Catechism

Alex White's blog

2007-06-29T11:19:00.000+10:00

My blog is available here.

Alex White.

Alexander White.

Alex White.
Alex White.
Alex White.
Alex White.
Alex White.
Alex White.
Alex White.
Alex White.

Alex White.
Alexander White.

Ave atque vale

2005-10-03T11:04:00.000+10:00

I started this blog in July 2004.

Now, in October, it is going on semi-permanent hiatus.

Perhaps in early 2006, I may find more time for blogging.

Until then, ave atque vale.

Refugee Rights

2005-03-03T15:07:00.000+11:00

In a landmark ruling, the High Court found:

that the government was obliged to take in refugees facing persecution in their homeland.

This is after Australia refused to accept persecuted Russian Jews, and advised them instead to go to Israel.

Justice Michael Kirby rejected the practice of "shuffling" refugees from one country to another.

"It would be an absurd result if the generosity of other states' refugee laws meant that Australia was thereby relieved of international obligations that it voluntarily accepted with other nations," he said.

There is also pressure on the Government's Immigration Detention laws, which allow for unlimited detention of assylum seekers.

Use your lightning bolt!

2005-03-02T10:18:00.000+11:00

In 1984, TSR, the then publisher of Dungeons and Dragons, flushed with the success of their DnD cartoon series, showed this commercial. Definitely worth a look, for either nostalgia or for laughs.

The New Religion

2005-03-01T23:00:00.000+11:00

Conservatives and reactionary ultra-individualists (such as those found at Capitalism Magazine) are rebranding environmentalism as an irrational "religion", and implicit in this accusation is the continued assault on left-wing views, equity and social justice.

Thanks to Comrade Hogan, who recently added CapMag to the Right-Wing Sin Bin, for making me aware of this particular kind of right-wing trash.

In the above linked CapMag article, the author, Tom DeWeese vents his bile against the Kyoto Protocol, a rather flawed idea to allow carbon trading and minutely lower C02 emissions. Although starting with a fairly sane sounding argument that there is "no consensus" on Global Warming (the term is Climate Change now buckeroo), DeWeese then wanders into the kinds of conspiracy nut-case views that feature in Mel Gibson movies or are held by the chief economic advisors of Vlad Putin.

Global Warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth from the rich, development nations to jealous dictatorships who refuse to allow their citizens the right to gain their own wealth through free markets. It's about political redistribution from strong, independent sovereign nations into the hands of a power-hungry global elite cowering in the United Nations. These are the same cowardly scoundrels who used to try to rule the world through global communism. Today they pretend that the same lies have something to do with protecting the environment.

This is pretty whacky stuff. Just like Andrei Illarionov, who claims that a sinister global cabal of shadowy totalitarian lobbying cultists are controling the world through their Kyotoism.

These guys sound like the Citizens Electoral Council, who believe that global economic collapse is imminent and that the world is controlled by an coterie of Jews, the British Monarchy and the CIA. Illarionov quoth on Lateline (linked above):

This is a very clear, pure lobbyist effort to redistribute financial resources to one particular group of people.... Kyotoism, from my point of view, is quite totalitarian ideology that is imposed on the world and on many societies with totalitarian means, and in this regard, this totalitarian ideology is very similar to other totalitarian ideologies that we have seen in the past, like fascism and communism.

While these extremists don't get that much credibility in the media (at least in Australia, where it is thankfully understood that there is anthropagenic change in the global environment), it is clear where their rhetoric is leading.

As far as I can tell, the fastest growing progressive political movement in the world is the Green movement. While in my opinion the environmental movement is (for now) largely characterised by moderate, moralistic conservatism, it is also one that has galvanised a mass of public like no other since the seventies.

A friend of mine commented that he believes that evironmental activism and ecological issues will be the major issues for mass social change in the 21st Century. With accusations of "communism" "fascism" and "socialism" now being levelled at rebellious aspects of the "technician-class" of Capital, it appears that my friend may be correct, or that at least, Capital is identifying environmentalism as the next threat to its Imperialism.

With a weight of scientific evidence to back them, the Green movement has become internationally organised. As governments and some aspects of big business around the globe have begun to acknowledge the validity of ecological sustainability, reactionary elements of capital are striking back.

As we see, the ideologues and rhetoricians of Capital are not only labeling environmentalists as communists ("watermelons" perhaps), but are also linking them to the irrational aspects of religion: cults, sects, fundamentalism.

Personally, this is an interesting development, as it makes connections with the subversive or counter-cultural aspects of religion, rather than the pro-state, pro-ruling class sections of religion (ie, those that are "acceptable"). (Interesting because this is my thesis.) Sect, cult, are terms used to denigrate and delegitimise; the tropes of communism are thrown in to link environmentalism with the so-called "discredited" Marxist theories.

Furthermore (and this is an point I should have emphasised more earlier), DeWeese and Illarionov are manufacturing a dichotomy between "true" and "false" science, with true science on the one hand being that which denies Climate Change (or anthropagenic Climate Change) utterly and false science which studies it.

The totalitarian sect/cult that is bending the ear of Bush, Blair and Putin (according to Illarionov) are the Messiahs of the False Science bent on communist-style redistribution of wealth and a crushing of individual rights to freedom of speech. They abhor facts and reason, they ruthlessly crush dissent, they excommunicate heretics from public life, and the hate the environment.

DeWeese says something that strikes me as indicative of his ideological background:

Global Warming has become a religion that the faithful have vowed to follow no matter what the true facts may show. Global Warming is a theory, nothing more, and large numbers of scientists around the world are beginning to question its validity. There is no consensus of support.

This is the same argument used against evolution: "Evolution is a theory, nothing more".

It is precisely this kind of counter-intuitive anti-intellectualism that is threatening scientific thought. It is exceedingly dangerous, crypto-theology, cloaked by a veneer of "science" of the kind used by reactionary ultra-conservatives.

(This enrty made use of Google's rel="nofollow" tag)

Leaks

2005-03-01T20:54:00.000+11:00

Occasionally I get emails from anonymous hotmail accounts leaking information regarding factional enemies.

Last year, I got an email from "Jane Doe" forwarding me a copy (from Tim Singh, Movement Secretary of the Young Liberal Movement), of the Young Liberal Movement Council Annual Meeting Memorandum of Results from 7 November 2004. I didn't put this info up because there was no independent way to verify it.

I mention this because I was just given a tip regarding an article from the Deccan Herald, an Indian newspaper in Bangalore from Wednesday, July 28, 2004 regarding Ben Cass and Peter Vlahos.

Announcing the ‘Education Roadshow : Melbourne - 2004’ to be held at 4 pm on Wednesday, Director of International Business Development for Universal Migration, Vasan Srinivasan said on Tuesday that the education consultants wish to smoothen the process of education in Australia.

Mr Srinivasan said, “More than 10,000 Indian students went to Australia for higher studies in 2003. With more students opting for higher education outside India, and Australia being a favoured destination, safety and comfort are major concerns.”

SSI Director Benjamin Cass said what sets this agency apart from Indian agents is that they are the service provider themselves, and not just a referral service.

The seminar will begin with an overview on Australian education. The seminar on ‘Global Opportunities via Migration to Australia’ will be held by Peter D Vlahos, Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria and Mr Srinivasan. Entry is free.

This is very similar to the Hindu Times story that Brent broke a few weeks ago.

I wonder who Vassan Srinivasan is...?

Back to Uni

2005-03-01T10:02:00.000+11:00

For the few regular readers still wandering past this site, you may be interested to know that it's the first week of university this week.

While I should have been going to class, signing up for tutes, searching fruitlessly for obscure lecture rooms... I have been variously stuck at work or going to university committee meetings. Blah.

After an exhausing O-Week (and its six-week lead up) and a very bad weekend, I really haven't had much energy to write. I also have deadlines for various other projects, such as Hermes Portal and Atlas Games, which has kept me scribbling away in my sketchpad and desperately staving off writer's block.

Here is a sample:

Meanwhile, I may briefly comment on Costello's plan to change the GST Legislation.

Last night on LateLine, Beattie and Bracks were interviewed by Tony Jones after the World's Greatest Treasurer announced that he was going to supervise how the States would spend their GST revenue.

This move is obviously a part of the Liberal's on going strategy of "all power to Canberra". Unable to seize control of the States, Howard and Costello have decided to try to centralise power in Australia in their own hands.

(Imagine if a Labor Government were trying to do this! The outcry would be enormous! Bolt and Ackerman would have conniptions.)

I was not impressed last night with Tony Jones; it was quite obvious that Bracks and Beattie were singings from the same choir-book, and Tony Jones really just allowed them a forum to hack at Costello (not that I disapprove of that, just that Tony Jones didn't really take any kind of hard line).

This centralising, nationalist approach of Howard and Costello is an interesting one. I firmly believe that the States are irrelevent hold-overs from the colonisation of Australia. With a single nation, there really should be a single system where possible (allowing for specific need and circumstance to change a "one size fits all" approach).

Education and health is a good example of this. Every child in Australia should receive the same level of education, with the same curriculum, same quality, same resources and same standards. This is one of the reasons I oppose private schools and selective public schools (like the one I went to in Adelaide for four years), because they stratify education and make three tiers of learning, an elite private level, an elite public level, and then the rest.

Add to that six or seven different standards and systems for examination and achievement (VCE in Victoria, SACE in South Australia) and it is hopelessly complicated.

Resolving this however needs to be done cooperatively through Federalism, not imposed through taxation legislation from the Commonwealth Government. With all States held by Labor, Howard would be able to prove his seriousness in greating a unified national system by negotiating and compromising with the Labor States in developing a world's best practice national education system.

(Much the same could be said for Health, which is why I supported Medicare Gold.)

Costello has also played the card of "accountability", saying that the States spend their GST revenue on all kinds of crazy things that the public never knows about. Putting asside the notion that suddenly it is the role of the Federal Government to play oversight-committee to the States, the notion that State Governments are unaccountable is ridiculous. The States need to face regular elections, they have their own parliaments with Liberal oppositions, and they also produce annual budgets which allow their electors to scrutinise their spending on areas such as health, education, community building, policing, public transport, etc).

The Australian's article goes into some of this, but I suspect it hides the Howard Government's true agenda right at the end.

The commonwealth suspects the state governments have been spending a large share of their revenue gains on the salaries of unionised public service workers rather than on improving services and infrastructure.

Howard has indicated that his Fourth Term would be one devoted to Thatcher-like crushing of unions. His cronies have obviously decided that a main bastion of unionism in Australia is the public service, where membership is upwards of 60%. Costello's aim is therefore to cripple the autonomy of the Labor States and to support the Fourth Term anti-union Industrial Relations agenda.

I saw the news today, oh boy

2005-02-27T11:05:00.000+11:00

Last night, after an exhausting O-Week and lacklustre Saturday, I listened to News Radio's coverage of the Westralian election.

At about 11:30, Collin Barnett conceded, with a rather curmudgeonly speech (win media) in which he reluctantly took responsibility for the Liberal's failure.

I missed Dr Gallop's victory speech, since I nodded off at about midnight, but I woke up at 1AM to hear the good news.

Western Australian Premier Geoff Gallop has claimed victory in state election, saying education and training will be the main focus of his second term.

The Labor Party is predicted to hold 32 seats in the new Parliament to the Liberals' 18 as voters abandon the party in several key outer metropolitan marginal seats.

I cannot express my relief at the success of the WA Labor Party. After the dismall Federal Election, and polls in WA indicating that Gallop was heading towards being a single-term government, this victory cements the viability of the ALP as party able to lead and govern.

The showing of the Greens, with a primary vote of some 7% or so, also indicates to me that they are still little more than a party of protest-voters, although the Nationals, with a mere 3.5% managed to get 5 seats! The gerrymandering of the WA electorates are no doubt responsible for that.

Westralia is so far away that most of the election campaign barely registered; I caught the occasional Liberal fuck-up (ie, canal & costings) on News Radio and the ABC, but beyond that, my only exposure was on Kick & Scream. I suspect to some extent, I was all electioned out, after the Federal Election, two local council elections that I participated in, and the student union elections. State elections also feel to me like big local council elections: they are often myopic or concerned with "backyard" issues, which I am inevitably bored by.

Congratulations to all my WA Labor comrades. It was a victory you deserved.

Westralia

2005-02-26T14:27:00.000+11:00

After my first O-Night Party last night, I recieved a pleasant surprise on the ABC website when I awoke this morning.

Voting has begun in Western Australia in the first test of Labor's hold on power at a state level since last year's federal election.

Newspoll spokesman Sol Lebovic says the survey of 1,600 voters during the middle of the week indicates Labor will receive 54 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, which would give Labor an increased majority.

I was invited to a celebration party tonight, but probably won't be able to go.

In the mean time, congratulations to all of the Labor campaigners and candidates, regardless of the result.

UPDATE:

For those who want to spend their Saturday getting the lowdown on the WA election while it happens, take a gander at Nic White's The West Election 2005.

Oh God... O-Week

2005-02-23T22:14:00.000+11:00

Well, it's O-Week. That's why I've been very busy.

Since I'm so busy, I'll just post an extract from a paper my father, a PhD student in the School of Law at Flinders University, on the right to strike. I'd post my article for Activist, the Victorian Young Labor Left Journal, but I left it at work.

Remember to join up with the Melbourne University Bocce Club, a club dedicated to playing boccee and drinking wine. The first Bocce event will be Week 4.

+++

The Right to Politically Strike?

by Chris White, School of Law Flinders University

The right to strike on political issues is a controversial contested industrial relations and labour law issue. Governments and employers use labour law against the political protests of striking unionists. Controlling industrial action by sanctions (almost) extinguishes the right to strike. When political protest includes industrial action, such strikes are declared unlawful. When the issue of ‘political’ is clarified, the argument for the justification of the right to politically protest and the right to strike can be developed. International labour law principles and International Labour Organisation (ILO) jurisprudence on political strikes are adopted.

Are restrictions justified against strikes on political issues or should there be greater freedoms for Australian workers and their unions to assert without risk of penal sanctions the right to politically strike? Forms of the right to political protest with industrial action could be considered for protection. The justifications may inform policy debates.

The ILO has not given support to politically motivated industrial action. ‘The term 'political strike' is the term associated with illegality and disapprobation. The reason is that 'the political strikes' are viewed as disruptive of democratic processes’. ‘Purely political strikes’ are coercive and prohibited.

Strikes protesting against government industrial, social and economic policy are nevertheless legitimate. The economic and social interests of workers encompass a wide range of legitimate issues that are interrelated to government as well as employer policies and usually enmeshed in politics.

There is a range of conduct where a ‘political strike is that which is aimed at deposing the government, reducing its credibility, dictating the policies it should follow, or merely seeking to influence the policy formation process.’

But it is different with strikes on ideological grounds, less directly connected to workers’ self interest. Here the right to strike is linked to contemporary understandings of democracy, human rights of political participation as citizens, and the right to politically protest as an exercise of civil liberties. Such argued for political freedoms are increasingly under threat. After the new Senate in July 2005, the Howard government should almost extinguish the right to strike. Should unions have the political right to protest and strike against such workplace laws?

So-called ‘political’ strikes by public sector unions are legally protected when during enterprise bargaining on wages and conditions. Public servants, teachers, university workers, nurses and those not in essential services (narrowly interpreted) striking as a last resort are justified; so long as public health and welfare is not adversely affected.

Trade unions in the past have played a crucial role in the fight for democracy. Should in Australia industrial bans defending democracy be unlawful and unions subject to penalties? Transnational corporations threaten government with moving capital overseas. Should workers have the parallel freedom to strike to influence government policies?

What about more general political strikes against government policies? The ILO concludes that ‘protest strikes’ aimed at influencing government policy do merit legal protection without sanctions. In the Argentina case, the Congress of Argentine Workers organised a strike that included national employment policy, job stability, free education and a public health system. The government declared the strike illegal and said that the strike was ‘clearly of a political nature, since it did not involve the defence of particular or specific interests of workers in a given activity, but was the expression of pure and simple opposition to the social policy of the Government’. The ILO Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) reminded the government that ‘trade union organisations should have the opportunity to call for protest strikes particularly with a view to exercising criticism of the social and economic policy of the governments’. Clearly such a form of political ‘protest strikes’ are not to be declared unlawful on ILO principles. Political ‘protest strikes’ are strikes designed merely to draw attention to the extent or depth of feeling against particular government law or policy while ‘coercive strikes’ are ‘designed to force the government to change that policy.’ ‘Protest strikes’ at least, but not ‘coercive strikes’, should be permissible in a democratic society.

But is there a point to the argument that coercive political strikes against governments should be unlawful? Obviously so. However, the political right wing and corporate leaders support certain political strikes, on occasions. There are protest strikes against governments that are not democratic e.g. strikes in Zimbabwe; that are white racist (South Africa); fascist, communist (Poland and the Solidarity strikes) or that are authoritarian Nigerian or left wing, Venezuela. All over the world at any one time governments implement their reactionary economic and social politics and workers and unions use the political strike in opposition to the policies and the repression of political protests (see www.labourstart.org/).

Democratic participation at the workplace and in political policy making is important justifications, e.g. the October 16^th National strike on University and Government decision making.

The scope of the right strike is broader when based on employees having a voice, not only over their own working conditions, but when they are opposed to the way an enterprise is being run or government policy impacting on the enterprise decision making.

It has been demonstrated that the right to politically protest is broadly accepted throughout the liberal democratic world recognised as an important civil and human right. Political protests historically have been evolving as a civil and political right and linked to freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right to free assembly.

In the 1970s, the NSW Builders Labourers Federation embarked upon 'Green bans' industrial action to protect the environment by refusing to take jobs constructing a luxury complex on undeveloped bushland, on the Greenbelt Sydney, respecting community opposition to this project. These bans for environmental and community protection were justified politically by the militant Communist union leadership. This form of industrial action could be seen as a means by which to ‘allow the values of the ‘life world’ to permeate the capitalist system. The Sydney ‘green bans’, were where constitutional democratic procedures have not decided how to develop Sydney before the labourers stepped in; profit making builders had. The green bans may be understood as taking one step further a union goal traditionally applied to setting wages and conditions of employment; substituting a conscious group decision for a market determination.

Political strikes were taken for reasons of conscience. An example of this is the (in)famous Waterside Workers Federation 1938 ban on the shipment of pig-iron to Japan in protest against war preparations, where the Communist waterfront union leader Healy asserted ‘the right of the individual to refuse to participate in any action towards which he (sic) may have conscientious objection.’ Waterfront unionists ‘refusal to participate in the business of munitions manufacturing was similar to their later refusal to assist the Dutch to reassert control in the East Indies. They claimed that they retained their personal rights and prerogatives, one of which was to aid persons in a struggle for freedom.’

Is it arguable that Australia’s restrictions on the right to strike on political issues are unfair? Should workers be able to exercise protest power with industrial action in a democracy? The right to politically protest by strike action could be re-evaluated: 1. in a democracy, political strikes do occur and the State’s legal responses should not be to suppress; 2 overcomes unfairness between the interests of labour and capital, rebalanced to meet international obligations; and 3 engages in a reform debate for the protection of the right to politically protest and the right to strike of benefit to industrial relations and the community.

Soft-core Geek Porn

2005-02-22T00:18:00.000+11:00

In my spare time, I illustrate articles for Hermes Portal, a magazine for Ars Magica.

I was recently engaged by Erik Dahl, the author of the Broken Covenant of Calebais for the "Calendar Project". Several other illustrators and amateur-historians are also involved, to illustrate the pages and determine the accurate dates for the year 1222CE.

Erik described it as:

"The kind of stuff young Hermetic magi might look at during apprenticeship and hide under their lab texts when their masters come by. :)"

The brief was to create a calendar with suggestive pictures of famous sorceresses of history, in a weird kind of spoof of both Ars and of geeks.

Result:

As you can see (barely), the cover of the calendar is a "homage" to the Ars Magica cover:

Only, my cover is a lot less ornate (since I don't have the vine-scrolls or the fonts).

Overall, I am happy with how it turned out. While I'm entirely sure that illustrating soft-core geek porn is my NOT my cup of tea, I do get a cut of the profit, and it was a definite lesson for me in using Photoshop.

So, while I put together the NYLL Journal, the VYLL Journal, the ALS Journal and the Bullsheet, I have also been doing covers for dubious calendar projects.

Bolt Watch

2005-02-20T11:38:00.000+11:00

Mr. Lefty (who still hasn't put me on his blogroll) has started a new blog. It remains to be seen how long it will remain updated, and I would suggest that he find some co-contributors since Bolt is so spectacularly rage-inducing that to watch him really is a team effort.

Anyway, Boltwatch: check it out.

(Via miss piss.)

Glasses

2005-02-17T16:44:00.000+11:00

I have officially joined the ranks of all you blindies.

That's right. The local opthometrist advises that not only should I not be driving (since I don't have a liscence, he's probably right) but that unless I wear glasses when at the computer, they will quickly start to bleed, turn cancerous and scare little children.

A picture of the cheap $30 reading glasses I picked up at the chemist yesterday will be posted shortly, while I wait to hear from the private health insurance and see if the extras include a decent pair of glasses (Armani or Versaci would do me fine).

UPDATE:

On webcomics

2005-02-15T11:17:00.000+11:00

While not studying, working, reading blogs, checking my email, drawing or writing, I regularly check a number of online comics.

Over the years, I think I have found a fairly good batch, although I have stopped reading some through attrition, them not being updated enough, or the writing and/or art ceasing to impress.

The ones I read currently are (in no particular order):

Errant Story

KOTD

Ozy and Millie

I Drew This

Penny Arcade

Ctrl+Alt+Del

Zebra Girl

PvP

Real Life

Sheldon

Sinfest

something positive

Welcome to Ubersoft

You Damn Kid

Overcompensating

WIGU

Questionable Content

Little Dee

goats

The Order of the Stick

Alien Loves Predator

Nodwick

Full Frontal Nerdity

Fuck you Bolt

2005-02-14T22:01:00.000+11:00

Who's the anti-American luddite now?

Last year was the fourth-warmest since systematic global temperature measurements began in the 19th century, NASA scientists said this past week.

On 11 Feb, Bolt had this to say:

Why is this bad news for green groups? Because it reminds us the weather today is no wilder than it was half a century ago, before global warming was said to have sent the climate haywire. Back then, a cold snap was seen as just another freak of nature, or even a sign of the next ice age.

Meanwhile, NASA, one of the most prestigious scientific bodies in the world has laid out that the world's weather is changing, and changing significantly.

GREENHOUSE gases and to a lesser extent the El Nino current in the Pacific Ocean contributed to making 2004 the fourth warmest year on Earth since temperature measurements began worldwide at the end of the 19th century, NASA scientists said.

"There has been a strong warming trend over the past 30 years, a trend that has been shown to be due primarily to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," said James Hansen, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, outside Washington.

The warmest years on record were, in descending order, 1998, 2002 and 2003, the National Aeronautics and Space administration said on its website.

Get a headache

2005-02-13T21:02:00.000+11:00

Click here.

(Via Krankiboy.)

"Progressive" Nationalism?

2005-02-13T19:28:00.000+11:00

Comrade Liam over at the Comentariat posted his NYLL Journal article a week or so ago on Progressive Nationalism. In it, he proposes that the symbols, rhetoric and language of nationalism should (re)appropriated by the left in Australia and used for progressive purposes.

In the past decade we have let them be used against us, and they have become tools of the radical Right of politics. I argue that national symbols are too important to be left to those politicians.

I broadly agree. There is in the left (at least, a lot of the left I have dealings with) a phobia of nationalism and patriotism. Slogans such as "internationalism" and the fears of being thought Stalinist are rife.

Moving beyond Liam's look at a progressive nationalism, which concentrates largely on the ALP (as, perhaps, it should, since it is for a Young Labor forum), I'd like to comment on the the left's use of language and thought normally thought to be irredemably right-wing.

A lot of this gets back to what I have already written on hegemony-- that conservative forces maintain their dominance by limiting and defining the language, and thus thought, of those classes they subordinate. Because the motive force of history is humanity's conscious relations with its material circumstances, the human consciousness and its limits is crucial to the unfolding of historical events.

Conservative forces within political society (that is, the State) is able to infiltrate civil society (that is, the private sphere) through its use of symbols, language and rhetoric, expressed from birth through education, mass-media, the workplace, sport, religion, etc. Capital is therefore able to rely on direct State dominance (police, military, legislation, etc) and also through determining the way in which citizens are able to conceive of their position, role and situation within society. This is particularly the case in advanced Western nations; in states such as Iran or Nepal, there is little civil society, and so the State relies on direct rule rather than developing a consensus.

Nationalism

Capitalism is a global force; corporations and big business are increasingly less locked within specific borders, labour forces are mobile, and goods travel increasingly freely around the world. Despite this, conservative forces are still predominantly based upon the nation-state as the basic organ of political organisation. States are still the most influential and powerful international bodies. National interests therefore, today are one of the key means by which the subaltern classes in Australia (and elsewhere) think. Essentially, a "progressive nationalism" is the rational starting point for any discussion of, or move towards, internationalism.

While our ultimate goal should be the uniting of all people in common interest, regarldess of nationality, race or gender, it is pure mechanistic Marxism to expect the subaltern classes to throw off generations of indoctrination by government and big business and disregard all or any of those things. Nationality, race and gender are crucial components to the divisions necessarily created and exploited by capitalism; it starts at birth.

(This is why I believe feminism to be important and why I support it: because it identifies, challenges and struggles against a tool by which conservative forces maintain their hegemony.)

Liam points out that:

The current manifestations of Australian nationalism are not pretty. One of the more subtle but far-reaching consequences of the Howard years has been the adoption of national iconography—the flag especially, but other myths such as egalitarianism and the difficult concept of the ‘fair go’ as well—as specifically conservative iconography.

Left-wing control of institutional authority is required for Liam's progressive nationalism, through two mediums: the media and education.

All too often people don't care what is said, only who says it. This is why the media is so important. Institutions like the ABC and broadsheets are considered (correctly or otherwise) to be authoritative, truthful, impartial and accurate by most Australians. Liam, of course, deals with media:

Broadcasting, which is at its best a national medium, is a good model to follow for campaigning toward this end. A good broadcaster both taps into commonly held assumptions and myths, and challenges them; both of these actions must come from a basic position of understanding, empathising with, and conveying a deep sense of commonality with, the audience.

Education, the other biggie, is covered by various right-wing commentators, following Prof. Sawyer, president of the NSW English Teachers Association expressing his disappointment at the re-election of Howard:

"This is about the idea that students have to be able to analyse language and be critical of language and that's an important thing for citizens in a democracy to be able to do," Professor Sawyer said.
"And I was throwing down the gauntlet to the idea that if we are going to create critically literate citizens in a democracy then the last two elections, in particular, have been run around the use of language."
He said the Howard Government had used language effectively, coining emotive phrases such as queue-jumpers for asylum seekers. He said political material from both major parties could be analysed in classrooms when teaching critical literature to students.

(Side-thought: what about private secular schools which teach an entirely left-wing curriculum to its students, available from reception through to year twelve? Viable? It would need to be subsidised somehow, possibly through union or similar donations... An answer to religious private schools?)

I mentioned in "What is to be done?" that a counter-hegemony is needed to combat the rule of conservatism. Counter-hegemony is the challenge of conservative language, rhetoric and ideology, and the organic formation of progressive, left-wing ideas and language that allow the subaltern classes to form an emancipatory consciousness.

Ending divisions within society must start at home-- the old aphorism, "act locally, think globally" holds as true to advancing democratic socialism as to anything else.

By using language and symbols traditionally thought to be the province of conservative forces to express progressive, radical and left-wing ideas, the strength of the conservative symbol to express a conservative idea is undermined, while at the same time, its authority uplifts the truths of the progressive idea.

Educating a new generation to challenge and disregard the means through which conservatives dominate our society, to express a counter-hegemony is the only way to successfully overthrow the rule of capital. This comes through the whole-sale rejection of the previous social "norms" (ie, conservative norms whose purpose was to perpetuate the class rule of big business and its captains), developed organically from the subaltern classes themselves.

In bucket

2005-02-13T11:29:00.000+11:00

Amidst the vanity searches by UMSU Office Bearers and the myriad of Ben Cass/Darren Ray/John Gunn corruption references, is "personal add will piss in bucket melbourne". Sadly, Yobbo comes first in that search.

UPDATE:

They keep getting weirder: "times columnist university of victoria g-string".

UPDATE II:

"spanking in the comics". I should put in more key words like that. Woot!

"A good spanking"

2005-02-12T21:32:00.000+11:00

While searching for "The Phantom" comics, I came across quite a few classics. The above is straight from Lee Falk's 1950s "spanking" phase. A more disturbing fan image can be found here.

I plan on making up some t-shirts at some point in semester 2 along these lines

I am trying to find a picture of "Phantom: Rough on Roughnecks", where he beating up some thugs, then replacing the faces with those of Jo-Ho and some other Libs.

Possibly a picture like this:

How cool would that be?

As we all know, the Phantom was the first costumed super-hero in the world. He predates Superman and Batman by several years, and although characters such as The Sandman and other WWI characters do precede him, they don't wear a costume.

The Phantom is one of those comic heroes that always struck a deep chord with me due to the incredible nature of what he stood for: "...to devote my life to the destruction of piracy, greed and cruelty." He helped Bengalla, the made-up African nation where his Skull Cave resided, make a transition from colonial-imperial rule from England, to democracy under its first African president Lamanda Luaga, after a brief stint under the dicator General Bababu.

In 1977, he married the first feminist I came across in pop culture, Diana Palmer, a gold-medal olympian, a committed humanitarian, WWII war-hero and human rights monitor for the United Nations. When he proposed, she asked if he expected her to move into the Skull Cave and give up her job. He answered (somewhat naively) that since every other "Phantom wife" had done so, it stood to reason that she would too. She basically said that "it's 1977" and there was no way she was going to leave her job to live in a cave and produce children. Fantastic!

I also loved how in the comics around that time (ie, when Diana became a human right's monitor), she used to get kidnapped by dictators who would try to "force themselves upon her", and the Phantom would burst in just in time to find her beating the shit out of the dictator (since she was a hard-core martial artist). A woman in comics who could look after herself and gave a shit about human rights... it was a breath of fresh air compared to most of the dross in other comics, where women were either meat-headed superheroes or helpless victims for the male heroes to rescue.

The Phantom also went through a very interesting environmentalist phase. A series of comics emphasised the destruction of corporate greed to the natural beauty of Bengalla. A particular comic demonstrated human greed not caring that one of the rarest and most beautiful animals in the world would be wiped out to make a quick buck. Phantom of course defied the government (President Luaga was unfortunately implicated, but absolved himself by the end of the comic) and the corporation and helped save the animal (although many were killed in an explosion).

Additionally, the Phantom went on an anti-drug kick, which was a long-lasting theme, fighting drug barons in South American island nations, drug runners in Mawitaan (the capital of Bengalla) or drug runners in Sydney! (Note: that was the famous comic where the Phantom meets Bob Hawke. I should try to track it down. It's great!)

Of course, with all the Phantom's good politics, as the first comic above shows, Lee Falk was not always the pro-feminist he became in the 60s. As I recall, that frame is from a story where he was kidnapped by a spoiled princess from a small nation in Africa. It was a very moralistic story involving unrequited love, the kidnap of Diana and a chase scene through the mountains. And at the end, a good spanking!

"Hack" is a four letter word

2005-02-09T08:50:00.000+11:00

This particular pejorative, "hack" is something that has been on my mind recently.

Just what is a hack? What are people's reactions to hacks? When does someone become a hack? Why is "hack" used as an insult? Are hacks really people and do they have valid views?

Some time ago (regularly readers may remember this), I had this to say about student reps.

The fact that a few postgrads are involved in factions does not make their views less valid than someone who is not factional. It makes it as valid. To suggest otherwise is not only terribly elitist, but does those people a great disservice.

This was in response to a comment by Matt Belleghem, during the great debate over representative primacy between UMSU and UMPA. Although the point is specific, the theory is general.

A lot of people in student politics (and in particular, certain sectors of the left, on campus and in general) have decided that the views of "hacks" are less valid because of their status as "hacks" than someone who is not a "hack".

Having thus identified an instance where a hack's views are delegitimised, lets pose a few questions.

Just what is a hack?

A hack tends to be a student who is identified (typically self-identification comes into this) as deeply, intimately or routinely involved in student politics. Student politics is the various activities of student union departments, collectives, committees and/or faction or club. Hacks are students who believe themselves to be "informed" or "connected", to be a "face", to be one of the "usual suspects" or that their involvement in an activity constitutes "making up the numbers" or an "obligation".

A hack is often, but not always, an activist of some kind, mostly off-campus. The political activism of a hack off-campus is usually what got the hack involved in student politics. In other cases, a student's first encounter with politics is through a campus club or collective.

Significantly, hacks are not considered to be activists. Hacks have long since lost any intellectual or ideological integrity through their involvement. An activist on the other hand still retains that "purity". Hacks in self-denial will often call themselves activists.

Hacks are contrasted with "normal" students; that is, students who do not regularly involve themselves in student political activities.

When does someone become a hack?

A student hack is a student who has expressed an opinion at a meeting attended by other hacks, or a student involved in a political club or student faction, or both. The former tends to be more important than the latter.

Someone who is in a student faction, attends the odd meeting but does not have much to say, is not a hack. If the listeners believe what is being said to be a "party line", or to be "pushing an agenda", then the speaker is a "hack". Being a "familiar face" comes into this, in particular a "familiar face" associated with known hacks.

An activist who spends a lot of time at meetings can also become a hack; this occurs as above: the moment that they give an opinion at a meeting attended by other hacks.

Ultimately, hackdom is recognition by other self-identifying hacks that you are "one of them". Note that above, in the title of my blog, I self-identify as a "student hack".

What are people's reactions to hacks?

Student hacks are each others worst enemy. Hacks typically associate primarily with other hacks (most hacks also have a cadre of "non-hack" friends, typically left-overs from highschool) but as they say, familiarity breeds contempt. Because many hacks are either opinionated or ambitious or both, they will tend to come into conflict. This nearly inevitably leads to hacks facing off in stouches, to a greater or lesser extent, mostly cross-factionally. Hack's reactions to each other is complex, but is often coloured with this conflict.

"Normal" students on the other hand rarely come into (knowing) contact with hacks, and when they do, it is either during some kind of political activity, such as a rally or a student union election. This contact is often adversarial or polarised. Such contact is often met with varying degrees of suspicion, scepticism or bemusement.

Some student hacks deny they are hacks, but instead call themselves activists. These hacks are the most dismissive of other hacks, because they believe their views to have more creedence or validity than the views of a mere hack. These "activists" exhibit all the behaviour of hacks, but are often not party political or factional. They still spend a lot of time at meetings, associate with other hacks, talk "hack talk", etc.

Why is "hack" used as an insult?

A hack is often used by the hack as a tongue-in-cheek descriptor for themselves.

More often however, being a student hack is an unspoken insult or pejorative, whereby hacks indulge in a form of complex self-loathing in which they characterise their own and others' political involvement as unnatural, abnormal or illegitimate.

"Hack" is used as a juxtaposition to the mythical "normal" student-- the legendary creature that hacks every election try to connect with, try to understand and get to vote.

Furthermore, as above, hacks are placed in opposition to activists-- they could be seen as "fallen" activists, or the opponents of activists. This view is most often held by hacks who call themselves activists.

Do hacks have valid views?

No.

As soon as a student becomes a hack, in the eyes of other hacks their opinions cease having any relevence or legitimacy. A student hack cannot express an opinion that is anything other than partisan, biased or an expression of a party line. Student hacks push agendas or espouse factional propaganda. Their views are utterly divorced from what "normal" students believe or think. Student hacks are disconnected from the broader student body, because they live in ivory towers surounded by "yes-men" and political cronies.

Or at least, that is what some student hacks on the hustings, often so-called "activists", would have you believe.

A ("hack") friend of mine last year expressed disatisfaction at being ignored and dismissed by other student hacks at a meeting not so long ago. He or she noted that many at the meeting thought that he or she was merely pushing a factional agenda (despite, as I understand it, that particular faction either not binding at all, or not binding for that particular meeting). My friend stated that he or she was very unhappy at his or her treatment, as, despite his or her regular involvement in various issues and his or her activism outside of university.

I said to my friend that this was because he or she was percieved as a "hack". In the eyes of other hacks therefore, his or her views and opinions had ceased to have any worth. I noted that this delegitimisation was, in my view, due to other hacks taking the view that anyone involved in politics was no longer a "normal" student and therefore was incapable of independent thought.

I further observed that this viewpoint was, in my view, fundamentally flawed. A "hack" often has access to information not available (rightly or wrongly) to "normal" students. My own non-"hack" friends are often intrigued at the political going-ons at Melbourne Uni, but do not have the inclination to deeply involve themselves; they are quite willing to ask me what is happening and then draw their own conclusions (since they are friends, I don't need to push any "agenda" either).

Information

I note that there is a lot of uninformed opinions about what happened in 2002-04 in MUSU for example; the opinions from "non-hack" students that I've run across, who have only heard whispers or rumours or half-truths are wildly inaccurate, incorrect or fantisiful.

One of the key problems with the activities of hacks is information. Information collects in a few hands; access to the information is not easy, so only those with a peculiar interest actually hunt it down. Most students can't be bothered or don't know where to start.

Access to information being identified as a problem, I would make the observation that opinions are as valid as each other, with the caveat that an informed viewpoint is more legitimate than an uninformed viewpoint.

Trying to ensure that as many people as possible are informed should be a key responsibility of activists and hacks.

Turning Lead into Gold

2005-02-05T19:42:00.000+11:00

In 2003, Chechnya was forced at gun-point by Moscow to hold a referrendum for a new Kremlin-written constitution. The American media decried this as a "sham" referrendum, due to the immense presence of the Russian military and their aura of intimidation.

In January 2005, Iraq was forced at gun-point by Washington DC to hold an election for an interim national government. The American media lauded this as a "legitimate" election, despite the immense presence of the US military, the fact that only candidates that cooperated with American interests were allowed to stand, and a boycott of the election by the Sunii minority.

(Via Axis of Logic.)

Mentoring

2005-02-03T10:08:00.000+11:00

The Australian had reporters at the supreme court hearing; Louise Perry's version of events can be found here.

The angle here is the level of influence that former MUSU President Ben Cass had over Darren Ray, and then the level of influence Darren had over Scotty "Two Times" Crawford. Previous articles have dealt with the influence that Andrew Landeryou had over Ben Cass.

Andrew Landeryou is (was?) an influential member of Labor Unity and is widely believed to be behind large amounts of branch-stacking and a recent attempt to take over the left-wing Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous-worker's Union. Landeryou is being pursued by police after failing to appear in court.

Perry also highlights the lack of proper process in corruptly awarding leasing contracts, largely committed by Ray and Crawford.

I have two comments to make.

Firstly, to those who would continue to use MUSU and its troubles as a reason to justify the so-called Voluntary Student Unionism legislation, I challenge you to find two other instances of gross corruption in student organisations in the last ten years. Furthermore, if a single financial collapse or liquidation is enough for proponents of VSU to condemn and dismantle all student unions, then the hundreds (even thousands) of instances of corporate corruption, financial failure, theft, misappropriation, bad conduct, cartel behaviour, environmental destruction, price-fixing and systematic discrimination is surely an argument for the condemnation and dismantling of capitalism. QED.

Secondly, I would note that the only people who have been involved at MUSU in any misbehaviour or illegal conduct are members of Labor Unity, the right-wing faction of the ALP. To my knowledge, no member of the ALP left, or the left in general has committed any crime or been involved in any of the illegal activities at MUSU in 2002-03. I would also note that an alliance of Unity and members of the Liberal Students Federation in 2003-04 oversaw (and colluded in) not only many of the worst excesses of Crawford's year but also the complete disgrace that was 2004, where, in so far as it has been communicated to me, Liberal Students office bearers breeched their duties as office bearers and broke election promises, intimidated staff, misused union funds, harrassed students during elections and generally acted poorly.

Hypnotoad

2005-02-02T19:04:00.000+11:00

My eyes are starting to feel a bit like this.

Bosses and Captains

2005-02-02T09:56:00.000+11:00

Leigh Hubbard, the Secretary of Victorian Trades Hall Council announced his retirement last Friday after a decade in the role.

The link above is the official announcement from the VTHC website.

As a family friend of Leigh, I thought I might reflect on the media treatment of his resignation, and thus the media's portrayal of unionism.

The Hun's coverage is particularly telling, with the headline reading "Union boss at end of rocky road". The designation of Leigh as a union "boss" in my view emphasises the dichotomy between unions and business. Business executives are "leaders" or "captains of industry". Union leaders however are "bosses". The media loves portraying senior unionists as "bosses", giving connotations of "stand-over" tactics, organised crime and thuggery. If we were to look at which kind of organisation used stand over tactics, had links to organised crime and purposely or knowingly harmed the public or its employees, I think that the historical record indicates business would vastly outnumber unions as fitting those particular stereotypes.

The Hun also plays up the "tension" between the VTHC and the Bracks government. To some extent, this is manufactured. The Bracks Government however is fairly conservative in the industrial arena, in particular with the energy unions, education unions and the nurses. As far as portrayal of the Labor Party, it does indicate that the Vic ALP doesn't "roll over" for unions, but it does label unions as adversarial and critical. (The people's opposition to the government perhaps?)

There is also a Hun article from the day before Leigh resigned, which takes an axe to the VTHC and harps on about the various wheelings and dealings of the Victorian union movement.

Meanwhile, NineMSN follows Leigh's media release more closely. Channel Nine emphasises his positive contribution, and also highlights a smooth transition of power, as he "hands over the reigns". A quote from Leigh referring to the recent FPLP leadership challenge is included:

"I hope that the Trades Hall ... election of a new secretary doesn't go through the machinations that we've seen publicly from the ALP."

Leigh's role in lobbying Howard to send peace-keepers to East Timor, as well as restoring a worker's common law rights to sue their employer and reforms to WorkCover are also mentioned. The entire story is positive, and there is no mention of any tension between Leigh and Bracks.

Our Aunty has a "stub" entry, merely noting the event. Cut and paste from the press release.

The Age (subscription) also has a positive spin, but also highlighting the struggles, against Kennet, the MUA Waterfront dispute and the campaign to give award rights to over three hundred and fifty thousand Victorian workers. The shadow of the VTHCs run-ins with the Bracks Government appears at the end of the article, but it ends up beat:

"He's been a campaigner for a whole range of issues on behalf of ordinary people," Mr Bracks said.

However, the headline of the article does not really bode well: "Two in line for Hubbard's union job". While not as bad as the Hun, it does seem to indicate friction over Leigh's replacement. The first part of the article deals with who will be replacing Leigh, pointing out the two contenders, Brian Boyd and Martin Foley (I think a woman as Secretary could be a good move). Although in my view, contested ballots are a sign of a health democracy, there is a perception in the media at the moment that they are symptoms of a faction-ridden organisation or deep internal divisions.

The small media coverage of Leigh Hubbard's resignation overall does not paint unionism in a hugely positive light, although there is at least tacit mention of the positive things the VTHC has done under his tenure. Unions in this issue are portrayed negatively, disunified, marginalised and "once-powerful", to a greater (Hun) or lesser (Age) extent, with the Bracks quote above being perhaps the most positive thing said.

Gunn and Gone

2005-01-31T15:58:00.000+11:00

I attended the packed-out supreme court investigation of MUSUi (in liquidation) today, as John Gunn, former CEO of MUSU, took the stand.

It was a hard hitting, rivetting and thoroughly edge-of-the-seat expose into the financial dodgy-dealings of Ray, Crawford and Cass in 2002-3, with an entire forest worth of evidence in literally hundreds of binders and folders of papers, emails, minutes and records.

...

Okay. It was pretty boring, and little of the information that came to light was a surprise, since we already knew most of it.

Brent, formerly of MUSU, was there and may have an update regarding it, putting the connections between Gunn and Sherriff, Cass and Ray, and the infamous Ubar deal in the spotlight.

The downside of my high-falutin jet-setting courtside dilettantism is that when I got home, my palmpilot went and had a brain-paroxysm, necessitating a hard-reset. Thankfully, I was able to restore all the backed-up info on my laptop. However, a recent recording I made, some 50 minutes worth, was lost, since I hadn't backed it up yet. Damnit!

UPDATE:

Brent's entry on the court hearing (now yesterday) reminded me of an interesting tidbit to do with John Gunn's contract, drawn up, presumably, by Darren Ray and Peter Marchenko (although anyone feel free to correct me), which included a clause granting Gunn a fully maintained car that would revert to Gunn in the event of him leaving the job for any reason. He ended up with a $36,000 car. When he left, with his large payout, he kept the car.

Isn't it nice of Darren and Scott to spend our money so freely on their political chums?

Rightism

2005-01-30T13:57:00.000+11:00

As much as I detest the term, I must applaud this blog I just stumbled across, Dissecting Rightism, a response to the fraudulent Dissecting Leftism.

Noel Chrotsky's look at the art of political bullshit, on the 21st anniversary of George Orwell's death, is particuarly interesting.

The Phyrric Victory

2005-01-30T13:54:00.000+11:00

Microsoft is planning on requiring legal and legitimate owners of their software to "prove" that their copies of the software are "genuine".

I recently bought a new laptop, which came with a real copy of Windows. When I installed it, I had to type in (twice) a 25 digit legitimising code, to prove that the copy I had wasn't pirated. This was tiresome and inconvenient, since really, the issue isn't with me, but between Microsoft and the company I bought the copy of Windows from.

The icing on the cake this time is that Microsoft will require the verifying code before you can download security patches. Pirated versions of Windows will not be allowed to download security patches.

In my view, this will have several effects.

Firstly, it means that in a few years, once Microsoft has started their plan, the many many computers with pirated versions of Windows will be left unprotected against the hoard of mal-ware, spy-ware and virus writers on the net. Left unprotected, they will become like wandering plague rats, spreading their viruses, their spy-ware, their spam-bots and so on everywhere they go. This is bad for most users, since it means that inboxes will continue to be flooded with spam, and unprotected computers (for whatever reason) will be put at increased risk.

Secondly, it means that people who don't want to jump through yet another hoop, or who resent having to prove that they legitimately purchased software, or are lazy, may finally be given the impetus to change operating systems. Even though I have legally purchased my copy of Windows, by the middle of the year, when Microsoft requires that I yet again prove my copy is legitimate, I may decide that it isn't worth the trouble, and just change OS, to Linux or some other Open Source system. I've been meaning to have changed for some time, and this may be the final shove that makes me abandon Microsuck for good.

Of Comics and Beazers

2005-01-29T15:49:00.000+11:00

While the clock counts down to the Wednesday deadline, I decided to whip this up, after a discussion at the Young Labor Left function at Trades Hall last night. Jenny Macklin and Brain Daley (Vic ALP President and Secretary of the Vic LHMU) gave brief talks to a crowd of about seventy or so people, then took questions.

After having a few words with Jenny about the re-ascent of Big Kim, I then debated with a friend Howard's likely agenda.

(I should thank the Governor General, for putting me on to Photobucket. Cheers Sedgwick! Comics and other illustrations will continue as normal.)

Anyway, Jenny was predictably close-mouthed about Beazers; her most insightful comment is one that gives me considerable concern. The ALP leadership ballot effectively took place over the course of a few weeks, rather than five minutes in the Canberra caucus room. Jenny questioned the need to stand or contest a ballot when the outcome was already known.

Another friend of mine at the YLL function later retorted "democracy is divisive". I have to agree with the irony. It indicates something is wrong in the state of the FPLP if anything but an uncontested ballot indicates treachery, disunity or dissent. It was clear prior to the uncontested ballot on Friday that there were at least three "camps". A ballot tends to release tension, give "mandates" and share power between factions (in the case of multi-member ballots). Since there was no ballot, no tension in the FPLP has been released, and is just as potentially divisive as under the post-election loss Latham. (This is not to say that ballots always resolve things-- it was famously not the case under Simon Crean.)

Jenny seemed upbeat about the future. I have to say that Beazers may be the person to "unify" the party, but since he and his party backers surround themselves with poll-driven advisors, as soon as there is a slip in popularity, it could be all over.

The ALP has three years in opposition with a government that controls both Houses. This is a three year opportunity to be the opposition we are always supposed to be.

(With thanks to Comrade Hogan.)

UPDATE:

Which reminds me. Anyone that wants to either post/copy any of my comics for their own blog, or for any purpose at all, feel free, so long as you leave my little "aw 2005" on the image.

Problems

2005-01-29T14:20:00.000+11:00

I am having problems with hello at the moment, and so cannot upload any of my most recent comics.

If you know of any alternate image hosting, please email me.

A regular Super-Starr

2005-01-27T21:23:00.000+11:00

Ringo Starr has teamed up with Stan Lee, creator of Spider Man and X-Men, to voice a super-hero based on himself.

Although Ringo has been portrayed as a cartoon character before in The Beatles cartoon and the Yellow Submarine movie, the only other time he has played himself in a cartoon was he guest starred in The Simpsons.

"This is going to be one of the most exciting adventures I've had all day" said Ringo in a statement. "What a terrific opportunity to meet and work with the great Stan Lee. I'm so excited to become a 'reluctant superhero'".

You can just tell Starr is champing at the bit. "This is going to be one of the most exciting adventures I've had all day"!

Poor Aunty

2005-01-27T19:00:00.000+11:00

I happened to tune into Our Aunty's 7PM News tonight. I had heard that they were retiring the 20 year old intro music, and replacing it with a "jazzed up" version. I didn't realise just how absolutely craptacularly fucking shitastic the new intro is.

It is really awful.

Unfortunately, even if I wrote to Our Aunty, it wouldn't do anything. They have already said they are preparing special shredders to dispose of all the hate-mail.

Asbestos Kills. James Hardie Knew

2005-01-27T11:31:00.000+11:00

James Hardie, that generous and caring company responsible for the deaths and illness of thousands of Australian workers, is now under fire in Asia and the Pacific. Aparently they lied and made their workers sick not just in Australia, but also in New Zealand, and Indonesia.

The Netherlands-based firm is under pressure to extend the deal, initially worth 1.5 billion Australian dollars (1.15 billion US), to thousands of victims in Asia and the Pacific, The Australian newspaper said.

Union leaders and politicians have called on the company to pay compensation in countries where it manufactured or sold asbestos products on the same terms as the Australian deal, it said.

Specifically cited were New Zealand, where James Hardie made asbestos products for 45 years, and Indonesia, where a company that acquired its factory in 1985 was still producing asbestos goods, the newspaper said.

"These are people who have suffered because of James Hardie's products and their lives have been cut short or debilitated," Andrew Little, national secretary of the New Zealand Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union told the newspaper.

I have no doubt that James Hardie will continue to weasel its way out of any liability. In countries like Indonesia and other Asia-Pacific nations, there are few protections for workers, and I expect that it is the same in New Zealand, where industrial laws protecting workers were all but abolished by successive Tory governments.

There needs to be comprehensive international laws (such as industrial manslaughter laws) which make individuals in companies responsible for the injuries committed by the company with their knowledge, consent or authority.

Comicblogging

2005-01-26T11:31:00.000+11:00

As I mentioned below, I'm putting together the NYLL Journal at the moment. There was some white-space, so I decided to quickly knock up a comic to fill it.

There is something cathartic about drawing comics. As a friend of mine commented, "Why are you using your powers for evil?" Comics aren't art, and the only real skill involved is commentary (this can be quite the skill though).

About a year ago, I used to draw a lot. I have sketchbooks filled with illustrations, doodles, landscapes, scenes, and much much more. 2004 was the great drought; the only illustrations I did were for Hermes Portal, or comics for newsletters, magazines or journals.

Maybe in 2005, it will be different. But in the meantime...

The Shittest Thing Ever

2005-01-25T20:12:00.000+11:00

"If you make your way to North Melbourne Station, I'll pick you up."

"North Melbourne? Isn't Footscray closer?"

"North Melbourne is fine, not Footscray."

"Okay, I'll sms you when I get to North Melbourne."

"See you then."

...

Immediately after I send an sms saying "I'm at North Melbourne now", my phone's battery stops working. "That's okay," I think, "he know's I'm at North Melbourne."

...

An hour and a half later, I'm back at home, listening to four voice mail messages.

"I got your sms, so I'll see you at Footscray in five minutes."

"I'm waiting at Footscray. Where are you?"

"Call me. I'm under the footbridge."

"Obviously our plans went awry. Call me on #."

...

Shittest Thing Ever.

Busy

2005-01-25T09:51:00.000+11:00

I have been quite busy over the past few days.

A group of friends came over from Adelaide, and we all attended a gaming convention, Arcanacon, for which my friends and I were running a game. Late nights and early mornings.

This was compounded by me needing to get my draft third chapter to my supervisor, which I managed to do. I'm writing this entry before heading into uni to see him about it.

Anyway, I am also currently putting together the National Young Labor Left Journal, designing its look, cover, etc. After putting in all the articles, noting in some cases the spaces at the end of articles, I decided to do some comics for some of the articles.

Enjoy.

10x10

2005-01-22T14:56:00.000+11:00

The Waya pointed me towards a really odd, but visually interesting news source.

10x10 reads RSS feeds from news sites around the web, finds correlating pictures, and ranks the top 100 mentions. From this it formulates the 10x10 square of the top 100 pictures in the news. Interesting approach to news collation.

Neat.

I Endorse Tillops for Labor Leader

2005-01-21T21:50:00.000+11:00

It is a time for unity and solidarity. The only person who can bring this to the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is strong-man Tillops.

But let me just say this, people often complain that Labor is drifting too far to the right of the political spectrum. To that I say, if you want to see a strong left-wing ALP that's not afraid to engage in class warfare, support the disadvantaged, tax the rich, brutalise multinationals and stick it to the arselickers at each and every Question Time, then you too share the dream of a Tillops Labor government.

I entirely endorse Tillops for position of Leader of the Federal Australian Labor Party.

He is the right person for the job and will be a uniter, not a divider.

Like many others in the FPLP, I am working as hard as I can do ensure that come ballot day, he has the numbers.

UPDATE:

Numbers For Tillops:

ms fits

The Sherrif

Red Rob

Agent FareEvader

Brent

Alex White

Buck Fudd

GuruAnn

Desci

Numbers Against Tillops:

Liam "Rooster Ramjet" Hogan

Vandals

2005-01-19T14:10:00.000+11:00

(Via whatROOLYhappened.)

A new barbarian wave is washing across the world, erradicating all traces of any pre-existant society or culture, destroying a people's national heritage and annihilating four thousand years of history.

US and Coalition troops are defacing Babylonian monuments and disrupting archaeological sites, a Guardian Unlimited special report tells.

As a historian, I am deeply dismayed at this cultural vandalism. Bush is the new Attila, riding across the nations of the world and despoiling every human achievement and desolating our history.

The level of damage is inconceivable.

History tells us that savage destruction of monuments, often during war is most often perpetrated by uncivilised hoards, or by states with little extant cultural history of their own.

History also further tells us that one of the worst crimes judged by later ages is the defacing or destruction of historical monuments: the Acropolis, the monasteries at Ravenna and Avignon, the Pyramids and Sphinx, Indigenous archaeological sites, etc.

"They created a desolation, and called it peace."

Writer's Block

2005-01-19T13:17:00.000+11:00

I am suffering from writer's block at the moment. A severe case. I have to hand in a draft chapter of my thesis on Friday, some 3000 words. I'm about 2,700 words in, so it's not there is no chronic seriousness, but there are some considerable holes in my evidence at the moment.

In any case, here is the "introduction" of chapter three. At this stage it still needs to be revised once I've got the entire chapter. I will probably move things about, paragraph order, or tighten things up.

Someone recently suggested that putting samples of my drafts on this blog was not a good idea-- that I should only put up the "polished" finish. This blog was partly created for me to consider my thesis, and I found my ponderings earlier to be useful, in particular the draft plan. Because this is just a blog, I don't feel a need to put up polished versions. You can all wait for the final thing. However, some friends have noted that the most interesting entries on this blog are the ones regarding my thesis.

For those of you who are interested in re-familiarising yourself with my earlier chapter, check here, or you could read my thesis plan.

Anyway, here is the intro:

+++

‘Give me the earth purified of heretics, your majesty’ implored Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, ‘and I will give you heaven in return.’[1] Thus, the end of religious toleration in the Empire was proclaimed,[2] and was followed in 391CE by imperial laws proscribing pagan worship. Discord and chaos was one great fear of the Christian (and pagan) Emperors, and discord in faith was one cause for the summa divinitas to be ‘moved to wrath’. The Christian Emperors therefore we‘Give me the earth purified of heretics, your majesty’ implored Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, ‘and I will give you heaven in return.’ Thus, the end of religious toleration in the Empire was proclaimed, and was followed in 391CE by imperial laws proscribing pagan worship. Discord and chaos was one great fear of the Christian (and pagan) Emperors, and discord in faith was one cause for the summa divinitas to be ‘moved to wrath’. The Christian Emperors therefore were eager to ensure unity and stamp out discord in practice and also in the altern intellectuals.[3] Christian elites were becoming increasingly influential but pagan philosophy and religion still held the weight of a thousand years of tradition and cultural inertia, an inertia that even influenced church leaders.[4]

The institutional structures of the Christian Church were unlike any equivalent pagan religious leader,[5] and within this unprecedented form of uni-polar authority in dominance, it was no longer acceptable to see as legitimate certain other faiths. With a limit to the amount of negotiation Christian leaders were willing to undertake, any pagan activity or thought beyond that limit had to be de-legitimised, or risk undermining the new Christian era’s authority. The form of this delegitimisation was directed primarily at the elites within pagan circles, aimed to re-imagine the history of the Roman state and had little to do with popular (mass) pagan practices, which was characterised in the fourth century as ‘If not dying’ then ‘fading’.[6]

Augustinian Christianity linked aggressive conversion of non-Christians to the spiritual well-being of the faithful: ‘It follows, therefore, that he [the faithful Christian] will be concerned also that his neighbour should love god, since he is told to love his neighbour as himself’.[7] Such concern for the ‘well-being’ of one’s ungodly neighbours, scripturally sanctioned in 1 Timothy 5:8, granted the faithful Augustinian heavily direction to extend Christ’s dominion ‘from a dutiful concern for the interests of others’.[8] With Christians now in senior imperial positions, including Emperor, Augustine believed that imperial power could be used as a vehicle of Providence, but whose entire good fortune rested upon God’s will.[9] The Africa in which Augustine lived and preached was one filled with violence: imperial-sanctioned violence against pagans and inter-Christian schismatic violence.[10] The very basis of Augustinian Christianity’s supernatural authority was undermined by the schismatics and pagans alike, leading the Bishop of Hippo to declare ‘There is no salvation outside the Church!’[11]

Footnotes
1. Citation from A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, Volume II, p.935
2. Peter Brown, Authority and the Sacred, p.31
3. A. H. M. Jones, p.934; also Frend, ‘XIII: Augustine’s reactions to the barbarian invasions of the West, 407-417: Some comparisons with his western contemporaries’, in Orthodoxy, Paganism and Dissent in the Early Christian Centuries, p.254
4. Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, p.494
5. RLF, Pagans and Christians, p.495, 545
6. RLF, Pagans and Christians, p.574
7. DCD, XIX, 14, p.873
8. DCD, XIX, 14, p.874
9. Frend, ‘XIII: Augustine’s reactions to the barbarian invasions of the West, 407-417: Some comparisons with his western contemporaries’, p.249
10. H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, Audrey Butler (trans), p.23
11. H. Daniel-Rops, p.26, citing Augustine

Snap

2005-01-18T15:25:00.000+11:00

Latho resigned, not only as Leader of the Labor Party, but also as member for Werriwa.

While his leadership resignation is unsurprising, his leaving politics altogether impresses upon me the seriousness of his illness.

I now fully expect Beazers, aka Big Kim, to return to the leadership position; I also expect, as a result, a large number of people deciding not to renew their memberships this year.

UPDATE:

Listening to the live media conferences of Bomber and Rudder. Looks like its Beazers.

UPDATE II:

Some interesting commentary over at Kick & Scream. Not sure whether Rob supports Beazers or not. I certainly don't, but am unsure who would be better...

UPDATE III:

You can see the footage of Latho's resignation here. As Blair S. Fairman points out, he does not look well.

This cannot go uncommented on

2005-01-17T11:35:00.000+11:00

About to leave to attend a working group, I decided to check this blog's stats.

What should come up but the search term: "lleyton hewett shirt less pic".

"Woah!" I thought, "how on earth did that search term end up pointing at my blog?"

And then I thought "who on earth would search for shirtless lleyton hewitt pics and mispell his name?"

UPDATE:

Two other odd search terms. You can always tell a quality blog by the tenor of the search terms that find them.

Someone in the USA has some serious schooling issues.
Damnation! There are heretics hiding in Melbourne!

UPDATE II:

Huh?

The challenges facing the student movement (conclusions)

2005-01-16T23:25:00.000+11:00

Conclusion
The student movement (and the left in general) needs a serious and comprehensive strategy to guide its activities in the short, mid and long term. Too much of our activity is merely reactionism to conservative attacks, opportunism, or fruitless and goaless "campaigning". In short, we need a vision.

The language we use to express our ideas needs to be re-imagined so as to engage with a new and changed audience: a public that has accepted the nihilistic views of neo-conservatism.

We need to reconnect the disparate communities and groups that have been successfully divided and disenfranchised by the neo-conservatives. Student activists must engage in the debate, and attempt to change its terms.

Finally, we must provide a well-considered, solid and positive progressive/left alternative to neo-conservatism.

Organising & Strategising
We must identify our long term and short term goals, the strengths and weaknesses of ourselves and our opponents, and the resources that we (and they) can rely on. In order to work towards success, concrete goals, benchmarks and achievements must be worked out.

Without this, the student movement will float along in a vacuum with no comprehension of its failings or successes. Such a guide would allow for a more coherent approach in resisting the assaults by the right, and in organising a progressive social change on campus and in the community.

Community Building
The student movement also needs to engage more closely with the community and with other groups as well as international activists. We often expect unions and other-issue activists to support and aid our activities without responding in kind. Unionism and community groups are underthreat around Australia. A coherent and coordinated approach to resisting this would not only cohere the left, but also go some way to the development of a counter-hegemony.

Engaging in the national debate
The debate in Australia around higher education is one that has been successfully dominated by right wing reactionary forces. In the face of this, the student movement has resorted to empty rhetoric and platitudes, without convincingly addressing or opposing the views of neo-conservative attacks.

For example, faced with the Nelson Reforms to higher education, the student movement resorted to fear-mongering and attacks against Brendan Nelson. In particular, the student movement was unnecessarily obsessed with the proposed 25% HECS fee increase. This is a perfect instance of the Liberals creating a windmill that we quixotically jousted against. There is almost no evidence in the many studies that have been conducted that high HECS fees (or HECS fees at all) concern the majority of students. People with detailed knowledge of economics, personal debt, foresight, etc. are more than aware that HECS debt is a massive burden later in life. However, the HECS debate was lost when it was introduced.

We must move beyond dead debates and recognise that HECS is very popular with the average student, and is a concept that is difficult to attack: the idea of having wealthy lawyers pay for their fees is attractive, and HECS has a repayment threshold, so most people think they will only pay it back when they are in a position to afford it. We can make the argument that higher (/any) education is primarily a public benefit, and we must take this beyond university course fees.

Of far more worry is access equity, such as up-front, start-up or living costs: union fees, course readers and books, and rent, food and amenities. These things are a proven, demonstrable and empirical deterrent to people accessing higher education, and there is a lot of quantitative evidence to this effect. TAFE is an instance of a system that is predominantly used by people from low socio-economic backgrounds who are required to pay up-front fees, sometimes in the $1000s. Contrast this to university education where most students are from middle or upper-class backgrounds and receive considerable government subsidy (something akin to $1 in every $3 or $4) and it is easy to see why HECS is difficult to criticise.

Voluntary student unionism is another issue, more current than Nelson's attacks. VSU is a benign sounding and there has been little coherent or reasoned defence of student unionism in its current form. (Edit: some of my thoughts can be found here and here.) There have been a number of responses from the student movement, but at the moment they appear to be coalescing into two camps: the "campaign" camp and the "lobby" camp. Unfortunately the anti-VSU movement is already fragmenting, and so has provided no serious counter-argument to that put forth by Nelson.

Providing Constructive Alternatives
The student movement and the left come under constant assaults aimed at undermining its financial and governing credibility. We then fall into the trap of being confined in or obsessed with that. The Victorian State Labor government for example is still suffering from the criticisms directed at it from the Liberals from fallout over the Cain/Kerner Labor Government. In response, Labor has decided that it will maintain a considerable (and ridiculous) operating surplus, at the expense of its progressive social agenda. Likewise, Labor is seen as high taxing, high spending when in Federal government, a charge that is demonstrably and definitely false.

A similar tactic is used in student politics, with charges leveled that left-wing unions foster violence, waste money on junkets to Woomera or on posters, leaflets and other non-service activism.

However, due to the nature of the public debate, we cannot merely ignore or disregard these attacks. Clearly there is an expectation now in the minds of the general public (student or otherwise) that governments or student unions be responsible and solvent. Rather than explain that governments can operate at a debt (and that a national debt can be healthy or productive) or student unions are primarily representative and activist bodies, we need to clearly demonstrate that the left is responsible on all levels.

Having established this objectively (i.e. through financial statements, etc), we can then move on to explaining what we believe are important issues: we answer within the context of the debate and then move forwards to attempt to set out our own terms. This cannot be done however without first addressing criticisms against us.

Strategy Example
Goals
Long term: the socialist objective, progressive socialism, true democracy, material/social equality, etc.
Mid term: free, universal, high quality education, vibrant student culture and broad-based activism, progressive Labor governments and strong, representative unionism, dissolution of right-wing legitimacy.
Short term: addressing student apathy, broader student activism and relevancy of student unionism, restoring student activist’s reputation, illustration of the right’s dishonesty and failings.

Strengths
Student activists: commitment and passion, integrity, wide-ranging support amongst left-wing students.
Neo-conservatives: a sense of legitimacy, organisation and material/monetary/institutional support, no/weak/undeveloped morality.

Weaknesses
Student activists: disorganised, marginalised from wider student body, little material/institutional support.
Neo-conservatives: undermined by contradictory rhetoric/policy, deformed notions of ethics and decency.

Hegemony and class

2005-01-16T20:49:00.000+11:00

"Conspicuous indignation" that empathising tool used by conservatives to gain the support of the extreme religious-right and to attempt to hijack society's shared mores, is not a method used exclusively by the "right".

This debate is being had over at Troppo Armadillo, with Mark Bahnisch arguing that

A large part of the difficulty is that the discourse of the populist Right is also often characterised by irrationalism and hyperbolic abuse.

Quite a while ago, in fact, during the Thatcher-Regan era, there developed the authoritarian populism that is now the dominant ideology of neo-conservatism, a potent combination of:

anti-bureaucratic, individualistic sentiment with nationalism and social conservatism; a politics which appeals to everything in common popular sentiment which resonates with an authoritarian political agenda.

(Stuart Hall, Bob Jessop, Kevin Bonnet, Simon Bromley and Tom Ling are best sources for the hegemony of AP. New Labour in Britain has not significantly reversed the authoritarian populism trend in my view.)

The argument that the left has controlled the debate in public-political discourse is a ridiculous furphey. Mass media and the journalists and intellectuals which are employed and published subconsciously (or consciously) censor themselves (if they hold liberal, left-views), or are active proponents of a right-wing world view. Charges of "armies of political correctness, liberal media and feminazis" venture into the realm of fantasy-- the same realms which hold onto notions of Jewish conspiracies, Freemasonic New World Orders and Soviet-era tectonic plate-technology-- in short, incredible, untrue and bigotted.

We can see that public discourse and "common-sense" is currently held (although contested) by conservatism simply by asking to what "extent that it offers an integrated system of values and beliefs that is supportive of the established social order and which project a particular set of class interests as the general interest." Clearly, I think, the answer is that conservative (that is, ruling-class) forces have set their own interests as "general interests" above those of subordinate classes.

As Mark (and Tim Dunlop) points out, the left has thus far failed to "control" the debate due to:

the incoherence of many on the Left's beliefs about the world and politics, and the inability of postmodern Left thought to generate truth claims and a universalism to counter the hegemonic discourse of "there is no alternative", as Maggie Thatcher famously put it.

Consensus and the "common-sense" world view is always contested however. Pressure by moral forces and the success of notions of human rights meant that after the failure of Bush's likkudist ideology to gain global (or even national) support, he was forced to fall back to pleas of avenging Saddam's human right's abuses and restoring (/imposing) democracy when justifyin the Iraq War.

As Chris Shiel has pointed out, it is a war of position, and that war occurs within the left as well.

I mentioned above that "conspicuous indignation" was not used exclusively by the right. In my view, "conspicuous indignation" is a method by which moral forces attempt to dominate a particular field. In fact, "conspicuous indignation" is essentially moralistic and furthermore, a political tactic of the altern classes. Crises and splits occur within as well as between classes. The early (pre-Marx) socialists were largely from wealthy backgrounds; their form of socialism was moralistic, that is, utopian, judging, reforming and based upon historically obsolete superstructure. Thus, the left today is filled with moralising forces, making use of the same "conspicuous indignation" employed by conservative forces (they are, afterall, drawn from the same social class).

So, what does this mean?

Basically, that we are witnessing a period of re-adjustment in social forces. Subordinate political forces are being subjected to a negotiated process of accomodation in order to secure the altern-group's rule. Symbols, rhetoric and tactics are appropriated through the accomodation in a manner intended to not seriously upset the social order. That there is still conflict and tension within the particular social class indicates the fact that any re-adjustment or shift of the "historical bloc" can never be absolute or complete, nor will it resolve the crisis.

Remember, class matters kids.

"lead to direct foreign intervention"

2005-01-16T20:09:00.000+11:00

In response to Comrade Hogan's fantasy A-Team, a friend of mine emailed me his thoughts on an all-star ALP Front Bench.

The email is as follows:

Hi Alex,

This is a thoroughly disturbing cabinet....

Now for the real super cabinet [Note election of such cabinet WILL lead to direct foreign intervention by multinational interests and intelligence services]

Leader: I think that the leader could only be John Curtin. Susan Ryan, whilst coming from a principled position as Education Minister (1983-87) is not what I'd want as a leader. Curtin led Australia through WW2 and set the stage for successful reconstruction in the post-war years. Furthermore, his ability to speak to people, transcend the factional morass and lead a united
caucus has not been equaled in ALP history.

Treasurer: Ben Chifley. A remarkable person, self taught economist and policy maker. Teamed with a capable Secretary of Treasurery like "Nugget" H.C. Coombs, such a team would be able impliment a thorough going economic policy for the future. Watch out private banking!!

Enviroment: Moss Cass (Whitlam's Enviro Minister). Victorian SL with a really big beard, a person who did not come from the green movement, but gave the Ministry an intensely radical character. Better than Garrett in this regard, as he can not be regarded as a sell out or political
opportunist.

Immigration/Multicultural Affairs: Al Grassby

Foreign Affairs: H.V. Evatt. Evatt, whilst being a brilliant lawyer, his role in establishing the UN and conducting the Foreign Office during WW2 in a particularily independant manner seals his position as Foreign Minister

Trade Minister: E. G. Whitlam. This is great...with Evatt as foreign minister, Whitlam would have to answer to him...one diety bowing to another! Whitlam loved trips OS, so this would suit him fine.

Defence: Joan Kirner - she would act as a positive influence in breaking down stereotypes around military policy and have a humanitarian approach in utilizing the armed services for socially beneficial ends.

Urban and Regional Development: Tom Uren. NSW Left. Uren's record in this ministry speaks for itself.

Industrial Relations: Clyde Cameron. A shearer by trade and factional warlord by nature, he was the IR minister under Whitlam. Able to transcend the union-party divide and reach concensus in a genuine manner.

Education: George Georges. Qld Left Senator. A top unionist, eventually forced to resign because he wouldn't tow the line over Hawke's far right policies, he would make a great Education minister to put through expansive public education programs.

Health: Maurice Blackburn or Frank Anstey two old lefties who knew the social cost of the Depression and would work from that mindset as effective Health ministers. Or if we want to get adventurist, we can get the senior party negotiators to go to the CPA and arrange for Dr Gerald O'Day to resign and stand as an ALP candidate in the election, sort of like a "unity ticket". He was a great champion of the people, his medical background and belief in socialized medical care would be an asset to the party.

Minnerals and Energy: R.F.X. Connor. Now this is a bloke with vision!!! "The Strangler" would, under such a goverment, be able to implement the greatest threat to capitalism Australia has ever seen - the PMA in its full form. Through this we could "buy back the farm"-all those mineral resources sold at a pitance during the 1960s. Coal, oil, gas, uranium, bauxite, petro-chemicals, iron, copper, nickel- they were all on his hit list.

Justice: This is a hard one...anyone from this short list: Ted Laurie QC, Rob Stary, Hugh Gordon, Bill Slater, Clyde Holding, Gareth Evans, Clive Evatt etc.

Attorney-General/Leader in Senate: Lionel Murphy. Brilliant QC and later a High Court judge, he was a sophisticated yet down to earth AG under Whitlam. Family Court, French Nuclear Testing Case, Legal Aid and creative advice on Government power (Loan structures for the Fed Govt, s 96 grant power etc) are testament to this.

Veterans Affairs: Arthur Geitzelt. NSW Left.

Women's: Joan Coxsedge. Vic SL, an outspoken socialist, and a great champion of women's rights.

Deputy Leader, Senate: Doris Blackburn

Finance Minister/Deputy Leader Lower House: Dr Jim Cairns. Cairns understood the power of finance and felt the brunt of a hostile civil service. The finance ministry could be developed as a counter balance to the inherently conservative Treasury, and stacked full of ALP appointees.

Fed Sec ALP: Bill Hartley. Vic Sec (1963-70), SL hardliner, expelled from ALP 1986 for supporting Idi Amin, claiming ALP Exec was "controlled by foreign powers", using Vic ALP radio to attack Bob Hawke. Okay, so he's pretty hardcore but if we ever need $500,0000 from undisclosed (read Iraqi Ba'ath Party) sources, he'll be the guy to talk to.

Fed Pres ALP: Ray Geitzelt, NSW Steering Committee and MWU power broker.

So that's my cabinet. Unrealistic? Yes. Unstoppable? For sure.

Solid gold.

So... yeah

2005-01-15T16:52:00.000+11:00

I woke up this morning minus most of my internal organs, thanks to the grogblogging thang last night.

It seems the most Melbourne grogbloggers are still sleeping off the effects of the rather extravagent evening, so this may be the first after-grogblog blog.

There isn't much to say. It was better than Sydney (aka Stinktown) could ever hope to achieve. Most everyone was pleasant. Only two right-wingers made an appearance (Marcel White avoided being glassed in the face by several friends of mine waiting around the corner by not attending, despite promising to). Several of my suspicions were confirmed. I finally met Joseph of Make-Believe fame (edit: name corrected). I also met Clem, ms fits, Agent FareEvader (who admitted to recruiting Ruth to SA) and the esteemed Brent (aka Melbourne Scribe, who confessed that he printed out my earlier entry to read on the train). There were only three Pandagate t-shirts present, one of them mine.

I may update this entry with some photos from my extraordinarily bad camera-phone.

The challenges facing the student movement (part one)

2005-01-14T18:19:00.000+11:00

Note: This is a discussion document originally written during the 2004 mid-year Education Conference in Sydney. Its aim was to promote discussion within ALS. I have now decided to post it here. The second part, "Conclusion" will be posted sometime over the weekend. I think a lot of what I say here is applicable to general activism/ists and the left in Australia. I have made minor revisions and updates.

Preamble
The student movement is suffering from an inability to adapt to the dominance of the neo-conservative forces in Australia. What does this mean? Student activists are in danger of being entirely left behind in the national education debate.

We need to recognise that Australia is substantially different now and many of the old arguments, which previously had credence and legitimacy have now fallen on the wayside after a decade of assault from neo-conservatism.

Recognising a changed debate
The student movement must realise that the terms of debate that define student activism have changed dramatically since the eighties and early nineties. Since then, there has been a dramatic and systematic de-legitimisation of activist and socialist principles. Reactionary conservative and neo-Liberal forces have successfully challenged leftist assumptions and values. This is something that has happened since the eighties and nineties, as a reaction to the militancy of the seventies, of a broad and organised student movement. Unfortunately, I argue that the student movement has not responded to this changed circumstance.

There are several features of neo-conservatism “authoritarian populism” which characterise the Howard Government and conservatism around the world.

1. reactionism couched in liberalism/moralism
2. extreme individualism
3. decline of moderate forces
4. rigid and effective organisation
5. persistent assaults on socialist/left values and groups

1. Reactionism and Liberalism/moralism
This trait of neo-conservatism means that it characterises itself and its policies in friendly, pro-humanist and moralist terms, while dismantling pro-community institutions and values. We can see this in the rhetoric of the Howard Government, with its “Backing Australia’s Future”, “Medicare-Plus”, and “Australia Says Yes to Refugees”, and Bush’s “No Child Left Behind”. Neo-conservatives use “soft” language to justify its policies. Underneath this veneer of liberalism are dangerous, reactionary policies which are intended to undermine social cohesion and dismantle any progressive institutions that remain, such as Medicare and open higher education.

Student activists need to realise that the neo-conservatives have managed to make their views “normative”, which has partly been aided by successful left lobbying on ethical and social issues. The Howard Government uses liberal-sound rhetoric and appeals to so-called “community values” and moralism to justify its actions.

In this context, we must recognise that we can no longer credibly label neo-conservative forces as such within the wider community. Terms such as “fascist” and similar appellations no longer resonate in the minds of students or the general community. Likewise, charges of conservatism and the like, as pejoratives, are no longer effective.

Our language and articulation needs to change to this circumstance. At the moment we are alienating ourselves from the student body by refusing to engage with the terms of debate. Our language is archaic and largely seen as relics of the true liberalism and progressive movements of the seventies. Furthermore, marxist/socialist language no longer strikes a chord. This doesn’t invalidate marxist or socialist theories or ideas, but they are no longer useful in communication with the general public, or in coherently explaining our positions.

1. Reactionary dismantling of progressive institutions and values (e.g. Medicare, abolition of ATSIC, tiered structure of education).
2. Using liberal, progressive language to justify reactionary policies.
3. Failure of traditional left-criticism and language to explain this new circumstance.

2. Extreme individualism
In today’s society, the normative notion of the sovereignty of the individual has replaced community or society values. Television and mass-media creates the cult of the individual, with the old game-shows of the eighties and nineties (family or team games) being replaced by shows where only individuals can win. This movement is strongest in the USA, and is only just emerging in Europe; in Asia and elsewhere, it is not present to any credible extent. Australia is rapidly embracing the idea of extreme individualism.

We should recognise of course that individualism is a result of corporatism and capitalism, and that it is a result of so-called “Free Market” values. In particular, it is a characteristic of the “divide and conquer” tactics used by big business to maintain its hegemony. By emphasising the individual, neo-conservatism alienates people from those with whom they have most in common: other students, workers, etc.

This alienation is both a product and a cause of rampant consumerism, and also on-campus apathy (one of the primary crises facing student activism). However, the dominance of neo-conservative rhetoric means that we cannot explain individualism in the above terms.

Extreme individualism has replaced the sense of community and common culture which is required for a vibrant student campus culture and for community activism. Extreme individualism, as the norm, attacks any sense of solidarity by its nature. It creates paranoia towards groups, and fear of losing “identity”, with the way of expression being consumption.

The left needs to find a way to explain the problems of this extreme individualism and develop ways to combat it, without resorting to staid, antique leftist language. We also need to find a way to re-legitimise community values without directly attacking this extreme individualism. The cult of the individual has gained supremacy. As above, we need to recognise a changed debate; attacking this individualism would be seen as an attack of individuals. If community/social values return, then it will necessarily allow for the replacement of individualism.

It is important that I state that individualism is not, in itself, dangerous or reactionary, but rather, the extreme form propagated by big business is, indeed, very destructive. People are social creatures and to live wholly, we must exist, live and belong within a community which values us as both unique persons, and also as valued members of the community. Within communities and groups, individuals are granted their true expression.

1. Individualism is created by emphasising the self in opposition and distinction too other individuals rather than identifying with other individuals.
2. The cult of the individual is a result of neo-conservative tactics to ensure that societies lose cohesion. This is aimed at creating a consumer culture and ensuring continued hegemony (divide and conquer).
3. The left needs to restore legitimacy to the group without attacking the idea of individualism (which is an exercise in futility); this could be done by emphasising common causes and interests.

3. Decline of moderate forces
This refers specifically to the decline of “small l” liberals as an effective counterweight to the “dries” within the Howard Government (and elsewhere). The result of this is that the Liberal Party has unrestrained extreme neo-conservatism, epitomised by the Howard front-bench. In the past, extreme neo-conservatives were held partly in check in Australia by “wets”, who recognised the validity of community, of social values. Menzies and Fraser were both forces of this moderate right wing (despite how much they were hated by the left in their day). These moderate forces have largely been purged in the Liberal Party, and while there are still “wets” on the front bench, it is abundantly clear that in all their actions, they are entirely “dry”.

This situation is one that we need to try to exploit, as it is one of the few areas that we can drive a wedge into the Liberals. As I will discuss below, the right-wing forces are well-organised, while the left is largely disorganised and fragmented.

The left has an advantage as it is still (correctly) seen as moral and progressive. We need to use this high ground to directly confront the concrete instances of immoral/amoral actions of the right (as opposed to a general critique). We must point out instances of specific lies or betrayals of the right in order to put pressure on “wet” right wing forces to cease their tacit support of the neo-conservatives.

Furthermore, we should encourage moderate forces to confront extremist right wingers within their own groupings, as well as try to make the hypocrisy of the right as public as possible (c.f. the Democrats “Keep the Bastards Honest” motto).

1. Howard has successfully purged the Liberals of “small l” liberals, leaving only neo-conservatives or “dries”.
2. We can use the reliance of the Liberals/neo-conservatives on moralistic/ethical justifications to “name and shame” moderate groups within the Liberals and right wing organisations.
3. The lies, betrayals and deceptions of the Liberal Party and neo-conservatives must be communicated to the wider community in an impartial, objective manner, emphasising their immorality.

4. Rigid and effective organisation
In the past, the left could rely on a disunified or fractured right wing, in particular a balance of power between “wets” and “dries”. Furthermore, in the past, the left was coherent, organised and disciplined (or at least moreso than now). The right has more than recovered its regimented and organised character. Even in the eighties, there were competing, inter-class conflicts within the ruling conservatives that allowed left groups and student activists to effectively campaign.

Today there is tremendous coordination between wider, national neo-conservative groups and local administrators; the Liberal Party communicates with peak corporate associations who synchronise the activities of their members. The recent emergence of Family First is also an example of cohering right-wing elements.

This is most pertinent to students with the links between the Howard Government and the governing bodies of Australia’s universities, the Vice Chancellors. The manner in which Australia’s Vice Chancellors have been complicit with the Howard Government’s policies demonstrates the frightening level of coordination between neo-conservatives in our education system, which goes beyond mere coinciding class interests. There is a deliberate program of coordination at every governmental level between right wing forces to perpetuate their hegemony.

This cohesion is the most difficult aspect of neo-conservatism to oppose or neutralise. Student activists are disempowered and disorganised and face one of the most steadfast, vicious and coordinated attacks in a generation. Our only option is to re-empower ourselves through organisation.

1. The right has organised itself across governing and structural bodies and has effective lines of communication between many sympathetic neo-conservative bodies.
2. This is demonstrated by the coordinated assault on student activism and equitable education in Australia by the Howard Government and the Vice Chancellors.
3. Since we cannot dismantle their organisation, we must counter it by effectively organising ourselves. Specifically, this deals with building relationships and networks with other left activist groups and community groups, such as environmentalists, anti-war groups, animal rights, human rights, and even middle class parent lobby groups. Movements are built through alliances of many disparate groups who come together with a common goal.

5. Persistent assaults on socialist/left values and groups
By this stage, it should be obvious that one of the chief accomplishments of neo-conservatives forces has been their successful de-legitimisation of left and progressive ideas. They have done this by appropriating the language of the left and using it to obfuscate their own reactionary agenda.

Demonisation of and unrestrained ideological assaults against opponents is a defining characteristic of “authoritarian populism”. It is important to understand because it has been so successful in undermining left and progressive groups.

In particular, the left has been characterised as irresponsible, extremist, radical, idealistic, utopian, etc. The reality is, of course, the reverse.

Left groups and student activists must counter this again by presenting well considered, objective accounts of its own successes and of course (as above) the failure of neo-conservative governments and groups.

The sacred cows of the labour movement and the Labor Party, such as the socialist objective, Keynesian economics, common weal over private profit, public ownership of institutions and amenities, amongst other things, have been almost completely discredited. Profit-motive is replacing notions of sharing, community, and humanity.

We must not take for granted a common acceptance in the community or amongst students that these things will be seen as good, achievable or desirable. This does not mean we should cease to work towards them, but rather that we must work to restore them to the public consciousness while altering our language to fit the new circumstances of neo-conservative ideological dominance.

We should also recognise the acquiessence of Howard in the recent Federal Election to the demand for social services and welfare. Howard was required to pledge millions to progammes that in the past would have been labelled as hopelessly “big government”. Of course, he succeded in his bait-n-switch tactics, since the progammes will never be implements in a way that will provide real benefit to those that need it. This necessity by Howard indicates that there is still an undercurrent in Australian's “common-sense” which demands community-based government.

Moralist objections against attacking the right are fruitless and self-destructive. We need to ruthlessly point out the failings and dishonesty of neo-conservatism and do our utmost to behave in an honest, ethical and transparent manner.

In the past a failure by the left to systematically attack neo-conservatism (particularly on campus), in the interest of “not being as bad as them” or holding onto a false sense of “moral cleanliness”, has resulted in nothing more than a deterioration of the left’s credibility in the face of an utterly amoral assault by the right.

1. Demonisation of rival groups is a key characteristic of neo-conservative tactics (e.g. attacks by Howard against gays, Aborigines, refugees, Muslims, people on welfare, etc.).
2. Neo-conservatism chief success has been the de-legitimising of the left.
3. They have painted the left as radical, financially irresponsible, infantile, utopian, etc.
4. We need to discard fabricated and conservative notions of morality which prevents us from “returning fire” (e.g. Michael Moore’s media-legal contingency in the wake of Fahrenheit 911 and being “armed with the truth”).

Reviews

2005-01-14T18:09:00.000+11:00

A few days ago, I wrote a review of Ars Magica Fifth Edition. I'm very pleased that in only two or so days, it has been read by over 2,500 people.

It took me ages to get this book, despite it being on my X-Mas Wishlist.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, feel free to scroll down past Snake Gandhi to the political stuff.

Political Commentary

2004-12-15T13:37:00.000+11:00

ms fits:

Watching the Democrats at the moment is like observing your retarded cousin at Christmas trying to get the paper hat out of his cracker.

Christmas Wishlist

2004-12-13T08:43:00.000+11:00

There are a number of things, books and electronic gadgets, that I will be writing to Santa Claus, and hoping to get in my stocking this year.

palmone WIFI SD Card

Ultrathin Tungsten T Keyboard

Hard metal T3 Case

Terry Pratchet's Going Postal

The Rise of Western Christendom

Augustine of Hippo: A Biography

Ars Magica 5th Edition

The Broken Covenant of Calebais

Gloom

Hat of D02 know no limit

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Extended Edition

UPDATE:

Now being sporadically added too.

American Fraud

2004-12-09T13:53:00.000+11:00

Weezil is following the election fraud issue closely, which finally "hit the mainstream" on NPR a few days ago.

(Via Weezil.)

Gloom for Atlas

2004-12-09T11:34:00.000+11:00

Atlas Games has had a card game held up by the new security restrictions of the Homeland Security laws.

Well, the gentleman at the shipping company informs me that the ocean container holding Gloom is being held for inspections by Homeland Security (this is even before it gets to clear customs). He declines to give anything definite for how long it will take them to complete their inspections, but suggests that 1-3 weeks is typical.

Brilliant. Entrepreneurial endevour is stifled by rediculous law.

7 Drinks

2004-12-09T11:02:00.000+11:00

Apparently, I binged last night.

Emeritus professor and chairman of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation Ian Webster says Australians have a distorted view of their alcohol consumption and what most consider normal drinking is actually harmful. At least once a month, 46 per cent of male drinkers will down more than six standard drinks in a day and 33per cent of females will drink more than four. That may not sound like much but, according to Webster, that equates to binge drinking, particularly if that amount is drunk in just a few hours.

Of course, I haven't had much (or anything) to drink over the past week or two, since I've not had much money (damn phone bill).

The knives

2004-12-09T10:57:00.000+11:00

I've not commented much on the current state of the Federal ALP. This is because I am a firm believer in democratic centralism.

So I will say that I believe that despite Latho's many faults and reprehensible political beliefs, there is no other person in the Federal Caucus who has the ability to lead the ALP for the next three years.

That there are leaks, backstabbing, white-anting and other instances disunity and fragmentation reflects poorly on the ALP as a whole.

Feel free to express your views in the comments.

Moles

2004-12-09T10:34:00.000+11:00

Trust is a rare commodity in student politics; much more so than politics in general. Because the stakes are so small, the game is so much more vicious.

Every year during O-Week, various political factions pay their members to join other factions, to gain access to their email lists and meetings. Information is one of the currencies of power, and if you learn what the other faction is planning, then you have a significant advantage over them.

This truism is demonstrated in the much-delayed entry by Brent Houghton, former MUSU Housing and Services OB in 2002.

The mole may or may not have had a part to play in the downfall of the Sharp ticket - certainly if there was any one person to blame, it would be me. You see, as with most student representatives, I used my office in preparing for the campaign. (I had first hand experience of this earlier in the year, when the President's office was used to discuss whether Real Students would run in the by-election - when Brad Tutt decided not to contest the Education Officer position, Real Students decided not to run.) But I digress. I certainly didn't use the office resources to print out election material, nor use my Union email address in organising the campaign. However, I don't deny that campaigners were encouraged to come to my office to sign their nomination forms, or that on the fateful evening of Wednesday, 21st August, 2002, Ari, myself and two others used the office computer and the whiteboard to prepare the nomination statements for the ticket. I remember meeting up with Ari and the three others on that evening. From memory, we met at the UBar and decided that if we were going to be productive, then we needed to work on a computer, as the statements were due at noon on Friday. Given that the Union's computing centre was about to close, I stupidly suggested that we use my office.

There seemed to be nobody in the office, so Ari, I and the three others used the computer to flesh out the 100-200 word statements that needed to be completed if we were to look like a competitive ticket. I decided to leave at around 9.30pm, as from memory, I had been at uni since early that morning. I indicated that the others could use my office, but that they should lock the door on the way out.

I should mention that 2002 was a year characterised by suspicion and misinformation. Given the absolute necessity by Student Unity to maintain their control over MUSU, it is hardly surprising that not only did they infiltrate the Sharp-Ticket egroup, but then conspired to have the ticket thrown out.

In retrospect, Brent's decision to use union resources, even rooms, whiteboards and computers, was not a wise one, given that his opposition were both ruthless and in the same office-space. It is also unfair, and forbidding that use by current OBs to use their offices to run campaigns to get relected is ethically suspect, and undemocratic. In the grand scheme of things, given what happened in 2002, 2003 and 2004, Brent's crime was minor and forgivable.

The lesson that Brent and Ari learned, and something for us to all take note of, is to chose your friends and companions carefully. If you have sensitive information, that information should be in as few hands as possible, particularly if your opponents could make use of it for their own political gain. Your access and use of resources is one such example. Which is not to say that information should be hoarded by a select few, but rather that you should ensure that the information is going to people you know and trust.

Dagobert

2004-12-09T09:55:00.000+11:00

Came across this odd article on the internet, about eccentric anthropologist Dagobert Steinitz.

After several years of gaining the trust and respect of the Nanahsnug, the tribal elders took Steinitz high into the mountains and allowed him to participate in a ritual called "The Seeing." After consuming the juice of a native vine, the name of which translates roughly to "One True Eye," the Professor was supposedly taken to meet the tribesmen's "Sun-God." For Steinitz, it was a life-changing experience, and it was shortly thereafter that he began to formulate his "Unified Theory of Homo superus."

Steinitz believed that a separate species of advanced hominid walked stealthily among us, and it was these superior beings who were responsible for many of the world's great unexplained mysteries. He presented his theory at a 1968 conference, displaying a skull which he claimed belonged to one of the creatures. He also declared that he had made contact with one of the creatures, who showed him how to tap into his own powers of clairvoyance.

You can probably guess how well this theory went over with Steinitz' tweed-coated university peers. His ideas were dismissed as comic-book fantasy, and his university, now synonymous with new-age quackery, became a punch line in several stand-up comedy acts.

This entire story is whacky. I don't know how serious this article is, but the story is one of those that bemuse me on occasion (like vampiric goats in South America, or the flying monkeys in India).

This weird tale is made more interesting by three mysterious urns, hidden by Steinitz after he went mad, which could only be found through solving a series of cryptic clues. The first urn contained $1 million and apparently was found earlier this year.

Dagobert's "alien astronaught" theory of human evolution does not do him much credit, but it's an entertaining read.

Dirty hands

2004-12-06T23:29:00.000+11:00

You can learn a lot about people in toilets.

So writes Paul Sheenan in the SMH.

When I encountered Conroy he still had his P-plates as a senator. He was only 34. He had been in Parliament less than a year. And he had not even been elected. He'd been appointed by the governor of Victoria in 1996 to fill the vacancy left by the departure of Senator Gareth Evans. Such is the manner in which Labor factional warriors can make their way. Conroy's career was always politics. After university he worked for several Labor politicians, then the Transport Workers Union. His real career, expertise and power base was factional trench warfare for the Victorian Labor Right.

His base certainly isn't the electorate. At the October 9 federal elections, Labor received 1,082,271 Senate votes in Victoria. Overwhelmingly, votes are cast for parties rather than individuals, with the party, not the individuals on the slate, receiving the vote. Even so, Senator Kim Carr, No.1 on the ALP ticket, received 11,299 personal votes. Senator Jacinta Collins, No.3 on the ticket, received 1675 votes. Even Marg Lewis at No.4 received 844 votes. Conroy, though second on the ticket, received the lowest total, 780 votes, or 0.07 per cent of Labor's Senate vote.

...

Last Monday, Labor frontbencher Laurie Ferguson had had enough: "The whole party's tiring of Mr Conroy's concern that he's not the leader in the Senate." By then, the damage had been done. Latham now looks like Simon Crean, even though Labor's problems are far deeper than the leader's shortcomings.

Conroy does not have clean hands in these matters.

This is not new. When I first encountered him on May 20, 1997, he was occupied at a urinal in a men's toilet. As I walked in, he finished his business and walked out. He did not pause. He did not wash his hands. He went straight back to the committee room.

Yeah. I don't much like Senator Conroy.

More later.

Just remember

2004-12-06T23:26:00.000+11:00

All you gutless tories, just remember that this site has an IP Address tracking feature. I can see who is leaving libelous anonymous comments and report that to your service provider.

2004-12-05T14:01:00.000+11:00

Not evil enough in my opinion.

Vote

2004-12-05T13:49:00.000+11:00

The 2004 Best Blogs awards are up, and you can vote (and vote often!).

I recommend you vote for either Darp or ms fits. However, in order to maximise their chances of winning (over Tim Blair), only vote for one each day, rather than one or the other, since there are no preferences to flow.

Bear in mind also that Tim Blair is sitting at some 60% of the vote, and Darp is unfortunately at the bottom. ms fits is probably the better option, although she is on 0.3%. A Blair victory is almost certain, unless there is a sudden left surge (lefties tend to vote late, which in this case, since you can vote multiple times, gives the right a big advantage).

The poll closes on 12 December.

UPDATE:

Darp seems to be running third. I therefore recommend that you all vote for Darp, to increase his chances to win.

(Via GuruAnn.)

"The search terms returned no results."

2004-12-05T13:43:00.000+11:00

Disgraceful. I'll be writing a letter.

(Via Liam. Apologies.)

Thin Edge of the Wedge

2004-12-04T13:03:00.000+11:00

America has admitted to using evidence gained by torture.

Evidence gained by torture can be used by the US military review panels deciding the fate of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the US Government has conceded.

Lawyers acting for Australian detainees in Cuba have called on the Australian Government to renounce the practice.

About 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled evidence gained through torture was inadmissible.

Deputy associate Attorney-General, Brian Boyle, has told the District Court in Washington DC, that the Guantanamo review panels are allowing such evidence.

This development is shocking and deplorable, but hardly surprising. The US military and the White House have given clear indications that they consider the law to be at best, only a minor hindrance to their activities; human rights--even those of terrorists or members of the Taliban--are non-existant.

I seriously doubt that Howard will denounce this US practice. Howard is too closely aligned with Bush to now criticise or condemn the Bush administration. Most likely, he will do everything he can to ignore or cover-up the issue, perhaps saying things like "let's wait for an investigation" or "don't make broad assumptions" or "there is no evidence that the Australians held at Guantanamo Bay were tortured, so why should we care?"

Only one result

2004-12-03T11:10:00.000+11:00

Fetishised armadillo.

Expand your vocabularies, you ultracrepidarian illiterates

2004-12-03T01:05:00.000+11:00

You too can speak grandiloquently, like all good sesquipedalians.

What a shame

2004-12-02T21:36:00.000+11:00

There are two points to this entry (although there was originally going to be one).

The results of the Moreland City Council election is available (and has been since Monday), of particular interest are those of the South Ward.

Elected:	CONNELLAN, Josephine (1st Elected)
Elected:	CAPUTO, Joe (2nd Elected)
Elected:	PRYOR, Alice (3rd Elected)

I am concerned that Jo Connellan was the first elected, since she is a Green, and got almost 4,000 votes, about 800 more than Joe Caputo, the re-elected Labor councillor.

In any case, with quota sitting at 25%, Alice got over the line on preferences.

Which is the second point. The person Alice knocked out was none other than Lambros Tapinos, National Union of Students Welfare Officer, and senior member of Student Unity.

Sunday was a gleeful day.

Looking back

2004-12-02T21:29:00.000+11:00

Two interesting reminders about an event that occured not so long ago.

Bush Brains

2004-12-02T21:24:00.000+11:00

Give this game a go. I love Bush-isms, and one of the highlights of many a Farragette last year was the Bush-ism corner.

(Via Northcote Knobb)

It could happen

2004-12-02T15:40:00.000+11:00

Microsoft Bids to Acquire the Roman Catholic Church.

VATICAN CITY (AP)--In a joint press conference in St. Peter's Square this morning, MICROSOFT Corp. and the Vatican announced that the Redmond software giant will acquire the Roman Catholic Church in exchange for an unspecified number of shares of MICROSOFT common stock. If the deal goes through, it will be the first time a computer software company has acquired a major world religion.

There was, at the start of the year, serious talk about expanding "traditional" religious practices or rites into the information technology sector (can't find a link though). Although this story is a joke, there really are people who want to see this happen.

Through the MICROSOFT Network, the company's new on-line service, "we will make the sacraments available on-line for the first time" and revive the popular pre-Counter-Reformation practice of selling indulgences, said Gates. "You can get Communion, confess your sins, receive absolution--even reduce your time in Purgatory--all without leaving your home."

(Via Good Christians Did This.)

Factions

2004-12-01T22:38:00.000+11:00

As Liam points out in the first entry of his NOLS memoirs, "faction" is a nasty word (I'd even go so far as to say it is a dirty word).

I encourage you all to go over and read this first entry. By all accounts, Liam appears to be giving an honest and straightforward account. Like Brent Houghton, I admire Liam's courage in writing about his experiences. There is no doubt that there is political risk in writing frankly.

Liam, as an old hack, makes this insightful point.

Meetings are the basic unit of student politics. There is no way to understand what is going on without being able to read and follow the flows of a meeting. The moment of epiphany when you realise that you are not baffled, frustrated and intimidated, but actually fascinated and involved, carries its own small sense of joy. The fear of speaking wears off when you realise that your involvement is an exercise, no more, and you stop taking things personally. You say to yourself 'This is fun'. And then, when you get your procedural motion carried, you can sit back and call yourself a student politician.

Meetings are the life-blood of student politics, as he points out. They are the currency in which deals are made and paid. Being confident in a meeting is one of the most powerful things in a faction. Confidence and being articulate are solid gold. And while getting your procedural motion carried can be uplifting, having your motion crushed overwhelmingly can make you pretty damn pissed off (remember kids: insults need to be fatal, otherwise the injured party will stew and stew).

A bit late

2004-12-01T16:29:00.000+11:00

This was floating around before the US election.

X-Mas boycott

2004-12-01T16:23:00.000+11:00

There is an attempt amongst the religious right to "take back Christmas". This is expressed in many of today's Age and SMH letters. Objecting to the commercialisation of Christmas, the fundies are organising to raise awareness of the "true meaning" of the holiday (whatever that is, since the day was not celebrated by Christians until the 2nd century CE, and is not dated in the Bible-- Easter is the important Christian date after all).

On the other side of the ideological divide is the Christmas Resistance Movement. These guys seem a lot more militant and left wing.

This is more my style. If you are worried about reaching near-bankruptcy, then consider boycotting X-Mas. Afterall, as the fundies would say, the true gift is love, not a cheap plastic gift from K-Mart.

(Via Red Harvest)

When the Bible says different things

2004-12-01T14:45:00.000+11:00

I was looking up various passages of the Bible for a project of mine and stumbled across an interesting phenomena.

Romans 13:2

Do not act like the sinful people of the world. Let God change your life. First of all, let Him give you a new mind. Then you will know what God wants you to do. And the things you do will be good and pleasing and perfect. (New Life Version)

Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (New International Version)

Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. (New American Standard Bible)

Therefore he who resists and sets himself up against the authorities resists what God has appointed and arranged [in divine order]. And those who resist will bring down judgment upon themselves [receiving the penalty due them]. (Amplified Bible)

So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. (New Living Translation Bible)

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (King James Version)

So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (English Standard Version)

People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. (Contemporary English Version)

So that he that sets himself in opposition to the authority resists the ordinance of God; and they who [thus] resist shall bring sentence of guilt on themselves. (Darby Version)

Etc. Etc.

Most of these passages say basically the same thing in different ways. However, all of these passages differ from each other significantly in the specifics (and some of them dramatically, like the first one).

Assuming the fundies are correct, and the Bible is the direct word of God, which word should I be following? Am I damned or condemned? Is it God's ordinance that I'm opposing, his institution or his appointment? Does this refer to divine authorities or to worldly ones? Who dispenses the punishment, and is that punishment a worldly punishment or spiritual one?

Anyone that thinks that Christianity is a emancipatory faith, or that the Apostles were radicals... think again. Christianity from the outset didn't seek to make any waves, but rather to supplant other imperialistic religions in an ideological war of position.

I thought we moved past this

2004-12-01T13:15:00.000+11:00

A news story from News.com.au, which describes a case about a gang-rape victim suing her school after being forced to sit her exams isolated from her class-mates has my blood boiling.

The school's barrister, Ian Harrison SC, cross-examined the former Tara student, asking her to describe the clothes she was wearing on the night of the alleged rape.
She said she was wearing a floral skirt that covered her knees and a white camisole top when she left her hotel with two school friends to go to a night-fair in the social hub of Sorrento.
Mr Harrison also questioned her dress code during an outing in more recent times, as he showed her photographs of her on a bar stool.
"To sit on a bar stool ... with a skirt as short as that takes a lot of confidence," Mr Harrison said.

This is outrageous and unbelievable! A barrister taking a line of questioning intended to pin blame for any wrong on the victim!

Behaviour of this kind, on the part of the barrister, is reprehensible and medieval. The barrister is basically saying "she asked for it". The attitude of the school is just as bad. Entirely without remorse or contrition, or even acknowledgement that perhaps they acted improperly or callously.

I'm furious.

Only 8 million

2004-12-01T10:08:00.000+11:00

Doing the rounds at the moment is this wonderful comic series, This Godless Communism.

(This frame from here.)

The entire comic is a hoot. I really recommend you read the entire thing, so you too can pray on your knees that Godless Communism never blows up Washington.

(Via Melbourne Lefty)

Bugmonster

2004-12-01T08:11:00.000+11:00

When I went to bed last night, this little darling was hovering over my bed, having gotten in, no doubt, through the open window due to the heat.

Ugly little bastard isn't it?

Memoirs

2004-11-30T22:49:00.000+11:00

While I'm too young and green behind the ears to start my own memoirs, that doesn't mean I don't take interest when others write theirs. Brent Houghton started his own blog do tackle the demons of the past.

Liam Hogan, PhD student and former NOLS member from the University of Sydney, on the other hand just likes a challenge.

For those of you who don't know, I am a member of Australian Labor Students (ALS), a Labor Left student faction which split from the National Organisation of Labor Students (NOLS) at around the turn of the millennium. While there are various differences between the two factions, both are Labor Left factions, and there are significant similarities and concordances between the two (some of which aren't acknowledged enough).

With the National Union of Students National Conference coming up (14-19 December), the factional silly season is well underway. Liam is promising a feast, which, unrestrained by a word limit or other considerations, will include:

a serialised version of my history with the National Organisation of Labor Students. All the cynicism. All the ideals. Most of the dirt. Some of the hard details (at least as many as I can remember). None of the boring meeting procedural bits.

I will be keeping a close eye on Liam's blog, as I do the blogs of my factional comrades, colleagues, opponents and enemies.

I encourage others to do the same.