Time for Vision

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately reading and watching the developments in the race for the US Presidency in 2008. It fascinates me. The parties have become so polarised in the last couple of years that each has staked out clear ground on most of the big issues (gay marriage, abortion, climate change, Iraq, guns etc) – and it makes for heated debate. The Dems control the Senate and Congress for the first time in a decade and that’s giving everything even more spice. The diverse range of candidates in the primary race is a positive too, providing subtleties of message with the party framework.

Unfortunately, our system couldn’t be more different – two candidates, each from parties which have many more shared values than opposing ones. Differences in policy, while being only minor, are amplified by the media, hoping to represent the occurrence of a true political debate. For the last fortnight at least, the media has focused on nothing but Industrial Relations, and Work Choices. Not, however, on the core issue of finding a balance between employer flexibility and employee rights – but on the slight nuances in the ever changing policies of the Government and Opposition. Neither group is suggesting any fresh moves – like refocusing our economy away from mining and manufacturing (where we will never be able to compete with China) to innovation, or a new industry driven by Green Technology. Both parties dither about who has more passion for protecting working families, while the media scrounge the personal lives of these politicians looking for dirt.

The whole affair with Rudd’s wife Teresa is pathetic. Countless hours of investigation uncovered some underpaid workers somewhere in her multi-million dollar conglomerate. The workers were compensated and she’s selling her interests here. Case closed. The implication that Rudd won’t be for workers rights (despite Labor’s strong Union membership) because his wife’s multinational got greedy is absurd. All it does is distract us from the actual IR policy debate. Rudd, to his credit, is trying valiantly to tackle some big issues, like climate change – while the Libs (and the media) seem content to snipe at him across the parliamentary aisle.

My point is, not only is the current way we do politics in Australia boring, but counter productive. Personal attacks and over analysis of every uttered word only draw our attention away from the facts. The Libs seem to be hanging their hopes on Rudd disintegrating, while Labor are hanging in there, not quite daring to hope that they're actually going to win. Its a shame, because at this time in the world there is plenty to talk about: The War on Terror (and in Iraq), Global Warming and our reliance on fossil fuels, Missile Defence and our growing water shortage. As citizens of this democracy we want these issues aired and debated. We don’t care about the intricacies of either leader’s personal life, we want only for them to stake out a clear position on the issues that will define the next decade of our politics and our country.

Take a leaf out of Obama’s book, and engage the people like they matter. Outline in brush strokes how you see the future of this great country. The time for pettiness has passed; the time for vision has come.

Creation 'Museum'

Loyal readers of AFP may wonder why I detoured recently to lend my support to evolutionary biologist and atheist, Richard Dawkins. Partly, his views resonated deeply with thoughts of my own, that until reading his book I had not been able to articulate. More so though, his challenge to organised religion and particularly to religion’s growing role in government has come only just in time.

Don’t believe me? Think that the threat from religion trumping science is exaggerated? Perhaps you need to visit the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The $27 million museum opened its doors today, with the goal of righting the perceived wrongs taught by science and by Darwinian Evolution. The museum features model dinosaurs grazing in the Garden of Eden, side-by-side with human figures – and later aboard Noah’s Ark, escaping the Great Flood (the same flood which incidentally ‘created’ the Grand Canyon in 3 days). The overall premise of the museum, built by Young Earth Creationists, is that humans were created, pretty much in their current form by God, in the last 10,000 years.

This clearly flies in the face of generations of science, which estimate that the earth is more like 5 billion years old, with dinosaurs first popping up about 230 million years ago. Humans, for perspective as a species are about 200,000 years old (at most) – making it difficult for those dinosaurs to be aboard that Ark. The museum presents an untold number of fallacies, inaccuracies and outright lies, and is a scar on the face of science. It is abominations like this, which muddy the waters for an entire generation that moves me to favour atheists running things. Our faith, if we must have it, should be placed in science, in reason and in evidence.

Still, the extremists have the money and the power at present in the US as the moderate (and atheist) majorities lay dormant and unorganised. That may mean that the Creation Museum will persist for the time-being, but would a real museum need its employees to sign a statement saying: "no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record"? Their use of the word ‘museum’ devalues it for all of us. Let’s hope this scourge is stopped, before it inevitably reaches our shores.

Enhanced Interrogation

Since the invasion of Iraq, the term ‘enhanced interrogation’ has become to torture what intelligent design is to creationism. In short, a euphemism. A shameless re-branding of a topic that is unpopular in the mainstream in an attempt to make it more acceptable. The analogy between torture and creationism ends there though, because the discussion of school curriculum pales significantly when compared to the subject of ritual prisoner abuse – particularly in light of its current context, justifications and growing links to patriotism.

Throughout history and across regimes, torture has enjoyed several periods of state sanctioned acceptability. The Catholic Church presided over Inquisitions in the late 1100s and early 1200s of heretics that achieved notoriety for their severity and liberal use of torture. Non-believers were most regularly suspended by their wrists – which were tied behind their back, a technique known as strappado – causing considerable pain and damage to shoulder joints in particular. Their Spanish Inquisition is particularly well known as an example of religious persecution and torture, though it was no more or less severe than other movements of the time. The Church was not alone either at this time of civilization, with general acceptance of torture common throughout medieval England and Europe. Thumb Screws, hot irons, drawing and quartering (see Braveheart), the rack and good old fashion beatings were in wide and accepted use, up until the late 1700s. The US was by no means exempt from this sort of cruelty, famously burning ‘witches’ at the stake in the late 1690s.

Such tales have formed the basis for many an urban legend and Hollywood blockbuster – but modern day torture has had the good sense to move underground, mostly. Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany are notable exceptions. It is also periodically brought to our attention that some regimes – say Saddam’s Iraq, or those mysterious Saudi’s still persist with these barbaric practices. The reality though is that it remains widespread, with Amnesty International reporting torture or ill-treatment by state officials in more than 150 countries from 1997 to 2000. It can be found amidst almost every conflict, in every corner of the world. The change in the last few years for mine is that Western countries are for the first time openly discussing – and attempting to justify – their use of torture, specifically to combat terrorism. Following decades of covertly pursuing torture as an interrogation tool, while publicly deriding ‘un-civilized’ regimes for doing the same – it is the height of hypocrisy, at the very least.

The US and its allies have been particularly vocal on the topic of late. Exploiting loop holes in the Geneva Convention, the euphemism of enhanced interrogation and the pressing threat of terrorism – the attocities of Guantanamo Bay, of Abu Ghraib and of proxy torture in secret prisons have been allowed to take place. Instead of remorse, the Republicans are upping the ante: Mitt Romney wants Guantanamo Bay doubled in size, Giuliani wants interrogators to be able to “do whatever they can think of” and fringe candidate Tom Tancredo has invoked fictional renegade Agent Jack Bauer (Tancredo is incidentally, an evolution denier). That is of course, except for the lone hand of John McCain, who having been tortured himself for 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton believes the US should be setting a moral example and not resorting to such barbarism.

Let’s get one thing clear; ‘enhanced interrogation’ is torture. It can involve sleep deprivation, extremes of hot and cold, ‘stress’ positions, intimidation with dogs, sensory deprivation, solitary confinement – and that old favourite of the Catholic Inquisitors, strappado (In November 2003, Manadel al-Jamadi was killed during an interrogation session at Abu Ghraib by this method). There’s also the widely referred to waterboarding technique, which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his face to simulate drowning, making the subject believe his death is imminent. Undeniably, if these techniques were performed on you – you’d think they were torturous.

So I think the US and her allies (including Howard, of course) have two options. 1. Take the appropriate moral stand and refrain from anything that could be construed as torture. Treat prisoners with dignity and respect and try to regain some ethical authority, or 2. Tell us the truth. If we really need to torture prisoners to be safe from terrorism, level with the public – in graphic detail – and make each and everyone of us understand the lengths we are going to. At the least, quit hiding behind political spin, and at the most acknowledge that torture is for torture’s sake. As Ulpianus noted nearly 2000 years ago: “The strong will resist and the weak will say anything to end the pain."

MC Rove

Bush’s current Deputy Chief of staff is an enigma of a man by the name of Karl Rove. Australian audiences would only be familiar with his work after Kim Beazley accidentally sent condolences his way following Belinda Emmett’s death (instead of to Rove McManus of course). In the US though, he is acknowledged to be the ‘brains’ of the administration – and as Bush calls him, the “architect” behind many of their political strategies.

For his entire career, Rove has cultivated an aura of mystery and untouchability – while becoming a master of spin and political gamesmanship. In recent times, under the weight of what seems to be a never ending list of controversies, Rove has become even more elusive. Despite getting credit for derailing John Kerry in the 2004 presidential elections, being implicated in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame (a federal offence) and more recently for a role in the firing of Us attorneys – Rove remains aloof and closeted away from the media. That’s a controversy in itself – how does the driving force behind many of the Administration’s shadiest dealings avoid accountability?

Now, leaving the debate about whether Rove is Satan incarnate to one side – I wonder what possessed him to recently emerge from his shroud of darkness and at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner in Washington no less (see video below – it starts off a bit slow, but hang in there). I’ve never seen a more bizarre effort, from a weirder guy. For a mysterious, political guru – he sure made a tool of himself. Let me go on the record as saying that I’d prefer my Deputy Chief of Staff kept this sort of stuff to an absolute minimum.

Common Sense Prevails

Following weeks of uncertainty and indecision surrounding the Australian Cricket Teams’ tour of Zimbabwe, the trip has been scrapped. Incredibly, our cricket tragic PM intervened, putting a stop to proceedings – promising to invalidate player’s passports if necessary to stop the tour going ahead. Given our history for watery foreign policy, Howard’s stand was a welcome change, and I applaud his decision. His motives have been tied to the forthcoming election, but I’m not that interested in his motives. The players are relieved that they don’t need to take a boycott into their own hands, their safety has been ensured and Mugabe has heard loud and clear that Australia don’t like where he’s steering Zimbabwe.

Criticism from former Australian player Dean Jones (and from the ICC) has focused on the lost opportunity to spread the influence of the game of cricket. Let’s keep some perspective though – as much as I love it, it’s a game. The ICC want to make their money, Jones wants to perpetuate the romanticism of spreading cricket to former British colonies – but seriously (and obviously), there are bigger issues here at stake. Jone could also do well to pipe down for a while, after his recent sacking from Sri Lankan television for calling South Africa batsman Hashim Amla “the terrorist”. Maybe Jones should also take a leaf out of Howard’s book and read the many valid reasons for boycotting the tour. The right decision has been made; let’s talk no more about it.

Giuliani's Dilema

Pop Quiz. Which do you think would be more damaging to your Presidential campaign: a) Dressing in drag and having Donald trump rub in face in your 'breasts' or b) endorsing publicly funded abortions for poor women who need them?

This is a real question and one former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is no doubt asking himself right about now. The first of the two videos, from a Press Roast in 2000 shows the Trump routine - while the second is a brief statement from 1989. Yeah, thats right the 1989 that was 18 years ago.

Surprise, surprise, its the abortion statement that's promising to derail Rudy's strong showing in the Republican race to date. Party purists are denouncing his anti-abortion credentials, even has he vainly tries to reposition himself as someone who "hates abortion". I don't know what's worse, compromising your integrity to win the respect of your red-neck party loyalists - or caring more about someones view on abortion than their penchant for drag and ugly billionaires.

Costello Dupes Us Again

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: democracy doesn’t work. In a true democracy, the combined will of the majority would ensure that many of our national efforts were directed to a common good. Sounds a little like Communism in some ways, which maybe explains why the West has feared it for so long – it sounds so foreign. The state of democracy here and in most other proponents is the same: a powerful few hold most of the money and most of the power – and use both primarily to perpetuate said money and power.

Bear with me here; this isn’t going to be a new communist manifesto. Following last night’s transparently short-sighted budget though, I’m wondering how much worse that would really be. In this instance the purse strings, on what is a staggeringly large purse, were only slightly parted – wide enough to offer a range of sweeteners to a soon-to-vote public. In short, tax cuts, one-off payments (read bribes) and half-measures were the order of the day, with an emphasis on maintaining low inflation, and of course: the fat surplus. In a widely choreographed move, Howard’s Liberals chose to preserve much of their (and by their, I mean our) $15 billion surplus, while spending just enough to try and bolster their poll numbers.

I’m not surprised – the budget is exactly as I thought it’d be. But I’m enraged. I’ve had enough of the way our politics is played and am crying out for a change. In my view, its nothing short of a disaster that Costello has smugly chosen to promise over $30 billion in tax cuts – amounting to about $14 a week, unless you earn over $180,000 or under $20,000 – and waste another $4 billion in ‘one off payments’ to swing voters like the elderly, veterans and carers. It was insane when they pulled a stunt like this last year, and it’s insane now. The biggest loser again was the public school system, whose $3 billion short-fall was again ignored – they were placated instead with a summer school program for teachers. Not surprisingly, this buck (like the hospital system) was passed to the Labor states.

The biggest tragedy is that the average punter probably content this morning with their extra $14 a week, while legions of the elderly celebrate their one-off $500 windfall – with everyone oblivious to the fact that they’ve been duped. For the umpteenth year in a row, a small cash sweetener has distracted the media and the electorate from Howard’s faltering government. The Libs poll numbers will no doubt improve and most likely, this stunt – and those upcoming could get them over the line again.

It’s sad really. The cycle has been set up and is now self-perpetuating. You cut taxes, we’ll re-elect you. We love one-off payments, and meagre increases. We fear high interest rates (especially those that are Labor’s fault), and yearn for economic growth. The Libs know the formula and have repeated it with staggering success. But do me a favour between now and election day: imagine an alternative. A government who tax you reasonably and diligently invest in education, health care, transport and other infrastructure. Higher education is affordable, if not free – you can have a complex operation like a heart bypass, without taking out a second mortgage, and your 10 year old knows how to read. The majority of us can agree that these are our true wants, and very few of us would list ‘fat surplus’ or ‘target inflation’ among our priorities.

I respect sensible economic management, but it’s about time the system started to work as it was intended: for the good of the majority.

McCain gets Onboard

Finally, someone who gets their face on TV regularly agrees with me: the UN is obsolete and needs to be replaced. It has long been apparent to this Administration that the United Nations has become a victim of its own permanent members (and their vetoes). Its most common response to conflict and diaster around the world is increasingly, paralysis. Take your pick of Darfur, Israel, Iran and Iraq as examples of the UN’s stuttering non-influence.

US Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has decided today that this fact can now be viewed as a US foreign policy (and therefore campaign) issue - and he’s right. McCain, identifying the veto happy Chinese and Russians, has suggested a "League of Democracies" should be formed in the UN’s stead, allowing a smoother path to pursing US foreign policy, with like minded allies. His emphasis was on increasing humanitarian efforts, such as Darfur intervention, and fighting HIV – but he also referred to environmental and economic policy co-operation. Humbly, for a US Republican, he added "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom, knowledge and resources necessary to succeed.” Isn’t it nice to hear an American say that?

It’s not a flawless suggestion by any means, but it’s a good start. The underlying problem with the UN is that it has outlived its original design. The UN was formed in 1945 by the Allies, following their WWII victory. Composed of 50 nations, its prime purpose was to preserve the newly found peace. 62 years on, the UN now boasts 192 members (almost every independent state) and the common philosophy (and enemies) of the Allies have long faded. In its efforts to be inclusive, the UN has made it almost impossible to reach general agreement on virtually anything. Accordingly, McCain’s idea is to basically pare away dissenters (and vetoers) and to formalise alliances with like-minded nations. Like a coalition of the willing – but permanent.

McCain, for what its worth, seems to be nostalgic – in the face of a decomposing US reputation. From his comments, he appreciates that any new organisation will only operate as well as the US allows (their role as lone Superpower and the breadth of their influence is hard to deny, and their place in the driving seat of this League of Democracies is a given). He remembers a time before the US had expended its good faith with allies like Britain, (and even Australia) – and before Europe had had enough of their grandstanding. He’s trying to reach back to the close of WWII, where the US not only held international influence, but was trusted and respected. A time when pursing democracy still seemed like a valiant quest. However, given the behaviour of the US in the last decade and the implosion of their foreign policy, few share his vision.

McCain is a complex candidate. His reputation for integrity, ‘straight talk’ and idealism has long made him popular – while his support of Bush and the Iraq troop surge have pegged him back. He has recently courted controversy by advocating bombing Iran (with a song parodying the Beach Boys song Barbara Ann), and joking with Jon Stewart about IED’s, after his 'stroll' through Baghdad. He’s an old school conservative, but he puts his money where his mouth is. He's pro-Iraq, but his son is serving there. He's militaristic, but he's a Vietnam Vet and POW. Chances are he won’t win the Presidency or the Republican primary - but, I like him being in the debate, reminding us of what the US stood for in the past, and agreeing with me that the UN has passed its use by date.