shannonsays.com

Un-Australia Day

January 26...Australia Day...whatever that means in 2006.  Whilst it is probably reasonable for me to suggest that today means bugger all else to many Australians than a Public Holiday, it is also fair to suggest that we think we know more about being "Un-Australian" than being Australian.  We certainly bandy the term around enough to suggest that we know what it means.

The term "Un-Australian" has become one of the most overused adjectives of the last twelve months, and will probably continue its rise to prominance throughout 2006.  Every one is using it; politicans, sports stars, police chiefs, journalists, commentators, people in the street, you name it.  All pedal it out to abuse opponents, or to personally taunt them. 

Here are some examples:

"I think associating with a terrorist organisation demonstrates that you are un-Australian"  Tasmanian MP Michael Ferguson.

" It is not Australian to adopt a mob mentality and assult women.  I have never seen anything as un-Australian"  NSW Police Commissioner Ken Moroney (on the Cronulla riots)

"Labor will fight every day until the Howard Government is brought down for these vicious, unnecessary and unAustralian laws." Opposition Leader Kim Beazley on the Federal Government's Idustrial Relations Laws

On a basic level it is just another in vogue weasel word.  But it has moved to another level now, to become a term that has a nasty, dark meaning.  Used to try and tarnish the character of people who you don't agree with backed up by the assumption that the rest of Australia agrees with them.  Make no mistake, it is a term of abuse.  An attack on character.

You don't hear people (at least I never have) being called un-American, or un-French, or un-British.  So why have we embraced un Australian so much?

I don't really know.  Probably because it reminds me of our cultural cringe and our anxieties and suspicions about globalisation and all things (people, ideas) foreign.

I do know that I squirm every time I hear it.

Happy Australia Day. 

Brendan Nelson's Values

Our Education Minister Brendan Nelson wants to see some "essentially Australian" values introduced into our schools – "understanding, tolerance, inclusion and responsibility, care, compassion, reaching out to others, doing your best, pursuing and protecting the common good, treating all people fairly, enterprise, respectfulness, fidelity, comradeship and endurance." And if people don't want to "accept and embrace" those values, he says, "they ought to clear off."

What to make of this.... Cameron thinks that Nelson is "way out of line"

"That isn't what this country is about. That isn't what democracy is about. The minute that you have one group of people forcing their values or beliefs on another group of people, you don't have a democracy any more - you have a form of fascism."

I don't completely disagree.

But I do reckon that people living here should "accept" our values in the sense of obeying by the laws that embody them – we demand that of all Australians.  Now that doesn't mean that they have to agree with them. Any Australian is entitled to object to any of our values, our laws or our institutions, and they even have the right to try to change them, provided they do so within the confines of the law.

However, forcing our "values"on people, whether they are immigrants or not, would be a futile exercise at best, and potentially dangerous and divisive at worst.  Particularly when Nelson's and his values smell more like something out of the 1950's than contemporary Australia.  But I don't find anything wrong or offensive in asking immigrants to gain a wider understanding of Australian Culture and history.

Putting that argument aside, it's interesting that value debate has entered the Australian political arena.  We are used to it happening in the United States, where their whole political system and decision making is centered around sphere of values, but it never really happens like that in Australia.  Mark Latham tried to focus on values during last years Federal Election (remember the "Ladder of Opportunity") but was steamrolled John Howard's economic agenda.

I wonder what our values would have been if Latham had been elected?

Would you fly NASA?

If you were given the chance to jump aboard a Space Shuttle and hurtle off into Space, would you?

If NASA was responsible for preparing and maintaining the Shuttle, I'd be saying "thanks, but no thanks..." 

NASA officials always remind us that space travel is inherently dangerous. They clearly are right, but it seems that the danger is due to the crap build quality and maintenance standards of the machines they spend billions putting together.  Not to mention that they buy some parts on eBay.

Just imagine if passenger aircraft blew up (twice in 113 missions) or had components falling off them as often as space shuttles have.  There would be hundreds of crashes every day.  Maybe that's not really a relevant or sensible comparison, but you get my point.

And after two and a half years and US$1billion dollars spent on safety since the Challenger crashed, killing all seven crew on board, how could NASA have got it so wrong and sent the aging old Discovery (it is 21) with the same problems? 

And now they expect their astronauts to venture out and do some "running repairs" and remove a piece of foam using such precision tools like a pair of scissors, a hacksaw fashioned out of a blade and a little duct tape.  Just the tools you need when you are working on the fragile thermal underbelly of an orbiting shuttle.

Hopefully, once the small piece of foam has been removed from its side , the shuttle should be able to land without incident.  And when it does, NASA should just give up, and ground its Death Trap Space Shuttles for good.

Anyway, why do we go to Space?  What good things, useful things, have ever come from these missions?  Can someone tell me one major scientific breakthrough that has resulted from a manned mission.  And that Space Station?  What does that do?  All it is is a fancy labratory with great view out of the window.

The bottom line is that going into Space is not all that useful. We can accomplish more science by sending unmanned probes.

"Business as Usual"?

 "We have just got to react calmly and continue with our business as much as possible as normal."

That was Tony Blair in response to the recent attacks in London.

But from what I have been reading it seems that it is anything but "business as usual" in London, and it is far from "business as usual" or calm here in Australia.

In the last week we have been inundated with ideas and plans on how our Governments and authorities intend to respond, including increased number of CCTV cameras in our capital cities, random bag searches on public transport, a National ID card,  questioning students who borrow "terrorism books" from libraries, and we'll probably even hold a national security convention.

That doesn't send a message that it is "business as usual" does it?

It really says that we should suspect everyone, (and everyone should suspect us) as being a potential terrorist, until they can prove otherwise.

Now I understand that people are nervous, and that we expect our politicians and leaders to implement measures that protect our well being and safety.  But it appears to me that in the space of a week our politicians have latched onto this nervousness and fear and are talking about a stack of measures almost just for the sake of doing something... anything. 

But many of these so-called "security measures" have the potential to do nothing more than further eroding the levels of trust we have in one another.  And they are particularly dangerous here in Melbourne, where we have such a diverse mix of cultures and ethnicity's.

We'll end up looking at each other with sideways glances and increased suspicion, hardly a healthy way of living together, and hardly business as usual.
 

Free! Legal advice for Schapelle Corby

As Schapelle Corby prepares to again protest her innocence in a Bali court, Peter Faris QC takes a look at what her defence team should be doing:

Schapelle Corby and her lawyers were recently given an opportunity by the Appeal Court to call more evidence to establish her innocence. They now say they need an adjournment for two weeks. Here's some of the evidence an innocent person would (and should) collect over those two weeks.

Her character. Most people would not have the knowledge or contacts to be able to obtain such a large quantity of marijuana. She should give sworn (truthful) evidence that she has never used drugs, never associated with people who do and that she is completely opposed to drug use. Her friends and family should all give evidence that corroborates her.

Her family and friends. They should all give evidence that they didn't own the drugs and that Schapelle was not being used to move drugs for them. In particular, the sister and her Indonesian husband should give evidence that they don't use marijuana and that drugs were not destined for them, either as a gift or for sale.

The board and bag. What is the history of purchase? Who owned it? Had Corby ever used it? Had she ever taken it overseas before (and to Bali before)? Why did she need it in Bali? Do the sister and husband have easy access to similar boards?

Luggage packing. Who packed her luggage prior to this trip? Who packed the board? Most importantly, who had access to the board? All her family and trip-friends should be called. Evidence should be led that when they saw the bag before check-in at Brisbane it was not “pregnant” – that is, there was obviously nothing packed in it. Who carried the bag at any time between packing and check-in? Did the weight and size seem normal?

The airports. Subpoenas should be issued (either in Indonesia or within Australia) to obtain the airline records of rosters for the relevant baggage handlers at Brisbane and Sydney international airports. All these people need to be subpoenaed to give evidence so that the allegations can be put to them. Alternatively, her lawyers should request that the Australian Crime Commission investigate each of these handlers and call them in for compulsory evidence. It's probably too late to get the airport videos – that should have been done on day one. In Indonesia, the baggage handlers and other staff with access to the baggage should be identified and interrogated. The backgrounds of the “lying” airport staff who gave evidence against her should be investigated.

The marijuana. This should be tested in Australia to determine its origin.

You'd think Corby's team of hack-lawyers would have come up with it themselves, instead, they have become just another sideshow act in the Corby Circus, a line up that includes her profiteering family, an infamous mobile phone salesman, a salivating media throng other assorted other hanger-on-erer's.

Anyway, the whole lot are about to be paraded around again in a couple of weeks.  But the question needs to be asked, do we still care?

...But he hit me first

Whilst stopping short of suggesting that "they got what was coming to them", Cameron isn't too far from it:

"As the death toll of the London bombings continues to rise, I can't help thinking about the Downing Street Memo and wonder if, deep down inside, Tony Blair, George W Bush and John Howard, are starting to realize what they have started. Are they connecting the dots? Was this part of a collateral damage assessment when they made the decisions in 2002/2003 to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? When they were carefully duping the public about the justifications for attacking these countries, did they genuinely believe they could prevent the fight being brought to our streets indefinitely?

And Tony agrees;

"It's almost crocodile tears to listen to Tony Blair sombrely express his condolences.  He knew the consequences of his actions in Iraq.  What did he expect, defeat Saddam and it would all be over, and we'd live happily ever after?"

It is a dangerous and simplistic bow to pull, gentlmen. 

Is it really relevent to debate this issue along the lines of "who hit who first"?  Of course not.  But since you started it, what did come first?  The bombings of American military in Africa, Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, the relentless suicide attacks in Israel, Bosnia, September 11 or the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Join the dots now...

(Alan Singer joins the conversation here)

London Bombings

"As the world reels from another major terrorist attack, I wandered round the internet in an attempt to get a bit of a feel of the reaction to the London bombings.

It seems that one of the most interesting (and serious) aspects of the response is over the terrorists' motivations. Was it a protest against Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq, as many commentators are predictably saying, or is it a much broader statement by Islamic militants against what they see as depraved Western values which offend conservative Islam?  Maybe we'll never know.

But, here are some of the more interesting comments and stories that I stumbled across:

“Sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you.” Amir Taheri in The Times

“At 8.50am, Manjit Dhanjal was sitting on a packed Circle Line train between Aldgate East and Liverpool Street station, on her way to work in the City.” The Independent

"There was panic and everyone was running for their lives. I saw a lady coming towards me soaked in blood. Everyone was in confusion." The Times

“This is a conflict of values. But it is not just the contrast between the hate of the terrorists and the labours of the world leaders that will turn the tide. It is the contrast between the anger of the terrorists and the decency of ordinary people, as Londoners so powerfully showed yesterday. The Guardian's editorial

“Most of us can only speculate at the degree of Islamist penetration in the United Kingdom because we simply don't know, and multicultural pieties require that we keep ourselves in the dark.” Mark Steyn in the Daily Telegraph

“Clearly the masters of our intelligence establishment will be feeling huge embarrassment today – in early June the UK's central intelligence machinery reduced the threat posed to the UK by "international terrorism" from "severe general" (the highest alert state) to "substantial". The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre would have based this assessment on an aggregation of all the clandestine and open-source material available to it – tested rigorously by their analysts, and distilled into a format designed to inform policy. But they were wrong.” Crispin Black in The Guardian

“The number and simultaneity of yesterday's attacks suggest localised surveillance and bomb making, requiring a local support apparatus. We can presume that the bombers spent a considerable amount of time in the UK and may have even been UK residents.” RP Eddy, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow for Counter-Terrorism, in The Times

“It is hard to knock a huge city like this off its course. It has survived many attacks in the past. But once we have counted up our dead, and the numbness turns to anger and grief, we will see that our lives here will be difficult. We have been savagely woken from a pleasant dream. The city will not recover Wednesday's confidence and joy in a very long time. Who will want to travel on the tube, once it has been cleared? How will we sit at our ease in a restaurant, cinema or theatre? And we will face again that deal we must constantly make and remake with the state – how much power must we grant Leviathan, how much freedom will we be asked to trade for our security? Novelist Ian McEwan in The Guardian

“It's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East.” Robert Fisk in The Independent

“Assumed to be the work of al-Qaida, no doubt this will again be greeted with glee in some Middle Eastern streets, as was the fall of the twin towers. There will be renewed suspicion that fifth columnists may also be punching the air in some extreme parts of Muslim communities around Europe too. Yet in a way it hardly matters who did it or why. Polly Toynbee in The Guardian

“The attacks will reinforce the case for pressing on with the long-term task, as defined by Mr Blair: the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq, peace between Israel and Palestine, and democratic reform elsewhere in the Middle East. If that sounds rather close to Mr Bush's policy, that's because it is. No terrorists can change that.” The Economist

“Al-Qaida's new modus operandi is a combination of strategy and necessity. After the US coalition destroyed its training bases in Afghanistan, word went out, allegedly from Bin Laden himself, that jihadi veterans should return home to their countries of origin, recruit locally and prepare to attack domestic targets. The attacks in Casablanca and Madrid were illustrations of this. What made the Madrid bombers so difficult to detect was that some members of the cell were takfiris, Islamist militants committed to jihad while continuing to live a western lifestyle, drinking, smoking and taking drugs. The leaders of the cell deliberately set out to radicalise and recruit street criminals so they could bring their expertise to the cause. Jamal Ahmidan, the Madrid takfiri who got hold of the explosives, was a drug dealer. One of the critical questions to be answered is: where did the London bombers come from?” Peter Taylor in The Guardian

“Yesterday's events do not look good for the “al-Qaeda was all an invention” party. The bombings surely demonstrated, to those who doubted it, that there really are people out there with the motive and the capacity to inflict mass murder on the innocent.” Gerard Baker in The Times

Tony pointed me towards the Wikipedia coverage, which is excellent, especially the timeline.

Also be sure to check this post from Londoner Johnnie Moore.

The Douglas Wood Interview; How To Blow $400K

So Last night Ten took a big-time shot at news and current affairs with its exclusive Douglas Wood interview.

I didn't watch it.  And most people I spoke to today didn't see it either.   And according to several reports today, lots of other viewers were as equally nonplussed, preferring both Nine's Backyard Blitz and Seven's Guinness Book of Records to the much hyped Wood special.

Third in a three-horse race between the commercial networks is an ordinary result at the best of times, but especially when you've paid something like $400,000 for the privilege.   So what went wrong?

It's pretty simple really, in attempting to position itself as a big time player in news and current affairs, Ten strayed too far away from what it stands for its key brand message if you like; the youth demographic, 16-24 year olds. Tens core competency is doing things like Big Brother, Australian Idol, The Simpsons, The OC, and similar programs.  Not news. 

And as I said last week, scheduling the program on a Sunday night in between The Simpsons and Big Brother was just dumb.

So what did we learn from the Wood interview?

Well apparently;

"There were lots of tears, but not much about why Wood was in Iraq, why he'd been apart from his wife for two years, and why he felt it necessary to go to such a dangerous place to make money in his early 60s. Nor were there questions about whether he'd placed himself in danger by going to Iraq, and whether any of his work in Iraq had increased the risk. Wood also displayed a lack of understanding as to why some Australians would object to his taking Ten's money after the $3 million the Australian government had spent on his recovery. His brothers and wife seemed far more empathetic people. They provided plenty of tears, as did Doug when his grandchildren appeared. So Ten and Sandra Sully can at least rest easy on that score: they achieved the goal of all current affairs efforts – to get on-camera emotion from the main talent. But the interview aroused limited sympathy for Wood, at least for this viewer. It was disappointing that he didn't thank the Australian people and the special also felt strangely out of date – it really should have gone to air last Tuesday or Wednesday night."

From that and other reports, it seems as though the Ten questions showed little evidence of research and it's disappointing that there's no transcript available on the Ten website.

It would seem as though Ten blew their $400K, but if anyone did see it and has a different opinion... well you know where to find the comments section

Douglas Wood: Can he escape the media?

On Monday I posted about freed Iraqi hostage Douglas Wood and his big-buck, $400 000 deal with the Ten Network.

It seems that quite a few people have rasied their eyebrows at the whole deal.  Wood's decision to sell his story to the Ten Network is "grubby and poor journalism," David Marr told ABC Radio National this morning. As Glenn Dyer explains via Crikey, Wood's deal with Ten has completely re-written the rules of chequebook journalism:

"The deal is a "co-production," which means greater control lies in the hands of the talent and not the media outlet. If it becomes the norm, it will mean audiences will have less chance of obtaining an independent and explainable version of these stories.
Unlike similar stories on 60 Minutes, Today Tonight or Four Corners, this not independent in any way - it's no more than an officially sanctioned version of the story.
The Australian and The SMH missed the point on Tuesday, but The Age had most of the important detail, including the involvement of Steve Vizard, a part-owner of Wood's management company Profile Talent Management. Vizard, who was known in the 1990s for "clipping the ticket" across a wide range of arts industry deals, is clearly back in the game. Industrial barrister Mark Klemens, the front man for the agency, is Molly Meldrum's manager and was the beak who got Darryl Somers off a drink driving charge three years ago.
Nine's 60 Minutes apparently had the deal all but in the bag until the Ten co-production idea and more money surfaced. The Age and TV sources say the Ten bid was around $400,000, but the co-production arrangement makes that difficult to work out. Because of revenue sharing deals from any on-sales, Ten could have bid low and offered PTM a bigger share of revenues at the back end from any on-sales, say to the US, which is interested in the story because Wood lives in California."

Without doubt Ten and Douglas Wood have blown a big hole in the comfortable world of chequebook journalism.

Can't see the Wood for the Fees

Here is the Editorial from today's Herald Sun:

One thing hasn't entirely changed with Douglas Wood's hard-won freedom.
The price on his head is still a small fortune -- only now he hopes to pocket it.
Before even returning here, Mr Wood is milking his accidental fame.  Unseemly as it seems, with a showbiz manager and hopes of riches, he is already being actively packaged and marketed.
People risked their lives as we spent an estimated $10 million trying to save his.  In his haste to cash in, he should spare a moment to reflect on that.
Mr Wood might remember who he is really brought to you by.

But of course he didn't spare a moment.

It what seemed to be a real "Dash for Cash", no sooner had he arrived in Melbourne today (at about 0530am) and uttered a few carefully selected words to the awaiting media throng, it was announced by Channel Ten that it would air Douglas Wood - His Story next Sunday at 6.30pm (AEST) with an interview conducted by Sandra Sully.

First of all ,Channel Ten isn't really known as a news network, and Sandra Sully is more of a talking head who reads the late night news than a hard hitting journo.  This type of thing belongs on the more edgy 60 Minutes with someone like Liz Hayes.  To prove my point, the Douglas Wood story will be shown in between a repeat episode of the Simpsons and Big Brother!

But it doesn't really matter when the cheque is signed.

Here is what Mr Wood's spokesman, Mark Klemens, said today."The Wood family has been pleased with the level of interest in Doug's story demonstrated by Ten,"

"They are confident that the resulting Ten News program will be instrumental in telling the real story behind Doug's ordeal."

Which means they offered the most money. My bet it is somewhere up around the $400 000 mark.

I know it is a commercial world that we live in, and it is the Aussie way to flog your yarn to the highest bidder, but this just seems all to quick.  This isn't some celebrity wedding, it is a story that has captured the emotions and thoughts of all Australians.  It is an event that required careful handling by our Government, and a great deal of money was (well) spent ensuring his release.

Of course the magazine, book and movie deals will be announced it the coming days and weeks.  To have it all reduced, so quickly, to this dash for cash, just seems wrong.