April 2005 Archives

Last week, for a couple of friends of mine, I borrowed Peter Weir's 'Gallipoli', to give them an experience and idea of Australian film-making and history. A couple of days ago, I was slightly surpised to find out that the anniversary of that event, the 90th at that, was right on top of me. I'm not a great one for dates, nor am I reconciled to the reasons (my personal ones) for 'celebrating' (or commemorating) days such as this and Australia Day.

I understand that ANZAC Day marks an important turning point in the development of the nationhoods of both Australia and New Zealand, but I wonder if it has turned into something more than it should have? Or perhaps something less? I wonder, if we deem to call on the Australian government to say 'sorry' to the aboriginal people, should we call on the British government to apologise for what occurred at Gallipoli? I don't see why not.

It appears to me that 'war' is a matter of definition, convenient at times, restricting at others. And while the advent of television, technology and the internet has sped up so many things, one thing it seems to have slowed down is the scale of world conflict; governments, Western in particular, are more immediately accountable for their actions than they used to be, and public relations wars, economic and cultural ones, are just as important, going hand in hand with military ones.

I have long been of the opinion that world is still at war: the US, for example, has not ceased it's military involvement across the globe since they entered the 'Second World War', and their campaign for cultural dominance continues. On that note, and to wind up before this becomes an essay, Australia should be extremely wary of, if not downright hostile to the idea of, American military presence on Australian soil. Who do you think will suffer most if that happens?

Lest we forget.

Update: Tim Lambert has been graphing these political scores for a while, I now find out. The one I wrote about below is aimed at Australian bloggers, rather than the global population. Results are here. You'll agree that they show a much more even spread of political views.

...

Ken Parish at Troppo is bored with the constant right / left wing 'labelling contest' that regularly occurs in the blogging world. He has suggested that bloggers take the 'political compass' test to find out where they stand in the political spectrum.

To facilitate the comparison of individuals in the Aus Blogger political spectrum, Tim Lambert has set up a system to graph the results of anyone who cares to take the test to show where they stand relative to each other.

The Pigs lie at ....

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26

Overall, Tim Lambert's Aus Blogger spectrum looks like this: (Click to enlarge) ....

Notice how most bloggers (including yours truly) are grouped in the lower left hand corner? What a touchy / feely bunch we appear to be!

Anyone with any experience of the political blogging world knows that the divide is much more balanced than the graph indicates. What's happened to the RWDBs; the Bunyips, Currency Lads, Evil Pundits, and Tim Blairs of the blogging world?

They're not usually shy about showing where they stand. Hopefully, word gets to them so they can participate and let the rest of us know just how right wing they really are.

Hi, it's been a while. There's that moment of nervousness when you try and get back on a bike after having not ridden one for a while: will you remember how to do it properly; will it be as enjoyable as it was before; wasn't there a perfectly good reason why you got off the bike the last time?

The managers are back, and so I slip nicely back into my pseudo oblivion. I've begun writing a novel, getting more sun, gone back to vegetarianism and am brushing up on my procrastination skills. It's been a while.

This blog has been started a few times, finished too, but then I'll down to the internet cafe and realise that I've forgotten to put what I've written on my USB stick, and I discover that I'm already out of date too - there's a sense of immediacy with blogging that's sometimes difficult to come to terms with - and so my thoughts regarding the Popes, the Bali Drug Lords, the British Elections and the China Japan thing have, for the moment fallen out of date.

So that's me, right now, in a nutshell. An interesting article here which should give some people an idea of where both technology and entertainment may be heading. Following the link to the founder's site reveals more of their altruistic intentions, for all the firecrackers in China that it'll do them.

Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who died yesterday at 93, probably did more to mould my political views than any other politician.

The ruckus over Australia's involvement in Vietnam kicked off my political awareness, but I didn't really notice Joh until after the election of the Whitlam Labor government in 1972. Politics was a lively subject of discussion during family dinners. My (late) conservative father hated Whitlam with a passion and, not surprisingly, thought Joh was pretty good. I was rather apethetic about politics before then. The contrast of styles between Whitlam and Bjelke-Petersen started my thinking about where I stood politically.

The Whitlam years were a disturbing whirlwind of radical reform for an electorate used to the stupor of two decades of conservative government. Although introducing a string of overdue reforms and landmark pieces of legislation, the benefits of the reforms weren't immediately apparent to many people. At times, the government acted like a rabble and became increasing unpopular during Whitlam's second term.

Joh came into prominence at this when he ignored the long term political convention of filling Senate vacancies with a person of the same political party. When a vacancy was created in 1974 by the death of a Labor senator, Joh nominated Albert Field as his replacement instead of the Labor's nominated candidate, Mal Colston. With this appointment, the balance of power in the Senate was destroyed and scene set for the conservative parties to delay the passing of the supply bills and force an election.

Joh's role in the fall of the Whitlam government made him a conservative hero and brought him into national prominence. Although having little formal eduction, he was an astute politician, who, with the benefit of inept Labor opposition and an outrageous electoral gerrymander, introduced a raft of conservative social and economic measures that appealed to the ultra-conservative rump that formed his constituency.

In 1977, he introduced a ban on street marches, outlawing the fundamental political right of public assembly. He meddled in the running of the police force which resulted in the resignation of Police Commissioner Ray Whitford and the appointment of the corrupt Terry Lewis.

Joh's government had an unhealthy relationship with a raft of property developers. The term 'conflict of interest' was unknown.

Joh allowed corruption to flourish, a fact that was brought to the public's attention in 1987 when the ABC's Four Corners program aired the investigative report "The Moonlight State." Joh set up a commission chaired by Tony Fitzgerald to investigate the program's allegations. Fitzgerald's report would detail endemic corruption within the state's police force and government.

The fact that Joh set up the commission begs the question whether he realised that the corruption was happening. He certainly didn't understand the concept of 'the separation of powers.' I wonder if he knew the difference between 'corruption' and 'business as usual.'

Joh was pushed out of office by his own party in late 1987.

In 1991, Joh stood trial for perjury, but was not convicted due to a hung jury. The jury's decenter happened to be a former National Party member. He was never re-tried.

Joh was a cunning, unsophisticated, politically savvy yokel who allowed corruption to flourish, and was (probably) too close to notice it. His relentless championing of development at any cost, and his ruthless silencing of discent formed the basis of my dislike of the philosophy and methods of the conservative side of politics.

Joh's immunity from the will of the voters made me realise the danger of unicameral parliaments with no constitutional safeguards regulating the size and distribution of electorates.

To summarise, I didn't like him much. (Doh!)

Already, the sickening eulogies have started. There'll be a lot of rewriting of history by conservative commentators as they wax lyrical about the man and his achievements.

Bye bye Joh. I'm sorry for your family that you've gone. But what you stood for politically, I won't miss at all.

I've just been cleaning up the roll. It was long overdue. A few defunct links are gone, a few I browse regularly are added.

If anyone would like their link on my page, now's the time. Mail me.

A couple that caught my fancy:

The London Sun ran the headline "From Hitler Youth to Papa Ratzi"

and ...

In the SMH letters section, a correspondent writes:

Sorry? Come again? They've elected a rap singer as the next Pope?

Heavens! I think I am becoming a Grumpy Old Man! From the ABC News site ....

Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman says it appears they [the heroin smugglers in Bali] were about to board a plane to Australia when they were arrested.

Mr O'Gorman says he cannot understand why the Australian Federal Police (AFP) passed information to Indonesian authorities rather than waiting to make the arrest themselves.

He says then they could have faced the Australian justice system.

Anyone who travels overseas knows the risks if they carry drugs in foreign countries. It's described in posters in airports, literature when you're issued with a passport, high profile court cases in the media ... the list is endless.

To have any effect on international illegal activities, national police forces have to cooperate over longish periods of time. These people would have been under observation well before they were arrested. The Indonesian police would have known what they were up to. Why should the local police ignore law breaking on their own soil just to sooth Australian sensibilities?

Imagine the fuss if the Australian authorities knowingly let law breakers on our soil leave the country because the penalties were more lenient at their destination?

These guys were taking their chances in a country that is renowned for tough penalties for drug trafficking. The financial rewards if they'd gone undetected were huge. They gambled and lost. Tough.

I don't agree with the death penalty. Australian diplomats in Indonesia should make sure that these people receive a fair trial under the local laws, and state our opposition to capital punishment. But that's as far as it should go.

Says it all, really.

Thanks to Alan Moir at SMH for permission to display the pic.

No one should be surprised that the Medicare Safety Net is being wound back. It was doomed to fail. The safety net was a device invented by the government to aid re-election by neutralising the health policy of the ALP. Nothing more, nothing less.

Reports not long before last year's election stated that spending on the safety net was blowing out. More interestingly, it was shown that the main beneficiaries of the scheme were the wealthy. Claims collated by suburb revealed high income areas received the most benefits. Lots of cosmetic surgery paid for by the government, perhaps? So much for the safety net being a boon for the poor.

At the same time the government was trying to keep the lid on medical specialists' fees. It seems it was a dismal failure.

Doctor's fees are a bit like the housing market. There's constant demand limited only by the buyers' ability to pay. The limiting factor for housing prices are interest rates, for doctors it's the medicare / private health insurance rebates.

An important part of the limiting effect on doctors fees is that you have to pay for the service or collect the bill from the doctor before you can claim the rebate. This forces the consumer to realise the actual cost of the service. Fee increases become immediately apparent.

Medicare is reasonably effective at controlling GPs fees. Suburban GPs are now being squeezed financially because the Medicare rebate hasn't keep up with inflation.

The safety net, and the other hand, having no ceiling and a relatively low threshold, took away the only control available to limit specialists' fees, as they were already so high that the safety net was immediately effective. They could raise their fees and the government coughed up 80% of the increase.

No wonder the AMA was so vocal criticising the government.

The government had no choice but to raise the threshold. My guess is it's still too low and further surgery on the Medicare Safety Net will be needed.

From the ABC's PM program ....

RAY HADLEY: How many children do you have, and would you be happy for your children to be going to the little star club at the Sheraton Nusa Dua, knowing a three-year-old contracted gonorrheae? Yes or no?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: If I was, if I was rude to you, I would say that that is a preposterous thing to say. Obviously …

RAY HADLEY: You're a pompous dope. That's what you are. You're a pompous dope.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Don't be so bloody rude.

RAY HADLEY: No, I'll be more than rude to you. You're a disgraceful, you're a disgrace.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Nobody on earth would put their children, really, you're just so over the top.

RAY HADLEY: No, I'm not over the top. You knew, you knew …

ALEXANDER DOWNER: I didn't know. I've told you that already. The police investigated the case, and they were unable to establish who in this hotel was responsible.

RAY HADLEY: How many children do you have, and would you be happy for your children to be going to the little star club at the Sheraton Nusa Dua, knowing a three-year-old contracted gonorrheae? Yes or no?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: If I was, if I was rude to you, I would say that that is a preposterous thing to say. Obviously …

RAY HADLEY: You're a pompous dope. That's what you are. You're a pompous dope.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Don't be so bloody rude.

RAY HADLEY: No, I'll be more than rude to you. You're a disgraceful, you're a disgrace.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Nobody on earth would put their children, really, you're just so over the top.

RAY HADLEY: No, I'm not over the top. You knew, you knew …

ALEXANDER DOWNER: I didn't know. I've told you that already. The police investigated the case, and they were unable to establish who in this hotel was responsible.

This was Alexander Downer defending himself on commercial radio this week. The subject of the interview was the danger of child molestation in foreign hotels' 'kids clubs.' No one would deny it was a serious topic, and a lot of people agree that Downer is a 'pompous dope,' but Hadley way overstepped the mark. He didn't need to attack Downer like that to get his point across. I'm surprised he didn't end the interview there and then. He was certainly within his rights to do so.

The exchange above is an extreme example of just how out of control sections of the commercial media are. They push their opinion, overlook pertinent facts that give a balanced presentation of the topic, and ridicule anyone else who has a different point of view.

At least Hadley isn't claiming his opinionated show is news. Problem is, other media publications do.

Take Sydney's 'The Daily Telegraph.' I'm always amazed at this paper's headlines. Take a news item, have a guess at the what their readership's attitude towards it will be, and write a headline and story that reinforces that attitude.

The Terror's approach is certainly profitable and influential. Influence that's based on public prejudice, reinforced by 'news' that doesn't provide the whole story.

At least Fairfax and the ABC provide an alternative, but only until 1 July. The government's senate shackles are due to be released and they'll be free to meddle with the media laws. The future looks bleak.

I've just watched 'Grumpy Old Men' on the ABC. It was both hilarious and scary. They were reading my mind.

The comments about not knowing where to look when confronted by scantily clad young women struck a chord. If ever confronted by the question of "What do you think you're looking at?" (it hasn't happened yet) I'm going to take Bob Geldorf's advice and answer truthfully "Your breasts!" or arse, legs or whatever.

I can only agree with one of the other protagonists who observed the number of body piercing was inversely proportional to the intelligence of the wearer.

My only hope is, as an old(ish) father at 49 and my youngest at 3, the kids will delay the terminal grumpiness that was displayed by some of the interviewees on the program. I wouldn't guarantee it, though.

What's going on? First, the RSL comes out with something I agree with. Now the acerbic Professor Bunyip states a view on road safety which makes sense.

On the subject of random breath testing and the positive effect it had on reducing the road toll when introduced all those years ago, the Professor says ...

At least a decade along from the point where road kill statistics dipped to their current, undulating floor, the great and relatively easy gains of the [RBT] campaign's early days are no longer obtainable. If you allow people to own and drive cars, a certain small percentage of the stupid, incompetent and simply unlucky will come to grief -- and if you look dispassionately at the figures, it requires willful blindness not to see that we have reached that point.

Yet the push to abridge liberty in the cause of a crusade that has already been brought as close to total victory as it is likely to get, well that continues apace. Put it down to a determined and blinkered refusal to recognise actuarial reality -- precisely what you might expect from a cranked-up and, by this stage, self-preserving "safety" bureaucracy.

The professor didn't mention the other great reducer of the road toll; compulsory seat belt wearing, but he's quite right. To make significant reduction in the road toll requires ever more draconian measures.

In addition to that proposed by a Victorian road official ...

[extending] the zero blood-alcohol level already imposed on drivers aged 18 to 21 extended "to drivers aged 25 or 26."

... we can expect the raising of demerit points, the introduction of ever more concealed technology to snare drivers travelling above conservatively set speed limits, and further harsh, marginally effective restrictions on young drivers. Nothing in this list will reduce the road toll to any great measure.

The key to reducing the road toll is to increase the knowledge and skill of drivers. Unfortunately, this would cost the government money rather than make money as does road law enforcement.

In terms of the number of cars on the road and the distance travelled, the road toll has never been lower. Try as they might, authorities are not going to lower the toll much further without significantly changing motoring in a way the public would find unacceptable. I doubt any government will cut the speed limits by half, or increase the price of motoring to the point where people abandon their cars for public transport.

We'll just have to wait till the oil price reaches $100 a barrel and does it for us.

For once I agree with the RSL, a very rare event.

But the RSL's NSW state president, Don Rowe, told smh.com.au that no bravery medals should be awarded to the nine.

``All Australians value the wonderful job that defence forces have done serving humanity but the structure of our medals at the moment do not allow for issuing of medals for such (humanitarian) service sadly,'' Mr Rowe said.

He said honouring the nine with bravery awards would be an unprecedented move.

``You could even go so far as to say the young fellow killed in the Solomon's the other day [who fell down a hole] - there's no talk about him getting a medal.

"Where do you draw the line?''

Where indeed? My uncle was killed during WW2 while serving with the RAF in Africa and never received a posthumous award. If the government introduces a medal for those killed in peacetime service, does that mean my uncle and the 100,000+ killed so far in the line of duty will get one too?

This issue would not have come about except for the Indonesian government awarding the nine service people with an award, and the Indonesian President being in Australia to place of the medals on the caskets of the deceased.

As usual, the government looks like caving in to the tabloids and talkback radio.

If the government really wants to overhaul the Australian military honour system, it could look at replacing the last relic of British imperial honours in the local military, the VC. Like knighthoods, the VC has no place in modern Australia. All military honours should be indigenous. Why not the Australian Cross of Valour (ACV) instead of the VC?

I'm tempted to leave my Pope comment as a just a link to here, like several other bloggers have done. So much said so simply.

Problem is, although I'm not a Catholic, SWMBO is, and my kids go to a local Catholic school. I have a vested interest in seeing that the next bloke who gets to wear the robes and the funny hat is the correct choice.

This is a message for George and his mates as they get together in a couple of weeks time to choose JP2's successor. Here's what the new pontiff you elect needs to do to bring the Church into the 21st century:

1. Let priests marry.

   The church has a huge shortage of priests, and is it any wonder? The thought of going through life in alone and in sexual deprivation would test the resolve of most men. It would seem that those who'd be otherwise willing to take on the job are not, for this very reason.

   Letting priests marry may also lessen the temptation of a few weaker personalities from preying on the more defenceless members of their congregations. (Then again, it may not. These degenerates exist in all walks of life.)

2. Lift the ridiculous ban on contraception.

   Every Catholic who I've known well enough to ask has ignored this edict. That's OK for Catholics in developed nations.

   It causes real damage in the third world, where the spread of AIDS is decimating populations and the people act on what the church dictates. Condom use would slow the spread of the disease. The church is not looking after these people by telling them that condom use is sinful.

   And, of course, many third world families would be much better off with less kids to feed.

3. Give women a greater role in the Church.

   Some proddy denominations have done it and it hasn't caused the spires to fall over. I'm not suggesting that women priests should be introduced overnight; a gradual introduction of women towards the goal of ordination is what's needed. Aim for the first ordained female priest by 2012.

4. Let openly gay people take communion.

   They're human beings too. If you believe what you preach, God made them that way.

5. Make a rule to force your own retirement at 80, and introduce a mechanism to force your retirement if it's obvious that you're incapacitated to the point where you can't perform your duties.

   A previous pope introduced a rule that cardinals over 80 can't vote in papal elections. If being over 80 is to old to vote, then surely it's also to old to hold the position.

   A lot of commentators saw the determination of JP2 to carry on to the end as inspiring. I saw it as detremental to the running of the church. I can't say that he was unable to function until the very end, but I wonder what would have happened if he'd had an illness that didn't kill or physically incapacitate him, but rendered him unable to perform his duties, eg, if he'd had dementia?

George, they're big issues and ones that you and the other cardinals need to consider when choosing the next Pope. I'm sure you're all up to the task.

In yesterday's Sun Herald ...

One of the jokes in Sydney is that we get all these torrential downpours that flood basements and wash tonnes of rubbish into the harbour, and the next day we hear on the radio that dam levels haven't budged a jot.

Miranda Divine asked the question. It's a difficult one to answer, but I'll have a stab. Maybe it's raining in Sydney and not over the dam catchments?

"No!" says Miranda.

The answer is political. The drought has been a perfect opportunity for the Government to excuse its failure to invest in infrastructure by blaming external factors outside its control.

So Bob Carr's been telling the weather gods to hold the rain for political purposes! (Sound of hand slapping forehead.) We should have known!

Miranda drags up the old solution to Sydney's water shortage. We need another dam.

Call me simple, but if it's not raining enough to fill one dam, then there's not going to be enough water to fill an adjacent one at the same time. The problem is not a lack of storage, but increasingly long drought periods caused by changing weather patterns due to human induced climate change.

Building a new dam, which would be considerably lower than the existing Warragamba Dam, would require large pumps to get the water to consumers. Pumps = energy use = greenhouse gas = climate change = longer drought periods = (in Miranda's view) more water storage = another dam = .... you get the picture.

The answer to Sydney's water shortage is more efficient use of the resource through measures such as realistic pricing, use of urban runoff, and recycling.

And a final thought; I wonder if Miranda would give up the idea of a dam if some traditional owners said it was against their beliefs to interfere with the river?