We love Landline, Macka, British Television, Stephen Fry, Australian Story, The Couldabeen Champions, Classic FM, Peppa the Pig…. But that is how the ABC gets us. All good abusers know that if they are an asshole all the time, all but the most masochistic will abandon them very quickly. So they give us what we want and make us feel good about ourselves some of the time, (but are an asshole for the rest, if not most of the time). The ABC will lull us into a false sense of security, that maybe it has learned to behave, or that all that nastiness was just in our imagination, but then Emma Alberici will ask an accusation-as-question to the Federal Treasurer and the ABC has just crapped all over our boundaries, otherwise known as its charter, yet again.
When we accuse the ABC of bad behaviour it plays the victim and projects its own disfunction onto its critics, making out that we are the bad guy, claiming we are the ones trying to censor it, by making it adhere to its charter to be more impartial. It refuses to give ground, knowing if it can stall for long enough, we will eventually give up and accept the status quo, at least until the next Monday night. Outright denial gives way to false or half hearted apologies, burying corrections about what the PM actually said and not linking them to the original article.
At all times there is a subtle gas-lighting, with a lefty subtext underpinning most programming; whether it is the opening sentence in a news bulletin stating the the Prime Minister’s comments have been criticised; the ubiquitous “tolerance” themes of its dramas; the audible raised eyebrow in Margaret Throsby’s Midday Interview on Classic FM when someone challenges her assumptions; and this has nothing to do with Islam.
Emotional blackmail is employed, imploring us Helen Lovejoy-like, to please think of the children, who will be devastated if we lose Peppa the Pig. The ABC states that its independence is paramount, akin to the timeless baloney excuse, “if you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best.” We are told that if the ABC is privatised, it will no doubt fall into the hands of Murdoch or his ilk- “I’ll die if you leave me.”
When we examine why we keep going back to their ABC, or why we just shut up and take it, I think it is because we are still in love with what the ABC used to be – Big Bird and Elmo, superb cricket broadcasting, even that brief stint when it telecast the VFL. The ABC has changed, man.
It is time to take the only action that truly works against an abuser, and go No Contact. The government has tried to put conditions on its going back to Q&A, and already the ABC is playing the victim, accusing the government of trying to control it. We all know that once Q&A feels comfortable, it will revert inexorably back to its old tricks. One feels like shaking the Liberal government and screaming, “Why do you keep going back?”
We should accept that no amount of care, of understanding, listening, reasoning, pleading, bargaining or cajoling will make the ABC change. It is time for us to stop watching it. Stop funding it. Let it continue to be, on its own. When we stop feeding it, it will thrash around for a while, demand our attention, accuse us of abandoning it, stalk us, threaten us, promise it has changed.
But stay strong. It will get easier and easier each day without the ABC. Yes, we will miss the good bits. But eventually we will be able to move on and meet a public broadcaster which is the opposite of everything ABC, in The XYZ. It’s time to end our abusive relationship with the ABC.
If I can risk a little self mockery, it seems that our forum doubles on Mondays and Tuesdays as a self-help group for those who can’t believe what Q&A did this time, and surely this is the last straw. This observation ties in with a consensus I have witnessed in private conversations amongst contributors to The XYZ, and public discussions on our forum; that many of us still hold a deep affection for, or what used to be, the ABC.
We love Landline, Macka, British Television, Stephen Fry, Australian Story, The Couldabeen Champions, Classic FM, Peppa the Pig…. But that is how the ABC gets us. All good abusers know that if they are an asshole all the time, all but the most masochistic will abandon them very quickly. So they give us what we want and make us feel good about ourselves some of the time, (but are an asshole for the rest, if not most of the time). The ABC will lull us into a false sense of security, that maybe it has learned to behave, or that all that nastiness was just in our imagination, but then Emma Alberici will ask an accusation-as-question to the Federal Treasurer and the ABC has just crapped all over our boundaries, otherwise known as its charter, yet again.
When we accuse the ABC of bad behaviour it plays the victim and projects its own disfunction onto its critics, making out that we are the bad guy, claiming we are the ones trying to censor it, by making it adhere to its charter to be more impartial. It refuses to give ground, knowing if it can stall for long enough, we will eventually give up and accept the status quo, at least until the next Monday night. Outright denial gives way to false or half hearted apologies, burying corrections about what the PM actually said and not linking them to the original article.
At all times there is a subtle gas-lighting, with a lefty subtext underpinning most programming; whether it is the opening sentence in a news bulletin stating the the Prime Minister’s comments have been criticised; the ubiquitous “tolerance” themes of its dramas; the audible raised eyebrow in Margaret Throsby’s Midday Interview on Classic FM when someone challenges her assumptions; and this has nothing to do with Islam.
Emotional blackmail is employed, imploring us Helen Lovejoy-like, to please think of the children, who will be devastated if we lose Peppa the Pig. The ABC states that its independence is paramount, akin to the timeless baloney excuse, “if you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best.” We are told that if the ABC is privatised, it will no doubt fall into the hands of Murdoch or his ilk- “I’ll die if you leave me.”
When we examine why we keep going back to their ABC, or why we just shut up and take it, I think it is because we are still in love with what the ABC used to be – Big Bird and Elmo, superb cricket broadcasting, even that brief stint when it telecast the VFL. The ABC has changed, man.
It is time to take the only action that truly works against an abuser, and go No Contact. The government has tried to put conditions on its going back to Q&A, and already the ABC is playing the victim, accusing the government of trying to control it. We all know that once Q&A feels comfortable, it will revert inexorably back to its old tricks. One feels like shaking the Liberal government and screaming, “Why do you keep going back?”
We should accept that no amount of care, of understanding, listening, reasoning, pleading, bargaining or cajoling will make the ABC change. It is time for us to stop watching it. Stop funding it. Let it continue to be, on its own. When we stop feeding it, it will thrash around for a while, demand our attention, accuse us of abandoning it, stalk us, threaten us, promise it has changed.
But stay strong. It will get easier and easier each day without the ABC. Yes, we will miss the good bits. But eventually we will be able to move on and meet a public broadcaster which is the opposite of everything ABC, in The XYZ.
We love Landline, Macka, British Television, Stephen Fry, Australian Story, The Couldabeen Champions, Classic FM, Peppa the Pig…. But that is how the ABC gets us. All good abusers know that if they are an asshole all the time, all but the most masochistic will abandon them very quickly. So they give us what we want and make us feel good about ourselves some of the time, (but are an asshole for the rest, if not most of the time). The ABC will lull us into a false sense of security, that maybe it has learned to behave, or that all that nastiness was just in our imagination, but then Emma Alberici will ask an accusation-as-question to the Federal Treasurer and the ABC has just crapped all over our boundaries, otherwise known as its charter, yet again.
When we accuse the ABC of bad behaviour it plays the victim and projects its own disfunction onto its critics, making out that we are the bad guy, claiming we are the ones trying to censor it, by making it adhere to its charter to be more impartial. It refuses to give ground, knowing if it can stall for long enough, we will eventually give up and accept the status quo, at least until the next Monday night. Outright denial gives way to false or half hearted apologies, burying corrections about what the PM actually said and not linking them to the original article.
At all times there is a subtle gas-lighting, with a lefty subtext underpinning most programming; whether it is the opening sentence in a news bulletin stating the the Prime Minister’s comments have been criticised; the ubiquitous “tolerance” themes of its dramas; the audible raised eyebrow in Margaret Throsby’s Midday Interview on Classic FM when someone challenges her assumptions; and this has nothing to do with Islam.
Emotional blackmail is employed, imploring us Helen Lovejoy-like, to please think of the children, who will be devastated if we lose Peppa the Pig. The ABC states that its independence is paramount, akin to the timeless baloney excuse, “if you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best.” We are told that if the ABC is privatised, it will no doubt fall into the hands of Murdoch or his ilk- “I’ll die if you leave me.”
When we examine why we keep going back to their ABC, or why we just shut up and take it, I think it is because we are still in love with what the ABC used to be – Big Bird and Elmo, superb cricket broadcasting, even that brief stint when it telecast the VFL. The ABC has changed, man.
It is time to take the only action that truly works against an abuser, and go No Contact. The government has tried to put conditions on its going back to Q&A, and already the ABC is playing the victim, accusing the government of trying to control it. We all know that once Q&A feels comfortable, it will revert inexorably back to its old tricks. One feels like shaking the Liberal government and screaming, “Why do you keep going back?”
We should accept that no amount of care, of understanding, listening, reasoning, pleading, bargaining or cajoling will make the ABC change. It is time for us to stop watching it. Stop funding it. Let it continue to be, on its own. When we stop feeding it, it will thrash around for a while, demand our attention, accuse us of abandoning it, stalk us, threaten us, promise it has changed.
But stay strong. It will get easier and easier each day without the ABC. Yes, we will miss the good bits. But eventually we will be able to move on and meet a public broadcaster which is the opposite of everything ABC, in The XYZ. Staying in the closet
Yesterday I was fortunate enough to attend a session of LGBTIQ training.
The presenter of this training, a woman from a homosexual human resources advocacy organisation stressed that there are still some gay, lesbian, bisexual, inter-sex, trangender and queer people who are ‘in the closet’ for various reasons, and are not yet ‘out and proud’.
The training session gave me several things to think about. The first was that although the training could’ve been worse, we all knew there were ‘right’ answers to the questions we were being asked, and that dissenting opinions would be unwelcomed.
The second thing I thought of was XYZ.
Whilst most homosexual people are ‘out and proud’ in Australia in 2015, several of our contributors at your XYZ remain in the closet and write under pseudonymous. Whilst Australia has become quite accepting of gay and lesbians in the life and leadership of our nation, those who question or challenge the prevailing progressive culture and media are not.
Surely this is an indictment on the state of freedom of speech in our nation, a value that we at XYZ not only seek to preserve, but advocate for.
There is much work that needs to be done. Perhaps you yourself are one who is forced to live a life ‘in the closet’, at work, at home, or elsewhere, because you, like us, have your own thoughts, and do not simply accept what we are told we much by the chattering classes.
We look forward to the time that Vic Timms, Keating, Apache, and Boethius our resident philosopher can break out of the closet and be truly liberated, and accepted as the people they truly are, without the fear of discrimination or reprisal.
We look forward to that day that all of at your XYZ can be ‘out and proud’.
We look forward to that day…
mosexual human resources advocacy organisation stressed that there are still some gay, lesbian, bisexual, inter-sex, trangender and queer people who are ‘in the closet’ for various reasons, and are not yet ‘out and proud’.
The training session gave me several things to think about. The first was that although the training could’ve been worse, we all knew there were ‘right’ answers to the questions we were being asked, and that dissenting opinions would be unwelcomed.
The second thing I thought of was XYZ.
Whilst most homosexual people are ‘out and proud’ in Australia in 2015, several of our contributors at your XYZ remain in the closet and write under pseudonymous. Whilst Australia has become quite accepting of gay and lesbians in the life and leadership of our nation, those who question or challenge the prevailing progressive culture and media are not.
Surely this is an indictment on the state of freedom of speech in our nation, a value that we at XYZ not only seek to preserve, but advocate for.
There is much work that needs to be done. Perhaps you yourself are one who is forced to live a life ‘in the closet’, at work, at home, or elsewhere, because you, like us, have your own thoughts, and do not simply accept what we are told we much by the chattering classes.
We look forward to the time that Vic Timms, Keating, Apache, and Boethius our resident philosopher can break out of the closet and be truly liberated, and accepted as the people they truly are, without the fear of discrimination or reprisal.
We look forward to that day that all of at your XYZ can be ‘out and proud’.
We look forward to that day… What will be the next ‘big thing’ in the anti-Civilisation movement?
It was reported this weekend that change in the Sun’s activity will plunge the earth into a mini ice age. New models of the Sun’s solar cycle is generating ‘unprecedentedly accurate predictions,’ suggesting that ‘solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the “mini ice age” that began in 1645.’
If these predictions prove to be accurate, they could be the knock-out blow for the ideology, movement and industry that is climate change/global warming.
Even before this announcement, the public was already tiring of the doomsday climate change predictions, many of which are now being shown to be false. Many of us were deeply concerned about whole suburbs disappearing under the sea after watching Al Gore’s Inconvenient truth – but nine years later his confidence-trickster predictions of impending doom are facing a patient and authoritative judge: Evidence.
Public surveys continue to confirm that climate change is not seen as top priority for most people, despite increasing hysterics and name calling from climate change activists, and despite President Obama’s statement earlier this year that climate change is the greatest existential threat facing humanity. That’s right kiddies – forget drugs, forget suicide and depression, and definitely forget militant Islam, the purported extinction of polar bears is our biggest existential threat.
Some of our younger viewers may think that climate change is the first cataclysmic prediction the world has faced. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Climate change is well down the list of doomsday predictions we have seen, even just over the last couple of generations. Most notably was the ‘population bomb’ fear mongering of the 1960s which purported that by the 1970s half of the world’s population would be suffering from starvation. Not only did the ‘population bomb’ catastrophe not eventuate, in fact the exact opposite occurred with world hunger steadily decreasing. Like the population bomb, and other doomsday predictions, climate change (and ‘global warming’, from which the movement was conveniently rebranded) will be relegated to the scrap heap of history.
Perhaps every generation needs to have its own impending apocalypse.And in an age when so much is going right – there is a well evolved response of hesitation and inertia. It can’t be this good – this simply can’t last forever. Rather than gratitude, and responsibility for taking those gifts and running with them, this kind of ‘lizard-brain’ thinking breeds for many, unease and guilt.
Worse still, whilst the apocalyptic prophets of old sought to avert the destruction of civilisation, our current generation of doom-sayers seem intent on bringing on the diminution, if not the total destruction of modern civilisation.
As the climate change movement continues to wane and eventually die, what will the anti-civilisation movement latch onto next?
Photo by michael_swan 
ey could be the knock-out blow for the ideology, movement and industry that is climate change/global warming.
Even before this announcement, the public was already tiring of the doomsday climate change predictions, many of which are now being shown to be false. Many of us were deeply concerned about whole suburbs disappearing under the sea after watching Al Gore’s Inconvenient truth – but nine years later his confidence-trickster predictions of impending doom are facing a patient and authoritative judge: Evidence.
Public surveys continue to confirm that climate change is not seen as top priority for most people, despite increasing hysterics and name calling from climate change activists, and despite President Obama’s statement earlier this year that climate change is the greatest existential threat facing humanity. That’s right kiddies – forget drugs, forget suicide and depression, and definitely forget militant Islam, the purported extinction of polar bears is our biggest existential threat.
Some of our younger viewers may think that climate change is the first cataclysmic prediction the world has faced. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Climate change is well down the list of doomsday predictions we have seen, even just over the last couple of generations. Most notably was the ‘population bomb’ fear mongering of the 1960s which purported that by the 1970s half of the world’s population would be suffering from starvation. Not only did the ‘population bomb’ catastrophe not eventuate, in fact the exact opposite occurred with world hunger steadily decreasing. Like the population bomb, and other doomsday predictions, climate change (and ‘global warming’, from which the movement was conveniently rebranded) will be relegated to the scrap heap of history.
Perhaps every generation needs to have its own impending apocalypse.And in an age when so much is going right – there is a well evolved response of hesitation and inertia. It can’t be this good – this simply can’t last forever. Rather than gratitude, and responsibility for taking those gifts and running with them, this kind of ‘lizard-brain’ thinking breeds for many, unease and guilt.
Worse still, whilst the apocalyptic prophets of old sought to avert the destruction of civilisation, our current generation of doom-sayers seem intent on bringing on the diminution, if not the total destruction of modern civilisation.
As the climate change movement continues to wane and eventually die, what will the anti-civilisation movement latch onto next?
Photo by michael_swan 10 things I’d rather be doing at 9.30pm tonight instead of putting myself through another Q&A.
- 10 things I’d rather be doing at 9.30pm tonight instead of putting myself through another Q&A:
4. Taking notes at a gender and society lecture given by Anne Summers
5. Reading the collected works of Bob Ellis
6. A personal audience with Russell Brand
7. Breaking ethically grown and produced bread in a Fitzroy tofu joint with a bunch of student socialists
8. Enjoying a romantic dinner with Clementine Ford
9. Transcribing Bill Shorten’s answers to the questions asked of him at the Royal Commission into Union Corruption
10. Undergoing minor surgery of any description without anaesthetic.
And you? The coming insect apocalypse and how to avoid it…
One of the weirdest films I had to watch at school in the early 1970’s as part of my education was ‘The Hellstrom Chronicle,’ a sort of science fiction documentary presented in an earnestly scientific sounding way, with a solemnly haunting voiceover predicting nothing less than the extinction of human beings as an inevitable part of the evolutionary process. You couldn’t listen to that voice without picturing a hand wringing be-spectacled scientific type, speaking dispassionately in the background as images of earthly annihilation flickered across the screen, advising we primary school pupils, sitting cross legged on square carpet mats on our classroom floor, that we would all be extinct before we reached maturity due to the greed and stupidity of our ancestors.
In a corner, near the bean bags, sat our kaftan wearing, bearded teacher, who had recently returned from Egypt to seek wisdom and learning from the Great Pyramid, and gone on from there to Morocco, probably more for the hashish than to see Casablanca, but I didn’t know that then. In these days of primary school innocence, fresh milk arrived each morning, turning up for class dressed in brown corduroy trousers complimented by a knitted sweater in canary yellow was quite normal, and we would look forward to Friday afternoon drama class and the opportunity it inevitably afforded to link hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’ one more time. The coming insect apocalypse was an alarming intrusion into this settled curriculum, and I have never forgotten it.
The plot of the Hellstrom Chronicle is pretty simple – it claims, with scientific sounding theories, supplemented by vision from various apocalyptic movies, and that spookily earnest voiceover, that insects will ultimately conquer the earth as a matter of natural selection, due to their rates of reproduction, which will ensure the survival of the insect species, whilst, conversely, the greed and individualism of human beings will ensure the extinction of homo sapiens before too long.
It may sound silly today, but if you were looking back to the preoccupations of early 1970’s educationalists with a smug smile and a patronising shake of your head, pause and consider this – replace the words ‘insect apocalypse’ with ‘climate change,’ give Al Gore the voiceover duty, and you are pretty much in the same thought world as ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ That award winning, and Nobel Prize attracting, ‘documentary’ was inconvenient, of course, largely for being inconveniently shown to be riddled with errors by a British Court, and for looking more and more silly as the years pass and the frightening scenarios described therein as near certainties, rather inconveniently, don’t eventuate. A few more decades and ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ will look and sound a lot like ‘The Hellstrom Chronicle’ looks and sounds today. That is, as laughable and easily derided pseudo-science.
The insect apocalypse is, of course, not the only ‘scare’ to be inflicted on us in the last few decades. It appeared around the same time as the population bomb was going to end life as we know it, a decade or two ago in fact if you believed the earnest sounding scientific types who perpetuated that particular theory. Then there was the world running out of food, or oil, or something else, and then death by pollution, nuclear holocaust, the millennium bug, a global pandemic of pick whatever virus or illness you want (AIDS, SARS, bird flu, on it goes). In this long line of apocalyptic doom stands the global warming… well, make that climate change actually… scare, which probably reached its peak with Al Gore and his tales of pissed off polar bears foraging for food in the flooded streets of Manhattan, and at a more local level with the varied oracles of Professor Tim Flannery telling us the rain would not fall any more, and would not fill our dams, even as we watched central Brisbane flooding due to an overflowing dam. Clearly, there is something inherent in human nature that seems to want to slap on the black armband, put up the ‘end is nigh’ sign, and think and believe the worse, about ourselves and about our world.
The Greens, in their various manifestation around the world, are especially prone to this sort of doomsday nonsense. Unlike the garden variety harmless nutter, the one doing circles in front Flinders Street Station holding signs announcing the end of the world, the Greens are, unfortunately and somewhat alarmingly, not harmless, if frequently nutters. Most of the world’s ills have been, or are being, addressed, by human ingenuity, and the Darwinian will to survive, by the application of human reason and intellect, and the learnings of science, together with the insatiable human desire to know more and to do more and to overcome more. In the past, groups of outraged students would block traffic on busy intersections to protest against pollution caused by motor vehicles, but that doesn’t happen anymore, at least not in my home town of Melbourne, because the industry found a way of reducing emissions and alleviating the problem, whilst the students moved on to being outraged about the right of people to get married, something that would have shocked and appalled their counter-cultural ancestors – no self-respecting hippy would be caught dead at a rally actually demanding the right to a so-last century rite like marriage, but the world is strange, and I digress.
The very real danger posed by the ideological straight jacket into which the modern environmental movement, and the local manifestation of it in the form of the Greens political party, would squeeze us, is found in its anti-progressive and anti-science stance. Rather than redress the many problems afflicting human beings and their world through the application of science and progress, the Greens would, on the whole, return us to something resembling the prehistoric world inhabited by the civilisation eschewing Kurtz in Joseph Conrad’s masterpiece ‘Heart of Darkness,’ wherein:
“Going up that river was like traveling back to the earliest beginnings of the world, when vegetation rioted on the earth and the big trees were kings.”
It’s not a very long journey from this Green utopia to the insect apocalypse, and avoiding it is a very simple matter – just give the Greens the two fingered salute, and get on with life without them. Now, can we sing it one more time, just for old time’s sake, you know how it goes… “Someone’s praying Lord, kumbaya….”
The plot of the Hellstrom Chronicle is pretty simple – it claims, with scientific sounding theories, supplemented by vision from various apocalyptic movies, and that spookily earnest voiceover, that insects will ultimately conquer the earth as a matter of natural selection, due to their rates of reproduction, which will ensure the survival of the insect species, whilst, conversely, the greed and individualism of human beings will ensure the extinction of homo sapiens before too long.
It may sound silly today, but if you were looking back to the preoccupations of early 1970’s educationalists with a smug smile and a patronising shake of your head, pause and consider this – replace the words ‘insect apocalypse’ with ‘climate change,’ give Al Gore the voiceover duty, and you are pretty much in the same thought world as ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ That award winning, and Nobel Prize attracting, ‘documentary’ was inconvenient, of course, largely for being inconveniently shown to be riddled with errors by a British Court, and for looking more and more silly as the years pass and the frightening scenarios described therein as near certainties, rather inconveniently, don’t eventuate. A few more decades and ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ will look and sound a lot like ‘The Hellstrom Chronicle’ looks and sounds today. That is, as laughable and easily derided pseudo-science.
The insect apocalypse is, of course, not the only ‘scare’ to be inflicted on us in the last few decades. It appeared around the same time as the population bomb was going to end life as we know it, a decade or two ago in fact if you believed the earnest sounding scientific types who perpetuated that particular theory. Then there was the world running out of food, or oil, or something else, and then death by pollution, nuclear holocaust, the millennium bug, a global pandemic of pick whatever virus or illness you want (AIDS, SARS, bird flu, on it goes). In this long line of apocalyptic doom stands the global warming… well, make that climate change actually… scare, which probably reached its peak with Al Gore and his tales of pissed off polar bears foraging for food in the flooded streets of Manhattan, and at a more local level with the varied oracles of Professor Tim Flannery telling us the rain would not fall any more, and would not fill our dams, even as we watched central Brisbane flooding due to an overflowing dam. Clearly, there is something inherent in human nature that seems to want to slap on the black armband, put up the ‘end is nigh’ sign, and think and believe the worse, about ourselves and about our world.
The Greens, in their various manifestation around the world, are especially prone to this sort of doomsday nonsense. Unlike the garden variety harmless nutter, the one doing circles in front Flinders Street Station holding signs announcing the end of the world, the Greens are, unfortunately and somewhat alarmingly, not harmless, if frequently nutters. Most of the world’s ills have been, or are being, addressed, by human ingenuity, and the Darwinian will to survive, by the application of human reason and intellect, and the learnings of science, together with the insatiable human desire to know more and to do more and to overcome more. In the past, groups of outraged students would block traffic on busy intersections to protest against pollution caused by motor vehicles, but that doesn’t happen anymore, at least not in my home town of Melbourne, because the industry found a way of reducing emissions and alleviating the problem, whilst the students moved on to being outraged about the right of people to get married, something that would have shocked and appalled their counter-cultural ancestors – no self-respecting hippy would be caught dead at a rally actually demanding the right to a so-last century rite like marriage, but the world is strange, and I digress.
The very real danger posed by the ideological straight jacket into which the modern environmental movement, and the local manifestation of it in the form of the Greens political party, would squeeze us, is found in its anti-progressive and anti-science stance. Rather than redress the many problems afflicting human beings and their world through the application of science and progress, the Greens would, on the whole, return us to something resembling the prehistoric world inhabited by the civilisation eschewing Kurtz in Joseph Conrad’s masterpiece ‘Heart of Darkness,’ wherein:
“Going up that river was like traveling back to the earliest beginnings of the world, when vegetation rioted on the earth and the big trees were kings.”
It’s not a very long journey from this Green utopia to the insect apocalypse, and avoiding it is a very simple matter – just give the Greens the two fingered salute, and get on with life without them. Now, can we sing it one more time, just for old time’s sake, you know how it goes… “Someone’s praying Lord, kumbaya….” Sarah Sea Patrol
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is to spend the winter break from federal parliament in the sunny Mediterranean, taking part in search and rescue operations with the Italian navy.
The Senator was reported to be very pleased to be fleeing the present cold snap gripping her home state of South Australia, and blissfully unaware of the dramatic rise in unemployment there, being far too busy with matters of global importance to worry about trifles like the lives of her constituents. When questioned about the nature of her planned activities on the high seas, Senator Hanson Young expressed her delight that the popular Australian television program Sea Patrol was expanding into the European market, and looking forward to a guest role in the long running drama where she will play herself.
The European version of Sea Patrol will reportedly also feature the bearded captain of the Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, seeking to ram a people smuggling ship commanded by former Costa Concordia Captain Francesco Schettino.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/28742811/green-senator-joins-europe-refugee-rescue/
The Senator was reported to be very pleased to be fleeing the present cold snap gripping her home state of South Australia, and blissfully unaware of the dramatic rise in unemployment there, being far too busy with matters of global importance to worry about trifles like the lives of her constituents. When questioned about the nature of her planned activities on the high seas, Senator Hanson Young expressed her delight that the popular Australian television program Sea Patrol was expanding into the European market, and looking forward to a guest role in the long running drama where she will play herself.
The European version of Sea Patrol will reportedly also feature the bearded captain of the Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, seeking to ram a people smuggling ship commanded by former Costa Concordia Captain Francesco Schettino.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/28742811/green-senator-joins-europe-refugee-rescue/ Who is really responsible for the Nanny State?
On a very superficial level I agree with the basic arguments of this article – idiots spoil it for everyone, people who move into the inner-city shouldn’t complain about the noise, etc.
But there is a devious doublespeak throughout the article: Australia is a nanny state, unlike Europe, because Australia has more idiots than Europe; therefore Australia NEEDS to be a nanny state, because we have more idiots than Europe, and if we don’t have lots of rules, Australian idiots will run amok.
What is evident is the European-elitist-style patronising of European-style elitists who think they are smarter than all those idiots, all those bogans. Elitists who think it is their job to tell others what to do. Elitists who are responsible for the implementation of the nanny-state.
The message is that we should be more like Europeans. You know, the same Europeans who are failing to have children at a rate sufficient to maintain their population level. The same Europeans who seem to have eroded their survival instincts to such an extent, that they don’t seem to think it is necessary to mandate the wearing of bicycle helmets…
What do you think? Are there more idiots in Australia than in Europe? And who is responsible for the Nanny State – the idiots, the people who think it is their job to tell people what to do, or a combination of both?
http://www.traveller.com.au/australia-the-land-of-the-idiot-gi36oy
But there is a devious doublespeak throughout the article: Australia is a nanny state, unlike Europe, because Australia has more idiots than Europe; therefore Australia NEEDS to be a nanny state, because we have more idiots than Europe, and if we don’t have lots of rules, Australian idiots will run amok.
What is evident is the European-elitist-style patronising of European-style elitists who think they are smarter than all those idiots, all those bogans. Elitists who think it is their job to tell others what to do. Elitists who are responsible for the implementation of the nanny-state.
The message is that we should be more like Europeans. You know, the same Europeans who are failing to have children at a rate sufficient to maintain their population level. The same Europeans who seem to have eroded their survival instincts to such an extent, that they don’t seem to think it is necessary to mandate the wearing of bicycle helmets…
What do you think? Are there more idiots in Australia than in Europe? And who is responsible for the Nanny State – the idiots, the people who think it is their job to tell people what to do, or a combination of both?
http://www.traveller.com.au/australia-the-land-of-the-idiot-gi36oy The Arrogance of the ABC
The arrogance of the ABC together with its utter contempt for the taxpayers who fund it, is perfectly captured in the quote below from a ‘senior ABC source,’ in today’s Sneering Morning Herald. It’s addressed to the Prime Minister and his government, and by extension to you, the taxpayer. How does that make you feel?
Just for fun, readers are invited to identify the ‘senior ABC source’ responsible. Zaky Mallah perhaps?
“This is unwarranted interference in the ABC,” a senior ABC source said. “Our message is basically, ‘get f—-ed’.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/qa-boycott-tony-abbott-prepares-to-back-down-on-frontbench-ban–with-a-catch-20150710-gi9n5v.html#ixzz3fZIUIr14 Tattoos – a modern attempt to find meaning?
I find it startling how mainstream tattoos have become in just the last few years.
I remember that up until the late 1990s, tattoos were the choice tribal and identity markers for those on the edges of polite society, namely– bikies, sailors and inmates.
Middle class people simply did not get tattoos because of their powerful anti-social and lower-class connotations.
In professional work environments until quite recently, it was not acceptable for workers to have visible tattoos. And the few men who did have one (and it was only men) would need to have it covered while at work.
But now, sporting a tattoo seems to be the latest fashion accessory – the more visible, the more dramatic, the better, especially amongst younger urban, middle class types.
According to a poll taken last year, one in five Americans have at least one tattoo. People under the age of 45 are twice as likely as those 45 and older to have one.What’s more, it is not only men that are getting tattoos. Incredibly, women are now more likely than men to get ink done. In fact, nearly half of the women under the age of 35 polled have at least one tattoo, almost double that of their male counterparts (47 per cent to 25 per cent).
In less than two decades, tattoos have gone from being the marker of the hardest men on the edge of society, to being the fashion accessory of the urban middle class, especially women.
What is behind this massive cultural change and the spectacular rise in the tattoo?
One correlation with the startling rise of the tattoo is the dramatic decline of organised religion and civic organisations (although their decline started much earlier).
It could be that the tattoo has been adopted as the ‘marker’ of choice to find and give expression to meaning and identity for the younger generations, filling the void left by organised religion.
Ironically, for many people the decision to get a tattoo has been made on the basis of individuality and personal expression, yet they have become such a powerful fashion symbol that they seem to be a compulsory accessory for Australian’s inner city urbanites. Has the tattoo lost its meaning as a marker of rebellion and become a symbol of conformity?
To get a tattoo is a personal choice. There are certainly many tattoos that I admire, and I must admit I would be tempted to get one (if they weren’t so common).
So it’s still an open question: What is behind the rise of the tattoo?
My suggestion is that this is one attempt to find meaning and identity in a universe that, for many moderns, has become meaningless.
Do you have a tattoo, or an opinion on the rise of the tattoo?Please share with us your thoughts in the comments section.
‘Weather’ is not climate, stupid!
As I write, a massive cold front is sweeping its way across South Eastern Australia. Blizzards are expected in the Victorian and New South Wales Alpine Regions, and parts of Queensland may even get a dusting of snow.
Right now, I can hear you (if not you, someone else) reminding me that ‘weather is not climate!’
Well, indeed, it is not.
By the same token, whenever there is a bushfire and someone from the Greens squeals ‘climate change!’, perhaps you or I should politely reminded them that change in weather does not equate to climate change? My hunch is that our reminder would fall on deaf ears.
Perhaps this ‘deafness’ is because climate change alarmists have rigged the deck? Whatever happens – snow, heat or drought can, and is used as evidence of climate change. So long as the climate (or weather) is ‘changing’ (ummm… which it has inconveniently not done as much as some would have liked over the last 18 or so years) then that confirms that climate change is real.
Of course, this completely ignores the fact that ‘change’ is exactly what climates do, and what our climate has done over the earth’s 4.5 billion year existence.
And ‘change’ is also what the weather does, in fact. Particularly when you live in Melbourne, where the weather changes so much it gives us all four seasons in one day.
Labor no ‘U’
When Boethius was a much younger, and fitter, sage, he entered the workforce direct from spectacularly failing first year Arts at a well known University by obtaining a labouring job in an abattoir. The work was mundane and smelly, and the comrades uncouth and uneducated, but Boethius is a true small ‘l’ liberal and overlooked the excessive expletives, questionable jokes, and smoke filled lunch room, and politely disagreed with his workmates that the perfect night out involved getting into at least one pub fight, some form of body piercing and / or a tattoo, together with a visit to a brothel. One thing the young philosopher was not prepared for, however, was the Meatworkers Union. In the youth of Boethius, the majority of Australian workers actually really did belong to a union (this is true and can be verified factually, as incredulous as it seems today). Membership of the Meatworkers Union was not optional. Everyone joined upon being employed in the abattoir, one’s fees were automatically deducted from one’s pay, and one did not ask any questions.
Boethius the Younger had no interest in these routine matters until the day he arrived for work to find his workmates gathered around a blazing forty-four gallon drum at the front gates of the abattoir, which had been bolted shut, and were being guarded by bearded boners (* a word describing an actual occupation in an abattoir), who were refusing anyone, including management, access. The only living thing looking somewhat pleased with this situation were the cows in the stalls beyond the gates, whose life expectancy had suddenly risen by a few hours, if not days.
Before too long, the shop steward arrived with some slabs of beer, and the mood at the picket line was starting to liven up. Boethius, being an inquisitive youth, if a little short of life experience, took it upon itself to enquire of the shop steward as to why he (and everyone else employed by this particular abattoir) were now on strike. In the back of his mind were two things – one, that there would be a very real and urgent matter requiring redress, perhaps one affecting the safety of the workforce, and two, that the longer this went on, the longer he was not being paid, and the harder it was going to be to pay the bills stacking up at home, not to mention keeping enough aside for a punt on the horses and a drink at the local on the weekend.
‘Boner turned up (* no pun intended) without his boots today,’ the shop steward explained. Boethius waited patiently for further explanation, of which none was forthcoming. It transpired, several slabs of beer later, and after some nasty exchanges with what appeared to be menacing looking accountants in pin striped strides seeking entrance to the workplace, that what the shop steward meant was that one of the company’s best and hardest working boners (* no pun intended) had forgotten his gum boots and arrived at work expecting to find a suitable pair among the company stocks kept for such eventualities. When a pair of sufficiently sized gum boots to accommodate this particular boner could not be located, the offended employee consulted the shop steward, who called a general strike, seeing an unmistakable opportunity to enhance his standing at Trades Hall, together with his hopes for ALP preselection, and everyone was out.
They remained out for three days, even after the Manager arrived with several pairs of brand new gum boots in various size. Boethius dropped close to week’s pay, and can still remember mounting a forlorn argument with the said shop steward, to the effect that the union was surely meant to be there to ensure the jobs and livelihoods of its lowest paid members, labourers just like him. It was a naïve, and easily dismissed argument, brushed aside with a sentence that contained more expletives than vowels. And Boethius learned an important life lesson – the Union exists, not to protect and care for the low paid members doing it tough at the bottom of the social heap, but to enhance the political career of the shop stewards, and the other assorted private school and university educated careerists, who drove cars paid for by the union fees contributed by low paid labourers, and who, generally, saw a good industrial dispute, and an especially confrontational picket line, as a means of career progression, especially if some hothead did something especially violent and it made the evening news.
Sometime later, Boethius, after reading Animal Farm and brushing up on trends in twentieth century socialism, was again in need of funds, and again a member of a union, this time whilst working the assembly line at a factory in the gritty inner urban suburbs of western Melbourne. When a meeting to vote on strike action was called, just days before Christmas, and, Boethius, now a young father, saw the kids Christmas turkey was very much in peril if a strike eventuated, he publicly questioned the decision and was politely, but firmly, told that if he didn’t vote the ‘right way’ he could expect a punctured lung and some broken ribs as a best case scenario. Boethius duly raised his hand at the appropriate time, albeit tentatively, and the family enjoyed a Christmas lunch of boiled rice and bread that year. Boethius made special mention of the Union in his Christmas toast, wishing the shop stewards a dose of herpes for Christmas, and the union concerned a visit to a Royal Commission one day.
These two anecdotes are completely and perfectly true, and go some way, from the perspective of one young philosopher’s experience, to explaining why the vast majority of Australian workers today want nothing to do with unions, want them out of our lives, and are not interested in the least in outdated, and old fashioned, socialist rhetoric about ‘class warfare’ or in language evoking ‘class’ envy. There is, however, one place where the demise of the union movement has gone largely unnoticed, and where unions, and union members, are in the majority, and that is, in the Australian Labor Party. It continues to be dominated by union members, as does its parliamentary expression, with a significant number of those representing the Labor Party in the nation’s capital being well described by the term ‘union hack’ – that is, persons having no real life experience outside that of a trade union. This stands in glaring contrast to the vast majority of the voters of the nation, who do not belong to a union, want nothing to do with a union, and see no need or place for unions in the workplaces of the 21st century.
One man, well described by that somewhat derisive, if apt, term ‘union hack’, is the current leader of the federal opposition, Mr Bill Shorten. From the time he commenced as a trainee in 1994, Bill has been the quintessential ‘company man’, dedicating his talents and expertise entirely to the Australian Workers Union. Whilst most people, these days, move to a new job on average every five years, and might have at least one significant change of career direction during the course of their working life, if not more, Bill has known only the Union and the ALP. This week it has been Mr Shorten’s turn to make some hurried disclosures, and give evidence before the Royal Commission, albeit in a manner that had the commissioner, Justice Heydon, eventually questioning his credibility as a witness. On the whole, Bill seemed to see nothing wrong at all with financial arrangements whereby a third party paid for his personal campaign manager, or whereby large amounts of money were directed to his union for a variety of purposes that seemed somewhat difficult for him explain. Why would he? This is how it has always been done in that diminishing sphere of the workforce in which unions are a key, if not dominant, player. In this rapidly diminishing world, the proletariat are paternalistically signed up to a deal that is said to be in their best interests, and do not question the dear leader who brokers it on their behalf. Company’s needing a ‘favour’ (read industrial peace) become curiously keen to fund ‘workplace safety training’ and ‘research assistants’ and to deliver their employees union fees in lump sum transactions to the union concerned.
Even if the Royal Commission is a politically motivated exercise, as many on the Labor side of politics are convinced it is, for the union movement, it is clear the writing is very much on the wall. Scandals involving curious financial transactions, Union issued credit cards, and thuggish behaviour on picket lines, have wearied the public, and provided grist for the mill for those who have had the union movement in their sights, for years, if not decades. But the far more alarming reality for Trades Hall would almost certainly seem to be the manner in which unions have become an unwelcome, and increasingly ignored and largely irrelevant, presence in the Australian industrial and political landscape, and its leaders, far from being regarded the undisputed champions of ‘working people’, instead acquiring a status in the public mind that places them somewhere alongside used car salesmen, clergy, and run of the mill members of parliament, on the scale of general trustworthiness. The suspect behaviour of those former associates of one former Labor Prime Minister, Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt; the former Health services Union and national Labor party President Michael Williamson, now serving time in jail; the strenuous denials of former Labor Party member of federal parliament Craig Thompson, so effortlessly exposed in court; the recent fines visited upon the CFMEU; the prior deregistration of the Painters and Dockers and the Builders Labourers Federation… these are not isolated cases but, to borrow a term from Shakespeare, demonstrate categorically that something is very rotten in the state of Denmark!
Even so, the demise of the union movement in Australia, so manifestly evident everywhere except in the Labor Party, is not fully explained by this sordid past, and recent history. Many will point to social changes and vilification campaigns conducted by vitriolic conservative commentators, but the root cause seems rather more mundane to this altogether dissatisfied past member of two unions – at some point union leaders and organisers began to resemble the sort of power hungry careerists, so despised in workplaces past by those who actually did the work, and the union members became, not the object and purpose of the organisation and the recipients of its largesse, but a means to preselection, together with a source of fees to be applied to easily misused funds and credit cards. In short, the unionists (if not the rank and file) became elitists, and if there’s one thing Australian ‘working people’ (to borrow the term so often, and so patronisingly, on the lips of Labor politicians) despise it’s an elitist wanker of any description telling them what to do, how to do it, and which way to vote.
All in all, there is a pretty short journey from the unions and union leaders encountered by Boethius in his youth, to the former MP Craig Thomson and his somewhat broad understanding of what constituted a reasonable expense to incur on his union issued credit card, to the current leader of the opposition Bill Shorten appearing before the Royal Commission into Union Corruption and having his credibility questioned in that forum. This isn’t the end of the union movement, it will probably always have its zealots and its picket line enthusiasts. More significant is the reality that, from the time Boethius first entered the workforce in that smelly abattoir, to his current much less onerous and more sanitary role today, the union presence in the Australian workforce has gone from accepted and assumed, to irrelevant and unwelcome. The question the Labor Party, and its current (former unionist) leader, must surely ask themselves is – are we, am I, on the same road?
XYZ Weekend Arts: Why you should present music to your children in chronological order, part 2.
In part 1 of this essay, I discussed how a child can absorb 600 years worth of “Classical Music,” through from conception to the end of their blissful years of school-free life. In part 2, I discuss how you can do the same with our Rock heritage, and why this is important.
On the car drive to your child’s first day of school, or at breakfast if school is in walking distance, introduce your child to the Rock’n’Roll of the 50’s. In years to come, he may not remember much about his first day of school, but instead of the embarrassing story about how he threw up or spent the whole day in tears, he will reminisce nostalgically about the first time he heard the strains of Buddy Holly. He will also quickly develop an obsession with Elvis, making him a hit with the girls and the teachers alike. A full two years of the music of the 50’s is advisable. You can even move back in time to give him a taste of the rhythm and blues of the decades before from which it drew.
In grade two you can finally expose him to the genius that was The Beatles, Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys, Hendrix, the Bee Gees, The Kinks. He can be exposed to the folk revival, psychedelia, the holy rollers, and the anti-war idealists, and how it took on a darker turn toward the end of the decade, when the Summer of Love and hopes for revolution predictably degenerated into anarchy and violence.
Grade 4 brings the 70’s, when Pink Floyd came into their own. Make sure that the first time he hears Led Zeppelin, mum is out and you turn up your stereo to 11. It will blow the awkward tween’s mind, and he will always cherish the raw power of the raucous riffs and soaring solos of Jimmy Page. Song writing in the 70’s reached a pinnacle, the understanding of jazz harmony combining with rock to propel the great song-writers of Fleetwood Mac, The Doors, Bill Whithers and Jackson Brown to fame. And although he may not appreciate it at first, and perhaps find it a little daggy, he will appreciate the compositional intricacy of ABBA in later years, and funk and disco will sound positively edgy compared to their saccharine melodies.
Van Halen’s first album was recorded in 1977, but given their total domination of the 80’s save the first hearing of Eruption for day 1, grade 6. Most importantly, spend a good three or four years exploring the music of this decade, as (IMHO) it represents the greatest pinnacle of the rock era. Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, INXS, ACDC, Bryan Adams, Cindy Lauper, Michael Jackson, Alice Cooper, Hall & Oats, Metallica; the list goes on and on and on.
The most striking thing about the music of the 80’s is its unbridled optimism. It was the era when Ronald Reagan made it ok for Americans to feel good about themselves again, and when he stood up to the USSR, the USSR was found wanting. Musicians of the 80’s may not have necessarily gone along with this, and many in fact were definitely anti-Reagan and anti-Thatcher. But it was the decade when the reality of the chasm between the plenty of the free market and the stagnation wrought by communist economics became its most utterly apparent. And this was reflected in the music.
It is with this in mind that you can introduce them to the music of the 90’s around their mid-teens, years 9-10. By this stage, they will well and truly have started discovering music for themselves. They will spend much less time with you, and value your opinion even less, as they go through the painful but necessary process of separating themselves physically and psychologically from their parents. But when they venture to the kitchen to eat your food, they will hear Eddie Vedder’s beautiful voice gliding above the grungy production of Pearl Jam’s greatest moment, their debut, Ten. When you pick them up at midnight from a party, don’t waste your time interrogating your teenager regarding what they drank, smoked, or whether they used protection. Just make sure you have Faith No More, Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Sound Garden, Rage Against The Machine, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Live, Stained, Silverchair, or REM playing softly while they pretend to ignore you. But especially important for the 90’s make sure they hear the dross. More than any other decade, the 90’s is in danger of being remembered for its highlights, rather than its dreary, incessant rejection of the achievements of the past.
As usual throughout their musical education, they won’t articulate it at first, but in time they will start to question why the ethics of production and musicality suddenly took a nose dive. He will wonder why the unbridled optimism had given way to wallowing self-pity, at the very moment that the existential threat of global nuclear war had subsided. He will perhaps question the idea that being against capitalism, being gay or openly feminist is subversive, when such stances appeared so financially lucrative in the 90’s. This may in turn lead him to question the outlook of today’s cultural elites, and invite him to question whose side they are on.
When your child graduate high school, so ends his musical education. He is ready to strike out his own path, to make his own history, even his own music. With a grounding in the development of music from the rebirth of Western culture to the present, he will have lived hours of sheer joy, and imbibed so much more- an appreciation of how philosophy, social relations, war, revolution and politics can be experienced through our music, how our music itself shaped this, and continues to shape who we are and what we represent. Here are just a few example of this: Beethoven’s furious rejection of Napoleon, who had marched across Europe in the name of Freedom, Equality and Fraternity, only to crown himself emperor, in the Funeral March of his Third Symphony; Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” which was originally written as a critique of social policy in the US but was then ironically appropriated to celebrate the fall of Communism – the ultimate tribute to the fact that for all the anti-establishment ethos of Rock’n’Roll throughout the decades, it could never have happened anywhere else but in the West; or the way the Divinyls’ “I Touch Myself,” formerly a bold expression of female liberty in the 80’s, was recently, bizarrely, co-opted into “raising awareness” about breast-cancer in an environment so PC that people are too scared to point out how inappropriate this is.
Obviously, this summary, both of classical music and of rock is far from complete – I have barely skimmed the surface. Others will have different opinions of the music I have presented, and different perceptions of the way in which it progressed, so by all means, let the discussion begin. The important point to take from all this is that our music is one of our most prized possessions, and most important achievements, as a civilisation. It is both our heritage, and our bulwark. My fellow contributor Claire Preston puts it very, very well:
“Music has a way of speaking to a deep part of ourselves – it can whisper truths about the universe – and about our place within it. So imagine if our young children were soaked in our heritage? This child would know her place culturally, and socially. And potentially have the confidence to speak with love about the richness and robustness of Western culture – when she is inevitably challenged with competing world-views.
“Moreover, our failure to form young people in this way (through music and other mechanisms of cultural transmission) leaves young people without a rudder to guide them when they are confronted with appealing but ultimately damaging ideologies.
“Will a teenager raised on Bach then Bon Jovi be able to resist the tides of Islam or Progressivism? Hard to say, but it’s certainly worth a good damn shot.”
In grade two you can finally expose him to the genius that was The Beatles, Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys, Hendrix, the Bee Gees, The Kinks. He can be exposed to the folk revival, psychedelia, the holy rollers, and the anti-war idealists, and how it took on a darker turn toward the end of the decade, when the Summer of Love and hopes for revolution predictably degenerated into anarchy and violence.
Grade 4 brings the 70’s, when Pink Floyd came into their own. Make sure that the first time he hears Led Zeppelin, mum is out and you turn up your stereo to 11. It will blow the awkward tween’s mind, and he will always cherish the raw power of the raucous riffs and soaring solos of Jimmy Page. Song writing in the 70’s reached a pinnacle, the understanding of jazz harmony combining with rock to propel the great song-writers of Fleetwood Mac, The Doors, Bill Whithers and Jackson Brown to fame. And although he may not appreciate it at first, and perhaps find it a little daggy, he will appreciate the compositional intricacy of ABBA in later years, and funk and disco will sound positively edgy compared to their saccharine melodies.
Van Halen’s first album was recorded in 1977, but given their total domination of the 80’s save the first hearing of Eruption for day 1, grade 6. Most importantly, spend a good three or four years exploring the music of this decade, as (IMHO) it represents the greatest pinnacle of the rock era. Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, INXS, ACDC, Bryan Adams, Cindy Lauper, Michael Jackson, Alice Cooper, Hall & Oats, Metallica; the list goes on and on and on.
The most striking thing about the music of the 80’s is its unbridled optimism. It was the era when Ronald Reagan made it ok for Americans to feel good about themselves again, and when he stood up to the USSR, the USSR was found wanting. Musicians of the 80’s may not have necessarily gone along with this, and many in fact were definitely anti-Reagan and anti-Thatcher. But it was the decade when the reality of the chasm between the plenty of the free market and the stagnation wrought by communist economics became its most utterly apparent. And this was reflected in the music.
It is with this in mind that you can introduce them to the music of the 90’s around their mid-teens, years 9-10. By this stage, they will well and truly have started discovering music for themselves. They will spend much less time with you, and value your opinion even less, as they go through the painful but necessary process of separating themselves physically and psychologically from their parents. But when they venture to the kitchen to eat your food, they will hear Eddie Vedder’s beautiful voice gliding above the grungy production of Pearl Jam’s greatest moment, their debut, Ten. When you pick them up at midnight from a party, don’t waste your time interrogating your teenager regarding what they drank, smoked, or whether they used protection. Just make sure you have Faith No More, Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Sound Garden, Rage Against The Machine, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Live, Stained, Silverchair, or REM playing softly while they pretend to ignore you. But especially important for the 90’s make sure they hear the dross. More than any other decade, the 90’s is in danger of being remembered for its highlights, rather than its dreary, incessant rejection of the achievements of the past.
As usual throughout their musical education, they won’t articulate it at first, but in time they will start to question why the ethics of production and musicality suddenly took a nose dive. He will wonder why the unbridled optimism had given way to wallowing self-pity, at the very moment that the existential threat of global nuclear war had subsided. He will perhaps question the idea that being against capitalism, being gay or openly feminist is subversive, when such stances appeared so financially lucrative in the 90’s. This may in turn lead him to question the outlook of today’s cultural elites, and invite him to question whose side they are on.
When your child graduate high school, so ends his musical education. He is ready to strike out his own path, to make his own history, even his own music. With a grounding in the development of music from the rebirth of Western culture to the present, he will have lived hours of sheer joy, and imbibed so much more- an appreciation of how philosophy, social relations, war, revolution and politics can be experienced through our music, how our music itself shaped this, and continues to shape who we are and what we represent. Here are just a few example of this: Beethoven’s furious rejection of Napoleon, who had marched across Europe in the name of Freedom, Equality and Fraternity, only to crown himself emperor, in the Funeral March of his Third Symphony; Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” which was originally written as a critique of social policy in the US but was then ironically appropriated to celebrate the fall of Communism – the ultimate tribute to the fact that for all the anti-establishment ethos of Rock’n’Roll throughout the decades, it could never have happened anywhere else but in the West; or the way the Divinyls’ “I Touch Myself,” formerly a bold expression of female liberty in the 80’s, was recently, bizarrely, co-opted into “raising awareness” about breast-cancer in an environment so PC that people are too scared to point out how inappropriate this is.
Obviously, this summary, both of classical music and of rock is far from complete – I have barely skimmed the surface. Others will have different opinions of the music I have presented, and different perceptions of the way in which it progressed, so by all means, let the discussion begin. The important point to take from all this is that our music is one of our most prized possessions, and most important achievements, as a civilisation. It is both our heritage, and our bulwark. My fellow contributor Claire Preston puts it very, very well:
“Music has a way of speaking to a deep part of ourselves – it can whisper truths about the universe – and about our place within it. So imagine if our young children were soaked in our heritage? This child would know her place culturally, and socially. And potentially have the confidence to speak with love about the richness and robustness of Western culture – when she is inevitably challenged with competing world-views.
“Moreover, our failure to form young people in this way (through music and other mechanisms of cultural transmission) leaves young people without a rudder to guide them when they are confronted with appealing but ultimately damaging ideologies.
“Will a teenager raised on Bach then Bon Jovi be able to resist the tides of Islam or Progressivism? Hard to say, but it’s certainly worth a good damn shot.” Pop Princes in the Poop
Pop star Ariana Grande has sparked controversy in America after she licked a donut she did not buy, and was caught on camera saying that she “hates America” and “hates Americans.” She offered a non-apology, in which she said that her comments were taken out of context, and the reason she hates Americans is because they are fat and stupid.
This outburst of honesty from someone who has benefited the most from America and all it stands for, and has amassed a fortune by exploiting a media machine which manipulates the emotions of Americans to force them to buy her music, comes hot on the heels of similar sentiments expressed by Azaelia Banks.
In an interview with Playboy in April, Banks said she hates Americans because they are “fat, stupid and racist”:
“I hate everything about this country. Like, I hate fat white Americans. All the people who are crunched into the middle of America, the real fat and meat of America, are these racist conservative white people who live on their farms. Those little teenage girls who work at Kmart and have a racist grandma—that’s really America.”
An editor of The XYZ was overheard grumbling something along the lines of, “Usually, we have to paraphrase what people say in order to reveal the baselessness of their ideology. And quite often we literally make s— up, yeah, ok, we lie, so that the greater truth of our narrative can be promoted. But we didn’t even have to this time. Seriously, you cannot make this s— up!”
It’s your XYZ.
“I hate everything about this country. Like, I hate fat white Americans. All the people who are crunched into the middle of America, the real fat and meat of America, are these racist conservative white people who live on their farms. Those little teenage girls who work at Kmart and have a racist grandma—that’s really America.”
An editor of The XYZ was overheard grumbling something along the lines of, “Usually, we have to paraphrase what people say in order to reveal the baselessness of their ideology. And quite often we literally make s— up, yeah, ok, we lie, so that the greater truth of our narrative can be promoted. But we didn’t even have to this time. Seriously, you cannot make this s— up!”
It’s your XYZ. Greens defend political donation record…. So nobody else can hold it.
Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon has called for an urgent reform of political donation laws to ensure that the Greens continued to hold the record for the largest single political donation ever made in Australia.
Comrade Rhiannon, speaking on ABC State Radio, reiterated the similar statements of Greens dear leader Comrade Di Natale earlier today. Meanwhile, Labor Party leader Bill Shorten faced questions about the use of funds provided to his former Union that were allegedly used in support of his own campaign for political office.
The Greens, who hold their party room meetings in absolute secrecy, have previously called for greater transparency in the political process. Speaking on ABC State Radio, Comrade Rhiannon was not asked whether her own party’s policy would apply to her own party.
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s4270275.htm Kyrgios calls Fraser a “Racist Dyke.”
The war of words between Nick Kyrgios and Dawn Fraser continues unabated. After Kyrgios tanked a couple of points in his fourth round loss at Wimbledon, Dawn Fraser said in a TV interview that he should “go back to where he came from.” Fraser promptly apologised via media release, saying “I’m sorry if anybody was offended by what I said.”
An unimpressed Kyrgios responded, “her apology doesn’t really mean much. She is just a stupid racist bitch.” Kyrgios quickly apologised, posting a Facebook status update – “I’m sorry if anybody was offended by what I said.” However, Dawn Fraser rejected this, posting in the comments section – “I can’t believe this little wog thinks it is ok to talk about women like that. Maybe that’s how they treat women in his own country, but not here.”
As expected after such a volley, Fraser apologised, sending an email to her publicist saying that she was “sorry if anybody was offended by what I said.” But a furious Kyrgios bellowed to waiting reporters “I hate that racist dyke!” Naturally, Kyrgios returned minutes later to apologise, saying “I’m sorry if anybody was offended by what I said,” but an indomitable Fraser soon retorted “I can’t believe we let people into this country who insist on holding onto such out-dated bigotry regarding people’s sexuality. It’s typical of the gooks, they are just so backward.”
Fraser’s apology had barely reached her twitter account when Kyrgios himself tweeted, “Dawn Fraser should f— off back to Germany #racismisugly.”
When asked for comment, Greens leader Richard Di Natale was reported as saying “We’re not touching this one with a 60 foot pole.”
The XYZ awaits the next instalment of this saga.
An unimpressed Kyrgios responded, “her apology doesn’t really mean much. She is just a stupid racist bitch.” Kyrgios quickly apologised, posting a Facebook status update – “I’m sorry if anybody was offended by what I said.” However, Dawn Fraser rejected this, posting in the comments section – “I can’t believe this little wog thinks it is ok to talk about women like that. Maybe that’s how they treat women in his own country, but not here.”
As expected after such a volley, Fraser apologised, sending an email to her publicist saying that she was “sorry if anybody was offended by what I said.” But a furious Kyrgios bellowed to waiting reporters “I hate that racist dyke!” Naturally, Kyrgios returned minutes later to apologise, saying “I’m sorry if anybody was offended by what I said,” but an indomitable Fraser soon retorted “I can’t believe we let people into this country who insist on holding onto such out-dated bigotry regarding people’s sexuality. It’s typical of the gooks, they are just so backward.”
Fraser’s apology had barely reached her twitter account when Kyrgios himself tweeted, “Dawn Fraser should f— off back to Germany #racismisugly.”
When asked for comment, Greens leader Richard Di Natale was reported as saying “We’re not touching this one with a 60 foot pole.”
The XYZ awaits the next instalment of this saga. Lies and statistics
Over the last few days in the wake of the Greek financial crisis, a great deal of confusion and misinformation has been injected into the public forum.
One of the most starling pieces of misinformation I have come around is this post shared by the Facebook page ‘Yes Clydesdale’.
Not only are the figures quoted in relation to these corporate bailoutsincorrect, their absurdity reaches ludicrous heights. Unfortunately many people believe them. This kind of misinformation only serves to obscure the real financial and economic issues, and makes their resolution much harder to achieve. But, perhaps that is their intention?
The actual figures on corporate bailout can be found here.
In the case of Citigroup, as the ‘bailout tracker’ states:
“Citigroup was among the eight large U.S. banks to receive the Treasury Department’s initial round of capital investments — money described by Treasury officials not as a bailout, but rather as funds to help bolster “healthy” banks in tough times. But in November of 2008, with its stock price spiraling downward, Citigroup received additional government aid.
That $50 billion in aid came mostly in the form of large capital investments, but also through government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. Treasury made those guarantees alongside the Fed and FDIC. In addition to the Treasury’s $5 billion commitment, the FDIC committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion.”
To cut a long story short, the Federal Government provided Citigroup $45 billion in aid (not the absurd amount of $2.5 trillion). By December 2009, Citigroup had repaid $20 billion to the government. In December 2010, the U.S. Treasury converted the remaining $25 billion debt into Citigroup stock. With all government aid given to Citigroup now paid back, the Federal Government has come away with an additional $13.4 billion revenue for its effort.
These figures contradict the hysterical narrative we keep hearing about governments bailing out greedy bankers. At least in the case of Citigroup, and I presume with many others, the United Stated Federal government has come away, only a few years later with a considerable financial win.
As for the ludicrous figures quoted by the ‘Yes Clydesdale’ meme, Citigroup’s market capitialisation stands at $160 billion. It is a large company. The value of the company is nowhere near its supposed government bail out of $2.5 trillion dollars. As a further way of comparison, the total United States Federal Debt stands at $16 trillion.
It is absolutely nonsensical to even consider that the United States would have the capacity to bailout not only one, but several companies to the tune of trillions of dollars when it has the burden of its own debts and welfare entitlements. The reality is that banks and businesses are simply not that big compared to the behemoth of the United States Federal Government and other states.
Rather than suppress misleading information such as this hysterical and ludicrous meme, this (and others) need to be brought out to the light and exposed for the lies that they are and the misinformation and anxiety they are intended to create and spread.
incorrect, their absurdity reaches ludicrous heights. Unfortunately many people believe them. This kind of misinformation only serves to obscure the real financial and economic issues, and makes their resolution much harder to achieve. But, perhaps that is their intention?
The actual figures on corporate bailout can be found here.
In the case of Citigroup, as the ‘bailout tracker’ states:
“Citigroup was among the eight large U.S. banks to receive the Treasury Department’s initial round of capital investments — money described by Treasury officials not as a bailout, but rather as funds to help bolster “healthy” banks in tough times. But in November of 2008, with its stock price spiraling downward, Citigroup received additional government aid.
That $50 billion in aid came mostly in the form of large capital investments, but also through government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. Treasury made those guarantees alongside the Fed and FDIC. In addition to the Treasury’s $5 billion commitment, the FDIC committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion.”
To cut a long story short, the Federal Government provided Citigroup $45 billion in aid (not the absurd amount of $2.5 trillion). By December 2009, Citigroup had repaid $20 billion to the government. In December 2010, the U.S. Treasury converted the remaining $25 billion debt into Citigroup stock. With all government aid given to Citigroup now paid back, the Federal Government has come away with an additional $13.4 billion revenue for its effort.
These figures contradict the hysterical narrative we keep hearing about governments bailing out greedy bankers. At least in the case of Citigroup, and I presume with many others, the United Stated Federal government has come away, only a few years later with a considerable financial win.
As for the ludicrous figures quoted by the ‘Yes Clydesdale’ meme, Citigroup’s market capitialisation stands at $160 billion. It is a large company. The value of the company is nowhere near its supposed government bail out of $2.5 trillion dollars. As a further way of comparison, the total United States Federal Debt stands at $16 trillion.
It is absolutely nonsensical to even consider that the United States would have the capacity to bailout not only one, but several companies to the tune of trillions of dollars when it has the burden of its own debts and welfare entitlements. The reality is that banks and businesses are simply not that big compared to the behemoth of the United States Federal Government and other states.
Rather than suppress misleading information such as this hysterical and ludicrous meme, this (and others) need to be brought out to the light and exposed for the lies that they are and the misinformation and anxiety they are intended to create and spread.
Why, why, oh why do Muslims hate dogs?
There are a lot of silly things, all sorts of idiotic ideas you can get caught up in, if you take the scriptures of your respective religion too seriously. Doing so when reading Leviticus can lead to a lot of house fires due to the existence of mildew. And both Christian and Muslim holy books have verses prohibiting homosexuality – an awful lot of fuss has been caused by this recently, although for some reason the rather literal way it is taken in parts of Iraq and Syria have caused less of a stir than the liberalising or ignoring of their interpretation here.
Likewise, the Bible and Koran contain verses against blasphemy and apostasy. It has been an awfully long time since anybody was punished for these crimes against the Christian God in the West, but it is unfortunately all too mainstream in the Islamic world. But let’s leave these weighty subjects for another day, and have a gawk at the hilariously fraught relationship Muslims have with man’s best friend.
Dogs are repeatedly denigrated in the Hadiths, although not the in Koran. They annul prayer if nearby, angels do not enter a house if a dog is inside, and having them as pets is forbidden. Exceptions are made for keeping them, if they are useful, but all the black ones are to be killed. From Sahih Muslim, Book 024, Number 5246:
“A’isha reported that Gabriel made a promise with Allah’s Messenger to come at a definite hour; that hour came but he did not visit him. And there was in his hand a staff. He threw it from his hand and said: Never has Allah or His messengers ever broken their promise. Then he cast a glance (and by chance) found a puppy under his cot and said: ‘A’isha, when did this dog enter here? She said: By Allah, I don’t know. He then commanded and it was turned out. Then Gabriel came and Allah’s Messenger said to him: You promised me and I waited for you but you did not come, whereupon he said: It was the dog in your house which prevented me (to come), for we (angels) do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.”
And from Sahih Muslim, Book 024, Number 5248:
“Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields (or big gardens).”
Of course, like any problematic sections of the Bible or Koran, some take this and other verses with a pinch of salt, while others take it way too seriously. At their most extreme and violent, some Muslims lobby for the banning of dogs in public, and even have even killed people’s pet dogs.
On the other hand, there are many Muslims who try to point out the irrationality of taking the Hadiths on dogs literally, and many a long screed has been written, or speech given dealing with this nonsense, when really we would all much rather be out playing cricket.
One group in Malaysia held public events last year encouraging people to touch dogs. Interestingly though, the Malaysian government still denounced this as going against mainstream Islam, and there were the usual death threats from extremists. And the organisers did not challenge the notion that dogs are unclean – they educated people on “permissible” ways to touch a dog, and how they can purify themselves with a cleansing ritual after touching a dog. And they made it clear that the program never encouraged dogs as pets.
So it is not a misrepresentation to say that Muslims, or at least some Muslims, hate dogs. But even at their best, Muslims have loopy ideas about dogs which makes them perform silly rituals if they even want to touch one, and are forced into bizarre contortions of logic if they try to argue that Islam does not say bad things about dogs. Most importantly, this dynamic appears to be common in Islam when applied to matters far more grave than this. And sadly, there does not appear to be any appetite to just throw it all out, to say ‘you know what, those verses really are so obviously unnecessary, why don’t we just ignore these silly stories as remnants of outdated traditions from a bygone age.’
Dogs are repeatedly denigrated in the Hadiths, although not the in Koran. They annul prayer if nearby, angels do not enter a house if a dog is inside, and having them as pets is forbidden. Exceptions are made for keeping them, if they are useful, but all the black ones are to be killed. From Sahih Muslim, Book 024, Number 5246:
“A’isha reported that Gabriel made a promise with Allah’s Messenger to come at a definite hour; that hour came but he did not visit him. And there was in his hand a staff. He threw it from his hand and said: Never has Allah or His messengers ever broken their promise. Then he cast a glance (and by chance) found a puppy under his cot and said: ‘A’isha, when did this dog enter here? She said: By Allah, I don’t know. He then commanded and it was turned out. Then Gabriel came and Allah’s Messenger said to him: You promised me and I waited for you but you did not come, whereupon he said: It was the dog in your house which prevented me (to come), for we (angels) do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.”
And from Sahih Muslim, Book 024, Number 5248:
“Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields (or big gardens).”
Of course, like any problematic sections of the Bible or Koran, some take this and other verses with a pinch of salt, while others take it way too seriously. At their most extreme and violent, some Muslims lobby for the banning of dogs in public, and even have even killed people’s pet dogs.
On the other hand, there are many Muslims who try to point out the irrationality of taking the Hadiths on dogs literally, and many a long screed has been written, or speech given dealing with this nonsense, when really we would all much rather be out playing cricket.
One group in Malaysia held public events last year encouraging people to touch dogs. Interestingly though, the Malaysian government still denounced this as going against mainstream Islam, and there were the usual death threats from extremists. And the organisers did not challenge the notion that dogs are unclean – they educated people on “permissible” ways to touch a dog, and how they can purify themselves with a cleansing ritual after touching a dog. And they made it clear that the program never encouraged dogs as pets.
So it is not a misrepresentation to say that Muslims, or at least some Muslims, hate dogs. But even at their best, Muslims have loopy ideas about dogs which makes them perform silly rituals if they even want to touch one, and are forced into bizarre contortions of logic if they try to argue that Islam does not say bad things about dogs. Most importantly, this dynamic appears to be common in Islam when applied to matters far more grave than this. And sadly, there does not appear to be any appetite to just throw it all out, to say ‘you know what, those verses really are so obviously unnecessary, why don’t we just ignore these silly stories as remnants of outdated traditions from a bygone age.’ Exhibit ‘A’
In a strong reaction to a speech by government leader in the Senate, Senator Eric Abetz, the two young children of a same sex couple living in hitherto unnoticed obscurity in Hobart have confirmed the fears raised by Senator Penny Wong on ABC Radio earlier this week, of wide ranging psychological damage being inflicted on children through the atrocities committed by Senator Abetz, in a speech he recently delivered to an empty chamber in the nation’s capital.
Following on from Senator Wong’s claims that the comments by Senator Abetz in that speech were “hurtful” and “offensive” to the children of same sex couples, baby Ruthie (* not her real name), the three month old daughter of an Intersex father and a gender non-specific mother, called in to ABC talkback radio Tasmania today to express her dismay at the “outdated ignorance” of Senator Abetz, and to ask when Barney would be on again. In the background, her four year brother, also named Ruthie (* his real name), whose parents are listed as two anonymous men calling themselves “laboratory assistant A and laboratory assistant B” could be heard demanding a re-run of Peppa Pig, and calling for Senator Abetz to be forcibly enrolled in a gender studies unit at Melbourne University. Senator Abetz was last seen boarding a plane for Pyongpang, North Korea.
h the atrocities committed by Senator Abetz, in a speech he recently delivered to an empty chamber in the nation’s capital.
Following on from Senator Wong’s claims that the comments by Senator Abetz in that speech were “hurtful” and “offensive” to the children of same sex couples, baby Ruthie (* not her real name), the three month old daughter of an Intersex father and a gender non-specific mother, called in to ABC talkback radio Tasmania today to express her dismay at the “outdated ignorance” of Senator Abetz, and to ask when Barney would be on again. In the background, her four year brother, also named Ruthie (* his real name), whose parents are listed as two anonymous men calling themselves “laboratory assistant A and laboratory assistant B” could be heard demanding a re-run of Peppa Pig, and calling for Senator Abetz to be forcibly enrolled in a gender studies unit at Melbourne University. Senator Abetz was last seen boarding a plane for Pyongpang, North Korea. In defence of Dawn Fraser
I must speak in defence of Dawn Fraser. She has come under fire for using the following language when discussing Nick Kyrgios’ apparent tanking of certain points in his fourth round loss at Wimbledon:
“They should be setting a better example for the younger generation of this great country of ours,” she said.
“If they don’t like it, go back to where their parents came from. We don’t need them here in this country to act like that.”
The phrase “go back to where you came from” has become synonymous with racism, (although when used “ironically” it appears to have taken on a similar double-standard-status as “the N-word”….) But to anyone not socially conditioned to react to this phrase with the reflexive cry of “racist,” the context of Fraser’s words are obvious.
Australia provides immense support to all who live here, regardless of race and regardless of whether they were born here or are immigrants. We also have well-funded sporting bodies that provide high levels of support for our athletes, much better than most other places in the world. Shortly prior to Kyrgios’ loss and Fraser’s comments, Bernard Tomic, another bratty tennis player with immigrant parents, who has nevertheless received tremendous support from Tennis Australia, cried victim and linked himself to Kyrgios.
So, Fraser was not telling them to “go back where they came from.” She was pointing out that the level of support they receive in Australia is out of all proportion to what they would have received if they were in the countries their parents had come from, and to stop acting like spoiled brats.
Finally it is in this context that Fraser’s “apology,” can be properly understood:
“I want to unreservedly apologise for any comments that I made this morning which may have caused [offence] to my fellow Australians including Nick and his family,”
Kyrgios’ family are correct when they say that her apology doesn’t mean much, but probably not in the way they think. The cost would be too great, personally and professionally, for Fraser not to say it. We should view her apology in the same context we used to view confessions of inmates of the Soviet Union.
Australia provides immense support to all who live here, regardless of race and regardless of whether they were born here or are immigrants. We also have well-funded sporting bodies that provide high levels of support for our athletes, much better than most other places in the world. Shortly prior to Kyrgios’ loss and Fraser’s comments, Bernard Tomic, another bratty tennis player with immigrant parents, who has nevertheless received tremendous support from Tennis Australia, cried victim and linked himself to Kyrgios.
So, Fraser was not telling them to “go back where they came from.” She was pointing out that the level of support they receive in Australia is out of all proportion to what they would have received if they were in the countries their parents had come from, and to stop acting like spoiled brats.
Finally it is in this context that Fraser’s “apology,” can be properly understood:
“I want to unreservedly apologise for any comments that I made this morning which may have caused [offence] to my fellow Australians including Nick and his family,”
Kyrgios’ family are correct when they say that her apology doesn’t mean much, but probably not in the way they think. The cost would be too great, personally and professionally, for Fraser not to say it. We should view her apology in the same context we used to view confessions of inmates of the Soviet Union. Call for referendum: Should we give yet more money on unsecured terms to Greece?
The eurozone has given Greece a sum of money which is beyond precedent – €32.000 for every Greek man, woman and child. Greece obtained that money through fraud and false pretences. Now that it has been spent (or wasted) the demand is that more should follow so that a nation which has gone bankrupt six times in 180 years can continue living beyond its means!
And since when did a debtor get to vote on whether a creditor should be repaid? We should organise a referendum in the rest of Europe with the question: “Should we give yet more money on unsecured terms to Greece?” I would anticipate 90% would vote NO.