Graham and I are having something of a dispute over the word Empire. I have pointed out that I am not alone in using the term to describe current American policy. Scholars of all political hues have employed the expression. Among the most distinguished is Rashid Khalidi who is Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. His latest book is, Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America’s Perilous Path in the Middle East (Beacon Press, April 2004). His talk, which everyone should read is available at http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=12443. It was designed primarily to promote his book but it does contain a good critique of the stupidity and ignorance of current American policy from what I would term a liberal perspective.
Among the pearls in his piece are the following
“The Bush administration has marched into Iraq proclaiming the best of intentions but the appearance is different. Napoleon on invading Egypt proclaimed, “I have come to restore you your rights.” General Maude, commander of the British forces in Baghdad in 1918, declared, “Our armies do not come into your cities as conquerors but as liberators.” We should remember that the anti-British rising began in Falluja. Rumsfeld said much the same [as these predecessors] in 2003.”
And
‘The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap that it will be difficult to escape from with dignity and honor.” That was a comment by T. E. Lawrence in August 1920 on the previous effort to carry out regime change in Iraq. It could just as well be said today.’
Regards
Gary
June 30, 2004 | Unknown
On Empire – something to read and ponder over
June 30, 2004 | Unknown
Replying to Graham on Iraq – long
Gary,
You say “However I will not from behind my lap top lecture those who seek to resist violence with violence,” but that is in fact what you are doing. The US, British and Australians resist violence with violence and you condemn them, even though this is done more closely in accordance with the laws than any previous conflict I can think of.
Graham Please give us a break here! Who invaded whom? Nobody now blames Iraq for 9/11. No one now believes that Iraq had was poised to destroy Britain in 45 minutes. The Coalition of the Willing attacked Iraq. The Iraqis have resisted. I will not lecture them on how they should conduct that resistance. But I favour non-violence and will never advocate violence.
Yet you accept as legitimate the actions of people who deliberately target civilians with violence in cowardly violation of any laws I am aware of or ethics and morality I would accept as legitimitate.
Repeat. I advocate non-violence. But as for cowardly I think you should address that charge to your commander in chief and the secretary for war. Both Bush and Rumsfeld had their chances to fight for their country but have preferred to send others to their death.
BTW check out the statistics for deaths among the resistance, and then ask yourself how could these people be described as cowardly. The al-Mahdi army lost about 1500 men, yet they still came on to take on the tanks, the helicopters, the planes etc etc. I would steer away from the cowardly argument if I were you.
Graham says: In this debate you are the conservative with quaint old-fashioned ideas. You are using tools of political analysis developed by Marxists in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. They weren’t particularly good tools for the most part then, and they work even less well now that the world has moved on.
Gary sighs: Please Graham you can do better than this. BTW what in the name of god’s mother is new about liberalism? Marxism originated in the 19th century but then so did liberalism! Read these brilliant passages from the Manifesto. Never have the inner dynamics of capitalism been so accurately or stylishly described.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
As for old fashioned ideas, my current theoretical interests include the work of Duns Scotus! I hate it, Graham, when someone pours excrement on a thinker because he is not contemporary. I try to teach my students to read everything and to look for ideas everywhere.
Graham says:
The most dangerous threat to the world isn’t so-called American Imperialism (which empire exactly do they run, they’re really just a big head office town?) but the readiness of human beings to enslave themselves to utopian ideas which run counter to human liberty, of which I’ll instance fundamentalist Islam as one, and communitarianism as another.
Gary sighs even sorer!
Graham, Graham and you think I am in a time warp! Zbigniew Brezinski recently poured scorn on the dangers of Fundamentalist Islam scare and rightly so. There is no such dangerous monolith with access to weapons of mass destruction and with the biggest and best equipped army in the whole world.
As for which Empire do they run? Well Graham they have troops in over 140 countries for a start. Recently in Washington there were seminars on the task of running the Empire.
Graham you really have to start reading more intelligent right wingers.
regards
Gary
June 30, 2004 | Graham
John Howard should sue – for all of us!
Should John Howard sue for defamation? I would, that’s if I were John Howard and had seen the site www.johnhowardlies.com. Alternatively, I might go to this site www.afternic.com/rcom.php?ref_id=2987 where I can make an anonymous offer to buy the URL.
On reflection, I’d sue for defamation, and you’d be entitled to ask why? Afterall, aren’t election campaigns always full of mudslinging and as a result, don’t courts take a very generous view of what constitutes defamation? If they didn’t election campaigns could drown under a sea of stopper writs. Probably just as well for the plaintiffs, as these actions are more likely to backfire on the suppressor rather than the aggressor.
In fact, I’d be absolutely shocked if the statement, “John Howard lies” wasn’t absolutely true. Afterall, the man’s human, and don’t we all lie, particularly if we’re in public office? So a defamation action might not even succeed. But that is not the point. It’s not the accusation that has got me angry, it’s the way it is being made.
Normally speaking in an election the people that make the accusations stand behind them.
In this case, when I did a search to find out who was the owner of this site I discovered, after contacting the webhosting company that it is “Anonymous”. Or that is the name Aaron gave to the owner when I rang the offices of Global Netsaver, the company that is listed as the owner, at 12:30 p.m. today on 1300 132 791.
It’s not good for democracy if people can make political accusations without revealing their name. The ’net offers some cloaking devices, like Aaron and Global Netsaver.
So, John Howard would be doing democracy a favour if he applied to a court so he could give all of us access to the names of the principals behind the site, and the only way I know that he could do that is to sue for defamation, in which case he’d have ground to ask a court to require Aaron to cough up the name of his client.
All this could make for some interesting case law. We already know from the Dow Corning case that publication of any web page for the purposes of defamation occurs when it is downloaded onto a computer, but we’re not sure (but I could stand to be corrected here) whether the court would find the ISP or webhost were also publishers.
It’s possible it could be more expensive for Global Netsavers to have done business with “Anonymous” than they might have thought. They wouldn’t be the only ones on the ’net to potentially be in this position. In fact, some people think that they are actually entitled to be anonymous on their websites!
Looks like the web is moving out of its age of political innocence. It’s a pity in one sense, but hopefully it means we’re ready for some more adult, transparent and enlightening eDemocracy.
June 30, 2004 | Jeff Wall
The non-Labor amalgamation cause suffers a setback.
WHEN I was at school we were taught almost as much about Canada – and other Commonwealth countries – as we were about Australia.
Times have changed, and I venture to suggest that most politicians here could not name the Canadian Prime Minister. One who no doubt can, and add the name of the Opposition Leader as well, is Queensland Nationals Leader, Lawrence Springborg.
Soon after the State Election, Mr Springborg rushed off to Canada to meet with the Leaders of the newly-merged Conservative Parties, in order to build the case for the merger of the National and Liberal Parties in Queensland.
Canadians voted in national elections on Monday, and the result is not good news for the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, or for Lawrence Springborg!
It is not good news for Canada’s opinion pollsters either – most of whom were wide of the mark in their final predictions.
The Liberal Government led by the rather boring Paul Martin has been re-elected, even though it will need the support of one of the smaller parties to govern.
The newly-united Conservatives made gains, but also lost ground in some of their traditional strongholds. But the Liberals won 135 seats to the Conservatives 99 and most Canadian commentators regard the outcome as a dissapointing one for the Conservatives (and for the pollsters).
About one third of Canadian Parliamentary seats are in Ontario, where the Liberals held 95 seats and the Conservatives just 4 seats in the last Parliament.
The newly united Tories had been hoping for 40 seats – given that its Leader spent 24 of the 36 campaign days in Ontario. They ended up winning 24 seats, ensuring the Liberals remained the largest Party in the Parliament, and in the only position to form a minority Government.
Of concern for the Conservatives is the fact that the vote for the merged party dropped by 8 per cent…….and only ended up with 14 seats more than the total count of the two former parties at the last election.
What does all this mean for Lawrence Springborg?
The case he had hoped would be overwhelmingly made out for the Queensland Nationals and Liberals to merge, and follow the “triumphant model” of the merged Canadian Conservatives has fallen very flat.
I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but what I do know is the Liberal Government struggled to overcome a scandal over favours for its business supporters, and a lacklustre and largely unknown Prime Minister who took office only last December.
The answer for the National and Liberal Parties in Queensland is to focus on being a constructive and responsible Opposition, and abandon the negative muck-raking evident in the last Session of Parliament.
Opposition is tough…….and the longer you are in Opposition the tougher its gets.
In any event, why on earth would the National Party want to merge with the faction-ridden Queensland Liberals? Do they really want Michael Johnson and Santo Santoro stacking their comfortable little rural branches – because that is what would happen if the Parties merged.
The other result would also be a breakaway “Country Party”………which under the optional preferential system would spell electoral disaster (something they are getting used to).
Thanks to Peter Beattie’s generosity, and lobbying by a number of people – myself included – when Rob Borbidge became Premier in 1996, Queensland has the best resourced Opposition in Australia.
Its about time the taxpayers of Queensland started getting some real value for their money!
June 29, 2004 | Graham
Iraq – the end of the beginning.
Some of the critical commentary on the war in Iraq seems to show the same lack of concern for human life that the accusers level at “warmongers” such as George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.
The AFR’s Geoffrey Barker described as hardline Howard’s June 4 speech to the Washington Press Club, where Howard said that there was no alternative but to stay the course in Iraq and to help the country become democratic. Others after hearing it described Howard as having become a “neo-con”.
But as Howard says in his speech – even if you disagreed with the war in the first place, what now is the alternative to seeing the situation through? The answer is another failed state, with yet more waste of human life, as well as the wasting of the lives that have already been lost. If we are not all “neo-cons” on this issue now (using it in the incorrect sense it is used above), then there is something wrong with our moral view of the world.
To want something other than peace and democracy (in whatever form the Iraqis choose) for Iraq either means that one does not believe in human rights, or at least the right of Iraqis to enjoy them; or that a desire to see the “neo-con” project fail is so overwhelming that no price is too great to pay as long as it fails.
I can see how someone might argue the latter, but I know of no-one who could do so with any consistency in argument. One could argue that we cannot afford anymore unilateral pre-emptive adventurism on the part of the USA, and that the loss of life entailed in a failure now of that adventurism is justified if it ensures it is less likely to occur in the future. But if one argued that, then one would fall into the same category as those who argued that while toppling Sadaam might cost lives it would ultimately save more than it cost.
Anyone who argued that there should be “no blood for oil”, or that the UN sanctions were wrong, simply because they caused some Iraqis to die, could not possibly advance that argument with any credibility. Yet I suspect that the attitude of some to the Iraq situation is shaped by that very argument, even if they are not prepared to verbalise it.
Instead they have their own version of WMD. Rather than talk about their desire that the experiment fail they accuse it of being something other than it is. So, they argue that the war was an act of imperialism and that the US, Britain, Australia and the rest are neo-colonialists; that they are only in it to rape the Iraqi economy; and that they massacre, torture and oppress the Iraqi people. As a result they demand that the now former occupying powers leave immediately, knowing full-well that the result will be mayhem for the Iraqi people.
One can only hope that this attitude will start to dissipate now that the Interim Iraqi Government has taken over, but I am not holding my breath. When the Iraqi Governing Council was first instituted there was widespread optimism amongst the populace – as measured by opinion polls. That same optimism is around at the moment. It is hard to see why. In essence, little has changed. Iraqis have some more say over their destiny, but through a government that was selected, not elected, and where the only stable coercive force is supplied by 140,000 US troops.
I am not saying that the situation hasn’t improved as a result of yesterday’s handover, just that the improvement is incremental not exponential – a course for tentative hope rather than optimism. At least the US appears to be learning about increments. The invasion was very exponential culminating in George Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” sign on the bridge of the USS Abraham Lincoln. This handover was very low key, and deliberately camouflaged so as to minimise the risk from insurgents.
And things have changed in substance. The UN and NATO are both now involved. The US cannot act unilaterally, although having the largest purse in the region it still has significant purchase. There is an Iraqi army and police force of sorts, and plans to enlist more. Some insurgents, such as Moqtada al-Sadr have decided to become part of the democratic process, giving hope that others may see the wisdom of involvement. So in terms of governance things have changed.
There must also be a greater confidence that fears that the US was only in the war to confiscate Iraqi assets or to set up a client state were only fears. Of course many will continue to run the line that this is all a sham, but that line will become increasingly difficult to run as it more and more becomes apparent that the war has not delivered the US control of Iraqi assets, such as oil. As a result there should be greater confidence in the independence of the government that is now in place.
Will the success of the Iraqi project lead to more adventurism and unilateralism? I doubt it. Politicians of this generation have received a lesson in the electoral dangers of attempting to police the world. The US has been stung, and will be more careful, or at least consultative, next time.
If it is successful, will we see more inteventions? I think so.
I was always agnostic on the question of whether the Iraq war would achieve the result that the US wanted. If the intervention had been proposed 10 years ago, I would have vehemently opposed it. However, something intervened to change my mind, and that was the 1999 intervention by NATO in the former Yugoslavia. That intervention was “illegal” in the sense that it did not have UN approval. It also resulted in the commission of war crimes – the bombing of Belgrade for example. But in the end, and despite the refusal of NATO to put many men on the ground, the intervention was successful.
Since then there have been democratic elections in the states that once constituted Yugoslavia; and even though foreign soldiers are still stationed there, no-one levels any accusations of neo-colonialism against them. Indeed, last weekend Serbia had an election for President which was won by liberal (in my sense of the word) reformer, Boris Tadic, beating an ultra-nationalist who wanted a return to the “good old days”. Democracy appears to be working in an area that was very recently riven by insurgents and state-sponsored terror, just as Iraq was.
If it had not been for the experience of Yugoslavia, I doubt whether the US would have gone into Iraq. Now it has gone into Iraq, if Iraq successfully transforms, then it shows that at least a space can be cleared by force for democracy and good government to grow, even if they cannot be imposed by force.
The challenge for the near future is how we organise the world so that the coercive powers of the world’s one super power can be harnessed in a way which is less divisive. Yesterday was the end of the beginning for Iraq. It is also another incremental step along the way to modernity by the whole world. Whatever our original stance on the war, we should wish the Interim Government well.
June 28, 2004 | Unknown
Bathos in Iraq
So the Occupation has ended in a secret ceremony! What a bathetic joke. I was tempted to write ‘So that is how the Occupation ends, not with a bang but a whimper.’ Except of course that the Occupation has not ended and there will certainly be a lot of bangs within the next day or two.
I have been watching Idiot Downer babbling on attempting to put a brave face on what is transparently a disaster for the Coalition of the Willing and their Iraqi mates. The plans to fly in Bush from Istanbul to do a repeat of Mission Accom-plished had to be abandoned. Such is the reality of the failed state that America and Britain and Australia have labored to produce.
Allawi is Prime Minister only as long as he hides behind the American Army. Nevertheless the shameless spinmeisters are at work. Despite all the empirical evidence, Burns of the New York Times has just been on the ABC assuring us that we could be surprised by Allawi and that he was a tough guy.
I heard such talk long years ago when Idi Amin took over Uganda. I heard it also when Mobutu took over in the Congo.
Burns and his fellow propagandists hope that the strong man has arrived who will reconstuct Iraq in the West’s image.
Allawi is of course, as an ex-employee of the CIA, very willing indeed. But he only stays in “power” because al Jafaari and al Sistani figure that they can take him out in elections in January. Should he be tempted to strongman his way out of the commitment to elections then all hell will break loose, and the Occupation fiasco will finally be brought to an end.
In the mean time everything that America does makes things worse. And the farce of putting Allawi up front in a panic driven move is yet another instance. Though I suppose it is arguable that the flight of Bremer – one very stupid American – is a step forward.
It ws a relief here amidst all the lies and distortions pumped out by Australian conservatives to read at debka.com, an honest analysis of the crisis. For the Israeli right the “secretive” handover, signaled a defeat for the Americans and a victory for the resistance.
The conclusions of the Deka correspondents are worth quoting in full:-
“An important point to be considered now is this: in what light does the change of the sovereignty handover date present the US president in the Middle East and key nations like Pakistan and Afghanistan where the global war on terror is being fought? And what signals does it send to the Islamic terrorists? According to our sources around the region, it is seen as a loss of ground for US military and political positions in Iraq and the war on terror. America’s enemies will be encouraged to redouble their pressure on US troops and their coalition partners in the hope of putting them to flight. ”
Sooner or later the enormity of the disaster that is Iraq will penetrate even the consciousness of Australians. Then there will be an electoral reckoning with Howard and his fellow sycophants.
regards
Gary
June 28, 2004 | Unknown
On a sense of persepctive
The sight of yet another hostage, marine Hassoun Wassef Ali, in Iraq being prepared for the grisly ritual of arraignment, soon to be refused demands, and then the brutal beheading – all delivered to us on the web – is truly and deeply sickening. It is easy to refuse this horror and to a certain extent one must, but I think this reflex should be resisted. We need at least to think through and beyond the ritual condemnations of those who placed the soldier in harm’s way. For a start hostage takers only achieve their ostensible demands when the hostage is important to the rich and the powerful. None of the victims so far have fitted that criterion. I used the word ‘ostensible’ because the other, and perhaps real, purpose of hostage taking is to spread terror, and in that it is extremely effective.
However I want to emphasise the ordinariness of many of the victims. It is that very ordinariness which should call forth our sympathy. It should also call forth anger at the policy makers behind the wretched Iraqi fiasco.
I want also to draw attention to another aspect of the hostage affair. The day after Paul Johnson was beheaded in Saudi Arabia, the media was full of horror and condemnation and rightly so. But not a word was said about the next day, when the mighty USA bombed Fallujah killing 22 Iraqis, including women and children. Kimmit the Butcher claimed that his air force had hit a ‘safe house’1; used by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He had advanced a similar claim when his men bombed an Iraqi wedding, slaughtering many innocent people. Most of these same people would have died deaths every bit as horrible as that inflicted by the knife wielders.
But there has not been a single condemnation from those horrified by the murders of the hostages. It is seemingly alright to bomb and kill hundreds of Iraqis, but the beheading of a single citizen from the West gives rise to anger and outrage in abundance.
I am reminded here of Gilo Pontecorvo’s film Battle of Algiers. In the script, by Franco Solinas, we get the following scene. A leader of the FLN has been arrested and put on show at a press conference. It is expected that this would discredit the resistance. He is asked specifically about the Resistance’s tactic of placing bombs in restaurants.
[Ben M’Hidi is standing in front of the journalists with handcuffs on his wrists and ankles. He is without a tie. He is smiling a little, his glance ironical. There are two paras behind him with machine guns ready. The picture is still for an instant; Ben M’Hidi’s smile is steady, so too his eyes, his entire face. Flashes, clicking of cameras.
1ST JOURNALIST
Mr. Ben M’Hidi … Don’t you think it is a bit cowardly to use your women’s baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people? Ben M’Hidi shrugs his shoulders in his usual manner and smiles a little.
BEN M’HIDI
And doesn’t it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on unarmed villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.]
A world, which has compromised its morality by supporting US terror, employing the latest technology, has no right to complain of Arab terrorists, if they say, ‘Give us the planes and we will give you the knives’.
regards
Gary
June 28, 2004 | Graham
Housing Summit just gets more unaffordable
Just as I predicted the National Summit on Housing Affordability is developing into an eyrie of bird-brained schemes that will make the affordability “problem” worse, not better. It is also encouraging others to come out independently with their own deficient proposals.
Yesterday’s Sunday Mail carried a story headlined “Rent crisis hits elderly – Poverty and discrimination spoil later years”. It is written almost entirely using quotes from Tracey Douglas who is chairwoman of Queensland Shelter. It claims that there is a crisis in housing for the elderly, because of a “spiralling rent crisis”.
According to The Sunday Mail Ms Douglas believes that the problem can be solved by “a sliding scale of rent assistance so higher payments are available in areas where rents are increasing more quickly”.
Well, it might solve the problem, but not for long, and it would damage the rental and house buying prospects of those not elderly or on social welfare at the same time putting more money into the pockets of landlords and property owners.
If you subsidise people to buy a product and that product is in short supply then they will simply pass your subsidy through to the seller. If there really is a rental crisis – and I have doubts about that on the figures that I have seen – then a sliding scale will simply add fuel to the fire and set a new “affordable” standard for rental levels – affordable only because the government is paying for it.
Worse still, if that subsidy is set to increase rental assistance more in areas where rents are rising more quickly, then it will tend to accentuate that trend in those areas.
The ACTU has an even more cock-eyed approach to the “problem”. They don’t like the system of rental assistance – first advanced by Prime Minister Keating and his housing Minister Brian Howe in the early 90s – and want all the money redirected towards public housing.
As this is the third millennium and nanny state solutions are out of favour, this is dressed up as a public private partnership initiative. The proposal is to set-up a public housing trust into which superannuation funds would put some money as well as governments, including all that money now spent on rent assistance.
John Sutton, the proponent, is quoted in The Courier Mail as saying that rent assistance “does little more than subsidise the private rental market.” So, who exactly owns the superannuation funds that he envisages becoming the recipients under his scheme? They’re not private?
Perhaps he owes this lapse in logic to the fact that many superfunds have union board members, so he may see super as being the investment arm of the union movement. He is certainly treating it as though it is the investment arm of the social security department. Under his proposal many superfunds would be pressured into investing in the trust, but this would in fact put at risk the savings and retirement of millions of Australian workers – workers who Mr Sutton apparently represents.
There has never been any significant direct investment in housing in Australia by superannuation funds for one simple reason – they can get better returns elsewhere. Housing makes sense to small investors for two reasons. Because they are small they have limited investment opportunities, so they are forced to crowd into investments with less generous returns than those available to large scale investors. And because they can heavily gear their investment, small capital gains can be magnified into large ones.
To understand this last point, if I borrow 80% of a $200,000 house then I have only applied $40,000 to the purchase. If it appreciates only 4% per year (a pretty meagre appreciation) I realize $8,000 each year, and after a bit less than 5 years (allowing for the compounding effect and ignoring any interest shortfalls) I have doubled my money.
The problem from a superannuation fund’s point of view is that it can’t gear, and therefore 4% will never be more than 4%. As the job of superfunds is to give their investors the best returns possible, they ignore the housing sector as a potential investment. If they are coerced into investing in it their returns will be lower, and the retirement incomes of those who rely on them will be lower too.
Another nasty side effect of this plan is that anyone currently receiving Commonwealth Rent Assistance will be forced into this new form of public housing because they won’t be able to rent elsewhere. That means that the owners of these properties are suddenly going to own property they can’t easily rent – an investment disaster – and that their tenants will be forced out of housing that in most cases they find satisfactory into institutionalised accommodation – a social disaster.
It appears to be human nature to want to find complicated solutions to simple problems. I’ll be keeping an eye out on the summit this week to see what other counterproductive schemes it comes up with.
June 27, 2004 | Unknown
Happy Anniversary Pete
Yesterday marked the sixth anniversary of the Beattie Government’s ascension to power (gee, it only felt like five years and three hundred and sixty-five days). There would be few people who would argue that Beattie hasn’t be a good leader; his ability to meld populism with socially progressive policies has been quite skilful. Although some claim he has wasted a large majority and could have done more, I suspect most Queenslanders are happy with his leadership. In honour of the occasion here is my, no doubt historically inaccurate, tribute to the man someone has called “the greatest Premier we’ve ever had” (Beattie 2004 – no just joshing, he didn’t say that).
It has been argued that former Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen was the “Father”, or “Pop” for the young ‘uns, of Queensland. Joh’s parenting style was of the “children should be seen and not heard” variety and managed to inspire demonstrations, membership of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and cries of “fascist” from his more rebellious offspring. “Big Daddy” was known to punish ‘delinquency’ with the aid of baton-wielding police, name calling, and investigations by the Special Branch.
“Tell me what Uncle “Shady” wrote about me or I will move to a hippy commune”, perennial first-year University of Queensland Arts student Chris demanded sometime in the early 1970s.
“Now, don’t you worry about that you young pinko commo. Do as you are told before you turn into one of those homosexual weirdo type people from the South”, is my translation of Joh’s reply.
“It’s totally not fair. I hate you!” retorted Chris before being led away by the coercive arm of the state.
In contrast to Bjelke-Petersen’s tyrannical old fart leadership, the Premier since 1998, Peter Beattie, is Queensland’s ‘cool’ baby-boomer parent who acknowledges same-sex partners, promotes the advancement of women in the judiciary, parliament and the public service and gets cheers from ‘greenies’ (sometimes) for his stance on tree clearing.
Indeed, you can tell your smug relatives from New South Wales, who might be members of the Labor Party, that our Premier helped get rid of the Walking with Cavemen extras that used to run the ALP in this state more than twenty years ago.
Once all a woman joining the ALP in Queensland could wish for was a decent teapot and the chance to meet a monosyllabic ‘mate’ in a blue singlet and King Gee shorts. But recently ‘progressive Pete’ sat the boys in a circle and explained to them why they had to let the girls play too.
Today women make up 23 of the 63 Labor parliamentarians and were around 1/3 of the party’s candidates at the 2001 election. The word ”Sheila” is now only used when the Premier is criticising American cultural imperialism and not in caucus, state conference, branch meetings, parliamentary question time or the Party’s women’s policy.
However, before you invite your Sydney chums for a visit you should know that ‘Papa Pete’ sometimes brings out his Queensland made safari suit for special occasions. Before your guests have the chance to ask, “where do you live?” over the hors d’oeuvres they may find themselves being told, “I am not being party political here; I am speaking for all Queenslanders”.
“Queensland is the greatest state in the greatest nation on the earth”, Beattie might declare to no one in particular during a discussion about whether Jesus preferred blokes.
“I was born in Sydney but I had the good judgement to leave”, Beattie will possibly tactlessly add (please note the Premier made this remark after a State of Origin series loss and thus it probably reflected temporary, and understandable, bitterness on his part).
“Bravo for including transgender people in the reforms to Queensland’s anti-discrimination laws”, would be the interruption from the fashionably late Michael from Manly.
“Queensland (is) the most desirable place to visit in the world, Michael”.
Fortunately, when the Premier teams his safari suit with Armani accessories he creates a singularly appealing ensemble that would clash like checks and tartan on most political leaders. Most of us are only interested in specific items of attire anyway and are quite content if he just achieves some sartorial balance.
It is unlikely any get-up would please the sort of constituent who thinks “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is the height of poetry or who prefers ideological purity and political impotence but his individual leadership style is still in vogue with most voters. Of course, only time will tell how long Peter Beattie will remain on the political What’s In list.
Note
“Shady” was a dodgy police officer turned crooked politician and should not be confused with the rap artist who shares almost the same nickname and about the same amount of talent.
June 24, 2004 | Unknown
True Love Waits or Just Waiting for the Fall?
President George W Bush’s faith makes it predictable that sex education in American schools is increasingly about teaching teenagers not to do it, rather than how they should protect themselves when they do.
While public promises to abstain prior to the honeymoon gives pleasure to fundamentalist Christians, a Columbia University study cited recently in The Weekend Australian Magazine (June 19-20 2004) found only 12% of the 2.4 million adolescents who’d made such a vow kept it (well, obviously they didn’t survey 2.4 million teens, but that is how many have taken the “pledge”, so one can extrapolate that the percentage of failed “pledgers” in the wider “pledge” community would be equivalent to that amongst those surveyed).
This makes these pledges even less successful than the ones taken at that other often religiously motivated ceremony involving rings.
Unfortunately, adolescents weighed down with the anti-sex message of groups like True Love Waits (TLW) aren’t likely to be carrying condoms in their pockets or knowledge in their noggins when they succumb, although they might be wearing a TLW ring or other assorted jewellery available from $24.95 to $249.95.
As the Magazine states with regard to the study’s findings, “(they) were more likely to have unsafe sex”.
Interestingly, TLW acknowledges the study on its website (www.southernbaptistsrefrain.com), but quickly dispenses with it by saying others, like parents and churches; should offer support to abstaining youths, as they do.
The site means you need look no further for evidence “purity pledges” fail: more than one contributor has repledged; that is, lost their virginity before committing to celibacy, again (all they need to do is turn thirty and be single; celibacy is then thrust upon you, whether Christian, Jew, atheist, pagan or whatever).
The “guilt”, “pain” and sanctimonious and oversimplified thinking guiding these “pledgers” might be familiar to many people raised in earlier times. Advice from the sickly-sweet counsellors such as “another good boundary is not to lie down together on the floor, couch, bed – anywhere” possibly also rings a bell, and reminds of a lack of ring-a-ding-ding.
In some ways, TLW recalls old cautionary movies or episodes of The Simpsons where such films are so skilfully sent up.
There’s a moment of unintended mirth when the reader realises one pair of “pledgers” don’t live on the same continent. Any humour is soon erased by Asha, who believes “this is special to me because I’m not great at a lot of things. I don’t sing, I can’t play sports and I’m not the smartest person. This is something that not all girls can do (that I know)”.
It wouldn’t be the first time a young woman with limited confidence has found some sense of self from what she doesn’t do rather than what she does and by comparing her actions to those of other girls.
Alas, as any dieter knows, when you deny yourself something, you don’t stop thinking about it until you get it, either by the truckload or with the same amount of shame you’d have if you did.
Thomas Keneally put it more eloquently when reflecting on his days in a seminary in The Best Australian Essays 2002, “…sexuality is always there – the more assiduously repressed, the more likely to cause psychic mayhem”.
Whereas Keneally idealised the Catholic Church, these youthful Protestants possess such an unrealistic view of wedding nights and the value of virginity as a “gift” for spouses, they are surely in for one heck of a “fall”, if not the type that comes from having intercourse without getting Jesus’ okay first.
Accepting that extreme religious devotion will always exist, perhaps the most troubling thing about TLW and its unsuccessful program is that it has been embraced, albeit with no “prolonged kissing” or “looking at…pictures that feed sexual thoughts”, by the US Government to the tune of $135 million in Australian dollars, with more to come.
We are left wondering how much more US taxpayers are having to fork out for the effects of unsafe youthful indiscretions than needs to be the case so the religious right can continue to believe young ‘uns are “sexually pure” and what they deem to be morally upright.