This morning Fran Kelly had a woman on who was introduced as ‘a feminist and a Muslim’.
The conversation quickly turned to questions about the burka and its appropriateness in situations like Parliament House, or a bank.

The interviewee trotted out the old line: ‘it’s ok to wear the burka if the woman chooses to’. But her analysis did not extend to the fine line between social norms and social pressure, much less the sort of violence that is often used to enforce these ‘norms’.

In fact, she skirted the issue of violence against women and children, although this is a key issue for feminists everywhere.

She was also asked about the security and burka issue, and replied that taking off a face covering in a bank, like the compulsory removal of a motorcycle helmet or balaclava, is justified if the woman can then put it back on.

But no one gets to put their helmet or balaclava back on in a bank, so what’s the difference here? Is she saying Western women should therefore be allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia? Cultural relativism is meaningless unless it is reciprocal.

Fran Kelly rightly pointed out that many Australians find the full burka confronting and a symbol of female oppression, but the interviewee didn’t address that in a meaningful way.

My position is that men should do as they ask others to do, especially as the sight of a man’s bare arms or hair tends to excite me. Semi-baldies, such as my spouse, are nearly safe.

And if I can’t drive, neither should they.

The interviewee, who says she doesn’t wear a veil, also alluded several times to her sect, the Allawites. This is the group Assad in Syria belongs to. Are we expected to think: oh, that’s ok, then, they’re a really enlightened bunch. A few chemical weapons against civilians can be overlooked, a million refugees and countless dead, in the name of exactly what?

By doing that, she just reinforced the factionalism that is tearing so many Muslim countries apart. She said there are different interpretations of Islam, but didn’t take a stand on the need to treat women equally to men, with the same rights to determine their manner of dress, whether they drive, vote, work, study or control their own fertility.

Exactly what does she think a feminist is? And why did she get a spot with Aunty?

Any person calling themselves a humanist, much less a feminist, must scream out against the violence being perpetrated against civilians. Cultural relativism does not trump human rights.

Bill Shorten thinks it is a “dirty deal” done “dirt cheap”, but the repeal of the Mining Resource Rental Tax merely returns money to its rightful owners.

The decision by Gillard Labor to mug the mining industry may have been justified by it on the basis that these minerals are “our assets” but in fact it was theft of money that belonged to the states and to shareholders.

Miners have always paid for the minerals that they mine to the people that own them – the electors of the states where they are found. There was never any ethical justification for a further charge – a reality that Labor effectively accepted when it allowed mining companies to deduct any increase in royalties from the MRRT.

“Super profits” in the mining industry was another excuse. As any mining investor knows “super profits” are generally followed by “super losses”. Averaged over a reasonable period of time mining industry profits are so-so.

So, the grime is all on the Labor side on this issue.

Which leaves us with “dirt cheap”.

The issue that Shorten has latched on to here is the deferral of increases in the superannuation guarantee levy.

He’s right. This was a dirt cheap price for the government to pay. Any increase in superannuation would have to be offset against increases in income.

This is what happened when the superannuation guarantee levy was first introduced, and was an integral part of the Wages and Prices Accord – wage moderation in return for increased saving.

Any Australian wanting to increase their superannuation to 12 or 15 per cent can do it voluntarily via a salary sacrifice. So the government, and Australians, paid no price for this.

Don’t expect the government to point this out, as it would embarrass the PUP, and they need to do more deals with them.

And don’t expect the Labor Party, or the superannuation industry, to point it out either, because they both know that absent compulsion, very few of us will save the additional money in super.

Labor wants to pretend that workers have suffered a detriment, and the superannuation industry is grieving the loss of additional fees (with Australians being ripped off by their super fund fees compared to the rest of the world).

Labor accuses Abbott of breaking promises, but apart from some nitpicking, the Liberal government is honouring all the major promises it took the election. When it does a deal with the cross bench it is not to break a promise, but to keep one. If it has to balance promises, it chooses to trade off minor ones against major ones.

The public seems to have no appetite for a double dissolution, in which case this has got to be good government.

Which ought to help to restore people’s faith in Australian government.

‘Triangulate your research’ was one bit of advice that served me well. That means taking in data from several sources.
And if you don’t trust the climate scientists, maybe pay attention to what the bankers are saying. And if you still aren’t convinced, the agricultural scientists and water experts have perspectives worth paying attention to.

If you don’t trust or believe any scientists, then you are left with Fox news, who of course never have a ax to grind.

So I offer two articles about food and climate change. Water is an equally hot topic, but that’s for another day.

Please note that even the social scientists acknowledge that drought and food prices were important factors in the various Middle East uprisings over the past half decade. Christian Parenti’s book Tropic of Chaos pulls a lot of that together.

For good measure, peak oil will also have negative impacts on food production, but you can google that yourselves.

Here they are:

(1) The combination of rising temperatures and air pollution could substantially damage
crop growth in the next 40 years, according to a new paper. And if emissions stay as
high as they are now, the number of people who don’t get enough food could grow by
half by the middle of the century. Research shows rising temperatures are likely to
lead to lower crop yields. Other work suggests air pollution might reduce the amount
of food produced worldwide. But nobody has considered both effects together until
now, the authors say, and the results suggest a greater threat than previously
feared to global crops. (By Roz Pidcock)
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/07/air-pollution-and-climate-change-could-mean-50-per-cent-more-people-going-hungry-by-2050/

(2) Climate change may disrupt global food system within a decade, World Bank says
The world is headed “down a dangerous path” with disruption of the food system
possible within a decade as climate change undermines the ability of nations to feed
themselves, according to a senior World Bank official.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-may-disrupt-global-food-system-within-a-decade-world-bank-says-20140827-108w8x.html