Advice for the Troops

 

When I was on the way to Vietnam on the HMAS Sydney in February 1970, we were given a pamphlet outlining how we were expected to behave as soldiers in our interactions with Vietnamese civilians.

We had very little contact with civvies, except on leave in Vung Tau, so it wasn't all that useful, but coming across this little piece of history online the other day, reminded me that the military did make an effort to provide some factual information for its soldiers.

In the fact sheet above, issued to American GIs in World War Two, the military explained the phenomenon of fascism, the ideology that these same GIs were fighting.

Taking some of that advice, and applying it to the current situation under the Trump administration, is a revelatory exercise. 

The Fact Sheet #64 was entitled "Can We Spot It?"

The second paragraph begins with - 

Any fascist attempt to gain power in America would not use the exact Hitler pattern. It would work under the guise of "super-patriotism" and "super-Americanism". 

Trump's slogan is "Make America Great Again". 

It goes on to list three fascist aims -

1. Pitting of religious, racial and economic groups in order to break down national unity - In the United States native fascists have often been anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Negro, anti-Labor, anti foreign-born"

That is a pretty accurate summary of what is happening in the USA now, where members of minority groups are being taken off the streets into detention. It has an application in this country as well, when you look at the hate that is daily posted on social media, usually referring to Indigenous Australians, Muslim Australians, and Asian Australians. It's the bread and butter of One Nation.

2. Fascists cannot tolerate such religious and ethical concepts as "the brotherhood of man". Fascists deny the need for international cooperation. 

This has a very familiar ring when Trump's railing against globalism is considered.

3. It is accurate to call a member of a communist a "communist" - Indiscriminate pinning of the label "Red" on people and proposals which one opposes is a common political device. It iis a favourite trick of native as well as foreign fascists.

This labelling is used with boring frequency. It has the advantage for the neo-fascists in this country and abroad in that it removes any possibility of debate. The label is enough. It is particularly popular on social media, as it operates as a type of shorthand which suits those who are too lazy or ignorant to describe what they actually object to. 

My father fought fascists in World War Two, a war in which forty thousand Australians died.

The ignoramuses who post about the communist menace have short memories, or no understanding of history.

Malice or Bitterness?

Pic courtesy CAWA

No doubt, gentle reader, you came across the reporting of shouts of abuse directed at a Welcome to Country introducing this year's Anzac Day dawn service at Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance, and at a similar ceremony at King's Park in Perth.

It seems that there was a degree of organisation behind the Melbourne disruption, but the Perth incident was not planned.

Cries of outrage were heard from a range of sources, both directed towards the disruptions, and the place of Welcome to Country rituals at Anzac Day commemorations generally. Ex-service community social media networks lit up, again displaying strong feelings and abysmal ignorance.

The controversy highlights currents of malicious chauvinism that have simmered below the surface in this country for at least a century.  

The first of these currents relates to Anzac Day. The day is simply a commemoration after all. It is not a celebration of national pride, or a glorification of the warrior class - whatever that is. The men who died are not honoured by the screams of outrage directed at the inclusion of Welcome to Country ceremonies. Their memory is demeaned by it.

Anzac Day belongs to the whole nation, and is essentially an inclusive tradition. Welcoming attendees to a dawn service is simply a manifestation of this.  

The ignorance revealed by objections to all Welcome to Country ceremonies, not just those on Anzac Day, is another issue entirely. In the first place, given that indigenous Australians comprised over five hundred  distinct clan groups, welcoming people to country occupied historically by that clan by an elder is an entirely authentic process.

 "Country" does not refer to Australia in this context, something entirely ignored by those who mistakenly believe they are being welcomed to 2025 Australia. Various ex-service organisations made a virtue of declaring that nobody had the right to welcome them to the country they had fought for, completely forgetting that none of these clans have ever claimed to represent the whole country.

Then there are those who take offence because the elders who conduct the ceremonies are usually paid for the privilege. I find that strange, given that one of the hallmarks of a successful capitalist community is its willingness to pay for ritualistic expressions of symbolism. 

It matters not whether putting money into a collection plate at a church service or paying for admission to a football match is payment for witnessing a form of social ritual, these practices are very much part of contemporary mores and have been for a long time.

Frankly, I believe that anyone who would object to a gesture of welcome has been very poorly brought up. As my mother would have said if she had been alive to witness these objections - "They need to grow up!"

  

George is Back

George is back, and providing entertainment based on snippets of truth, as he has done so often in the past.

I know, gentle reader, that he is a product of the UK political landscape, but much of what he says and does has echoes in our electorate.

He excels at puncturing bloated political commentary. He also has a knack of getting under the skin of his political critics.

Who can forget his appearance before the US senate in 2005?

We could do with a George Galloway in our senate. We have David Pocock, but whilst he has the substance, he lacks the style of a George Galloway.

The Marketing of Outrage

Australia Day aftermath. Pic courtesy Courier Mail

Unless you've been under a rock for the last few days you've been hearing, gentle reader, about the controversy regarding Australia Day merchandise and a couple of our leading retailers.

Let's look at what's actually happened, and then examine the blowback.

Woolworths published this statement which was picked up by Channel Seven -

There has been a gradual decline in demand for Australia Day merchandise from our stores over recent years. At the same time there’s been broader discussion about 26 January and what it means to different parts of the community.

We know many people like to use this day as a time to get together and we offer a huge variety of products to help customers mark the day as they choose.

Woolworths and BIG W celebrate the best of Australia every day, and we’re proud to support the farmers, producers, and suppliers who work with us.

When you drill down, they're saying two different things. One is that there has been a decrease in demand for Australia Day merchandise recently, and the other is that the day means different things to different parts of the community.

I can't understand why those statements are controversial. They both reflect reality, and any large retailer that ignores measurable trends affecting their business will rapidly become a small retailer.

Then there's Aldi. 

They're reported as announcing they won't stock special Australia Day merchandise, but you won't find any mention of that on their website.

As you might expect, they're talking about what they are selling, rather than what they're not selling.

The irony is, if you walk into a Woolworths or Aldi store, you'll find Australian flags stocked, it's simply that they're not promoted. Strange but true.

So what is the media outrage all about? Marketing, of course. The various online and print media organisations are marketing the story.

It attracts clicks and sells papers. Outrage always does.

And the politicians extracting every ounce of attention by commenting are generally those who regard the market as sacred.

Polite Meaningless Words

 

Image courtesy Google

One of my favorite poems is W.B. Yeats' "Easter, 1916".

It contains the line (repeated) "polite meaningless words".

He describes how the actions of the Irish rebels transformed them from ordinary people living ordinary lives to the personification of a "terrible beauty". That "beauty" was the dream of an independent Ireland, free of the yoke of perfidious Albion.

He expresses it well, and the powerful music of the language carries the emotion of the tribute with simplicity, clarity and power.

As a child growing up in North Queensland and attending a couple of small bush primary schools, I remember daily morning parade when we recited the following -

"I love my country; I honour my Queen; I salute my flag".

These were polite meaningless words for us as school children. 

We mumbled them because it became habit. There was never any emotion or intensity behind them. We had more important things to be concerned about. We would have been able, however, to explain what these words meant, if asked.

Nobody objected. The Loyal Oath was very much part of the social furniture. This was, of course, the late fifties.

Now, in 2023, we have the routine "Welcome to Country".

It resembles the loyal oath in that it is a simple acknowledgement of history. Both the Welcome to Country and the Loyal Oath are acknowledgements of fact. The first acknowledged the fact that as young Australians, we understood that we lived in a constitutional monarchy, and we owed it our loyalty. We were not responsible for that fact of history, but were the inheritors of it.

The Welcome to Country also acknowledges the facts of history. For over 50,000 years prior to colonisation, the original inhabitants of this country had lived in this country until they were dispossessed of it. We are not responsible for that fact of history, but are the inheritors of it.

So we use a few words to acknowledge it. It may, like the Loyal Oath, become "polite meaningless words", but has value because of what it represents.

The curmudgeons who take exception to it have very little real understanding of our country's history or culture.

They will, I'm sure, get over it..... 

Rupert Gets Clobbered

Image courtesy LA Times

If you have followed the history of the Murdoch media empire, you will note that it has always made money - lots of it.

It is often touted as "conservative" media, but it really is a conglomerate without genuine political affiliations or values. Rupert has only one talisman, and that is, and always has been, the almighty dollar.

Put simply, Murdoch's papers and television channels supply biased and misleading coverage to support his business interests. This is, and has been, his business model for about fifty years, as demonstrated by his support of politicians as different in their values as Sir John McEwen, Gough Whitlam, and the UK's David Cameron.

Apart from the phone hacking scandal of 2011, Murdoch's relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar has worked well for his corporation. News Limited packages and sells news, they do not report it. The "news" they sell can best be described as what they believe their audiences want to hear or read, or watch. Much of it walks a wobbly line between news, salacious gossip, stories designed to generate outrage, and total rubbish.

Hence Fox News' enthusiastic reporting of conspiracy theories about the "stolen" 2020 presidential election. The corporation knew that this would attract an audience, and would improve ratings and profit. The fact that the Fox hosts knew that they were repeating lies, was neither here nor there.

Now, as the cliche goes, this practice has come back to bite Fox News (and Rupert) on the backside. The recent Dominion settlement is unprecedented in both value and consequence.

Whether this makes any difference to the media landscape, especially in the USA, remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that the legal precedent it has set will resonate across boardrooms all over the country, and may encourage a slightly more respectful attitude towards both the truth and consumers of corporate media. 

Monetizing Disinformation

Image courtesy Chequado

It's satisfying to note that a professional purveyor of disinformation has finally got his comeuppance.

He has done enormous damage to the lives of his victims, the families of the children and teachers slaughtered, and no amount of money can change this, but it does show that at least one American institution remains capable of delivering justice.

The other phenomenon that the outcome of this case allows, is to shine a light on that uniquely American activity of creating sensational disinformation, and selling it for a profit.

To quote the  BBC report -

Jurors also heard evidence that Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, made millions of dollars selling nutritional supplements, survival gear and other products on the Infowars catalogue. 

This playbook has been frequently (and profitably) employed by the blogosphere in the USA for decades now, and it is partly responsible for raising the temperature of their political discourse.

Sensationalism appeals to the public's basest instincts. Fear, hate, loathing and contempt will always sell. Social media has supercharged misinformation. The algorithms do the rest.

It has created a cascading effect, ultimately leading to the sad and divided political and cultural discourse that we see across the Pacific.

It's a cautionary tale for Australians. 

Let's not go there..... 

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.

It Takes One to Know One

Pic courtesy The Mercury News

One little recognised fact about the recent history of Ukraine is that Paul Manifort, who chaired the Trump presidential campaign from June to August 2016, was influential in grooming the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych who became, in 2004, president of Ukraine after an election fraught with electoral fraud and voter intimidation.

Yanukovych fled to Russia in 2014, after a popular uprising when his government was deposed after signing an economic agreement with the Russian Federation. It has become obvious given the history since 2014, that the last thing the Ukrainian people want is closer alignment with Russia.

Further background includes the fact that in January 2020, the US Government  Accountability Office, a non-partisan watchdog, concluded that the White House broke federal law by withholding Congressional approved military aid to Ukraine. This was after Trump unsuccessfully pressured the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to dig up dirt on Jo Biden's son in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. 

Putin and Trump have, over the years, set up a sweet mutual admiration society.

On the  Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show last Tuesday, Trump said in reply to a simpering question -

  

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius. Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ ”

At the G 20 summit in November 2020, Putin praised Trump thus - 

"This was a really big contribution toward restoring the U.S. economy, and thus restoring the world economy."

It takes one liar very little time to recognise and understand another. 

Trump has used complete fabrication to gain and hold attention over and over again. The best most recent examples were his birther narrative, and more recently, the fraudulent election lie.

Putin has wheeled out allegations of the genocide of Russians in Donetsk and Donbas, and claims that the Ukraine government is controlled by NAZIs. The first claim has been completely discredited, and the second so bizarre as to be laughable, given the fact that the president is Jewish.

Yet, both Putin and Trump share the characteristic of setting up a simple and fearful lie, and despite all the evidence of the facts, sticking to it.

Both are megalomaniacs, likely psychopaths, and both have done enormous damage to their respective countries. Putin has begun to destroy the Russian federation's economy, and Trump has destroyed faith in the democratic process in the USA.

They understand each other very well.

 As the cliche explains, "It takes one to know one".

Comments closed.

A Talent for Disinformation

Image courtesy ec.europa.eu

This post is an exercise in fact-checking. I'm addressing the claims made (most recently by individuals such as Craig Kelly and Bob Katter) about Covid-19 vaccines and Ivermectin respectively.

These claims have been floated extensively on social media, although in the case of Kelly on Twitter only, as his Facebook account has been suspended because he was using it to peddle misinformation.

Let's start with Bob Katter. Media reports circulating say that he claimed in a speech on Sunday 21st November in Cairns that several of his staff had died or been made severely unwell as a result of Covid vaccine administration. They are based on audio in which he stated that there were "eight or nine people" in his office who "had died or had been badly affected" by the vaccine.

On questioning, his staff insisted that what Mr Katter had said was that there had been "eight or nine cases come into our office" and it was not people "in" his office - obviously a complete misunderstanding. One can assume that the electoral office would have been put out of commission if this had actually happened. I don't know how many people work there, but "eight or nine" sounds more than a little suss....

The actual audio of his speech indicates that he said "into" and not "in", but is sufficiently unclear to allow for both interpretations. Let's allow Bob the charitable interpretation that he meant the eight or nine cases were were constituents in his Federal electorate of Kennedy, which covers 567,377 square kilometres and had an enrolment of 107,644 in 2019.

Now let's assume Bob was indeed referring to Kennedy constituents and that his statement that eight or nine cases of adverse reactions had occurred is correct, (although he didn't furnish any proof), and look at figures for that electorate.

I couldn't find a breakdown of vaccination take-up for Kennedy, but if you average Cairns (85% first dose) and Charters Towers (73% first dose) you come up with a figure of 79%. The only other large population centre in the electorate is Mount Isa, which is pretty much a mine town. There was nothing on-line that I could find about vaccination rates in the Isa, but unless the culture has changed since I lived there in the nineties, you can bet your boots that both the mines and the various government agencies, both indigenous and otherwise, are vigorously pushing vaccinations.

That 79% of 107,644 gives you 85,038 vaccinated. So if Bob is referring to his constituents, that's an adverse reaction rate of 0.015835, or one adverse reaction in about a thousand, on the lower end of what is typical of reactions to most vaccines, as a visit to the Australian Immunisation Handbook website reveals. In the case of the Pertussis vaccination, administered routinely to Australian infants, the incidence of adverse local reactions is approximately 10%. That's about ten times the rate for Covid vaccines. Why isn't Bob Katter getting excited about Pertussis vaccination?

Image courtesy UN ilibrary

Then we look at Craig Kelly. He's made so many bizarre claims about Covid (relating both to treatments and vaccination) that it'd difficult to address them all, but how about this one -

"The vaccines are not sufficiently effective, and they're not sufficiently safe" which you can hear at about 1:30 seconds into an unsolicited video he sent me from a speech he made at a rally in Melbourne last weekend. (This is despite the fact that I have messaged him on a number of occasions requesting that he cease sending unsolicited texts to my phone and removing the number from the UAP database).

Let's look at the first of these two statements - the first one that the vaccines are not effective. (I'm not sure what "sufficiently" means in this context). There are any number of published studies around the issue of vaccine effectiveness, but this one is very recent, and very representative. It reports -

Findings

The highest VE estimates against new cases in >16 year-old individuals, for all outcomes, were reached at the 15-21 day period after the second dose, ranging between 97.7% for deaths and 98.6% for severe/critical disease. VE estimates of the 14-20 day period after the first dose ranged between 54.3% for infection and 77.3% for severe/critical disease.

Interpretation

The *BNT162 vaccine is highly effective in preventing new SARS-CoV-2 cases. Among >80 year-old individuals, high effectiveness develops more slowly. In breakthrough cases, vaccination reduces complications and death.

Kelly has been pushing Ivermectin as a treatment, and demonstrating outrage that it is not prescribed. (Being of a cynical mindset, I do wonder if that concern has anything to do with his patron buying up copious quantities of the drug - but I digress).

Here is just one summary from a recent trial of Ivermectin conducted in June and published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. There are many more studies which came to the same conclusion -

In a retrospective study, a single dose of 200 ug/kg of ivermectin was explored for its effect on patients with severe COVID-19. In congruence with this evidence, no improvement in microbiological and clinical outcomes was found in the ivermectin group compared with the control group.

Similarly, in another randomised, double-blind clinical trial, ivermectin (administered at a dose of 300 ug/kg of body weight per day for 5 days) compared with placebo did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms among adults with mild COVID-19 infection. The evidence is of very low certainty for the effects of ivermectin in reducing mortality, need for hospitalisation, and reduction of time for clinical improvement in COVID-19 infection.

It's obvious, that when it comes to disinformation, both these politicians have talent.

It would be funny, if it wasn't dangerous. It kills people.

And Kelly's and Katter's claims - frankly bullshit...

*Pfizer

Comments closed.

A Pinch of Common Sense

Courtesy www.statesman.com

I found this posted in Facebook a few weeks ago, when the faux outrage about mandated vaccination first began to appear in local and overseas media.

Unfortunately, I didn't take note of the poster's identity, so can't attribute it.

Anyway, after looking at it again, I've decided that it's worth posting, as it reeks of real common sense, which trumps faux outrage every time -

Vaccination history has long been required to travel (if you have been in countries where some of those ‘old’ diseases still persist) and they’re also required when you enrol your children in most kindergartens and  schools. 

When I was studying in the 90s, I had to show proof that I had been vaccinated for hepatitis B too. We can be stopped by police at anytime and asked to submit to a test to prove that we are not intoxicated and we carry licences to prove that we have passed our driving test, library cards, club cards, reward point cards, train/bus passes, credit cards etc.

 All of these cards are required to prove something at different times and places, and many of them track where we go, what we buy etc. (For the insidious purpose of making us buy more of the same usually too). Not to mention phones which record where we go (by GPS tracker no less), our heart rate, our bank balance, where we shop, what we listen to, what we read, what we look at online etc., AND we live with CCTV pretty much everywhere these days. 

So, we have not lived in a ‘free’ world for a long time, and I personally, don’t really have a problem with carrying a card which shows that I’m happy to help keep my community safe and limit my use of hospital resources should I happen to get sick. 

I’m just really grateful that I live in a country that can afford to vaccinate everyone for free, and also that I’m not living in Afghanistan or any other country at war (civil or otherwise). 

There are a huge number of people out there who are living through traumatic experiences every day and experience limitations on their rights and freedoms that we cannot even begin to imagine. I imagine that they would be astounded that we’re kicking up a fuss about government regulations which are being put in place to protect our lives and limit the spread of illness.

Comments closed.

Going Jack

 

Image courtesy Lion International

When I served in a rifle platoon a very long time ago, one of the worst insults you could offer to a fellow soldier was to refer to him as "Jack".

The term came from the phrase "F**k you Jack, I'm all right". 

Essentially, any soldier going "Jack" was either selfish, stupid, or both. 

Stupid, because our lives depended on each other. 

Selfish, because he was putting considerations about his own well-being ahead of that of his comrades.

A good example would have been a digger who coughed, sneezed, smoked, snored or farted in an all-night ambush. Such a soldier would have been given a swift kick up the backside by an NCO (or perhaps a fellow soldier, depending on who got to him first).

That principle of collective loyalty and cooperation is fundamental to success in any undertaking where disunity is death, and it is illustrated so clearly when we look at statistics emanating from the USA, where states with high vaccination rates are suffering far fewer Covid 19 deaths than those where vaccine hesitancy is rampant. 

It is almost a perfect negative correlation.

And yet we observe people of little brain and miniscule moral comprehension taking to the street in the name of "freedom" in this country. In the process, they have casually desecrated the Shrine of Remembrance.

The "freedom" they're advocating is the freedom to jeopardise the well-being of the group in favour of the selfish demands of the individual. I've blogged previously about how that glib notion has fallen in a heap with the advent of the pandemic.

We have also observed the phenomenon (relatively new to Australia) of rent seeking politicians appropriating the anger and frustration inevitably generated by the restrictions to their own ends.

This is one cultural trend that should be swiftly booted back across the Pacific from whence it came.

It is divisive, destructive and dangerous.

Comments closed.

A Tale of Two Myths

Gymnastics can be verbal.

 

The origin and tenacity of long-held Australian myths is a fascinating study.

To name a few of the more well-known, Ned Kelly, (as the Australian Robin Hood), Lassiter's Reef, Drop Bears, and the Inland Sea - they abound and persist.

The ANZAC myth is one of the most enduring, and the Dark Emu narrative the most controversial.

The first of these has been around for a very long time and the second is a recent phenomenon.

I've personally been guilty of exploiting one of these myths. To my eternal shame, I used the Drop Bear narrative on a Sydney-based soldier when we were at Shoalwater Bay in November 1969. He had never spent time in Central Queensland and swallowed the story whole, avoiding setting up sleeping space directly under large trees.

For a short time, it was funny, but we were sternly told to desist by our platoon sergeant when he sussed out what was going on.

The ANZAC Myth (rugged volunteer soldiers fighting for king and country when we were under threat) persists, but it was a very poor fit with our Vietnam experience. Somehow the contradiction between that historical construct and the fact of conscripting twenty-year-olds to fight in peacetime on foreign soil spilled through to the keeper.

The "primitive savage" narrative which describes the indigenous inhabitants of the country at the time of colonisation as useless and incompetent nomadic hunters and gatherers, also persists but has been challenged recently by Bruce Pascoe.

Now, let's get this clear. I'm not challenging either of these two narratives. Rather, I'm looking at the reaction when they are challenged.

In the case of the first, when I challenged the "every National Serviceman who went to Vietnam" narrative (an integral part of the ANZAC myth when applied to Vietnam) I was first ignored, but eventually, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the fact of history was grudgingly ceded, but not until there had been a great deal of ducking and weaving.

Some of that ducking and weaving was epic. 

There were those who maintained that young men, who had their birthdates drawn in the National Service ballot were somehow "volunteers" because they went along with a posting to Vietnam.

Others were convinced that anybody who didn't join the CMF to avoid the possibility of operational service was also a "volunteer".

The logical gymnastics involved would have made Nadia Comăneci look like a rank amateur.

In reference to Dark Emu, the reaction to Pascoe's thesis has been epic.

How dare the notion of the noble, but incompetent savage be challenged? Pascoe's work was condemned by shock jocks, culture warriors, and serious politicians who suddenly assumed the anthropological mantle. 

I've read Pascoe's book and found it engaging and interesting, but I believe he has crossed a bridge too far with many of his assumptions. Having said that, the elevation of the issue in the public consciousness has probably done the study of indigenous history a good turn, and schools all over the country are including a discussion of the issue in curricula.

Pascoe, in the meantime, is laughing all the way to the bank. 

Contrasting the reaction to the busting of two myths has revealed a great deal about us as Australians. There are two basic lessons.

The first is - be prepared to be savagely attacked if you have the temerity to put a challenge forward to a myth that has become institutionalised.

The second is - the facts of history will always play second fiddle to long-held prejudices and bigotry.

Comments closed.

Review - When America Stopped Being Great

 

Outsiders are often in a better position than resident nationals to understand trends in a nation's political culture. In the case of Nick Bryant, a Bristol-born Brit writing about the US political scene, this is clear to the reader. This is a revealing, frightening, and thought-provoking work. 

His 2020 account of the rise of Donald Trump explains and rationalises the most recent developments in the USA and plots the rise of a new kind of politics, a phenomenon that he claims originated in the Reagan era.

He ought to know what he is talking about. He has studied politics at both Cambridge and Oxford and has a doctorate in American politics from the latter.

His view of recent events in the USA is negative - almost dystopian. He sees the widening gap between rich and poor, the festering racial divide, and government incompetence at all levels as drivers of Trump's election, and recent violence.

He writes (convincingly in my book) that the beginning of this decline can be traced back to the way in which Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed American understanding of the office of President. He posits that Reagan dumbed the office down and transformed it into a celebrity performance rather than a leadership and governance role.

He writes that Reagan was very much a part-time president who relied on speechwriters and assistants to do the actual work of administration and made up memes that were usually based on a scripted narrative often separated a great distance from reality. Reagan then played his starring role.

One example of this was his use of the story of Martin Treptow, a soldier of Cherokee heritage who was killed in World War One on the Western Front. The whole point of Reagan's address, delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, was that it was delivered over Treptow's tomb. The fact that Treptow was actually buried in Wisconsin was not allowed to detract from the narrative. The script was what mattered, not the history. Pat Buchanan, White House Communications Director under Reagan, summed him up pretty well -

For Ronald Reagan, the world of legend and myth is the real world. He visits it regularly, and he's a happy man there.

In that, Trump resembles Reagan, in that he invented a narrative all of his own, anchored in reality TV, which he proceeded to sell to his audience. The problem in this, of course, is that the myth requires little encouragement to develop a life of its own, and we saw the culmination of this on January 6th, 2021 at the Capitol.

It is possible to fool some of the people some of the time using a fictional narrative, especially in the USA. Orson Welles' famous broadcast is historical evidence of this, as is the contemporary QAnon phenomenon.

Bryant walks the reader through the Bush Senior and Clinton eras, using his thesis about the underlying and developing malaise in American culture as the thread that ties the history of their administrations together. His explanation of Bush senior's one-term presidency is convincing. The reader begins to understand how a dignified and competent President loses out to a narrative spun by individuals like Buchanan, ultimately delivering a slick Southerner with a penchant for interns to the White House. The story becomes so strong that it crosses partisan lines. An important aspect of this progression is the separation between the scripted meme and the performance in office of the President, a trend that continued through the Obama era, and which made the election of a snake-oil merchant like Trump to the White House almost inevitable.

Bryant's writing style is journalistic, personal, anecdotal, and punchy, and this adds weight to his conclusions. He writes that if America was ever great, it was fleeting greatness. It has been hampered by confrontation, nihilism, and corroded by racial tension and inequality.

The last sentence of his last chapter is not encouraging -

Alas, I fear more American carnage, regardless of who occupies the White House.

I hope he's wrong.

Comments closed.

Hyenas

Two young women are apparently largely responsible for the reintroduction and spread of the Corona virus into South East Queensland.

Their stupidity and ignorance is causing enormous social and economic chaos and it may eventually lead to some deaths.

They should be condemned, and made to suffer the legal consequences.

They do not, however, deserve to be lynched, left to die in the desert, or be deported.

Those suggestions, and many more that are better left unpublished here, have been doing the rounds on social media.

This is hardly surprising, considering that elements of the gutter press published front page stories identifying them, complete with photographs.

These were exactly the same newspapers that had been demanding that the Queensland government lift its border restrictions a very short time ago. Consistency is not a feature of some media. Perhaps the editors believe that the average reader has the concentration span of a goldfish, yesterday's headlines are cancelled when the newspaper is confined to the recycling bin.

No amount of piling-on is going to change the outcome of the behaviour of these two, but hey, the only thing that matters is selling papers.

I had an experience with our local rag, the Toowoomba Chronicle, about ten years ago which is a pretty fair indicator of the moral state of much of our media.

A fellow principal of a school close to mine, had the misfortune to have a child accidentally run over and killed in the set-down area in front of his campus. He managed the dreadful situation very well, both on the day, and for the weeks and months afterwards.

Many of his staff were deeply traumatised, and unable to teach on the day. He had the presence of mind to get his office staff to phone all surrounding schools in an appeal for teachers without classes on the day to help. As a non-teaching principal, I went to his school and found myself looking after a year seven class in which the elder sister of the child who was killed was a member. The class teacher spent her day comforting this child and a couple of her friends who witnessed the incident.

I went home at the end of the day enormously impressed by his strong and compassionate leadership in managing children, staff, colleagues and media.

This man was devastated by what had happened at his school, and whilst he coped extremely well on the day, succumbed a few months later to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and went on sick leave.

He never recovered, and was no longer able to work, despite attempts at rehabilitation, and eventually was superannuated out. He supported a large family, and his wife, whilst working, wasn't making a lot of money as a school cleaner. 

A couple of years later, I was shocked when I picked up a copy of the Chronicle, to see a photo of this bloke, looking unshaven and dishevelled, on the front page, with a headline reading "School Principal Sues Grieving Father".

A reporter and photographer had knocked on his door at dawn, and snapped a photo on his doorstep without asking permission.

The gist of the story was that the principal's solicitor had made a claim for damages against the insurance company responsible for the compulsory third party cover of the father's vehicle. The father was not being personally sued, and this action is par for the course in such situations.

My colleague's solicitor was doing his job and trying to assist his client. 

This publicity, and the hostility it generated had the potential to tip a person diagnosed with PTSD over the edge. lt was also not news. It was simply sensationalist journalism designed to sell papers.

I phoned the editor of the paper to make a complaint and request a clarifying story. He refused to hear me out and claimed the publication of the story was completely justified. I then made a formal complaint to the Australian Press Council. The complaint was rejected (after a wait of nine months) on the basis that the report had broken no laws, and was of public interest. The first statement was correct, but I have my doubts about the second.

When it comes to basic decency, the press, especially the elements of it owned by Newscorp, is missing in action, and has been for years.

This element of the media has all the integrity of a pack of hyenas. 

Comments closed.

 

Australia Day

This is my flag.

The fuss about Australia Day continues.

I doubt that many of the drunken bogans who use the day to beclown themselves by doing weird things with the flag understand that the date marks the opening of a jail, and is not connected in any way with the actual foundation of our nation on January 1st 1901. 

This article by Dr Mark Copland was posted in our local rag (The Daily Chronicle). It is probably the most level-headed piece I've read on the subject -

The reasons that Toowoomba City Council fully endorsed a move to change the date of Australia Day away from January 26 in 2001 have not changed.

I suspect we would be living in a completely different universe should the current Toowoomba Regional Council back such a move in 2019, but this does not change the motives or reality that brought about such a move as we started the 21st century.

The founder of Toowoomba's Australia Day committee, the late Bill O'Brien called for a change from January 26 for two reasons. 

These involved accuracy and respect. In terms of accuracy Mr O'Brien highlighted the fact that Australia did not become a nation on January 26, 1788.

It was instead, January 1, 1901, the date of Federation.

The second point which the Toowoomba City Council of the day agreed with was that the day held little joy for the descendants of our First Peoples. He was quoted in this paper on January 25, 2003 with words that I feel bear repeating.

"We are celebrating a date that is offensive to the Aborigines and will continue to be that, which we fully understand. To change the date is not simply a nice thought; it is an essential action in the interest of truth, fairness and goodwill.

"This young nation has undertaken wonderful deeds in the interest of peace and goodwill in other lands. We have an essential demand on us to be dedicated to national harmony in our own land.

"Each step we take, each decision we make must be directed to achieving a just and healthy national community."

The culture warriors of the right have beautifully constructed a straw man debate on January 26.

Last Thursday's Zanetti cartoon did it so well.

It is these fringe dwelling hippies with weird hairdos, nose rings and nothing better to do with their lives who are pushing for the change of date.

It is inner city Melbourne, Byron Bay, and Fremantle pushing their "politically correct on steroids arguments".

On the conservative side the Institute of Public Affairs recently released a study showing that 70 per cent of Australians agreed or strongly agreed that the day should remain January 26.

The Advance Australia organisation has grabbed hold of former Labor Leader Mark Latham's, "Save Australia Day" campaign and run with it.

On the progressive side of things the Australia Institute released a survey last Thursday showing that 56 per cent of Australians don't mind which date Australia Day is held.

But wrong question to wrong group of people. I would confidently assert that if a survey were to be conducted, a vast majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in this country would favour a date other than January 26 to celebrate as a national community.

And please don't trot out the line that this is symbolism and will not change the life situation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens.

Of course it won't. This day is all about symbolism.

Nobody does symbolism like Aussies. The current federal government has allocated $48.7 million over four years to remember the 250th anniversary of James Cook's voyage to this continent.

It is estimated that we will spend $1.1 billion on war memorials between 2014 and 2028.

Let's at least be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that even though we know that January 26 causes pain for a significant proportion of the descendants of the first Australians we will not let go.

Even though the tradition of mourning and protesting the day goes back to 1938 and the day itself has only been gazetted as a public holiday since 1994, we refuse to budge.

I'm not waiting for a change of date when it comes to finally including our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sisters and brothers; I'm waiting for a change of heart.

Media Manipulation 101

We hear a great deal, gentle reader, about "fake news". A textbook example of this popped up yesterday on my Facebook feed.

As a Vietnam veteran I subscribe to a number of ex-service networks. On one of them, a report from the UK's Daily Telegraph, was posted claiming that students at Cambridge university in the UK had dishonoured veterans by voting against a student council motion that they should promote commemorations on the upcoming Remembrance day.

This report, predictably, generated howls of outrage from the veterans' community, and plenty were posted on the feed.

When I read it, it struck me that there was something a bit fishy about the story. I went on line to the local paper (Cambridge News) in an attempt to check it out.

What was reported there, was interesting, although you have to read way past the headline to get the full story.

The actual sequence of events was this -

1. The Cambridge University Conservative Association (CUCA) put a motion to the students' union council (CUSU) which read – “The council should encourage the commemoration of British war veterans on Remembrance Day across the University of Cambridge.

2. The Cambridge Defend Education group proposed an amended motion which read – “The council should encourage the commemoration of those whose lives have been affected by war across the University of Cambridge”.

3. There was a vote on both motions, and both were defeated.

4. CUCA responded on their Facebook page, writing: “CUSU Council shockingly voted against the motion that they should promote commemorations this Remembrance Day and encourage students to support the Poppy Appeal.”

5. The Daily Telegraph got hold of the story from the CUCA Facebook page and wrote their report, neglecting to mention that two motions were put up and both voted down.

What really happened was the Daily Telegraph created outrage for clickbait.

You can’t read the story until you subscribe to the paper’s website.

Try it

Donald Trump would probably describe the Tele's report as “Fake News”.

The whole thing was a stunt generated by the Cambridge University's Conservative Association.

I'd be very surprised if the bulk of Cambridge students had strong feelings one way or another about Remembrance Day.