Summarily summarising the Summit
Amusing: ABC2's live ongoing coverage of the
2020 Summit, interspersed with 'expert commentary', as though it were the Olympics ('well we might leave governance there for the moment and cross to the arts now, where local hope Claudia Karvan is in with a real chance of winning the gold ... en opportunity to speak about acting in schools' etc).
Tragical: That I actually watched ABC2's coverage to know this was the case.
Thoughts: The gist of the Summit as I saw it was, 'blah blah blah, lots of ideas from diverse range of people, blah blah blah, condense into one or two key messages to report back to wider gathering of delegates, blah blah blah aren't we wonderful and isn't Hugh Jackman just delightful with his roaming mike and witty impros, blah blah blah'.
So here are my three takeaways:
1.
Pad see ew with steamed rice K-Rudd's a bit damned either way. The critics were already lining up to label the Summit a useless lefty gabfest before the first gabber had even opened their gab. It strikes me when I think about it for a bit that of course conservatives would be opposed to a brainstorming of ideas for the future, since by definition they're mostly about preserving the status quo - living in the present but desperately wishing they could reconstruct and live in the past. It's almost like the future is anathema to them.
Having said that, I did hear a truckload of wank emanating from the many lefty-oriented folk speaking that the Summit. Buzzwords and tokenism abounded and
the initial report does somewhat conjur up Monty Python's solution to the
Meaning of Life:
M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.
And, finally, here are some completely gratuitous pictures of penises to annoy the censors and to hopefully spark some sort of controversy, which, it seems, is the only way, these days, to get the jaded, video-sated public off their fucking arses and back in the sodding cinema. Family entertainment? Bollocks. What they want is filth: people doing things to each other with chainsaws during tupperware parties, babysitters being stabbed with knitting needles by gay presidential candidates, vigilante groups strangling chickens, armed bands of theatre critics exterminating mutant goats. Where's the fun in pictures? Oh, well, there we are. Here's the theme music. Goodnight.
(The second paragraph is not really relevant - I've just always found it piss funny.)
All very nice and cuddly, just not sure how this will translate into reality. Then again, I think that's the problem inherent within such a forum - it's meant to be lofty, dreamy ideas, not pragmatic, short-term funded solutions, bouncing off each other. Maybe we should give the Rudd government a few months to see how it actually translates all this feedback into proposed legislation and policy. We may yet be pleasantly surprised. Or not.
And it is nice to see a PM making at least a pretence of long-term vision for the nation instead of focusing solely on personal short-term survival. After a decade of Howard and a couple of years of Iemma, this is ... distinctive, to say the least.
2. Becoming a republic, abolishing the third level of government (most likely the middle one, goodbye states) and enshrining a bill of rights are all admirable goals, and will probably all eventually happen, even in Australia. I'm just not sure the impetus for all these reforms will arise from a talkfest. If anything, it kinda gives neocons further ammo with which to argue that such concerns are the terrain of the Deadly Elite ('only Rudd-loving lefty summit gabbers support elitist ideas like a bill of rights' etc).
Such reforms must germinate at the grass-roots level, and then be adopted and driven by both a federal government and PM showing true leadership and enthusiasm, ideally with bipartisan support. Convincing Victorians that in a two-tier federation, they'll be for all intents and purposes Tasmanian, will be no easy task - or indeed, convincing all non-Queenslanders that they'll be Queenslanders (shudder). Doing away with a monarchical constitution that has generally served the country well for over a hundred years won't happen just because a bunch of luvvies say at a summit that it's a nice thing to do. All these reforms will require overwhelming 'yes' votes at referenda to have any mandate. I'm not sure the Summit much assisted this long-term goal.
3. Look, I love Cate Blanchett, I do. I mean, what's not to love? She's gorgeous, articulate, insanely talented and essentially personifies Sydney on the international stage in a classy, glamorous and highly marketable manner.
But FFS Australian media, when it comes to Cate Blanchett do you reckon you could just get your hand off it for five minutes?! The Summit and media coverage thereof focused WAY too much on La Blanchett and her recently expunged spawn, to the point where the sulky critics whinging that it was too much of a Rudd/A-list love-in have some cred.
I know she was one of its head-honchos, and an attractive face of the thing to present, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't trawl through all the 2008 issues of every major Oz newspaper without finding one report somewhere on what Cate's up to. The Smuh's Stay In Touch column could easily be re-tuned to 'Stay In Cate'. She's lovely. WE GET IT.
***********************************************************************
That's probably about it for a while, kidlets. Heading to Euro on Thursday and not sure I'll have the time and/or enthusiasm to blog on it
as comprehensively as i did in '05. Fark, has it really been nearly 3 years already? Who'd've thunk.
Anyways, there'll be Facebook shots, no doubt. Toodles.
Labels: 2020 Summit, ABC, Cate Blanchett, Kevin Rudd, Monty Python
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
Wellity, wellity, wellity
The small-l Lib mice really are coming out to play now the Big Bad Howard cat is gone, aren't they?
Marise Payne pwns her own party, thus:
Excepting hereditary monarchies, "born to rule" went out of vogue long ago and the democratic process is no exception ... in building broader representation and diversity, we must attract more members from multicultural Australia, more women and more young Australians who see membership of a centre-right party as a way to express their ideals in a stimulating environment of open minds and open debate. We need an agenda where the modern priorities include: climate change and water issues; addressing why women are still paid less than men in exactly the same jobs; dealing with the reality of modern family life in its many versions - particularly the notorious work-life balance.
And real money quote about teh gay:
(A) similar view from families, who believed that the life of their family member was perceived by our government as insufficiently "mainstream" to merit the respect and basic human rights that the rest of the community takes for granted, just because they were gay.
We can talk about the importance of family all we like, but once we are perceived as telling Australians that we disapprove of the lives of members of their family, I believe we are crossing a line, and we also pay a philosophical price for that.
I'd complain that Payne was nowhere near this vocal about such issues during her time as a government senator, but I sympathise with her, knowing she was
Enemy #1 for the hard-right freaks in her own party and probably too busy watching her back.
Even Chris Pahhhne seem to be getting his moderate groove back:
(I)f we don't decide to engage in the centre of the political spectrum then we're basically signing our death warrant.
Well that's lovely, but I can already hear the howls of disapproval and protest from the right of party and Howard's meeja darlings. To wit, one Kevin Andrews:
The coalition ... should not abandon the centre in favour of the latest trendy alternative or middle class left fancy.
That's right kids, climate change, water conservation, gender and queer equality, work/life balances - all trifling middle class lefty fancies.
Pahhhne does raise a valid point that's equally applicable to Labor: the desperate need to stamp out internal factionalism that's squeezed out the grass-roots true believers in place of faceless machine men (hello, domination of NSW Liberal Party by Hawke and other uber-righty charmers). Traditionally, rot seeping from within to destroy has been idiosyncratically Labor but it's clearly now just as much a problem for the Libs.
The sad thing is, in winning the election Kevin Rudd did not nor ever will bring about a green lefty utopia*. He has indeed captured the middle ground - but said middle ground was shifted so far to the right under Howard's rule and Rudd isn't about to shift it back anytime soon. The 'middleness' of the middle ground is totally subjective.
(*Slightly o/t: Anybody else find it amusing to watch Howard's meeja luvvies try to have a two-way bob with their sniping at Rudd? On the one hand, he only won the election by copying Howard; but on the other, he's a 'comrade' according to Bolt. So which is he, conservative or commie?)
Tony Blair and New Labour were often criticised for being softer, pale imitations of Thatcher, but I can already see he'll appear positively Marxist compared to Rudd. But I also imagine this is precisely what will keep the latter in power here for a long time. He'll keep Labor right enough, but not so right that he can't raise the threat - with the implicit agreement of certain Libs, no less - of the resurgence of the
real hard-right should the Libs ever be returned to power. And in the meantime, only acting at 50% capacity on issues on which he should be giving at least 80% - watering down Labor's commitments to
formal federal recognition of same-sex couples or
cutting back on greenhouse gases for examples - will seem the sensible, middle-ground approach to take.
The Libs don't necessarily need to regain the middle ground through any particularly progressive shake-up - they just need to neuter their hard-right Id. That's where they'll meet Rudd. After all, he's not that far away from them.
Labels: Kevin Rudd, Labor, Liberal moderates, Liberal Party, Marise Payne
Sorry is in the ear of the beholder
I changed my Facebook status update to '...is sorry' on Wednesday. It was a tiny gesture - some would say tokenistic - but I felt good doing so. I meant what I said, it's how I've felt for years and I'm glad the Prime Minister of my country has finally said so on behalf of our government and parliament.
I'm still trying to get my head around what it is exactly about Kevin Rudd saying 'We are sorry' on Wednesday that appears to have some people so genuinely furious, saddened or both. I've narrowed the objections down to those I see most frequently occurring:
1. We should not be held personally accountable for the actions of previous generations. And we're not. Refusing to establish a public compensation fund - not to mention all the State-level government apologies not resulting in dozens of civil lawsuits - reflect that the apology is more about acknowledgement and expression of regret than personal liability. Sure, there are a few indigenous activists, indeed a few white folk too, who believe an apology is moot without financial compensation, and may even accordingly bring actions citing this apology as an admission of guilt - but I strongly believe the overwhelming majority of indigenous Australians, and the (bare) majority of the rest of us are happy with 'Sorry' as a symbolic gesture of friendship and goodwill, a means of moving on from the past to address and attempt to rectify the many third-world level poverty issues facing way too many citizens of a first-world nation.
2. Sometimes forcibly removing indigenous children from their original homes was the best thing that could be done for them. In some cases, probably true.
Devine Ms M plays this card when citing an aboriginal woman who was 'personally glad I was taken because I don't know what would have happened. I was constantly being raped by my brother and he was raping my siblings'.
Here is precisely the significance of this entry's title: Sorry is in the ear of the beholder. If there are indigenous Australians who were forcibly removed from health or life-threatening conditions, and are consequently grateful that they had access to hitherto unknown opportunities and a functional family unit, then they don't need to hear the word 'sorry', so they won't.
Think about it: How many times have you had a friend/family member/lover/baker/whatever say 'sorry' to you for something, and you're genuinely caught off-guard as you weren't aware they had done anything for which to apologise? Do you wail, 'No, dammit, retract your apology now!' Or do you pause, say awkwardly, 'Umm, that's ok...' or 'You don't need to apologise, we're cool' and move on? In other words, an apology has two components - the giver and recipient. It's only complete if both parties are on the same page for it.
There are many indigenous Australians who did need to hear the word for their own healing - that's who the apology was for. And at no point did Rudd ever claim to apologise on behalf of every single Australian. It was on behalf of the elected government and parliament, all of whose members -
bar a few heartless ratbags - supported the gesture.
3. They had good intentions. So bleated Brendan Nelson in his lame follow-up to Rudd's inspiring speech. 'Many decent Australians are hurt by accusations of theft in relation to their good intentions.'
Remember the Simmos ep where Ned Flanders goes loopy loo after all the residents of Springfield crappily rebuild his hurricane-flattened house that eventually collapses again under its own shoddy craftspersonship? Marge wails how everybody meant well and worked really hard, to which crazy Ned spits: 'Well my family can't live in
good intentions Marge!' That's one of the thoughts I had when hearing Nelson.
Another thought I had involved casting my mind back to the mid-20th century and the days of
electro-shock aversion therapy being used to 'cure' homos. I wonder if there are any gay men still alive today who endured this 'therapy' against their will, and how they might respond when told, 'well hey, we meant well. We thought you were a filthy degenerate pervert and needed to cure you. Woop! Our bad. We know better now'.
Indigenous Australians (half-castes in particular) taken against their will from their families as part of a policy designed ultimately to wipe out the race probably don't give a right-royal fuck about hearing that some of the public servants and lawmakers at the time meant well doing so. Like most crimes, motive or intent is ultimately an extraneous factor - the atrocity occurs, and when the apology is delivered it needs to be without equivocation, or else it becomes diluted.
Nelson walked, and ultimately fell from a precarious tightrope trying to balance
the sympathetic beliefs he once held with the obligations he now has to the NSW Lib hard-right bovvers who delivered him party leadership over Malcolm Turnbull. He should have just stopped at the bit about the Opposition supporting the apology. Trying to qualify that in some cases it was for the darkies' own good was patronising, paternalistic and offensive. I understand why people turned their back on him.
I'm hearing a lot of people say they feel proud to be Australian again after 13 February 2008. I'm not sure I had stopped being proud to be Australian altogether during the Howard years - pride was tested and stretched, certainly - but I certainly feel proud
er this week. Rudd's off to a flying start.
Labels: Brendan Nelson, Kevin Rudd, Sorry, Stolen Generation
Common sense cuts
Does anybody else find it really difficult to take Kevin Rudd seriously
as he bangs on incessantly about battling the inflation boogieman through public service razor gangs and capping MP salaries? Yeah - that'll make a huge difference, I'm sure.
Room: Overspending in the economy. Elephant: $31b in tax cuts that feeds overspending like, well, an elephant at Taronga.
It was one of Rudd's more foolish pre-election me-toos, in which he allowed himself to be painted into a corner to (almost) match Howard's irresponsible spending orgy and not lose votes accordingly. As the always-on-the-ball Ross Gittins argues,
it's a pre-election promise Labor should scrap if they're serious about curbing inflation - but of course, they won't.
Maybe it's time for some tough love, to tell the Effluents of Kellyville what Howard never would - that no, it is
not in fact your inalienable right to live far beyond your means inside an energy/environmental/good taste-guzzling McMansion with your Ford Territory Child Killer Ghia in the driveway and cinema-size plasma in the living room. And before I'm accused of being cubist (discriminatory against Cashed-Up Bogans), it is not anybody's inalienable right to live beyond their means - or at least, not to complain about it if they choose to do so and suffer accordingly.
But I have absolutely no sympathy for mortgagees who consistently voted for Howard, duped by his bullshit claim that he could singlehandedly keep interest rates low, who now whinge about rate rise after rate rise and/or are having their homes foreclosed on. Reap what you sow.
Still, Rudd has once again demonstrated that an alternative is practically non-existent. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and PS razor gangs will be about as effective solving the problem as using an artist's liner brush to paint the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Labels: economy, inflation, Kevin Rudd, tax cuts
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
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
Politics 101
Today's lesson:
Turning a one-word answer to a simple question into 45.
Question: Have you ever been to a strip club?
Tony Abbott: "I've done all sorts of things in my time and the last thing I'd do is put my hand on my heart and say that I have never done anything wrong because that would be fibbing and I would rather not fib about these things."
Translation: "Yes."
Rudd's misadventure at Scores gentlemen's club is not serious news, but it shouldn't be completely dismissed either. Clearly it's a leak from Leaky Downer in another desperate pre-election Rudd smear attempt - don't forget, this indiscretion occurred nearly 4 years ago - but if nothing else, it really only reinforces what a nerd Rudd is, firstly that he can't hold his piss, and secondly, according to the two witnesses who were actually there, he couldn't handle the girlies bouncing up and down in front of him either.
Dammit Janet is trying to press the anti-femmo button on it (sorry, can't bring myself to link her - just go to the relevant Oz blog site), claiming femmos will stay silent on this particular PM-to-be engaging in an activity that degrades women because he's closer to their side of politics and speculating that if it were an Abbott, Downer or Nelson in question they'd be first to squeal chauvinism. She may have a point, but Abbott's chauvinism manifests in public policy - opposing a woman's right to termination and birth control - rather than private frolics, as has happened in Rudd's case. That's why the protests against him are louder.
Assuming he kept his busy hands to himself, Rudd has done nothing illegal, nor has he done anything I imagine a lot of senior Labor and Liberal blokes haven't done either. Downer might be shooting his own party in the foot, if Labor now counter-leaks some of the Liberals' private misadventures (particularly where the "girls" at "strip clubs" frequented by at least one Lib minister I know of are a little more ... "handsome" ... than the ladies at Scores).
But it is another infuriating example of Christian hypocrisy: senior pollies playing their Christian cards when opposing, for example, same-sex marriage, as Rudd does, and essentially placing themselves in positions of moral authority and judgment until they decide they want to stick a twenty down a stripper's G.
Not that I necessarily automatically assume women who work at strip clubs are being exploited. I knew one topless waitress in Adelaide who was also one of the most intelligent, empowered, take-no-bullshit women I ever met. Some women are just confident about their bodies, and if they happen to be able to make some cash out of flaunting them (while hopefully developing a more long-term career fallback option on the side), power to them.
Still, a 'purist' Christian like Rudd by definition has to oppose strip clubs, not support them, even during a one-off binge bender. What he's made is a foolish error in drunken misjudgment, but if he chooses to set himself up on a higher pedestal, he should be expected to fall harder and with more pain.
Rudd's still a good candidate for PM in my book - still a far, far better option than the current mug and his flying monkeys, whose screw-ups actually damage the entire nation - but he might want to bite his tongue next time he plays the 'family values' card, especially when elevating straight relationships as superior to same-sex couplings.
Labels: Christian hypocrisy, Kevin Rudd, strip clubs
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
It ain't easy being greenish
The usual suspects, led by Bob Brown and Australian Conservation Foundation,
are pouncing on Krudd's overturning of Latham's 2004 Tasmanian old-growth forestry policy. But I really feel a reality check is needed here.
Not meaning to get stuck into Brown, a man I admire, or the ACF, but the fact is Latham's policy to boost protected areas cost Labor two seats in Tasmania. Before then, they had a clean sweep of the state's five federal seats. This new policy will win those seats back for them. It's smart politics on Krudd's part.
That's not to say I agree with the policy itself;
as I've argued previously with regard to rice and cotton farming, there are certain industries that simply aren't practical or sustainable and should be gradually phased out of existence for the sake of preserving vital natural resources.
But Latham's original reasoning behind devising this policy was flawed. It was all about establishing Green cred on Labor's part and thereby appealing to Green voters - inner-city, skim latte gay homosexual types, mostly. You know, like me.
But the fact is,
3 in 4 Green voters preference Labor anyway, and they're not going to stop doing this based on this issue alone. Very few Green voters think, 'well I WAS going to preference Labor as I usually do, but since Krudd has announced this policy I think I'll preference the homophobic, climate change sceptical, anti-intellectual, anti-equal rights Bible-bashing wingnuts in the Coalition instead!'
Or, put simply, the typical Green voter is a much safer bet to preference (i.e. vote for) Labor than the capricious union bloke living in the seats of Bass or Braddon who'll completely piss on the party that actually believes in his organisation's continued existence, long enough to jump ship to Howard the moment he doesn't get exactly what he wants.
This is perhaps a smite harsh - we are talking about these people's livelihoods after all, even if they're centred on an industry I think should gradually be phased out (which I believe was what made up the $800m price tag of Latham's original policy, effectively buying them out of business). I guess you can understand why some of them went so far as to have their photo taken, beaming arm-in-arm with Howard, the man who is to blue-collar unions what termites are to Chippendale.
Still, Krudd has placated these voters; he's won support from the unions, forestry industry body and the Tasmanian Labor government and therefore has a show of solidarity where Latham had only fractured chaos. It's all part of Krudd's election strategy which, whether or not you agree with it,
is working: take the left or left-leaning folk for granted and poach back swinging voters in marginal seats by focusing on the issues important to them. Labor's worst-case scenario is that they may lose a couple of inner-Melbourne or Sydney seats to the Greens - but that's a long-shot, and ultimately it's more important they win seats at a direct cost of the Coalition losing them (as they now will in Tasmania).
It's sad it's come to this, of course, but at crunch time you have to ask: Do you want to give Krudd and Labor a shot or do you really, really want to endure Howard for another three years (don't be under any delusions of a gracious handover to Costello, by the way) by sticking to pure principle? After nearly 12 years of Howard rule, the current political climate dictates that we cannot expect a Latham or a Whitlam-type to be our next Labor PM. The best we have to hope for is a centre-right leader to replace a right leader, hopefully drag the country back to some degree of middle ground in his first term and get swinging voters past the straw Labor boogiemen Howard and co are pitching in their desperate last-minute pitch to cling to power.
Then we can look at saving the trees.
Labels: 2007 federal election, Kevin Rudd, Labor
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
Victorious Victoria?
It's good news, no question, that Victorian Premier Steve Bracks is now saying a statewide relationship register - the very register he has until recently opposed - could be in force
by the end of the year. Kudos definitely to the
VGLRL and other Victorian lobby groups for forcing Vic Labor to lurch forward.
However...
I'm a little bit cynical and doubtful (I know, me doubtful and cynical? Who'd've thunk it) for a couple of reasons. You see, Bracks just happens to make this decision, coinkidinkally around the same time as K-Rudd
prepares to make the call on national relationship recognition at ALP national conference. Now, rumblings suggest Krudd is unwilling to commit to civil unions - the homophobic Catholic Right/'Shoppies' faction, especially under arch asshat
Joe de Bruyn, won't have a bar of it and they're clearly either too powerful or too closely in line with Krudd's own personal views on the subject.
So what are the options? Marriage is out, civil unions are out. How about a federal relationship register, then? Or better yet, how about federal law recognition for couples registered under existing state and territory schemes? Ooh that'd be sweet, wouldn't it - Krudd doesn't really have to do anything then other than reform existing discriminatory federal laws, and that whole
State/Commonwealth alliance he's been banging on about since his election to the leadership works an absolute treat in terms of the Victorian and Tasmanian Labor governments. 'End the blame game', indeed.
Maybe Bracks' timing playing exquisitely into Krudd's agenda of Commonwealth/State harmony is, as mentioned before, merely a coinkidink.
Or maybe it's not.
As for the model itself: I have my reservations, which I've expressed previously and reiterate in this week's SX:
Such a scheme, which would be also be available to non-conjugal couples, seems the best compromise for factions polarised by the issue, and thus the best defence against another attempt by Howard to wedge Labor.
This choice, however, would be a cop-out, pure and simple. It would ignore the reforms of New Zealand, the UK and other democracies similar to Australia where civil unions or partnerships have eventually been enacted by centre-left governments, despite great protest. A registration scheme, while equitable, does not provide the option of an official ceremony where partners can publicly formalise their commitment. Its very low take-up rate in Tasmania would suggest that same-sex couples are reluctant to have their relationships ‘registered’, as they would their pets – and do not appreciate being denied the opportunity of a legally-binding ceremony.
If Rudd does go with relationship registration instead of civil unions, he is following in his established style of holding a position different to Howard – but not different enough. Federal Liberal’s appalling record on law reform for same-sex couples could cost them at least one seat, now that Malcolm Turnbull’s takes in much of the inner east Sydney queer ghetto. But instead of adopting a progressive alternative and exposing a Liberal weakness, Rudd instead appears set to cave in to the Labor Catholic Right, and opt for a model towards which most on both sides will feel ambivalent, at best.
But I guess for the moment this is the best we can hope for. Same-sex couples in Victoria can now at least register their relationships, then have a ceremony as they've always been able to, even if by itself it's still essentially symbolic - but ultimately the legal safeguards will be in place, which is the most important thing.
Still, it is a pity that in studying Howard so intetently to learn how best to emulate his successes, Krudd seems to have lost track of what's going on in the rest of the world.
Labels: GLBTI, Kevin Rudd, Labor, queer law reform, Steve Bracks, Victoria
