http://www.shane.araustralia.org/index.htm An alternative viewpoint on local, national and international events. Often polemic, always controversial. Highly researched and presented by Shane Elson, an award winning radio commentator and producer. Available free of charge. Only ask is that, if used, quoted or otherwise referred to, that proper acknowledgement be given. en-au (C) Shane Elson 2008 Times are tough for “dictators”, “rogue states” and “failing nations”. It seems like it is not a good thing to be the head of a country that happens to sit on top of huge oil or gas reserves. Saddam was just the first to go. We find, if we believe the mainstream media, that Iran is threatening everyone with “nuclear” weapons, that Venezuela is being led by “communists” and that Bolivia is being ruled by “Soviet sympathisers” while little East Timor is about due for a “regime change”. So what is it that links all these comparatively small and in many ways insignificant nations together? Other than their shared history of imperial colonialism and the pillaging of their wealth by foreigners ably abetted by foreign trained, domestic elites, it seems these countries share a certain attraction to the Euro and the socialist goals of equality and equity. The roll back began in mid 2000 when Saddam transferred payments for the “oil for food” program to Euros from US dollars. William Clark, from the Global Research Centre in California, in a 2003 essay, wrote that the reason the US was going to war with Iraq was the “administration's goal of preventing further [OPEC] momentum towards the Euro as an oil transaction currency standard.” Clare Foss, in her online Journal, noted that the Iraqi switch to the Euro had “potentially perilous consequences for the US. … If OPEC were to decide to accept Euros only for its oil, then American economic dominance would be over.” Saddam was not hated by the US administration for what he was doing to his own people. God knows, they had ignored that for years. What really got up their noses was that he changed the way his nation traded and seemed intent on hitching his caboose to the European currency. Indeed one of the first things the new US supported administration in Iraq did was enshrine the US dollar as the trading currency for all Iraqi foreign exchange transactions. Following hot on the heels of the great American Imperial push to secure a revenue stream from the Iraqi’s, Iran took the first steps, in 2004, to set up its own oil trading exchange (a bourse) based on the Euro. Dr. Elias Akleh, writing for the Arabic Media Internet Network, observed that, “Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear projects, its WMD, or its support to "terrorists organizations" as the American administration is claiming, but in its attempt to re-shape the global economical (sic) system by converting it from a petrodollar to a petroeuro system. Such conversion is looked upon as a flagrant declaration of economical (sic) war against the US that would flatten the revenues of the American corporations and eventually might cause an economic collapse.” The strident rhetoric we have been hearing from the top US brass over the last two to three years about Iran’s threat is not, therefore, really based on any alleged “threats” posed by non existent WMD’s or that nation’s plans to develop a domestic nuclear power industry. Rather it has been Iran’s audacity in proceeding with its plans to establish a new trading regime that would, effectively, lock the US out and thus prevent US multinationals from skimming the cream off Iran’s international oil trade. After four years of planning, set backs and political road blocks, the Iranian Euro bourse opened on the 17th February 2008. Writing in Petroleum World magazine, Gwynne Dyer notes ominously, “The US government knows, and is deeply alarmed by the danger, that the dollar may be losing its status as the world's only reserve currency. Given the huge deficits that plague the US economy, the US dollar's value would collapse if other countries began to see it as just another currency, so the Euro must be prevented from emerging as an alternative reserve currency. In practice, that means the Iranian experiment with a Euro-denominated oil bourse must be stopped - and the only way to do that is to attack Iran.” While it is obvious that Iraq and Iran got into strife for not towing the US line, what about the rest of the region? Well, in a little reported retaliation for the US Senate’s blocking of a Dubai based company’s bid to buy into US ports in 2006, the United Arab Emirates told the US to go jump and that they would switch 10% of their $US23 billion reserves to Euros thus putting a huge dent in the US money markets. While all this is unfolding, south of the border, down Mexico way, some South American governments are also thinking of jumping the good ship US dollar. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia have both made it clear that they want the OPEC nations to stop trading in dollars and convert to the Euro. They are also intent on reshaping their nations internal economies by renationalising foreign owned resource companies and not paying any compensation. Speaking at the Euro Summit in May 2006, Moralez told reporters that, “For more than 500 years our natural resources have been pillaged and our primary goods exported. This has to be ended now.” And we wonder why the US is calling him and Chavez “communists” and a “danger” to the world. “Whose world?” is a question well worth asking. Finally, we come to East Timor. As the poorest nation on earth with an average income of just over $1 a day, what threat could they pose and to whom? Quite simply, they have looked beyond Australia and the US because neither our country nor the US will assist them or support their development agenda. Rather, our governments are intent on bleeding them dry. The East Timorese government and its top leaders, all well known to us, made an interesting decision when they penned their independence charter back in 1998 and established the National Council of Timorese Resistance. This political arm of the resistance movement contained all the current players in the so called “crisis” they and their people are now experiencing. What I have never heard reported was their stated aim to convert to the Euro as their trading currency in the sure knowledge that it would make investment in their nation more attractive to their Asian neighbours. What was little reported here in Australia was Mari Alkatiri’s international tour, in September 2005, to drum up Asian investment interest. Little was reported on the visits he made to 20 or more nations who have shown an interest in investing in East Timor’s on and off shore oil and gas fields. What is even worse in the eyes of the multinationals, who are screwing our government, is the East Timorese intention to use the wealth of their resources to “alleviate poverty, create jobs and improve education” rather than reinvest it in their money making but wealth extracting schemes. Since then, we have seen some very interesting developments in Timor Lesté… but more on this another time. Regime change for our impoverished northern neighbour will probably come but at the cost of more innocent lives. Like Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Bolivia, East Timor will only become a failed state if we stand idly by and watch those who would rather it fail succeed in their quest. Do we have the same courage the East Timorese have to dream of a better, more just and equitable society or do we only care about those things that supposedly keep us safe from “dictators”, “rogue states” and “failed nations”? The first option is a possibility; the second only perpetuates the lies. Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:00:00 EST http://www.shane.araustralia.org/Audio/ET_Oil_Euro.mp3 It’s a strange world out there. I’ve been watching the current political debate and the comings and goings in the ‘big house’ with interest. While the demise of the Democrats is now complete, what does lie in store for us? Perhaps the next bunch of “fairies at the bottom of the garden” will do much better “keeping the bastards honest” than being part of them. But that is not what interests me. The rise in utilitarian, populist politics is much more interesting. Over the weekend I read half a dozen articles on the current government from a range of authors, right, left and in between. All of them wrote from the same script. They concluded that Rudd is just as, if not more, of a populist than Howard and that he is yet to find his mojo. The last election, like most of the ones I can recall, were all about the ‘what’s in it for me?’ factor. In other words, who is going to do the most for ME! Higher wages, better hospitals, more schools, flatter roads, less tax, and the list goes on. So far as I can see, after all the bluster from all ruling parties so far in my life, things haven’t really got much better. Sure, I earn more and the income / cost ratio of many goods has reduced but what is the overall cost of these things … to all of us? For instance, in our quest to source cheaper goods and at the same time enjoy higher wages, many of our manufacturing processes have been shipped off shore. I’ve just heard that another 500 Australians will loose their jobs because a tyre manufacturer will move their plant to somewhere with cheaper labour. For the 500 blue collar workers, who I assume quite a few are Labor voters, what do all the promises of the incumbent government now mean to them? This phenomenon is not, of course, exclusive to the Labor party. The Liberals promise petrol price cuts while at the same time saying they want to protect the environment. They are chasing our vote by hoping that we will weigh up the utility of being able to access cheap petrol against the harder to quantify benefits of being able to enjoy the amenity of the natural environment. Who among us really cares if Pacific islands are already sinking under the sea? Only a few really care and most of them live on those islands. Some here may be concerned that their investments in those places will, no doubt, be devalued. However, under a ‘carbon trading scheme’, they may be compensated for their loss. On the matter of so called ‘carbon trading’, we find again that this is being packaged as something we should accede to as being good for us. However, the very title suggests that it is something we should be very wary of. Why? Because the ‘creation of a market’ means there will be winners and losers and the losers are usually the vast majority of citizens who stand to gain no benefit. When taken apart the scheme is really about providing tax payer funded subsidies for highly polluting industries to continue to pollute. They buy a few ‘credits’, someone plants some trees and hey presto, problem solved. I don’t think so. Utilitarian voting hinges on the politicians being able to spin the biggest issues in the smallest packages. That is, the spin doctors reduce complex and interlinking issues to the easily digested sound bite or media grab. In so doing they contribute to the dumbing down of the electorate. Like the priests of old, the politicians tell us that we should remain outside the ‘holy of holies’ and trust them to communicate with the ‘gods’ on our behalf. In order to make this work, the spin doctors spend large amounts of our money trying to find the best way to sell their ‘message’ back to us. They know that it’s too hard to try and connect with our intellects so they go for our gut and / or our heart. What they do is target our emotions then back that up with something more concrete. For instance, most people would love to see cuddly koalas remain untouched by climate change. They’re cute, constantly stoned and make us a fortune in tourist dollars. On the other hand, we need huge buses and private cars to drive the tourists to the koala park thus contributing to green house gasses. So, in a hierarchy of utility and populism, the cute, cuddly koalas are easier to sell than an esoteric concept such as ‘green house gasses’. We are told we need tourist dollars and we need to cut emissions as well. There is a conflict between our heart and our head. We want both but ultimately one will have to go. In trying to get around this the spin doctors devise a campaign that says the koala park donates a small amount from each entry ticket to climate research. Ah! The good consumer says. I can drive to the park, eat the pre-packaged over processed food, enjoy the highly manicured, over watered garden, safe in the knowledge that two cents from my $25 entry fee went to save the whales or something. The heart (which enjoys the experience) is able to resolve the conflict with the head (how much will this cost) by diverting the intellect from examining the bigger picture (climate change and its impact on native wild life). In the battle for hearts and minds, the heart wins every time. Utilitarianism is all about cost benefit analysis. If I do X and it is good and costs me Y, which is bad, how bad or big will Y be and how will it impact of my enjoyment of X? According to the current politic this is a question best left to the high priests within the political and bureaucratic classes. We vote, in the end, for the one who offers us the best cost / benefit ratio. In other words, X will cost me but under A it will cost less than under B. Simple! It is a strange world out there. Collectively we seem to ignore threats to our own person in pursuit of intangibles such as ‘wealth’, ‘happiness’ and ‘prosperity’. These concepts are made material by their expression in goods and services, all of which cost something. The objective of a good politician is to maximise political appeal while minimising the perceived risk to the individual they are attempting appeal to. Sure, its not an exact science but it does seem to work. After all, I’m sure the 500 workers who are being sacked thought that no matter who governed, their jobs were safe. Like the cute, cuddly koala, perhaps one day we will have enclosures for that other endangered species, the Australian manufacturing worker. Problem is, by then there will be no petrol to put in the car or bus to take the tourists to see them. Thu, 28 Jun 2008 14:00:00 EST http://www.shane.araustralia.org/Audio/Strange_World.mp3 Time travel is something that has, at some time, attracted the imagination of us all. Wouldn’t it be good to be able to travel back in time and pick the winning lotto numbers after seeing this weeks draw? Wouldn’t it be good to go back and make up with that lover you really wish you had married? Wouldn’t it be good to go back and find out why the current state of affairs is the current state of affairs? The ‘revelations’ that Federal Labor MP, Belinda Neal and her husband, NSW Labor MP, John Della Bosca, were abusive and threatening to employees of a NSW Central Coast club come at a time when both the federal and state Labor parties are under siege by their powerbrokers and their constituencies. Iguanagate, as the Neal and Della Bosca scandal is now known, is a headache for more than the staff of the bar and the patrons who witnessed whatever really did occur that night. The background to the way this fracas is being played out is just as colourful as the language supposedly used that night. The name of the bar shares a commonality with a little known species of politician from the NSW Right. They are known as the Terrigals. This species is a relative newcomer to the Brisbane Waters area but is renowned for is power, ability to eat its own when necessary for survival and their brutish demeanour towards any who are not of their breed. The Terrigals form a formidable block within the Right faction of the NSW labor party. Peter Botsman, editor of “Australian Prospect” and Director of the Whitlam Institute, describes them as being “known for their ruthless, anti-democratic tactics”. However, the links that bind the business and political world in the quiet backwaters of the Central Coast region just north of Sydney go far deeper than a few drinks at a bar. Rugby league is a passion in NSW. From little kids on suburban grounds to the big hitters in Sydney Stadium, rugby is a brutal game that demands big bodies, big egos and no mercy. So it comes as no surprise that Belinda Neal was a Director of the Central Coast Mariners, the local rugby team. Ms. Neal was, of course, not alone on the Board. One of her fellow Board members was the wealthy property developer and mover and shaker, Ray Awadallah. Mr. Awadallah also happens to be a part owner of the Iguana Bar in which Ms. Neal and her hubby had their bust up with staff. One now wonders why the bar management were so quick to offer an apology? One wonders about the ties that bind big business to politics. One of the alleged comments made to the Iguana Bar staff by Ms. Neal was to the effect of “do you know who I am?” Followed by something to the effect of, “you will never work in this town again”. While these alleged comments are yet to be tested, one wonders why she made them. Again the ties that bind the Terrigals and big business lie at the heart of them. Prior to taking up her seat in the federal parliament, Ms. Neal had been employed by NSW Lands Minister, Tony Kelly and had served on the Board of the Festival Development Corporation which controls a huge swathe of land at Mt. Penang. In another twist of power, the NSW Education Department, which was run at the time by Della Bosca, had applied to develop some of the land near Mt. Penang as a highschool. Concurrent with this is the approval of a licence to the Bourne Family Hotel Group to relocate a hotel licence to opposite the visitors centre near Mt. Panang. The Bourne family run a number of large venues in the Central Coast region. Bob Bourne is also a member of Della Bosca’s local ALP branch and was at one time President of the Australian Hotels Association. Bourne also owns the local Australian Post licence and has located the outlet in his new pub at Mt. Penang. One wonders at the links that bind? Jumping in our time machine and travelling back to 2003 we find the Terrigals gathering with the Trogs (another NSW Right faction) to discuss the post-Carr years in NSW and how they could take back the power they once enjoyed. Morris Iemma is aligned with the Terrigals and his rise to power was certainly swift and to many in NSW, unexpected. He got the Premier’s gig and pretty soon had promoted prominent Terrigals to his ministry. Della Bosca was one. Jump forward to 2007 and his wife was put forward as the Right candidate for Robertson and she fought hard (and some say dirty) to win pre-selection and the seat last year. Then along comes Iemma’s decision to privatise the NSW electricity grid in defiance of his own party platform. Iemma tells the party to ‘stick it’ and that he will push ahead with his plans to sell off the grid. No doubt the numbers were crunched and the Right was certain it would win the vote on the floor of parliament. Then, out of the blue (or perhaps not) comes news that drives everything else off the front page and radio talkback lines. Iemma, like Rudd, is a machine man. These types don’t care much for the rank and file nor do they care much for the desires of their constituencies. Oh, they make a lot of ‘cluck, cluck’ noises from time to time, usually over insignificant issues such as whether art is porn, but generally they disregard opinions that vary from their own. Back in 2003 the Terrigals were planning their agenda once Carr went. When he did, as the Australian Financial Review put it, “pity the poor voters of NSW who think they elect their government”. Ah! for a time machine. To be able to travel back in time and uncover the bits and pieces that lead to the present. Having attempted to do that a little, let me offer my opinion as to why Ms. Neal and hubby John Della Bosca are now in a pickle. They are a highly connected couple who enjoy all the trappings of power and influence. Their connections are used, as are they, to ensure that what the powerful want, they get … until they ‘interface’ with real people who in turn get used by their opponents who attempt to bring them down. Throw into the mix an unpopular state leader and a federal government who is further entrenching the policies of the previous government and you have a mix of intrigue, payback and revenge. We, the public, are mere spectators to the goings on on the floor of the Colosseum. Our role in all this is to cheer on the good guys and boo the bad guys. We are, in effect, the props in a drama that has nothing to do with us and everything to do with ensuring the promises made to get certain people elected are fulfilled. I guess, if we could turn back time and travel to almost any epoch in human history, we would find that nothing is really new. Schemers, frauds and charlatans have always been able to sidle up to power and taste its intoxicating elixir. I guess Belinda Neal and John Della Bosca now wish they could turn back time and behave a little better so as to not do something that allowed for their enemies, both within the Terrigals and without, to not only abandon them but to eat them alive. Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:25:00 EST http://www.shane.araustralia.org/Audio/Terrigals_Eat_Them_Alive.mp3 As we read, hear and see more about how the Imperial adventure in the Middle East is going bottom up, a little known terrorist threat is looming on our back door. A bioterrorist threat more dangerous, destructive and devastating than anything seen before. This little discussed threat is, I’m sure, being monitored at the highest levels of our intelligence community and is receiving the just attention it deserves. It was only by luck (good or bad is yet to be determined) that I stumbled across this threat and I feel it is my patriotic duty to share it with you as it seems our lickspittle media and spineless politicians are unprepared to inform you. Just a couple of weekends ago my awareness was expanded by a short visit to the local shopping centre. Arriving there all looked fine to me. There was no outward signs of the turmoil being unleashed within the confines of this concrete, steel and glass bunker. As credit cards flashed, heels clicked and low level chatter or raucous laughter filled the cavernous trading halls, a little noticed group fanned out and infiltrated the cosmetics sections of the larger retailers. To the untrained eye and until that Saturday I must admit my eyes weren’t skilfully attuned to the vagaries of biological warfare, this group went largely unnoticed. Disguised as ordinary women, some rather plain looking, others more flamboyant, this group spread out, in what I came to perceive, as a loose insurgent formation. To quote Donald Rumsfeld, and to be truthful I had not realised how spot on his words were when I first heard them, “As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know”. It started at the Estée Lauder counter with something called “Wicked Raspberry”. This small canister looked innocent enough to the untrained eye. As I said, at that time I too suffered from the myopia of ignorance and didn’t see the connections between a seemingly innocent act and the destructive intent of the terrorists among us. My lovely wife took the small canister and wiped it across her lips. This act, being one of the unknown knowns, I had seen repeated by her hundreds of times before. In fact she had a collection of these small canisters at home and from time to time would remove the protective cover and smear the contents on her lips, an act that had almost miraculous results. However, this day my lovely wife was to fall prey, perhaps becoming the first victim, to this new form of bioterrorism. For some time we browsed through the aisles visiting Givenchy, Helena Rubinstein, Elizabeth Arden, Nina Ricci, Chanel and Christian Dior. All of these companies I came to realise were developing, manufacturing and transporting potential weapons of mass destruction all over the world. Their brazen plan was to not try and hide their weapons of mass disfigurement but to put them on display in the highest profile locations they could. Not only that, it seems these makers of death had conscripted movie stars and celebrities to promote their wares. Just image the outcry if Tom Cruise and Angelina Jolie did an ad like this one. Tom, “I like a women with Power”. Angelina (with rock music swelling under), “Tom, you ain’t seen nothing yet”. Tom, “Show me baby”. Angelina, “Get on board and hold on”. Voice over girl, “When good looks alone are not enough, use Power by Raytheon. Raytheon delivering death to those you hate most” (big rock music ending under vision of mushroom cloud fading into Tom and Angelina lying entwined on bed). No. These companies have a much more subtle plan. Rather than recruiting big, hairy faced men in scarves, these companies have trained operatives who look like, depending on their rank and experience, your mother or your sister or the girl all the boys wanted to ask out in year ten. These operatives are infected with Folliculitis or Herpes Simplex. They are trained to wander around the cosmetic aisles and lure the unsuspecting victim into a tryst with fate. Their plan, undiscussed in the media and to this day remaining undisclosed in the political argy bargy that passes as government, is to infect the women of Australia with diseases that render them unable to mingle with their families, friends or work colleagues. These bio terrorism operatives have one intent; to bring down our economy by preventing women from leaving their homes due to unsightly eruptions on and near their mouths. Causing blisters, erupting pustules and making women hide their faces from us, these diseases are potentially more debilitating for ‘the economy’ and ‘our way of life’ than such puny efforts as parcels full of talcum powder or crackers in the letter box. These diseases have the potential to bring down nations by preventing women from taking part in everyday life, from contributing to the development of society and being part of the wider effort to create a better home life environment. While our women spend their recreation time and their hard earned cash browsing through the great shopping halls of our multiplexes, when will the call go out that sharing lippy testers is a toxic hazard? When will the little fridge magnets arrive declaring, from a smiling Ray Martin face, that sharing lipstick testers is dangerous for your health? When will the retail chains be forced to the remove the displays, decontaminate their aisles and remove this bio hazard from the shelves of their stores? It started with one little stick of Wicked Raspberry but where will it end? I can’t answer that but what I do ask is that, as responsible Australians, men must rise up and take back what is rightfully ours. That is, our right to snog our lovely women folk when the mood is right. Surely, if our politicians want to protect us from the horrors of poxy mouths, they have the responsibility and duty to immediately pass a law outlawing the use of weapons of mass disfigurement and ensure they are banned. In closing I ask that you take care when traversing the now dangerous and booby trapped aisles of the major retail chains. Once you thought it was just your cash position that was under threat. Now we know it’s the faces of the women around us that are the target of unscrupulous vagabonds intent on disrupting our national way of life. So, next time you’re in the cosmetic department be on the look out for women acting suspiciously and do whatever you can to prevent the women you love from using the lippy testers. You never know where the lips of the previous user have been trained! Wed, 12 Jun 2008 14:00:00 EST http://www.shane.araustralia.org/Audio/Lurking_Lippy_2.mp3.mp3 “All hail, the Left is dead!” Well at least according to the reality in which Ken Phillips of the Institute of Public Affairs exists. Ken is one of the Directors of this organisation and I guess he is far more qualified than me to make such a bold claim. In an article in the Business section of The Age a week or so ago, Ken wrote that, “About six years ago some left thinkers in Labor made the shift to acceptance of market capitalism”. I won’t argue against the words he writes but I will take exception that this only happened six years ago. Ken obviously needs to bone up a little on his history and look back at the Hawke and Keating years. If he does he will recall that Hawke came out of the left and transmogrified into a full blown market capitalist cheer leader. I suggest that the present Prime Minister has always been a market fundamentalist and technocrat. Just as Hawke was welcomed as a saviour from the ‘excesses’ of the so called ‘right’, I predict that within the next two years many will come to realise that Rudd will not only continue to embrace market capitalism but will give up even more of the working class ground to the real masters of the universe. So, not only does Ken need to ‘get with the program’ he also needs to drop the oh, so 20th century left / right rhetoric. I suggest that since at least the end of the 1970’s the arguments have not been about ‘left and right’ but about who holds the power to influence the material conditions of large groups of humankind. If the supposed ‘left’ leaning Tony Blair was content and without qualms, prepared to sanction and take part in the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, then anything is possible. If one of the traits of the so called ‘left’ is a hankering for justice and human rights, then where do Blair’s actions regarding Iraq fit? Similarly, if Hawke was an old guard lefty, where does his central claim to fame in dismantling and destroying the solidarity of the union movement fit? Hawke’s Prime Ministership was almost solely focused on destroying the structures that united workers regardless, of their union affiliation and turning the union hierarchy into career chasing functionaries and thus bringing them ‘into the fold’. Looking at the outcome of this today we find that the highly regarded waterfront worker, asbestos victim and anti Work Choices campaigner, Greg Combet, is happy to endorse the global war effort by opening the multinational arms manufacturer, Raytheon Australia’s, “Engineering Centre of Excellence”. I would argue that many more people will die because of Raytheon’s ability to build even more powerful weapons than Combet’s principled stand against the excesses of ‘the market’ ever saved. No, Mr. Phillips, the left is not dead, just being abandoned by those who suddenly find that the attractions and baubles of power are far more enticing than spending your days in draughty caravans or hanging out with the dying and unemployed. The real issue is not ‘left / right’ but the demands of power and the want to influence. I’ve experienced this first hand. Many years ago a group of parents were fighting the education department over the closure of a specialist school program for our disabled kids. We fought hard, got great media coverage and were united, at least in the beginning. As time progressed parents were ‘bought off’ by the department. We had all agreed from the outset that our kids came first and we would always put them first. So when the department offered free transport, extra class room assistance and other incentives to parents, one by one they accepted and their forthright support fell away. Each time they would express their profound regret but said the offer was a once off, take it or leave it situation and they had to take it. Towards the end of the fight, when we were reduced to a rump, the department invited the remainder of us to a regional planning meeting to discuss our claims. I was the only one who went. I put our case but was, of course, out numbered. At the end of the meeting the Director offered me a coffee with him and a couple of other department heavies. What began as a general chat turned quite bizarre when they offered me the opportunity to take up a role on a department committee as a parent representative. I declined, said my goodbyes and left. Reflecting on this I realised that what they wanted me to experience was firstly, disenfranchisement from the ‘movement’ I was part of. Secondly, they wanted me to realise the futility of the struggle to prevent their “expected outcome” from prevailing. Thirdly, they wanted to reinforce my feelings of isolation and powerlessness in the face of their plans and finally, they wanted to offer me a way out and an entrance ‘into the fold’. They wanted to second me to their structures of power and influence. Rather than meeting around the kitchen table, I would experience air conditioned conference rooms. Rather that photocopying things myself, I could ask the committee secretariat to do that. Rather than be on the receiving end I could “deliver high quality educational outcomes for our school communities”. Bollocks! Ken, the ‘left’ is not marching to the tune of the market at all. If it was, why all the concern over the Chavez and Morales governments in South America? If it was dead, why are hundreds of thousands still calling for the prosecution of Bush, Blair and Howard over their failed Iraq adventure? If it is, why are thousands still struggling for a fair go for carers? No Ken, the left is not dead, just abandoned by those who are willing to give up their role in the struggle and take up residence in the halls of power. Ken Phillips writes from the perspective of one who is so limited in his outlook that he believes his own propaganda. As one who has access to the ‘levers of power’ Ken finds that many who once challenged his world view are now greeting him as an equal. With that in mind I can understand why he would make such a bold statement. However, what his article really exposes is the disconnect between the ruling classes and the society they are trying to rule. The left is not dead, it is alive and thriving. It is not concerned with pursuing the trappings of power and prestige but in pursuing the concerns of those who the market devours as it attempts to sate its inexhaustible appetite for power. I’m sorry to tell you Ken that it’s not the left that is dead but the empty rhetoric you turn to in your need to reassure yourself and your peers that ‘all is well’ in the world. The bad news for you Ken, is that the left has moved on from aligning itself with particular party political ideological claims. After all, anyone who considers the Hawke, Keating and Rudd governments as “left” is obviously just as out of touch with reality as you are. Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:30:00 EST http://www.shane.araustralia.org/Audio/Left_Right_or_Wrong.mp3 Most parents begin exercising power over their children by using the ‘fear factor’. “Don’t touch. You’ll get burnt” or “Don’t play with that. It / you will break”. While these types of directives often have very practical and necessary applications, they do remain a fairly central theme as we try and guide our children / teenagers / young adults through the complex maze we call life. However, for many parents there comes a time when all we can do is hope that we’ve given them enough of a common sense education that when they venture beyond the door and into the world they will do their best to not only survive but thrive and prosper. While I can’t claim to be the best parent in the world I do think I have done my best to instil some form of moral, social and ethical responsibility in my children. While we all let each other down from time to time, we do our best, live with our regrets and get on with life as best we can. Pity I can’t say the same about the way our governments and those in authority choose to behave. The most recent evidence that all is not well is the Bill Henson hurrah. While I’m not going to pass judgement on the ‘disputed’ artistic merit of his work, I do believe that the current commentary seems to lack a certain depth. Perhaps breadth would be a better descriptor. In the main the issues being discussed come down to individual moral or ethical dilemmas. What the public discussion seems to mask is the broader issue of control over individual choice and the use of public space. This to me is a much more important issue in the long run. I believe that the Henson matter shares much in common with other recent acts by the ‘state’ to exert power over both bodies and public perceptions of bodies and how they should be controlled. If nothing else, the thing I have learnt most from parenthood is that letting go of power is the most difficult thing to do. Particularly when you believe “I know best”. If we place the Henson matter in the same frame as the so called “intervention” in the Northern Territory and other recent ‘raids’ on public displays of art, we find some disturbing trends. While couched in terms of preventing sexual abuse in remote communities, the “intervention” was directed at a minority population that is disadvantaged, remotely located from most of us, who lacked the media skills and other resources to adequately put their case and above all, is portrayed as being totally “other” (Indigenous, black, poor, uneducated, backward, drunk, predatory, uncontrollable etc. etc.). There have been many recent instances within the art world in which exhibitions have been cancelled, closed, confiscated and defunded simply because the artists chose to present representations that fore-grounded the “otherness” of their subjects and confront us with the reality that despite our “power” the reality of the “other” remains intact. To broaden out this line of thinking even more, we find that there are numerous examples of the state attempting to not only exert power over some type of “other” but often trying to justify the deployment of that power by couching it in “moral” or “ethical” rhetoric. We have had “wars” on dole bludgers, single mums, gays, tax cheats, fare evaders, parking space hogs, druggies, sex workers, bikies, hippies and most other forms of “otherness” one can imagine. Some “wars” I would strenuously endorse because they materially affect the personal health or collective health of us all. But if you look closely at the most prominent examples of the “wars” you find they are more about control by deployment of coercive power rather than attempting to find a solution to the root cause of the ‘conflict’. Sending the military and police into the Northern territory won’t change the material circumstances of the communities. There will always be predators and they are just as active in the suburbs of Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne as they are in outback towns. Perhaps the main difference is that in the big cities they have a larger available stock of potential victims. But we didn’t see an “intervention” in Kew or Artarmon or Kambah. Too many good, nice, upstanding ‘white’ folks in those suburbs I suppose. When it comes to art, we see images of real wars, like those being executed in the West Bank and Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan being torn down, closed, or otherwise being denied public space to show the real damage being done “in our name” to people we will never know. The hurrah over the Henson exhibition has a more sinister undertone to it. Forget Rudd and Nelson’s ‘tut tutting’ and Garrets gutlessness, the bigger issue is about testing the limits of state power and finding ways in which our society can be re-formed in the image of a few rather than reflecting the grand and wonderful diversity it contains. In order to privilege the latter, power must be divested to the people and this, in the minds of some, is a very dangerous thing. To let go of power means letting go of prestige, position and feelings of respect. It means that you never quite know what the outcome will be and it leads to fear of the unknown and that which we know but don’t understand. Most of us respond to this situation by trying to find ways to exert our power and control our environment. Indeed, some devote their lives and fortunes to trying to control their environment. In the end, they, like the rest of us end up just as dead as we do. In the meantime they cause misery to others, never quite fulfil themselves and end up achieving very little good but leave pain and suffering as their legacy. Being a parent is not an easy thing but like my children I too am growing up and trying to understand the diversity and uncontrollability of life. So rather than focusing on totalising control, I will guide, as best as possible, those I’m responsible for but will always take time to enjoy that which I don’t fully understand but which enriches us all. Even if we choose to look or not. Wed, 28 May 2008 17:20:00 EST http://www.shane.araustralia.org/Audio/Art_Power_Parenting.mp3 Margaret Thatcher once proclaimed “there is no alternative!” She made this pronouncement during the miner’s strike that almost shut down England during the 1980s. A closer examination of the subtext of her speech and this declaration reveals that, from a position of state based, capitalist supported and ideologically endorsed power, there can be no alternative to the will of the rulers being imposed on those they rule. When we turn to examine the so called “problems” in the Israeli occupied territories, the same principle is being espoused by those who hold the power. Even more so is this view held by those who pull the strings of power from a distance. Over the last couple of weeks there has been some media coverage of the 60th anniversary of the declaration of the state of Israel and at the same time the remembrance of what the Palestinians call Al-Nakba. The few reports that I saw or read were ‘balanced’ but only in the fact that they didn’t examine the root issue. In fact the most enlightening comment came from an Israeli who said ‘if they want peace so much, they should come and live here’. This man was not referring to Palestinians but to the wealthy sponsors of Israel who live outside the country they profess to love so much. In our papers, over the last couple of weeks, there were commentaries and letters by Israeli apologists and their supporters and responses by supporters of justice and peace pointing out their narrow and biased perspectives of those who control power in the current “conflict”. Perhaps the most shocking comments were made by Mark Baker who wrote in an Age article that, “visionary leadership on all sides [is needed] to transcend past grievances for the sake of the future”. This comment was aptly summed up in the title of the article, Let past grievances lie: the state of Israel is here to stay. Words and concepts that can only be uttered from a position of power. In other words, according to Mr. Baker, ‘Palestinians and your supporters, get over it!’ We only every hear this type of comment from victors. Perhaps as shocking but just as expected, were the comments by Mark Leibler in response to Malcolm Fraser’s considered perspective. As usual, Leibler begins by attacking Fraser’s grasp of the “facts”. He then proceeds on the usual disinformation dissemination that is common among leading, non resident Jews in places like Australia, Britain, the US and elsewhere. Towards the end of his propaganda piece he engages with the “appeasement” rhetoric and urges Fraser to consider that Hamas must meet the “sensible conditions set by the international community”. What he fails to point out is his beloved nation’s failure to abide by similar “sensible conditions set by the international community” that require Israel to abide by international laws. According to Baker and Leibler, therefore, there can be no alternative to the killing and “war” simply because Israel’s “will” is correct and absolute. Leibler declares, “Israel only targets those waging war on Israeli civilians and soldiers” while Baker says, “Israel … can only be erased by committing a second genocide against Jews”. Both men engage in hyperbole and invoke the language of the victor. They claim absolute sovereignty and right over the lives of those they have no knowledge of. I ask them, “if you love Israel so much, why don’t you go and live there?” Live there where your stubborn refusal to admit the mistakes you have allowed to continue create the conditions in which the people you supposedly love are exposed to the imagined and real ‘dangers’ of Palestinian resistance. Why is it that from a distance, these men and their peers pontificate on what is right and wrong in a place they may have visited but never lived in. Live in like those they are trying to ‘protect’ live in. Those that cannot afford to relocate elsewhere because the Israeli government only pays for Jews to relocate into Israel. There is an alternative but it will take far more determination, good will and guts than Leibler and Baker are prepared to accept and embrace. The alternative is for Israel to accept the will of the international community, as expressed in numerous UN resolutions and to be blunt, grow up. The alternative is that supporters of the state of Israel realise and embrace the fact that they need to broaden their view of the so called “two state solution” and give back all the land that has been stolen in the last 60 years; pay compensation to the land holders dispossessed during this time; repatriate Palestinian refugees to the lands of their ancestors and abide by the international community’s will that peace prevail and reconciliation be achieved. Am I being too optimistic? Perhaps. However, to quote the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, “if you will, it is no legend” (which Baker, in his article, removes from its real context and distorts). My optimism is lies in the fact that all power is transitory. As I have noted elsewhere, while I do not believe in the Zionist cause in its contemporary guise, I can relate to Herzl’s dream for a homeland. He and his powerful benefactors and their descendants have created the current situation only because the balance of power shifted. This means it can shift again and I remain optimistic that when it does, the Palestinian people and those, like me, who support their cause, will prevail. However, I believe that when this balance of power does shift it will not be like the previous shift which ushered in violence and death on a scale that is not seen elsewhere. I believe the new prevailing power that does bring peace will usher in an age of reconciliation, justice, reparation and peace. The only ones who will stand in the way of this optimistic outcome are those who refuse to believe there really is an alternative and continue to use the blunt weapon of brute power. Thu, 22 May 2008 13:50:00 EST http://www.shane.araustralia.org/Audio/Al-Nakba_and_Optimism.mp3 Did you see 4 Corners on the ABC last Monday night? It was about the plight of the grief stricken carers and the burden they carry looking after their disabled loved ones. What a bunch of whingers? I mean, lets do a reality check here. But first some facts, drawn from the most recent federal budget. According the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, there are 483,550 people in Australia who are cared for by someone in their immediate family or who qualifies as someone needing care. There are only 439,600 people who actually receive a carer’s payment. That means there is a shortfall in the carer’s workforce of 43,950. In other words, there is a real skills shortage in the home based carer’s ‘industry’. I will return to this later. In the 4 Corners program there was very little reference to the captains of industry who, if we believe the media, government spokespeople and other spin, are the real drivers of the Australian economy. These hard workers survive in a very competitive market. There are few who can do what they do, increase wealth like they do and who sacrifice so much for our economy. But do we hear them whinge? No! Of course not. They get lobbyists to do that for them. Lets have a look at the real differences between what carers have to do and what our CEO’s have to put up with. Firstly, lets look at the benefits each enjoys. How many CEO’s get to spend the whole day, every day with those they love? I would think none. They don’t have the opportunity to slack around the house in their pyjamas and grab a coffee whenever they feel like it. Our hard working CEOs are woken by reminder calls at 5:00am and have to get out of bed and take a shower, dress in their suit and make their way downstairs to where the cook has prepared breakfast for them. At 6:10 their chauffer picks them up and drives them to the airport where they are met by their PA who escorts them to the Flight Club. After checking their emails, they board the plane and take their seat in First Class. The first contact they have with their family is when the nanny sends them an email, via her Blackberry. When the CEO arrives at his destination he is met by a limousine and ferried to his first meeting. By the end of the day he has had four fifty minute meetings, lunched at the most exclusive restaurant in town, been helicoptered to at least one meeting and is now reclining in First Class sipping on a scotch. By the time he gets home his children will be in bed and his wife will probably not get home from her fundraising meeting until after he is asleep. Given that this is only Monday, he probably won’t see the tin lids and the missus until Sunday, the week after next, as he is due to fly to London tomorrow to close a new deal. And he does all this for a measly million dollars a year plus $20 million in share options as compensation. Now let’s look at the carer. She too is up at 5:00am looking for the intubation tube because little Freddy seems to be fitting again. All the noise he causes wakes her husband whose first response is to shout for her to close the door to Freddy’s room. By 6:00am she has had her first coffee and her daughter is up watching the tele because she has learnt that mum is not at her best before school. Hubby is up and getting ready for work but remains silent as usual. She makes sure his lunch is packed and his soup in the thermos – with the lid on tight (he blew his stack when it leaked all over the ute floor yesterday). At 7:00am she puts a bowl of corn flakes before her daughter, kisses her on the cheek and wishes her well at the school sports day. She does this because for the next two hours she will be bathing, changing pressure sore bandages and feeding her son. At 14 he’s getting heavier to lift and she reminds herself that she must make an appointment with the masseur. At 10:00am she is still in her pj’s as she puts out the daily washing. “At least the sun is shining.” She thinks to herself. By the time her daughter gets home from school at 4:00pm she has had to change out of her pj’s as Freddy had one of his projectile vomiting attacks and she, along with what seemed half his room, was plastered with the sticky, smelly contents of his stomach. Hubby gets home at 6:00pm and sits down to his dinner. He seems chatty and she realises that he must want sex because that’s the only time he asks her how her day was. And, because she loves them, she is content with the $50.00 a week carer allowance. Now, having established the facts, who would you rather be? Easy isn’t it. The carer. You’re home all day, get to see your family when they get up, get to be with them when they go to bed and best of all you don’t have to get out of your pj’s until someone throws up on you. Other benefits include not having to travel, being able to instantly fix any problems around the house and being able to enjoy the sunshine rather than being stuck inside climate controlled conference rooms all day. OK, you have to forego the big dollars, but surely being able to spend every waking minute with those you love is priceless. I mentioned earlier that there are 43,950 people who need caring for and whose carers don’t receive the carer’s allowance. This means they are scabbing off the rest of the carers and putting them out of work. In a market where there is a shortfall in workers for a particular industry, the wages of those in that industry rise. Its simple demand and supply economics. Its how the CEOs work. There are more businesses that are willing to pay them multimillion dollar compensation packages than there are CEOs. So, naturally, they have a closed shop and ensure their compensation deals are lucrative and huge. I suggest the carers take the same approach and get off their high horses and stop expecting tax payers to give a toss. Firstly, the carers need to organise. They need to “out” the scabs who are preventing them from progressing up the corporate ladder. The 40 odd thousand who aren’t part of their collective are making them look bad. This group are doing it for nothing. Imagine what would occur if CEOs suddenly decided that they would work for nothing! Or even worse, take a pay cut! The carers should write to the government and ask that a special task force be established to root out these bludgers and get them on the $50 a week allowance immediately. Once they have achieved that, they need to hold a convention in which they invite high profile celebrities to run workshops on how to retain your beauty when you’re starring in a period piece set in the grimy 11th century. After the convention they can take their butcher paper notes and produce a glossy booklet on the jobs they do and how they can still look good even if they’re covered in something resembling the contents of a pigs stomach. Finally, they should engage a high profile PR firm to sell their message to the rest of us. It could be along the lines of “look what we can do for love … and save the rest of you a fortune”. I also think it’s about time the carers recognised that most CEO’s sacrifice more if not as little as they do. Besides, it’s not a competition. Just like the CEO’s the carers have chosen their lot. They could have paid a high priced lawyer to relieve them of their contract and taken up a new opportunity. Instead they chose to stay. I say to the carers, stop your whinging and get a life. You don’t know how well off you are. Besides, not only are you saving us money, you are ensuring that the grief you constantly feel doesn’t interfere with your or our CEO’s productivity. (Shane has a son with a disability and is a long time advocate for carers). Thu, 15 May 2008 12:20:00 EST http://www.shane.araustralia.org/Audio/Carers_Get_A_Life.mp3