Whatever you think of John Pilger, he consistently does what an investigative journalist should do – dig up and report on hidden or ignored facts. His piece recently aired on SBS on the so-called War on Terror (as if you can wage war on an emotion) indicated just how much the Bush administration and its allies have fudged the facts and how little the mass media have gone looking for anthing like the ‘truth’. It was also interesting to be reminded that, since the invasion of Iraq was probably illegal according to international law, Bush, Blair and Howard may well be war criminals, if we were to uphold the principles established at Nuremburg after WWII.
The way Howard has decided that the nation has ‘moved on’ from the war in Iraq is a scandal. The way the mass media here have let him get away with it is even more disturbing. The death of tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children, the maiming of thousands more, and the virtual destruction of an entire national infrastructure is not something we should ‘move on’ from without some serious consideration.
For all his faults, John Pilger is one of the very few journalists who will take on these big issues and try to jog our conscience. I hope the new American President gives him a lot less material to work with, and the new Australian Prime Minister much less reason to feel shame about being Australian.

There is a new spirit in the ALP. I’m not sure this is due so much to Latham’s ascendancy as a perception that the deadly days of saying and doing as little as possible under Beazley are gone.
And I’m hoping the change in the leadership will generate party activism at the grass roots and continue the job of party reform began by Crean. A glaring problem in the ALP at the moment is the strict bifurcation of the party into active insiders and mostly passive outsiders. The insiders are almost always politicians, political staffers, party officials or union officials. They hold virtually all the important positions and make nearly all the important decisions. The outsiders are all the other members, many with decades of service, who sometimes make it to the sub-branch meetings but mostly just get trotted out to work on polling day.They are often lauded at Xmas drinkies, but they have very little real power in the ALP.
When I first joined the ALP in 1982 there was a middle group made up of largely professional people and unionists who were primarliy interested in policy. They were well informed and often very knowledgeable about policy issues. They were active at various levels and especially in policy committees. Unlike the current insiders, they were not explicitly focused on power within the party and jobs for themselves. They wanted the ALP to be a political party representative of the best educated and most experienced elements of Australian society.
These people have largely deserted the ALP since then. Some went to the Greens, a few to the Democrats, and many just gave up on party politics. If Labor is to recover a capacity to generate innovative policy it needs to re-attract these people. But to do that the insiders will have to start sharing power with the rest of the party. The erosion of the faction system (so evident in the election of Mark Latham) is a step in the right direction, because genuine ability and party activism may become relevant again. But there needs to be a general revision of attitude on the part of almost the entire power hierarchy of the ALP.
The ALP needs to become more inclusive, but to do this the current party power establishment has to share power and responsibility. The old Labor boys and girls turn up on cold nights to poorly attended, boring sub-branch meetings because they recall when Labor fought for basic needs, like decent housing and a fair health system. For them, it was Labor or nothing. The younger, well educated and widely experienced people that Labor has to attract will only join and stay on if they perceive that work and ability do lead to meaningful influence on the party.

A friend of mine thinks that authors can earn “sweat equity” in this site (the National Forum one) by giving them bragging rights. I’m still working that one out, as probably are you, but for different reasons. I am wondering about the mechanics, and you are probably wondering about the National Forum site, because there is precious little to see. I think we will both have to have patience.
Still, I have a couple of things to brag about. Recently I suggested that the government look at the economics of providing more childcare places. That they might be an investment from which they could save more than they spend, as they do with private school funding.
I’ve also been suggesting that the Reserve Bank had no reason to raise interest rates if the purpose was to kill the housing boom because the boom would fold under its own weight. Lo and behold, last weekend the newspapers were full of reports that house sales had slowed and prices dropped. The Reserve will have you believe that this is because they have put rates up half a percent (at the same time as they say it is to stop inflation occurring elsewhere in the economy and nothing to do with housing). That is nonsense. There is too much housing supply in some areas, and reality is catching up with demand quite independently of the RBA.
Bragging rights also sent me scuttling in search of Melvyn Bragg, for associative reasons only. His recent book The Adventure of English predicts a future for English like the past of Latin, amongst other things. The search fortuitously also turned up this article from the New Zealand Herald about Daniel Barenboim’s Western-Eastern Divan Orchestra. This is an orchestra composed half of Israelis and half of Arabs, formed specifically for a polemical as well as musical purpose. Barenboim believes an orchestra is a “symbol of democracy”. “Music says everything about unity and harmony. The musicians in the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra work together toward a common goal. That in itself is a revolutionary concept, considering where they come from.”
So, if the US really wants to provide a model of democracy in the Middle East, perhaps they should make music not war. Perhaps. Recently in Iraq we have little to brag about and we need to change that soon.

Apparently Senator Natasha Stott Despoja has made some comments about the Bartlett affair. Anonymous sources are quoted in The Australian today saying she claimed that the principal issue was “violence against women – which is neither negotiable nor excusable”. Maybe she didn’t say it quite like that, but it set me thinking.
Last weekend I was part of a panel talking about political correctness at the Writers Muster held at Sydney Uni. One of my fellow panelists was Catharine Lumby who claimed that PC didn’t really exist anymore. We disagreed, politely and enthusiastically. I think I am right and one proof of that will be the first email that points to my use of the word “fellow” in the last-but-one sentence.
Another proof could well be Senator Stott Despoja’s reported comments. One of the aims of the feminist movement, which I endorse wholeheartedly, is to put women on an equal footing with men. Are they on an equal footing if we regard violence against women as some special form of violence which is different from violence against men? By violence against women does she mean only violence by men against women, and if so, where does this leave violence by women against women? Surely violence per se is wrong, and the size of that wrongness hinges on the actual, rather than stereotypical, vulnerability of the victim. A large woman against a small man ranks with a large man against a small woman.
Stott Despoja’s comments say being a victim is a characteristic of being female and as victims are never equal, this analysis assumes that inequality is inherent in being female. Inequality in this sense is not a characteristic that appears to arise out of social conditions or usage, but solely from the fact of being a woman.
I think her analysis is probably the one that is generally operating in the media coverage and the views of ordinary Australians. What would the reaction to Bartlett’s action have been if it was Bill Heffernan that he had fronted? I suspect Bartlett would be much more secure in his leadership of the Democrats than he is now. Which raises the questions of just how equal women are in this society, how we draw on stereotypes to tell our truths and just how deeply ingrained a belief in female inequality really is, not to mention the ways in which inequality can be turned into a strength.

I alluded in an ealier blog entry to the fact that far too few academics participate in public discourse. One problem is that such activity is either actively discouraged or at best only half-heartedly supported by their institutions and colleagues (I recall an American professor I knew saying that this lack of support for outspoken academics was an Australian phenomenon – it much bemused him).
One reason why speaking out is tricky is because you can rarely do so with the rigour that academics like to claim as part of their professional role. You can’t provide endless references to back your argument up (especially if it is controversial) or take pages to develop your subtle reasoning and refute alternative viewpoints.
Some academics do manage to say things of relevance and importance effectively and succinctly, and OnLine Opinion has published many such efforts. As such it provides a rare forum for information, ideas and opinions to be presented outside the increasingly tight constraints of the mass media.
These blogs are another way to broaden discourse, endeavouring to provide an immediacy and consistency of world view that widens debate. The price is an inevitable weakening in terms of both substance and form, as the blogger has to just get on and say it. Because of its regularity and immediacy, the usual standards of rigour and presentation cannot be maintained.
But the electronic age demands that we think and act fast, and that includes public commentary. The life of current events stories is so short now that if you hesitate the chance to comment meaningfully is gone.
Academics just have to take more risks, and get involved. Society is now so complex and things move so fast that we desperately need clear thinkers and well informed people to have their say. And thinking clearly and being well informed are exactly the core skills academics should have.

I used to think that Russell Crowe was a little bit of a boofhead, but I’m changing my mind. Seems he might just have a touch of the “Andrew Bartletts”, and just as Bartlett is a very decent guy, Crowe probably is too. Except that in Crowe’s line of work being boozed occasionally, or even regularly, is often a career enhancer. For some, as long as you’re in the news, it doesn’t matter how you got there. That’s the compressed rubber bounce of celebrity – impervious to pain, and the harder you are thrown the higher you fly. For others it can destroy a lifetime’s work leaving just a splotch just as easily as dropping a slippery bottle of baby food straight out of the fridge on a tiled floor. If you’re given a choice between acting and politics, choose acting, not that they’re really different occupations, just that one has real consequences and the other doesn’t.
Which wasn’t what I set out to say, but the hypocrisy of so much of the coverage of Bartlett’s fall from grace has been so enourmous that it’s been gnawing away at the partitions in my mind. Journalists are the last professionals (if you can call journalism a profession) who ought to be casting stones. Even most politicians have gone quiet on the issue with the exception of a few of “God’s police”, and Peter Costello.
“Well, Andrew Bartlett gets drunk and assaults someone and he is compelled to stand aside,” Mr Costello said. “Another person gets drunk, has a fight over property and assaults someone and they make him party leader.” Not smart. He appears to directly contravene John Howard’s orders on the matter, drawing attention to leadership issues on his side at the same time as he draws attention to Mark Latham. Costello advised everyone not to play personality politics on Hanson, but to talk about policy. He needs to follow that advice when it comes to Latham.
What I set out to say was that Crowe has been making a lot of sense lately (well, he’s agreeing with me, at least in part). According to David Flint and the ACM, Crowe admits to being a monarchist. I respect him for that. It’s not a popular position. Neither is his view, expressed last night on ABC Radio’s The Deep End, that the Cultural Industries are crying wolf over the damage that the Free Trade Agreement could do to Australian film. He criticizes the system for rewarding producers who are good at filling in the forms but have never made a successful film. As one of the significant band that has made the current crop of Australian film actors international, he ought to know. It’s a pity that our film industry appears to be constructed around our losers rather than our winners, and that it’s so parochial it can’t see that its future lies as part of the larger English language culture, not some provincial creek.

It comes as no surprise that the Coalition have targetted Mark Latham’s past, even comparing him unfavorably with ‘Boozer’ Bartlett. Latham has had an interesting time, and like most of us, he’s made mistakes. The less you experience of life, the fewer mistakes you’ll make. The trick is to learn from your mistakes and move on.
One of the things that worries me most about John Howard, Andrew Downer and Peter Costello (but not Tony Abbott!) is their wafer thin life experience. It makes it very easy for them to hammer life’s desperados like, say, the unemployed or refugees, from their safe, orderly, privileged situation.
Some leaders, like Gough Whitlam, can develop an inclusive world view through intellectual rigour, although Gough, like his generation, had gone through that singular experience, World War 2.
Real experience tells you that life is messy, can be very hard, and that sooner or later we all make mistakes. In mature personalities this breeds self-understanding and empathy for others.
The homogeneity of Labor pollies currently (ie mostly ex-political or union officials, often second generation) also bothers me, and in fact Latham is little better in this regard. But if he is honest with himself, his marriage breakdown and fistfights will have taught him a lot about how things can go wrong for any of us. And about how we need a social order that minimises these events, but that allows us to pick up the pieces and move on when they do happen.
Making mistakes is not a sin, but not learning from them is. However, you have to stick your toe in the water to find out it is cold. I suspect more Australians can relate to Latham’s imperfect past than the Coalition leaders suspect, but I also hope Latham has learned his lessons.

I’ve got a soft spot for the Democrats – I think what they were trying to do was a legitimate experiment in Oz politics. But with all the structural change that has hit them, like the rise of One Nation and the Greens, it seems to be a lack of discipline by their own pollies that will do them in.
Personal abuse and violence have no place in civil society, let alone politics, and Bartlett has to cop it sweet. I will say though that I’ve heard worse stories about people being physically monstered in parliament, but I suppose there was no video to back up the accusations. As for the wine sent as a sorry gift, that just sounded like a dumb joke to me. Humour, as all those supposedly witty political memoirs remind us, is all too rare in Oz politics, probably because the pollies tend to take themselves so seriously.
Anyway, the Democrats could well be history now, and in the final analysis, they only have themselves to blame. So which parties will the various Democrat senators wind up in now?

I’ve just finished a long decade working as an academic. I’ve been very successful in my teaching and research, even being awarded a special university medal a few years back for my efforts. More importantly, personal and professional feedback from my students told me that my efforts have paid dividends for them.
But I’m completely fed up with life as a lecturer. The last decade or so has seen the destrction of the best things about the job and the promotion of the worst things. More and more the best people are demoralised and many are leaving the profession.
But I was still surprised the other day by a comment made by a young professor I know. He has had an exemplary career, is near the top of his profession, and would seem to have it all. But he said he is tired of all the pressure, the cutbacks and the extra work needed to keep things going. Despite the loss in income, he was considering doing something completely different. This man has been totally dedicated to academic life, and so if he is talking like this, something is very wrong.
There are a whole range of problems behind the current mess, but government policies under both Labor and the Coalition are largely to blame. Nelson’s reforms just take it another step further.
Shame about the best people leaving academic life. Shame about the destruction of a once world-class education system. Shame about the students. Shame about the nation’s future.

Last night’s last Lateline for the year was a funny one. Here was Grahame Morris (ex-Howard staffer) waxing enthusiastic about the new Labor leader and Michael Costello (ex-Beazley staffer) being pretty negative. Is this indicative of the new uncertainties that go with this untried and complex new leader, or was Morris in particular being a little ingenuous in his views?
The point was also made that Latham has to wear criticism about his own past (especially from his ex-wife) because he specifically allies his personal experience with his political position. A criticism that has already emerged is that he has been somewhat ruthless in the past, and he will need to address this impression if he wants to be the new national leader.
There is a socially callous element in Latham’s thinking, including the stuff about the replacing the rungs on the ladder to success. Some people just can’t make it by themselves, no matter how many rungs are in place. Whether due to inherent inability or as a result of past social inequality, there are a lot of stugglers out there. A Labor leader must look after them, it is one the moral responsibilities that differentiates Labor from the coalition (who just want them to shut up).
No doubt the Left, led by Julia Gillard, will be on Latham’s case about this, and he owes them plenty.
At least, as has been suggested, politics is interesting again.