Open thread September 20-24
Cometh the week, cometh the thread. Use this thread to discuss anything that comes up during the week.
A couple of bits of reading to kick things off:
- The Australian‘s Mark Day writes about the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Credit to him and his newspaper for addressing the issue. But it strikes me as a touch ironic to see that particular paper, which seems happy to pick up the flimsiest attacks on the ABC (among others), criticising the Guardian and the New York Times for sustained reporting on a scandal that might reflect poorly on their competitors.
- At The Drum, Luke Walladge offers a defence of free speech in the wake of the racial vilification claim against Andrew Bolt (a reminder that this is an open legal issue; please comment appropriately).
Have at it.
For those interested in debating the merits of the NBN, Peter Martin has a post arguing against the it. He also critiques a selection of arguments in favour of it.
http://www.petermartin.com.au/2010/09/were-spending-fortune-on-new-wires-in.html
My piece of PP to start the week comes from Fairfax with an article by Tony Abbott with the title:
” It’s Time for Positive Opposition”
Had Two Tone seen the light? Had the speedos been removed and allow some blood to circulate to his balls? Were the coalition finally going to contribute something meaningful to the national debate? My hopes were dashed in the first sentence.
The next paragraph further crushed any aspiration to see something of substance emerge from the federal opposition.
Then to really ram home the fact that the coalition has no sense of the political reality that they face, came the policies.
The sub-editor at Fairfax should be whacked over that headline, it should have read.
“Sore Losers to Obstruct and Object”
confessions
He isn’t adding anything new to the argument, it just seems to be going back over old ground. I can’t take anyone seriously who is prepared to suggest the copper network may yet serve us when it is clear that fiber optics are so much faster. If you want to criticise the NBN project you could suggest that it concentrates on internal speeds and capacity while doing little or nothing to increase the speed and capacity of our connection with the wider world (it’s called the “pipe” in nerd circles).
The biggest reason why our manufacturing industries have shrunk is because we were fooled into thinking you had to do a “business case” for every little bit of investment. If you want to understand why the Japanese have a high speed train system and high speed internet, look at their bussiness case for both, I am betting they didn’t bother, just went “We need this, let’s do it”
I consider the Billions spent sending troops to invade a country for no good reason a waste, any money spent on infrastructure is never a waste.
Yes, this is pretty much my view as well. In 10 years time I reckon we will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about.
I am one eighth Swedish. I do not, however, identify myself as being a Swede. I have an interest in my ancestry and think Vikings were pretty cool.
Swedes are not a disadvantaged minority, lower on the socio-economic scale than most with more than their fair share of health, education, and racial discrimination issues. As such, Swedes are not privy to special social services to help a disadvantaged class get a leg up in life, eg funding for education.
If it were the case that Swedes were a disadvantaged minority, is it okay to elevate the importance of my Swedish heritage above the more prominent Australian heritage in order to secure an education grant intended to help over come a disadvantage that I never endured? What if I were the only one to apply for such a grant? Would it be still okay to receive such a benefit? If I overheard someone say ‘Swedes are wankers’, is it okay for feel immeasurable hurt for that one-eighth of me and then demand justice?
Chistery: ‘Aboriginal Australian’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Actually, to save the trolls the trouble of posting, I’d be surprised if anyone here agrees with the case against Bolt. Save for defamation, using the courts to silence your critics is the jelly-backed approach.
On matters freedom however, I wonder how many of Bolt’s fans, and supporters when it comes to this case agree with calls to ban the burqa?
@Chistery:
Funny you should use the Swede as a simile: ask the Lapps (and, in the past, Finns and Norwegians) how they feel about aboriginal identity and Swedish identification.
Slainte.
confessions @1
I agree with everything the man says – but there’s one thing he doesn’t say, and I think it needs to be said:
For somebody who so vocally opposes various vilification laws, and who is about to find Teh Lefts surprisingly supportive of his plight on free speech grounds, I would like to see AB become a bit less quick to shout at people, chuck about the word “DEFAMED” and talk about “considering his options” when he feels personally slighted. I don’t personally feel at all concerned about being dragged in front of a judge for saying anything about muslims, or jews, or aborigines or catholics (to name a few) – but I find myself being very careful in my choice of words about Andrew Bolt, whatever the topic.
And I think that effect should be pointed out in all articles published to defend his right to free speech.
confessions re the NBN
He attacks the likes of Possum with no factual evidence for his “we did it before, we can do it again” type argument. I can assure Peter there is no way the lines in front of my place are going to take much more, and we cannot get ADSL2 let alone get a wireless signal (no, mobiles don’t work in our little blackspot). In the real business world we desperately need the NBN to give us real prodcutivity gains through cloud computing and through the different ways we now work together as teams. I had respect for Peter Martin once, but it appears as if is just a journalist.
Chistery – simplistic and silly.
According to the last census, those people identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander died earlier – “approximately 75% of Indigenous males and 65% of Indigenous females died before the age of 65 years. In contrast, in the non-Indigenous population 26% of males and 16% of females died aged less than 65 years.”
Were significantly less employed – “people aged 15-64 years, the disparity in labour force participation widens further. In 2001 there were 54% of Indigenous peoples in this age group in the labour force compared with 73% of the non-Indigenous population. In 2006, 57% of the Indigenous population in this age group was participating in the labour force compared with 76% of the non-Indigenous population.”
Were unlikely to finish school – “the proportion of Indigenous peoples aged 15 years and over who had completed Year 12 (was) 23%.”
And so on …
Perhaps your hypothetical education grant should be open to all the middle-class-what-about-me mob as long as they commit to leaving school early and dying younger.
I agree with Luke Wallage. No one should end up in court for being obnoxious and offensive. This sort of action makes martyrs of people like Bolt and gains them even more undeserved attention.
Sorry, Luke Walladge
Australian Aboriginals are a disadvantaged minority, lower on the socio-economic scale than most with more than their fair share of health, education, and racial discrimination issues.
Did you ever ask yourself why christy?
One early report of Australian Aboriginals described them as the most healthy and happy people ever encountered. What happened do you think?
Their waterholes were bombed, their lands were stolen, their elders were massacred and poisoned, that’s what! And given that these efforts to destroy these people were enacted in direct opposition to what the settlers of this country were directed to do, don’t you feel even a little obliged to do all that can be done for whomever identifies themselves as aboriginal?
And is OK if a member of this disadvantaged minority, can attain a level of education and success it is okay to elevate the importance of their aboriginal heritage above the less important Australian heritage in order to secure an education grant intended to help over come a disadvantage that they personally may never have endured.
Because it just might be a huge incentive to others to do the same or it may just enable some fairer treatment of their own race in the future. It may assist in giving these people back the one precious thing that was stolen from them and that is some Self pride.
And if you don’t like it I suggest that you scuttle back to wherever the 7/8 of you came from, you don’t have to stay here you know. And just how would you feel if your homeland were declared Terra nullius by some visiting green skinned alien and your people were considered livestock?
Matthew:
I’m assuming you’re referring to Luke Walladge rather than Peter Martin? In which case, I’m with you. I haven’t always felt this way – as recently as last year I would of supported these people in their actions. But on reflection have come to the view that people should be able to voice their views about others without fearing the threat of legal action. I regard slander and defamation as different from this case – others might feel otherwise.
#11, #14
Read before you rant.
The point of Bolt’s post and mine is not that disadvantaged aboriginals do not deserve additional education assistance, rather that anyone who is (for all intents and purposes’) born and bred white with drop of aboriginal blood in their veins, can use that one fifth of f-all heritage to claim special treatment at the expense of genuine aboriginals who have had a disadvantaged upbringing.
So I agree with everything you say two bob, except for the last paragraph. My response to that is ‘blow it out your arse’.
Seriously, if a one eighth Aboriginal gets ‘special treatment’ are you contending that as a result a full blooded Aboriginal will miss out if they apply for ‘special treatment’?
And given that these efforts to destroy these people were enacted in direct opposition to what the settlers of this country were directed to do, don’t you feel even a little obliged to do all that can be done for whomever identifies themselves as aboriginal?
Only if they are actually Aboriginal TwoBob. If they are just identifying as Aboriginal, despite having no cultural or physical connection with the Aborigines, then they deserve exactly the mockery and scorn that Bolt heaped on them.
Twobob@14, Very nice work. Your impassioned berating may or may not have exposed Chistery for the racist that he/she may or may not be. It amazes me that in this day and age someone like Chistery might or might not hold opinions like those that he or she didn’t make @ 5, let alone not voice them in such a public forum like this. I especially liked the way your targeted rhetorical question and answer tactic showed up just how little consideration Chistery may or may not have put to questions that probably have never been put to him/her.
One thing is very clear – so much passion can only come from someone who most definitely isn’t a racist. The gays though…..
The UK online progressive action network 38Degrees.org.uk is running a couple of campaigns right now to save that country’s media from Murdochisation, and the BBC from conservative attack.
Stop Murdoch – We’re with you Vince!
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/vincetakeonmurdoch#petition
BBC under threat
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/content/BBC-under-threat/
A few notes on 38 Degrees from their website:
http://38degrees.org.uk/pages/faq/
So then christy, how much aboriginal does a person have to have in order to be classed aboriginal enough? What if they are 90% and adopted and raised in a middle class white family? No claim to special treatment?
What if they are 0% and raised in a NT aboriginal community by 50% aboriginal parents? Not aboriginal enough for you? AND before you dispute this possibility I would remind you that an individual inherits HALF of his parents genome, meaning that a child of half aboriginal parents can be 0% aboriginal.
If you can explain to me just where we cut off assistance christy then do come back here and do it or if this is just too hard for you christy then I suggest that you ‘blow it out your own arse” and stay the hell away from commenting upon something that you don’t understand and are therefore unqualified to comment upon.
I await your answer and fully expect that you have none and will slink off to lick your wounds amount the other ignorants who comment upon bolts site.
Just to clarify what I mean when I say that a child of 50% aboriginal parents can be 0 % aboriginal I will use a simple example. If a parent is 50% aboriginal (denoted as A) and 50% Anglo-Saxon (denoted as a) they will have a genome composed of Aa. If both parents are Aa and each pass on one half of their genome the child can be aa, Aa, aA or AA. The aa child has no aboriginal gene. In genetic terms this would be known as an F2 cross which can be anything from fully Anglo-Saxon (aa) to fully Aboriginal (AA) and explains why two black parents can have a white child and vice versa.
Which one qualifies for funding christy?
This issue reminds me of something Bolt always criticises his opponents of.
He often accuses his opponents of hypocrisy because they always talk about equality of race yet there are rules designed to fund/accommodate/assist Aboriginals where no such benefits are available to Mainstream Australian society.
I would argue that since Aborginal culture is not only indigenous to this land, it is also under threat, and is also not to be found anywhere else, Australia is duty bound to give the Aboriginal community opportunities to retain this culture.
If this flies in the face of equality of all the races, so be it.
RobJ, it’s called downward envy. The suggestion that anyone else might receive some advantage, no matter how much further up the pole you might be, offends many. The thought that the ‘advantage’ might simply mean one less unproductive person in society doesn’t occur to some.
Hands up everyone who didn’t pay for a university education . . . .
Is this a “queue jumper” trope?
@25
What on earth is that?
@Uyasmum19
One thing is very clear – so much passion can only come from someone who most definitely isn’t a racist. The gays though….
Upon considered reflection I have changed my opinion on adoption by homosexual parents. Well put arguments and logic are able to sway me from my preconceived opinions and your attempt to smear my character upon this issue falls well short. Do you have any such examples of where you have been swayed by such arguments?
And mondo @ 18
Given my posts at 21 and 22 can you now see that to identify as aboriginal is enough or does someone have to be a specific shade for them to be aboriginal?
And just how do you define someone as actually Aboriginal? Do tell me.
You rock twobob…. (seriously).
Well thanks robj.
I just thought about it a bit and decided that if a child is loved and cared for then it must be better off than one who is not. I am aware of a number of children who have heterosexual parents who are not loved nor cared for and it is very sad. Simple as that.
“Hands up everyone who didn’t pay for a university education . . . .”
Not me. I know that probably dates me, but … I definitely paid.
twobob @28
I’m sure you’re too old to be getting adopted by anyone … so what REALLY changed your mind?
In order to claim aboriginal identification, you must be accepted as an aboriginal person by an aboriginal community. You can’t just say you are indigenous if you aren’t. That’s why Bolt’s accusations are so ignorant – he clearly doesn’t understand what constitutes aboriginal identity.
And for christery who seems to not understand the whole premise of indigenous disadvantage, it has been well established that disadvantage actually manifests across generations. So this rubbish about “genuine aboriginals with a disadvantaged upbringing” is just more divisive, ignorant tripe from the usual suspects.
Good for you. Kristina Keneally gave a very good speech in favour of same sex adoption to the parliament when the bills were being debated. She couched her arguments from a catholic perspective. It is so refreshing to see politicians use their religious faith in a positive, humanist standpoint, rather than a divisive one.
Given my posts at 21 and 22 can you now see that to identify as aboriginal is enough or does someone have to be a specific shade for them to be aboriginal?
And just how do you define someone as actually Aboriginal? Do tell me.
In all honesty it is irrelevant to me whether someone considers themselves to be Aboriginal. People are free to identify as whatever they want – that’s not the point I’m making, and I apologise if I was unclear above.
What I am trying to say is that in the context of affirmative action programs (i.e. the actual subject of Bolt’s posts) it is irrational to allow people who suffer no disadvantage as a result of their race to gain access to special treatment that is set aside for those who suffer disadvantage as a result of their race.
Such people are, by definition, ripping off the system. They are taking funds that could be applied to a situation of genuine disadvantage and pocketing them as profit instead.
And they are assisted in this fraud by those insisting on the same fiction that you insist on: i.e. that anyone who identifies as aboriginal should qualify as an aboriginal.
I’d rather we tightened the definition a bit – at least where affirmative action programs are concerned – so that the assistance actually reaches those who need it.
twobob, you have hit the nail fair and square on the head. Your questions as to racial identity expose the very reason why we should not have laws which discriminate based on race, racial identity or cultural identity. Why should we first have to decide if a person is or is not an Aborigine before we decide if a particular law or benefit applies to them? Wouldn’t it be better to decide to give government benefits or assistance based on individual deserving needs rather than the perceived disadvantage of his racial group as a whole?
A person can be classified as an Aborigine by a combination of actual race, by personally identifying as an Aborigine and being accepted by the relevant community as such. I think it could be true that a full blooded Aborigine who does not identify as such and is not accepted by his community can be legally found to be non-aboriginal. Check around for the various fights in Tasmania between the clans of white skinned, fair haired, blue eyed “blacks” (such as Michael Mansell) as to who is and who is not an Aborigine and who can and who cannot say whether they are or not. A perfect example of the reason we should not have laws based on race.
BTW I agree with Chistery @5. I have my own example. A decade or so ago, my neice did a school project on her family tree and uncovered a hitherto hidden photo of my 100% black great grandmother whom we kids never met. This led to a spirited family discussion and we all found it rather interesting to have such ancestry. Great grandma’s photo is now on display and back in the family album. We kids had assumed grandma’s darkish hue (and mum’s too) was because she lived in N QLD.
The interesting aspect is that my grandmother’s family saw it in their interest to identify as white. They did and my generation and beyond were none the wiser. We don’t look black and suffered no discrimination, but could now work towards claiming identity as such and join the gravy train if we wished. That’s what Bolt was on about. Now it’s trendy to be black and you get more because of it.
Benefits should be for those who deserve them regardless of race.
#21, #22
Getting special treatment based on race is only justified if you are underprivileged because of your race and the special treatment is there to assist in addressing the consequences of being underprivileged.
>If you can explain to me just where we cut off assistance.
Debating percentages and giving a biology lessons is more of your b.s. obfuscation.
If you are not underprivileged because of your race, you shouldn’t get assistance based on your race. SIMPLE!
…and I seriously doubt that someone with fair skin, red hair, raised in middle class white family, whose grandad happened to be aboriginal, is underprivileged because of their race.
Indeed. Hats off, twobob.
Chistery: “The point of Bolt’s post and mine is not that disadvantaged aboriginals do not deserve additional education assistance, rather that anyone who is (for all intents and purposes’) born and bred white with drop of aboriginal blood in their veins, can use that one fifth of f-all heritage to claim special treatment at the expense of genuine aboriginals who have had a disadvantaged upbringing.”
All this tells us is that neither you nor Bolt are aware what is required to prove Aboriginality. (Well, Bolt probably knows but is just pretending not to for the benefit of his ignorant, racist fans.)
What really galls me is the pretence that indigenous Australians should give a flying f*ck for the opinions of the likes of Bolt’s fanclub as to whether their skin is sufficiently dark enough.
Switzer is on the Drum right now. He said Oakshotte shouldn’t ‘welsh’ on a deal. How racist is this? It was all the rage during the election. About on the same level as Clint Eastwood saying ‘how very white of you’ to a black man, or English comedians making fun of Scots for being misers, or maybe mainlanders saying Tasmanians are married to their Grandmothers daughters.
I’ve removed the spam link that got through @ 25 now — thanks, Matt.
Mondo:
Here’s a test for you: walk into any government assistance office and tell the staff member you are indigenous, and you want to claim [insert aboriginal-only benefit here]. See how far you get. Try it with a university. Tell the admissions officer you are indigenous and want to gain entry under the indigenous tertiary entrance program, or want to access an indigenous-specific scholarship. Please let me know how you go.
Our criteria for accessing benefits, indigenous programs and government funding is very tight. People who defraud the system are punished, usually by fines, but also with imprisonment. Of course you won’t find this information out by reading Bolt.
Angra wrote:
Oh how surprisement. The so-called Institute of Public Affairs gets more commentary slots on the blog The Drum, and the ABCNews24 segment of the same name, than any other think tank in the country or the world for that matter.
In fact, the VERY FIRST Drum segment on the very first ever broadcast night of their News24 ‘featured’ … you guessed it … a spruiker from the IPA – Chris Berg.
Still bleating about how unkind the ABC is to them, is Switzer?
Cuppa:
It really is jaw-dropping that Liberal shills can continue to complain about not getting a fair hearing on the ABC!
Balance {sic} to these people obviously means round-the-clock continual repetition of Liberal talking points. When do the Howard-appointed Board terms expire?
Mr Day’s belated commentary about Murdoch’s rapidly-expanding UK phone surveillance scandal in the Oz’s Media section is known as “occupying the space” in the language of the spin doctor.
Cover the story, appear to superficially tick off the narrative boxes and get your pound of flesh by omission of detail and subtly recalibrating the atmospherics of the story. Repeat as required four or five times and, hey presto, the story is defanged and no-one can easily accuse a “serious” national paper of neglecting such a big story, lack of accountability and/or self-interested hypocrisy.
Yes, subtlety in an unusual editorial trait in the Australian and I’m reading it as a sign they are now genuinely worried about a contagion affect: falling sales, organised boycotts of the News Ltd rags and websites and a political backlash that could cost them big money.
Given the increasing amount of local coverage and growing sense of disbelief among fair-mined people about the criminal behaviour of News Corporation, News Ltd might also be worried about the damaging perceptions this story may create in light of dubious local practices, for example the Chairman of News Ltd and Editor in Chief of The Australian intimidating senior NSW and Victorian police in pursuit of lurid headlines:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-chief-in-clear-over-leak-as-murdoch-paper-accused-20100611-y3o6.html
News Ltd clearly need to spin the UK phone surveillance story and spin it hard – last week Media was defensive, partisan and shrill in its selective coverage of a News Corporation tabloid spying on serving military and police officers, royals and others on an industrial scale – otherwise some people might start thinking there was a global pattern of unlawful organisational behaviour at work.
Confessions:
Scott, Hurley and Windschuttle next year (around the same time as the new senate comes in).
Newman at the beginning of 2012
I was offline last week but couldn’t miss the islamophobia in the MSM surrounding the Ramadan dress code for the swimming event: When Ignorance Equals Racism.
Matthew of Canberra commented earlier on the weekend thread at #12.
That woman from Womens Weekly (Q&A) last night, reckons that the ‘euthenasia’ debate is gonna suck the time out of real debate… I’ve got news for you Ms WomensWeekly, this is a matter of life and death.
Craig Reucassel and Dr Leslie Cannold were great. Ms WomensWeekly and Pyne were abysmal. Now I know you’ll disagree Captain Col but really, you thought that Clive Palmer and Warren Truss did well the week before.. LOL
AND!!!!! I’ve had a gutful of ignorant wingnuts claiming that the boat people are undeserving, as was pointed out it seems that these ignoramuses would be happier if they died in their homelands, the fake compassion is disgusting and transparent. What is it with the right and their desire to pick on the most desperate people on the planet?
Oh yeah – Chris Bowen, I’ll check the transcript later, when asked about the Fijian who committed suicide at a detention centre yesterday… I’m sure he said something along the lines of not wanting to comment too much because he hadn’t been briefed. He went on to explain in detail that this bloke wasn’t a boat person etc etc then said that he had been briefed. Like I say I’ll wait for the transcript but Bowen, I’m watching you!! You are not much better than the opposition when it comes to keeping people in detention, how many kids are you currently depriving of their liberty?
Think Big: Thanks. Can’t come soon enough for mine.
Another good column from Rodney Tiffen about the Murdochracy:
Ray Hunt @44
As a nerd, I think there’s one aspect to that phone “hacking” scandal that should get a bit more play.
Ok, yes, they were behaving like cretins, illegally, somebody should see some stripey sunlight for an organised invasion of privacy that widespread and while the Oz angle “why now” might be an interesting question for some – another interesting question is “why not before now?”. I’ve read one opinion that the initial investigation was somewhat focused on MPs and royalty, with the police not having much stomach for widening it. Dunno.
On the other hand … if I understand the details correctly, all the bad guys were doing was using the default message bank password, which was (I believe) certain digits in the phone number. So we have MPs and royals not bothering to change (which means, effectively, “set”) a password on their message bank. Likewise for the “hacker” who “stole” sarah palin’s hotmail password – all he did was google her password reset questions.
There’s another story there, and it’s one about people becoming a heck of a lot more aware of how they’re exposed to simple security breaches. I think it’s a bigger story than what murdoch’s employees (and one bozo in the US) did with the information, but I think it’ll be lost.
One Trackback
{Spam removed — comment left in place to preserve numbering in any responses below — Tobby}