Susan Prior, Editor of eJournal On Line Opinion www.onlineopinion.com.au is runner-up in the Sydney Freelance Writers’ Good Editor Awards.
Chief Editor and Founder of On Line Opinion, Graham Young congratulated Susan.
“In a world where editors are notorious for only returning calls if you have copy they desperately want, Susan stands out not just for her competence in editing and ability to understand context, but in her unfailing courteousness.â€
Mr Young said that her accomplishment was also a sign that online media were now regarded as the equal of mainstream media, which is an achievement for On Line Opinion under her editorship.
“Susan has been with the journal for the last five years and edits and publishes, mostly single-handedly, six to seven op-ed articles every working day – an effort that tallies around 7,500 articles in total.
“She is without doubt the most productive editor in the country.â€
Mr Young said that On Line Opinion was Susan’s first full-time job in journalism.
“She started out with OLO as an intern while doing a communications degree at the University of Southern Queensland in Toowoomba, where she lived.
“I knew that she had determination and would do well from the beginning.
“She was a single mother with two young girls, drove 256km each day she came into our office, and when she managed a summer holiday home to Britain, she also organised a position as an intern with the BBC.â€
For further information contact Graham Young 0411 104 801
June 30, 2009 | Graham
On Line Opinion editor runner-up in 2009 Good Editor Awards
June 24, 2009 | Ronda Jambe
The Grech that stole Christmas
The Opposition must have thought Christmas had come early when the Utegate scandal broke. It looked like they had delivered a gift to themselves. Sadly, it has all gone belly up, now that it has been revealed that Treasury official Godwin Grech, head of the OzCar program, might have had more at stake than a dodgy memory over a mythological email. Thinking that comments from someone who once worked for Joe Hockey might escape the connection seems like a silly strategy from the Liberals, who really should be more sophisticated.
The whole affair shines a bit of light on the passions and follies that lie behind all those cardigans. Public servants, chatting merrily as they march to lunch, somberly dressed in fashionable black, can comfortably camouflage their secret lives.
Partisanship in the senior (or even the lower) ranks of the public service is not news. Michael Pusey’s book Economic Rationalism in Canberra (1991) showed the start of the erosion of ‘frank and fearless’ advice. My own PhD looked at Treasury’s twin, Finance, and quoted insiders saying ‘fear and favour’ had replaced earlier standards.
Australia is not Iran, we don’t line the streets angrily over elections gone sour. But Canberra is one place where political awareness and activism are more likely to warm the blood, if only because the weather is so cold. But partisanship, or just legal forms of activism that might tread on the toes of official policy, is a widespread form of sport for the well-mannered public servants of Canberra.
Please keep it a secret, but many public servants are so bored that they have nothing better to do than make mischief, organise rallies, or run a small business from their snug (well heated) desktops. A senior from one of my public service impersonator gigs, declared that he had finally worked out they pay him just to be there. Some do their due diligence during the day, then go home and write songs with political and anarchic themes. As editor of a national newsletter emanating quarterly from the PM’s department, I made sure environmental stories got a good look in.
A friend, recently recruited from interstate, is finding the pace just a bit too slow. When you do the assigned task in 1 hour, what do you do for the other 7? Well, wait for the approval, the comments, the changes in direction, and the general lethargy to move along. And you look for other jobs, as is said friend. Others, like myself and countless others, live in hope that our agitation to actually achieve something will make us unpopular enough to be offered a package. Worked for me. The smart ones come back as contractors or consultants, making twice as much. Haven’t cracked that one yet.
So maybe the modest Godwin Grech has been doing his civic duty, or perhaps he just bores easily.
June 16, 2009 | Graham
Vale Costello. Where is Plan B?
I’ve only met Peter Costello once, but over the last 20 or so years I’ve had a very problematic relationship with him.
On one level he was a very competent cabinet minister. If Australia is weathering the international financial storms better than most, part of the credit goes to Costello. The government paid back its debt, the economy was run steadily and business’s share of the economy grew. As a result Australia moved up the wealth rankings.
He was also a consummate performer in the parliament, not in the nasty snarky way of a Keating or a Gillard, but more in the civilised way of a Killen or a Daly. He could deliver a line well, and forcefully, normally drawing blood and raising a smile.
Like Keating he could effortlessly change the direction of debate. This is a rare skill in a politician, and his recent small interventions in debate reminded me that no-one else in this parliament has it.
Then there was the other level – his leadership ambitions and how he pursued them.
Our polling showed that Australians didn’t like the idea of Peter Costello PM. His “sneer” suggested superciliousness and a sense of superiority. And there was also a sense of superficiality. That he had the barrister’s skill of putting on the gravitas with the wig and being right across the brief in the court room, but once he stepped outside becoming completely disengaged.
If you want to be Prime Minister you have to be entirely engaged with the task, not just during working hours.
Had he been prepared to take on John Howard for the leadership and force the issue, as others including Keating, Peacock and Fraser before him had been prepared to do, the public’s attitude might have changed. So might mine.
But while Costello may have been a 9-5 man, his urgers and backers weren’t. Another reason that I had little time for Costello was the trouble that his supporters caused in the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party. The corruption in the Young Liberal Movement with rorting and branch stacking, the 1998 state election result and the loss of Ryan in the 2001 byelection can all be laid at their feet, the root cause of them all being an unsuccessful attempt to boost Costello’s chances by taking control of the organisation. In the process of taking control they lost control of more valuable things, and ultimately had no effect on the leadership.
However, times move on, and watching Costello on the back bench, and assuming that he wanted to be leader I thought he might be worth giving a go, if, as seems likely, Turnbull loses the next election. If that was his strategy, then he was showing some “mongrel” by taking himself off the front-bench and waiting for the opportunity. But alas, I was wrong. Costellos was still playing Hamlet, his new website and occasional cameos just distractions from what now seems obvious to be the only plausible denoument.
Which leaves the Liberal Party in a difficult position.
Much of this morning’s commentary suggests that the Liberal Party will be better off without an alternative leader. This is nonsense. It may be better for Malcolm Turnbull, but only in the short-term, and it will be to the detriment of all. Every party needs a succession plan. The Liberal Party’s biggest problem is that it hasn’t had a proper one in around 16 years.
When Howard became leader it was out of despair. He was the last man standing after the “dream team” of Downer and Costello knocked itself out. Howard himself would probably not have stayed as long in the job as he did if Costello had, at that time, really presented as an alternative, and been prepared to do what was necessary.
Now, with Costello gone, there is no Plan B. Rudd has Julia Gillard but Turnbull has no-one. If Turnbull prevails, and in my view that means being prepared to lose the next election and run again at the one after that, the risk will not have mattered. But if Turnbull isn’t committed for the long haul or otherwise fails the test, the Liberals have no-one to fall back on. That is not a good position for the country to find itself in.
And while having a strong rival can distract a leader, it has the advantage of making that leader more responsive to demands from within their own party. There are always two fronts in an election – the front where you win new voters, and the one where you retain the ones you already have. A leader who is secure can afford to ignore the faithful more easily which can actually rob them of the commitment from supporters in the community that they need to win. By pushing a harder line from the back bench on issues like industrial relations and climate change in the context of possible leadership ambitions, Costello was actually doing Turnbull a favour.
As a result of Costello’s retirement Victorians now have three (and if my mail is correct possibly four) preselections in safe seats. His departure should concentrate the minds of the preselectors even more than usual. Whoever they preselect has the opportunity to fill a very large void.
June 15, 2009 | Graham
Bikies and bikers
Cross posted from What the people want
Proposed and actual state government legislation to specifically criminalise
particular bikie gangs and membership of them provides an interesting insight
into the law and order debate.
The first table measures general concern about bikie gangs.
| Percentage concerned about bikie gangs | ||||
| Greens | Labor | Liberal | Total | |
| Very concerned | 1% | 6% | 16% | 9% |
| Concerned | 11% | 22% | 33% | 25% |
| Neither concerned nor unconcerned | 24% | 28% | 20% | 24% |
| Unconcerned | 31% | 23% | 19% | 23% |
| Very unconcerned | 32% | 21% | 12% | 19% |
| Unsure | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| Grand Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Total concerned | 13% | 27% | 49% | 34% |
| Total unconcerned | 64% | 44% | 32% | 42% |
| Net concerned | -51% | -17% | 17% | -8% |
Concern tends to split along party lines, which is interesting as the
proponents of these measures are generally Labor governments. Overall, using a
sample where voting intentions have been normalised to mirror those in the
general community, there is "on-balance" lack of concern to the issue
of bikie gangs. With the figures for both "concerned" and "unconcerned" below
fifty percent and 24% in the middle, this is not a "barbeque stopper".
The table below shows that when considering legislation the overall
percentages don’t change much, but that the intensity of support for the
legislation is higher than concern about bikies would suggest. So, while
only16% of Liberal voters are "very concerned" about bikies, 27% "strongly
agree" with the legislation. The 11 percentage point difference appears to
be made-up from the ranks of those who are concerned, meaning 49% overall
support the legislation.
|
Percentage concerned about bikie legislation |
||||
| Greens | Labor | Liberal | Total | |
| Strongly agree | 3% | 13% | 27% | 17% |
| Agree | 10% | 17% | 22% | 18% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 10% | 21% | 19% | 19% |
| Disagree | 27% | 23% | 17% | 21% |
| Strongly disagree | 49% | 24% | 16% | 24% |
| Unsure | 0% | 2% | 0% | 1% |
| Grand Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Total agree | 14% | 29% | 49% | 35% |
| Total disagree | 76% | 47% | 32% | 45% |
| Net agree | -63% | -18% | 16% | -10% |
What is shaping different attitudes on this issue?
There seems to be a fundamental split between those who take a utilitarian
approach and those who take an in principle stand.The utilitarian approach can
be summed up as "Bikies are a small part of crime, and their violence is mainly
directed at each other. They don’t directly affect me. This issue is a beat-up
by the media and politicians. Current laws are being used to prosecute them,
therefore what we have is working, and the problem is not so great that we need
to consider curtailing civil liberties." The in principle approach is "Bikies
call themselves ‘outlaws’ and commit crime. We must combat crime wherever we
can, and someone who consciously puts themselves outside the law does not
deserve the protection of it. The government should do whatever it must to bring
them into line, and as they are a fringe group any curtailment of civil
liberties will have little or no effect on me."
A common theme appears to be the low regard in which bikies are generally
held by both supporters and opponents which probably explains why this is not a
"hot" issue.
The Leximancer Map below graphically shows how the various attitudes mesh
(click on it for a full-size version).
Concepts associated with those who strongly agree with the legislation are "bikie",
"action" and "order". "Order" is "Law and Order". This is an uncompromising ,
take no prisoners approach – act now: special legislation against gangs for law
and order. Underlying it is an almost visceral dislike of bikie gangs.
Concepts associated with those who strongly disagree are "current" and
"rights". They believe that current laws are adequate and working, and they are
concerned about civil liberties. They believe this is a "knee-jerk" reaction.
The theme "criminal" is more or less common to all groups. It is concern about
the threat to "people" a belief that "it’s time" or a belief that "existing
laws" are good enough to "deal" with bikies.
Verbatims
"The media
highlights and exaggerates the reality and potential for criminal activity from
theses groups. A recent surge in charges against bikies shows that existing
policing policy and legislation is more than adequate. I am worried about the
broader civil libertarian aspects of the proposed moves to criminalize
association."
"Bickie
gangs have been around for decades doing what they do. More people die jumping
from the Westgate bridge why is this not being attended to by the government."
"Bikie
gangs seem to be more of a threat to each other than to members of the public
who are not within their social sphere."
"There
are criminals in bikie gangs and out of bikie gangs. I am a motorcyclist in some
riding clubs but am not in a criminal club. SO why punish me?"
"bikie
activity just driven more undergound, same problems."
"It’s
a furphy. White collar criminals damage our society much more intensely, more
pervasively, more insidiously."
"It
is exaggerated. Im more concerned with drunk and agressive drivers and raod
rage"
"It’s
a headline-grabber, nothing more. We already have criminal laws that are
entirely adequate; to see laws made to target a specific group makes me uneasy."
"Criminal
Bikie gangs have been a blight on society for ages and need to be cracked down
on"
"Drugs,
thugs & silly buggers with firearms need putting down"
"I
think the bikies liberties are being violted also but find them very dangerous."
"Any
organised crime is of concern. Some bickie gangs need the attention that is
being given them but there are also other areas of organised crime that could do
with this attention. Beating up the bickies will not solve all the community law
and order problems."
"In
a free land, misfits have freedom and abuse it. people who live off others by
the proceeds of crime deserve stiff penalties."
"I
am not frightfully concerned but generally I don’t think we clearly define our
expectations of civilised behaviour and as our country gets bigger in terms of
population we really have to clearly set limits and parameters not just for
outlaw bikie gangs but in a whole lot of ways e.g. drinking and gambling
legislation etc."
"These
people decribe themselves as ""outlaw"" motor cycle groups. Let them be treated
as such."
"I
think law and order needs to be maintained across all demographics of society.
We do not want Australians living in fear for their safety."
"I
believe much of the organised crime and drug distribution networks is
facilitated through bikie gangs and don’t understand why a group designated as
‘outlaw’ is able to exist at all, other than by soft justice and hamstrung law
enforcement authorities and other government bodies."
June 15, 2009 | Ronda Jambe
We are the Illuminati
Or at least I think I am. Someone on the ABC was discussing them, and it sparked my curiosity, but I only caught bits at the end. So I Googled it. After discarding options like ‘the Illuminati on E-Bay’ , ‘Illuminati games’ and go-nowhere chats, I was not much wiser and lost interest. Still, I like the term, and in what must be a classic early 21c approach, I redefined it for my own purposes. Isn’t that the way the world works? It helped that we’d watched the Luminous display on the Sydney Uproar House from the roof of a hotel in the Rocks Saturday night. I saw the light.
So here we are, totally Illumined, dear reader. It also helped that the next morning we found ourselves in intense dialogue with old friends about CO2 emissions. Although one of these old pals now seems to be in cahoots with the coal industry, we were able to agree on the following:
a) there is a CO2 problem for the global climate, Senator Fielding notwithstanding. (Can someone please give him an Idiot’s Guide to the Scientific Method?)
b) a projected peak for our species of 9 billion is probably about two times surplus to requirements, and
c) the government’s proposals for the CPRS are not going to work, if diminishing Australia’s emissions is the goal.
This friend also noted that nuclear isn’t the long term answer, as uranium is hardly a renewable energy source. In fact, global supplies of uranium will only last about 60 years at current rates of nuclear energy production. If you ramp it up, even less. He also doesn’t think we should stop exporting our better grades of coal, as the Chinese coal is much dirtier. And there the illumination faded, as we couldn’t work out what path would work.
But Paul Gilding contributed to the conversation, via Background Briefing. He says sell the coal to all takers, but put a condition on it: no emissions to result from the burning. That would allow both cake and eating, and create a large industry for carbon sequestration. Is this the answer? A carbon tax seems to be the preferred approach by green groups and The Economist. Clearly, once the dirtier emissions are fully taxed (not subsided by giveaways, as the coal lobby insists) then renewables and efficiency come to the fore, where they should be.
Gilding also said not to worry about changing the endless growth paradigm, as it will fade anyway. The end of abundant, cheap oil will do that. But another Illuminated friend has looked at the sustainable economy models and says that taking away the entrepreneurial/get rich motives will leave us stagnating. This is a variation on the Camille Paglia ‘the world needs testosterone to progress’ hypothesis.
But I’m female, affluent and, according to my long-suffering partner, moderately eristic. Gilding also noted that we have to realise we are the people who need to change, not some abtract malevolent coal-loving bad guys. Sometimes the most important things are those we perceive weakly, like shadows in a cave. More light needed.
June 08, 2009 | Ronda Jambe
Everything I need to know I learned at the movies
Truth is, there isn’t that much I really want to know. Not as a proportion of what is out there. My filters cut in last week when a somewhat misleadingly titled lecture provided more details on the aerodynamics of wind generators than I care to consider, so we crept off before the questions.
The literate, educated and affluent have access to near infinite respositiories of information, but only small bits seep in and become part of what we really know. This is the dilemma of epistemology in an information soaked age. But movies are an endless treasure box of what we could know, what we might want to have, experience, or run from.
Movies are the shadows in the cave, the reflections of what we collectively know, individually treasure, and secretly dream. They also call forth our nightmares. Thelma and Louise were Everywoman, but not the ones we know, we all thought thankfully as we watched. The Virgin Suicides were likewise far outside most experiences of puberty, although some of us have been lucky enough to have met cads and lads like that. But even extreme chick flicks reverberate from real life.
And exaggerate it, to offer the world not as it is, but to remind us how we really want it to be. Conflict, redemption. Junkies get better, and show up looking like Cate Blanchett, Abby Cornish, and Ann Hathaway. But bad guys die badly, at least until recently.
Nowadays bad guys are more likely to slip away, like the arms dealer in Lord of War, or more currently, the bankers in The International. Family cannot be allowed to betray, as Power and Glory made clear. When movies present realities that conflict with received wisdom, they tell us that values are in flux. More and more, they nibble at the edges of change, as the above 3, and many more, including Blood Diamond. Biopics and semi-biopics give us more or less accurate portrayals of more or less real people, and are often inspiring, like Ray.
And that’s just some of what movies tell me – their impact on other cultures, and their movies impact on ours expands the phase space of vicarious learning enormously. Is there anything that can’t be told through film?
How can one separate the actors, directors, musicians and all the rest from their product? Without becoming a stalker or a autograph hound, it is still possible to develop an imaginary dialogue with lots of favorites: who wouldn’t want to talk to Arnie about almost anything, or with Daryl Hannah about her work in Equador? Can anyone not feel warmth towards the rascally Jack Nicholson? People enter our lives through open pores. Even if we don’t know them personally, they can give us a glimpse of excellence or decadence seldom met on the street. They can frighten us and make us laugh at ourselves and our preoccupations. Didn’t Borat want us to feel embarassed as we howled at his antics?
The looniest extremes of the Coen brothers offer worlds that beguile and entertain, even as we shake our heads in astonishment. Beyond that, we marvel at the pure genius, the creative spirit and the enormous collaborative success each movie represents. From the sublime to the ridiculous, from Orson Wells to the most trite teen gore movie, we have to acknowledge the achievement of getting a movie made, just to tell us that story, in their way.
The movie is clearly the art form of our age, not least in sheer ubiquity. It embraces all else: vision, sound (next will be smell), all the technologies that define our civilisation, and all the manoeuvres that link Hollywood to worlds of high finance and the Holocaust. They are even part of the environmental movement, as the studios in LA have just agreed to stop using disposable dry cleaning bags. Ha! Bet you thought I’d given the green line a rest this week.
June 01, 2009 | Graham
Unemployment looms as major concern
(Cross posted from What the people want)
While a little fewer people are worrying about the economy, many more worry about jobs now than they did 7 months ago, according to our research. In October last year 25.2% worried about the economy, and that has dropped by four percentage points to 21.1%.
However, seven months ago only 2.5% mentioned jobs as an important issue. That is now 11.9%, almost a five-fold increase. Together Jobs and Economy account for around 30% of responses, two-and-a-half times the number that mention Climate Change (change in the table) or Warming.
Debt is also another term that has risen quickly. In fact, it was completely absent from the lists last year which were compiled before the various government stimulus packages.
This table shows our poll results and how the issues have moved over the last 7 months.
Another significant move is in the decrease in mentions of Financial and Crisis. It seems that more respondents are looking inwards at how we manage our economy (Management makes its first appearance on this list), rather than outwards. This implies that voters are starting to see Australia more as in command of its own destiny rather than a passive recipient of circumstances created abroad.
When you dissect these issues by voting intention it helps to explain the position of the government and opposition. While both Labor and Liberal voters are concerned about the Economy, for Labor voters the next most important issue is Jobs, followed by Global and then Change. For Liberal voters it is Economy, followed by Debt, then Jobs. Change, as in climate change is a concern for less than 2% of them.
So Labor voters are still very concerned about climate change and are more inclined to blame the crisis for our problems, while Liberal voters are fretting about debt, are less worried about their jobs and have climate change almost at the bottom of their list of concerns.
The Leximancer Map below gives an overview of how the issues work together.
