The Adventures of QueerPenguin

Observations from the iceberg

(UPDATE: I uploaded an abridged version of #2 to the Bolta funfest - and got 14 replies within two hours. 2 in support, a dozen in criticism. Funniest one was an accusation of 'childish name-calling' between a sea of 'loser', 'fool' and 'rabid lefty'. Ahh, Boltaholics. Ease the pain.)

1. So John (W)Howard, who would get crusty pants at the best of times when ex-PMs Hawke and especially Keating and Fraser pointed out the many things he was doing wrong during his time in charge, dons the penguin suit to slag off the new duly-elected Australian government before a bunch of Yank neo-conservatives, safely from the other side of the world? Absolutely no concession, by the way, that he may have got one or two things wrong - say, the things that cost him government, his own seat and a legacy that members of his own party are now falling over themselves to disown?

Classy. And the Howard huggers wonder why so many people were both so joyous and relieved to see him gone.

2. Remember that Mark Latham chap? You know, the troubled fellow hated with a fiery passion by Messrs Bolt, Akerman, Henderson etc and Madames Albrechtsen, Devine etc? All paid up members of the We Hate Latham club.

Apparently, however, the WHL club is about to undergo a name change - it'll now be known as the We Hate Latham (Until He Criticises Rudd Or Labor, Then He's Fine) club.

Exhibit A: Oz editorialists.

The Rudd Government's shortcomings have been neatly set out in an essay by former Labor leader Mark Latham. His verdict is that after 100days in office, it is difficult to know what Kevin Rudd is committed to other than symbolism and committee meetings.

Exhibit B for Bolt:

Heavens, I even agree with Mark Latham on the Rudd Government’s first 100 days

And Exhibit C: from the WHL(UHCROLTHF) President, L'Albrechtsen.

Latham is indeed right that "there is no crisis in the private housing market, just the manufactured hysteria of the political class". He is right to point to the large number of Australians "enjoying a quality of housing well beyond the expectations of their parents and grandparents".

So make sure you change your postal addresses, email domains and Christmas card lists everybody - coz it would seem the WHL club in its original incarnation is no more.

Labels: Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Mark Latham, Rudd government, The Oz

posted by Sam @ Friday, March 07, 2008 2 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: The finale

Over my nearly three years of blogging, and several more years' involvement in all things teh gay, critics from both sides have questioned my 'preoccupation' with same-sex couple rights and empowerment of the queer (insert gender ambiguous noun here) generally. A couple of Trots I know reckon I'm too caught up with relationship rights/recognition on account of my middle-class upbringing, and that far too many single queers have greater issues at hand - isolation, drug addition, physical and psychological abuse etc - than worrying about who they can or cannot nominate as their private sector super beneficiary. Folk on the right try less successfully to use a similar argument as apology for John Howard having done next to fuck-all for queers in his 11+ years of power.


But all I really want is a government that recognises and acts on the hardships both queers and queer couples face every day. I genuinely believe the Howard government has failed, repeatedly, to do so. Such hardships are independent of class and wealth status, and should be redressed by a government in a secular nation that has long decriminalised homosexuality and claims not to support unjustified discrimination.


At a federal level, Labor have been disappointing on this issue. They are committed to action on HREOC's 'Same Sex: Same Entitlements' report but this was reactive rather than proactive. They caved too easily to the gay marriage wedge in 2004 and they're still too influenced by rabid homophobes from the catholic right union(s) like Joe de Bruyn or SA No 1 Senate candidate Don Farrell. Kevin Rudd has not spoken out often enough against the Howard government's many failures in this area for fear of frightening the horses and I really wish Penny Wong would lead by a more inspiring, empowering example.


The Howard government has failed on teh gay. Labor deserves a fighting chance.

Labels: 2007 federal election, climate change, GLBTI, John Howard, Labor, Liberal Party, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: Part 3

They just keep coming and coming ...

6. Reconciliation Like his alleged environmental road to Demascus (more on that later), I don't buy John Howard's claim to have discovered the value of symbolic politics as part of the reconciliation process. I strongly believe his pledge to stick around for a referendum on recognising indigenous people in the Constitution preamble is just that - an opportunity for him to stick around and delay for as long as possible the handover to Costello that party chieftains have forced him to publicly commit to.

Labor has always been consistent in committing to a formal apology for past wrong-doings. Of course, this won't solve all the many problems in one statement, but it will be a positive starting point. Whether it will be a genuine 'sorry' or a John Howard sorry remains to be seen but the expression of goodwill and desire to work together, which has been lacking for the last 11 years and especially in the last 12 months with cowboy Mal Brough and his over-inflated sense of deluded self-importance that he's single-handedly saving the poor darkies from themselves, is vital.

Labor dropped the ball playing me-too on Howard's intervention media stunt earlier this year, but hopefully when they're in a position to be dictating rather than reacting to indigenous policy they won't be placed in this situation again. At an international level Australia's record on indigenous rights and living conditions is appalling - both parties have failed. I don't know if a Rudd government will do things any better than a Howard government but I believe the time is right to try something different, something other than a government that only determines its policies according to what is expedient for the PM of the time after years of putting it in the too-hard basket.

5. Education The Howard government has shown itself time and time again to be an enemy of intellectual thought and discourse. Every Higher Ed minister from Vanstone to Nelson to Bishop has been so obsessed with finding the reds under the bed at our tertiary institutions that they've forgotten the value of proper investment in the thinking industry.

It's not necessarily wrong that the Libs have prioritised developing trade schools - the country is experiencing an unprecedented skills shortage after all. But it's bitterly disappointing that over the last 11 years the Libs have so effectively devalued the inherent value of thought and education, that rather than being a nation of ideas we're a nation of trade jobs and corresponding degree factories.

Students' higher ed debts - which, yes, were started by a Labor government - have risen ridiculously exponentially. On a personal level, I don't see myself free from uni debt until my mid-late 30s - and such a burden only encourages further personal debt. When you graduate with 20k looming over your head, it's not such a big leap to think, 'what the hell, I'm already debted up to my eyeballs anyway, what's another 5-10k in credit cards gonna hurt?' Fee increases all implemented, by the way, by ministers who had the luxury of free degrees themselves. Thanks for that.

VSU has irreparably damaged student life and culture on campus. A one-size-fits-all user pays system sounds nice in principle but by definition renders sensitive student services, such as on-campus GLBTI support groups of which I used to be an active participant, 'unnecessary' because 'users' may be too nervous to pay up-front.

Again, I don't imagine Labor will reintroduce compulsory student fees or significantly lower higher ed debts (at best they'll plateau). But getting past the 'Education Revolution' cliche, the guts of their education policy thus far is sound. In particular:

When it comes to our Universities, the Leader Kevin Rudd, in the course of his address to Conference, referred to the lack of investment which the Howard Government has made, not discharging its central obligation as the Commonwealth to our public Universities. We must make that educational investment. It’s absolutely essential for our future prosperity, our competitiveness and our capacity to be a thoughtful nation.

Contrary to the Libs' charge, it is in fact they who are the fiercest ideologues in their education policies. Consider for example what is airbrushed out of existence in John Howard's history curriculum. We need a government that genuinely values education for its own sake, not just as a tool of economic growth, encourages independent thought and is not obsessed with re-writing history to suit its own agenda.

If you get caught between number 4 and number 3, the best that you can do ... yes, the best that you can do ... is read my next post.

Labels: 2007 federal election, education, John Howard, Labor, Liberal Party, reconciliation

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3 comments

Worm pun-free zone

Was fun watching Krudd kick J-Ho's tired arse all over the Great Hall at last night's Mass Debate. Krudd's cool, unruffled demeanour shat J-Ho to tears, who by comparison was unnecessarily crusty, flailing his fisted arms about (hitting his mike several times, gold) and often speaking over his allocated time. Way to stick to the rules you yourself set, J-Ho.

The moderator was pretty wet but most of the journos asked decent questions - Paul Kelly actually challenged J-Ho on an answer he gave. Crazy stuff!

Krudd finally addressed the biggest elephants in the Labor room - high interest rates under Hawke/Keating and union affiliation - by pointing out J-Ho's 22% interest rate goodness while he was Treasurer under Fraser. Apparently Latham and Beazley always refused to bring this up because invariably it would also bring up memories of the Hawke/Keating legacy, which both were keen to avoid like the plague. Krudd called it, talked of mistakes of the past on both sides and looking onwards and upwards instead. Nicely played. He also romanticised the union movement with reference to their involvement in James Hardie asbestos compensation.

J-Ho's bovver boys, Costello and Downer, were in the audience and reprimanded for heckling, typifying the standard to which they've dragged down public debate in this country.

J-Ho hates Krudd with a fiery passion, and no doubt the feeling's mutual, but the difference is Krudd doesn't let it show. J-Ho resents that finally there is a Labor opposition leader who can get the better of him. He hates having his authoritah genuinely undermined and looked correspondingly rattled for most of the night. After years of mastering his otherwise woeful TV performance, it was like watching him in '96 again debating Keating.

Of course, the Mass Debate counts for very little where it matters. Howard frequently loses them, often by big margins, but goes on to win elections. Still, this was a key moment of truth for Rudd and he set the bar high for the remaining election campaign. This may not have won him many votes, but it certainly wouldn't have lost him any either.

The worm conspiracy is a bit of a laff. I'd say 'so much for democracy' is a tad hyperbolic, cheers Ray, since 9 was under strict instruction not to use it. Plus it's such a useless gimmick anyway - the figure showing 65% of the studio audience saying Rudd won in favour against Howard's 29% is what matters.

Still, says a lot about Howard's paranoia around public response to his debating that he's so terrified about the worm's use, donut?

Overall, a tiny, tiny glimmer of hope for us most.

Labels: 2007 federal election, Great Debate '07, John Howard, Kevin Rudd

posted by Sam @ Monday, October 22, 2007 3 comments

Yays! and Boo-hiss-boos for Krudd

The Yay!: Krudd's money meets his mouth to promise a referendum on fixed, four-year parliamentary terms. And about frickin' time. It is a joke that the election can be called at the whim of a PM - particularly one like this sweetheart, who'll stall as long as electorally possible in the pathetic hope he can still conjur up some last-minute dirt to fling.

Why do we think J-Ho's not putting us all out of our misery by just calling the damn thing? Because his good mate Dennis ShamIam is telling him not to. Personally, I reckon election dates should be determined by we great unwashed voters, not some party hack posing as a journalist.

Four years is a logical term of office. Less elections mean cost savings to the taxpayer and provide elected governments a proper period of time in which to implement its agenda. Fixed dates provide electoral certainty - particularly in these new uncertain times, thanks J-Ho - which in turn strengthens a democracy and its citizens' confidence therein.

The only real negative corollary to this I can see is senators getting eight-year gigs from half-elections. The concept of Barnaby Joyce and/or Steve Fielding wielding significant clout until 2013 is ... scary, to say the least.

Still, you'll never have an entirely perfect system, and this will at least be an improvement on the current one.

The Boo-hiss-boo: Finally, a glimmer of hope Krudd was going to provide us with a genuinely significant point of difference from the Libs: a plan to collaborate with other Asia-Pacific nations to lobby for the abolition of capital punishment - no ifs, no buts, no exceptions.

The fact is, what Robert McClelland highlighted is absolutely correct: The Howard government claims to oppose the death penalty but the opposition is equivocal, subject to what is or is not electorally popular. Krudd has completely caved on this, purely because of McClelland's so-called 'insensitive' timing - and once again shows himself as a little bit different to Howard, but not much, and not where it really matters.

You either support capital punishment or you don't. Similarly, you either respect the laws of other nations or you don't. Either option is fine, but you must be consistent. This government has not been - remember Shapelle Corby and Thomas McCoskar? - and all I saw McClelland doing was pleading for consistency. This was a perfect opportunity for Krudd to clearly distinguish himself and his party from J-Ho's, and he sank.

Don't forget, a lot of terrorists seek martyrdom; in their fucked-up brains, they believe it's helping their deluded cause being executed before the worldwide media after they themselves have executed civilians. Why give them what they want?

And if you're really enthusiastic about effective state punishment, what's better: Depriving a murderer of his life or of his remaining life's liberty, to be aware every day that he'll never be free again? I would've thought the latter would be more appealing to the salivating law-and-order shriekers.

At times like this, Krudd's strategies make me think Peter Hartcher is into something labelling him 'Kevohn Roward'. Still, if there's one thing more offensive than Krudd, it's the government's response to him. Here are some pearlers:

J-Ho: He should have been man enough to have accepted responsibility for it, instead of trying to blame somebody else.

Let's just skip past Tampa and AWB, yeah?

J-Ho: If you're the leader of a government and a party and something good happens, you get some of the credit for it. If something bad happens you've got to wear it.

Oh - except of course for interest rates. We'll take sole credit when they're low and blame every other conceivable external factor when they rise. That's cool, yeah?

J-Ho: In the end, I think when Mr Rudd talks about the blame game what he's really saying is it's never his fault, it's somebody else's.

I'm ... just lost for words really. Read Other Sam on this instead. I'm too gosh darn diddily, tootin-tiddly mad.

Labels: 2007 federal election, capital punishment, electoral reform, John Howard, Kevin Rudd

posted by Sam @ Thursday, October 11, 2007 3 comments

Turnbull must go

The Lib 'think tank' front organisations are again trotting out their token sisters to bat the naughty PM around with their Prada handbags for putting same-sex law reform in the too-hard basket.

In Tim Wilson's defence, he has actually managed to be quite critical of Howard for the most part, maintaining his continued argument that true conservatism should by definition facilitate genuine equality. It's just his apparent surprise that Howard has made the decision he has that angers me.

Sorry to all the Howard-voting queers who thought nice Uncle John might invite them to the grown-ups table if they played nicely with the other kids and behaved themselves, but the rest of us always knew he was going to fall this way - we had 11 years of inaction and apathy to go on. There is a reason why Howard's 'critics have always ... equated his conservatism with regressivism.' But unlike what Wilson might like to believe, we have not been 'wrong' to do so.

Anyways, onto how this relates to Malcolm Turnbull. Upcoming SX column below.

***************************************************************************
Last week, John Howard confirmed what many of us have suspected all along: He was lying – surprise! – when he claimed not to be in favour of unfair discrimination against same-sex couples.

Forget about marriage rights – Howard doesn’t think we should even receive de facto or interdependency rights. He’s told his party room the issue of equality for gay and lesbian couples is ‘complicated’ (which is bullshit, it’s not) and ceded to the demands of the Australian Christian Lobby and other right-wing ‘Christian’ lobby groups with whom he wishes to stay in bed spooning.

The reason why Howard’s man in Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, must go, is not because he feels the same way as his master – quite the opposite, Turnbull has been one of the Liberal Party’s strongest internal agitators for law reform and has an admirable history raising money for the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation.

But it's clear Turnbull has failed.

This election, queer voters have an unprecedented opportunity to flex some electoral muscle. If you live around the East Sydney/Kings Cross area, chances are you’re now in Turnbull’s seat where before you were in Tanya Plibersek’s – that is, you’ve been redistributed out of a safe Labor seat and into a marginal Liberal one. Turnbull knows the ‘queer vote’ he’s inherited counts in this election (not that we all vote the same, of course), and Howard has now effectively hung him out to dry once he hits the streets to confront his queer constituents.

It’s not easy advocating the removal of a GLBTI political ally, but Turnbull is in the unfortunate situation, for him at least, of holding a marginal seat where every individual vote will count. And in the depressing event that Howard is re-elected this year, even if Turnbull were also returned, it’s clear voters who care about ending discrimination and genuine equality will have to spend at least another three years banging our heads against a brick wall. Turnbull has had as long to get his government to act, and failed; what’s to say he’d be any more successful after another three years? Howard has had so long and such success decimating the more moderate element within his party; it’s not as though the damage he’s caused will be instantaneously undone once Peter Costello grabs the reigns.

No doubt, as a multi-millionaire Turnbull will be able to buy his way to electoral success. But with what’s going to be a very close election this year, every seat – and every vote – will count. The Liberal Party must be punished for its offensive misconduct against queer voters, and circumstances dictate that Turnbull must necessarily be a casualty.

Labels: 2007 federal election, GLBTI, John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6 comments

Don't believe the polls...

...But believe the punters - they usually get it right. Labor leads 78-70-2, and the lead is growing. Seats now starting to fall in Victoria and possible losses in WA buffered. Cause for cautious optimism amidst the pro-Labor polling orgy.

This 'I'm committing...sort of' commitment is a bit of a noodle-scratcher. It would seem Lackey Downer's sussed out for J-Ho that Pey-Pey still doesn't have the numbers now for a last-minute leadership grab, would in the event that they happen to win this election.

(PS - Pey-Pey's sook about not getting an invitation to the secret treehouse meeting? Priceless.)

But I can't see how J-Ho's announcement works to his advantage in Bennelong. He's freely passing on to Maxine McKew campaigning material you couldn't buy. 'Why vote for John Howard now when you'll have to vote again in a by-election in 18 months' time?' (Voters hate by-elections with a fiery passion and almost always vote in the opposing candidate.) 'Why vote for a candidate who has no genuine interest in serving your electorate for a full term?' And so forth.

Imagine this statement causing him to lose Bennelong, while his government just wins the election. Howard is not a stupid man by any stretch, but this seems like a conceivable outcome that he's personally helped to orchestrate. Woopsy doodle.

He must be 100% convinced both he and the Libs are going to win - which makes the conspiracy nut in wonder what he knows that the rest of us don't. Sitting on a terrorism/immigration scare campaign? The electoral rigging to block out a large chunk of non-Liberal voters, perhaps? Or some other prearranged election day rigging? I wouldn't put anything - anything - past this government, which reverts to its most vicious (or rather, its truest side starts showing) when its back is against the wall.

I'm never more nervous that when it appears J-Ho is making mistakes, because most times it's exactly that - an illusion.

Labels: 2007 federal election, John Howard, Liberal leadership

posted by Sam @ Thursday, September 13, 2007 4 comments

Hold on, John

Don't you listen to them, John. Don't you dare. You just stick with it. I really, really, REALLY wanna see you there on Election Day.

This has nothing to do with the fact I think you're the Liberal Party's greatest current liability and you will bring your party down even more with you.

Nothing to do with the fact that I think you have a realistic chance not only of losing this election, but also your own seat, becoming only the second PM in history ever to do so.

Nothing to do with the fact that I am so looking forward to hearing what senior Libs REALLY think about you in the post-election aftermath, when the recriminations begin to fly and Costello and all his supporters are free to point out they were right all along - that if you had graciously handed the leadership over last year like Pete thought you would, he could have reinvigorated your party enough to win them a fifth election.

Nothing to do with the fact that your egoism, stubbornness and single-minded determination to surpass Menzies' record as the longest-serving PM will ultimately be your downfall, and consign you to the place in history you truly deserve.

Nothing to do with the fact I am enjoying tremendously watching the Libs implode upon themselves and giving Rudd and Labor a free ride to power.

Nothing to do with the fact that it's amusing to watch your meeja lap-dogs, particularly those in the Gazette, write with such heavy hearts (or the charcoaly things that pass for them) that their beloved Great Leader must go. (Certainly nothing to do with the particular enjoyment of watching DammitJanet squirm, knowing that she knows her job as right-wing culture warrior at the ABC is toast, as is possibly her Weekly Howard Toadying column, should Rudd get in.)

It's really to do with...umm...

Awww, hell. You got me John. It really is to do with all those things.

So, to paraphrase Bob Sinclair: John, hold on. Tell me no more lies. On election day, you will have to answer to the children of the sky.

Labels: 2007 federal election, John Howard

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4 comments

They doth protest too little

I managed to get the hell out of Sydney before the APEC fiasco began in earnest (hence my blog absence), but my heart went out to fellow Sydneysiders whose lives were temporarily thrown into chaos, largely for a fool who wasn’t even sure what the name of the summit was or the country in which it was held!

When even Miranda Devine of all people devotes an entire column to the aggressive, and at times violent extremities of the NSW police force when dealing with civilians on the wrong side of the 3-metre high fence (albeit perhaps because the poor bastard in this situation was a mate of hers), you know both the state and federal government went too far curtailing civil liberties for the sake of an indulgent show of force. Sydney had all the signs of a classic police state: barb wire fencing, helicopters, trigger-happy policemen and water cannons at the ready. And for what? An overblown talk-fest, with few if any long-term, tangible strategies and agreements achieved.

John Howard may have thought holding onto the prime ministership just long enough to brown-nose George W Bush before such a huge international conglomerate would reinforce the elder statesman image he desperately wishes to project going into the election, but frankly associating himself with a president now well beyond farcical in his stupidity and uselessness – and making Sydney residents suffer for this – will not do his re-election hopes any good. And blaming protesters for the ridiculously overblown security measurers also rings false when you notice which side has the weapons, dogs and safety of numbers, and which does not.

This isn’t to say that no security measures at all were required. As the police and security forces unfortunately have their extreme minority element itching to abuse their power, so too do some of the more feral protester groups and individuals seeking to make martyrs of themselves by antagonising police until they retaliate, just in time for the news cameras. But the issue is one of proportionality, and remembering how important protest is in any functioning democracy.

The irony seemed lost on Bush (a lot of things are lost on Bush, really) when he condemned Burma for using its military regime to repress demonstrators. The US and Australia have traditionally been able to distinguish themselves from countries like Burma, or even Saddam’s Iraq, through their citizens’ right to free speech and protest. In fact, Australia has a proud (though violent) history of civil disobedience instigating good reforms, from Sydney’s first gay and lesbian Mardi Gras and anti-Vietnam moratoriums, going right back to the Eureka Stockade.

But none of this was evident in the last week. All we saw was just how far desperate governments and leaders will go to quash legitimate dissent among their citizens.

I read one theory suggesting that Premier Dilemma (the Member for Lakemba) set his cops on uber-fascist mode just to piss off Sydneysiders enough to turn on Howard. Smart politics if so - evil, but smart. And if Howard loses this election by the whisker of a few disgruntled Sydneysiders, worth it too. Just.

Labels: APEC, Dubya, John Howard, protest

posted by Sam @ Monday, September 10, 2007 1 comments

Astonishing indeed

UPDATE: Even Kevin 'me too' Rudd won't have a bar of the cult:

"I believe this is an extremist cult and sect," Mr Rudd told reporters in Adelaide.
"I also believe that it breaks up families, I also believe that there are real problems with the provision of modern education to kids under their system where they, for example, are not given full range of access to information technology."

Cheers, thanks a lot.

******************************************************************************

J-Ho is astonished - 'astonished', I tells ya! - that some people might be concerned he so readily meets up with senior members of the Exclusive Brethren.

I find it quite astonishing that people think it odd that I have met with a lawful organisation. I do not deny for a moment I have met with members of the Exclusive Brethren, and why not? They're Australian citizens, it's a lawful organisation.

Yes, as are the Australian Coalition for Equality and the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, but they've never managed to get a face-to-face meeting with you in your office, J-man. What gives?

Even if you want to look past the illegality of their dodgy cash dealings or covering up child molestation until such allegations around the EB are proven conclusively, you can't really get past how forbidding your own members to vote is effectively a form of civil disobedience. At best, they're telling their members to rock up on election day just to avoid the fine, then write 'Jesus is my boy' (or whatever takes members' fancy) on the ballot paper; at worst, they're literally holding back their flock from leaving Cult HQ and vote. So what they're doing is either illegal, or a complete repudiation of Australia's democratic system.

And why would a PM want to meet up with an organisation that doesn't even believe in operating within the system of which officially he is head?

Do you think maybe, just maybe, the $270,000 pumped into Howard's 2004 election chest might just have a little something to do with how Howard determines which 'lawful' organisation he will or won't meet up with?

How about their willingness to front the Libs anti-Greens smear campaigns? Strangely political happenings from an organisation that claims 'voting is a political interference with God’s rights', no?

Then of course, there's that pesky Constitutional separation of Church and State thing - you know, how

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Which, admittedly, also ensures the right of the EB to practice all the bizarre, anti-social behaviours it wishes - provided, as the PM is so quick to point out, that they're legal.

The problem, however, is that there's a lot of compelling evidence to suggest they're not. That's why I, at least, am astonished that the prime minister of my country insists on meeting with such a cult.

Or at least, I would be astonished, if I thought the prime minister of my country had any morals, ethics or ability to condemn/support organisations based on their wrongdoings, rather than how much they contribute to their re-election fund.

Labels: Exclusive Brethren, fundies, John Howard

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, August 22, 2007 0 comments

Bullshit 2.0

SX column for the week. But first, just a friendly reminder to the Woollahra Ladies Who Luncheon: Visers come OFF once the lady comes OFF the Paddington Lawn Tennis club courts. Wearing said visers down Queen Street is an affront to everything that is pure and good.

**********************************************************************************

This year’s federal election is the first in which the Web 2.0 phenomenon is playing a major part, and watching our pollies navigate the new media ranges from amusing to downright tragic.

If, like me, you’ve ever emailed an MP and saved their address in your folder, you may have unwittingly become their Facebook friend. I’m now ‘friends’, for example, with Malcolm Turnbull, Lindsay Tanner and Penny Sharpe, even though I’ve never met any of them personally and none of them would know me from their parties’ equally ignominious GLBTI policy documents.

Likewise, many of us read about the Labor hacks who instantly beefed up Kevin Rudd’s Facebook profile friends into the hundreds upon its inception – but poor old John Howard only had eight friends for the first few days of his. Still, Howard’s not about to miss out exploiting a medium on these new fangled intertubes, and his weapon of choice now is to announce policy directions and strategies, such as the ‘Mersey dash’ to Devonport, on YouTube. Obviously, somewhere an adviser is bending Howard’s ear on the far-ranging scope and instant accessibility of new media outlets, perhaps in an attempt to neuter the growing perception of Howard’s age and anachronistic conservatism rendering him redundant to a large chuck of voters under 35.

But as its proponents often argue, Web 2.0 is less a technology than an attitude. And although millions of people now have a blog, Facebook profile or MySpace.com page, we’re also very wary of how new media is used and exploited. Coke’s ‘Zero Movement’ 2.0 campaign failed spectacularly, for example, because cynical visitors to the site soon exposed the fake blog posts that sung Coke Zero’s praises as being nothing more than Coke’s employees writing scripts from the company’s head office.

Likewise, the same cynical younger audience will quickly tweak to political bullshit, even if it’s in a hip, funky format. Kevin07, Labor’s US presidential-style online love-in of all things Kevin, is nothing if not a well-crafted and designed one-stop shop of all major new media, but only time will tell how effective it is in both raising Rudd’s profile, and enticing undecided voters to vote for him.

For the moment, new media seem to favour the left side of politics. Conservative commentators have already condemned the egalitarian nature of Wikipedia – ‘the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit’ – highlighting how easily entries can be incorrectly and even libellously edited. Perhaps this is why we’re yet to see a John07 website, although you can enjoy his thrilling YouTube presentations on the federal Liberal site.

Still, bullshit by any other medium…

Labels: 2007 federal election, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Kevin07, Web 2.0

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, August 14, 2007 3 comments

Howard to kill Teh Gay and Teh States with one stone

UPDATE: Ruddock was telling lobbyists this week that the adoption ban was off the table. Either Howard has blind-sided Ruddock (plausible) or Ruddock was lying through his caps (more plausible).

Farrrrrrk! What more can you say, really?

(thanks to Chris for tip)

*******************************************************************************

Hrm. Seems we might finally get some action on HREOC's 'Same Sex: Same Entitelements' report after all. Just hazarding a guess here, though. Reasoning?

Because the malodorous swamp creatures are going to press ahead with the overseas adoption ban, after all. And this is the Howard government MO with fags and dykes: qualify one queer-bashing offensive with a 'but hey, we also did this one good thing!' defensive. It happened in 2004 when the private sector superannuation intederdepency reforms paired with the marriage ban.

Above my fury and urge to kill rising, rising, I'm actually a little curious. Why now? Why at all? I know the first 'stranger' adoption of a boy by two gay men happened in Western Australia in June but I daresay this is part of Howard's broader quest to decimate states and have complete, unfettered, 'mwuhahahahaha' evil laugh-type power.

Annabel Crabb nails this in her Smuh blog. Following Howard's effort at the Mersey Hospital in Devonport (side note: is it just me or does he ALWAYS have that look of utter horror whenever he comes into direct contact with any human being?), it's becoming clear his new desperate pre-election tactic is to play up a knight-in-shining-armour role in the marginals, that conveniently paints the state Labor governments in a bad light.

Crabb:

Mr Howard's solution (to state/commonwealth conflicts) is very different (to Rudd's) - if bickering over a particular area becomes chronic, then the Commonwealth should just sweep in and take 'em over. The appeal of this approach in the short term is utterly unmistakable. Just ask anyone in Devonport what they'd prefer - an orthodox federal system, or a hospital?
Just imagine, by the way, what must be happening right now in the offices of marginal Coalition MPs all over the country. Anybody who wants their house painted under the new Howard federalism would be a mug not to put in a call, wouldn't they? Anyway, election or no election, it's a debate very much worth having - it's just that up until now 'whither federalism?' hasn't exactly been a barbecue stopper. Does the Howard approach send us down the path of eventually abolishing the states completely?

Answer: Hell yes. Uniform state Labor governments have stuck in his craw for ages, and realising he has increasingly little to lose, he's treading a fresh war path against them. He's losing the war with the Murray-Darling takeover and hasn't really got a good solid boot into a jurisdiction since Stanhope's ACT government and quashing the civil union legislation - so recognising he's on solid ground with queer bashing, he now eyes the WA Carpenter government.

I don't think Labor will side with them on this. Given Rudd's reluctance to show a queer-friendly facade, he can at least fall back on the argument of trampling the autonomy of elected governments, rather than highlight the objective moral reasons why banning s-s overseas adoption is fucked up. But I presume Howard has made sure he's got autonomy-sympathetic defector Gary Humphries on the team before announcing this plan.

So I guess that's the 'why at all'. The 'why now' is quite interesting. Note: 'The Family Law (Same Sex Adoption) Bill is listed on the Prime Minister and Cabinet department's website as legislation 'proposed for introduction in the 2007 spring sittings'. Given the six-week parliamentary hiatus during election time, can we guess from this that they don't plan for the election to be until at least the end of November?

If this announcement doesn't coincide with positive action on the HREOC report, I think it would be safe to assume that Howard is eagerly burning what tiny little bridges remain to the queer vote. It certainly won't help Malcolm Turnbull hold onto Wentworth - although, that might be part of Howard's masterplan too.

Regardless, brace yourselves for another couple of months of political queer-bashing. This will be May/June '04 and June/July '06 all over again. Apologies in advance to all the same-sex couples whose families will be demonised, whose children will be victimised and bullied in the schoolyard with the PM's blessing, and whose difficult situation will be exposed and exploited for some cheap, cynical vote-scoring. All I can offer as hope is that this year might be the last for it.

Labels: federalism, GLBTI, John Howard, same-sex adoption

posted by Sam @ Thursday, August 02, 2007 4 comments

Round 12: FIGHT!

UPDATE: The HREOC report is unleashed.

*******************************************************************************

(Title comes from me recently playing Mortal Kombat 2 on PS3 and rediscovering my inner 12yo. Not in that way. Eww.)

Anticipation of responses to this latest finding on gay marriage - 57% in support, but even more encouraging, 71% in favour of full de facto equality:

1. The survey was commissioned by GetUp!, a Labor front organisation designed for the sole purpose of undermining the Howard government. Insert additional cliches of 'David Hicks fan club', 'climate change fundamentalists', 'friends of Middle Eastern terrorists' etc here.

GetUp! certainly did commission the poll - nevertheless, Galaxy did all the work. 1100 people across all States and Territories. And the Murdoch rags - particularly the Gazette - had no trouble believing the 100% accuracy and integrity of Galaxy when it recently highlighted a resurgence in voter support for Howard.

2. Stupid poll, polling 16 and 17yos who don't even vote.

Again, true - but the 16-24yo group were the strongest supporters of same-sex couple equality - 82%, no less. Sure, Howard doesn't need to worry about them now, but assuming he wins this election, he may have to come the 2010 election when they're voting age.

Plus, they simply reflect what is already known: The strongest anti-queer prejudices lie with the older generations, and are dying a slow but inevitable death.

3. John Howard isn't driven by polls - he's driven by what's right.

Pwhahahaha.

Heheheheh.

Pfffft.

Still, as the poll-driven back-pedaller he is he won't resile from this issue. A poll commissioned tomorrow could reveal a million Australians supporting gay marriage, but unless a/ they're all in marginal seats, and b/ it's an issue not only do they support, but they support strongly enough that it could potentially change their vote, he'll stick to his homophobia, which to his credit, he believes in personally as well as exploits for political mileage.

It's lovely that so many people support same-sex couple equality, it really is. But very few decide to vote/not vote for Howard based solely on this issue. He knows this and knows he can get away mobilising the religious right vote instead of doing his proper duty as an elected representative and reforming existing discriminatory law - after all, 4 election wins can't be wrong.

This poll also won't change anything with Labor, at least not before this election. Kevin Rudd's pitch since winning the leadership has always been poaching the dreaded 'aspirationals' - i.e. shifting to the right just enough to steal back capricious, interest rate-sensitive voters in outer suburban seats. He doesn't need to do anything for GLBTI voters other than the barest minimum so that there is at least some point of difference between Labor and Liberal - but otherwise, he can take most of our votes for granted. Sure, we might vote Green or independent above Labor but those of us concerned with equality will eventually preference Labor above Liberal - i.e. vote Labor.

It would be nice to think this poll, combined with tomorrow's launch of HREOC's Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report, will trigger a new groundswell of support and desire to act. But we've made that mistake with this government so many times before (Warren Entsch, anyone?), and with less than 6 months before an election, the only imperative the Liberals will have to act on this will be to save Malcolm Turnbull in Wentworth.

Encouraging poll results for sure - and cheers to GetUp! for getting the poll...umm...up - but not enough for anything to change. Not this year, anyway.

Labels: GLBTI, John Howard, Labor, opinion polls, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Thursday, June 21, 2007 11 comments

Sitting on a poll

If all else fails, play the puppy-dog eyes. Sorry J-Ho, ain't gonna work. If you lose this election it's your own fault for not 'graciously' (I'm being generous) handing the leadership over to Costello last year and putting yourself out to pasture when you should have done.

However, I'm still far from convinced you will, in fact, lose this election.

Why? It's all about the psephology. What a nice word is psephology. Psephology. Say it out loud a couple of times. Psephology. Now throw in the silent p, if you haven't already been doing so, just for fun. Psephology.

I digress.

Opinion polls should be neither instantly dismissed nor taken as gospel. The pollies take them seriously even though they pretend not to. A good way to determine their accuracy is to compare what was the final opinion poll recorded on the last day before the election, with the actual results. Very rough summary for 2004 (rounding up): Actual result was Coalition 53, Labor 47 on 2pp. Nielsen called it 52/48 in their final poll, Newspoll 50/50. Not bad, but not spot-on.

I recently consulted with psephologist extraordinaire William Bowe over at The Poll Bludger to get an unbiased reality check on opinion polls that currently have Howard judged, juried and executed.

(M)ost poll-watchers will tell you that a 52-48 result is the measure of what Labor will need for a clear win...

Pollsters generally say they have a 3 per cent margin of error within a 95% confidence interval, which means they will be within 3% of accuracy 95% of the
time.

Now, there needs to be uniform swing of 3.3% for the Coalition to lose its majority, and 4.6% for Labor to win a clear majority. Or, in simpler terms, using this fantastic 2007 election calculator, Labor will need to win at least 52.5% of the 2pp vote this year to form majority government. This equates to Labor winning 18 seats - 6 in NSW, 3 in SA, 2 in Victoria, Queensland, WA and Tasmania and one in the NT - as well as not losing any seats they currently hold.

Were this to actually happen, Coalition casualties would include Howard, Malcolm Turnbull and Jackie Kelly, among others.

Not to mention, this would also mean Labor holds onto two WA seats, Swan and Cowan, to which it's desperately clinging with a margin of less than 1%. This in a state where all the kids are into AWAs but potential Labor Mum isn't so keen to let them play with them.

You can see how this is a really, really, really big ask.

Given the 3% margin of error, the major opinion polls will still need to have Labor on at least 55% of the 2pp at their final pre-election polls before I start to believe any 'annihilation' will take place.

Sure, there are a bunch of Howard voters right now who are giving serious thought to offering the Kruddster a shot, but 6 months is still a very long way to go. Howard will still have plenty of bribes and other rabbits, no matter what he otherwise claims, and don't forget that around 30% of voters don't make up their mind with absolutely certainty about who to vote for until the last week - and the overwhelming majority opt for the incumbent government, particularly when the economy is performing strongly (1949 and 1996 elections being exeptions to the rule).

So let's all keep a calm head for the moment. Re-read that card you carry around in your pocket to remind yourself, 'Always say/do the opposite of what John Howard says/does'. And we'll talk on election day.

Labels: 2007 federal election, John Howard, opinion polls, psephology

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3 comments

Laboured love

It's gone pretty much the way I predicted - right down to de Bruyn being chief asshat about it - and so now we have the very, very soft option of federal relationship registration to look forward to. Looks like the Kruddster is every bit afraid of seeing the happy fags at ceremonies - god forbid! - as J-Ho. Although I guess de Bruyn's response is perhaps indicative of why Labor had to come up with such a cop-out compromise - they had their own influential homophobes to counter before they could expect to go up against the homophobes on the other side.

People are suggesting that for the moment, the most important thing is for Krudd to announce policy that will get him into power - or more importantly, get Howard out. It's probably true, too. Howard didn't flaunt the extremities of his government as part of his 1996 election platform; they came out when he was safely in government and had sympathetic Independent and Democrat senators on hand to assist his agenda. Likewise, perhaps, a better option can be presented when Labor is in government and has had a few years to help re-shape the Howard mindset in swinging voters. Not that civil unions are an 'extremity', of course - they only appear that way because Howard's been around so long - but it may need to be softly, softly for the first term.

I'm still not entirely convinced, however, that this policy doesn't also reflect Krudd's own personal views on the subject. Ever since he became leader he's been uncharacteristically tight-lipped about GLBTI issues. He has good form, having been Wayne Goss' COS at the time homosexuality was decriminalised in Queensland, but otherwise he's struck me as being fairly in-line with his predecessor on this particular policy area - i.e. no worse than Howard, but not much better either.

Of course, now the Labor apologists will bleat that this is the best option we have, we should be grateful for what we're getting, reforms only ever happen under Labor, yadda yadda - and it's true - but Labor and Krudd deserve no kudos for reinforcing the fallacy of public commitment ceremonies between same-sex couples somehow being a threat to society, which essentially is what relationship registration reinforces.

Honestly, who wants to get 'registered'? It's about as romantic as going to the Department of Motor Registries for your first date. Sure, the legal safeguards will be in place, but relationship registration - equating same-sex couples with elderly sisters looking after one another and other forms of interdependent relationships - only reinforces the misperception in people's mind of same-sex relationships as somehow alien to everybody else's, as though we're different from the everyday couples living together, taking out joint bank accounts and - yes - fucking each other.

The official text of ALP policy reads:

Labor will ensure that all couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life do not suffer discrimination because they are not married.


Labor will take action to ensure the development of nationally consistent, state-based relationship recognition legislation that will include the opportunity for couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life to have those relationships registered and certified.


This legislation will:
- be based on the scheme that has existed in Tasmania since 2004 and that the Victorian Government has announced its intention to introduce;
- not create schemes that mimic marriage or undermine existing laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Just as I thought, the timing of Bracks' Victorian relationship registration scheme was too exquisitely convenient for the federal Labor agenda for it to be a coincidence. Presumably, 'state-based relationship recognition legislation' will have application for federal law - this, after all, is the key issue, since most state laws are now equal. It seems as though federal Labor is offsetting responsibility to the states - which is fine for the moment given the luxury of uniform state Labor governments, but this won't always be the case.

Very disappointing. Still, for a more positive perspective on registration, this is definitely worth a read (published in the Hun, no less!)

And in other, happier queer-related (sorta) news, one of the Libs' most homophobic tools, Ross 'What's to stop a bloke marrying his E-type Jag?" Lightfoot - joins the scrapping heap, where he belongs. I'd like to think that, with him and Santoro both gone, this is a slow but steady cleansing of old-school Lib anti-gay extremists - but unfortunately their successive generation equivalents just replace them. Still, good riddance.

Labels: GLBTI, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Labor, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Saturday, April 28, 2007 8 comments

Yes Prime Minister

This is just too precious for words - so to speak. Be warned: It is dangerously addictive and will eat up an appalling amount of your time. But it's worth it.

Labels: John Howard, time-wasting

posted by Sam @ Thursday, April 26, 2007 3 comments