Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

In the shadow of Botany Bay

February 3rd 2010 06:46
“I came upon the prison ship, weighed down by iron chains;
I fought the land, I tilled the soil, and waited for the rain.”
-- From “I Am Australian,” written by Bruce Woodley and Dobe Newton

I’ve lived in Australia for about half my life now, but even after all these years, I still want to cry whenever I hear the song “I Am Australian.” It reminds me that the country which I have made home for that time was once one giant prison for the British empire's “undesirables,” and I can’t help but wonder what scars it has left on Australia’s national psyche.

Y’know who else deported criminals and malcontents to a wilderness on the other side of the world? Stalin.



Australia made the best of its situation, and managed to find good in the results of the British crown’s atrocities. The question is not what can be done about it now, but why does nobody ask what can be done about it now? Considering that some countries hold grudges and base modern diplomacy on incidents that happened over a thousand years in the past, why should Australia (and America, Ireland, and Scotland, for that matter) be compelled to whitewash or forget things that happened only a century ago?

It’s easy to forget that the NATO system and worldview whereby everything west of Bavaria is “like us” dates only to World War II. It’s even easier to forget that America’s last major interaction with Britain prior to World War I was fighting the War of 1812. Seventy years is a long time, but not as long as even a young country like America or Australia’s history. If we were starting new today, would we find anything in common with any of our current “staunch allies?”



“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
-- Winston Churchill
31
Vote
   


Gaea's revenge

January 14th 2010 02:06
People come to universities to hear interesting ideas – and, increasingly, conspiracy theories. Just today, for example, I overheard someone explaining to their acquaintance that the real cause of world hunger is high food prices, engineered by large multinationals to squeeze the maximum possible profit out of recent all-time record harvests which were apparently enough to feed the entire world. I didn’t have time to stop and ask the obvious questions (what sort of nutrition value would each of the 6.3 billion people on Earth get? How do you expect farmers to make a living if they just give their crops away? etc.), and I wonder if they even had the answers to them.

I always try to understand the arguments in favor of positions I don’t agree with, but I must admit to being absolutely perplexed by claims that any country needs more population. Anyone who claims with a straight face that this planet is not overpopulated already has clearly never been to Hong Kong or Bangkok. Even Melbourne has severely strained water supplies and public infrastructure, despite having a population of “only” around three million and a much larger land area (which makes Kevin Rudd’s repeated claims that Australia needs more population especially confusing and irritating). Given that overpopulation and the resulting conflict over resources has been shown to contribute to not only elevated stress, anxiety, and dysfunction in individuals but also conflict between nations and ethnic groups, there is no basis to claim that any country needs to grow its population for economic or security reasons. There is not even, in truth, any historical evidence to support this; unless you have a different explanation for why Switzerland has traditionally been considered a more successful country than Russia, or how a few thousand Dutch merchants and soldiers controlled tens of millions of Indonesians for more than four centuries?

There is a version of the story of the Trojan War that holds that the golden apples of discord were created not by Eris but by Gaea herself, who was so stressed and dismayed at the overpopulation of the Achaean world that she yearned for a cataclysm that would reduce their numbers to a more manageable level. You are free to scoff at the story and its lesson, if you like. But ask everyone who died in Darfur in gun battles over farmland. Ask the Israeli Air Force pilots who prevented the Syrian army’s corps of engineers from diverting the Jordan River’s headwaters. Ask everyone who was left homeless by the twelve or so earthquakes that struck Haiti, one of the most densely populated countries on Earth, over a couple of hours. I doubt they’d find the idea so ridiculous.
17
Vote
   


Remember the discussion a few years ago about ”South Park Republicans?” Notice how it completely disappeared without further discussion, right when the Republican Party is considered to be needing a new direction and image?

Part of it is just alignment incompatibility between the mainstream media on the one hand and Trey Parker and Matt Stone on the other. There seemed to be some hope that the new face of the Republican Party would be overall less conservative, a sort of “Democratic Party Lite;” hence the initial interest in South Park’s support for gay rights. But their interest cooled as other episodes lampooning Democrats were released, and some of their other opinions are either conservative or downright illiberal. (Ever see the one where Stan’s parents get divorced? Even James Dobson would probably say they could stand to be a little less militant about it.)

But it goes a lot deeper than that. After reviewing a few of the more politically-charged episodes, I am not sure that Parker and Stone actually have anything the rest of us could use as a coherent philosophy. They remind me more of the types of people who’ll visit a site dedicated to strategy games or Magic: the Gathering but only post in the off-topic section: whenever an issue comes up that catches their attention, they rush into the relevant topic, shout their opinion (whatever comes to mind about the issue), and then forget about it until the next one.

There is a thread of socially-conscious modern entertainment running from Katharine Hepburn in Adam’s Rib through the 1970s’ Green Lantern/Green Arrow crossover comics to the quintessentially 21st-century sitcom American Dad! They can even be interesting if you don’t personally agree with the conclusion the makers reach, as long as the issues are presented in a reasonable way and the stories are well-crafted and engaging. South Park is not part of that thread. The parents are all stupid and the children are all smart, and everyone is as two-dimensional as the animation. A reviewer once described Frank Miller’s female characters as either “corpses or whores;” Parker and Stone go the smallest step beyond and add shrews to their list of archetypes. Analysis of issues is limited to set-piece lectures by Stan or Kyle (who I can only conclude are self-inserts of the creators) who face the camera and relay opinions without rebuttal or counter-argument.

And those opinions are often downright shallow. Parker and Stone are not in favor of the war in Afghanistan because they’ve weighed the threat from Islamic fundamentalism against the available strategic options; they’re for it because, to quote the episode “Osama bin Laden has Farty Pants,” “If you don’t wanna cheer for the home team, get the hell out of the stadium.” They’re not against abortion because of their consideration of the bioethics; they’re against it because, to quote “Eek! A Penis,” it’s “cheating.” (Do you think we can gain any insight into their writing process from their chosen episode names?)

I’m not saying you shouldn’t watch South Park, or that you shouldn’t enjoy it. But I wouldn’t advise trying to learn anything from it. Parker and Stone have done quite well with their cartoon, but if they can’t refrain from putting their own half-baked opinions into their (eight-year-old) characters’ mouths, maybe they should stick to the off-topic forum.
16
Vote
   


One of a kind

December 17th 2009 00:31
There’s a certain country that’s beginning to get a bad reputation in many parts of the world. It overwhelms local cultures with its business and products. It props up unpopular regimes to further short-term interests. It demands ever-increasing amounts of primary resources, often resulting in environmental devastation. It pursues petty territorial disputes, often in places it has no real connection to, solely to exert dominance over its smaller neighbors. It’s called China, and –

Oh, wait. You thought I was talking about America? Understandable, as we’re not really encouraged these days to examine any other country’s foreign policy in this way. It’s sort of a strange dark mirror to the idea of American exceptionalism: the United States is not just another country, but a unique exemplar of expansionism, greed, and dishonesty. As such, we lose sight of some elements of other countries' foreign policy, even the bizarre and pernicious ones. If you ever paused to wonder what the hell the Chinese government was thinking by claiming that part of the Philippines belongs to it, or why the Moroccan government allows its sanctioned imams to publicly dream about reclaiming Andalusia, or how the ayatollahs of Iran could even imagine nuking the supposedly holy city of Jerusalem, you might conclude that America’s financially-motivated meddling wasn’t so bad after all


[ Click here to read more ]
41
Vote
   


Epic fail

November 25th 2009 23:16
Did you read Phillip Levine’s article about Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion amendment to the health care bill? If so, could someone tell me how it ended? See, I tuned out after he started counting the number of women of childbearing age covered by Medicaid, and the number of women covered by private insurance who actually seek abortions. (If one of my students threw quotes around without citations as much as he does, I’d penalize them – but apparently the New York Times has a less strict marking guide.)

tldr

[ Click here to read more ]
30
Vote
   


Up the creek

November 8th 2009 06:51
I just canceled my subscriptions to Planned Parenthood’s and NARAL Pro-Choice America’s online newsletters. If you think reproductive rights are important, I’d advise you to do the same.

They’ve done things that raised an eyebrow in the past. Recently, for instance, they failed to denounce Barack Obama when he made a callous, misogynistic slur about “feeling blue” back during the primaries. But the passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and its language which Democratic Representative Diana DeGette described as “the greatest restriction of a woman’s right to choose to pass in our careers,” represents an abject failure on the part of the organizations who claim to be the flagship of all pro-choice Americans. They were the same ones who urged us over and over and over to vote for Obama, vote for Democrats, because things like this were not supposed to happen


[ Click here to read more ]
30
Vote
   


Down the memory hole

October 23rd 2009 05:02
“We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious election results, that elect a fictitious president.”
-- Michael Moore

[ Click here to read more ]
18
Vote
   


Reports of our death

October 13th 2009 05:14
“Mr. Burns was rushed to Springfield Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. He was then transferred to a better hospital, where doctors upgraded his condition to alive.”
-- Kent Brockman

[ Click here to read more ]
19
Vote
   


The end of satire

September 29th 2009 01:09
Early last week, Jon Stewart devoted the entirety of the second segment on one of his shows to sardonic jokes about how one cable news channel sometimes runs a poll where 93% of respondents favor one thing, and another channel’s poll shows 93% of respondents favoring the exact opposite thing. “It’s almost,” he burst, “as though they have completely different audiences!” Thanks for the lesson in TV economics, Jon. I never would have guessed that different news channels have different editorial positions, or that a lot of people decide which one to watch based on which one’s position is most appealing to them.

Dilbert sarcasm

[ Click here to read more ]
39
Vote
   


The neverending story

September 12th 2009 03:57
“It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must.”
-- President Gerald Ford, announcing his decision to pardon President Richard Nixon

[ Click here to read more ]
40
Vote
   


More Posts
1 Posts
2 Posts
1 Posts
60 Posts dating from February 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Jose's Blogs

4909 Vote(s)
26 Comment(s)
74 Post(s)
Moderated by Jose
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]