This blog has now moved to its new and permanent home : http://andrewcarr.org
Please update your links as this current site is about to drift quietly into the icy darkness at the far regions of the internet.
I hope to see you at the new location!
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
That teapot analogy
The Atlantic's Ross Douthat returns to that old atheists trump:
On one level Douthat's claim is absurdly superficial, as he immediately acknowledges "This is not to say that humanity's religious experiences and intuitions are anything like a dispositive argument for the existence of God"
Just because one belief is more popular and ingrained in humanity does not provide evidence of its empirical existence. And its no surprise either that the most popular ideal of faith is not held to be a inanimate object or weird monster, but embodies human characteristics just on a much higher scale of perfection. An ideal born of our own failings, our own need for something greater to justify or protect.
And yet, as easy as it is to dismiss it out of hand, he does have a point. To disbelieve in god is quite different from disbelieving in knowingly created objects of ridicule which have no followers or claims of involvement. Indeed its even different still from disbelief in the pagan or polytheistic gods of yore, still maintained in some distant grottoes of this world.
The sheer size and scope of human monotheistic engagement and adherence demands a engagement of greater respect and effort than mere dismissal by analogy, such as tried in Russell's teapot or Steven J Gould's famous dictum that: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you. When you see why you do not believe in all the other gods, you will see why I do not believe in yours" also misses the mark.
Likewise, this is not just a debate about the existence of a supernatural being. Humans have tended towards god belief because it gives them explanatory tools for both the natural world (the argument by design) and the organisation of their society (the argument by morality). God is important not simply because he "exists", but because his existence gives us an answer for how the world came to be, and how human society came to be so ordered (or why human society is so imperfect ie the presence of evil). Neither the teapot nor spaghetti monster offer anything like this. In fact neither offers any potential for existence, because they fulfill no role in the universe beyond their own existence, and that, like that of God's simple existence (as opposed to any action he may undertake) is entirely useless.
Again, sheer numbers of followers (and all the various sects and denominations show great confusion within the faithful as to who could be counted as a follower) does not provide us with evidence of the empirical existence of god. But it does mean agnostics (such as myself) and atheists need to be more respectful and less quick to try and simply dismiss through a quick and dirty analogy refutation.
This analogy - like its modern descendant, the Flying Spaghetti Monster - makes a great deal of sense if you believe that the idea of God is an absurdity dreamed up by crafty clerics in darkest antiquity and subsequently imposed on the human mind by force and fear, and that it only survives for want of brave souls willing to note how inherently absurd the whole thing is. As you might expect, I see the genesis of religion rather differently: The story of our civilization, in particular, is a story in which an extremely large circle of non-insane human beings have perceived themselves to be experiencing an interaction with a being who seems recognizable as the Judeo-Christian God (here I do feel comfortable using the term), rather than merely being taught about Him in Sunday School. I am unaware of anything similar holding true for orbiting pots or flying noodle beasts
On one level Douthat's claim is absurdly superficial, as he immediately acknowledges "This is not to say that humanity's religious experiences and intuitions are anything like a dispositive argument for the existence of God"
Just because one belief is more popular and ingrained in humanity does not provide evidence of its empirical existence. And its no surprise either that the most popular ideal of faith is not held to be a inanimate object or weird monster, but embodies human characteristics just on a much higher scale of perfection. An ideal born of our own failings, our own need for something greater to justify or protect.
And yet, as easy as it is to dismiss it out of hand, he does have a point. To disbelieve in god is quite different from disbelieving in knowingly created objects of ridicule which have no followers or claims of involvement. Indeed its even different still from disbelief in the pagan or polytheistic gods of yore, still maintained in some distant grottoes of this world.
The sheer size and scope of human monotheistic engagement and adherence demands a engagement of greater respect and effort than mere dismissal by analogy, such as tried in Russell's teapot or Steven J Gould's famous dictum that: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you. When you see why you do not believe in all the other gods, you will see why I do not believe in yours" also misses the mark.
Likewise, this is not just a debate about the existence of a supernatural being. Humans have tended towards god belief because it gives them explanatory tools for both the natural world (the argument by design) and the organisation of their society (the argument by morality). God is important not simply because he "exists", but because his existence gives us an answer for how the world came to be, and how human society came to be so ordered (or why human society is so imperfect ie the presence of evil). Neither the teapot nor spaghetti monster offer anything like this. In fact neither offers any potential for existence, because they fulfill no role in the universe beyond their own existence, and that, like that of God's simple existence (as opposed to any action he may undertake) is entirely useless.
Again, sheer numbers of followers (and all the various sects and denominations show great confusion within the faithful as to who could be counted as a follower) does not provide us with evidence of the empirical existence of god. But it does mean agnostics (such as myself) and atheists need to be more respectful and less quick to try and simply dismiss through a quick and dirty analogy refutation.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
150 Years on, no finer words have been written.
150 years ago this year John Stuart Mill published 'On Liberty'. To my mind, no finer work of english language has been written, not just for its clarity and force of language, but the importance of its cause.
The point and purpose of Mills classic essay ‘On Liberty’ is to advance one simple principle
These words, when I first read them as a disillusioned 20-something rang out to me like no other piece of literature, film, philosophy or writing ever has. Mill in two short sentences lays out the absolute limits of societies hold over the individual, in a way that can be applied in each case and circumstance as calculatingly and rationally as Mills Utilitarian ethics demands.
But for me, whilst there is such great intellectual resonance in this phrase, and however quickly it formed a key principle on which I base my own political philosophy, it was not simply the intellectual, but the emotive which makes this work stand out for me above all else.
Mill’s own education and formative years are unlikely to be matched by anyone of contemporary eras, and nor should it be. He was reading Plato in the original Greek by the time he turned seven, Latin commentaries on the Roman Republic at eight, and devising his own logic systems in response to Aristotle at twelve. Mills education by his fathers hand was designed for the express purpose of turning him into the chief proponent of the system of Utilitarian ethics, summed up blandly as ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’.
Mill suffered for these trials, and by age 20 he experienced a mental breakdown and deep depression for over 6 months. This black spell only began to abate when he turned to literature and poetry and found in them the non-purely rational and intellectual demands and rigors as had been so harshly forced upon him by his father’s expectations.
I first encountered JS Mill when I was of a similar age, though a very different background. I had cruised through school, convinced my schools name and status would entitle me to a place in university, and when I found myself only able to scrape into the local TAFE I had to wonder at my choices. I attempted to overcome this through my own program of study, beginning with the man to whom all western philosophy is mere footnotes, Plato. (Whitehead in Russell 2004)
But in Plato, however great my admiration for his thought, language and ability to challenge common dogma and encourage philosophical inquiry, I found a man whose totalitarian system of political organisation I began to loathe. Further pursuits into Philosophy, notably Hegel, Kant and Sartre seemed similarly torturous, either for their repulsive ideas or turgid language.
I first read Mill sitting on the bus one evening on my way home, and when I first came across that passage ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’ I was dumfounded.
Mill for the first time in my education seemed someone who could not just write but express the very notions and principles that were beginning to form within my own conscious. I found in Mill not just a realization that participation within the great political and philosophical debates was possible, but that there were natural allies and reasonable, and sensible men involved in these to whom I could look for inspiration and agreement. Finally I could escape having to grit my teeth as I read Plato or Aristotle for the purpose of improving my mind, all the while detesting most of what they advocated.
Mill’s purpose in the essay is to stress the importance of individual liberty, not simply from the tyrannous king, but also from the majority when acting as a mob. In the face of those who argue we must censor thought or discussion, he recognizes that it is as wrong for one man to stop all humanity thinking or advocating a certain position, as it is for all humanity to stop just one man. Likewise, those who are possessed of the truth are as much robbed when discredited and heretical views are censored, -for they lose the ability to test and prove their own beliefs-, as those who actually holds such views are damaged by this censorship.
Mills individualism is a classical individualism. He does not see man, as Thomas Hobbes or John Locke might, once free and now in the chains of the state (to which all good liberals and individualists must seek to hold back its omnipresence), but rather his individualism, and liberalism is a search for development, and the pursuit of character.
Though I was only dimly aware of it at first, each time I re-read On Liberty, Mill’s declaration of the supreme sovereignty of the individual, what resonates is not just the demand for personal freedom as self-protection, but a clarion call for self-development.
Mill advocated the supreme liberty of the individual not according to some abstract ‘natural right’ handed down by god or nature, and never utters the words ‘human rights’ but instead seeks that we may use freedom to develop our utmost in character and virtue. This Mill argues is the true aim of human freedom and purpose.
As Mill writes in an often ignored passage in ‘On Liberty’
Mill does not seek liberty simply for its own sake, but according to his utilitarian principles so that we may for our own sake become who we truly are. Mill does not seek to hector or demand we follow his moral or personal as a local priest might, but instead demands the state guarantee us the freedom to take real responsibility for our own passage in life and use of that freedom.
For a disillusioned young man, John Stuart Mill’s work ‘On Liberty’ spoke to me of three great themes. One was recognition that there were great and sensible philosophical minds I could honestly engage with, and find some common agreement. And If I could agree, I reasoned, I could surpass. I also found in Mills simple principle the most honest and forthright principle for the organisation of the states laws that has been before or since been presented.
And finally, I found in the space and freedom he offers via his principle, an opportunity, and a calling to take responsibility for the use of that freedom. The slave is never answerable for his actions, only the free man is. That is the burden and the joy of freedom. And for Mill, it was the development of that character and virtue as would guide us in our choices to which individuals must turn their focus and thought.
Mill’s work gave me reassurance I could understand and argue at this level, it gave me opportunity, it offered clarity and common sense, and perhaps most importantly it demanded I take responsibility for my choices from that moment forth. That I am where I am today, PhD student, Lecturer, blogger, is in large part due to the influence of John Stuart Mill and his essay ‘On Liberty’.
p.s - I chose the image for this post because it shows Harriet Mill, his beloved wife, and too whom 'On Liberty' is dedicated and is her proper memorial. Also because the more traditional image of Mill as the dour faced victorian doesn't do justice to the passion of the man in both his writing and life.
The point and purpose of Mills classic essay ‘On Liberty’ is to advance one simple principle
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant.”
These words, when I first read them as a disillusioned 20-something rang out to me like no other piece of literature, film, philosophy or writing ever has. Mill in two short sentences lays out the absolute limits of societies hold over the individual, in a way that can be applied in each case and circumstance as calculatingly and rationally as Mills Utilitarian ethics demands.
But for me, whilst there is such great intellectual resonance in this phrase, and however quickly it formed a key principle on which I base my own political philosophy, it was not simply the intellectual, but the emotive which makes this work stand out for me above all else.
Mill’s own education and formative years are unlikely to be matched by anyone of contemporary eras, and nor should it be. He was reading Plato in the original Greek by the time he turned seven, Latin commentaries on the Roman Republic at eight, and devising his own logic systems in response to Aristotle at twelve. Mills education by his fathers hand was designed for the express purpose of turning him into the chief proponent of the system of Utilitarian ethics, summed up blandly as ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’.
Mill suffered for these trials, and by age 20 he experienced a mental breakdown and deep depression for over 6 months. This black spell only began to abate when he turned to literature and poetry and found in them the non-purely rational and intellectual demands and rigors as had been so harshly forced upon him by his father’s expectations.
I first encountered JS Mill when I was of a similar age, though a very different background. I had cruised through school, convinced my schools name and status would entitle me to a place in university, and when I found myself only able to scrape into the local TAFE I had to wonder at my choices. I attempted to overcome this through my own program of study, beginning with the man to whom all western philosophy is mere footnotes, Plato. (Whitehead in Russell 2004)
But in Plato, however great my admiration for his thought, language and ability to challenge common dogma and encourage philosophical inquiry, I found a man whose totalitarian system of political organisation I began to loathe. Further pursuits into Philosophy, notably Hegel, Kant and Sartre seemed similarly torturous, either for their repulsive ideas or turgid language.
I first read Mill sitting on the bus one evening on my way home, and when I first came across that passage ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’ I was dumfounded.
Mill for the first time in my education seemed someone who could not just write but express the very notions and principles that were beginning to form within my own conscious. I found in Mill not just a realization that participation within the great political and philosophical debates was possible, but that there were natural allies and reasonable, and sensible men involved in these to whom I could look for inspiration and agreement. Finally I could escape having to grit my teeth as I read Plato or Aristotle for the purpose of improving my mind, all the while detesting most of what they advocated.
Mill’s purpose in the essay is to stress the importance of individual liberty, not simply from the tyrannous king, but also from the majority when acting as a mob. In the face of those who argue we must censor thought or discussion, he recognizes that it is as wrong for one man to stop all humanity thinking or advocating a certain position, as it is for all humanity to stop just one man. Likewise, those who are possessed of the truth are as much robbed when discredited and heretical views are censored, -for they lose the ability to test and prove their own beliefs-, as those who actually holds such views are damaged by this censorship.
Mills individualism is a classical individualism. He does not see man, as Thomas Hobbes or John Locke might, once free and now in the chains of the state (to which all good liberals and individualists must seek to hold back its omnipresence), but rather his individualism, and liberalism is a search for development, and the pursuit of character.
Though I was only dimly aware of it at first, each time I re-read On Liberty, Mill’s declaration of the supreme sovereignty of the individual, what resonates is not just the demand for personal freedom as self-protection, but a clarion call for self-development.
Mill advocated the supreme liberty of the individual not according to some abstract ‘natural right’ handed down by god or nature, and never utters the words ‘human rights’ but instead seeks that we may use freedom to develop our utmost in character and virtue. This Mill argues is the true aim of human freedom and purpose.
As Mill writes in an often ignored passage in ‘On Liberty’
“the cultivation of an ideal nobleness of will and conduct, should be to human beings an end, to which the specific pursuit either of their own happiness or of that of others (except so far as included in that idea) should, in any case of conflict give way.”
Mill does not seek liberty simply for its own sake, but according to his utilitarian principles so that we may for our own sake become who we truly are. Mill does not seek to hector or demand we follow his moral or personal as a local priest might, but instead demands the state guarantee us the freedom to take real responsibility for our own passage in life and use of that freedom.
For a disillusioned young man, John Stuart Mill’s work ‘On Liberty’ spoke to me of three great themes. One was recognition that there were great and sensible philosophical minds I could honestly engage with, and find some common agreement. And If I could agree, I reasoned, I could surpass. I also found in Mills simple principle the most honest and forthright principle for the organisation of the states laws that has been before or since been presented.
And finally, I found in the space and freedom he offers via his principle, an opportunity, and a calling to take responsibility for the use of that freedom. The slave is never answerable for his actions, only the free man is. That is the burden and the joy of freedom. And for Mill, it was the development of that character and virtue as would guide us in our choices to which individuals must turn their focus and thought.
Mill’s work gave me reassurance I could understand and argue at this level, it gave me opportunity, it offered clarity and common sense, and perhaps most importantly it demanded I take responsibility for my choices from that moment forth. That I am where I am today, PhD student, Lecturer, blogger, is in large part due to the influence of John Stuart Mill and his essay ‘On Liberty’.
p.s - I chose the image for this post because it shows Harriet Mill, his beloved wife, and too whom 'On Liberty' is dedicated and is her proper memorial. Also because the more traditional image of Mill as the dour faced victorian doesn't do justice to the passion of the man in both his writing and life.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
W.
The theme of baseball runs throughout this film, from almost the first shot to the last, and fittingly the best description one could give this movie is "strike". The fundamentals are there, the swing is hard, but it never connects.
Towards the end of the film, George W. Bush Jnr. looks in a mirror and notices the lines on his forehead, his grey hair proiminent in the top of the shot; and with wife faithfully watching over at him, he wonders how they got to be there. Its at that point you also realise you want to know the answer. How did the fratboy failure end up President of the USA?
For most of the movie its easy to be too engrossed by the performance of Josh Brolin as G.W.Bush, and the quirks and now cliched lines "misunderestimated me, I dont do nuance, Old Europe etc" that dominate the films dialogue, to notice that the quick cut editing that jumps throughout Bush's life still hasn't give real insight into his world.
Take the issue of faith. Prominently the film opens with a great debate to launch the war on Iraq, conducted in the oval office. As the discussion ends, Bush calls them all into prayer. And throughout the movie he will call for prayer at the end of meetings, or ask priests to pray with him. Yet Stone lines these up against scenes and throw away lines that show Bush recognising & using the electoral power of the evangelical vote. The result is to somewhat cheapen Bush's faith, it becomes a public act, and in that way leaves you once again wondering if the frat boy is still under there, just now with a nicer, god friendly suit.
However, having studied & closely followed Bush, I dont think you can understand the man without understanding how important his faith is for him. In this way Stone seems to approach and yet constantly miss saying something important about Bush. He handles the relationship with his Father (played very capably by James Cromwell) better, likewise Bush with his staff, but again it all seems a public act, with the real man never emerging.
Perhaps this is a story none can yet tell, without histories cleansing lens, certainly the push to release the film before Dubya's term was over has harmed the film, to the point the editing feels sloppy and Stone is even forced to mount the words "The End", for nothing in the final scene would otherwise impress on the audience that the journey was coming to an end. It just, stops.
There's a great tragic story one day to be written about George W. Bush Jnr. A man of good brought down in his wayward approach to hunting evil. In the moral choices he made (war and torture) in search of peace, in the relationship between the youth who sinned and the adult who steeled himself with his faith in revelation. In the way he represented so much of America, in East Coast money and privilege, yet at heart was a religious cattle rancher and good times drinker.
But this movie does not quite tell that story. It shows but doesn't examine these themes, it plays to an inside/informed audience for most of its humor, and leaves a Bush shaped hole in the middle of the entire project in never quite believing that Bush is who he is. It keeps trying to peel back the layers, without realising this just leaves you with a picture which feels more superficial and more fake than when you began. If you cant emphathise with, you cant understand. Now Stone doesnt make Bush a fool or tyrant, a trap he could have easily fallen into. But he also doesnt actually say or reveal anything great about the man. You almost feel Stone made the movie just to try and figure out who Bush is, and yet... failed.
In the end, I think The W. trailer does a better job of showing the question than the movie does. But only the trailer is honest enough to admit it doesn't have the answer.
Towards the end of the film, George W. Bush Jnr. looks in a mirror and notices the lines on his forehead, his grey hair proiminent in the top of the shot; and with wife faithfully watching over at him, he wonders how they got to be there. Its at that point you also realise you want to know the answer. How did the fratboy failure end up President of the USA?
For most of the movie its easy to be too engrossed by the performance of Josh Brolin as G.W.Bush, and the quirks and now cliched lines "misunderestimated me, I dont do nuance, Old Europe etc" that dominate the films dialogue, to notice that the quick cut editing that jumps throughout Bush's life still hasn't give real insight into his world.
Take the issue of faith. Prominently the film opens with a great debate to launch the war on Iraq, conducted in the oval office. As the discussion ends, Bush calls them all into prayer. And throughout the movie he will call for prayer at the end of meetings, or ask priests to pray with him. Yet Stone lines these up against scenes and throw away lines that show Bush recognising & using the electoral power of the evangelical vote. The result is to somewhat cheapen Bush's faith, it becomes a public act, and in that way leaves you once again wondering if the frat boy is still under there, just now with a nicer, god friendly suit.
However, having studied & closely followed Bush, I dont think you can understand the man without understanding how important his faith is for him. In this way Stone seems to approach and yet constantly miss saying something important about Bush. He handles the relationship with his Father (played very capably by James Cromwell) better, likewise Bush with his staff, but again it all seems a public act, with the real man never emerging.
Perhaps this is a story none can yet tell, without histories cleansing lens, certainly the push to release the film before Dubya's term was over has harmed the film, to the point the editing feels sloppy and Stone is even forced to mount the words "The End", for nothing in the final scene would otherwise impress on the audience that the journey was coming to an end. It just, stops.
There's a great tragic story one day to be written about George W. Bush Jnr. A man of good brought down in his wayward approach to hunting evil. In the moral choices he made (war and torture) in search of peace, in the relationship between the youth who sinned and the adult who steeled himself with his faith in revelation. In the way he represented so much of America, in East Coast money and privilege, yet at heart was a religious cattle rancher and good times drinker.
But this movie does not quite tell that story. It shows but doesn't examine these themes, it plays to an inside/informed audience for most of its humor, and leaves a Bush shaped hole in the middle of the entire project in never quite believing that Bush is who he is. It keeps trying to peel back the layers, without realising this just leaves you with a picture which feels more superficial and more fake than when you began. If you cant emphathise with, you cant understand. Now Stone doesnt make Bush a fool or tyrant, a trap he could have easily fallen into. But he also doesnt actually say or reveal anything great about the man. You almost feel Stone made the movie just to try and figure out who Bush is, and yet... failed.
In the end, I think The W. trailer does a better job of showing the question than the movie does. But only the trailer is honest enough to admit it doesn't have the answer.
Friday, January 23, 2009
A Team of Rivals ?
A phrase that stands out from a recent SMH.com.au article:
(In Brackets) is my subtitles
In the USA, Barack Obama has recently gained a lot of praise for seeming to build a "Team of Rivals" The choice of Clinton for Sec. State, and Gates for Defence Sec. and even Biden for Vice President. Either Obama really is employing a Lincoln strategy to bring the best people he can find into his cabinet, or just as likely, he is picking people he likes, and trying to demonstrate his independence by seeming to be beholden to such a strategy.
So what about Turnbull. I'd like to believe he too is, as a man who never spent much time in Liberal politics, who is clearly of great talent and individual ability. That as a leader he is strong enough to accept the burdens of office and brook dissent within his inner circle as a way to find his way to the real answers for our society.
Yet, having seen his performance for the last year, the petty attacks, the public debate carried on by his colleagues on the parties direction without his participation, makes me wonder if this is not instead the result of a man unable to control his own office, and hence the future politics and people he brings to the Australian people.
The answer to that question, will decide if Turnbull ever becomes PM. He has at best two shots. In 2010 and 2013. He can get there the second time, but he will only last past the (inevitable) first loss if he does so on his own terms, not as the product of someone else's office.
I hope he is watching what Obama is doing in the US closely. If nothing else it will help change the current media narrative of weakness into one of strength. Time to show if you have the skills Mr. Turnbull.
People rang in to swear blind that Barry(Moderate) was foisted onto Turnbull by Pyne(Moderate) to counteract the influence of Kenny(Conservative) and the other Downerites(Conservative(. Turnbull has never tolerated his office being used as a base for factional shenanigans and is not about to start.
It was pointed out to this column from on high that Barry would not have been hired without Kenny's(Conservative) approval and Barry(moderate) would not have accepted the job had he not been prepared to work with Kenny(conservative).
As for the black hand of Pyne(moderate) being behind Barry's(moderate) appointment, this too is fiction. Barry(moderate) was approached at the suggestion of one of Turnbull's advisers, Brad Burke. Pyne(moderate) was not consulted about Barry, but ironically, Turnbull did ask Pyne(moderate) about Kenny's(conservative) appointment and he approved.
Turnbull employs people on merit and thinks that having staff with disparate views should be seen as a sign the leader is not beholden to any specific ideology.
(In Brackets) is my subtitles
In the USA, Barack Obama has recently gained a lot of praise for seeming to build a "Team of Rivals" The choice of Clinton for Sec. State, and Gates for Defence Sec. and even Biden for Vice President. Either Obama really is employing a Lincoln strategy to bring the best people he can find into his cabinet, or just as likely, he is picking people he likes, and trying to demonstrate his independence by seeming to be beholden to such a strategy.
So what about Turnbull. I'd like to believe he too is, as a man who never spent much time in Liberal politics, who is clearly of great talent and individual ability. That as a leader he is strong enough to accept the burdens of office and brook dissent within his inner circle as a way to find his way to the real answers for our society.
Yet, having seen his performance for the last year, the petty attacks, the public debate carried on by his colleagues on the parties direction without his participation, makes me wonder if this is not instead the result of a man unable to control his own office, and hence the future politics and people he brings to the Australian people.
The answer to that question, will decide if Turnbull ever becomes PM. He has at best two shots. In 2010 and 2013. He can get there the second time, but he will only last past the (inevitable) first loss if he does so on his own terms, not as the product of someone else's office.
I hope he is watching what Obama is doing in the US closely. If nothing else it will help change the current media narrative of weakness into one of strength. Time to show if you have the skills Mr. Turnbull.
A profile in cowardice
The Australian Newspaper regularly runs pieces criticizing political correctness and equivocations in language. So why then do they continue to do it themselves:
Except its not critics, as the former Bush Administration itself recognised it had been using torture:
Qahtani was far far from the only one subjected to such measures, and whilst this one recieved hospital care, many others died at the hands of the US administration.
Not as well the use of the word "equate" to torture". Not called torture, as a definite allegation, but a limp wristed suggestion that it was something like torture.
The Australian Newspaper is not alone in failing to recognize that the Bush Administration authorized the practice of torture. The New York Times, and Washington Post have been notably wayward.
But Obama hasn't been, it's why he is moving to close Guantanamo, and something journalists and especially their editors need to recognize if they are to truthfully cover this new era. The long national crouch "we dont torture (pls dont look at the photos/mass evidence)" is over.
US President Barack Obama has ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison within a year and banned the use of torture in terror interrogations in a dramatic repudiation of his predecessor George W. Bush.
Mr Obama signed executive orders on the controversial camp, requiring US investigators to stop short of abusive methods - which critics equate to torture - and requiring a review of the case of the only “enemy combatant” on US soil, Qatari national Ali al-Marri.
Except its not critics, as the former Bush Administration itself recognised it had been using torture:
in an explosive interview with the Washington Post, Susan Crawford, one of the key administration officials responsible for dealing with the detainees, single-handedly demolishes this argument.
Susan Crawford, a retired judge who's been the convening authority for the Guantanamo military commissions for the last two years, says the treatment was abusive and uncalled for.
"We tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani," she tells reporter Bob Woodward. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture."
That treatment included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation and prolonged exposure to cold.A military report has previously revealed Qahtani was forced to wear a woman's bra and had women's underwear placed on his head during the course of his interrogation, which took place over 50 days from late 2002 to early 2003.
The treatment of the man who was allegedly planning to take part in the September 11 terrorist attacks was so intense that he was twice hospitalised in a life-threatening condition.
Qahtani was far far from the only one subjected to such measures, and whilst this one recieved hospital care, many others died at the hands of the US administration.
Not as well the use of the word "equate" to torture". Not called torture, as a definite allegation, but a limp wristed suggestion that it was something like torture.
The Australian Newspaper is not alone in failing to recognize that the Bush Administration authorized the practice of torture. The New York Times, and Washington Post have been notably wayward.
But Obama hasn't been, it's why he is moving to close Guantanamo, and something journalists and especially their editors need to recognize if they are to truthfully cover this new era. The long national crouch "we dont torture (pls dont look at the photos/mass evidence)" is over.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Quick Thought
Surely I'm not the only one who keeps breaking into a grin whenever they see the words "President Barack Obama".
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Lets see Top Gear given a spin in this:
Take a look at Obama's new Presidential limousine. Way cool.
Somewhat creepily, Obama will be riding around in a vehicle that carries vials of his blood, in case he needs an emergency transfusion, with enough bullet/missile/asteroid protection to justify calling it a tank.
Not bad for $600'000.
Somewhat creepily, Obama will be riding around in a vehicle that carries vials of his blood, in case he needs an emergency transfusion, with enough bullet/missile/asteroid protection to justify calling it a tank.
Not bad for $600'000.
Government by the people
There's a lot of commentary around at the moment that now see's the return of Adults to Washington. But its more than that: Its the return of people who actually like and respect Government who are now back in charge.
The 8 years of President George W. Bush represent a time where government was led by people who not only did not believe government could shift society and solve its ills, but who did not even believe in the role and institution in itself.
The outcome of this view in practice, was not the hoped for smaller government of philosophical lore, but a systematic mis-use and delegation of the resources and authority of government. They saw Governments income as simply money to be redistributed to favoured individuals and companies, its secular legislation and regulation to be dumped for the independent will of other industries (aka self-regulation) or transfered to a higher authority, in using God's law and morality for the organisation of society. Indeed because there was no recognition for the role of government, where they did act as others might, in funding Education or Health care policies, the money was spent without any connection to expected results. It was just signed away because thats what they thought people expected of them.
It was only in Foreign Policy, where Bush could play the role of a leader of the state, able to dispatch an army to march, or soldiers to talk did we see him fully take on the role of leader of the state.
The election of Obama means the return of people who actually recognise and respect the role that government can play. If the right policy is in place, if the right measurements are applied, the right restraints and caution in oversight. This is not about big or small government philosophy, it is simply about a return of actual use of government for the good of the people, for finding the best possible results we can achieve through this institution of human creation.
Government can be a force for great good, if misused it can cause great harm. But finally, after 8 long years there will be at the head of government people who actually like the idea of government, and respect and honour what it can be, and must be if we are to deliver on our highest principles and resolve our lowest social ills.
It's nice to have them back. Now its time to get to work.
The 8 years of President George W. Bush represent a time where government was led by people who not only did not believe government could shift society and solve its ills, but who did not even believe in the role and institution in itself.
The outcome of this view in practice, was not the hoped for smaller government of philosophical lore, but a systematic mis-use and delegation of the resources and authority of government. They saw Governments income as simply money to be redistributed to favoured individuals and companies, its secular legislation and regulation to be dumped for the independent will of other industries (aka self-regulation) or transfered to a higher authority, in using God's law and morality for the organisation of society. Indeed because there was no recognition for the role of government, where they did act as others might, in funding Education or Health care policies, the money was spent without any connection to expected results. It was just signed away because thats what they thought people expected of them.
It was only in Foreign Policy, where Bush could play the role of a leader of the state, able to dispatch an army to march, or soldiers to talk did we see him fully take on the role of leader of the state.
The election of Obama means the return of people who actually recognise and respect the role that government can play. If the right policy is in place, if the right measurements are applied, the right restraints and caution in oversight. This is not about big or small government philosophy, it is simply about a return of actual use of government for the good of the people, for finding the best possible results we can achieve through this institution of human creation.
Government can be a force for great good, if misused it can cause great harm. But finally, after 8 long years there will be at the head of government people who actually like the idea of government, and respect and honour what it can be, and must be if we are to deliver on our highest principles and resolve our lowest social ills.
It's nice to have them back. Now its time to get to work.
Obama's Inaguration speech
Posted here for posterity and future comment:
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition. Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans. That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights. Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom. For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction. This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed.
Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do. Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good. As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.
Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint. We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.
We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all. For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate. Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true.
They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny. This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath. So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]." America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
- What a Speech.
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition. Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans. That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights. Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom. For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction. This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed.
Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do. Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good. As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.
Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint. We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.
We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all. For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate. Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true.
They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny. This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath. So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]." America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
- What a Speech.
Inaguration instant thoughts:
Watching The Rev. Lowerey: How many african american men and women, in the history of America restrained their hand, held their tounge, and bowed before their white masters and those until just 40 years ago were held to be "their betters", so as to ensure the dignity and respect of their race.
When Lowerey was born, none of his race could argue or challenge the white man to define the path of their nation. Today, one of their own stands as its leader.
These are not individuals who will ever be remembered by history, who's acts of dignity were not recorded, or even recognized. But their pay off comes today. If Obama does nothing else, he did this. He did this.
Long live America.
When Lowerey was born, none of his race could argue or challenge the white man to define the path of their nation. Today, one of their own stands as its leader.
These are not individuals who will ever be remembered by history, who's acts of dignity were not recorded, or even recognized. But their pay off comes today. If Obama does nothing else, he did this. He did this.
Long live America.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Recognising what we really have.
Stories like this serve to remind us all just how good we have it here, and how necessary it is to act to preserve it each and every day:
Australian Jailed for "insulting" Royals
This is the great criminal Thailand has put behind bars:
Not all the world accepts ideas like freedom of speech. Even nearby modern democracies who we trade with and holiday in year round.
Australian's overseas are necessarily expected to follow another countries law, and I doubt there is much the Australian government could do, even if it went in to bat for him. However here is a perfect example of where international law defending basic human rights is critically needed.
Here's a link to a copy of his novel. Here is the offending passage (as far as I can tell)
Three years for that. Poor Bastard.
This is why Politics matters. This is why words like Freedom still matter, however good our welfare system, or however mis-used by men like G.W.Bush.
Australian Jailed for "insulting" Royals
AN Australian writer has been sentenced to three years in jail for insulting Thailand's revered royal family in a novel.Harry Nicolaides, 41, had pleaded guilty to the charge earlier today. He has been in custody for nearly five months.
“He was found guilty under criminal law article 112 and the court has sentenced him to six years, but due to his confession, which is beneficial to the case, the sentence is reduced to three years,” a judge told the court.
Article 112 refers to Thailand's harsh “lese majeste” laws protecting the monarchy from insult, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years.
Thailand has in recent months intensified the policing of laws against insulting the royal family. The country's lese majeste laws are some of the harshest in the world.
This is the great criminal Thailand has put behind bars:
Nicolaides, a Melbourne resident who lived in Thailand from 2003 to 2005 where he taught at the Mae Fah Luang University, has described his novel as a commentary on political and social life of contemporary Thailand.
"Tell my family I am very concerned," he told reporters, breaking down in tears.
He said he had endured "unspeakable suffering" during his pre-trial detention but did not elaborate
Nicolaides's brother Forde said he was concerned about his sibling's health.
"His health isn't that crash hot. He has had continuous flu-like symptoms since he has been incarcerated. He has lost a lot of weight. He can't eat the prison food," Forde said.
"He is generally unwell and has undergone a lot of mental trauma, as anyone would in a foreign country.
Not all the world accepts ideas like freedom of speech. Even nearby modern democracies who we trade with and holiday in year round.
Australian's overseas are necessarily expected to follow another countries law, and I doubt there is much the Australian government could do, even if it went in to bat for him. However here is a perfect example of where international law defending basic human rights is critically needed.
Here's a link to a copy of his novel. Here is the offending passage (as far as I can tell)
"From King Rama to the Crown Prince, the nobility was renowned for their romantic entanglements and intrigues. The Crown Prince had many wives - major and minor - with a coterie of concubines for entertainment. One of his recent wives was exiled with her entire family, including a son they conceived together, for an undisclosed indiscretion. He subsequently remarried with another woman and fathered another child. It was rumored that if the prince fell in love with one of his minor wives and she betrayed him, she and her family would disappear with their name, familial lineage and all vestiges of their existence expunged forever"
Three years for that. Poor Bastard.
This is why Politics matters. This is why words like Freedom still matter, however good our welfare system, or however mis-used by men like G.W.Bush.
Throwing away one's power
This is an interesting admission from Senator Barnaby Joyce:
Actually Joyce is right about the parties view, regardless of what seat he runs for (and potentially wins). Going to the House of Representatives would deprive Joyce of all his current power, and as he will never become PM, deny him any real future Power in return. Given his independence I'm not surprised the party wants to get rid of him.
Joyce only has power at the moment because there is a tight senate where every vote counts. One coalition senator moving over means Labor gets a significant increase in its chance of passing legislation.But in the House of Reps, Joyce could vote against his colleagues every single time and would be irrelevant (indeed such an act would only make him more irrelevant). We are unlikely to ever return to governments of a 1-seat majority (the last was 1963 if memory serves) and Joyce wouldn't be the only one to realise/exploit the opportunity presented in such a circumstance.
While the PM must be from the lower house, the deputy PM could easily be a senator. Equally, as a Senator Joyce could easily take any cabinet role he would demand in a future Coalition government. So the only possible view is that Joyce thinks he could become PM. If so he is a worse politician than I thought. His support is limited to a very rural Queensland basis, and is only because of what he is against (coalition party discipline) than what he is for (he's an agrarian socialist with a decidedly christianist bent).
His views wouldn't sell in the major cities, and most people who like him (including the media) do so because he plays an unpredictable role these days that would be denied to him in the HOR and especially if he tried fighting for leadership of the Coalition. If nothing else, the Liberals will never let the Nationals have the PM's role. That last happened in 1967, when 'Black Jack' McEwen was PM for all of 21 days until the liberals coalesced around John Gorton.
Joyce should stay where he is. He is popular, he has the opportunity to dictate/shape legislation, and can regularly blackmail colleagues and opponents into giving him goodies for his region/voters. Going to the HOR removes all of that, with no future pay off possible..
Don't do it Barnaby. Ahh hell do it, the political theater will be fun to watch.
NATIONALS senator Barnaby Joyce has admitted it is unlikely he will contest the seat of New England at the next federal election, claiming his party would allow him to run against popular independent Tony Windsor only if "they wanted to get rid of me".
"I believe strongly that the electorate council will end up pointing me in the direction of a lower house seat. I've got a rough idea where that seat will be, and I'd be very surprised if it's New England."
Actually Joyce is right about the parties view, regardless of what seat he runs for (and potentially wins). Going to the House of Representatives would deprive Joyce of all his current power, and as he will never become PM, deny him any real future Power in return. Given his independence I'm not surprised the party wants to get rid of him.
Joyce only has power at the moment because there is a tight senate where every vote counts. One coalition senator moving over means Labor gets a significant increase in its chance of passing legislation.But in the House of Reps, Joyce could vote against his colleagues every single time and would be irrelevant (indeed such an act would only make him more irrelevant). We are unlikely to ever return to governments of a 1-seat majority (the last was 1963 if memory serves) and Joyce wouldn't be the only one to realise/exploit the opportunity presented in such a circumstance.
While the PM must be from the lower house, the deputy PM could easily be a senator. Equally, as a Senator Joyce could easily take any cabinet role he would demand in a future Coalition government. So the only possible view is that Joyce thinks he could become PM. If so he is a worse politician than I thought. His support is limited to a very rural Queensland basis, and is only because of what he is against (coalition party discipline) than what he is for (he's an agrarian socialist with a decidedly christianist bent).
His views wouldn't sell in the major cities, and most people who like him (including the media) do so because he plays an unpredictable role these days that would be denied to him in the HOR and especially if he tried fighting for leadership of the Coalition. If nothing else, the Liberals will never let the Nationals have the PM's role. That last happened in 1967, when 'Black Jack' McEwen was PM for all of 21 days until the liberals coalesced around John Gorton.
Joyce should stay where he is. He is popular, he has the opportunity to dictate/shape legislation, and can regularly blackmail colleagues and opponents into giving him goodies for his region/voters. Going to the HOR removes all of that, with no future pay off possible..
Don't do it Barnaby. Ahh hell do it, the political theater will be fun to watch.
Dept. of shiny new things
I think Matthew Yglesias is essentially right here:
Bush and Clinton may never have used email, but every single president from Obama onwards will , just as their staff have been for the last 12-15 years. This will never go away, and we shouldn't expect Presidents to cripple their own access to the tools of modernity.
The only reason updates havn't been proposed I can imagine is that there is the impression it will look like a desire to hide the truth/curtail transparency were Obama to promote new laws. But I really don't think the public care that much, and after the secrecy of the Bush Administration, and Obama's other commitments to transparent governance, he can easily make the argument this is necessary for the practice of government to continue, without denying the public's right to know.
I'd like to see Governments set up a specific technology unit that regularly reviews legislation and ensures it is up to date with the technology of the time. In areas such as record keeping, control or sending of illegal material, defamation, or other acts of communication, we need to make sure that new changes neither inhibit the work of government, nor enable the actions of criminals who's actions would be illegal if used on older technology. This isn't something Presidents or ministers need ever really worry about, and they certainly dont have the skills; but a few good IT junkies could submit regular updates to the legislation to solve problems like this when the technology is released, not years down the track when it is suddenly needed :as in Obama's case.
In light of 30 years with of IT advancement we need to update the law rather than puzzle over its interpretation. Obama’s team should recommend some changes, and congress ought to hold hearings and write new provisions for dealing with new mechanisms.
If the conclusion of your legal analysis is that the President of the United States can’t have an email account or a Blackberry, then that means you need a new law.
Bush and Clinton may never have used email, but every single president from Obama onwards will , just as their staff have been for the last 12-15 years. This will never go away, and we shouldn't expect Presidents to cripple their own access to the tools of modernity.
The only reason updates havn't been proposed I can imagine is that there is the impression it will look like a desire to hide the truth/curtail transparency were Obama to promote new laws. But I really don't think the public care that much, and after the secrecy of the Bush Administration, and Obama's other commitments to transparent governance, he can easily make the argument this is necessary for the practice of government to continue, without denying the public's right to know.
I'd like to see Governments set up a specific technology unit that regularly reviews legislation and ensures it is up to date with the technology of the time. In areas such as record keeping, control or sending of illegal material, defamation, or other acts of communication, we need to make sure that new changes neither inhibit the work of government, nor enable the actions of criminals who's actions would be illegal if used on older technology. This isn't something Presidents or ministers need ever really worry about, and they certainly dont have the skills; but a few good IT junkies could submit regular updates to the legislation to solve problems like this when the technology is released, not years down the track when it is suddenly needed :as in Obama's case.
Agnosticism and the Problem of Denominations
Via Light On Dark Water: Agnosticism Is Not A Solution
From Ratzinger/Benedict’s Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures
The trouble with this view is that it has originated from a believer of a certain denomination, and this has characterized their view of the impossibility of a position between active faith (and only recognized denominations fit this, perhaps only the authors denomination is acceptable for the more radical) and active denial.
Denominationally, if one lives our live in the belief there is a god, then certain acts or thoughts are required of oneself. These recognitions are different between the monotheistic and polytheistic religions, and within the monotheistic's, even within each of the three main branches (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) there are a variety of denominations as well that hold diverging beliefs on what is required of a believer according to their own interpretation of the nature of god.
These seemingly make agnosticism impossible, as not following is held by each as equal to denial of their truth; but there is an alternative: That god makes no moral or physical demands on our universe. Thus we can accept the possibility of a god without endorsing them as morally worthy of our attention, or without accepting they play a physical role in altering the environment we find ourselves in. In short to create a agnostic denomination, that denies the presence of god makes any active demands on those who accept/suspect the existence of god.
To denominational believers this is a denial, because belief has specific demands on each of us, based on their own interpretation of god. But Agnostics can offer their own (arguably equally valid) interpretation that god has no want or need of us to act in any such fashion at all. Or Agnostics could take a negative view and whilst accepting the physical existence of god, deny any authority for this being that would justify any act of adherence or support. Indeed for many agnostics this is perhaps closer to the heart of their views as it is moral issues such as the problem of evil or the lack of positive intervention by God that destroy their faith. Believers argue there is only belief or non-belief, because this question is too important to be decided either way. But if I choose to grant god no moral authority over myself, and find evidence no physical authority either, then I can simply choose to be indifferent to his presence.
I think John Schwenkler is correct to note that
However, that does not deny the possibility of a truly agnostic position situated between those of active faiths (with specific demands of both thought (that god exists) and action (recognition in daily life of gods presence/authority) and active disbelief, which demands only thought (that god does not exist).
A middle path is still quite plausible if you deny either the authority or importance of god, neither of which contradict a agnosticism towards the existence of. God-the-petty, god-the-small, god-the-away-on-holiday. All such views allow a agnosticism to be neither support nor denial of gods existence in practice.
From Ratzinger/Benedict’s Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures
Even if I throw in my theoretical lot with agnosticism, I am nevertheless compelled in practice to choose between two alternatives: either to live as if God did not exist or else to live as if God did exist. If I act according to the first alternative, I have in practice adopted an atheistic position and have made a hypothesis (which may also be false) the basis of my entire life….
When one attempts to “put it into practice” in one’s real field of action, agnosticism slips out of one’s hands like a soap bubble; it dissolves into thin air, because it is not possible to escape the very option it seeks to avoid.
The trouble with this view is that it has originated from a believer of a certain denomination, and this has characterized their view of the impossibility of a position between active faith (and only recognized denominations fit this, perhaps only the authors denomination is acceptable for the more radical) and active denial.
Denominationally, if one lives our live in the belief there is a god, then certain acts or thoughts are required of oneself. These recognitions are different between the monotheistic and polytheistic religions, and within the monotheistic's, even within each of the three main branches (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) there are a variety of denominations as well that hold diverging beliefs on what is required of a believer according to their own interpretation of the nature of god.
These seemingly make agnosticism impossible, as not following is held by each as equal to denial of their truth; but there is an alternative: That god makes no moral or physical demands on our universe. Thus we can accept the possibility of a god without endorsing them as morally worthy of our attention, or without accepting they play a physical role in altering the environment we find ourselves in. In short to create a agnostic denomination, that denies the presence of god makes any active demands on those who accept/suspect the existence of god.
To denominational believers this is a denial, because belief has specific demands on each of us, based on their own interpretation of god. But Agnostics can offer their own (arguably equally valid) interpretation that god has no want or need of us to act in any such fashion at all. Or Agnostics could take a negative view and whilst accepting the physical existence of god, deny any authority for this being that would justify any act of adherence or support. Indeed for many agnostics this is perhaps closer to the heart of their views as it is moral issues such as the problem of evil or the lack of positive intervention by God that destroy their faith. Believers argue there is only belief or non-belief, because this question is too important to be decided either way. But if I choose to grant god no moral authority over myself, and find evidence no physical authority either, then I can simply choose to be indifferent to his presence.
I think John Schwenkler is correct to note that
there’s little denying that in fact the life of the average agnostic or spiritual “seeker” is much more adequately described as structured by the conviction that God does not exist than the conviction that He might, and we’d better find out whether
However, that does not deny the possibility of a truly agnostic position situated between those of active faiths (with specific demands of both thought (that god exists) and action (recognition in daily life of gods presence/authority) and active disbelief, which demands only thought (that god does not exist).
A middle path is still quite plausible if you deny either the authority or importance of god, neither of which contradict a agnosticism towards the existence of. God-the-petty, god-the-small, god-the-away-on-holiday. All such views allow a agnosticism to be neither support nor denial of gods existence in practice.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Best news story ever
From AP News
As Jon Stewart on the Daily Show said the other day: 'News channels seem to think they are the Bus from Speed. If they stop talking, they'll blow up'.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama's cherished Blackberry slipped through his fingers Friday — but it was only a butterfingers moment.
Obama, who has been reluctant to relinquish the device when he becomes president, dropped his Blackberry and its hard plastic case onto an airport tarmac as he emerged from his fortified vehicle.
A Secret Service agent hustled to pick it up.Secret Service officials are among those urging Obama to give up his Blackberry habit, because it causes security worries. Lawyers think it also poses difficulties in keeping public records.
The wireless e-mail and phone device is Obama's constant companion and link to the outside world.
Told about the fumble, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs quipped: "That may have solved his Blackberry dilemma, right? Forget the lawyers!"
No word yet on whether the Blackberry still works.
As Jon Stewart on the Daily Show said the other day: 'News channels seem to think they are the Bus from Speed. If they stop talking, they'll blow up'.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Once more unto the breech
I know all thoughts are focused towards Tuesday night, when the era of Bush finally comes to an end, but if you can bring yourself to read back over the last 8 years, The Economist seems to have the best round up & review I've found thus far
the three most notable characteristics of the Bush presidency: partisanship, politicisation and incompetence.
Also: Full Marks to the economists author for using the word homunculi to describe Bush's acolytes.
86 hours to go...
Behind the News
This might just be the first interesting/useful piece written by Ann Davies on US Politics
That said, I really dont think the paper is getting it's money worth. I dont want to just bash one journalist, (thats the easiest sport in blogging and usually a petty one), but I am constantly amazed at how badly the Australia Print Media is at reporting on US Political news. The TV camera's get it right, copying good footage right from the cable shows, within hours of them running it. But the print media seems to lag a good 2 days behind the US. Even this piece by Anne Davies is reporting a dinner that occurred around Midday Wednesday Australian time (8:30pm in Washington = 12:30pm in Canberra). Yet its taken 3 days for the story to get into the paper.
Why ?
Any reporter with 45 minutes and an internet connection could turn in a regular story on the US for the next mornings paper. Yet during the US election I essentially banned myself from Australian print coverage of it, for its tardiness and lack of insight or great knowledge about the events (again not to pick on Anne Davies, but her presence in Washington isn't improving her coverage over anyone with an internet connection at least until todays little story). I think the Australian Media usually gets a bad wrap, despite doing a pretty solid job. But its coverage of US politics, pretty much the epicenter of world events and currents (the GFC if nothing else proves the rule that when the US sneezes the world catches a cold) is absolutely abysmal.
By 8.45 pm, when we arrived back around the corner with Lola's brother Ben and father, Tom, Lola's texting had rounded up about 12 excited kids, plus a few adults
Then suddenly they were talking into their microphones and car lights came on. The front door opened and there he was, silhouetted against a shaft of light. It was too much for Lola. "We love you Obama," she yelled as the other kids began cheering and clapping.
"Hey, guys," replied the most famous voice in the world. "See ya."
That said, I really dont think the paper is getting it's money worth. I dont want to just bash one journalist, (thats the easiest sport in blogging and usually a petty one), but I am constantly amazed at how badly the Australia Print Media is at reporting on US Political news. The TV camera's get it right, copying good footage right from the cable shows, within hours of them running it. But the print media seems to lag a good 2 days behind the US. Even this piece by Anne Davies is reporting a dinner that occurred around Midday Wednesday Australian time (8:30pm in Washington = 12:30pm in Canberra). Yet its taken 3 days for the story to get into the paper.
Why ?
Any reporter with 45 minutes and an internet connection could turn in a regular story on the US for the next mornings paper. Yet during the US election I essentially banned myself from Australian print coverage of it, for its tardiness and lack of insight or great knowledge about the events (again not to pick on Anne Davies, but her presence in Washington isn't improving her coverage over anyone with an internet connection at least until todays little story). I think the Australian Media usually gets a bad wrap, despite doing a pretty solid job. But its coverage of US politics, pretty much the epicenter of world events and currents (the GFC if nothing else proves the rule that when the US sneezes the world catches a cold) is absolutely abysmal.
Friday, January 16, 2009
The ripple of one man's decision
This year marks 100 years since the creation of the Fusion Party, uniting the Protectionist and Free Trade Parties, as the first Anti-Labor major party, a symmetry which has endured to this day with the Liberal-National Coalition bound more in being anti-labor than any real philosophical cohesion.
Norman Abjorensen of ANU has a good short write up of this history if your're interested.
I had initially wanted to do my PhD on this period, even going so far as to begin examining Deakin's personal papers for comments about the reason and motivation for creating the Fusion party. But circumstance and opportunities led me astray. Still, I'm hoping to write a few pieces this year on this crucial centenary, and its implications for Liberalism in Australia. In my view if you want to understand Australian Politics, the first decade set the pattern for the entire 20th century, and whilst some of the issues changed (ie end of protectionism/white australia) the nature of the parties debate and the inherent contradictions have not.
Deakin's choice in 1909 to join the conservative free-traders, and not the Labor party (of whom he had more philosophical and political agreement) set that pattern. It's a great australian politics 'what-if' had he made a different decision. (Though my initial research led me to quickly realize how unlikely that would have been).
So go read Abjorensen's article if you have a few minutes and want to know why Australian politics is as it stands today.
Norman Abjorensen of ANU has a good short write up of this history if your're interested.
I had initially wanted to do my PhD on this period, even going so far as to begin examining Deakin's personal papers for comments about the reason and motivation for creating the Fusion party. But circumstance and opportunities led me astray. Still, I'm hoping to write a few pieces this year on this crucial centenary, and its implications for Liberalism in Australia. In my view if you want to understand Australian Politics, the first decade set the pattern for the entire 20th century, and whilst some of the issues changed (ie end of protectionism/white australia) the nature of the parties debate and the inherent contradictions have not.
Deakin's choice in 1909 to join the conservative free-traders, and not the Labor party (of whom he had more philosophical and political agreement) set that pattern. It's a great australian politics 'what-if' had he made a different decision. (Though my initial research led me to quickly realize how unlikely that would have been).
So go read Abjorensen's article if you have a few minutes and want to know why Australian politics is as it stands today.
My kingdom for an Editor
This is why I dont read the Canberra Times
There are only two federal MP's in the ACT (for the simple fact there are only 2 seats). Kate Lundy is a Senator, not an MP.
It will be a shame for the ACT to lose McMullan, despite his inability to force his way into cabinet over the years. He is one of the most decent, thoughtful and sometimes hard hitting members Labor has, and usually his ability has been wasted, first by Beazley, then Latham (who hated him), and now by Rudd. Such is the price you pay for being a part of the Center/unaligned faction.
Still, I wonder who he has in mind for the job. Stanhope is a possibility, he's still popular enough, and Labor isnt going to lose the seat of Fraser any time soon. But I wonder how much people would like having both Stanhope and Humphries escaping to the federal Parliament after their welcome runs out at the local level.
So if Labor needs a fresh new face: I volunteer.
:)
A senior ALP source said discussion about all three federal Labor MPs in ACT seats had been ''ongoing'' since before the 2007 federal election, as all three members had been in place for a long time. ''It's not overly malicious, but there is a general view it could be time for change. Kate [Lundy] and Bob were on the front bench [in opposition], Annette [Ellis] was for a while, and now they are not,'' the source said. ''It would just be about fresh blood. And in terms of talent, we are blessed in the ACT.''
There are only two federal MP's in the ACT (for the simple fact there are only 2 seats). Kate Lundy is a Senator, not an MP.
It will be a shame for the ACT to lose McMullan, despite his inability to force his way into cabinet over the years. He is one of the most decent, thoughtful and sometimes hard hitting members Labor has, and usually his ability has been wasted, first by Beazley, then Latham (who hated him), and now by Rudd. Such is the price you pay for being a part of the Center/unaligned faction.
Still, I wonder who he has in mind for the job. Stanhope is a possibility, he's still popular enough, and Labor isnt going to lose the seat of Fraser any time soon. But I wonder how much people would like having both Stanhope and Humphries escaping to the federal Parliament after their welcome runs out at the local level.
So if Labor needs a fresh new face: I volunteer.
:)
A tale of two outcasts
If you wanted an insight into why the Coalition is in such trouble on climate issues have a look at this recent public debate on the future of the party:
Ok so public dissent from the party line is bad ?
Maybe not. One calls for action & is reprimanded with the harshest possible political slur to parliamentary liberals "greens party", the other says lets do SFA and is praised.
The media may be billing it as a battle of idea's about the coalitions future direction, but watchers have to be impressed/depressed by the cohesion the Nelson/Turnbull opposition have displayed to the Howard Legacy. Despite the humiliating and comprehensive loss in 2007 (which if it hadn't been for the newspaper polls would have taken all cabinet leaders by complete surprise), there has been almost no real debate. Recent books by academics and political writers trying to get the Liberals talking have turned up the lack of interest any of the major members have in such a debate.
Likewise, for every instance of someone like Pyne creating some waves, you get a dozen articles like this urging all to hold the Howard Line, and the retirement of two voices of conscious(well...) from the Liberal party in Petro Georgio and Judith Troeth at the next election.
Under Turnbull I had hoped the party would have a real debate, not necessarily because I thought they would return to their liberal roots (they wont), but at least to clear out the dead wood opinions from the 1970's & 80's that dominated Howards vision and term in office. Things like the importance of the resource sector compared to the High Tech industries, or the economic and social importance of higher education. But instead (perhaps out of weakness of Turnbull's own position, or lack of a philosophical mind) we have had no real debate, no real thought other than claiming to still be the same party that voters so resoundingly kicked out just over a year ago.
There's a possibility this could work, as the Howard Government defeat had more to do with the leaders and work choices than the general alignment of the party. But much more likely, they will be defeated at the next election comfortably, and any freshness they have now will take on a very stale smell, very quickly.
Labor fell into the same trap after 1996. Beazley admirably held the party together, but never really allowed debate about their view of the world (and turned his back on Keatings more ambitious goals). What looked stable and came close to working in 1998, was boring and unacceptable by 2001 for Labor. The Liberals if this keeps up are heading down the same road.
One final thought. Unremarked in much of the press, was the introduction of several young new members into the Howard government in 2001 and 2004. Guys like Ciobo, Dutton, Keenan, Lamming, Johnson, and Wood.
Where are their public contributions ? Where indeed is their involvement in the party? I have to admit I was never too impressed with any of them when I saw them during my time in Parliament, usually being the most loyal Howard defenders. But if there is to be a liberal party revival, it needs to come from energy at the top in the likes of Turnbull and Bishop, and from hard work in the public glare at the bottom from the young guns. Otherwise with the dead wood of former cabinet ministers now slowly retiring, we may have to add the young sycophants elected in 2001/2004.
In an article in the Herald this week, the Liberal Christopher Pyne called for his party to be more centrist and to lead the debate on carbon reduction.
But his fellow South Australian, Senator Nick Minchin, a conservative frequently at odds with the moderate Mr Pyne, has taken the unusual step of expressing his differences on the subject in a letter to the Herald.
"It would seem that Christopher Pyne is advocating a significant move to the left, rather than to the centre," Senator Minchin writes.
Mr Pyne appeared to want the Liberal Party to become a greens party, "which is not consistent with its history and philosophy … and is not a particularly sensible recipe for returning to government", Senator Minchin adds.
Ok so public dissent from the party line is bad ?
Senator Minchin said it was reasonable for the Nationals Senate leader, Barnaby Joyce, to argue against an emissions trading scheme.
"I don't think Senator Joyce's remarks should be seen as anything more than an appropriate contribution to the debate on how the Coalition as a whole should respond to the Government's so-called carbon pollution reduction scheme."
Maybe not. One calls for action & is reprimanded with the harshest possible political slur to parliamentary liberals "greens party", the other says lets do SFA and is praised.
The media may be billing it as a battle of idea's about the coalitions future direction, but watchers have to be impressed/depressed by the cohesion the Nelson/Turnbull opposition have displayed to the Howard Legacy. Despite the humiliating and comprehensive loss in 2007 (which if it hadn't been for the newspaper polls would have taken all cabinet leaders by complete surprise), there has been almost no real debate. Recent books by academics and political writers trying to get the Liberals talking have turned up the lack of interest any of the major members have in such a debate.
Likewise, for every instance of someone like Pyne creating some waves, you get a dozen articles like this urging all to hold the Howard Line, and the retirement of two voices of conscious(well...) from the Liberal party in Petro Georgio and Judith Troeth at the next election.
Under Turnbull I had hoped the party would have a real debate, not necessarily because I thought they would return to their liberal roots (they wont), but at least to clear out the dead wood opinions from the 1970's & 80's that dominated Howards vision and term in office. Things like the importance of the resource sector compared to the High Tech industries, or the economic and social importance of higher education. But instead (perhaps out of weakness of Turnbull's own position, or lack of a philosophical mind) we have had no real debate, no real thought other than claiming to still be the same party that voters so resoundingly kicked out just over a year ago.
There's a possibility this could work, as the Howard Government defeat had more to do with the leaders and work choices than the general alignment of the party. But much more likely, they will be defeated at the next election comfortably, and any freshness they have now will take on a very stale smell, very quickly.
Labor fell into the same trap after 1996. Beazley admirably held the party together, but never really allowed debate about their view of the world (and turned his back on Keatings more ambitious goals). What looked stable and came close to working in 1998, was boring and unacceptable by 2001 for Labor. The Liberals if this keeps up are heading down the same road.
One final thought. Unremarked in much of the press, was the introduction of several young new members into the Howard government in 2001 and 2004. Guys like Ciobo, Dutton, Keenan, Lamming, Johnson, and Wood.
Where are their public contributions ? Where indeed is their involvement in the party? I have to admit I was never too impressed with any of them when I saw them during my time in Parliament, usually being the most loyal Howard defenders. But if there is to be a liberal party revival, it needs to come from energy at the top in the likes of Turnbull and Bishop, and from hard work in the public glare at the bottom from the young guns. Otherwise with the dead wood of former cabinet ministers now slowly retiring, we may have to add the young sycophants elected in 2001/2004.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The media and war
One of the earliest topics I ever wrote a "mature" essay on was the role of the media during wartimes. I came to the conclusion that journalists somewhat limited a countries strategic options (though rarely if ever tactical options), but this also was the main reason why we would never again see the slaughter of WW1 repeated, or a second Holocaust. Throughout my research I marveled at the views of many civillians and high up leaders during of WW1 who saw nothing wrong with how their society cheered on war and accepted pointless sacrifice. Yet I never quite thought I'd see such opinions today however.
But along comes Joe the Plumber who wants the media to stop you know... reporting.
Click for the video
Jesus H. Christ. Even most from the late 19th century/ early 20th would be embarrassed at such a revisionist view. You can understand from the point of view of those within a time to support such views. But having had society move on, theres no way to go back without at least privately knowing your folly. Nietzsche mocked much of the society he saw around himself, but saved some of his harshest comments for those who despite having seen the death of god, still pretended faith was perfect and intact as it had been centuries before. Today such claims would get you laughed out of any serious theological debate. Mankind moves on. Even when we have a century as bloody as the 20th, we still keep developing and shifting in views.
Neville Chamberlain, representing the views of an earlier and longed for era famously remarked just before WW2 that 'How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing'. Well no longer do we have that veil of comforting ignorance. Even if we can not rouse ourselves into action to actually protect the suffering, we can no longer pretend we did not know.
It may not be much, certainly it isnt for the people of the Sudan or the Congo, but its something on the path towards an actual universal moral community. People like Joe the Plumber want us going in the opposite direction, and worse than any insult I or others could hurl at them is the fact that I am sure they know it.
But along comes Joe the Plumber who wants the media to stop you know... reporting.
"I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what’s happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I think it’s asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you’d go to the theater and you’d see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for’em. Now everyone’s got an opinion and wants to downer–and down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers.
I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, “Well look at this atrocity,” well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."
Click for the video
Jesus H. Christ. Even most from the late 19th century/ early 20th would be embarrassed at such a revisionist view. You can understand from the point of view of those within a time to support such views. But having had society move on, theres no way to go back without at least privately knowing your folly. Nietzsche mocked much of the society he saw around himself, but saved some of his harshest comments for those who despite having seen the death of god, still pretended faith was perfect and intact as it had been centuries before. Today such claims would get you laughed out of any serious theological debate. Mankind moves on. Even when we have a century as bloody as the 20th, we still keep developing and shifting in views.
Neville Chamberlain, representing the views of an earlier and longed for era famously remarked just before WW2 that 'How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing'. Well no longer do we have that veil of comforting ignorance. Even if we can not rouse ourselves into action to actually protect the suffering, we can no longer pretend we did not know.
It may not be much, certainly it isnt for the people of the Sudan or the Congo, but its something on the path towards an actual universal moral community. People like Joe the Plumber want us going in the opposite direction, and worse than any insult I or others could hurl at them is the fact that I am sure they know it.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
What I'm Reading
The earlier posts ;thought for the day' was inspired by a line in John Stuart Mill: Victorian Firebrand by Richard Reeves.
One of the best biographies I've ever read in pacing, tone, and grappling with the spirit and character of the subject, and on one of the most important and fascinating men in all of modern history.
Mill holds a special place in my reading history, both being passed down to me by my father (and informing much of his and hence my own views); and in being the one who rescued philosophy for me.
I have never taken a course in philosophy, and so all my knowledge has been largely self-taught. Having begun with Plato an immersed myself in his works, I had the distinct feeling that whilst Philosophy was mind improving, it was not 'fun'. More than that, the ideas of society I got from that ancient authoritarian ran so counter to my own views and world that I wondered at their relevance, except as a point from which to mark as clearly as possible our own independence.
Then one night on the bus home, I pulled out a rag-eared copy of J.S.Mill's 'On Liberty' and started reading. Before I got off the ride, I knew something had changed in me. Mill was someone who 'got it'. Who saw society and human life much as I did, and where we differed, the sheer power of his argument (such as against all regulations on speech, including hate speech) moved me to change my own views. I call myself a 'Liberal' politically despite the difficulties such a term holds in this country, because I want to preserve that link to Mill. Finally, Mill showed me that the intellectual world of debate and great men and ideas was not one of abstract bastards, but one I could enter and seek comrades, compatriots and decry the common enemy. It was a world for all opinions, based on reason, ability of argument and perseverance, not just for a select few to dictate to the rest of humanity.
I like to think Mill would enjoy that last reason far more than the former.
So Highly Recommended.
In no particular Order, I'm also working my way through
Andrew Fisher by David Day
God: A Biography by Jack Miles
The Lucky Country By David Horne
Day's book is good, on a character & time well in need of attention, but the overwrought style, especially now that I can compare it to up the much more nimble and clear bio by Reeves is starting to slow my attraction for it. But I will persevere as his books on Curtin and Chifley were fantastic. (Though as a friendly wit wondered, with Day you keep expecting him to start finding and detailing evidence of the subject having an affair. A fascination of his that nearly derailed the Chifley book)
If you have an interest in all things religious, or feel the need to brush up, I certainly recommend Miles original and Fascinating book detailing the way the character of God develops in the Hebrew bible (which is close to the Christian Old Testament except in order), though taking a literary criticism approach, he is rather tied to the text and not the wider developments that form our idea of God within a Judeo-christian informed society.
Finally, Horne's The Lucky Country. I've always had want to read it, and like the Fisher book, will serve as useful fodder for my PhD (Which is adding another 20 books on top of any I list here in the 'Urgent read' pile).
So enough typing, back to the books. If I don't read 100 books this year (that is throughly, no skimming) I'm done for. My poor eyes...
One of the best biographies I've ever read in pacing, tone, and grappling with the spirit and character of the subject, and on one of the most important and fascinating men in all of modern history.
Mill holds a special place in my reading history, both being passed down to me by my father (and informing much of his and hence my own views); and in being the one who rescued philosophy for me.I have never taken a course in philosophy, and so all my knowledge has been largely self-taught. Having begun with Plato an immersed myself in his works, I had the distinct feeling that whilst Philosophy was mind improving, it was not 'fun'. More than that, the ideas of society I got from that ancient authoritarian ran so counter to my own views and world that I wondered at their relevance, except as a point from which to mark as clearly as possible our own independence.
Then one night on the bus home, I pulled out a rag-eared copy of J.S.Mill's 'On Liberty' and started reading. Before I got off the ride, I knew something had changed in me. Mill was someone who 'got it'. Who saw society and human life much as I did, and where we differed, the sheer power of his argument (such as against all regulations on speech, including hate speech) moved me to change my own views. I call myself a 'Liberal' politically despite the difficulties such a term holds in this country, because I want to preserve that link to Mill. Finally, Mill showed me that the intellectual world of debate and great men and ideas was not one of abstract bastards, but one I could enter and seek comrades, compatriots and decry the common enemy. It was a world for all opinions, based on reason, ability of argument and perseverance, not just for a select few to dictate to the rest of humanity.
I like to think Mill would enjoy that last reason far more than the former.
So Highly Recommended.
In no particular Order, I'm also working my way through
Andrew Fisher by David Day
God: A Biography by Jack Miles
The Lucky Country By David Horne
Day's book is good, on a character & time well in need of attention, but the overwrought style, especially now that I can compare it to up the much more nimble and clear bio by Reeves is starting to slow my attraction for it. But I will persevere as his books on Curtin and Chifley were fantastic. (Though as a friendly wit wondered, with Day you keep expecting him to start finding and detailing evidence of the subject having an affair. A fascination of his that nearly derailed the Chifley book)
If you have an interest in all things religious, or feel the need to brush up, I certainly recommend Miles original and Fascinating book detailing the way the character of God develops in the Hebrew bible (which is close to the Christian Old Testament except in order), though taking a literary criticism approach, he is rather tied to the text and not the wider developments that form our idea of God within a Judeo-christian informed society.
Finally, Horne's The Lucky Country. I've always had want to read it, and like the Fisher book, will serve as useful fodder for my PhD (Which is adding another 20 books on top of any I list here in the 'Urgent read' pile).
So enough typing, back to the books. If I don't read 100 books this year (that is throughly, no skimming) I'm done for. My poor eyes...
Thought for the day
In 9 days Barack Obama will swear before an audience of 6 billion people, his commitment to the Constitution of the United States. In this, the US is unique, the constitution is where the Presidents loyalty lies, not the people, not their security or wealth (a distinction Bush never understood).
But, as the example of Bush, in his election and abuse of the constitution shows, the mere document itself is not our protector. Indeed, the reverence and stale nature of the piece (every 5 year old can tell you they have free speech, whilst few 50 yr olds ever use it), puts the United States, and indeed all western democracies at risk.
It is not the document, but the public spirit which motivates people to defend, debate and be involved in the civic realm which maintains a democracy and its rights. In codifying it, we have inherited the wisdom of our elders to aid us, and somehow taken this as liberty to reduce our own responsibility for involvement.
This is the great falling of democracy in the modern west. Its not apathy, its comfort and lack of respect for the most crucial role in our entire society: Citizen.
But, as the example of Bush, in his election and abuse of the constitution shows, the mere document itself is not our protector. Indeed, the reverence and stale nature of the piece (every 5 year old can tell you they have free speech, whilst few 50 yr olds ever use it), puts the United States, and indeed all western democracies at risk.
It is not the document, but the public spirit which motivates people to defend, debate and be involved in the civic realm which maintains a democracy and its rights. In codifying it, we have inherited the wisdom of our elders to aid us, and somehow taken this as liberty to reduce our own responsibility for involvement.
This is the great falling of democracy in the modern west. Its not apathy, its comfort and lack of respect for the most crucial role in our entire society: Citizen.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Wallmart is a virus
Take a look at this map charted spread of Walmart over the years:
http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/
http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/
Where is Homo economicus
Depressing news from the USA
Low gas prices are good in helping us through troubled economic times. Low gas prices are bad in allowing consumers to buy gas guzzling cars without thought for environment/future costs. High Gas Prices are good in reducing gas consumption, pollution. High Gas Prices are bad in giving succor to the worlds Petro-Dictators from Venezuela, to Russia and Saudi Arabia.
So, since the market isn't quite working as hoped and needed, our solution must be high gas prices, but imposed from internally. A gas tax to both reduce consumption, improve mileage and environmental impact, and turn the income to sponsoring R&D to assist our car industry, improve the roads, or other environmental benefits. Only in this way can we actually change consumers behavior and through that, lead to a reduced greenhouse footprint. Government cant legislate behavior, but it can use market signals to change it.
Regardless, we must declare Homo Economicus dead, and with the chaos of the Global Economic Crisis, the entire discipline of Economics on life support. If it is a science, then it needs to spend some more time studying who this species actually is, rather than who it would like us to be.
Trucks and sport utility vehicles will outsell cars for the first time since February, according to a December report by Edmunds.com, which tracks industry statistics.
"Despite all the public discussion of fuel efficiency, SUVs and trucks are the industry's biggest sellers right now as a remarkable number of buyers seem to be compelled by three factors: great deals, low gas prices and winter weather," said Michelle Krebs of AutoObserver.com, a division of Edmunds.com, in a prepared statement.
"It was this summer that customers were concerned about the gas mileage. It hasn't been a topic of conversation lately," said Dave Lawson, the general sales manager at Pomoco Chrysler Jeep Dodge in Newport News. The majority of Pomoco's inventory is SUVs, and its best-selling models are minivans.
Low gas prices are good in helping us through troubled economic times. Low gas prices are bad in allowing consumers to buy gas guzzling cars without thought for environment/future costs. High Gas Prices are good in reducing gas consumption, pollution. High Gas Prices are bad in giving succor to the worlds Petro-Dictators from Venezuela, to Russia and Saudi Arabia.
So, since the market isn't quite working as hoped and needed, our solution must be high gas prices, but imposed from internally. A gas tax to both reduce consumption, improve mileage and environmental impact, and turn the income to sponsoring R&D to assist our car industry, improve the roads, or other environmental benefits. Only in this way can we actually change consumers behavior and through that, lead to a reduced greenhouse footprint. Government cant legislate behavior, but it can use market signals to change it.
Regardless, we must declare Homo Economicus dead, and with the chaos of the Global Economic Crisis, the entire discipline of Economics on life support. If it is a science, then it needs to spend some more time studying who this species actually is, rather than who it would like us to be.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Ending the blood loss
One of the most self-defeating strategies of the Bush Administration (and there are many) was the choice to use torture on suspected and confirmed terrorists. The rationale makes sense and in the fear driven circumstances in the days after 9/11 it is pretty easy to reason most of us would also have demanded that all available methods for securing the country would be used. With no quarter or mercy given to thoser who would be willing to inflict such harm and damage to our nation.
Yet it is precisely this antiquitated thinking that has driven the Bush Administration into so many of its follies. It's mistakes in Iraq were often drawn from the assumption that Iraqi's were just americans with different skin, wanting to embrace a world of consumerism and freedom if only the big bad dictator was removed. Likewise for torture, in a previous era it may have worked, or at least given the country an edge without any negative side effects. Bush and especially Cheney simply were repeating the wisdom of past era's, as Matthew Parris, a former UK Conservative MP explains:
We live in a substantially different world to that of the 50's and 70's, despite the fact, the International Relations system still accords power to the same countries in relatively the same order. International Institutions command the legitimacy for the making of war for much of World Public Opinion, and the International Media are able to broadcast into every home in the world, sympathetic and opposed the actions of each administration, including when they walk "on the dark side"
With all this in mind, it is very heartening to learn today that the incoming Obama Administration has appointed Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Via Atrios a op-ed from Panetta last March
America is not only better than that, it is the anthesis of the modern nation. It, (far more than the french revolution I wager) introduced the modern idea of nationhood and the practice of nations to the world, and whilst burdened by a unspoken demand that it protect all people everywhere, it has constantly been at the forefront of the progress in Human Rights, Democracy and peaceful governance.
The Bush Administration tried, one last time to resist this push, to resist the slide into the post-vietnam world where governments are always accountable for the acts of their soldiers in distinant battlefields, and the legitimacy of any action is always up for public debate. This is a world that places many constraints and ties on a nation, even one as Gulliver sized as the USA. And whilst the ropes may not always hold (think invasion of Iraq by US without UN approval), the rope burn from the old ties is still apparent on this giants wrists and ankles.
One last time the Bush Administration pushed the old way of thinking ahead, hoping to resist the new worlds pressures. No administration after this will ever be so foolish. With the appointment of men like Panetta, we can be hopeful the Obama Administration is well aware of this lesson and the world it is about to lead.
* Postscript - If you are interested in the issue of torture and its perniscious effect, Jane Mayer's 'The Dark Side' is by far the best account of the Bush Administrations crimes, and my pick for best Non-Fiction book of 2008.
Yet it is precisely this antiquitated thinking that has driven the Bush Administration into so many of its follies. It's mistakes in Iraq were often drawn from the assumption that Iraqi's were just americans with different skin, wanting to embrace a world of consumerism and freedom if only the big bad dictator was removed. Likewise for torture, in a previous era it may have worked, or at least given the country an edge without any negative side effects. Bush and especially Cheney simply were repeating the wisdom of past era's, as Matthew Parris, a former UK Conservative MP explains:
The fate of his predecessor George W.Bush was to test almost to destruction the theory of the limitlessness of American wealth and power - and of the potency of the American democratic ideal too. With one last heave he pitched his country into a violent and ruinous contest with what at times seemed the whole world, and the whole world's opinion. He failed, luminously.
But maybe somebody had to.
We live in a substantially different world to that of the 50's and 70's, despite the fact, the International Relations system still accords power to the same countries in relatively the same order. International Institutions command the legitimacy for the making of war for much of World Public Opinion, and the International Media are able to broadcast into every home in the world, sympathetic and opposed the actions of each administration, including when they walk "on the dark side"
With all this in mind, it is very heartening to learn today that the incoming Obama Administration has appointed Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Via Atrios a op-ed from Panetta last March
Our forefathers prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment" because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.
America is not only better than that, it is the anthesis of the modern nation. It, (far more than the french revolution I wager) introduced the modern idea of nationhood and the practice of nations to the world, and whilst burdened by a unspoken demand that it protect all people everywhere, it has constantly been at the forefront of the progress in Human Rights, Democracy and peaceful governance.
The Bush Administration tried, one last time to resist this push, to resist the slide into the post-vietnam world where governments are always accountable for the acts of their soldiers in distinant battlefields, and the legitimacy of any action is always up for public debate. This is a world that places many constraints and ties on a nation, even one as Gulliver sized as the USA. And whilst the ropes may not always hold (think invasion of Iraq by US without UN approval), the rope burn from the old ties is still apparent on this giants wrists and ankles.
One last time the Bush Administration pushed the old way of thinking ahead, hoping to resist the new worlds pressures. No administration after this will ever be so foolish. With the appointment of men like Panetta, we can be hopeful the Obama Administration is well aware of this lesson and the world it is about to lead.
* Postscript - If you are interested in the issue of torture and its perniscious effect, Jane Mayer's 'The Dark Side' is by far the best account of the Bush Administrations crimes, and my pick for best Non-Fiction book of 2008.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Frost/Nixon
There's some anger in the lefty blogosphere at the new Ron Howard movie Frost/Nixon.
First the important part: Howard manages the impressive trick of drawing out the character drama of recent political events, without car chases or violence, just the battle of two men through a political interview. As a movie its a success, that will educate the vast majority of its audience about the crimes and stain of a man who's name is almost synonymous with evil, -though the current US president has done his (unintentional) best to recuperate his reputation-.
The great sin it seems to these bloggers (of whom Drum and Yglesias I read daily and respect highly) is that while Nixon was paid $600'000 for the interviews (then a LOT of money) the movie omits he also would take in 20% of the profits apparently meaning that instead of the movies pictures "They were business partners, not antagonists, and Nixon knew he had to “make news” with some kind of dramatic Watergate statement."
But this to me seems a ridiculous reduction of Nixon's character and concerns to one of simple greed. He had many sins, but wasn't a greedy man (no one who so entirely enters public service could be), and worth far far more to the man was his reputation in history and to his peers (the movie is set in 1977, 3 years after he had resigned). A rehabilitation of his reputation would have done far more to earn Nixon a good income in the future, than a small cut from a tell all confession, that would doom him forever.
Nixon was a proud man, indeed this was part of the reason for his fall, so I cant see how these attacks, which are clearly motived by still apparent malice for the man (of the three highlighting the flaw, the only one not to live during Nixon's era, Yglesias is the most forgiving) are at all significant. Movie goers know he is being paid, know he is being paid a very high price (indeed nixon's agent gloats early on at the price), but ultimately know that this man who is still the only US president to be forced to resign office, wanted to defend his reputation against the onslaughts of the purile journalistic core who never accepted him, against the wider public which had now turned on him, and perhaps even against his own darker demons that led him to the drink and bitterness during so much of his adult life.
Finally, I think the question about dramatic license is the wrong one. We engage with art over real world events not to learn the history, but to engage the questions which a straight narrative can not dig into. Knowing the date on which Charles I was executed tells us little about the emergence of british liberty and parliamentary democracy, knowing just how many soldiers and tanks the allies had does not give us much of a sense of how and why they overcame the totalitarian threat of Hitler, and seeing the true financial records of the USSR is only a tiny piece in understanding just why Communism could never sustain itself in Russia.
Art in a way that only the very very best history and biography can approach can engage these larger issues, the philosophical challenges that give a timelessness to some rare, few historical events. So long as the identities are clear (no go say pretending Hitler was the victim), we gain as much from a artistic engagement with history as we do with the best factual objective detailing of the same events. They are different ways to interpret an issue and we need both. Indeed in this world of information overflow, that ability to move beyond the events to the issues that matter will always be important so long as this species is still breathing.
If anything these bloggers should be celebrating a movie which brings the drama and bloodsport of politics to the wider audience, and which nails a conservative crook to the wall with only slight changes to the historical script. (Indeed if you even half enjoy the movie, go rent the actual Frost/Nixon interviews which have been re-released, the amount of lines taken word for word is impressive)
I began watching the film with a somewhat politically engaged friend, and by the end had a half dozen of us, some of whom never even think about politics -even when in the voting booth- all enjoying the cut and thrust of the finale of the movie.
Postscript: Drew wants to pretend Shakespeare didn't take historical license as a way to damn this film ? Please... You have to be pretty desperate to damn any current piece of art by comparing it negatively to Shakespeare, but if you are doing it at least make sure you know something of the man and his work, Caesar after all never said 'et tu brutus'.
First the important part: Howard manages the impressive trick of drawing out the character drama of recent political events, without car chases or violence, just the battle of two men through a political interview. As a movie its a success, that will educate the vast majority of its audience about the crimes and stain of a man who's name is almost synonymous with evil, -though the current US president has done his (unintentional) best to recuperate his reputation-.
The great sin it seems to these bloggers (of whom Drum and Yglesias I read daily and respect highly) is that while Nixon was paid $600'000 for the interviews (then a LOT of money) the movie omits he also would take in 20% of the profits apparently meaning that instead of the movies pictures "They were business partners, not antagonists, and Nixon knew he had to “make news” with some kind of dramatic Watergate statement."
But this to me seems a ridiculous reduction of Nixon's character and concerns to one of simple greed. He had many sins, but wasn't a greedy man (no one who so entirely enters public service could be), and worth far far more to the man was his reputation in history and to his peers (the movie is set in 1977, 3 years after he had resigned). A rehabilitation of his reputation would have done far more to earn Nixon a good income in the future, than a small cut from a tell all confession, that would doom him forever.
Nixon was a proud man, indeed this was part of the reason for his fall, so I cant see how these attacks, which are clearly motived by still apparent malice for the man (of the three highlighting the flaw, the only one not to live during Nixon's era, Yglesias is the most forgiving) are at all significant. Movie goers know he is being paid, know he is being paid a very high price (indeed nixon's agent gloats early on at the price), but ultimately know that this man who is still the only US president to be forced to resign office, wanted to defend his reputation against the onslaughts of the purile journalistic core who never accepted him, against the wider public which had now turned on him, and perhaps even against his own darker demons that led him to the drink and bitterness during so much of his adult life.
Finally, I think the question about dramatic license is the wrong one. We engage with art over real world events not to learn the history, but to engage the questions which a straight narrative can not dig into. Knowing the date on which Charles I was executed tells us little about the emergence of british liberty and parliamentary democracy, knowing just how many soldiers and tanks the allies had does not give us much of a sense of how and why they overcame the totalitarian threat of Hitler, and seeing the true financial records of the USSR is only a tiny piece in understanding just why Communism could never sustain itself in Russia.
Art in a way that only the very very best history and biography can approach can engage these larger issues, the philosophical challenges that give a timelessness to some rare, few historical events. So long as the identities are clear (no go say pretending Hitler was the victim), we gain as much from a artistic engagement with history as we do with the best factual objective detailing of the same events. They are different ways to interpret an issue and we need both. Indeed in this world of information overflow, that ability to move beyond the events to the issues that matter will always be important so long as this species is still breathing.
If anything these bloggers should be celebrating a movie which brings the drama and bloodsport of politics to the wider audience, and which nails a conservative crook to the wall with only slight changes to the historical script. (Indeed if you even half enjoy the movie, go rent the actual Frost/Nixon interviews which have been re-released, the amount of lines taken word for word is impressive)
I began watching the film with a somewhat politically engaged friend, and by the end had a half dozen of us, some of whom never even think about politics -even when in the voting booth- all enjoying the cut and thrust of the finale of the movie.
Postscript: Drew wants to pretend Shakespeare didn't take historical license as a way to damn this film ? Please... You have to be pretty desperate to damn any current piece of art by comparing it negatively to Shakespeare, but if you are doing it at least make sure you know something of the man and his work, Caesar after all never said 'et tu brutus'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
