Retrospecticus

I must take the opportunity to farewell Psephite.

I was hoping the election blogging adventure would end in a somewhat different way I must confess.

But this process has not been without its benefits. The boss was particularly impressed when I righteously claimed to be part of the blogging fraternity.

I can now add blogging to the list of cool memories I have which have sprung from the internet. It will be up there on the all time list of cool memories, but I'm afraid it won't surpass having a hotmail address since 1997 (yes, before Microsoft got their paws on it) and using the internet back in the days before any newspapers were online and when it was just a collection of Simpsons and '80s Japanese cartoon fan pages. You may have had to wait 5 minutes for the page to load, but it was worth it - you could download all sorts of erstwhile copyrighted media as the lawyers hadn't yet worked out what a modem was.

Maybe by the time the next election rolls around there will be a yet unthought of medium through which we can communicate our thoughts and well, let's face it, anger.

Ta ta!

The last stone

We've decided to call it a day. Psephite was originally set up to critique the election and as that has now been and gone we have struggled to maintain the rage, so to speak. So, upon consultation, I am winding up Psephite.

Thank you to all those who read and posted comments, it was amazing to realise that there were people out there actually reading Psephite.

I can't speak for the others but I will continue to blog but in a more focussed form. I am hoping to get my book blog off the ground soon.

Thank you and good night.

What the White House said to Timothy Garton Ash

Via Arts and Letters Daily, an interview with Timothy Garton Ash about his dealings with the White House and his new book Free World: America, Europe, and the Surprising Future of the West. The interview includes the first contact the Whitehouse made with Garton Ash:

It's the White House here, could you come and tell President Bush about Europe, uh, next Thursday at 1:45?

Says it all really.

2004 Weblog Awards

If you would like to nominate a blog for one of the awards on offer, do it now. There is a 'Best Australian blog' category. Tim Blair has a couple of nominations so I have named Backpages (even after its demise) to even the competition up. The number of nominations has no affect on the winner - voting will start in December.

Well and truly grogblogged

Although I didn't make it to the 'colourful' part of the evening, a grand time was had by the surprisingly numerous bloggers who turned up to the Clock Hotel in Surry Hills last night.

- > Got to meet the man himself, Darp, even if he can't spell Psephite he's still rather cool.

- > Picked up me Pandagate shirt and have already worn it, the quizzical looks from passers-by alone are worth the 25 bucks.

- > Weezil and Suki Lombard rock in big way. Go read their stuff, your life will be empty without them.

- > The Daily Flute was as cool as I had expected and we got along a treat. Funny how a tall straight Pommy and a short Aussie dyke could get along so well.

- > Also in attendance: Jess from Ausculture, Red Betty Black, Eric from Eating Tahini on Trains, Tim Lambert, Fulmination Dave, Moo Cow, Will Type for Food (a RWDB, apparently) and loads more who I didn't meet or can't remember. Sorry. Beer. A lot. Of beer.

Other round-ups can be had at Ausculture, Darpism, and Will Type for Food.

UPDATE: Photos at Darp, Suki's place, Weezil's place and Boudist.

Google scholar beta

Check out Google scholar, the Beta is online now. It allows you to:

search specifically for scholarly literature, including peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, preprints, abstracts and technical reports from all broad areas of research. Use Google Scholar to find articles from a wide variety of academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories and universities, as well as scholarly articles available across the web.

I would be very interested to see how libraries could utilise this. Will look at giving it a good workout and review in a day or two.

More blogging about Sydney grogging later when head can concentrate a little better...

Book them

I've been on a bit of a books/language bent in my last few posts so I thought I would continue it by pointing to a San Francisco bookstore that is allowing its books to be arranged according to colour. Someone has posted some photos, if you'd like to take a peek.

It reminds of my years working in a bookshop where there were so many books they were piled on the floor. As well as the shelves being double packed, books were piled at least 10 high on the floor down every aisle. In that place we used to organise books by size. Of course, there was a loose subject categorisation that happened but beyond that books were out on the shelves according to fit. Hardcovers at the back, paperbacks at the front. Most of my job consisted of moving books, trying to find space where there wasn't any. It was like the proverbial painting the Harbour Bridge. You'd start at one end of the store and by the time you got to the NEXT AISLE the first one required maintenance. The worst aisle was the one that held the religion books. I'd tidy it up, find space for books when god knows there should not have been any at all. I'd pop downstairs for a fag and in the monitors I'd see some fundamentalist nutcase head into the aisle. By the time I got back up it was utterly destroyed. God knows what they were looking for, I hope they bloody found it because I still harbour a grudge against religio-freaks who destroy books. Grrr.

Speaking of weirdo religious shit:

John Hostettler, the Congressman representing the 8th district of Indiana, has been convinced by local religious groups to introduce legislation in the House that would change the name of an Interstate 69 extension to a more moral sounding number.

If they didn't have such filthy minds it wouldn't be dirty would it?

Goodbye Back pages

Chris Sheil has decided to close down Back Pages to focus on writing his book. A sad occasion for the Australian blogosphere, yes. The positive? Chris has given us his 10 rules for blogging. A must-read for all current and would-be bloggers.

Never seen nothin' like it

Language eh? It's a weird and tricky thing. Even though I may not always write so good, I am of the opinion that there are rules to be observed and there is such a thing as good English. Ok, call me a fascist but I assure you the rest of my tendencies are thoroughly to the left.

I was absolutely thrilled then to read this extract from John Humphrey's book. Although it seems he may be treading ground that Don Watson has already covered, I have to admit that Humphrey's version seems a tad more entertaining. His description of language pendants described several people I know:

The Pedants are those who think there is only one thing that matters: observing the rules. They will avoid a split infinitive however convoluted the resulting sentence may sound. They cannot see a dangling participle without wanting to hang it in the right place. Solecisms are scars on their backs. They feel almost physical pain when they see apostrophes in the wrong place and commas where no pause is intended.

There are fewer and fewer people in this world who wince when they see 'vegie's' on sale or a shop offering 'CD's'. People who take personal offence at such language are uncommon these days. They are swamped by those who tell us that language doesn't matter as long as people understand you. Understanding something is just the first step. It's when you move beyond understanding that the real magic starts to happen. I may understand what the language of a poem is saying but it wouldn't be a very good poem if that's as far as it went.

I don't think it's too much to ask to extend this extra dimension to everyday speech and writing. No, I don't think we should all start talking and writing as if we were bards but I do think a certain respect for language would make life a little more interesting. I don't want to hear of another document being 'socialised' or that 'going forward' we'll be doing such and such (well, actually I prefer going backwards so you can count me out of that one) or that 'we'll take this offline' when they really mean we'll talk about this later.

I accept that language changes, I accept that subverting language conventions can be effective, what I don't accept is pure laziness. I also don't accept the ghetto-ising and jargonising of language until it is beyond the comprehension of everyone except the person who wrote it. Are you listening project managers?

* A gold star to the first person who notes every error in this post. This does not include the ironic use of poor language in the title and the first paragraph. (In fact, if you didn't realise it was ironic you are immediately disqualified).

Hubba hubba

The Paris Review is offering fifty years of interviews with writers FOR FREE. Excuse me, I have some reading to do.

Just can't get enough, I just can't get enough

I just read a very entertaining article from the Chronicle of Higher Ed about a man and his books. I was horrified to find myself agreeing with almost everything he said. You see, I may work on the web, do a bit of blogging, love my new iBook and have been known to use nearly 300mb in downloads a day, my true love though is books. The older I get the worse it becomes.

Sometimes my interest may wane slightly, this is usually when I don't go to a bookshop every day. At the moment though I am in the full throes of a binge. Thankfully I live and work in an area blessed with decent bookshops. Usually the lack of bookshops doesn't stop me though, it only makes the challenge greater, the quest to find a bargain or something obscure and interesting more vital. For example, I once bought a book on darts by Leighton Rees (World Cup Singles Champion 1977, World Professional Champion 1978, Grand Masters Champion 1979) simply for one chapter that included:

His comments on the Japanese theory of Zen darts:

"With all respect to the Japs (sic) and their beliefs, in my opinion, most of that is absolute tripe"

His views on alcohol and darts:

"Although some purists insist otherwise, I maintain that alcohol is not incompatible with increased performance dart-play. It helps to steady you up. I find that a couple of pints prior to serious play is just right for me."

Proper preparation of equipment:

"Just before a match get yourself a drink to see you through, particularly if it is a clash over the 3001 or 1001 distance. If you run out of beer halfway through a match your game can go to pieces...Find a little corner to call your own where you know your beer, cigarettes and matches are. Then you can find them automatically without interrupting your concentration on the game."

Needless to say it's a gem of a book that only set me back one dollar. (I waited til the last day of a sale when everything in the shop was one buck. I'm a cunning and patient book buyer.)

Usually the books of interest to me run in phases. There are some things I will always look for: literature, lit crit and poetry. I had a severe phase of football book illness that still lingers and I will always check the sports section for gems like the Rees tome or Sam Fussell's Muscle: Confessions of an unlikely bodybuilder. (If you haven't read it you must. Story of Oxford nerd turning beefcake and his run-in with 'roids. Pure gold.)

Generally though most books are of interest, the only things I avoid are computer manuals and economics books. Can't ever see the day when either of those will spark the fire within. I believe they are two topics whose books hold no value whatsoever beyond the initial vocational worth to the first owner. Obviously their publishers know this - they cost a bomb.

Collecting books is a disease, I truly admit that. It is a very pleasant one however and can at least give the afflicted the feeling of knowledge and a connection to world that is fast receding into the distance.

Out there

Went to the Newtown Festival yesterday. It was absolutely huge, as usual. And also as is normal, the usual mixed bag of yuppies, goths, dykes and poofs, uni students, hippies and god knows what else. Also, the usual stalls run by Green Left and Socialist Alliance on King St. One of them was selling a t-shit with a rat on it and 'Don't blame me. I didn't vote for the lying rodent.' I had a half-smile but there was a sinking feeling in my stomach. It's all very well wearing something expressing this sentiment but after the last election, who cares? Who's looking for someone to blame when the majority voted for the bastards? You know if you wear it around Newtown that most people would nod in agreement. This is just such a mircocosm though, such an isolated area of absolute leftness. I think this is why some of us around this joint found it so hard to comprehend the result. Everything we saw, everyone we knew were voting left. Who the hell was voting right? For me Newtown is completely normal. It's scary to think that it's 'out-there' in comparison to the rest of the country. I'm not talking in terms of dreadlocks, tatts and dogs on rope leads either. I know people here dress, er, eclectically. It's the politics. I honestly thought the feeling felt here was a general trend. How wrong I was.

And that, dear friends, is my last post on the election. I promise.

Typing, not journalism

I don't know about fellow bloggers but I can't say that I have ever imagined myself as a journalist. (Except when I was in primary school and I conned my parents into helping me put together a photostatted 'newspaper' called the 'Hotline Herald'). Eric Engberg, a retired CBS journo has written an article claiming that bloggers like to think they break the news and that they are taking the place, or at least are a small threat to, traditional media. He believes they are having themselves on. As Truman Capote said of Kerouac's On the Road, "That's not writing, that's typing!". Engberg believes much the same about bloggers. He cites the fact that early blog callers of the US election got it so wrong in interpreting the exit polls as an example that they just spew out stuff with no real 'craft' or 'discipline'. (Hang on, he may have a point there).

I have to agree that bloggers can't really compete with journalism. We just don't have the infrastructure or resources. I have to kind of half-agree with his feeling that all bloggers care about is hits and notoriety:

This is the kind of stuff we used to run in my aforementioned school paper, when the speculation surrounded who was going steady. The difference is that the bloggers aspire to being a force in our public life and claim to be at the forefront of a new political-media era. It was clear to me, from following their efforts that night, that, unlike journalists, some blog operators who are quick to trash the MSM not only don’t care about the veracity of the stories they are spreading, they do not understand when there is a live hand grenade on their keyboard. They appear not to care. Their concern is for controversy and "hits."

I have to make the clarification that I don't think is ALL bloggers care about.

Anyway, his article got me doing some naval-gazing and wondering why the hell I blog. I have started three group blogs and with all of them I have ended up being almost the sole contributor. I have to wonder then, why do I find it so enjoyable when my fellow bloggers have fallen by the way-side? Some may say it is because I work at a university and have more time than others...whatever.

I blog perhaps because I am a frustrated 'writer' and I see blogging as like doing laps of the pool - you do it to get fit for the big game, not as an end in itself. I do think blogs have their place in terms of knowledge sharing in workplaces and discussion in the general public arena though. It allows people who are frustrated letters-to-the-editor writers to finally have their say and not worry about pesky editors rejecting their work. It allows political brawls to come out in the open and for those with self-sufficiency and creativity to actually get their work out there.

Anyway, I don't think blogs are going to take the place of 'serious' journalism I'm not putting any money on the likes of Bolt, Devine x 2, Ackerman et al though. I think I have seen a s*&^load of blogs that add more to the world in terms of intelligent discussion than those typists.

The Right in retreat

Two Cents is no more. Bummer. I was needing some fun this evening. Right now I am not going to have rant about this, I'll leave this to everyone else.

Even more crikey

After crazybrave generously shared the sealed Crikey section, it is now on Crikey with a reply from Andrew Bolt and Simon Hollins.

Now I'm off to have a look at the Blogger templates. Getting bored with this one, too straight maybe, perhaps something more diagonal is in order...

Comments

I have enabled the Blogger commenting facility and am going to phase out the current system. If you want to comment on posts here, please use the Blogger commenting link. When I figure out how to disable the other one without losing all the current comments there will just be one link. Cheers.

UPDATE: Ok, now I seem to have lost all the &^%^ comments. Ah well, nothing like a clean slate is there?

Enough is enough - I'm outing myself

Ok, with my last post I resolved that I would leave the Panda-hairy-gate saga in peace. Then I decided to cruise on over to Two Cents. Call me a masochist. Anyway, the latest post is entitled: It's not ok to be gay. (I did have a link to this 'piece' but Two Cents have since taken their site offline and made it password protected so only the priviliged few Right people can look at it). So, being a masochist, as I said, I read it. And now I have decided that these silly little children can only get away with what they are saying for so long. I'm not an agressive person, I don't usually fight back, call me a wimp, but this time I decided I would. The thing that got me going wasn't so much their claims that homosexuality is unnatural - I was brought up Catholic, I got over that years ago - it was their scare mongering in regard to gay people having children. They accompanied their charming post with a cutesy photo of some kids. And some bloke dressed in drag. Zoe at crazybrave got brave this week so I decided I would join her.

I am a lesbian. I live with my partner of six-plus years. We have a son. Our son also has a Dad. In fact, he has two Dads, his biological father and his partner. We all live within a couple of kilometres from each other and we see each other regularly. Our son lives with his us, his Mums, and visits his Dads whever he wants, and whever they want. His Dads have photos of him all over the house, they can't help but tell everyone about him, they are very proud. We go out on family outings together quite frequently. We think of ourselves as a family.

Our son attends a daycare centre (another reason I am going to hell - I'm not staying at home with my child) where there are several other children who have two Mums. No one at the daycare centre has a problem. Nothing is hidden. The other children know that some of the kids have two Mums. They don't give a toss.

My son has an extended family that adore him and accept him. Not only that, they accept his mother, their daughter, their sister. They accept my partner, they accept my son's Dads. The important thing for all of us is that my son is loved. And my, that he is.

I don't want to fight with people who believe that I should not have a child. I do not want to fight with people who think that children will be somehow damaged by the knowledge that their mate at school has two Mums or two Dads, or both. I just want to get on with my life and enjoy it with my son and partner. I do have to start making myself visible though, because as long as people like us don't say anything, then rich, right-wing, ignorant young twats like those at Two Cents, will continue to think that their view is normal.

The last word

Hopefully, the last word on Pandagate has beeen posted in the form of an email expose by Rob Corr. For all those who have been following the sorry saga, the emails reporduced in Rob's post are truly entertaining. I must admit to finding great mirth in two things:

- Andrew Bolt got involved in some petty student-politicking
- Alex Lew thinks he's allowed to put (BA/LLB IV)(Melbourne) after his name because he is in the fourth year of an Arts/Law degree. Comicstriphero, if you're out there, can you let me know if this is in/correct? I suspect he may be talking out of his arse...as does Melbourne Lefty and everybody else in the blog world. Please tell us we are wrong if that is the case. As ML points out, this could lead to all sorts of wonderful letters: by Alex's reckoning I should have BA I(Syd), BA(UWS), MInfSys 1(UNSW), MIMS 1(Monash), MA I(Syd) after my name. Yes, I have actually enrolled in that many degrees. The two aborted Masters I blame on having a baby, I am still enrolled in the third. And halfway through an essay on poetry, which I am off to finish, ciao-ciao.

Getting our brains back

Zoe at crazybrave has posted a very brave and thoughtful piece about abortion. Go read it.

I ask you

IQ v political persuasion

At the risk of enraging the RWDBs (actually, in the HOPE of enraging the RWDBs), I would like to refer you to a wonderful little table that ranks US states according to average IQ. Oh, and it also notes whether the States are Republican or Democrat. Enjoy.

(But get in quick, it has been hammered with hits and may have to be taken down due to blowing out the owner's bandwidth).

The Airey-Branson saga

There's some to-ing and fro-ing going on down south between some 'young' Liberals and some lefty bloggers. You may have heard of the frankly delightful Miranda Airey-Branson. Well, Miranda had a blog where she said some not-very-nice things and basically crapped on in a spoilt brat manner about horses, the races, shaving, Sex in the City, all the intelligent stuff. Some lefties started commenting on her blog and she has now taken it down. Anyway, Miranda's larger crime is that she was involved in some dodgy election day action. She and some other Young Libs dressed in green shirts and tried to grab those who were voting Green and give them a Lib how-to-vote card. A better description of all this stuff is at the Age, Robert Corr, and my favourite, Ms Fits. Ms Fits believes she has found her nemesis. My what a tantalising prospect...

It just got worse

Of course it did. And I have absolutely nothing to say. F**k. I'm off to read Ms Fits for some light relief.

Learning to love the dollar

Don't you just love it when you feel as if your whole way of life, your beliefs, are at odds with the majority of the country? After the 'stunning' election result, then the eventual take-over of the Senate by the Right I really didn't think it could get much worse. Of course, there was the gay marriage stuff before the election (who the hell was calling for it anyway??), now there's Abbott saying nothing about the possibility of bringing abortion law back into question, Howard obviously jizzing himself at the thought of pushing through industrial relations 'reform' that defies belief and now...Brendan Nelson is getting in on the stamping-all-over-democracy act by indicating that he will push through his Higher Ed reforms as soon as possible. I'm beginning to feel even more marginalised than I was before the election.

Nelson's reforms particularly frighten me. (Well, let's face it, the who lot of it frightens me). Nelson is getting absolutely no public support from the sector itself but hey, what would they know? They only work at Universities for a living! Our Gav has come out against voluntary student unionism. Nelson would argue that as VC, Gav is out of touch with the student population.

There are several things I want to say about Nelson's package:

1. Getting rid of compulsory student unionism would be a complete disaster. A lot of students know this but unfortunately there are a sizable chunk who don't. They think saving their 200 bucks at the beginning of the year is great. Like the Howard clones this country is fast developing, they see only a short distance and only what directly relates to them. I can't believe that they don't realise how much things will cost on campus if the Unions don't get the money, surely they must realise that services would be limited to those that make a profit and that may exclude basic services like childcare and health services. Still, they get to keep their 200 bucks so they can spend more on booze at college parties and causing a ruckus on King St so what do they care?

2. One of Nelson's arguments is that it:

was the "inflexibility in work practices" and the administrative difficulty of shifting lecturers from low-demand to high-demand courses.

High-demand courses are usually fashionable courses. In time they go out of fashion. Does that mean that funding should be shifted to the fashionable courses and removed from the unfashionable but highly worthy courses? Of course not. Are some areas of learning 'better' than others? Again, of course not. I have this horrible vision of a university in the Nelson mould where courses the Government wants taught are priviliged and funded while the courses, let's say, Arts, that teach people things that aren't necessary quantifiable are left to rot. Hang on, that sounds like a place I know...

3. This obsession Nelson has with academic Unions is unfathomable. Let's face it, we all know academics are hideously overpaid, sit around doing god-knows-what in their musty offices and refuse all attempts to make them accountable. If Nelson really thinks this is the case he really doesn't know what is going on in the unis. General staff need their Union as much as the academics. I can tell you, general university staff aren't there for the money.

I think Nelson knows all his bluster about union strong-arm tactics, inadequate funding for courses due to staff inflexibility and the unfairness of compusory student unionism is just that, complete crap. Maybe I'm giving him and his boss too much intellectual credit but I feel that the unis piss them off because they are one of the last little bastions of intellectual freedom. Knowledge is sought there for the sake of it! What a ridiculous idea! That one would want to expand one's mind, to develop a greater awareness and understanding of the world, to be able to think creatively, see the big picture and understand the lives of others. And where, Nelson would ask, would those kind of 'soft' skills get you in Australia today? Nowhere if he has his way. A nation of drones with MBAs, hideously in debt through education and house prices. Now, that's better.

OH F&%K

Ok, I'm gonna swear now so for those with sensitive ears turn away from the screen......that fucking John Howard has got control of the fucking senate and now the little bastard will not be stopped. Could it get any fucking worse....ok I think I have got that out of my system so those of you who don't like the swearing business can turn back to your screens.

We knew it was going to happen but it's still hard to believe. Johnny says:

It's a very good outcome but I want to assure the Australian people that the Government will use its majority in the new Senate very carefully, very wisely, and not provocatively.

We intend to do the things we've promised the Australian people we would do, but we don't intend to allow this unexpected but welcome majority in the Senate to go to our heads.

Like fuck you will. By the look of this photo on the SMH site this afternoon you already have. What a turd.

Sorry, up until this point Psephite has been a restrained blog, perhaps I've been reading too much Ms Fits.

Insular? Me?

Haven't posted for a while and this is going to be short: Dubya's website now blocks visitors from outside the US. More at the BBC and the orginal source Boing Boing.

Grogblogging

Via the Daily Flute, news of a get-together for Sydney bloggers (although, I am sure our cousins in the ACT could tag along). I am not sure how I feel about being outed as a Psephite (or a Blogballer, or Templatedata) and I have horrible thoughts of early web chat-room "flesh meets" that I witnessed (WITNESSED, was NOT part of) but there is something that is strangely drawing me to want to go. Perhaps it's the chance of seeing Darp in the flesh (just not the shaved bits).

UPDATE: According to Darp, Tim Blair has confirmed his attendance. A little jelly foxy-boxing between Darp and Tim, I'd PAY to see that.

No wonder most of them don't bother to vote

A 'firestorm' is brewing in the US after claims that a private voter registration firm trashed registrations from Democrat voters.

An employee of a private voter registration firm alleges that his bosses trashed registration forms filled out by Democratic voters because they only wanted to sign up Republican voters.

Apparently in the US you identify as a Democrat or Republican voter when you register. I find this very strange and if I am wrong in thinking this is the case someone please set me straight.

Either way, I have been wondering if there would be any voter scandals after the debacle that was the last US election - surely it couldn't happen again. Actually, I could believe Bush/Republicans are capable of anything...

More claims of voter fraud, and more.

Mandate, mandate

Here we go again, Howard believes that voters want the troops to stay in Iraq. According to the SMH:

Australians might be divided over the Iraq war, but the election result proved most backed plans to keep troops there, Prime Minister John Howard said today.

The article also raised the point that the war in Iraq was not really addressed as an election issue. This has probably been spoken about on other blogs around the traps but I'm going to give my usual ill-informed gut reactions.

I didn't really think about it at the time but Labor didn't really address the war during their campaign. To do so would have meant attacking Howard's appalling record with the truth and this would have meant a somewhat negative campaign. They chose instead to reserve their negativity for the question of whether Howard would remain for a whole term. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that anyone gives a shit whether Howard was going to hang around or not. To use this tactic was basically admitting that people wanted to vote for Howard, that he was a strong leader who people would be voting for, not so much the Coalition as a whole. Labor was admitting the strength of the opposition and trying to use the fact that he may up and leave as ammunition. Hmm, sounds a little flawed.

Would they have been better off if they really went for Howard's jugular, pointing out his lies, his suck-hole behaviour with Dubya? Did they just accept that Howard was a strong leader and they would be better off running a positive campaign? The theory says that negative campaigns don't work - this time it did. The Coalition ran a heavily negative campaign, stressing Latham's inexperience, his alleged stuff-up at Liverpool. Labor's negative tactic was the fact that Little Johhny might not hang around. Hmm, I think reminding people of the lies, the half-arsed research and the teflon-Don impersonations, may have worked more effectively.

The only appropriate response

Now, this has probably appeared in your inbox already care of a 40-times forwarded email.

Go look at it anyway, cheered me up no end.

Well kiss my grits!

I don't think I have the emotional energy right now to post long and analytical.

But I just can't stop thinking about the Senate result. Australia will soon be in for a real shock as Johnny polishes up his jack-boots and pulls all the real scary legislation from the bottom drawer.

And I'm not talking about Telstra. I don't think people much care about that. Neither am I sure people will care that News Ltd will soon be able to buy up a tv station (yes that's right, the Government's previous 'safeguards' in their proposed media-ownership legislation will be out the window on 1 July 2005, and it will be back to their original open-slather reforms).

Has any one else got an underlying sense of panic about this Government's legislative agenda? Remember, nothing will get referred to Committee for review and analysis, so there'll be no public submissions, no scrutiny, no assessment of the long term effects. We'll lose a significant chunk of our ability to participate in our democracy between elections.

But perhaps that is what people really want. Somone to cover their eyes and take the wheel. Doesn't matter that we're headed for the ditch, just as long as they feel they are still moving along.

The horror, the horror

I have been a bad blogger. It is only now on Sunday evening that I have been able to bring myself to post about last night's events. Thankfully we never promised that Psephite would provide up-to-the-minute coverage...

Last night I watched the election at an election party. And what a sad party it was. In attendance with me was comicstriphero who left early, once it became clear that things were very bad. I am not sure if we will see a post from her any time soon, she has driven back to Canberra today and may spend the next couple of months in an election-induced fugue state.

The party was unashamedly Labor/Greens supportive so you can imagine the pall of depression that was only worsened by the beer that had to be consumed to dull the pain. We had a couple of wags who kept our spirits up, those who insisted that Family First were actually saying that lesbians burn the steak, being tofu-eaters and all and were subsequently not to be trusted at BBQs. But it wasn't enough.

So where did it all go wrong? I will continue in the vein of my previous analytical posts and provide a couple of spurious claims based on gut-feeling.

Firstly, the L-plater Latham. Did inexperience really play a part in the end? I think it did. Howard is a crafty bastard and Latham just seemed too honest. Too nice (but not as nice as Big Beazo). Howard plays on people's fears, he plays on the fears that people have of losing what they have got. Whereas Labor attempted to provide promise of building on what we had, Howard just emphasised that it all may be lost. The Coalition ran a negative, fear-mongering campaign. No surprises there then.

Latham tried to bring a 'vision' to the campaign but he is evidently not a good speaker, his repetition and monotone never inspiring anyone much. Perhaps he would have been better served if we saw the cabbie-punching, congo-line-of-suckhole Latham. Perhaps he should have just gone out and nailed the scum instead of trying to provide 'vision', however weak.

The thing though that frightens me most about this result is what this says about the Australian people. Howard has succeeded in turning this country into a collection of individuals who care only about what they will directly get from the Government. Mainly, they seem to care about cash. The promise of a tiny bit of cash is far more easy to understand than Labor's 'Medicare Gold' which on the surface seemed to benefit only the over-75s but which in reality had a trickle-down effect that would reach most of the population. Such an idea has proven too complex for the electorate. We've become a population that is self-serving, simple, ignorant, money-grabbing, short-sighted and unwilling to risk a couple of bucks for the greater good. At least, this is what last night's result would have you believe.

Clinging on to a hope with my fingernails

Well, the big day is almost here and I can admit to feeling a shiver of excitement (perhaps I need to get a life). I was opinion-polled out some time last week so my predictions are going to be made purely on gut feeling, I have even less expertise in these things than comicstriphero. So, here goes:

I have been feeling that Labor will not make it. I feel they may improve on their last efforts but Little Johnny rat will make it to a fourth term and a sizable chunk of the population will move to New Zealand. I have been overwhelmed into submission by the Coalition bias shown by the News Ltd media, as comicstriphero earlier mentioned. Little Johnboy has constantly aimed at the lowest common denominator both in his time as PM and in this election campaign and it is hard to struggle against the feeling that this country has become the lowest common denominator. That this denominator is valued and questioning, intelligent public discussion is dismissed as elite. As such, idiotic and blatantly untrue platforms like "higher interest rates under Labor" are believed without question. Teflon-John is going to get away with it again.

Well, this is how I was feeling until about 1pm this afternoon. A chat with a colleague revealed some high-level research she had been doing this week. Every cab she got into she asked the cab driver their opinion on the election. And the answers? Overwhelming in favour of a Labor win. Perhaps there is just a shred of hope...

One last blog for the road before the big day, eh?

It feels a bit like Christmas eve round here, everyone’s just marking time waiting for the big event.

Most of the papers this morning were screaming for a Coalition win, the Telegraph runs its editorial “The Daily Telegraph believes the Howard Government deserves to be re-elected.”

That the campaign could be at this point after all Howard’s done, and how extensively its been covered in the public arena, just boggles the mind. Its as if the commentators and voters willing to give Howard the big tick have looped themselves out of logic somehow.

I know its probably a tired analogy, but its as if certain Howardian actions have just been cut out of history completely 1984-style. People will just believe anything he says, as long as he says it often enough, and with enough conviction.

The only solace I am taking in all this is that the more a strong Coalition victory is talked up, the more likely it is people will feel ‘safe’ in casting a protest vote. Waverers might be less likely to mark 1 next to their local ALP candidate if they think it will actually make a difference.

Howard, being the annoyingly deft electoral operator he is knows this. And the News Ltd web site has helpfully pointed out the ‘dangers’ of people voting how they actually want to. It has actually bolded and capitalised the word “warning” before the headline, immediately drawing the eye in to the story (view story here, and see the bolded, capitalised ‘warning’ here). John must be loving Rupert sick right now. The News press has pretty much turned into Coalition ‘how-to-vote’ literature.

Any way, just to add my voice to the teeming mass of speculation choking the land, I’m going to make my prediction. If I was going to be timid, I would say that whichever party wins, it will be with a majority of about 5 seats, with a fairly identical Senate equation except for substituting some Dems with some Greens. Throw in a Family First Senator, another Liberal Senator to take Shayne Murphy’s place, and this makes for a favourable Senate for the Coalition.

But I’ve decided not to be timid, and to totally fly off the handle and predict a romping ALP victory, with celebrations in the streets and an end to neo-conservatism in Australia. ALP to pick up marginal seats along coastal NSW and suburban Adelaide and Brisbane.

Please? I’ve been good!

Senate ranking tool

Via Poll Vault, Nosemugger's Senate ranking tool helps you sort out your preferences should you wish to vote below the line. We all have parties we love, some we hate and some of which we know nothing. This little tool orders your preferences according to the parties you nominate as your loves and your hates. Well worth a go. (And it seems to be housed at Sydney Uni...)

The thrills of democracy

Well, I've just voted (advance voting - get in early!).

I'll admit to being a bit nervous about it, but I think this was just an extension of my overall nervousness about the poll result.

I was somewhat disappointed not to be harangued by party volunteers outside the polling place. I was only approached by the Greens volunteer. Perhaps my appearance puts the others off, I don't' know. Perhaps word got out about me after I made a monarchist volunteer cry at a referendum polling place back in 1999 (yes, its true! Its not my fault they decided to send out 9 year-olds who couldn't handle some slightly surly questioning).

Anyway, just for the record, I voted under the line in the Senate, just so I could put the Nile mob last (I felt I had to, just to make up for the fact that my girlfriend and I were too chicken to snog in front of Fred when we accidentally ran into him on Macquarie Street one day).

And, despite the ACT Senate ballot paper only listing 13 candidates (as opposed to the 50-odd one has had to number in NSW in the past), I managed to stuff it up and had to ask for a new piece of paper.

Now all I can do is wait...

Only 5 days of blind optimism left...

Five days left of campaigning also means there’s only 5 days left for pre-election blogging!

I suppose now would be a pertinent time to get some predictive thoughts down on record. Its pretty obvious I don’t have the knowledge to be able to sit down and work through the electorates, analyse polling data and come up with a well researched picture of a likely House of Reps, Senate, or marginal electorate results.

However, as far as generalised, airy-fairy, off-the-top-of-the-head type predictions, I reckon I’m pretty well qualified (ie, I have all the right physical attributes needed to give 'gut' predictions).

At this stage, it just doesn’t feel like Latham has enough momentum to get him over the top of the incumbent’s advantage. One just gets the sense that he’s almost there. But that really counts for nothing if Howard gets back in. Just ask Kim Beazley.

Lately I’ve been investing all my hopes in a 1999 Victorian election style ALP victory. In the coming days, I may even allow myself to start getting my hopes up.

But I’m going to hold off for now. It really does seem way too close to call. I guess it doesn’t really matter if I get my hopes up and they are then dashed by an ALP loss. I will be utterly devastated any way just by the result, and it won’t really make that much difference whether or not I was expecting it.

As usual, Backpages has some meaty discussion of the latest polls, and I should probably do some more research before flying off the handle with wildly pessimistic or unrealistically optimistic predictions.

On the advertisements front, I quite liked the latest Mark Latham effort, which obviously aims to address his perceived lack of experience.

You can see a story board of the advertisement here, and the ALP’s site also allows you to watch video of the ads.

The Liberal’s latest interest rate scare advertisement is of the brutal and heavy handed school of advertising, and if taken on face value by your ordinary mortgage payer could have some nasty results (if you haven’t seen it, it drones on with predicted rises in monthly mortgage repayments if interest rates were to rise – but of course fails to mention that a rate rise has been predicted for later in the year irrespective of the election result). It would be interesting to see if there is any research on the effectiveness of these advertisements.

Also, just to show how truly evil the Liberals are, they’ve generated an interest rate scare pop-up ad on their website. The bastards!

Kurt Kennedy! Ydennek Truk!

This is a guest post by Gloomy, who wishes to merely dip his toe in the blogging waters....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal election is boring me.

Fortunately, there is another election campaign going on at the same time – the election for the illustrious ACT Legislative Assembly is being held on October 16. While this means that Canberra residents have to go to the polls on two consecutive weekends, it has fortunately meant that out ACT “politicians” haven’t had much airtime over the course of the election campaign so far. They have just been drowned out by the Federal campaign.

Nevertheless, some local media is still finding some time to cover the local derby. A quick glance at the ABC Online *forum* will give you an idea of some of the hot issues concerning Canberrans: Bicycle lanes on main roads! Fireworks! The Dragway! Happy chooks! (If you’re confused by the last one, a group called “Free Range Canberra” is running on a campaign to close down Canberra’s battery hen operation – apparently there are 250,000 battery hens in Canberra.)

Strangely, the ABC forum doesn’t mention one promising young candidate, *Mr Kurt Kennedy*. Mr Kennedy’s certainly got some interesting policies. Take his views on the issue of interest:

Interest rates should be zero. The government will not receive interest as part of its revenue.

The expectation of receiving interest on deposits/lending is nothing but pure greed. What is the difference between a person who lends money and does not charge interest and the person who lends money and charges interest? The person charging interest is greedy.

If you lent someone a pen to use, do you expect that person to give you the pen back and in addition give you another pen?

No, indeed.

I’ve often thought there weren’t enough fruit trees in Canberra. Fortunately, Mr Kennedy has a solution to this problem!

Use fruit bearing trees as street plants to provide a source of free food for the community. Include fruit trees as an extended plant issue scheme. Information brochures on how to propagate fruit trees from seed will be made available to help you grow your own fruit trees.

Home owner have the option of replacing their street tree (when due) with a suitable fruit tree if they are willing to look after it and reap its fruits. Suitable trees may include figs, persimmons (sic); that is trees that are low maintenance, do not need spraying and are not dangerous.

And what better way to make good use of your fruit tree than to share its bounty with your family? But it would be such a hassle to drive all the way across town to share some apples or persimmons with your parents. Wouldn’t it be so much easier if they lived close by? Mr Kennedy’s thought of that too, with a policy to encourage people to live close to their family members:

When you buy your home within walking distance of any of your family member (parent-child, and sibling relationships), you can be eligible for a proportional duty reduction. This is to encourage people to live near and walk to visit loved ones, thus reducing the use of cars and increasing community closeness and interaction.

That’s the solution to our transport woes! If there’s one thing wrong with our transport system, it’s the number of cars clogging our roads with people driving to see their loved ones.

And if there's one thing wrong with the Australian legal system it's that it's way too hard to dig your own well. But Mr Kennedy will fix that, by “making it easier for you to dig your own well to get water”. You can use the water to irrigate your fruit trees!

Mr Kennedy has also brought a refreshingly new approach to political campaigning. Here’s an extract from his press release of 25 September:

As you can see from my campaign calendar, I've been very busy. I am going to write in the first person now as I am capable of changing and adapting. There's no rule that media releases should not be in the first person, especially when I am uploading them into my web page. (...) The National Library has approached me to archive my campaign webpage as they consider it is of "national significance". How mind blowing; I was happy to oblige.

In spite of his radical and thought-provoking policies, part of me can’t help but hope that Mr Kennedy is not successful in his campaign. It would be such a waste were he elected to the ACT Legislative Assembly. After all, he has so much to offer the world of music through his *music mirror* palindromic compositions. The benefit of palindromic music, as Mr Kennedy points out, is that you only need to do half as much work. Of course, one disadvantage is that it doesn’t end up sounding very good, but that’s a minor quibble.

I think he could be onto something with these palindromes. He should consider encapsulating some of his policies in palindromic form.

A suggestion: Apple ho ! Help, Pa!

Unfocused groups

Seems like the campaign to sell the Latham ‘brand’ has only half succeeded:

When the uncommitted voters of the marginal federal seat of Parramatta were asked to give their impressions of Mark Latham, they generally started with a gush of positives.

The Labor leader was passionate, sincere, down to earth, determined, confident, self-made, youthful, a fresh face, intelligent, a fighter, a believer, a working man, an intellectual - all descriptions offered spontaneously by people in three focus groups convened for the Herald last week by pollsters ACNielsen.

But then the positives started to give way to negatives […]The word that came up most often was inexperienced.

See the full story here.

This would suggest that Latham’s newness has not been successfully sold as a positive. That his freshness and youth has not so much contrasted with Howard’s age, but has contrasted with Howard’s experience. Well, in these people’s mind anyway.

Some aspects of Latham’s character which I thought could have easily come across as positives have been damned by some of those interviewed:

John Howard is battle hardened - I saw Latham with tears in his eyes because someone said something bad about his family. At least Howard has his mind on the job.

Talk about tough! Makes me wonder what a leader would have to do to appeal to people like this.

And as for Howard, the voter’s impressions were so confused I’d be surprised if they could tell their arse from their elbow:

The Prime Minister was a grump, old-fashioned, 1950s, whingey, peevish, a liar, a bit devious, a twister of truth, evasive, boring, bland, short, "a bit of a grandpa - he looks like he needs help to cross the street".

But after the initial reactions came a generally more positive stream of thoughts. Howard was experienced, stable, decent, in control, qualified, solid, tried and true, doesn't give up, a good leader, solid, a guy you can't push over.

Perhaps these people should sit down and have a good think about why they have these negative impressions of Howard, and then try to reconcile these with their good impressions of him. Methinks this would be an impossible task. At least they might then see in themselves the same conflicts which come across in the focus group results.

Allow me to introduce an analogy. Any good relationship consultant worth their exorbitant hourly fee would tell you that a relationship with so many conflicts can only be unhealthy and destructive. One simply can’t be happy in a relationship if one is continually reconciling the negative characteristics of the other person – trying to find reasons to stay.

On the other hand, who can honestly say they don’t enjoy that first, exciting and ‘dangerous’ period in a new relationship, a period of discovery and tumult. Even if the relationship doesn't turn into something more long term, you've still lived and enjoyed that period in your life more than you would have had you not taken the risk in the first place.

These voters have enjoyed learning more about Latham as the campaign has gone on and I think they should throw off their inhibitions and progress from flirting to dating.

So I would implore these voters (who, the article states, are more likely to vote on the basis of leadership brands than policy) to break off their current deceitful, negative and stale relationship. Fill your life with positives! Throw off the shackles and free yourself from Johnny’s destructive grasp! Commit your hearts to the young Lathario!

Man-hugs all round

A quick link to another blogger, Ms Fits.

Her post commenting on Howard's campaign launch made me laugh out loud, even if it was in the awkward stifled manner that results from being in a whisper-quiet office.

Almost spilled me soup all over me keyboard. Go check it out.

I read the news today, oh boy.

Ouch.

This hurts:

Support for the Coalition moved to a historic high of 54 per cent in two-party-preferred terms, eight points ahead of Labor and widening the lead by six points in just a week.

I've been searching frantically for some informed comment telling me that this poll is inaccurate, or focuses on the wrong issues, or that there is now an 8 point margin of error. But there's nothing. Chris Sheil's analysis is very sobering:

Alright, Nielsen is out. And it's ugly. Real ugly. There's no getting around an 8 point spread. It's bad news. But not unambiguously so, even if it comes on top of yesterday's bad Morgan phone poll. The story is here, with a comment here.

The guts is that the LNP is ahead 54/46 on the 2pp and 50/36 on the primary. That's a beyond-margin-of-error 8 point spread. Perhaps Labor is stuffed. If this poll was an actual vote, it would be the biggest LNP primary since '75 and 2pp since '77.

I've decided to console myself with the thought that not that long ago, the polls had changed dramatically in the ALP's favour, so they might swing back again soon. Sort of reinforces my earlier speculation that the last few days will be vital.

I don't know if my 'denial' strategy will work though. I've noticed that my pessimism about the likely election result has started to derogate my overall interest in the election. That probably makes me sound very fickle and shallow, but no one likes bad news.

Anybody else having a similar reaction?

Nothing good on telly lately

I’ve been lucky enough to spot a few electoral advertisements and I have to say that so far, I am pretty disappointed with Labor’s efforts. Seems like they’ve had one idea and carried it through several ads. And let me say it seems like they have one idea several years ago. I don’t think I’m imagining having seen the doctors’ waiting room ‘Hot Auctions’ style scenario. Other people have confirmed that they too think it is a recycled ad.

The same theme has been applied to education, with oh-so earnest looking publicly educated kiddies being outbid by smug-looking private school kiddies for a university degree. So, what clever visual cues does the ad employ to denote the educational background of the bidders in this auction?

Well, the very obvious private school kiddie wears a very sharp blazer. Now the blazer alone is not obvious enough if you ask me – blazers were compulsory at the Guvvie school I attended. Just as well then that private school kiddie has a superior look on his face. This way we are in no doubt that he has recently graduated from Lord Fatwallet’s Academy for Gross Inequity.

The public school kiddie? Well, he’s there in his casual attire. I’m not quite sure what the point of that is (why isn’t he just wearing a Guvvie school uniform?). He also sports scruffy hair and generally looks a bit anguished (probably from trying to climb a ladder without rungs – I can imagine that would be really hard and frustrating, think of the splinters!).

All in all I reckon I’d give these two ads a combined score of 2 out of 5. In my humble opinion, viewers are already well aware of the pro-education and pro-health policies of the ALP. An ad in which specific reference is made to Coalition Government announcements and policies which have damaged Medicare and ruined Universities would be far more effective. But obviously, I don’t have access to the kinds of focus groups and research which would have informed this commercial. Also, I’ll admit to a general desire to see the government slagged off on TV – a desire which probably doesn’t always align with principles of good campaigning.

As for Coalition ads, I’ve only seen a couple, one of which was the first real scare-tactic ad I’ve seen (apart from the Murdoch press). This ad focused on Latham’s time as Mayor of Liverpool Council and featured such brilliant visual cues as a black-on-yellow ‘L’ for ‘learner’ plate near the word ‘Latham’. Brilliant!

Now, just to prove I haven’t lost my ability to focus on trivial and insignificant aspects of this election, I’ve come to notice a difference in the overall colour schemes being used by Coalition ads on the one hand, and ALP ads on the other. Coalition ads attempting to portray negative images of the ALP predominantly use black and white, with red accents. The ALP’s ads, and specifically the final frame of the ads where Latham’s face and slogan are displayed, use lots of blues (very calming and reassuring – ahhhhh).

Now, I would like to share with you some knowledge I picked up years ago, care of a very short career in the retail industry. Back then, as I was peeling chewing gum off the shop floor and folding my one-millionth pair of $10 tracky-daks, I would never have guessed that working in sports-retail would assist me in putting together an analysis of electoral advertisements. But there you go. Looks like all that crap I put on my resume about the position giving me ‘transferable skills’ wasn’t so far off the mark.

But anyway, it was one of those stores which was always having a sale on. New stock would come in, and at the same time we put on the regular price labels, we would attach the ‘reduced price’ labels. The store was always decorated wall-to-wall with ‘Sale’ signs. The prices never actually went down, we just changed the theme of the sale, to make people think we’d made new reductions. So, one week it would be ‘school holidays’ specials, two weeks later it would be a ‘back to school’ sale of the century. You get the idea.

Anyway, one day, whilst pondering the half-life of the in-store supply of socks (you know, the ones you use to try on shoes when you forgot your own), my manager let me in on a retail-psychology secret. The most successful sales were the ones where the store was decorated in red, black and white signs and banners. The data on the computers backed this up.

Apparently, the human eye is immediately drawn to this combination of colours as they convey messages of urgency and compel action. So, it doesn’t matter if the hideous basketball shoes endorsed by a player accused of sexual assault are still on a cost+50% mark-up, put a red, white and black sign over them and people will think they’ve scored the bargain of the year and will slap them on their 12 year-old’s feet.

The point of all this useless information? I have come to the conclusion that the Government is being run by a group of ex-retail managers – which would greatly explain their overall meanness, stupidity and their complete and utter craptitude. Anyone else who has ever worked in retail will most certainly agree.

The sound of one hand slapping

I almost fell off my recycled office furniture chair when I saw this headline in the Australian this morning:

“Costello's $700m tax debate backfire”

I guess I never thought I’d see the day when a Murdoch paper revealed a Government mistake – and an economics-related mistake at that. Best not to get carried away though, one article could hardly make a dent in their ongoing campaign to have Howard re-elected.

I have to say I prefer the ABC’s headline:

Crean slaps down Costello's 'incompetent' ALP tax analysis

The mental picture of Simon Crean slapping anything is really quite amusing. You should try it yourself.

Remember the Democrats?

Remember that party that saw themselves as a viable alternative to the Big Two? Remember they had a couple of leadership coups, a couple of high-profile defections and some bloke with a drinking problem? Well, apparently they are still around. They're calling for more attention to be given to things like "the seachange." That's right, that phenomenon that sees rich, city people moving to the coast, buying up everything because it's so much cheaper than the Eastern Suburbs and thus making small towns inaffordable for locals. (Just ask the people of Sawtell whose rates now far outstrip those of Coogee). The Democrats feel that the Federal Government should pay attention to this problem. While I recognise it is a problem, and one very close to home, this is a Federal Election and this statement today by Andrew Bartlett seems so out of left-field I am starting to wonder if he's back on the drink. Of course the Libs aren't going to give two figs about this "problem", a lot of the people causing the problems are their voters.

Meanwhile, Aden Ridgeway says that the Labor/Greens preference deal could hand Pauline Hanson the balance of power. He says:

I think the Labor Party ought to stand up for principle in this country and really make sure the like-minded parties, where we've supported them, then they should've given us at least 50 per cent of the preferences...

Like-minded parties eh Aden? Like Family First?

Home stretch

I tried everything to avoid the news yesterday. No, I’m not ‘burnt out’ from the increasingly blanket election coverage, or exhausted from trawling the papers trying to ‘spot Crean’ (see if you can). I was trying to avoid hearing the results of the Japanese Moto GP so that I could rush home and watch my video recording of the overnight race coverage.

Proving myself to be a techno-mortal, I failed to properly set my video recorder. So when starting up my video tape, where I expected to see Rossi’s cheeky grin, I instead saw Howard’s furrowed brow and hearing aid. The video hadn’t recorded anything so the previous recording was still on the tape – it included a news story on the Leaders’ Debate. Yes, the debate, remember that?

At the time of the debate there were some comments about how it would be soon forgotten, as it was so early on in the campaign. Just a week later and I think that those predictions have been proven prescient.

In such a close campaign, it really makes me nervous for the last week of campaigning, in which any kind of fortuitous turn of events for the coalition of evil could easily tip the scales their way. 6 weeks of campaigning can easily come down to the last few days. I think I’ll be hiding under the doona for most of that time, trying to calm my nerves….

Liberal cry-babies

Kick and Scream has pointed out the coincidence that a letter-writer to the SMH, giving an almost-convincing sob story about his daughter being unable to continue at her expensive private school, has the same name as the Associate Director of Wealth Management at Macquarie Bank. If I wasn't already such a cynical beast I would be be vomiting all over my laptop. Well done Robert Corr.

An amateur analysis of the story so far

Many people in the circles in which I move* have recently expressed the opinion that Latham and Labor were not going to win this election. Some have talked about possible migration plans should Howard be returned. There is a sense of desperation but also a resignation that he just can not be moved.

Today, for the first time in this election campaign I have had a sense that Latham is hitting his stride and that he may have a sniff of a chance. Whereas Beazley was very nice and perhaps a little wishy-washy, despite his better attempts, (we won't even mention Crean), Latham is starting to show (whisper it) leadership. The fact that he ruled out pre-emptive strikes on a neighbouring country that may have been "harbouring terrorists" brought this home to me. Latham showed a streak of maturity whereas Howard's response to Latham's answer was a reiteration of his willingness to follow the US. "Pre-emptive strikes" is a phrase developed by the Bush administration to somewhat absolve themselves from the consequences of what in another time would be called invasion. Howard's stubborn allegiance to this concept is one of the many reasons that people are wishing him gone. And he's still trotting out these phrases, this Bush-esque view of the world, in the election campaign. It's starting to sound like a very old tune. The bombing in Jakarta does not seem, at this point, to have had the effect many of us feared.

Latham seems to have tuned in to the fact that many Labor voters have been forced further left to the Greens in search of a viable alternative to Howard. He is not just reacting to and reinforcing the Government's view, he is starting to offer an alternative. The preference deal with the Greens is further evidence of this. Howard found this deal "sickening." And that's exactly what we want him to think. Such a deal may also horrify some old-school Labor blokes but this is the way forward for people living in electorates such as Sydney. The ABC lists it as very safe Labor but the presence of the Greens is being felt. As I heard a very ordinary, suburban gay bloke tell Tanya Plibersek's people campainging on King St Newtown: "she's pushing shit uphill now." Latham is starting to make moves in turning this shit downhill.

On other matters, John Anderson's statements to the press are becoming more and more outlandish. Today he told the ABC that a vote for an independent was a waste. Ahem, John, it's called democracy and apparently it means that almost anyone can run for a seat and we can vote for anyone we want. He went on to say that:

"Name me an independent who has made a contribution to the sound economic management of the country."

Well, it's about more than economic management and many of us will no doubt feel the reverberations from Brian Harradine's time in Canberra for years to come.

* Disclosure: I work at an inner-Sydney university and am currently residing in a seat that is very safe Labor, the only threat, and a very real one, being the Greens. So, I admit that this environment is not exactly a litmus test for the nation. In fact it is quite possibly one of the most left-leaning electorates in the country, barring the Far North Coast of NSW, where I grew up.

A stitch in time

I may be a bit slow on the uptake here but perusing Pauline Hanson's website today (which, incidentally, is right in line with other pollies sites, bloody awful), I noticed that I had missed my chance at owning a blue baby's jumper that was knitted by Pauline while she was in prison. That's right, Pauline auctioned off this potential piece of political memorabilia for the grand sum of $3500. The jumper comes mounted in a frame accompanied by a photo of Pauline wrapped in the national flag. Mr Peter Bussa is now the lucky owner.

First Bob, now Pauline. So many candidates to demonise!

So Pauline is back is she?

A high profile campaign from Pauline might just distract the Murdoch press from its sadistic mauling of the Greens…

Hmmm, we’ll see.

With some predicting that the Coalition will end up with 38 Senate seats (that’s 50 per cent), the make-up of the sewing circle that is the ‘independent’ (yes, I’m having a go at Meg) Senators club, will be one of the more interesting aspects of the election. God help any one hoping to get legislation through in the next 3-6 years! Well, legislation which loosely resembles the original proposal anyway.

I guess one thing is for sure though, with Harradine retiring we can expect a sharp decline in the number of Bills and policy announcements which include special funding schemes for Tasmanian communities. Launceston Broadband Project anyone?

My schools funding rant

The ALP's school funding policy released yesterday managed to get second billing behind the hostage news stories. I'd be interested to know whether the ALP are happy with the reduced profile of the policy release, and to what extent this is of benefit to them.

At any rate, there were certainly ideological tensions ahoy evident in the reactions to the policy.

One private-school loving family, interviewed on 7.30 Report last night, was asked whether or not it supported the diversion of funds away from outrageously wealthy schools (schools with rifle ranges, archivists, vast playing fields, advanced human cloning programs, secret underground lairs… well maybe not those last two):

TRACY BOWDEN: Do you feel comfortable with that idea, that your school, already a very wealthy school, gets additional funds from the taxpayer?

CONNIE THERKILDSEN: Well, yes I do.I pay my taxes like everybody else does and every child has the right to a good education and I don't see that my children have any lesser right than any other child.

To be honest, I just don’t get it! How can you honestly believe that equalising the wealth and resources of schools is somehow evidence of a plot to remove your child’s right to ‘a good education’. I really am flabbergasted – but then they showed footage of her delivering her kids to school in a four-wheel drive and everything fell into place.

Seriously though, if Connie thinks that “every child has the right to a good education”, then surely she can see the sense in distributing funds to the schools that need it most, so that these schools can achieve that very result!

Someone needs to tie her down and yell in her face “the wealthiest schools already have well enough resources! Public money is scarce! We need to send it where it is most needed!” I am quite happy to volunteer for this job.

Its quite obvious this kind of ‘equal funding for my rich little kiddie – we shouldn’t be disadvantaged just coz we are rich’ argument is operating on a model of ‘formal equality’.

That is, equality = giving every school the same amount of money and thereby turning a blind eye to their pre-existing position or level of need. It takes me way back to uni, and the perpetual struggle of male students against the Women’s Room ("real equality means having a Men’s Room’ too"). Ahhh, memories.

My ranting aside, the story gave a very strong sense of the ideological battle which is attached to debates about school funding.

This funding package is being sold by some as an attack on private schools (see ‘Latham guts private school cash’). It really isn’t, and in it we can see a real pitch to ‘aspirational’ voters.

So much of the redirected funding will go to low-fee independent (mostly Christian) schools. These are the schools which are popular among the outer-suburban, ‘mortgage belt’ types, who are of real importance to the ALP’s chances (or so I'm led to believe).

The Government’s response has been to suggest that the ALP’s policy will reduce parents' choice, by making it harder to send their kids to the ‘elite’ (in terms of reputation I guess) schools.

Does this really wash with people? This statement, from one of the parents interviewed on the 7.30 report, had me yelling ‘right on!’ at the telly, something I normally only do when the bitchiness starts on Survivor:

JANE CARO, PRIORITY PUBLIC: Parents are starting to believe that in Australia, unique almost in the Western world, they are going to have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate their child properly.

This is not true, but the more people who believe it, the more governments exploit that belief, the more likely it is to become true.

And then they have the nerve to talk about choice? Is this just another crazy-brave attempt by the Government to try and convince us they are tree-hugging, Medicare loving softies and we should really ignore all their past policies as not really being true?

I really hope the ALP comes back strongly to rebut the Government’s silly arguments (I'm sure they can come up with some ingenious illustrative phrase - something about opportunity, and ladders perhaps). One gets a feeling that community attitudes on this issue are at a crucial point. A continuation of current trends would mean that it would be very difficult to ever restore the reputation of public schools. A re-orientation of policy, along the lines of the ALP’s approach is a good start, but not strong enough for me.

I thought I’d finish off with a diverting link. Check out this list from Crikey! It sets out some famous alumni from Australian schools. See who is listed for your school! I was quite surprised to see that both Antony Green and I experienced the joys of an agricultural education…

Hair? Yeah yeah!

A frivolous link but kind of fun (I'm in that mood tonight).
My father sent me this pearler. Change Johnny's hair and change Latham's hair. You need Flash to see it.

Bush v Jesus

Sorry, not OUR election but I couldn't resist: check out Bush v Jesus. My excuse is that little Johnny is a good mate of Dubya and well, you know, we're trying to get rid of both of them.

A threesome I'd like to see

Opposition Leader Mark Latham said today he would be happy to debate both Treasurer Peter Costello and Prime Minister John Howard at the same time.

From the SMH

Some new sites

A couple of new sites people may want to check out:

- The Greens continue their groundbreaking (for Australian politics) use of the web with a blog and

- an online how-to-vote card of sorts imploring Wentworth voters to put Turnbull last.

Friday I've got Tampa on my mind...

Now, lets not pretend for a second that producing a politically- skewed analysis of the Embassy bombing in Jakarta is evidence of a lack of emotional/compassionate response to the event. Blogs like Troppo Armadillo present political comment, opinion and analysis. The abuse that was directed at Ken Parish is astounding.

It just seems to be further evidence that conservatives/right wing types, think that disgust at, and compassion for the victims of terrorist acts are partisan issues. These people need some flash-cards to carry around with "I do not own the concept of outrage at terrorist acts", just so they dont' forget it.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to deny that there will be some impact on the election campaign. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that we can not discuss that impact, for whatever reason. Enough said really, I don’t really think it serves any good purpose to sit here and try to expose further the folly of personal abuse when discussing politics. Let’s get back to discussing politics.

Malcolm Farr notes that events such as these push national security (a Coalition strong point) back up the list of electoral issues, making it even harder for the ALP to keep the focus on what it sees as the Coalition’s weaknesses – health, environment, education and ‘trust’.

In my (humble) opinion, the prominence of security issues in this campaign may be decisive.

The bombing reinforces Coalition party rhetoric and ideology which has sought to place Australia in a ‘war’ state of mind. This is very important if you keep in mind this election campaign can be chiefly understood in terms of an “incumbent vs outsider” construct. An incumbent is in a very powerful position when the electorate is fearful. A general sense of fear can easily magnify the typical suburban fear of change.

The irrepressible Krugman explored the consequences of a ‘war’ state of mind in an election campaign here.

When war psychology takes hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who isn't our ally is our enemy.

Any of this sound familiar? The ‘comments’ (abuse, more like it), levelled at Ken Parish are just one example of this ‘mythic reality’ and its polarising effect. You don’t have to look very hard to see this theme in Government rhetoric, and indeed, US Republican party rhetoric.

And the political consequences?

This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power […]. The point is that once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership, and ascribes heroic qualities to even the least deserving ruler.

And it is testament to the polarising power of the ‘mythic reality’ that even small attempts to explore the influence of war/threat on politics elicit the kind of responses you can find over at Troppo Armadillo.

A further consequence of this atmosphere will be that it will now be very difficult to get reasoned analysis of Howard Government foreign relations policy onto the agenda. For example, any attempts to draw links between the utter catastrophe that is our involvement in Iraq, and the heightened threat of terrorist activity will, of course draw shrieks from the right along the lines of “we won’t be bullied or threatened.”

I find the inability of those on the right to understand that recognising that the war in Iraq has failed miserably in decreasing the threat of terrorism (something the Government probably knew beforehand anyway) does not equate to a capitulation to the demands of terrorists to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq, to be very disturbing.

When pure emotional response dominates public discourse on an issue and drowns out the concerned voices of the critical minds, we are surely headed for some very big mistakes (flashback November 2001).

Brings a smile to your dial

Gee I love Cathy Wilcox.

I thought I'd link to a few ripper Wilcox cartoons, in case we all need a lift this morning.

Here's Wilcox on trust.

Wilcox on Howard's hypocritical rejection of dicussion on his Government's past.

This one is my absolute favourite. If you don't go to any of the others, at least click through to this rip-snorter.

Reacting to reaction

Well, right now I am glad that Psephite's readership isn't as large, and/or as vocal as that of Troppo Armadillo. Ken Parish posted in response to the Jakarta bombing with words that were perhaps clumsily chosen but with a sentiment that many are thinking. Not so much that people are thinking that this was actually orchestrated by some Coalition-lovers but that the incumbent government will make political mileage out of it. As of 8.45pm on Thursday (AEST) there are 52 comments on Parish's post and a great deal of them are negative, some are downright obscene. Some express a disbelief that anyone in the current government would seek to use this incident for political advantage. Of course, this comes from people who Troppo classifies as "right wing death beasts" (Tim Blair et al) Howard has used Bali and 9/11 to his advantage, why not this? To not even consider that this is a possibility is to be blind to the past 3 years in Australia. John Howard positions himself as a fatherly protector who will defend us from the evil, bad men who are terrorists. What he refuses to admit, as do his supporters, is that his actions have made us more of a target.

I'm not saying anything new. Those who move and think in left-wing circles see Howard in much this way. Those who move in circles further to the right believe that terrorists are a legitimate threat that must be combatted with "pre-emptive" strikes. Lefties don't deny the threat, but they also see the increase in threat created by the actions of our government. What I have found interesting this evening is the reinforcement of an age-old problem, the world views of those on the left and right are so at odds that there seems little hope of intelligent discussion or compromise. The reactions to Ken Parish's post illustrate that.

Australian embassy in Jakarta 'bombed'

The SMH says Australian embassy in Jakarta 'bombed'. The ABC says Explosion heard near Australian embassy in Jakarta. Reuters says the fence of the embassy was damaged. In a couple of hours hopefully we will have the full story and hopefully this won't turn out the be this year's Tampa...

Spun-out by the spin? Me too

I’ve been thinking a little bit lately about a few things, which seem related, but which also contribute to an overall sense of doom that is festering within.

Firstly, I make reference to my earlier post in which I wondered about the ability of the Coalition to spend the surplus till it’s nose bleeds, but still retain an image of ‘good economic managers’. All the while, the same actions render the ALP ‘splurgers’, and definitely not to be trusted.

On a similar note, how is it that Republicans can portray John Kerry as some kind of military fraud, without a mass cry of disbelief and scorn from most of the country (the one-eyed ultra-right are automatically excluded from my calculations)?

Particularly in light of the increasingly solid evidence showing that Bush couldn’t even show up for what appears to be a the back-up, substitute, reserve ‘Army Reserve’...

While a great many people on Kerry’s side of politics react in such a way, where is the widespread dismissal of such messages which should follow in the face of such a ridiculous proposition? It seems as if the mass audience in America is not having such an instant reaction of disbelief – it seems they might be letting Bush and Cheney’s arguments into their consciousness.

That familiar old line starts creeping into my mind: those dopey Americans! They deserve everything they get! And similarly, any one who, no doubt as a result of a steady diet of Ackerman, Devine et al, thinks that the Coalition is good for this country, they deserve what they get too!

How condescending of me, you must be thinking. But I’m sure we’ve all had similar thoughts.

But of course, its not just Bush-believers and Howard-hangers-on who will be getting their just desserts. I get it too!

We all get what they deserve, irregardless of our collective outrage, despair and disgust for the actions of Bush and Howard.

And, because of the long-lasting power of the decisions of any Government in areas such as High Court (or, in the US, Supreme Court) appointments, health and education policy, foreign policy and reactionary social agendas, we'll all be experiencing the effects for many many years to come. So will our kiddies, should we have any (note my shameless emotional cue there).

Must go make some ritualistic sacrifices, say many prayers, light some candles, etc, etc, to cover off all possible religious contingencies in recruiting some divine assistance in my quest of ‘anyone but the Coalition’.....

Web diary makeover

Margo Kingston's Web Diary has had a makeover. It's now a bit more blog-style. Looking good.

The wheels on the bus are made of spam

I caught a bit of SBS’s Insight last night – it carried an interesting short following Misha Schubert, a journalist from The Age on Latham’s campaign bus. We followed the bus to a school in Melbourne, where Latham was to make a policy announcement on education.

Of particular interest to me in this story was its illustration of how journalists on the campaign bus access information. I wrote earlier indicating that the parties' release of information would be a point of interest for me in this campaign, and while the practices outlined on last night’s show are certainly nothing new, learning about them in more detail will allow an ordinary observer like myself to soak up news and comment with increased understanding of the context in which they are developed.

In this instance, we learned that Latham’s policy was released to the journalists on the campaign bus minutes before the scheduled press conference:

MISHA SCHUBERT: Part of the great frustration about covering a campaign like his is the excessive secrecy that happens on both sides. Its deliberately designed that way to try and keep us from having research or other questions we can come along and ask.

A great little aspect of this story was its depiction of a practice I was first made aware of through Crikey:

It's a good thing for Liberal dirt digger Ian Hanke that the Spam Act specifically exempts political parties, as some Press Gallery hacks might have a case against him following his spamming of their mobile phones in the first week of the campaign.

It's a repeat of the tactic employed by Hanke in 2001 when he collected the mobile numbers of all the journos travelling with Kim Beazley, and bombarded them with suggested questions and information just before Kim's press conferences, obviously with the help of at least one compliant journo tipping him off about names and press conference times.

Insight was able to show us some real live spamming, the camera was on Schubert as her phone lit up with spamly goodness. One would like to think the journos might ignore the spam, but why would they? One might liken it to receiving a press release via email or fax.

MISHA SCHUBERT: Well, you never like to ask questions that have been put to you by the opposition, or the other side in either case, but if it's a matter of legitimate interest, then yeah, of course we'll ask it.

Unfortunately that's all I saw of the show, as the camera then cut back to the audience-forum and revealed the presence of John Pasquarelli, at which point I frantically stabbed at the remote seeking refuge.

Two-party preferred dolt

I don’t care what anyone says, the poll figures released this morning scare me (Howard surges to a winning position) (for a level-headed and well informed analysis of some of the latest poll results, best divert now to this excellent analysis at Back Pages).

I know, I know, this is a long election campaign, and there is plenty of time for the polls to go up and down, many times over. But, as Crikey commented this morning, these poll results seem to suggest there is a lack of the ‘will to change’ in the electorate – the kind of sentiment needed to ensure the end of an incumbent government which has succeeded in projecting itself as eminently capable:

So far the polls are showing no evidence for a "thank God we can finally vote against the bast*rd" swing to the ALP now that an election has been called. That means Latham needs to give voters a reason to vote for him. So far he hasn't. Can he?

The poll figures also tell of voter priorities, with health, once again, topping the list. No surprise then to see Howard unleashing wads of cash and calling it ‘policy’. I’m sorry if this is a perennial election-campaign question – but where was the money before? Why couldn’t we have pay-rises for doctors last year, or the year before?

From a purely selfish perspective, I could have sure used a higher Medicare rebate 5 months ago when my lumbar spine decided to split 5-ways from Sunday, sending me to the doctor, specialist and imaging centre umpteen times (all up-front payments, thanks very much).

Speaking of wads of cash, how is it that when the ALP promises to increase funding for health and education, they are branded as bad economic managers and loose-spenders (and the mud sticks).

Whereas when the coalition promises large spending programs just prior to an election, in an attempt to buy back the votes of those erstwhile Coalition voters tempted to go ALP, they’re still able to claim superior economic credentials.

If we were talking about brands or products, we’d no doubt point to successful ‘branding’ – the ability to instill into the public’s mind that a product or brand has certain intrinsic qualities – to the extent that this ‘branding’ stays true in a person's mind even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Perhaps the Coalition’s tireless ‘branding’ of itself as good economic managers, and of the ALP as fiscally irresponsible, has really stuck. Perhaps the PM knows this, and this is why he is now parroting on about ‘trust’ every second sentence – hoping that if he says it often enough, people will start to believe it.