Today I awoke to the news that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has stepped aside as President and handed over power to the military, this of course was conceding the inevitable after yesterday's bizarre "sort of, but not really" handover to his closely allied Vice President which so enraged everyone further.
And after watching Obama's reaction to the news of Mubarak's demise, I couldn't help but chuckle at his references to people's struggles for freedom and democracy, for he really is the salesman in chief. His reference to 1989 reminded me of Chomsky's quote; "One 1989 comparison has some validity: Romania, where Washington maintained its support for Nicolae Ceausescu, the most vicious of the East European dictators, until the allegiance became untenable. Then Washington hailed his overthrow while the past was erased"
And this is exactly what is happening now, Mubarak is being quickly transformed from our "great friend" to a Hitleresque character.
Obama's inspiring words of Egyptian "moral force" and "this is the power of the human dignity, that can never be denied" would actually mean something if it wasn't the USA that was responsible for that denial of human dignity for the last 30 years!
So where to now for Egypt? With the fall of eastern European communism, and the return of democracy in Latin America, their are plenty of templates available on how to peacefully transition to democracy, and if ever the United Nations has a role to play, it is now. Washington on the other hand will try to pull the strings as best it can, but how far it's willing to push remains to be seen? The political forces to the Right are very strong however, and they still speak completely without irony of their right to impose a government of their liking on Egypt. The Billy McMahon of American politics, Sarah Palin even today said "we should not stand for that", in reference to the Muslim Brotherhood potentially coming to power.
And America still wonders why most people in the Middle East hate them with a passion?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
sticking the boot into multiculturalism...again!
Following on from British Prime Minister David Cameron's recent cynical Muslim bashing exercise see here , the Australian tabloids decided to get in their two cents worth as well. The Melbourne Herald Sun's editorial read it here was especially disappointing, considering it originates from a city that is probably world's best practice in interracial harmony. Both sides of state politics have always been supportive of multiculturalism, yet this hasn't stopped the Herald Sun dog whistling to some of its less than enlightened readership with comments like; "what needs to be asked with some urgency in this country is not what Australia is doing to accommodate ethnic minorities, but what these groups are doing to assimilate with the Australian community" and that some "do not embrace the Australian way of life and remain apart". This of course is a thinly veiled jibe at the Muslims, the great ogre of western civilisation. And in case you didn't get the point, the former Immigration Minister, the badly tainted Kevin Andrews came out with a bizarre rant about not wanting to eat meat that's been slaughtered "in the name of Allah" see here .
Of course what the underlying issue really is, is that mono cultural, monolingual Protestant Anglo Australians like Andrews cannot adjust to the fact that Australia is no longer a British colony of Anglo-Celtic stock (who like to eat fish n chips on Fridays). While these conservatives promote freedom and liberalism, they just can't seem to accept people with a slightly different view of the world are Australians too. They constantly talk about acceptance of "Australian values", but what exactly are they? Values change over time, they're not written down, just as at one time slavery what an intrinsic British "value".
In a free society people can associate with whoever they want, speak whatever language they want, hate cricket if they want, and wear a veil in public if they want. We have a proud multicultural pedigree in Victoria, and history has shown that by embracing tolerance rather than demonising minorities, we've managed to build a pretty decent society. Lets not allow the Kevin Andrews' of this world to talk down what we've achieved.
Of course what the underlying issue really is, is that mono cultural, monolingual Protestant Anglo Australians like Andrews cannot adjust to the fact that Australia is no longer a British colony of Anglo-Celtic stock (who like to eat fish n chips on Fridays). While these conservatives promote freedom and liberalism, they just can't seem to accept people with a slightly different view of the world are Australians too. They constantly talk about acceptance of "Australian values", but what exactly are they? Values change over time, they're not written down, just as at one time slavery what an intrinsic British "value".
In a free society people can associate with whoever they want, speak whatever language they want, hate cricket if they want, and wear a veil in public if they want. We have a proud multicultural pedigree in Victoria, and history has shown that by embracing tolerance rather than demonising minorities, we've managed to build a pretty decent society. Lets not allow the Kevin Andrews' of this world to talk down what we've achieved.
Tony Abbott's "Latham moment"
While I had some sympathy for Tony Abbott following the initial furore over his "shit happens" comments regarding the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan - I mean after all shit does happen in a war zone, and there's no reason to doubt Abbott's sincerity over the death - his follow up deer in the spotlights interview see here was just about the most embarrassing thing I've seen from a major party leader since Alexander Downer's "things that batter" gaffe.
I would even go as far as to say that this is a career ending performance? A Beazley or a Turnbull may've survived that type of performance because they were at least considered politicians of substance, but Abbott has so many question marks against him already that he just couldn't afford such an embarrassment. For a man who's considered a dangerous ideologue and a bully, to do a Latham and look like you want to punch the reporter in the face is a horrible mis-step.
And this performance comes at a time when Abbott is defending the insensitive Liberal Party donation campaign to stop the flood levy (you know, any money you have to donate to a worthy cause, don't give it to the flood charity, donate it to us instead so we can use it to score political points).
So while the Prime Minister shakes off her wooden image with that cynical use of the flag as a prop in the Lower House (which undoubtedly will play well to the masses, but not with me), Abbott just comes across as nasty and mean spirited.
Like I've said previously, I don't expect either of them to be leading their parties at the next election.
I would even go as far as to say that this is a career ending performance? A Beazley or a Turnbull may've survived that type of performance because they were at least considered politicians of substance, but Abbott has so many question marks against him already that he just couldn't afford such an embarrassment. For a man who's considered a dangerous ideologue and a bully, to do a Latham and look like you want to punch the reporter in the face is a horrible mis-step.
And this performance comes at a time when Abbott is defending the insensitive Liberal Party donation campaign to stop the flood levy (you know, any money you have to donate to a worthy cause, don't give it to the flood charity, donate it to us instead so we can use it to score political points).
So while the Prime Minister shakes off her wooden image with that cynical use of the flag as a prop in the Lower House (which undoubtedly will play well to the masses, but not with me), Abbott just comes across as nasty and mean spirited.
Like I've said previously, I don't expect either of them to be leading their parties at the next election.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
British PM bags multiculturalism
After reading this article where British PM David Cameron intends to criticise state multiculturalism, my immediate reaction was, gee this bloke must be in trouble if he's slagging off at the Muslims so early into his term? This is normally a tactic used by long term stale leaders who are on their last legs and are looking for a cheap popularity boost, but it's surprising for a first term "moderate" Conservative Government.
In the proposed speech Cameron brings up all the usual gripes about multiculturalism;
different cultures are encouraged to live apart
need of a stronger sense of citizenship and national belonging
Muslims don't believe in our "values" (my interpretation of his argument)
I can't help but roll my eyes at these same old arguments reappearing over and over again. Ok, let's start with the "stronger sense of citizenship" argument, as has been used here in Australia so politically brilliantly by then PM Howard, what this means is wrapping yourself in the Union Jack and identifying with the majority Anglo culture. And if you're not of Anglo stock....well you're not really one of "us" are you? Best that you be kept at arm's length. So is it any wonder that when the majority culture thinks that way of its minorities, some of these people will begin to feel marginalised and rebel? I mean think about it, how many properly qualified people even in enlightened liberal democracies like Australia or Britain have missed out at job interviews because their name is Mohamed or Habib? So we treat them like second class citizens, ensure their long term unemployment, then criticise them for bludging off the welfare state and refusing to assimilate.
And the other main argument being that Muslims don't share our "values" of "freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality, and that "to belong here is to believe these things". Am I the only one who sees the irony in celebrating freedom of thought on the one hand, yet if you have different thoughts on any of those subjects you don't "belong" here? So we're free to believe some things and express them, yet some free thoughts are non negotiable?
But as usual it's the Muslims who get a bad wrap, don't most religious Jews lead separate lives however and owe their allegiance to Israel (and to God)? Where is their loyalty? And what about the Hindus with their forced marriages and honour killings?
My point being that if the authorities take this line of singling out minorities, where does it end? If you turn the electorate against these people and create a culture of hate, then you end up with a self fulfilling prophesy.
We have adequate laws in place to deal with people who step over that line and resort to some barbaric cultural village practice (which usually has nothing to do with religion) against their wife or daughter.
The positives of multiculturalism really do bloom however with the second generation who are born in their parent's adopted homeland, people who as they grow to adulthood usually have loyalty to their country of birth, yet don't see the world through the blinkered eyes of their Anglo neighbours. We the offspring of migrants are an untapped resource, multilingual in an embarrassingly monolingual world (Australia, UK, USA), a living link with other societies that can easily be exploited for trade/business/cultural links, yet our governments prefer to downplay that as much as possible.
In the proposed speech Cameron brings up all the usual gripes about multiculturalism;
different cultures are encouraged to live apart
need of a stronger sense of citizenship and national belonging
Muslims don't believe in our "values" (my interpretation of his argument)
I can't help but roll my eyes at these same old arguments reappearing over and over again. Ok, let's start with the "stronger sense of citizenship" argument, as has been used here in Australia so politically brilliantly by then PM Howard, what this means is wrapping yourself in the Union Jack and identifying with the majority Anglo culture. And if you're not of Anglo stock....well you're not really one of "us" are you? Best that you be kept at arm's length. So is it any wonder that when the majority culture thinks that way of its minorities, some of these people will begin to feel marginalised and rebel? I mean think about it, how many properly qualified people even in enlightened liberal democracies like Australia or Britain have missed out at job interviews because their name is Mohamed or Habib? So we treat them like second class citizens, ensure their long term unemployment, then criticise them for bludging off the welfare state and refusing to assimilate.
And the other main argument being that Muslims don't share our "values" of "freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality, and that "to belong here is to believe these things". Am I the only one who sees the irony in celebrating freedom of thought on the one hand, yet if you have different thoughts on any of those subjects you don't "belong" here? So we're free to believe some things and express them, yet some free thoughts are non negotiable?
But as usual it's the Muslims who get a bad wrap, don't most religious Jews lead separate lives however and owe their allegiance to Israel (and to God)? Where is their loyalty? And what about the Hindus with their forced marriages and honour killings?
My point being that if the authorities take this line of singling out minorities, where does it end? If you turn the electorate against these people and create a culture of hate, then you end up with a self fulfilling prophesy.
We have adequate laws in place to deal with people who step over that line and resort to some barbaric cultural village practice (which usually has nothing to do with religion) against their wife or daughter.
The positives of multiculturalism really do bloom however with the second generation who are born in their parent's adopted homeland, people who as they grow to adulthood usually have loyalty to their country of birth, yet don't see the world through the blinkered eyes of their Anglo neighbours. We the offspring of migrants are an untapped resource, multilingual in an embarrassingly monolingual world (Australia, UK, USA), a living link with other societies that can easily be exploited for trade/business/cultural links, yet our governments prefer to downplay that as much as possible.
Friday, February 4, 2011
the future for post Mubarak Egypt?
As the inevitable demise of the Mubarak regime gets closer by the day (and who knows what will follow after Friday prayers tonight?), we are seeing yet more column space being taken up by trepidation of what's in store for a post Mubarak (see Islamic) Egypt here's an example .
The usual arguments are put forward, the Islamists are wolves in sheep's clothing, once they take power they'll "destabilize" the region etc. Well pardon me, but western interests have done such a great job thus far at "stabilizing" the region....I mean give me a break!
The reason that there's a power vacuum in Egypt right now is due to the fact that opposition groups have been horrendously persecuted over the last 30 years by Mubarak, with the usual nudge and a wink from Washington. So it's a bit rich now to be wringing out hands at the thought of a possible Islamic takeover of the country?
And perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad thing afterall? I mean when you get a guy like Israeli PM Netanyahu begging Obama to "go easy" on Mubarak, it almost makes you want to go running into the arms of the Muslim Brotherhood!
I mean the arrogance of the western mentality is almost beyond comprehension, these commentators and "policy makers" speak as if they have some sort of right to meddle in the affairs of these countries, well they DON'T. If the people elect an Islamic regime, and they turn out to be brutes, then so be it! Just give the Egyptian people a chance to sort out their own affairs without imperial meddling.
And who knows, they may even surprise you?
The usual arguments are put forward, the Islamists are wolves in sheep's clothing, once they take power they'll "destabilize" the region etc. Well pardon me, but western interests have done such a great job thus far at "stabilizing" the region....I mean give me a break!
The reason that there's a power vacuum in Egypt right now is due to the fact that opposition groups have been horrendously persecuted over the last 30 years by Mubarak, with the usual nudge and a wink from Washington. So it's a bit rich now to be wringing out hands at the thought of a possible Islamic takeover of the country?
And perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad thing afterall? I mean when you get a guy like Israeli PM Netanyahu begging Obama to "go easy" on Mubarak, it almost makes you want to go running into the arms of the Muslim Brotherhood!
I mean the arrogance of the western mentality is almost beyond comprehension, these commentators and "policy makers" speak as if they have some sort of right to meddle in the affairs of these countries, well they DON'T. If the people elect an Islamic regime, and they turn out to be brutes, then so be it! Just give the Egyptian people a chance to sort out their own affairs without imperial meddling.
And who knows, they may even surprise you?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Gillard, Abbott, the flood levy....and the lack of leadership
Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald recently wrote a piece bemoaning the destructive partisanship in the federal political sphere at present read it here , with comments along the line of "what he's saying (Tony Abbott) to the nation is: I'll do all in my power to make Parliament unworkable until you make me leader".
Well Gittins is certainly correct in criticizing Abbott - just about the most objectionable Opposition Leader we've had in modern memory - and the public in general for not supporting the quite mild flood levy. But in order to understand why that's happening, we have to look at the other side of the political divide, and there I think lies our answer?
In power at present we have the extraordinarily lightweight Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who since rolling Kevin Rudd last year for the top job has gone on to underwhelm us all with her performance. While Deputy Prime Minister, she took on the role of Question Time comedian in chief, and revelled in the all puff piece profiles of our lady in waiting by the journalistic sisterhood. So as the speculation continued to mount about a possible challenge, I naively held to the belief that the factional warlords wouldn't roll a first term PM who led Australia successfully through the GFC. And I didn't want to listen to my contact (who likes to ingratiate himself with those same warlords) who prophesized that Gillard would come to power with enormous fanfare, and be swept to victory in a honeymoon election a few months later.
Well he got the first part right, she successfully knifed Rudd, but only fell over the line in a hung parliament election, and this only because the Opposition were led by the unelectable ideologue Abbott.
So she came into the job a pragmatic centrist with no strong ideological views (a careerist in my view), and with me being a cynic my expectations for her were very low to begin with, but since taking over she has managed to prove to everyone that even I had overestimated her talents! She is showing the nation with every passing day that she is dangerously out of her depth, and her wooden, scripted responses to issues are certainly not endearing her to the electorate.
So getting back to Gittins' point, I believe the reason that Gillard has suffered such blow back to the levy, with Abbott feeling empowered to attack it, is because everyone can so clearly see through her; she inspires NO ONE, with confidence in the institutions of Government being at historic lows.
I came to the conclusion that after her embarrassing wikileaks comments late last year that her position was now terminal, and only a matter of time before her demise. This of course doesn't necessarily mean that Abbott will be the next Prime Minister, it's quite possible that there'll be two new people sitting in the PM and Opposition Leader's chairs by the time of the next election?
And Gillard?.....well she may take up her rightful place as a Madame Tussauds exhibit?
Well Gittins is certainly correct in criticizing Abbott - just about the most objectionable Opposition Leader we've had in modern memory - and the public in general for not supporting the quite mild flood levy. But in order to understand why that's happening, we have to look at the other side of the political divide, and there I think lies our answer?
In power at present we have the extraordinarily lightweight Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who since rolling Kevin Rudd last year for the top job has gone on to underwhelm us all with her performance. While Deputy Prime Minister, she took on the role of Question Time comedian in chief, and revelled in the all puff piece profiles of our lady in waiting by the journalistic sisterhood. So as the speculation continued to mount about a possible challenge, I naively held to the belief that the factional warlords wouldn't roll a first term PM who led Australia successfully through the GFC. And I didn't want to listen to my contact (who likes to ingratiate himself with those same warlords) who prophesized that Gillard would come to power with enormous fanfare, and be swept to victory in a honeymoon election a few months later.
Well he got the first part right, she successfully knifed Rudd, but only fell over the line in a hung parliament election, and this only because the Opposition were led by the unelectable ideologue Abbott.
So she came into the job a pragmatic centrist with no strong ideological views (a careerist in my view), and with me being a cynic my expectations for her were very low to begin with, but since taking over she has managed to prove to everyone that even I had overestimated her talents! She is showing the nation with every passing day that she is dangerously out of her depth, and her wooden, scripted responses to issues are certainly not endearing her to the electorate.
So getting back to Gittins' point, I believe the reason that Gillard has suffered such blow back to the levy, with Abbott feeling empowered to attack it, is because everyone can so clearly see through her; she inspires NO ONE, with confidence in the institutions of Government being at historic lows.
I came to the conclusion that after her embarrassing wikileaks comments late last year that her position was now terminal, and only a matter of time before her demise. This of course doesn't necessarily mean that Abbott will be the next Prime Minister, it's quite possible that there'll be two new people sitting in the PM and Opposition Leader's chairs by the time of the next election?
And Gillard?.....well she may take up her rightful place as a Madame Tussauds exhibit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)