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.
At this point I like Langbroek more than Anna B. Finally, he represents some change.
Can I be the first to say that I totally support and agree with the man who says he shouldn’t pay child support to the mother of his child because (a) she is a prostitute and (b) given (a), it was her responsibility to make sure that the ‘commercial transaction’ between them did not result in a child. Why does the law insist upon victimising men in these situations?
BBB
The child will still forever be his who he refused to support.
Can I be the first here to express my disappointment at the unimaginative choice of pseudonyms allocated to the parties in this case. Logan and Lilley indeed!
Flashman and Hussey would have been much better.
I’m not sure I understand why its her responsibility alone just because its a commercial transaction.
Which doesn’t bring me to my next question at all but open question to the bloogers here, why blog?
oh and all out for 160…
It just proves that it is never wise, if paying for Boingo Bango Bingo, not to use a condom. And the same goes for paying for that unprotected thrill with a credit card.
Men who pay for unprotected sex are lucky if accidental pregnancy is all they come away with. The guy should thank his lucky stars and then sit down for a relly good think.
This, via Lucy Tartan on Twitter:
http://blogs.domain.com.au/2009/08/why_bogans_are_property_winner.html
That is our house, exactly, and the neighbours over the road, who would tick all the boxes for “bogan”, but yanno: they are the best neighbours ever and I’ve got a lot more time for them than a lot of the people I know.
30 degrees in Brisbane in August – and winds here in Melbourne yesterday had the same unnerving irregular quality, for mine. And now the hottest ocean temperatures on record.
I think its plain we’ve already entered the era of dangerous climate change.
Frankly, its time for massive fastrack cuts to emissions, on an emergency footing.
Add to that bushfires in NSW:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/bushfire-threatens-nsw-south-coast-20090821-etil.html
I have previously stated the world is getting cooler.The Dorrigo Plateau is very warm today,and the first wattle bloom I saw was the day after winter solstice.Global Warming is also occuring,not because of Carbon Dioxide emissions by humanity,but, occurences that are regular.
Fran Barlow -
.
It appears you are busy both here and elsewhere but I would like to repeat my requests of last week:
.
Do you endorse the Darwinian assertion that humans are animals? And if so how does this square with the notion that there is ano human nature? After all species have certain caracteristics why would we be different?
.
If you please. I find it interesting.
Have just finished watching Baz Lurhman’s Australia on DVD.
It was okay, and got better as it went along. Though I thought it was incredibly emotionally manipulative. I don’t mind being emotionally manipulated by a movie – probably most movies do that – but I don’t like to know I’m being manipulated. But then again, Lurhman has never been known for subtlety. Parts of the script were terribly badly written, the acting sometimes was dreadfully misdirected – especially Kidman in the early scenes. And I usualy really like her work. She got a lot better as the movie progressed.Jackman and Brandon Waters were very good.
Okay, its not a turkey, but that was more through good luck than good directing I think. And it did have a big ooh-ah factor.
Re Flashman and Hussey: child-support avoidance arguements rarely work when they are based on the (sorry) ins and outs of how the kid was conceived. Once the kid turns up, it’s all about the kid, and the kid’s best interests are paramount. We signed onto an international convention to that effect.
Having said that, I think the best interests of this particular kid would have been to be adopted out at birth. There is a huge line of people who desperately want to adopt. Why not give the kid to some people who really want himher/?
And just to be controvertial, why not have the fruit of all unplanned pregnancies compulsarily adopted out? If the unplanned parents wish to keep the kid, then they would have to go through all the processes adopting parents do, and actively show that they will be fit and proper parents. (and yes, I can see issues around the “unplanned” trigger).
Why am I tossing these ideas around? Because Oz is a failed state when it comes to child protection, and doing all we can to ensure that every son and daughter is wanted in a family, wouldn’t hurt.
And no, I no longer work in that area. Too dispiriting.
Another sunny showery blustery day here in Freo. Inside for a while I was led by a cryptic clue to Mae West’s biography. Of course I knew about Mae West! Everyone knows about her! The great sex symbol of the 20th century! But hey, she was so much more than that! Lived by her own rules, loved life and wrote her own plays too. And wonderful with words. A few of her many sayings (aphorisms?) I’ve just been chuckling over…….
“I used to be Snow White but I drifted.”
“To err is human but it feels divine.”
“Men are easy to get but hard to keep.”
“When I’m good I’m very good. But when I’m bad I’m better!”
Did you know it was she who first came up with “A hard man is good to find.”
Talk about eloquence and brevity. She wasn’t just witty and sexy though. She was wise too. I love how she responded to having her boxer boyfriend refused admission to her apartment building because he was coloured. She bought the entire building.
I really should be posting this for Robert Merkel’s reading list. Anything about Mae West, Robert.
Parts of the script were terribly badly written
.
Well it’s an Australian film innit?
.
Luhrmann has a lot of trouble with writing. For that reason Romeo + Juliet stands out as the only one of his films without terrible clunkers.
Adrien @ 12 – please clarify. Is it “an(y)human nature” or “no human nature”? I guess it’s a typo, but I’m genuinely puzzled. Or is that obvious I shouldn’t have to ask?
I’d be quite interested to see what Luhrmann did with that guy’s other scripts.
Re “Lilley” v “Logsn” the Federal Magistrate opined “the circumstances of the conception made no difference to the child’s entitlements under the Child Support Scheme”.
Does that also apply to sperm donors?
The thing I despised most about ‘Australia’ was its totally uncritical celebration of the needless and cruel live animal export trade as a sort of national myth. Fuck that.
I have just become a fan of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary. I had to admire the dignity and clarity with which he spoke to Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Blitzer, OTOH, comes across as such a turkey that he ought to be fattened for Thanksgiving.
Favourite snicker-inducing moment:
Blitzer: Is it normal procedure that someone, a convicted mass murderer who gets cancer, is free to go home to his wife and family?
MacAskill: Well, thankfully, in Scotland, we don’t have many convicted mass murderers.
Greg Sheridan in The Australian today, on how Julie Bishop is representing the Opposition’s position on China:
“The opposition’s response, through Bishop, was pathetic. It was internally contradictory, unprincipled, amoral beyond even the exigencies of parliamentary hypocrisy and profoundly stupid. Bishop was a dud shadow treasurer and is now a dud foreign affairs spokeswoman…The Liberal Party is now not so much a political movement as a collection of unemployed former ministers in search of a public service to do their thinking for them….Bishop’s press release of 19 August, surely one of the dumbest press releases issued by a foreign affairs spokesperson…In this statement the Liberal Party formally abandons all the values of liberalism. No one with the slightest regard for human liberty would in good conscience vote Liberal while that statement holds..etc”
Go Greggie! Sheridan, who I normally regard as a silly twat, is the only commentator I have read to date who has called Bishop out for the complete hash she has made of recent Chinese/Australian politics for the Opposition.
All we need now is Gerard Henderson to sally out to tell us, deeply, sadly, seriously, that Sheridan is a lefty stooge, and The Australian is biased in favour of the Government. Waiting Gerard…
“And just to be controvertial, why not have the fruit of all unplanned pregnancies compulsarily adopted out? If the unplanned parents wish to keep the kid, then they would have to go through all the processes adopting parents do, and actively show that they will be fit and proper parents. (and yes, I can see issues around the “unplanned” trigger).”
Get fucked.
I can’t believe people write this shit, even if they are capable of recognising it as controversial.
Seriously, just get fucked.
And if you are giving birth to fruit after unplanned pregnancies I would recommend you bring this to the attention of a medical professional/mad scientist.
This is hilarious! Where can you find people this demented – only in the healthcare ‘debate’ in the US.
What Chookie said.
I thought Kenny MacAskill speech was very moving.
What part of compassion and mercy does the US President not understand?
Mae West emerges from dressing, wearing a giant jewel. “My goodness!” exclaims her maid. “Honey, goodness had nothing to do with it!”
I’m told she wrote the witty, cheeky scripts herself. What a gal }sigh{
Also told that the double entendre in Marx Bros films slipped through the censorship net because the censors failed to recognise the jokes?
#22,
Shaun Carney in today’s Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/different-strokes-20090821-etpv.html?page=-1
Seconding furious balancing. You know why women shy away from the blogpsphere?
Its because of people like those who think we should be farmed to provide sprogs for more ‘deserving’ people when our BC fails, all spouting their random ill-thought-out brainvoms all over a decent conversation and then expecting a hug and a pat on the back.
Unimpressed.
Lefty E, the silly woman in the video is right, technically. The Nazi regime included universal health insurance, if my Dad is to be believed. The initial idea wasn’t Hitler’s, though: it goes back to Bismarck, who I think brought in health insurance for civil servants. Hitler expanded it greatly and it was one of the reasons for his popularity.
Hitler expanded it greatly
(Wingnut, darkly):…Which just goes to show, really!!!
Agreed Polyquats. MacAskill’s compassion in marked contrast to Obama’s predictable ‘outrage’ at the Libyan’s release. Someone should remind Obama that the US had blood on its hands with the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet with similar loss of life. Not Obama’s fault of course but a bit of quiet reflection needed somewhere in this contretemps.
Re 19: Under the family law act, sperm donors have the same status as people who adopt their child out – all legal obligations are severed – including that of child support.
As to the other strong reactions: I really don’t get why people so naturally assume that there is a natural entitlement to have children. It’s clearly deeply entrenched. I clearly disagree. Why? Because of the damage done to children who come into and live in a world where they are not wanted. I’m not talking about class or wealth here: just some way of making it as hard to get a kid as to, say, get a car loan. Notice that I’m not suggesting “as hard to get as a mortgage” or “people should only have kids if they can afford a house”.
I just think that people should have the mindset of affirming their basic fitness for the care of a child. ie want it, don’t have any personality disorders, and can feed and shelter it. And the first, actually want it, being the biggie.
The hardest question to me, is who should do the approving, as unthinkingly handing such power over to the State encodes hideous risks such as eugenics and genocide.
Obviously my views cut across some deep notion of entitlement (or something? I really don’t get it) But honestly, what is wrong in trying to ensure that everyone is wanted by someone, and isn’t hideously twisted and damaged by their family?
And isn’t it better to have a bit of clarity about some of this, including proper support for parents, before the kid turns up?
And wouldn’t it be better to have a healthy real and active notion of community responsibility for all children of all backgrounds, as opposed to occastional screeching when something is so horrific, that it actually reaches the papers or the courts?
Instead discussion ends at around the point up at 23. Docs remains ineffectual, too late, marginalised and underfunded. Government schools and anything else to do with kids remains underfunded, DV rates are unchanged, sexual abuse rates are unchanged, as victims become perpetrators and patterns are reproduced.
So many people are massively damaged by the time they reach 6 years of age. Unless they get access to good quality psychotherapy (almost impossible), they just grow up and spread the damage. Usually the damage is witnessed by many, who don’t feel able to interfere. And there’s nothing they could legally do anyway.
Because of this sense of “parent entitlement” or whatever it is that I don’t get.
Look what Peter Foster was doing in his cell http://www.fijitruth.org/thetruth.php
Lefty E. Re warming oceans. http://www.csiro.au/news/Highest-winter-water-temps.html
Your main problem, Des, is that you assume that anyone who didn’t get pregnant at-will after planning for months is automatically suspect as a prospective parent and deserving of the scrutiny of the state. Apart from the rampant classism, if you’ve read your history you should be well aware that the state doesn’t have a very good history of accurately judging who’s deserving of progeny.
Your stated position makes even less sense in light of your earlier comments, where you trash the state’s ability to take care of the vulnerable already. You clearly don’t trust the current system, why then would you want it’s powers expanded?
Our protest has nothing to do with entitlement (although as mentioned before, we are as a nation signatories to conventions that establish the right to parent at will). It has everything to do with your position being misogynistic, classist, and fundamentally inconsistent.
Deslivres & Grumphy,
There aren’t too many species whose members don’t spontaneously desire to reproduce. No surprise that humans do it too!
As for regulation, if someone agrees with laws that certain persons cannot engage in activities that require a degree of responsibility because of their track record (such as owning a pet, driving a car or acting as a company director), then it would be difficult to disagree with the idea of extending similar controls to the ability to parent. Notice I said “parent”, not “reproduce”.
I know that it opens a can of worms. But I’m just saying…
Some might be interested in a project being done by the Australian Government on innovation in the public sector. It’s about trying to embed innovation in how the APS works. They’ve got a discussion paper out here http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspx.
Xander,
Thanks for that. Your link doesn’t work, but looking at the page source I can’t see why- it looks good, and I found it with Google at the very same URL.
I’ll try it, and if it doesn’t work again, well it’s not our fault…
http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspx
I’m sorry, you’ve lost me: is it ‘Nazi’ or ‘Commie’ (or both) to extend healthcare to your citizens?
Like Barney says, the question is probably best addressed to items of furniture.
Oh, it’s a fugitive full stop! No wukkas…
Lefty E,
Only just looked at your video link. This is more of the hysterical tosh that is becoming ubiquitous over there at the moment.
This sort of “in your face”, violent opposition is only trotted out when powerful organisations (often religious, but in this case corporate) are really frightened, and don’t feel they have a legal leg to stand on.
And the answer to your question at 39 is “both”. The dreaded commie-nazis, who I believe Bart Simpson’s hero McBain battles to control…
Patricia #17 – It’s ‘no human nature’. I really should proof-read before submitting.
I was down at St. Kilda Beach this morning and found that it has been closed all weekend because of an oil spill. There hasn’t been any mention of this on the news at all, which I find weird.
Adrien, you’re not wearing a gravatar!
Positively indecent…
Oh, it was just my computer. That’s all right then…
Okay. My stated position is as follows: as I said earlier, Australia is a failed state when it comes to child protection. The cases that come to the State’s attention are the tip of the iceberg. The way things are right now is that there is a whole lot of damage being done, and patterns being perpetuated.
In my first comment you’ll notice that I’m “tossing ideas around”, having stated a particular position on a particular situation, that fellow and the prostitute.
My fundamental question is: how do we ensure that every child is actually wanted, realy wanted, by the somebody who is their parent?
In trying to answer that question, I’m trying to come with some approaches to address family disfunction, and child neglect and emotional abuse, let alone DV, incest, etc etc.
Okay, you’ve pointed out that I’m equating unplanned pregnancies with people being “suspect as parents, and thus deserving the intervention of the state”. All right. Since my I’m coming from the point of view of the child, the question “how much do you really want this child?” should be asked of all pregnant mothers. Not in such a way as to put them on the defensive, but coming at the issue from the interests of the child.
And yes, in tossing these ideas around, I am left with the dilema of who plays that role.
As the state (as it is) is awful, howabout some manifestation of the community? A group mothers from a cross section of backgrounds? Or from backgrounds similar to the mothers? Like a circle court which the pregnant woman then joins.
And then each “circle” plays an ongoing support role for the collective of mothers and children. There might also be a role for childless women, (or ones whose children have grown up) to participate as well. So as life progresses, for instance, someone suddenly loses their job, gets cancer, or becomes an alcoholic, or the kid has issues, the community circle is there with their experiences and support. Each circle could have a sub group of 3, whose role is to be a nexus with the Authorities, where appropriate.
I’ve never been called mysogynist before. Misanthropic perhaps. My background is in feminism.
I think your question is completely wrong, Deslivres. Many children are the result of unplanned, or even initially unwanted pregnancies, and everything works out fine. OTOH, a child might be planned for and wanted, but the parents may have absolutely no idea how to parent well, for any number of reasons. The question you may want to ask is ‘How can we ensure that every parent is sufficiently supported, especially those in vulnerable situations, so that they can be good parents?.
Wanting a child is no guarantee that you (or others) won’t abuse him or her.
My comment was cross-posted with Fine’s above, which I second. And invoking the rhetoric of ‘personality disorders’ in a discussion of the necessary and sufficient conditions of adequate parenthood is also a tad problematic.
I disagree utterly.
You can only diagnose failure, I would counter, if there’s a presumption that the State and/or State-authorised NGOs have a role in large-scale intervention in parenting and family life. I don’t think there is or should be any kind of Family Police, and looking at the prospect from even a weak feminist position suggests half a dozen reasons why it would be a bad thing.
Statutory child protection activity is not the same thing as child abuse and neglect prevention, which is a different thing again from family support and welfare policy. And what Emma said at #48.
I wouldn’t say “Completely Wrong” being a product of the second scenario you set out above.
Often in the second scenario, one finds (less now thanks be, but still) people who have a planned child because “that’s what you do/or are meant to do/weird sibling rivalry with a reproducing sibling/other totally twisted sick reasons” without actually wanting it.Hence my swift agreement with the point raised re targeting unplanned pregnancies.
Or would the “especially those in vulnerable situations” capture them?
But Fine’s question does capture much of what concerns me. I (obviously on an abstract level) think the notion of community parenting, in a model similar to what I’ve outlined has merit.
In the here and now though, my perception is that Australian families are very both nuclear and atomised. That is, at the parent/child reletionship is pretty much behind closed doors, and everyone else feels like they shouldn’t really intervene. And any suggestion of broader intervention or scrutiny triggers very strong reactions of rage and threat.
I get the impression that mothers in their mothering role (even while being perfectly excellent mothers) are pretty isolated, devalued, with a permanent sense of guilt and failure, and children in bad situations are isolated, helpless and without hope.
So how can we shape the real support these people should have, in such a way that it’s going to work?
To Liam:
I think Docs and their equivalents play the role of “family police” already. They tend to intervene after the damage is done, and can do little to fix it up.
And family failure/abuse DV etc are increasing.
I maintain that Australia is a failed state when it comes to child welfare, because we are ineffective at addressing it when it is detected, through Docs, the Family Court and our DV system. I freely acknowlege that here and there, various trial programs ie working with DV perpetrators etc are showing positive results. Here’s hoping that effective programs are broadly adopted, so that we can STOP being a failed state!
Of course Emma at 48 is right. I was just presupposing that if the parent really wants the child, and that desire is acknowleged and respected, they will be more open to receiving community support.
I stand by my notion of a safe dialogue during pregnancy so that scenarios such as at 47 and I raise at 51, and Emma at 48, get teased out and addressed, and those unplanned kids who are very much wanted, come into a much less ambivalent world.
Intriguing post on cultural politics and the evolution of music.
Mitchell @54.
Wow. It’s been a while since I’ve seen anyone prepared to go out in public and defend prog rock.
I look forward to the proud conservative championing of glam in the near future…
Conservatives will never champion glam in public – it involves eyeliner which is only worn in private by those upstanding moral guardians.
Dolly Downer always wears eyeliner but fishnet stockings now only in private, Ute Man.
Good to see you back, Ute Man. Or have I just not been reading the threads you’ve been on?
Seems Ute Man has been hounded by the nasti party, Paul. All the best Ute Man.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/20/facebook-social-media-subjectivity-and-workplace-privacy/#comment-821804
I would have been slightly more impressed with the defense of prog rock if the prick could spell.
BTW, where does it leave those of who like (some) prog rock and classical music and punk?
BTW, where does it leave those of who like (some) prog rock and classical music and punk?
I imagine someone’s setting aside a little place in hell ‘specially for you, David
What, where they only play Mantovani? Nooooooo!
I was thinking a special diet of Hawkwind and Rock Operas, David, but Mantovani would do just as well.
Time to review the NT intervention folks. I think we’d all agree that if our neighbour was found to be abusing children, action should be taken – but there’s really NO case whatsoever for a serious infringement of our rights, just cause we lived in the same town.
Indigenous people in the NT apply to the UN for refugee status:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/26/2667066.htm
# 64 Lefty E Aug 26th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
You (post-) modernist liberalis had your chance administering Aboriginal Affairs over the past couple of decades. And you blew it.
Time for some adult supervision.
Section 106A of the Act in NSW facilitates DOCS to remove a new born child on the basis simply that other children are already in care.
This is how it’s applied:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25964264-601,00.html
So much for Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights “No arbitrary interference with the family…”
Rhetorical question: How were the “paramount interests” of that 4 day old baby served by removing it from its mother? (No drugs, alcohol involved by mother or father)
Well, you assimilationists had 100 years Jack, and the record was so woeful there’s since been a national apology by the head of government.
The NT intervention should first be purged of all aspects completely unrelated to the issues that brought it on – eg control of land tenure; and 2nd, it should be done on the basis of identified problem communities; and 3rd, there should be no restrictions placed on individuals who are clearly not involved; and 4th, hell, why not follow at least SOME of the recommendations of the ‘Little Children are Sacred’ which prompted the whole thing.
Indeed. Without in any way suggesting that the current state of affairs is satisfactory – it certainly isn’t – it is worth pointing out that there were nonetheless significant improvements in a number of key statistics over the last 35 years.
John Winston Howard gives a speech on human rights/bill of rights at the Menzies Memorial Lecture or whatever they call it, and, surprise, surprise he says we shouldn’t have any. Time doesn’t mellow this stinking little fascist.
I’m not going to link to it.
“Time doesn’t mellow this stinking little fascist.”
Time will just harden his baseless and empty convictions.
# 67 Lefty E Aug 27th, 2009 at 11:23 am
That gets the relation between assimilation and Aboriginal civil status exactly back-to-front. The Founding Fathers worst error, both morally and politically, was to constitutionalise the segregation of the Aboriginal race. The “woeful…record” that error set in train was partly rectified by the 1967 referrendum, a political change driven almost entirely by the dreaded assimilationists, in particular Paul Hasluck.
Its Aboriginal failure to assimilate, and Coombs disastrous experiment with “self-determination”, which has caused most of the problems. What else could “closing the Gap” mean but assimilation? Dialysis machines, hygienic accommodation and meaningful work is not going to be available to a people who live in make shift camps given to occasional bouts of nomadic wandering.
Assimilation to modernist forms of associati0n has mostly been a boon to Aboriginals, at least for those who have wandered off the reservation into the bigger cities. This is backed up by studies of Canadian indigenes. Widschuttle reports on the progress most AUS indigenes have made in assimilating:
The brilliant performance of indigenous (Aussie rules) footballers is only the most obvious example of successful assimilation. Its safe to say that this achievement, more than any amount of declarations, manifestos charters etc has done more to advance the political interests of colored people than any other.
But over the past generation the meddling of (post-modernist-y) polemics from academics and policies from apparatchiks has queered the indigenous pitch. That Push cant run a tuck shop. An epic fail and into the Dustbin of History they got tipped.
# 67 Lefty E Aug 27th, 2009 at 11:23 am
The political reforms proclaimed by Brough were features, not bugs, of the Howard govts dramatic U-turn in policy.
The policy goal of the Intervention is to protect women and children from abuse by predatory males. The political goal is to purge the malign institutional influence of the Big Men who run the NT communities as their own private fief. The interests of the former are at odds with the intrigues of the latter.
Those people (and their campus camp followers) are part of the problem, not the solution.
Note that evidence was posted above which contradicts this.