On Lazy Cliche

Pic courtesy prowritingaid

You've encountered them, gentle reader. 

Lazy cliches are everywhere. Once upon a time they were used in everyday conversation by everyday people.

Frankly, I have no problem with that, but when they crop up in what is seen as professional journalism, I draw a line.

Let's list a few -

"Icon" or "iconic" (overused, and as a consequence, meaningless).

"Incredible" (favoured by young and breathless on-line reporters).

"Literally" (usually means exactly the opposite)

"Ironic" (as ubiquitous as "iconic" and just as meaningless) 

"A cautionary tale" (tales are boring if they're cautious)

"Cautiously optimistic" (I'd prefer recklessly optimistic)

"Needless to say" (then don’t say it)

"Anything" gate (Why?)

"Part and parcel" (again, meaningless) 

These things sneak into the language and propagate like a virus. Unfortunately, there's no vaccination. The cure is copy editors, but with their demise, and the growth of digital content, it's not going to happen.

Comments Closed.

Same Old....Same Old

 

Image courtesy Vietnam War Cartoon exhibition

The recent report from Department of Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezullo is a timely reminder of the Coalition's default position on the use of the politics of fear.

To quote Craig Emerson in this piece from Pearls and Irritations - 

The Liberals have form when it comes to demonising outsiders. If it wasn’t the ‘‘commos’’ coming down through Vietnam to attack us in the 1960s, it was ‘‘too much Asian immigration’’ in the late 1980s, the asylum seeker boats of the 2000s allegedly carrying terrorists, the African gangs preventing Melburnians from going to restaurants in 2018, and the asylum seekers in 2019 who would kick Aussies off hospital and public housing waiting lists if they were medically evacuated from Christmas Island.

The "Reds under the bed" schtick of the fifties and the sixties worked very well for a while in that it kept DLP voters terrified enough to give their preferences to the Coalition, which led to our commitment to Vietnam, and the loss of blood and treasure that followed. 

And yet, incredibly, Morrison was prepared to reprise it in a last desperate effort to cling on to power. This, from an ex-minister for Immigration and Border Protection who would respond to any inquiry about boat arrivals and turnbacks with the "on-water matters" cliche. The new Leader of the Opposition is a serial offender when it comes to resorting to the frighteners. Maybe it was something he learned as a Queensland copper. 

China's system of government is anathema to Australians, but demonising it is scarcely going to convince the Chinese to abandon it. There are many countries with authoritarian administrations worldwide, but spruiking about the "drums of war" is childish. Managing our relationship with China is best done with deeds, not words, and it has nothing to do with jeopardizing national security in a cheap attempt to scare voters. As Emerson points out, we don't have to kowtow or sacrifice our sovereignty to acknowledge the economic and military power of China.

Perhaps the results of the recent federal election indicate that Australians have begun to recognise a dog-whistle when they hear it.

Trap Door

You're in for a treat, gentle reader.

In a burst of shameless nostalgia, I present Episode 1 of Trapdoor.

Trapdoor was a cult favourite that was around in the late 80s.

It was screened in Australia by the ABC, and was essential viewing for my kids.

The show was created by Terry Brain and Charlie Mills, both British animators.

The full series is available on YouTube here.

Enjoy...... 

Billy Joel - Goodnight Saigon

This Billy Joel Song is one of my favourites.

Here are the lyrics -

We met as soul mates
On Parris Island
We left as inmates
From an asylum
And we were sharp
As sharp as knives
And we were so gung ho
To lay down our lives

We came in spastic
Like tameless horses
We left in plastic
As numbered corpses
And we learned fast
To travel light
Our arms were heavy
But our bellies were tight

We had no home front
We had no soft soap
They sent us Playboy
They gave us Bob Hope
We dug in deep
And shot on sight
And prayed to Jesus Christ
With all of our might

We had no cameras
To shoot the landscape
We passed the hash pipe
And played our Doors tapes
And it was dark
So dark at night
And we held on to each other
Like brother to brother
We promised our mothers we'd write
And we would all go down together
We said we'd all go down together
Yes we would all go down together

Remember Charlie
Remember Baker
They left their childhood
On every acre
And who was wrong?
And who was right?
It didn't matter in the thick of the fight

We held the day
In the palm
Of our hand
They ruled the night
And the night
Seemed to last as long as six weeks
On Parris Island

We held the coastline
They held the highlands
And they were sharp
As sharp as knives
They heard the hum of our motors
They counted the rotors
And waited for us to arrive
And we would all go down together
We said we'd all go down together
Yes we would all go down together

Joel described the song in this way -

Time has a way of healing wounds or making them easier to look at to see if they've scabbed up. The guys came home from Vietnam and that's it? It doesn't end until these guys are absorbed into the mainstream and we deal with our feelings about it.

(Parris Island is a marine recruit training depot).

It's Time

This interview with Carl Bernstein is deeply disturbing. Watch it to the end, gentle reader.

Bernstein has been around a long time, and is in a great position to comment on the current situation in his country. His activity back in 1972 was fundamental to uncovering a conspiracy which ultimately destroyed a presidency. He recognises criminality when he sees it.

A criminal president was forced to leave office in 1974, on the basis of the evidence uncovered by Carl Bernstein and his colleague, Bob Woodward.  Back then, the American system, with its checks and balances, worked.

Now, with another criminal president caught in conspiracy, it may not. His party has to a large extent, put the pursuit of power ahead of the rights of the American people, and it may cause the checks and balances to be overwhelmed.

The corruption of the Supreme Court is ominous. With Trump's recent stacking of the court, it is now a political agency rather than an independent judiciary. Clearly, one major cornerstone of the separation of powers, has been removed. There's a pretty good chance that the whole institutional edifice which constitutes a viable state, will collapse.

What does this mean for Australia?

As one Australian who lived the consequences of our alliance with the United States, I don't underestimate how the corruption of the American Union can affect our future security.

Let's imagine a scenario. Let's assume that Trump, or someone with his populist appeal is elected in 2024. Let's assume that a corrupt Republican senate and congress also takes power. (Incidentally, it matters little whether such an administration is Democrat or Republican, the white-anting of their institutions will have the same effect).

Let's imagine that under this populist government, the US reverts to its historically default position on international affairs, that of isolationism. Trump was heading in that direction, but wasn't in power long enough to make enduring changes.

Should this occur, we would be on our own, diplomatically and strategically. Given the diverging path between current US values and ours, it's probably an inevitability. Whether you look at the contrast between our laws on gun control, capital punishment, abortion, climate change, social welfare, etc, this divergence is rapidly becoming stark. 

As a nation, we simply need to come to terms with a future where we may be on our own. Given the rapid and escalating assertiveness of China, and the return to the use of military aggression in Europe, that situation holds serious threats for our security.

Perhaps our model could be Israel. We need to develop a completely independent military, designed to defend our country, rather than to join a powerful ally in offshore adventures such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Our procurement of military hardware and our deployment and organisation of force structure needs to reflect this new reality. Sovereign independence goes well beyond military self-reliance, as the Israelis have demonstrated, but that's where it starts.

Hugh White has had much to say about this. Our force structure, he suggests, should be based on maritime denial. We do, after all, have the moats of the Pacific and Indian Oceans in our favour. Why do we need long range nuclear submarines if we're defending our coastline? They (and our large amphibious vessels) are better suited to projection of power thousands of kilometres from our land mass in support of great power conflict. Because we have these large ships, we need expensive small ships to defend them.

We should have four times the number of submarines, not necessarily nuclear, as they are the most cost effective bulwark against surface aggressors. In addition, we need missiles and drones as well as a much larger fleet of fighters. 

Why do we need tanks that can't be moved quickly across our enormous land mass? If we ever had to use them in anger on this continent, it would already be too late. Recent events in Ukraine demonstrate their vulnerability. 

Western global dominance is on the way out, whether we like it or not. It's time we acknowledged this inconvenient fact, and did something about it. That "something" begins with increasing our defence capability. 

The Shotgun Amendment

 

Image courtesy tvtropes.

Maybe, in light of the recent SCOTUS decision, it's time for the US to consider a 28th amendment to their constitution.

After all, they regard their constitution as sacred, and those celebrating the recent decision claim the preservation of human life as their major rationale. 

They use the same logic to justify access to firearms through the second amendment. The most common justification is that possession of a firearm guarantees the individual protection against attack from somebody or something evil. That evil could be construed as a lifetime of poverty and suffering for mother and child as the consequence of this Roe v. Wade reversal.

The SCOTUS decision, as well as protecting the rights of the unborn child, also impinges on the rights of the mother. Unless immaculate conception is possible in the US, that unborn child will always have a father.

That father, in a moral world, has the same responsibility for the life of his child as does the mother who will, under this decision, be forced to bear that child. One very simple question should be asked. Why should the total responsibility for the well being of that child be vested only in the mother? 

Currently in the US, maternity leave, public support for single mothers, and services such as child care, kindergarten and preschool are patchy at best, and in some neighbourhoods, almost non-existent. These are the neighbourhoods where access to contraception for the disadvantaged segments of the population is also difficult. It's a self-perpetuating problem and this decision will ensure it continues.

The upshot of this situation is that the mother's life is fundamentally changed, her access to an income jeopardised, and when the child is born, she assumes total responsibility. 

By any measure, this is simply unfair, and now that the state has decided that abortion is no longer an option, the situation has changed utterly.

If the state can decide what happens to a woman's body, it would seem only reasonable and just that some kind of caveat be placed over the conduct of the other partner in the creation of that baby, its father.

The amendment (hereafter called the Shotgun Amendment) would go something like this -

Once paternity is established (and that is not difficult) the father would be compelled to contribute to the support of the child. This could be organised at a local level through paternity courts which would be established for the purpose. There would be debate about how the nature and duration of the support would be established, but working that out would not be rocket science. A contribution code could be established.

And of course, it would be called The Shotgun Amendment.

With the introduction of a firearm metaphor into the title, the NRA would love it....

Comments closed.

 

A Picture Tells a Thousand Words

This is a very informative image, and it does indeed say a thousand words.

It shows the rapidly widening gap between profits and wages in Australia.

It also reflects the structural changes that have occured in the nation's economy during the last ten years. There changes are the culmination of a comprehensive and enduring power shift between organised labour and the corporate sector.

There are many reasons for this. Domestically, they include government policy across the last ten years directed towards weakening the power of trade unions and their capacity to use bargaining power.

Globalisation, with its investment in technology, its capacity to export jobs to low paying nations and its facility to exploit a pool of low-paid, often imported labour all contribute.

The conventional wisdom that worker's pay will increase in line with productivity has also begun to fail, as can be seen on the graph below.

This is US data, but the Australian trend is similar.

These are very dangerous trends which if history is any guide, will lead to unrest, and quite likely violence. Or, to be hopeful, the correction may occur as the result of government led reform. 

 

In the meantime, all any of us can do is to encourage our millennial offspring to join a union. At least that evens up the power balance a little, and ensures that wage theft (which for some industries now constitutes a business model) is unlikely.

When I've done this, I've also advised my children not to tell their employer that they've joined a union. In some sectors this will be a bad career move. 

That's pretty sad.

Comments closed.