Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Fake Feelding. I mean, Fielding.
For those of you who, like me, are not so enamoured of Senator Fielding, check out this out.
It's gold!
It's gold!
Friday, November 27, 2009
Dear Senator Minchin
Dear Senator Minchin,
I was listening to you on the radio this morning, and I heard you remark that the ETS "can wait." Having the establishing legislation passed by the Senate before the Copenhagen conference was unnecessary, you argued. You claim it was forefront on the ALP’s legislative agenda for no other demonstrable reason than the inflation of the Prime Minister’s already considerable ego, permitting him to strut the world stage with confidence and aplomb.
You, your colleagues, and especially Barnaby have oft repeated these or similar sentiments throughout this ETS saga. You are wrong. And even if you’re right, that’s not a bad thing.
Firstly, consider this. We Australians, 22 million of us, comprise approximately 0.3% of the 7 billion strong swathe of human beings. Yet our carbon footprint is considerably more substantial: 1.3% of global emissions originate in the antipodes. All sources put us in the top 5 of per capita emitters. To put that in perspective, we emit roughly the same amount of CO2 has Britain and France: nations with three times our population.
Giving the Australian delegation to Copenhagen a shiny new ETS to show off is not a hollow gesture. It is an important demonstration that we, as one of world’s worst per capita emitters, are committed to combating rising levels of carbon dioxide.
Waiting to see what “everybody else does,” a strategy you have recommended is a deeply flawed plan. Why try and hatch a scheme whereby our economic interests are protected, simply to watch the planet burn around us? The only jobs you’re really protecting are those in the air-conditioning industry.
Furthermore, you seem to view these negotiations as some bizarre global poker game. But in this game Nick, we cannot wait to see who is bluffing, who has a bad hand and who has a good one. World leaders cannot sit around a table staring each other in the eye waiting for someone else to blink. We have to lay our cards down on the table for all to see. Otherwise nothing will ever get done.
Which brings me to my next point. If Rudd wants to strut across the world stage, proudly showing off the ETS, then I commend that. The world has been sluggish, at best, in coordinating and formulating a response to global warming. We need leaders who will inspire others to act. And the thought that that leader might be an Aussie, be they Labor, Liberal or Green, makes me proud.
Oh, I forgot. You don’t even believe in climate change, do you? So why insult Rudd? Be a man Nick, and be honest about the motivations for your opposition.
I was listening to you on the radio this morning, and I heard you remark that the ETS "can wait." Having the establishing legislation passed by the Senate before the Copenhagen conference was unnecessary, you argued. You claim it was forefront on the ALP’s legislative agenda for no other demonstrable reason than the inflation of the Prime Minister’s already considerable ego, permitting him to strut the world stage with confidence and aplomb.
You, your colleagues, and especially Barnaby have oft repeated these or similar sentiments throughout this ETS saga. You are wrong. And even if you’re right, that’s not a bad thing.
Firstly, consider this. We Australians, 22 million of us, comprise approximately 0.3% of the 7 billion strong swathe of human beings. Yet our carbon footprint is considerably more substantial: 1.3% of global emissions originate in the antipodes. All sources put us in the top 5 of per capita emitters. To put that in perspective, we emit roughly the same amount of CO2 has Britain and France: nations with three times our population.
Giving the Australian delegation to Copenhagen a shiny new ETS to show off is not a hollow gesture. It is an important demonstration that we, as one of world’s worst per capita emitters, are committed to combating rising levels of carbon dioxide.
Waiting to see what “everybody else does,” a strategy you have recommended is a deeply flawed plan. Why try and hatch a scheme whereby our economic interests are protected, simply to watch the planet burn around us? The only jobs you’re really protecting are those in the air-conditioning industry.
Furthermore, you seem to view these negotiations as some bizarre global poker game. But in this game Nick, we cannot wait to see who is bluffing, who has a bad hand and who has a good one. World leaders cannot sit around a table staring each other in the eye waiting for someone else to blink. We have to lay our cards down on the table for all to see. Otherwise nothing will ever get done.
Which brings me to my next point. If Rudd wants to strut across the world stage, proudly showing off the ETS, then I commend that. The world has been sluggish, at best, in coordinating and formulating a response to global warming. We need leaders who will inspire others to act. And the thought that that leader might be an Aussie, be they Labor, Liberal or Green, makes me proud.
Oh, I forgot. You don’t even believe in climate change, do you? So why insult Rudd? Be a man Nick, and be honest about the motivations for your opposition.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
History repeating before history's been written.
Joe Hockey would probably make a decent Opposition Leader/Prime Minister. He is a convivial, likeable man. His passion for touch rugby over Dietrich Bonhoeffer makes him a far more palatable dinner guest than our current PM.
But reports that a move is underfoot to have him as the ‘unifying,’ ‘compromise’ candidate in a Liberal leadership spill likely at some point over the next few days are nothing short of bizarre.
Those who think that this debacle is the manifestation of tensions about an emissions trading scheme or leadership styles are wrong. This is a debate about the future ideological direction of the Liberal party. Will it be the classically liberal; will it be progressive? Or will the forces of neo-conservatism win out?
My money is on the latter. Which is why Joe Hockey would be such a bizarre choice. Hockey is classically Liberal. Hockey is further to the left than Malcolm on many issues. Hockey’s immediate predecessor in the seat of North Sydney was a maverick, left-ish independent – Hockey only managed to wrestle the seat back for the Liberals upon his retirement.
So, assuming Hockey runs for – and wins – the leadership, won’t the Liberals be in the same position they were in before? The result would be either (1) a party of conservative malcontents lining up behind a proper liberal leader, or (2) a leader betraying his principles and ideological beliefs so that he has a better shot at the premiership. Either result would be a disservice to the Australian people and to the detriment of Australian political discourse. History appears to be repeating itself before the tragic history of Turnbull's betrayal has been written. How odd.
I should not grumble too much. This cloud of a leadership spill does indeed have a silver lining: Julie Bishop’s going to get the boot.
But reports that a move is underfoot to have him as the ‘unifying,’ ‘compromise’ candidate in a Liberal leadership spill likely at some point over the next few days are nothing short of bizarre.
Those who think that this debacle is the manifestation of tensions about an emissions trading scheme or leadership styles are wrong. This is a debate about the future ideological direction of the Liberal party. Will it be the classically liberal; will it be progressive? Or will the forces of neo-conservatism win out?
My money is on the latter. Which is why Joe Hockey would be such a bizarre choice. Hockey is classically Liberal. Hockey is further to the left than Malcolm on many issues. Hockey’s immediate predecessor in the seat of North Sydney was a maverick, left-ish independent – Hockey only managed to wrestle the seat back for the Liberals upon his retirement.
So, assuming Hockey runs for – and wins – the leadership, won’t the Liberals be in the same position they were in before? The result would be either (1) a party of conservative malcontents lining up behind a proper liberal leader, or (2) a leader betraying his principles and ideological beliefs so that he has a better shot at the premiership. Either result would be a disservice to the Australian people and to the detriment of Australian political discourse. History appears to be repeating itself before the tragic history of Turnbull's betrayal has been written. How odd.
I should not grumble too much. This cloud of a leadership spill does indeed have a silver lining: Julie Bishop’s going to get the boot.
Malcolm: in the Middle?
I have always had a profound respect for Malcolm Turnbull. I have always assumed that it arose out of my passionate republicanism, and my gratitude for the enormous amount of time, money, and effort he poured into the cause. But today’s events, and the resignations of Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, et. al. have forced me to reconsider just why Malcolm holds that special place in my heart and mind.
The results of my soul search were surprising.
Menzies cobbled together the Liberal Party of Australia in the aftermath of World War Two, consolidating a broad coalition of conservative political interests into a single entity. The legacy, as John Howard was so fond of reminding us, is a “broad church” of a political party that counts among its members Thatcher-idolising neocons at one end of its internal spectrum and refugee-embracing, tree-hugging, small-l liberals at the other.
I have always admired the latter group of Liberals: I even vote under the line on my Senate ballot in the vain hope that by placing Nick Minchin ahead of only Family First and One Nation, I can make my own contribution to the small-l liberalisation of the Libs. Turnbull is small-l: someone prepared to stand up for the environment, for gay rights, for an Australian republic.
And then tonight, listening to his inspiring, passionate defence of the need for an emissions trading scheme, it dawned on me. Turnbull is probably my ‘second preference’. Turnbull, certainly more than Kevin Rudd, represents where I lie on the political spectrum – at least when it comes to the issues about which I care.
I vote Green. Bob Brown is my hero. I hug trees. I do not see anything in my life or circumstances that is likely to alter that in the near future. But due to the injustices of the non-proportionally representative Australian lower house, I cannot send who I want to Canberra, so I am forced to choose a second favourite. In the elections in which I have participated so far, that’s always been Labor (even when I was a member of the ALP, I preferenced the Democrats first!) since, as a party, it is more closely aligned with my beliefs. But in a hypothetical electorate where the candidates were Brown, Rudd and Turnbull: Rudd would be #3.
Resurgent social conservatism is a major threat to the Australian polity. Catholics and Evangelical Christians in the Liberal Party are arguing against abortion again. Tony Abbott has suggested the reintroduction of fault-based divorce. In SA, Family First holds two seats in the Legislative Council, and they have used that platform to argue, among other things, that a homosexual partnership is akin to a man marrying his dog.
Breakaway from the Liberal Party, Malcolm. Set up the "middle" party the Democrats should have been: a socially liberal, otherwise conservative, political party. Fuck the “broad church” of the Liberal Party, because it has fucked you, deceived you, and betrayed you and will now betray your principles.
Wait. Perhaps I lied. There are circumstances under which I might alter my Green vote. Do what I’ve said and I’ll move to Wentworth to vote for you.
The results of my soul search were surprising.
Menzies cobbled together the Liberal Party of Australia in the aftermath of World War Two, consolidating a broad coalition of conservative political interests into a single entity. The legacy, as John Howard was so fond of reminding us, is a “broad church” of a political party that counts among its members Thatcher-idolising neocons at one end of its internal spectrum and refugee-embracing, tree-hugging, small-l liberals at the other.
I have always admired the latter group of Liberals: I even vote under the line on my Senate ballot in the vain hope that by placing Nick Minchin ahead of only Family First and One Nation, I can make my own contribution to the small-l liberalisation of the Libs. Turnbull is small-l: someone prepared to stand up for the environment, for gay rights, for an Australian republic.
And then tonight, listening to his inspiring, passionate defence of the need for an emissions trading scheme, it dawned on me. Turnbull is probably my ‘second preference’. Turnbull, certainly more than Kevin Rudd, represents where I lie on the political spectrum – at least when it comes to the issues about which I care.
I vote Green. Bob Brown is my hero. I hug trees. I do not see anything in my life or circumstances that is likely to alter that in the near future. But due to the injustices of the non-proportionally representative Australian lower house, I cannot send who I want to Canberra, so I am forced to choose a second favourite. In the elections in which I have participated so far, that’s always been Labor (even when I was a member of the ALP, I preferenced the Democrats first!) since, as a party, it is more closely aligned with my beliefs. But in a hypothetical electorate where the candidates were Brown, Rudd and Turnbull: Rudd would be #3.
Resurgent social conservatism is a major threat to the Australian polity. Catholics and Evangelical Christians in the Liberal Party are arguing against abortion again. Tony Abbott has suggested the reintroduction of fault-based divorce. In SA, Family First holds two seats in the Legislative Council, and they have used that platform to argue, among other things, that a homosexual partnership is akin to a man marrying his dog.
Breakaway from the Liberal Party, Malcolm. Set up the "middle" party the Democrats should have been: a socially liberal, otherwise conservative, political party. Fuck the “broad church” of the Liberal Party, because it has fucked you, deceived you, and betrayed you and will now betray your principles.
Wait. Perhaps I lied. There are circumstances under which I might alter my Green vote. Do what I’ve said and I’ll move to Wentworth to vote for you.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Kevin 11. Almost.
Malcolm Turnbull triumphant, is the Liberal spin on today’s events. He was re-anointed, we are told, by a ‘convincing’ margin. The 48-35 victory over Kevin Andrews has the ostensible appearance of being ‘convincing’ – it is after all three times larger than the margin by which Turnbull defeated Brendan Nelson in the last spill. But closer investigation undermines the very fabric of the Liberals’ credibility as an alternative government.
Andrews’ fame and career, as I see it, is marked by three key events: the private member’s bill that overrode the Northern Territory’s voluntary euthanasia laws; WorkChoices; and his role in cancelling the visa of Mohamed Haneef. The last two issues were, to be blunt, poison for the Coalition in the lead up to and during the 2007 federal election. Therefore, it is unlikely Andrews could ever have been considered (even by Nick Minchin) as a credible, viable Leader of the Opposition. But with Hockey, Abbott and Robb all sitting this stoush out, Andrews was the only alternative proffered.
Yet fully aware of the fact that there was only one other candidate for the leadership and, presumably, cognizant of the electoral risk that the said candidate posed, only 48 out of 83 electors preferred Turnbull. In other words, 35 members would have preferred a leader that would have led them to electoral suicide over the continuance of Turnbull’s leadership. Furthermore, those 35 believed a failed minister, responsible for policies that failed the Coalition at the last election, would be a better Prime Minister than a man who, for all his failings, has demonstrated a sincere love and affection for the Australian polity. Those same 35 thought an ideological popularity contest to be more important than the survival of their own party at the ballot box.
We must question what aspects of the nation’s welfare, in the minds of those 35 men and women, could be justifiably sacrificed in the name of their ideological struggles and follies?
Suddenly Turnbull’s majority just does not appear so convincing.
Andrews’ fame and career, as I see it, is marked by three key events: the private member’s bill that overrode the Northern Territory’s voluntary euthanasia laws; WorkChoices; and his role in cancelling the visa of Mohamed Haneef. The last two issues were, to be blunt, poison for the Coalition in the lead up to and during the 2007 federal election. Therefore, it is unlikely Andrews could ever have been considered (even by Nick Minchin) as a credible, viable Leader of the Opposition. But with Hockey, Abbott and Robb all sitting this stoush out, Andrews was the only alternative proffered.
Yet fully aware of the fact that there was only one other candidate for the leadership and, presumably, cognizant of the electoral risk that the said candidate posed, only 48 out of 83 electors preferred Turnbull. In other words, 35 members would have preferred a leader that would have led them to electoral suicide over the continuance of Turnbull’s leadership. Furthermore, those 35 believed a failed minister, responsible for policies that failed the Coalition at the last election, would be a better Prime Minister than a man who, for all his failings, has demonstrated a sincere love and affection for the Australian polity. Those same 35 thought an ideological popularity contest to be more important than the survival of their own party at the ballot box.
We must question what aspects of the nation’s welfare, in the minds of those 35 men and women, could be justifiably sacrificed in the name of their ideological struggles and follies?
Suddenly Turnbull’s majority just does not appear so convincing.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
What Mike Rann does with his pinkbits.
Anyone who knows me well enough knows that I am easily irked.
But in all honesty, the currently fiasco involving our media-savvy Premier really is simply too much, and has raised my ire to the point that I must do that which I swore I never would. I shall blog.
For those of you unfamiliar with recent developments in South Australia's political scene, here is a brief summary. Premier is beaten with a magazine by the estranged husband of a woman who once worked at Parliament House. Everyone wonders why. Woman goes on television and claims to have had a love affair with Mike. Mike denies it.
If we believe Mike then certainly there has been no wrong. "Premier befriends waitress and develops a flirtatious relationship" is the headline, reminding me of Edina Monsoon's imagined scandal "Woman caught showing ankle to chimney sweep shock". So if this IS the case, why the fuss? This is not Saudi Arabia. This is not Iran. Men and women are free to interact. Men and women may, within the bounds of legality, morality and good taste, flirt. Ergo, no case to answer.
If we believe Ms Chantelois (am I the only person who thinks her name sounds like that of a brothel madam?) they had a sexual relationship which, for the purposes of my argument has two marked characteristics: (1) passions which often manifested themselves within the walls of our great, grey Parliament, and (2) it occurred after the estrangement from (or at the very least great tension with) her husband.
I find Rann's version of events more believable. The likelihood of someone being able (or intelligent enough) to conduct a torrid love affair in Parliament is so minute. The likelihood of Rann doing so mere metres away from a horde of Liberals is even more so (and surely being that close to a Liberal would most feeling "limp"). But EVEN IF (and it's a very big "even if") the Chant was verily sinned against on North Terrace, "coitus parliamentarius" might be in poor taste, but it's hardly a crime against the state or against democracy.
Furthermore (and again this is an "even if"), this was a woman who was estranged from her husband. Given that man's recent behaviour and demonstration of ill-temper, it's hard to imagine that man being anything but estranged from any woman. Rann was single. So a single man had sex with a woman in (at best) a dysfunctional marriage. What a horrendous crime! Woe! Alack! Come on, people: even Benedict XVI would probably just give them both a few Hail Marys to say and sent them on their way!
I cannot, for the life of me, ascertain the nature of the objectionable behaviour here.
Thus I can come to only one conclusion. South Australia must have become such a bastion of social conservatism that the public and media now demand that any person occupying high public office must remain celibate during their tenure unless they are married. And fucking in a bed.
I can feel the ground tremble as Don Dunstan turns in his grave.
But in all honesty, the currently fiasco involving our media-savvy Premier really is simply too much, and has raised my ire to the point that I must do that which I swore I never would. I shall blog.
For those of you unfamiliar with recent developments in South Australia's political scene, here is a brief summary. Premier is beaten with a magazine by the estranged husband of a woman who once worked at Parliament House. Everyone wonders why. Woman goes on television and claims to have had a love affair with Mike. Mike denies it.
If we believe Mike then certainly there has been no wrong. "Premier befriends waitress and develops a flirtatious relationship" is the headline, reminding me of Edina Monsoon's imagined scandal "Woman caught showing ankle to chimney sweep shock". So if this IS the case, why the fuss? This is not Saudi Arabia. This is not Iran. Men and women are free to interact. Men and women may, within the bounds of legality, morality and good taste, flirt. Ergo, no case to answer.
If we believe Ms Chantelois (am I the only person who thinks her name sounds like that of a brothel madam?) they had a sexual relationship which, for the purposes of my argument has two marked characteristics: (1) passions which often manifested themselves within the walls of our great, grey Parliament, and (2) it occurred after the estrangement from (or at the very least great tension with) her husband.
I find Rann's version of events more believable. The likelihood of someone being able (or intelligent enough) to conduct a torrid love affair in Parliament is so minute. The likelihood of Rann doing so mere metres away from a horde of Liberals is even more so (and surely being that close to a Liberal would most feeling "limp"). But EVEN IF (and it's a very big "even if") the Chant was verily sinned against on North Terrace, "coitus parliamentarius" might be in poor taste, but it's hardly a crime against the state or against democracy.
Furthermore (and again this is an "even if"), this was a woman who was estranged from her husband. Given that man's recent behaviour and demonstration of ill-temper, it's hard to imagine that man being anything but estranged from any woman. Rann was single. So a single man had sex with a woman in (at best) a dysfunctional marriage. What a horrendous crime! Woe! Alack! Come on, people: even Benedict XVI would probably just give them both a few Hail Marys to say and sent them on their way!
I cannot, for the life of me, ascertain the nature of the objectionable behaviour here.
Thus I can come to only one conclusion. South Australia must have become such a bastion of social conservatism that the public and media now demand that any person occupying high public office must remain celibate during their tenure unless they are married. And fucking in a bed.
I can feel the ground tremble as Don Dunstan turns in his grave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)