Save Your Energy for Election Day

Thousands of protesters are expected to turn out today in capital cities across Australia to show their support for over turning Howard’s Industrial Relations reforms. The Labor Party and Union organised demonstrations are expected to draw up to 150,000 people across NSW and 55,000 alone at Victoria’s MCG (Jimmy Barne’s role as a draw card is debatable). My advice though to these disgruntled workers is to stay at home, squeeze all of your anger up into a bitter little ball and release it at the appropriate time: Election Day.

Now don’t get me wrong, this Administration is against the current set of IR laws, which undoubtedly discriminate against workers across the board and particularly those in manufacturing and factory jobs. CEO’s and executives are used to negotiating individual contracts and can rely on their indispensability, while the backbone of our workforce need the security of collectively determined pay and conditions. The problem is not with Labors plans to repeal the laws – it’s that traditionally these causes tend to lose momentum the closer we come to fresh elections.

Last time around, demonstrations against Voluntary Student Unionism, higher tertiary education fees, detention of asylum seekers and the invasion of Iraq amounted to nothing and the government was re-elected with an increased majority. A small tax break and good economic news (mixed with scare mongering on rising interest rates) was enough for most Australian’s to forget the misdeeds of Howard and vote him back in. If anything, the idea that these demonstrations can be ignored was reinforced and today’s rallies will be no different.

Let us then learn then from the misadventures of the past. Stay home today and stare angrily at a John Howard poster, spar with your Peter Costello punching bag and burn your Alexander Downer effigies in the privacy of your backyard. Bottle your anger, concentrate your discontent – and when it comes time to vote in 2007/8, make a choice that will actually make a difference.

We Know What's Good for You

The problem with making policies these days is that most of the time, the public doesn’t know what’s good for them – and politicians are too busy ‘spinning’ to try and convince them otherwise. The example of nuclear power is topical at the moment, so let me start with that.

Global warming and concern for our environment is no longer the sole domain of hippy’s and Peter Garrett. Increasingly, as drought takes hold, a percentage of the South Pole drifts towards NZ and beers take longer to chill in the esky – more of the public have environmental concerns and want to see action. Ultimately though, the action they want to see is like a scene from the Teletubbies: large green hillsides, full of windmills and pretty flowers, with brightly coloured middle-aged men cavorting around amongst them, gibbering incoherently. Unfortunately, clean energy from wind or solar power is about as far-fetched as this scene and is highly unlikely to be our saviour within the next generation. Still, when confronted with a realistic alternative, like nuclear energy, the same people campaigning for the environment are against harnessing the atom. Now, the adoption of nuclear power is a complicated issue, but my point is this: the public don’t understand the real alternatives and are forcing politicians to take the safe and often wrong options – and Kim Beazley is reveling in it.

Raising taxes is another classic example, where in short, the public want bountiful public services like health and free education – but balk at contributing. Can you recall a politician that ever dared to recommend raising taxes? And yet how often do we see a minute tax rebate around election time? To stop from making a tired point, let me propose the solution. The people in power need to demonstrate, with their actions that they can be trusted to make decisions that contribute to the common good. Raise taxes, and deliver services. Expand the nuclear debate, and help the public understand that it is one of the real alternatives that will help stem the emission of greenhouse gases, on our way to developing clean alternatives. This Administration as we have already demonstrated is not about spin, but an honest appraisal of each issue in turn. The people of this country long for that change.

Divided We Fall

There are clear lessons to be learnt at the moment for our fledgling Administration from the behaviour of the opposition parties in both the US and our own federal government. You will no doubt remember that the US Democrats have reclaimed the House and Senate for the first time in over a decade (but while Bush is President remain the ‘opposition’ in some sense), while our beleaguered Labor party has been in opposition for a similar period.

The Democrats have started badly, only a matter of weeks after their landslide election victories – disrupted by internal conflict and factional fighting. Their designated leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi (who will be the first woman Speaker ever) has struggled to bring together the disparate factions within the party and to present a united public front. This was most evident in the Party’s debate over the House Majority leader – Pelosi’s deputy. In short, her favoured candidate, John Murtha was easily beaten by incumbent Steny Hoyer, despite her urgings. To the media, this was indicative that her hold over the Party was weak. It also indicates that if your friend (Murtha) is an outspoken proponent of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and has been tainted by decade old corruption allegations, then you shouldn’t advocate his promotion (Hoyer isn’t free of the stink of corruption either, but is held in marginally higher regard). Following this embarrassment, Pelosi is working to extinguish the fire started by left-leaning Charles Rangel who is proposing the obviously controversial reintroduction of the military draft. As she tries to galvanize public support, fringe Democrats are pursing extreme issues. Ultimately, the factions within the Democratic Party are at war, and that is no way to win the Presidency in 2008.

That story seems all too familiar as Federal Labor play factional games and destroy their public credibility. The question of party leadership has again resurfaced, possibly after Kevin Rudd read my post about Beazley being unelectable. The Opposition Leader’s recent mistaking of Karl Rove (US political advisor) and Rove McManus was yet another nail in his political coffin. The caucus is divided over sticking with the mis-speaking Beazley, known election loser – or upgrading to the unknown quantities of Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard or maybe even Wayne Swan. Opinion polls, for what they’re worth, show that Julia Gillard is the most favoured and electable as far as the public is concerned and Kevin Rudd is the least. The problem is that few Party members are thinking about the most electable candidate and most are concerned with the power of right and left within their own ranks. Gillard is from the ‘Ferguson Left’ and is in the minority, as is current deputy leader Jenny Macklin who belongs to the slightly larger Socialist Left. All the numbers are with the Right of the Party which boasts the allegiances of Beazley, Rudd, Swan, Simon Crean, and Stephen Smith to name a few. In the end, if Beazley is replaced it’s likely to be by another personality-free drone from the Right – despite the presence of brighter, more publicly popular candidates.

Its one of the oldest cliché’s around: united we stand, divided we fall - and yet many of our politicians are oblivious. If either the Dems or Labor is serious about challenging for control of their governments they need unity, and more importantly, the vision to propose a candidate that can win – and not just please internal party agitators and power brokers. This Administration can see the error of these policies, and is committed not only to unity, but to offering leaders that the public can get behind and be proud to vote for.

It’s Happened Again

Just when we thought it was safe to venture out in public again another of Hollywood’s setting stars has destroyed his reputation with a minute long racial tirade. Michael Richards, known primarily for his role as Kramer on Seinfeld, was in the middle of a stand up routine when he launched into a viscous attack on some hecklers. He repeatedly called the black men “niggers” and made reference to how they would’ve been lynched 50 years ago. Its makes for truly amazing footage, from the point of view that it’s so unexpected in this day and age.

Watch it here for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UomfLKQr57U&NR

Hot on the heels of Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic rant, the subsiding wounds have been reopened and we need to acknowledge that racism is alive and well - particularly if you’re a wealthy American entertainer. Thankfully, in Australia our ‘stars’ are generally much more circumspect and manage to retain some humility when they make their millions (Russell Crowe is an obvious exception, but he’s not really Aussie). This is partly because most of them are ‘B’ celebrities (who cares what Sarah-Mari, or Hot Dogs has to say), but mostly because the truly mega stars have had to work so hard to be famous. Nicole, Hugh Jackman, Kylie, Cate Blanchett, Eric Bana… there are plenty of down to earth Aussie ambassadors. I don’t care much for the power and money that movie stars are allowed to wield but remain thankful that Australian ones, for the most part, tend to remember their roots.

Just Sign it Already

World leaders met in Nairobi overnight at the UN climate change conference to discuss ways to combat climate change and global warming. This time around, the meeting was meant to have an increased sense of urgency after the recent spate of natural disaster’s and unusual weather patterns. Hurricane Katrina devastated the southern coast of the USA, a tsunami crashed through Indonesia and glaciers now float off the coast of New Zealand. This week alone it snowed in drought stricken Ballarat, giant waves crashed into the Hawaiian coast after an underwater earthquake and Sydney weather all too closely resembled Melbourne’s: rainy, windy and sunny all within an hour.

Following the meeting, Australia’s environmental position remained the same as the US (surprise, surprise): we’ll sign the Kyoto Protocol when the developing world has the same targets that we do. Additionally, our main argument against signing is an economic one; cutting back on fossil fuels and limiting emissions will cost jobs. Both seem to be paper thin diversions at a time when the earth is becoming increasingly angry with its treatment.

As a country that aspires to be one of the foremost developed nations, we should be leading by example and set a goal to have the lowest emissions and greenest policies. Understandably the pollution levels of larger nations like the US, China and India have a greater impact on global warming that we do – but we should be operating on principle here and making for the moral high ground. Kofi Annan said yesterday that the challenge of global warming is suffering from a “frightening lack of leadership” and that, to me, creates a huge opportunity for Australia to step forward.

As far as economic impact goes, we have clearly relied on resources for much of our history for economic growth, blessed with an abundance of mine-able commodities. One day though, those reserves will be exhausted and we will need to rely on the skills and creativity of our people. The consequences of global warming merely bring forward the date on which we need to evolve our markets. We’re an entrepreneurial society, full of innovators and the minute that the government gives the go-ahead (and some incentives) new businesses harnessing green technology will spring up. This phenomenon is already being demonstrated in NSW (which has a emission reduction scheme) by companies such as Easy Being Green who are actively trading (and profiting from) carbon credits with corporations who need to meet emission targets. The net effect is that reducing pollution becomes financially attractive to businesses – the only way that the majority is going to get onboard.

So, Mr. PM let me summarise for you. There is no such thing as clean coal. Sure you can catch the CO₂ and pump it under ground, but how long will that be viable for (and is it even a solution)? The coal lobbies are pouring poison in your ear and you’re falling for it. The economy will be fine, if you have the boldness to spend some of your 15 billion dollar surplus on new energy technologies, re-training our mine workers and encouraging the innovators in Australia to create new green businesses. My Administration would act before the Great Barrier Reef disappears and Tasmania becomes a diving attraction – what will yours do?

Viable Alternatives

One of the strongest arguments for my Presidency and corresponding Republic is that a career in politics tends to suck the creativity, honesty and life itself out of those who commit to it. This creates a situation where charismatic leadership is harder to find than justice at Guantanamo and the choice of candidates to lead the country (or state) is short and uninteresting (a little like the PM).

In NSW, as well as federally at the moment, this situation is all too apparent. Morris Iemma’s Labor government seems to be self destructing in recent weeks, with the sackings of Police Minister Carl Scully (after repeatedly misleading parliament) and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Milton Orkopoulos (on child sex charges). The cloud of corruption surrounding state Labor has continued to darken after allegations of domestic violence against (Blue Mountains candidate) Phil Koperberg, drink driving charges against (now withdrawn Port Stephens candidate) Aaron Beasley and repeated speeding fines for front bencher Kerry Hickey.

Plenty has already been written on each of these incidents and on the crisis facing the party, leading up to the March 2007 elections – which, they seem to be doing all they can to lose. There’s one compelling reason though why I think Morris will still be Premier next year: Peter Debnam. The Opposition Leader is widely known for his emotive outbursts and sound bites, surrounding delicate issues like the Cronulla Riots (lock the bastards and Middle East thugs up, etc) and glib one liners like “the public has a right to know” (which don’t mean anything). I wouldn’t trust him to run a coffee cart, let alone the state of NSW. Which leaves voters with a bleak choice: an increasingly corrupt Labor government or a Liberal one led by one-dimensional Pete?

The same parallels can be made federally, with the unelectable Beazley trying to unseat the increasingly cocky and powerful Libs. As a voter, it’s disillusioning. I want real choice returned to the ballot, and I want one of the choices to stand for integrity, leadership and maybe even some personality.

A Solution for Iraq

I know we’re on the other side of the world to Iraq, but I still wonder why it isn’t more of an issue to everyday Australians considering our soldiers are in harms way. So many questions go unasked, even when we manage to corner the PM long enough to get the chance. During a recent interview on the ABC, Howard managed to cover off on the entire problem of Iraq, by saying in effect, we are determined to stay, we’ll change tactics if necessary (to what, we wonder), but we’re staying.

Stay the course. It’s short, pithy and well, it doesn’t really mean anything. It shows how steely our resolve is and avoids coming up with solutions to the nasty problems that are now present on the ground in Baghdad. The stay the course mantra was initiated by Bush, but since it’s recently cost him the congress, he’s all open-minded all of a sudden. He and the American people eagerly await the findings of the Iraq Study Group, to give the situation some fresh perspective – but wouldn’t it be great if our leaders thought independently about Iraq and had solutions of our own.

For perspective, the war in Iraq has deteriorated to such a level that there are indeed few remaining options. Which is to say that there are more than the two championed by our current leadership. Howard wants to stay, Beazley wants to leave. The only thing most agree on at the moment is that it is a significantly more difficult problem to solve than those choices indicate. The current options being tossed around are: 1) Keep doing what we’re doing, but ask the Iraqi’s to ‘step up’ and take care of law and order themselves 2) Withdraw to a nearby friendly base and wait and see, or more radically 3) Divide Iraq into three regions (that were there before Churchill drew new borders after WWII).

Option 1 has been tried for 6 months and setting milestones (or threatening) the new Iraqi government is no solution. The withdrawal proposed in option 2 is favoured and probably the most likely course we’ll see taken in the near future. It is argued that insurgency will die with the last of the American troops, and we can easily intervene if/when terrorism takes seed. Just like the invasion though, it is an overly simplistic idea that depends too heavily on our expectations on how the people of Iraq will respond. Ultimately, the guerilla war will continue, but over a greater distance.

As radical as it may seem, dividing the country along ethnic lines, into a Kurdish north, Shia South and Sunni West, may prove to be an effective way to quell the sectarian fighting that is gripping the country. This would be best achieved while coalition forces are on the ground, to minimize the ethnic cleansing that has been associated with redrawing ethnic borders in the past. In effect, the Kurdish people are already self-governed and the Shia’s in the south are beholden to Iran. The Sunni’s cling to the hope of returning to power in Iraq, after so many years in that position – but care more deeply about their access to oil reserves. A successful oil sharing agreement between the three factions could be sufficient to keep everyone happy.

This Administration knows there isn’t a solution that doesn’t involve more bloodshed, nor is there a lasting solution that involves a quick withdrawal of troops. It would be nice though to expand the conversation here in Australia beyond stay or leave.

Trust me, Johnny

Since this Administration has been formed, we’ve been pushing pretty hard at some controversial issues that both the current political parties seem to avoid. We’re anti-bogans and Bathurst, pro-nuclear energy, pro-gay, critical of the UN, anti-Howard, anti-monarchy and so on. Check the archive for a full list of our policies to date. We’ve not shrunk from any of these issues and are keen to take strong stances on the most important of issues, without being pigeon-holed as any particular ideology.

With that said, the most controversial topic this week is Stem Cell Research, following the Senate’s decision to overturn the existing ban in a tight (34 – 32) vote. The legislation now has to be passed by the House of Representatives to become law, and the Government has announced that members will be entitled to a conscience vote – free from the obligations of party affiliation. John Howard states his current position as conflicted, and as he is no doubt a keen reader of this Administration’s policies, I thought I would spell it out for him.

Before I get there, I think that this is another issue that will be tainted by religious views, particularly in a conscience vote setting, ignoring the scientific merit of the procedure. How much molecular biology do you think John Anderson has under his belt? How confident are we that Barnaby Joyce knows the difference between a stem cell and, well a head of lettuce?

But I digress; the system is how it is for now, so fingers crossed my message gets across before tomorrows vote. Michael J. Fox, recently campaigning in Missouri for stem cell research expansion (the bill was passed incidentally), summarised my view point best when he said in effect: we have to trust our scientists. The potential for stem cell technology is amazing, though as yet unrealised. It may take decades of research, at the full capacity of our means before a result is achieved – but that result will be truly life changing for millions.

I dismiss the pro-life arguments around this research (that don’t apply for some reason to IVF), and that it is a slippery slope towards human cloning and egg farming. This is not an abortion issue, it’s one of science and society. Every day, our researchers tread the line between right and wrong when they grow all types of human cells from tissue, conduct drug trials on humans, and experiment with animals. The ethical requirements surrounding these undertakings are stringent and clear. There is no reason to expect that the same high standards would not be met for stem cells.

In summary, my dear PM, you have a chance here to provide hope for the majority of your citizens - that know someone with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer's or with a spinal chord injury. Don’t let this be another issue over-run by the Pro-life lobby or by the religious right. Give your scientists the tools to make a difference, and expect of them the same strict ethical oversight that they have demonstrated for generations.

Dems Win

The world’s most powerful democracy went to the polls yesterday to elect a new House of Representatives and a third of its Senate. As the majority of the counting concluded in the early hours of this morning, the Democrats had emerged as the big winners and the big theme of the election was one of change. In the 2002, Bush’s Republican Party gained control of both houses, and has wielded unchecked power for 4 years. Disillusioned citizens sent a clear message that they disliked the way this power was being used, returning the House to the Dems (229-196 with 10 undecided) and possibly the senate too (50 – 49 with 1 undecided).

In the end, the Republicans were undone not only by their faltering war in Iraq, but also a raft of corruption and sex scandals that plagued many of their representatives. Ultimately, control of both Houses made some Republicans complacent and greedy and certainly allowed Bush free reign to dig a deeper and deeper hole in Iraq. The wake-up call that this election brings comes too late for the ousted senators and representatives, but should have Howard and his Liberals looking nervously back over the missteps of their fourth term.

Since our the Liberals took control of both Houses of our government, it has continued to privatise Telstra, enacted controversial workplace reforms, abolished compulsory student unionism, made it easier for media barons to control large swaths of the media and over-ruled an ACT same-sex unions law. The Liberals have also committed troops to Iraq and have been stained by Australian Wheat Board bribery scandal. Most recently, Howard’s government has maintained its stance on refusing to combat Climate Change by ignoring the Kyoto Protocol and pandering to the coal lobbies.

When you look at it that way, it’s been a torrid 2 years, during which a lot of questionable legislation has been pushed through. Come next election, it is my great hope that Australians acknowledge the value of senate oversight, and perhaps even decide that we too are in need of sweeping change in our government.

Keep God on the Side

Every so often the media will pick up a horrifying story of the public stoning of an adulterer, the de-handing of a thief, or the lashing of some other petty criminal. Most often these reports come from a mysterious Arab country that sounds familiar, but that your average Today Tonight viewer could never find in their atlas (you know, that book with all the maps in it). Saudi Arabia and my old friend Iran are traditional favourites. Then, viewers collectively shake their heads and mumble something about the cruelty and backward nature of some societies, while the reporter tries to explain the application of Sharia (Islamic) Law.

While I agree that this system is heavy on the violence and isn’t my preferred model for law and order in Australia, neither is any other religious based governance. Now while Australia is generally a Christian nation, it has managed for much of its history to separate church and state. Increasingly though, in step with the rise of American Evangelicals (watch Denton’s “God on my Side”) and their influence on politics, political decisions in this country are coloured by religious beliefs. Tony Abbott injected his ‘morality’ into the medical debate surrounding RU486 (and thankfully got slapped down), Howard continues to deny Gay Rights, has proposed the introduction of religious advisors in public schools (don’t even get me started on that) and publicly supports "the lunatic Right" (nice one Barnaby) party, Family First. Other issues of importance to our society like euthanasia and stem cell research are also frequently high-jacked with religious arguments, preventing reasonable public debate.

In short, many of the current Liberal (and Family First) policies run counter to those put forward by my Administration and are anchored deeply in Christian conservatism. Many of these tenets are literal interpretations of the bible (in context it was written over 2000 years ago and translated from Aramaic), extrapolated from passages even devout Christians have never read. In my view, the role of religion is a personal one and should be kept well separated from the running of the country. Controversial issues require free public debate, logic and compassion; ingredients sadly, that are currently lacking.

Genocide isn't Funny

Has anyone else had enough of Iran? I can’t believe the lengths their leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to, in order to alienate the international community. If the ASIO boys were up to it, I'd think about making him my second assassination. Currently, as they enrich uranium and test fire long range missiles to carry the payload, the world, and the UN stand by idly. This is frustrating, but not new. Neither is it new that they continue to deny the right of Israel to exist, as well as actively advocating its annihilation. The latest stunt though, has pushed me over the edge, and if I could assassinate a whole country I would.

In response to the infamous Danish cartoons featuring the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, an Iranian newspaper launched a competition in search of the best Holocaust cartoon. Seriously, that really happened. On presenting the winner with their $15,000 prize, the Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister, Mohammad Hossein Saffar-Harandi, praised Ahmadinejad (who has described the Holocaust as a myth) and said "People should not think that by questioning the Holocaust they are committing a crime." Actually, by not a crime, he means it is a crime in Austria, Belgium, The Czech Republic, France, Germany Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain Switzerland and Israel.

News flash: the Holocaust really happened. The Nazis murdered over 8 million Jews, in a coordinated effort to eradicate their race. It’s just a fact. We know it’s a fact, because the Nazi’s meticulously recorded the details of the crimes, with tens of thousands of photographs and documents that survive to the present day. Denial of this event has enjoyed varying levels of popularity since WWII, but seems to be peaking lately, with Hamas controlling Palestine and Ahmadinejad erratically steering Iran. At times like these, leaders of the rest of the world need to take action and not let this behaviour continue. Ongoing inaction only encourages other nut bags to shoot their mouths off; just to get their mugs on TV (isn’t that right Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly?).

This administration has a zero tolerance policy on this sort of ignorance and hatred. There is just no excuse for it. Oppressed peoples everywhere look forward to the day we are elected and can give them the protection they deserve.