IVF Suit

In the last day or so a lesbian couple who sought IVF to have a child have been all over the media – unfortunately though, it’s for all the wrong reasons. The couple are suing Dr Robert Armellin, the clinician they say negligently caused them to have two children and not the one they asked for. They accuse the doctor of incorrectly implanting two embryos and are pursuing a civil law suit to the value of $400,000 – the cost of raising their ‘surplus child’.

News of this case troubles me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I would classify this as a frivolous law suit. No question. It should be immediately (laughed) tossed out of court and the women in question forced to pay for wasting the court’s precious time. IVF is painful (emotionally and physically), costly and success rates are low. Many couples try repeatedly and fail. Multiple embryos are often implanted to increase the chance of success. Having a successful procedure is something to be treasured – the concept of ‘too successful’ doesn’t occur to most childless couples (gay or straight). The scourge of the frivolous law suit has long sickened the continental US and is emboldened with each new victory. It is a disease that I had hoped we would be largely spared of, as a people who supposedly pride themselves on common sense.

Second of all, and perhaps more important is the impact this saga is having on the rights of same sex couples to have a family though IVF. At a time when the issue is still divisive and certainly topical, this bad publicity is sure to be extrapolated. Critics are bound to seize upon this suit as reinforcement of unfair (and plainly incorrect) stereotypes which seek to undermine the value same sex couples place on having children. The quotes already in print from this case implying that the women had allocated enough love and resources for one child, but not for two – are damaging in general, but particularly so for same sex couples, already under fire.

Overall then, this case represents a two fold danger. Frivolous law suit season could be upon us, and anti-gay rhetoric could be louder than usual in the coming days. My advice then is to fight the urge to make a quick buck via a dodgy law suit, but to even more strongly repel the (all too common) human failing of judging minority groups by the actions of a few.

Keep an Eye on Pakistan

While we spent our collective week fretting about the APEC fence, the danger posed by anarchist hippy protesters (and j-walking accountants) and the nerve of those Chaser Boys – the relative stability of the subcontinent looked increasingly shaky. General Pervez Musharraf has ruled Pakistan for nearly 8 years as both military commander and President after taking power in 1999 in a bloodless coup d'état. Recently though, his people are crying out for a return to democratic rule and for Musharraf to go - throwing the future of the nations 160 million Muslims into question.

Pakistan was ‘created’ in 1947, following a British plan to partition their colonies in the subcontinent along religious lines. Majority Hindu regions become modern day India, while corresponding Muslim areas comprised East and West Pakistan (with East Pakistan subsequently succeeding to become Bangladesh). Soon after the partition, the British abandoned the region and years of rioting and blood letting followed. Civil war, corrupt governance and tensions over disputed territories (particularly Kashmir) have meant that Pakistan’s 60 years of sovereignty have been filled with violence. In this context, you can appreciate the relative calm (death remains a part of everyday life) that Musharraf’s military rule has brought – even though it has come at the cost of true democracy and many civil liberties. He is such a polarising figure that he has endured at least 3 assassination attempts since 2003.

Let me assure you at this point, that this is not a useless history lesson. The politics of such a populous Muslim nation and their role in the wider world couldn’t be more important. It’s the kind of thing that should be played on the evening news in preference to Hollywood gossip and petty local political. Currently, Pakistan is classified as an ally of the US, and has at least given the pretence of battling Al-Qaeda – while objectively they have drifted away from democratic ideals that had started to take hold prior to the coup.

In the coming months, Pakistani’s will come to a very important fork in the road, Musharraf is almost guaranteed to go – but who will he be replaced by? Down one path Pakistan can return to Democracy and demonstrate that Islam and this form of governance are not incompatible. The Army will be separated again from the Government and faith in the judicial system and free press restored (these have been eroding fast of late). Alternatively, military rule will continue, and more and more rights slowly stripped away. Extremism that flourishes in the border regions of the nation could take wider hold and 'The West' could lose an invaluable ally. Whatever the case, Australian’s should care very much about that outcome.

Scrap Workchoices

Industrial Relations (IR) policy here in Australia is a thorny issue in the lead up to the soon-to-be-announced election – perhaps even the decisive one. While health care, education and infrastructure may be just as important, it is the work place where Australian’s are feeling the most immediate threat. In this context, the performance of IR Minister Joe Hockey and his opposition (and Deputy Labor Leader) Julia Gillard couldn’t be more crucial over the next month. They’ve been trading jabs for a year or so already, but for mine, Julia is gathering momentum – and clearly out boxed Hockey during last nights ABC debate.

The reason simply put, is that the Labor party seem to at least be heading in the right direction: establishing a fair balance between workers and employers – something of particular importance for our poorest workers. They realise the value of collectively bargained agreements, as well as the flexibility for people pulling down 6 figures or more, to sort themselves out. In contrast, the Government seems to have noticed that businesses (and the economy) grow faster when labour is cheaper – and are letting ‘the market’ decide how much 10 hours on a production line is worth (not much).

The value of a good IR policy was impressed upon me as I worked my way through Uni at a bottling plant in the western suburbs. The plant was a microcosm of the wider workforce: the 50 or so employees included a CEO, marketing department, sales force, scientists, engineers, forklift drivers, cleaners and production line workers. In the same car park, the CEO’s yellow Peugot convertible (he even had driving gloves and cap for winter) nestled next to my 1981 commodore with the cracked head. It was an amazing learning experience. The degree-qualified staff enjoyed fat salaries and air conditioned offices, while the battlers pulled 12-hour shifts in the stifling bottling plant. The years I spent there taught me two things about Unions: without them, low-skilled workers are helpless and at the mercy of fast-talking HR managers – but also that Unions can quickly over-reach and become obstructive.

It seems obvious to me then, that the Government’s role is only to fine tune that balance. Let Unions represent blocs of unskilled workers to guarantee minimum conditions, but allow employers to sack problematic workers and to be free of unnecessary strike action. Last night, on The 730 Report, Julia Gillard said as much – while Hockey sought only to demonise Union involvement and to point to our growing (resource fuelled) economy.

Philosophically, we are being presented with two options. Under Labor we will continue to protect our lowest paid workers, allowing them to bargain for better pay – coupled to increased productivity. In contrast, the Libs are sending the message that our international competitiveness and economy at large rely on reducing labour costs and that maintaining basics rights is an unnecessary expense. Viewed in this light, there seems to be no contest; happy workers are productive workers - and trying to compete with China’s low cost labour force by oppressing our own is a fool’s errand.

Alberto Gonzales

If anyone was wondering how long an elected Administration official can get away with lying to the public and Congress for – the answer is about 6 months; and we have US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to thank for that insight. The troubled Gonzales finally bowed the chorus of calls for his resignation, ending a farcical period for the Bush Administration and its allegedly non-partisan Justice Department.

Gonzales became Attorney General in February 2005, after a Texas law career marked by a long association with Bush. Most notably, Gonzales was appointed Secretary of State (of Texas) and elected to the Supreme Court in that state – both personal nominations by then Governor Bush. If nothing else, the Bush Presidency has taught us how valuable he regards loyalty (certainly above competence), and Gonzales is a loyal foot soldier (yes man), if ever there was one.

Gonzales proved to be an invaluable tool in Bush’s War on Terror, presiding over the obliteration of many the basic rights prisoners of war have previously been granted. He was instrumental in the creation of Camp X-Ray (Guantanamo Bay), the necessary side-stepping of the Geneva Convention and the designation of detainees as ‘enemy combatants’ (thereby leaving them in legal limbo). His suppression of habeas corpus (the right to seek relief from unlawful detention; literally the prisoner’s right to appear before a court) consigned many, like David Hicks, to languish in Gitmo with no oversight.

Still, it wasn’t until Gonzales pressed his luck in the homeland that his actions came under closer scrutiny. His role in laws allowing warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens and the dismissal of 8 US Attorneys (for political reasons, ie: they were not sufficiently pro-Bush) sparked particular outrage. Congress’s questioning of Gonzales turned into a circus as his memory failed him. In one sitting he was heard to say “I do not recall” over 70 times! He was subsequently accused of lying to congress, a charge Stephen Colbert hilariously defended, on the basis that maybe Gonzales is just retarded (see below).

In all, it’s a great relief to many that Gonzales is gone. Coupled with the departure of Iraq War architect Donald Rumsfeld and Root of All Evil, Karl Rove – a light is appearing at the end of the dark tunnel that has been the Bush Presidency. Now, if only we could do something about Cheney, and Bush himself, we’d be getting somewhere.

The Straight Talk Express

Lately, it seems to me that dishonesty has become a disproportionate part of the society I live in. It’s probably a consequence of getting older and having the naivety of youth stripped away (or at least eroded), but I’m feeling like lying is the new black (I appreciate that maybe everyone always lied this much, but this is the first I’ve heard of it). As I bumble my way through my day, more and more often, I’m becoming entangled in one tangled web of deceit after another (and not small lies either, but complicated, interwoven tales that require effort to create and to maintain). Such are the lengths of some of these imaginings that it is often necessary to take a break from logic and reality to maintain my sanity.

The fashion of bending, shaping and sucker punching the truth comes undoubtedly from the top down in our culture. Politicians are so synonymous with lying that the concept has become a cliché. Still, I guess I often marvel at the extent to which the lies are peddled to and accepted by the public; it seems that there is no limit to the spin. Take the scandalous case of the Liberal pre-selection for the federal seat of Cook as a recent example. The nominally chosen candidate, Michael Towke was accused of branch stacking, blatantly making up his CV – including his education and work experience, and of being part of a right wing conspiracy involving my nemesis. Instead of disciplinary action, the state executive of the Liberal party has given its full support to Towke (despite compelling evidence) – in exchange for his withdrawal. The solution then was to counteract Towke’s initial set of lies with some Liberal Party sanctioned ones. He who lies last, lies loudest.

There would of course be 1000 other examples every day – the strange thing at the moment though is that getting found out in your lie doesn’t seem to have consequences. Iraq had no WMD’s, there was no actual evidence to trial David Hicks, Mohamed Haneef was not a terrorist and the world won’t end if the next US President is a Democrat. Peter Costello does not have mystic power over interest rates, Kevin Rudd is not (generally) a drunken pervert and nuclear energy is not the slippery slope to the apocalypse.

This sort of environment makes politicians who specifically purport to tell the truth all the more popular (though none ultimately follow through). It’s the reason John McCain was such a popular Presidential candidate for a time back in 2000, driving around as he did in a bus dubbed the ‘Straight Talk Express’. It also explains why his popularity has waned of late; he got all establishment and forgot to just keep telling it like it is. In Australia, we generally lack a straight talker, but Kevin Rudd is trying and I appreciate his effort. Note it down now though, when it comes time for this Presidential Campaign to lift off, it will be on one key platform: the truth.

Until then, I have few suggestions for fighting back against the culture of deceit. There will always be liars, and there will always be people who are prepared to be lied to. You can all start though by weeding out the more elaborate webs that have been spun in the corners of your lives and refuse to accept the dreamy imaginings your associates have some how manipulated into ‘fact’. Breaking down these most audacious of stories will help bring us back to a situation where lying is the exception and not the rule. After all, indulgence makes us complicit in the lie - as Homer Simpson famously pointed out: “it takes two to lie: one to lie and one to listen.”

Gossip-mongering

Across the world, it was a busy news weekend. Hurricane Dean lashed Jamaica and generally terrorised the Caribbean; the Gaza strip was plunged into darkness following the EU’s cancellation of fuel aid; space shuttle Endeavour prepared for re-entry despite damage to heat shields (a fearful reminder of the 2003 Columbia disaster); Mattel recalled 18 million lead tainted toys, and a suicide bombing in northern Iraq claimed up to 500 lives. Surely, these few examples were at the forefront (or at least in the top 10) of reports I saw over the weekend? Mmm, Nah.

Evidently, Kevin Rudd’s 2003 visit to a New York strip club is more news worthy than all of these, demanding an inordinate amount of airtime and comment (including 7’s Sunrise tour of the facility this morning). I have two problems in particular: 1. Our media has become so frivolous and focused on scandal and hype that it has forgotten its role as public educator (as distinct from entertainer) and 2. How far back are we to reach in order to smear an otherwise quality candidate, and how trivial need the offence be?

Firstly, our pathetic media. My criticism is restricted primarily to commercial television and print, as SBS and the ABC do a passable job of reporting with integrity and world context. It’s a favoured rant of mine and admittedly an easy target. Ten’s first at five circus, the current affairs phenomenon – and don’t even get me started on what passes for breakfast news. Over time the content has been continually watered down and jazzed up, lots of flashing lights and little that will invade your consciousness. Report on the fashion show, play up the latest P-plater tragedy, throw to the weather gimmick, finish with a panda bear wearing a nappy, and that’s a wrap. It’ll never cease to anger me. My solution is to beam Al Jazeera into all our living rooms – the details of which will be forthcoming in a future post.

The primary issue here is the extent to which we will all tolerate the smearing and muck racking that passes for politics these days. It seems that the campaign for PM has already degenerated into a contest about who can dig up the most embarrassing fact. Rudd’s wife’s multinational screws over some workers, Howard and Costello hate each others guts and both forget the name of the candidate they are supporting. All of which says very little about the quality of the candidate or their ability to be leader, let alone their little talked of policy positions. Rudd’s current Strip Club predicament is no different. Rudd’s clearly a family guy, not a noted beer enthusiast, and arguably an awkward geek. Still, he had a few too many to drink and got carried away with the (no doubt forced) male bonding. Who hasn’t been there? He woke up with a headache, a bag full of regrets, and no doubt that dirty feeling that won’t go away even after 1000 showers (that strip clubs are notorious for). Again, that doesn’t make him the Lone Ranger either. This isn’t a debate about the existence of strip clubs in our patriarchal (misogynistic) society – but a question over whether going into one means that you lack moral fibre or are unfit to lead our country.

I would argue not. Political leaders are human beings too and I wish the debate could be elevated above fear mongering and smear campaigns – and that we could have an adult conversation. Let’s talk about health care, our military commitment and the un-affordability of housing - and stop giving air time to year’s old scandal and gossip.

All Love is Equal

I have to say upfront that I’m not much of a protester. I traditionally don’t march, don’t sign petitions and most certainly don’t shout pithy slogans into a megaphone. This stems mostly from the feeling that no one in power is listening – if you get less than a million strong, it barely makes a ripple and you were better off staying home. Think work choices, voluntary student unionism and the war in Iraq. Come APEC time, the water cannons and marbles (to roll under the mounted police) will be out, but again it won’t change a damn thing. Bush will continue to do as Bush wants. My attitude, as you would all be well aware is to sweep to power, and make the changes myself.

This weekend though, I made an exception. I marched and chanted my way down Oxford Street, in support of same-sex couples searching for equality. While I maintain that Howard and Rudd were no doubt oblivious to this occasion (no doubt at the city to surf), it’s a cause I’ve long embraced. A June report by The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission only increased the urgency of this issue in my mind, finding that same-sex couples were discriminated against in 58 areas of legislation. In the workplace, in relation to superannuation and in generally being recognised on all those occasions that only ‘partners’ are admitted (hospital visits, access to shared children etc). As was often said on the day, same-sex couple are segregated into a third tier (below married and de facto heterosexuals), often finding themselves in legal limbo.

It was a great day out. Various speakers highlighted the difficulties society has placed in the way of same-sex couples. I found none more compelling than the representative from Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), who simply wondered why her 3 children (1 straight, 1 gay, 1 lesbian) were treated so dramatically different? Two are discriminated against and marginalised, while the other is free to love and be loved. Her sentiments reflected the slogan of the day: All Love is Equal.

In the end, I was pleased to hear that Malcolm Turnbull has decided to take up this fight (making him one of only a handful of high-profile politicians to be interested), but fear that full rights to marriage and children for same-sex couples remain unacceptably distant. The protests will continue as public support increases and if we have to wait until I’m President, equality for same-sex couples will be signed into law on Day 1.

Kisschasy

Kisschasy are a relatively new Aussie rock band and as of today, friends of the Administration. Their debut album United Paper People (2005) was catchy and is on pretty high rotation at the White Unit (I’m working my way towards the full house but c’mon, have you seen the interest rates?). I can highly recommend “The Shake” and “Water on a Stove”, if you want a taste of their infectious sound and you’ve probably already heard “Do-Do’s & Whoa-Oh’s”.

Not all rockers have a message though and prior to the release of Hymns for the Nonbeliever (2007) I would’ve generalised Kisschasy into that category. Catchy but not political. Their first single from the new album though, “Opinions Won’t Keep You Warm at Night” definitely does have something to say for itself. Something about John Howard being a bit pathetic - and Bush and Blair being in love. The lyrics aren’t all that strong or deep, but the clip is a cracker. This doesn’t classify as a war anthem, but I like where the boys’ heads are at.