The Return of Auntie Jack

Like Auntie Jack, she’s back.

Pauline Hanson, that is.

And like Auntie Jack, most of what she represents, or claims to represent, is fantasy. Our Pauline is largely a figment of her own imagination.

She tells outright fibs -

The problem is we have not had leaders with the foresight or the intestinal fortitude to cast aside political correctness. They have failed to discard old treaties and agreements that are not in our best interest and have signed new ones giving away our sovereignty, rights, jobs and democracy. Their push for globalization, economic rationalism, free trade and ethnic diversity has seen our country’s decline. This is due to foreign takeover of our land and assets, out-of-control debt, failing infrastructure, high unemployment or underemployment and the destruction of our farming sector. Indiscriminate immigration and aggressive multiculturalism have caused crime to escalate and trust and social cohesion to decline. Too many Australians are afraid to walk alone at night in their neighborhoods. Too many of us live in fear of terrorism.

So there we have it - neatly summarized.

One Nation rejects the twenty-first century. The “evils” listed are all artifacts of twenty first century life. It’s apparent that Hanson simply does not understand that change is part of life, and change has occurred, and will continue to do so. It’s called progress. The improvements in life expectancy, health, and quality of life are all evidence of this progress, but Hanson and her followers have very short attention spans. In Australia we currently have one of the world’s strongest economies.

Anyone who has a basic understanding of economics acknowledges that our country's success has been bolstered by globalization and international trade. Hanson doesn’t have this basic understanding of course, and this ignorance explains a great deal.

The economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s opened the country to globalization. We benefited from this, and even if we wanted to go back, we couldn’t, unless you believe that “stop the world, we want to get off” is a possibility.

To say that these reforms have harmed the Australian economy is simply nonsense. Economic data (“facts”, in other words), shows that Australia has experienced unprecedented economic growth and stability.

On my first speech in 1996 I said we were in danger of being swamped by Asians. This was not said out of disrespect for Asians but was meant as a slap in the face to both the Liberal and Labor governments who opened the floodgates to immigration, targeting cultures purely for the vote…

This is a well-worn meme which has inhabited the minds of the ignorant for a long time. The trouble is that it has absolutely no basis in fact. No discernible ethnic voting trend has ever been documented in this country. Any political party that relied on the assumption that individuals of any specific ethnic background would vote one way or another purely on the basis of race or origin would have a short shelf life in this country. I challenge Hanson to produce evidence for her contention.

Australia is predominantly a Christian country, but our government is secular.

To quote Wikipedia – “In an optional question on the 2011 Census, 61.1% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity. Historically the percentage has been far higher and the religious landscape of Australia is changing and diversifying. Also in 2011, 22.3% of Australians stated "no religion" and a further 9.4% chose not to answer the question. The remaining population is a diverse group which includes Buddhists (2.5%), Muslims (2.2%), Hindus (1.3%) and Jews (0.5%).”

So whilst Hanson is correct to say that Australians are predominantly Christian (or identify as such in a census), the trend is rapidly changing, and that “predominance” stands at a relatively low 11%. Her bête noire, Islam, constitutes 2.5% of the population. Once again, she has dumbed down the fact to suit her version of reality. The narrative being sold is of a uniformly Christian country under threat from other creeds, especially Islam. It doesn’t bear close scrutiny.

She has a habit of making observations as facts –

Why then has Islam and its teachings had such an impact on Australia like no other religion?

Taking this literally, we’d have to accept that no other religion in our country’s history has had such an impact as Islam. This is arrant nonsense. The “impact” she is probably referring to relies on media beat-ups about terrorism. The perpetrators usually claim an affiliation with Islam, because the kind of reaction favored by Hanson gets them the result they seek. She is doing their bidding, but is too thick to understand.

I’d have to think very hard to come up with any “impact” of Islam on my life, unless it was my kids telling me about visiting mosques when they were at school, or the reality of having to go through security at airports. 

She continues to get stuck into Muslims –

Muslims are imprisoned at almost three times the average rate. The rate of unemployed and public dependency is two to three times greater than the national average.

There are a couple of observations to be made about this. One is that indigenous Australians are imprisoned at a much higher rate than anyone, including Muslims, yet that didn’t get a mention. I guess that Hanson has been there and done that – remember her maiden speech as the member for Oxley in 1996?

I note that she quotes no reference for these figures. The ABS doesn’t publish a breakdown of prison populations by religion. A study looking at prisoners on the basis of country of birth is worth looking at. 

It does not support the contention that “Muslims are imprisoned at almost three times the average rate”, if you assume that prisoners born in Lebanon, Turkey and Middle East (other) are Muslim, they are imprisoned at a higher rate, but it’s not three times the average, and is about the same as Vietnamese.

As for welfare dependency, the most rapidly growing group is aged pensioners not Muslim immigrants. 

I can only guess at why this has been ignored by Hanson. Could it have anything to do with the fact that she knows the senior demographic is her support base?

She makes this statement about reaction to terrorism –

The grand mufti and other Muslim leaders are deafening with their silence, or lack of sympathy

Which is, put simply. a blatant lie

 There are many examples of this, all completely either unknown or treated with disregard as far as Hanson is concerned.

 But Hanson ignores all this. It doesn’t fit her narrative, which reminds me of a line in the Simon and Garfunkel hit “The Boxer” – 

A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest

Some parts of Hanson’s speech resemble stand-up comedy  –

Halal certification is not a religious requirement but a moneymaking racket, and certification is unnecessary for Muslims’ welfare because non-halal products can be consumed, provided the word “Bismillah” is said over the food and a prayer is recited.

Apart from the fact that she has absolutely no understanding of the notion of symbolic sacrifice (raised as a Catholic who doesn’t eat meat on Friday during Lent I reckon I do), she (or her advisers) can’t read the Quran. 

The reference to being allowed to eat non-halal specifies the unavailability of other food, and a prayer is said in acknowledgement. Hanson’s interpretation sounds something like the witches in Macbeth.

Given the length of her monologue, it took some time for me to find something she said which was factual. I worked hard, and found it –

Burqas are not a religious requirement

She’s right! The wearing of the Burqa is cultural, not religious, Mind you, if she had pointed out that (for example) FGM and honour killings are also cultural, and not tenants of Islam, that would have been consistent. But consistency is not a characteristic of One Nation doctrine.

By the way, you can’t get a driver’s license in any Australian state unless you can furnish a photograph of your uncovered face. If you don’t believe me, try it.

Every now and again she came out with statements which were so grossly inaccurate as to be laughable –

High immigration is only beneficial to multinationals, banks and big business, seeking a larger market while everyday Australians suffer from this massive intake.

Spoken by the inhabitant of a country that would not exist without “high immigration”, this statement is bizarre. Obviously she believes that the all institutions in this country have been taken over by dark forces intent on destroying “everyday Australians”.

Shades of Macbeth again………..

Then, of course, our Productivity Commission (an independent body) has found that migration has had a net positive impact on the economy, bringing new workers and new consumers to Australia, and lowering the country's average age.

Towards the end of her speech she meanders off into conspiracy theory. In Hanson’s binary world, all the evil in the world is queuing up against “everyday Australians” and she is their only hope. Her narrative reminds me of a pre-adolescent view of the world that most of us grew out of by the end of primary school.

To have someone with this infantile mindset occupying the senate benches is truly frightening.

Maybe Shakespeare was prescient -  

 

What's here? the portrait of a blinking idiot,

Presenting me a schedule! I will read it.

Make sure you take Shakespeare's advice and read her speech. It provides a very clear picture of the deluded perceptions she sells. I'm not sure what the bard would have made of it.
 
Perhaps - "The lady doth protest too much, ...."

Walter Mitty Motoring

Complete with winky blinky orange light.

This week I had another bush trip, and as has been the case recently, I was allocated a hire rather than a fleet car.

We hire from Avis, and a four-wheel drive is specified, so I’m usually set up with an SUV, mostly  Outlander or X Trail. Apparently, that is what is specified by the agency if you’re heading off the beaten track. O H & S etc.

Not this time.

When I went to collect the vehicle, Avis’ computers were down, which was creating a major headache for staff. They couldn’t tell what vehicles were required, and when, and it severely limited their flexibility.

Only vehicles not usually up for hire could be allocated, so I ended up with a Toyota Prado. With the mining downturn, plenty of these things are spare at the moment.

It was well and truly kitted out for mining work.

It had an HF radio, a bull bar, a winky blinky light on top, an orange flag, and a first aid kit.

Fortunately, I didn’t need any of these things during my trip, although I did enjoy leaving the scanner switched on and eavesdropping on the CB communications up and down the Warrego.

HF Radio, extinguisher and smelly seatcovers

 I heard language I remembered from the army.

Driving it reminded me of my stint in the North-West. In those days we used Toyotas, but they were generally 80 Series Cruisers. This thing, a J150, had done 41000 km, and was in fairly good nick.

It lacked bumps and scrapes, unlike most rental vehicles, so I don’t think it had a hard life. It felt like an 80 Series, but had all the gismos (Bluetooth, cruise, USB music and the foulest smelling plastic seat covers I’ve ever encountered.

They looked proof against nuclear attack, and could probably have been hosed clean.

It drove OK, once you accepted that it had general steering. By general steering, I mean that it generally followed the direction you pointed the wheel in. You had to be a bit patient, and wait for the direction to change. It always did, generally.

It was powered by a big lump of a four cylinder knocker (diesel) with a turbocharger, which lacked the response of (say) a Territory diesel, but cruised easily at 110km/hr.

Didn't get to use the orange flag.

Economy is not necessarily a strong point, as it averaged 9.5 lit/100km according to the readout.  

Overtaking was a bit fraught, and had to be planned carefully.

Surprisingly for a work truck, it was very comfortable, and the seat/wheel alignment could be adjusted to suit my bizarre anatomy.

Perhaps the only downside was the occasional dirty looks I received from some of the locals.

Miners aren't all that popular along the Warrego, especially in Miles.  

 Here's a bit of video (West of Dalby) - 

Gerard Rewrites History

Pic courtesy Lurching into Decrepitude

The Oz (the fart of the nation) published this piece by Gerard Henderson on August 20th.

As usual, Murdoch's broadsheet (which operates consistently at a loss), is smearing the ABC and SBS. You have to pay to comment on the Oz, so I'm using this platform to expose some of the comprehensive rewriting of history that is a feature of News Limited reporting of the Vietnam era.
Read Gerard's piece, and then reflect on this, gentle reader. Gerard's contributions are in italics -
Rather than debunking myths, Gerard’s piece creates a few of its own.

“All Australian men and women who served in Vietnam arrived in that nation at ports or on airfields controlled by the anti-communist government in Saigon (now called Ho Chi Minh City). There was no invasion.”

Depends what you mean by “invasion”, Gerard. When I arrived in Vietnam I disembarked from HMAS Sydney aboard a landing craft. Nobody was shooting at us, but to any dispassionate observer the activity would have looked very much like an invasion.

When I went out on operations with my infantry unit, we moved through country that was not controlled by the South Vietnamese government. That was why we were armed, patrolled without noise, and put out sentries at night. We behaved exactly like an invading army.

“The conflict between communist North Vietnam and non-communist South Vietnam was concluded in April 1975 when the North Vietnamese Army, with assistance of the Viet Cong in South Vietnam, who supported the Hanoi regime, conquered Saigon.”

To call North Vietnamese “Communist” and South Vietnam “Non - Communist” is a gross over-simplification. Vietnam was essentially a war of national liberation, a point made by our current Governor-General (who served in Vietnam as a platoon commander) when he was interviewed by the ABC on 19 March 2012. From the interview with Peter Cosgrove –

EPSTEIN: Does that mean that you think the war was fought tactically wrong or the perception that the perceived communist threat required an Australian response in Vietnam, was that perception incorrect?

COSGROVE: I don’t think the political environment inside South Vietnam was conducive to an enduring democratic state. I think the people in Vietnam across the board, ultimately seemed to prefer self-determination rather than the presence of a large number of foreign troops.

Obviously, Gerard has a different view of the history than someone who participated in it, and has an experience of the military reality.

“The star performer in the Ratcliffe package was Bowden. He complained that he could not get all his reports from Vietnam run on the public broadcaster at the time and provided the following explanation: “At that stage the (ABC) news executives were mostly old newspaper men, a lot of Catholics, and they saw the war as a holy crusade.”

What Bowden reports is accurate. Gerard has obviously forgotten B A Santamaria. Without the influence of the Movement, and the Catholic Right in the DLP, it is debatable whether the Coalition would have stayed in power long enough to send conscripts to a war in a foreign country in peacetime. Tell me, Gerard, when in our history has this been done before or since?

As for ” few, if any, supporters of Australia’s Vietnam commitment regarded it as a “holy crusade" Gerard was obviously not attending Sunday mass in a conservative diocese and listening to sermons about the evils of Communism as I was back then before I was called up.

“This focus on the Vietnam protest movement overlooks the fact most Australians supported the commitment.”

Again, a complete over simplification. There were two issues. One was sending troops to Vietnam, the other was conscription. Support for the commitment was initially strong, but began to wane during and after the Moratorium marches which took place in 1970, the year I was in Vietnam.

Support for conscription was never strong, and when the two issues became conflated, it became apparent very quickly, that community support for the troops was no longer there. That was an untenable situation, and Vietnam veterans suffered as much when they came home as they did in theatre. The government in power at the time bears as much responsibility for this situation as the anti war protestors. They conscripted us and sent us – not the protestors.

“As Edwards acknowledges, the US-led Vietnam commitment delayed a communist victory by 10 years — much to the benefit of nations such as Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. This was also to Australia’s advantage.”

There is another way of looking at this. The continued support of a series of corrupt “governments” in South Vietnam may have simple prolonged the agony, and contributed to the millions of civilian casualties.

History is sacred, Gerard, especially to those who lived it.

Don't rewrite it.  

Long Tan 50 Years On

Last goodbye: Private Douglas Salveron’s family farewelling him with the first intake of conscripts. The bus in the background took the conscripts to their training destinations. Pic courtesy Catholic Leader

No doubt, gentle reader, you've been assailed in the media about the 50th anniversary of the battle of Long Tan.

It has been a gift to them, and to the tour companies escorting groups around the site, although this went pear-shaped for some of the returning diggers with the Vietnamese government's reaction.

As usual the diggers get the rough end of the pineapple. It was forever thus.

Harry Smith's remarks on the debacle are worth repeating -

"I was told over three weeks ago that Long Tan was not to be mentioned. The enemy were badly defeated and suffered a lot of casualties and we were not to highlight Long Tan," he said.
And -
"The way it's turned out is that Long Tan has been advertised on tickets and advertised on brochures and various things, which is what the Hanoi government said not to happen. It's happened and therefore they've pulled the blind down."
"If the Japanese wanted a memorial in Darwin for the pilots that they lost in the bombing of Darwin and they sent 3000 people to that monument we'd be up in arms too."
It was, after all, a commemoration, not a fairground sideshow charging admission.

I have been to the Long Tan site twice. First time was as a rifleman in 5 platoon B Coy 7 RAR in April 1970 when we harboured up there prior to a company move into our AO for our second operation. 

We walked in during the night along a dry creek bed rather than being choppered in to preserve the element of surprise. It worked,as we had our first contact a few days later, but not before we lost one digger who died of heat exhaustion as a result of the physical stress of the brutal secure insertion..

The second time was with my two adult sons in 2006. We were travelling with a party of 8RAR veterans. We didn't hold any kind of ceremony, but stood silently for a minute or two.

It's amazing to see what crawls out from under a rock to exploit such events. Michael Smith News is a clear example. Unfortunately, once again, the old adage "soldiers are collateral" looms large.

Perhaps a more fitting tribute to the fallen at Long Tan is contained in Yesterday's Catholic Leader. It's more fitting, because it honours the diggers, and those who mourn their loss.

One of those who died was Frank Topp, from Helidon, down the range from here. I wnt to school with him at Downlands college, where he was an occasional protector for me. I was very small for my age, 1000 kilometres from home, and in those days (the early 1960s) there were no anti-bullying programmes.

Frank was a fairly large lad, and stood up for me.

I had no idea he had been killed at Long Tan until I came across his grave at Helidon Catholic cemetery in 2003. I was deputising for our Regional Director at the funeral service of a Teacher Aide's son who was killed in a motor accident, and noticed the characteristic ADF headstone.

Frank was killed in the first few minutes of the battle. He had been marched into 6 RAR  from Reo company the day before the battle. He would not have had time to get to know the men he died with.

From the Leader -

 Every year Brisbane woman Frankie O’Leary carries a flag of honour for her brother in the Anzac Day parade.
The full-sized Australian flag was presented to her family with the name of her brother Private Douglas J. Salveron, 6 RAR, embossed on it, recognising his role in the Battle of Long Tan 50 years ago, on August 18.
Douglas Salveron was 20 when he was conscripted into the army, and 21 when he died in jungle battle in Vietnam.
“He was a forward scout. That means you’re the first person going forward,” Ms O’Leary, who was a year older than her brother, said. “He was killed early in the battle. 
“They found the boys all lying in a line on a little raised mound with their rifles still in their hands.”
Ms O’Leary said that when soldiers came to recover the bodies, there was a gunshot because one of the boys still holding his rifle had his finger firmly on the trigger.
“It was terribly sad,” Ms O’Leary, who received the news by telegram while living in Townsville, said.
“I was pregnant at the time. And I thought I don’t want to have a son because he will be called up to go to war.

Lest we forget.