The world of politics, policy and public life

Guest post: Cake, phallocentric narratives and deconstructing the Thomson Affair

May 13, 2012 – 10:47 am, by Bernard Keane
   

I invited a former colleague, Dr Biff Bondarchuk, to offer a comment on the Craig Thomson affair. His thoughts:

To begin, we need not detain ourselves on the self-evidently circular nature of the Feignstream Media’s (FSM’s) campaigning on the Thomson issue; capitalism is innately self-reinforcing, based on convincing consumers to purchase goods which create problems requiring further purchases of other goods. Let us merely note that in this case, while relying heavily on the promotion of sex as a core marketing tool, the FSM judges harshly those perceived to have reacted too positively to that promotion, via purportedly transgressive, non-nuclear family forms. Just so.

Nor should we delay our thinking on the fundamental absurdity of a union official “misusing” union funds. I speak not in the obvious neo-liberal economic sense that the transfer of savings from a wealthy organisation such as a trade union to socially, politically and economically marginalised sectors such as sex workers is an economic and ethical positive, but in the (perhaps equally obvious) sense that, as tools of the innately reactionary social democratic project of manufacturing working class consent to an exploitative economic system, trade unions cannot by their very nature be “defrauded”, being fundamentally a fraud on the working class themselves.

This produces the serio-comic, wholly theatrical drama of purported “Fair Work Australia” (as if the basic concept of work was not inherently exploitative) producing a dense urtext purporting to pass judgment on a vehicle the very purpose of which is, like that of the alleged “Fair Work Australia” (so-called) to distract, misdirect and confuse the working class, rather in the manner of a pantomime judge passing sentence on a pantomime miscreant, circulating upon circularity reinforcing itself, for the entertainment of a child-like audience (“children in years, and children in understanding”, as Reformation apologists carefully distinguished).

(Readers may be aware, parenthetically and tangentially, of my previous writing on why circular, self-reinforcing logic is, far from being the logical dead-end portrayed by reactionary epistemologists, the only systemically valid form of “truth”, an otherwise fundamentally reactionary, oppressive concept designed to serve ruling élites (see, most recently, “‘That’s Not A Fundamentally Reactionary Construct. Now This Is A Fundamentally Reactionary Construct’ – Hoges and Strop Meet The Taxman: Deconstructing Media Coverage of Project Wickenby” in Ebonics Today, LXVII, 2011). I have been criticised (most notably by Frenzalrhomb, Schnellfenster 2004) for arbitrarily favouring vaginocentric epistemological forms over phallocentric narratives, in which circularity is preferred over the innately phallic “linear” logical form; this is not the place to re-prosecute that debate, save to note that Craig Thomson himself, a man accused of another form of phallocentrism, in presenting a sort of “evil twin” or “doppelganger” defence in which an unnamed party is conducting a vendetta against him, appears to have opted for a third form of narrative, that of the binary or Shadow).

Nor should we accept complaints based on artificially privileging the concept of “policy” in public discourse over “personalities”. The complaint that the FSM, and various tools of it such as the so-called “Press Gallery” (the word gallery of course being loaded with élitist constructs) have wrongly emphasised simplistic narratives about errant individuals over “important” narratives relating to public policy, both misses the point that the purpose of the FSM is to support incumbent élites and that nebulous references to “policy” are themselves élitist constructs primarily designed to privilege the user in relation to discourse; that is, to complain about “personality over politics” is to merely attempt to elevate oneself (perhaps to another, higher form of “gallery?) above standard discourse.

Just so. None of these things should detain us from examining the real issue beneath the Thomson affair which, of course, is that there is no “real issue”. Drill down, deconstruct and unpack the affair as much as one wishes, it will be the narrative equivalent of slicing through multiple layers of icing in pursuit of a non-existent cake (if the employment of a fundamentally misogynist construct such as “cake” can be forgiven). The attempt to find meaning in such events is yet another attempt to impose a reactionary linear narrative, an obsessively logic-centric fool’s errand wittingly or otherwise in the service of ruling élites.

This is, ultimately, the slippery slope to genocide. One begins by seeking “meaning” in events, then imposing such meaning on recalcitrant realities, an inherently violent act that establishes the precedent for oppressing not merely other forms of truth, but ultimately other people. As Heine might have said, and indeed possibly did say since I don’t wish to impose my own constructs on him, where one oppresses falsehood, one eventually oppresses people. This is the lesson of the Thomson “A”ffair.

Dr Biff Bondarchuk is Associate Professor at the School of Traditional and Modern Cultural Studies at the University of Western Sydney and author of Looking for Delta: The Semiotics of Celebrity in Post-Convergence Australia

Comments (8) | Permalink

The culture wars take a new turn as Catholic bishops investigate the girl scouts

May 12, 2012 – 11:05 am, by Richard Farmer
   

From NPR:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent an “official inquiry” to the Girl Scouts of the USA. NPR’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty reports the bishops will investigate whether the iconic group has ties or views that conflict with Catholic teaching.

Barbara filed this report for our Newscast unit:

“The new inquiry will be conducted by the Bishop’s committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. It will look into whether the Girl Scouts have “possible problematic relationships with other organizations” and problematic program materials. Conservative groups accused the Girl Scouts of associating with Planned Parenthood, which they deny, and giving girls access to information about sex and sexuality. The group says it takes no position on sexuality, birth control and abortion.”

… The Associated Press, which first reported on the letter, spoke to Michelle Tompkins, the Girl Scouts’ spokeswoman.

“I know we’re a big part of the culture wars,” Tompkins said. “People use our good name to advance their own agenda. For us, there’s an overarching sadness to it We’re just trying to further girls’ leadership.”

Comments (1) | Permalink

A child’s guide to that JP Morgan $2 billion loss

May 12, 2012 – 10:42 am, by Richard Farmer
   

Confused like I am at how one of the world’s biggest banks can lose $2 billion betting on some kind of financial market? Well there’s a guide written in simple English that has helped me, kind of, understand what it’s all about. You will find JP Morgan’s Loss: The Explainer here.

Comments (1) | Permalink

Jovial Joe makes the joke last longer

May 11, 2012 – 10:01 pm, by Richard Farmer
   

Joe Hockey certainly knows how to keep what should be a non-story in the headlines.

Or perhaps he’s not really so stupid. Afterall, there really was nothing for him to say about his leader Tony Abbott’s speech in reply to the budget.

 

 

Comments (1) | Permalink

A sad but entertaining sideshow

May 11, 2012 – 8:17 pm, by Richard Farmer
   

In the overall political scheme of things it matters not an iota that Peter Costello and Michael Kroger have fallen out in such spectacular fashion. Two of yesterday’s men arguing “you said” and ” no I didn’t” just don’t count any more.

Totally irrelevant to what is happening now but great entertainment none-the-less. Giggle along as you watch Kroger drop his bucket.

A great show but a strangely sad one too.

Comments (0) | Permalink

Good news for Wayne on the world economy

May 10, 2012 – 9:48 pm, by Richard Farmer
   

Perhaps I have got too gloomy about what is happening in Europe and not paying enough attention to economic conditions elsewhere. Certainly the latest composite leading indicators from the OECD suggest that the rest of the world is getting better.

Comments (2) | Permalink

Game over for the climate

May 10, 2012 – 6:16 pm, by Richard Farmer
   

James Hansen writes Game Over for the Climate – NYTimes.com:

“GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”

If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

Comments (3) | Permalink

No pardon for Breaker Morant

May 9, 2012 – 6:49 pm, by Bernard Keane
   

A push to obtain a pardon for Breaker Morant, the Anglo-Australian war criminal executed during the Boer War, has foundered after Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, on advice from her department, declined to pursue the issue.

Morant, who was serving in a South Australian unit under British command, was court-martialled and convicted in 1902 for the murder of Boer prisoners and a Dutch civilian, allegedly as a reprisal for guerilla attacks in what had become a bloody and vicious conflict in South Africa. Morant and his co-defendants partly relied on the defence that they were following orders, a defence later rejected at Nuremberg.

Morant has since become a storied figure in Australian history, particularly after Kit Denton’s 1973 novel The Breaker and Bruce Beresford’s 1980 film, based on Kenneth Ross’s play.

A push by James Unkles for the reconsideration of Morant’s case, along with that of Peter Handcock (also executed) and George Witton (who was gaoled), and a pardon by the British government has been underway for some time – the Australian government having no jurisdiction in British military trials. The British government rejected any reconsideration of the case in 2010.

Roxon today advised Unkles that the government would not be pursuing the issue further with the British, on the basis that there was no doubt that the three men had committed the killings for which they were convicted. The Australian government’s position is that pardons are only appropriate where an offender is both”morally and technically innocent” of the offence. Roxon also noted the seriousness of the offences involved, explaining to Unkles that “I consider that seeking a pardon for these men could be rightly perceived as ‘glossing over’ very grave criminal acts.”

Comments (4) | Permalink

The line took a long time to cross

May 8, 2012 – 12:22 pm, by Richard Farmer
   

As the police investigations and court cases featuring Craig Thomson slowly bubble along towards the next election I expect that in the Liberal Party bunker they are leisurely choosing which of the statements of Julia Gillard to feature in their television advertisements. There are plenty to choose from as this selection from the House of Representatives Hansard shows.

16 August 2012

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (15:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement that she retains complete confidence in the member for Dobell but that she had not undertaken a thorough investigation into the allegations surrounding that member. Has she now conducted an investigation of her own into the allegations surrounding the member for Dobell and is she satisfied that her confidence in the member for Dobell is warranted?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:27): I thank the member for the question. It gives me the opportunity to say I have complete confidence in the member for Dobell. I think he is doing a fine job representing the people of his constituency in this place and raising their concerns in this parliament, as is appropriate for a local member. I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long, long time to come.

17 August 2011

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:35): My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister expressed unreserved confidence in the member for Dobell yesterday, was she aware that he had failed to add a $90,000 gift from the New South Wales Labor Party to his register of member’s interests?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:36): In answer to the member’s question can I say that I am advised by the member for Dobell that media reporting on the matter he raises is incorrect, and his statement of interests was updated in the interest of full disclosure.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:36): On a supplementary question, Mr Speaker: is the Prime Minister aware that the member for Dobell has also failed to register his role as the registered public officer of the Coastal Voice community group? Given the member for Dobell’s failure until yesterday to disclose his gift from the ALP and his still undisclosed role as head of the controversial Coastal Voice community group, does the Prime Minister still have confidence in the member for Dobell?

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Prime Minister has the call.

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:37): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I have complete confidence in the member for Dobell. Of course, there is an obligation on all members of the parliament to abide by the rules in relation to declarations of interest. As the member who asked the question would well know, there is more than one member in this parliament that has declared things late. Of course, people should abide by the rules.

18 August 2011

Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (14:38): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her expressions of complete confidence in the member for Dobell. Has the Prime Minister made inquiries to satisfy herself that she has been provided with all of the information by the member for Dobell in relation to the monetary amount of the gift that he received from the New South Wales Labor Party?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:37): In response to the member’s question, yes, of course I have had a conversation with the member for Dobell. As I expressed in the parliament yesterday I have full confidence in him. I will happily repeat that today: I have full confidence in the member for Dobell.

A declaration was made that is there and transparent. Yes, it is true that it was made late and, as I commented yesterday in this parliament and am happy to comment again, it is not the first late declaration that has ever been made in this parliament—but people should abide by the rules.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (14:38): Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. When was the Prime Minister or her office first consulted about the proposal by the New South Wales Labor Party to make a monetary gift to the member for Dobell?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:38): Of course, there are assumptions drafted into that question, but I will put those to one side. It is not my intention in this parliament to comment on private discussions I had with the member for Dobell.

Mr Abbott interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! If the Leader of the Opposition does not want question time we can just go on to something else.

24 August 2011

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): In light of the member for Dobell’s resignation as chairman of the House Standing Committee on Economics due to a New South Wales police investigation I ask the Prime Minister: does the member still have her complete confidence?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:03): In answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question, I have made many statements about that in this House. I stand by every one of them but what I am not going to stand for is the Leader of the Opposition in his question verballing and his presumptions about the motivations of the member for Dobell in determining to resign from the chairpersonship of a committee. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the statement he made, which was about the best workings of that committee.

14 September 2011

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the Prime Minister’s answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s question and her answer yesterday, does she stand by her statements she has made in the last few weeks that she has full confidence in the member for Dobell?

The SPEAKER: If I were going by my thoughts on this I would be ruling this question out of order, but given that this arises from previous questions—and only on that basis—I will allow the question.

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:17): I believe the member for Sturt’s question is grossly inappropriate because it is doing what I do not think should be done in this place about any member of parliament and what I will specifically decline to do about members of parliament who face some sort of inquiry and that is to make a decision in advance of that inquiry about what the facts may be. If I were the sort of person who did that then I could start doing that about a senator from the Liberal Party. I do not believe that would be appropriate. Indeed, I believe that would be quite wrong.

Let us be very transparent about what has been done today. Mr Speaker, on another occasion you may choose to reflect on these questions. The opposition has put a values proposition about something in general and then has basically sought to assert that a member is in breach of that values proposition with no facts or evidence before them. If we are going to start that, I do genuinely fear where it will end. The appropriate conduct for members of parliament if matters are being investigated by appropriate authorities is to await the outcome of those investigations.

22 September 2011

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement regarding the member for Dobell in this House on August 16:

I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long, long time to come.

Does the Prime Minister stand by that statement?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:08): I stand by that statement and any other past statement in relation to the member for Dobell.

7 February 2012

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Fair Work inquiry into the Health Services Union, which is now in its fourth year—longer than the Watergate inquiry, longer than the Korean War, longer than it took to build Sydney’s Olympic Stadium and longer even than the duration of the Rudd government—leading some to believe that there is an institutional go-slow to protect the government. As the government relies on the member for Dobell in order to stay in office, can the Prime Minister confirm that she still has full confidence in the member for Dobell?

Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 100 provides very clearly for no argument in a question. That question was clearly out of order and should be ruled out of order.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt is not helping the chair. If he does not want to be candidate No. 1 for the sin-bin, he will be a little quieter. There is no doubt that that question was skating very close to the line; however, I rule it in order and I call upon the Prime Minister.

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:21): The answer to the member’s question is yes. I would also make the observation to the member that sometimes the opposition wants to criticise the government because it says it has interfered in the Fair Work Australia investigation—obviously that allegation is untrue, but sometimes the opposition decides to criticise on that basis—and then today they walk into this parliament and say, ‘Get right in there and interfere and hurry Fair Work Australia up.’

You cannot have it both ways. Independent is independent, and Fair Work Australia is independent. The real motivation behind this question I think is clear for all to see: the Liberal Party, the National Party and the current Leader of the Opposition have always hated the industrial umpire because they have always hated fairness for working people—and it is more of the same.

9 February 2012

Ms LEY (Farrer) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Fair Work Australia investigation into the member for Dobell. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the member for Dobell did not have any discussion about the investigation with either herself or her office?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:41): Heavens above! It has really come to this—nothing to say about the economy, no commitment to a surplus. When the member walked to the dispatch box, I thought she might be asking a question about child care, which would have enabled me to inform the House that there is more childcare support for working families than ever before. But, no, of course the muckraking continues because this is an opposition with—

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the substance of the question.

Ms GILLARD: I will, Mr Speaker. But this is an opposition with no plans for the economy, no plans for working families, no plans for a surplus—and it is written all over their tactics.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will become directly relevant.

Ms GILLARD: On the question, I have made it perfectly clear that these matters are for the independent umpire, Fair Work Australia. I know the opposition has no regard for the independence of Fair Work Australia or the police—

Mr Pyne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Prime Minister is not being directly relevant. The Prime Minister was not asked a question about Fair Work Australia; she was asked a question about the relationships and discussions that have taken place between herself and her office and the member for Dobell—a matter she can directly answer.

The SPEAKER: I invite the Prime Minister to address the substance of the question.

Ms GILLARD: I say again that this matter is being investigated by Fair Work—

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in complete silence and anyone who interrupts the Prime Minister during the answer to this important question will join the member for Longman—and that refers to people on both sides of the chamber.

Ms GILLARD: The matter is being investigated by Fair Work Australia, an independent body. That is proper. It should reach its own conclusions in the way it best sees fit and the opposition should stop this campaign of trying to stand over the independent umpire, just as we saw them try to stand over the police last year.

Comments (8) | Permalink

A cuckoo voyage

May 5, 2012 – 6:04 pm, by Richard Farmer
   

Perhaps one of these things should have been attached to Peter Slipper.

From the BBC:

Tracking devices fitted to five cuckoos have revealed the remarkable annual journey of a bird that heralds the arrival of the UK’s spring.

The male birds were fitted with the satellite tags last May by scientists from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO).

Two cuckoos, Lyster and Chris arrived back in the UK this week – the first to have their African migration mapped.

After a 10,000 mile trip, Lyster was seen 10 miles from where he was tagged.

 

Comments (2) | Permalink