Out of sight, out of mind.

Manus Island, even further out than Villawood.

The Gillard Government has been revealed to be organising the reopening of the detention centre on Manus Island, to be used for the purposes of incarcerating  processing offshore refugee claimants. More than anything else, this is about pushing the asylum seeker issue, and all the hysteria that surrounds it, further away from our backyards.

The result of this is less compassion for asylum seekers and an inflammation of already-existing hostilities towards them on the mainland. Not content for asylum seekers to just be faceless Others behind a wired fence, they have to be faceless Others thousands of kilometres away with their singularity fully stripped of them. This is not the primary purpose of the soon-to-be policy, but it will be the result.

There’s not much to say about the issue that hasn’t been said. All I want to re-iterate is my bewilderment at ALP apologists who claim these policies are the consequence of them “ceding their ground” to the Liberals or (slightly more persuasively) allowing issues to be “fought on conservative turf”. People on the left need to begin to ask themselves how long they’re going to pretend the ALP are just weak-willed submissives bowing to conservative and suburban pressure.

That thesis might be more palatable to them, but it’s not borne out by the ALP’s policy or public position (across a range of matters, but particularly this). No, perhaps this is just what most people in the ALP want and believe. The left needs to stop blaming the media and the ALP’s media bozos for policies the ALP writes.

Twitter SCANDAL #73267321

Jim Wallace: basically a massive poo-face.

I woke this morning (yes I slept in (well) beyond the dawn service – shame, shame, shame etc) to the ever-fascinating dynamics of another TWITTER SCANDAL. This time it was some clown from the ACL who is painfully irrelevant to all but the tiniest portion of Australians. One of those people who purports to speak for a powerful and broad range of people, but actually doesn’t etc.

He tweeted something about teh gayz, the Muzzies and OUR diggers. As sure as the sun, twitter went into meltdown. I want to say from the outset that my reaction was one of UTTER, COMPLETE, SEETHING, DOWNRIGHT…indifference…

It was an awful, classless thing to say but someone spare me from another round of collective indignation. Aside from the fact that every ANZAC Day is sullied by some petty culture war sniping, the routine leaping from one scandal to the next on twitter is becoming tiresome.

Maybe I’m a bit of a grump, but I would prefer to see twitter’s collective energies directed towards something more worthwhile. I wouldn’t go as far as to say twitter’s lifeblood is these minor scandals/collective reprimands, but it clearly is the lifeblood of many tweeter’s participation on the platform. It’s basically akin to a public lynching. The crowd is worked into a frenzy and their insatiable need for another round of brow furrowing is released onto the offending tweeter.

In the end Wallace apologised (though only for the tweet’s context) so I suppose the twitter meltdown was vindicated to some extent. But I remain scepitcal about the point of these responses. People who put themselves in the public eye deserve to be reprimanded for their comments more than ordinary folk, but this sort of mob justice is not an appealing aspect of twitter. Using a tweet as a vehicle to vent your frustrations at a worldview (as The Australian have demonstrated ever-so-embarrassingly in the past fortnight) is an entirely disproportionate reaction to the (mis)use of the medium. It makes you neither clever nor witty to be shrieking and hollering away with the rest of the mob engaging in a sort of mutual gratification of one another’s real or feigned offence.

People ought to be disappointed and maybe even a little bit outraged by Wallace’s comments – which were risible, but deeply insensitive – but perhaps we all need to take a collective breath before we embark on what is becoming a routine occurrence on twitter.

Music I like. #5. Witch Hats.

Witch Hats are descendants of the fine tradition of Australian music that has followed bands like The Birthday Party and The Scientists. Visceral, engaging and unapologetically loud. Their album Cellulite Soul was definitely one of the best records of 2008. Their songs always seem to be teetering on the verge of collapse, but there’s a very clear narrative to each of their records holding them together. Best given your full attention.

They need to bring out a new EP soon. Until then, you need to listen to this track off their excellent 2006 ep, Wound of a Little Horse.

Surplus or bust.

Wayne Swan: "You're cut."

I remarked in a previous post of mine, regarding the flood levy, that the political nature of the decision to return to surplus in 2012-13 bothered me, and it still does. What I’ve seen in the media is the unflinching acceptance of the apparent truth that the budget bottom line signifies the inner reality of the country’s economic position. I’ve noted before that I’m nowhere near an economist, or even a lay, arm-chair one. Throw a few numbers at me and I’ll look back at you with a bit of bewilderment. I’m capable of following the logical sequence until graphs and modelling and whatnot are involved – at which point I defer to those who I trust know better.

I suspect most in the Australian community are in a similar position. We rely upon the media in the realm of economics possibly more than any other area in political discourse. We need the media to describe to us the state of the economy, and to analyse the quality of proposed economic policy. All policy areas are complex (many deceptively so), but few areas rely so heavily on a few received assumptions reinforced by the media class.

One of these assumptions, as I’ve mentioned, is that the state of the budget bottom line is reflective of our economic situation. Moreover, that reaching this state is a prudent (maybe even virtuous?) goal.

Uni of Newcastle professor and blogger Bill Mitchell sums up the situation nicely as such:

I imagine it goes like this. Your driving along listening to the radio and the Australia Treasurer comes on and is saying that we need a budget surplus because we have a once-in-a-hundred years mining boom and are near full capacity but given the government tax take is seriously below the forward estimates because growth is slowing, the government has to have even more drastic cuts in spending in the upcoming May budget than first thought. Why? To achieve the budget surplus! Then the Opposition spokesperson for matters economic says we are running out of money. And us ordinary citizens take it all in because it is headline news this lunchtime and we become entrapped by the logic of the situation as set out by the journalist who fuels the discussion along these lines.

Mitchell though, as he points out, is “not an ordinary citizen in this context” and deconstructs the media groupthink that surrounds this issue in his latest blog post. Is Mitchell right or wrong? Who am I to say. What I can say is that to a layman Mitchell’s posts are consistently more persuasive than anything in the mainstream media.

The assertion that we can ascertain our economic prosperity from an arbitrary over/under figure indeed seems to me to be deeply problematic. I’m yet to be convinced that the return to surplus is anything but a political goal dictated unashamedly to us, the audience, by (1) the hollow shell of the Labor Party led by a vacuous, uninspiring leader and a narcissistic, cynical party machine; and (2) the neoliberals in the print media and the Coalition.

So forgive me, if amidst all this talk of “tough budgets” and “regrettable cuts” I dismiss the Gillard/Swan budget package as a political fix designed to make the ALP look more neoliberal than the neoliberals. I’ve love for the media to convince me otherwise, though… It’d certainly make me a lot more optimistic about our future.

Music I like. #4. Talk Talk.

I could go on – you might say “talk” even ho ho ho – for a long time about Talk Talk’s brilliant record from 1991, Laughing Stock. Talk Talk is one of those bands you hear name-dropped often, but just as easily dismiss. After recalling songs of theirs like “Life’s What You Make It” it’s pretty easy to dismiss them as an uninteresting, fairly rote New Wave band. To do that would be to do yourself a disservice, though, especially if you’re at all interested in post-rock as a genre.

Laughing Stock is a record that has been recreated many times over but never as captivatingly. It’s one of those albums that I’m so thankful I discovered because it’s become one of my favourite records of the 90s. It’s always a little sweeter when that occurs completely by surprise. This record is almost meditative and creates an all-encompassing sound that is other-worldly.

One of the most under-appreciated albums of all time. Ignore all you think you know about Talk Talk and listen to this record.

“Great journalism has always been exceptional, not the norm”

The quote in the title from Carl Bernstein neatly conceptualises why there is a space for new facilitators of information dissemination like Wikileaks. It doesn’t, however, acknowledge, why there is an absolute urgency for new forms of journalism to supplement the failings of the old media. It’s a well-worn debate, and not one I intend to contribute to in any meaningful sense lest I be bogged down in some banal discussion about resources and groupthink.

What is important to recognise is the proximity of old media to sites of power. Far from being merely unexceptional, the vast majority of journalism in the old, “respected” media is embedded and it is deficient. In this, I do not mean to argue that old media types and powerful journos are too close to government officials, party hacks and so forth. That would be completely missing the point.

Power in our society is diffuse and imparts itself upon others in many more sites than merely, da guvarment and da big corporations. The greater concern, for me, is the way that contemporary journalism merely reinforces power relationships in our society. Too little are we treated to investigative work that actively attempts to undermine, or at least expose, these received structures.

The video is another case in point of Al Jazeera promoting a depth and quality of discussion seldom seen in other media outlets. Journalists should stop asking whether Assange and others like him are “real” journalists or not (does it matter in any real sense?) and start asking themselves why there is more than a space, but a need for them to exist.

Why I oppose the flood levy.

The bridge to where I growed up.

Another quick post today as I’m not in the right mood for blogging and don’t really have anything interesting to say.

Today for some reason I started thinking again about the flood levy – an issue I was quite worked up about prior to starting this blog. As a Queenslander I hope to see the state rebuild quickly and effectively from the floods. I live in Canberra now, but was back home when the floods hit, and the proximity to the damage and despair really amplified my feelings for those who were effected (or is “it affected”?…I still get those confused after numerous explanations).

Nevertheless, I do not support the Government’s flood levy. I’m no economisticianianado, but I trust my judgement to spot a dud policy when I see one. The policy may be, according to certain economists, good fiscal policy or bad fiscal policy, but that’s not my primary concern with it. My concern is the reiteration of this debt crisis false-alarm and the ensuing impulse towards austerity. I cannot support an economic policy which has, as its prime goal, political face-saving.

The only reason. I repeat, the ONLY reason there is an imposition of a levy is to return to surplus in 2012-13. To reach some artificial indicator that Gillard and Swan decided was politically expedient. And what does it indicate? The health of the economy? Not on your life. A figure, an artificial bloody figure. And for that, we simply must cut important public expenditure in health, science and welfare (it’s coming).

This obsession with budget surpluses is a cancer on our democracy. There are no sensible economic policy debates anymore just a slavish acceptance that SurplusGood, DeficitBad, end of discussion. And it pervades every aspect of political decision-making.

The day I think cuts to expenditure are founded on genuine economic concerns is the day the Government proposes to trim the fat of middle-class welfare. That’ll be the day! Much easier to demonise the poorest members of our society instead.

Music I like. #3. Madvillain.

I have intermittent periods where all I listen to is rap and hip hop music. I am an unashamed fan of the genres, and nothing irritates me more than narrow-minded (mostly always white) people who dismiss the genres out of hand. Where rock music stayed stagnant for the first part of the decade, and indie music crossed-over and 95% of it become hollow and dull-as in the second part of the decade, rap/hip hop progressed forward and produced so many classic albums that challenged not only the genre, but pushed the music envelope itself.

Madvillain’s 2004 album Madvillainy is one of the top 4 or 5 hip hop albums of the decade, in my opinion. And it’s definitely one of my favourite albums of all time. I remember reading somewhere – forget where – that this is a hip hop album with a punk aesthetic, which is such an incredible encapsulation of the feel of the album. Each song is lean, immaculately paced and no song ever overstays its welcome.

I’m a sucker for anything Madlib produces, so I’m partial to this album from the outset, but his combination with MF DOOM is seamless. In one sense it’s a shame they haven’t made another album under the Madvillain moniker (although one is expected this year), but it just seems to emphasise the way in which two forces came together at a perfect moment to produce a near-perfect album.

Can’t recommend the album highly enough.

The best and worst of Kevin Rudd…again.

The Kevin in his natural habitat - in front of a camera

After my post last week you’d be excused for wondering why I felt the need to give part of my soul to Q&A all over again. This a pretty regular occurrence me (and others I suspect). I very nearly despise the show, but I don’t want to “miss out”. Maybe I’m a masochist.

Anyway, last night’s show was probably worth the self-inflicted harm of watching nearly every other week’s version. After a fairly interesting discussion on Libya (I thought it would’ve been enhanced by the presence of an expert or two in the field, but anyway) it basically turned into the Kevin Rudd variety hour. As vainly as Julie Bishop tried (and believe me, it was so, so vain) nothing could shift the spotlight from Rudd’s surprise mea culpa and the minor/major (depending on your interpretation) bombshells he dropped on the Q&A audience, but more correctly, the ALP. It was genuinely compelling viewing and it went to show that with a quality panel (this one wasn’t necessary the highest quality, but it was troll-free, which is a start) and some pointed, original questioning, Q&A could still be the show we hope and expect it to be.

Did it escape the banality of Australian political discourse, as I discussed last week? No, it certainly didn’t. Arguably it reinforced it, as the same mistruths and superficialities largely persisted (give or take a few more meaningful comments). More than that, though, it reinvigorated the Rudd/Gillard issue that still captivates an unimaginative, hollow media class.

That’s not what I want to talk about this week though. I wanted to just quickly note, as many others did, that last night’s ep simultaneously exposed the very best and the very worst of Rudd. I tweeted at the time that it was genuinely regrettable we don’t have someone as fiercely intelligent as Rudd as our Prime Minister any more. I can take or leave Rudd’s political beliefs. While I find him a very articulate and thoughtful advocate of a set of values which is defensible, I personally agree with him on very few political issues.

The worst of Rudd, though, was only highlighted as he became more relaxed and comfortable. I used to think that Rudd’s painful, vacuous attempts at connecting to people and conveying sincerity were confected for the sake of political expediency, now I’m not so sure. Without wanting to be too hard on the man (I don’t know him but he has always come across to me as a fundamentally good person) it became clearer to me last night (and maybe I’m late on this) that it’s just an intrinsic part of his personality. He struggles with himself. He wants so much to connect with the audience, or the public, that he seemingly disassociates himself from any genuine emotive connection or understanding that he does feel.

When he said “youse” towards the back end of the show, it was more than just a man acting. All politicians act, and Rudd is better at it than most when he tones it down in my opinion. It was the archetypal act of a man who, in public, is constantly unsure of himself, his personality and his connection to others.

Since Gillard and the faceless men with recognisable faces forced him to relinquish the Prime Ministership, we’ve seen far more of Rudd, the tortured soul. Maybe I’m reading too much into these things. But there are moments the camera pans to Rudd and you can almost see the tension in his mind. A man so convinced of his intellectual capacity (and why shouldn’t he be – he is quite clearly one of the most intelligent people in Australian politics) simultaneously so lacking in self-awareness and perception.

Saying this is the “worst” of Rudd isn’t meant to be a judgement of his character as a person. Politically, though, it’s poisonous. And as soon as Rudd has moments of intellectual clarity, he reminds us that, as a politician, and especially a Prime Minister, he is confected to the point of being completely hollow. Again, I want to note, though, that his confection is not the issue per se. It’s the fact that his insecurities so dominate his political (and leadership) style.

It’s fine for us to miss Rudd’s intelligence – it’s something sadly lacking in the public leadership of the ALP since his demotion, Faulkner’s withdrawal from the Cabinet and Tanner’s departure from Parliament – but last night’s ep only reminded us of all the reasons he made a disappointing Labor Prime Minister.

The Arab Street

One of the most frustrating things about the media coverage of the uprisings across the Arab world has been the unsophisticated way in which the dynamics of Arab politics have been represented. We consistently hear from western media outlets that we don’t know enough about the rebels. I need to put forward the proposition that perhaps that’s because we’re not investigating or asking.

It seems far easier to reproduce the Libyans or the Egyptians or whoever in our own image of ourselves and of ‘the Arab’. They’ve either been enlightened by Western democratic values, or they’re primitivist Islamic extremists. There is no room for particularity in this conception.

More and more you need to turn to other news sources to actually hear the opinions of people with knowledge and research behind them. Not western media intelligentsia blowing a few paragraphs out of their arse, but people with considered and comprehensive knowledge of the people.

This is another great segment on Al Jazeera. This time featuring Ibish Hussein and Dalia Mogahad, both of whom add considerable sophistication and detail to the debate.