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 ]

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

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

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

[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

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 ]