Contradiction is balance. [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Axver

[ website | U2-Vertigo-Tour.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 ]

[5 May 2008|01:24 am]
[Tags|, , , ]
[Current Music |'Like Fire To Water' by Orphaned Land]

For the last week or so, the Elisabeth Fritzl case has been all over the news, and for good reason - it's an absolutely stunning and horrifying story. I'm sure most of you are familiar with it already, but the gist of it is that Austrian Elisabeth Fritzl was imprisoned in a cellar by her father, Josef, at the age of 18 and held there for 24 years before being freed in April. During this time, her father repeatedly raped her and she gave birth to seven of his children; one died not long after childbirth, three were adopted by Elisabeth's parents, and three grew up in the cellar with Elisabeth. Elisabeth's mother Rosemarie was apparently unaware of this the entire time.

It's an unbelieveable story and the media's been having a field day. I've followed it on SBS and online, so I think I've missed the worst of the commercial TV and tabloid media's tasteless and voyeuristic attitude of "let's pry into absolutely every gory detail under a thin veneer of 'news'!" What I have come away with is a sense that there is a lot more to this story than has been released to the media, as parts of it simply don't make any sense.

Most conspicuous to me is the role of Elisabeth's mother in all of this. Elisabeth disappeared in late August 1984; in September, a note appeared from her telling her parents and police to stop looking for her. And what, this was apparently enough to satisfy Rosemarie? "Oh no, my daughter's run away. Well, let's just call off everything and move on with our lives." No mother's going to do that. Then there are the three children that Elisabeth supposedly abandoned to her parents. Either her mother is an astonishingly stupid and/or cold person, or there's something more going on here. I also wonder how the authorities were satisfied to give up any search for Elisabeth and legally allowed Josef to adopt three of Elisabeth's children despite her disappearance. It seems Josef was adept at twisting red tape, but there's a spectacular failure by somebody here, surely.

Rosemarie also must be one of the most stunningly oblivious people on the planet. Four individuals are pretty hard to hide. Josef clearly had to provide for them, yet somehow managed to hide all of this activity and expenditure from Rosemarie? For 24 years? What exactly was she doing all this time? I mean, there's her daughter in her cellar, giving birth to seven kids, living with three of them, and somehow she notices absolutely nothing to indicate that things aren't right? Providing food and other necessary provisions for four people isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world to obscure. It is perhaps understandable that other people in the town didn't notice anything, as Josef was clearly rather good at spinning stories, but after 24 years, you would think that Rosemarie might have been alerted to some signs regarding her daughter's fate.

Now, Josef doesn't seem like the most exemplary chap, so a plausible argument could be made that possibly he kept Rosemarie in check with violence and abuse (not that I have seen any evidence to support such an assertion). But she was a free individual, with access to hotlines and the police. Even if she feared her husband, you would think that in an exceptional case like this, if she noticed the signs and suspected her husband was holding her daughter prisoner, she would contact the police to save her daughter. It's one thing to fear reprisals in an attempt to save yourself; it is quite another when your own child is in danger.

There's just something not told here. It's early days and early details. As I suppose this entry demonstrates, it is really bloody hard to know what to think, or what to make of this. The case is just so extraordinary that it seems to me there must be more to it than the little story we know already. I guess it's too neat. If one thing is clear, though, it's this: Josef Fritzl is a candidate for the title of "worst person on the planet". What a nauseating waste of oxygen.
Link5 comments|Leave a comment

[4 January 2008|08:42 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]
[Current Mood | discontent]
[Current Music |'The Genuine Pulse' by Borknagar]

You know what I hate? Drama. Stupid, petty, pointless drama. I have an extremely low tolerance for bullshit. I am extremely frustrated by the complete bollocks that sometimes intrudes on my life. Some people may thrive on being irrational and difficult and take pleasure from the ensuing nonsense, but that's their failing, not mine.

Speaking of people having bullshit thrust upon them, I feel rather sorry for David Hicks. He gets out of Guantanamo Bay, he gets released from Australian detention, and he walks into the invisible cage erected by the media. Now, I'm not willing to take sides on Hicks's guilt - the man was held in the most reprehensible conditions and I think it is more than reasonable to suggest he pled guilty to materially supporting terrorism simply to get out. Certainly without a fair and open trial before a jury of his peers, I am not going to accept Hicks's guilt or presume that he was simply a naive innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time.

However, I am more than willing to take a side on the post-release media circus. The media are acting like a pack of ravenous dogs with no respect for anyone else. This article in The Age struck me as very disappointing. The guy must be extremely psychologically damaged by his time in Guantanamo; no wonder he won't take questions and is apprehensive about being seen in public! The man's gone through a very traumatic experience and the process of re-adjustment to normal life will hardly be a picnic for him either, and the media vultures surely are not helping that at all. It seems like even the most respectable media outlets have questionable moral scruples. There isn't even really a story here! Hicks is free and trying to return to normality, and in no condition to answer any questions; go chase some worthwhile news that matters.

Bah, people. And some folk wonder why I like to say "the biggest problem with humanity is people"?
Link11 comments|Leave a comment

The worthlessness of the "War on Terror" label [29 December 2007|11:37 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]
[Current Music |'Carry The Zero' by Built To Spill]

Has the UK abandoned the "War on Terror" label? I'd dearly like some confirmation or denial on the matter, because I think such a move would be rather significant, and in a most positive manner.

You see, someone posted a thread on Interference with the news that the British government has officially ceased to use the "War on Terror" label, but I must admit to receiving this news with skepticism. Their source is this Military.com article from yesterday, citing an announcement apparently made by the UK's Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, on the 27th of this month. Now, I don't know much about Military.com, except that people who post there fairly regularly appear in the Fundies/Racists/Conspiracy Theorists Say The Darndest Things admission moderation queue, and the URL is an indication that this is a place probably slanted in certain directions (which you can take how you will). So, rightly or wrongly, I went into it with the intention of scrutinising things a bit more closely than I might've if this had been from some other news source. And what do I spot first? The source is the Daily Mail. The fucking Daily Mail! One of the most pathetic excuses for journalism on the planet. The odds of the Daily Mail printing the facts are worse than me winning the Melbourne Cup next year - and I am neither a horse nor do I own one!

So I did a bit of Googling, and to what amounted to a bit less than surprise, I failed to find any reports substantiating the article. I expected an announcement like this to be big news, but unless my Google powers are truly woeful, there are no other outlets carrying this as a story. However, this does seem to be based on some truth - some old news from January this year. An article from The Guardian and one from the BBC report that Macdonald challenged the British government's use of "War on Terror" rhetoric around 23 January 2007. This was his own personal view, not an official policy change, and displays some welcome common sense. What's quite noteworthy in getting to the bottom of the Military.com article is that the phrasing in the Guardian and BBC articles is essentially identical. Compare. Quoth Macdonald in the Guardian: "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this." Purportedly quoth Macdonald on Military.com: London is not a battlefield, he said. "The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers," Macdonald said. "They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way." In both instances, Macdonald is also quoted as stating the terrorists belong to a "death cult". Now, politicians have been known to reuse phrases, but the similarities are striking and I would certainly appreciate some reports from other sources before I drop my skepticism towards Military.com's report.

This is one of those items of news that I would dearly love to be true. The language used to frame an issue in the public perception is absolutely crucial. Can you imagine the pro-choice movement having any success if it were known as anti-life? This sort of stuff matters and a simple word choice can make a massive difference. A "War on Terror" is analytically dangerous, as it overlooks nuances and demonises the other side; one is little concerned with the context or claims of the "other" in a war. After all, they're your enemy, and you need to beat them; you don't simply need to take them to court and follow due legal process, as you need to destroy them and achieve victory. They are not simply a criminal threat who can strike at civilians within the state, but an enemy of you, your neighbour, and your entire country. A "War on Terror" is politically dangerous, at least for ordinary citizens, as it is a war that can never be won. Terrorists do not constitute a regular army, they do not share aims, they do not share methods; they share precious little, and even what constitutes terrorism is open to extensive academic and popular debate. A "War on Terror" can, in the wrong hands, gain disturbingly Orwellian overtones. A "War on Terror" fundamentally fails to counter the threat it aims to counter, as it tries to fight fire with fire rather than throwing water on the root cause to extinguish it. A "War on Terror" is a ridiculous over-reaction to a minor threat; in 2001, over fourteen times the amount of people who died in the 11 September attacks were killed on US roads, but I sure don't see Bush waging a "War on Bad Driving". You are more likely to die from falling down the stairs in your house than you are from a terrorist attack.

"War on Terror", at the end of the day, is a useless label that serves to arouse patriotic and even nationalistic tendencies in the aim of political opportunism; it obscures the nuances, it is not helpful in meaningfully eradicating terrorism's root causes, and it should be discarded as soon as possible. Macdonald is dead right; these people are common criminals and should be treated as such.
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

It's just a trick of the light ... [25 September 2007|11:27 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]
[Current Music |'Don't Fall' by The Chameleons]

I haven't posted in too long, and now [info]screendoor3 is insisting I should. I suppose I do need to put some stuff into words, but articulating it is the hard part. That's why I haven't written much. What do I say? How do I say it? There are so many tensions in my mind, no resolution ... every search for a resolution leads to new tensions. There's too much frustration in those tensions, frustrations with the world and with myself and with the complete lack of any real answers or happiness. A couple of people whose opinions I take seriously say I might be depressed. I don't think so. I think I just grew up and became a cynic because I realised that what life looks like from when you're seven is completely at odds with our worthless fucking reality.

It's all so horrible, whether you take a shallow or deep perspective. Look at the news. The shallow news media lately have reported on a depressing murder and child abandonment story that makes for sensational headlines; the breakdown of a famous marriage in Aussie sport and harassed the parties involved just to rub in how unpleasant it must be; and the usual political mudslinging that focuses not on policy but scandalous soundbytes and hollow promises. Then the more serious news media is a brutal dose of reality - unprecedented protests in Burma that are sure to end in a tragically harsh military crackdown; horrific flooding in sub-Saharan Africa; inaction on climate change because some people seem incapable of reading data or co-operating; and, as usual, the Middle East, from semi-anarchy in Iraq to increasing tensions in the delicately balanced Lebanese political system to women's (lack of) rights in Saudi Arabia. It's just so miserable.

And we sit in our cosy Western cuccoon and think nothing's in a hurry to change, we haven't personally been affected. It's all stuff that happens to other people. I'd like to see a change in the world, but it's all idealistic nonsense and nothing will ever happen. Well, something will, but I doubt it'll be positive. It might be an improvement, but that's a very relative thing, you know. I'm wondering when the next great paradigm shift in international organisation will happen. A lot of us think the territorial state system has lasted forever, but it really hasn't, it's a very new, European invention with origins in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. We need a world system beyond borders. Borders enforce the "other people" thing. Other people living in other countries on the periphery, and we don't notice them, or when their existence is raised, we don't care because they aren't one of "us". I hate it when people say we need to worry about our own country before doing anything for people being oppressed. It just makes me think of "well, yeah, it'd be nice to end racial discrimination and do something for those impoverished blacks, but we need to worry about us whites first". It's just a new form of discrimination, a more politically acceptable form due to our current international organisation that privileges state sovereignty. I cannot help but think of a British editorial from the 1930s that stated, and I paraphrase, "what Germans do to other Germans is none of our concern". And International Relations realism, with its emphasis on sovereignty, just furthers that sort of rubbish. We won't see much improvement in the world if we continue to see borders as something more than arbitrary lines on a map.

I'm dodging the issues. I'm not getting to the point. Instead of putting things into words, I'm taking every opportunity to deviate, to talk about the news and politics and history. I'm passionate about those topics, but I don't have to confront my innermost ... somethings. Fears, not really. Worries, that's not right either. Who knows. But it's all so dismal, you know? I feel like I've lost or I'm losing my religion. Sometimes I experience something that feels real, but only briefly and only rarely. Intellectually, I'm agnostic in a Christian tradition, I know religion's largely a sham and I don't believe in any kind of personal deity; sometimes I think no intelligent person with a sincere devotion to truth and knowledge really would in this day and age when we can disprove just about every claim of organised religion to anybody willing to wrench themselves from the suffocating clutches of cultural tradition. But on ... some other level, I feel something occasionally and used to draw a lot of very deep comfort and a feeling of, perhaps, love or contentment. I'm sure it was just a nice chemical release in the brain, and it'd be a huge fucking letdown if that's all life really is, but it damn well meant something and I'd like some more of it. It's certainly hard to reconstruct a purpose. I wish I hadn't picked up a religion at that crucial formative moment in my teenage years when I was finding my place in the world, because now that religion has been intellectually smashed to pieces, I'm struggling to fill a void. Religion is bad for children, folks. Let them find God once they've found their place in the world first; if they do the reverse and then lose God, they lose their place in the world and finding a new one is much harder.

Ha, I did it again. I started to get to the point and then I went off on a tangent. I've wasted enough of your time today, whether it's actually reading this or just scrolling a wee way past it. Have a good one.
Link10 comments|Leave a comment

[6 August 2007|10:20 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]
[Current Music |'Even Less' by Porcupine Tree]

Are there depths to which current affairs shows will not stoop? An ad on TV for a recent episode of Australian current affairs show Today Tonight: "for the first time, Asian immigration [to Australia] has overtaken European immigration, creating a country within a country. What does this mean for future generations? Plus, the call to stop the flow." Oh NO. There are people who look DIFFERENT to us. They live in FAMILIES and sometimes have FRIENDS who also look different to us! And they sometimes like to indulge in their own CULTURE! HOW DARE THEY. Cue shock, indignation, and excessive emphasis NOW.

Sarcasm aside, what annoys me most about the reporting some of the mainstream media does is that it creates the impression that these immigrant communities isolate themselves from the rest of the community, hate Australian culture, and are generally violent or undesirable in some way. Personally, the Asian immigrants I know are often better integrated into Australian society than some of my fellow migrants from New Zealand to Australia! And every community has its bad eggs, but to use them as reflective of the whole is dishonest. There is also a total failure to consider how some immigrants may feel marginalised from and outside of the mainstream culture here. Creating hype about a "country within a country" just serves to further isolate people. It does nobody any good.

Honestly, I've been surprised by the racism and discrimination I've seen expressed lately. I'd gone a good while without encountering much at all around me; I suppose I'm pretty lucky really, not being a target myself and being surrounded by people who generally don't stoop to that sort of bullshit about anyone. Then I went to New Zealand and heard all kinds of derogatory comments - even from my own family - such as remarks about "slant eyed" Asians at Live Earth. And when I came back home, the whole Dr Mohamed Haneef saga had exploded and now we're apparently meant to feel uncomfortable around Indian doctors and refuse to go to any Muslim doctor. Because, you know, Haneef was totally conspiring to kill his patients ... with SIM cards he left in Liverpool, England ... or something like that. I suppose that because it's hopelessly irrational, I shouldn't expect racist sentiment to make any kind of sense.

People can really disgust me sometimes, you know.
Link8 comments|Leave a comment

[3 January 2007|09:08 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]
[Current Music |'Liar On The Mount' by Wolverine]

Some observations on the media. )

Also, if you have seen the mobile phone camera footage of Saddam Hussein's execution, pay close attention and note the chant: "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada". What? Just remember this name: Muqtada al-Sadr. Now, I'm not going to go as far as some I've heard and already jump to the conclusion of "from one dictator to another", but Muqtada al-Sadr has strong influence over a growing portion of the Iraqi Shi'ite populace and I can't say I feel at ease.
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

Worldwide disaster, violence, news coverage, et cetera. [12 October 2005|09:49 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]
[Current Mood | blank]
[Current Music |'Interzone' by Joy Division]

I remember sometime, I believe roughly two years ago, I wrote about how hard it was for me to watch the news because the sorrow and pain in the reports affected me too much. It seems the opposite is now happenning - there's simply so much tragedy in the world that I'm becoming numb to it. When the London bombings happened, I followed the news closely, waiting for updates, but since then, the horrors of the world cease to impact me. It's become horribly everyday. Bombings in Iraq, terrorism in Bali, thousands dead from an earthquake in Asia ... and all I can do is sit around criticising the (sensationalist) coverage of the mainstream media. It's true that the coverage is sometimes horrifically overblown or has a misguided focus, but I used to normally be so stunned by death and violence in any form. I don't know quite what's come over me, but I'm not comfortable with it and hope it's just a passing phase. More importantly, let us all hope for peaceful resolutions to all the conflicts worldwide - it may be an idealistic hope, but the reality we have is completely unacceptable. Sure, we couldn't have stopped natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the recent Asian quake, but the Darfur genocide, worldwide terrorism, and civil wars are more than just preventable. It's a sad commentary on the world when you see how so many people think violence rather than sensible and reasonable dialogue is the solution to problems.

Hasn't anyone figured out that harming and killing people just makes a problem worse? How many thousand years have humans been on this planet? Geez. We are slow learners.
Link30 comments|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]