Monday, October 25, 2010

Taming of the Shoe

Who throws a shoe? I mean really. You've got the old man sitting there, he's on a show called 'Q and A' which means if you ask him a question he has to answer it. You could have asked him anything you want. You could've stayed up the night before and concocted a question so pointed, so insightfully lancing, that the boil on the arse of society that is this old man would have burst live on national television. There would have been applause in the yawning gap between the end of your verbal bullet and the stammery spluttering answer of a man defeated by the weight of your profound inquiry.

Instead you threw a shoe.

You didn't even throw it well.

And to ask the prompt return of your shoes following their rather loopy expedition across the room in the general direction of John Winston Howard just smacks of lameness. It was kind of sad, like you just realised "I needed those shoes, I really did."

I'm sure people will talk about whether such acts are an effective protest, maybe they are sometimes. Certainly when an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at then US President George W. Bush (a far better exhibition of shoe throwing in my opinion), he captured the growing frustration of a great deal of people with the war, the death and the injustice of it all. It was part of a greater debate about the war, it was at an extreme sure, but it was not isolated.

Throwing shoes at Howard however, three years out of power while he's attempting to protect his legacy on the ABC, does not achieve anything in my mind. In fact, I think Howard would find such an act far easier to deal with than a well-worded question addressing the many, many issues of the Iraq war. The nature of the act allowed Howard to dismiss it, and the reasons for it. It put the audience on his side and the protestor was roundly booed by other members of the audience, including fellow Howard detractors. What we're all reading today is 'man throws shoes at Howard', not 'David Hicks questions Howard on Guantanamo' or 'Howard defends actions in middle east'. Those are better things to be talking about than the merits of throwing footwear at former leaders.

Hell, I've seen more commentary on the quality of this guy's shoe-throwing ability than I have anything on the Howard book's defence of the war. The protestor said he wanted international attention to make his point known. He'd failed before the first shoe dropped.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Pulling Your Legacy

I think it can generally be acknowledged that arguments between individuals, conducted after a particular incident or period, as to who was right and who was wrong during said incident or period are boring. The fact that I mentally switched off halfway through that sentence is testament to the boringness of such situations. No one likes the sound of people bitching at each other over things that are past and unchangeable. Its pointlessness is amplified by how inevitable it is, particularly when the result of the incident/period is ambiguous and the high ground on the subject is therefore up for grabs.

When these arguments take place between retired politicians, usually former leaders, a new level of boredom is achieved as the nobody-cares pissing contest spills into the media and fouls the pages of already foul rags. Again, like so many things in politics, all sides are at fault and have recent examples.

Six or so months ago it was Hawke and Keating going at it. Not so subtle jibes were directed at each other's supposed mental states during the period in question, both desperately jockeying for credit from the successes and eagerly dolling out blame for the cock-ups. The jibes all had notes of warning in them, two people who obviously know many secrets about each other, threatening to reveal all in hardcover for $49.95. A book started the argument, and no doubt a future book will continue it.

Now it's Howard and Costello's turn to wop them out and cross swords, fighting over a legacy no one but the sad and loserish will take note of. The whole idea of building a legacy post government is childish and inherently egotistical. It conjures the image old men, sitting together at a retirement home for the politically insane, routinely soiling themselves while trading barbs about each other's fiscal discipline. Why this has to happen in the media is beyond me.

There is also the obligatory controversial crack at someone who was not expecting it. A cheap-ass blindside of someone everyone presumed you liked to add a bit of spice to book sales. I'm not particularly offended that Howard has claimed that Jeff Kennett was secretly a union-loving, commie-sympathising jar of wet-ones, but why has this been brought up other than to start a fight that produces free media for Johnny's book? Well for starters it's bullshit, so who cares? Controversy sells, so make some.

In ten years' time it will be Rudd and Gillard going at it, each blaming the other for Peter Garrett and who almost let Tony Abbott become Prime Minister. The only winners are Harper Collins and Random House.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Once Upon a Gaffe

Once in a while, the façade of modern political theatre comes crashing down in such a fashion that everyone just stares at each other awkwardly, waiting for the moment to pass. Of course, then there's the laughter, usually from the side who has just had something of unimaginable idiocy gifted to them by the other side.

Joe Hockey got up this morning and decided he was going to make a call for the Parliament to legislate a control on interest rates. How that would happen is unclear, the point is he said it, and it's presumably Coalition policy.

Meanwhile Don Randall got up this morning and decided that he was going to do a Parliament doorstop interview. This is where MPs 'accidentally' bump into the press on their way into Parliament via a particular door. A door that always has press outside of it, because of all the MPs they keep bumping into. Anyway, after calling into question the sexuality of the national broadcaster, Mr Randall took a question about the proposed policy of controlling interest rates. A very astute reporter asked the question without mentioning that it came from Joe Hockey, and promptly received reward in the form of a horrendous brain-fart from old Donny.

Randall thought the idea was shit, and he said so. In fact he said it was one of 'their lunatic fringe-type ideas'. Their ideas? Who's they, who's he talking about? The Australian Greens he says. Oh dear.

You have just put your foot in your mouth, and then shot yourself in the same foot, therefore killing you.

Randall just assumed that what he perceived as a ridiculous idea could only have come from the Greens, and jumped in with both feet. No doubt Gillard, Swan and Co. must have been splitting their sides. Joe Hockey must be furious, not only has he been bagged by one of his own, he's been compared to the Greens, surely the gravest of insults you could level at a conservative, wet or not.

Randall has since tried to cover-up his cock-up by promptly talking out of his arse. He has claimed he was speaking of something else. Something the Greens were doing, but something that had absolutely nothing to do with the question he was asked. An obviously horse shit back pedal brought upon by extreme internal-party rib-poking.

All this woeful episode reveals is the utter meaninglessness of most political attacks. It doesn't matter what the idea is, as the names and parties are interchangeable in any attack depending on who's in government and who's in opposition. A lunatic idea in government is a fantastic idea in opposition. Why is this the case? Because when it comes to these sort of arguments the only message you have to get across 'us good, them bad'. You either accept something or dismiss it, based completely on where it came from.

Fuck the facts, who said it?

Don Randall certainly wishes he had said nothing at all.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Getting Burnt in a Water Fight

Water is the current hot button issue in Australian politics. It doesn't have the moral outrage vs. moral panic of the asylum seeker issue, it doesn't have the national security implications of the Afghanistan, but what it does have is a bunch of sweary farmers going ape shit and burning government reports at public meetings. I suppose that's entertaining, but it's mainly because the people on the government side of things have absolutely no idea how to deal with the insane levels of feralness the people to whom they are attempting to explain themselves are exhibiting. They sort of just shuffle their feet, claim to agree with the crowd and get the fuck out of there.

I suppose that's what I would do as well. I mean saying "We're taking this as a guide and will take all factors into consideration" does not really compete with "Fuck you, we will burn you and your treasonous report. You killed my farm, prepare to die." I know that they're angry because they think their communities are going to die, and that's a legitimate fear to have, but I think that they went from normal citizen to report burning-effigy making-farm warrior rather quickly. From what I gather, it happened within hours of the report's release. How can a reasonable debate occur when public meetings involve an over-flowing swear jar and the smoudering remains of the issue at hand? How is anyone going to learn anything?

As the government types mumbled unconvincingly, the report is a guide. It's not policy, and it was commissioned to find out what would be required to save the river system. Interestingly, what was lost in all the smoke and noise was that a significant percentage of the cuts that are recommended in the report have already been made. In some cases, they're more than halfway through the process. Maybe the government didn't explain this properly, or maybe no one could hear them above the F-ing Cs and the crackle of the report fire, whatever.

In any case I think everyone should agree to just take a deep breath and read the report before people go burning something they themselves just recently photocopied. Do you really have to burn it? Read it, at least, make sure that no one else wants to read it, and then, if you're still angry, go to an area that contains no other flammable material, make sure you have a fire extinguisher on hand, and burn the report to your heart's content in the privacy of your own home.

The fact of the matter is that the irrigation party has been over for some time, and the cuts will have to continue until we hit a sustainable level. Going all pyro and screaming like an akubra wearing banshee, unless it's some sort of rain dance, is not going to help anyone.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Ultimate Warringah

Everything has returned to normal; Australia is demolishing third world nations at a sporting event only we care about, the Victorian Police are sending each other racist emails and the Australian political media has been sidetracked for a week by an ultimately bullshit story.

The Gillard-baited-Abbott-Afghanistan-jetlag-Defence-refuses-action-man-embedding 'scandal' is a classic case of a nothing story taking up a week of our time because…well because everything else that's going on is boring. And the end result was Abbott grabbing an assault rifle and screaming "FOR WARRINGAH, AYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY", so yeah, job done.

In any case it's a petty, meaningless argument in which it does not matter who is wrong and who is right, it's just something to talk about for a while. Gillard was cheeky in saying she invited Abbott to Afghanistan, Abbott was stupid for saying he didn't want to be jetlagged, Gillard went for the cheap point about caring for troops blah blah, someone was self righteous about safety, Abbott goes all action-man, Defence says 'No Mr. Abbott, you can not lead a patrol in the dead of night with the help of a plucky Afghan child and take down the evil Soviet General keeping a proud people imprisoned in a communist hell hole'. You know, the standard back and forth bullshit.

When this story finally dies and something else takes over, it will take less than a week for it to be completely forgotten. It will not even rate a mention in the inevitable moody 7.30 Report political montage at the end of the year. Seriously, sometimes I struggle to be interested in this shit. How do journalists do it?

Really, I want to know. It must be soul destroying, because everyone knows it’s just a game. The result is a complete forgone conclusion. No wonder people just flip the paper over to the back page.

And yes I realise the hypocrisy of bitching about journalists writing about this at the same time as writing about it myself, but in other news: Fuck you.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Grow a Pair

The 'bat and ball' politics of the Opposition in the first week of parliament has had the affect of exposing the public to terms they usually never hear. To most people, the phrase 'pairing arrangements' is more likely to refer to who Kate Richie and Ray Meagre are Morris dancing with on Dancing With the Stars, or the subtleties of a Danoz steak knife collection they're thinking of slamming on the plastic, rather than the current voting situation in the Federal Parliament. It's not that public education on such matters is bad, it's just that the media and public's insistence on having such things explained in one sentence, leads to a rather simplistic education to say the least.

So, if you'd like a single sentence on this issue, here it is: Refusing to honour the traditional pairing arrangements is the most pissy act of fucktitude Abbott has ever pulled out of his 'How to be a Complete Cowardly Bastard' handbook.

Now, I'm not saying that this hasn't happened before, or that it is beyond the lowest act of any other political party, but let's face it: this is Abbott taking his bat and ball, going home, and crying into the groin of his favourite John Howard stuffed toy. It will not achieve anything other than slightly annoying the people who defeated him. He came so close, but he couldn't get over the line, "So fuck your stupid jerky parliament club for jerks, I didn't want to be PM anyway because you're all unfair poo poos, I'm gonna go write for Quadrant, then you'll see"

All this will do is slow everything down. MPs will give fewer speeches, attend less public events and spend less time on Ministerial business. The Opposition has already won one division. Was it through successfully wooing the independents? No. Was it able to convince a Government backbencher to switch sides? No. Tanya Plibersek was absent because she is less than two weeks away from having a baby and the Opposition refused to give her a pair. If you ever wondered just how committed Tony Abbott was to maternity leave and women in the work place then there it is.

Take that new paradigm.