The liberation of disliking both potential Prime Ministers

About a month ago I promised to not mention Kevin Rudd on Twitter again until the election. I was tired the distracting instability talk he was driving, and tired of him. There were bigger issues to discuss, and I was sick of the circular conversation, the countless hours of QandA and column inches that could have been used to enlighten us on something, anything of substance.
 

It became too much last week, and I gave in. If he could (at long last, openly) go back on his promise to not only never lead the ALP under any circumstances but stand in the way of anyone who threatened Julia Gillard’s, I could break mine.

Even the biggest policy-wonk gets caught up in the personality of politics. Leadership instability was not made up by the press gallery, but they fuelled it. And while commentators like Philip Coorey and Mike Carlton gloated about the fact it was now playing out, I think we’re all the poorer for what has become the focus of politics while some pretty important pieces of legislation – some very good, some very bad – were debated and people like Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott earned relatively little widespread respect for consistently talking about things that matter and attempting to raise the level of public discourse in a genuine, down-to-earth manner. 

Damn press gallery, making up leadership stuff again #fourthmoveonaPMin3years
— Phillip Coorey (@PhillipCoorey) June 26, 2013

I think I should point out that this entire leadership thing is just speculation by the corrupt and biased MSM...
— Mike Carlton (@MikeCarlton01) June 26, 2013

Many members of the ALP decided that the end goal of politics is winning elections rather than leading the nation. Sure, you can’t change anything in opposition, but if you won’t effectively lead people in the direction you believe to be right, then what’s the point in even being there?

They chose someone who with a poor record of to managing government and major policy, and who has spent three years sabotaging the party, but who is inconceivably popular. He could very well have used this popularity to help the party if he supported the former Prime Minister as much as he often claimed to, or he could have helped by leaving the place with dignity if he couldn’t find it within himself to put the events of 2010 behind him. What values have the the ALP reinforced by rewarding his behaviour and playing along with the polls they tell us don’t count?

Leaders change in our system, and we do not – despite Kevin Rudd’s own statement upon restoration to the role that the people voted for him in 2007 – elect the Prime Minister. Julia Gillard’s move into the role was not ideal, but at least occurred largely in an effort to improve the management of government.

It already seems Kevin Rudd has lifted the party’s popularity and I’ll give him this: he is good at engaging on a superficial level, which is where most of the Australian political discourse takes place. But that’s what I’d like to change.

Personalities always have and always will matter. They should to some extent, although it's getting out of control now. We want to see someone who reflects our values and can lead. Neither leader of the major parties much demonstrates values or personality traits I admire.

So here’s the silver lining. Having reason to dislike the approach of both leaders takes the personality aspect out of it for me to a large extent, leaving me feeling freer to think and talk critically about their policies.

One of the two will form government and, overall, the ALP policy platform will no doubt again suit my ideology better than the Coalition’s. But I am not going to be ‘getting behind the team’ to keep Tony out. The two men are as bad as each other as far as I can tell, so it’s a good opportunity to forget about which one I like more and focus on what they plan to do.

We deserve better than both of them, and both the parties they lead. 

The silver linings of an Abbott Government ... desperate thoughts in difficult times

Warning: may irritate some ALP voters I like on Twitter. Hopefully not, but possibly.

So it's come to this.

When the soothingly thoughtful and intelligent Waleed Aly becomes the focus of criticism from ALP apologists it's time to check the blinkers.

Remember the good old days of protesting bad government
policy without fear of giving the opposition a free kick?

Aly wrote what was, in my opinion, a fantastic piece (and to be fair, it seems there was far more praise than criticism) discussing the real problems Labor face - you know, those that actually underlie the bad polls and infighting. It wasn't the policy analysis we need, but it was a broad look at ALP policy and ideology and, despite the usually measured Bernard Keane attacking him, summarising it as "Waleed Aly joining Fairfax's new 'all leadership speculation, all the time' format," the 'L' word was only used once and to actually make a point of stating that the issues he was addressing were "not about incompetent leadership".

Yet the reaction from many people on Twitter was an elbow-jerk finger pointing at the Coalition, or to take up Aly's overarching theme of narrative, which some are now pushing as a dismissive running joke, to avoid what he was really talking about.

The defensiveness was cringeworthy as rusted on some rusted on ALP voters could not even for a minute take a moment to accept this may be a legitimate arguement and that perhaps there is something wrong with the party.

Apparently it's all about mainstream media hatred of Julia Gillard and the ALP. Reality check - The ALP stink. Just not quite as bad as the other lot. But that's no reason to defend them.

The progressive party we need, or the one we deserve?

They deserve to, and must, be called on it if they are going to be the progressive party we actually deserve. Or maybe they are the progressive party we deserve, but they are not the one we need right now - though I hate to compare my beloved Batman with them, they're more like Two-Face at the moment.

We need a major progressive party that treats asylum seekers with dignity, affords them basic human rights and doesn't use them as a political football. One that listens to Indigenous communities rather than continuing oppressive Howard-era policies that aren't working. One that keeps its commitment to stand up to the gaming industry and deliver real reform, like they did the tobacco industry. One that doesn't dance along to the conservative tune of 'surplus, surplus, surplus whatever it takes', because we know that's not a healthy or realistic attitude (and, jeebus, why not use reality against the Coalition??). One that treats all people equally, especially when it's what the majority of the people and that party want.

Yes, they have done some very good things in the past three years and performed quite well in some difficult circumstances, and no person or party or government is perfect, but there is so much to abhore about this lot right now, in their policy and how the conduct themselves. Even one of the Prime Minister's most memorable moments, that misogyny speech, came while the government cut welfare to single parents (many being women).

Warranted as some of it has been, much of the angry criticism of the mainstream media's trivial obsession with polls and leadership over policy seems to have itself become a trivial obsession with being the victim and taking a 'whatever it takes' approach to beating Tony Abbott rather than thinking broadly about policy.

Which leads me to my other moment of utter disillusionment with the media, politicians and punters who pretend to want to discuss issues over party politics. On Tuesday it was (minimally) reported that children in detention - in the care of our government - as young as nine years old have been self-harming.

A nine-year old overdosed on painkillers, saying he was "going crazy", a ten year old cut his forearms, a 17 year old tried to hang himself. And 23 other cases between August 2010 and November 2011.

This is outrageous and surely a perfect opportunity for a biased media to sink the boot in? Yet there was much silence from the mainstream media and party aligned tweeters alike. Perhaps because both sides are culpable and the media has played a major role in perpetrating disgraceful myths and perceptions. But it is the government that is ultimately responsible for their wellbeing. And all the while, some people who have been most vocally banging on about #Ashbygate and the media's silence and unfair treatment, themselves had nothing to say about children self-harming in detention. Didn't suit the politics.

In the end many calls of bias from all sides aren't calls for better quality journalism or neutrality, but demands for a their team to be given a "fairer run". Like using the free kick count in an AFL match to judge the quality of umpiring, it wholly dismisses the reality of events, and the actions, values and discipline of either side.

And now with bickering between the ALP and the Greens and everything turning to shit I begin to wonder ... is an ALP loss- even a little whalloping - perhaps what we need? I find myself starting to think of the benefits of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, perhaps out of sheer necessity. Maybe a term - just one if possible - of Prime Minister Abbott would actually be good for us in the long-run. Maybe?

Silver linings of ... PM Abbott  (*shudder*)

I've only in the past week resigned myself to the fact the Coalition will likely win. And I'm not comfortable with it. But there are opportunities there, friends! We progressives could properly rally around a common enemy and do what we do best without feeling the need to defend a less-than-perfect government - protest! Yes there would be bad outcomes, but maybe it would offer an opportunity to refocus on drawing attention to our issues like our appalling human rights record of the last decade without holding back for fear of handing the opposition a free point (because they are so much better, right?!) and really, truly, deeply talk about issues again. Wasn't it more fun when we all hated Prime Minister Howard??

I desperately want the ALP to be better than what it is. I want to want to vote for them - well preference them, Adam Bandt will likely get my primary vote - not just put them down as the least bad option. My sense of Aly's piece was that he feels the same. I wasn't a kicking for the sake of it, it was an plea for better progressive representatives. I think he, like me, wants to be able to choose a party to govern that inspires, not the lesser evil. Not that I can speak on his behalf.

Frankly, the ALP deserve to be beaten in the election. They are not a party I want running my country. The problem we have, of course, is that the alternative is fundamentally evil. For the first time I understand people who don't wish to vote. "If you don't vote you can't complain about the elected government," they say. Well sure you can if you think both options suck. (This is not an argument against our system of compulsory attendance, which I love).

Waleed Aly hit many nails on their heads. I don't want to see Prime Minister Abbott; I could live with Prime Minister Turnbull if the party reflected his views rather than vice-versa, but that won't happen;but I don't particularly want to see this government limp on into another term the way it's going and with policies I can't accept. Perhaps we'll be better off in the long run if they cop a harsh lesson and come out a better party. I'm sure it will just lead to more infighting, recriminations, speculations, deals and revenge though.

If the Coalition win without control of the Senate hopefully Abbott's inane blood pledge to repeal the price on carbon will begin his unraveling  from day one. It's the kind of easy story the media love, the public don't hate it anymore and I can't see a Double Dissolution helping him in any way in such circumstances.

What we need is to get back to be able to talk about ideas and issues in a way that is not constrained by which party you support. It's just as important to hold the party you support to account publicly.

But if you treat this like sport - as many of us constantly criticise the media for doing - and merely fight the 'other team', if you're response to any criticism of your side of politics is "but what about them?!", you're missing the point and holding back the progressive cause.

Some ALP voters need to take a cold shower, focus less on crying out for critique of Tony Abbott - it will come - and realise that the ALP really do need to be much better as a party and progressives. And hey, that might just turn things around.

Book review - "A Decision to Discriminate: Aboriginal Disempowerment in the Northern Territory"

Over the Australia Day long weekend I read and reviewed A Decision to Discriminate: Aboriginal Disempowerment in the Northern Territory, for Right Now.

The book which discusses the consultation process undertaken by the Federal Government in Aboriginal communities ahead of introducing it's Stronger Futures legislation and paints pretty appalling and disenchanting picture.

It won't be an election issue, but while our politicians engage in petty stunts for media attention, everyone is ignoring some of the most disadvantaged and disempowered people in our country.

  
"A Decision to Discriminate: Aboriginal Disempowerment in the Northern Territory"


Almost 70 years ago Albert Camus wrote that “goodwill can cause almost as much damage as ill-will if it is not enlightened” -  a sentiment it seems that could well apply to the Australian government’s approach to Indigenous affairs.

Reading A Decision to Discriminate: Aboriginal Disempowerment in the Northern Territory, published by Concerned Australians, leaves you with the troubling impression that the Gillard Government’s Stronger Futures legislation – which followed on from the Howard Government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) and drifted quietly through Parliament in early 2012 – was at worst a continuation of arrogant and destructive disempowerment, and at best an act of wilful naivety in what is deemed by government and media to be an issue of minimal importance.

Read more...

Indigenous Exceptionalism - MWF review

Article written for Right Now, and appears on the website with other human rights reviews here.


Is ‘race’ is an inherently negative word and is it time we stopped using it?

‘Racism’ has been a useful term for defining and addressing undesirable attitudes and conduct, but race – a term devised by European explorers – is often a simplistic, generalised method of identification that relies on physical appearance, rather than nationality, culture, ancestry or any meaningful feature of identity. We are, after all, members of a single human race, comprised of millions of ethnicities.

Professor Marcia Langton, Chair of Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne, was part of an expert panel set up by the federal government to look into recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Australian Constitution. In a Melbourne Writers Festival address, titled Indigenous Exceptionalism, she discussed race and the need to remove reference to it in the Constitution.

Until 1967, the Constitution allowed the parliament to legislate in the interests of “the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”.

Following the referendum of 1967 the words “other than the aboriginal race in any State” were removed.

However, the lingering reference to ‘race’ remains problematic, and the panel’s recommendations, handed down in January this year, included removing it, as well as acknowledging Indigenous Australians as the first peoples of Australia and the aspiration for cultural maintenance, including languages.

Professor Langton called recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution “a large, fraught topic full of legal, as well as moral, challenges.”

She called race an out-dated, crude concept – historically used to justify colonialism by portraying non-white peoples as inferior – and one that is “such a discredited biological and social construct that its citation in a democratic constitution is undesirable.”

“Defining Aboriginal people as a race, as the Constitution does,” she said “sets up the conditions for Indigenous people to be treated, not just as different, but exceptional and, moreover, inherently incapable of joining the Australian polity and society.”

“In the slowly building campaign for constitutional recognition of Indigenous people, it is vital that we broaden the understanding that the constitutional tradition of treating Aborigines as a race must be replaced with the idea of first peoples,” Professor Langton said.

The problem of race is evident in comments such as those by Andrew Bolt, who was found guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) in 2011, for implying that some fair-skinned Aboriginals were not true Aboriginals. Such perceptions are based on appearance rather than lineage and ties to place and culture.

Professor Langton actually shares Bolt’s cynicism towards some claims to Aboriginality by people seeking access to special treatment. The difference is, however, that her criticism is not based on skin tone but abuses of special treatment by those who cannot be described as disadvantaged, and those who claim Aboriginality on paper to claim benefit, but not in public.

Where temporary special assistance is required, she argued, the test for assistance must be economic disadvantage not Aboriginal ancestry. Aboriginality does not automatically equate to economic disadvantage and Professor Langton believes the entitlement mentality that has developed is poisoning Aboriginal society just as much as it is poisoning Australian attitudes towards Indigenous people.

The challenge ahead is addressing “the poorly understood friction between bringing Indigenous Australians firmly into the national polity and, on the other hand, maintaining their exceptional status as inextricably different.”

Despite her strong stance, Professor Langton believes a referendum should not be rushed, citing Australia’s record of rejecting constitutional change and the potentially harmful outcomes a negative result would have. Not only does she fear defeat would prevent the change being made in her lifetime, but she believes it would also lead to disappointment and bitterness among the Indigenous community, and Australia being seen internationally as racist.

Whether you agree with her views or not, Professor Langton is a formidable speaker and one of those wonderfully fascinating and considered people who seem impossible to pin down on the traditional political spectrum, making it all the more difficult to dismiss her argument’s challenge to one’s own perceptions. On such an important issue, even if a symbolic one, it is important for us all to keep an open mind and consider our own perceptions.

A 'balanced' ABC, or a better ABC?

Not many people are happy with our ABC at the moment. ALP supporters think Aunty is leaning to the right and giving Tony Abbott an easy ride. Conservative commentators continue to, as they always will, bang on about the national broadcaster being a mouthpiece of the left.

Mark Scott probably feels comfortable that the criticism from both sides places them nicely in the middle; that it's an indicator of a job well done. Well it's not.

Some of the concerns are valid but many of the party-political calling for a "fairer", "more balanced" ABC seem more interested in seeing their political team get a better run than promoting quality independent journalism.

I'm not sure why this feels like a radical notion, but I'd rather see the ABC forget the left-right divide altogether if they're going to be properly able to report without fear or favour.

Doesn't forcing the national broadcaster to operate in the middle of that one-dimensional spectrum - rather than above it - just restrict independence and the ability to pursue the public interest? Is measuring the coverage of left and right, Coalition vs ALP (and partners) really a meaningful indicator of quality journalism? It's important to be unbiased, but that's not necessarily the same as balanced.

It's like judging the performance of AFL umpires based on the free kick count at the end of a match - it completely ignores the quality and discipline of the competing teams, and (most importantly) the umpires themselves. Unbiased isn't necessarily the same as balanced.

The ABC is meant to provide balance to the media landscape as an alternative to the commercial media, not by walking a careful, inoffensive and tedious line down the middle of politics. Ok, the Charter may disagree with me there, and "the public interest" is probably a little too subjective to measure and report on. *Sigh*.

The role of a public broadcaster is to present a diverse and thoughtful voice that speaks to the public interest rather than the ratings figures. That's why they shouldn’t be afraid to broadcast a documentary like shouldn't be afraid to broadcast an important, insightful documentary like Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, for fear of the appearance of bias. Especially given the current discourse on asylum seekers, which is why a commercial station wouldn't touch it.

In politics, they should be asking policy questions and applying pressure where others will not and fleshing out the issues, informing and challenging us - those of us who wish to be informed and challenged anyway. Not everybody wants to engage politically, and that is totally fine. But they have to vote, so some independent analysis is pretty vital, and the ABC goes to extremes to ensure fair coverage during an election - the one time I'd probably agree with the onerous task.

Perhaps being driven by public interest rather than profit is inherently "progressive". So be it (yes, it suits me - maybe I'm biased too, only human). That doesn't preclude critical analysis of all sides of politics and presentation of a diverse range of views, most importantly views that contribute substance and/or don't get their voice heard in the mainstream media.

Even if that's the case, the cranky conservatives have enough profit-driven media outlets, with a lot more influence, to play with. We need Aunty. We all need her. As much as they may be loathe to admit it, their taxes provide vital diversity and accountability - you need only spend 15 minutes a week watching the ABC's MediaWatch to see how pathetic profit-driven media can be and why a strong ABC is so important. How often does a story on a program like Four Corners end up sparking discussion across the media the following day? (Rhetorical - quite often)

Should they report both sides of the climate change debate equally? Of course not, no one expects tobacco companies to get a right of reply every time cigarettes are discussed. But it should be reported and questioned objectively, with the facts.

But yes, I agree the Aunty's political coverage hasn't been the best of late.

Mr Abbott's gotten away with a lot of BS for much of the last two years, while Prime Minister Gillard has copped excessive criticism - from the ABC and mainstream media. But it's not bias, it's lazy, pack journalism combined with an undisciplined government who don't communicate well. Abbott's deficiencies are mostly policy (or lack of) based, whereas Gillard has faced a stream of scandals and chaos, too often caused by mischievous colleagues. Going after Gillard has offered a better story for attracting and entertaining the audience.

The criticism of the ABC shouldn't be "Hey, attack their guy!", it should be "You're meant to be better than this!"

The tide actually seems to be starting to turn on Abbott now, with the introduction of the Carbon Tax providing a background of reality to scrutinise him against, and allowing for broader critique of a few dodgy (sometimes harmful) lines. With the polls turning slowly on him too, it will probably continue. But a government will - and should - always receive a little more scrutiny than the opposition throughout it's term.

However, it's not about left and right. It doesn't matter how many ABC journalists have joined either major political party. Why should Insiders feel the need to give up a seat to rambling and stubborn people like Piers Ackerman and Gerard Henderson to balance the thoughtfulness of George Megalogenis and Annabelle Crabb? I know there's a lot of complain about the extent of Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) presence, but at least some of the IPA representatives listen and engage in productive discussion.

We (I'm talking on your behalf, you're welcome) just want some real policy discussion, without so many polls and unfounded leadership speculation!

I still love you Aunty - we're very lucky to have you - but you aren't without fault. Just don't listen to the shouters.


Declaration: I begrudgingly accept the label "progressive", provided it is preceded by "open-minded". I do not pledge support to any party and think the left-right spectrum is dumb.

Marriage is so gay

Marriage is so gay.

It's interesting that we struggle so much to bring the words 'gay' and 'marriage' together, given how much the word 'gay' and concept of marriage have both changed over time.

So many words have already been spent on this topic, but still the debate goes round in circles. It's damn frustrating because there doesn't seem to be a single argument against equal marriage that isn't misguided, prejudicial and/or fear-based.

Marriage has changed significantly over thousands of years as society evolved, and it ought to reflect our social values and human rights. Currently, it does not.

Why do I, as a heterosexual. care so much? Not just because many of the far-fetched arguments are an abuse of creativity, but also because of my interest in mental health.

By denying equal marriage we are essentially saying non-heterosexual relationships are inferior, less legitimate and/or less natural, which reinforces prejudice. Young people, in particular, are vulnerable to mental health consequences, including suicide. And it is completely unnecessary.

By embracing equal marriage we would embrace tolerance and maybe encourage greater acceptance and understanding across the community. Rather than being a threat to impressionable children, legalising same-sex marriage may just help some of them feel accepted and comfortable in who they are - possibly saving lives.

I like equal marriage and Jen Hawkins

Like many other issues of progress (such as Australia becoming a republic) that are bogged down in the irrational fear of change, equal marriage will happen eventually and already has popular support, so we're wasting time by getting bogged down in a nonsense debate.

Let's just do it and move on, as a more tolerant nation, to other issues. Even the angry bigots left behind can enjoy relief, no longer having to hear about it.

Taking just a quick look at the most common arguments highlights that it is fear, rather than values, that underpin them:

Marriage is about starting a family
That may partly explain why the ritual originated thousands of years ago, but it's clearly not a key criteria any longer, given the number - and our acceptance - of married heterosexual couples who cannot have, or do not want, children.

A child needs a mother and a father

To my mind this is the only argument that deserves to be taken seriously; and I think it does, because as shit as it is to tell a gay couple they are an inferior parenting option, I can see the flicker of logic through the dense fog of bigotry.

In fact, I agree that ideally a child has a mother and a father - in circumstances where all else was exactly equal - simply because men and women are different and I think it's a good thing to be exposed to life lessons from both sides of the human race. 

But all things are rarely, if ever, equal. Not all  fathers are 'manly men', not all mothers are 'traditionally effeminate'. We're all different, but that's a strength. The parents will not be the only influences in the child's life. And there are too many other variables that could indicate how good a parent someone will be - health, education, wealth, ability to care for the child and spend time with them, etc - to discriminate on sexuality. Many children have only one parent - surely a second is beneficial regardless of gender?

Anyone who saw Penny Wong speak about her family on QandA would be hard pressed to credibly argue that her child will have an inferior upbringing to the children of Joe Hockey, who had just insinuated as such in his defence of the 'traditional' family - whatever that is. 

It's a moot point anyway when discussing same-sex marriage because same-sex couples, such as Senator Wong and her partner, can already adopt and raise children. Although perhaps not for much longer in Queensland.

The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just what it is
Well, unless you believe Adam and Eve were the first married couple, you would probably accept the anthropological view that marriage has been around in some form for at least 4000 years.

It has changed dramatically over the centuries, as it should as we as a society change. Initially it was about protecting blood lines and had nothing to do with love. Ancient Hebrew law required a widow to marry her deceased husband's brother.

In fact, we wouldn't even be breaking new ground by allowing same-sex marriage - the Romans were doing it in the 4th century. So who's definition exactly are we going by?

This argument is nothing more than a cop-out from a fearful, closed mind, refusing to have their view of the world challenged.

They can have a Civil Union, why isn't that good enough?
Because it is condescending and says reinforces negative perceptions of homosexuality.

The Bible says...

Ok, no. 

The Bible says a lot of shit. It advocates stoning a woman to death if she falsely claims to be a virgin when she marries. Few Christians - hopefully none - would hold this view now because society has progressed.

Also, we live in a secular society where marriage is presided over primarily by government. 

Jesus never condemned homosexuality, but did preach tolerance and love. 

The Church are welcome to hold onto prejudice, but in secular society we have to champion non-discrimination.

If we legalise marriage between homosexuals, what's to stop people wanting to marry their daughters, brothers or pets? Or all of them!

Now the conservative is just yelling gibberish while blocking their ears to stop the infectious truth.

The slippery slope. Letting homosexuals marry will open the door to the all sorts of unions and the breakdown of society. Au contraire. By legalising same-sex marriage we continue to put misguided injustices behind us.

This argument is the true measure of fear. The fanciful, irrelevant 'what if's. It's not even an argument against same-sex marriage itself anymore. I'm familiar with the anxiety-inducing effect of baseless 'what if's; letting them go is liberating experience.

And, not that it really needs addressing, but the fear is baseless. Not only is there no actual push for the right to marry within family, including the pet, but there are sound reasons not to allow it. Simply, the illegality of incest and bestiality is firmly grounded in biological and ethical reasoning. So no, that won't be happening.

As for polygamy, that's more of a grey area but there's no reason to believe group marriages would be legalised in our lifetime. It's an entirely different situation. Maybe someday it will be legal, who knows what society will be like in a few hundred years (if we make it that long), but massive shifts would need to take place first, and it would need popular support, so who cares if that happens one day? Hell, we can't even get legal same-sex marriage with majority community support.


From the first marriages thousands of years ago, the purpose and meaning of the ritual has changed dramatically. We should define for what marriage means for us as Australians in 2012. I think most people would say it's primarily about the love and commitment between a couple. That's good progress from the original purpose, I think, so embrace it. Although, we can't really stop people who don't love each other from doing it too.

Same-sex couples are fighting to have their love recognised equally. Jesus taught love and tolerance, yet supposed followers of his, like the Australian Christian Lobby are fighting against both. I know which side I want to be on, and which side Jesus would probably support.

Heterosexuals haven't been doing a great job of respecting marriage in recent decades, so who are we to deny homosexuals a chance?

It's a chance to celebrate more love, and God knows we need as much in the world as we can get these days.

Film review - Under African Skies

[Film review for RightNow.org.au, full article at their website]

Under African Skies tells the controversial story of Paul Simon’s African-influenced, critically acclaimed album Graceland, and reunites him with the South African musicians who contributed to the album 25 years on.

In the mid-1980s Simon got his hands on an album by South African band, The Boyoyo Boys. He was so taken with what he heard that he saw a potential new direction for his own music.

From the outset Simon portrays a certain amount of political naivety about the situation in South Africa that swings between disappointing and endearing throughout the film.

Although aware of the tensions in the country and encouraged to replicate the sound he wanted in a New York studio, he insisted on visiting the South Africa in 1986 to start work on new songs. Given the international cultural boycott, American singer and social activist Harry Belafonte suggested he seek the approval of the African National Congress before going. However, Simon refused the idea that he should be required to ask permission from any group to pursue his artistic venture.

Artists Against Apartheid founder Dali Tambo believes that Simon’s timing was “not helpful”. But others, like Graceland producer Koloi Lebona, saw an opportunity to promote South African music in the mainstream, so that it would no longer be seen as third world music.


Cont... Full article on RightNow website

Valuing the thinkers in politcal discussion

I liked this article by Mike Carlton.

I posted it on a friend's Facebook wall. A conservative-voting, but more-progressive-thinking-than-he'd-like-to-admit friend. One who has been (un)fairly critical of some of the 'scandals' surrounding the government in the last 18 months. I like to tell him he has a progressive inside waiting to burst out once he comes out of denial, which he doesn't appreciate it, but we agree on a lot of things when you get past the slimy surface of political discussion.

I liked the article because, while hardly policy-heavy, it looked beyond the surface (or headline) level judgements of the government, and noted that Julia Gillard's has actually been, at the very least a good economic manager - the media's primary measurement of government for at least the last 15 years, since reform went out of fashion. Also it has successfully implemented a good deal of legislation despite the hung parliament.

My friend dismissed it because Carlton isn't known to be balanced in his views. 'Come on!' I thought, 'that's it?? No criticism of the logic or arguements?' I just responded with a smiley face because, while we can have a strangely respectful political discussion, Facebook walls are dangerous ground for such discourse. Any nut can get involved and turn things sour, so I keep the politics to a minimum there, and save it for Twitter. I'll pursue him about it over a beer soon. I think he'll sheepishly concede a few points, so I should be mature about it in the spirit of appreciating open-mindedness.

Got me thinking though - have we just become barrackers again? The old ways of voting along family lines crumbled long ago. Although I do remember an 18 year-old arriving at a polling booth with his father, where I was handing out How-To-Vote cards for the Greens (for a friend!). His Dad instructed him to avoid us and take one from the Liberals and Family First representatives. As he walked past behind his Dad I quietly offered him one. 'Nah, I better not,' he replied. And they say we live in a democracy!

Yet swingers are the rise my friends, cynical enough about politics not to pledge their ongoing support to anyone. But just as we got wise, the mainstream media got particularly dumb. We switch more, but based on what? Policy? Scaremongering? Scandals? The Prime Minister's wardrobe?

Whatever the reasons, lots of people still tend to make up their mind about something and then stick to it. That's not to say it won't change - clearly views do change - but it takes time. Admitting you were wrong is not seen as noble but weak, inconsistent and/or an indication of unreliability, which is utterly counter-intuitive.

Was the I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change experiment anything more than a waste of time, money and carbon emissions? Did anyone change their mind? Certainly not those involved in the show. And a massive 47% of voters in the online poll said they would never change their mind. Never. Regardless of what information comes to light. No scientist that takes themselves seriously would say that, and no human ever should. Those people may as well walk away from the debate, regardless of which side they are on, their closed-minded opinion has lost its legitimacy. I only hope many passionate Climate Change believers misguidedly voted 'No' they would never change their mind because they feared a 'Yes' result would look like a win for the skeptics. It's not. It's a (frighteningly marginal) win for reason. Anyway, chances are - and changes in the perception of Climate Change indicate - that many more than this number would actually change their mind, they just obviously don't like to admit it for fear of weakening their argument.

For the record, I believe in human-induced Climate Change, do not expect to change my mind and think environmental protection is crucial either way, but I voted 'Yes' (I would change my mind). I hope I would.

We chastise politicians who do as weakness or liars - even if you meant what you said (and the media will insist on a promise) but changed due to unforseen circumstances.

So back to Carlton and his fellow opinion piece writers, and the judgement of balance. By definition, no opinion writer is 'balanced'. They are writing their opinion. Some are more considered than others and address both sides of an issue, but all have their own values and beliefs and column inches are meant to be the space to test their ideas, and challenge the reader. Although some prefer to attract an audience by whipping up fear and frenzy.

My favourite column writers - and I would include Mike Carlton along with people like George Megalogenis and Ross Gittins - put their case intelligently and sensibly. I like Carlton because of the pinch of intelligent humour that probably riles the 'opposition'. Megalogenis is the most 'neutral', but I suspect conservatives view him as a leftie. I'd add David Marr to the list but then my apparent left-leaning view of the world becomes even starker and I can be dismissed as well!

But I'm exhausted by the old view of left and right. It's fucking outdated and childish, far too basic within a complex economic, social and environmental policy discourse. Politics is not sport where you pick your team and stick with it, your view of heroes, villians and umpiring decisions often defined by who your team is. My values define my vote, not the other way around.

And yes, I'm more likely to read articles by people who I respect, who, in turn, are likely to share my values - or have they helped shape them? I don't read Fairfax more than News Ltd press because I'm a progressive, I read it because it takes the news a little more seriously. Not enough, but more. I like MediaWatch because it exposes just how much of a mess the whole lot (commercial media) are. Again, my disappointment in the commercial media's general inability to maintain it's credibility probably shoves me into the leftie camp. So be it.

I'll read and respect columnists that take a serious view of politics, with an interest in the good of the community rather than bitter ranting, sensationalisation, old-school point-scoring or shallow reporting of polls and popularity. Michelle Grattan, for instance, seems to me to be neutral, but has little of substance to say.

I don't care who they vote for as long as they're rational, reasoned and encourage - rather than undermine - mature discussion. We should read articles of merit by people who share and challenge our values, question them equally and form a judgement. It's not easy though.

An informed electorate is the antithesis of party or ideological loyalty though. We all need to be able to think it all through and feel free to express a polite, engaging opinion without fear of being wrong. We're only human.

Why can't we talk and tweet about serious issues?

So it's over. For now.

It was a fun week for political geeks, as the #respill, #kevenge and #ALPocalypse hashtags dominated Twitter like few other non-Bieber trends have for such a prolonged period. That's the social media world we live in now - a few days is 'prolonged'.

And nothing really came of it. Other than, hopefully, Kevin Rudd's quiet retreat to the backbench and then retirement. It was a battle between public relations and (attempted) good government, and for once, somehow, the latter came out on top.

But what does the Twitter activity around it all say about Australian politics, and even those of us who constantly begrudge the focus on superficial polls and leadership speculation at the expense of meaningful policy discussion and education. Yes, the leadership challenge was more than just speculation in the end, and the potential change of Primae Minister in these circumstances is definitely big news - it could have brought down a government - but it never actually looked like happening. It was all about one man's ego, and other people's obsession with (possibly misinterpreted) polls. And that doesn't excuse the media from talking about virtually NOTHING else since Kevin Rudd resigned as Foreign Minister.

This was a drama, led by a protagonist up there with the best in terms of vanity and meglamania and fed by petty infighting, not an issue of public interest. They need to sort their shit out and if - yes it may be a big if - the government can move past this now and focus on policy we'll all be better for it. But will the media pack of pavlov's dogs promote the public interest, or push for more excitement? It's easy news, it's sexy news, it fits the new instant gratification and production paradigm, and doesn't require the knowledge and resources for proper analysis.

And it's telling just how much more Twitter activity there's been in the last few days. Not to mention during QandA last week when the number of tweets sporting the #qanda hashtag seemed to plummet when the discussion finally moved on to issues of policy and genuine public interest after the halfway mark of the show.

I got sucked in - truth is, it's so much easier to tweet about Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and leadership than technical elements of policy. And it's more salacious, so it drags us in. It engages us more immediately, and we don't need to concentrate so intently to understand the content so it's easier to tweet about it at the same time - giving the impression this is what everyone wants to talk about.

But that doesn't mean it's what we want dominating the news, especially on the ABC! It doesn't mean I won't be pissed off when I tune in to Big Ideas on a Sunday and find it's been replaced with a news bulletin telling me nothing I haven't heard a hundred times already.

I'd dearly love to tweet intelligently, with an informed view on the Gonski Report, or health reforms, or disability legislation, but I don't know enough about it. I should seek out more information, but I'm just another time-poor voter who thought he could rely on the ABC to give me the meaningful side of the political debate. After the last couple of weeks I'm not so sure.

Even they are feeding us more of this crap now, because it seems to be what we want to talk about. But the fact is, most of us can't engage in the discourse on real issues because we don't know enough about them. It's a sad cycle of entertainment in shallow waters.

But at least we don't have a Prime Minister today who seems to live in the shallows, feeding an obsession with his own image. Maybe if he retreats quietly we can move the conversation back towards something meaningful before the next election.

We should be proud to shag beneath our flag

Ooh! Let it burn!

So now we can't be intimate with a loved one beneath the Australian flag? I'm outraged!

If I was getting any at the moment it would be an honour to be covered by our national symbol; and I'm not even that fond of its design, if I may say so without being offensive.

If the real Julia Gillard - whichever one is real - was to drape herself in the flag in her intimate moments with the first bloke, I'd think that shows excessive patriotism, rather than disrespect - but that's the joke right? Was tonight's episode of At Home With Julia any worse than wearing an Australian flag bikini, which risks getting the wrong kind of salute on a summer’s day?

Well we can't joke about the flag it seems, according to certain members of parliament and the RSL. These pouty conservatives! First they seek to put the brakes on (same sex) love, now they decry (flagged) intimacy! How bleak their hearts?

What's in a flag anyway?

Is it really something sacrosanct that soldiers fight and die for - symbolic of a world divided? Well, no. I'd like to think it's more positive than that. It's meant to represent the people - as well as perhaps the character and values of those people - that soldiers sometimes fight and die for. Values like freedom, characteristics like poking fun at ourselves with good nature. Let's not insist on defining it by war and conflict, please.

John Forrest even called for tonight's episode of  At Home With Julia to be pulled... what was that about fighting to protect our freedoms?

Where was Mr Forrest during the Cronulla riots when the flag was being proudly brandished as to reaffirm an anglo vision of Australia while chants of "Fuck off, we're full" rang out? Thing is, as disgusting as that display was and as much as I await the inevitable day when the union jack is removed from our flag, those bogans had as much claim on the flag as any other Australian. It represents us all ... even if it does a fucking poor job.

People who invoke dead soldiers to back up their own opinions are being a little disrespectful, not to mention presumptuous, I'd think. Who's to say what any soldier's point of view is on the design of our colonial flag, let alone the use of it in a sitcom. Not me, not John Forrest, and I dare the the views are as varied as they are in the community.

So why do people get so precious about the flag? Sometimes moreso than the treatment of real, actual people?!

I haven't found At Home With Julia particularly funny, but far from offensive. It can't be pulled from air, just as we can't ban bogans from wearing the flag as a cape. And more offensive to the office of Prime Minister than a sitcom is the carry on by both sides of politics every day in Parliament.

I’m not gonna lie, I don’t much care for our current flag. I respect it as our flag, but it makes me cringe a little seeing that it carries the symbol of a colonial history that is now dwarfed not only by our significant indigenous history before it but the impact of the multiculturalism we've embraced since. And while I do I love singing along with Peter Garrett in Truganini – “I see the Union Jack in flames; LET IT BURN!” – but I’d never actually burn the flag that represents my country (right or wrong), flawed as it may be.

Of course, a new design is a massive ask of a designer. But I reckon, keep it simple; don't try to include everyone, just focus on something simple that can unite people of varying cultures who live together (ideally in harmony!) on the same land. Like Canada's!

A flag we can all be proud of. So proud we want to roll around naked in it!

Time for the labels to be left right out of politics

There's mutual love and respect there somewhere...

The coverage and commentary following the High Court decision that the government's Malaysia Solution was unlawful this week drew a clear line between those interested in the social outcomes of public policy and those frenzied by the sporting contest that is politics. Sadly, most of what I read fell into the second category.

In the mainstream media, David Marr provided one of the few articles that actually discussed the real implications of the decision - that is for asylum seekers, not politicians. Politics really does seem to be turning more into a topic of discussion where people can pretend to care about issues while really just arguing about the players in the game; a 'sideshow' as someone might say.

'Tweeps' from both sides showed their true colours, however what disturbed me most was seeing usually progressive people instinctively go into shock or try to defend a policy that their usually progressive opinions would suggest they wouldn't otherwise support. After all, if you criticise your own side it looks, and feels, like your supporting the opposition. Meanwhile, Shadow Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, took the opportunity to slam the government and claim the policy high ground, even though the policies of both major parties are morally - and potentially legally - unacceptable. But I expect it from him, I know he's an arsehole.

This is one of the hottest political footballs, a proven points scorer, and as usual most of the discussion, debate and analysis was directed towards the political contest - or worse, direct involvemnet in it - while the people affected remained abstract scraps of data. As most mainstream commentators and journalists scurry to predict the fate of the government, and indeed the parliament, they are providing us with largely useless information - telling us what we think of the major parties - and dehumanising one of the biggest humanitarian issues in this country.

Politicians from both major parties are just as bad as the people smugglers they rail against. They all exploit asylum seekers for personal/party gain, but at least people smugglers are attempting to deliver them to safer shores. I want to know how we can break the politicians business model.

To me this issues hasn't put another nail in the coffin of the Gillard government, but the coffin of intelligent political discourse.

Initially I was angry about all this, but this morning I attended a discussion at the Melbourne Writers Festival where Robert Manne, Marieke Hardy and Richard Flanagan discussed in front of a large and engaged audience, the place of writing (essays in particular) in politics and how we can turn this mess around. I gave me a little hope and inspiration - a much better platform from which to express yourself than anger.

So this is what I want in my utopian political environment:

I want positive and engaging debate, not bitter and divisive 'team'-orientated feuding.

I want a parliament that is an arena for the contest of ideas, not a colloseum for the battle for power between the Coalition and Labor, left and right or progressives and conservatives.

I want politicians who are not afraid to be vulnerable; to say "I don't know the answer" but be genuinely dedicated to the cause, rather than pretending to know the unknowable and avoiding the discussion.

I want a political system that allows Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull to once again publicly display their passion for social issues and truly inspire people.

I want Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull to start speaking their mind publicly and accept whatever consequences the party deals them. Party stability may trump personal opinion, but shifting towards a society that can handle debate trumps the superficial appearance of party stability and debate does not equal disunity.

I want media reporting to return to the public interest accepts the complexity of issues, not trash journalism that pursues conflict to make money.

I want a mainstream media that can handle complexity without needing to boil issues down to the simplistic framing of the sporting contest, where substance gets evaporated. That judges parties on policy not polls.

I want more episodes of QandA without party politicians until they can freely and openly engage in the political discourse without party lines and points scoring; and panels that aren't judged by how many there are from each side but the quality of ideas and discussion.

I want an Opposition with policy that adds value to parliament rather than attempting to bring it down. An opposition that won't use critical and sensitive issues like climate change and asylum seekers to advance in the polls, but rather is interested in the advancement of our nation.

I want politicians to be able to genuinely shift their opinions - as any thinking person does - and adapt to changing cirumstances without being endlessly labelled a 'liar'.

I want more parliamentarians like the late, great Peter Andren - people of courage, conviction, honesty and humility - to show the way.


You may say I'm a dreamer, but the discussion at today's Melbourne Writers Festival event showed I'm not the only one. At least it's positive, and I'll happily accept incremental progress.

In the meantime, I'll seek my information out from people that I trust; not those I necessarily agree with but those I respect, even - especially - if it means they challenge my way of seeing the world.

"Gay Marriage Is Wrong!" and other absurdities

I don’t know about you, but I’m yet to hear one reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry; just one sensible, logical reason. This is something that would make a lot of people happy, so those opposing it must surely have a reason.

Is it about religion?
Even if you believe God does not approve of homosexuality, we live in a secular nation and marriage is a legal institution. We, as a society, drew up the legalities of marriage, and, like so much other legislation, we can amend it.

Is it about starting a family?
Ok, maybe it is ideal for a child to have a mother and a father. But if giving a child the ideal upbringing is the pre-condition to marriage then just about every straight person should be prevented from marrying as well – the poor, the old, the unhealthy. Not to mention myself – there’s every chance my offspring will inherit my predisposition to depression. Many others too, but such comparisons unfairly imply homosexuality is an imperfection.

Rather than ask what is an ideal situation for raising a child (and probably doesn’t exist), maybe we should ask what is the most important thing a parent or parents can give a child – I highly doubt sexual orientation is relevant here.

Is it about tradition?
Maybe. The people who feel threatened by this probably would have opposed giving indigenous Australians, or even women for that matter, the vote.

This important change will force people to change the way they see society; as far as I’m concerned, it would force them to catch up and see the reality of contemporary society. It will legally acknowledge loving relationships that we all know exist on the as being equal. Currently there is a class system of relationships; homosexuals are essentially treated like minors.

Is it about definition?
‘Because that’s what marriage is’ is a response I’ve received when asking why only a man and a woman should be allowed to marry. But you still haven’t told me WHY. Again, it’s a legal definition. We, as a society, defined it; we can change it. Even words change meaning all the time; ‘terrific’ used to mean ‘frightening’. Can we get Kevin Andrews saying he thinks gay marriage is terrific?

Is it about protecting society?
If you think allowing gay marriage will push us onto a slippery slope where eventually marriage is allowed between adults and underage children, people and animals, or more than two people, then you probably would never have supported homosexuality being legalised in the first place; because that would lead to the legal recognition of all these other relationships wouldn’t it? Oh, that’s right, it didn’t.

Is it about love?
Well I’d hope so. But I don’t know; some married couples don’t seem to show love very well. And some of the most vocal opponents to gay marriage aren’t showing much love.

Some people – straight people (*GASP*) – even use marriage occasionally for personal gain!

So why do they want to be able to marry. Maybe they don’t want to be seen as ‘they’ anymore, but be part of ‘us’ in relationship terms. Maybe they want to share in this splendid tradition, even if a few of us straight people have fucked around with it a bit.

I want to get married. Sure, I dream of it sometimes. But right now I can’t get married because I have no one to marry. If (when!) I meet a girl I want to marry (who wants to marry me as well), getting hitched will not be the most important thing. But it will be a significant celebration and symbol of our love and the status of a committed relationship.



Why does a straight guy care so much? Why have I had passionate arguments with family members about this, dismayed and frustrated by their stubborn views?

Because I don’t understand what the fucking problem is!?!

While some straight couples abuse marriage, there are many homosexual couples putting it up on the pedestal it deserves. They want to be a part of it, to celebrate their love and have it acknowledged on the same level as heterosexual couples. It’s inspiring to see people – gay and straight – passionately standing up for the expression and celebration of love, not fighting to suppress it.

One sensible, logical reason; that’s all I want. That or marriage equality.

Grrr, politics - you do my head in!

Well, a political post was inevitable. That little blurb under ‘About me’ says I’m a politics geek. True – I’m interested in public policy and enjoy discussions (not arguments, discussions) and debates, thrashing out issues in a meaningful way. But frankly, ‘politics’ gives me the absolute shits sometimes.

Just look at how it’s talked about by the media and politicians alike, accepting it – promoting it – as a sporting contest. How tragic! How utterly pathetic to see serious policy discussion degenerate into cheap stunts and empty rhetoric, as pollies scramble to kick goals in the polls.

Political parties are driving the political discourse into the ground, well beneath the lowest common denominator. I wonder if they have actually become the lowest common denominator. They should lead and inspire us, setting an example of how people from varying backgrounds and ideologies can work constructively for the common good – isn’t an interest in the common good supposed to be their common trait? Isn’t that a lovely dream? Maybe not for media proprietors.

I know political parties are a necessary evil for the practical functioning of our parliamentary system. But being a necessary evil doesn’t mean it’s necessary that they are evil. Right?

And a parliament without political parties would still bubble over with ambition and power struggles. But there seems to be far more integrity and maturity from independent politicians in recent years – people like Nick Xenophon, Tony Windsor and the late Peter Andren. They sometimes influence power, but never hold it; they have little interest in fortnightly polls and can instead test their policy stance against their values instead. But how many people have even heard of Peter Andren, personally the most inspiring politician from my lifetime?

The parties on the other hand are essentially sporting teams, with polls providing the scoreboard between elections. And they are each out to win at all costs, even if that cost includes good long-term policy. In Australia, Tony Abbott puts significantly more effort into relentlessly campaigning against the carbon tax and shifting opinion against such necessary urgent action on climate change, than engaging in productive efforts to mitigate the fallout of a serious issue that he claims to believe in.

Meanwhile, in the US some Republicans see the looming debt crisis as an irresistible opportunity to damage Barak Obama’s re-election hopes next year, regardless of the impact on the Americans they represent.

Indeed, that’s politics. A robust and effective opposition is imperative to hold the government to account, but when they oppose for oppositions sake they become counter-productive. Again, indulge my idealistic naivety, but wouldn’t it be nice to see a harmonious parliament? One where our elected representatives worked constructively together in the collective interest of us all? Where honest mistakes or reasonable shifts in opinion were accepted for what they are, not used to sink the boot in? There are, no doubt, rarely publicised instances where politicians from different sides do work together. But wouldn’t it be more productive for us all if the general perception of parliament could be of a forum where a constructive contest of ideas fleshes out the best outcome for the nation, rather than one of division and fighting, which are celebrated in those wonderful sporting clichés but do little to progress the debate.

And then there’s the media. The contest between personalities and the struggle for power is far more interesting to them than boring policy analysis. So it comes back to the game. People like Michelle Grattan examine polls and performances, wasting column space on the politics of politics, while Andrew Bolt stirs succeeds by stirring up anger on both sides of the debate and Alan Jones berates ‘Juliar’ Gillard for introducing a carbon tax without a mandate, while he uses his significant profile to push his own agenda. Would he still berate the Prime Minister for policy shifts if he was – stick with me here – actually right and able to convince her, and the rest of us, of it?

The thing is, as much as I dislike the man, Jones has a right to his opinion, even (*gulp*) the right to use it as a rallying call, if he actually believes in the bile he coughs up. I’d be pretty hypocritical to suggest otherwise, I’ve been variously inspired by a range of political activists including, pertinently, Midnight Oil.

After all, the political and policy discussion goes on even when we aren’t voting as the ever-changing climate (not just environmental) shifts around us. So it isn’t unreasonable for a politician or party to alter their policy after an election if circumstances change, and it frustrates the hell outta me that we aren’t mature enough to deal with that in popular political discourse. I just wish it wasn’t based so much on fucking polls!

Seeing I’ve mentioned the Oils, I’ll finish by saying that, yeah, it saddens me to see Peter Garrett stripped of his power and passion by the party machine. I like to think he’s fighting the good fight behind closed doors. Maybe he is making a difference there, although I’d be surprised if it’s very much. Meanwhile, while towing the party line, he can no longer inspire people to stand up for things they believe in, environmental or otherwise, and encourage them to engage in issues the way he did successfully for 25 years with the Oils.

Seeing Mr Garrett spit out party lines does nothing for me, watching clips like this gives me chills.