An open thread where, at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
OMG FRIST!!!!!!1!!!1!1
pumpkin scone’d!
What’s with that huge blue gravatar?
Just askin…
Gonna be a slow night around here since a lot of the usual after midnight Melbourne suspects will be out getting sloshed:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/12/05/melbourne-grogblogging-2/
I’m hoping someone will post photos …
They’re all camera shy, I understand, Dr Cat, to protect their secret identities as ASIO operatives or international men of mystery like Nabs. We should have dropped in – or are airfares up for the holidays?
It must be a Sydney/Melbourne thing. Everytime there’s a Sydney grogblog, there are endless photos posted – some of some very drunk bloggers. But the Melbourne folk – recognisable only as gravatars down a laneway somewhere.
Maybe it’s a kind of Through a Scanner Darkly thing!
Went to see that tonight, very good!
It’s not so much that we’re camera shy, it’s more that our agents don’t want us commoditising our product. I mean, loook at Britney. One bit Sydney, the other bit Brisbane.
But I don’t expect you lot to unnerstand. (FXH made a perfect goose of hisself tonite btw. Somehow I wish I had been allowed to film. Nabs piked. LE may be a figment. But the Magnificent Katz showed.)
Which reminds me Kim, I hope you can get along to the Sydney grogblog on December 16. Details here.
That does seem to be the case. Tim Lambert and others have put quite a few photos of the two grogblogs I’ve been at in Sydders up on their flickr pages. But I could only extract one photo from the Melbourne folk (courtesy of Father Francis) and I’ve cropped it so that it only shows me and my mate R.
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/markrachelmelb.JPG"
More of the Melbourne bloggers seem to post and comment under pseudonyms too than the Sydney and Brisbane ones.
LE didn’t go? Ah well, the perils of parenthood no doubt.
Thanks, SL, see how I’m placed, but I haven’t worked out dates yet for when I’m off out of the country to do Xmas with my family.
Hey, Amazing Kim, how are you? Amazing Kim, BA, I believe
Yobbo:
What happened to your 9pm curfew? (even allowing for timezone differences)? Nice to see you up and alert for us Eastern-Staters.
Pavlov’s Cat and Mlle. Kim:
Picture of their drunken orgy and roisterous conduct would be nice …. (not too many pixels though for us unbroadbanded people out here in regional Australia).
You dont know the half of it, Kimski.
Sorry to miss you in particular, wbb.
Nothing dire, I hope, Lefty E.
Me hope so too, LE.
No, nothing that wont pass. Crummy developments is all. Hey, Im pissed and unwisely posting. Can someone pls delete this, and my previous post?
Cheers
LE
Pissed and unwisely posting? That’s nothing. Who remembers the great Professor Bunyip post of about, what, 2.5 years back – wherein Imre did an online domestic Glenn Milne. And panadol-hurriedly deleted it next morn. But, someone, I forget who, had already captured it for posterity. That was blogging.
Let me know in the morning if you still want the posts deleted, Lefty E. You haven’t said anything worth regretting.
Earlier this week kind person on another thread posted a link to the Surrey Comet.
It’s letter pages are side-splitting and it deserves further exposure:
The pigeon letters: http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/pigeoncomments/
Spirit of the Blitz: http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/display.var.1063060.0.crater_brings_out_blitz_spirit.php
No photos too bloody right. What happens on the blog meet, stays on the blog meet. No voice recorders either, luckily. You have to be able to say some things off the record.
who turned up last night:
Dorian, via collins, Katz, WBB, Boynton, Tony T., Barista, Armagnac, Mark Lawrence, Russell Degnan, FX Holden, me, Paul Watson.
See what startling entertainment opportunities that implies?
Thanks for an entertaining evening ladies and gentlemen.
And thanks to Dave Tiley for organising it all, especially the mirth-making ambiguity between Fitzroy Street St Kilda and Fitzroy Street Fitzroy. Those who were fooled know who they are.
Ah, Melbourne, the memories. (Seventeen years of them.) Only city in the world where those south of the river think there’s only one Fitzroy Street, and those north of the river think the same thing. I do miss moments like that.
Generallly I read Christopher Pearson for comic value only.
However, his article on Julia Gillard in today’s Weekend Australian makes some telling points.
Pearson focusses on Labor’s equivocation about the appropriate role for Julia Gillard in Labor’s shadow cabinet.
Pearson argues that this equivocation is driven by embarrassment over mistakes that Gillard has made as Labor’s Health spokesperson. Notable is her attachment to Medibank Gold.
He makes a strong case for asserting this about Labor’s thinking on Gillard’s suitability:
Pearson then sticks in the knife and gives it a cruel twist:
I note that in the last few days of the last parliamentary session, the Government made a concerted effort to target Gillard. It is likely that they perceive her to be Labor’s most exploitable weakness.
This reference to Cheryl Kernot raises all sorts of interesting questions about how gender identity, gender expectations and gender stereotypes intersect with the robust world of gladiatorial politics.
But in the short term it seems necessary to find the best job for Gillard.
I would suggest Shadow Attorney-General. It is a very senior portfolio. For example, Billy Hughes was A-G before becoming PM. The portfolio is where justice issues intersect with policy.
Interestingly, also, becoming shadow A-G pits Gillard against the unlovable Ruddock.
Damn it, and Katz too! Sorry to miss it. Again. Unavoidably detained.
Mind you, this is a good way to develop a semi-mythical status, far exceeding the interest value of my real time company.
Melbourne is cloaked in heat and smoke from the bushfire front eating half the state. Depressing, and apocalyptic sense to the weather.
People are relocating outdoor events owing to “extreme weather”. Remember when that meant rain?
I just want to add that I think all firefighters, professional and voluntary, are deadset national heroes.
You could look at the Pearson column from the other angle and say that if Abbott and Costello have set their most articulate, and second least ludicrous, media attack dog onto Gillard in so unscrupulous a way, it means they’re really worried about her.
Pearson has made one fatal mistake, with his little Latin tag about Gillard’s rhetoric; pointing out other people’s rhetorical strategies tends to alert readers to one’s own. And there are several egregious ones in this piece: the repeated assertions of Gillard’s incompetence and incapacity to deal with the ferocious heroes of the Right, as though we all already agreed that was a fact; the gratuitous linking of her name with that of Cheryl Kernot, who also alarmed the boyos (on both sides) in her day; the extraordinarily manipulative repetition at the end of a quotation from Latham’s diary, spun to make it sound like something Gillard had said herself.
The piece is full of such deliberately faulty logic and invalid argument, which Pearson obviously thinks the punters are too dumb to notice. Twenty years ago he would have scorned to use a cliche like ‘acid test’, much less write a piece for the national press that would have failed Logic 1.
One may wander endlessly in a wilderness of logical and illogical rhetorical mirrors.
Let’s return to the prosaic world of plain facts:
Problem is, Gillard hasn’t slid silkily and seamlessly into the shadow treasurer’s seat on the front bench.
Is there a better explanation for this than Pearson’s?
Personally, I’m more concerned about the description of Bob McMullan as “new blood” or “fresh talent”.
And Emerson. The guy’s a dill who gets praised as “talent” because he comes out with market based solutions for anything and everything.
Mark – I’m a bit concerned about the fact you seem to have a mullet.
Also, in the tradition of posting the most disturbing possible video clips, this week I’ve gone for the enigmatic Nine Inch Nails.
First a word about the star of the clip. Bob Flanagan was a performance artist afflicted with Cystic Fibrosis. He tells people that in order to deal with the pain associated with the disease, he used masochism to convert it to pleasure.
Anyway, that should give you some insight into this film clip which is definitely not worksafe and is highly disturbing to say the least. Enjoy.
Note because of the horribly disturbing nature of this clip, you have to click on a warning tab before being able to see it. I think that you may also have to sign up to youtube to activate this function.
on a lighter note, does anyone else thing Christmas can’t possibly be about to happen and do you think it’s possible to hold it off for another three months or so?
Mmmm, Melburnians are wimps. If you’ve got an opinion, own it.
I’m just hiding from the Melbourne heat at the moment, after just having gone to the “Bring David Home” rally.
Given that supporting the rule of law and other such things is a conservative position (that is, supporting our institutions is a conservative position), I am sure lots of conservatives were there today. Good old centrist me was.
Anyway, it’s stinking hot, but the rally was chockers with people, and most of them didn’t fit the usual stereotype of an activist. If Andy Landeryou was there, he probably just took pictures of the loops and ignored the majority.
Of course, the loops were there, but they were easy to ignore. Interestingly, a woman from the trade union movement got yelled down when she kept going on about workers’ issues. A large proportion of the crowd wanted her to stick to the matter at hand. Nicola Roxon went over well, as she wisely pointed out that this is not a matter of whether you’d like to invite Hicks over for tea, it’s a matter of supporting the rule of law.
Bob Brown pointed out that the Greens have been on this issue for a long time, which reminded me of the speech from Team America: World Police in which the puppet says something to the effect that sometimes we need the pussies to stop the dicks.
This is one instance where that position is the case. Of course, the rest of that speech from Team America was correct as well, but that is for another post about Iraq or something.
If nations are going to talk about democracy, civil rights and freedom etc, they better make sure they are being democratic and supporting civil rights and freedom.
Locking up someone for five years is not on, no way.
Moving right along to my home movie collection – In this episode my lovely wife takes exception to my daughter’s teacher. She had it coming alright, and this one is work safe.
I beginning to think that letting my grandmother walk my dog wasn’t such a good idea.
Here’s a cautionery tale on the workings of the Reserve Bank. Ever found a damaged note of Australian currency? As long as the serial number is intact, she’ll be right? Wrong. After finding a less than intact $50 note lodged in my hedgerow – and not being able to pass it off – I discovered the arcane world of how Canberra deals with her majesty’s currency. My bank pulled out a measurement chart and the ubiquitous forms to fill out. Because the note was slightly less than 80% complete I was advised that Canberra might not give full face value. And that I might have to wait a while. That was early September. My full description of how I came upon this distressed note was all noted by the bank forms and photocopies made. Efforts to find the missing bit were also noted. On December 7, just in time for xmas joy an advisory from the bank that Canberra has agreed to pay $38 on my $50 find. Three months and one interest rate rise to reach a determination that was blindingly obvious on first presentation. Ah bureacracy and no appeals will be entertained.
Indeed one may, and it diverted me from the point I’d meant to make more clearly: the rhetorical strategies and the substance can’t be separated, here or anywhere else, and it seems to me one of the biggest shortcomings of political debate in this country that people think they can.
Whether he’s right or not, Pearson’s argument is based on his begged questions about Gillard’s reputation and competence. Her putative failings are not the given that he is positing them to be.
Agree totally, Dr Cat.
Also the boofy “who’s a big Treasurer now” contest(ation) ignores the value she will bring to IR as a communicator on a key issue where coiffed boy couldn’t cut through.
Bye bye, Frist:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/07/frist-farewell/
Oh thank God, I thought it was just me that was thinking that.
Maybe Gillard wants to break the mould. Certainly I’d like to know exactly why Treasury is supposed to be the be-all and end-all, and who says so.
If she took it, they’d all write stories about her unladylike insistence on her prerogative to choose her portfolio (bloody pro-choice harridan!) and how it showed that she wanted to “overshadow” Kruddy or something, Dr Cat!
Note that the theme that Gillard herself might have decided with good reason to focus on IR is nowhere commented on.
Yikes! A woman making her own decisions? Quelle horreur!
The papers would rather she thought more about her haircut.
Reputation is always provisional until death allows a final accounting. And the reputation of politicians is usually a matter of considerable dispute.
As to competence, Pearson does mention the retreat from Medibank Gold and a misstep over Gardasil. Given that these animadversions are factually correct, the question still arises as to how representative are these purported mistakes of Gillard’s political career as a shadow minister. Perhaps they are the only blemishes in an otherwise stellar performance.
The reference to Cheryl Kernot is indeed cruel and provocative. Pearson couches it in terms of “a touch of the Cheryls” as being a not uncommon habit of mind in ALP circles, perhaps in the same way as a “born to rule” attitude may well have pervaded Liberal thinking. This may or may not be true. Has the term “a touch of the Cheryls”, or anything like it, entered the Labor lexicon? PC’s observation: “Cheryl Kernot, who also alarmed the boyos (on both sides) in her day” suggests tension, if not friction. And who can forget the manner of Kernot’s departure from elected office?
I don’t think that Pearson can be accused of putting Latham’s words into Gillard’s mouth. The most he can be accused of is hinting that she may have thought them.
Pearson is ascribing to Gillard a motive for which he has no direct evidence. A proper biographical study would rehearse all the likely motives and arrive at a conclusion about which motive among several appears most likely.
Pearson is a hitman for the Right. As I said, most of the time his efforts are laughable. He has plumped for the least flattering likely motive.
Eh??? It’s not like we have gold and silver currency, where debasement of the material actually does have a real effect on the value of the coinage…
I don’t know that Julia has ever conceded that Medicare Gold was a bad policy. In fact it wasn’t, and got a fair bit of praise from health economists – it was developed in close consultation with people from the health sector. Can someone please explain why it’s a “bad policy” rather than just repeating ad nauseam the media/Tony Abbott’s slurs?
The fact that the Australian govt has been complicit in denying justice to one of its own citizens for 5 years now is certainly starting to smell like last week’s prawn shells.
The defenders of that strategy on the internets must all be having an early xmas break. Or perhaps they’re sifting the Iraqi Study Group for some talking points that support the disastrous strategy?
Sad I missed FXH as a goose last night, I enjoyed him as the bon vivant with no particular axe to grind, but a secret desire to host a cooking show for the Nouveau Peasant cooking language he is working on. I must have left just before the guinness’ took impact.
Great work by David T in setting up, and lovely to meet those that I did.
But what I would like to know is
” Has she inhaled ?”
Is this even a topical concern these days ?
(Inhales deeply….. repeats procedure ….forgets what the question is …ahhhhh.)
Feature in the West today on Gillard headlined: “Golden girl or red witch?”.
Well, obviously, it has to be one or the other.
Yeah. Bloody typical.
kim
“medicare gold” was undermined by the AMA who paid for an Access Economics report – who reported there was not enough resorces and/or would take resources from other patients (those under 75) and also it was underfunded, Costello brought in Treasury who said the same thing on the funding, but John Deeble the architect of medicare, said they were both wrong.
but what would he know – he was only the original author of medicare – geoff h. and brian would also remember the AMA was never a friend of both medibank or medicare and the conservatives basically were REALLY hysterical about BOTH & they got rid of medibank the first time….
Hawke basically won all his elections on medicare, and is why howard campaigned SO hard in ’96 saying he wouldnt touch medicare – he had too.
not being a health care analyst/economist/academic – i’ll just go with the bloke who set up one the world’s most efficient, low cost – high value health systems. but who listens to experts who put the public interest first these days?? fuck the ama and costello.
She doesn’t have to. The ALP has dumped it.
As you can see from this list of policy statements, there has not been a single comprehensive statement about Federal Labor health policy for more than a year.
I agree that Medibank Gold was perhaps the best thing to come out of the Latham disaster.
So why did the ALP dump it?
Small target. Beazer. QED.
It was an uninentional quasi-mullet, Alex. I was in Sydney and Newcastle one week, back for two days, then in Melbourne for five days. And overdue for a haircut…
Also dumping Medicare Gold was part of the exorcism of Mark Latham.
Katz, it’s a pity more people don’t remember what a struggle it was to introduce universal health into this country, and how the conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep it out.
It’s one of the reason I hate Beazley, cause he sat on his fat arse in 2001, and voted for a two tiered health system AND massive increases in private school funding, both policies highly unpopular in the polls, and with the Democrats/Harradine/Greens, neither bills wouldn’t have passed the Senate.
No 30% rebate & all that money still going into our public hospitals etc…..and what was Beazley going to do if he won in 2001, roll it back?? He was a gutless, incompetent, back-flipping joke who allowed Howard to get away with blue murder for 8 years.
And as we all know, the Tampa came steaming over the horizon and Sept 11….and health and education were tragically transformed into major wedges for Howard, in his great dividing of the nation – you’re either in the private system or you’re not.
Beazley and the ALP sold one of their greatest achievements down the river….and there wasn’t even any huge media campaign at that time……nothing….no groundswell, Beazley and federal Labor just passed it.
I remember poor people not going to the doctor or getting medicines cause it cost too much. Those good old days.
It’s happening again, jo.
Exactly Kim,
it’s death by a thousand cuts and a bloated Canberra bureaucracy, and all compounded by state Labor Govt’s who are still enthralled by manageralism who have been running state services into the ground sucking all resources into consultants/upper mgt/spin doctoring/media/change mgt/business plans – all the while old fashioned maintenance logs are left unfilled in, cause they outsourced the maintainence crew and then the contract ran out, and the sub-contractor went broke, but there is a new Dept looking after that section, , and now it’s out to tender and umm –enough already!!
I’ve got a nasty hangover and I’m raving like a loony, so I’ll stop now…
But your ravings are a good thing, jo!
“Can someone please explain why [Medicare Gold] is a âbad policyâ? rather than just repeating ad nauseam the media/Tony Abbottâs slurs?”
No problem, Kim. This is what Ross Gittins — who is a good economic journalist and certainly no Liberal Party apologist — had to say on the subject:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/05/1096949508372.html
ross gittins seems to have overlooked the obvious, being that the frail elderly ALREADY take up a huge amount of acute beds in the public system and medicare gold was part of package of health/aged care reforms – including the out of hours GP service to relieve public emergency dept – and bringing more aged beds online etc.
Not suprisingly the Private Health Insurance industry had the most to lose and also the AMA which would have had downward pressure on specialty services – but lets quote from a herald journo worried that HIS bypass operation might compromised…. and of course who had the most to lose??
Gittens is mistaken.
At any given time there are a finite number of aged patients demanding a finite number of procedures.
Many of those procedures, like the bypass on the 80-y-o, would be contra-indicated on medical grounds, just like they are today, even for patients on private insurance.
It is undoubted, however, that under Medibank Gold more procedures would have been performed on aged patients, that they would have got preferential access to limited medical resources.
But so what?
The Howard government has created or has strengthened a growing network of cross-subsidisations. Medibank gold would have been just one more.
Examples of cross-subsidisations:
1. Baby bonuses.
2. Capital gains tax free proceeds from the sale of the primary residence.
3. Subsidies to private schools.
4. Huge tax concessions to superannuants, including those who choose to continue to work after the age of 60.
There may be compelling social and political-economical reasons for each of the above. But are these arguments more compelling than cross-subsidisation of medical care for the elderly?
Sky One in the UK have made a live action version of Terry Pratchett’s book Hogfather. There are amazing previews and making-of segments viewable here
(ok preview is screwing up the link. It ends at bcpid291708786, if you get %blablah delete those characters.) Click on “12 Days of Hogswatch” and “The Making of Hogfather” to see the clips.
Terry Pratchett’s Hogfather was written when he asked the question “What does the Tooth Fairy do with all those teeth?
this 2005 paper provides a good analysis of the actual outcomes of the govt’s assistance to the private health insurance industry since 1996
http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/mcau/academic/othpubs/agenda122.pdf
I can’t think of compelling reasons for ANY of those examples (except possibly 3 where I would like the same value of funding to go to every student regardless of which school they attend — a voucher system, in other words).
Examples 1, 2 and 4 are just exercises in vote-buying populism and, like Medicare Gold, are bad policy.
I just don’t like Medicare Gold because I don’t like the principle of privileging one group of the community with preferential access to government services, unless there’s a very good reason for doing so.
The principle which MG was based on — ‘free’ hospital and medical treatment for the over 75s — was just the most naked exercise in vote-buying. It’s like promising every oldie the government would send them $500 in the mail the week after your party won.
And think about it: why the over 75s? The ALP could as easily have picked children, or mothers, or working people, or … just about any group. The over 75s aren’t inherently deserving of preferential access.
And yes, to reinforce what I said previously, I realise the Libs are just as cynical, if not more so.
Quite wrong, Paulus, from several angles.
Firstly, Howard has already before several elections mailed cheques for hundreds of dollars to pensioners and self-funded retirees under the most specious of pretexts.
Secondly, very clearly, a rational health care policy would attempt to direct spending to where it’s most needed – ie the over 75s who are very ill! So no, the ALP didn’t pick this group at random – but wanted to direct health expenditure to those most in need.
Thirdly, the coalition’s policy is to give tax rebates to those who are on incomes sufficiently robust to pay $40 or $50 a week for health insurance.
So in short, the ALP tried to target those most in need of health care funding while the coalition spends 3 billion dollars a year to help those who can most afford to opt out of the public system.
Well, as this wretched year dribbles to its well-deserved conclusion, one bright spot on the horizon emerges: it’s time for some of the funnier year-end round-up lists. One of my favorites is always the list of words and phrases that deserve to be exterminated from the English language.
Top of my list this year: “We are *all* [variable]s now.”
Most likely it was voted out of the language 2-3 years ago, but maybe I missed it. And, like the creature in the first “Alien,” these things have a way of clinging on in the most annoyingly tenacious manner. (speaking of tenacity, I haven’t seen Casino Royale yet. Is there a villain who refuses to die, and then pops up one more time at the very end after you think the whole thing has been put to bed?)
Kim, FFS!
Re your first point: yes! I agree it’s wrong! If the Libs shamelessly try to buy votes, does the ALP _have_ to copy them? Can’t the ALP at least _try_ to be more principled? Sheesh. If the Liberal platform was “Elect us and we’ll send a free slab of beer to every household”, should the ALP respond by pledging two slabs?
Re your second point: some over 75s are quite healthy — my dad for instance (touch wood!) He’s in better nick than some of his friends in their 60s. At the moment, Dad doesn’t need to be at the head of the ‘queue’. Medical resources should be prioritised towards those _individuals_ in greatest need, regardless of age.
Why couldn’t Gillard have put forward a “Medicare Gold” that simply promised to put more resources into the system and improve outcomes for _everyone_?
Re your third point: yes again! I’m not defending those tax rebates. I’m not some Liberal party stooge, just someone _trying_ to view policy from a neutral perspective.
I’d make it three slabs in the ‘elect the Devil’ campaign, and I’d give every household a little talking House of Reps Speaker doll to sit on top of the TV, Boon-style, while you’re watching Question Time.
I’ll have to see whether I’m eligible for election, that is, if Hell counts as part of the Commonwealth of Australia for residency purposes. If Queanbeyan counts, I don’t think the’ll be a problem.
Good grief. What can this mean?
The Independent in reporting the death of a Royal Marine by friendly fire has noted that the war in Afghanistan isn’t actually a war apparently: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2062516.ece
Criminals? Victims of crime? WTF sort of batshit crazy world are we living in?
Interesting CK.
This British Government manouevre is consonant with Bush’s attempt to narrow down the definition of “legal combattant” under the aegis of the Geneva Conventions.
Thus, if the so-called Global war on Terror, or whatever weasel-word banner it masquerades under today, isn’t a war, then it’s o.k. to do extra stuff to captured “criminals” that isn’t in the Geneva Conventions Playbook.
I don’t know enough about the economics of military pensions to make any comment about whether this regime of compensation adds materially to the financial load of fighting a war cum police action.
But what if it is decided that the GWOT was illegal? Then it could be argued that combattants were recklessly or even criminally exposed to physical and mental harm for which the government owed a duty of care to guard against.
The tort actions arising would add up to the biggest lawyers’ picnic in history.
Darlene:
From an ex-soldier who has been shot at by insurgents/terrorists …. thank you for going to the Bring David Home rally.
At best, he is a Prisoner-of-War …. and should have been repatriated years ago. At worst, he is a fellow citizen who has been kidnapped and tortured by war criminals and has been left to rot in their hands by a failed and gutless regime …. and should have been set free years ago.
j-p-z:
No. don’t do it!
We really do need expressions like “We are all lottery winners now” (and my bank manager is relieved) and “We are all diners on endangered species now” (that rare parrot in lemon sauce was delicious) and “We are all supporters of George Bush now” ( …. what are you laughing at ?)
ChristineKeeler:
I was wondering where senior staff from the Australian Dept. of Veterans’ Affairs went on sabbaticals …. looks like they go advising the British M o D on compensation issues.
Yeah Graham, what do you think the go is here? It just seems bizarre.
It is bizarre, Christine, but as Katz says it’s wholly in line with the US strategy to make sure its enemies are not opposing soldiers but illegals and terrorists. Usually the victor waits for, well, victory before deciding who fought fair and who’s for the high-jump- but these days we’ve decided up front that all our enemies are terrorists and acting illegally – even if we invaded them first.
It seems we no longer actually fight wars at all – we just smoke out tourists – except in the rhetorical sense where everything is a War on Something. George Orwell didn’t even get close.
Graham Bell: “At best, he is a Prisoner-of-War …. and should have been repatriated years ago.”
I’m a skeptic rather than a partisan on this question (also, I will never be able to become fully informed, so I’m reluctant to have a fixed opinion); but please explain to me, if you can…
Under what conditions of war is it normative to hand a prisoner-of-war back over (or ‘repatriate’ him) to a third-party sovereignty, which is not the sovereignty for which the prisoner was/is fighting, before the formal cessation of hostilities? (I exclude negotiated prisoner *exchanges* here, naturally.) An example: if a Korean renegade who had gone over to the Imperial Japanese Army in 1943 was captured by Australians while fighting at Iwo Jima, is it morally and legally incumbent on Australia to return the prisoner to *Korea*? *Before* the end of the war? Without condition? If so, why? (As I say, it’s quite possible there are perfectly good answers to these questions, which I simply don’t know; please catch me up on the norms.)
wbb: “it’s wholly in line with the US strategy to make sure its enemies are not opposing soldiers but illegals and terrorists. Usually the victor waits for, well, victory before deciding who fought fair and who’s for the high-jump- but these days we’ve decided up front that all our enemies are terrorists and acting illegally – even if we invaded them first.”
This seems almost hopelessly glib, by virtue of failing to make numerous important distinctions. For instance, many US “enemies” in the current fracas ARE in fact illegals and terrorists, strictly defined. War was initiated on United States territory without formal declaration by an extralegal, stateless entity that was literally hiding in underground bases in an outlaw nation whose government was recognized by virtually no one. How quickly we forget.
There’s probably a few modified scaled-down truths hiding somewhere in what you’ve written, but because you haven’t sifted them carefully, they don’t yet have enough merit to be of use, nor to be taken seriously. This is an intricate time we’re living in; analysis should in turn be properly intricate.
You have been living up to now for a very long time in a slice of the world which has been largely peaceful and orderly, in large part because the United States made it so. How exactly this was done is very very hard to explain. (ask France, Germany and England how hard it is, because they certainly couldn’t manage it circa 1914-1989.) But one thing is sure: you didn’t do it. Please provide a feat of similar scope and magnitude as proof of your superior practical wisdom, before you further enlighten us with your back-seat driver’s brilliance.
Moderated! And for saying something contentious! Good grief! (no, I’m not paranoid*, I know the filter is content-ignorant; but my comment was in fact contentious, so, ‘be fore-warned’ is all I’m a-sayin’… –that is, if it ever gets rescued from the filter net…)
* — Well actually I *am*, just not about this… but that’s for another day…
Well, speaking of criminals, and of world leaders who were *really* involved in kidnapping, torture, assassination and international terrorism, let us all mourn the fact that the old butcher General Pinochet has died without ever facing justice.
…
JPZ, on whether the Guantánamo detainees are criminals or POWs, they can be one or the other, but not both. If they’re the first they should be tried, with evidence and habeas corpus, and if they’re the latter all that would be required would be an acknowledgement. On the United States’ responsibility for world peace, you have a point; though you ought to credit Uncle Joe and the Red Army also for their patriotic anti-fascist struggle. Just because they were involved doesn’t mean we ought to support the foreign policy of the now-defunct USSR.
I don’t know what “glib” is supposed to mean in this context. Is there such a thing as “hopefully glib”?
Let’s consider some glib distinctions and non-distinctions:
Firstly Bush’s distinctions:
1. Did Bush distinguish adequately between state and non-state actors? Is it constitutional nonsense for the United States to declare war on non-state actors? What next? Like Caligula he may declare war on Neptune, god of the sea.
2. Having declared “war” on non-state actors, the Bush regime then distinguishes between putative US combattants, like John Walker Lindt, and non-US combattants, like David Hicks. Now, here is a glib distinction.
Next, Congress’s distinctions:
1. Did Congress define at all the limits to the scope of this purported “Global War on Terror”? Exactly (or even vaguely) what lies within its scope of legitimate action, geographically, politically, militarily and temporally? Does anything lie outside its scope? Here is Congress failing to make any useful distinctions at all. Now Congress is faced with the problem of reining Bush in. Only denial of funds and/or impeachment seem adequate to that task. What a horrible mess.
2. Congress has essentially abolished judicial independence in the matter of habeas corpus. The legislative branch has conspired with the executive branch to hobble the most important power of the judicial branch to curb executive tyranny.
Lastly, j_p_z’s distinctions:
In the above quote, j_p_z assumes that every rock-throwing youth in Afghanistan, and every member of the Sadr Brigade who sets off an IED under a Hummer is in league with al Qaeda, and conspired in the 9/11 attacks. This is so ridiculous, merely to state the case is to prove how silly and glib it is.
The route to this absurd situation began with Bush’s declaration of war on an abstract noun — “terror”. Having leapt for the option that lodged most readily in his tiny mind, Bush found himself mired in the contradictions that have subsequently been revealed.
Congress failed to do its job in stemming executive arrogance and stupidity and surrendering American liberties.
Now Congress, in the face of a stupid and obstinate president, is facing some very unpalatable decisions.
Big prediction: this is going to get messy.
Let me get my sponge.
Katz:
Um, no, he doesn’t, he’s just used the two examples together. There are a whole lot of criminal crooks in Iraq who’d make the Sicilians and Russians embarrassed for the patheticness of their mafia.
1914? 1942 maybe. For your information, by November 1918 Australia’s war dead were numerically equal to those of the USA. General Monash, an Australian army general of German Jewish extraction, invented the tactics that broke the Hindenburg line.
Now, about 1945. The Germans had about 10 times the divisions in the East as they did in France in June 1944. As Liam points out, the Soviet defeat of the Nazi threat to Europe didn’t oblige us to support their foreign policy of 1946. So American efforts similarly don’t oblige us to anything other than appreciation of your efforts to defeat fascism.
Your current policies should be judged on their merits.
War always produces mafias that seek to profit from the chaos. In fact, the original Sicilian mafia did just that during and after WWII, with the active assistance of the FBI.
The GWOT has thrown up much more intractable contradictions than what to do with mafiosi. And it’s not gangsters who are finding their way to Gitmo.
Eric Hobsbawm originated the concept of the “social rebel” who has legitimacy in the eyes of the people among whom he lives and operates. Sometimes mafiosi may be counted among those people, but usually on the very fringes. The most dangerous insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are well and truly embedded in their communities, at least 60% of whom think it’s a good thing to kill Americans.
Thus, mafiosi are the random detritus of chaos and are therefore not worth lengthy discussion.
The post WWII world can be divided into two time-frames:
1. The Cold War, largely bi-polar, generated a highly formalised confrontation disciplined by the prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction. The genius of the Truman Doctrine was the insight that the internal contradictions of Soviet communism turned the struggle into a waiting game. US policy failed when it drifted too far from the parameters established by the Truman Doctrine (e.g., Vietnam). And as j_p_z hints, Australia’s “superior practical wisdom” was very much found wanting in that case, because the Menzies government was assiduous in urging US military intervention in Vietnam.
2. Post-Cold War, briefly unipolar, with Russia and China seeking new ways of entering the Great Game. The US has developed no coherent or workable doctrine. Under Bush the US has fallen under the control of messianiac promoters of a provocative version of manifest destiny. The methods chosen are hard power based on a naive belief in the reality of the “revolution in military affairs”. Bush proposed this solution and Congress gave consent without very much input from the rest of the world. It is America’s very own mistake. However, as with Menzies back in the early 1960s, so did Howard lend his puny voice to support a series of grave missteps by the United States.
Howard’s support was an example of j_p_z’s “back-seat driver’s brilliance”. During the Cold war, the US always had the Truman Doctrine to return to. Right now, the US is adrift. Blair did attempt to suggest some discipline and economy of action, but was blown off by Bush. To Australia’s shame, as far as we know, Howard never tried to counsel another course of action.
Here is one for the continuous free form thread.The announcement and explanation for a cancellation.
http://thegreataustralianbikinimarch.wikispaces.com/
The interesting part of this is the promoter -
http://www.trueblueproductions.com.au/
The site outlines a political perspective for the march and I guess people were all expected to arrive wearing their T shirts.
Alcohol was to be BANNED.
j-p-z:
Re repatriating PoWs. Your scepticism is welcome (real democracy thrives on it , thank goodness).
What we have here is a very unusual situation – but not quite a novel one, since captured third-country nationals fighting for, or suspected of being associated, with the enemy were traditionally either put to death or left to fend for themselves in a strange land(= starved to death); on rare occasions, they might be given an offer they couldn’t refuse – like becoming the shock troops to carry forward the victor’s conquests.
Having said that, there are more that enough features of the War On Terrorism for the purely military aspects to be overshadowed by the political, commercial and religious factors, so (thanks to Bush and Rumsfeldt) the normal military considerations regarding prisoners-of-war have ceased to apply and political ones have kicked in.
And the essential political one that applies in the Hicks’ case is whether or not the U.S.-Australian alliance continues (regardless of how well political puppets praise that alliance).
Well, it seems as though my ripostes to Katz and Graham Bell have vanished clean into the aether. Is it something to do with IE7, or am I just, as Greg Lake once said, a Lucky Man? If the latter, I hope I at least merit a better Moog solo…
j-p-z:
Yeah! I want your riposts too!
(Meanwhile – good or bad, the David Hicks case has become a symbol for everything that has ever been amiss with U.S.-Australian relations ….. but don’t panic, we won’t follow the English example of fighting the Sopanish Empire in the War Of Jenkin’s Ear).
Random — but vitally important to my life — question.
There is a photo floating around teh ‘nets of a sad looking cat wearing a helmet made of watermelon. Anyone know where I can find it?
Ta!
I tried, Amanda. Really I tried.
Heh. There are a surprisng number of images which combine “cat” and “watermelon” ….
All caps doffed and flags at half-staff: the great comedian Peter Boyle has left this earthly life.
DR. FRANKENSTEIN: Dress up like a million-dollar trooper,
Try your best to look like Gary Cooper.
MONSTER: Ooker-ooper!
DR. FRANKENSTEIN: Come let’s mix where Rockefellers
Walk with sticks or um-ba-rel-las
In their mitts…
MONSTER: (UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE)
Right about now in heaven, I suppose, there is a command performance of “Duelling Brandos” re-uniting Mr. B. with John Belushi, and who knows, maybe Marlon himself will even deign to put in an appearance…