All that debate about blogs supplanting the MSM? Old news. The MSM – or at least Rupert’s own culture wars MySpace site masquerading as a national broadsheet – has gone one step better in illogic and rhetorical leaps than the most hardened right wing blogger.
First, the paper puts a story on its front page about Muslim cab drivers allegedly refusing to drive alcohol carrying passengers in Minnesota. Front page news? Toss in the word “jihad” in the first sentence?
Secondly, an editorial with the classic line:
Contrary to the shock and horror of inner-city postmodernists and progressives, there are core values that make Australia what it is and is not.
See if you can work out the civilisation threatening connection between the inner-city Lyotard devotees and Minnesota cabbies.
Oh, just for the icing on the cake – an op/ed of stunning vapidity – redeemed only by this delicious phrase:
the lithe, slim, vibrant Howard
But he left out the bit about “…and i’d like to slip my tongue between his manly Methodist buttocks.”
It does read a bit like porn, does it not?
Kim:
The last time I caught a taxi from Brisbane airport, I had a bottle of duty-free “Old Swiggable” as well as one of Le Chunderique 2007 in my luggage. The taxi-driver was a man of Middle Eastern Appearance who stared at my port (=suitcase) as he loaded it into tthe taxi. What a foolish risk I took!
I’m glad the news media is keeping me well-informed about all the things we should be afraid of ,,,,,
Thanks Christine. It’s going to take a lot of temazepam to blot out that unwanted image tonight.
The only point I could see in that op/ed was to take gratuitous swipes at Costello and Beazley from a Howard is the best evah, OMG! type perspective. So the Myspace comparison is apt.
Unfair to MacMahon. I gather he was quite fit. You don’t demonstrate someone’s not fit by saying they looked silly.
“…See if you can work out the civilisation threatening connection between the inner-city Lyotard devotees and Minnesota cabbies.”
Well, Kim, perhaps the connection would become clearer if things were to progress to a point where the Muslim busdrivers refused to let you on the bus because you are not appropriately dressed. Or if maybe your friendly Muslim electoral officials refused to let you in a voting booth, for who knows what wacky religious reason that might offend them.
But then, like you, I’ve never been able to work out what, exactly, acorns have got to do with oaks.
No one’s saying a devout Somali *must* do things he finds offensive. But if he can’t (or won’t) perform the duties of being a cabdriver, for whatever reason, then guess what? Maybe he can’t have a job driving a cab. Perhaps too much Lyotard makes this fairly simple position impossible to understand.
Oh, btw Kim, I hope you’re feeling better. The flu can be a real hassle. Get well!
Gummo Trotsky:
I hope you managed to get to sleep despite being assaulted by ghastly images …. yuk!
j-p-z:
I didn’t realize you had been in Australia just lately.
I’m not denying the right of that Australian newspaper to run a story on happenings in faraway Minnesota but, given all the other relevant, important and newsworthy events happening on that day, I do question the motive, the timing and the prominance given to that particular story …. is this what is called dog-whistle politics?
That’s OK Gummo. I was thinking I could work something up for the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, possibly involving JHo’s early morning power walks and cruising at Coles New Farm.
Christine Keeler: “I was thinking I could work something up for the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, possibly involving JHo…”
Well, how about this?
“It was a dark and stormy Right…”
“I gather he was quite fit.”
He did look a bit like a garden gnome. With sticking out ears. But no-one focused on them all that much because – astutely – he tended to keep Sonia’s bosom on the same horizontal plane.
I like this bit:
Um, Vincent, there’s a word for that.
J_P_Z — I know you were hypothesising, but actually, on the radio the other day I heard a distinguished visiting professor sounding more bemused than angry about an (anglo) Australian bus driver’s refusal to stop and pick her up on the first and only day she went out wearing traditional dress including a veil. It’s happening all right — but, so far, we have met the enemy and he is us.
I liked this bit:
After newspapers sack their representatives in the Canberra Press Gallery, will the rest of us be able to get statements of political opinion on bulk-bill rates?
Given that Mr Vincent makes so much of Mr Howard’s pedestrianism, shouldn’t Mr Vincent have at least got a second political opinion from a podiatrist?
Meanwhile pharmacists across America are refusing to fill out birth-control prescriptions. I guess theocracy’s OK when the theocrats are home-grown, eh?
The difference is of course are they private citizens exercising their private morality in their own cabs (which presumably they own), or are they enforcing it inappropriately in a public space as in your examples?
Of course there are some issues as to what the cab licence allows with regard discrimination of rides, but why isn’t this just a great boon for the rest of the cabbies?
Arthur, I wonder whether the accommodation of the taxi-drivers wishes to not carry alcohol is perhaps directly related to the pharmacists refusing to hand out birth-control.
It’s a clear parallel, and if the Somali taxi-drivers are told they can’t have a taxi license unless they carry alcohol despite their religious beliefs, then a case can be made that pharmacists also cannot have a license unless they supply any legal prescription despite their religious beliefs.
The point about the pharmicists is obviosuly relevant. Would the Australian report that “Christian pharmisicst have declared a crusade against birth control”
“inner-city Lyotard devotees ”
Yes , more carefully controlled physical education for all you inner city types.
Posture people , posture.
Come to think of it it might be a well concealed spandex suit giving the PM that snappy walking style.
Jeez, that piece on Howard was enough to make me feel nauseous. Talk about sycophantic arselicking in print. It makes me wonder what that sort of tripe is doing in a newspaper – unless the journalist (???) and editor are doing a big suck job to try and get some kind of appointment to some QANGO with generous remuneration for board members. And as for that editorial that
Come on. Are they serious? Do they live in the same country that the rest of us do? Try explaining the importance of these values to David Hicks, Jack Thomas and all those poor bastards sitting in maximum security whilst denied bail.
Cheers…
So I’m nominating George Gregan as our next dictator, right? Or maybe Adam Goodes?
Strewth, that sounds like a point I was trying to make recently, and I was harshly shot down in flames. Ouch!!!
Yes, he’s a bit of a looker. Isn’t he, girls?
In a few years, I think we will look back on the demonisation of all Muslims (as opposed to just the ones who deserve to be demonised) and feel the kind of shame that we do when we think of old attitudes to, for example, Japanese, Germans or women who consorted with either of those groups during the war.
“Of course there are some issues as to what the cab licence allows with regard discrimination of rides, but why isn’t this just a great boon for the rest of the cabbies?”
Indeed. Based on my action-based research, it seems highly likely that if I turn up at Sydney International Airport cab rank and announce my desire to procure a taxi-ride to, say, Gosford, I would win out with any cabbie – Muslim or no – against a rival bid to, say, St Peters, every time; regardless of how abstemious or morally pure my competitor or how many bags of DF I was carrying.
That’s interesting research, Geoff.
My own sources lead me to conclude that passengers carrying alcohol of any significant volume as blood alcohol content are less likely to be picked up, and a multiplier effect operates where groups of the inebriated congregate.
I have applied to the Commonwealth for more research funding, alas, so far in vain.
Is this Oz editorial some kind of practical joke?
Let’s see.
Individualism: the Liberal Party almost didn’t come into existence because the Victorian delegation contained a Catholic. Individual conscience, when it came to religion, was suspect. Menzies wanted to ban the Communist Party. The High Court and the people stopped him. Menzies introduced conscription, one of the most profound expressions of anti-individualism.
freedom to speak and even offend: the Liberals were the most enthusiastic censors. Bolte’s Victorian State Secretary Arthur Rylah banned a childrens’ colouring book entitled “Fun in Bed”.
equality of the sexes: the Liberals opposed both equal pay for women and changes in the divorce law which imposed a much stronger burden of proof on women than on men.
the rule of law: Howard has cut deeply into the traditional independence and scope of action of the judiciary. He has strengthened enormously the power of the executive.
the primacy of secular democracy: Howard has incorporated churches into his state provision of social services.
All of the above were achieved by progressives in the face of determined opposition from the Tories.
If you forget the past, the Australian will get away with making it up.
Onya Katz. The scary thing is that it is not a practical joke. Maybe it illustrates the fact that in order to work at the Australian, your software has to have humour deleted, replaced by an installation of santimoniousness 5.1
Cheers…
Just skimmed Vincent Matthews’ op/ed. Either the Oz is really stretching to fill it’s pages, or someone actually believes that that’s a worthwhile piece! It sounds like a breathless swooning teenager.
“My own sources lead me to conclude that passengers carrying alcohol of any significant volume as blood alcohol content are less likely to be picked up,”
Very credible conclusions Devil. But my research was based entirely on transporting alcohol in other than the bloodstream. One’s tie protruding through one’s open fly, coupled with a strong whiff of bundy and an inability to pronounce “Gosford” when negotiating the cab ride might indeed skew my earlier findings.
I see you’ve been conducting field observation, Geoff, most admirable. I wouldn’t mind inspecting your notebooks—seems irregular that anyone going to Gosford would be in possession of a tie.
Perhaps it was a homophonic set of syllables (perhaps: Go To Fairfield, Go For It, or maybe even Gaah, Fuck It) your subject was uttering?
I call for volunteers to drink too much rum ‘n’ coke and try to say ‘Gosford’ five times fast.
That would have to be one of the downright silliest Oz editorials I’ve ever read – and that’s saying something!
PC:
The references to the phundie-pharmacists in the US are pertinent, but in case you think that this, like the Minnesota Muslim cabbie alcohol ban, is a phenomenon restricted to that theologically based society, then read this and weep:
Bugger! That should read:
This link!
Damn. We really should have some sort of law that says “hey, its a health product. You want commonwealth funding? You sell all legal health products”
You can probably pick up condoms at the Merriwa superette n’ saddlery or at vending machines in the pubs though if you lived locally you’d probably pick them up in Scone or Muswellbrook to avoid any bawdy speculation – and that’s probably a bigger problem.
The same ‘quest for privacy’ constraints can apply to a range of prescription meds in rural settings particularly if your cousin’s wife is working at the chemist and the doctor’s receptionist is your sister in law….
You are quite right that that op-ed piece was unfair to McMahon, Mark. He may have been Australia’s worst Prime Minister but he was very handy on the squash court.
So I believe, Greg!
Steve Edney: “…The difference is of course are they private citizens exercising their private morality in their own cabs (which presumably they own), or are they enforcing it inappropriately in a public space as in your examples? Of course there are some issues as to what the cab licence allows with regard discrimination of rides, but why isn’t this just a great boon for the rest of the cabbies?”
Whether it’s a ‘great boon’ for the other cabbies is not the relevant point. (Also, given the current situation, it can hardly be assumed that the drivers are necessarily ‘citizens’, though that’s not the main issue, either.) Whether they own the cabs or not (many/most don’t; depends on the local business structure), a cab is nevertheless a public accomodation, with certain responsibilities to the public as a condition of its licensing. The cab driver’s personal preferences ought not to be immediately relevant.
Would you, say, defend the right of a cab driver to refuse to pick up interracial couples, on the grounds that miscegenation offends his personal ideals? I come from New York, where the cab drivers (overwhelmingly ‘people of color,’ mind you) were/are notorious for refusing to pick up black men. Less well-known is that the drivers used to routinely refuse to take passengers to the outer boroughs, as a matter not of religious doctrine but of personal and economic convenience, licensing duties be damned. Thankfully, the Taxi and Limo Commission finally put its foot down on the matter.
And that, perhaps, is where the real crux lies, more than in abstract principles. The driver’s duty is whatever the TLC says it is. In the real world, if enough complaints are issued, then the objecting cabbies would probably just be told that they can’t wait for fares at the airport. If that means they have to cruise less profitable districts, well, who ever said one’s personal principles should always come cheap?
“You can probably pick up condoms at the Merriwa superette n’ saddlery or at vending machines in the pubs though if you lived locally you’d probably pick them up in Scone or Muswellbrook to avoid any bawdy speculation – and that’s probably a bigger problem.”
They should probably put up signs:
“Welcome to Merriwa – No minge-munching.”
JPZ,
As Geoff pointed out getting refused for spurious reasons, like “its too far away at the end of my shift” or “I’m not taking any rides less than 20kms” occur here also and they aren’t allowed to. Also its tricky to get a cab if you are with a couple of blokes outside a pub late at night. I’m sure they drive past people they don’t like the look of all the time and this isn’t all that different.
IF the cab licences specify they can’t refuse people on this basis then they should be penalised. If they don’t well they should be increasing the available number of licences. However, its hardly a Jihad.
It’s impossible for blackfellas to get a cab on Boundary St in West End these days. The cabbies see them, and drive off. If they see a whitefella, they swoop in and pick them up, and drive off as quick as they can.
I don’t think these cabbies are Muslims!
Steve E — yeah, I agree that it’s “hardly a jihad” (unless you’re one of those folks who thinks that ‘jihad’ means a personal inner struggle, in which case, guess what, it *is* a jihad for once!
.
From what I read, the Muslim cabbies were polite but principled; not at all in-your-face; and moreover an impromptu arrangement arose fairly swiftly to accommodate the affected customers. So it’s hardly a glaring howler, and not a thing to get all blustery and upset about…
Unless of course one is overstating one’s case as a tactic in an ongoing public negotiation (the basic strategy, after all, of nearly all forms of negotiation); and that’s sort of what I think is happening (w/r/t, say, the Oz newspaper overreaction); and that, at bottom, is how I think the thing relates to an ongoing pattern of push-and-pull w/r/t the constellation of issues centering on multiculturalism and migration in this our emerging century.
As a believer in the play of forces in these matters, I’m not necessarily opposed to the occasional overreaction as a negotiating tactic, provided it’s not violent, provocative or outrageous.
I can only speak from my own experience across the Pacific, but I see clear signs that the dismantling of the old ‘melting pot’ play of forces (and it WAS a play of *forces*, and not necessarily terribly pleasant, yet strangely effective) and its replacement with the multicultural model (which permits force to only one sector) has not only not produced a clear success, it has also muzzled part of the forces which once produced the former success. This is problematic, the solution is unclear, and I think this is what societies are slowly working through, and finding a consensus on. And believe it or not, a bit of media bluster is probably a part of the equation.
A natural-born citizen quite naturally has an instinct to object to a recently-arrived and poorly-understood foreigner, to whom nothing is really owed and who tends to take far more than he contributes, who promptly starts making demands and claiming that things are gonna be different from now on. To stifle that natural objection is to risk encouraging a bigger problem later on. A bit of dialogue and even argument has the healthy effect of forcing both sides to refine and clarify their perspectives. Merely to continually give ground is rarely a healthy thing to do, and frequently has pernicious and unintended results.
Cite? My understanding was that in the bulk of studies performed on immigrants that they generally produce far more than their state allowances within a few years of arriving in Australi, a realtionship which still holds across families that sponsor the immigration of non-contributing elders. Is it that different in the US?
“Is it that different in the US?”
I’d say so. But then, the whole scenario is different here. For instance, there may be more illegal aliens* in the US than there are Australians in all of Australia, so the scale of everything is just much zanier, and much more difficult to quantify. And some things of course can’t be rationally quantified. They just depend on your values and preferences.
To say nothing of the fact that many of the relevant studies here are exceedingly biased one way or another, measure a limited (and often willfully limited) index of phenomena, ignore important questions, or just plain ask the wrong ones. But that doesn’t mean you have to believe me, either. I’m not an expert. Part of my point is that I seriously doubt that *anyone* truthfully is.
Because I’m not an expert in this (or in *any* formal discipline, strictly speaking), I tend to do my reasoning based on what I can observe, what other fairly reliable folks have told me they’ve observed, the good arguments I’ve heard from folks who disagree, and a few basic principles, which other people need not also hold.
But on that index, I’d say things here are good in some ways, bad in others, and in still others it’s a complete bloody mess.
(* – illegal *aliens*, not immigrants. ‘Immigrants’ are, more or less by definition, people who are here legally. And ‘illegal,’ not ‘undocumented’; they’re plenty well documented — heck, lots of ‘em have drivers licenses and a mysterious knack for gaining access to public benefits.)
A similar situation but with more serious implications?
” Met(ropolitan Police, London) orders review after Muslim refuses to guard Israeli embassy ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1887967,00.html
My girl takes yaz, and all in all it has been pretty good. She probably did suffer from a few minor complications but nothing too bad. I actually liked the article thanks a lot for writing it.