There has been a lot of discussion lately about what’s wrong with the ALP. Some say it’s the leader, others opine that policy is the problem, while right-wing bloggers and boys in suits just have a good old chuckle at the comrades and the mates. ALP hackette, Darlene, finally emerging after a post-election break before restarting the revolution (Read Darlene’s searing swipe at the Howard Government in Really Cranky, John, of which Phillip Adams would say “She cares a bit” if he had heard of it and/or her), braved a party branch meeting and discovered that Labor’s problems go all the way down to its grassroots. What follows are the minutes of that meeting (any resemblance to anyone living is purely intentional):
Nanabour Branch of the Australian Labor Party: Minutes of Meeting
Present: Michael Michaelson-Michaels (President), Margaret Morton Michaelson-Michaels (Director of Fundraising), Arthur “Comrade” Jones (Life Member), Steven Watson (Secretary) and Deb Greer.
Visitors: Mitchell Morton MP
Apologies: None
Michael: “Thanks for that forty-five minute speech about what’s wrong with the ALP today, Arthur. As President, I am sure I speak for everyone when I say it was a truly mind-altering experience.
“With Steven’s arrival forty-four minutes and fifty-nine seconds after the meeting was due to start, we now have a quorum and can get this over with. Before we do, however, I would like to remind you that candidate preselection for Nanabour is on next month. I know I will have your vote for the three long months I have given to this branch and for the work I will do for this community once I move in; after I win of course.
“Right Margaret, a nice and short fundraising report”.
Margaret: “Well, given the lack of support I have had from so-called members it couldn’t be anything else. The Branch currently has $10.50 in its savings account, with $5.50 of that coming from raffle tickets for the poster of Simon Crean. I am sure I don’t have to tell you who won that. Karen, one of our least active members, put a deposit on the dinner with Mark Latham but asked for it back when she found out she would have to pay for his taxi to and from the hotel. Now, you know I don’t ask for credit for the hard work I do, nor do I enjoy having to communicate with the likes of Julia, Wayne, Kirsten, Kate, Jenny and all the others who have become my close friends during my time as Director of Fundraising, but why none of you got behind the disco with Kevin Rudd as DJ I will never know”.
Michael: “Thanks Margaret, an upbeat report as usual.
“State Member, Mitchell Morton, has bothered to come along tonight after arriving late last month because of that car accident thing. He will, necessarily, give us a short update on what he has been doing for the constituents of Nanabour”.
Mitchell: “Thanks Michael, and I am sure we are all looking forward to the upcoming preselection.
“Well, parliament has been sitting the last couple of weeks and the controversy surrounding the Member for Kilroy, his brother and their combined business interests failed to go away as hoped. On top of some very long sitting days, I attended functions for Meals on Wheels, Rotary, the Girl Guides, the Scouts, the local Bushcare Group, the Nanabour History Society, the Masons, the Catholic League, the Baptist Social Club, the Assemblies of God and many, many others. After the car factory closed, over fifty workers come in to the electorate office looking for assistance with accommodation, jobs and just for a shoulder to cry on. Fortunately, my beautiful second wife came in to help on really busy days, which my first wife never seemed to want to do; hey Margie?”
Michael: “I think that will do. An unusually busy month for Mitchell, wouldn’t you all agree? Does anyone have any questions they would like to put to him, and Margaret let’s not be reminded of those child support and abandonment issues again this evening.
“Arthur, you have a question about a state issue for Mitchell?”
Arthur: “Well, it is more of a statement than a question”.
Michael: “That comes as a surprise to us all, Arthur”.
Arthur: “It’s about this bloody refugee thing that everyone’s been going on about. It friggin’ kills me to say this, but I think that old coot Howard is onto something. Now you buggers know how much I care about the little bloke but this is deadset bull…”
Deb: “Fascist!”
Michael: “Thanks Deb, for your considered response and for brightening up this dingy classroom with that fetching miniskirt and crop top”.
Deb: “Sexist!”
Michael: “Anyway, let’s not waste our time talking about policy and stuff, this is a Labor Party branch meeting and not a forum for discussing things.
“Steven, Secretary’s report and pronto”.
Steven: “Well, the branch got two pieces of correspondence last month. The first was from State Office warning that if we don’t get more than six members they will shut us down. The second was a returned meeting notification. Sorry Michael, I think I got your address wrong again this month”.
Michael: “Thanks Steven. Fortunately the beautiful Deb let me know about the meeting when I dropped over to her place last Friday night to, ummm, give her the latest letterbox drop”.
Margaret: “Adulterer”.
Michael: “Thanks Margaret. If nobody has got any further business, and I trust nobody has got any further business, we’ll call it a night. If this Branch still exists, I will see you next month”.
Arthur: “Great meeting tonight, mate“.
Steven: “Achieved a lot I reckon, mate“.
Arthur: “Yeh, bloody good turn out too. See ya next month, mate“.
Steven: “Yep, see ya mate“.
Darlene can be contacted at darlene@onlineopinion.com.au or go to http://darlenetaylor.blogspot.com
November 12, 2004 | Unknown
Nanabour Branch of the ALP: Three Hours of Your Life You Will Never Get Back
November 08, 2004 | Graham
Osama’s ‘Gift’ – he votes Republican
According to reports of work by John Kerry’s pollster, Stan Greenberg, Osama bin Laden’s tape helped George Bush’s re-election. Without denying that Greenberg has a vested interest in promulgating this theory, it is probably true, because that was one of bin Laden’s aims.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument from a commentator as to why bin Laden made his tape. The only one that has made any sense is that it was a pre-emptive strike to show his competitors that he was still cock of the walk, yet this is a weak argument.
bin Laden is a diminished force. If he could have launched a terror attack in the US during the presidential election, he would have. Instead all he could manage was a video taped taunt. The US is a large country. If bin Laden could not manage to even blow up a bridge it is because his network has been severely degraded. Alternatively it is fully committed in Afghanistan and Iraq, suggesting that perhaps Bush’s overseas adventures have made the US more secure, if for the perverse reasons. So the taunt showed bin Laden’s weakness, not his strength.
Not that taunts don’t have their place. Industrial age warfare was a mass produced form with assembly line, rather than personal, combat; the war against terror is small scale and up close and personal. Courtesy of the new technologies it has a lot in common with pre-industrial wars, as does the whole psyche of the Mohammedan jihadist warrior, which might lead to bin Laden adopting inappropriate models of engagement.
When pre-industrial armies met it was not uncommon for a champion to leave his own lines and parade in front of his enemy, daring them to strike – think Goliath of Gath, or Achilles. It was cost effective in terms of human life; it demoralised the enemy; and it satisfied the urge for glory. But it only ever really worked if you had a superior army. An inferior army can’t really play the gambit because they are giving nothing away. Taunting only works if you are going to win anyway because then there is an incentive for the weaker army to even the odds by risking their strongest warrior against yours so negating your advantage. bin Laden is the weaker party, so the taunt, and his failure to act on it, makes him less, not more, terrifying – that’s why the polled response to this in the US was muted. And of course, while the tactic draws on a model from ancient warfare, we are not involved in an ancient war, so has none of the other aspects, except perhaps a perverted sense of “glory”.
Like all of us bin Laden will have multiple reasons for doing what he does, many, or even most, particularly in his case, not rational at all. Some of them should be pretty obvious to a generation brought up on James Bond movies. Courtesy of the Internet and satellite TV the baddies no longer have to invest billions in electronic systems to hijack television signals – they can just drop a bit of advertorial in Al Jazeera’s post box and have them simultaneously broadcast it and put it on the web for them. But the motivation is still the same. Psycopaths like Dr No and bin Laden get off on this sort of thing.
Terrorism is the work of the untrammelled ego, and needs no excuse for displays of exhibitionism. In other circumstances bin Laden might be trench coat wearing flasher, or spend his time drinking and doing wheelies in a red Chevy corvette. With his resources, nothing like this could be exciting enough. To get the same effect as a world figure, he appears to need to lounge in gold brocade, in front of a much larger audience, threatening global Armageddon.
Of course, this is self defeating behaviour – if you keep your depravities secret you will survive undetected much longer, putting them on public display hastens your day of apprehension. But that is the point of the game. The exhibitionist actually wants to be caught. They don’t do what they do because they want to be loved but because they want to be humiliated. It’s not us that they hate the most, it is themselves.
That is probably true of the taunter as well. Again, think Goliath of Gath, or Achilles. The “hero” has always been conscious of his own mortality and disdained a long life. Warrior culture is ultimately self-destructive. The life of the warrior therefore has a symbiotic relationship with his own death. There can be no glory without risk.
Let’s look at that another way. Without George Bush, what would Osama be? Maybe he wasn’t doing it self-consciously, but he should have known that his video would have enhanced Bush’s chances of re-election, because the same dynamic in the opposite direction – the American “interference” in his world – ensures his support and a steady stream of recruits.
In a way bin Laden needed the more belligerent of the two candidates to win. Even though Bush’s belligerence may eventually succeed in killing him, that effectiveness actually increases bin Laden’s power in the short-term.
Which is not an argument in favour of voting for Kerry or leaving bin Laden alone. “Asymmetric warfare” is the modern jargon for terrorist warfare, but warfare with a psychotic is always assymmetric because whichever way you go, they win. If you leave them alone, they won’t leave you alone, and if you attack them, they will attack you back. In this case, even when you win, they win, because martyrdom is one of the prizes they want.
It’s a basic truth that most of the so-called “expert” commentary on the War in Iraq, and the US election, seems to have missed, just as it’s missed the nature of bin Laden and Bush’s symbiotic relationship. The war in Iraq appears to be a win-win for both, as does the 2004 Presidential election.
November 07, 2004 | Unknown
Napoleon Dynamite: Where the Uncool Rule the School
Cinema seems overly interested in geeks.
This fascination appears to have been driven by a desire to confirm how adept everyone else in comparison.
While occasionally eliciting sympathy, nerds have allowed us feel relieved we don’t wear plaid, excel at science or have a name like Eugene.
Fortunately for those who have only been represented as a head in a toilet bowl or a face about to be hit by a jock’s fist, losers emerge from the shadows of the school dance in Napoleon Dynamite, a new movie where even the cool kids are uncool.
The film’s eponymous drip resides in a small town in America in which fashion and sensibilities have remained in 1982, even though Napoleon’s brother Kip’s addiction to chat rooms reveals it is set in the present.
The desire to be in the past, while using today’s technology, is witnessed in the time machine scene, wherein Napoleon doubtfully tries out one that has been acquired over the Internet.
Alas for him, it probably is just a car battery with labels on it and his manhood gets burnt, which, if you want to read too much into it, could be a metaphor for the deeply wounded, not to mention totally weird, masculinity that is on show.
Napoleon has bedwetting and anger issues, halting speech patterns (“You made me look like an (pause) idiot“), oversized square glasses, only a few skills including drawing ligers which are his favourite animal, no parents and a nostalgic and creepy uncle who comes to take care of him and 32-year-old Kip after their grandmother has a mishap on a dune buggy.
Even if Napoleon is so maladjusted he could be diagnosed with several syndromes, he is a member of the sign language club, manages to feed his nanna’s llama and helps his best friend, Pedro, run for class president.
Like countless teen flicks, the position of president is used to make the audience take sides and to identify which group will ultimately prevail in the battle between hip and geek.
Does Pedro, who wears a bad wig after shaving his head following a bout of head sweating win, or does perky, blonde Summer, who is played by Hilary Duff’s sister, Hayley, succeed?
As a self-identified social misfit, I was content with the result (first election outcome I’ve been happy with for a bit).
Although the lead actor, Jon Heder, appears to be trying too hard to be too not with it at times, mostly the comedy works in a broad, South Park way.
Napoleon asking for one of Summer’s campaign badges before tossing it and then running away like Jerry Lewis on acid was particularly popular with last night’s Dendy crowd.
Make sure you stay seated until the very end or you will miss Kip’s marriage and his serenade to his wife which consists of such sentiments as “I love technology” and “met in a chat room”.
With the popularity of the internet and blogging being examples of the rise of the geek (hey, we’ve all seen pictures of Stephen Mayne and Tim Blair), there should a ready and large audience for a goofy but funny film like Napoleon Dynamite.
Four out of five from me, David.
Darlene can be contacted at darlene@onlineopinion.com.au or go to http://darlenetaylor.blogspot.com
November 05, 2004 | Graham
Dubya stole this election too
Silly me. I assumed that there could be no way that Bush’s result in this election could be challenged, but there is. In the Florida election 2000 it was the voting machines with their hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads. This year it is the computerised voting machines without their hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads! Just read this piece by Greg Palast.
Blogger Danny Schecter was defending the role of bloggers in the US elections this morning on Peter Thompson’s ABC breakfast programme. Bloggers were being criticised for calling the election early for Kerry. This was done on the basis of exit polls. I have sympathy for them. I more or less did the same thing on the basis of reports of the exit polls on ABC radio, but only in a couple of telephone conversations. It appears that the exit polls were wrong. But were they?
The Blogosphere has a different view, or at least some parts of it. Following the trail left by Schecter and Palast leads to this post on the Daily Kos. According to this theory, the exit polls got it right, and it was the voting machines that got it wrong, thus the role of the blogger as all knowing, all prescient, and 24 hours ahead of everyone else’s deadline with the truth, is justified, vindicated and upheld.
The evidence is that the exit polls were apparently right in the non-contentious states, but wrong in at least two key battlefield states – Ohio and Florida. The blogger explanation as to why this might be so is that obviously the voting machines had to have been tampered with. In these machines in the US, once you commit your voting choice to electrons, there is no auditable paper trail of what you did. (I have no idea whether there is a computer log that serves the same purpose.)
I haven’t viewed the polling evidence because the link to it is dead on the Kos, but the proposition is arguable, which is a pity, because it is just the sort of thesis that Michael Moore could base another movie around, and I’m not sure I could stand that. There have been problems with US computerised voting machines, including scrappy code and compromimsed security. In addition, some of the manufacturers of these machines have Republican Party links. I’d want to know a lot more about the machines used before getting too excited one way or the other.
Pity that the US doesn’t take a look over here. I’m reliably told by Tom Worthington that the system invented at ANU to conduct the ACT elections doesn’t have any of the problems of the US systems, being open-source and producing its own internal audit trail.
Another Australian, Craig Burton, has voting software which he contracts out to clients that include the British Labour Party who have used him to conduct their internal ballots.
Will the bloggers prevail in this argument? I’m not sure. An alternative way of looking at the whole issue is that, having been wrong about the exit polls, bloggers are now casting about for a plausible alibi to explain their own failings away, making them just as venal, wrong-headed and self-interested as some of the media that they have made a name for criticising. They could just be compounding the original exit poll error.
November 04, 2004 | Unknown
Bridget Beats Bush
S’pose I should say something about the election in the United States.
I suppose I should, but I’m not going to.
If I had spent last night watching news and current affairs, and, heaven forbid, reading broadsheets I probably would opine away, as will surely be the style on blogs today.
However, in anticipation of the forthcoming release of Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, I thought watching the first instalment of Ms Jones’s life would be more rewarding than trying to figure out the American electoral system.
I banished any doubts about my choice (“It’s, like, sort of, like, important to know about voting”) with the acknowledgment that when in competition with George Bush and John Kerry, Hugh Grant and Colin Firth win every time.
At any rate, although Bridget Jones’s Diary is fiction, its comedic take on the semi-disaster that is its protagonist’s existence rings truer than any political spin.
It’s easier to accept that a thirty-two year old “singleton” would find herself getting asked tactless questions about her love-life, as well as debating whether to wear little knickers or big figure flattening ones, than it is to believe John Howard can do much about interest rates.
For those wanting honesty in politics, Bridget is your gal.
Although she outdoes most of us by getting her heart broken by the dishy Grant, that feeling we all get when we’ve made a fool of ourselves is etched on her face as she walks home in a bunny costume after discovering a beautiful woman in her beau’s apartment.
“I thought you said she was thin”, said woman says to Grant, or more correctly his character Daniel Cleaver, and females worldwide simultaneously stuff themselves with chocolate and mutter darkly, while still managing to find Cleaver a spunk in a “what a bastard” way.
Given Diary’s mostly interested in Bridget’s romantic travails, her associations with women get scant attention, or are represented as negative and only existing because of a connection with a male.
As much I’d like to present a feminist theory of why it isn’t the case, everyone knows having a relationship with a woman who is having a relationship with someone you’re having a relationship with is no picnic at Taronga Zoo.
I understand Bridget shares a Sapphic smooch in The Edge of Reason, thus making it more likely to get the nod as a date movie with a fellow you fancy (without wanting to sound like The Rules – make sure he does the asking), and more real to most modern women than someone who is 100% straight.
Forming the female part of Bridget’s “urban family”, as opposed to her flaky mum and dad, are an investment banker who cries heaps and a journalist who swears more than Mark Latham probably did on October 10.
Rather than offer sound advice, these women, along with a requisite gay male, support Bridget’s folly, which is what friends who don’t watch Dr Phil are supposed to do.
“Your whole future happiness now depends on how you behave on this one social occasion”, slurs one of them over too many drinks.
In the extras that come with the DVD, Renée Zellweger, who plays the eponymous heroine, remarks that “She’s an everywoman”; a status which makes her more fun, and easier to relate to, than boys in suits who want to rule the world.
Bush may have won the election, but it’s Bridget who triumphs in my world.
***Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason starts in Brisbane on November 11. If you’re lucky enough to live somewhere exciting, check your local newspaper.
Darlene can be contacted at darlene@onlineopinion.com.au or go to http://darlenetaylor.blogspot.com
November 04, 2004 | Graham
George Bush to The Guardian – thanks guys
No-one else appears to have commented on this, but it could just be possible that George Bush owes his win to The Guardian. They launched a campaign called “Operation Clark County” to help their readers to have a say in the US elections. The paper provided its readers with names and addresses of residents of Clark County and urged them to write them a letter suggesting they vote for Kerry.
The headline “Dear Limey assholes”, which The Guardian put on their page carrying the feedback they received from US voters, points out more eloquently than I could what a stupid idea this was!
Ohio is the state that is likely to deliver the deciding electoral college votes for Bush. Despite the loss of around 230,000 jobs in Ohio over Bush’s Presidency and the fact that the Democrats were counting on winning it, Bush actually increased his percentage of the vote. It’s safe to say that even if The Guardian’s readers weren’t decisive they were certainly influential, not just in Ohio, but in the country.
As Christopher Hitchens remarked on Radio National this morning, one reason Kerry lost is because he appeared to be talking down to people. If you’re going to talk down to people, much more effective to get foreigners to do it for you!