Rambling Man

2003-07-01T18:40:00.000+10:00

HAVE THEY FORGOTTEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAPITALISM AND CRONY CAPITALISM?

Alan Anderson and Tim Blair, think its another left-wing conspiracy. The problem is a fair deal of the criticism of AC Milan owner Silvio Berlusconi is eminating from centre-right publications like the Economist, the Daily Telegraph (UK) and a range of other right-wing publications.

It seems the only valid avenue intellectually if you plan to adopt a centre-right editorial slant (belief in free markets, minimal regulation) is a voraciously opposition to all forms of corruption. The fact that many people find it convenient to condone such corrupt behaviour is not only discrediting to them personally, but is severely discrediting to their philosophy.

Surely, to condone this behaviour, or that of Enron, HIH, OneTel etc., with the thousands of lives ruined by such unscrupulous behaviour, is only going to encourage an increased opposition to the liberalising of regulation.

This was the editorial the Economist ran just before the Italian elections in 2001.

Fit to run Italy?
Apr 26th 2001
From The Economist print edition

The known facts about Silvio Berlusconi, never mind the unanswered questions, rule him out for high office, even though his countrymen seem poised to make him prime minister

IN ANY self-respecting democracy it would be unthinkable that the man assumed to be on the verge of being elected prime minister would recently have come under investigation for, among other things, money-laundering, complicity in murder, connections with the Mafia, tax evasion and the bribing of politicians, judges and the tax police. But the country is Italy and the man is Silvio Berlusconi, almost certainly its richest citizen. As our own investigations make plain (see article), Mr Berlusconi is not fit to lead the government of any country, least of all one of the world's richest democracies.

Many of Mr Berlusconi's supporters, who include most of Italy's businessmen, decry such criticism as born of naivety, ignorance and malevolence. They say that it is he, not the Italian people, who is the victim of dishonesty. They say that ever since he entered politics, only seven years ago, he has been persecuted by left-wing magistrates, journalists and politicians, all jealous of his wealth and fearful of his intention to renovate Italy and do away with the old guard. They add, moreover, that even if Mr Berlusconi did pay off tax inspectors (under duress, of course), what of it? That was the way that business in Italy was done when he made his fortune. He was no worse than anyone else, only cleverer, and a bigger target. Why pick on the man who has the vision, flair and courage to offer his services so magnanimously to the nation?

Besides, the excusers' mantra goes on, it has become clear that most Italians, including many on the left, have grown bored with the long-running saga of Mr Berlusconi's legal travails. Many of his countrymen have a not-so-sneaking regard for the way in which he has cocked a snook at the tax laws, and at the authority of the state. If he can do so well for himself, surely he is all the more qualified to help Italians at large.

Plausible but wrong

Alas, nothing in this barrel of casuistry holds water. The questions and concerns about Mr Berlusconi are voiced not just by opponents on the left. The notion that he was himself the main victim of dishonest tax inspectors and malign magistrates is fanciful. Never do those who defend him mention the losses to the state, in other words, the Italian people that would result from the waiving of taxes by the tax inspectors he is said to have bribed. Besides, Mr Berlusconi is under investigation for crimes that are not mere peccadillos committed in the face of red tape and nitpicking taxmen. True, under Italy's tortuous judicial system, in only one case against him has a final verdict been handed down: this case involved illegal political donations and the court did not find him innocent. But our investigation shows that he has a compelling case to answer on a string of grave charges. In addition, his strange and long-standing reluctance to explain the origin of his earliest sources of wealth casts a pall over his entire business reputation.

In any event, in any normal country the voters and probably the law would not have given Mr Berlusconi his chance at the polls without first obliging him to divest himself of many of his wide-reaching assets. The conflict of interest between his own business and affairs of state would be gargantuan. Worth perhaps $14 billion, he is intricately involved in vast areas of Italian finance, commerce and broadcasting with ramifications into almost every aspect of business and public life; his empire includes banks, insurance, property, publishing, advertising, the media and football. Even during his ill-fated earlier stint as prime minister, in 1994, he issued an array of decrees that impinged heavily on his commercial activities. If he wins again on May 13th, he will control a good 90% of all national television broadcasting. He has made not the slightest effort to resolve this clear conflict.

Why so little concern in Italy?

There are historical reasons why so many Italians are unswayed by the case for keeping Mr Berlusconi out of high office. It is a sad truth that for years they had little cause to respect the institutions or rules of the state. Until a decade ago, Italy was run according to a corrupt arrangement under which all the supposedly respectable parties, usually led by the Christian Democrats, ruled in perpetual but oft-changing coalition to keep communists and fascists out of office. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, centrists and refashioned ex-communists filled the gap that opened up on the left, while Mr Berlusconi's movement jumped into the vacuum on the right. The mani pulite (clean hands) campaign against corruption after 1992 was enthusiastically taken up by the people and, all in all, venality is less pervasive than it was. But the same old attitude of disrespect for laws, institutions and the courts lingers. And Mr Berlusconi, peddling amiability and showmanship, has persuaded many Italians that he at least stands for something new. We show that in the central matter of probity that is not so.

Which is far from saying that Mr Berlusconi does not offer some sensible policies, or that Italy has no need of reform. The judicial system might well benefit from an overhaul. Indeed, the entire constitution is ripe for change. The executive is too weak, the legislature too prone to indecision, the voting system too proportional. But these problems are of a different order to the one of suspected criminality at the top.

Mr Berlusconi's strongest claim is that many of the charges against him, whether of conflict of interest or of much greater crimes, have been known for years, and yet most Italians seem untroubled. In other words, though the judiciary may not agree, the court of public opinion finds him innocent. If the judiciary is indeed politically motivated, that is a terrible condemnation of the Italian state. If, on the other hand, the judiciary is independent, the public's acquittal is a terrible condemnation of the electorate. Either way, the election of Mr Berlusconi as prime minister would mark a dark day for Italian democracy and the rule of law.

2003-05-23T16:48:00.000+10:00

WISE WORDS FOR JANET ALBRECHTSEN

OSCAR WILDE: The views of the Philistine on art could not be counted: they are incalculably stupid. You cannot ask me what misinterpretation of my work the ignorant, the illiterate, the foolish may put on it. It doesn't concern me. What concerns me in my art is my view and my feeling and why I made it; I don't care twopence what other people think about it.

2003-05-23T02:04:00.000+10:00

SOME GALBRAITH QUOTES

Just doing some research, and stumbled over a favourite John Kenneth Galbraith quote, and from this I was impelled to look up a few other favourite chestnuts. It's amazing how many of these have a certain iconoclastic quality. Here are a couple of my favourites. They just seem so timely, particularly the quote from Affluent nation about the value of education, a large driver of the economic success of this nation. Unfortunately, some short-sighted government officials, now see education more as a cost than a resource. Backward steps. Backward steps.

"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists."

"If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error."

"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled sea of thought."

"Meetings are indispensable when you don't want to do anything."

"Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory."

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

"In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong."

"People are the common denominator of progress. So... no improvement is possible with unimproved people, and advance is certain when people are liberated and educated. It would be wrong to dismiss the importance of roads, railroads, power plants, mills, and the other familiar furniture of economic development.... But we are coming to realize... that there is a certain sterility in economic monuments that stand alone in a sea of illiteracy. Conquest of illiteracy comes first."

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

"The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable."

2003-05-23T01:32:00.000+10:00

MICHAEL COSTELLO ON THE FTA

"Yet even at this late stage, we should think again – and then politely say we have changed our mind. To sign up to this deal would be a long-term strategic error not just for foreign and trade policy reasons, but for its consequences for our economy.

"This is not because the agreement is with the US. Indeed, if we were to make such an agreement, the US would be the most sensible option as a partner. It is because Australia signing up to this deal could well be a fatal blow to the steady progress towards the opening up of trade that has driven the stunning growth of the world economy for the past 50 years.

"At the heart of that freeing up of global trade was the idea that it must be non-discriminatory – that is, when the big powers did a deal among themselves, everyone else, from the biggest country to the smallest, got equal benefit."

"What matters is less the personal warmth between the leaders and more a belief on both sides that their interests coincide. One of those interests is global free trade, and all our efforts should be directed to getting the US back on that track rather than playing the short-term FTA game."

2003-05-22T06:25:00.000+10:00

TO ALBRECHT

Janet "of the planet" Albrechtsen continues to delve into the realm of fiction, its just a shame she is placed on the Australian's opinion pages on Wednesday, she'd be much more attuned a humor pages, maybe under the title of 'Village Idiot'. And this week she has put in another bravura performance, jumping into hysterics over French academic (Yes, get those loins worked up) Catherine Millet's work The Sexual Life of Catherine M. Of course this could not spark another cause celebre, something that French art has a particularly adept at manipulating over the years. Maybe this continues the fine form of the hysterical Lyon’s Forum ensuring enough scandal to guarantee the success of Romance, Baise-Moi or the more recent film adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s brilliant Lolita.

Now anyone with the vaguest semblance of knowledge of literary tradition will be well aware that this is hardly a groundbreaking novel. The French novel has been depicting sexual acts for well over two centuries from the Marquise de Sade's libertinism to George Bataille's The Story of the Eye , to more recently Michel Houellbecq's Atomised.

Albrechtsen asserts: “Her fawning embrace by our arts community at this week's Sydney Writers Festival confirms the unbearable pretentiousness of the art and academic worlds, the desperation of feminists to find a new hero and the fatuousness of this new, modern God of Tolerance.
Maybe Millet's newest fans among Australian intellectuals are unfamiliar with the porn genre. No plot, no characters. Sex in strange places, sex with strangers, lots of them, usually at once, in clubs, bushes, toilets, car parks, tunnels, on railway platforms, on car bonnets. Oral sex, anal sex, any sex. Millet's 186-page ode to gang-bang sex is porn in a mechanical tone.”

The problem is this fawning embrace from the arts community, is emanating almost solely from the publicity of the Sydney Writer’s Festival, which has a vested interest in a large attendance at Catherine's appearance this week. However, the arts and academic world have hardly been enthusiastic as Albrectsen asserts. Being around the halls of academia, not once have I heard Millet’s work mentioned this despite the fact that her appearance at the Sydney Writer’s Festival is only a matter of days away.

Indeed, going through the broadsheet reviews in Australia, the response has been somewhat negative. Writing in The Age (which I’m sure Janet sees as the hotbead of moral corruption) Catherine Ford review concludes: “There are few things I've seen or read as squalid as Catherine Millet's boastful posing, her diligence in counting herself among the impious.
And while it's possible to appreciate, even be entertained by a narcissism as great as hers, my goodwill dried up at her scandalously cursory mention of an abortion she undergoes. It is the only penetration of Millet's body, in 200-odd pages, to receive scant, perfunctory treatment.”

While Guy Rundle in the Sydney Morning Herald was also skeptical of its achievements, and went on to resite other works of literature, which explored sexual encounters in a far more fascinating manner. Rundle states: “Had the work been published in the 1950s, it would have been a pulp called something like I was a Nymphomaniac with a blonde in a see-through shift on the cover.”

Finally, reading the Village Voice review and interview, it is obvious that Albrecthsen has taken a few quotes out of context by focusing on the playful use of the ‘new literary libertine’. However, if she bothered to read the remainder of the review she would have discovered that the review was nowhere near as celebratory of her work as she asserts. Here are some extracts from the Village Voice review

“Millet reveals the most minuscule particulars of her sexploits, yet next to nothing about her life beyond them. She tells us which positions and orifices her lovers favored, but not what books they read or what they talked about. The passing of time is imperceptible in the memoir except for one lone reference to Millet not liking a particular sexual position because it's unflattering to her middle-aged jowls, and a short passage about becoming more discriminating after settling down with long-term partner Jacques. But the absence of personal detail sparks a litany of questions: Does she have any female friends? Did she trade saliva with artists she was critiquing? Do any of her lovers have children? Don't any of her fuckmates have jobs?

“The most controversial thing about The Sexual Life isn't Millet's voraciousness but her passivity. She doesn't come off as a lusty dominatrix; in fact, she lets the men in her life act as "guides" who hook her up with one salacious situation after another. “

And concluding: “More startling, however, is her claim that she'd never analyzed her behavior until writing this book, and didn't understand the mechanisms of orgasms until late in life. That's a pretty strange admission for an intellectual who must've been aware of American feminist writing on the subject and of French theorists who celebrated female sexuality as a basis for l'écriture feminine. So either Millet is being dishonest, or she enjoys playing hide-and-seek with the reader, refusing to resolve publicly some of the deeper psychosexual issues that rumble through this seemingly self-revelatory book.”

Doing a Google search, with edu.au qualifier, only one mention is made of Millet’s work by an Australian academic, this by a Macquarie Uni sociology professor. Hardly a flurry of academic theory. However, bang in William Faulkner, Shakespeare, Cervantes, and hundreds of results will be forthcoming. But conservatives would assure you that all this ‘postmodernism’ (even though they do not understand the term) would make studying these texts irrelevant.

Of course this allows Albrechtsen to embark on her Hobby Horse about the principle of tolerance, which is even more laughable. If she is so opposed to tolerance she is welcome to move to Saudi Arabia, something right-wing critics have suggested that multiculturalists like Greg Barns and Malcolm Fraser should do for having the audacity to criticise the Australian government.

“Yet their view of morality is as extreme as that of fundamentalists advocating sharia law as a code of conduct. The only difference is the two groups live at opposite ends of the moral spectrum. Adherents of sharia law overdose on judgments. Tolerance junkies are comfortable with only one – one that says making judgments about lifestyles is bad.”

Of course the two views are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet Janet is hardly coming from a position of neutrality, Albrechtsen seems very much to share the book-burning camp of the Islamic fundamentalists she so likes to attempt to slur in an effort to pen a new diminutive for Australian liberals. Those darn elitists, who wished for greater transparency during the Tampa crisis and the children overboard incident, who according to Albrechtsen were secretly agitating for the building of an Arab kakistocracy here in Australia. Flaming Strewth.

Another proud moment of Australian hypocrisy. On this example, the critical faculties of the press and academia remain in good shape.

Janet should take a bex, or maybe go get some good sex. She sure sounds like one unhappy camper.

2003-05-03T03:40:00.000+10:00

HOLLINGWORTH SHOULD RESIGN WITH WHATEVER DIGNITY HE HAS LEFT

This the Australian editorial

"Dr Hollingworth's resignation is in the national interest and there is nothing to be gained by his trying to hang on and tough it out. It would subject him to continuing community criticism as a serial offender in failing to do everything he could to protect children from pedophiles. Dr Hollingworth does not appear to understand this. His response to yesterday's church report admitted a "serious error" of judgment but the apology is a sterile statement redolent of a desperate hope that he will now be left alone.

This assessment follows on from other examples of spectacularly poor judgment by Dr Hollingworth, notably his inference in a television interview conducted in February last year that an adolescent girl may have initiated a sexual relationship with a clergyman. It was a stunningly stupid thing to say, both for what it demonstrated about Dr Hollingworth's understanding – or lack of it – about how adults can sexually manipulate the young, and for his inability to anticipate the community outrage it generated. In the months that followed, the Governor-General lost the respect of much of the Australian community. Teachers voted to ban him from schools, charities concluded there was no prestige in his vice-regal support. And like a deeply unpopular politician fighting to stay in office, he hired a $250-an-hour spin-doctor to defend his record. That the taxpayer picked up the $13,500 bill did not do Dr Hollingworth's public standing much good either.

"There is no vendetta against him, the accusations come from too many sources and there is no reason to hope that we have heard the last claim that our head of state failed to protect children from pedophiles who sheltered under the authority of the church he led. The prospect of Australia's head of state issuing yet more statements of apology over sexual abuse in his former diocese, sheltering behind the doubtful defence of public relations spin and facing criticism in the media or even the courts makes an overwhelming case for him to go."

And this editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald:

"These findings confirm and reinforce what was plain last year. That is, that when Dr Hollingworth had the authority to respond to sexual abuse complaints against clergy, he was too ready to be understanding and forgiving of offending clergy, too protective of the interests of the church as an institution, and too little concerned about the victims.

That approach reflected attitudes of earlier times, when pedophiles too often benefited from the unwillingness of institutions such as the church to deal openly with cases of abuse. Now it is well recognised that pedophiles seek to place themselves in situations where they can find victims, and their crimes, when they occur, are less likely to be aberrations than parts of longstanding and persistent patterns of behaviour. Stopping them - and deterring others - requires removal, not forgiveness."

The views from monarchists is very much divided, as this interview from The World Today highlights

ELEANOR HALL: Well, despite support from the Convenor of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, a Queensland monarchist is this morning calling on Dr Hollingworth to resign.

Dr Glen Sheil, from Queenslanders for a Constitutional Monarchy, was elected representative on the 1998 Constitutional Convention and he's told Peter McCutcheon that the Governor-General does more than perform a ceremonial role.

GLEN SHEIL: The Governor-General is the watchdog for the people and he's only allowed to have the enormous power that he does have and to use it when he's using it on behalf of the people, all of the people. And so he's got to keep an eye on all the legislation and see that it's not disadvantaging anybody.

No matter what their political party, he has to be independent of all that sort of thing and so he has to use his judgement a lot and in this sort of case, he's demonstrated that his judgement is a bit off.

PETER McCUTCHEON: Well at least on one occasion he made an error of judgement. He's admitted to that but…

GLEN SHEIL: Mmm.

PETER McCUTCHEON: … is there anyone on this earth who hasn't made an error of judgement in the past?

GLEN SHEIL: Very few of us. I have myself. I bet you have too. And he has too. But when you're given that job, you can't afford one.

PETER McCUTCHEON: But he hasn't committed any crime and the error of judgement occurred some years ago before he took on the role as Governor-General. Why is it relevant now?

GLEN SHEIL: I'll tell you why, because meetings of his peers nowadays have decided that there never was an opportunity to come to the conclusion he did come to and that he should not have come to that conclusion and so that makes people wonder what other things he was considering, or was there anything in it for him, and that's the important thing. You can't have people whose judgement is subject to outside influences.

PETER McCUTCHEON: Do you think this controversy has undermined support for the monarchy in Australia?

GLEN SHEIL: No. In fact it's, this is the monarchy working at its best. Because the Governor-General is the watchdog for the people, the people are well aware that they want a chap in that job who's fair in his judgements and so this issue is one that's enlivened everybody.

PETER McCUTCHEON: So do you think the Governor-General should resign? Or should the Prime Minister sack him?

GLEN SHEIL: No I think he should resign. I think it's a bit hard on the Prime Minister to ask him to sack him.

However, Kerry Jones disagrees

ELANOR HALL: Why do you think that he should not resign as Governor-General?

KERRY JONES: Well it has absolutely nothing to do with his role as our constitutional Australian Head of State and he is performing in that role extremely well. There's been lots and lots of innuendos and accusations made over things that happened in a previous role that he played, of course, but that has nothing to do with his constitutional role as our Australian Head of State. And I think a lot of people today are mixing up the two very, very different roles.

And what about this smug response

ELEANOR HALL: Kerry Jones, it is an issue about power and it is an issue about character. Do you believe that those things are important for a Governor-General?

KERRY JONES: Look the Governor-General, the most important role and duty he plays is to be above the day-to-day political fray. I mean that's what a constitutional monarchy is all about. It's about having leadership above politics.

The politicians come and go and argue and play out their debates on a daily basis about what is right or wrong, whether we should go to war, whether we should take in or not refugees, etcetera.

But when you get to issues of representing all Australians above politics, that is the position that our Governor-General and our Governors play on a daily basis as well as, of course, the constitutional importance of their role of checking the legislation and the politicians do it in the right way.

KERRY JONES: Of course it is and I mean there were many people who didn't want us to go to war and the opinion polls have completely reversed lately on that issue. Changing the flag, now no-one wants to change our Australian flag. Opinion polls are a day-to-day current affair reflection. They should never decide important things like policy and important things like our constitutional debate.

Now the Governor-General is in I believe the most important role in Australia as our Australian Head of State and keeping a check and balance on the day-to-day political frays and you've got to be left alone to do that job properly.

Warning Kerry, your moving into 'Elitist' territory, with that above politics stuff. It sounds mighty similar to the line that the republican movement should just shut up and go away, because the majority of people voted against it. Ignoring public opinion while accusing republicans of the same sort of 'Elitism', is a mammoth hypocrisy

Darn it, maybe we should demand another Republican ballot, if these polls are so darn unreliable Kerry.

"Left-alone to do that job properly" - is she going to advocate the 'rule of kings' next. Sounds like royalty. Hollingworth was only appointed through the divine decree of He Of the Mighty Eyebrows, of whom some of the press seem to assume of a divinely spectacular birth on par with the beautiful Aphrodite. That sounds a tad Elitist, Kezza. It's not doing Howard or Hollingworth any favours, and considering the symbolic nature of the position, it is not exactly representing Australians overseas in the brightest manner.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Well it's relevant for two reasons; issue of principle and also a practical issue. On the issue of principle, what child sexual abuse is about, as other forms of sexual abuse, is about is power and Archbishop Hollingworth, while in that position, this report shows that he acted unfairly, unreasonably, didn't show any compassion.

He didn't understand when he also gave the Australian Story interview, which was while he was Governor-General, that a 14-year old girl having a relationship with a minister is an issue of abuse, is a crime, is centred on a power imbalance in that relationship.

ELEANOR HALL: So are you saying that Dr Hollingworth is not fit to be Governor-General?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: I am absolutely saying that and I'm also saying that on a practical level not only does he not get what this issue is and why it's an issue of great significance, and he did that whilst he was Governor-General, he gave that Australian Story interview, there's a practical issue as well, which is that he can't do his job.

He couldn't go to the Melbourne Cup last year and he can't go to public functions. He can't perform the role that we need our Head of State to perform, which is one of a unifying figure who we can all respect, who we can all look up to.

Spot on, Hollingworth should follow a cardinal law and resign immediately.

2003-02-26T01:31:00.000+10:00

THE BURGHERS FOIL BORGER
The Labor Party in NSW continues to bypass grassroots members, in yet another tale of the machinations of the famous NSW right, where the views of the local rank-and-file count for about as much as the voice of a lachrymose leper. In the pre-selection for the safe state seat of Parramatta, popular local member David Borger was ousted by the famous N40 rule, which allows a mini-ballot instead of a rank-and-file vote. This gave Michael Costa’s chief of staff Tanya Gadiel the Labor pre-selection for Parramatta.

David Borger, is an impressive young politician, and one with varied experiences and the ability to have a big future in many Labor governments to come. At the age of 30 he was elected Lord Mayor of Parramatta, and has been involved in an array of campaigns in the region. Borger has impressed a lot of people, including premier Bob Carr, and has quite a profile in the area and was already being considered as ministerial material by many in the NSW ALP.

Borger unlike most of his Labor counterparts, can lay claim to coming from a very different background than the usual ‘Chardonnay Socialist’ archetype who follows fashionable causes. Having run away from home Borger spent some time as a ward of the state, and it is to his enormous credit that he has been able to turn around his life and rise so rapidly through the Labor ranks. Having gone back to school and completed his HSC and completed an Economics degree, Borger then succeeded in being voted onto the Parramatta Council. What impresses me about Borger is he has, what few of the go-getters from Labor seem to have, a concern for a range of micro issues that have been neglected by most politicians of all persuasions. In his time on Parramatta he has been involved in the important unfashionable causes like disability services, mental health services and during the Olympics highlighted the plight of over a thousand homeless people forced to re-locate.

Borger has every reason to be disappointed with NSW Labor, and this frustration obviously spilled over when he decided to spill the beans on the Mike Carlton drive-program.

On this interview, Borger announced that he had been offered the seat and a probable ministerial position if he switched to the right faction, this carrot was offered by Eddie Obeid, who sent an array of messages to Borger’s mobile phone. However, Borger declined the offer, which he is entitled to do, confident he would win the seat on local support and would eventually earn a ministerial position on his own merits.

"It also shows how powerful Eddie Obeid is,” said Borger. “I declined his offer because I do not trust him. The rank-and-file preselection process is dead and one of the reasons is because the party is so dependent on funding from corporate sources.

"The ALP no longer rely on local supporters, on people putting things into letterboxes any more. They rely on the big fund-raisers and use those resources to run campaigns.

"There is a disconnection between branch membership; they are owed less now, have less input and, as an extension, now do not have their say in the selection ballot process."

This is another embarrassment for the Labor Party, which has already suffered from ignoring the public’s desire to insure adequate participation in the pre-selection process in the safe seat of Cunningham. Unfortunately, in the Labor Party is starting to become a case of who you know rather than what you know, which has often resulted in Labor fielding candidates with quite limited talent in several marginal seats in both of the last two elections. If we are to compare Borger’s fate with Paul McLeay, who was parachuted into the state seat of Heathcote without any equal opportunity objections that occurred in Parramatta, you have to question Labor’s efforts to recruit the best candidate in every seat.

That Obeid, who is now famous for making 153 errors on his pecuniary interest declarations, could have so much sway in pre-selections is quite disturbing. Hopefully, Borger will be able to overcome this set back, and possibly challenge Rod Cameron for the Federal Seat of Parramatta, he’d certainly be a big improvement on the garrulous member for Parramatta, who continues to shoot his mouth off about everything from marriage-shy males to winging farmers who he suggests relocate to the city.

2003-02-18T03:01:00.000+10:00

SOME RARE GOOD NEWS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Courtesy of BBC World

Reports say Iran's Supreme Court has revoked a death sentence imposed on dissident academic Hashem Aghajari, whose sentencing provoked nationwide demonstrations.
The history professor had been condemned to death in November for insulting Islam and questioning clerical rule during a speech in June.
"The death sentence against Aghajari has been revoked by a majority of votes by the review judges," said Ayatollah Mohammad Sajjadi, one of the judges who heard an appeal of Mr Aghajari's case on Friday.
"Three out of four of the judges voted to revoke the sentence," he said in remarks quoted by AP news agency.

This is good news, after Professor Hashem Aghajari was originally sentenced to death for apostasy. Aghajari was charged after he questioned why Muslim clerics had the sole power to interpret Islamic practices. This modest history teacher, could be seen as a modern-day parallel to Martin Luther. Challenging the legitimacy of the church is always a dangerous process, there are many vested interests planning ensuring power maintains its current shape, and Iran's mullah's despite the reformist government are doing everything they can to stifle the modernisation process, which despite their efforts are well under way. Luckily the burning of heretics is a little rarer in Western civilisations.

2003-02-18T02:57:00.000+10:00

IRAQ VOTE ON A POTENTIAL KNIFE-EDGE?

If the US submits a new resolution to the UN Security Council, validating the use of force, the potential vote could be awfully close.

First of all, the US and the UK will be dependent on none of the three other permanent security members, (France, Russia, China) using their ‘veto’ power to block the motion. In my opinion, the rule of "Great Power Unanimity", which allows all five nations to veto any resolution, is in serious need of reform. Otherwise it allows for the potential of one state to undermine the decision-making process, possibility leading to the UN stagnating into another League of Nations debacle.

Also, for the resolution to succeed, nine of the 15 members must vote in favour of the resolution. If we look at each of the members, the current split in the UN could be enough to defeat any possible resolution.

United Kingdom – IN FAVOUR
United States – IN FAVOUR
Spain – IN FAVOUR
Bulgaria – IN FAVOUR

China – OPPOSED
France – OPPOSED
Russia – OPPOSED
Germany – DEFINITELY OPPOSED (Schroeder has regularly voiced his opposition, as has Foreign Minister and leader of the Green Joschkka Fischer)
Syria – DEFINITELY OPPOSED (Iraq’s old ally)

This means that only one of the remaining members could be opposed to the resolution. However, there is the possibility of China or Russia reversing their vote, which would allow for three of the six remaining nations passing the motion.

From this it is obvious that African nations Angola, Cameroon and Guinea will be heavily lobbied by both sides and will be crucial in the result.

Angola, a hot bed of corruption, where four billion dollars had disappeared from government coffers over the last five years, resulting in the sacking of finance minister Julio Bessa, is not exactly a paragon of the transparent decision-making process. Also, Angola’s bloody civil-war which raged for 27 years, could also still have some influence on how Angola votes. It will be interesting to see whether the ruling Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) has forgiven the United States for its support of rebel group Unita (alongside South-Africa), in one of the many proxy wars with the Soviet Union that raged throughout Africa during the 70s. Unfortunately in regards to Africa, the Cameroon and Guinea are little better in regards to transparent government.

Chile is another country, which considering its bloody history would have reasons to doubt the United State’s ability to export democracy to other countries, considering the venom Chileans still have towards the US, as a result of its intervention in Chile in the 70s, which resulted in the installation of the despotic Pinochet regime. It is hardly surprising that many Chileans probably have reasons to doubt America’s concern for Iraqi citizens. However, Chilean president, Ricardo Lagos, is on all accounts a moderate leftist, and considering that in the 80s Lagos himself was held without charge by Pinochet, his sympathy for the Iraqi resistance could lead to him supporting Hussein’s removal.

That leaves us with Mexico’s Vicente Fox, who is an all accounts on good terms with George W. Bush and the US’s reluctant ally Pakistan, who many point to as one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Whether Pakistan will vote against any motion, fearing a backlash from extremists is yet to be known, but Musharraf may find the US less forthcoming if Pakistan is the country that stifles Bush’s designs.

Whether bush will be able to get any motion through the UNSC will be yet to see. As of January 1, 2003 the dynamics of the Security Council have definitely swung against him, with Iraq opponent Germany, Chile, Angola and Pakistan joining the UNSC, while the only definite hawk is Spain, Bush will probably be disappointed that Saddam Hussein’s diplomatic efforts to extend the process has resulted in a more hostile UNSC in 2003, giving him a definite challenge to obtain a clear majority, if he is to obtain UN approval.

2003-01-29T00:25:00.000+10:00

WAITING FOR DUBBYA

With a war in Iraq looking closer, New York Times Columnist Thomas Friedman provides readers with two fascinating columns on the looming war in the gulf. In the first of these columns Friedman suggests that many liberals under-estimated the value of regime change in Iraq and how it could be a power of good in the Arab world. He follows this up with a second article, pointing out that many of the hawkish elements in the Bush administration have also under-estimated the risk of such an endeavour.

In defense of the possible military strikes, Friedman suggests the establishment of a progressive, democratic government in the region would be of enormous benefit to the region and to the fight against terror.

“What threatens Western societies today are not the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables — the boys who did 9/11, who hate us more than they love life. It's these human missiles of mass destruction that could really destroy our open society.
So then the question is: What is the cement mixer that is churning out these undeterrables — these angry, humiliated and often unemployed Muslim youth? That cement mixer is a collection of faltering Arab states, which, as the U.N.'s Arab Human Development Report noted, have fallen so far behind the world their combined G.D.P. does not equal that of Spain. And the reason they have fallen behind can be traced to their lack of three things: freedom, modern education and women's empowerment.”
“ If we don't help transform these Arab states — which are also experiencing population explosions — to create better governance, to build more open and productive economies, to empower their women and to develop responsible media that won't blame all their ills on others, we will never begin to see the political, educational and religious reformations they need to shrink their output of undeterrables.”

However, Friedman also highlights that no-one truly knows how Iraq will react once Saddam is removed, Iraq could Balkanise, it could further radicalise, it will have a lot of teething problems before developing into legitimate democracy. Will the US government and the US public have the patience to endure the range of problems that Iraq will have to endure post-Saddam? Considering how averse advisors like Condoleezza Rice are to the notion of ‘nation building’, Rice was particularly keen to get US peacekeeping troops out of Kosovo. The question has to be asked will the US and its allies put in the hard yards to ensure Iraq gets the democracy its people desperately deserve.

Friedman asks, what will happen when Saddam is toppled, what response will the US receive when a new force fills the power vacuum following the removal of Hussein..

“It could say, ‘Congratulations! You've just won the Arab Germany — a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with an evil dictator, whom you've just removed. Now, just add a little water, a spoonful of democracy and stir, and this will be a normal nation very soon.’
Or the envelope could say, ‘You've just won the Arab Yugoslavia — an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like iron fist. Congratulations, you're the new Saddam’.
In the first scenario, Iraq is the way it is today because Saddam is the way he is. In the second scenario, Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is what it is. Those are two very different problems. And we will know which we've won only when we take off the lid. The conservatives and neo-cons, who have been pounding the table for war, should be a lot more humble about this question, because they don't know either.”
“Does that mean we should rule out war? No. But it does mean that we must do it right. To begin with, the president must level with the American people that we may indeed be buying the Arab Yugoslavia, which will take a great deal of time and effort to heal into a self-sustaining, progressive, accountable Arab government. And, therefore, any nation-building in Iraq will be a multiyear marathon, not a multiweek sprint.”
“Because it will be a marathon, we must undertake this war with the maximum amount of international legitimacy and U.N. backing we can possibly muster. Otherwise we will not have an American public willing to run this marathon, and we will not have allies ready to help us once we're inside (look at all the local police and administrators Europeans now contribute in Bosnia and Kosovo). We'll also become a huge target if we're the sole occupiers of Iraq.”

Friedman continues:

“And the real prize here is a new Iraq that would be a progressive model for the whole region. That, for me, is the only morally and strategically justifiable reason to support this war. The Bush team dare not invade Iraq simply to install a more friendly dictator to pump us oil. And it dare not simply disarm Iraq and then walk away from the nation-building task.”

However, what of other issues. What will be effect on neighbouring nations Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Will the regime change lead to a significant reduction in human right violations to justify the casualties inflicted by the American air strikes? Will Saddam’s successor be any more beneficent than his predecessor? Will the remainder of Saddam’s chemical and biological weapon stockpile (kindly donated by the US in the Iraq-Iran war) fall into the hands of extremists, increasing the risk of terrorist attacks rather than ameliorating current instabilities.

2002-12-28T01:08:00.000+10:00

GHOSTS OF CHRISTMAS PAST

This story brought a gossamer of delight to Rambling Man, highlighting the humanity that often goes unnoticed - the kind gestures that are often forgotten in a world where greed is worshipped by its many fools and minions.

Officer Delacruz I hope you had a Merry Christmas

"Homeless people give Christmas check to cop
NEW YORK — A police officer got a Christmas gift of $3,000 from homeless people who wanted to thank him for standing up for them.
Officer Eduardo Delacruz was suspended for 30 days without pay last month after he refused a sergeant's order to arrest a homeless man found sleeping in a parking garage.
In gratitude, organizations for the homeless put together the fund for the 37-year-old officer, his wife and their five children. Homeless people also contributed change scrounged from passers-by, money earned from recycling cans and bottles, and even portions of their welfare checks.
"We just wanted to thank him by contributing however we could," said Joe Bostic, one of 30 former and current homeless men and women who announced the gift. "And a lot of us gave quarters, nickels and dimes."
According to police, Officer Delacruz told his superiors in the department's Homeless Outreach Unit that he would not arrest a homeless man for trespassing on Nov. 22 because the man had nowhere else to go.
The man was arrested by another officer and pleaded guilty to trespassing."

Merry Christmas and happy new year all bloggers. Live long and prosper. I'll be back some time in mid-January.

2002-12-17T17:17:00.000+10:00

RABID-PROOF FENCING

On the last Senate sitting of the year, Labor's Senate leader launched a motion to congratulate

"(a) writer Doris Pilkington, film director Phillip Noyce and producers Christine Olsen and John Winter for their Australian Film Institute (AFI) award for best Australian feature film, in Rabbit Proof Fence;

(b) the actors and the film crew for this achievement;

(c) the makers of the soundtrack which won AFI awards for best score and best sound; and

(d) Senator Abetz for his constant assistance in promoting this powerful film about the tragedy of the children of the Stolen Generations."

It's great to see Abetz and Peter 'Slippery' Slipper (who according to Crikey recently accidently locked himself in a disabled dunny), wasting tax-payer money on their ideology-fueled campaign. Maybe Abetz and co should invest in an adaptation of Keith Windshuttle's new book.

Or maybe Abetz should become a film publicist, he wouldn't be alone in Liberal circles - the Lyons forum and Angela Shanahan and her conservative cohorts, have to be given some credit for the packed audiences for Baise Moi.

2002-12-10T20:27:00.000+10:00

TIME TO STOP BREAKING CARDINAL LAWS

I would have thought that child abuse would be a cardinal sin that the Catholic Church would have employed enormous resources to stamp out of the clerisy.

Apparently, not.

The fate of the Head of the Catholic Church in Boston, Cardinal Bernhard Law, who is responsible for the covering up of hundreds of sexual assault cases, could hang int he balance, with his meeting with the Pope John Paul II. Law is already facing mounting criticism, with a long line of legal suits possibly sending the Boston archdiocese reeling into bankruptcy.

This from The Independent

“The head of the Catholic Church in Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law, appeared to be in danger of losing his post yesterday as he held secret talks with officials at the Vatican on the crisis caused by a spiralling sex abuse scandal.
There was growing speculation that Pope John Paul II, exasperated with the unending flow of sordid revelations of rogue priests in Boston, was expected either to accept the resignation of Cardinal Law or to allow him to stay on but at the same time naming a successor.”

Hasn’t it dawned on the Catholic Church that covering up these crimes has been counter-productive – causing enormous damage to the Church’s standing within the community.

When will the Catholic Church realise that the more it covers up these issues and offers disgraced priests the opportunity to avoid prosecution, often allowing predatory behaviour to continue at other parishes, it is just exacerbating the problem. How long will the Church keep its head in the sand?

However, at the same time there seems to be political players in the Vatican who still refuse to concede that this is happening, still attempting some form of damage control. Maybe the Catholic Church should put Peter Reith on the payroll, he’s used to this sort of sordid politico-kicking. However you are never going to silence all the victims, who deserve to be treated with far greater compassion. Fortunately, some crusading bishops have realised that not all roads lead to Rome.

It should not be a Cardinal Sin for those in the clergy who have voiced their concerns on this matter. We already have enough politicians neutered by the 'party line'. If a member of the clergy wants to speak on the behalf of his parishioners, like certain pollies who wish to speak on behalf of their members (Onya, Carmen), he ought to be allowed to do so.

Or is the Catholic Church, trying to impersonate some parts of the Labor Party, and not to stand for anything

2002-12-10T20:00:00.000+10:00

WHAT I’M READING

After a drive down the coast on the weekend, I’m nestling down with Gerald Murnane The Plains. Murnane, a recipient of the Patrick White Literary Award, is one of those Australian writers who for some obscure reason has never received the attention he deserves. On early impressions, this work is a fascinating exploration into the Australian landscape, exploring the relationship between man and the vast expanse of plains.

I also just polished of Naguib Mahfouz’s Sugar Street, the final episode of the Egyptian laureate’s Cairo Trilogy. The Trilogy comes highly recommended, particularly for those readers interested in seeing the lives of Egyptians presented from an Arabic perspective. The book leaps around through a range of themes and characters, being in many ways, a yearning pursuit of love, a clash of generations, a family drama and a chronicle of political struggle. It is beautifully written, with a sparse compact style that still somehow explores the inner lives of these characters. The Egyptian Tolstoy.

2002-12-10T17:55:00.000+10:00

ACEH DEAL A STEP FORWARD

News of a ceasefire agreement between GAM (Free Aceh Movement) and the Indonesian army is welcome news.

This from The Guardian

“The agreement calls for both the Indonesian army and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) to pull their forces back into ‘peace zones’, and submit to international monitoring.
It says that there will be elections in 2004, but avoids the critical issue of whether candidates will be allowed to campaign for independence.”

Hopefully, this will be a step forward, leading towards greater autonomy for the Aceh provinces.

“Negotiators at the Swiss-based Henry Dunant Centre, which oversaw the deal, say the Indonesian president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, has shown a real desire to reach a non-violent solution in Aceh. Critics of the Indonesian government, however, argue that it has only partial control over the armed forces on the spot.”

Keeping a greedy military from continuing its exploitation of this resource-rich region, will be an immense challenge for Megawati, which could involve a stern test of political wills. However, hopefully an amicable settlement between the Indonesia government and the people of Aceh can be achieved, already this conflict has resulted in the futile loss of 30,000 lives. This is one more reason why Australia should not lend any legitimacy to the Indonesian military with a human-rights record that is absolutely appalling.

2002-12-05T17:48:00.000+10:00

MAGA-OCRITY

This article in the Washington Post, is an interesting post-mortem on the failure of glossy magazines. It’s another sterling attack on the magazine industry, and the mediocrity bred by the current managerial set.

First the article explores the failure of Rosie magazine

“On Rosie O’Donnell who launched her magazine, Rosie to limited success: In Newman's portrayal, O'Donnell sounds like the magazine editor from Hell. She knew zip about magazines. She came to the office so seldom that she felt compelled to hire her girlfriend's stepsister to serve in her absence as ‘interpreter of Rosie's vision.’ And when she did show up, she berated underlings so viciously that one staffer asked G&J management to provide a security guard to protect her from O'Donnell.”

“The mag was created purely for money by people with no real interest in magazines. These greedheads made the rounds of Manhattan's media conglomerates, pitching Rosie as the successor to Martha and Oprah in the new category of "celebrity-as-brand."

Then it goes onto the infighting at AOL-Time Warner. This extract focuses on AOL-Time Warner’s editorial director, John Huey,

“The second wonderful moment comes when Huey appears on the Charlie Rose TV show and Rose asks him how he was affected by the tragedy of his second wife's death from cancer. Huey clears his throat with a few quick cliches and then says: ‘I don't get too worked up about firing people. . . . As I always say to myself when I'm doing it, I'm not killing anybody here.’
There you have the new corporate magazine honcho -- a man who comes away from his wife's death with a renewed fondness for firing his employees.”

Summing up this blinkered managerial sect: “This new breed exhibits no passion about bringing their own personal vision of truth and beauty to magazine readers. They are mere managers, empty suits with spreadsheet souls. That's why most of their magazines are so timid, so tepid, so insipid.”

However, maybe some of the blame can also be shifted to modern magazine writers, and their adherence to a certain form at the expense of the story. Michael Shapiro in The Curse of Tom Wolfe suggests that formulaic magazine writing styles, is stifling modern storytelling in contemporary magazines.

“First, a story. Or rather an 'anecdotal lead,' which seems essential when writing about magazines — in this case, where they’ve gone wrong and how maybe they might recapture one of the great pleasures they’ve lost: the story. Not the article. Not the piece. The story. ... But in return allow readers the possibility of turning to the beleaguered well and finding a story whose author had something to say. Give the magazine a chance again to be the subject of the conversation that begins, Did you read the story about . . .”

Personally, I prefer Thomas Wolfe, the novelist of the early 20th century, over Tom Wolfe the journalist. Unfortunately, in the war of the Wolves, it seems that Thomas has been consigned to obscurity, as more of his works continue to be consigned to ‘out of print’ or ‘limited availability’ status. For poor all Thomas readers it looks more and more like that You Can’t Go Home Again.

2002-12-05T17:10:00.000+10:00

BLAIR BACKFLIPS ON TOP-UP FEES

According to the Guardian, Tony Blair has announced he will not be implementing top-up fees. Blair who had put previously considered the option as one of a list of possible reforms, had been rebuked by many in his party, including David Blunkett, Gordon Brown and Claire Short, who all feared voter backlash if the reforms were put in place.

It will be interesting in the next year to see how the Australian electorate receives the mooted 25 per fee increase. I can’t see this being an electoral winner. Even if the Nelson reforms are not as extreme as those of his drier successor, David Kemp (so dry, he is eligible for drought assistance); it seems unlikely that most parents will be suitably impressed with those reforms. It will be interesting to see their response of parents when they discover they have to fork out an extra $10,000 - $30,000.

Tony Blair said: "The status quo is not an option. We do need to get more money into our university education system. It can either come from the taxpayer, it can come from the parent or the student," Mr Blair said. "If it comes from the taxpayer, however, that means the majority of people who pay their taxes but haven't been to university have to fund it better.
"If it comes from the parent, obviously the danger is if parents are forced to pay large amounts of money upfront, that could indeed deter people from university education. The alternative is the student, and yet we don't want students to get further into debt. So, it is a difficult problem."

2002-12-03T13:41:00.000+10:00

WHAT I'M READING

I'm almost finished German emigre W.G. Sebald's 'Austerlitz'. Yet again Sebald excels. This is a beautiful and haunting tale, with its gentle stream-of-consciousness that reads almost like an ephemeral quest of memory. The way Sebald is able to connect what seem like quotidian objects into the disappearing past highlights has enormous talent. Hopefully, Sebald will go down as one of the most important writers at the turn of the century. His death last year was a great loss to the world of literature.

2002-11-30T16:56:00.000+10:00

MORE RUSHDIES THAN YOU CAN POKE A STICK AT

Salmon Rushdie goes looking for opposition to intolerance in moderate Islam, but with the exception of a few brave souls, finds few signs of protest.

“Is it unfair to bunch all these different uglinesses together? Perhaps. But they do have something in common. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was accused of being "the Dutch Salman Rushdie", Aghajari of being the Iranian version, Isioma Daniel of being the Nigerian incarnation of the same demon. And Sobhi in Egypt defended his racist work by pointing out that The Satanic Verses had not been banned.”

“A couple of months ago I said that I detested the sloganisation of my name by Islamists around the world. I'm beginning to rethink that position. Maybe it's not so bad to be a "Rushdie" among other "Rushdies" after all. For the most part, I'm comfortable with, and often even proud of, the company I'm in. “

“If all this Muslim mayhem were going on in the name of something I held dear - if my ancient, deeply civilised culture of love, art and philosophical reflection were being hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies - I'd be screaming my head off about it. So where is the Muslim outrage at Muslim atrocities? At least in Iran the students are demonstrating. But where else in the Muslim world can one hear the voices of the decent, fair-minded, tolerant Muslim majority deploring what Nigerian, Egyptian, Arab and Dutch Muslims are doing on the flimsiest of pretexts? Muslims in the west, too, seem unnaturally silent on these topics. If you're yelling, folks, we can't hear you. Maybe you could at least stand up so we can see who you are?”

“If the moderate voices of Islam cannot or will not insist on the modernisation of their culture and yes, of their faith as well, then it may be these so-called "Rushdies" who have to do it for them. For every such individual who is vilified and oppressed, two more, 10 more, 1,000 more will spring up. They will spring up because you can't keep people's minds, feelings and needs in jail for ever, no matter how brutal your inquisitions. The Islamic world today is being held prisoner, not by western but by Islamic captors, who are fighting to keep closed a world that a badly outnumbered few are trying to open. While the majority remains silent, this will be a tough war to win. But in the end, or so we must hope, someone will kick down that prison door.”

2002-11-30T13:40:00.000+10:00

IS LE PEN FRENCH?

“If Le Pen was French, according to Le Pen's definition, this would mean that, according to Le Pen's definition, Le Pen's mother and Le Pen's father must have been French according to Le Pen's definition, which would indicate that, according to Le Pen's definition, Le Pen's mother's mother, as well as Le Pen's mother's father as well as Le Pen's father's mother, not forgetting Le Pen's father's father must have been, according to Le Pen's definition, French and thus Le Pen's mother's mother's mother, plus the mother of Le Pen's mother's father plus the mother of Le Pen's mother's father, plus the mother of Le Pen's father's father must have been French according to Le Pen's definition and likewise and for the same reason Le Pen's mother's mother's father, plus the father of Le Pen's mother's father plus the father of Le Pen's father's mother, as well as the father of Le Pen's father's father must have been French, still according to the same definition, that of Le Pen from which we can easily deduce without Le Pen's help by following the same reasoning either that there has been an infinite number of French people born French according to Le Pen's definition, who have lived and died French according to Le Pen's definition since time immemorial or else that Le Pen is not French according to Le Pen's definition.”

Jacques Roubaud, Provencal.

2002-11-29T14:48:00.000+10:00

THE ‘RECALCITRANT’

Greg Sheriden has an interesting OpEd focusing on Malaysian leader Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, which makes some interesting points about changes in the region.

“South-East Asia's Muslims have never before been all that caught up in the conflicts of the Middle East. But this is changing and this may be a development of serious consequence for Australia. Malaysian pay TV, for example, now broadcasts the Al-Jazeera Arab television network and some of it is broadcast with Malay translation.
THUS at least some Malaysian Muslims are becoming deeply socialised in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The policy implication out of all this is that the US and Australia need a much more sophisticated and energetic effort to engage moderate Muslim opinion in South-East Asia.”

However, Sheriden fails to mention that while Mahathir has been able to limit the growth of militant Islam within the region and maintain a secular state in the process, he has also manipulated judicial processes for his own benefit. The Internal Security Act, in particular has been regular as a weapon to stifle any form or dissent and has been used regularly against his political foes.

“Under Section 73 (1) of the ISA, police may detain any person for up to 60 days, without warrant or trial and without access to legal counsel, on suspicion that ‘he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof.’ After 60 days, the Minister of Home Affairs can then extend the period of detention without trial for up to two years, without submitting any evidence for review by the courts, by issuing a detention order, which is renewable indefinitely.”

2002-11-29T14:10:00.000+10:00

THE KING OF COMEDY

Reverend Fred Nile, the Bill Hicks of Australian comedy, is finally getting the appreciation he deserves. And its Angela Shanahan, who deserves all the credit, for explaining that the irreverent Reverend performs more than the Lord Such routine. You see ole Fred, much like a modern day Nathaniel West, has toiled away in obscurity, with only a small group of followers recognising his God-given talents.

So I thought we'd have a look at a recent assortment of material that Fred has been performing in The Green Room, the hottest comedy gig in Sydney. Just one word of warning, read on at your peral, I don't want to hear of any Chrysippus-like experiences. And you thought the Monte-Python's deadly joke was lethal, well this trip up the Nile is more dangerous than placing asps to your breast.

“Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Police a question without notice in view of the terrorist alert yesterday given to the whole of Australia. Is it a fact that the Islamic female terrorists in Hamburg, Germany, and in the recent Muslim terrorist attack in Moscow, Russia, wore the black chador body covering of Iran and Saudi Arabia? Is it a fact that such total body covering completely conceals a person's identity, even whether the wearer is male or female—which is a perfect disguise for terrorists as it conceals both weapons and explosives, as occurred in the recent Moscow theatre attack when female Muslim terrorists carried explosives strapped to their bodies? Is it a fact that many Muslim women in Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia et cetera only wear discreet, Western style clothing and not the chador? In view of the new terrorist threat and as part of our new Australian security precautions, will the Government consider a prohibition on the wearing of the chador in public places, especially railway stations, city streets and shopping centres?”
“The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No.”
[Darn, and we all took him so literally. What a scallywag. I bet he’s the one who put the toothpaste in between Michael Egan’s Monte Carlos]

“Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. Is it a fact that various Governments, such as the French and Singaporean governments, have now prohibited the wearing of Muslim veils by female students in state or government schools to discourage divisiveness and promote unity and tolerance? Will the Government investigate the impact of Muslim female students wearing veils in New South Wales infant, primary and high schools? If the results are negative, will the Government adopt the same policy as that implemented by the French and Singaporean governments?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I normally do not try to answer questions directed to me in my capacity as a Minister representing Ministers in another place. However, I will answer this one because I am sure the Premier would have the same view that I have—that is, to reject any such suggestion. Given what happened in Bali, we are all obliged to do what we can to enhance harmony in the community. All honourable members should remind second, third, fourth and fifth-generation Australians that there are cultural differences in our community and that they are not to be derided—they should be recognised and honoured.
Muslim women who strictly observe their religion wear a garb that is unfamiliar to many other Australians. However, it was not long ago that women of my own religion—that is, nuns who taught me—wore a very similar outfit. The Mercy nuns, the Good Samaritan nuns all wore similar garments. For very good reasons, they no longer wear them, but that is not the point. There are cultural differences and no-one should try to hide them. As I said, they should be recognised and honoured. I do not think the New South Wales Government will be following the lead of Singapore or France. I was going to say something disparaging about the French Government, but I will not. One need only observe what it is doing with agricultural subsidies and industries to get a clear idea of—I will not say what I was going to say.
[Michael's still angry about the Monte Carlos]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: As to the basis for or origin of these attacks, there are many statements in the Koran that command Muslims to commit violence.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What about the Bible?
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: There is no command in the Bible for Christians to be violent.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?
[Oh Fred, you’d make such a good double comedy act with Abu Bakar Bashir, no need for envy]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: As all honourable members will know-and perhaps in spite of the speech just delivered by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods—next Sunday is Father's Day-a celebration that I hope will not be banned by legislation or by way-out pressure groups in our society.
[Darn, first it was those Muslims not celebrating Christmas, now some wowser has prevented Dad from getting his 52nd consecutive Gillette razor. Ever since they put the X in Christmas, its been slippery slope ever since. Next they’ll start a myxomatosis program to snuff out the Easter Bunny.]

“Reverend FRED NILE: Whether all honourable members of this House know it or not, sadly the pornography capital of Australia is Canberra—our national capital—because of the way in which the ACT Legislative Assembly has operated. Another example of ACT social policy is legislation that was passed recently in the ACT to decriminalise abortion.”
[Those porno watchers, I hear the X-industry has gone through the roof since the Lyons Forum started their regular video-nights. And let’s face it Fred, there’s nothing like the sight of a 16-year old girl barefoot and pregnant.]

“Reverend FRED NILE: Although I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, I would argue that just as control of air and water pollution is necessary to protect the environment, the control of moral pollution is even more necessary.”
[Maybe Fred should lobby the UN for a new protocol, to prevent the spread of moral pollution. I here the ‘Living in a Greenhouse Effect’ is quite severe, with a range of symptoms like tunnel-vision, poor anger management and excessive blushing. The Fred Nile Institute is already working on proving the links between reading D.H. Lawrence and vulval warming. The sooner, we’re all back reading Maud, the better.]

You’ve got to admit its a vast improvement on his old material, he must be getting Elaine involved in the scripting, and I hear Reverend Moyes has more 'funny-bones' than a Hindu god. HIs old work just doesn't have the same sort of precision:

‘Did ya hear the one about the dervish and the kabob shop.’

‘Did ya hear the one about the Unity MLC and the pointy dim-sim.’

2002-11-28T12:18:00.000+10:00

What, praise for the ABC from Tim Blair. Wait, the weather forecast in hell is predicting a cold snap followed by intense blizzards.

2002-11-26T00:02:00.000+10:00

COMIC RELIEF

A friend of mine was asking for some amusing books to read over Christmas. Well here's a couple of books to put in Santa's stocking if you are after a few laughs. However, this is not the definitive list, just the first that sprang to mind.

Victor Pelevin – Omon Ra

The Russian space-race program, with state of the art Tsarist equipment. Will Russia land anyone on the moon, or will it all go horrendously wrong - like on the other occasions which we won't mention.

However, If you are a copywriter you might prefer Pelevin's more recent 'Babylon', find out about corporate takeover's Russian style. Lots more madness.

Mo Yan – The Republic of Wine

Special Investigator Ding Gou'er is investigating a rather heinous crime in the Republic of Wine. But can this rather anal-retentive detective handle his alcohol enough to investigate these cagey officials, including Diamond Jin, renown for his legendary capacity for alcohol. Magical-realism the Chinese-way. BTW this must have really pissed-off the communist authorities, maybe they were pissed when they allowed this book to pass their scrutiny, a great contribution to 'liquorature'

Mikhail Bulgakov – The Master and Margarita

Who said Satan (and his cat) couldn't be a barrel of laughs. When they drop into Moscow to stir up Mr. Stalin's grand plan, let the chaos unfold - side splitting laughter.

Flann O’Brien – At Swim Two-Birds

Could have picked one of many Irish books, but this has to be one of the most bizarre books I've ever encountered.

Philip Roth - Portnoy’s Complaint

I think everyone has read this already, like Catch-22, Portnoy's Complaint has now hit the dictionaries. Also some of Roth's Zuckerman tales are a riot too, find out what happens when Kafka-style Zuckerman is transformed into a giant breast.

Don Delillo - Americana

I could have picked Great Jones Street as a great little book that satirised the commodification of rock-and-roll, but this, Delillo's first novel is still one of his best. Find out the identity of the mysterious 'Trotsky' who keeps sending mysterious memos to the staff of the TV station, office politics that would have made Machiavelli cringe.

Miguel de Cervantes – Don Quixote

Anyone who jousts with the windmills has me won

Anthony Burgess – The Enderby books

Totally un-PC fun, Burgess at his most-wicked best. Read the whole series - a barrel of laughs

Jonathon Franzen - The Corrections

It's worth the $20 just to read Chip's screenplay, it is the best parody of postmodernism I've encountered. Plenty of other laughs alone the way.

Amelie Nothomb - Fear and Trembling

Funniest book I've read this year. A cathartic fix for anyone whose had a dead-end job.

A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole

No library should be without this book, an absolute riot of a book, with a range of characters including the dim-witted Inspector Mancuso, the stripper Lara Lane and her accompanyiing pet cockatoo and Miss Trixie, an aging employer whose retirement plans are constantly thwarted despite her obvious ineptitude.

2002-11-25T18:46:00.000+10:00

WELL PENNED

This appeared in the Washington Post, apparently at the cost of US$56,000

----------------------------

An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America

Mr. Bush:

Good morning sir.

Like you, I am a father and an American.

Like you, I consider myself a patriot.

Like you, I was horrified by the events of this past year, concerned for my family and my country.

However, I do not believe in a simplistic and inflammatory view of good and evil. I believe this is a big world full of men, women, and children who struggle to eat, to love, to work, to protect their families, their beliefs, and their dreams. My father, like yours, was decorated for service in World War II. He raised me with a deep belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as they should apply to all Americans who would sacrifice to maintain them and to all human beings as a matter of principle.

Many of your actions to date and those proposed seem to violate every defining principle of this country over which you preside: intolerance of debate ("with us or against us"), marginalization of your critics, the promoting of fear through unsubstantiated rhetoric, manipulation of a quick comfort media, and position of your administration's deconstruction of civil liberties all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim. You lead, it seems, through a blood-lined sense of entitlement. Take a close look at your most vehement media supporters. See the fear in their eyes as their loud voices of support ring out with that historically disastrous undercurrent of rage and panic masked as "straight tough talk."

How far have we come from understanding what it is to kill one man, one woman, or one child, much less the "collateral damage" of many hundreds of thousands. Your use of the words, "this is a new kind of war" is often accompanied by an odd smile. It concerns me that what you are asking of us is to abandon all previous lessons of history in favor of following you blindly into the future. It worries me because with all your best intentions, an enormous economic surplus has been squandered. Your administration has virtually dismissed the most fundamental environmental concerns and therefore, by implication, one gets the message that, as you seem to be willing to sacrifice the children of the world, would you also be willing to sacrifice ours.

I know this cannot be your aim so, I beg you Mr. President, listen to Gershwin, read chapters of Stegner, of Saroyan, the speeches of Martin Luther King. Remind yourself of America. Remember the Iraqi children, our children, and your own.

There can be no justification for the actions of Al Qaeda. Nor acceptance of the criminal viciousness of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Yet, that bombing is answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing, is a pattern that only a great country like ours can stop. However, principles cannot be recklessly or greedily abandoned in the guise of preserving them.

Avoiding war while accomplishing national security is no simple task. But you will recall that we Americans had a little missile problem down in Cuba once. Mr. Kennedy's restraint (and that of the nuclear submarine captain, Arkhipov) is to be aspired to. Weapons of mass destruction are clearly a threat to the entire world in any hands. But as Americans, we must ask ourselves, since the potential for Mr. Hussein to possess them threatens not only our country, (and in fact, his technology to launch is likely not yet at that high a level of sophistication) therefore, many in his own region would have the greatest cause for concern. Why then, is the United States, as led by your administration, in the small minority of the world nations predisposed toward a preemptive military assault on Iraq? Simply put, sir, let us re-introduce inspection teams, inhibiting offensive capability. We buy time, maintain our principles here and abroad and demand of ourselves the ingenuity to be the strongest diplomatic muscle on the planet, perhaps in the history of the planet.

The answers will come. You are a man of faith, but your saber is rattling the faith of many Americans in you I do understand what a tremendously daunting task it must be to stand in your shoes at this moment.

As a father of two young children who will live their lives in the world as it will be affected by critical choices today, I have no choice but to believe that you can ultimately stand as a great president. History has offered you such a destiny. So again, sir, I beg you, help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror. Don't destroy our children's future.

We will support you. You must support us, your fellow Americans, and indeed, mankind.

Defend us from fundamentalism abroad but don't turn a blind eye to the fundamentalism of a diminished citizenry through loss of civil liberties, of dangerously heightened presidential autonomy through acts of Congress, and of this country's mistaken and pervasive belief that its "manifest destiny" is to police the world. We know that Americans are frightened and angry. However, sacrificing American soldiers or innocent civilians in an unprecedented preemptive attack on a separate sovereign nation, may well prove itself a most temporary medicine. On the other hand, should you mine and have faith in the best of this country to support your leadership in representing a strong, thoughtful, and educated United States, you may well triumph for the long haul. Lead us there, Mr. President, and we will stand with you.

Sincerely,
Sean Penn
San Francisco, California

2002-11-25T15:22:00.000+10:00

FRONTIER 2002

Paul Sheehan has entered the Mistake Creek argument, clearly confident of Keith Windshuttle’s view of events. And it seems the argument over Mistake Creek is going to continue, after Windshuttle, Akerman, Devine and co raced to the barricades last year to attack a speech by former Governor-General Sir William Deane. Deane, at the time gave one of his last speeches before being replaced by the rather incompetent Peter Hollingsworth, provides a compelling argument why we as a nation have to address certain tragic events in our history.

“Since I first heard the story of the terrible events which occurred at Mistake Creek, I have wanted to come here in the spirit of reconciliation. Just as Helen, my wife, and I have been to so many other parts of Australia. To see this dry creek bed, this old boab tree and this commemorative tablet with its searing words: ‘In memory of our ancestors who were shot and burnt here’.

There may be room for disagreement about some of the precise details of the killings at Mistake Creek more than 60 years ago. The essential elements of the story are, however, tragically clear enough. They reflect the terrible approach, implicit in the discredited doctrine of terra nullius and the facts of the dispossession, that indigenous Australians were somehow less than human.

The Mistake Creek story is one of great wrongs and injustice. It is also a story of forgiveness which has been explained by an elder of the Kija people: ‘if we do not forgive them ... the evil spirit will enter us’.

There are three particular matters which I would mention.

The first is that it is essential to the process of reconciliation that we acknowledge, frankly and fully, the facts involved in the past dispossession and oppression of Australia's Aboriginal peoples. To the Kija people I say how profoundly sorry I personally am that events such as those which occurred here at Mistake Creek could ever have been allowed to deface and defile this land.

The second is to say to the representatives of the Kiji people who are present this morning: ‘Thank you for your generosity of spirit in having us here with you today and being part of this ceremony of reconciliation’. I also express my thanks to the West Australian Minister for the Kimberley, Mr Tom Stephens, for all his help in organising this visit; to Bishop Chris Saunders for conducting this ceremony; and to everyone else who has assisted in making the visit such a memorable one.

Finally, I ask everyone here to join me in a moment of silent prayer ... for our country, for all Australians and for true and lasting reconciliation.”

The problem is that while Windshuttle has questioned certain events, including the Mistake Creek massacre, he has been unable to disprove any of the massacre allegations - although Angela Shanahan was willing enough to take his statements on face value. In article in The Australia she attacked the National Museum, claiming that Windshuttle had ‘demolished’ evidence of the existence of massacres that were exhibited in the museum. Unfortunately, for Windshuttle that is not the case. If so, there would be no way that such exhibits could still be on display in Canberra.

Another problem for Windshuttle is the he can often be as guilty of favouring a viewpoint, as those historians in the academy that he accuses of poor scholarship. Windshuttle, believes that there were significantly less incidents between the white settlers and the indigenous population than most of his history colleagues. Now this wouldn’t be a problem, if he was willing to examine all the possibilities. However, he is willing to discount evidence that disagrees with his tenets, while often relying on evidence from groups whose self-interest would have involved covering up such atrocities. Windshuttle, has erred before, tended to believe that history (sometimes quite rightly I might add) is in the process of being over-dramatised. For example, this piece on John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath by Windshuttle in The New Criterion, could do with a gentle Fisking.

In a SMH piece last year by Andrew Stevensson, Windshuttle said he had be compelled to pursue such work after being continually upset that Australian settlers were being misrepresented as bloodthirsty savages, akin to Nazis. However, Henry Reynolds, author of ‘Frontier’ retorted: "People misinterpret me [and claim] I think that everyone was killed in massacres. I don't. I think massacres were few and far between. Aborigines were mainly killed in small-scale tit-for-tat killings where they'd spear a couple of cattle and someone would go out and shoot two or three people."

Also from the Stevensson piece
“University of New England historian Professor Alan Atkinson, a student contemporary of Windschuttle at the University of Sydney, argues Windschuttle seems to believe the job of a historian is easier than it is.
"His contribution is useful, very useful, and a lot of what he says is perfectly justified," Atkinson says. "He says the debate is about the way history is being practised but I'm not sure he's very consistent about that. He says we do not know how many Aborigines were killed and that historians tend to assume there were rather more deaths than there's evidence of.
"He then says there were fewer Aborigines killed than Henry Reynolds and others have said. He hasn't proved that at all - just that we don't know. In spite of his qualifications, Keith seems to be assuming that because he understands little bits, he understands the lot." …
“Kingston is concerned oral history of Aboriginal communities has been privileged over written records. But, counters Atkinson, in Aboriginal communities, at least pre-contact, oral methods of recording were extraordinarily precise. "In the pre-literate communities the means of training memory was extremely painstaking. It's also survived in European communities until fairly recently. It wasn't until the 1960s and '70s that we stopped training memories in schools when we stopped learning things by rote. Our memories are not trained at all now and therefore they're unreliable."

This tends to be the centre of where the disagreement between Windshuttle and Reynolds revolves around. Windshuttle rules out oral evidence, and relies on police records and similar documentation. However, this is always going to disadvantage Indigenous populations who at the time did not have a tradition of written record-keeping, preferring to store such information in their memory to be passed on orally to kin and visitors alike. Windshuttle, also tends to discount the accounts of evangelists and missionaries, who in the 19th century were often involved in highlighting the cruelty that was meted out to the Indigenous population. Windshuttle, also seems very willing to believe police documentation, which could be thrown somewhat into question, when one considers these officers were often involved in conflicts with different groups of Aboriginals. If massacres were carried out by police and special forces, it is highly unlikely that there would be a maintenance of perfect records to highlight such encounters, particularly as the occasional judge had handed out severe penalties, including execution, to participants of Indigenous massacres.

To finish, I thought I’d provide readers with an edited summary of a television debate between Keith Windshuttle and Henry Reynolds on Lateline last-year. If you would prefer to read the whole document, you can obtain the ABC transcript here.

Reynolds: The word massacre doesn't bother me whether it's used or not. It seems to me to have been a fairly typical action in what is essentially an insurgency where the forces went out and despairing of arresting individuals, decided they had to punish the group. And that they reasoned that the sooner this was done and the Aborigines accepted European dominance, the better. That nothing was worse than an ongoing small-scale, continuing guerrilla warfare.

Windshuttle: It wasn't a general police action to teach the Aborigines who was in control.
It was the specific action to arrest an Aboriginal named Noona who was responsible for the death of a private of the 41st Regiment who had been killed in an individual conflict.

Reynolds: That's all very wrong. They didn't kill anyone. There were two minor injuries and one of the chaps fell off his horse and received concussion and died several days later. … if he says that it was a legitimate action to arrest a known offender, that's a reasonable thing to say, but the known offender was shot. Why, then, were 20 or 30 or 40 other people shot?

Windshuttle: Because all his comrades threw spears at the same time. It wasn't 20 or 30 Aborigines who were shot at all. The only ones that were shot were those resisting and attempting to kill the officers. The guy didn't die from concussion, he bled to death from a spear to the head.

Reynolds: He did not, he died from concussion from falling from a horse.

Windshuttle: You haven't read the Captain who wrote his diary on the spot.

Reynolds: Wait a moment, Keith. You can't assume that at all. When you say my fellow was a bad observer, I think that's quite untrue.We're dealing with undoubtedly the most reliable diarist of early Swan River.

Windshuttle: Who wasn’t there

Reynolds: The most reliable reporter of events of the Swan River, a competent man who was a friend of the Governor who was on the executive council and the senior legal officer of the colony. He wrote his report on the day that he was given an account of it by the Governor who was leading the expedition. He wrote it not for publication. He put it down in his own diary and I think he is a better and more reliable witness than those who took part who had something to hide.

***

Windshuttle: - What the historians have done is taken everything they say at face value and have reproduced it. If somebody says eight Aborigines killed here, the historians say, "just add 8 more to the toll."

Reynolds: - The trouble is with Keith that anyone at all who suggests there was killing on the frontier, he finds some reason he dredges up something to try and discredit them. He is acting as a defence counsel for the settlers and the Government. … But it is a very selective way that anyone who stands up and says, "They're killing blacks out there," he finds some reason to say, "No, they can't be believed."

Whereas those who say there weren't any massacres he says, "These are the people we should believe."

Windshuttle: - There was a Mile Creek massacre where 28 innocent Aborigines were killed. You have to remember that the rule of law on which British society was founded did operate there and seven of those responsible were executed for the crime. … You need journalistic evidence, eyewitness accounts of someone who was there and saw the bodies and even second-hand accounts where there is an internal credibility will do. But the method that Reynolds uses in Queensland is extraordinary and even though I taught this sort of history for 10 years I never investigated the material on which these estimates were based. I thought that Reynolds had done some research. When I went into the research papers that underlie his claims in his book 'The Other Side of the Frontier' , I found that it's all based on mathematical formulas.

Reynolds: - He has read an article I wrote about 25 years ago, or 20 years ago and makes assumptions about how it was put together. And most of those assumptions are wrong. Having spent a lot of time researching Queensland history, let me say that the evidence for extensive violence is massive and everywhere you go.

Every single frontier newspaper is full of discussion about conflict. Now the debate in the 19th century wasn't whether Aborigines were being killed in large numbers on the frontier, it was whether it was justified or not. No-one that I have found in the literature doubted that this was going on.

What is more, there was a force, a quite discrete police force, a paramilitary force dedicated to that purpose, that rode the frontier for many, many years shooting people, and no-one had any doubt that that's what they were doing.

Windshuttle - The native police that he's referring to now is something which in his own books he says, "The records of the native police were set up in 1857 but all the records from 1859 are lost", according to Henry himself. (SH – Sounds a little convenient losing those records). However in Victoria the records remain intact. We have very good evidence of what they did.

The author of a book based on those events, Murray Fels, says the native police in Victoria were a force for peace but they prevented depredations by Aborigines against whites and by white settlers against the Aborigines. (SH – Is a comparison of the conduct of Victorian and Queensland police relevant. It is possible that one acted with much greater concern for the Indigenous population. Particularly when one considered that Queensland at the time was still mainly isolated settlements and would have experienced greater fear of attacks from ‘savages’ on outlying posts than Victoria, that had a large concentration of population in the south of Victoria.)

Reynolds: - Firstly, I know that that's what the native police did because the responsible ministers over many years said so in Parliament. They said the native police shoot Aborigines when ever they are seen. No-one said that was wrong. No-one contradicted that. They said so in Parliament, publicly and often. If that isn't evidence, I don't know what is.

Windshuttle: - Often is once as far as your own documentation is concerned. They said it once in Parliament.

Reynolds: - No Keith, that's the bit you've read. I can give you many others. That is the responsible ministers who in public and in private who said the native police are there to shoot Aborigines whenever they are seen. What do you think they were doing with their guns and vast supplies of ammunition, shooting bottles off fences?

Windshuttle - If you don't have the records, you can't say. You admit you don't have the records.

Reynolds: - If we have a police force that is dedicated to dispersing the Aborigines, we know that in their instructions, dispersing meant to shoot at and if we know they were doing this for 30 or 40 years and it was one of the largest items on the Queensland budget, what do you think they were for? Because the records were destroyed, quite understandably, you say nothing happened.

***

Reynolds: - But it is important that it is dealt with, and of course one of the problems is that history, as Keith himself has argued, to some extent gave up empirical sort of research. So no-one bothered to go on with this sort of work. But I think we should treat the conflict on the Australian frontier as seriously as we treat the wars overseas. That is, we set up proper research programs to go and do it in detail as we've done with the War Memorial dealing with our overseas wars.

Windshuttle: - Henry doesn't compare the Australian settlers in the 19th century to the Nazis, but he leads other commentators up to the edge of that conclusion.

Reynolds: - I am quite convinced, after the work I've done, that my estimate of 20,000 Aborigines killed on the frontier will be borne out. I have no doubt about it. I don't think 20,000 is the precise figure. It may have been a little less or a little more. But there was substantial killing as you would expect as settlers came into Aboriginal country without any respect to their ownership or traditions. What else would we have expected?

2002-11-23T15:17:00.000+10:00

WHAT I'M READING

I'm going back to the Ottoman empire in 1590, reading Orhan Pamuk's My Name is Red. This is a tale of the clash of two different cultures, of traditional Ottoman art, and also a murder mystery - which may explain why Pamuk is referred to as the Turkish Umberto Eco.

In particular it is a fascinating meditation on the differences between western and traditional Islamic art and an examination of the petty jealousies and rivalries between a range of characters. The weaving of different first-person perspectives in a Faulkneresque manner, has so far been successful in keeping the reader guessing about the motives of the grissly murder at the beginning of the book.

2002-11-22T14:31:00.000+10:00

IDIOT SOAPBOX

I'm all for free speech, but maybe Reverend Fred Nile should go back under the rock he came from, this sort of caveman rhetoric is not helping the situation one iota. The only thing such divisive comments are good for is the business of generating humourous letters to the editor.

The winner of the letter-writing competition is Charles Khoo of Clovelly, NSW for his delightful pithy letter in The Australian . Here it is below

"FRED NILE suggests the chador be proscribed for Islamic women on security grounds. Wouldn't it be more effective for him to suggest that we should only visit public places nude?

In that way all our biological weapons of mass procreation will be open for public inspection. This hot summer will be a good time to start to let it all hang out."

And I won't waste much energy in discussing Paddy McGuiness's straw-man deconstruction. Who said the right was not into post-modernism?

All I can think is maybe the silly season has come early, who needs to know about Wacko Jacko when 'Bring Back the Vice Squad' Freddy Nile is back performing in the freak show to a captive audience.

Coming to a theatre near you Hijab: The Musical written by Fred and Elaine Nile and starring Ron Casey as the holy avenger. Turn up early and you'll be invited to join in the complementary poofter bashing before the show (just remember not to show up with too much clothing, anyone caught smuggling bombs, vibrators, modern literature or heathen religious iconography shall be forced to perform on the 'Burning Cross of Damnation')

Update: Apparently, Nile has apologised to the Islamic community for any upset he may have caused. I have to admit the old cad showed more courage in doing so than I thought he had. Still, it won't be long before Fred is at again, muttering his stupidities.

On second thoughts, maybe the retraction is an effort by Nile to get back in the good graces of the mighty one up above. Maybe then Fred can finally get his prayers answered, and the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras will receive the storm of Biblical proportions that has been in Nile's fantasies since it replaced the scourge of sin happening at those Sunbury concerts. Although I hear Fred is a big Limp Biskit fan.

The funny thing is that Nile might find some fellow travelers in the Islamic clerisy who have a similar disaffection of the gay community. Maybe they could collaborate in a cross-religious prayer session to their respective gods in effort to maximise chances. Then again maybe God isn't a homophobe.

2002-11-19T18:48:00.000+10:00

CHINA: THE NEXT GENERATION

IThere's been scant conversation about the 'behind-closed-doors' hand-over of the Chinese leadership by third-generationists Jiang Zemin and Li Peng, who both will be standing down from several posts. Although it does seem that Zemin's influence will remain all-pervasive within the leadership, with the appointment of Zemin supporters to a range of posts. NYT article

The million-dollar questions that everyone would like answered, how much autonomy will successor Hu Jintao be allowed in leading China into a more liberal future, and what reforms will Hu pursue when he takes the reign of leader of the world's most populated nation.

2002-11-19T18:36:00.000+10:00

THE WAGES OF FEAR

Gerald Henderson puts a strong case against the misconduct of several Coalition MPs, mainly Peter Reith and Joe-BP acolyte Peter ‘Slippery’ Slipper during the last election. One of the saddest outcomes of the last election campaign was the devolution into prejudice after the arrival of a handful of unfortunates fleeing barbaric conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The cruelty of fate, meant these people found themselves placed in the same category as the bloodthirsty tyrants that were the cause of such savage displacement in the first place. But of course shock-jocks like Alan Jones and John Laws were telling fiery tales of sleeper operatives and Fifth Columnists. However, only the world’s stupidest terrorist organisation, maybe the ACME branch of Al Queda would choose to send its members into Australian via the most conspicuous form of transport - leaky boats.

Upon entry, entrants receive security screening from DIMIA, and are incarcerated for some period of time in one of several detention centres. Why pursue this option, when you can slip into the country, with the minimum of attention on a tourist visa.

Yet how many asylum seekers have failed security checks – Zero

I'll repeat, for the ideologically-impaired - ZERO

ZERO

Gee, that’s a lot of terrorists

I’ll let Gerard Henderson explain: “A year after the election, the facts are established. In a little noticed speech in Hobart last May, Dennis Richardson, the director-general of ASIO, said that he had "not seen evidence" that foreign governments or entities were attempting to "slip" in potential terrorists "as refugees or asylum seekers". He raised a pertinent query: "Why would people use the asylum-seeker stream when they know they will be subject to mandatory detention?" Good question.”

Henderson also discusses Reith’s manipulation of comments made by US Assistant Sectary of State for East Asian Affairs, James A. Kelly in early September. Surely, the first casualty in an election campaign wouldn’t be the truth, I’ve always trusted those election ads , and such a venerable man as ole Reithy would never try to sell a porky like that to the electorate, next he'll be saying they throw their kids overboard?

“Kelly, quite properly, expressed concern about 'people from the Middle East who manage to appear in Indonesia far from their homes'. In other words, he was discussing the entrance of potential terrorists into Indonesia without proper checking.”

“Kelly's comments bore no relationship to asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia by boat. All are either interdicted by the RAN at sea or detained by Australian authorities on reaching the coastline. Once taken into custody they are placed in mandatory detention where they are subjected to security checks.”

I am not opposed to mandatory detention, there has to be a controlled process of immigration. However, the national interest is thrown to the wayside, when a government adopts ad-hoc policies like the Pauline Hanson Solution, oops I mean Pacific Solution and SV Tampa gimmicks, trying to offer a poisonous panacea in preference to dealing with the complex dynamics of immigration policy.

BTW, I wholeheartedly endorse Henderson’s parting comments: “In a situation of real and present danger to Western societies, governments have an obligation to tell it as it is. Mandatory detention (for a limited period) makes a contribution to national security. As Australians, we would be deluding ourselves if we equate border protection with security from terrorist attack.” Many people who support humanitarian immigration, do not advocate an 'open-door policy'. Unfortunately, detractors have gone out of their way to foist this tag on any critics of governmental policy.

2002-11-19T17:43:00.000+10:00

HERE COMES THE NUMBER-CRUNCH

In his Monday column Robert Manne explores the Coalition’s education reforms, which would allow universities to increase fees by up to 25 per cent, and to increase quotas for full-fee paying students. While not as extreme as the feral neo-liberalism of David Kemp, these reforms could be seen as a way of testing the water to further deregulation of the university sector. Manne remarks:

“Since its first budget, the Howard Government has softened up the universities by accelerating the process of their long-term financial decline. Since the mid-1970s, as Simon Marginson, a professor in education at Monash University, has shown, public funding of teaching and learning at universities has fallen from over $12,000 a student in 1977 to about $5000 today.”

Manne also discusses the continual trend away from government funding. While it is understandable that some funding be allowed to come from external sources, a reliance on such revenue could threaten the independence of the academy. Also, the stripping of governmental support has left many universities in a precarious position. Can we expect more ventures like the now defunct Aristocrat Chair of Problem Gambling, what about a Philip Morris Chair of Biology or a Hugh Morgan Chair of Indigenous Studies?

“In 1983, 90 per cent of university funding came from government; in 1999 less than 50 per cent. Although this shortfall has been made up by HECS repayments and by Australia's remarkable success in selling cheap courses to Asian students, much more of this money is spent on administration, marketing and public relations than was necessary 20 years ago.”

The universities are under fierce pressure to adopt the new scheme, and as Manne suggests: “a man dying of thirst cannot afford to complain if his companion is offered a larger glass of water than he.” What will happen to regional universities in the shake-up. Will we see a new two-tier environment similar to the US Ivy League, these are important preliminary questions that need to be asked.

And as Manne speculates about the possibility of further top-up rate increases, will this have a profound effect the participation rates of those less able to pay for quality education?

“Australian society is already profoundly affected by the vast over-representation, at such universities and in such courses, by children with parents wealthy enough to send them to private schools. As the Nelson reform bites, and the costs of attending the sandstone universities rise, with wealthy parents paying fees upfront and debt-averse, less affluent students choosing less expensive universities or courses, Australia seems likely to become even more polarised on education grounds.

Interesting enough, Britain is also debating the issue of top-up fees, with fiery Labor MP Claire Short, digging her heels in against such reforms.

“Ms Short says she was one of the few people from "non-wealthy" backgrounds to go to her university, Keele, and would have found it "terrifying" to have to borrow money to pay for her university education. She favours a graduate tax and told the Guardian: "Crude top-up fees I'm deeply unattracted to, and I can't believe they'll happen."

What seems to have been forgotten is the increased earning potential that is gained by the graduates already flows on to the government by the increased taxes received from graduates increased earning potential. These changes threaten such on-flows in the future. To develop a disincentive for any group to pursue further studies is not an intelligent argument in a society that places an even greater emphasis on skills and multi-skilling and will need to maintain its output of highly-trained graduates if it is to compete with its developing Asian neighbours.

Over the last twenty years there has already been an increase in the range of professions requiring an undergraduate degree as a point-of-entry to a career, e.g. nursing, secondary school teaching, journalism. While this leads to greater skills in the practitioners in these professions, universities have close to monopolistic powers in providing such opportunities for a range of Australians. And in professions like nursing, where the earning potential is hardly spectacular, there is an enormous disincentive to inherit a 5-figure debt to pursue a low-paying career choice – this is one of the contributing factors in the current nurse shortage.

2002-11-19T16:46:00.000+10:00

SOME GOOD NEWS

I'm somewhat optimistic about the reformist movement in Iran, which despite the horrific extremism under the Ayatollah in the 80s, shows Iran has the potential to become one of the few legitimate democracies in the Middle East. This letter to the editor in today's The Australia, is a rare piece of good news.

Iran goes easy

"WHAT is happening in Iran is of great importance to the war on terrorism and thus to all Australians. In a healthy sign, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has just ordered a review of the death sentence passed on liberal academic Hashem Aghajari.

The sentence had been imposed by judges who found Aghajari guilty of renouncing Islam. Aghajari had said in a speech that each generation should re-interpret aspects of Islam rather than blindly follow religious leaders.

We may regard such a statement as minor, but its implications in the Muslim world are huge. A rebirth of respect for freedom of thought in Iran would be as monumental in its implications as the collapse of ideological certainty was in the Kremlin in 1991. It is vital that our Government express support for a reprieve for Aghajari – for his sake and ours."
Tom Minchin

2002-11-18T00:07:00.000+10:00

WHAT I’M READING

On the weekend I finished Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Chronicle of A Death Foretold, a recreation of a vicious honour-killing on a Caribbean island. I have just started Joseph Roth’s The Emperor’s Tomb, which is a sequel to the marvelous Radezsky March. The collapse of the Habsburg empire has provided a range of powerful narratives, covered particularly well by several Austrian novelists, and this book also depicts the fin de siecle preceding the First World War.

2002-11-17T23:59:00.000+10:00

SAD BUT TRUE

For those who thought the government’s hard-line stance would be applied solely to those unfortunates fleeing war-torn Afghanistan and repressive Iraq, it seems the East-Timorese refugees are now the next in DIMIA’s firing line.

Is the government planning to hit a new low, after last August’s SV Tampa incident? It would be a strange maneuver considering this is the same government that repeatedly gloats about its East Timor exploits, much to Labor’s history of shameful relations with Indonesia.

Ken Parish and Robert Corr have already blogged on this topic, and I feel that the East Timorese may be able to provide an even stronger case for humanitarian immigration than their more unfortunate Middle Eastern and Afghani counterparts – who were hindered by community prejudice.

While every pejorative has been thrown at Afghani and Iraqi asylum seekers, the East Timorese have achieved enormous affection in the hearts of Australians, who are quick to remember the courage and suffering they endured during the 25 years of Indonesian occupation.

That many of these people have proven themselves to be valuable community members, who have already lived here for as long as ten-years, should highlight their value as new citizens. Unfortunately, many of these valid refugees assumed a High Court ruling would allow them to stay in Australia as long as they desired.

To re-locate a group of people, who in many situations have come to Australia with nothing, and have fended for themselves generally with scant government assistance, seems rather cruel for a civilised country. It has been difficult enough for the East-Timorese who have been unable to access a range of services, and whose visa class disallows them from the HECs system. With few East Timorese being able to pay up-front fees, it has generally only been through the beneficence of several universities that East Timorese students have received the opportunity to improve themselves.

I remember filming a university assignment in a safe National Party seat in central NSW. A month before the happenings in Indonesia, I remember receiving apathetic response from the locals, in the words of one local: ‘Don’t want to know anything about Asia, we’ve got too many of them already.”

A month later I was filming a day after the September massacres following the referendum, beside us was a newsagent/general store, and streaming into the newsagent were cohorts of people - I have never seen so many people flocking to get a newspaper.

During a break we started talking to a couple of these people, and nearly every person was demanding some sort of action. The arguments, that had been repeated about it being ‘too difficult’ and that it would ‘inconvenience Australia’s relationship with Indonesia’ no longer stacked up, after people saw the news coverage in Dili. It was obvious from the intensity of language that even an inherently conservative electorate was not willing to allow these people to be further slaughtered in their thousands. It was hardly surprising when a week later, this groundswell support compelled Howard to intervene. And ever since its been construed as a glittering achievement by the Coalition.

With so much emotion invested in the people of East Timor, and I must add that I am damn proud that the East Timorese finally achieved its sovereignty, I would not be surprised to see this move by the Department of Immigration backfire. My estimation is that the Australian community will not be impressed by moves to dump a range of people who are proven refugees back to a nation which has limited housing, abysmal healthcare facilities, and 70 per cent unemployment. It seems a strange contradiction that a community that was willing to send people back to be murdered in Afghanistan, will probably resist such moves being enacted upon the East Timorese, but even mountains of misinformation could not discredit the unfortunate East Timorese who have already endured enough suffering. Let them stay.

2002-11-13T22:54:00.000+10:00

MORE THAN HALF A LIFE

This article in Hudson Review, provides a good summary of the works of V.S.Naipaul, a writer who has traveled from his birthplace in Trinidad and Tobago to study in England to traversing around Asia and Africa. Sir Vidia was definitely an inspired choice for the Nobel Prize in 2001.

Naipaul's Half A Life, which was released in the beginning of 2001, showed that he is still in fine form, in an entertaining yet thoughtful tale about an Indian youth caught between cultures. Any one who wants a taste of V.S. Naipaul should sample A House for Mr Biswas and The Bend in the River, both extraordinary novels.

An interesting aside, apparently Naipaul first novel The Mystic Masseur, which has just been made into a film by Merchant/Ivory, was not reviewed by any major publication within Britain upon its release. However, time has definitely corrected this anomaly, and Naipaul's work now receiving mass critical appraisal and is translated in over twenty languages. A writer to cherish.

2002-11-13T17:43:00.000+10:00

TO ALBRECHT OR NOT TO ALBRECHT

David Marr did a superb job hosting this year’s Media Watch, his sharp wit was used to great effect to highlight the stupidity, banality and self-interest of certain figures within the media, with Alan Jones and John Laws again among the repeat offenders.

Marr ended one show with the superbly scathing: “Alan, you are what they say in the trade, a liar.”

He penned a new verb, a tribute to The Australian sourpuss Janet Albrechtsen's inability to pen a story without committing a range of factual errors. I think I’ll have a bit of an Albrecht with a couple of famous quotes, myself. Maybe her habit is something akin to Raimundo in Jose Saramago’s The History of the Siege of Lisbon, after all we’ve all wanted to change history at some point, so what does it matter if we alter a couple of facts.

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself” – Franklin Roosevelt

“We whites have nothing to fear but Muslims, ” the Janet version (oops that was three words)

Oh, well we can always get a quote from Storming Norman Schwarzkof that he didn't utter.

Anyway, the final Media Watch allowed Marr’s critics to respond to allegations that his treatment had been unfair, with the usual Fairfax/ABC conspiracy drivel emanating from certain bowels.

Frank Hurley of A Current Affair took the criticism on the chin, replying that if you can dish it out, you have to be able to take, his only plaint was in regards to the editing by MediaWatch. Fred Hilmer said the criticism ‘went with the territory’. The only one who seemed to pen any possible objections was Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, and this was somewhat nebulous. How one can challenge the left groupthink without concrete examples, e.g. the climate change issue mentioned in Bolt’s letter is enormously complicated, something you would have difficulty handling in a 15-minute show. It wasn’t as though Margo Kingston and Bob Ellis were not singled out for criticism when mistakes were made. Mind you Margo at least has had the courage to admit to mistakes and supports the functioning of a media watchdog. Her response to the show, makes an important point about the blurring line between editorial and advertising. This is a frightening development, and it is something that the media has to show some courage to resist. We don’t need a newspaper full of corrupt Laws and Joneses that is for sure.

In my opinion, David Marr is the best media watch presenter so far, I hope he gets the gig next year, and let’s hope he keeps bruising egos of whatever political persuasion.

2002-11-13T16:54:00.000+10:00

PADDY McG HA HA HA

Ken Parish has a sterling rebuttal of Paddy McGuiness's attack on teacher's salaries, with McGuiness guilty of selectively quoting statistics. The exodus of secondary teachers away from the teaching profession is an immense tragedy and highlights the under-appreciation of nurturing and developmental roles in our society. Of courses, the reduced number of teachers only exacerbates the continual trend away from public to private schools, Ken Parish's tale hardly surprises me.

When I finished school, being of inquisitive mind, teaching English was a possible avenue to pursue, as I friend of mine told me recently after finishing a Teaching degree: 'I like teaching, but I wouldn't consider working in a high-school, it is just not a career option.' And when I remember what many a poor teacher had to endure, that every mundane task fell upon them, I thought this is a career path to pursue only in desperation.

Also is it a coincidence that this piece was written a day after the final media watch for the year?

2002-11-13T13:06:00.000+10:00

LOOKING FOR LEADERSHIP

Donald Horne, author of The Lucky Country outlines a strong case for tolerance in wake of the Bali bombings in this article in Saturday's Spectrum. Should be required reading for our political elite.

Here are a few extracts

"If the campaign against terrorist networks is to be won, distinguishing the fanatics from other Muslims is essential. Without this, the campaign is not against the networks but against all Islam. And that would not only be unjust, it would be mad. It would mean losing the campaign against the terrorists. Is it this kind of Realpolitik that has induced John Howard to talk up the 'tolerant society'?"

"Tolerance doesn't mean loving everybody. Not even respecting everybody. Why should we respect people we think are idiots? We can accept their right to be idiotic. But why should we respect them for it? So start with a more realistic idea: tolerance means we can live together as citizens no matter how much we disagree with each other, or even despise each other's beliefs. In the rhetoric of tolerance you agree to disagree."

"My first four tips would require a return to the agreement that lasted for 30 years among the political parties not to exploit xenophobia. Political leaders should recognise that keeping xenophobia down is not something that can be simply left to the free market of ideas. It can demand intervention. This means always speaking out against any significant outbreak instead of, in effect, supporting it by saying nothing when prejudices are blaring out. As a Latin motto says, Qui tacet consentire videtur: He who is silent is seen to consent. Highlight it. Underline it three times."

"Australian policies of multiculturalism are mainly concerned with a principled non-discrimination in immigration policy, with helping immigrants find a place in Australian society and with ensuring that they and their descendants share the rights of other Australians to pursue their ways of life, within the law, as they wish (including maintaining aspects of their national, religious or ethnic heritage if that's what they want). If our political parties had come together in 'selling' the decency of this policy in straightforward, pragmatic language, the talkback shows might have lost much of their poisonous sting. Unfortunately, use of the adjective 'multicultural' has also at times suggested (although not deliberately) that multiculturalism is the defining feature of Australia and that the only groups who have a 'culture' are ethnic groups."

"The second word that needs refreshing is 'diversity'. We should not flash it around as if every form of diversity is good. Having half a million or so organised fascists would make Australia a more diverse society. But it might also finish us off. Nor should we use the word as if it means only ethnic diversity."

2002-11-11T14:11:00.000+10:00

DANCING WITH THE DEVIL?

Defense Minister, Senator Robert Hill has suggested that Australia should rebuild ties with Indonesian secret police operative, Kopassus . This wouldn't be the same organisation that held the lives of civilians in East Timor and Irian Jaya in such contempt? The same group who murdered several American teachers in the West Papua province only a matter of weeks ago? This wouldn't be the same organisation who had close ties with Laskar Jihad whose bloodthirsty actions on the Moluccas Islands, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Christians. Probably, the only good news in Indonesia following the Bali tragedy has been that Laskar Jihad has apparently been disbanded. I just hope it is true.

While it may be in Australia's best interests to attempt to ensure there is stability in Indonesia's floundering democracy, Kopassus and the TNI (Tentara Nasional Indonesia) have repeatedly proven that they cannot be trusted to act within the interests of the people of Indonesia. While the generals' influence may have waned from their previous strength during the Suharto era, that has not prevented the military from asserting its authority in a range of regions. Maintaining stability in the Indonesia archipelago can be achieved without jumping into bed with Kopassus, fortunately Kevin Rudd seems to be in agreement with my position on this issue.

2002-11-07T23:42:00.000+10:00

Answering the founding fathers quiz, I turn out to be more consensus-building than I thought.
Thanking I'd be the Thomas Paine with the propensity for the 50-pace dissertation, I'm actually leader George himself.

Which Founding Father Are You?

2002-11-07T11:12:00.000+10:00

WHAT I'M READING

Currently blogged down with work (pardon the bad pun), so blogging will probably not resume for another week or so, maybe earlier if my internal spinnaker kicks in.

When I do have had a spare moment, I've been reading Jose Saramago's 'The Cave', which I've been waiting for some period of time. For the record, and in my own modest opinion, I think the 80-year Saramago is the best writer still alive. For once, I am even in agreement with critic Harold Bloom, who in his recently released book Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds, pointed to only two geniuses currently alive - Jose Saramago and Canadian poet Ann Carson. Saramago's work is always a delight, his imaginative scope, his compassion towards his fragile characters, his gentleness which somehow does not seem to fall too much in the field of gushy sentimentality, his chain of ideas and perceptions. A true one-of-a-kind.

I've only read the first sixty odd pages, but I can see parallels between the potter Cipriano Algor and many modern workers, who are faced with the prospect of re-skilling after having practiced a trade for fifty years. I will post more when I have finished the book, but it does seem that Saramago is examining the changing market dynamics, and seems enormously concerned about the concentration of industry clout in the hands of a few people. The company poor Ciprinao Algor works for could be the Portuguese equivalent of Woolworths, screwing suppliers until many suppliers consider turning their back on the land they have farmed for many years.

Meanwhile. last weekend I kicked back and re-read Paul Bowles's classic 'The Sheltering Sky'. Bowles is another of those American writers who for some reason never seems to have got the attention he deserves. Bowles in my view rates right up there with the best dozen-odd writers in America over the last century, yet these days he rates barely a mention. It is interesting that Bowles, often referred to as the 'father of the beats' seems to have been forgotten, when Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginzberg etc continue to be amongst the most read books on university campuses. It somewhat perplexes me that some of the beat writers of the fifties seem to have maintained their audience, while Bowles who in my view is a far superior writer, is now somewhat of a marginal figure.

If you liked 'The Sheltering Sky', I'd also recommend 'The Spider's House', which was written when Bowles had a much broader acquaintance with Morocco. One of the main characters, a Muslim boy struggling to maintain his identity in times of such rapid change, sees Bowles attempt what few Western writers dare, to get inside the head of character from a totally different cultural background to the one that Bowles had inherited.

2002-10-29T01:25:00.000+10:00

BELATED RESPONSE TO BOOKER 2002

Well, congratulations to Spanish-Born Canadian Yann Martel who won the Booker Prize for his novel The Life of Pi, even if a press mix-up a week before the announcement made it the worst kept secret of 2002.

The Canadian domination of the prize continues with previous winners, North-O-North-Of-Americans Margaret Atwood and Michael Ondaatje, continuing the post-colonial flavour of recent Booker winners. Peter Carey (twice), J.M. Coatzee – South Africa, moving to Adelaide (twice), Arundhati Roy (India), Ben Okri (Nigeria) and Keri Hulme (New Zealand) and Thomas Kenneally are all now amongst the winners in the last fifteen years.

Personally, I would have liked to see Rohinton Mistry (Robert McCrum agrees me on this one) scoop up the award for Family Matters, as I thought he was unfortunate not to win in 1996 for A Fine Balance. However Mistry did face competition from Graham Swift’s As I Lay Dying for pisspots Last Orders, which won the prize, and Margaret Atwood’s was probably unfortunate that Alias Grace was released in such a prolific year. I know that several bloggers like Jozef Imrich are particularly enamoured with Martel's novel. About a bengal tiger on a raft, I am however a little concerned about his next novel, which apparently will cover the Holocaust with a travelling donkey and a monkey. However, i'll have to read his work before I make any conclusion.

However, our Tim again went close again, with Dirt Music short-listed and according to, Man Booker Chair Professor Lisa Jardine, he went within a whisker of the prize (Winton was also short-listed for The Riders)

Irishman William Trevor was again short-listed and agained missed out on the big cheque, and this is another writer who rarely received the attention he deserves. A friend of mine had Trevor as a bolter for the Noble, however I think John Banville should be the next Irishman awarded the Noble Prize.

Sarah Water’s lesbian Victorian thriller Fingersmith was also short-listed while American-born Canadian (yes, geography just gets in the way when you describe writers but I'm doing the best I can) Carol Shield’s Unless was the other book to be short-listed. That made three out of six Booker nominees from the land of the lumberjacks . This article in the Scotsman attributes much of Canda's success to substantial government investment of arts and culture. Canada is certainly producing some exceptional writers, and as I said before, the next North American to win the Noble, will probably be among several deserving Canucks.

However, before signing off, there were also several books in the long-list that I thought also look like interesting reading. John Banville’s Shroud has received positive reviews, and seems to be exploring similar themes to his last book, Eclipse, It will be released sometime early next year.

Also, Will Self looks to have picked an interesting topic in Dorian, transporting the Wildean hedonism to the 1980s and the sceptre of AIDS, it definitely sounds interesting. Self’s outlandish stories are sometimes so over the top, that you can be a bit overblown by the experience. These are certainly not books to buy grandma or Angela Shanahan - for example Cock and Bull, involves some rather naughty Kafkesque transformations in certain erogenous zones - although Philip Roth’s Zuckerman had done the Kafka/Gogolian transformation in his novella The Breast. Both books if I recall were released about the same time.

Michael Frayn is a pretty accomplished writer/playwright whose most recent book Spies, about the remembrance of childhood, also failed to get past the long-list. I recently read Headlong, more out of politeness after having it recommended to me. I do not think I was going to particularly like it, but this art history detective story/ comedy of manners, was much better than I expected. It certainly gave me a new perspective on the Dutch painter, Bruegel

2002-10-23T17:49:00.000+10:00

All services will return to normal, when Rambling Man has an opportunity to think and reflect. Unfortunately at the moment he is peddling away hard in an effort to combat the giant yeast-like creature that is his in-box.

And all this in a time when there is so much to write about:- de-regulation of university fees, the Crean leadership, multiculturalism, considersations relating to the coverage of the Bali bombings, gun-laws, the Booker Prize. If only I had time to come up for air.

What is worse, I haven't finished one book this week, it must be three-four years since I've experienced such a phenomena. I feel like a smoker exhibiting withdrawal symptoms.

2002-10-21T20:10:00.000+10:00

CREAN VENTING HIS SPLEEN

Poor ole Simo he failed to pick up the Gong, and he'd better be wary of the next Alan Ramsey column. What will the man who compared Beazley to Calwell, have to say about the first leader of the Opposition to lose a bi-election.

However, in Simo's defence, it must be pointed out there are a range of regional factors, with the NSW Right continuing to treat the electorate with contempt. The Right's behaviour in refusing a rank-and-file vote was waving the red-flag to the bull, it was an invitation for a massive protest vote.

Well, whay are the ramifications of the Cunningham result . Michael Organ can vacate his job as a librarian at the University of Wollongong for the next two years, and he'll be receiving a hefty pay-rise for the next two-years. And the amount of attention focused on the machinations within the Labor Party will not abate, although hopefully the resolutions passed at the National Conference will deal with most of the core issues. However, now that Crean has got through the reforms, he now has to get around to outlining some policy, the small-target policy might have worked for Howard (against an electorate beying for Keating blood) but it definitely failed Kim Beazley.

2002-10-19T21:48:00.000+10:00

WHAT I'M READING

Just completed Turkish writer Yashar Kemal's Salman the Solitary<i>, the tale of a Turkish family fleeing from Russian troops and the misunderstandings experienced upon settling in an Anatolian village. At times somewhat reminiscent of Ismael Kadare, and after a sluggish start, this novel of jealousy, confusion does have a lot to say about the rapidly changing Turkish landscape, with its mixture of Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Circassians. I will discuss this in more detail at a later date.

I will now embark upon Ian McEwan's Booker Prize nominated Atonement, which I've been meaning to read for sometime.

2002-10-18T21:44:00.000+10:00

No. I'm not related to Nick Greiner.

	You are Kermit! Though you're technically the star, you're pretty mellow and don't mind letting others share the spotlight. You are also something of a dreamer.
*Take the What Muppet Are You?* Quiz!**

2002-10-18T01:02:00.000+10:00

WHAT CAN I SAY?

Condolences to all the people killed in the horrific and cowardly attack in Bali. This is a truly awful event, and I hope the perpetrators of this event are captured and brought to justice. This cowardly, craven act will only affirm the support for the War Against Terror in this country, which despite some disagreements about operational manners, I support. The ideological bleating on both sides, that we should or shouldn't go to Iraq, will win scamt sympathy from the Australian people.

Contrary to the belief of Angela Shanahan, these people were totally innocent. Its hard to feel any sympathy for any organisation that targets innocent civilians, and this goes for Hezbollah,Hamas, Islamic Jihad.

I will post more on this when I have given the issue more thought and hopefully when we have more information who committed this disgraceful atrocity.

2002-10-11T02:49:00.000+10:00

PETER PORTER AWARDED FORWARD POETRY PRIZE

Congratulations also go to Aussie expat Peter Porter who was awarded the Forward Poetry Prize. Porter who is also an excellent literary critic, has collected 10,000 pounds prize money for his poetry collection Max is Missing.

Also, if you want to hear a discussion between Clive James and Peter Porter, visit Clive James's Welcome Stranger, and click on audio to listen to James and Porter's discussion of the last century of literature (recently broadcasted on Radio National's 'Book Talk')

2002-10-11T02:39:00.000+10:00

IMRE THE SURVIVOR

Congratulations to Imre Kertesz who has been awarded the 2002 Noble Prize of Literature. The Hungarian novelist survived the horrors of Auschwitz as an adolescent, and has written several novels on this most horrific of themes. I will definitely be on the look out for his first novel Fateless.

From what I read Kertesz’s work sounds somewhat different to fellow Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi. In my opinon Levi novels like If This Is a Man and The Drowned the Saved should be compulsory reading for those who doubt the horrors of the Holocaust.

I must admit, that the prize came as something of a surprise to me. The only Hungarian authors I have read are Sandor Marai and Arthur Koestler, and the only other Hungarians writers that I can think of are Magna Szabo and Dezsö Kosztolányi. But then again Gao Xingjian and Dario Fo were little known outside their country of residence until the Swedish Academy swept them onto a larger stage.

I wish Imre Kertesz prosperity, particularly considering the struggles he endured early in his life. Another one to add to the reading list.

2002-10-09T21:43:00.000+10:00

GHOSTWRITE FOR A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER

Reported in The Guardian, are allegations that recently deceased Spanish writer Camila Jose Cela used ghostwriters on some of his later works, two of which collected major Spanish literary awards.

Cela, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1989, is alleged to have used ghostwriters to supply plots and characters.

Are these allegations true? Or is this another example similar to that of a disgruntled British writer who accused Martin Amis of stealing his plot ideas?

Considering long-dead blockbuster authors are still producing novels thanks to the efforts of ghostwriters, that publishers never desist from pillaging the draws of writers for anything remotely close to publishable material, what does it matter if the work is of considerable quality?

Is the audience duped? Or do books, like any other good, fall under the arms of the maxim caveat emptor ‘let the buyer beware’? Who is the author, Joseph Conrad, Ford Madox Ford, William Shakespare, Marlowe, Jerry Garcia’s budgerigar. They've been plenty of novels rescued by editors, but don't expect to see an editor's name on the spine of a book. What has to be determined in this case, where the alleged ghostwriters assisting in a work of art or was their work plagiarised by Camila Jose Cela. I'll keep my eyes out for more information as it comes to hand.

2002-10-09T17:25:00.000+10:00

SEARCHING FOR THE GREAT GATSBY

Private detective Howard Comen has been researching the life of a German baron whose life may be the basis for Jay Gatsby from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s most famous novel The Great Gatsby

The search has all the confusion and enigma you’d almost expect of a Fitzgerald novel, but the question that’s on the tip of my lips, who was the inspiration behind the The Diamond as Big as the Ritz?

2002-10-08T20:42:00.000+10:00

COUNTDOWN TO THE NOBEL

In its inception the Nobel Prize for Literature had a slight Scandinavian bias, the first twenty years, six of the first eighteen Nobel prizes went to Scandinavians (2 Swedish, 2 Norwegian – NB: I consider Knut Hamsum to be a worthy winner, 2 Danish). That is no longer the case. The academy in Stockholm has actually made some inspired choices over the last five years (Jose Saramago, V.S. Naipaul, Gao Xingjian)

The once maligned Nobel Prize for Literature has only grown in stature, with close to a million dollars in prize money providing much needed doe for just under a hundred writers Who said writing was a one-way ticket to the gutter?

Whatever the criticisms of the prize, the award has certainly been a fillip to the careers of Dario Fo, Nadime Gordimer and Gao Xingjian, catapulting them into the international spotlight. To single out only one writer every year (or two if you have joint-winners), must be a formidable task, and considering the depth of talent around the world, there must be some fiery discussions every October. Considering writers of the stature of Leon Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Jorge Luis Borges, Vladimir Nabokov, Hermann Broch, Franz Kafka (in the Nobel’s defense, he died at a young age), Henry James, Marcel Proust all failed to pick up the grand prize of literature you can understand the source of some of the grievances.

Considering the announcement is only a few days away, I thought I’d present my own personal short-list of candidates for 2002. The four writers below I believe are deserving of a Nobel Prize.

Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa has consistently produced quality writing, and has been a great ambassador for literature. From what I hear The Feast of the Goat is close to the book of the year - poor ole povvo me will be waiting for the paperback release. He has covered everything with novels with charm or complexity, with everything from the horrors of military dictatorship to the innocence of youth. Vargas Llosa is probably the best Spanish-language writer still writing. If you are looking for Spanish-writer runner-up prize, I’d give it to Mexican Carlos Fuentes whose The Years with Laura Diaz was a particular favourite last year.

Ismail Kadare is another deserved Nobel candidate, with a range of novels documenting the dark underbelly of Albanian culture. Kadare’s generally austere writings, document the absurdity and futility of the traditional blood fueds Broken April, the deranged enmity between the Serbs, Croats and Kosovars An Elegy for Kosovo, the horrors of Totalitarianism The Palace of Dreams, the horrific consequences of war The General and the Dead Money. He also wrote the wonderfully farcical File on H about two scholars who visit Albania to document the country’s oral storytelling traditions. This is a great parody of the mindlessness of nationalism and totalitarianism. It would be great for a country like Peru of Albania to win their first Nobel, particularly Albania which despite its literary history is hardly synomymous with literary achievements.

J.M. Coatzee has twice won the Booker Prize, most recently for Disgrace, but also for The Life and Times of Michael K. The South African writer has written a range of novels and novellas and has consistently produced work of the highest calibre. His writings on South Africa are fascinating, and alongside Andre Brink and Nadine Gordimer deserve enormous credit for exploring the brutality of the Apartheid regime. However, this is not a Prize awarded solely on courage, Coatzee’s novels are also intensely personal. The Life and Times of Michael K documents the poverty, fear and humiliation experienced by a South African boy Michael who attempts to maintain his dignity within the Apartheid regime. Waiting for the Barbarians is another novel exploring the moral dilemmas experienced by a South African magistrate and Disgrace sees Coatzee explore the fall of academic David Lurie who is confronted with the realities of post-Apartheid South Africa. However, probably my favourite Coatzee book is The Master of Petersburg. In this book J.M.Coatzee explores the life of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, as the Russian master of despair as he embarks on one of his many masterpieces The Possessed. Coatzee speculates on Dostoyevsky’s life, attempting to unearth what was the driving force behind one of Dostoyevsky’s most enigmatic pieces of writing.

My final pick is Irish writer John Banville who may suffer from the fact that compatriot Seamus Heaney won the award in 1995. Banville has the fortune of living in a nation that despite its modest population has produced an amazing abundance of great writers (Joyce, Swift, Wilde, Sterne, Yeats, Beckett etc.) Considering that there was only five years between the prizes of Russian writers Alexander Solzenitysn and Mickhail Skolokhov, geography will hopefully have little bearing on the decision. Banville is a writer, who writes in a beautiful haunting voice, with a lucid yet stylish prose style. His characters all seem dislocated from the life they are striving for, they have an almost Beckett-like confusion. Banville’s first-person narratives are stirring, and even with characters like Freddie Montgomery in the The Book of Evidence whose narration is about as reliable as a shonky-used car salesmen, there remains revealing insights into life’s disappointments and cruelty. Banville’s most recent book Eclipse , is a wonderful melancholic tale of mourning, was my favourite book of 2000 His new novel Shroud, which will be released in March 2002, from early impressions seems to explore a similar theme. Shroud has so-far received very positive reviews, (e.g. Alex Clark’s review in the Guardian). Banville is also the Literary Editor of the Irish Times.

The US literary pages are full of predictions that this will be the year of Philip Roth, John Updike or Normal Mailer. Personally, I think there are better candidates then these three, Mailer is erratic and somewhat deranged, Roth whilst a solid writer with Portnoy's Complaint being a delightful piece of comic writing - he has written some very good novels American Pastoral, but none I'd describe as masterful. I must also admit I could never maintain much of an interest in John Updike's Rabbit Angstrom books, maybe its the problem of writing in third-person/present-tense, I know that Updike was attempting to convey Rabbit as an 'Everyman', but I think as a device fails, as it leaves the reader so distant from the character.

If I had to single out an American writer it would probably be Don Delillo, whose later works I have really come to admire, Underworld was one of the best novels of the last decade, and his recent novella The Body Artist was a fantastic meditation on absence and disconnectedness. I actually think if the winner comes from North America, it probably should be a Canadian, who have several excellent writers (It's no longer a surprise that half the Booker short-list are Canadian). It would also be good for those long-suffering Canucks who have always had the American literary establishment looking down upon their work. As John Ralston Saul put it when your 'living next to Rome' you have to celebrate your own culture because no-one else will.

However, who knows maybe there’s a writer in Uzbekistan or Togo whose work has yet to get an English translation (and god-bless publishing houses like Harvill-Panther who still bother with foreign literature). That’s part of the award’s beauty, an international audience for sometimes the most local of voices.

2002-08-27T03:04:00.000+10:00

Quote of the Week: Susan Maushart, The Weekend Australia: "As if women didn’t already have enough to feel guilty about, now we’ve got the fertility rate hanging over our heads like the veritable dildo of Damocles. Forget that Australia's fertility has been below the "replacement rate" since 1976. Suddenly, our lower-than-average crop yield is big news."

2002-07-11T02:40:00.000+10:00

Quote of the week has to go to 7:30 Report Executive Director Jonathon Holmes in a panel discussion 'Has Australia's Media Gone to the Dogs"

JONATHON HOLMES: Yeah good on you, Michael [Michael Stutchbury, Editor of The Australian]. And I think it's dead true, and I think The Australian did a fantastic job on the Tampa. If the ABC had done as good a job, if it had happened to be the ABC that broke the story, we would have read in the Australian's editorial column and its Op Ed columns ad nauseum from the IPA about the ABC's culture. And all those things you've been running in your paper, those wonderful stuff about Mabo, that great stuff you were doing about Aboriginal health issues, if we run it in the ABC, it's the ABC culture at work. And it's you guys who are fuelling that, and that's some passion from me, because I'm fed up with it.

Usually I tire of the pat-on-the-back mentality exhibited by some of our local media, but The Australian does deserve some credit for the 'kids overboard' scoop and for covering with some subtlety the catastrophic state of indigenous health in remote communities.

2002-07-08T20:51:00.000+10:00

This is a fascinating speech discussing the often discounted value of fiction by Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, which is included below.

Why Literature by Mario Vargas Llosa

It has often happened to me, at book fairs or in bookstores, that a gentleman approaches me and asks me for a signature.

"It is for my wife, my young daughter, or my mother; she or they are great readers and love literature," the man says. Immediately, I ask, "How about you? Don't you like to read?" The answer is almost always the same. "Well, of course, I like to read, but, you know, I am a very busy person."

I know this well, because I have heard the explanation dozens of time - this gentleman and the thousands and thousands of gentlemen like him have so many obligations and responsibilities in life that they cannot waste their precious time buried in a novel or a book of poetry.

According to this widespread conception, literature is a dispensable activity, an entertainment, no doubt lofty and useful for cultivating sensitivity and good manners, but merely an adornment that those with free time available for recreation can afford.

It seems clear that literature has become more and more a female activity. In bookstores, at conferences or public readings by writers, in university departments and faculties dedicated to the humanities, women clearly outnumber men. The explanation traditionally given is that middle-class women read more because they work fewer hours than men and many of them feel they can more easily justify than men the time they dedicate to fantasy and illusion. I am somewhat allergic to explanations that divide men and women into set categories and attribute to each collective virtues and shortcomings. In short, I do not subscribe to such explanations. Yet there is no doubt that there are fewer and fewer readers of literature and that women readers predominate.

A recent survey organized by the General Society of Spanish Writers revealed that half of Spain's population has never read a book. The survey also revealed that in the minority that does read, women readers outnumber men by 6.2 percent. I am happy for the women, but I feel sorry for the men and the millions of people who could read but have decided not to. Not only because they are unaware of the pleasure they are missing, but because I am convinced that a society without literature, or one in which literature has been relegated - like some hidden vice- to the margins of social life, is condemned to become spiritually barbarian and to jeopardize its freedom.

I wish to offer a few arguments against the idea of literature as a luxury pastime in favor of viewing it as one of the most stimulating and enriching undertakings of the mind, an irreplaceable activity for the formation of citizens in a modern and democratic society of free individuals. Literature ought to be instilled in the family from childhood and be included in all educational programs as a basic discipline. We already know that the opposite is happening, that it is tending to shrink and even disappear from the academic curriculum.

We live in an era of specialization of knowledge, thanks to the prodigious development of science and technology and to fragmentation of knowledge into innumerable parcels and compartments. This cultural trend is, if anything, likely to be accentuated in years to come.

To be sure, specialization brings many benefits. It allows for deeper exploration and experimentation, and is the engine of progress. But it also bears negative consequences, by eliminating those common cultural denominators that permit people to co-exist, communicate and feel a sense of solidarity. Specialization leads to lack of social communication, to the division of human beings into cultural ghettos of technicians and specialists. Specialized languages, codes, and information progressively become more particular and compartmentalized, a particularism and compartmentalization against which an old proverb warned us - "Don't focus too much on the branch or the leaf lest you forget they are part of a tree, and the tree, of a forest." Awareness of the existence of the forest creates the feeling of belonging that binds society together and prevents it from disintegrating into a myriad of solipsistic particularities. The solipsism of nations or individuals produces paranoia and delirium, distortions of reality that generate hatred, wars and genocide. In our time, science and technology cannot play an integrating role, precisely because of the infinite richness of knowledge and the speed of its evolution, which have led to specialization and the use of obscure vocabulary.

Literature, by contrast, has been and will continue to be, as long as it exists, one of the common denominators of human experience through which living creatures recognize themselves. As readers of Cervantes, Shakespeare, Dante, or Tolstoy, we understand each other and feel ourselves members of the same species. We learn what we share as human beings, what remains common in all of us under the broad range of differences that separate us. Nothing better protects a human being against the stupidity of prejudice, racism, xenophobia, religious or political sectarianism, and exclusivist nationalism than literature. Reading good literature is enjoyable, to be sure, but we also gain experience through fiction about what and how we are, in our human integrity, with our actions, dreams, and ghosts, alone and in relationships that link us to others, in our public image and in the secret recesses of our consciousness. This complex sum of contradictory truths - as Isaiah Berlin called them - constitutes the very fabric of the human condition. In today's world, this totalizing and living knowledge of a human being is found only in literature.

Marcel Proust observed: "Real life, at last enlightened and revealed, the only life fully lived, is literature." Guided by his love for the vocation he practiced with such sublime talent, he was not exaggerating - he simply wanted to assert that life is better understood and better lived thanks to literature, and that understanding and living life more fully means living it and sharing it with others.

It always irritated Borges when asked, " What is the use of literature?" To him it seemed a stupid question. He would reply, "No one would ask what is the use of a canary's song or a beautiful sunset." In contrast to the sound of a bird singing or the spectacle of the sun sinking into the horizon, poems and novels are not simply there, created by chance or nature.

They are a human creation, and it is therefore legitimate to ask how and why they were born, how they have benefited humanity, and why literature, whose remote origins merge with those of writing itself, has lasted so long.

One of literature's beneficial effects takes place at the basic level of language. A community without a written literature expresses itself with less precision, less richness of nuance and less clarity than one whose principal instrument of communication, the word, has been cultivated and perfected.

A person who does not read (or reads little) can speak much, but that person's repertory is minimal and deficient in the vocabulary necessary for self-expression. This is not only a verbal limitation, but a limitation in intellect as well as breadth of imagination. It is a poverty of thought and knowledge, because ideas, the concepts through which we grasp reality and the secrets of our condition, do not exist disassociated from words.

Not only is literature indispensable for full knowledge and control of language, but its fate is linked in an indissoluble marriage with that of the book, that industrial product that many are declaring obsolete.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, was in Madrid not long ago visiting the Royal Spanish Academy, with which Microsoft has laid the foundations for a fruitful collaboration. Among other things, Gates assured members of the Academy that he would personally guarantee that the letter "ñ" would never be removed from computers, a promise that inspired 400 million Spanish speakers on five continents to breathe a sigh of relief. Banishment of such an essential letter from cyberspace would have created monumental problems. Immediately after making this amiable concession to the Spanish language, Gates, still on the premises of the Royal Academy, confirmed in a press conference that he expected to accomplish his highest goal before he died - to put an end to paper and then books. Gates explained that computer screens are able to replace paper in all the functions that paper has heretofore assumed. He continued by insisting that, in addition to being less onerous, computers take up less space, are more easily transportable, and that news and literature through the media, instead of through newspapers and books, will have the ecological advantage of stopping the destruction of forests. People will continue to read, he said, but on a screen, and consequently there will be more chlorophyll in the environment.

I was not present at Gates' talk, but I learned these details from the press. Had I been there, I would have booed Gates for proclaiming at the academy, with no shame, his intention to send me and my colleagues, writers of books, to the unemployment line. I simply cannot accept the idea that a nonfunctional or nonpragmatic reading, one that does not seek information nor a useful and immediate communication, can integrate on a computer screen the dreams and enjoyment of words with the same sensation of intimacy, with the same concentration and spiritual isolation that may be achieved through a book. Perhaps it is a prejudice resulting from lack of practice, and also from a long association of literature with books and paper. But though I enjoy surfing the Web in search of world news, I would never go to the screen to read Góngora's poems, a novel by Onetti or an essay by Octavio Paz - because I am certain that the effect of such a reading would not be the same. I am convinced that literature would suffer a serious blow, even a mortal one, with the disappearance of the book.

Another reason to grant literature an important place in the life of nations is that without it, the critical mind, the engine of historical change and the best protector of liberty would suffer an irreparable loss, because all good literature poses radical questions about the world we live in. In all great literary texts, often without the authors' intention, a seditious predisposition is present. Literature says nothing to people who are satisfied with their lot.

Literature is the food of the rebellious spirit, the promulgator of nonconformities, and a refuge to those who have too much or lack something in life. To ride alongside the scrawny Rocinante and the confused knight on the fields of La Mancha, to sail the seas on the back of a whale with captain Ahab, to drink arsenic with Emma Bovary or to change into an insect with Gregor Samsa, is to be many different people, thus satisfying the many intense desires that possess us. Literature, of course, only pacifies this vital dissatisfaction momentarily. During this miraculous instant, however, in this provisional suspension of life, literary illusion lifts and transports us outside of time and history and we become citizens of a timeless land. We become more intense, richer, more complex, happier, more lucid than we are in the constrained routine of real life.

Reading literature also allows us to live in a world whose rules transgress the inflexible rules that bind us in our real life, free from the prison of time and space in a world where excess goes unpunished and where we enjoy unlimited powers. How could we not feel cheated after reading "War and Peace" or "Remembrance of Things Past" upon returning to this world of insignificant minutiae, of borders and prohibitions that lie in wait everywhere and, with each step, corrupt our illusions? Perhaps, even more than the need to sustain the continuity of culture and to enrich language, the greatest contribution of literature to human progress is to remind us (without intending to in the majority of cases) that the world is badly made; that those such as the powerful who govern it, who pretend the contrary, are lying; and that the world could be better, more like the worlds that our imagination and our language are able to create. A free and democratic society must have responsible and critical citizens conscious of the continuous need to examine the world we live in. Good reading leads to the formation of critical and independent citizens who will not be manipulated and who are endowed with a permanent spiritual mobility and a vibrant imagination.

Literature, while momentarily relieving human dissatisfaction, increases it by developing a critical and nonconformist sensitivity toward life, and, therefore, makes human beings more apt to be unhappy. To live dissatisfied, at war with existence, is to seek things that may not be there, to condemn oneself to fight the battles that Colonel Aureliano Buendía was fighting in "A Hundred Years of Solitude," knowing full well that he would lose them all. But without dissatisfaction and rebellion against the mediocrity and squalor of life, we would still live in a primitive state, history would have stopped.

When the novel "Don Quixote de la Mancha" first appeared, readers made fun of this extravagant dreamer as well as of the rest of the characters in the novel. Today we know that the insistence by Don Quixote on seeing giants where there were windmills, and to act in such a seemingly absurd way, is the highest form of generosity, a means of protest against the misery of this world in the hope of changing it. The very notions of ideal and idealism, so impregnated with positive moral connotation, would not be what they are - transparent and respected values - had they not been incarnated in that character of the novel through the persuasive force of Cervantes' genius. The same can be said of that small and pragmatic female Quixote, Emma Bovary, who fought with ardor to live the splendid life of passion and luxury she came to know through novels.

The inventions of all great literary creators, such as Cervantes and Flaubert, remove us from our realistic prison and also plunge us into the world of fantasy, opening our eyes to unknown aspects and secrets of our human condition.

The adjective Kafkaesque naturally comes to mind, like the focus mechanism of those old cameras with the accordion arm, each time we feel threatened, as defenseless individuals, by oppressive and destructive systems that have caused so much pain, abuse, and injustice in the modern world. I am referring to authoritarian regimes, vertical parties, intolerant churches, and asphyxiating bureaucrats. Without the short stories and novels of that tormented Jew from Prague who wrote in German and lived in fear, we would not have been able to understand, with the clarity possible today, the defenseless and impotent feeling of the isolated individual, or of persecuted minorities, confronted with the all-embracing powers that can pulverize and eliminate them without the henchmen even showing their faces.

The adjective Orwellian, which I call the first cousin of Kafkaesque, refers to the oppressive anguish generated by totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century. In his most famous novels, "Animal Farm" and "1984," George Orwell described in cold and nightmarish shades a humanity subjugated to Big Brother, an absolute lord who, through efficient combination of terror and modern technology, eliminated liberty, spontaneity and equality, and transformed society into a beehive of automatons. A world without literature would be partly blind to these terrible depths where the motivation for bizarre behavior often lies.

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. But the formidable development of audiovisual media in our century, which on one hand has revolutionized communication by making everyone on the planet participate in current events, also tends to monopolize the time that living beings dedicate to leisure and diversion, thereby taking them away from literature. This development allows us to conceive a possible historical scenario in the immediate future, a modern society, full of computers, screens and speakers, and without books. I am afraid that this cybernetic world, in spite of its prosperity and power, of its high standards of living and its scientific achievements, would be profoundly uncivilized, lethargic, and spiritless - a resigned humanity of robots that have abdicated freedom.

History has not yet been written, though, and luckily, there is no pre-established destiny that has decided for us what we will become. It depends entirely on our vision, which will determine whether that macabre utopia will become reality or be eclipsed. If we wish to avoid the disappearance of literature and along with it the motivating source of the imagination and the dissatisfaction that refines our sensitivity and teaches us to speak with eloquence and rigor, we must act intelligently. We must read good books, stimulate and teach future generations how to read - in families, in classrooms, in the media, and in all areas of communal life - as an essential task that pervades and enriches all others.

Mario Vargas Llosa, famous Peruvian author, scholar, and political activist, was recently named Ibero-American Literature and Culture Chair in Georgetown's Spanish and Portuguese Department. Vargas Llosa inaugurated the new chair at Georgetown with a speech, from which this article is excerpted. Translation by Serafina Hager, dean of the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, and Spanish and Portuguese chair Thomas Walsh

2002-07-07T17:13:00.000+10:00

Welcome to Rambling Man, I'll endeavour to post a range of observations on the important things in life - literature, politics, art, ideas.