It is that time of year again. The Australian Open heads towards it's climax, Australia beats some disinterested tourists in cricket and Australia Day appears on the calender. However, something is different not only this year, but in the last few years as well. People seem to be giving a rat's arse about Australia Day. Quite a few seem to think it's more important than sport! What the hell is going on?
Patriotism seems to have become rather fashionable in recent years. Even some of the more ugly expressions of it, such as in Cronulla, seem not to have dampened enthusiasm for people in Australia going around pointing out to other people in Australia that they are Australian and are rather chuffed about the situation. Even so, the hype surrounding Australia Day is only now starting to reach ANZAC Day proportions.
One of the key ingredients this year was the Big Day Out flag controversy. Ken West's decision to ask people attending the BDO to keep (all) flags at home gave budding hyper nationalists around Australia all the ammo they needed to circle jerk about the flag and why anyone who thought that people wearing the flag like a cape in any social situation was a but excessive should be boiled alive in a vat of 100% all-Aussie Timor Sea oil. Sure people at last year's BDO in Sydney were politely by some punters asked to kiss the flag or cop a punch to the face, but how could one link the flag to such events? The flag represents everything that happened in Australia that we think is good. Nothing bad has ever happened in Australia with the current ensign flying proudly above us. Nothing. Never. Never ever. Got it?
On the day itself the whole thing went into overdrive. A critical analysis of the Day and why we are celebrating it on the 26th of January was thrown out the window as news coverage fawned over anyone with a nice thing to say about Australia. Meanwhile the flag was given superhuman powers by all except that rascal Luenig in a cartoon the day after. People even greeted each other with "Happy Australia Day", helping take nationalism along side Christmas and Easter to religious status.
In the end, I think my main problem with Australia Day as it currently is and patriotism in general is that is seems to be just plain pointless. Much like the related "Australian Values" debate, those who argue that Australia(n Values) is/are so great don't tend to answer why it is so. Why are Australian values better than these foreign values? What makes these values so Australian anyway? Why do people need to wear flags to a music concert? Why can't Australia look back on all aspects of it's history honestly rather than just glorifying the bits that make people feel all warm and fuzzy? Why are people proud of being Australians if all they did was be lucky enough to be born here? Me thinks I could be waiting for a while for the answers.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Saddam Dies, Will Iraq Survive?
While it had been expected for some time, the timing of the execution of Saddam Hussein this afternoon (Melbourne time) a bit sudden. Reaction from the Coalition countries has been predictably positive, with Bush even getting into the idea that this was an important milestone:
Perhaps the effects of the Iraq Study Group report is starting to wear off on Bush. Whatever the case, I share little of the optimism displayed by Bush. Iraq still has massive problems to overcome to just stay together let alone become a model democracy and the death of Saddam I feel will do little to help the situation and could indeed make the situation a lot worse.
While undoubtedly Saddam was one to the most brutal dictators of the latter Cold War period, it looks more and more like it was only a strongman such as himself that could hold together the highly artificial state of Iraq. The tensions between the different demographic groups in Iraq have been exposed tragically since the US invasion with little hope of "putting the genie back in the bottle". The highly possible breakup of Iraq, already a rather loose three part federation, is likely to expose regional tensions, especially regarding Turkey and a possible Kurdistan. This conflict could prove an old saying about war "never believe that things can only get better".
Shifting focus slightly, I would also question the wisdom of executing Saddam rather than giving him a life sentence. To begin with, Sir Spell Cheque is against capital punishment, so of course I have problems with the execution on that fundamental level. However there is more to my opposition to the death penalty for Saddam than that. The trial was rather shifty to begin with, with judges and lawyers involved harassed and/or killed. Saddam should have been handed over to an independent international tribunal where a fair trial was much more likely. US refusal to hand Saddam over to such a tribunal leaves even less than cynical minds to wonder what motives the US had in keeping Saddam in Iraq. It surely could not have been fears of not securing a conviction over human rights abuses as, unlike with the WMDs, the evidence was overwhelming.
In his weaker moments Sir Cheque might start to think that Saddam had information that the US would prefer the world not to know. Could be a bit embarrassing. Unfortunately now we may never know. The phrase might say that we should learn history to avoid making the same mistakes, but it is hard to do when we are denied the information (i.e. history) in the first place. Was it worth the risk of creating a martyr that militant people could rally around to avoid the divulging of some embarrassing information in an international court and a slight propaganda boost in the US. Sadly only time will tell.
It is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself
Perhaps the effects of the Iraq Study Group report is starting to wear off on Bush. Whatever the case, I share little of the optimism displayed by Bush. Iraq still has massive problems to overcome to just stay together let alone become a model democracy and the death of Saddam I feel will do little to help the situation and could indeed make the situation a lot worse.
While undoubtedly Saddam was one to the most brutal dictators of the latter Cold War period, it looks more and more like it was only a strongman such as himself that could hold together the highly artificial state of Iraq. The tensions between the different demographic groups in Iraq have been exposed tragically since the US invasion with little hope of "putting the genie back in the bottle". The highly possible breakup of Iraq, already a rather loose three part federation, is likely to expose regional tensions, especially regarding Turkey and a possible Kurdistan. This conflict could prove an old saying about war "never believe that things can only get better".
Shifting focus slightly, I would also question the wisdom of executing Saddam rather than giving him a life sentence. To begin with, Sir Spell Cheque is against capital punishment, so of course I have problems with the execution on that fundamental level. However there is more to my opposition to the death penalty for Saddam than that. The trial was rather shifty to begin with, with judges and lawyers involved harassed and/or killed. Saddam should have been handed over to an independent international tribunal where a fair trial was much more likely. US refusal to hand Saddam over to such a tribunal leaves even less than cynical minds to wonder what motives the US had in keeping Saddam in Iraq. It surely could not have been fears of not securing a conviction over human rights abuses as, unlike with the WMDs, the evidence was overwhelming.
In his weaker moments Sir Cheque might start to think that Saddam had information that the US would prefer the world not to know. Could be a bit embarrassing. Unfortunately now we may never know. The phrase might say that we should learn history to avoid making the same mistakes, but it is hard to do when we are denied the information (i.e. history) in the first place. Was it worth the risk of creating a martyr that militant people could rally around to avoid the divulging of some embarrassing information in an international court and a slight propaganda boost in the US. Sadly only time will tell.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Eating Anything Halal Is Letting The Terrorists Win
One might consider reading publications such as Melbourne's Herald Sun as something beyond the pale for any self respecting human being. However, that would be denying the fact that the paper can provide some wonderful comic relief to a reader's otherwise deary and over-serious day. For example, take the situation that faced me on Saturday. As I eventually woke up, a fear came over me: I still needed to buy Christmas presents for my parents. These two had proven near impossible to buy for, and with under 48 hours to go, the pressure was on.
Having skipped breakfast, your writer had rushed down to the train station to head into the city in a tired, anxious and hungry state. The stress was getting to me and my iPod was stuck on a loop of Pan Sonic style "easy listening". How was I going to make my way through this? My salvation came in the form of a copy of that day's Herald Sun located on the seat of the train. (Never thought I would type that!)
I threw out the lifestyle and real estate sections, discarded the gossip columns at the back, disposed of the classifieds and tore out the jingoistic crap about Warne at the front of the paper. Within the remaining 9 pages, through all of the carefully placed puff pieces and advertising, I managed to find the reason why I still think, despite all logic, that the Herald Sun should be allowed to exist. The title grabbed me straight away, uplifting me with hope.
Could it be? Is this the article that will take my mind off of any serious issue that may be plaguing me and/or the world? I read on:
Having skipped breakfast, your writer had rushed down to the train station to head into the city in a tired, anxious and hungry state. The stress was getting to me and my iPod was stuck on a loop of Pan Sonic style "easy listening". How was I going to make my way through this? My salvation came in the form of a copy of that day's Herald Sun located on the seat of the train. (Never thought I would type that!)
I threw out the lifestyle and real estate sections, discarded the gossip columns at the back, disposed of the classifieds and tore out the jingoistic crap about Warne at the front of the paper. Within the remaining 9 pages, through all of the carefully placed puff pieces and advertising, I managed to find the reason why I still think, despite all logic, that the Herald Sun should be allowed to exist. The title grabbed me straight away, uplifting me with hope.
Unholy row at barbie
Could it be? Is this the article that will take my mind off of any serious issue that may be plaguing me and/or the world? I read on:
SOME parents are upset that an end-of-year barbecue is serving only halal meat.
Pascoe Vale North Primary School had its traditional Christmas party on Wednesday this week.The school served only halal sausages -- slaughtered and blessed according to rules set down in the Koran -- angering some parents.
YEEESSSSS!!!!!! I had hit tabloid comedy pay dirt. It had hit all of the buttons that need to be pushed in modern tabloid journalism.
- Something that can be used to beat up those evil Muslims with.
- The defence of the glorious tradition of Christmas, upon which the hopes of Peace, Western Civilisation and a local horse winning the next Melbourne cup, among other things rests.
- Evil state schools not being Christian enough (and in cahoots with the Muslims, can it get any better?)
Principal Peter Adams said the kids really liked the sausages.
"The sausages are from a local supplier and the most delicious sausages in the world," he said.
"Given the sausages were so delicious and tasted similar to ordinary sausages, for practical reasons we thought it would be easier to serve halal sausages to everyone.
"The kids had a great time and they all enjoyed the sausages."
Mr Adams said prep students also received presents from Santa at the party.
"Pascoe Vale North Primary students, teachers and parents believe the true message of Christmas is peace, love and tolerance," he said.
"At our Christmas party we celebrate it all and we had Santa who gave presents to all the preps."
What gives, Mr Adams? Don't you know that Andrew Bolt is on a well earned holiday? Couldn't you have joined in this blatant beat up? It's not as if people would have taken you're comments as being anything but sarcastic. But no, you just had to bring me back into the depressing real world rather than the comic book escapism that the Hun was going for. Thanks a lot.
P.S. Larvatus Prodeo also comment on the story.
P.P.S. If you can't tell that this post is somewhat sarcastic, then God/Allah/Buddha/whoever have mercy on your soul, even if it is not Halal.
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Demise of "Turkmenbashi"
A very intriguing geopolitical situation is emerging in Turkmenistan after the sudden death of its leader Sapurmurat Niyazov, aged 66 of a heart attack. Niyazov, or "Turkmenbashi" (Father of all Turkmens) as he preferred to be called was perhaps one of the most bizarre and authoritarian dictators of the Post Cold War period (Kim Jong Il/ Kim Il Sung aside). Apart from the Turkmenbashi thing, The Guardian lists a range of the more extreme facets of the Turkmenbashi's personality cult, including:
Pretty impressive, no? It will be difficult for the next leader of Turkmenisatn to top that. But who will that person be? The answer at the minute is that no one knows. Having banned all political parties and brutally repressed anything that might resemble a challenge to him, the Turkmenbashi has also failed to groom an obvious successor. The successor as stipulated under the constitution is currently under investigation and therefore ineligible. With Turkmenbashi ruling like an absolute monarch, there are fears that Turkmenistan could even collapse into civil war in his absence as there would be no one with the experience and skills to rule effectively.
But why does Turkmenistan matter? Sure, your average Turkmen might be interested in this news but why would anyone else give a rat's arse? The main answer is that Turkmenistan has the fifth largest natural gas reserves which end up in Europe via Russia. China is also interested in getting in among the action not only for energy supplies but also to reassert influence in the Central Asian region. The U.S. is also looking on with interest due to the geography as Turkmenistan borders both Iran and Afghanistan while also having a large coast with the Caspian Sea, a major oil reserve. It might be considered cynical and so 20th century to think that foreign policy (especially U.S. foreign policy) is driven by the desire for resources however it is hard to believe that such considerations will not play a major part in the coming weeks.
- Commissioning an Ice Palace (Turkmenistan is largely desert)
- Renaming January "Turkmenbashi"
- The construction of many gold statues that rotated so that they always faced the sun
- Published his own book ("Ruhnama") that became part of the legal code
- Banned opera and ballet
- Closed all hospitals outside the capital Ashgabat
Pretty impressive, no? It will be difficult for the next leader of Turkmenisatn to top that. But who will that person be? The answer at the minute is that no one knows. Having banned all political parties and brutally repressed anything that might resemble a challenge to him, the Turkmenbashi has also failed to groom an obvious successor. The successor as stipulated under the constitution is currently under investigation and therefore ineligible. With Turkmenbashi ruling like an absolute monarch, there are fears that Turkmenistan could even collapse into civil war in his absence as there would be no one with the experience and skills to rule effectively.
But why does Turkmenistan matter? Sure, your average Turkmen might be interested in this news but why would anyone else give a rat's arse? The main answer is that Turkmenistan has the fifth largest natural gas reserves which end up in Europe via Russia. China is also interested in getting in among the action not only for energy supplies but also to reassert influence in the Central Asian region. The U.S. is also looking on with interest due to the geography as Turkmenistan borders both Iran and Afghanistan while also having a large coast with the Caspian Sea, a major oil reserve. It might be considered cynical and so 20th century to think that foreign policy (especially U.S. foreign policy) is driven by the desire for resources however it is hard to believe that such considerations will not play a major part in the coming weeks.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Bush Announces That The Sky Is Blue
A big ol' storm is sure to be brewing in the coming days in the wake of the statement of George W. Bush regarding the war in Iraq. According to The Age, Bush has somberly changed his tune of the previous three and a bit years.
Of course, its not just the domestic political situation that Bush has to be concerned about. One very real possibility and perhaps the most logical one is the breakup of Iraq. To begin with, the south might want to create an independent state or join in some way with Iran. Not exactly a pleasant prospect for the U.S. government. A much more difficult juggling act is likely concerning the north, were the people there are likely to call for an independent Kurdish state. Often referred to as 'History's losers', the Kurds have copped the rough end of the pineapple after being sold out by the Western allies in the WWI Peace treaties. The establishment of any Kurdish state will not only upset U.S. 'enemies' like Iran and Syria, but most of all U.S. ally Turkey, who has fought a civil war against the Kurds for decades. How the U.S. responds to independence movements could alter the history of the region for decades to come. Given the track record, I do not hold much optimism for Bush to steer the issue in the right direction.
"I'm not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq except that it's going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices," he said, warning "the enemy is merciless and violent".However Bush hasn't let himself be totally consumed by common sense and logic.In a departure from his upbeat tone of only weeks ago, Mr Bush earlier admitted for the first time the United States was not winning in Iraq, approvingly quoting a top US general as saying: "We're not winning, we're not losing."
The remark, in an interview for the Washington Post, was a reversal from his promise that "absolutely, we're winning" before the November 7 congressional elections.
Still, given the constancy of the optimism that has emanated from the White House over Iraq, any cracks in the veneer are going to be seen to be "big news". With the Congress being handed over to the Democrats in January and many from the GOP deserting him in droves, it will be interesting to see if Bush can pull a solution out of the hat which is both effective and politically agreeable. I am not optimistic and can foresee a solution formulated with the later at the forefront with the people of Iraq given token consideration.Asked about those comments, Mr Bush said: "I believe that we're going to win" and added that "my comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted."
"I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can't run us out of the Middle East; that they can't intimidate America," he vowed.
Of course, its not just the domestic political situation that Bush has to be concerned about. One very real possibility and perhaps the most logical one is the breakup of Iraq. To begin with, the south might want to create an independent state or join in some way with Iran. Not exactly a pleasant prospect for the U.S. government. A much more difficult juggling act is likely concerning the north, were the people there are likely to call for an independent Kurdish state. Often referred to as 'History's losers', the Kurds have copped the rough end of the pineapple after being sold out by the Western allies in the WWI Peace treaties. The establishment of any Kurdish state will not only upset U.S. 'enemies' like Iran and Syria, but most of all U.S. ally Turkey, who has fought a civil war against the Kurds for decades. How the U.S. responds to independence movements could alter the history of the region for decades to come. Given the track record, I do not hold much optimism for Bush to steer the issue in the right direction.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
ALP Shocked That Doing The Exact Same Thing As Last Time Causes The Exact Same Result As Last Time (Clever Lot Aren't They!)
Today's Musical Selection: Friends by De La Soul
From the Mission Impossible Album
Poor little Bracksy!
After the shenanigans of the 2004 federal election that saw Packer Family First sail into the Senate on the back of ALP preferences, despite wining only 1.88% of first preferences, the ALP are in shock after the DLP managed to get two seats in the reformed Victorian Upper House on the back of ALP preferences despite getting around 2% of first preferences and requiring a higher quota than Packer Family First did to win their federal Senate seat. The poor dears! Someone get them a nice cup of tea and somewhere to put their feet up until they can get their heads around all this.
OR
Tell them to get fucked! Why should anyone be feeling sorry (or even shocked) that the ALP has shot themselves in the foot by causing the election of two (count them, two) DLP members by giving them preferences over other parties such as the Greens who might actually be somewhat close to (or indeed anywhere near) the ALP in terms of policy outlook and political ideology. But I hear you say "why would they do that"? Just because the ALP reformed the Upper House themselves AND the vast majority of their voters and members would have preferred the Greens to the DLP (or the Country Alliance who were also preferenced ahead of the Greens in some UH electorates) AND the Greens were likely to be in favour of quite a lot of the policies of the ALP AND that they have now revived a hated political enemy that had been pronounced dead back in the 1970s you expect them to somehow pick the shinny new Ferrari over "what's in the box"? Dear God, take a look at yourself, will you.
That sort of thing would mean that the Victorian ALP would have to base there preference deals around such ideas as principles and representing the will of their supporters and other crap like that. You think that fits in with this thing called politics? No, you have got to try to win seats by screwing over parties (in these two cases, The Greens) by denying them preferences even though most ALP voters probably wouldn't vote for FF or the DLP if their lives depended on it.
Now, you might be thinking that Sir Spell Cheque is just a cynical old crackpot who voted for The Greens and is pissed off that they didn't win as many seats as hoped. Well you would be wrong on one count: Sir Spell Cheque is actually rather young. But as for being cynical, Sir Spell Cheque has managed to gain exclusive access to an audio tape of the ALP sub committee for preference deals discussing how to preference in the (then) upcoming election. Read the transcript below and judge for yourselves.
ALP Guy 1: OK guys, we've got another election coming up on the 25th on November.
ALP Guys 2 & 3: Oh gees, not again!
ALP Guy 4: Yeah I know, they are a pain in the arse!
ALP Guy 1: Settle down you lot, we've got work to do.
ALP Guy 2: What, we've got to make up some policies?
ALP Guy 1: *Chokes on his biscuit* Shit no! What the hell gave you the idea that the ALP was about policies? ALP Guy 5, take ALP Guy 2 down to the disciplinary committee and tell them that he's to stay there until after the next federal election.
ALP Guy 5: Sure thing ALP Guy 1. Come on ALP Guy 2, if you go quietly we might let you back out in time to have a go for the 2010 election.
*ALP Guys 2 & 5 leave for downstairs*
ALP Guy 4: Now that that pinko has left, can I ask why are we here?
ALP Guy 1: We've got to decide who we're going to preference in the UP for the election.
ALP Guy 3: Don't you think we should ask the members via a vote?
ALP Guy 1: I can call ALP Guy 5 back up here to sort you out as well, ALP Guy 3!
ALP Guy 3: Comment withdrawn.
ALP Guy 4: I think that we should try to win as many seats for ourselves, no matter how unprincipled we have to be.
ALP Guy 1: Now that's the spirit! Listen to him ALP Guy 3, you could learn alot from him.
ALP Guy 3: So..... we should preference The Greens?
ALP Guy 1: Of course not. They have a decent chance of winning a seat. What we have to do is preference some nutbag party that has no chance.
ALP Guy 4: Like with Family First in the 2004 election.
ALP Guy 1: Yeah!
ALP Guy 3: But didn't that one come back to bite us on the arse?
ALP Guy 1: Yeah.... but that was a one off.
ALP Guy 4: So how do we prevent that this time?
ALP Guy 1: Easy, we just start really laying into The Greens despite them being the party closest to us.
ALP Guy 3: But what if they still look like doing well?
ALP Guy 1: Then we'll put out some story about them preferencing the Liberals over us.
ALP Guy 4: But they would never do that.
ALP Guy 1: Well duh. But what else could we use to appeal to people thinking of voting for The Greens? You know that policy's out.
ALP Guys 3 & 4: Yeah, fair enough.
ALP Guy 1: That's the way fellas. So we're agreed then? Preference the DLP ahead of The Greens?
ALP Guy 3: Yeah, the DLP would never win a seat.
ALP Guy 4: Yeah they're no hopers.
ALP Guy 1: Excellent. Now that that's sorted, I need you two to send this press release to the Herald Sun.
ALP Guy 4: What's it about?
ALP Guy 1: Nothing much. Just some bullshit about how Bob Brown will come around to your house to force your children to take homosexual heroin while raping kittens.
ALP Guy 3: Thank God! I thought it was a Public Transport policy.
ALP Guy 1: *On mobile phone*ALP Guy 5, can you come back up here ASAP?
P.S. Urban Creature & AnonymousLefty have some discussion on how to change the situation.
From the Mission Impossible Album
Poor little Bracksy!
After the shenanigans of the 2004 federal election that saw Packer Family First sail into the Senate on the back of ALP preferences, despite wining only 1.88% of first preferences, the ALP are in shock after the DLP managed to get two seats in the reformed Victorian Upper House on the back of ALP preferences despite getting around 2% of first preferences and requiring a higher quota than Packer Family First did to win their federal Senate seat. The poor dears! Someone get them a nice cup of tea and somewhere to put their feet up until they can get their heads around all this.
OR
Tell them to get fucked! Why should anyone be feeling sorry (or even shocked) that the ALP has shot themselves in the foot by causing the election of two (count them, two) DLP members by giving them preferences over other parties such as the Greens who might actually be somewhat close to (or indeed anywhere near) the ALP in terms of policy outlook and political ideology. But I hear you say "why would they do that"? Just because the ALP reformed the Upper House themselves AND the vast majority of their voters and members would have preferred the Greens to the DLP (or the Country Alliance who were also preferenced ahead of the Greens in some UH electorates) AND the Greens were likely to be in favour of quite a lot of the policies of the ALP AND that they have now revived a hated political enemy that had been pronounced dead back in the 1970s you expect them to somehow pick the shinny new Ferrari over "what's in the box"? Dear God, take a look at yourself, will you.
That sort of thing would mean that the Victorian ALP would have to base there preference deals around such ideas as principles and representing the will of their supporters and other crap like that. You think that fits in with this thing called politics? No, you have got to try to win seats by screwing over parties (in these two cases, The Greens) by denying them preferences even though most ALP voters probably wouldn't vote for FF or the DLP if their lives depended on it.
Now, you might be thinking that Sir Spell Cheque is just a cynical old crackpot who voted for The Greens and is pissed off that they didn't win as many seats as hoped. Well you would be wrong on one count: Sir Spell Cheque is actually rather young. But as for being cynical, Sir Spell Cheque has managed to gain exclusive access to an audio tape of the ALP sub committee for preference deals discussing how to preference in the (then) upcoming election. Read the transcript below and judge for yourselves.
ALP Guy 1: OK guys, we've got another election coming up on the 25th on November.
ALP Guys 2 & 3: Oh gees, not again!
ALP Guy 4: Yeah I know, they are a pain in the arse!
ALP Guy 1: Settle down you lot, we've got work to do.
ALP Guy 2: What, we've got to make up some policies?
ALP Guy 1: *Chokes on his biscuit* Shit no! What the hell gave you the idea that the ALP was about policies? ALP Guy 5, take ALP Guy 2 down to the disciplinary committee and tell them that he's to stay there until after the next federal election.
ALP Guy 5: Sure thing ALP Guy 1. Come on ALP Guy 2, if you go quietly we might let you back out in time to have a go for the 2010 election.
*ALP Guys 2 & 5 leave for downstairs*
ALP Guy 4: Now that that pinko has left, can I ask why are we here?
ALP Guy 1: We've got to decide who we're going to preference in the UP for the election.
ALP Guy 3: Don't you think we should ask the members via a vote?
ALP Guy 1: I can call ALP Guy 5 back up here to sort you out as well, ALP Guy 3!
ALP Guy 3: Comment withdrawn.
ALP Guy 4: I think that we should try to win as many seats for ourselves, no matter how unprincipled we have to be.
ALP Guy 1: Now that's the spirit! Listen to him ALP Guy 3, you could learn alot from him.
ALP Guy 3: So..... we should preference The Greens?
ALP Guy 1: Of course not. They have a decent chance of winning a seat. What we have to do is preference some nutbag party that has no chance.
ALP Guy 4: Like with Family First in the 2004 election.
ALP Guy 1: Yeah!
ALP Guy 3: But didn't that one come back to bite us on the arse?
ALP Guy 1: Yeah.... but that was a one off.
ALP Guy 4: So how do we prevent that this time?
ALP Guy 1: Easy, we just start really laying into The Greens despite them being the party closest to us.
ALP Guy 3: But what if they still look like doing well?
ALP Guy 1: Then we'll put out some story about them preferencing the Liberals over us.
ALP Guy 4: But they would never do that.
ALP Guy 1: Well duh. But what else could we use to appeal to people thinking of voting for The Greens? You know that policy's out.
ALP Guys 3 & 4: Yeah, fair enough.
ALP Guy 1: That's the way fellas. So we're agreed then? Preference the DLP ahead of The Greens?
ALP Guy 3: Yeah, the DLP would never win a seat.
ALP Guy 4: Yeah they're no hopers.
ALP Guy 1: Excellent. Now that that's sorted, I need you two to send this press release to the Herald Sun.
ALP Guy 4: What's it about?
ALP Guy 1: Nothing much. Just some bullshit about how Bob Brown will come around to your house to force your children to take homosexual heroin while raping kittens.
ALP Guy 3: Thank God! I thought it was a Public Transport policy.
ALP Guy 1: *On mobile phone*ALP Guy 5, can you come back up here ASAP?
P.S. Urban Creature & AnonymousLefty have some discussion on how to change the situation.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
FIFA Allocates Places For The 2010 World Cup
Mere months after the rather dull 2006 edition of the World Cup concluded in Germany, FIFA has already began the process of allocating places for the 2010 edition. In perhaps what is one of the most controversial and politicised functions of FIFA, the 31 remaining spots for the final tournament are allocated by continent. (The 32nd spot is for the hosts, in this case South Africa, who automatically qualify).
According to reports, the spots for 2010 will be allocated as such:
Implied in these allocations is the rise in strength of the emerging confederations. While in theory places are allocated in such a way as to try to get the best teams in the world in the final tournament, the prestige (and perhaps not unsubstantial amounts of money at stake) for mealy qualifying for the World Cup finals means that there is some very intense competition off the field. Due to the strong performances of European teams in 2006, many expected to see their allocation increased. The fact that this has not happened demonstrates an increased willingness to stand up against the old powers of UEFA and CONMEBOL.
Not all confederations rely on nobility and footballing prowess to gain a good deal however. The allocation of 3.5 spots for CONCACAF, in the context of their team's relatively poor performances in World Cup finals has rankled many, especially Europeans who feel that they are bearing the costs of globalising participation the the World Cup. Many would suggest that there is only one reason for such generosity: The U.S. and the potential goldmine it represents. While cynical, it is also probably realistic. However as noted before, the nature of this process is highly political. Students of politics might remember that politics is about the allocation of power and resources. In this game, the CONCACAF is the Pelé of the backroom deal.
According to reports, the spots for 2010 will be allocated as such:
- UEFA (Europe): 13
- CAF (Africa): 5
- AFC (Asia): 4.5
- OFC (Oceania): 0.5
- CONCACAF (North & Central America): 3.5
- CONMEBOL (South America): 4.5
Implied in these allocations is the rise in strength of the emerging confederations. While in theory places are allocated in such a way as to try to get the best teams in the world in the final tournament, the prestige (and perhaps not unsubstantial amounts of money at stake) for mealy qualifying for the World Cup finals means that there is some very intense competition off the field. Due to the strong performances of European teams in 2006, many expected to see their allocation increased. The fact that this has not happened demonstrates an increased willingness to stand up against the old powers of UEFA and CONMEBOL.
Not all confederations rely on nobility and footballing prowess to gain a good deal however. The allocation of 3.5 spots for CONCACAF, in the context of their team's relatively poor performances in World Cup finals has rankled many, especially Europeans who feel that they are bearing the costs of globalising participation the the World Cup. Many would suggest that there is only one reason for such generosity: The U.S. and the potential goldmine it represents. While cynical, it is also probably realistic. However as noted before, the nature of this process is highly political. Students of politics might remember that politics is about the allocation of power and resources. In this game, the CONCACAF is the Pelé of the backroom deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)