The idea amongst the upper centrist political and media class, that we can’t criticise Labor because it might lead to Liberals returning reeks of delusion and Pearl clutching. They still fetishise the Keating and Howard years and think that the country of the 90s and 00s are the same now.
No one is above criticism and there is a lot to be critical of the current Government. The Opposition is in its weakest position for a long time and both parties are likely to have similarly low primary votes next election. The best way to protect ourselves from both is a balanced parliament where neither has majority to prevent them from hurting us any more.
Excellent - and more, please! On all five pieces - ticks of approval!
I was at a recent Rally/March in Hyde Park/city of Sydney - and noted the brave and courageous presence of a Holocaust Survivor. I'd have gone up to speak with her but there were others already engaging her attention. There is a recent documentary film based on the Conference at Wannsee (Austrian director - subtitled) based exactly on the transcripts of all the conference participants that was recorded - in which details of the Final Solution were hammered out (as it were). All in euphemistic terms until it had to made explicitly clear for some what was actually being proposed. There's the banality - though as regards Eichmann and Hannah Arendt - I always assumed that the banality lay in his unprepossessing appearance and in the fact that it was all a logistics matter - that banality did not specifically refer to the slaughter. I found The Zone of Interest disturbing (of course) and thought of my uncle's mother who was at that very time just nearby being slave-labourer worked to death. Not Jewish - but taken by the Gestapo in 1937 for assisting those marked Jewish to escape Germany - her death certificate - recorded on Feb 16, 1944 - stated (in translation) that she had died of exhaustion. There is banality in that. My uncle is still living - nearly 95. Jim K.
I’m sorry, but Dutton isn’t anti-immigration, he’s just taking a political opportunity to make a faux reduced immigration stand that’s nothing more than a fig leaf for the present level.
I’m also tired of hearing “racist” when anyone (with the exception of the likes of Pauline, ON, ML, Bolt etc) rejects the present stupid levels. Nearly everyone in the media skirts around discussing immigration levels because of this. I don’t give a damn where immigrants come from (okay not true, I don’t want to see bible belt christians from the US), but I do care about the numbers and when are we going to have a discussion about what number we’re aiming for?
Check out the levels of Australia, Canada & NZ against the OECD. We outstrip them by multiples. The economic arguments in support of extreme immigration are also rubbish.
If anyone wastes their time reading this and disagrees, please explain the alledged advantages.
I don't know, Dennis. I didn't actually accuse him of racism, but he has some form: African gangs, Lebanese immigrants, South African farmers. I sometimes wonder if "housing" isn't the figleaf.
Tend to agree, though, we could have a better public debate about immigration in general. Clearly our prosperity depends on it and a lot of the claims about its effects on housing are exaggerated, but yeah, it is hard to have a clearheaded debate on these matter, and really, I don't think Dutton's approach helps much.
Incidentally, I am trying to commission a piece about this issue for an upcoming edition of the newsletter, which might be of of interest.
I’m sorry Tim if I gave you the impression that I thought you had, that’s not the case and I agree with your comment about his past, present & (likely) future form; I was referring to the public debate in general. I’d say he has no intention of lowering immigration or doing anything substantial on housing; he doesn’t care.
Yes! Please keep doing this. The short take format works well.
On Amis, I have The Place of Interest sitting beside my bed, awaiting its turn. I bought it after seeing the film. For some reason I've avoided him over the years, despite having devoured (so to speak) his peers - McEwan, Barnes, Ishiguro - but maybe, like you, I'll like him more than I think. Shall shuffle him higher to the top of the precipitous book mountain.
Tim: This is a brilliant piece by Laura Kipnis. I spoke briefly to Hitchens at the Sydney Writers Festival just before the announcement of his terminal cancer diagnosis by another of his mates, the ABC's LatelIne Presenter - Tony Jones. I had just read Hitch 22. He was in the book sales tent signing his books - from an earlier speaking session - sitting alone. I approached him to speak about his story of Athens and the death of his mother. Something of pathos. Then a chap he clearly knew well approached and I concluded our conversation. I understood his right wing positions and buddies - but applauded him for undergoing waterboarding and then proclaiming - against the US position - that it was indeed torture.
Oh, thank you. I had a real soft spot for Hitchens despite, well, you know. In a way (and it is horrible to say this, of course), I'm glad he died before he became even worse in his pronouncements. Shall read this with interest.
I might be the lone voice against the brief format, but here goes. There are very few people who are erudite enough to pull it off. Nicholas Gruen is the only Aus one I'm aware of.
The risk is the numerous rabbit holes the writer open ups, and then their willingness to engage.
I really like the hedgehog/fox approach. I fear the brief notes approach tempts foxes to be hedgehogs and down that path leads Dominic Cummings and his ilk. /shudder
I like the format Tim. Stories I'm not particularly interested in I can skip over, and it's clear where I need to resume reading
I think one of the problems with 'criticising one's own kind' in political debate is that, at least for progressives, invariably there IS a cheersquad for the other side. And it is powerful and very well supported by many in the media. I can understand why a lot of progressives are scared not to rock the boat by provoking the cheersquad. But that's what we frustratedly accuse the Albanese government of doing, don't we? And you're right: it comes from a failure to understand how political majorities are constructed. Under our voting system, you don't have to love your preferred political party; just like them more than the other guy.
As for that specious 'not all' argument, I couldn't agree more. Why is it seemingly never applied to asylum seekers, refugees, migrants or Australian ISIS brides and their children? Dutton wants a 'cast iron' guarantee that certain people won't be a threat to Australians; well - Newslash! - NOBODY can give you a cast iron guarantee of your personal safety; that's not how our society works.
And WTF are Morrison and Trump standing in front of? One of the Donald's golden shower doors?
I have similar feelings about Amis - he's such a toff that it does a roundabout and becomes almost charming. I can at least admire his 'Zone of Interest' for attempting something different while still being adequately macabre. He has some interesting thoughts on it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuQ2WdcD3KE. It's too bad he wasn't around to see the film as I would've liked his thoughts on it.
This was a great read thanks Tim. I like the format.
Re Amis on the banality of evil, on Thursday while travelling I was subjected to Simon Birmingham interviewed on RN Drive regarding Senator Fatima Payman’s chanting, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
Later, I listened to Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC, representing South Africa at the ICJ.
In her closing remarks she quoted an unnamed British surgeon speaking after his recent return from Gaza. The surgeon described approaching an old man, an amputee, moaning in a dark corner. The man was moaning about the worms eating him. On examination his wound site was found to be infested with maggots.
I then watched a neonatal specialist during an interview stating his unimaginable, nightmarish position. He has 45 babies in his care in the only functioning neonatal facility in Gaza. All 45 of those babies will certainly die due to either lack of fuel to run the plant, or an IDF ordered evacuation, both events seemingly imminent.
On Friday, the senate devoted hours debating whether Senator Payman had received sufficient condemnation for her errant beliefs.
The evil perpetrated on the population of humans once living, now existing in Gaza, may not be banal, however, the antics of our highly paid representatives, their desperate urge to debate the important issues and ensure they receive proper treatment in the press is nothing, if not predictable.
I’m unsure how humanity will ever recover from the eradication of every sign of the very existence of the resilient people of Gaza that we have witnessed over the last 224 days.
Great read Tim.
The idea amongst the upper centrist political and media class, that we can’t criticise Labor because it might lead to Liberals returning reeks of delusion and Pearl clutching. They still fetishise the Keating and Howard years and think that the country of the 90s and 00s are the same now.
No one is above criticism and there is a lot to be critical of the current Government. The Opposition is in its weakest position for a long time and both parties are likely to have similarly low primary votes next election. The best way to protect ourselves from both is a balanced parliament where neither has majority to prevent them from hurting us any more.
I am amazed at how many people seem to be coming to the same conclusion, John.
Don't be...(amazed - that is)!
Excellent - and more, please! On all five pieces - ticks of approval!
I was at a recent Rally/March in Hyde Park/city of Sydney - and noted the brave and courageous presence of a Holocaust Survivor. I'd have gone up to speak with her but there were others already engaging her attention. There is a recent documentary film based on the Conference at Wannsee (Austrian director - subtitled) based exactly on the transcripts of all the conference participants that was recorded - in which details of the Final Solution were hammered out (as it were). All in euphemistic terms until it had to made explicitly clear for some what was actually being proposed. There's the banality - though as regards Eichmann and Hannah Arendt - I always assumed that the banality lay in his unprepossessing appearance and in the fact that it was all a logistics matter - that banality did not specifically refer to the slaughter. I found The Zone of Interest disturbing (of course) and thought of my uncle's mother who was at that very time just nearby being slave-labourer worked to death. Not Jewish - but taken by the Gestapo in 1937 for assisting those marked Jewish to escape Germany - her death certificate - recorded on Feb 16, 1944 - stated (in translation) that she had died of exhaustion. There is banality in that. My uncle is still living - nearly 95. Jim K.
Yes, I think the phrase is often misinterpreted; or over-interpreted. That piece I link to about it is worth a read: https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-the-banality-of-evil
Thanks for resending the link - interesting...
I’m sorry, but Dutton isn’t anti-immigration, he’s just taking a political opportunity to make a faux reduced immigration stand that’s nothing more than a fig leaf for the present level.
I’m also tired of hearing “racist” when anyone (with the exception of the likes of Pauline, ON, ML, Bolt etc) rejects the present stupid levels. Nearly everyone in the media skirts around discussing immigration levels because of this. I don’t give a damn where immigrants come from (okay not true, I don’t want to see bible belt christians from the US), but I do care about the numbers and when are we going to have a discussion about what number we’re aiming for?
Check out the levels of Australia, Canada & NZ against the OECD. We outstrip them by multiples. The economic arguments in support of extreme immigration are also rubbish.
If anyone wastes their time reading this and disagrees, please explain the alledged advantages.
I don't know, Dennis. I didn't actually accuse him of racism, but he has some form: African gangs, Lebanese immigrants, South African farmers. I sometimes wonder if "housing" isn't the figleaf.
Tend to agree, though, we could have a better public debate about immigration in general. Clearly our prosperity depends on it and a lot of the claims about its effects on housing are exaggerated, but yeah, it is hard to have a clearheaded debate on these matter, and really, I don't think Dutton's approach helps much.
Incidentally, I am trying to commission a piece about this issue for an upcoming edition of the newsletter, which might be of of interest.
I’m sorry Tim if I gave you the impression that I thought you had, that’s not the case and I agree with your comment about his past, present & (likely) future form; I was referring to the public debate in general. I’d say he has no intention of lowering immigration or doing anything substantial on housing; he doesn’t care.
No, I realise that, Dennis, thanks. Just thought I'd clarify. Appreciate the commment.
Yes! Please keep doing this. The short take format works well.
On Amis, I have The Place of Interest sitting beside my bed, awaiting its turn. I bought it after seeing the film. For some reason I've avoided him over the years, despite having devoured (so to speak) his peers - McEwan, Barnes, Ishiguro - but maybe, like you, I'll like him more than I think. Shall shuffle him higher to the top of the precipitous book mountain.
Great, thanks. I always had Amis down as a bit of well-educated yob, and I still think he is, but damn Zone is great, and the autobiog novel is odd but has some real substance. His r'ship with Hitchens is revealing in many ways, not all of them flattering. To either of them. You might like this piece about Hitchens by the partner of an (online) friend of mine. Same deal: revealing. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/criq.12758?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1xDFmo_1PcNzjX6Pb0w1Ju_h1Tx50WTpzkcnzk96BykU1o6bPmQ6J8pZE_aem_AfpN-F0kKzMglXnwj3pO0F3w4t15SOTHKJzeGDJsI9EdOYo3VfXfgMBxgYCRZYOttUlKTe7CTM9peX_miAIm9Im6&utm_source=pocket_saves
Tim: This is a brilliant piece by Laura Kipnis. I spoke briefly to Hitchens at the Sydney Writers Festival just before the announcement of his terminal cancer diagnosis by another of his mates, the ABC's LatelIne Presenter - Tony Jones. I had just read Hitch 22. He was in the book sales tent signing his books - from an earlier speaking session - sitting alone. I approached him to speak about his story of Athens and the death of his mother. Something of pathos. Then a chap he clearly knew well approached and I concluded our conversation. I understood his right wing positions and buddies - but applauded him for undergoing waterboarding and then proclaiming - against the US position - that it was indeed torture.
Oh, thank you. I had a real soft spot for Hitchens despite, well, you know. In a way (and it is horrible to say this, of course), I'm glad he died before he became even worse in his pronouncements. Shall read this with interest.
I know what you mean. I think the linked article isn't a million miles from the same sentiment.
Great read, as always, thanks Tim. I think this formula works well.
Thanks, Louis. Yes, I like it. I'll be interested to see how it goes stats-wise. Gotta try these things!
I like this answer - pressed Like - not recorded! Jim
Oh, I just had the same problem! Try hitting reload. Worked for me.
I might be the lone voice against the brief format, but here goes. There are very few people who are erudite enough to pull it off. Nicholas Gruen is the only Aus one I'm aware of.
The risk is the numerous rabbit holes the writer open ups, and then their willingness to engage.
I really like the hedgehog/fox approach. I fear the brief notes approach tempts foxes to be hedgehogs and down that path leads Dominic Cummings and his ilk. /shudder
I like Nicholas's newsletter too, but it isn't brief!
Regardless, I am certainly not as erudite as him...
I like the format Tim. Stories I'm not particularly interested in I can skip over, and it's clear where I need to resume reading
I think one of the problems with 'criticising one's own kind' in political debate is that, at least for progressives, invariably there IS a cheersquad for the other side. And it is powerful and very well supported by many in the media. I can understand why a lot of progressives are scared not to rock the boat by provoking the cheersquad. But that's what we frustratedly accuse the Albanese government of doing, don't we? And you're right: it comes from a failure to understand how political majorities are constructed. Under our voting system, you don't have to love your preferred political party; just like them more than the other guy.
As for that specious 'not all' argument, I couldn't agree more. Why is it seemingly never applied to asylum seekers, refugees, migrants or Australian ISIS brides and their children? Dutton wants a 'cast iron' guarantee that certain people won't be a threat to Australians; well - Newslash! - NOBODY can give you a cast iron guarantee of your personal safety; that's not how our society works.
And WTF are Morrison and Trump standing in front of? One of the Donald's golden shower doors?
That's the door to Donnie's apartment, apparently.
Your point about there being a cheersquad for non-Labor is well taken. As Sally Young's two books on our media history point out, it has ever been so.
https://tdunlop.substack.com/p/australian-oligarchy
Yes, realised that after reading the first couple of paragraphs!
I also like this formula!
I have similar feelings about Amis - he's such a toff that it does a roundabout and becomes almost charming. I can at least admire his 'Zone of Interest' for attempting something different while still being adequately macabre. He has some interesting thoughts on it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuQ2WdcD3KE. It's too bad he wasn't around to see the film as I would've liked his thoughts on it.
Oh, thanks for the link, I will watch that with interest.
Funnily enough, I came away from Inside Story thinking he was less of a toff than I had presumed. See my comment to Margaret, above.
This was a great read thanks Tim. I like the format.
Re Amis on the banality of evil, on Thursday while travelling I was subjected to Simon Birmingham interviewed on RN Drive regarding Senator Fatima Payman’s chanting, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
Later, I listened to Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC, representing South Africa at the ICJ.
In her closing remarks she quoted an unnamed British surgeon speaking after his recent return from Gaza. The surgeon described approaching an old man, an amputee, moaning in a dark corner. The man was moaning about the worms eating him. On examination his wound site was found to be infested with maggots.
I then watched a neonatal specialist during an interview stating his unimaginable, nightmarish position. He has 45 babies in his care in the only functioning neonatal facility in Gaza. All 45 of those babies will certainly die due to either lack of fuel to run the plant, or an IDF ordered evacuation, both events seemingly imminent.
On Friday, the senate devoted hours debating whether Senator Payman had received sufficient condemnation for her errant beliefs.
The evil perpetrated on the population of humans once living, now existing in Gaza, may not be banal, however, the antics of our highly paid representatives, their desperate urge to debate the important issues and ensure they receive proper treatment in the press is nothing, if not predictable.
I’m unsure how humanity will ever recover from the eradication of every sign of the very existence of the resilient people of Gaza that we have witnessed over the last 224 days.