Chasing the Norm

This Blog has Moved!

2009-01-30T14:01:00.001+11:00

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!

That teapot analogy

2009-01-28T11:17:00.004+11:00

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat returns to that old atheists trump:

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.

150 Years on, no finer words have been written.

2009-01-27T23:11:00.007+11:00

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

“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.

W.

2009-01-25T11:40:00.002+11:00

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.

A Team of Rivals ?

2009-01-23T19:52:00.001+11:00

A phrase that stands out from a recent SMH.com.au article:

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

2009-01-23T14:44:00.003+11:00

The Australian Newspaper regularly runs pieces criticizing political correctness and equivocations in language. So why then do they continue to do it themselves:

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.

Quick Thought

2009-01-22T11:32:00.002+11:00

Surely I'm not the only one who keeps breaking into a grin whenever they see the words "President Barack Obama".

Lets see Top Gear given a spin in this:

2009-01-21T15:13:00.003+11:00

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.

Government by the people

2009-01-21T12:02:00.001+11:00

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.

Obama's Inaguration speech

2009-01-21T05:47:00.001+11:00

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.

Inaguration instant thoughts:

2009-01-21T04:34:00.002+11:00

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.

Recognising what we really have.

2009-01-19T19:38:00.003+11:00

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

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

2009-01-19T11:54:00.004+11:00

This is an interesting admission from Senator Barnaby Joyce:

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

2009-01-19T11:40:00.002+11:00

I think Matthew Yglesias is essentially right here:

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

2009-01-19T09:57:00.001+11:00

Via Light On Dark Water: Agnosticism Is Not A Solution

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.

Best news story ever

2009-01-18T16:02:00.003+11:00

From AP News

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'.

Once more unto the breech

2009-01-17T12:59:00.004+11:00

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

2009-01-17T12:06:00.004+11:00

This might just be the first interesting/useful piece written by Ann Davies on US Politics

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.

The ripple of one man's decision

2009-01-16T16:00:00.004+11:00

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.

My kingdom for an Editor

2009-01-16T10:34:00.002+11:00

This is why I dont read the Canberra Times

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

2009-01-16T09:43:00.003+11:00

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:

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.

The media and war

2009-01-12T20:54:00.004+11:00

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.

"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.

What I'm Reading

2009-01-11T21:26:00.004+11:00

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...

Thought for the day

2009-01-11T21:15:00.002+11:00

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.

Wallmart is a virus

2009-01-08T13:26:00.002+11:00

Take a look at this map charted spread of Walmart over the years:

http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/

Where is Homo economicus

2009-01-08T11:18:00.002+11:00

Depressing news from the USA

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.

Ending the blood loss

2009-01-06T11:31:00.002+11:00

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:

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.

Frost/Nixon

2009-01-05T14:32:00.005+11:00

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'.

The importance of control

2008-12-29T12:41:00.002+11:00

In a related follow up to last nights post, comes this scientific study on how as people lose control over their lives, they start seeing patterns that dont exist, and developing paranoia about their circumstances.

This seems to me a central point that many on the right, especially of a libertarian bent miss. Unless people have a base of stability they will not see the world as it is and all its opportunities and possibilities (as this study shows). From there, people can actually engage the world and take risks towards improving their station in life. This is the spirit we wish to cultivate in these capitalistic times, yet so many libertarians want to engineer it by instead throwing people to the ravages of the system, and hoping the sheer panic of their circumstances will force them to act.

It is a mis-reading of human nature, and at best indifferent to human suffering if not inherently cruel. Give people a solid education, a social saftey net to keep them fed and able to put a roof over their head, and they can begin to step out and engage the world. It is the basis of confidence, the launch pad of individual freedom.

Private School Snobbery

2008-12-29T02:39:00.002+11:00

I am long amazed by the lefts* ability to shoot itself in the foot when it comes to education. An area that rests at the base of our core values about how society should work to offer the greatest number of opportunities for individuals to control and enjoy their lives. From the great sectarian wars of the 1950's & 60's over school funding for catholic schools (which contributed to the DLP's debilitating split from Labor ensuring 23 years of conservative government), to the so called 'hit list' of Mark Lathams 2004 education policy.

Somehow in all our well meaning push of education for all, their developed a real snobbery towards private schools (interestingly TAFE systems suffer the same snobbery. Seems the only safe path is public education at secondary school and then into a public university. (That you went to childcare just indicates if your parents are "modern"). Take this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, playing to its base on that same mix of jealousy and mis-placed egalitarianism.

UP TO 30 per cent of students at some elite private schools were given "special consideration" in this year's Higher School Certificate exams, raising questions about whether they gained an unfair advantage.

The NSW Board of Studies granted dispensations such as extra time to complete exams, coloured paper, large print and Braille or assistance with handwriting. The claims ranged from students with disabilities and illnesses such as diabetes, to those with unreadable handwriting and sweaty palms.

Braille ? They're fucking Blind! And yet still managing to sit the HSC. That's pretty god damn impressive. Even for the other very weak benefits,its often the case that parents of kids with problems will seek to send them to private schools which can offer better facilities to assist the child. If its the difference between getting through or dropping out for their child's future, most parents will, regardless of ideology or income attempt to make the cost. With stronger kids comes more assurance they can cope with the same process of the vast bulk of their peers in making it way through the trenches of High School in a government funded institution.

But what gets me here is not the lies, damn lies and statistics, its the inherent snobbery towards private schools that generates this list. Public schools are entirely ignored in the article, which distorts any sort of interesting story about if we are giving children too many medical exemptions from the usual challenges of growing up, and makes it one of elitist privilege, but without any foundation.

Yet this is a common attitude on the left. I recently was in a pub discussion on the subject of Rudd's new homelessness package, where my support and enthusiasm for it surprised one who wondered why 'someone who came from a private school' was concerned about it. Forget the non sequitur from housing to education, somehow a benefit earned in one area disqualified me from being concerned about a social ill. For me, a house, like a good education gives people a solid base from which they can begin to give order to their lives, giving them the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, and take responsibility for its outcomes. I'm sure many on the left see it likewise.

So why, when my parents sacrificed new houses or regular(any) trips overseas to pay for myself and my sisters private tuition, am I somehow regarded as having lost my connection to society. The newspapers take aim at private schools because few ever bother to defend them, likewise we graduates are supposed to almost apologies for our good fortune, when the experience for your hormonal, confused adolescent(ie every damn last one of us) was exactly the same to that of a private school. Adults confuse the rigors of school as being about the quality of the buildings and size of the school grounds. The real challenge is outside the classroom (or inside it behind the teachers back) as everyone seeks to find their place in the social system and begins to shape their own character. And when this anger slides from the newspages to the school bus's that share public and non-public students, or simply changes the people you end up hanging out with in your street, the already beleagured kids get hit too.

Sure, we can all imagine a taxi of Kings College 6th graders going past a public school and tauting on the poverty of the kids mothers, whilst holding their brand new laptops, but its occurrence is kids play compared to the adults encouraged snobbery by the public system towards the private.

John Howard defended these schools mainly because he thought it good politics, and liked putting a thumb in the eye of the left, knowing its capacity to over-reach. But at least he did it occasionally and forcefully. Australia has a fantastic mix of public and private schools, in one of the best education systems in the world. And it isn't even that dear. And part of that is our endorsement of a duel system. Whilst Howard got the balance wrong in favoring private schools too much (and i and many other private school graduates and parents strongly held a contrary view to the PM's) we should be encouraging all parents to try and send their children to private schools. If only because it means they are giving enough of a damn about their children's lives to guarantee that a good education is the main focus. Not all kids will get in, but I'd rather a family who never traveled so their kids could get the best start in life over one's who never even looked towards their children's homework because they valued other things. Public or private, its the parents investment in their children's education that counts. In terms of end product, it doesn't have anything to do with their income.

The left is just sidelining large sections of the middle and upper class, and for no god damn reason. It's not even Australian tall poppy syndrome at work, its just stupidity.

* I classify myself as liberal in outlook, which places me firmly on the left in Australia's political climate.

The other Peter

2008-12-24T12:50:00.002+11:00

Whilst I never quite bought the 'closet liberal' tag so often applied to Peter Costello, and increasingly came to doubt his political touch, there was always a genuine element to the man that Howard never had. Take this Christmas effort in todays Age:

The Christmas story will remind us that Jesus was born in a stable because there was no room at the inn. But Jesus was not the victim of homelessness. He had a home in Nazareth. It was just that he was a long way from home because Caesar Augustus (the Roman ruler) decreed that "all the world should be taxed". In order to assess and collect this tax, people were ordered back to their ancestral villages to be counted in a census. So Joseph and Mary were required to travel to Bethlehem more than 150 kilometres away.

he past couple of census nights have found me in Canberra — on parliamentary business — where I rent a flat with two senators. The census requires the household to nominate the reference person (Person 1) for filling out the forms. It is a touchy subject — who should be the head of the house — in a household comprised of two senators and a member of the House of Representatives.

Worse still, the members of the household have to describe their relationship with each other. What precisely is the relationship of three (male) members of Parliament to each other?

Like most of Costello's efforts over the last decade there are several good single points but no clear thread to tie it into an image or icon. Costello never articulated a clear view of his Australia as opposed to the one Howard relentlessly pushed every single day. Costello promised several times to begin speaking outside his area and begin painting this picture for the voters, but he never came through with it. With pieces like this, despite the disjointed and aimless nature of its thought you have to wonder just what we missed out on by not having a PM Costello.

Most likely he will be gone by the next election, and promptly forgotten by history. He should have been PM, but never was willing to risk all to gain all. I hope thats consolation enough for him on the quiet late nights in his rented Canberra flat.

Hello World.

2008-12-23T14:19:00.002+11:00

Why is it that so many who do law become politicians, yet lawyers as a profession have so little political nous. Take this effort from the NSW Solicitor General

it should be noted that in the present discussion there seems to be some suggestion there is a big difference between a bill of rights, which would allow courts to declare invalid legislation that was found to contravene some aspect of the bill, and a so-called charter of rights, which would allow courts only to declare legislation inconsistent with the rights as set out in the charter.

One reason there would be little difference in practice between these two schemes is that no government is likely to leave untouched a law that has been held by a judge to be contrary to human rights.

The difference here is stark. Without a punishment beyond reprimand, few governments will ever pay attention to a Charter of Rights. There is a legislative version in the ACT which has been very quickly forgotten by the general public and what passes for commentators down here. No punishment, no risk, no attention. The courts regularly ruled on the conditions of refugees during the Howard years, but little policy ever changed because of it.

Personally I want to see a bill of rights focus primarily on protecting people from the government, rather than other people. Free speech, representation, privacy, public trials by peers. The American founders got it right in designing rights for a democratic society. (Though something about a right to be counted fairly might have been a wise move given 2000's events)

I strongly side with the importance of a legal order as the foundation for a fair society, and international peace. But as a profession Lawyers are awful advocates for their arguments. Even the eloquent, brilliant ones like Geoffry Robertson are often self-defeating in their overinflation of the ability of the law to reign in tyrants and the malicious. We need politicians to get back into the arena and argue for a bill of rights, otherwise the public will reject the idea out of hand. This is a political fight, needing political skills, even if they were once trained in law.

Prep Time

2008-11-29T11:28:00.002+11:00

Once more i am making lame apologies for my lack of posting. Whilst most students are finally finished, this has been my busiest time of the whole year (and thats saying something in a hectic 2008), marking exams, organising final marks for students and writing my PhD Statement of Intent and speech, in order to justify being able to continue studying next year.

So as a small peace offering, and as my first real academic contribution to this blog (as it is eventually intended to become) I offer the abstract to my PhD & Presentation.

‘Middle Power States as Norm Entrepreneurs’
Australian engagement with the Asia-Pacific region 1983-2007

Abstract
Australia has always looked to the Asia-Pacific region with a sense of both foreboding and opportunity. While Australia has recognised its immense opportunities, being culturally and historically remote from its nearest neighbours, it has sometimes felt it had to choose – in the words of a former Prime Minister - ‘between its history and its geography’. Routinely denied the obvious resort to military ‘hard’ power to achieve its foreign policy objectives in the region, Australia developed an ‘irrepressible activism’ [Wesley 2007:222] along ‘soft power’ lines. First, in ensuring the support of ‘great and powerful friends' prepared to defend Australia and later branching out to establish bilateral, regional and multi-lateral relationships in service of its national interests. Although significant scholarship has already been expended on Australia’s efforts towards securing deliverable security or trade deals and institution creation, there exists a gap concerning Australia’s Foreign Policy cultivation and use of norms (i.e. ideas and values) to secure its foreign policy objectives. As a ‘Norm Entrepreneur’, Australia presents an ideal case study for how Middle Power countries may seek to generate and spread norms both bilaterally and multilaterally in service of foreign policy and national goals. This paper will outline the proposed course of further study, in identifying the approaches undertaken by Australia’s foreign policy towards the Asia-Pacific region, and explore the literature on norms, especially with regard to policy and identity issues, including related methodology. This will enable an analysis of both the Labor (1983-1996) and the Liberal Government’s (1996-2007) approach to spreading norms within the Asia-Pacific region in bilateral and multilateral forums, and the potential for a middle power country to act as a norm entrepreneur.

The big song and dance show starts 9am Monday Morning. Wish me luck!

The Jung in the Machine

2008-11-21T16:19:00.003+11:00

Typealyzer is a new site which scans blogs and details the authors pyschological type (using the Jung & Myers-Brigg's model). Punching in this address for this blog comes up with:

INTP [The architect] The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

What's impressive is that it seems to work pretty well (and quickly) all without having any way of directing or testing my responses, simply analyzing presented material. When I did a formal Myers-Briggs test taking about an hour I ended up with INTJ - "The Mastermind", with the only real difference being it represents a more outcome orientated approach, rather than strictly structure building. Which makes sense in many ways as my posts on this blog largely involve me responding to and breaking apart whats going on, rather than urging and advocating changes. The medium shapes the message.

Now its all a bit meta to post this on my site, (though once again I'm responding), but you could have some fun shaping it (and perhaps even changing the way other people perceive your work and words based on appearing to represent an alternate type) or seeing how it reads your friends writings.

Then again I wonder if the blog will take into account the fact I've just written this whole post to try and avoid the last painful bits of marking I have left. Hardly the act of a worldly analyst is it ?

Eh, forget marking, I'm going back to playing Left 4 Dead. I wonder what effect my desire to kill zombies in mass quantities has on my personality type?

Censoring the internet.

2008-11-18T23:30:00.002+11:00

From an IT consultant I talk about online/IT issues with regularly, but posted here as a rather easy but useful strawman.

The controlling public opinion comment wasn't meant to be taken as hyperbole and I probably should've worded it better. Although I don't expect an outright attempt to control public opinion (ala China) there will be a control of information that comes into Australia should this go into full swing. They even state themselves that it could have up to an 8% false positive rate. That's huge! I can also guarntee that there will be some representatives who get stuff blocked because they don't agree with it (right-wing christian party blocking pro-abortion sites springs to mind) and it will probably never get removed.

Despite the well justified anger online in a lot of quarters about the Rudd Governments efforts to introduce a mandatory internet filtering scheme isn't china and fundi christians usually dont know enough about computers to be the tech guys who could possibly distort the list. Certainly the idea the government will be from PM Rudd/Minister Conroy sending directives for specific websites or topic areas to be censored is ludicrious.

That said, Australia already has laws against discussing suicide techniques, or promoting euthanasia online, (passed in 2004 with both major parties shameful support, the media ignored it, I only found out because I was working in the chamber as they discussed it), so that area of material is sure to be included in the scope of the filtering.

Western Governments have no need to censor the views of people online. If they are saying it online, they are likely either A) entirely ignored and so no threat or B) too close to being a journalist/somebody to risk censoring. Theres no advantage for the govt trying to censor topics or people online. This is just about appeasing the fundies over pictures and slash fiction. And a half hearted attempt at that.

Not that I'm defending the idiotic move (its bad politics and bad policy), but lets not fall into hysteria here. The net's goldern era of unregulated free flow was always going to come to an end (radio had a similar pirate phase & tens of thousands of amateur talk shows the predecessors to bloggers), the question then is how do you design a good system that falls under some basic legal system (The net is a perfect place for International Law to assert its dominance over states law. It should be the UN not Australia making these laws), without too much damage to the system or its potentials.

Nothing goes unregulated forever, Rudd & Conroy's attempt is just a particularly ham fisted way of doing so, as every single western government in the world is thinking about/ due to in the next 5 years. Better for the online community (Whilst making a strident stand for free speech as integral to our system of government and way of life) to propose an acceptable system for both completely stopping access to material such as child porn, whilst still allowing adults their late night entertainment, and dope smokers to compare recipies for brownies. I'd much much more prefer to see no internet censorship at all, but its not going to happen and politically speaking want to the opposition to the bill focused on constructive efforts to preserve speech, not this all or nothing + hyperbole about police states that seems to invade the Australian internet communities efforts thus far in opposition to the bill.

Perhaps worst is the fact that after 11 years of a genuinely luddite government, we have one in place which knows and acknowledges the value of the internet and computers and yet caved instantly to distort and disrupt it. Weak as piss Rudd.

History Wars

2008-11-18T10:16:00.002+11:00

As a blogger we have the option of simply not posting when we dont have any material, columnists however are not so lucky, but they get paid and we dont, they're apparently professionals and we're not. So they're going to rise to the occasion right ?

Well perhaps not: Gerard Henderson take a bow

Infamous Victory: Ben Chifley's Battle For Coal is co-written by the leftist Bob Ellis, and the film's historical consultants include left-of-centre historians Phillip Deery and Ross McMullin.

The documentary is favourable to Chifley - even to the extent of exaggerating his opposition to communism. So much so that no one talks about the fact that, in his final speech, Chifley actually warned against anti-communism. Still, it's a harmless product.

Right, life long opposition to the communists is made irrelevant by having a go at the ugly and intrusive tactics of the anti-communists. No mention made that Chifley died during the great debate over the attempt to ban the Communist Party in 1951, one of the most civil liberty destroying and according to the High Court grossly illegal power grabs in Australian history. No mention even of the doco's story (its quite watchable and up on iview for Australian readers/those behind a good proxy) which pits the former train driver, life long union man, and famously declared in 1931 on the side of the strikers and against using troops against them. But a line in a speech is enough to doubt his bona-fides it seems...

Not so Menzies And Churchill At War. Here the script is written by the producer John Moore, and there are no conservative historical consultants. The two main interviewees are the left-wing academics Judith Brett and David Day, who run the standard left-wing line that Menzies wanted to quit Australia in 1941 and hoped to become prime minister of Britain. Of course there is no evidence for this assertion, as Menzies's biographer Allan Martin demonstrated. Moore excluded any dissenting opinion on this issue.
Moore's introduction carries the left-wing line that in 1939 Menzies committed Australian troops "in support of the Mother Country". In fact, Menzies committed the Australian Imperial Force to war in 1939 because he, with most Australians, believed that it was a good idea to fight Nazism. Moore also excluded any contrary opinion on this issue.

Henderson seems distrustful of historians, even in this case two of the most distinguished and respected ones in Australia, Judith Brett who is perhaps the pre-eminent scholar on the Liberals in current times, and David Day who (having written books on Curtin and Chifley, and Churchill's relationship with Australia during WW2 is one of the best historians around for such a topic). So lets go see what Menzies said, as politicians speeches apparently lay bare their soul and true sentiments:

Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially, that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.

In fact go to the site above and you can even hear Menzies say these defining words, so though I am a left wing academic, I seem to have stumbled onto the truth.

While Bishop dances on GNW, the Liberals make it possible for their political opponents to frame their history. It all seems pretty stupid to me.

Henderson began the piece with some ABC bashing and a cheap shot at Bishop which I mercifully spared you. But he returns to it here to reiterate a consistent theme: that it is only left wing historians telling this story. Well that's true (though doesnt prove anything about their honesty or capability to do so, and some like Brett are very strongly centrist if not clear conservatives). Yet the reason for this is not some nefarious plot, but the simple fact that there are very few conservative historians in this country. I remember a chat with Wayne Errington (of the excellent Howard Biography fame) who got quite excited at the idea of my proposed PhD on the history of Liberalism in Australia from a Liberal perspective. The history of the Labor movement in this country is very well filled, yet left wing historians like Errington and Van Olsen (along with Brett) are doing their level best to fill in the other side of the scale. Its not some plot that means few conservative historians are working on big projects, it's simply that there are very few conservative historians.

Blainy and Windschuttle are the only two who leap to mind, though both are very well known, often well in advance of their talent.

Instead of calling everyone else stupid, whilst putting out plainly dumb columns like this, perhaps the self proclaimed "executive director of The Sydney Institute" could step out of the punishing once a week 700 word demand as a columnist and contribute to the documentaries or book on Australian political history but from a Conservative party. Sounds like a smart idea to me.

There's something stirring...

2008-11-16T11:47:00.003+11:00

"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs," - Hannah Arendt, Dissent, 1959.

I meant to post this yesterday, but today's a better choice. Right across the USA, if not the world are significant protests against the passage of Proposition 8 in California and openly for Homosexual marriage. Not just in the usual places of New York and San Francisco, but Alaska, Iowa City, Philadelphia (Alright that one isnt too suprising), but how about Wisconsin or Salt Lake City ?

Whilst the acceptance of Homosexuality is only somewhat higher amongst Gen-Y and below, what is significant is that it is real acceptance, not just a lack of hate or discrimination, or even just tolerance, for those who dont have a problem with Homosexuals, the idea that any form of discrimination or second class status is valid is completely unacceptable.

This comes up as a policy break on the left between the old and new generations in the issue of Gay Marriage. Whilst older left wing politicians like the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd or even our own Jon Stanhope (ACT Chief Minister) tolerate and want to end discrimination against Homosexuals, for neither is full marriage the right answer. But for the youth there is no question, just as Hannah Arendt wrote in 1959 that Marriage is not only the only option it is an inviolable right for any and all adults in this world.

I'm not saying the youth will rise and overturn the discrimination against Homosexuals, sadly too many of my generation still bear that prejudice and even wear it openly at times, despite the prevelance and normality of homosexuals in our culture and social lives. But if and when action is taken by this generation, it wont be for half measures like Civil unions. Only full marriage, of term and form will be seen as acceptable.

Really how could anything else be?

Night thoughts of writer

2008-11-09T00:19:00.004+11:00

This blog will continue its political bent. But for the moment it feels appropriate to draw out to dicuss some of the other great threads of life in culture and society. However first, glass of wine in hand, its worth reconsidering the mere act of writing itself.

To be honest, I havn't thought of myself as a writer for many a year. It was at best an early dream to overcome my crippling failure as a student in normal society. Year 12 and its strictures simply did not suit me. Fittingly it has taken a documentary on Hunter S. Thompson to revive those long lost thoughts. Ironically, it was an interaction with another HST junkie several years ago that led me off that path. The boy was some non-descript fool who thought drugs were the path to enlightenment and great writing (I'm yet to see his name on a book spine, though havn't bothered to look).

When I read Hunter S. Thompson, -though only at his best- I can almost feel the heartbeat of the writer behind the symbols, the calculating but impulsive drive to find not just some words, but the right word for each circumstance. In reading Hunter you feel taken into the writers confidence. Like Kerouac, or in touches Hemmingway and Faulkner, Hunter gave you a sense of having read the first draft straight off his typewriter. In that way he was the original blogger, though he would abuse us all for the term, and decry the slovern nature of bloggers who think their unprepared, unpolished thoughts worthy of mass consumption. Hunter was never unpolished, never unprepared, never quite the raw immediate edge which his writing seemed to imply.

Hunter was never in a word, unprofessional.

If anything is my objection to this odious tag blogger, (and I guess now to my fellow colleagues) it is the asserted but never evidenced claim that the authentic mouth rattling out his thoughts is more worthy of consideration than a dozen professionals, with their carefully edited and crafted thoughts. Much like the Republican parties objectification of Sarah Palin as a leader of the American people because of her connection to the American people, these bloggers assert that their rejection of the mainstream media somehow represents their qualification for being real commentators on the american dream.

I've always thought there is something intoxicating in this whole writing process. Its long held and celebrated connection to booze only adds to this mythos. Writing at its purist asserts the direct translation of thoughts to physical symbols. In some ways the illusiory character of the letters doesn't matter, what counts is the process that connect mind to reality. To push from consciousness to practice.

Philosophy has spent 2000 years failing to guarantee us this link. Physics has to institute a dozen never seen, felt or smelt particles to somehow connect the noumenal to the phenomenal. Chemistry, Maths, Religion are no help here at all other than vainly wishing 'what you see is what you get'. As always doubts linger..

But with writing we know instinctively that the link is never in doubt. The entire endeavour has no purpose other than forging that link. Where we, the audience, pull away, where we come to doubt the authors honesty or effort, it is because he has broken the connection between his mind and word. And that is the writers bond.

I cant quite credibly claim to the title of writer these days. The headline of this post is a lie. But the churning beast still lies within me. And it has taken a reconnoiter with Hunter S. Thompson to bring it out. A man, who in life and death never betrayed that demand. We met his mind in his writing. He was a writer.

I miss Hunter.

I miss reading what he would have thought about Barack Obama. He would have liked Tuesday night. He wouldn't have been agreeable. He couldn't have been disagreed with. But he would always have held that connection. We should all be so lucky.

What happens now

2008-11-08T18:28:00.002+11:00

I'd always lived in a fairly political household. My dad certainly had strong views, and my mum always liked to keep up with the news. Combined I got a lot of exposure to the sport of politics over the years.
I remember distinctly watching a small tv closely as Paul Keating concede government. The thought, which seemed significant at the time in a way I could never explain was that I had lived my entire conscious life under a Labor government. (I was born 2 months into Bob Hawkes first term)
I remember asking my parents on my 18th for Don Watson's Recollection of a Bleeding Heart an insiders account of the life of a speechwriter in the Prime Ministers office. The talk of intrigue, intimate access, and the challenge to articulate and shape the message to attract the public was intoxicating. I dont remember why I asked for the book, I've never read anything remotely like it before, didnt know a hell of a lot about Keating beyond his news appearances, yet the book changed my life.
I remember the anger and betrayal I felt watching the 2001 Election. My political interest had been steadily growing, but the 9/11 attacks and debates about afghani refugees seeking sanctuary on our vast, peaceful continent drove me to seek other I could express my views to. I quickly decided I would only bore my immediate friends, and so sought out new common political junkies online to argue with, not finding a good place to make camp until reaching the ABC's 2001 election site: Political Animal.

For 7 years I've been writing and talking and thinking about politics online. There were some very bitter blows. The inevitable Iraq war in 03; Lathams defeat and Bush's victory in 04. The hopelessness as Bush tore up the constitution, Howard squandered opportunities and targeted unions and students. The outrage drove my keyboard bound fingers on. I must have poured a hundred thousand words down the internet tubes every single year.

Slowly the victory's began to come, the changes. Dems winning the congress in 06, the departure of Rumsfeld, and of course the triumph of Kevin 07. And now, Barack Obama, a man I first began telling my friends and co-conspirators to watch in late 2006, has been elected President of the United States of America. The countries that matter most are now in the hands of people I support and tend to believe will do the right things. There are some outrages, but nothing so significant as the stain Howard and Bush will be seen to have left on their respective countries ideals.

What do I do now then. Now that the anger has dissipated, the outrage softened, the daily cycle of unacceptable policies and comments turned off.

This is going to take some time to figure out... I may be gone some time.

The case for Obama

2008-11-04T10:19:00.003+11:00

I've been spruking the name of Barack Obama to my friends for almost 2 years now. Their responses are either of the sympathetic but slightly pity driven form, finding funny gifs or images, or else quietly taking me aside to suggest he might not be "the one" the messiah bound in human flesh. They wonder if his talk of 'hope' and 'change' isn't just false advertising, designed to take in the young and the foolish who have spent 8 years cursing the name Bush.

Yet however strong his ability to use his rhetoric to move our hearts (especially when set to music), he is even better at using it to position himself and control the landscape and to me this is his real appeal. Not change in itself, but competence as a change.

When G.W.Bush ran in 2004 seeking to gain his precious 50.1% by appealing to his core base and only them, and Kerry muddled around with angry, tired democrats, Obama spoke to the idea that elections and the public arena could be about a united country, not a red or blue one. Such eloquence was less designed to make us want to join hands together, and more about asserting that all could and should get behind him, that as Americans their first duty was to back the unifying candidate. Their citizenship required them to vote for the democrat. The pitch failed, but few failed to be impressed by this young man on the rise. In 2007 we saw the same clever use of rhetoric as Obama clearly expressed not only what the public wanted "change", but an engine to achieve it "hope" and then dared his opponents to contradict him. Whilst he maintained the same themes throughout, first Clinton and then McCain laughed at the idea. Experience was the key they claimed, what’s this young kid going to do at 3am they mocked. But Obama repeated his mantra. Then grudgingly it became it was experience as a requirement for change. You have to be a proven Maverick if you want change. A reformer. But Obama stood his ground, repeating his themes, all the while focusing down below the air waves and TV campaign on building an organisation of millions to get people voting, to get people talking, under the mantra "Include. Respect. Empower" whilst Clinton and McCain focused on TV add buys, Obama quietly requited an army to talk to their neighbors. But not just in the old model of calling to harass. He asked them to get involved themselves. To become team leaders. His paid operatives would be somewhere in the background, but mainly it would be volunteers running the campaign. Their ability to requite new members was their path to ascension in the office and organisation. Of course Clinton and McCain were still unaware of this, as they battled to control the nightly news cycle, clocking up points after points they were sure as they dominated the talking heads and got everyone to run their campaign adds for free. But somewhere these two proven politicians both knew it wasnt working. Experience wasn’t trumping change. Change was what the people wanted. And so reluctantly, but with great flourish they both embraced it. For Clinton it came too late, the race was over she just hadn’t quite realized it. For McCain however, it led him to his single greatest political mistake: Picking Sarah Palin. What could be more a sign of change than to choose a woman from Alaska as VP.
With the choice of Palin Obama’s victory was complete. Not because of the way her flaws would drive many from the GOP, not in the way it showed how blatantly political and identity politics driven McCain’s choice was, but because it ended McCain’s genuine claim to experience, and forced him to become an agent of change. Obama had set the field for the year it was about “change” and with the pick of Palin, McCain had finally, reluctantly, grudgingly agreed.
For the public from that moment on it became pretty easy. The early interest in Palin died away, and Obama went on doing the things that were necessary. A strong, calm, measured showing in the debates, and not over-reacting to the economic crisis as McCain immediately did with his campaign suspension. Neither of these was significant in themselves, but they showed that Obama could be trusted to be a steady hand all the while he pushed for change.

It was change the public wanted after 8 years of cronyism, corruption, torture, abuse of the constitution, arrogance, woowserism, and incompetence. They wanted change, and Obama all along was going to hold himself out there as the real deal. His opponents final desperate claim to also be change agents was always going to fail because the people will reliably enough always go with the original instead of copies (which is a lesson the left never really learnt trying to outmuscle -on defence- or out bastardise -on immigration- the right over the last 20 years) .

I first began to admire Obama back in 2006 because here was someone who had obvious and clear political skills, and was on our side. I’ve never been entirely sure what kind of a democrat he is. Or how our views mesh, there is a somewhat elusive, lack of hard stance approach to his views (other than when he spots an opening ie no gas tax holiday, or a middle class tax cut). In foreign policy he offers a mix of realism in his response to the Iraq War, whilst also being a solid endorser of the idea of America’s unique ability and role to spread democracy around the world. Likewise in domestic policy he wants to create some kind of universal health care and green high tech industries, but made neither a focus of his campaign or justification for his candidacy.

In this his real appeal, is not just change (and never underestimate the impact of America erasing the original sin of slavery by electing a black man) but competency. Something we take for granted in most parliamentary democracies, that even the bastards know what they are doing, but far from the case in lone man presidential systems. Obama to me represents someone who I know will get things done. He might not be as smart as Bill Clinton, but his rhetorical political skills are far greater. He might not be as dedicated to domestic reform for Health Care as Hillary Clinton, but his likelihood of achieving something is greater. He might not be as committed to helping the poor rise up out of poverty as John Edwards, but he will be able to guarantee policy changes from the very beginning. He might not be as used to the whims of foreign policy as Joe Biden or John McCain, but his ability to outwitted the best political minds in the USA suggests he will do the same against the rest of the world, particularly when not just his career (as during the election) but now his country’s fate is riding on his choices.
Why Obama ? Because he has the best political skills I’ve ever seen. He promises not a future vision that I desire, but as strong and capable a vehicle to ride towards improving America’s standing in the world, making good on its promises to its citizens and promoting liberalism as a honorable and worthy path for the betterment of mankind. I’ve never been that interested in Obama’s vague references to the end goal, what matters is his clearly demonstrated ability to lead his party towards those goals.

That is why he will win on Tuesday, that is why he is so inspiring. Not the hope, but the underlying talent. From there anything truly is possible. Barack Obamas real appeal is competence. Sadly after the Bush years that will be a real change.

2008-10-30T12:20:00.003+11:00

This week signals the end of the teaching period here in Australia. As such for lecturers, especially in fields as diverse as politics, it gives us a bit of a chance to try and sum up the course, the content and perhaps even take stock of where we think the world is today. I raised this with a colleague who's immediate thought was to suggest talking about how the world is a complete mess, where as my own ended with a signal of optimism. Now of our two styles, I have no doubt that my friends approach will better serve her for getting a Academic job and well received publications. Pessimism sells. It is indeed one of the great benefits of the academic and political commentariate that we point out the flaws and mistakes of society, so they can be properly addressed. But I also think it ends up presenting a slightly warped and intellectually dishonest picture. By focusing only on the negatives, we are missing part of the story. It was with these thoughts in mind that I came across an article by one of my favourite bloggers the conservative Daniel Larison:

it has been optimism, which includes the belief that growth and progress are essentially limitless, that every problem has a solution and that the structures of our existence can be bent and changed according to our desires, that lies at the heart of our greatest difficulties. And it is optimism that prevents us from coping with the consequences of unrealistic expectations.

Perhaps helping to prove my point, Larison currently works for the American Conservative magazine, and is getting published at the usually excellent Culture 11 conservative publication. Pessimism sells.

However I think here he, (like my colleague) mistakes optimism for recklessness and indifference. To be optimistic is not to ignore the challenges and risks, to be optimistic is not to fall for utopianism, to falsely believe the solution to every problem will be easy and achievable now. To fall for a mirage. Instead, to borrow a phrase, there is nothing false about hope.

I'm sometimes asked why I identify as a Liberal, not a lefty, and the reason is my optimism in progress. Now perhaps this is just a character flaw, but I think intellectually history backs this up.

In 1900 there were around a dozen functioning democracies, today there are over 90. The average life expectancy in the first world was in the 40's, today in the developing world its well into the 70's, with the elite of the first world looking to clock 80+. We have brought women into our political, economic and educational institutions, we have abandoned the idea of a racial superiority and in doing so scrubbed our systems free of its subverting prejudice. We have developed the technology to talk to anyone in the world in real time, to explore space, to search for the moment of the universes creation, to re-engineer the human body to overcome so much that the natural world has tried to throw at us, in its unceasing war on our species.

We may falter at all of these tasks from time to time, we have not yet extended these benefits as universally as we must, but and perhaps most importantly we are aware of our failings. We know when there is a genocide, a racist betrayal, an abuse of rights, a hungry child.

Perhaps that is why Academics should be rewarded for their naturally negative tendencies, they are part of the great effort pushing our society to not only be aware, but to act on these faults and flaws. But like a night time janitor who see's only the mess left behind in the empty stadium, what they all seem to miss is the thriving, passionate and engaged life which filled the rafters with cheers and joy just hours before.

Contra Larison, It was optimism that led mankind to first gather together, to build, to shape and try to craft out a safe harbor against nature's unrelenting efforts to kill us. It has led us to double our lifespan, educate our minds, challenge racism and bigotry, and expand beyond our tiny planet into the stars above. We couldn't have done any of this without optimism, it is a necessary element of every single significant human achievement, from the pursuit of an individual towards their ideal partner, to our greatest collective works.

It was not optimism but blind faith that led us astray in Iraq and in our markets. Optimism is not the problem, blind faith is. Faith leads us to trust the sun will rise again tomorrow. Optimism demands we do everything we can to take advantage of that opportunity should it arise. Faith tells us that our desired outcome will come through regardless, optimism that we can achieve it if we try.

In 6 days the US will elect its first africa-american president. For a nation with optimism practically enshrined in its constitution, its hard to see this as not the perfect and timely example of optimisms critical importance.

Know hope.

The real impact

2008-10-28T21:09:00.002+11:00

Blogging has been unacceptably low of late, due to the chaos of end of term marking and administration. I'm also beginning to organise the new and real home of this site and blog.

Until then, heres a story that didn't get a lot of coverage in the press. I wasn't one who went to the barricades in 2001 over immigration, but when you read a story like this you cant help but wonder if the legal term manslaughter ought not better apply to our governments actions

It's Hell for Afghans

Mr Rajabi, a member of the persecuted Hazara ethnic group in Afghanistan, arrived on Nauru in late 2001, where his claim for asylum was rejected and he was given no right of appeal.

He tells Mr Glendenning, whose search for rejected asylum seekers is at the heart of the program, that Immigration officials told him it was safe to go back. They offered to give him $2000 to return "voluntarily", or face indefinite detention. "They told us that even if we stayed there for 10 years we would never be accepted."

So in late 2002 Mr Rajabi went back. Four months later he was at home with his family in a town outside Kabul when an explosion ripped through the walls and windows of his house. He describes in the documentary how first there was one bang, then another. Shrapnel tore through the window, killing his daughter Yalda. Rowna, his youngest daughter, died a few minutes later.

It was a grenade attack, believed to be by the Taliban who, according to local medical authorities and newspaper reports, targeted the family.

Mr Rajabi drops his head into his hands and breaks down, unable to go on.

SBS will be screening the documentary A Well-Founded Fear next month, looking at the lives of those sent back.

No doubt most who voted for this vile program in 2001 wont have the stomach to see the effects of their actions. Democracy grants people not only the opportunity to get involved in government, but also a responsibility for its outcomes.

This is one such outcome.

The modern world

2008-10-21T20:58:00.002+11:00

In the life of a teacher you get some interesting questions at times. Things out of left field, so i had to stammer some-what when a student from Afghanistan who's sitting in on some of my classes asked me post-lecture "what is modernity?"

Now i'd used the term a few times already in the lecture, and rolled out some phrases about the enlightenment, western ethnocentricism to define westernism as modernism, and the rise of rationalism. But as I walked away, it made me wonder what does really define the modern world. What is it that truly separates traditional civilization from the modern, western, developed world ?

The answer i think is : Individualism.

This is perhaps a history unwritten, but a vital one. As Aristotle noted way back 300 years before christ, man is a political animal, one who needs and places society before and as a requirement for his own individual basis and identity.

Yet our two greatest civilizational developments, the savior of mankind's soul (Religion) and mankind's body (the welfare state) came through the assertion of the social over the individual. But in the worst societies around the world, it is the demand of the social over the individual that is used to justify the excesses of genocide, human rights abuse, poor governance etc.

Of course this represents a fundamental shift, the well being of the individual vs the wellbeing and the society. But even fundamentalist Islamist's in their concern for social morality still idealise the sacrifice of the individual (ie suicide bombers) despite their desire for a pre-modern interpretation of the world.

It seems to me wherever mankind achieves the benefit of its species(rather than merely intends), it comes through the advancement of individual rights. Liberalism in seeking individual rights, democracy in seeking individual participation in government, capitalism in utilizing the self-interest of individuals, has created wealth, opportunity and prosperity beyond our imagination.

And yet the rot of individualism lies at the core of modern problems. Those who see the world as without value, those who abuse their bodies, minds and lives because "whats the point, the continual divide between those who so stridently attach to the old values and those who want to seek out on the path to something new.

This is the modern problem, but precisely what defines us. It is a story un-written. One where our laws recognise and defend our individual right to protection, that creates structures to protect ourselves from the actions and flows of our fellow man.
And yet, without societies embracing tradition, the only basis for our values and meaning are now defined within ourselves. A challenge so many of our society are entirely unwilling to undertake.

Individualism may offer us freedom, but however much we may value it, do we actually want it ?

Watching the Watchers

2008-10-13T00:43:00.002+11:00

I've not had a lot to say on the Economic crisis, if only because I doubt my own ability to predict the future currents, and so could offer little beyond a recap of the daily news for my readers. In light of that, this backgrounder by Niall Ferguson, seems a useful read

We are living through the end of a phenomenon that Moritz Schularick of Berlin's Free University and I christened "Chimerica." In this view, the most important thing to understand about the world economy over the past 10 years has been the relationship between China and America. If you think of it as one economy called Chimerica, that relationship accounts for around 13 percent of the world's land surface, a quarter of its population, about a third of its gross domestic product and somewhere more than half of global economic growth in the past six years.

For a time, this symbiotic relationship seemed almost perfect: One half did the saving, and the other half did the spending

I'm not really sure why Ferguson is classed as a Historian, given his current world focus, (I assume it lends gravitas to ones claims) but he certainly is a figure worth watching and reading regularlly, even if his friendship with McCain does tend to lead him to follow a historical loser down a no ends path.

If nothing else, it pays to keep an eye on the competition. Certainly his industriousness forces one to be honest and forthright in their acts.

Creators and their creations

2008-10-12T13:24:00.004+11:00

With apologies to the excellent XKCD I think this pretty much sums up my view of Thomas Friedmans new book 'Hot, Flat, and Crowded'

Friedman's book is about 1/3 too long, in large part because he has this ingrating desire to be the first to coin a new term, to tag and bag the changes in world politics and so (with dreams of historical recognition beckoning) creates many new words, subverts words "the green peril" even time periods like "ECE" or Energy Climate Era.

I can understand the desire to be the one who coins the new term, that offers certain power in how the topic is defined (climate change and global warming being two obvious, non-value-netural recent terms). But for all the benefits of the book, in examining how his conclusions from his last book The World Is Flat will be save or doom the effort to fix the climate, its hard to take it seriously when theres so much excess "look at me" effort spattered throughout what is supposed to be a serious book by a serious thinker. His style has always had a journalistic, folksy style, and thats a good thing, it makes the world is flat and the lexus and the olive tree very readable. And whilst he created dozens of terms in both those books, placing them along side hundreads of little anacdotes, this time the forumla feels forced and clumsy. You can let your eyes blur and wander down the page regularly whilst reading and usually never miss a single important point.

Borrow a copy off a friend, its readable, and for those like me who arn't particularly interested in climate change, but recognise its importance it offers some good insights and facts. But instead of being fun, his general style and desire to be 'the one' to tag and identify everything first ends up making the book a bit of a slog.

(Ohh yeah, and why does the UK/Australian cover feature a particularly lush and green earth ? Not all environmental books need to be green.

The God Botherers

2008-10-12T09:25:00.002+11:00

From a Prayer invocation at a McCain Rally

"I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons," [Pastor] Conrad said.
"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day,"

I've always been struck by the way the religious use the unknowable nature of god as a defense of questions from his existence to the nature of evil, and then spend so much time portraying and treating god as if he were a man (from the fanaticism around the person of Jesus or the prophets ie the word made explicitly human flesh) to this pastors weird concern that the omnipotent, almight god may be slightly jealous if the Christian Barack Obama wins, simply because people of other faiths may have prayed for it.

Either way welcome to the modern Republican Party.

A Philosophical Journey

2008-10-11T10:51:00.003+11:00

This fascinating blog post has been bouncing around the web, describing one young girls move from generic rational liberalism, through Nietzsche and T.S Eliot to conservatism:

Eventually, though, I realized that my two intellectual priorities led neatly into conservatism: first, I was concerned with creating meaning through community and human connection, as I saw in Eliot and Arendt; second, I felt strongly about human virtue.
We need a set of values that makes us feel guilty about wanting to do the things we should not do; we need a culture that sanctifies those urges and channels them into something beautiful.
Like many conservatives - and by this point I included myself - he was troubled by the decay of the traditional institutions that gave us meaning. The results were just as Arendt had diagnosed: alienation, isolation, susceptibility to totalitarianism. “The historic emphasis on the individual,” Nisbet wrote, “has been at the expense of the associative and symbolic relationships that must in fact uphold the individual’s sense of integrity.”

Clearly here is a serious person intellectually engaged, reading widely and most important someone who is developing their own thought a process of critical importance for true thought and character creation.

But what I don't understand is why these new values identified of community and virtue lead to conservatism? Her references to Burke in this regard make the most sense, but he was a wig from a very different era to anything like conservatism as a modern intellectual movement.

In fact more so, I dont get how one can read Nietzsche or Kierkegaard and come to identify virtue as co-habitable with community? Other than taking a turn like Arendt with a longing wistful look back to ancient communities, scrubbed free of their imperfections through histories passage, such writers most clearly identify that individual virtue can only come through self-creation, almost exactly as demonstrated in this young girls own experience. She has engaged in an act of self-creation towards a virtuous character in spite of her community! Just as her rebellion against her parents views was a necessary first step of this journey, so too must all community institutions, especially those that permit no real change in power relationships (family, church etc) necessarily deny and prevent this act towards individual creation of a virtuous character.
This conclusion however is only challenged if you hold the assumption that non-state communities can create and shape the virtue of their citizens far better than individuals can, and that they ought to have the power to do so, whether or not the individual wants them to have it. For to endorse such structures, many will be merely dragged along, forced by society into pre-set roles and acts. Intellectuals such as the young girl at the heart of our story might be smart enough to recognise this and change it, but for everyone one who can escape a conservative society to self-create independent of the community structures, dozens if not hundreds will simply be left prostrate before it.

Yet why would the author be willing to grant such sweeping powers to society to have control over individuals, in ways that few individuals can ever respond, yet take such a negative view of that other traditional creation of society: Government

State intervention is dangerous not because it’s “coercion” (I don’t mind coercion), but because of its inhumanity. The more we depend on government, the less connection we have with one another. My burning hatred for both major Presidential candidates is due entirely to their New Deal liberalism, their conviction that if something is wrong it must be the government’s job to fix it, their utter disregard for limited government.

Yet government, especially now as we move into the democratic era (one strongly resisted by conservatives old and new alike) is the only institution of power in our society which gives individuals a real chance to participate, change and challenge the relationship between this institution and society. Government is an easy target due to its size and slothfulness, but unlike the churches or million little family units, this one permits even encourages participation and dissent. Not as well as it can have, but the option is there.

And if the option is there, so is the responsibility. The state is no more inhuman than the church or your family unit. Its of people, by people, and if its not for people (and no church ever has been) then the fault and responsibility is our own.

Virtue ? That is your responsibility, whilst it may be nice to think of the spartans whipping virtue into the young, wishing you too could have the rest of modern society from its crack addicts to perverts to slothful today tonight watchers pushed towards a life of virtue, to do that is to deny their humanity, deny their choice and ultimately deny that they have any possibility of a virtuous life. For virtue can not simply be external behaviour rote learned. It has to be valued and sought after by the individual, not simply a pattern of behaviour forced upon an individual if they are to survive and participate in the community.

We may not be a virtuous society today, and many individuals may not express such a character. But for the first time in human history it is at least possible and an option. One built on a real foundation of respect towards us as humans who can choose individual achievement towards nobility, not a forced behaviour as if mere pet dogs trained to beg and bark on command.

You can seek community, or you can seek virtue. Not both, and likely neither with modern conservatism.

The US election calls to a close

2008-10-10T21:52:00.002+11:00

The superstitious amongst the Obama hopers wont like this, and no sensible political analyst would declare an election over, but folks this one has pretty much run its course. Obama should win, and should win comfortably. But when the media get to picking why, i think two issues might get overshadowed (esp if the economy keeps tanking): Making Obama a safe choice, and Obama's superior ground game.

Number One - The election was always going to be a referendum on Obama. He is the most talented and interesting new politician in a generation if not the last 50 years. He has a lot to attract people to him, but there was always that sense of otherness and difference that made Americans wary. (And led some to start calling him a terrorist if not just a n**ger –not sure if your work will censor/care about your emails-) . He has done more than enough (although its taken a long time to show) people that he is calm, confident and not a risky choice. Rudd had to do the same thing in OZ, Obama had to do it whilst being the first black man, with a funny name, a foreign background and only a few years in the public spotlight. But especially with the Presidential debates which are natural equalisers putting both candidates on the same stage, letting people look from one to the other, he has held his ground and proven his character. He’s pandered a bit, might not be as progressive as some of us would like, but he is a genuinely inspiring candidate and offers a fantastic potential for America to change its path and direction. The simple fact of a black man winning the US presidency will do absolute wonders to the USA’s standing in the world. Only 9% of Americans think the US is going in the right direction as a country (the lowest in polling history). Obama is far and away the best candidate to bring change. (Which has been his slogan from the very beginning well over a year ago. He’s so good and right even McCain has tried to recently pick up the tag of ‘change’ in his adds – Though dropped it and swapped slogans constantly, indicating the lack of a clear argument for why McCain wants to be president other than the fact he thinks he is entitled.

Number Two Obama’s ground game – This hasn’t got much attention, and probably wont in the pundits final analysis of why Obama won. (Esp from the craptacular Australian pundits who’s work is always 48 hours behind the US cycle and usually of a very very poor quality. You should ask your Margaret why that is. I’m genuinely puzzled given the interest in Australia why they cant do better than any kid with an internet connection and a handful of blog/news sites bookmarked) Anyway, Obama began work as a community organiser. He like Rudd doesn’t care so much about being seen to ‘win’ the daily news cycle, but he does care about organising offices, volunteers and voter registration drives (along with turnout on the day). He’s been doing this not only in close states but many that were safe republican (look for Virginia or Indiana, either could fall to him in the election). His campaign has been able to talk to a remarkable 40%+ of the early voters. He has thousands more offices around the country than mccain, all calling people, door knocking, working out how to drive old mrs simmons down to the polling booth on the day. (us has voluntary voting). He has simply outorganised McCain. (Bush had a good organisation in 2004, prepared years in advance, which is a large reason he beat Kerry, McCain doesn’t have much support in the republican party normally (which is why he had to choose the farce of Sarah Palin to keep the evangelicals happy), and he didn’t get around to organising his state by state operations till late (nor does he have as much money as Obama). As such, McCain can get on national TV each day and dominate the story, and Obama will still kick his ass comfortably by having his campaign talk to as many voters as possible. Like the ‘otherness’ factor, this is a very slow burn process, that has taken time to see an impact, but the economy tanking has helped crystallise both factors for Obama. So much so that you get amazing quotes like this one turning up : “An Obama supporter, who canvassed for the candidate in the working-class, white Philadelphia neighborhood of Fishtown recently, sends over an account that, in various forms, I've heard a lot in recent weeks. "What's crazy is this," he writes. "I was blown away by the outright racism, but these folks are f***ing undecided. They would call him a n----r and mention how they don't know what to do because of the economy."

A month ago McCain was 4 points ahead nationally, and everyone was saying Palin was going to win the election for him. Today she’s mocked and disliked by most people in America, and Obama is between 6-10 points ahead nationally and in key states. (Indeed if it were held today he could lose every state polling closely and still comfortably win the election). So a month is a fucking long time in politics. But there are too many fundamentals in place that have just about locked most voters into place, and the factors like Obama being seen as a safe pick, and his ground game will only get better and better with each passing day.

Recyling the news

2008-10-07T21:31:00.002+11:00

I think all bloggers secretely want to be weekly columnists (or openly - Hire me Fairfax, News Ltd!), from the outside it seems a great life, one column a week, only 700 words, everyone reads and complains about what you say, and if your Gerard Henderson it seems, just recyle last weeks news from the US.

This time its not even worth the outrage. Here's his latest weeks work in short:

"the roots of today's mortgage-based financial crisis can be traced back to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977".

Put simply, three decades ago the Democrat administration responded to the demands of anti-poverty activists that banks should not discriminate against low-income earning minorities.

This was the story last week in the US, and whilst it served as a temporary talking point for the flailing McCain campaign, it has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.

For gods sake, the thing was passed in 1977. Is he seriously claiming that was the cause of troubles occuring in 2008? Conservatives revere the past, they shouldn't try to live in it.

Hire me SMH, or any of the hundread best Aussie political bloggers. They'll be sure to give you better, and more honest pieces. Its the least your readers deserve.

This American Life

2008-10-05T10:56:00.003+11:00

Like many on the centre-left I've always been interested in America and its story. In some ways it represents the ideal. A constitutional democracy founded on key liberal principles like free speech, with a spirit of independence and resilience. But whenever abstract theory is drawn down into the man made flesh of the state, it inevitably gets grubbier, loses some of that shrine, shadows some of its principles or even takes routes through the dark side in its efforts to maintain its balance.

George W. Bush for this reason has always interested and intrigued me as a uniquely American figure. He seems to represent it all, old school elite family, ivy league education, (limited) military service, a love of texas and ranchers, careers in oil and baseball, alcoholism and born again teetotalism.

Most critically of all however, I believe he is a good man who is attempting to achieve these principles through the flesh of the state, and failing badly.

I've tried to read everything I can on the man(And i'm certainly hanging out for Oliver Stones movie W), my honours thesis in part was based around attempting to understand how he envisaged the idea of freedom a word you find in just about every speech he's given as president since 9/11. I've read all the biographies, supportive and critical, and all the major books on his administration, from supportive former staffers to outraged journalists. His story is America writ large. Good values, betrayed through its hubris and the reality of this messy thing called life.

All that serves as a somewhat long-winded observation that I really dont care about Sarah Palin. If you are interested Jonathan Raban has the single best detailed story of her rise and character. But I cant identify her as a story I want to understand. Bush is a puzzle, one critical to figure out due to his proximity to the critical forces in the world today. Palins story however seems an a ugly shallow picture of a mindless nobody who merely does what she does because its all that she knows. Bush believes in America because it stands for freedom and opportunity for the globe, Palin believes in America because she is an American. Its all she knows, and had she grown up German, she'd be a proud German as imbued in its traditions as the peasants Heidegger idolised (Does that count as a goodwin award?). Such ugliness is unbecoming of the nation she so desperately pretends to represent. She does not. Her's is not an American story. Maybe thats why she's not interesting, she could be anyone from anywhere and the core facts of her life, her complete embrace of local views and desire to grubbily get onto of those around her could occur in any small town in any city in the world.

Bush's is the story of someone who legitimately made something of themselves. He had a lot of help, but his path was never certain or due to the choices of others or even necessarily his environment. His fall from grace with alcoholism, and recognition he might be doomed to live in his -war her, CIA director, US President- fathers shadow drove him to change and challenge his circumstances. That shows real character, to make something of oneself.

Palin to me, however much we should respect her obvious talents and skills, however seems to be entirely a product of her surroundings. She is what her environment made her, with no sign that there was any conscious choice in her path. A product of the ideological programming of her time and place. Some call this authenticity, her handlers certainly would, but that's part of the problem. She is only on the ticket as a result of the scheming ideas of rich old white men, being no more worthy to them than the cocktail waitress who just brought over the latest round of drinks. She's a political pet to men and nature, unconsciously spitting out her lines about being a proud American and how evil her opponent is because that's what she's to do. When you see her speak you realise she could do no other.

Bush always represented to me a uniquely American Story. A puzzle to try and figure out. A tragic tale unfolding before our eyes. Palin's story is simple farce. Hers is not an American Story. America's real story is one of self-creation. Of making and remaking onself, that is why the opportunity, freedom, and independence matter. Because they allow for people to make and remake something of themselves in spite the circumstances. Bush did, Palin never has and probably never will. Hers is not an American story

Im outraged

2008-10-04T16:32:00.002+10:00

Todays Daily Outrage

The Prime Minister, federal Opposition Leader, parents, school groups say they are outraged at news a primary school principal let controversial artist Bill Henson scour the playground for child models.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he would be disgusted if a principal had let controversial photographer Bill Henson into a primary school to search for suitable subjects for his controversial artwork.

"If the report is accurate, I am disgusted by it," Mr Rudd told reporters in Sydney today.

"I think parents would be revolted and horrified if this were true."

I too am outraged that a photographer sought to find models to photograph. Likewise I am outraged that Mechanics like to look at cars (thats weird right?) and the proctologist really does want to look at your butt.

There is of course a process issue there, but every single person who drives a car by the side of a school sees exactly the same, and had Henson gone to the school without first getting the principals permission, people would have been outraged and wondered if he was a a pedophile. But do it formally and for art, and somehow again everyone is outraged. If the police dont think he has a case to argue, and even the family of the child are still 'strong supporters' of Henson's, can we all stop pretending we have a role in this issue.

No one has been harmed in this case, the government and our politicians has no role to play here.

A tale of two positions

2008-10-03T10:45:00.002+10:00

CBS Interview with Palin and Biden: "What do you think is the best and worst thing that Dick Cheney has done as vice president?"

The Serious Answer:

BIDEN: I think he's done more harm than any other single elected official in memory in terms of shredding the constitution. You know — condoning torture. Pushing torture as a policy. This idea of a unitary executive. Meaning the Congress and the people have no power in a time of war. And the president controls everything. I don't have any animus toward Dick Cheney, but I really do think his attitude about the Constitution and the prosecution of this war has been absolutely wrong.

The unserious answer:

PALIN: Worst thing, I guess that would have been the duck hunting accident — where, you know, that was an accident. And I think that was made into a caricature of him. And that was kind of unfortunate.

Agree or disagree with Cheney on the US right to torture, choosing something entirely unrelated to his 8 years as VP in such a time is pretty telling that you havn't thought about it a lot. Its not even as if she has to defend Cheney, her running mate McCain has attacked him, and made ending torture a key point in the first presidential debate.(And note her "worst thing Dick Cheney has done" is more a complaint about the media having a laugh at his expense". Talk about being in the bubble.

And with that I'm off to watch the VP debate. Shame its on so early here in Australia, watchers may need a stiff drink if Palin really lets loose. But my prediction: She will annoy liberals and conservatives who have already pulled away, due to nonsense shallow talking points, but wont make any major gaffes and be declared to have beaten expectations simply by not making a giant fool of herself. Media will wonder if this is her second coming, and then forget her tomorrow by the time the House votes on the Financial Crisis bill.

Outsourcing Democracy

2008-10-02T08:49:00.002+10:00

I'm sure this has happened many times before on both sides of the isle (union groups spring to mind) but disturbing none the less

Huff Post

In an email obtained by the Huffington Post, Vets for Freedom field staffer Laura Meyer offered a fraternity at St. Louis University a "sizable donation" - plus free lunch - if it could use their pledges to demonstrate outside the VP debate.

"I was emailing you today," wrote Meyer, "because I am trying to find people who would be willing to hold up signs for a few hours in the afternoon this Thursday outside the VP debate site. It's only for a few hours and you can gain a lot from it.... first off, lunch for any guys who agree to volunteer will be on me. Secondly, they will get lots of media attention! My organization did a similar thing in Mississippi last week and a ton of them were on TV".

Who said capitalism is dying in America ?

Contra Henderson

2008-09-30T21:08:00.005+10:00

I typically ignore the Australian Media's coverage of the US election. It's usually 48 hours behind the story (why??) and of poor quality. Gerard Hendersons latest column is no exception.

Just imagine what the sneering left intelligentsia, in the United States and elsewhere, would have said if a Republican vice-presidential candidate had told CBS News that "when the stockmarket crashed [in 1929], Franklin Roosevelt got on television" and informed Americans what had happened.

No doubt scores of left-liberal types would have lined-up to say the Republican Herbert Hoover, and not the Democrat Roosevelt, was in the White House when the Great Depression began, and regular TV broadcasting did not occur in the US until about 1941.

You mean left-liberal like the Daily Show? or the new york times?

Either way, everyone sees it for the slip of the tounge it is, and not indicative of a lack of knowledge, when coming from the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, judiciary committe, and well respected Senator after 26 years in the legislature. But Hendersons probably warming up to show this in context right ?

Yet the Democrat Joe Biden made these howlers in an interview with Katie Couric. She did not correct the vice-presidential candidate. This is the same Couric who grilled Sarah Palin in an interview which aired a few days later. The line of this interrogation turned on the thesis that the Governor of Alaska is not well enough informed to hold the second-highest office in the US.

Without any need to quote, Biden's gaffe is being compared here to an entire interview. Try and just sort out this effort by Palin in the Couric interview for comparison. Similar economic focus.

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say, I like ever American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout.

But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americas. A

And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation.

This bailout is a part of that.

Get that ? The bailout is 'help those who are concerned about healthcare reform', and 'reducing taxes' and 'reigning in spending' and 'trade as an opportunity' and the 'umbrella of job creation'.
Now we've all been there, I see students doing it 5 times a day. The mouth starts talking, the brain hurries behind, throwing out points in a desperate attempt to find either a loop to emphasize their first impulse/point or a circuit breaker to let the pain end, otherwise they simply will trail off in confusion. Hell i do it myself at times. But I'm not running for Vice-President of the USA!

But according to Henderson (or at least he hopes his readers are dumb enough/cant use google to compare) these two things are pretty much equal. With it being damning that the 'liberal intelligencia' is making a fuss about one and not the other.

So on the basis of one candidate having a slip of the tongue, and one being utterly confused, Henderson figures that :

Biden and Palin go head-to-head in their only debate on Friday (Sydney time). Both are able performers so, in scoring parlance, a draw is the likely outcome

Henderson then wanders into attacking some unknown nobodies, depicting satirists as serious commentators:

The feminist Maureen Dowd has depicted Palin as "the glamorous Pioneer Woman, packing a gun, a baby and a Bible"

and trading on gossip:

the NBC News commentator Andrea Mitchell has been reported as maintaining that "only the uneducated would vote for Mrs Palin"

(Got to love that use of the word "reported" for a unsourced claim about a reporter. She didn’t report it, it was simply said by others that she said so, but easy to miss over the morning coffee/or for those who want to miss such nuance)

But lets go on:

Palin has responded as well as possible to this criticism. She pointed to her experience as mayor of Wasilla (population 7000) and, more recently, Governor of Alaska. For an Australian comparison, the position of Alaskan governor would equate with the Tasmania premiership. Tasmania is Australia's smallest state but those who become its premier are invariably politically skilled. The former prime minister Joe Lyons, who was once premier of Tasmania, comes to mind.

Honestly I have no idea what this paragraph is doing in the story. Either Henderson thinks his readers have so little idea about Alaska that they need to be informed its comparable to Tasmania, OR he is comparing Palin to Joe Lyons, who spent 19 years in the tasmanian legislature, 5 of them as both Premier and Treasurer. And he spent 3 in the federal ministery BEFORE he became Prime Minister.
Palin for the record spent 6 years as a tiny city mayor, and is in her second year as governor.

How is that possibly comparable ?

Sadly that’s only page one of his inanity. Lets move as quickly through this as we can eh?

Moreover, Palin responded to the Couric putdown that she has travelled very little outside of the US with a matter-of-fact depiction of her life so far: "I'm not one of those who maybe come from a background, you know, kids who perhaps graduate [from] college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go travel the world. No, I've worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs until I had kids."

First, since when was it a putdown to be asked if a person attempting to become one of the most powerful people in the world had ever you know... visted the world ?

And Palin's response is nothing to be proud of, being simple class warfare, and not in anyway an excuse. I met dozens of American kids when in europe who had neither rich parents, nor didn't have to work all their life. They worked and saved so they could visit the rest of the world. It's a sacrafice that only the genuinly curious make, but that has always been very very open to Americans.

Second as Eunomia blogger Daniel Larison points out, there was more to her answer:

Palin: "I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world."

Larison: "if she has spent so much time with book-learning about the rest of the world why is it that she doesn’t seem to know anything? It should not necessarily be a problem that she has not traveled abroad, provided that she does know something about international affairs, but she manages to combine a lack of personal experience with a lack of knowledge about other countries."

Palin might not have been able to afford it, but her very real lack of any knowledge about the foreign world, or indeed even American Foreign Policy (what is that Bush Doctrine again ?) indicates she wasn't even curious about it either. And no one, no matter how rich travels overseas if they arn't curious about the world (hello G.W. Bush)

From here though it just gets weird. Henderson smugly highlights Bill Clinton emphasising these things about Palin and her key attributes

Bill Clinton .. said he could only judge Palin from how he believes she is going in his home state of Arkansas "where half the people live in communities of less than 2500 and there are people who are pro-choice and pro-life and more than half the people have a hunting or fishing licence". He added that "they like families that hang together, that deal with adversity, that are proud of all their members".

So its a good thing that she's pro-choice, pro-life, has a family and hunts ?

Wrong- Or at least when it comes from the mouth of a journalist

The anti-Palin ethos prevalent among left-liberals in America can also be found in Australia, at differing levels of intensity. For example, on September 17, the 7.30 Report presenter Kerry O'Brien introduced a report on Palin with a reference to "the pro-gun, pro-life mother of five". For the record, O'Brien does not mention his own family arrangements on either the 7.30 Report website or in his Who's Who In Australia entry. In the subsequent report, Tracy Bowden referred to the Governor of Alaska as "the moose-hunting, evangelical mother of five". Yes, we know.

Mercifully this thing is almost coming to an end (after some attack on the left and suburban Australia. I've no idea the relevance, considering Alaska is as far from suburbia as you can get.)

By the way, I will be watching[the VP debate] and rooting for Palin.

I'm sure we're all shocked.

The sad thing is that Henderson is actually the exact opposite of Palin in terms of their approach to politics

Henderson attended the Jesuit Xavier College in Melbourne. He studied Arts and Law at the University of Melbourne, prior to completing his Ph.D. He taught at Tasmania and La Trobe universities before working for four years on the staff of Kevin Newman in Malcolm Fraser’s Coalition government.

From 1980 to 1983 he was employed in the Commonwealth Department of Industrial Relations and was Chief-of-Staff to John Howard between 1984 and 1986 (during which time Howard was Deputy Leader, and later, Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia). Gerard Henderson was appointed by the Keating government to the board of the Australia Foundation for Culture and the Humanities and by the Howard government to the editorial board of the Documents on Australian Foreign Policy series.

As a commentator Henderson is on the conservative side of politics on issues such as industrial relations, national security and the Iraq War, while holding progressive political views on the Australian republic, asylum seekers, multiculturalism and euthanasia. His columns defended the former Howard government policy on Iraq and national security since the September 11 attacks.

Gerard Henderson is the author of Mr Santamaria and the Bishops (1982), Australian Answers (1990), Gerard Henderson Scribbles On (1993), Menzies' Child: The Liberal Party of Australia (1994, second edition 1998) and A Howard Government? Inside the Coalition (Harper Collins, 1995) - as well as numerous articles and essays

He has a PhD, experience in government, and numerous essays and books to his credit.
He is smart, articulate, and when not writing such culture wars pap, a coherent considered voice for his political ideology.
(Though Palin was a sports newscaster. I guess that makes it about even eh Gerard ?)

Every ideology or political grouping has to accommodate those who's views come from their intellectual engagement with the world, and those whose similar views come from natural, instinctive, gut calls. Keeping these two groups together is hard.

But few sights have been as pathetic as seeing the conservative intelligencia prostrate itself before the 'feel don’t think' wing of their party, denying both the intelligence, education and experience they had for so long regarded as critical before one could earn a public voice and be taken seriously.

The Bailout

2008-09-30T16:08:00.004+10:00

In reading the right wing blogs post failure of congress on the bailout bill, this now seems an emerging sentiment:

I see free markets as very much the underdog going forward. But if there is no bailout, then at least markets have a fighting chance. I would want to defeat this particular revolt of the elites, realizing that larger battles probably lie ahead.

You have to admire that some are at least sticking with their principles in the free market, even in a clear case of massive market failure, but one historical quote comes clearly to mind:

'the best friend the profit system ever had'
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930's, speaking about himself.

Roosevelt was from a wealthy patrician family who detested communism and much of socialism with it. But he recognised that, however strong the principles of the free market were, the priority of the government was to maintain a strong, robust American economy and society. Only then could capitalism have a hope of operating anything like the textbooks and theorists suggested it could. Only where there is strong order, and popular support for the continuance of the republic can capitalism properly operate. (See Russia post Cold War, or Iraq esp in 2003-2004 for counter examples of real free market, no regulation capitalism. Only thieves and crooks prosper.)

Many who have drunk the Kool-aid on pure free markets are admirably standing by their principles of the free market, fearing some "larger battle" ahead such as great socialization of industry. But if the risk is even half as big as Paulson and others are suggesting from failing to act, the bailout is likely to be seen as a very, very, light change to the economy in comparison.

FDR saved the capitalist system by first restoring confidence to the economy and state. Maybe Obama (who in many ways reminds me of FDR) will have to do the same.

The Fall and Fall of Tony Abbott

2008-09-29T21:04:00.007+10:00

Alternatly I was going to title this post: The perils of boxing as a young man. For only its many blows to the head, affecting his internal sense of balance can explain Tony Abbot's strange claims tonight:

TONY ABBOTT has attacked any taxpayer-funded paid maternity scheme that delivers more help to working mothers than stay-at-home mums.
In response to today's Productivity Commission recommendation of a new taxpayer-funded scheme offering 18 weeks' paid leave to working mums, the Opposition families spokesman told The Australian Online he is concerned that women not in the paid workforce will miss out.

"I have real issues with the government giving women in the paid workforce more than they give mothers in the unpaid workforce,” Mr Abbott said.

"I don't think stay-at-home mothers should be classed as second hand citizens."

The draft maternity leave report recommends 18 weeks of paid leave at the minimum wage for working women - about $11,000 for every child. Women not in the workforce would only secure the equivalent to the baby bonus of about $5000.

It would cost $1.3 billion or a net cost of about $400 million after the baby bonus was abolished and the savings rolled into the new scheme.

Right, because getting $5'000 to do exactly what you were doing previously, is the sign of a "second-class citizen".

Abbott is someone i've always peversely liked, much to the annoyance of my more left wing friends. I may disagree with just about everything he says, but he is someone who holds clear, passionate views about improving the country. He rarely uses his faith as an argument for his positions (the RU-486 was a notable slip up). And he is involved in many organisations servicng their causes, from the volunteer firemen through to local charities. He's smart, articulate, and ambitious.

But he has a political tin ear. That he has risen so highly is slightly amazing until you see the mentors behind his rise, first Hewson as an advisor, then later Howard who pushed him all the way into the Cabinet. Indeed you have to wager Howard was seeking to groom Abbott to take over instead of Costello, but a combination of Costello's supporters, Howards own love of the job, and Abbotts faltering political skills (only barely helping electorally despite the billions thrown into the 2004 'medicare plus' policy, the Ru-486 debacle, and numerous other slip ups. By the time he was insulting Roxon on mike for the 2007 election, everyone knew his fall from grace was complete.) Time after time, he has either failed to take advantage of issues, or made himself out to be the bad guy in a situtation, even if many in the community would agree with his position.

In 2003, Michael Duffy wrote one of the best books on Mark Latham. In perhaps his wisest move he made it a duel book about Latham, and Abbott.

Unless Tony's out rallying forces now against Turbull, it's likely Abbott will never be PM. And thats probably in the countries best interest, but for someone with so much obvious talent and genuine public service, it's intriguing to see so much of the damage to their career being entirely self-inflicted. Tonight's effort, which even The Australian(!) is slamming him for, is just one more highlight on his fall.

State Building 101

2008-09-28T09:27:00.005+10:00

This is a worrying sign:

Politically and strategically, the most important level of governance in Afghanistan is neither national nor regional nor provincial. Afghan identity is rooted in the woleswali: the districts within each province that are typically home to a single clan or tribe. Historically, unrest has always bubbled up from this stratum—whether against Alexander, the Victorian British, or the Soviet Union. Yet the woleswali are last, not first, in U.S. military and political strategy.

If the authors wanted an even closer comparison, they could have been to the place where US forces are also currently stationed: Iraq.
[The 'wisdom' below is drawn in large part from my 2007 honours thesis: Freedom's Call, the United states in Iraq. Sources for evidence cited available]

Iraq too is a country where the national government has rarely been the most critical (Saddam was the first to really be seen as an Iraqi, usually it has been foreigners seeking to conquer the land between the two rivers). Iraq may correctly have been seen by the Neo-Cons as one of the more modern, cosmopolitan societies in the region, but still well over 80% of Iraqi's identify with a tribe, including those in the very inner city of Baghdad and Mosul.

The USA completely missed this during their first few years in Iraq, diagnosing the state as having been too large and too invasive (Which seems obvious when looking at a totalitarian society, yet it was one which ran on fear and local level thugs, with little apparatus or functioning core left behind when Saddam and the fear was driven away). As such when US troops came in, and US state builders failed to provide the essential services people turned to their tribal links (or were controlled by criminal ones), all of which created a functioning basis for the insurgency from those angry at the changes, and denied legitimacy to the new top heavy focus on state building coming from the US's taskmasters.

It was only with the change in 2006 away from Rumsfeld's 'small footprint' strategy that the US really began engaging the tribes, in a serious and long term fashion. Through good work and good luck, by early 2007 many Iraqi tribes had turned against Al Qaeda and the insurgency, denying it resources and protection. It was this, far more than the 20'000 odd extra troops (who mainly operated in baghdad) that has helped stabilise the country, though we are yet to see if the national government can regain the legitimacy once denied.

That this history is still being ignored in Afghanistan, which is much much much more diverse, broken up ethnically, linguistically and culturally, and yet still it seems the insistence by US state builders is to try and mirror the current conditions of the US, and focus on build a big secular central state govt, ignoring alternate forms of organisation such as the tribe to their peril.

Personally, I'm not even sure Afghanistan is governable. The idea that the large formal post-westphalian nation state can occupy the 25% of the world covered by land is simply wrong. But something will always end up governing those areas, and with countries like Afghanistan we may be able to see in a system of tribal and regional organisation that provides no solace to terrorist groups (and opium growers ideally if alternate industries can emerge), whilst never seeing one group rise largest above the others to take over ala the Taliban (who required the support of the ISI in Pakistan to do so).

Maybe long term in the future Afghanistan will emerge as a functioning, modern state. Until then the basics of state building 101 is to work with what you have. To ensure the basic supply of services and provision of order. Without this it doesnt matter what labels you apply to yourselves (democracy!) or your opponents (totalitarian!) the people will always support those who ensure services and order. Hell even within the article a unnamed "US official" notes the Taliban are doing exactly that - But are we listening ?

(As one U.S. officer recently noted, they’re “taking a page from the Hezbollah organizations in Lebanon, with their own public works to assist the tribes in villages that are deep in the inaccessible regions of the country. This helps support their cause with the population, making it hard to turn the population in support of the Afghan government and the coalition.”)

The US failed this in Iraq (its gotten better with the order part), let us hope they learn before too long to not do the same in Afghanistan)

First US Presidential debate Reaction

2008-09-27T19:45:00.003+10:00

Well since everyone is doing it, and the internet is nothing if not a soapbox for loudmouths to impress their opinion on others (sorry i mean the rational democratic exchange of views and ideas as per a universal civil society..)

Final Result: Tie

Which means a minor victory for the Obama Camp. Neither candidate impressed much. McCain looked tense and slightly arrogant in his response to Obama (such as not looking at him all night), but sometimes was also very genuine. His closing arguments, which off the cuff dealt with the issue if veteran support with the words "they know I love them and will take care of them" was a off-message but great closer. The embracing elder president looking after his flock.

Obama looked strong and much better than his past debates, but again seemed to want to talk to much and didn't land some of the hard blows he could have. A key of good rhetoric is to put your best lines either at the start to gain attention, or at the end to linger in the audiences mind. Ideally, you do both. Obama seemed to put them somewhere in the middle, before he lead off on another tangent that however important, ended up distracting from his arguments. Obama has much to say, which is a necessary quantity of a genuine thinker (and he is), but less so in a great communicator, where every excess word costs dearly). Yet in the end, rhetoric aside Obama gains simply for being on stage, and holding his own. He looked calm, collected and Presidential. No one who liked him before tonight will doubt him, and plenty will have reason to calm their concerns.

Both Candidates did well in their respective strengths, Economy for Obama, Foreign Policy for McCain. Neither would have changed many opinions from tonights effort, although as McCain seemed to intimately feel, the simple fact of having Obama in the same room, on the same stage and talking back and forth helps raise the junior sentor to his level. And he was not happy about it. I doubt it will matter, but whilst we always need to distinguish ourselves from our opponents, I've always thought it a true weakness in a politician that they resent their opponents mere existence or disagreement. Bush's critics do it, so do Kevin Rudd's. If nothing else it shows you have got under their skin and from there it is very hard to show real strength and capability over them.
Better to be civil and then casually dismissive when you're ahead, rather than angry, petulant and selfish if ever lucky enough to get the upper hand.

So nothing major has changed for all that. But Obama, whilst he will certainly want to and have to improve will be pretty happy with his efforts tonight. McCain didn't get the game changer he wanted, and time is running out. (Thats two big opportunities this week missed for McCain, his "suspension" of the campaign seems to have been ignored by Americans, and the Debate left most people seeing them as equals.)

Bring on Thursday's VP debate (Screened 11am Friday morning in Australia on ABC1). Joe Biden - who has been comfortably doing debate response on the US cable shows after the debate- is sure to steamroll over Palin -who is no where to be seen tonight- That should tell you all you need to know.

p.s If you havn't seen it, check out Malcolm Turnbull's effort on Q&A via the ABC's iView site. Impressive, though still slightly fake. He chose the political distortion over the honest engagement a few times, but thats what politican's think is expected of them. This far out, for a minor ABC show its not, and the people see it as fake.

But otherwise quite impressive. I'm looking for him to give me a reason to vote Liberal, (though I have little doubt Rudd will win a second term)

The problem with Presidential systems

2008-09-26T11:40:00.004+10:00

Try and watch this all the way through. I dare you.

The American Founding Fathers were rightly skeptical of the Westminster system which sought to combine the executive and legislature. In the Federalist Papers # 47, the writers approvingly quote Montesquieu "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates".

However, they did so on the belief that future times would mirror if not be better than their own in ensuring public and professional scrutiny of those who would seek higher office. The last is perhaps the most critical, even in 1776 when travel took days not hours, when written communication could take weeks not seconds, the US founding fathers still assumed that candidates for national office would be first vetted and tested against their peers in open debate and argument, before turning to the people for endorsement.

While the propensity for corruption or intimidation of the legislature is clearly still apparent within the Westminster system, becoming or running for the highest office requires the endorsement of a politicians political peers. And that only occurs after years and years of being faced with and responding to tough questions, asked on the spot, with no mercy expected or demanded.

Occasionally mistakes are made, and increasingly Australian politics seems to be sliding towards the desire for 'exciting new celebrity' candidates who's newness seems capable of delivering public endorsement, and occasionally mistakes of judgement are made (Mark Latham's choice comes to mind), but even there, they still have to wade into the bear pit of Question time, and are expected to handle doorstop interviews on any subject, and do so several times a week if not per day.

In this way, candidates prove first that they can not only have thought about an issue, but also can articulate that thought to the public before they get anywhere near the leaders office. This was the basic competence that the US founding fathers expected all candidates for the Executive to have, hence their concern more with how these offices interacted, than establishing a way to vet those who would seek them.

Sarah Palin proves that system is broken. And whilst the fail-safe of the public is still in place (and looking increasingly like it will reject Palin as unprepared) there is still a dangerous chance that such an incapable candidate could take the office of Vice President of the United States of America come January 20 2009.

This isn't about simple eloqution. I'm a uni lecturer and yet sometimes make George W Bush sound articulate. I make mistakes with words, forget words and even get things backwards. But I can still think about an issue and communicate that thought in response to any question i could sensibly be asked. Even my students, scarred 18yr olds who are in their first semester if not class in politics in their life would do a better job of sensibly responding to the questions asked by Couric in the interview.

Nor is this about ideology, I couldn't make this argument against any of the handful of rumored choices McCain had on hand like Pawlenty, Liberman, even Romney. Hell even George Bush somewhat passes this test.

Yet despite all this McCain chose Palin, and in doing so proved the essential weakness of the US Presidential System as it stands today. Are their ways to fix this ? Perhaps, but in future all scholars and philosophers of democratic political systems will have to recognise the fundamental inability of Presidential systems to ensure a basic competence or quality for the candidates for Highest office. Such a notion may sound undemocratic, but the US founding fathers were not democrats, they were building a republic and the quality of governance was very important to them.

One final thought, Palins selection has re-affirmed by clear preference for the Australian system. Why ? - Simple, Because someone like Sarah Palin could never become PM or even a junior minister.

We might not have the inspiring candidates ala Kennedy, Reagan or Obama, but we at least get competent ones(Howard however much you may disagree with him was always highly competent). Thats good enough for me.

The cellphone Effect

2008-09-22T03:02:00.003+10:00

Technology is having an increasingly important effect on the way we conduct and consider politics. Even your grandma has perhaps come to be accustomed to recognise the effect of blogs as purveyors of radical opinions and occasionally doing the work that used to be left for journalists.

But theres something more influential that i've been interested in: As more and more of us come to use mobile phones as our main way of communication (Honestly I dont even know my home phone-line number), are pollsters making accommodations for this change? Nate Silver of the excellent fivethirtyeight.com has some details:

The difference is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Perhaps not coincidentally, Gallup, Pew and ABC/WaPo have each found a cellphone effect of between 1-3 points[For Obama] when they have conducted experiments involving polling with and without a cellphone supplement.

A difference of 2-3 points may not be a big deal in certain survey applications such as market research, but in polling a tight presidential race it makes a big difference. If I re-run today's numbers but add 2.2 points to Obama's margin in each non-cellphone poll, his win percentage shoots up from 71.5 percent to 78.5 percent, and he goes from 303.1 electoral votes to 318.5

I'm yet to find information of Australian pollsters recognising this effect, but as the technology becomes more ubiquitous in both this country and the USA, are our pollsters still correctly recognising the opinion of the general public, or only those select few who still hold to, and take the time for, a general poll by an anonymous voice on the other end of the line.

Pollsters, what say you ?

Update: Pew Research reports has been doing a bit of work on this very question and has some interesting, though predictable findings:

a virtually identical pattern is seen across all three surveys: In each case, including cell phone interviews resulted in slightly more support for Obama and slightly less for McCain, a consistent difference of two-to-three points in the margin.

In a further update: Re McCain's suspending the campaign because of the financial crisis while this is the information we all want:

A majority of Americans say the debate should be held. Just 10% say the debate should be postponed. A sizable percentage of Americans, 36%, think the focus of the debate should be modified to focus more on the economy. 3 of 4 Americans say the presidential campaign should continue. Just 14% say the presidential campaign should be suspended. If Friday’s debate does not take place 46% of Americans say that would be bad for America.

Yet, as Mark Blumenthal points out:

we ought to stop and ask ourselves: Does it make any sense to try to interview 1,000 Americans over a two-hour span in the middle of a work day?

Sadly no. Expect views to slide back towards partisan lines, as Republicans come to identify with McCain's suspension 'in the national interest' claims, and democrats harden against such a change.

My guess is Independents will view it in the same light they do the McCain campaign. If the myth of the Maverick is still strong they will see it as a bold action in a time of crisis and reward it (though not necessarily confer economic credibility to his campaign). If they have already been turned off, it will just look a stunt, and weak esp with the demand to postpone the debates.

McCain has already thrown one hail mary pass this election: Choosing Palin, and whilst it helped level the game, it hasnt put them in front, and cost a few injuries to the side (like the experience attack). Trying again is pushing his luck, but this is McCain at his rawest. The gambler.

Expect a few more such risks before the campaign ends. And god help us if he wins.

Civic Duty

2008-09-20T11:26:00.002+10:00

Andrew Sullivan has a good post up responding to the idea of Joe Bidens that its patriotic for the rich to to pay more taxes at this time:

what Obama and Biden are saying is that we are in an emergency and the collapse of middle-class security may make a pragmatic violation of such a principle defensible. I have to say I'm open to that idea - as a pragmatic move. No conservative should be indifferent to the collapse of the middle class. No stable constitutional democracy survives without one.

Whilst Sullivan argues such pragmatism is the mark of Conservatism, I think theres also a stronger argument here that Ramesh Ponnuru misses

You could just as well say "good people should support tax increases." You would merely be dumbing down the debate in a way liberals usually find objectionable.

Biden says its patriotic, perhaps its more accurate to say its a sign of Citizenship. We tend to see Democracy as a way of giving the people the government they want. But its much more than that : It invites the people into the process, management and invests responsibility in them for good governance. Whilst Osama Bin Laden is surely wrong to claim this involvement justifies targeting civilians of democracies (See Bobbitt, P - Terror and Consent 2008,p81), the responsibility to see that their government faces the problems it must (the media is critical here), puts the right people in charge to face them (hence the importance of voting), and gives it the resources and tools to fight (a burden that must fall progressively according to citizens ability to sustain costs without damaging their own lifestyle)

Biden correctly recognises that in this war, like all before it, we can not simply leave it up to the military and spies to win. It also needs concerted civic duty. To sign up to fight, to volunteer to help, and to pay for those who are in the fight.

With their desire to shrink and smash government, and descent into childish ideas of how the market works, many conservatives have lost the ability to rationally consider the idea of changing tax rates in anything but a downward direction. Whilst ideally taxes are always kept at their absolute minimum (for their impact on action and the economy is very real), it is not only pragmatic to realise the need to change them at times, but also a basic duty of the citizen body to keep their government funded to protect and fight for them.

When you have to speak but have no words

2008-09-18T16:26:00.003+10:00

I had thought that this was the dumbest political comment I would read today. From the Opposition Leader:

"To say that Australia is light years away from the economic crisis in the United States suggests that, you know, we're, well light years suggests millions of miles away," the Liberal leader told ABC Radio.

You cant fault him for his command of the details. But our Prime Minister saw the opportunity to strike:

Mr Rudd rebuked Mr Turnbull for his comments, saying that when there is significant stress on financial institutions, it is important that political leaders speak responsibly.

"I therefore would strongly suggest to Mr Turnbull that in making comments about the considered position taken by the governor of the Reserve bank, our position relative to those of other countries, that he should think twice before making comments which separate him in any way from what the governor is saying," the Prime Minister said.

And what was the Opposition Leaders henious crime which "seperates him... from what the governor is saying":

Mr Turnbull - "I would say our economy ... is stronger, it is more resilient, our lending practices have been more prudent, our banks are profitable and better capitalised than those in other markets, in particular than in the United States."

A fine effort by our two chumps in charge. One showing his time well spent as a kid at space camp, the other criticisng him for being both positive and correct. This one goes on points to Turnbull, though Rudd is probably chuffed at his effort.

Turnbulls backers.

2008-09-18T10:12:00.004+10:00

I've been on the look out to see who changed in the election to support Turnbull, given the public disagreement by powerful conservative faction chiefs Nick Minchin and Peter Costello

This isn't promising news:

Those conservative NSW MPs who switched their votes from Brendan Nelson on Tuesday cited the extraordinary "cut-through" of the US election's new wild-card entry Sarah Palin as their inspiration to throw the dice with Turnbull....NSW conservatives, who include Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and the north-west Sydney MP Alex Hawke, were persuaded on Monday night by the charismatic Turnbull, 53, that he was their best chance to win the 2010 election

So the conservative wing of the Liberals (is there any other?) is against turnbull, whilst the nutty far right wing is now for him ? Not exactly promising.

But whilst I'm sure this storyline has been inflated by the columnists desire to play up Palin (See her last effort here), it is evidence of pretty abysmal political thinking. New people always grab the public attention and usually after 1-2 stage managed presentations manage to see their public approval ratings rise to heights most leaders would literally sacrifice staff on the alter of the polls for.

But it always comes down, Mark Latham had 64% approval when he began talking about early childhood reading. It almost halved by election day when people realised he had little else and wasn't all that capable anyway.

Palin likewise is already in her own slide into invisability

In a September 4 Rasmussen poll, Palin’s favorability was 1 point higher than McCain’s or Obama’s. Nine days later, according to a Sept. 13 poll by Daily Kos, it is slightly lower than theirs (49% vs. 55%; however, given the margin of error, it isn’t conclusively lower).

Now whilst Palin is 6 weeks from the election and could still limp over the line with the help of a Teleprompter and an almost complete refusal to talk to the press, that wont work in Australia.
For a start the next election is at least 2 years away, and secondly and most importantly, Turnbull has to wade into the bear pit of our parliament day after day, to respond to the government, and then walk outside and fight off the press.

He will only keep those brand new polls numbers long term if he is a very capable, and forthright leader. Which he could be, though early indications of his political skills (from the failure of the republican campaign, to his inability to prevent the environment being anything other than a mega-strong issue for Labor) suggest he still has some learning to do.

And if his backers picked him instead because they too wanted that short relief of the bubble of newness, 2 years out from an election, then clearly they will not be the ones to know how to guide him to victory.

There were 43 others who voted for Turnbull in that party room. Lets hope he makes it a point to consult with them instead, and not those seduced by the same logic that drove the last desperate roll of the dice by the McCain campaign to pick Sarah Palin.

And they elected this guy?

2008-09-17T21:14:00.005+10:00

There's a particular legendry back bencher in the Australian House of Reps Wilson 'Iron Bar' Tuckey. He got the name from apparently a length of said metal to a chump in the bar he used to run.

Looks like he now has some competition:

John Williams, a former truck driver, shearer, farmer and small business owner who only took his place in the Senate on July 1, said he had seen many people living on employment benefits who were "determined not to work".

"They are simply getting a free ride on behalf of tax payers of Australia and it is about time they received a touch on the backside with a cattle prodder to get them off their butts and actually do some work," he said.

The 53-year-old, a member of the rural-based National Party, said those who were capable of working should not receive a dole cheque unless they made some contribution to society.

Still, being a nutter seems to work for the other National Senators Barney Joyce and Ron Boswell. Guess that leaves Fiona Nash as somewhat sane, though her membership in the Australian Senate and the National Party seems to challenge that long term. Could be worse, she could be a green...

Turnbull to the helm

2008-09-16T17:46:00.002+10:00

I think we all knew this day would come. After 4 years in parliament, Malcom Tunbull is now leader of the Liberal Party.

Whilst this mercifully euthanises the aspirations of Dr Nelson, (and seeming career, he too is going to the back bench), the big story is what policy direction Turnbull will seek to impose on the party.

Though popular wisdom is that he needs to heal a divided party (he won 45-41), he did so over the clear public objections of the conservative power brokers Costello and Minchin(and one presumes Abbott). Turnbull needs to exploit this victory as quickly as possible to establish his own stamp on the party. Until he has Rudd on the ground and bloodied, Turnbull will never be as strong as he is now. There's no way he will be challenged for months, and the party selected him because they want to win, and public carping would be the sure fire way to undermine their own rationale. Finally Turnbull can present himself as leading the first real post-Howard Liberal party, and thereby sideline those who complain as stuck in the past.

Nelson, Costello, Minchin, Abbott and the conservatives still wear the failure and stigma of the Howard government. Turnbull and only Turnbull can change that image of the liberals, and the quicker he moves to do so rhetorically the better for his partys chances at the next election.

Turnbull now has the chance to build a real liberal party. In economics and socially(At least ending the stigma on homosexuality and immigration if not radically shifting policies). There's great forces against it, but he seemed to grasp immediately in his party room address talking about the value of freedom and describing the liberals as a "party of opportunity in a land of opportunity".

Australia is still a pretty conservative country, but with the forces of globalisation and the breakdown of the Howard battler coalition, we're likely to see our two parties slide into more clear 'liberal' v 'conservative' grounds. One seeking open economics, tolerant social, and embracing change, the other seeking protection from economic and social winds, especially those from overseas.

We cant say for sure that the Liberals will actually take this path, being still tied to the agrarian socialists economically, and the christian right socially. But the election of Turnbull sure gives them a chance to take that option, and push Labor with its unions, shallow support for Free Trade, and Rudds Christian conservatism to be the party of closed borders and minds.

I think its time to turn back on question time, its sure to get interesting from now on.

Politics as an art, Politics as a science

2008-09-12T23:03:00.003+10:00

As the iconic Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies noted, Politics is an art and a science. Not only is it the most influential and powerful field of human affairs, but it has to both directly change and affect reality based on hard facts and science, whilst pleasing the human need for narrative and community.

Since the turn of the 20th century, we've become well aquainted with the critique of seeing politics as a science. The liberal idealists before WW1, fooled by their increasing mastery of nature, attempted to apply the certainty of our knowledge of hard science, to the social science of Politics. The 37 million casualties of WW1 are the graves of the failure of seeing Politics as a problem of science to be analysed, tested and solved. Indeed the entire field of Realism who's writers like E.H.Carr and Hans Morgenthau, made taking down the idea the basis of their writings and career.

But how many graves are we willing to count before we see a revolt against the idea of politics as an art?

That thought has been running through my mind recently, as I watch the statements and actions of Sarah Palin, the US Vice Presidential Nominee for the Republicans who at this moment, is making me long for a third term for G.W.Bush instead of the risk of McCain administration. Take this recent response from Palin, in her very first press interview (only 13 days after actually becoming the nominee) about her decision to join the national ticket:

PALIN:...on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.

So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

The single most important decision in your life, and one perhaps critical to the future of the country, and she wants to appeal to us by showing she didnt even think about it. Let me repeat, this is not her first reaction, her exposed response, but the considered, media analyst spun prepared answer: and she chose to play up the fact she didn't have to think about the decision.

It's easy to make too much of a single response (who ever wants to say they had second thoughts when called to duy-a word i had expected Palin to drop in-) but its precisely the belief amongst the public that highly attuned individuals who've risen through the political establishment can intiatively feel the needs and wants of the political opinion, that is once again threatening to lead us astray.

In an earlier post I praised the Palin pick politically, but it feels time to put the positive in context. Leaders thinking they know the true whims of the public, the true nature of the societies they lead, from the ways of the market, to the affect of a new policy on the behaviour of the citizens, have usually been regularly disabused of this notion by way of sudden, screeching electoral defeats, painfully handed out by a pissed off public, aware their pocket change is shrinking, their neighbourhoods less secure, and their countries international reputation in decline.

Yet in America today, one struggles to see this usual democratic act in practice. I hasten to add here, that i dont for a moment believe that US citizens have to elect Barack Obama or forfit their title as aware and responsible democratic citizens. There are still many legitimate concerns many rightfully hold that ought to be discussed at length and debated before he is granted the supreme privledge of leading his country.

But this is not the debate America is having. Instead, in celebrating its hail mary pick of Sarah Palin, the McCain camp is now actively pursuing the argument that all that it takes to be a great, or even acceptable President of the United States of America is to have a rural born upbringing, spend most of your life outside Washington, visit church occasionally, and if you could breed a little bit too that would be swell. This apparently is the perfect education for a would be President.

This would all be a swell social experiment, were not the stakes so high (Two land wars in the Middle East/Central Asia, a flatlining economy, a resurgent Russia, India, China, Climte change, a rise in Anti-Americanism,the effective expiration of the post ww2 institutional structure-UN, etc etc) and had we not already tried this 8 years ago with the election of a certain George. W. Bush

As every record out of the Administration, friend of foe has painted, Bush is not a bad or evil man. Simply an uncurious one. A man who has a few key themes (to call them ideas is to give them too much complexity and weight) and feels this is enough to bring order and peace to a confused and chaotic world. We tried that and it failed. To prove my last claim however you need look no further than the Bush Administration, who leads a nation that is technically as unparallelled in power as the one they first took ownership of in 2000, yet the tone and nature of their policy has radically shifted. From claiming the end of history in 2002, to recongising the realities of great power politics in 2006, the Bush Administration has experienced and learnt from its own crash course in trying to see all Politics as an art, and finding the science is unwavering.

The Sarah Palin's of the world, however good intentioned and motivated however have not and will not learn this lesson. Not whilst we let them get away with, indeed actively encourage the public to praise their blind ignorance and unawareness of the facts, details and history.

The 20th centuries writings on International Relations began by taking central aim at the claim Politics could be reduced by a science. Perhaps its time for the 21st century to usher in its own path by returning to critique the other idea, Politics as an art. And to hell any who uses the label elitist, better aware and right than pure and dead I say.

G.W.Bush aimed to remake the youth in a conservative image. He may well end up succeedinging in this aim, if the unparalleled naievity and idealism of his party forces future generations to adopt cynical conservatism/realism simply as a means of survival.

9/11 - 7 years on

2008-09-11T11:39:00.002+10:00

The first i heard of 9/11, was a late night headline on the Sydney Morning Herald's site. Plane flies into tower. My first thought was "Thats a bad pilot". Back then, something so out of the normal was instantly explained away by error, mistake or bad luck.

Today, we see a fire in a mall, even a abandoned suitcase in a train station and wonder 'terrorists ?'.

The war is still ongoing. It wont end with the death of Osama Bin Laden, nor with the election of a new US president or a stabilization & US peaceful withdrawal in Iraq. (though all three would help).

It will end when the people in the back streets of Karachi, in Jakarta, Dubai and Paris refuse to give aid and support to those who would use the openness and technology of the west against its own citizens. It will end when they find no support, or cover, when popular opinion rails to expose those who would use violence against innocent civilians, whilst also holding their own leaders accountable and honest.

It will end when we stop pretending this is a mere crime, or a once off, or equally that it is something that can be bombed away, with victory counted in body bags.

It will end in our favour, but those who died on that terrible day 7 years ago, were not the first, and not the last casualties of this war, but they too like all others must be remembered.

Additional Evidence

2008-09-09T12:06:00.003+10:00

Two apologies: I had meant to post on International options in response to the below post on the damage America's role as world policeman was doing to its own political structure and society. But that's had to be delayed for a day or two with Uni marking taking up my time.

Secondly I know its bad form, particularly with essay style posts like mine to add in bits later, but here's the latest from The Atlantic's election reporter Marc Ambinder

Is the election still about change? A whopping 65% of registered voters see the Obama-Biden ticket as the force of change, compared to just 47% who associate the word with McCain-Palin.

Conservatives see McCain as one of their own: 72% of voters think that John McCain will either adhere to the conservative policy level associated with President Bush or go to the right of it, which is up a bit from the previous poll.

Obama still not prepared: 42% say he's prepared to be president, versus 76% for McCain. And 55% think it very likely that McCain would be an "effective" commander in chief, up nine points from the previous poll.

Ie: The 'experience' narrative still applies to McCain individually, but as it doesn't apply to his running mate Palin (who scores a similar 42% as ready/prepared to be president), they have had to drop an attack that previously gave them clear advantage.

As such, they are now fighting to be 'agents of change' with the term filling almost every republican press release and talking point. Yet voters are quite clear who are the real agents of change, and as Palin newness fades, and she moves into the background behind McCain, Obama's theme all along of attacking McCain for being 'McSame' and adhering to the Bush Administrations approach on all major issues, will continue to widen the gap on those numbers.

On my Desk:
Speaking of which two books have come out, that are also occupying my time, the first of which is likely to have a direct (and likely negative) impact on McCain's effort to win the presidency:

The War Within by Bob Woodward - Sure to dominate news cycles over the next few days as the final ultimate insider book on the Bush Administration in Woodward's 4 part series (the others Bush at War, Plan of Attack and State of Denial make up the best first draft history of the Administration thus far and likely for many years to come).

I've only just got into it, so no great insights yet, but it will bring G.W.Bush back into the news cycle, admitting failures in Iraq, which cant be good news for McCain.

Terror and Consent by Phillip Bobbitt - Bobbitt, author of the acclaimed 'The Shield of Achilles' returns to his unique but successful effort to merge law and military strategy arguing that the constitutional structure of a state directly shapes the nature of the threats that rise up against it. Thus as we enter the era of 'Market States' (one which seeks to expand opportunities for its citizens, unlike the 20th century Nation States which wanted to provide for their welfare) we are coming against 21st century terrorist groups who are similarly globalised, decentralised and who actively target civilians and global infrastructure, not military or state assets.

Bobbitt is a political philosopher as much as historian, analyst and commentator, with a very erudite knowledge and charm for interesting facts (the word filibuster -now a parliamentary term for attempting to deny a bills passage - comes from a French name for the infamous Caribbean pirates, and the word mate, a term as aussie as beer, may have come from the word matelotage which was the term for the pirates male civil unions/marriages). I wonder if the former conservative Australian PM, John Howard would welcome the fact his favourite word (one he wanted inserted into our constitutional preamble) had a less than illustrious beginning)

Bobbitt's is a big book, but thus far strikes me as easily the best post-9/11 analysis of terrorism and our likely options for responding to it out there.

The Palin Pick

2008-09-07T14:39:00.004+10:00

I'll post about Australian politics some time (major changes in WA & NSW which I'm still digesting), but for the next 58 days, its the US election show.

In some ways, I'm starting to be impressed by the pick of Sarah Palin as an electoral exercise. (In terms of governing its an abuse of the institution and gross insult to the system established by the US founding father). But as a political act, its shows a clear understanding of how a representative democracy works.

The age old debate within this form of democracy is do you want representatives who are experts, highly skilled and hopefully more aware and sensible in their analysis and response to the problems of society(with the potential to fall into elitism or authoritarianism); or do you want representatives who are more faithful to the democratic creed, who vote according to the wants of the people, maintain touch with what the people hold as important and will ensure the community reflects the true nature of the people (with the chance to fall into incompetence and shallow mob rule).

Appealing to this latter interest is how how G.W.Bush won in 2000, he was more the person people felt they could share a beer with than Gore, and so had enough appeal to fall across the line. Palin likewise (who i had wrongly thought was picked to pick up Clinton voting women, but instead is aimed at Christian conservative men as much as their likewise fundamentalist wives) is someone who claims to be able to lead because she understands the people, has lived their experience and their life.

America, with its obsession over its own identity, and grudging acceptance of government has always come down on the latter side of the equation. Smarts and experience (implicitly expertise) remain popular in recent years, but generally that person has to first and foremost represent the people. The real riddle, is why the USA has run so far towards this populist interpretation of democratic rule?

Whilst we can point to the rise of the evangelical movement, the demon-ization of government and elites, and the failure of government to deal with the problems internal to America, I think the answer lies instead in its Foreign Policy. Since its outward turn, cemented with entering WW2 under FDR, the USA has had massive commitments overseas, massive spending, massive social disruption and heart ache as once more its sons, daughters, husbands, wives and friends are sent overseas to defend people who neither look, sound or act like Americans do. And instead of a grateful world, international opinion has demonstrated the cynicism, exploitation and moral failures that have affected and sometimes driven US policy abroad. The most common response to the invasion of Iraq and its claimed promotion of democracy was not to simply disagree with US policy, but instead to question why it wasn't doing the same in other places, or why it hadn't done so in the past?

And so it seems a siege mentality has been built up in the USA, each act of foreign assistance is rejected, yet the cost and impact from New York to Texas is the same, if not building and affecting more and more families. Why in such a dangerous and complex world would you then want to pick someone like Sarah Palin ? Simple - she understands the burden and concern. The smart guys in the room all know that the US can't turn back to isolationism, cant give up its involvement in world affairs and sacrificing some of its youth and treasure for peace and prosperity in the world. Its path is clear. And whilst Sarah Palin, like G.W.Bush before her (if elected) will continue the exact same path as the smart guys (perhaps less competently) she at least will do so with a heavier heart and more understanding.

That's why she is appealing, if Americans at home are going to keep suffering for their foreign policy, they want someone in the white house to suffer along with them. Palin like Bush probably will end up failing that test, government is always too remote, and success breeds resilience far more than another's compassion when you are feeling run down, but as an indulgence here and now, it simply feels good to choose her.

(Of course because she is such an awful governing choice, -should she ever take power- the burden on these same Americans who chose her will only get heavier and harder to bear.)

Opponents of America acting as the worlds policeman have long been worried this approach would end up killing or enslaving the rest of the world. They're wrong, the real victim is America itself. It's killing itself and the Sarah Palin's are the indulgent, but ultimately unhelpful balms to its wounds.

In my next post: Can the world do anything over the next 20 years to fix this problem. Thoughts and suggestions from an Australian perspective.

Fooling the public

2008-09-05T09:58:00.005+10:00

After my last post one commentator asked:

"Can you trust the American public to see through this charade?"

Which begs a further explanation of my earlier point: I think the public always knows who is the original and who is the imitator. You can turn an opponents line back on them, if done right its a very successful way to blunt your opponents language,ie former Australian Prime Minister John Howard in 2004 changed questions of honesty, into "who do you trust on the economy/security/interest rates" etc.

But simply claiming a term as your own is transparent, makes you look a follower not a leader, and is almost always bound to fail, because these terms like 'new leadership' 'change we can begin in' 'country first' are not randomly thought up, but created with the specific candidate & their history in mind. It sticks only if it fits a genuine truth about the candidate that the public can identify with.

As such, when John Howard began saying we needed a 'different sort of education revolution' and then blathered about the need for teaching basic maths and English, no one would accept the term applied to his tired, old government.

Worse still for our would be copiers, every mention you make of it simply re-enforces your opponents issue, in this case that "change", is needed. So instead of competing across issues, you end up agreeing that your opponent is right, and now are trying to overcome the link between your opponent and this issue, whilst also trying to forge your own version of it. McCain and Palin's claims to:

vanquish the "constant partisan rancor" plaguing the nation as he [John McCain] launched his fall campaign for the White House. "Change is coming" to Washington, he promised the Republican National Convention.

simply makes Obama's point for him
(And is anyone really that dumb to forget that Bush is a Republican and that the Republicans have controlled congress for 6 of the last 8 years? Please..)

(I have much to say about establishing political ownership of some issues, and if you should fight on your opponents issues or try and change the topic to your own, but that's for another post)

But this is not just abstract theory, we can confidently say that the public will see through it because they already have once before. Over 5 long, news hyped months the Democratic primary saw Obama as the agent of change, vs Hillary Clinton as the woman of experience. Whose campaign then faltered and began using terms like change too:

NY Times Bill Clinton just finished the first of seven campaign events in Iowa today and tomorrow for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and he’s using a phrase that voters are probably going to hear a lot this week: “Change agent.” As in, Mrs. Clinton is a change agent. Even during the years when she did not hold public office, but was rather a lawyer, first lady of Arkansas and then first lady of the United States, she was an agent for change, Mr. Clinton said several times to his audience at Iowa State University here.

Clinton tried to steal the change label of Obama several times, (as did Edwards) and it failed. And no one in their right mind thinks that a man of McCain's 21 years in the Senate, and aged 72 is more identifiable as a person of change, than the first serious female candidate for president & a well known liberal Clinton.

And finally, the public are seeing through it: Or at least Palin isn't thus far changing the pattern:

Fired up and Ready to lose

2008-09-04T23:54:00.002+10:00

The pick of Sarah Palin has been analysed from a thousand perspectives by the blogosphere and media, from choosing a woman, to choosing a social conservative, to choosing someone he only recently met.

But what hasn't been pointed out, is that in choosing Palin, and directing her to be an agent of change, McCain is endorsing Obama's claim that this elections key point is about change. Indeed almost all the republicans are doing the same thing, railing against the rise in big government, debt and irrational policy, without ever noting that they were in charge when all this occured!.

Whilst it gives McCain a few wins of the daily news cycle, it ends up presenting the public with an obvious choice: The real deal, or the new immitators.

The 2008 election has always been a referendum on Obama, he's too intriguing, polarising and celebratory a figure to simply be a participant. And for a while McCain seemed to realise this, seeking to tear down Obama, as a way to try falling over the line himself.

But Palin and the rhetoric her choice has introduced to the Republican campaign, abandons this to argue that they instead are the ones who can bring change. The public may not have access to the latest factcheck.org posts, or care for the ins and outs of troopergate, babygate & porkgate, but they can always tell you who was the first to advocate an approach, and those on the other ballot who merely parrot the language in the hope of winning. Its almost as expected in losing campaigns as the 'anonomous source' recriminations, first they fight yout, then they adopt your language, then they lose.

In a bid to please the base, (did he have any other choice) in a bid to shape up the election, in a bid to give some energy back to his campaign, McCain just ended up accepting Obama's entire argument about what this election is about: Change.

He can still win*, but not like this.

* I currently rate Obama at an 80% chance of victory. I'm not ready to call it yet, but its slipping out of McCains grasp.

Welcome to the blog

2008-09-04T23:15:00.003+10:00

Its estimated there are now 70 million blogs, over 400'000 in Australia alone. Time to add one to the number.

With due diligence, this blog however should avoid the usual 2 week death rate, with purchase of its own domain and hosting just around the corner. See, i've blogged before, argued and persuaded on forums, and watched with fascination (and as a graduate journalist with some umbrage) the blogging revolution.

Why listen to me?
This time however, I want to establish a permanet place online. Why listen to me? Well though credentials are worth nothing online (perhaps rightly so) I'm

* Writing a PhD on Australian foreign policy and its use of international norms (hence the title) to achieve national foreign policy goals.

* Till end of 2008 - Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Canberra

Obviously any views expressed in this blog are entirely my own, and cannot be attributed to my employers or teachers in any fashion.

Why Blog ?
I'm a genuine political junkie, i read, ponder, sleep and dream this stuff. From the first bleary eyed gauge of the blogs updates over the morning coffee, till the 3am refresh to see if any of the american blogs have updated before dawn, the internet offers an unparalleled opportunity to learn, argue and think about the world of politics, as it occurs, in real time before our eyes.

In what form will I be blogging ?
Some blogs live by the minute, whilst I'll always try and ensure readers have access to the same recent information and links I do, don't come here to find out the latest liberal/conservative outrage. Instead I want to present more considered thoughts and responses, giving some historical context and order to the world as it evolves before us. Some times this will take the form of one line syllogisms, sometimes full essay length posts. The content will dictate the form.

Finally - Why the title ?
In a sense we all chase the norm, the expected and regular, yet deliberatly bucking it is the easiest way to get attention. The title refers to both my attempt to find and analyse the place of norms in australian foreign policy, and more generally in starting a blog so late in the trend to try and break through. The norm, but not too normal..