speech and association, for example, may be needed to protect traditional social structures or cultural practices from exploitative employers, corrupt bureaucrats and callous state policies.

Critiques of human rights as exclusively ‘western’ also employ an excessively static notion of culture. Muslim rights advocates have argued that the Shari’a provisions referenced above are a historically contingent interpretation of Islamic texts, which should be reinterpreted consistently with contemporary conditions. Torture and poverty were once considered legitimate by virtually all societies (including western ones) but are now widely rejected, at least in theory. These are instances of a global cultural evolution towards recognition that certain practices and conditions diminish human personality in any cultural context. Critics of the universal rights discourse correctly assert that ‘personality’ is culturally defined, but miss the point that it attaches to a universal ‘individual’ who is the subject of human rights. If the individual’s integrity is compromised, for instance through torture or poverty, personality cannot be fully realised. Pace Douzinas, the ‘human’ in human rights signifies a physical and mental core on which all cultures operate.

Human rights thus have a universal moral basis, notwithstanding their initial conception in the west, and as such are universally applicable. The global human rights machinery serves a legitimate role in monitoring adherence to human rights within all states, including their western progenitors; consider the Human Rights Committee’s (HRC’s) declaration of a US reservation to ICCPR subordinating that treaty to the US constitution as invalid, or the UN High Commissioner’s finding in 2002 that Australia had breached the ICCPR and the ICESCR. However, the precise content and means of enforcement of human rights must correspond to social organisation and conditions, which differ between nations and cultures. The right to freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy or family, for instance, may need to countenance traditional forms of community supervision and authority (for example the role of village elders in regulating social relationships).

Implementation of human rights should therefore take place as locally as practicable, for instance through national or regional human rights commissions, rather than via international treaty mechanisms such as the HRC’s individual complaints mechanism. Localised implementation avoids the charge of western cultural imposition, and allows rights to become ‘foundations for actions and policy’ rather than meaningless abstractions. It is only through such ‘concretisation in the [local] context’ that human rights will acquire the legitimacy needed to take root in a particular community.

Another take on Labor's woes

2006-03-17T02:08:00.000+11:00

Here is my take on Labor's woes, as ignored by Op-ed editors from The Age, The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald:

A glance at the Labor caucus reveals a depressing site. Amongst its ranks are a chorus of those in the 'political class', whose professional lives have been spent mostly or entirely within the Labor party or the labour movement. Whilst their political opponents might boast of lawyers, entrepreneurs and a variety of other white collar professionals, the same cannot be said of the Labor Party. According to a Parliamentary Library research note (no. 24 2005-2006), 34% of Labor parliamentarians had as their previous occupation ‘party and union administrators and officials', whilst just 7% worked in the law and 11% as business managers. Amongst the coalition, only 2% were in this first category.

We have long passed the point in Labor history when representing the party in parliament was a reward for achievements in the outside world. Instead it is merely a logical continuation of work within the labour bureaucracy.

The starting point for this "career", from want of a better word, are our university campuses. On campuses across the country, young, talented left-leaning students are sucked into the world of political machinations. For some this means playing the game of student politics, whilst for others it involves a plumb appointment as a staff member of a state or federal member of parliament. The idea of seeking to achieve things outside of the Labor machine is frowned upon.

Plenty has been said about the total lack of perspective held by many inside student politics. To its participants, student politics is a life or death struggle for power where every possible advantage is sought over one's opponent. To those watching from the outside, though, it's a remarkably silly battle of little consequence. Regardless of which perception is closer to the truth, the bearpit of student politics is considered a training ground for the real thing.

It's doubtful, though, that it's teaching the skills that are worth learning. Rarely does student politics involve serious policy discussion or a nuanced understanding of different points of view. Rarely does it involve the art of persuasion. Rarely does it involve the tricky business of reasoning and rational argument. Instead, it's a bombastic power struggle. Participants are encouraged to count numbers and stack their way to success whilst intimidation and deception are commonplace. Student politics involves the worst elements of the real thing, and that's just why it's such an unfortunate training ground, but one that lives on nonetheless.

It's also worth remembering that in student politics, the battle is rarely between Liberal and Labor. More often, it is between different factions of the Labor Party, who operate completely independently and consider each other to be their arch political enemies. The animousity between the left faction (Australian Labor Students and National Organisation of Labor Students) and the right faction (Student Unity) is the stuff of legends. In must be quite jarring for these junior pollies to leave university and find themselves shoulder to shoulder with fellow Labor members that they previously despised. There's little wonder, then, that the factional divide lives on.

All this is not to say, of course, that Liberal-minded students aren't engaged in the same shenanigans. To some extent they are, although the lack of a political gravy train of student political and union jobs prevents Liberal students from venturing further down this path. (Perhaps, ironically, the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism will help the Labor Party by reducing the number of cosy political positions within the student union movement.) There's also a clear realisation amongst aspiring young liberals that their path to Parliament House must invariably go via another profession. This realisation is part of the reason why the Liberals have managed to avoid the same malaise the Labor Party currently finds itself in.

There's no suggestion that factional warfare in the Labor Party is the result of factionalism in junior politics. The problem, though, is that the shallow gene pool of participants in junior politics seem to be the major source of future parliamentarians in the Labor Party. This depressing situation will continue so long as the caucus is filled with career politicians who spend their younger days wallowing in the pettiness of student politics and then make no attempt to learn skills or establish their credentials elsewhere. This trend is not unstoppable. The preselection of entrepreneur (and, incidentally, former student politician) Evan Thornley to a state Labor seat in Victoria and the preselection of lawyer Mark Dreyfus in the federal seat of Isaacs are steps in the right direction. What is necessary is that these preselections be the rule rather than the exception, in order to send a message out to aspiring young hacks and hackettes that they must broaden their skill base if they are to be successful in politics.

If Labor is to make a serious attempt at entering government, it will need to work hard to change the composition of its party room. Rewarding talent ahead of loyal service would be a good start. These hackneyed Labor groupies are surely not the basis of the next Labor Government.

Ari Sharp is a Commerce/Arts student at the University of Melbourne.

Iran's nuclear threat

2006-03-09T00:38:00.000+11:00

It seems so incredibly obvious that Iran's current struggles with the IAEA mean that Iran dearly wants to develop nuclear weapons to destroy some of its archenemies like Israel or possibly even the US. What else would you expect from a head of a state that openly airs his desire to attack his neighbor Israel?

For me it seems suicidal to even plan attacks on Israel, one of the nations not caring about the NPT, because they officially not own nuclear weapons, even though they most likely do. Nevertheless, taking a strong stance against Israel is incredibly popular amongst the islamic oriented nations surrounding this country, and thus might be nothing more than a rhetoric figure to get acceptance for the Iranian government, no matter how determined and evil it might sound to foreign ears.

The current media coverage of Irans nuclear facilities, and the correlated spin of the threat imposed to World Peace (as if it ever existed in modern times) reminded me of the situation just before the invasion of Iraq. I got inspired to compare these two events by an essay of Georg Meggle, professor for philosophy at the university of Dresden, Germany.

Furthermore, I read an article about potential economic reasons for the US to start the 'Iran belongs to the axes of evil and needs to be incapacitated' spin, and to coerce international organisations into activity. The article I'm referring to is written by Krassimir Petrov and was published on 18. January 2006 on Energy Bulletin. Krassimir Petrov has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria.

To cut a long story short, what we think to 'know' about the 'evil intentions' and the 'belligerence' of Iran is certainly more related to assertive propaganda than to hard facts. Irans society is so unwestern that we cannot easily rely on polls and media reports like we could with for example European countries. So I hesitate to simply assume than Irans plans focus on and intend nothing else than 'having the bomb'.

As yet, there is as much evidence of the development of nuclear weapons in Iran as there was evidence for the development and existance of WMDs in Iraq three years ago. Surely, I would appreciate some facts indicating that I'm (and more important, and Meggle and Petrov are) entirely wrong, and that the most belligerent nation since the 2nd world war, the USA, is right in assuming that the Iran (like the Iraq some short time ago) poses an unacceptable threat to the rest of the world.

More O-Week photos

2006-03-08T22:36:00.001+11:00

Following on from John's post last week, here are some more fun-filled photos from the PIS O-Week table on 23 February:

Bringing competition to politics

2006-02-27T00:57:00.000+11:00

It's preselection time again, and the intensity of the battle seems a little stronger than usual. Here in Victoria half a dozen sitting Labor MPs (Corcoran, Crean, Jenkins, O'Connor, Sercombe, Vamvakinou) are facing carefully orchestrated challenges. There are plenty of commentators tut-tutting it, dismissing it as a source of disunity and observing that many of the challenges are merely the result of the shifting sands of faction politics.

I, for one, would like to stand up for the challengers.

Free markets are wonderful things. Healthy competition keeps all players on their toes and requires them to strive for quality and innovation to survive in a Darwinian marketplace. The same is true of members of parliament. Without the threat of competition, MPs can become self-absorbed, slothful and lazy and do little more than, quite literally, occupy a seat. It's bad for them, it's bad for their constituents, and it's bad for their party.

Given that many Labor MPs find themselves in seats with such healthy margins that they face no realistic challenge at the ballot box, it is necessary for them to have some internal challengers before they get there. One of the reasons for the ALP's malaise over the past 10 years has been the substandard performance of many of its MPs. Check out this list here, and keep a straight face while you tell me it's a galaxy of stars. The Liberals have done much better in recent years and have attracted a more talented selection of backbenchers, which has put upward pressure on the performance of members further up the hierarchy.

There's nothing inherently meritorious about the challengers. Some of them will no doubt end up being just as lame as those seatwarmers they seek to replace. But the mere fact that the incumbents have had their chances and done little with them is reason enough to think positively about the challenger.

Rather than trying to limit the number of preselection battles, the interests of democracy says we should be encouraging more. At the moment it is mostly factionally-fuelled battles in one party, in one state. Let's open up debate nation wide, across parties. Solid, hardworking MPs should be left alone, but there are plenty of others who would benefit from some healthy competition. Though the US Primaries perhaps a tad too divisive, they do offer a glimpse of what could happen here if we encourage democracy and competition in party preselection.

This time around, some of the challengers will get up and some of the sitting MPs will survive, but you can be sure that the mere threat of a challenge will force whoever gets the nod to improve their performance over the next three years. And for that, we should be thankful.

Club BBQ, Thursday 23 Feburary

2006-02-24T20:41:00.000+11:00

One more reason to be in this club...

Would you like AAP with that?

More pics coming shortly...

Of Wheat and Weasel Words

2006-02-03T16:18:00.000+11:00

Continuing our venerable tradition of cross-posting from members' blogs (original post here).
____________________________

One month in and it's already been a great year for political scandal. Overseas the GOP is on the back foot over Abramoff and unwarranted spying on US citizens, while in Australia we've been treated to internal backbiting over party preselections and defecting senators. Now it's emerged that the country's monopoly wheat exporter was defrauding a UN trust fund to underwrite Saddam Hussein's regime. But the red meat is the growing evidence of the federal government's role in this sorry affair, which each day looks less like a wink-nod arrangement and more like application of strategic pressure to keep the grain flowing.

It's settled ground that AWB inflated sales to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food program to cover $300 million of kickbacks to Saddam's government, disguised as transport fees and laundered through a Jordanian trucking company. Apart from the fact that this scheme was cooked up before AWB was privatised, we now know (inter alia) that in 2002 DFAT officials accompanied an AWB mission to Iraq ending in a $2 million bribe; that this mission followed correspondence between AWB execs and the Prime Minister; that DFAT was aware in 2003 0f a pervasive kickback culture surrounding oil-for-food contracts; and that Australia's Washington ambassador helped scuttle a US congressional probe into AWB's Iraq deals in 2004.

The right's counterattack has run a national interest line, examples of which can be found in the comment threads here and here. The argument boils down to claims that a) everyone else was rorting oil-for-food and b) this was no different from greasing business in any third-world country. Even if one accepts that bribing government officials is legitimate under normal circumstances, this was no ordinary squeeze. Iraq bought this wheat via a UN fund set up to allow purchases of humanitarian necessities. Every cent that went to Hussein's regime as a kickback was a cent denied to Iraq's citizens, who were otherwise blocked from buying such goods by international embargo.

Our government's probable complicity in the swindling of a UN program designed to relieve child-killing sanctions is a matter for public concern, pace the Herald Sun and the RWDB crowd. Commissioner Cole should get an expansion of his terms of reference, because if this goes where it's heading then the implications are far direr than an ALP or Fairfax beatup. Our elected leaders, going right to the top, made decisions to undercut a sanctions regime justified by the charcter of Hussein's government and its failure to come clean on WMDs - the same justifications for invading Iraq in 2003. And it's a fair bet that some of that $300 million was squirelled away in private bank accounts that now fund the Iraqi insurgency.

Leftie conspiracy-theorists will see this as more evidence of a grand Western design to squeeze blood out of the third world. We centrist joes see opportunism and moral bankruptcy on the part of our government.

But a large number of Australians, judging from newspaper op-ed pages and blog posts, see nothing wrong at all.

Hamish Malcolm

2005-10-29T10:06:00.000+10:00

I was devastated to learn this morning that a friend of mine has passed away. Hamish Malcolm died of cardiac arrest a week short of his 26th birthday. I came to know Hamish this year as a friend, and occasionally rival, within the Political Interest Society. Hamish was a passionate lefty who believed strongly in justice and tolerance, but always managed to keep a sense of humour, often richly sarcastic. Having spent most of his life in Britain, that was where his heart lied, although he was rapidly becoming an honourary Australian after settling in Melbourne to continue studying.

Hamish had a significant on-line presence. You can read his blog Omission of Mercy as well as his lively blogger profile.

Here is the email recieved from the Melbourne University Debating Society explaining of Hamish's death and the events to celebrate his life:

Dear VCs Cuppers,

MUDS has recently received some very sad news regarding one of our members, Hamish Malcolm, who you may have met, chatted to and debated with or against during the VCs cup. He passed away on Wednesday, following a cardiac arrest, aged 25. Hamish was extremely friendly and always keen to be involved with MUDS and he will be sorely missed.

Hamish's funeral will be held this Monday, Oct. 31st 1:00 pm (please arrive early) at Lilydale Cemetery & Memorial Park 126-128 Victoria Rd.

His family has requested that the dress for the funeral be very casual (ie: jeans, cargos, etc.) and that no flowers be brought as the family is providing one floral tribute.

The following night Hamish's good friend Ali Lemer has organised to celebrate Hamish's 26th Birthday which would have been that day. So on Tuesday, Nov. 1st 7:30 pm at 6/48 Leicester Street (between Victoria and Queensberry, opposite Queen Vic Market) Carlton please join us to remember the good times. If any of you have photos of Hamish, Ali was making a slideshow for Tueday and would greatly appreciate any help in this regard. If you can help or need to contact Ali her phone number is 04xx xxx xxx and email a.lemer@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au.

If any of you would like more information regarding either of these events please contact us.

We hope you are all well,
and best of luck with assessment period,

MUDS

Rest in Peace, Hamish.

Hamish Malcolm, 1979-2005

Election week thoughts

2005-10-28T02:17:00.000+10:00

Crossposted from Ari on the Web. What did other people make of election week?:

As election week 2005 at Melbourne University comes to an end today, it's worth reflecting on one of the more peaceful campaigns in recent years. Having seen the skullduggery of the 2003 election in the State of the Union (the official website even refers to it with the adjective 'skullduggerous' - nice work, lads), one expects all sorts of silliness to be going on. To the casual observer, though, there was little smoke nor heat.

The most visable presence on campus was the Left Union ticket, who were out in force last week and again during the election. Combining the considerable resources (oh, the irony) of Socialist Alternative and the left wing of the Labor Party, Left Union were the well organised voice of the left. In what was a real trademark of the entire election, there were few issues of substance raised by the Left Union folks. Apparently, they're really truely absolutely positively opposing VSU. And the war in Iraq. Still, these guys in their suave red t-shirts are an electoral force to be reckoned with.

The rival on the left were Activate, replete in Green. These guys are the non-aligned left, without a formal politial affiliation but their hearts in the right place (shit that sounded patronising). These guys were running on many of the same issues as Left Union, although with slightly less Stalinist zeal, which is most definitely a good thing. Given the connection with Students for Change, a worthwhile group trying to inject some integrity and transperancy into a union which desperately needs it, these guys were focused on life on campus as well as off it. For a fence-stradling centrist student like AOTW, Activate was the lefty ticket I could vote for with confidence.

Surprisingly disorganised this time around was the right wing (yeah yeah 'a broad cross-section of students' and whatever other spin they might want to try) coalition of Labor Right, Liberals and AUJS, under the banner of Fusion. Completely unsighted on campus until election week, they were later hard to miss in their camp bright pink t-shirts. Fusion were pushing a rather populist message during the campaign, promoting its completely unviable 'free gym membership' policy. Yawn. Still, the last thing that the union needs are a bunch of mad lefties wasting money and breaking stuff, so there's some merit in getting some Fusion folks elected.

Rounding out the Melbourne (Uni) Cup field were the Liberals, who made a sad sight prostituting the party brand name to act as a preference funnel for the Fusion ticket, where the Liberals had scored themselves some juicy positions. Old hack candidates, no real message beyond the oh-so-hilarious "You know we're Right" slogan... the only thing going their way was the superslick full colour leaflet thrust into my hand. Obviously the campaign was not quite as anorexic as it could have been.

Honourable mentions of course must go to the chilly-loving Kung Fu Banditos, Ken Courtis, the committee-loving, afro-wearing Josh Cusack, and of course the wonderfully dedicated Farragon of Virtue Farrago ticket. But the question must be asked, where was everybody's favourite nutter, Menachem Gunzberg? His absense was disappointing.

Predictions. For those whose memories extend back far enough, a left wing dominance of Union House is business as usual. Without a strong incentive to vote, turn-out is slack, usually dangling in single-figure percentages. Those who do vote are the highly motivated, politically aware students, and overwhelmingly these are on the left. Headstrong socialists are much more likely to cast a vote than lazy conservative engineering students, if only because they have no shame being caught within range of the ballot box. Incentive voting distorted the balance for a couple of years, bringing otherwise apathetic students out to vote if only for the promise of an $8 food voucher. Without this, we're likely to see a big swing back to the left.

Most likely, the Left Union guys will sweep the pool when it comes to Office Bearer positions. With resources, their roughest edges smoothed, and a hard core of lefty arts students, it's hard to see LU falling short of union dominance. Committees will be a little more finely balanced, with the 7 positions on each likely to be around about a 4-2-1 split (Left Union-Fusion-Activate), although there are enough minor parties and indies to upset the balance. In the battle for Farrago, Farragon are in with a chance although will be hampered by the momentum other candidates will recieve through running a full slate of candidates. As for turnout, the look of complete and utter boredom on the face of the four polling booth staff sighted on Wednesday, as well as the absense of a queue, suggests that the campaign has failed to ignite the imagination of most students. Look for a turnout between 5 and 10 per cent. Sad but true.

Disclosure, disclosure: I got links to just about everyone, so I suspect I'm biased in all directions. I'm a member of AUJS, scrutineering for Lib member Ken Courtis, wrote an article for the left-wing Farragon guys, am mates with one of the ALP guys. So get over it.

The Great Debate

2005-10-26T23:30:00.000+10:00

I've put up some of the pics from last week's debate on my blog. Thanks again for a great semester, everyone, committee in particular. ;)

PIS Trivia Night

2005-10-06T09:52:00.000+10:00

The PIS trivia night is coming!!!

Tuesday, 18 October, from 6:30pm @ Deep Dish $5 per person, with great prizes guaranteed

Plenty of food provided, and drinks at bar prices

RSVP to polintsoc@gmail.com by 16 October

Test your knowledge of the arts, sport, history, pop culture, religion,horticulture, numismatics, philately, aeronautics, molecular biology,deontelogical philosophy and yes, politics as well.

This is the ultimate test to see just who in the PIS is the biggest
smartarse of all!!

New Orleans 2005: microcosm of modern America

2005-09-05T14:10:00.000+10:00

Hurricane Katrina hit the US Gulf Coast on Monday. As it did, twenty thousand-odd people huddled in New Orleans’s sports stadium, the Superdome. Over the succeeding days they lost air-conditioning, food and water. Lawlessness took over. Hygiene disappeared. While there was a suitable similar facility to house the refugees just one state over – the ‘Astrodome’ in Houston, Texas – this was only grasped days after the event, when the Governor of Texas announced it could be used. It’s an episode indicative of government handling of the disaster.

Three pieces appeared in Saturday’s Age on Katrina. All focus on what is emerging as a central issue – the clear, damning, failure of the United States government.

Paul Krugman: ‘It was already clear by last Friday that Katrina could do immense damage along the Gulf Coast. Yet the response you’d expect from an advanced country never happened…the evidence points, above all, to a stunning lack of preparation and urgency in the Federal Government’s response.

Gerard Wright: ‘Beyond the destruction of houses, lives and infrastructure, something disturbing has been revealed about the United States and its various levels of government…unable to take care of their own, unwilling to make even the most elementary preparations to protect a historic and beloved city’

It was an incompetent short-term response, but one grounded in long-term American belief, and it has brought to the surface shameful problems with America that that belief doesn’t deem to try and fix. 2005 New Orleans, more than 2001 New York, is the defining symbol of modern America.

There’s a simple narrative of breathtaking incompetence here. Thousands of the poor, elderly and sick were left in their slums, retirement homes and hospitals. Nobody from the government sent buses to help them get out, either before or immediately after. It was days before even close to adequate amounts of troops, food, water and medicine started to trickle into the city. Jesse Jackson commented that the response to the Asian tsunami was superior to America’s response to Katrina. But we have to interpret ‘federal government failure’ more broadly. The short-term response of the authorities to Hurricane Katrina is symptomatic of bigger problems, as Krugman seized on:

‘at a fundamental level, our leaders just aren’t serious about some of the essential functions of government.’

We can link the non-activist response from the Bush Administration to its broader ideology about government. The Bush administration’s failure to deal adequately with Katrina isn’t limited to being slow off the mark in the last few days. For years they have, through doctrinaire (albeit massively selective) ideas on the role of government*, been hampering the nation’s ability to respond to a major disaster. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, has been starved of funds and purged of quality officials in the post-Clinton years. The Army Corps of Engineers, too, has been badly compromised: its use compromised in terms of troops and equipment for the war in Iraq. Repeated warnings that authorities were unprepared for a major hurricane on New Orleans, and that the government should do something about it, were, like the warnings of a terrorist attack pre-9/11, ignored. The Bush administration views government’s task as being entrenching tax cuts and doling out pork at home, and periodic wars abroad. For these objectives the basic business of governing within America has been neglected.

We can see the lack of, and need for, American activist government not simply in the response to New Orleans, but also in the disaster itself: the stories and photos coming from the city have brought to the surface continuous deep-set problems in American society and culture. The simple presence of people in New Orleans after a mandatory evacuation order shows the huge problem of income inequality and poverty in America: these people simply couldn’t afford to get away. That those in poverty and abandoned are almost universally black highlights America’s problem of race inequality. The sick retirees that waited for days in a retirement home, the hospitals floundering under colossal demand, the fact that infectious disease may spread due to widespread lack of immunization, all highlight America’s astonishing lack of national interest in health-care: most of the faces on TV have no public health insurance. The stories of guns and ammunition being taken from Wal-Mart stores in New Orleans and used to take pot-shots at police officers and murder fellow citizens highlights the – incomprehensible to the rest of the Western world – gun control problem in America: what are guns doing in a Wal-Mart? If that isn’t an issue that needs government attention, what is?

The prism of New Orleans – problems unsolved and government slow to get its hands dirty – conforms to the prevailing view throughout American history of the role of government, from the American Revolution, at a basic level about getting government out of people’s everyday lives, to Ronald Reagan’s message of government being the problem, not the solution, backed up by colossal tax cuts and slashed funding for most government programs. We can see it in the anti-government militants from the heartland in the 1990s: the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh and the Waco siege. We can see it in many people of the rural South, even those now affected by the hurricane, who grumble about the ‘feds’ and Washington intervening in their affairs, as they grumbled about during Civil Rights; as they fought over in the Civil War.

The great paradox is these are all deeply patriotic Americans. The obvious question for an outsider to ask is: why can’t the American Dream be pursued, and American values entrenched, through government and not just individuals?

America has had its periods in which people and politicians viewed government as a tool to help improve society, an instrument to make people’s lives better. The most spectacular abandonment of the ‘small government’ ethos came with Franklin Roosevelt and the height of the Great Depression: the bleak times led people to a fundamental redrawing of federal government responsibility.

The most recent truly ‘activist’ American President leads me back to the Houston Astrodome example. Post-Katrina America will do well to remember another Texas President, Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ would be flabbergasted at the idea that a fellow Lone Star President, let alone not being driven to sleepless overdrive by the plight of thousands of Americans, didn’t even comprehend that his home state’s resources could be used to help a neighbouring state. Growing up around extreme poverty in Depression-era Texas led Johnson to spend his political career and presidency attempting to put the federal government’s resources to work curing national ills: fixing poverty, enhancing the prospects of African-Americans, improving justice’s relationship with law and order, instituting health-care and welfare for the lower-classes. Bush and those around him, in contrast, have no interest in using government to address fundamental problems with society. The current White House prefers tax cuts, pork, and war.

New Orleans raises an important issue, for all of us but particularly Americans: what is the role of, use for, government? Surely it is to, even in minor ways, manage and regulate society? Katrina makes obvious a minimum role for government. It should organise buses for starving, dying people to be transported out of a disaster zone. It should marshal what resources it can to prevent levees bursting. It should keep order in the streets and prevent or punish theft, murder and rape. It should preserve cities and human lives. It should join the dots between states and regions of the country, dots so simple as shifting people from a sports stadium in a disaster zone to a sports stadium away from one.

The question then is, will Americans ‘join the dots’ between the chaos in the Gulf and the ideological attitude in Washington? It’s a question writers in The Age focused on too:

Krugman: ‘after 9/11, hard questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried under a thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability’

Howell Raimes: ‘the sacrifices of New Orleans need a kind of national reckoning that would enable our people to see the President Who Forgot to Care for what he is’

Krugman: ‘America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can’t-do Government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes those excuses, Americans are dying.’

Pretty strong stuff, even for the decidedly anti-Bush New York Times. It’s been suggested elsewhere that this may be the beginning of the end for Bush’s popularity and prospects.

Let’s return once more to LBJ. Americans initially embraced his initiatives. They were persuaded in large part of the need to reform their society in the wake of another national tragedy, the Kennedy assassination. What sunk him was domestic overstretch, coupled with Vietnam and a failing economy. What that proves is American’s attitude to government fluctuates. They have, on multiple occasions, been convinced of the need for an active role for the federal government. Perhaps the post-Katrina period will mark a return to ideas of, if not big government, at least bigger government than currently, with a more proactive focus, that sees problems coming and tackles them. Prospective Democratic Presidents looking to 2008 may do well to launch their campaign in, and frame their liberal politics around, New Orleans.

This was originally posted on my blog, davidfettlingbycharlesdickens.blogspot.com, where I expect to pen some more thoughts on Katrina and America that the PIS will be spared.

* It must be said that considerable evidence paints Bush as diverting somewhat from this path. ‘Compassionate conservatism’ was about utilising government resources to drive the conservative agenda. Bush is the highest Presidential spender in forty years, funneling money into various departments, some noble, like education, and some dubiously ‘porky’, like prescription drug benefits. His central constituency of religious conservatives sometimes leads him to get government on to people’s backs, e.g. gay marriage and, possibly, abortion. In major respects, however, Bush very much subscribes to the minimal government mantra. The Bush tax cuts are infused with ideology; so too his Social Security reforms are grounded in a belief in weaning people off state dependence. The term that I’ve heard that best sums Bush up is ‘contradictory conservative’.

Bu…ye…gija

2005-08-26T10:26:00.000+10:00

This is the maiden edition of what I hope will be a staple of the PIS blog, ‘Bu…ye…gija’, where all the half-formed thoughts that never quite collected in my head before two o’clock, all the proposals and dismissals and rebuttals I had on the tip of my tongue when the discussion swung in another direction, are instead imposed on the PIS community via the blogosphere.

‘…Bu…’: The clash of civilisations

To refresh our memories, Samuel Huntington claimed in 1994 that, post-Cold War, the world would be reconfigured with ‘fault lines’ between cultures replacing political and ideological boundaries as the sources of crisis and bloodshed. He claimed globalisation would lead to greater conflict, not less, because greater proximity means greater friction. He claimed Western civilisation is in decline and under threat, and that consequentially, the West ought to focus on enhancing its cohesion and protecting its own interests, restraining its universalist pretensions, which are immoral and dangerous, not interfering with other civilisations.

The Clash of Civilisations seems to come up in every second Arts subject and most lecturers are contemptuous of it. That attitude seems to me pretty valid. That’s not to say that Huntington doesn’t make any good points or truthful observations. Here are some:
– That China and South-East Asia (‘Confucian civilisation’) are an emerging economic and most likely political center and that their system will likely differ to some extent from purely Western liberal democracy, Fukuyama-style.
– That people are starting to think of themselves as civilisations: we can see that trend before the end of the Cold War, in the EU, the Pan-Arab movement, the Pan-African movement.
– That after the Cold War ethnic nationalism has made a significant return.
– That there are some fundamental antagonisms between some different world groupings or ‘civilisations’. There may well be something irreconcilable between the West in its current state and substantial parts of the Arab world in their current state. When one ‘civilisation’ has a post-Enlightenment worldview times 200 years, and the other civilisation has a pre Enlightenment worldview times about 200 years, amounting to one side practicing the rule of law and the other carrying out stonings of adulterers on Friday nights, it’s plain wrong to write off the language of ‘clash of civilisations’.

Huntington’s problem is simply that he got carried away. He does make some decent general points about the state of the world. He started out with a sound sensible idea, but sensationalism and fame got the better of him and led him to contort it and expand it into a spectacular all-encompassing Nostradamusesque prognosis of the future. It is predominately extremely simplistic stuff. Dividing the world up into seven civilisations is an extremely tidy way to describe the world, and it shows e.g. according to Huntington, Greece, the cradle of Western civilisation, is not considered part of the West. Huntington claims there are four torn countries. Surely every country is torn in a hundred different ways in terms of its imagined national identity. Surely every country within a civilisation is not exactly the same. As was said in the meeting, there are huge rifts within civilisations that are not going to disappear in a hurry.

‘…ye…’ Cindy Sheehan

I believe it’s a highly positive development that Americans are beginning to criticise Bush over the Iraq war. The administration has evaded accountability both over justification for the war itself, and its inept aftermath. For the good of the country that needs to change, and a critical public discussion needs to permeate the cognitive insulation and groupthink of the Bush White House and force a rethink of strategy.

Precisely because of this, Cindy Sheehan makes me a tad uneasy, because the debate she has prompted seems to not be about these things. It instead seems to be largely emotive. The Iraq war was wrong because Cindy Sheehan’s son died. The Iraq war is wrong purely because it is costing American lives. Maureen Dowd contributed to this the other day in the Age (reprinted from the New York Times) claiming that a bereaved parent’s moral authority was ‘absolute’. Let’s calm down and think about that. Nobody’s moral authority is ever ‘absolute’. And the ‘authority’ of certain citizens who comment on an issue often has to be taken with a substantial grain of salt e.g. does anyone argue that the family of a crime victim has ‘absolute’ authority when it comes to commentary on the criminal justice system? Rather, it’s recognised that they’re in no position to make a judgement on the nuances of policy. Their view is distorted. The same applies to the families of war dead.

I sympathise with Cindy Sheehan’s situation. I admire her courage. She is entitled to her opinion that all US troops should be immediately withdrawn. But she is in no position to put forward ideas on where America should go with regards to Iraq. If someone argues that invading Iraq was counterproductive foreign policy, incompetently implemented, they deserve all the media attention they can stomach. But the Cindy Sheehan movement seems to be simply saying that eighteen hundred deaths makes Iraq wrong. Not the type of Iraq debate America needs.

‘…gija…’ Teachers, left-wing bias and the fostering of scepticism in students

An interesting batch of education-related issues were discussed at Wednesday’s meeting: Peter Costello’s comments on anti-American left wing bias among teachers, the federal Government’s ideas on testing performance in government schools, Brendan Nelson’s ideas on values teaching etc. At the PIS meeting this all fused into a debate about how school-kids are taught, and what is important for them to learn.

The debate on classroom bias is the same as media bias. Does classroom bias exist? Of course it does. It’s unavoidable. And, like media bias, it’s not undesirable. All you have to ensure is that there is a diversity of different biases in a school. This means encouraging engaged, interested students. One of the best ways of encouraging engaged, interested students is to have engaged, interested teachers – left-wing or otherwise – who provoke them to think and debate issues. A majority of my school-teachers were left-leaning. Sometimes I fought with them, sometimes I agreed with them. But I came out of Year 12 engaged and interested. Do you know how I can prove that? When I got to uni, I was taught about constructivism and deconstructivism and postmodernism and all the allegedly scepticism-producing stuff we mentioned in Alice Hoy, and I sat and I listened, and after the lecture I emerged into the sunlight, and I said to myself, ‘what a heap of hooky shit’, and I went to a PIS meeting instead.

Draft Iraqi Constitution

2005-08-26T05:24:00.000+10:00

Negotiators handed a draft Iraqi Constitution to parliament just before the deadline. While there are still negotiations going on to try and convince the Sunnis to support it, there is a chance that this will be the document which is voted on in a referendum later this year. Full text of the document can be found here. Some important bits:

Article (2):

1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

2nd -- This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices.

Article (3): Iraq is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation.
...
Article (7):

1st -- Entities or trends that advocate, instigate, justify or propagate racism, terrorism, "takfir" (declaring someone an infidel), sectarian cleansing, are banned, especially the Saddamist Baath Party in Iraq and its symbols, under any name. It will be not be allowed to be part of the multilateral political system in Iraq, which should be defined according to the law.

2nd -- The state will be committing to fighting terrorism in all its forms and will work to prevent its territory from being a base or corridor or an arena for its (terrorism's) activities.
...
Article (9):

1st --
...
(b) Forming military militias outside the framework of the armed forces is banned.
...
CHAPTER TWO: RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

PART ONE: RIGHTS

FIRST: Civil and political rights.

Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.

Article (15): Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights or have them restricted except in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body.

Article (16): Equal opportunity is a right guaranteed to all Iraqis, and the state shall take the necessary steps to achieve this.

Article (17):

1st -- Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality.

2nd -- The sanctity of the home is protected. They cannot be entered or searched or violated except by judicial decision and in accordance with the law.
...
SECOND: Economic, social and cultural rights

Article (22):

1st -- Work is a right for all Iraqis in a way that guarantees them a good life.

2nd -- The law regulates the relation between employees and employers on an economic basis, while keeping in consideration rules of social justice.

3rd -- The state guarantees the right to form or join syndicates or professional unions. This shall be regulated by law.
...
Article (25): The state shall guarantee the reforming of the Iraqi economy according to modern economic bases, in a way that ensures complete investment of its resources, diversifying its sources and encouraging and developing the private sector.
...
Article (30):

1st -- The state guarantees social and health insurance, the basics for a free and honorable life for the individual and the family -- especially children and women -- and works to protect them from illiteracy, fear and poverty and provides them with housing and the means to rehabilitate and take care of them. This shall be regulated by law.
...
Article (109): Oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people in all the regions and provinces.

Article (110):

1st -- The federal government will administer oil and gas extracted from current fields in cooperation with the governments of the producing regions and provinces on condition that the revenues will be distributed fairly in a manner compatible with the demographical distribution all over the country. A quota should be defined for a specified time for affected regions that were deprived in an unfair way by the former regime or later on, in a way to ensure balanced development in different parts of the country. This should be regulated by law.

It's worth reading the whole thing up to Chapter 3 (gov't structure). A lot of it is basic rule of law, due process and democratic freedom type stuff, there are some interesting idiosyncracies and local flavours, such as Art 21 "An Iraqi shall not be handed over to foreign bodies and authorities", which sounds rather unusual.

I bolded a section of art 110. I think this might be a major sticking point for the Sunnis as it guarantees decreasing power and revenue for the central government in time and an increase in the power of the Shiite/Kurdish provinces which have geographical control over the main oil reserves.

VSU Is Not About Free Market Choice

2005-08-23T07:08:00.000+10:00

This generated a fairly fiery discussion when I posted it on my blog. Some didn't follow the technicalities of what I said, and I'll admit that it's rather long, so if you want to know my conclusion it is, in a nutshell, In the absence of governmnent interference in the university sector universities would provide services currently funded by student union funds by charging students for them. They would just take this money out of general revenue (ie course fees) but due to current price caps they have to charge a special levy. VSU thus makes the university sector less like the free market than it already is because it stops universities doing something they would do without government rules.

I had an epiphany the other day* and I realised that the debate about VSU has been tainted by an ingeniously deceptive conservative framing which happens to be completely bogus. I've decided that VSU has absolutely nothing to do with the free market or economic choice. In fact it has nothing to do with economic conservatism at all and the whole thing looks more like pseudo-welfare for the upper-middle class.

Choice in the free market is not about being able to get what you want, it's about accepting or declining what is offered to you. Thus, while I want to be able to buy a car which perfectly matches my requirements and tastes, I have to accept what car companies decide to offer me (based on their market research etc). There is no guarantees in the market that you will be able to buy what you want to buy, your choice is whether or not you still make the purchase even if it isn't exactly what you want.

The principle is superficially different with VSU. When you want to go to university and 'purchase' a tertiary education you are currently being 'forced' to pay for things like sporting clubs and BBQs which you might have no interest in paying for. But this sort of thing happens in the wider marketplace all the time. When you go to a private school you might be forced to pay a couple of thousand dollar surcharge for a sporting facility you have no interest in using or a laptop you don't really want, when you buy a Nike shoe a very large percentage of the price is a hidden surcharge to cover their advertising and sponsorship costs even if you despise advertising, when you buy a product from a large multi-bodied corporation you might be paying to subsidise an unprofitable and unrelated business arm... none of which you have any 'choice' over. Your choice with universities at the moment is exactly the same as in the general market – take it or leave it.

When you buy a product you are giving your money to the seller to do whatever they like with it. There is no free market principle whatsoever which says the money you pay for a service must be spent on that particular service and that particular service only. If the extras you are paying for, but not using, make the product too expensive in your eyes then you don't buy it. You don't go running to the government asking them to force the seller to split up their product offering. But that's exactly what the conservatives are doing.

Once again, there is another superficial point of differentiation when we're talking about universities in that it's not an entirely free-market sector. But, again, this is a superficial difference because VSU only serves to make the sector even less like the free market. Already universities have restrictive price caps on what they can charge for an education, so they are unable, in the absence of a compulsory services fee, to make the business decision that wider student services are worth providing. The vice-chancellors are opposed to VSU for a reason – being able to charge the fees enhances the 'product' the university can offer which attracts students, particularly of the lucrative full-fee paying international variety. VSU simply makes the sector even more closely regulated by government.

The ingenious framing I referred to earlier is to frame the union fee as a tax. That way defenders of union fees have had to try and justify them by pointing to either equity advantages of student services (such as free campus medical and counseling services which some might otherwise be unable to afford) or by playing up the public good aspects of some union services (it's really difficult to exclude people from watching the lunchtime band). But this is bizarre and irrelevant. Universities aren't governments. Peopole have a choice as to whether or not to go to them and none of the anti-taxation/government arguments legitimately apply. There is no market-based reason why universities should not be free to charge a services fee, especially as there is an on campus democratic system for students to utilise if they believe there is widespread corruption and waste in the student union.

Students are overwhelmingly from high income families or they will themselves become high income earners. Listening to their demands for the government to make a service they choose to utilise a few hundred dollars cheaper per year is nothing short of middle class welfare. I realise that at heart VSU is an ideological crusade unfinished after from the campus political wars of the 60s and 70s, but it's being sold under an entirely different 'free market' idology and I think the illegitimacy of that framing needs to be recognised.

*I had this epiphany while listening to the new Sigur Ros song which is awesome epiphany music.

PIS on the Web

2005-08-20T11:47:00.000+10:00

Hehehe, is this the first time the PIS web site has received a link from a non-member's web site? That blog, The LEO Test, is an interesting academic project which might be of great interest to PIS members. It is run by a political science academic who is trying to build a model which can analyse the ideology of various political figures. While I thought the theory underpinning the model (read the posts linked under "about" on the site), I was sceptical about the ability of his method to accurately analyse people's position.

His method is basically a word search. He has three columns of words, one for each of what he sees as the major schools of political thought (liberty, equity and order). He simply runs representative text written by politicians or commentators through a program and grades the person by the percentage of L, E and O words which appear. Like I said, I was sceptical, but the results he's reported so far seem to be spot on. It's a blog to keep an eye on, I reckon.

IR Reform

2005-08-19T12:38:00.000+10:00

We obviously didn't have any vocal conservatives at Wednesday's meeting because some of my comments on Howard's IR reforms were just screaming out for a rebuttal. For those that weren't there I was explaining the difference between the current system in which workers have redress for unfair and unlawful dismissal compared to the proposed system which would eliminate the unfair part. In essence the current system allows workers to argue their termination was "harsh, oppressive or unfair" and get redress if it is found in the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) that it was (according to all sorts of legal tests which have been built up over the years). They can also argue in a formal court of law that their dismissal was unlawful according to s.170CK of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The grounds for unlawful dismissal are specific categories such as "race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin" and there are, once again, all sorts of legal tests to determine if a dismissal has been unlawful.

My argument was that situations like that shown in the ACTU commercials could easily happen in the new system. An employee could be fired for a reason which is technically unlawful and have no effective redress as few employers are going to be stupid enough to admit they fired the worker for an unlawful reason. Without facing the prospect of having to establish an alternative "fair" ground for the sacking in the IRC, employers who wish to get rid of workers will have no real difficulty getting around the unlawful dismissal laws if they wish to fire someone on a ground which is technically unlawful - even if the Office of Worplace Services gets a funding boost.

I think my argument was sound as far as it goes, and I think Howard is being misleading when he tries to say that situations like those shown in the ACLU ads won't be more likely to happen under the new regime. However my argument didn't address the question of whether or not making it easier for small businesses to sack people is a good thing. Now I can understand why Howard doesn't want to try and make this argument on talkback radio, but it's a plausible argument even if it's not one I personally agree with. I'm sure we're familiar with it, but if not, it goes something like this.

<conservative> A worker's productivity is a difficult thing to measure objectively. In fact it's a difficult thing to measure subjectively, too, which creates a potential for "moral hazard" in the workplace. A moral hazard arises whenever one parties obligations under a contract are difficult to measure by the other party and anyone who's ever slacked off the second the boss goes out for a smoko (and that's all of you) knows exactly what I'm talking about. The productivity loss caused by this slacking off may be difficult to measure but a boss, especially in a small business, will generally have a good idea if a worker is much less productive than normal. However this subjective measurement is difficult to make into an objective measurement which can stand up in the IRC if an unfair dismissal claim is brought. The incidents which go to paint the picture of an unproductive worker are likely to be little things which don't seem like much on their own (especially in a pseudo-court where every little claim will be challenged) but have created a firm and possibly accurate picture of the employee's worthn in the employer's mind.

Thus the chilling effect of unfair dismissal laws. Small business which are unable to implement complicated HR policies and monitoring systems are scared to fire genuinely unproductive workers as it is too uncertain and costly (in money and especially time) to risk an IRC case being brought against them. Thus they are also unwilling to take on workers in a full time role for fear they will become a productivity drain. Also, the laws exacerbate the moral hazard problem as employee's know they can get away with slacking off as their boss is too scared to try and fire them. This increases unemployment and exacerbates the problems of casualisation of the workforce.</conservative>

I'm not saying I buy this argument fully but it is an argument and I wish there was someone around the PIS meetings to regularly make these kinds of arguments. I want people (especially me) to be challenged when they run with the kind of argument I was making on Wednesday. I don't want PIS meetings to turn into soft-lefty head-nodding sessions. We want to "hear both sides" dog-nammit!

Two takes on China

2005-08-18T21:04:00.000+10:00

There were two interesting contrasting pieces on the Australia-US-China triangle on the Op-Ed pages of today's papers. In The Age, Hugh White argues in favour of Australia's pragmatic appoach to keeping China on side, comparing it favourably with the American approach of treating China as a strategic rival:

John Howard, visiting Washington last month, starkly displayed these differences when he and President George Bush spoke on the touchstone issue of China.

Standing next to Howard, Bush described America's relations with Beijing as "complex" and "complicated". "We've got issues when it comes to values," he said, and asked Howard to "work together to reinforce the need for China to accept certain values as universal."

Howard turned him down, flat. He told Bush: "We have a good relationship with China. It's not just based on economic opportunity. We are unashamed in developing our relations with China. I'll do everything I can in the interests of Australia to ensure it develops further."

The day before, he had said his approach was "to build on the things that we have in common, and not become obsessed with the things that make us different".

This is pragmatic politics at its most pragmatic - and the logic works. There are fundamental differences in values and philosophies between Australia and the US on one hand, and China on the other. Its a political truism to acknowledge this vast gulf of difference. The question is how to reconcile the two. It seems unlikely that China will move toward free markets, democracy and respect for the succession desires of some of its population by political isolation. Instead, engagement is needed. Similarly, there is little to gain for the western state which refuses to engage with China diplomatically or economically - the only state harmed is the state who refuses to engage.

Over at The Australian, Greg Sheridan presents an tempting, but ultimately wrong, alternative approach, framed with reference to Taiwan:

China regards Taiwan as a renegade province that must one day reunite with the mainland. Tiawan (sic) is independent in everything but name. It was for a long time ruled by the Kuomintang, which lost the civil war to the communists. Now Taiwan is a democracy and the KMT is the Opposition. The US, although notionally subscribing to the one China policy, is pledged to defend Taiwan. Now that everyone is joining up to the China boom it has been dismal to watch the way dollars trump democracy or human rights, and governments of Left and Right are happy to connive in the strangulation of Taiwan.

Sheridan's position is high on principle but low on practical effect. He suggests that Australia should not be afraid of getting the Chinese offside on a matter of principle, ie Taiwanese independence. The problem with this proposition is that it would cut Australia off from the significant and tangible benefits that a good relationship with China provides in order for us to feel warm and fuzzy for supporting our fellow democratic travellers, the Taiwanese.

Australia should stand by Taiwan, and do whatever it can to engage with it as a democractic ally in a part of the world that boasts very few democracies. Trade links, second-track diplomacy and quietly whispered words of support are all healthy and desirable. What Australia shouldn't do, however, is compromise our relationship with China over the issue.

Regardless of the outcome of the bullying of Taiwan, the talks in North Korea, the suppression of Falun Gung or the painfully slow development of Chinese democracy, the reality remains that China is going to be a major player in the 21st century, and it would be in Australia's national interest to be on good terms with the People's Republic. Tempting as it is to stand atop our soapbox and shrilly condemn the Chinese, there is a more sensible - and pragmatic - alternative. Engagement rather than isolation with China is smart politics, and positions Australia well for the political dynamic of the next couple of decades.

Cross-posted from Ari on the Web.

An Insight Into the Mind of Bolt

2005-08-17T09:23:00.000+10:00

Andrew Bolt is hated with an intense passion by many on the left and I think some of the infuriation stems from his apparent lack of coherent principle and willingness to simply mouthpiece the current official conservative line. The beauty of his new ‘forum’ feature is that it provides an insight into his broader methodology and ideology as he gives quick responses to a wide range of comments.

I decided to send him a comment on a question of principle which I was sure he wouldn't agree with. The principle in question was freedom of speech. In two posts on my blog I had defended rights of two Christian pastors to say completely outrageous things about Australian Muslims and the Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir to advocate, non-violently, for the creation of an Islamic state in Australia. In both cases I applied the same principle to reach what I thought was the right response, but while I knew Bolt agreed with me with respect to the Christian pastors I was equally sure he wouldn't with Hizb ut-Tahrir. This was the message I sent to him:

Given your strident and not unjustified defence of Catch the Fire ministries, I'm wondering if you'll apply the same principles and defend the rights of Hizb ut-Tahrir members if/when the government bans them despite ASIO finding that they were not a threat? It seems to me the principle is the same in each situation - extreme speech which a lot of people disagree with but which falls short of incitations to violence shouldn't be punshed. If Catch the Fire pastors shouldn't be penalised for what they say, surely Hizb ut-Tahrir members shouldn't become criminals for exercising their freedom of speech even if what they say is outrageous.

I wasn't sure that he would know what the group was so I make sure to point out that ASIO had found they weren't a threat to national security (prompting Ruddock to say he'd look at changing the law so they could still be banned). He replied in the latest forum:

Are you serious? Who exactly were Catch the Fire threatening to kill? Abraham Lincoln had good advice for you, Jeremy – decide each case on its merits, to avoid the idiocy that often comes when one tries to apply an inflexible rule to a multitude of cases.

Now he's factually wrong, Hizb ut-Tahrir haven't threatened to kill anyone, otherwise I'd agree with him. The group is genuinely extreme, supporting to the Iraqi resistance and suicide bombings (rhetorically) and one member in Denmark distributed a leaflet which quoted a verse from the Qur’an apparently instructing Muslims to kill Jews but it isn't accurate to say they call their members to violence or make threats to kill.

Anyway, factual questions aside, this reveals a part of Bolt's broader methodology. He explicitly eschews broad principles (inflexible rules as he puts it), even though he'll happily invoke the principle when it suits him (see his Catch the Fire article I linked earlier). What he does is use his infallible powers of discernment to figure out what's right in each circumstance and then he'll use that as a basis for his argument. Based on his reply to my comment, at least one of the rules of thumb he uses to analyse situations is that extremist Christian groups are good and extremist Muslim groups are bad (and probably murderously violent). That's a certain kind of principle, I suppose.

Book review 'BRACKS: FLAWED GIANT' BY ROBERT DALLEK

2005-08-13T19:03:00.000+10:00

Note: To give context to the following post, understand that it was written after reading Paul Austin’s column and doing some research on Lyndon Johnson in quick succession.

‘Why yet another book on Bracks?’, begins Robert Dallek, biographer of JFK and LBJ, in the preface to his new 1200 page tome, Flawed Giant: Steve Bracks And His Times.

Initially it seems a good question. The Dallek book, after all, is only the latest in a string of books on Victoria’s brilliant and enigmatic Premier. It arrives on the shelves while Bracksy by Roy Jenkins (author of Churchill and Gladstone) tops the non-fiction bestseller lists.

Dallek does rehash much of what we already know: the mystery as to when the great man sleeps, as light often emanates from the Premier’s Office until after five a.m.; the ministers frequently woken up to phone calls from an agitated Premier who has found some clunky phrasing or statistical error in a policy document; the marathon night-long intellectual debates Bracks has with Sports Minister Justin Madden.

Dallek also does his best to sum up the gargantuan six-year legislative program, known better as the Bracks Revolution, that shows no sign of ebbing. While the time when newspapers printed a ‘What Bracksy Did Today’ column are over, the media remains obsessed by Bracks’s ever-more radical ideas on transforming the state.

There are some details released for the first time – for example, Dallek confirms on page 974 that West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin did, as has been widely suspected, base his character President Josiah Bartlet on Steve Bracks. Victorian viewers of The West Wing have long been suspicious of the striking similarities between the fictional Bartlet and the real-life Bracks: the exceptional mind, oratory, charisma, statesmanship. The re-election strategy Bartlet’s adviser urged – ‘make this election about smart, and not. Make it about engaged, and not. Qualified and not. Make it about a heavyweight. You’re a heavyweight’ – is eerily similar to the method by which Bracks trounced Robert Doyle in the 2002 election.

Dallek’s biography includes the controversial and unpopular decision to back the tolls in Scoresby. Bracks has appeared increasingly haggard and disillusioned in recent times as he continually faces the anger of his ungrateful lessors/public. ‘I made a decision about tolls’ Dallek quotes, ‘it was the right decision, legally and morally, and I would make it again’. Bracks, claims Dallek, is utterly convinced that, twenty years hence, history will vindicate him on tolls.

‘The great statesmen are almost all gone’ says Dallek ‘They don’t run for political office anymore. Their places have been taken by insipid and mediocre party hacks, sustained by spin doctors who provide the sound-bites that woo an apathetic public. Bracks is the last of the Abraham Lincolns’.

The Causes of Terrorism

2005-08-13T06:12:00.000+10:00

There's been a bit of discussion lately, again, about the causes of terrorism. We discussed in in PIS two weeks ago and one member came up with the very interesting observation that the London suicide bombers might be analogous to high school shooters. There's something in that, I think. Anyway, for some more discussion:

A short post with a long discussion at Ari's blog
Two somewhat longer posts (1, 2) at my blog
A post on Iraq at John's blog which deals with some of the issues

Feel free to continue the discussion here.

Saudi Arabia's New King

2005-08-07T07:06:00.000+10:00

There is an informative article about Saudi Arabia's new King Abdullah up at Salon which is worth checking out (all Salon articles are available to non-subscribers if you sit through a brief flash ad and get a "site pass"). It gives a rundown of the policies of the previous King Fahd which led to blowback in the form of Al Quaeda and the Iraqi Bath party and then looks at the different tack Abdullah has been taking over the past few years while he has been in de-facto control over the country.

The article is written by Juan Cole of the blog Informed Opinion. His blog is regularly linked to with approval by Kos and other hard-left blogs but has received sustained criticism from other sources. Examples here, here and here. A couple of the deficiencies (depending on your point of view) noted in Cole's writings are on show here, such as his unquestioning aceptance of the viability of a pre-'67 Israel borders + a Palestinian state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it generally strikes me as a fair assessment.

Iraq Statistics

2005-08-06T05:45:00.000+10:00

The excellent Brookings Institute has just released its latest Iraq Index. This is a superb collation of all the latest statistics from the country. All of the information is from reliable external sources, this is merely a monthly collection of them. It's a great way of getting your head around what things are like on the ground over there. A quick scan reveals that July wasn't bad compared to the hideousness that was May/June in terms of civilian deaths from terrorist attacks and US troop deaths. Things generally seem to be heading in a good direction, although the number of daily attacks by the insurgency is still comparatively high. Electricity and oil production has been very good recently, and that continued in July.

Welfare's Welfare

2005-08-06T05:30:00.000+10:00

Cross-posted from my blog, Dispatches from the Moderate Left.

The health of our welfare system is something of a hot political issue, as the debate surrounding Howard’s proposals in this year’s budget demonstrated. The debate is characterised by stock talking points and emotion-fueled claims on both sides of the fence so it's interesting when someone injects some statistics into the mix. That's exactly what Peter Whiteford has done recently in a paper entitled The welfare expenditure debate: economic myths of the left and the right revisited.* Whiteford is a career bureaucrat and researcher who has worked for both Liberal and Labor governments and now lives outside Australia doing OECD research.

The main message I'd draw from his paper is that Australia's welfare system is extremely generous, efficient and well targeted. This graph illustrates the point nicely:

In case you didn't read the sub-heading, the graph shows the ratio of welfare payments going to the richest and poorest 20% of the population. By this measure, Australia rates exceptionally well. In contrast to a number of Europe's social-democratic states which give almost equal amounts of welfare to the two groups, Australia gives to the poorest 20% 13 times what is given to the richest 20%. That's an exceptionally good measure of the well targeted nature of the system, it does a great job of getting the money to where it's needed.

Last year ACOSS released a comparative report (.doc) labeling our welfare system as 'mean and lean' in comparison with other OECD nations. This was primarily because our raw level of benefits (as % GDP) is lower than most other OECD countries, and about 80% of the average. Whiteford explains this by pointing to demographics (many of the comparison countries are further along in the aging population trend than we are), poor targeting of other systems and the fact that Australia doesn't have the same level of early retirement as many European countries. A better measure of how generous the system is, if you think the primary goal of a welfare system should be alleviating poverty and hardship, is the percentage of GDP which is spent on the poorest 20%. By this measure Australia, which spends about 4% of GDP on this group in the form of welfare payments, is close to the most generous in the OECD – more so than Sweden or Norway.

Whiteford addresses two "myths of the right". The first is the oft-repeated claim that everyone could be made better off if we tackled "churning" – the situation where a taxpayer gets much of their tax back in the form of welfare payments. Whiteford notes that we have close to the lowest rate of churning in the OECD, due to the fact that the system is so well targeted. Further he notes that measures to tackle the problem inevitably have associated administrative costs, negating the administrative savings from fixing the problem. He concludes that the relatively low costs associated with churning in Australia do not justify drastic measures to tackle the issue.

He also addresses the claim that the cost of our system is spiraling out of control. This argument is based on the fact that our welfare payments have gone from about 65% of the OECD average in 1980 to 80% today. Whiteford analyses the myriad of changes in statistical methodology which have contributed to this apparent rise as well as changes in other country's systems over the period. He concludes that, relatively, we spend no more on welfare today than we did in 1980.

He does, however, note some problem areas. Due to the fact that payments are so well targeted there are a number of welfare/poverty traps created by the system. This is particularly stark with respect to single parents. It should be noted that the effect of these welfare traps upon single parents isn't as drastic as in other countries, as the payments are by and large above the poverty line. This group gets comparatively generous payments (which contributes to the effectiveness of the system as this group is generally poor), but as a result has the second highest level of unemployment in the OECD – 55% of single parents are unemployed. Welfare creates incentives, as I think the American experience aptly demonstrates, and the welfare system in Australia creates strong incentives for single parents to remain unemployed.

Whiteford notes that the effective MTR for single parents looking to go into full time employment is around 80%, something which is exacerbated by any associated costs of child care. On this note, I think the moderate changes made by Howard in the last budget to place single parents into a lower category of benefits once their children reach school age is a sensible step. However, I agree that more drastic US-style changes (where benefits cut off after a defined period of unemployment) have severe problems attached. There is only so far you can incentivise (that's not a word) single parents towards work by using a stick before they run into some fundamental barriers to their employment. Skills, flexibility, geography, lack of relevant job information, poor social-networks and substance abuse issues all mean that while strongly punishing single parents for remaining unemployed may drastically increase their employment levels (as happened in America), you will almost certainly create a sub-underclass of people who were once poor and unemployed but at least receiving welfare but are now just poor and unemployed.

Ultimately there are three things that can be done in an attempt to break the welfare traps. First is negative incentives, which I think is an entirely appropriate policy so long as it doesn't go so far as to undermine the whole point of having a welfare system in the first place. Second is positive incentives, ie. raising the rewards from work. This could be usefully done through income tax credits, service benefits (such as child care), increasing the minimum wage or working with employers and job network agencies to match people with better opportunities. The final option is to address the social and personal barriers to employment - obviously the hardest to effectively do.

Welfare traps can drain the public purse, trap sections of the population in welfare traps leading to intergenerational poverty and a lack of self-esteem and give fodder for reactionary commentators to beat up on single mums. Statistics, such as the useful ones provided by Whiteford, can shed light on the issues but can't proscribe the complicated policy responses necessary to fix them. Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric of welfare reform, given its narrow fixation on small-scale "stick" policies I'm not convinced the government is serious about attempting to do so either.

* I was alerted to the paper by this piece and reach many of the same conclusions, but have done so from an independent reading.

BOB CARR: INSIPID DO-NOTHING LABOR SAVIOUR

2005-08-04T03:03:00.000+10:00

Farewell to Bob Carr, who quit the New South Wales premiership yesterday for a life of placid, snoozy dawdling, or for a life as federal Labor leader, or possibly both at once.
So much commentary has focussed on Mr. Carr’s ambitions, and whether they can be fulfilled, that I think it better to examine instead what the movement to take him federal says about Labor, and about Australia. In one respect, it is surely indicative of Labor’s malaise that they even consider someone who is unarguably a failed leader on ‘serving the public’ criteria. Every working day for ten years Bob Carr has gone to his podium and procrastinated, and spun, and fluffed, to disguise his treading water on policy. He has had a decade and three election wins; but has squandered his time and mandate. He leaves NSW with its health system and transport network in near crisis. His achievements have been a marginal improvement in literacy, and the Olympics, for which the real work was laid by past Premiers. He epitomises an ineffective politician.
But though he failed to serve his the state and public, he has served his party admirably: for in 1995 Carr created a formula that has proved highly successful for winning elections ever since. Carr invented the – very electorally appealing – do-nothing, unthreatening, take-it-easy Labor government. He has given the ALP its very own version of ‘relaxed and comfortable’.
The significance, and extent, of the revolution can’t be overstated. When Carr was first elected, Paul Keating was ensconced in Kirribilli: the personification of old-school, fire-breathing ‘downhill, one ski, no poles’ Labor. When Carr left, he and his formula are being touted as distinct possibilities to fill Keating’s old position. And why not? It’s worked, even in Victoria, where ‘relaxed and comfortable’ in the form of Steve Bracks defeated Jeff Kennett in 1999.
‘Relaxed and comfortable’ is a lousy motto, whether in its Liberal or Labor incarnations. But nobody can doubt that it works on the Australian electorate. I cringe to think of Bob Carr working his insipid magic at the federal level, his soporific voice promising nothing dramatic in tone if not in words, his reassuring waffle espousing pretend solutions to very real problems. That said, those who think his 'formula' is Labor’s best chance are probably right. Though they miss something: it is not, necessarily, a matter of drafting Bob Carr to try his formula out federally. In Kim Beazley, they’re already trying it.
First appeared on my blog: davidfettlingbycharlesdickens.blogspot.com

The quintessential blog welcome post.

2005-08-04T02:26:00.000+10:00

Welcome to the Political Interest Society's official blog. Every Wednesday at 1pm, a smattering of Melbourne University students, of varying ages and degrees, assemble in Room 325/6 of the Alice Hoy Building. The President tends to be preoccupied with the biscuit tin in these early moments, while other members sit down in a rough circle of chairs, with Age's intermingled with the odd Australian or Economist resting on their laps. The President announces 'we'll wait a few minutes for more people to arrive', during which no people arrive; the President then announces 'we'll just get started then', and does, and immediately the steady trickle of people through the door resumes. For an hour club members pontificate grand political opinions, examine minute policy details, brood, smile, nod or shake their heads; and then all disperse to various lecture theatres, tutorial rooms and libraries around campus.
Now, the magical atmosphere of a PIS Wednesday meeting will be - hopefully - recreated online, for the entire cyberspace-dwelling world to enjoy. Watch this blog.