Contradiction is balance. [entries|archive|friends|userinfo] Axver [ website | U2gigs.com: for all your U2 setlist needs! (Got a question, suggestion, or addition? Feel free to leave me a comment! I co-maintain the site.) ] [ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ] [ archive | journal archive ]

[24 February 2008|11:48 pm] [ Tags | alp, australian politics, greens, john howard, liberal party, peter costello, politicians, politics ] [ Current Mood | tired ] [ Current Music | 'Glow (live)' by Blackfield ] Well, well. I am enjoying the new post-Howard reality, watching the Liberal Party implode. When the leader of your party's popularity is at only 9%, surely you can't slide much further and things will soon start to look up, but I'm going to relish this for as long as it lasts. In today's news, some of them want the old guard out. Behind the diplomatic veneer, it seems some directions are being encouraged very pointedly. I can't help but wonder what knives are out in the backrooms. You know they are. Any party this suddenly unpopular will have all kinds of shit going down behind the scenes. I've questioned the sincerity of some former Howard ministers' intentions to quit politics in the past. I'll be glad to see Alexander Downer go (quite possibly the politician with the most appropriate last name) and I believe he will, but my expectations are not so high for others. Specifically Peter Costello. Costello is one hell of a cunning politician, and his desire to take over the reins from John Howard was hardly a secret. Then, of course, after the thumping loss, he stunned everyone and announced he wouldn't take the leadership and instead would retreat to the back bench to serve out his term and mentor younger politicians. The cynic in me believes he just did that to avoid taking a lot of shit for the loss, come out clean, and rather than "mentor" younger politicians, gather them onto his side to launch a successful leadership challenge at the right time. I still believe that, too. But I don't doubt some in the backrooms would like him and his fellows in the old guard gone. Will he try to hold on, and can he? The Howard era has very quickly come to be viewed with disdain, at least in an electability sense. Costello has probably lost any chance he has of winning an election in the near future simply due to his close association with Howard. I would be absolutely delighted to see this blow up into more of a feud. In all likelihood, things will probably resolve quietly and at least some of the old guard will retire and fade from the scene, but a split within the party would, let's be honest, provide endless entertainment and surely both solidify Labour's power and give the much more unified Greens a chance for growth. As I've noted in the past, the Greens in some electorates are either the second party or close to it. If the Liberals fall into disarray, the Greens can seize the opportunity to portray themselves as the stable opposition to Labour. Thus, despite the fact they do not have much prospect of directly picking up support from Liberal voters, the establishment of themselves in a position of opposition in place of the Liberals would be an absolute boon to them. I can keep living in hope anyway. Link Leave a comment

And you thought George Bush was unpopular? [20 February 2008|11:47 pm] [ Tags | alp, australian politics, brendan nelson, epic fail, greens, kevin rudd, labour party, liberal party, politics ] [ Current Mood | optimistic ] [ Current Music | 'Under The Cover Of A Frozen Sky' by Canyons Of Static ] So, Brendan Nelson, leader of the Opposition here in Australia, has an approval rating of 9%. Nine per cent. I'm not kidding! He is the least popular Opposition leader ever, or at least since polls began in 1987. We're missing 86 years of Opposition leaders there, though I doubt many could reasonably challenge Nelson for that shocking figure. Rudd has a 61% gap opened up over him, with a soaring 70% approval rating as Prime Minister. The Liberal Party is in complete disarray. They only just elected Nelson as their new, post-Howard leader in late November last year, and I can imagine Malcolm Turnbull and his supporters are already manoeuvring in the back rooms to oust him. I have to wonder where the Liberal Party is going to go from here. The fact that Rudd is basking in a popular perception that he is delivering on his election promises, and promptly too, is something that the Liberals are going to find extremely hard to combat. Furthermore, Rudd is almost immune from fallout on economic issues such as rising interest rates, at least for the immediate future, because that can all be pinned on the Howard legacy. Only after a couple of years in office will he really be held accountable, and there isn't much the Liberals can do until then. They can scream and shout and pin everything on Rudd as much as they like, but that's no good when the popular perception is that they're the party who created the issues in the first place! And, at the end of the day, Nelson has the charisma of a tomato. Rudd is seen as vibrant and active, willing to get things done. Nelson? Nobody fucking likes him! Even the vast majority of the 36% of Australians who'd vote Liberal right now don't like him! The Liberal Party probably don't know what to do with themselves. They've been in power for eleven years, led by Australia's second longest serving Prime Minister. Suddenly, they're being drowned by a wave of unpopularity that they probably didn't even expect and that confuses and bewilders them. John Howard wanted to leave a legacy, but I doubt this is quite what he had in mind. It would have been better for the Liberals had they lost in 2004. Now where? They're doing nothing to help themselves by cultivating a perception of backflipping. They can't seem to find a stable position on workplace laws, and Nelson's pathetic speech at the national apology tried to be everything to everybody but in the end was absolutely nothing; it didn't go nearly far enough for the urban middle and upper classes who supported the move, while any agreement whatsoever with the apology was far too much for the social conservatives and rural constituency who wanted nothing to do with an apology. Just look at the behaviour of Wilson Tuckey, who made a scene in his refusal to acknowledge the apology. It makes you wonder what will come of the Coalition. Prior to the election, there was talk of the Liberals simply absorbing the Nationals, but since the election disaster, the differences and disagreements have come out. Now, I don't expect the Coalition will collapse, but I can't help thinking about it. It would gift Labour a lengthy time in power, as the Nationals' declining support base is causing them to sink into irrelevance while the Liberals would struggle to pull together the numbers to form government in the lower house, while in the upper house they would be completely screwed without the support of the Nationals, especially as the Greens are on the rise and likely to hold the balance of power anyway. Though I remember when I lived up in Queensland; the state-level coalition between the Liberals and Nationals collapsed, and Labour won the 2006 election not by popularity but by default. I suppose there's something to be said for having a very competitive political system that keeps everyone on their toes. I can only desire that Australia may one day shift to the two dominant parties being the Greens and Labour. Hell, in some Labour-held seats, the Greens are already outpolling the Liberals and constitute the second party. I'd like that to spread. I'd like it a lot. I could really believe in a Greens-vs-Labour two party system as one that has competition without the risk of fucking over the least fortunate, those towards whom the government has a duty of care. It's a pipe dream, I know, but it's one I enjoy. Link 6 comments|Leave a comment

[15 February 2008|09:56 pm] [ Tags | aborigines, australian politics, brendan nelson, concerts, cricket, explosions in the sky, music, porcupine tree, rugby ] [ Current Music | ODI cricket on TV, Australia vs Sri Lanka ] Well, today's been pretty good on the music front. I bought tickets for Porcupine Tree in both Melbourne and Brisbane - Sydney's still up in the air and dependent on a couple of factors, but tickets aren't exactly flying out the door at a great rate of knots. I also went and got my ticket printed for the Explosions In The Sky tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to that despite going by myself. What is a little disappointing is how late it is. Apparently they're not expected to be off stage until 20 past midnight,which is going to mean I'll be pushing it a little fine to get home. It seems those who schedule concerts really do not think of those who are dependent on public transport. I hate to think how much a taxi will cost if it comes to that. In other news, it looks like Liberal Party leader Brendan Nelson has gone and really put his foot in it. He's already taken a lot of flak for his terrible speech at the national apology a couple of days ago, and it turns out that a story he related about one Aboriginal women in some kind of attempt to demonstrate that actions were undertaken with "good intentions" was actually used without even consulting her, let alone asking her permission. Now she's accusing him of misrepresenting her story for political gain. Good on her for speaking out. This guy has the charisma of a tomato, and now it seems he appears to have the grace of a tomato splattering on a wall too. It may be a long way away and lots will surely happen in between, but it's probably reasonable to say that if he's still the Liberal leader at the next election, Rudd will cruise to a second term. And to change topic again, it looks like life is starting to settle down a bit. I still feel ... all kinds of things, but at least I've got a good weekend to look forward to. Besides tomorrow's concert, I'm aiming to meet up with a few other local U2 fans on Sunday, and of course there's the cricket. If there's one good thing about summer, it's cricket. It's the first weekend of the Super 14 rugby too! That seems a bit strange, given that rugby's a winter sport and all, but the rugby year seems to be getting longer and longer and I'm almost used to the season starting this early now. Link 4 comments|Leave a comment

A glorious day in Australian history [13 February 2008|09:44 pm] [ Tags | aborigines, australia, australian history, australian politics, history, kevin rudd, maori, new zealand, new zealand history ] [ Current Music | 'Beds Are Burning' by Midnight Oil ] Today will surely go down as one of the greatest days in Australian political history. As the first order of business of the 42nd parliament of Australia, Kevin Rudd offered an apology to the Stolen Generations, those thousands of Aboriginal children who were forcibly removed from their homes and made wards of the state, deprived of contact with their family and their culture. Rudd's speech was eloquent and moving; he acknowledged and apologised for the grave injustices of the past, went to great pains to reach out not only across racial lines to the Aborigines but also across ideological lines to all parts of the Australian community on this contentious issue, and laid the foundation of words upon which a structure of actions can be built to ensure a better future. It was only fitting that this apology was delivered by Rudd with Peter Garrett sitting prominently nearby as a fellow elected representative; as the lead singer of Midnight Oil, Garrett tirelessly brought awareness to the plight of the Aborigines and those of you who watched the 2000 Sydney Olympics Closing Ceremony likely remember him performing in black clothing emblazoned with the word "sorry". And today, Australia finally said sorry. I think the following are some of the best words I have ever heard any head of state speak: "As Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the Government of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the Parliament of Australia, I am sorry. I offer you this apology without qualification." - Kevin Rudd I moved to Australia in 1997, the year Bringing Them Home was published. All I have known is John Howard's stubborn refusal to be a decent human being. In a sure reflection on just how petty, bigoted, and small this man really is, he was the only one of Australia's five living former Prime Ministers who was not in attendance. Four other Liberal MPs were conspicuously absent, while a fifth was so rude and disrespectful as to attend but read a magazine throughout the session and to refuse to stand in the otherwise unanimous show of support for the apology. Brendan Nelson's pathetic attempt at a reply on behalf of the Opposition was truly a national embarrassment. He started well. He did what even three months ago I never thought I would hear a Liberal Party leader do: he offered support for Rudd's apology and said sorry himself. Then he just dug himself into a hole. His incohesive speech lacked a central theme; he dithered from point to point, inappropriately trying to score political points through mentioning the current Northern Territory intervention, irrelevantly and bafflingly mentioning Australians who died in combat, disgustingly asserting that we should feel no guilt for what has happened, and reprehensibly giving an impression of defending those who did the stealing for what he described as "good intentions". It was as if he was torn between his own bigotry and an irresistible future. It would have been political suicide to do anything other than support the apology, but he sure didn't go down without reminding us that racism and discrimination is alive and well in Australia. Although those in the parliament chamber rightly maintained the manners expected within there, those watching on the big screens outside and in other cities throughout the country quite understandably and justifiably booed Nelson, called "shame", turned their backs, and initiated a slow clap to drown out the disgraceful speech. What Brendan Nelson and some people in Australian society (including, I am sad to say, a few individuals in journals and communities on my friends list) seem to fail to understand is that we do not exist in a historical vacuum. The consequences of the Stolen Generations live with us - some of those who were stolen are still alive, and their children are very much with us, living with the problems created by past injustices. The rest of us also live with the consequences - dealing with the past, as we exist within the context it created, and completing its unfinished business: that is, righting its wrongs. The first step to righting its wrongs is apologising for those wrongs. Nothing short of saying sorry is adequate. I am a New Zealander first and foremost. Why, then, do I care? Because I am an Australian citizen. I have the certificate and the passport to prove it. I voted for this government, and I have been subject to the decisions of the Australian parliament for over a decade. Parliament functions within a political continuum - it has a responsibility to the past. Today's parliament exists within the historical context of past parliaments. The policies that created the Stolen Generations were in place during the lives of the majority of Australians. This lasted until the 1970s - it is, as has been emphasised, not ancient history. It is more than about time that this responsibility is acknowledged and an apology given. This apology is not saying that you, as an individual, are sorry for something you did not do - it is saying that we, as a community represented by a democratically elected parliament, are sorry for the wrongs that were done in our country's name to the oldest continuous civilisation on the planet. We exist in a historical context; we should be and are sorry for the wrongs contained within that context and are compelled by all that is good and decent to rectify the consequences of these injustices. Also, as a New Zealander, I would like to take this opportunity to do something of my own, in the reconciliatory spirit of the day. The Maori people, like the Aborigines, have suffered injustices since Europeans colonised New Zealand. Their land was taken from them, by deception and by force. Their cultural values were ignored. Their language was marginalised. Therefore, I say the following. As the descendent of some of New Zealand's earliest settlers, as a New Zealander who exists within a historical context that contains shameful and inexcusable wrongdoings, and as a person capable of empathy, I am without qualification sorry to the Maori. As an aspiring historian of New Zealand, I can only hope that I may produce work that contributes to the historical record, informs the present and future, and does even the smallest of things to bring together the people of the most beautiful country on the planet in mutual understanding, respect, and equality. Link 4 comments|Leave a comment

Victoria gets a Human Rights Charter, but not without nonsense from a pack of whingers [2 January 2008|09:57 pm] [ Tags | australian politics, human rights, politics, right wing, victoria ] [ Current Music | 'Arriving Somewhere But Not Here' by Porcupine Tree ] I am starting to become convinced that the political right wing is perfecting the art of stupidity, and I am disappointed that the Aussie right is importing some language from the US. Australia lacks anything resembling a bill of rights, but today, Victoria became the first state to introduce a human rights charter. You can read it here. Now, I thought that both sides of politics had managed to agree that human rights are a good idea. Sure, there are some people (mainly fringe academics with anti-West axes to grind such as idiots like Adamantia Pollis) who would disagree, and we've already seen the right (especially Bush and the neocons) happy to debate what rights are in fact rights and to deny them to people they don't like. But on the whole, especially in mainstream politics, I thought we'd managed to come to a bit of an agreement: human rights are important and should be protected. So I thought this human rights charter would be a nice, happy moment of cross-floor hand-holding and mutual support. Clearly the state Opposition and the right wing in general did not get the memo. Apparently this Human Rights Charter is a bad thing! The state Opposition have tried to make their case sound reasonable; as reported in the ABC article linked above, it believes that the Charter will clog the courts and create an additional administrative burden. The administrative burden part may be true, as all government bodies now have to ensure their action is in compliance with the law, but I'd say that's worth it for something as fundamentally important as human rights. The former part, about the courts being clogged, is simply complete rot as there is no allowance for new legal action to be taken under the charter; there has to be an existing right to action. Furthermore, a spokesman claims that "Victoria's got a well established set of laws already that respect human rights". So? The recognition is implicit; this makes it clear and explicit. It does not create the confusion the Opposition claims; it offers clarity. You'd think the Opposition would be able to come to the table and agree on as positive a development as this. Perhaps they're supported by interests who would operate easier without an explicit Charter though - after all, it's the Liberal Party and it's no secret they represent big business. What really irritated me, though, was an editorial in the Herald Sun (surprise surprise) by Peter Faris. Some poor sods are going to buy this. It's not his poisoning of the well ("so-called human rights") or red herrings ("right to life (but not for embryos)") that annoy me. It's his actual language. I feel like I am reading an article from the US, not from Australia. He puts forth some absolute drivel about "activist" judges and conceptualises the Charter as a tool granting judges some huge measure of power to legislate their own personal views. Somehow, I don't think a judicial decision that a piece of legislation is incompatible with the Human Rights Charter constitutes "activism". This sort of language has destroyed enough nuances and reasonable debates in the US already; we don't need it here. His argument is also rather inconsistent. He begins his article by saying that he believes the current laws already protect human rights, so the Charter's purpose is already being served - i.e. it unnecessarily duplicates what we already have. Then he goes on to claim that the charter is "revolutionary" and shifts power from the parliament to the courts. Which is it, Faris? You can't have it both ways. Either the Charter is unnecessary because the political and legal systems already do what it aims to do, or it is revolutionising said systems and their relationship to one another. After this, it seems the article just descends into distorted facts and "the taxpayer will suffer!" sensationalism that is not worth comment. Diane Sisely provides a more levelheaded commentary in The Age. Personally? I don't think the Charter is perfect, or even ideal, but for completely different reasons. My criticisms are based on the language of the Charter and concerns that it does not go far enough; I expected these, not the above drivel, to be the main points of contention. Section 7(2) allows for limitations to be placed on human rights in exceptional circumstances - if you ask me, claiming that human rights can be limited in certain circumstances defeats the purpose entirely, as they are meant to be universally applicable. Section 31 adds on to this; it allows parliament to pass Acts that override the Charter as long as a statement of justification is made of the exceptional circumstances that, in the opinion of the member introducing a Bill, require such action. I don't like human right being placed at the whims of whatever the parliament feels is politically expedient. Elsewhere, 15(3) is of deep concern to me, as it places "special duties and restrictions" on fredom of speech. Now, I agree with people such as J. S. Mill who argue that freedom of speech requires safeguards against forms of speech that constitute direct incitement of violence, but I'm bothered that freedom of speech may be restricted for the protection of "public morality". As morality is so individually subjective, culturally dependent, and changeable over time, what exactly does "public morality" mean? Is this just bullshit to appease Fundies First voters? Because I sure as hell don't like it. Nonetheless, this Charter is a fantastic step in the right direction. It has its flaws, but it's a positive sign and hopefully part of a process towards a federal equivalent. I'm proud to live in Victoria today. I just wish certain figures on the right wing would shut up and stop blathering nonsense. Link 4 comments|Leave a comment

Here I was, thinking the forces of social conservatism in Aussie politics had been banished ... [1 January 2008|10:37 pm] [ Tags | alp, australia, australian politics, censorship, family first, internet, john howard, kevin rudd, stupidity ] [ Current Mood | annoyed ] [ Current Music | 'Sunset Of The Age' by Anathema ] Politicians, eh? Vile scum. Labour's Telecommunications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has announced mandatory filtering of online content at the Internet Service Providor level in Australia (Source: the ABC and the BBC). All last year, I took shot after shot at the Liberal government's social policy, and rightly so. It's archaic, out-dated bigotry based upon intolerance and discrimination; a dislike of anybody who deviates from certain "traditional norms". It was hardly a surprise that the Liberals were quite happy to hop into bed with Family Fundies First. It was more than a relief to see them voted out of office on 24/11, and just yesterday, before this filtering was brought to my attention, I proclaimed happily that "Australia's political future really does look brighter". I take it back. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Now it's time for LiveJournal to show its true colours; recent news posts have devolved into festivals of paranoia, with people fearing the sale of LJ to SUP will result in all kinds of implausible scenarios in which nasty Russian figures censor journals. But when it's something that actually matters, when it's something that's actually on the table and happening, when it's not just your little online blog, will people do anything? Somehow I doubt we'll see much drama about this at all. Well, I'll have my rant in any case. Firstly, let's see what exactly this entails. From the ABC: "Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material" (emphasis mine). The BBC adds that "Australians wanting unfettered access to the web will have to contact their supplier to opt out of the new regime" (emphasis mine). The reasons why this constitutes complete stupidity are multitudinous. Allow me to throw around just a few of them. 1. Who, praytell, decides what constitutes "inappropriate material"? Some government censor maintaining a blacklist who knows better than me? Funny, I thought this was a liberal democracy. And just what constitutes inappropriate? Go back a few decades and the mere discussion of homosexuality was inappropriate. I don't want somebody else's values being forced upon me. 2. Why is it opt-out as opposed to opt-in? If I for whatever reason felt the filter were necessary (e.g. if I maintain a primary school's Internet network), then I could opt-in to a government-provided filter. The rest of us can continue to surf the Internet uninterrupted. 3. How transparent will the opt-out process be? How do I know that if I opt-out, I won't end up on some government list of people whose online activity may be suspicious? All my activity is above board, but I value my privacy and my freedom. 4. Why is this even necessary? Conroy's statements reek of "won't someone PLEASE think of the children!", and I frankly have the voice of Helen Lovejoy from the Simpsons in my head whenever I read any quotes from him. Look, if you're such a poor parent that your children are readily accessing content inappropriate for their age, then that's your problem, and it should not affect anyone else - and especially not legal adults like me who are not parents! No children use my computer, thus the entire argument that this is to protect children is a complete irrelevancy. 5. Will it even protect the children? Last year, the Howard government introduced a software filter that parents could put on their computer, only for the Sydney Morning Herald to report that a 16 year old schoolboy managed to get past it within 30 minutes, all while leaving the appearance that the filter was still on to deceive his parents. This filter will similarly be exploitable; if bloggers in China and Iran can get around much more severe and restrictive state filtering, teens with IT knowledge far superior to that of their parents will be easily able to get around the filter. While Mum and Dad are content in the knowledge the government's Internet filter is there, little Johnny's in the other room, bypassing the filter and downloading some steamy porn film. 6. Which brings me to my next point. There's the "won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" argument in the sense of protecting children from porn (oh no, the human body!), violence (depending upon what we mean, perhaps justifiable), and some vague and ill-defined concept of "inappropriate content". Then there's the "won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" argument in the sense of blocking access to child pornography. That sort of disgusting and exploitative filth should be combatted at every turn, but this filter does not help. Child pornography is already the subject of major international police activity, and it is safe to say that if you are accessing child pornography at the moment, this filter won't make a single jot of difference to you. This filter will not do a thing to stop sick people who get their jollies from the exploitation of children. 7. At the end of the day, you search for content on the Internet. Porn doesn't just spew onto your computer uncontrollably. Parents, if your child is looking at porn, it's because they looked for it and it's your responsibility to do something about it if you think they shouldn't be allowed to see it. Government, if people are looking up illegal content, it is your job to 1. prosecute those making and hosting the illegal content and 2. prosecute those who are actively searching for this content. This should not involve law-abiding Internet users, i.e. the vast majority, having to opt-out of a filter. This filter will almost certainly not impact my day-to-day Internet activity. However, it strikes me as a gross breach of individual freedom, not to mention a staggering waste of taxpayer money and IT specialist time. Australia's Internet is quite backwards enough, thank you very much. I would urge every Australian citizen reading this to write to Senator Conroy as well as your local member and state senators to protest this moronic decision. Oh, and surely, surely, this backwards tool of subtle social control violates the human rights charter Victoria introduced today! Link Leave a comment

Looking back on a year that sorely failed to live up to expectations [31 December 2007|08:45 pm] [ Tags | 2007, australian politics, cricket, kevin rudd, life, music, new zealand all blacks, new zealand black caps, politics, rugby, sport, us politics ] [ Current Music | 'To The Drowned, All Seas Are Calm' by Belegost ] So, it's the last day of 2007. Thank goodness for that. I went into this year with considerable excitement and optimism, as reflected in this entry. To be perfectly honest, this year turned into the worst year of my life. 1998 was the previous worst; I had just moved to Australia from New Zealand, the couple of acquiantances I made in the dying months of 1997 didn't seem to want to know me and I spent the year in solitude as the token Kiwi, the class whipping boy. This year has blown 1998 out of the water. Optimism is worthless, people. ( My 'Worst of 2007' lists and commentary: events, sport, music, and more. ) ( But let's be cheerful too. Here's some of the best of 2007. ) Happy New Year, folks. I hope you all have a good one. Enjoy your 2008. Link 19 comments|Leave a comment

[22 December 2007|09:00 pm] [ Tags | 2007, australian politics, books, dr mohamed haneef, literature, reading, terrorism ] [ Current Music | 'Dogs' by Pink Floyd ] When I left off yesterday, I was discussing literature. I've noticed a number of you have been posting lists of books you have read this year, so I figure I shall contribute one of my own. I suspect it will be considerably different to the norm. I naturally cannot remotely recall all the books I have read this year. Here's what I can remember, alphabetised by author last name and with the four I am presently reading and yet to finish marked with asterisks: ( The list! Plenty of Dostoevsky, Kiwi railways, and random academic stuff. ) There is surprisingly little fiction, but there's a reason for that: looking at my bookshelves, I can't remember what I read this year and what I read last year! The railway stuff is fairly easy as I just need to check the university library's database; I didn't have access to these books prior to this year. Indeed, the reason there's so much is due to my excitement at having access to so many books I had been wanting to read for years. The academic books simply require me to check my essay bibliographies for the titles that leap out at me. Most books, I simply used for research and only read relevant pages or chapters, but some were so engrossing or intriguing (or in the case of Revolt By Leave, so short) that I read them in their entirety. Malise Ruthven's Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning in particular was riveting; I devoured that one very quickly. I know I am missing a fair bit. Next year, I will keep track of what I read. This year, there were also plenty of academic journal articles that I read for pleasure but trying to list them would be far too difficult. While researching, I found myself often spying articles unrelated to the topic I was working on but that sounded interesting; an hour later, I'd be kicking myself for my powers of procrastination! There's some absolutely fascinating stuff on JSTOR though. On a completely different topic, I'm feeling rather vindicated at the moment. Remember back in July, I wrote an entry about Dr Mohamed Haneef? Dr Haneef, an Indian-born Muslim, was working at the Gold Coast Hospital when he was accused of being involved in a terrorist attack on Glasgow's airport. However, the Australian Federal Police's handling of the case seemed rather incompetent, and worse was to come; when the courts granted Dr Haneef bail, the former Howard government's Immigration Minister revoked his visa so that he could still be held in custody. It all stank of a presumption of guilt, and the case against Dr Haneef seemed so remarkably flimsy that I could not help but feel the Howard government was trying to generate a new controversy along the lines of the MV Tampa and "children overboard" in an election year in a desperate bid to hold on to power. Well, guess what happened. It has been reported that the Federal Court has found the former Immigration Minister was wrong to revoke Dr Haneef's visa, the new Immigration Minister is not going to appeal the decision, Haneef is free to return to Australia, and his former employer is willing to rehire him. The justice system may take a while, but sometimes it does work. The absence of Howard and his incompetent and fearmongering cronies helps, too. This country really does feel better now that Rudd is the Prime Minister. It's wonderful. Link 14 comments|Leave a comment

[12 December 2007|09:27 pm] [ Tags | asylum seekers, australia, australian politics, immigration, john howard, kevin rudd, nauru, politics ] [ Current Music | 'Quiet' by This Will Destroy You ] It's early days yet, but the new Rudd Labour government is doing me proud. A start has been made on dismantling the institutionalised latent racism of the John Howard era. In response to the MV Tampa affair, Howard & Co. established their morally repulsive "Pacific Solution". Thousands of islands which were formerly in Australia's migration zone were removed, and asylum seekers who land there or are otherwise intercepted prior to reaching the Australian mainland have no right to apply for an Australian visa. The government even tried to do this retroactively to some territories after asylum seekers landed there. So what happened to these people? They were transported to processing facilities also located outside Australia's migration zone to have their applications for refugee status assessed, most notably to the effectively bankrupt island country of Nauru in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. In other words, the Australian government deliberately sought to reduce the rights of and their responsibility to some of the planet's most vulnerable and desperate people. After all, to quote (possibly paraphrase) Howard, "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come here", and it's not hard to guess who Howard and his cronies decided they wanted to let in after one government minister incorrectly asserted that African migrants are more prone to criminal activity. You better believe that if there were white refugees from a civil war in New Zealand or a repressive theocracy in the US or widespread "dirty" terrorism in the UK, they wouldn't be sent to languish for up to three years in Nauru. As you would expect, this policy was an absolute failure. Acording to an August 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Pacific Solution cost Australian taxpayers a cool billion dollars over a five year period, and the cost of processing asylum seekers offshore was seven times that of processing them in Australia. Money that could have been spent on improving healthcare and educational facilities with better equipment and higher wages was burnt on blatant deprivation of rights. Money that could have been spent on urgent infrastructural upgrades to boost capacity on rail and lower pollution by transferring freight to environmentally friendly trains was burnt on a pathetic attempt to demonstrate the government's muscle to the right wing. The Howard government tried to pretend to Australians that it was the best option for economic growth and strongest on security. In reality, it pursued an option that was economically daft, stripped thousands of people of the security of law, and even failed to achieve its desired outcoming in reducing how many people are seeking asylum in Australia. Thank goodness these foolish xenophobes are gone. Problem is, the ramifications of the Pacific Solution will last years. I am not referring to Australia's tarnished image on human rights or whether Rudd will restore the former boundaries of Australia's migration zone, though those are significant issues. I'm referring to poor Nauru. Once a wealthy Pacific island state, it is a lesson in why you need to manage your money well and why you should not let large multi-national companies gang-rape your land and take all your resources. Nauru was loaded with phosphate; was. The resources are gone. The island has precious little else to offer. My uncle went to Nauru to help build a new hospital ward (and lost an eye there); I understand that funds ran out and the ward remains unfinished. The place has gone down the economic gurgler. Howard & Co. effectively bribed Nauru to participate in the Pacific Solution; they preyed on Nauru's economic desperation and vulnerability by offering considerable financial aid in exchange for establishing a centre to process illegal immigrants in their territory. Nauru received millions of dollars in exchange for doing so, and in the process has become considerably dependent on the Pacific Solution. Now, with Rudd phasing it out, The Age reports that Nauru fears that it is screwed. That's right; not only did Howard pursue a repugnant policy "solution" in response to asylum seekers, but he also made an entire country dependent on it. Now what will the people of Nauru do? No matter how well Rudd phases out the Pacific Solution and no matter how much financial aid Australia continues to supply, that's simply not going to cut it. It keeps Nauru dependent and on the verge of insolvency if the political or economic winds in Australia shift away from it. Let's hope no more politicians exploit this tiny country for their own gain. I am so genuinely relieved that Howard has gone, and writing this entry really drove that home for me. The Howard government sure enjoyed exploiting the desperate and vulnerable people of this world, both to gather votes ("oh noes illegal immigrants - crime, disease, terrorism!" played well to morons on the right wing) and to accomplish their morally bankrupt schemes ("hey, Nauru, we hear you could use some money ..."). I don't think anybody with a sense of compassion will miss them. Link 4 comments|Leave a comment

[4 December 2007|11:58 pm] [ Tags | australian politics, climate change, internet, kevin rudd, livejournal, new zealand politics, politics ] [ Current Mood | good ] [ Current Music | 'Summer's Envy' by Woods Of Ypres ] Well, for the first time in my entire life, I'm proud of the government of the country in which I live. Kevin Rudd was sworn in as Australian Prime Minister yesterday. His first action? Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. As I was born in 1987, I was far too young to remember the Labour government of David Lange (and in its dying year, Geoffrey Palmer and Mike Moore). In my youth, New Zealand was led by Jim Bolger and the Nationals, who in my youthful political awareness did not appeal to me, and I left New Zealand months before Jenny Shipley took over from Bulger (a woman who repulses me) and over two years before Helen Clark became PM for Labour. While I've been in Australia, the Prime Minister has always been John Howard. Words cannot express my delight to finally have a Prime Minister I actually like. It's going to be interesting to see how Rudd's wave of support lasts. Given the absolute disarray within the Liberal Party, I think it's safe to say we've got a two-term Labour government on our hands. Here's hoping this means more funding for education and public transport. Maybe that Inland Australia Railway will finally happen. In other news, I've noticed my friends list has been rather silent on the matter of LiveJournal's ownership passing from Six Apart to SUP. Meanwhile, the drama on the two news posts (1 and 2) has been beyond hilarious. Watch out, everybody! Dodgy Russian politicians are coming to read your friends-locked entries and use your credit card to buy vodka and AK-47 Kalashnikovs. People, calm down. It's an online blogging service. You might want to consider putting the energy of your righteous indignation and wild paranoia towards a good cause. Or, you know, you could continue to whine incessantly and create all kinds of conspiracy theories about the Russian mafia, Vladimir Putin, and LJ while the genocide in Darfur goes on, Burma remains thoroughly repressed, and millions live in such poverty that they could not even imagine a website like LJ. Now, I'm not going to present myself as a paragon of virtue, someone whose priorities are perfectly straight, but for goodness' sakes, there are bigger things to worry about. I can't say I've noticed much in the way of tangible change since I began using LJ 4.5 years ago, and none of it negative. Ah well, I suppose all this drama provides me with a handy source of amusement. The news posts contain page after page of comedic gold! Link 12 comments|Leave a comment

The aftermath of the Aussie federal election circus hitting town [25 November 2007|12:49 am] [ Tags | 2007 australian federal election, australian politics, politics ] [ Current Mood | pleased ] [ Current Music | 'Wide Open Road' by The Triffids ] It happened. IT HAPPENED! After 11 years of bad government, the Australian people finally summoned up enough common sense to send John Howard packing, and he looks likely to have become only the second sitting Prime Minister after Stanley Bruce in 1929 to lose his own seat! Labour, who began today with 60 lower house seats, gained the 16 required to form a majority and look set to come out of the election with 86. This time last year, Luke and I talked about how much we liked Kevin Rudd and how we wished he led this country. A couple of weeks later, he was leader of the Labour Party. And now? Kevin Rudd is the 26th Prime Minister of Australia! Abso-fucking-lutely fan-bloody-tastic. Even more delightfully, the Greens were the only party of any significance besides Labour to increase their primary vote, by 0.6% nationwide (this despite strong demographic overlap with Labour supporters!), and achieved the best result of an Australian third party ever. Their nationwide vote is actually higher than the junior Coalition partner of the Liberals, the Nationals (but as the Nationals vote is concentrated in rural areas, they are able to win some seats). The Greens look set to have multiple Senators, including leader Bob Brown, who was resoundingly returned to the Senate as a representative for Tasmania. In the House of Representatives, they polled very strongly in some areas, including the central Melbourne seat where they look probable to come second, behind the Labour candidate and ahead of the Liberal candidate. In my own district of Wills, David Collis, who I quite like, performed sensationally despite Labour's Kelvin Thomson's resounding win, and I hope he stands again. If I may be optimistic for a moment, we may soon have the Greens in the lower as well as the upper house. We had a false start with the Democrats as a viable and successful third party, but I think the Greens are looking strong and cohesive and have a very bright future. The losers? John Howard looked like he was about to cry during his concession of defeat. Mal Brough is gone - I actually didn't mind him as much as some of the other Liberals, but his intervention in the Northern Territory was nauseating and I lost all respect for him over that. The Liberals in general have had their arses so roundly kicked in recent state and federal elections that Brisbane's mayor, Campbell Newman, is actually the highest ranking Liberal officeholder in the country! Speaking of parties receiving kicks in the arse, the Democrats have plunged into electoral oblivion and have surely entered a void from which they will not return. Their vote was bad, embarrassingly bad, worse than Family First, worse than even the Christian Democratic Party, and they now have nobody at all in either house of parliament. Family First - Fundies First - had a bit of a decline in their vote, and one can only hope this trend will continue in the future. This is fantastic. The entire decade I've lived in Australia, John Howard has been Prime Minister. He's finally gone. Good riddance, Johnny. All the best to Rudd. Link 17 comments|Leave a comment

[28 August 2007|12:21 pm] [ Tags | australian politics, lunar eclipse, politics ] [ Current Music | 'Pictorial' by Terraces ] Hey, academics! Did you know that if you contribute a single chapter to a collection, you are actually a co-author of the entire book? That's what Australia's Immigration Minister thinks, anyway. Could that guy be any more of a joke? The way he handled the Dr Mohamed Haneef case was and continues to be laughably inept, and now he just looks totally silly. Really, the entire Howard government is a joke. I wish Howard would hurry up and call the election already. I'm picking it will take place on 3 November, the last Saturday before the Reserve Bank meets. Oh, and something more positive for everyone in Australia: make sure you're looking at the sky this evening, because there will be a total lunar eclipse, though those of us in Melbourne may get screwed by clouds. Let's hope not! Link 2 comments|Leave a comment

The election cannot come soon enough [22 August 2007|11:41 pm] [ Tags | australian politics, exclusive brethren, fundies, john howard, politics ] [ Current Music | 'Safety In Crosswords' by Look Blue Go Purple ] Fancy a meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia? Step #1: Start a radical fundamentalist cult. John Howard will see you now ... I'm sure a similar Muslim group would be under surveillance by ASIO, if not already illegal. Link 2 comments|Leave a comment

Just when you think the Howard government has hit the lowest depths, Johnnie resumes digging ... [21 July 2007|08:39 pm] [ Tags | australian politics, australian television, dr mohamed haneef, politics, sbs ] [ Current Music | 'X' by Bailter Space ] Well, the bandwagon of terrorism hysteria is certainly making great pace these days. I've maintained for a while that it is a complete over-reaction (not to mention a misdirected one) to a threat that borders on non-existent, at least in Australia and New Zealand. You're more likely to die from a goat kicking you in the head. But that doesn't seem to have stopped a huge furore from developing around Dr Mohamed Haneef, an Indian doctor arrested here in Australia due to allegations that he had links to the perpetrators of the attempted bombing of Glasgow airport earlier this month. He was arrested at Brisbane airport before he boarded a flight with a one-way ticket to India - where his wife and ill ten day old baby live. Hm, wonder why he was travelling! What appals me the most is that the whole presumption of innocence seems to have been waived for Haneef. The media has gone into a frenzy about Australia's "terrorist doctor", and I've been shocked by some of the disturbing racist comments that have been made about Indian and Muslim doctors. However, I think the worst example of judging Haneef as guilty has come from the federal government, who revoked his visa on "character grounds" as soon as the courts granted him bail. Now, if we're following legal procedure and assuming that Haneef is innocent until proven guilty, what character grounds are there to revoke his visa now that existed prior to the Glasgow incident? Precisely none. The grounds for revoking his visa depend entirely on him being guilty of some form of terrorist activity. As this has not been established in a court of law, his visa cannot be revoked on such a basis. What's more, if the court handling the case believed that Haneef was not a threat and thus could be released on bail, the government's decision to revoke his visa strikes me as little more than a political stunt that undermines the court's authority. The case against Haneef also seems to be rather flimsy. Now, of course, all the details aren't being made public, but this government's track record means that I don't especially trust them with the truth anyway. What I do know is that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) had to apply multiple times to extend Haneef's detention without charge and only managed to find any grounds at all to formally charge him with a crime after TWELVE DAYS. If this man were the terrorist threat he's being hyped up to be, then he would have been charged a hell of a lot faster - or the AFP are just incredibly incompetent. Though they seem to be bordering on incompetent anyway. The key evidence of Haneef's connection to terror was that his mobile phone SIM card was found at the scene of the attempted bombing in Glasgow - except it later emerged that it was found not in Glasgow, but at his cousin's house in Liverpool. Woops. Furthermore, even if his SIM card had been found at the scene, that makes little difference: when the man left the UK last year, it is only logical that he would give his SIM card to a friend or family member, so that the remaining credit did not go to waste. To claim a connection to terrorism or that he had any responsibility at all for what his cousin did with the SIM card months later strikes me as a flimsy charge at best. But to be perfectly honest, I am hardly surprised. This is the Howard government we're talking about here. Every election, they need to manufacture some form of hysteria. I doubt a person in Australia has forgotten MV Tampa affair or the "children overboard" scandal. This is a party so desperate to cling to power that I would not at all be surprised if it has played a role in Haneef's continued detention. Problem is, it seems this affair is just blowing up in their face. Everyone up to a former Governor-General has a problem with this case, and it really is about time that Australia in general stood up and stopped taking shit from a thoroughly inept government. However, what is quite irritating is that federal Labour is failing to capitalise on this. State Labour, such as Queensland's Premier, are seizing the opportunity to slag off Howard & Co., but federal Labour are doing exactly what has destroyed their credibility in the past - becoming "Liberal lite". I suppose that even with Kevin Rudd in charge, old habits die hard. Come on, federal Labour, make it clear that you are a viable alternative. This country needs it. As a postscript, I must say that I am thoroughly delighted with the shitstorm that is developing around the impending release of John Howard's biography and the statements contained within it. And after one government minister responded to the increasing problem with a simple statement that "shit happens", the headline on SBS's national news was a big "SHIT HAPPENS"! I love Australian television sometimes, I really do. Other times, I really fucking hate it, like tonight where the deciding match of the Bledisloe Cup and Tri-Nations rugby between Australia and New Zealand was broadcast live in Sydney and Brisbane but isn't on for another 2.5 hours here in Melbourne. I'm having a very hard time resisting the urge to look up the score. Link Leave a comment

A second brief letter to an incompetent excuse for a Prime Minister [4 February 2007|11:23 pm] [ Tags | afghanistan, australia, australian politics, david hicks, guantanamo, human rights, incompetence, injustice, john howard, politicians i abhor, united states, war on terror ] [ Current Mood | infuriated ] [ Current Music | 'Epidemic' by Blackfield ] John Howard, Imagine the following scenario. An Australian serving in Afghanistan to aid the Global Spread Of DemocracyTM is captured by the Taliban. They believe he is a threat to their existence and throw him in jail, pending a trial to determine whether he is guilty of criminal conduct. They then hold him in miserable conditions without trial for five whole years, and without charge for the majority of this time. He is treated appallingly during his imprisonment and denied basic legal and human rights, though the Taliban claim otherwise. What do you do, Mr Howard? What do you do? Do you just take the Taliban's word that they're treating him OK and that everything is proceeding as swiftly as possible and he will receive a fair trial? Or do you call bullshit and do everything within your power to secure fair treatment and trial? Yeah, that's pretty much the David Hicks example flipped. I'm using it to make a point. I'm calling you out on being a complete hypocrite, you disgusting little man. You want to know something funny about human rights? The point is that they apply to everyone, including the people you don't like. The point is that you don't allow Australian citizens to be thrown in a miserable jail for five years without trial, even if the jailor is supposedly our ally. The point is that it's fucking inhumane to lock someone up for five years with the barest of contact with the outside world when they haven't even been put on trial, let alone found guilty of anything! The point is that you don't fucking do that, you don't! Especially not when this US government has been proven time and time again to be completely incompetent, completely full of shit, completely untrustworthy, and completely unconcerned with upholding international law or the Geneva Conventions or basic human rights when it isn't convenient for them to do so! David Hicks is a citizen of the country you were elected to lead, Mr Howard. He has been mistreated and denied basic human rights by a country deemed to be our ally. What are you going to do about it, huh? Stop sitting on your hands and stop responding with meaningless blather. If you don't get off your hands, just fucking resign and let someone with a sense of compassion and a modicum of intelligence do the job. Fuck you. Sincerely, Intelligent People of Australia PS If anyone thinks my profanity in this entry is excessive, just imagine if your father was held in miserable conditions without trial by a foreign country for over five years. Bloody hell, the David Hicks issue makes me angry and I think I've remained remarkably composed in this entry. Link 4 comments|Leave a comment

A brief letter to an incompetent excuse for a Prime Minister [3 February 2007|07:44 pm] [ Tags | australia, australian politics, global warming, ignorance, john howard, nuclear power, politicians i abhor, stupidity ] [ Current Mood | irritated ] [ Current Music | 'See No Evil' by Television (heh ...) ] John Howard, Please, stop being such an anti-intellectual. First you had a problem with historians, and now you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la NUCLEAR POWAH la la la I'm not listening la la la NUCLEAR POWAAAAAHHHH!" while ignoring scientific data on global warming? You're an absolute disgrace to this country and thoroughly impossible to take seriously. Sincerely, Intelligent People of Australia PS I am not inherently opposed to nuclear power, I just think it's laughable that John Howard routinely sticks his head in the sand when the issue of global warming comes up, no matter how many scientists present verifiable data and debunk the claims of the crackpots who say things that Mr Howard likes, or when he does bother to somewhat acknowledge the scientists and their data, he just uses the opportunity as a means to push his nuclear power agenda. Link 29 comments|Leave a comment

Labour Party leadership challenge [4 December 2006|12:17 pm] [ Tags | 2007 federal election, australia, australian politics, kevin rudd, kim beazley, labour party, politics ] [ Current Music | 'Walking On The Wind' by Spock's Beard ] For the last couple of years, I have sat on the fence with regards to Australian politics. I despise Liberal Party policies, but Labour has rarely seemed much better - a string of dull, uninspiring leaders and a tendency to appear as a Liberal-lite sometimes. The worst offender of the lot, I feel, is Kim Beazley. I intensely dislike the man and I never would have voted Labour with him as the leader. At least Mark Latham just seemed a bit unsuited to the role and Simon Crean was the amazing man without a personality. However, I am a fan of Kevin Rudd. All this year, whenever Luke and I have been watching the news and Rudd has appeared on screen, we've commented that he should lead Labour and we'd actually vote Labour if he did. He's the kind of intelligent, articulate person we could get behind, some of his comments against Howard government policy have been fantastic, and he apparently dislikes Friedrich Hayek's economic theories (thank goodness, because the last thing the world needs is more economic neoliberalism). Accordingly, when he announced his intention last week to challenge Beazley for leadership of the Labour Party, I was thrilled. The vote took place earlier this morning. And HURRAH! Kevin Rudd won 49-39! This is one of those rare good days in Australian politics. As long as there's no backpedalling or other disaster, I'm pretty sure that I will be voting Labour at the next election. Had Beazley led the party, I've no bloody clue who I would've sided with. Link 9 comments|Leave a comment

navigation [ viewing | most recent entries ]