Stop Listening to Politician Promises

In light of the last five years, I think it's time we simply stop listening to politicians' promises. The old joke, "How do you know a politician's lying? Their lips are moving," has been trite for a while, but after the countless lies on both sides of Parliament maybe it's time to view politics in a different way.

If you judged your politicians based on the promises and policies they made when going to an election, more than likely you would be disappointed with the results once those politicians got into office. I suggest a very simple way to alleviate the frustration and disappointment. Simply ignore all promises and policy. Look instead to past performance. Evaluate an entire party and disregard the words and actions of the leader and the individuals. Simply look at the way a party is perceived and make your assumptions about how they will handle any issue based on how they handled similar issues in the past.

If you hoped there would be no carbon pricing and you believed the promise Julia Gillard made about the issue, you would have been disappointed by the resulting carbon policies of the Labor government. Instead, if you had a ignored any such promises, and instead viewed the party as a group, you would have seen that on the whole they are pro policies that instigate carbon pricing. You would not have been disappointed by the resulting moves of the Labor Party to price carbon.

Similarly, if you listened to Tony Abbott promising that the Gonski reforms would remain as they were before taking office, then of course you would be disappointed by the resulting turn around they have made in the last three months. Instead, if you had ignored any of their promises and looked at the past of the party, you would see that they often have a preference for dividing funding and controlling it in a manner exactly like what Christopher Pyne is doing now.

So next election why don't we all try something new? Why don't we all just ignore what the parties say and look at how they have performed. Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, you are sure to avoid the disappointment and frustration that has come from listening to politicians' promises. Instead, when a politician does something you don't like, you'll say, "Of course they did that! They were always going to do that! I never expected them to do anything else but that!"

Together we can fight the draining frustration and disappointment of politics. Together we can stop that tired old joke from being relevant.

Alternate Reality AusPol

In science fiction, there is a story element featuring an aberration in a greater force – space/time continuum, the force, fate. An event occurs that throws the natural order of things out of whack, and for the duration of the story, everything goes weird. The Russians won the Cold War, Earth was enslaved by aliens, mum and dad never got together. The hero, trapped in this strange, recurring aberration, spends his or her time trying to rectify the tear or warp or magical twitch, and in the end, everything slurps back down a vortex of time and reverts back to normal, with none but the hero any the wiser.

If Kevin Rudd wins this next ballot and returns to Labor leadership, and then his party is defeated, there’s a nice symmetry that would, in a science fiction plot, be the perfect plot device that brings everything slurping back to the way things were.

Rudd was heading to a Labor loss when Julia Gillard stepped in. The following election cycle, with its hung parliament, the constant battle between Rudd and Gillard and the invisible but omnipresent opposition leader were all so bizarre, the years felt like that warp, that tear, that divergent timeline where everything was wrong.

I hope Rudd wins the ballot, because then he’ll lose the election he was meant to lose, and all in the Labor party will be razed, torn out, slurped away as that ‘shadow universe’ and Australian politics, maybe, will return to a more regular, comfortable, predictable, forward moving world.

Only we’ll all know, and there were no heroes.

Two New Articles Online, Both Medical

I had two articles on national online publications in December. Both are about medical/disability issues. One's meant to be funny, one's serious. Enjoy, cud-chuckers!

The Funny One:

NDIS bill introduced, man buys a Mazda 6
http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2012/12/13/3653645.htm

The Serious One:

A horde of untrained doctors is no good for our health

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-hoard-of-untrained-doctors-is-no-good-for-our-health/

Public Apology for Not Apologising

I was drowned out amidst the Alan Jones/Julia Gillard's dad affair, so this one didn't make the cycle in time for The Punch. I liked it, and I'm sure its subject matter will become relevant again all too soon, so here you go.

---

Chinese artist Chen Wenling, credits: Ng Han Guan/AP

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here today. I know you were on your weekend. I myself had to cancel my trip overseas and rush back to make this press conference. I may have been constantly tweeting on the plane, and taking phone calls with radio stations and TV shows to fill as much air as I could with my precious voice, but I'm glad you could all make it today so I only have to say this once.

It's time to set the record straight.

Last week, I was at a dinner function where I gave a speech. I was invited there by a group of people I hardly know, just a group of students who, for some reason, wanted to hear what I have to say. Yes, I did receive a direct email from their President, whose signature, in hindsight, said he was leader of the Young Communists, but before you reminded me, I had no recollection of that memory.

While at this event, I spoke about the direction of talkback radio and political discourse, and it's alleged I made comments that might offend a person of weak constitution, particular if that person is who I specifically made the comments about. Now I'm not going to give in to speculation about what was and what wasn't recorded, and what was and wasn't publicly released on the record, except to say that any offensive statements I may have made were not supposed to be recorded or public. And the fact that they were made public, I think, is a clear indication of the dangers we're being exposed to in this day and age.

I mean, look, if I'm expected to watch what I say when I go into a public forum, well, I wouldn't be able to say anything, would I? If I'm not allowed to make someone feel awful and really offend them - and this is someone who gets offended, mind you - then what's the point of speaking?

I point out that this person gets offended not because I think it's weak and useless, but simply because I've never been offended in my life. I'm not questioning this person's choice to be offended, I'm just wondering if maybe choosing to be not offended is the better option. Certainly it would make people like me, it would make our lives easier.

In summary, I need to make it clear I never really made those comments to offend anyone, so of course they can't be considered offensive, and so really, it's like they don't exist. And anyone who was offended by them is clearly an idiot and a person of such low integrity, I'd suggest they're more akin to a slime mould than an actual human being. But that's just my opinion, and I'm paid to give my opinion, so I'm sure any sponsors out there will continue to support me as I root out slime moulds in our society. That's my job, and that's what I'll keep doing. Not offending anyone with comments that never existed because if they didn't offend someone, how could I have made them?

Thank you, I hope this has clarified the issue, and I'll be taking questions from you after I leave.

---

When Simon J. Green isn't offering arch support for the feet inside commentator's mouths, he's producing videos for The X Gene and ruining his own reputation at The Awesome Report.

What's Wrong With Another Herald Sun

There's a difference between a newspaper and a tabloid, and there's a reason critics need to point out which is which.

Traditionally, a newspaper recorded the news in an objective way, seeking to offer only the facts, or when the facts were in dispute, offer an even coverage of both sides. This ensured that the public were as informed as they could be in order to make their own judgements. The original intention of newspapers were to keep the populace knowledgeable. More educated, knowledgable populations should be more effective and enlightened members of society.

Tabloids were formed to take on a more sensationalist approach to news. Most often, the focus is less on events and more on people, forming or reinforcing the notion of celebrity. The tabloid's goal is to make money by providing salacious details that feed the population's desire for the darker sides of people in the spotlight. In order to build up fervour in the readership, and as a result of the owners of these tabloids often exerting their influence over the readership, strong, one-sided opinion is used to sway the reader in a single direction.

One style of reporting seeks to lift the level of our knowledge and understanding, preferring truth as pure as possible; the other maintains base understanding and prefers falsities if they support a favourable outcome for the owner.

I give this basic explanation because I worry that enough people don't necessarily know the difference. The apparent most-read newspaper in Australia is the Herald Sun. They say they are a newspaper. It's more often alleged they are a tabloid. To confuse the two is dangerous, especially if you value truth (or if you don't want to be accused of being intelligent, as seems to be a genuine desire). This is the front page of the Herald Sun from a few days back. Which do you think it is?:

An Auto-Eligible Health Care Card For Chronic Illness Is Crucial

$422.15. That's how much the bill for my last batch of medicines is. I opened a box delivered to me today and yelled when I saw the price. This is for three months worth of medication, and doesn't even cover all the medication I take over that period. If we added them all, including my pancreatic ezyme supplement Creon (I use about 18 tubs in a month) and Pulmozyme, a gene therapy treatment, we'd be at about $1000 every three months. $4000 a year. $108,000 over the course of my life so far.

With a health care card, currently supplied at bare minimum via a mobility allowance ($80 per fortnight) from Centrelink, that $422.15 would become about $50. I can afford $50.

We need Centrelink to create or change their rules so that certain chronic illnesses are automatically eligible for a health card card. Currently, you must be approved for a certain allowance or benefit - a cash payment - in order to get the card. Centrelink, or the Dept of Human Services, are constantly changing their rules to become more confusing, but last I looked into it, there's no way to simply get a health care card on its own.

Here's the dumb bit. Say you have CF or Down's Syndrome. Your illness isn't going anywhere. You have it for life. However, every year, you'll be sent a fairly exhaustive, 20 or so page form that asks you, essentially, to confirm you still have your illness.

"Yes, I still have my genetic mutation, the one I had at birth, of which there is no cure."

If you don't get that form in on time? Suspended. Payments cut off. Pharmacy no longer recognises your health care card. Miss the next 14 day deadline? Cancelled. You have to start again. Do you think Centrelink can just dip into your existing file, see the past form that state you have CF or Down's and say, "Oh, right, well, let's reinstate him?" NOPE! You have to tell them the same info all over again!

Without going into my suspicions that Centrelink's ethos is to establish a series of impediments, designed to frustrate claimants in a war of attrition, here's what we can do to fix it:
http://goo.gl/gLQjT - A GetUp campaign suggestion from Samantha Durrant (CF patient and receiver of double lung transplant), titled
'EVERYONE WHO HAS A CHRONIC ILLNESS SHOULD HAVE A HEALTH CARE CARD'.

Go on in and vote for this to move up the chain. You can do it via your Facebook or Google account. Write to your member for Health and Caring. As I commented on the site:

I have cystic fibrosis. I was born with it, I'll have it until I die. WIthout a healthcare card i would be looking at about $1000 every three months for my ongoing drugs. I can't have saved up for this "rainy day" because I wasn't born yet. Similarly, my parents couldn't have saved up, as they'd have had to have saved $108,000 so far, just for my meds. This doesn't cover 3 monthly specialist check ups, surgery (I've had 7 on my bowels alone), equipment and the various other joys of a chronic illness.
The current system is ridiculous. Centrelink are constantly throwing up roadblocks that result in recurrent reviews and changes, the ability to keep up with which would require superhuman bodyparts, not just a regularly working body. For certain diseases and illnesses that the sufferer will have to tend to for their entire lives, it just makes sense that they should be given a simple health care card, even if it is without any sort of money or stipend, just to keep the costs of living manageable.
When Cystic Fibrosis Victoria can't afford to keep essential services running, as is the case right now, then who else can we turn to when the broken health car card system is constantly waging a war of attrition against those who need a card.

First Article on The Punch Hits 300 Comments

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/I-might-be-an-elite-tosser-but-at-least-I-can-spell/

Lots of people seem to think I'm an absolutely terrible writer, but there are also some out there who think this is pretty damn funny.

See what you think, then viciously assault me!

The Budget for the Poor Middle Class

A quick examination of the Herald Sun's coverage of the budget, because I'm not sure if kids are being taught about bias in school.

Here's the front page:


Let's start with the agenda. The Herald Sun generally don't like the Labor party, or perhaps prefer the Liberal party (I purposely did not say the Coalition). You can find evidence of this when you look at their coverage of past budgets under Howard and Costello, when Costello would be posed as a Superman of finance, literally shown wearing blue and red tights and cape.

The paper's aim is to make you dislike Labor's budget. The headline clearly sets out the mission statement, evoking 'unfairness' by reducing the entire budget into a snappy one-liner. After that, you might notice the brightly colored graphic:


What the hell does this have to do with anything, you might ask? Admiral Akbar would reply, "It's a trap!" The idea is to ask a question that most of us will answer, 'of course not!' to, warming up our blood because it's all so unfair. You'll notice they don't specify what rich might be, allowing our imaginations to form images of besuited CEOs and stuffy snobs in manors, sliding down money piles: the horrible moneybags we love to hate. Compared to 'the rich', a $150k family seems normal, regular, just like us.

From there, it's a full assault on the budget in relation to this $150k family. The paper shows only the downsides, costs and losses, none of the benefits like the car write off for tradies or small business owners. They run stories about struggling, suffering and scrimping families, but nothing about lower wage earners, students, pensioners or childless families. They unleash Miranda Devine from the opinion page.





Finally, they wrap up their coverage with a bookend graphic, this time showing overwhelmingly that YOU won't be better off with this budget. Never mind that they have no idea who you are, and that the voters in the poll make up only a small subsection of the populous who read the Herald Sun and are thus inclined to agree with it in the first place. (Note: below is the online version, which varies slightly from the print version above)


By now, we've been shown enough of an attack on this $150k family, the family that compared to the Monopoly guy, is full of saints and battlers, seemingly being ravaged by an unfair budget. The stuff the Herald Sun doesn't run keeps us from seeing the bigger picture. The budget affects THE NATION, not just one demographic slice of the population. The Herald Sun are trying to manipulate you, dear reader, by showing you the side of the story that benefits the paper the most. Their readers are generally this $150k family. Their owners prefer pro-business, conservative governments and consumers. Whether you agree with the budget or not, remember to look at the whole picture, not just one side's framing, before you judge.

Disability, Carers and The Good Fight

I didn't realise there's antagonism between carers and the disabled, at least politically. That seems silly to me. Counter-productive. Shouldn't we be on the same side? In such a difficult section of activism, where our opponents to reform consider us drains on society, how does factionalism help? Without a united front, we crumble.

The Internet has been buzzing like a vuvuzela these past few days, with the NDIS, disability, carers and Centrelink being bandied about and debated by all-comers. It's great to see so much interest in we poor crippies and our loved ones, but if talk is the only thing to come of it, then what good? Stay a team!

Here are some links:

Right Royally Pissed Off | bit.ly/evpHZA | @heikefabig 's response to @toddocracy 's column in The Punch yesterday, via @AngryOzCripple

I’m not a dole bludger, I just want to work by @Carl Thompson | bit.ly/gUkMS6 via @AngryOzCripple

Carers: Step off and let people with disabilities speak | http://bit.ly/gMDVnS | Todd Winther's now infamous article

Dear Tony, Let Me Tell You About My Disability | http://bit.ly/f8OV1t | via Stella Young

Flood Levy Supported By Gen Y & X

“@MissBaileyWoof: Newspoll on flood levy. Voters back Gillard tax. Support 55 Oppose 41. Strongest support among 18-34s, most against are over 50s.”

All this generational bullshit saying generation Y aren't responsible and that we're selfish and lazy...yet here we have older people deciding they'd rather not give their money to flood rebuilding. Is it because they have more money to lose? Who cares? The generational wedge is rubbish and crap. But the next person who writes an article about it can use these figures to arm themselves one way or another.

Stephen Fry's Comments About Cottaging Are Not Misogyny

All of you STOP! Read the goddamn article that Stephen Fry was originally quoted in. Be somewhat familiar with Stephen Fry. It is completely out of context and verging on vicious lies when all these newspapers and blogs run with a headline like, "Women can't enjoy sex," and use phrases like, "In a bizarre outburst."

What absolute bloody arsehanky. What a slimy, sniveling, under-rock-crawling, straw grasping, pathetic approach to journalism these people are taking.

How on earth can you call an organized interview an outburst? And again, read the bloody article and you'll see there's not a skerrick of misogyny. What a horrid, ludicrous and opportunistic word to throw at someone as consistently compassionate and concerned for human rights as Stephen Fry. Commenters are pointing at that he's old and gay, using that as a reason for his comments, as if he's mentally slipped from syphilis due to his years of buggery. What a horrid way to treat someone. Fry has said numerous times his being gay was a fiery trial that almost ended with him at the end of a rope or choking on his own vomit. He emerged firm on the need to accept people and his liberal mind and pursuits demonstrate a commitment to equality and human rights.

What we're seeing here is a completely overblown and misguided sense of feminism, a vicious mutation of feminism that isn't true to the cause, that seeks to crush men instead of equalize women. It's the sort of feminism you find in a university campus among a group of young women recently scorned by lovers who have thrown their hands in the air angrily and said they've given up on men, but who, ten years later, lose their anger, find the right man (or woman) and buy a labradoodle together, hopefully feeling faintly embarrassed about their overwrought man-hating when they look back at campus life during a nostalgic moment. Worse, it's women who never let go of that anger and look for any possible target to unleash on, never once thinking to have a proper look at the target first.

The comments and articles spewing out in relation to Fry's interview smack of ignorance and off-topic agenda-pushing rants. I remember when a book was released that talked about sex, IVF and homosexuality, aimed at young kids. People decried the book while proudly stating that of course they hadn't actually read it, it's filth and evil. This week's trashy articles read exactly like those squealing fools.

It's not feminism that is happening here. Feminists aren't attacking Stephen Fry for his harmless comments about gay men having much higher and sometimes more kinky sex drives than women. It's people who think they are feminists. People who think that tearing down an old queer who states quite truthfully that there are very few places to find heterosexual cruising lanes or cottages makes them a feminist.

Feminism is about increasing the power of women so they can take their rightful place next to men, not under them. Feminism is about creating a culture that sees humans, not man and woman. It's about breaking barriers: wage barriers, job barriers, rights barriers. It's about changing the minds of men who dismiss women just because they are women. It has nothing to do with a gay men commenting that he thinks gay men like sex more than straight women, in the context of whether or not women use public places for lewd and lascivious acts. Re-read that last sentence and see how ludicrous it sounds to judge a man's entire worldview based on such a light and frivolous topic.

Grog's Blahmut

The chap who is Grog's Gamut knew he ran the risk of being unmasked when he first set up an anonymous blog. If he didn't, he wasn't too bright. The fact that he was unmasked may be unfortunate for him, but I don't see it being in any way unethical. No one has a right to anonymity for no reason. Mr. Gamut knew he was doing something his job disallowed him, but he did it anyway, hiding behind anonymity. That's fine so long as it lasts, but like any superhero or villain, if you run around hiding your identity someone, somewhere will work it out. The longer he ran as anonymous, the greater his chances of being unmasked, especially as his profile rose. Why should he remain anonymous if a media worker discovers him? Since when is the media supposed to ignore a fact when nothing but a person's job is at stake, especially when that job was placed in jeopardy by Mr. Gamut's own actions? If Mr. Gamut really wanted to influence politics, he could've quit his public service job at any time and gotten rid of the need to be anonymous in the first place. The notion he was silenced is silly. He chose to be an anonymous blogger running the risk of being outed. The media have always investigated mysteries and uncovered them to the public. That's what they do.

Unless he was a whistle-blower or in a position where his anonymity was crucial for his or someone else's physical security, he had no rights to anonymity, just like any of the rest of us. The dude played a game and lost. Next.

Golliwogs at Highpoint

Speaking of racists...! I was walking around Highpoint Shopping Centre with my girlfriend, as is our wont,  when we happened upon this piece of astounding ignorance that I had to snap on my phone.

That, my friends, is a display of Golliwogs. Notice that you can buy male or female Golliwogs, and the female Golliwog rounds the whole thing off nicely by dressing like a classic American Mammy. This Mammy is sporting a charming lemon headband instead of the traditional red.

Are these dolls available as part of some sort of exhibit? Oh my no. They're for sale, as any other item would be, in a gift shop called Cardiology.

The display shows a terrifying lack of understanding or even awareness of the racist connotations of these dolls, to the point that they seem to have invented an origin story that Googling reveals has no basis in fact whatsoever. (Click for a bigger, only barely legible resolution)

What's so astounding is that whoever OK'd the sale and display of these dolls is so incredibly ignorant of their horrible relationship with slavery and racism against African Americans. They're so ignorant, in fact, that they make probably the most egregious error of judgement by stringing the dolls up from the ceiling.

In my attempt to find justification for the seemingly made up story they've written on the plaque, I found an Australian website that carries the same baffling ignorance about the racist origins of the Golliwog. Read this link and marvel at how unaware the author is, going so far as to posit that Golliwogs disappeared from children's book because they were "allergic to the newer style of ink." I hope, for their sake and for the sake our genetic stock, that this website is tongue-in-cheek.

My god, look at that photo below. Unbelievable!

Can you imagine if a black American walked past that display? Can you imagine the embarrassment this would cause if he alerted the American media? Couple this with the Hey Hey blackface incident (one that could have been explained away as a one off incident), and we'd be propelled so far back into the dark ages in terms of the world's view of us, the only way out would be to donate our country to the U.S.

I intend to inform the store that it'd be in their best interest to remove these dolls post haste. I wonder what they'll say?

The look on our faces in the reflection is shock and amazement that anyone could be so out of touch. I wonder if anyone will post a rant about how this is political correctness gone mad? If so, in the interest of education as the our saving grace, here are some links that may give a little context.

• blogs.telegraph.co.uk/golliwogs_have_a_godly_origin/
• dailymail.co.uk/How-golliwog-went-innocent-childrens-hero-symbol-bitter-controversy.html
• search?q=black%20stereotypes
• www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conferencepapers07/papers/380.pdf

Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Hello Australians. We have a new Prime Minister, the Honourable Julia Gillard. I stayed late from work this morning to watch the spill carry out. Excitement gripped me through and through. I love change. Whether it's good or bad, I get a thrill watching large scale change. Now, before Mr. Rudd finished his term as Prime Minister, he has been ousted and Julia Gillard is leader.

When I finally left the ABC's rather spotty programming, I went via a servo. Inside, a chap came in and bought a newspaper in front of me. He tapped it and said to the cashier, "It's done. Gillard's PM. We didn't vote for her. Typical Labour." He then left in a huff.

First, good for him for at least being fiery and interested about politics. Second, what the hell does that mean? How many leaders were churned through by the Liberal party prior to this spill? Not to mention that the events of today were unprecedented. Perhaps he was referring to the NSW factional problems that resulted in an unhappy public voting out Mz. Keneally. I doubt that chap had really thought it through, but his comments did make me think.

My girlfriend is similarly inclined in politics, and she tweeted in response to the groupthink of unfairness Liberals are shoving, "I voted for Rudd knowing full well Gillard would take over should he not be able to discharge his duties as PM. She is my elected PM." It's a good point, and well formed.

I'm not fussed by the way in which this leadership turnover was handled. I'm equally unfussed about the Liberal party's several spills. What I think this does highlight is another facet of our political system that I disagree with, and that I think republicanism can resolve.

The way our system stands now, with these sorts of spills allowing our PM to be replaced by internal party votes and not by the vote of the people takes away the full democratic process. It means that really, we are voting for the party, not for the person. There are pros and cons to this. Obviously a party is kept in check, the power diversified and doled out in varying agrees among a group. It also results in slower, less dramatic change. It holds back the ability to really push forward as trail blazers.  I want us to be better, and I think a reformatted system that brings with it more respect for our nation's leader and thus an inability to have a group of factional leaders oust our elected leader in a sanctioned coup is the way to go.

Why is Abbott Accusing Garrett of Murder?

Does anyone else find Mr. Abbott's persistent attention on Peter Garret strange? I'm not sure about it as far as a tactic. He and his party have been relentless over the last few days, demanding Garrett be fired and even attributing responsibility of the four deaths to the Minister. It's a fairly heavy accusation that Abbott has likened to industrial manslaughter, and thus a fairly big swing, yet no one seems to be supporting the claims outside of the party.

The opportunity Abbott might be taking is that a high profile member of the Labor party is vulnerable, and in order to weaken the PM, Abbott is trying to scalp the Government's famously bald Minister for the Enviornment. If Garrett was fired, the far left votes he might bring wouldn't be likely to swing to Liberal, but as far as broader strategy, Abbott would have ammunition to attack the PM closer to election day by running smear campaigns showing a Labor government who mismanaged to the point of death. A party who have to fire their own are a party open to such an attack. We know for certain that Tony Abbott is running a negative campaign, and a bloody scalping can only help as a means to that end.

If this is the strategy, than the seeding tactical stroke is flawed when the Opposition have no support for their claims against Mr. Garrett. The Construction Union (CFMEU) have not only said Garrett shouldn't be fired, but that they are responsible for keeping their workplaces safe. The CFMEU's only criticism in the whole affair is that the scheme under question should be suspended. The Conservation Foundation, who admittedly might be Garrett supporters anyway, have said the scheme should stay active because it saves the equivalent of 1 million cars per year until 2020.

So where are the lobbyists and industry bodies supporting Abbott's cries that the Minister be sacked? Can anyone point them out to me, seriously, in the comments section? If there are none, then why is Abbott harping on about this for so long? It doesn't seem that strong an issue.

UPDATE: Wow. It all comes out! So this is why they made such a big fuss over it -
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/pm-changes-direction-on-climate/story-e6frg6n6-1225834964124
So Mr. Abbott gets his scalp...sort of. KRudd may be trying to dampen the full victory Abbott can claim by only demoting and not sacking, but the papers are all screaming, "SACKED!" anyway, despite then explaining only an inch down that it was a demotion. Garrett steps down from a role and keeps his other two. Are those other two very politically important? Not really. Without the global warming protection part of his folio for the environment, he's farily toothless, the old Oiler. In the end, his real chance to get something done in politics after singing about it for years turns out to be a bit of a non-event. What a waste of credibility, Pete.

Tony Abbott's wiki

REASONS I'LL NEVER VOTE ABBOTT'S WIKI ENTRY AS RULER OF AUSTRALIA
Nothing new here, but thought I'd put it in words...

• Said to be a devout Catholic, he wanted to join the Catholic priesthood, and entered St Patrick's Seminary, Manly.
• Between 1993 and 1994 he was the Executive Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.
• In March 2004 he asked "Why isn't the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy approaching the scale, say, of Aboriginal life expectancy being 20 years less than that of the general community?"
• Abbott and previous Health Ministers had decided not to allow it (RU486) to be made available. Abbott responded to the vote by calling for funding of alternative counselling to pregnant women through church-affiliated groups.
• Abbott opposed allowing the introduction of Embryonic stem cell research or therapeutic cloning in another conscience vote, preferring continued use of Adult stem cells for research into cures for debilitating diseases.
• He has proposed a return to at-fault divorce, similar to the Matrimonial Causes Act, which would require spouses to prove offences like adultery, habitual drunkenness or cruelty before a divorce is granted. 

He's done some pretty good things too, like use the phrase, "shit eating grin" and volunteer for his local fire-fighters. He also, allegedly unethically, attacked The One Nation Party by supplying funds to those litigating against its leaders. But then, he's all for cutting off a route to me getting cured of Cystic Fibrosis. And forcing a woman to prove in court her husband hits her before she can divorce, instead of taking her shit and running. So, you know...never.
Thanks Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

We Win The Commonwealth!

Mr Kevin Rudd emails me when cool shit happens and yesterday afternoon he dropped me an electronic communication to let me know that he beat the ever loving crap out of the other Commonwealth cunts and as a victory, we host the next battle royal on Australian shores in 2011! The blood bath doesn't have a definite location yet, but K-Rudd let slip that the Foreign Minister would tell us where we can park out SUVs to get the best view of smackdown some time today.

I don't know about you, but that PM Keys has been asking for a slap in the chops for a while now, and I can't wait for Killer Kevin to put The Silver Tongued PM Singh on his head PILEDRIVER style. Bring on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Tour 2011.

YeeeeeaaaaaaAAAAAAHHHHHH

Swiss Miss and Bubye Connex

Connex are gone. Ding dong. Lots of people are writing about it in the news today, but one article was simple and thoughtful. Even the pun in the title, a practice I hate, is forgiven because it actually fits in smoothly with the sentiment, instead of the horrendous forced monstrosities usually printed.
'Goodbye Connex, but will the news guys fare better?'
Clay Lucas shows a rare journalistic quality in this article: the ability to write. He uses time tested methods, like introducing a tantalising topic at the beginning that seems at odds with the title, then bringing that around nicely to the issue at hand. He then lays out structured arguments and information to support them and doesn't stray off into areas that lack the relevance of his chosen points. Finally, he pulls it into the station with a reference back to his introduction and the world seems whole. Kudos Clay, kudos.

Also in the news, Switzerland and their super democracy hold a referendum that ushers in the banning of any new minarets being built. This is pretty weird, wouldn't you say? I mean, what the hell is a minaret? It sounds like a move employed by ballet dancers, and no one wants to ban them, ever. Even the Chinese dig a pink tutu. A minaret is a tall tower, usually with a pointy onion top.

They are commonly built along side mosques (the big, wider onion is the mosque) and are a Muslim thing, as far as this story is concerned. My girlfriend pointed out that Russia is littered with these too, and I appreciated her concern for the poor Ruso-Swiss...OK guys. I have to admit something to you right now. It's kind of personal so I don't want you to make a big deal about it, cool? That ellipses you see up there, the three dots? Yeah, well during that ellipses, I actually got sidetracked watching Ask A Ninja interview Will Ferrel and Napoleon Dynamite. From there, well, I got on the YouTube train, had a layover at Facebook central and might have popped over to Coke Street for a couple of giddy minutes. Once I came back here I may have, just a little...well, I lost interest. I'm not proud of it, but there it is.

So, to wrap up, when the calmest, most laid back, neutralist kid in school starts getting nervous and laying into the Muslim kid, you gotta wonder what that Muslim kid did to be so focussed on. Maybe we're all going a little bit nuts? I don't know. That's why I'm not an expert.

Wilmingburg Murder-Suicide a Marriage Indictment

When Jose Wilmingburg held the gun to his head at 8:17am on a Monday morning, he ended the life of a family that by all accounts should have been happy. Jose was a CAT scan technician at his local hospital, where he'd met his partner 25 years ago. Jose married the oncology nurse and the couple raised four beautiful children. The children were average, regular kids. In fact the eldest, Frederico, was a young up-and-comer in his school football team. The coach later spoke to the press, explaining how Jose would drop Rico off at training and stay around to watch, speaking to the coach in order to get the best tips for his son's practice later at home. From Rico to the second youngest were all boys - George and Robert. They all adored their youngest sibling, a two year old girl, Vanessa, and made sure her every waking moment was overseen by one of her brothers. A neighbour joked they treated her as if they were her bodygaurds on rotating shifts.

Their home life was normal and Jose's work at the hospital started for the most admirable of reasons - he simply wanted to help people. Raised by his grandmother and father, Jose saw the effects of degenerative Alzheimer's slowly rob his Nana of her mental faculties, and he vowed to learn how to prevent the same fate from befalling others. His marks at high school and college were modest, but his pleasant attitude got him into the local hospital and under the eye of his supervisor. Mr. Geraldo saw his employee's aptitude for gadgets and encouraged him to join the technician's field. From there, Jose picked his favourite machine, the CAT scan, a device used to pick up irregularities in the brain, and continued working with the machine for 10 years. Jose's workplace was normal.

The only abnormality was his partner, the oncology nurse Maria. Jose was married to a woman.

"I admit, I thought it was odd to say the least, but he's my son, so I supported him 100%." Mr. Jose Wilmingburg Sr is the spitting image of his deceased son, only the ravages of time have tanned and wrinkled his face. He looks at a photo of his son as we compare it with an old photo of himself. "I'd heard the stories from town and some of the more nosy family members actually wanted me to intervene. Especially when they decided to have kids. Oh lordy, my sister was horrified. But like I said, he's my son, and I loved those grand kids, no matter how strange it was that Jose raised them with a mother."

It's all these regularities that might throw one off the scent of why Jose took a shotgun to his wife and four children, then took his own life. Money wasn't a problem, but it wasn't free flowing either. The couple had both been fired just a month before for forging a supervisor's signature in order to get the children into a publicly funded child care centre. But surely this isn't enough to throw Jose off the deep end and commit an act considered the most unnatural - the murder of his own offspring and the person he loved most. The woman he loved most.

I think it wouldn't be a shock to admit that the family wasn't normal. A man living with a woman and raising children isn't the most sane of ideas. The debaucherous elements of the couple's 'lifestyle,' couldn't be hidden from the absorbent minds of their kids. Even the most avid TV watching child is aware of what mummy and daddy are doing in their bedroom. It's not just celebrities who are weak against their own dark appetites or damaging habits.

Jose and Maria, by all accounts, were completely normal except for one glaring difference. The family, despite their particular penchant, were described as happy and healthy by even the most ardent protesting neighbours. A happy, healthy family man does not creep into his children's room and pull the trigger.

We cannot and would not dream of diminishing the dreadful circumstance, most of all for the surviving grandparents who now must see their children and grandchildren buried, but another sadness of this tragic story is the blow struck to the happy-ever-after myth of heterosexual marriage.

Not all male-female couples are cast from the troubled, some might some depraved molds of Bonnie and Clyde or Michel 'Virgin Hunter' Fourniret and his wife Monique Olivier, a heterosexual married couple who, over the period of 16 years, lured virgin girls into their midst so that Fourniret could rape and murder them while Olivier watched. But the murder-suicide of an entire hetero family forces us to ask some serious questions about the viability, morality and at the very least, safety of a male-female marriage.

It would seem that yet again the quiet peace of the suburbs is ruined by the steady seep of a dangerous and uncertain lifestyle. Perhaps the Wilmingburg family is the wake up call we all need.

Edit: Unsure what triggered this blog post? See here.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Australian Racism

There's a prevailing attitude among the everyday people of Australia that the Hey Hey Jackson Jive skit was not in fact racist, and that it's a storm in a tea cup. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is displaying emotions that range from curious amusement, disappointment, right up to outrage that this skit appeared on live TV. The host Daryl Somers, Channel 9 and the lead performer himself, Dr Anand Deva have all apologised. All three have taken up the shield of ignorance, stating it was never their intention to offend.

There can be no denial the performers were in blackface, but maybe a lot of Australians don't truly understand what blackface is? Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Blackface ... is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to take on the appearance of certain archetypes of American racism, especially those of the "happy-go-lucky darkyplantation" or the "dandified coon ".^[1] Blackface in the broader sense includes similarly stereotyped performances even when they do not involve blackface makeup. White blackface performers in the past used ... shoe polish to blacken their skin and exaggerate their lips, often wearing woolly wigs, gloves, tailcoats, or ragged clothes to complete the transformation. Stereotypes embodied in the stock characters of blackface minstrelsy played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide. In some quarters, the caricatures that were the legacy of blackface persist to the present day and are a cause of ongoing controversy. By the mid-20th century, changing attitudes about race and racism effectively ended the prominence of blackface makeup used in performance in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The Jackson Jive was a blackface performance. It was originally performed 2 decades ago, during the 1980s - a time, clearly, when racism was more present. Today, Australia lives in a globalised world with the United States one of its most dominant economic and military powers. In this world, our leaders are or should be trying to puch us further towards the centre of stage. Ours is a lucky country with potential and intelligence. But how can we be a part of the world and ignore our strongest ally's own advancements in civil rights? The nation now has a Nobel winning black President, in a land where blackface originated and where black people were lynched.

And here are five Australian men, an Australian TV network and a television show known as a national institution doing blackface. What. Were. They. Thinking? Whether they meant to offend or not, it was racist. What were the producers and the network executives thinking? Or, in what era were they thinking from? One of my biggest complaints has always been that the gatekeepers of Aussie arts and entertainment are old men with outdated, foolish attitudes to the world. No more clearly is this represented than when a TV exec or producer, someone who should be fully aware that YouTube, viral videos and the Internet means that what you put on a national screen has every possibility of being seen by the world for weeks to come, and who have chosen an American actor and singer to appear on the show, would then put blackface in front of the cameras.

It reminds me of your old uncle, in his late fifties, making all sorts of racist jokes at the Christmas dinner table. And you know he's (probably) not being malicious, he just honestly doesn't know any better. He's the product of his time. You might smile thinly or leave the room, but you find solace in the notion that maybe he says these things, but he'd never turn his back on a lynching or shoot an Aboriginal in a carpark if no-one was looking and he knew he'd get away with it. Growing up, this example was everywhere, with all the people I met in my outer suburb childhood. The attitude towards people of different skin was also hostile, negative, but thinly veiled and only ever in the privacy of homes, during family dinners or in front of the TV. But it was there, and I got the feeling it was in the majority of homes in Australia. I worried, most certainly justifiably, that it was something in me, from my own upbringing. And it made me sad.

Sad that as a nation, we stunt our own growth. I hope that this country can be a shining beacon, a nation who became strong without wars to liberate, but who used education and social responsibility to export both goodwill and knowledge along with traditional trade, to become recognised as a peaceful, happy, friendly, strong country of advancement and civility.

But let's look at the buffoons who stand in the way of that hope.

From the various articles I read online, the most infuriating parts came from the comments section, where these everyday Australians cemented the current world view of our nation (all quotes are sic):

K from Mackay 

Well, the fun police strike again Harry needs a uniform,baton and a whistle! i thought it was hilariously funny and i'm a black fella!

Luke from Melbourne 

Harry is not suited to Hey hey, hes too uptight, he needs a dose of reality and clearly has the typical USA mentality.

Scott from Adelaide

Where was the racism? The comment prior to the Jackson Jive coming on was "a tribute to the Jackson Five". So that, for all the people claiming it was racist, should have told them otherwise prior. Get over your arrogance. They respected Michael and his family, but you don't.

Certain Australian news sites also had user polls, asking variously if the sketch was racist, tasteless, funny. The results were either divided down the middle or skewed in favour of the notion that the skit was not racist or offensive. Some might say, "Well, see, the poll says no." I say, why do you even need to poll on that!? Of course it was racist, and the very fact that our nation can be divided on that in the first place is both sickening and sad.

Yes, the sketch was based on one that won Red Faces 20 years ago. That's the point! Shouldn't we be watching this from 20 years ago and thinking, "Oh god, that's embarrassing, we used to think that was OK." That sort of racism used to be acceptable, but now it's not. All that argument does is show that the arguer is stuck in some bizarre time warp where the rest of the world didn't realise they were being horrible to black slaves and started trying to repair the damage done. If thinking like an American means I find racism offensive, then someone give me a greencard! Do you really want to revel in that sort of thing? Do you really want to shrug off the evil connotations and horrid history of blackface by saying, "Nah, it was just a joke!" What sort of person does that make you?

Harry Connick Jr. was on the show and he did not like it. He stood up and demanded satisfaction. He did what thousands of his countrymen for hundreds of years did not do: he stood up for civil rights and against mocking and patronising and other instruments used to demean and keep down an entire race.

I think this whole debacle exposes that inherent racism in the Australian character. A racism born from isolation and cultivated by ignorance - a special sort of ignorance. For while we educate ourselves in science and medicine and technology, the education in social responsibility and global understanding is lackluster. Being clever in other areas lets us keep the racism hidden. Australians live in a multicultural country, but yet I say we're racists? It's a strange sort of racism, an amorphous blob that only takes shape when events like these pop up. It's racism by stealth. It's a bottom-up racism. Our leaders, our public people, they wear the badges of moral and social responsibility so that we don't have to. A politician openly encourages multiculturalism. An Australian citizen tolerates it, buts mocks it ruthlessly behind closed doors.

Look at the culprit, one Dr Anand Deva. I truly don't believe he fully understands what racism is when he says:

I am an Indian, and five of the six of us are from multicultural backgrounds and to be called a racist ... I don't think I have ever been called that ever in my life before. Anyone who knows us as a group, we are intelligent people, we are all from different racial backgrounds so I am really truly surprised.

When asked whether he would have performed the act in the US, he replied:

Absolutley not!

He just doesn't get it. He seems to think that just because he's Indian and his cohorts were from different backgrounds, then they are exempt from being racist - the idea of which is in itself racist! My point is, he doesn't seem to understand. A lot of Australians don't, and I think they need to be educated. Better, they have the internal drive to learn and educate themselves. Racism isn't something restricted to the borders of the USA. It isn't something that exists only between white Westerners and African descended black Americans. It's a worldwide plague that is very simple in its thinking, but lethal in application: to discriminate or negatively affect in any way one person or group of people based on the colour of their skin or cultural background, because it is different from your own. That is racism. That sort of thinking caused blackface to become popular, as white Americans slapped their knees during minstrel shows and remarked boorishly, "Oh ho! Look at that stupid nigger!" The Americans realised, finally, in the 1960-70s with civil rights movements and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr right up to now, with the first black President, that that sort of thinking was wrong at the most fundamental level of humanity.

And now, here in 2009, Australia shows a bunch of ignorant fools doing blackface.

I'm not saying we should surgically remove our sense of humour; that we should batten down the hatches and become a police state. I just think there are parts of our national character that need work, just as the most stable and respectable person is constantly striving to better him or herself. We are a great country, but to ever be as great as our potential, we need to be able to look at ourselves and make changes. We need to think more, to intellectualise, to drag ourselves out of the slow, sometimes backwards crawl of our social advancement. We need to look to those that have shown the way, and we need to be open to the idea that we can and have failed, but that we can learn from those mistakes and rectify our future.  Australia is a country of greatness, but it could be greater still. Isn't that something you want to be proud of? Isn't that something we can acheive?