Public Address - Club Politique (Home)

Sex, Drugs, and on the Dole. | Jul 22, 2005 11:12

I must have selectively edited the word 'sporting' the other day, because I immediately assumed the celebrity involved with drugs was that Hayley Westenra. After all, it's always the quiet ones. And there's just something about anyone who's so damned clean cut that makes me instantly suspicious.

Of course, when I did find out I was instantly disappointed. I mean, were you surprised?

And speaking of suspicious, why in the hell is John Howard always at the that scene of terror attacks? This is not the first time extremists have struck when Johnnie is around. I have a message for the terrorists. These are directions to where Johnnie lives, it's called Kirribilli House and it's in SYDNEY… Leave the nice Londoners alone. I swear, if I was more conspiracy minded I'd think he was manufacturing attacks to shore up support in Australia.

The good news though is that now the people in that space can blog about it. I can see it now, "Today, I watched a big blue ball turn". "Today, I saw some clouds on the big blue ball". "Today, I heard that little Johnnie was almost run over by a bus on his morning power-walk, and then I watched the continents drift by". Riveting stuff.

But, the scandal most impressing me is the accusation that Julian Robertson is somehow covertly funding the National Party. The supremely clean-cut Dr. Brash is happy to describe Mr. Robertson as a personal friend, as the NZ Herald points out, so maybe there is some truth to the matter that Mr. Robertson might have donated a large sum of cash to the election campaign.

Now, before you go flying off the handle, I believe that this is called, 'lobbying'. Having access to prominent political figures and donating money to their activities is hardly scandalous behaviour. In fact, it's more commonly known as 'normal political behaviour'. Sorry to those of you who might truly believe that politics is always conducted in the interests of the people, but no, it is not. Politics is all too often conducted in secret, and with borderline dodgy behaviour.

I've heard that many of the Fourth Labour Government reforms were actually argued out in the Fish and Chip shop that used to be over the road from Parliament. Or the pub.

As for the larger allegations, that the Bush Administration is secretly directing the National Party, well, I'm thinking that that is probably rubbish, but it's a great dogwhistle all the same. Pesky damn CIA controlling the world.

There's a conspiracy theory in Australia that the CIA was responsible for the death of the PM Harold Holt for example. Holt was opposed to the war in Vietnam you see. So, putting the pieces of the puzzle together, Helen is opposed to the war in Iraq, and the CIA is interfering with New Zealand politics…

Helen, STAY AWAY FROM THE WATER.

The bigger question is why Robertson would front with so much cash. It's not like he has recently had an unfavourable decision from the Environment Court. Nor is there anything wrong with him buying up sizeable acreage in the South Island. Likewise, if there is opposition from some damn hippies to his redeveloping some of New Zealand's more beautiful landscapes into gaudy playgrounds for the rich, what's wrong with that? And lastly, if the RMA is getting the way of his plans to develop parts of New Zealand, then what's wrong with him lobbying the National Party for change?

After all, foreign investment is what makes the New Zealand economy tick. Because you and I are such freaking spendthrifts, there simply isn't enough domestic capital to keep the investments we need moving and Labour, like National, knows that you need guys like Robertson bringing their cash over. Whether this means that the CIA is pulling strings is another matter altogether though, and something that I'd quite like to see details of before I jump to any outrageous conclusions.

And finally, it seems that some in Australia want to ban Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Now, you want 'PC Gone Mad'? This is the best example for years. If you've played the game you'll know you can KILL anyone in the game. You can drag anyone out of any vehicle you see and BEAT THEM TO DEATH with your bare hands. You can buy/sell drugs. You can steal anything, shoot down choppers with surface-to-air missiles, and get away with it all as long as a cop doesn't actually see you.

But if it depicts two people gettin' jiggy? Ban it.

A weird, topsy-turvy world. Let's ask the American space bloggers if it can be turned back up the right way. Guys, little help?

PS And sorry team, can't let on re:celebs. Besides, my info is probably mostly dodgy...

Digg this Scoopit!

Janus Faces | Jul 20, 2005 13:57

Taking a look at NRT yesterday I noticed this iconic picture and the attached byline. It is a truly great snap. Apparently the last atmospheric test at Mururoa was 1974, but it is timely reminder that nuclear testing is not some far-flung piece of imagination.

Naturally, I can't make any explicit comment about the political ramifications of the election campaign NRT or Just Left (the source of the poster) are indicating, but the larger debate surrounding the campaign itself is fascinating to a politics geek like myself.

As someone with a passing interest in the processes of nationalism and nation-building, the one thing I see in this election campaign is the forces of said nation-building at work. The same goes for the most recent Australian election. When you're gadding about the streets of Melbourne, the developmental direction of the Australian nation isn't really something you think about to a great extent. Mostly it's, where in the hell is my tram? Or, why do the ATMs only give out $50 bills? Or, god, how many pots of beer did I have, and who the hell are you?

But, around election time, when the focus of the average citizen is drawn towards the machinations of Canberra, it's almost possible to avoid hearing leaders talking about the kind of Australian they'd like to see. We were mostly concerned with sitting outside next to the mint garden drinking bottles of Carlton Draught, watching the neighbours stroll by, and listening to 'Permission to Land', but that pesky damn politics just kept sneaking on in there.

Latham's "ladder of opportunity" was an idea that particularly grabbed our imagination. In part, this was because it spoke about living in place where being born poor or different didn't matter. If you needed a hand to get up, or were born black, yellow or Mediterranean, then Australia was the kind of place where you might find that help. Mind you, it was tempered by the statement that if you were just plain lazy then…

Howard on the other hand kind of ran a campaign aimed to discredit Labor. There was a bit of the 'national imagining' stuff, but basically it was without any overt statements about what the future of Australia looked like, other than as a direct continuation of the whiter Australia of the past.

There's an author called Tom Nairn who calls this situation the 'Janus Faces' of nationalism. In part, nationalism and nation-building looks to the future. Statements about 'my Australia', or 'our Australia' tend to look to the way the speaker wants to see their country becoming something. Something like a place where people help each other out for example. The flipside of this approach is the way in which nationalism also looks to the past. Every good future needs to build on something from the past to provide social continuity. In a way, without our past, there can be no meaningful future.

I'm thinking that maybe that's the reason why the reforms of Governments of both political persuasions throughout the 1980s and 90s were such a shock to many New Zealanders, because in a lot of ways we profoundly broke from our older traditions of collectivism, of helping one another, and started this new thinking of 'me myself and I'.

It's why the nuclear issue is so pertinent to many New Zealanders as well. In many ways, the no-nukes statement is not only an affirmation of the past we all embraced so readily during the insanity of mutually assured destruction, but it also indicates a time in our past when we stood up to the world and said we weren't going to be the lap-dogs of any power. And in my mind that's not a bad place for New Zealand to be, even today.

And when it comes down to brass tacks, that's the sort of decision being made at any election. Sure, the devil is often in the details, and the habits of the bureaucracy don't change dramatically between elections any more, but the future face of New Zealand is something we all need to think about. What kind of country do you want to live in? Because whether you realise it or not, that's often the choice that is being presented.

Personally, I think that both faces are necessary to balance out the way today is. We need to take into account our collective pasts, and push the lessons we learn into our todays, to make better sense of how our tomorrows will become. Throwing away those lessons to enable better application of ideology and belief is a pointless exercise, and throwing away those lessons for short-term gain is foolish beyond reckoning.

Digg this Scoopit!