Larvatus Prodeo

3 years, 6 months ago

in Culture

. 13 Comments

The UK BB is about to start. A rival broadcaster, UKTV, is offering BB contestants ��70,000 if they refrain from speaking while in the House:

The contestant who manages to stay silent throughout their stay on the 11-week series stands to walk away with as much cash as the victor of the Channel 4’s show.

Satellite network UKTV described its new prize as a “public-spirited” attempt to “diminish the amount of mindless drivel generated by the deluge of reality TV shows”.

The network, which has been responsible for shows like Watching Paint Dry - an ironic attack on the genre - said that the prize was designed to help put an end to Big Brother “inanities”.

A UKTV spokesman said: “Any contestant who manages to keep it zipped will be doing Britain’s TV viewers a huge favour.”

Laudable. Who do you wish had accepted a similar offer on Australian BB?

Democratic Deficit and the Disconnect

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

in Politics and Sociology

. 53 Comments

There’s some fascinating research being published from the ANU democratic audit of Australia. In looking at data from the 2003 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes and the 2004 Austalian Electoral Survey, Scott Brenton found negative correlations between working class indentification and lack of tertiary education and confidence in political institutions. You can access the report here [link to .pdf].

The higher a person’s income, the more likely they are to believe that politicians know what ordinary people think… Furthermore, people with university degrees and middle-class identifiers were more likely to believe that politicians know what ordinary people think.

This shouldn’t surprise us. “Aspirationals” and the non-rich 80k earners are constantly being told they’re the great middle. And tax cuts are targetted at the upper echelons. The consistent finding from the study is that on a range of questions, working class people, the less educated and the less well off have much more distrust in a range of public and political institutions. This works nicely for the Howard Government, as it’s able to thump the populist drum and pose as anti-political, while at the same time reassuring high income earners that they’re just ordinary folk. The Howardians can’t lose either way.

Another good example of the practical skewing of Government policy towards high income earners is in the changes to unfair dismissal law just announced (about which there’s some discussion at Catallaxy). Currently people earning over $64000 a year are excluded from the provisions relating to the ability to take action in the AIRC for unfair dismissal. However, this doesn’t leave such employees unprotected - as they can take a common law action in contract. With the new provisions, no-one working in the 90% of Australian workplaces with fewer than 100 employees will be able to go to the AIRC to seek a statutory remedy for unfair dismissal.

The arguments in favour of this move are specious. I’m yet to see any evidence demonstrating a net employment gain from making it easier to sack people aside from the figure of 50,000 jobs created Reith pulled from his hat a while back. The perceived need for the provisions relating to unfair dismissal supposedly also relates in part to frivolous or vexatious claims being made. However, this is already prevented by legislation - the Workplace Relations Amendment (Termination of Employment) Act 2002 which enables the commission to form a judgement early on that a claim has no chance of succeeding and also prohibits “advisors” (ie union officials or solicitors) from encouraging an applicant to pursue an untenable claim.

The practical effect of removing these protections will be that high-income earners will be able to go to court to enforce their common law rights in contract. The majority of the workforce earning less than $50000 a year won’t be able to afford to. This can be contrasted with the ease of accessing statutory rights in the AIRC. So the practical impact of this aspect of the Workplace Relations “reforms” will be to render most Australians incapable in any practical sense of enforcing rights in contract law they enjoy on paper.

What’s to trust about the actions of the Government?

Elsewhere: Nic White skewers Minister Andrews on the logic of his case for IR Reform. I saw the Minister on Lateline tonight and lost track of how many claims he made that were duplicitous at best (for instance he repeated the furphy about frivolous actions I’ve discussed above). Maxine McKew’s questioning of him was very soft, I thought. She allowed him to get away without answering the obvious question that if we live in an industrial and employment paradise there’s no urgent need for further change, and failed to press him on his spurious assertion that we had a system designed for the 1890s until now.

Update: John Quiggin argues that the Government’s IR reforms are about reducing the bargaining position that employees normally enjoy during periods of economic expansion and low unemployment. I agree. This is the real motivation.

There’s a passionate post at Psephological Catechism, while Flutey urges people to join unions. Tim Dunlop characterises the IR Reforms as a struggle for the heart of Australia. The Pigs Are Flying examines Howard’s New Industrial Order.

Left-Wing and Fabulous but conflicted…

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 91 Comments

More on counterculture cool. It’s not just for right-wingers. The latest funky lifestyle trend to be identified is the Indie-yuppie. Appropriately the Indie-yuppie phenomenon was first popularised through a blog. But the Indie-yuppie life isn’t without guilt:

Stereogum’s subsequent contest ‘You Might Be an Indie-Yuppie If You . . .” received the most responses Lapatine has ever gotten to a single post.

“If you can afford New York City rents and can go to these rock shows, you are definitely an indie-yuppie,” says Lapatine, who fully admits to being one himself.

“I just bought a ticket for the Death Cab for Cutie show at Central Park, and it cost $35 - at what point is that indie?”

In other words, you must be an active, contributing member of society who considers your iTunes library an extension of yourself and who turns up for work at 10 a.m. - though you may be hung over from last night’s secret Gang of Four show at the Tribeca Grand Hotel.

“I was like, ‘Oh, my God! That’s me!’” says entrant Tanya Manchini, a 31-year-old editor from Hoboken (who admits she was relieved the Nine Inch Nails show she saw on Monday night ended early).

“I crossed the line when I stopped dressing in thrift store clothing and started appreciating shoes by Michael Kors,” she adds.

Still, she says, “it’s hard to reconcile yourself to it when you came up through the college radio punk scene, and then you grow up to become a person with disposable income. It really hit home.”

Freakonomics II

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

in Politics and Sociology

. 2 Comments

A few days ago, I posted on Steven Levitt’s work and his thesis that legalising abortion diminishes crime rates. The promised symposium at Crooked Timber, with a contribution by John Quiggin and a response to the debate by Levitt is now up. I like these Crooked Timber symposiums - expert contributors engaging directly with an author and their response is a distinct contribution the blogosphere can make above and beyond the value of book reviews.

Elsewhere: Over at Troppo, Nicholas Gruen also likes the symposium.

The Beazer and Mandatory Detention

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 35 Comments

There’s some critical comment at Tim Dunlop’s and wsacaucus.org about Beazley’s refusal to allow Labor MPs a conscience vote on the Private Members’ Bills on the immigration regime to be introduced by Petro Georgiou.

I think Beazley is right. Labor tradition is very much against conscience votes, and rightly so as the individual MPs are not regarded as Burkean independents but as delegates of the Party pledged to fight for its policy. The other difficulty is that if you start allowing them in the ALP you give free reign to Joe de Bruyn and the Catholic Right Laborites to claim them on all sorts of things which are against Labor policy. Some Labor MPs don’t support benefits for same-sex partners or Medicare benefits for termination of pregnancy. Why should their tender consciences be privileged over Labor policy and the opinion of a majority of Labor voters?

Beazley hasn’t said that Labor won’t support the bills - my understanding is that they’re quite close to Labor policy. I strongly suspect Labor will back Georgiou.

He’s also no doubt trying to ensure the focus stays on the Government - given the extreme difficulty the ALP has had in reconciling Left and Right views on mandatory detention. I’d personally be very happy if the ALP changed its stance on mandatory detention, but this is not the right political moment to open up that debate again. The Government has enormous problems with this issue - as Amanda Vanstone’s “kinder, gentler” case by case approach leads to all sorts of contradictions and inequities and as coverage in the media of immigration issues becomes much more humane and personalised. Beazley should do everything possible to ensure that the Government is held accountable for the inhumane outcomes of its policy, and avoid focussing on Labor divisions around the principle of mandatory detention.

Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop responds.

Every Sperm is Sacred

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 12 Comments

“Every embryo is unique”, says George Bush, surrounded by the adoptive mothers of former embryos, announcing that he is prepared to veto a Congressional bill (for the first time ever) allowing stem cell research. “Every embryo is a person”, adds Tom Delay.

The bill was passed by the House of Representatives with moderate Republican support, and is expected to pass the Senate.

A dissenting Republican opinion:

“To reduce this issue to an abortion issue is a horrible injustice to 100 million Americans suffering the ravages of diabetes, spinal cord paralysis, heart disease, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, MS [multiple sclerosis], Lou Gehrig’s disease and other fatal, debilitating diseases,” said Rep. Jim Ramstad, a Minnesota Republican.

“What could be more pro-life than working for a cure for a loved one?” asked Rep. James Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat, another of the bill’s 200 co-sponsors, who suffered a spinal cord injury at age 16 and cannot walk.

Bush held a news conference Tuesday surrounded by families who had either adopted or given up for adoption embryos remaining after fertility treatments.

“With the right policies and the right techniques, we can pursue scientific progress while still fulfilling our moral duties,” Bush said. “The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo.”

Strangely, the Republicans seem to believe in the tyranny of the minority on this occasion, something they derided as unconstitutional and insulting to American citizens when the issue was Democrat filibusters holding up extreme Right judicial nominations:

Four years ago, Bush restricted federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research (or ESCR) to cell lines derived before Aug. 9, 2001. Last year, 58 senators and nearly half the House signed letters asking him to relax that restriction. For at least three years, most senators have supported legislation that would approve human therapeutic cloning. Last year, more than 200 members of the House co-sponsored legislation to expand ESCR funding.

None of these bills ever got an up-or-down vote. Why? Because the same Republicans who now preach about up-or-down votes bottled them up or threatened to filibuster them.

Writing in Slate before the House vote, William Saletan reveals:

The bill may not even make it to Bush’s desk. If it passes the House, it still needs Frist’s approval to reach the Senate floor. According to the New York Times, Frist said last week that “he wanted to consult with colleagues before bringing the bill up for a vote.” And if it gets that far, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., promises to filibuster it. Some things, you see, are more important than an up-or-down vote.

I suppose the conclusion to be drawn from all this is that it’s always democratic for the President to win whether he’s in a minority or a majority in Congress.

Elsewhere: Check out this article on the “sperm wars” at Online Opinion.

McBurger Wars II - Hilton Scandal!

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 19 Comments

Perhaps with more justification than the Star Wars thing, Culture Warriors are targetting another burger chain for its ads featuring Paris Hilton:

A raunchy advertisement for a US hamburger chain starring hotel heiress and socialite Paris Hilton has raised temperatures among fans and family watchdog groups alike.

The ad, which can be seen on Carl’s Jr site, features a skimpy black swimsuit-clad Hilton soaping and washing down a Bentley limousine - and herself - while a version of Cole Porter’s I Love Paris plays in the background.

The spot ends with the blonde-tressed heiress biting into a Carl’s Jr spicy BBQ burger, before fading into her trademark slogan “That’s Hot”.

You can watch Ms Hilton promoting the Spicy Burger here.

The Paris burger burger battle is the latest front in the family values wars:

Stuart Fischoff, a Los Angeles media psychologist, said the Hilton ad went well beyond other Carl’s ads targeted at young men and boys. “This could come back and bite them in the behind,” Mr Fischoff said. “We’re in the throes of a culture war in this country and for them to be pushing the envelope like this at this time could be very dangerous.”

The irony, of course, is that once upon a time the ad would have been most loudly criticised by feminists, not Religious Right groups.

McBurger Wars - Hollywood Scandal!

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 5 Comments

McDonalds tends to get all the flak in the left wing fast food wars, from libel suits to docos. Interesting to see that their rival chain, Burger King, is now being targetted by the Religious Right. Their anti-family values crime? Using Star Wars Sith themed packaging and promo gifts on Kids Meals.

The Dove Foundation lists as one of its objectives - to “Rally enough consumer support to encourage filmmakers to produce more wholesome Family-Scripted movies.”

An endorsement on its website claims:

Hollywood is assaulting the fundamental cherished values that most Americans hold dear. This is particularly evident in their hostility toward the traditional family. The Dove Seal is a very welcome friend of the family, guiding parents to the kind of wholesome entertainment that so many of us are longing for.

Of course, I suppose Miranda Devine would say that the Dove Foundation was kewl.

As for pop culture, most of it is just entertainment. What the Religious Right scream about in the culture wars is responsive to the market. Nobody wants to see Greg Sheridan’s movie about a property developer or watch a tv show about well disciplined kids whose parents take them to church and on wholesome family picnics. Shows like the L Word, Coupling, The O.C., etc. are cool - but have about zero political content. They’re going to feature gay or lesbian characters and disastrous relationships and divorce and scandal and sex - because it’s interesting viewing, and drives the plot along. If there’s any political message in cool tv and film at all, it’s probably a soft libertarianism. The culture warriors only get excited about it because it gives them a convenient platform for conspicuous indignation and to get their preachy values accross - you must live like us.

Pop culture is not left wing. The irony is that the some of the Cultural Studies people in Arts Faculties probably reinforce the right-wing stereotype as they whistle in the wind about consumption-based identities being the new politics.

The Politics of Schapelle Corby II

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 89 Comments

With the Australian Government having reversed its position and now indicating (with Opposition support) that it will seek an individual interim prisoner exchange agreement for Schapelle Corby if she is convicted, how will this move be justified?

Indonesian Government officials are rightly sceptical about the justice of special treatment for one individual and the precedent this will set:

Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Marty Natalegawa likened the plan to a “slippery slope”.

“We would have to be extremely careful when contemplating such a thing,” Mr Natalegawa said.

“This is like a slippery slope. If we make a special arrangement in this case, an argument might be made when other cases come up by the loved ones of people who get into trouble.”

However, he said Indonesia was open to a general prisoner transfer treaty with Australia.

But he would not even “hazard a guess” at how long such a treaty, which would need the approval of the Indonesian Parliament, would take to negotiate.

Meanwhile, international law expert at Sydney University Don Rothwell said a one-off treaty for Corby would be unprecedented.

He said there had never been a treaty struck with another country on a single case.

However, Professor Rothwell said politics might play a role in Corby’s fate and anything was possible.

Could it be the case that this decision is intended not just to appeal to public opinion in Australia but also mollify anti-Indonesian sentiment?

And as Laurie Oakes points out at Schapelle central, The Bulletin, public interest in Australia has not been stirred by the plight of two Australian citizens facing excution in Asian gaols - Nguyen Tuong Van, 24, in Singapore and Tran Van Thanh, 40, in Vietnam.

Will the Government make public appeals on their behalf? Will the Government extend the same treatment accorded to Ms Corby to the 11 other Australian citizens convicted of drug offences in Indonesian gaols? If not, why not?

In other news: The ninemsn website has a “reporter blog” on Schapelle, as well as a dedicated site for Schapelle news and updates and a a facility where you can sign up for mobile or email updates. Strangely, you’d be very hard pressed to find anything on other Australian prisoners on a google news search.

Elsewhere: David Tiley shares my concerns about the xenopobia evident in some of the reaction to the verdict. Tim Dunlop opposes the Boycott Bali campaign.

Generation of Swine

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 54 Comments

Don Arthur has one of the best Ozblogosphere posts of the year up on Troppo - on the phenomenon, beloved of Miranda Devine, of South Park Yoof Conservatism.

But if you want to see the true face of Howardian youth in all their marketing student cocktail swilling glory, try this site. A credit revolution breeds conspicuous consumption and vapid fabulousness. Lifestyles of the young and feckless. Still, as long as everyone’s happy, Janet Albrechtsen is too.

Southpark, anyone? Comrades?

Low Pay Commission

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 7 Comments

A bit of a slip by the Australian the other day in describing the Government’s new minimum wage body as the “Low Pay Commission” [unsurprisingly no link] segues nicely into a post by Arleeshar [via Liam] on the newspeak rhetoric which disguises what many think to be the actual aims of the Government’s IR reforms. In other IR news, Alex at Psephological Catechism passionately questions why draconian legislation imposing severe penalties against individual workers and contrary to any sort of civil liberties is necessary in pursuit of the ostensible goal of freedom of association.

As Jim McDonald reports (and his site continues to be an amazingly comprehensive compendium of IR information), the release of the IR policy proper has again been delayed, no doubt due to a combination of incompetence and disputes within the Government. I’ll be watching for the detail and will have something to say in due course.

Our SOBs?

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 3 Comments

Alexander Downer, in his history wars polemic, attacked foreign policy realists for their scepticism about the Neo-con mission of spreading freedom and democracy. Alexander might be interested to know that two leading Neo-cons have criticised Bush’s stance on support for the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan:

The Bush administration’s response to the bloodshed has been tepid, featuring calls for restraint by both sides. The president’s failure even to mention Uzbekistan in a major foreign policy speech to the International Republican Institute last week is not good news. Neither is the absence of talk about using U.S. aid as leverage on Karimov.

Uzbekistan has a distinguished cultural and theological Islamic heritage. If it had a regime accountable to the people, allowing entrepreneurship and pluralism, it could become a force for progress in other Muslim lands. As an exemplar of successful reform, Uzbekistan would be a far more valuable ally than it is now as Karimov’s fiefdom.

President Bush should lead the international pressure on Karimov to allow journalists, legitimate relief workers, and trustworthy investigators to travel to Andijon and render a verdict on the events there. That verdict will likely be harsh for Karimov, and it should have consequences for U.S. aid to and support for the regime. Washington cannot turn a blind eye to massacres in a country where U.S. troops are based and that receives U.S. assistance. Here as elsewhere, the principle of linkage between a regime’s behavior and relations with the United States must be reestablished. And if not in Uzbekistan, where we have so much leverage, how seriously will others take our promises and our warnings?

Indeed. Of course, a realist might point out that there are 143 countries in the world with US bases and military facilities.

Given Downer’s claims that -

In Timor, in the wars of liberation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the overall war on terror, the Coalition has been sustained by the conviction that Australia is a significant country with international military and peace-keeping obligations.

Along with national capacity, we have a view of the national interest in which the successful prosecution of those conflicts and the success of diplomacy, in furthering the cause of freedom and democracy, is fundamentally important.

- I imagine he’s working diplomatically behind the scenes now, leveraging the influence we have with the Bush administration, to ensure that freedom and democracy spread to Uzbekistan. Or not.

Elsewhere: More on Uzbekistan at John Quiggin’s place.

Update: A good op/ed in The Age:

Uzbekistan is the latest example of the United States’ failure to act on its cherished principle of bringing democracy to the Muslim world.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Uzbekistan was one of the 15 republics to be welcomed in the international fold as a sovereign state. These states were expected to make a rapid transition to democracy. The conventional view was that democracy had won over tyranny. Francis Fukuyama even called it the End of History.

But the euphoria was misplaced. The political elite in Uzbekistan and neighbouring Central Asian states who were in power at the time of the Soviet collapse, have not steered a course towards democracy. On the contrary, the Uzbek leadership under President Islam Karimov has moved to block prospects of democracy by systematically eradicating dissidents and keeping a tight control over the media.

A Challenge to the Governator

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 2 Comments

[Via Kim in comments]. Last year’s US elections saw a wave of referenda in various states seeking to define marriage as “between a man and a woman”, a wave orchestrated to wedge the Democrats and to promote Bush’s candidature among “values” voters. Now the wave has hit the sunny beaches of California. A group called VoteYesMarriage.com, is seeking to gather the 600000 signatures required to place the initiative on the June 2006 ballot:

Under the proposed amendment, same-sex couples still would be allowed to register as domestic partners, but most of the privileges and responsibilities the state has provided for such unions would be taken away. State and local governments, for example, would no longer be allowed to provide health coverage for the partners of their gay employees.

Gay rights supporters described the measure as among the most extreme attempts nationwide to block the gains same-sex couples have made since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage a year ago. If passed, it would make California the 20th state with a constitutional prohibition against gay marriage.

“It’s extremely mean-spirited and far-sweeping in its effect,” said Thalia Zepatos of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “It’s absolutely ahead of the pack in its viciousness.”

In blue California, this initiative will pose a challenge for Governor Schwarzenegger. The Governator could only be elected as a Republican through the non-partisan recall election coincident with the recall of Democratic Governor Gray Davis. The hard-right nature of California’s Republican party meant that he would have had no chance winning a primary. Schwarzenegger is touted as one of the Republican party’s few moderates, and lauded by libertarians. How he plays this one will be well worth watching.

Particularly since despite his professed support for same-sex “lifestyles”, the Governator with his contempt for “girly men” displays a fair bit of the hyper-masculinity that’s often closely linked with homophobia. But we’ll wait and see.

“We Will Decide”

Published

3 years, 6 months ago

. 6 Comments

The Cornelia Rau case, and Vivian Solon’s now seem to be producing some softening of the Government’s attitude towards asylum seekers, at least around the edges. The issues of the mental health of detainees and of children in detention appear finally to be cutting through in public debate. But despite the courageous decision of Petro Georgiou to offer two Private Members’ Bills to liberalise the mandatory detention regime, Howard is standing firm. As Andrew Bartlett observes, the Government’s slight movement is largely rhetorical. Will this be a sustainable attitude as the bills for the Tampa election fall due?

Update: More at The Age.

Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop questions the PM’s priorities. Liam offers to swap Petro Georgiou for Laurie Ferguson and Arleeshar looks at this through the Howard/Costello leadership prism.

Ausculture Jess Surpasses Herself

Published