15* Days Which Would Be More Appropriate as Australia Day than January 26

Photo: Phil Whitehouse, Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

*I'm adding some additional brilliant brain farts as they come

1 January — Constitution of Australia comes into force (1901)
3 March — Commencement of the Australia Act (1986), which finally instituted Australia's legal independence from the UK
3 March — Graham Kennedy's infamous 'crow call' on The Graham Kennedy Show (1975)
3 March — Tony Abbott's then-record 'eight flag' press conference, featuring the PM flanked by — you guessed it — EIGHT Australian flags (2015)*
15 March — First Cricket Test Match (1877)
16 March — Advisory Council of Science and Industry formed by PM Billy Hughes. It would become CSIRO (1916)
18 March — Neighbours first aired (1985)
29 March — First Federal Election (1901)
30 April — Nikki Webster's birthday (1987)
21 May — Assent of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 extending electoral franchise to Indigenous Australians for the first time
27 May — Henry Parkes' birthday (1815)
27 May — Referendum on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967, recognising Indigenous Australians in the Australian population
13 June — Vegemite first goes on sale (1923)
23 June — Tony Abbott's record 'ten flag' press conference, featuring the PM flanked by — you guessed it — TEN Australian flags (2015)
4 September — Steve Irwin is taken too soon by some form of marine monster of nightmares (2006)
5 September — Naomi Robson wears lizard on shoulder while reporting on the death of Steve Irwin (2006)
24 September — Sydney wins hosting rights to the 2000 summer Olympics (1993)
26 September — Australia II wins seventh and final race to claim the America's Cup (1983)
24 November — John Howard's Coaltion government is defeated; John Howard loses his own seat of Bennelong (2007)
26 November — Official launch of the Holden FX (1948)

*temporary record superseded in June 2015

Politicians Jumping On-Line to Surf the Information Super Highway

Insert naff cyber stock image here

I repeat, yet again, my call for the internet companies who terrorists have again used to communicate to be held legally liable for content.

— John Mann (@JohnMannMP) June 4, 2017

The above UK Labour MP’s Tweet is a great example of everything wrong with most of our elected officials’ understanding of the internet. As remarkable as the internet is on a technical level, it is no longer remarkable in daily use, yet for many of our politicians, it remains a novelty worthy of its own romantic comedy (Now Showing: You’ve Got Hate Mail).

“The Internet” needs capitalisation because, to these taxpayer-funded dullards, it is a new frontier where criminals, paedophiles, and — terror of terrors — Muslim extremists wait in prey for their next victims. It isn’t just another piece of critical infrastructure in need of investment and protection, like highways or the power grid, it is a niche curiosity. It is the Information Superhighway. It is Cyberspace. It is the animated shooting stars of Netscape 3.0. It is best viewed at 640x480.

This is what makes the current push by some politicians to allow the state access to encrypted services, at best, silly and at worst, incredibly dangerous.

Encryption is vital to the functioning of our information-based society. Without it — and I’m not exaggerating here — society falls apart. It isn’t some optional extra beloved of terrorists to plan their nefarious deeds in the dark, it is what keeps our online banking safe, our personal data secure, our private conversations private. It’s what gives business the confidence to do business without the worry of proprietary data ending up in the hands of competitors. Of course, no system is completely secure, but without encryption, you’d may as well tattoo your bank PIN on your forehead for all to see.

Without trust that the everyday transactions we make (financial or otherwise) are free from illegitimate interference or interception, the very systems which underpin modern society collapse.

Ultimately, attempts to make systems less secure for the evil few ultimately make systems less secure for all. The tools used by the "good" guys to access the "bad" guys ultimately end up being used by the "bad" guys against everyone. This is not a theory, it was recently borne out by the WannaCry ransomware attack which was based on Windows vulnerabilities hoarded by the NSA, but reportedly not shared with Microsoft until they were leaked to the public.

Our pluralistic societies are regressing. The United States is joining Syria and Nicaragua on axis of inaction on climate change; the United Kingdom seeks to join China, Iran and North Korea and other autocratic states in controlling the internet. The worst part is of all this is that there's no evidence such controls will make ordinary people safer, in fact only the opposite.

Worst of all, no evidence has been presented that encrypted message services played a role in the latest atrocity in London, but even if these services did, they bear no more culpability than the manufacturers of the knives they carried, or the maker of the van they drove, or the operator of the roads on which they travelled.

In the vast majority of terrorist incidents in the West, the perpetrators have been known to the authorities. How will access to WhatsApp or iMessage or Signal help agencies when they fail to act on the information they already have?

Alas, even those politicians who should know better are pushing to undermine the foundations of our information society. The man who "practically invented the internet in Australia", Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has declared war on encryption — and the apps he himself has admitted using instead of secured government comms — saying of encrypted messaging apps, "security services need to get access to them".

It's sad that the tech literacy of our parliamentarians hasn't progressed much since the Commonwealth Minister for Communications —ya know, the guy in charge of teh Interwebs — stated that broadband was primarily for consuming porn and gambling, and that Mr and Mrs Average would never want such a service (and that the state had little role in ensuring reasonable access to decent internet). Or who can forget the Attorney-General's misadventures in the land of metadata ("well...well...well...the web address")? It would not be an issue if these dunces had responsibility for, I don't know, tiny lapel pin flags, or garbage collection, but they claim to make laws that affect millions of people and billions of dollars without the slightest hint of curiosity.

With democratic leaders sounding every bit the autocrat these days, there has never been a more exciting time to be innovative, agile...and encrypted.

With Friends Like These...

The business lobby's tone deaf response to Mark Kenny's entirely story about the groups' offices being shut on a Sunday demonstrates why they're going to lose — if they haven’t already lost — the battle over penalty rates.

The lobby groups and their acolytes got their knickers in a knot over the story, saying that as a professional group and not a service provider, there was no demand for them on a weekend and were thus shut. This is true, but it completely misses the point of the story.

Their response misses the optics — as PR flacks are fond of saying — of the situation, which is that those who are so very eager to cut weekend penalty rates value their own Saturday–Sunday weekends. This was the point that Kenny admitted he was trying to make. He succeeded, even if his targets didn't get the hint.  Some labelled Kenny's story a "stunt", while others continued the habit of scoring own goals,  criticising the story by saying "it's called a normal working week, duh“, to which Kenny replied "exactly".

The blindness to these optics means business groups have lost this battle before it has begun, even if they had "masses" of evidence to support their dubious claims (they don’t). They try to blame the SDA — whose agreements have often reduced penalty rates in exchange for higher base rates of pay — not realising the old adage that two wrongs don’t make a right. Some have tried to insult workers by saying they’re “lucky” to have a job and should go without penalties entirely. Basically every negative sentiment workers feels about employers is being confirmed.

It’s very difficult for captains of industry large and small to claim victimhood at any time, let alone when profits in some sectors are at record highs, trust in business is low and they’re campaigning for even more funds from the public purse by way of company tax cuts. Trying victimhood on for size while advocating slashing the take home pay of their lowest remunerated workers is not a good look. Combine this with an almost sociopathic disregard for the effect of pay cuts on workers, and you've got a battle that's already lost for employers.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Closed Sundays

Shameless cliche of a stock photo from Wikipedia Commons — https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Artaxerxes

You really have to question the PR and business acumen of Australia's most egregious rentseekers. Completely predictably, Fairfax's Mark Kenny spent a few minutes on Sunday afternoon calling some of Australia's peak business lobby groups.

Surprise, surprise, no one picked up. These offices were closed on Sunday. I guess the 24/7 economy is a case of "do what I say, not what I do".

This Sunday silence goes to the heart of the hypocrisy of those loudest voices in favour of cutting the take home pay of our poorest remunerated workers. The weekend is still special to them.

Perhaps just to get a taste of weekend work, the lobby groups' phones can redirect to the mobiles of their respective CEOs. It might interrupt their day in the MCG corporate box hobnobbing with all the other knobs, but it might help them understand why Sunday isn't just another day.

If nobody in their offices has the skills to redirect their phones, then I'd be happy to teach them for a fee on Sundays.

Imperial Evidence

Well done, voters of Queensland (ABC)

I'm usually fairly derisive of Q&A. I regularly admonish its fans and audience as being part of #QandAland, a happy land where harsh political realities cease to exist and we all sing kumbaya around a camp fire, holding hands with a leather-jacketed Malcolm Turnbull who has taken his rightful place as the leader of the Liberal Party (polite applause).

Most of the time, it is a pretty terrible exercise in inertia that gives Fairfax its main news stories for the next week. Sure, it's fun seeing Richard Dawkins and "Big" George Pell field incendiary questions about how evolution is just a "theory" or if an atheist can be a good person, but it's less a debate than a sideshow. There will never be a middle ground reached—there can't be—and the producers are perfectly happy to keep it that way.

Occasionally, however, the show can be revelatory. Duncan Storrar's questioning of a hapless Kelly O'Dwyer demonstrated how out of touch the Turnbull government was (and is), and how low the Murdoch papers will stoop with ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with their noxious world view.

Last night's National Science Week-themed Q&A also offered some gems, along with a great lessons in how to deal with the incurious, ignorant, chemtrail-addled obscurantist bore in your life (c'mon, we all have at least one).

Simple rule: don't argue with Professor Brian Cox unless you are discussing something which is impossible for him to have knowledge of, like the number of cracked Ikea coffee mugs in your cupboard (although he could probably give you a global mean) or on the finer points of Australian New Wave cinema.

One Nation lunatic-elect Malcolm Roberts gave a textbook performance as a conspiratorial nutjob. He challenged Professor Cox to present "empirical" evidence of climate change (it's almost like Malcolm knows what those words mean), and when presented with said evidence, claimed it was doctored. It's classic conspiracy believer stuff, with evidence against their tinfoil worldview appropriated as evidence for their conspiracy.

Think moon landing hoaxers: for them, the extensive photographic and data record of the Apollo program is fabricated, therefore this evidence the average person considers supports the moon landing is seen as evidence against the moon landings in the conspiratorial mind. Any evidence presented by authorities in inherently untrustworthy because it comes from Big Pharma, Big Farmer or the Guvment or Big Space (which is how I assume they refer to NASA).

Even though Brian Cox would have known he would be unlikely to alter Roberts's unfalsifiable position by presenting actual evidence, Cox's approach is a good one to keep in the critical thought toolbox when dealing with nutcases.

First off, Cox presented data. Now, presenting data almost never whips your a conspiracy-minded opponent into contrition, but it's worth a try. At least you know you have evidence to support your contention.
Secondly, when Roberts inevitably objected to the data, Cox asked specific questions as to why he objected. When Roberts claimed the data had been "corrupted" and "manipulated", Cox asked "by who?" By NASA, of course.
For many observers, this will be enough to demonstrate your opponent is a loon. Indeed it was enough for the residents of #QandAland to start laughing. Conspiracy theorists are, by and large, great at creating a compelling macro-scale worldview, but are woeful at detail. Once again, this doesn't change the mind of the conspiracy theorist, but it does deny them credibility among reasonable fence-sitting people.

For #QandAland, this is probably just the first appearance of many by this particular One Nation loon-elect. In an effort to concoct a sense of "balance", the ABC has gone out of their way to make sure fringe individuals like Pauline Hanson and Lyle Shelton get oxygen on programs like Q&A and The Drum. It is even less reason to engage in the alleged "debate" the show engenders.

I think Brian Cox said it best last night on the show when trying to communication the Australian Academy of Science's climate change report to Sovereign Idiot-elect Roberts: "...you can never get any sense on programs like this. They're adversarial things..."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ultimately, you're unlikely to change the closed mind of a deliberately ignorant individual. As a rational being, you're already at a disadvantage compared to the science denying loon because you require evidence to support your claims—the denier does not adhere to such inconvenient niceties. No amount of peer-reviewed evidence is going lead someone like Roberts along the road to a Damascene conversion.
But not everybody out there is intentionally ignorant. Sometimes, people just receive bad information and carry it with them. So here's advice from UQ PhD student Diana Lucia, as offered on Radio National's Ockham's Razor:

...next time you’re at a dinner party and find yourself sitting next to a science denialist, return the favour, latch onto every illogical inconsistency they throw at you and force them to address it. Find out exactly what they object to and where they have been getting their information from. I doubt you’ll force them to have a sudden epiphany by the time dessert is served, but you can be part of the process that breaks down the barriers to begin to change people’s minds. 

Until next dinner party...

Good resources:
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming, Grist.org
Science deniers use false equivalence to create fake debates, Skeptical Raptor
Don’t let denial get in the way of a good science story, The Conversation

Election 2016: So Very Tired

Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove regaling Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull about how big the one that got away was (Facebook)

Making predictions about an election and its outcome is a stupid thing to do. So here goes.

Turnbull is toast. There is no other way I can put this, regardless of the outcome of the election, he is gone sooner or later. Why? Well, if the Liberal Party loses, Turnbull loses. Duh. But if the Liberal Party wins, but only does so with a reduced majority (a current likely outcome), whatever authority the PM has left in the party room falls away thanks to the emboldened Abbott delcon (delusional conservative) rump.

These delcons would (delusionally) be able to claim that the switch to Turnbull did nothing to improve the government’s electoral performance. Of course the reality is the switch to Turnbull gave the Liberals a fighting chance when they were heading for almost certain oblivion under Abbott. Everyone else knows this, hence why this rump is termed delusional. These delcons would view a less-than-resounding win for Turnbull as a win for their brand of fringe politics. As they have done for the past eight months, they would continue to make Turnbull’s political life a living hell. On every issue at every opportunity, they’ll be aggressively ensuring Turnbull sticks to the deals he has made with the delcon devils on issues such as marriage equality, sex education and carbon pricing. These compromises, which have perhaps irreparably damaged Turnbull’s public standing (particularly in #QANDAland) have been his price of power. A few months ago, Turnbull could have counted on an increased majority to stifle dissent within the ranks, but barring a major stumble from Labor, such a scenario is difficult to imagine.

For Turnbull, winning is insufficient. He must win and he must do so with a thumping majority. Anything less means a replay of Labor in 2010...and possibly a return to the Mad Monk.

Free Trade? You've VOD to be Kidding

© Magnolia Pictures

Alex Gibney, the noted documentary maker whose impressive oeuvre includes Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks and Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, has a new movie out today.

Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine takes what senior Apple executive Eddy Cue called an "inaccurate and mean-spirited" approach to its subject, eschewing the usual hagiographic tendencies of recent book and film profiles of Jobs. In short, it takes a "genius and jerk" view of Steve Jobs that has been only hinted at so far, providing some much-needed critical balance to the available accounts of his life

Impressively, Gibney and the film's producer, Magnolia Pictures, have opted for a same-day cinema and Video On Demand release, meaning viewers have the choice to watch at the cinema, or rent and download in the comfort of your own home. That is, unless, you're outside of the United States. If you're unlucky enough to exist outside the reality distortion field that is the USA, you will likely be presented with this should you wish to purchase the film:

iTunes

YouTube

Amazon.com

Magnolia Pictures VOD

In a regression to the physical world, corporate entities still insist on imposing geographic blocks on content that is downloaded as a bit-for-bit identical copy no matter its physical location. While our politicians hurriedly conclude free trade agreements that claim to have benefits for our farmers and physical exporters, they seem to neglect the trade in data; of discriminatory pricing and access limitations imposed on Australian consumers for digital goods for no good (or defensible) reason. The digital economy, which our pollies love to say "is Australia's future", seems strangely neglected by them when it comes to putting their rhetoric into action.

Attorney-General Bookshelves Brandis and "Practical Inventor of the Internet" Malcolm Turnbull have done little to encourage greater access to the world of digital goods, preferring to impose draconian data retention laws and siding with the movie studios – instead of consumers – on issues of "illegal" downloading. As has been repeated ad nauseum by anyone with a tablet and internet account, making content available in a timely and affordable manner does more to prevent piracy than any demonstrably ineffective "three-strikes" policy ever could. As the long-overdue arrival of Netflix et al. to local shores has shown, Australians are willing to pay for a quality service when one is offered.

My international relations lecturer was always fond of saying "there's no such thing as free trade – only slightly freer trade". This is as true now as then. Free trade deals, as negotiated by our governments, only deal with a very limited number of import/export areas where (usually marginal) benefit can be extracted for both parties. While free trade agreements have been effective at removing (some) tariffs for physical goods, digital goods are largely neglected.

This film is just one example of where our digital world, as advanced as it is, lags far behind our expectations of it, with most of our politicians lagging even farther behind still (honourable mentions to Ed Husic and the other members of the IT Pricing Inquiry) I was a willing customer, ready to pay to watch this film. Unlike some, I believe the creators of our content deserve fair and equitable recompense for the labours...but they're making it harder – not easier – to make this possible.

Local Retailers Call on Government to Ban the Internet

View image | gettyimages.com

<b><satire></b>

CANBERRA–In the wake of the 2015-16 federal budget, the local retailers are calling on the government to do more for local business by banning the Internet.

Gerry Harvey, chairman of Harvey Norman has called on the government to shut down the Internet for all uses, except for the transmission of retailers' catalogues in Netscape browsers.

"It's not fair that people can buy things without walking into a store and being accosted by sweaty, middle-aged salesmen selling last year's products at an inflated price," Mr. Harvey said.

Although yesterday's federal budget imposed the 10% GST on so-called "intangible" goods such as music, movie and software downloads, Mr. Harvey says this is not good enough, "Holy shit, my business is fucked."

Local retailers, including Mr. Harvey, have waged a campaign for the abolition of the Low Value Threshold, or the value of goods that can be imported into Australia tax free. Now with the government receptive to imposing the GST on all imported goods, Mr. Harvey has moved on to other policy areas of concern.

"Having to compete with innovative entrepreneurs in other countries is simply unfair. It's not a level playing field when our Netscape-compatible best viewed at 640x480 web zone has to compete with Amazon," Mr. Harvey said, "Shutting down the Internet will help local retailers close the gap and support local jobs."

Responding to fears limiting e-commerce could be viewed as protectionism in the global market, Mr. Harvey said: "I'm more than happy to use cheap, international labour to make our furniture. But having Australian customers cut out the middle-man is a step too far. It's about preserving local jobs," Mr. Harvey said. Apparently without irony.

More to follow...

<b></satire></b>

Myopia

I was waiting at Munich airport for my flight back home with a few Euro burning a hole in my pocket. It was early 2012 and I had just caught up on the news that Kevin Rudd had resigned as Foreign Minister, precipitating his first and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to return to the leadership of the Labor Party.

While the politics student in me found it all terribly exciting, I wasn't looking forward to leaving the civilisation and culture of wintry Europe and returning home to the oppressive summer heat of 'Straya (South Bali...or is Bali Far (Far) North West Queensland?).

With time to kill, I wandered into one of the generously-stocked news shops, yearning for Lucky Strikes and some reading material (in that order). There is nothing like the dual cravings of nicotine and intellectual sustenance. It's a craving only satisfied in Europe and best fulfilled at the airport or train station. Being a conceited international traveller, I was drawn to the closest issue of the Monocle through my own inflated sense of worth.

But there was more to it than snobbery. In front of me, in black, white and yellow was Issue 51 of Monocle Magazine with the cover stories "I will call Australia home: A superpower in the South Pacific", and "Aussie Rules". How could I, a reluctant Australian cum conceited international traveller and airport lounge hanger, not purchase a Monocle that put my birth country on the cover?

The answer of course is that I could not not purchase one. Or cigarettes. And besides, there is nothing an Australian loves more than to read the opinion pieces of foreign journalists writing about Australia, quoting Australians, refracted through the prism of international editors, beamed back to us via television or print.

I bought my Monocle and made haste for the New York terrace-inspired indoor smoking lounge (sponsored by British American Tobacco). The shit they still do in Europe. As the ventilation system hummed and hazy, recycled air made its way around the idealised wallpaper skyline of New York, I read with great interest what those lords of high culture at the Monocle had to say about my favourite arse end of the earth.

Look! There was an interview with "Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd" who explained how it came to pass that he got dumped as Prime Minister (which is sort of like a President or something), but was a "happy little Vegemite" as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Wow. What a difference a day made.

There was discussion about Melbourne's coffee and Sydney's harbour (don't mention the war), but most intriguing was the cover story about the "superpower in the South Pacific". I read not because I desired a mid-tier nuclear deterrent for Australia, but how the Monocle would approach the notion of a laid-back, antipodean "superpower".

The article made the point that most of Australia's diplomatic clout is soft power; that the most internationally-recognised Australian ambassadors were its entertainers and sports stars. It discussed how Australia should re-shape its Department of Foreign Affairs to re-focus its soft power to help it act, as is so frequently said, as a "creative middle power". Forget military power, spread democratic values and good old-fashioned hard rock instead. Music to my ears.

Soft power is, of course, incredibly important in diplomacy. It can basically be defined as making someone do something they don't want to do without the threat of force. Britain and Germany have been practising it for decades, China a more recent addition, spending millions building infrastructure in Africa.

But what stuck in my mind was the article's views on the Australia Network. Instead of discussing the probity of the Australia Network tender (as was the style at the time), the Monocle thought it outrageous that the government would even contemplate putting the international broadcaster into private hands.

A broadcaster such as the Australia Network is, for many of our regional neighbours, the voice of Australia, whether it's through rebroadcasts of Home and Away and Blue Heelers, or via the ABC's first-rate news and current affairs. The network was right at the core of the soft power play that would see Australia's influence in the region rise not through military force, but through mutual co-operation and understanding.

Now, to a foreign policy realists and neorealists, all this might sound like a bit of fluff. But to a country like Australia with a small population and limited military resources, it is one of the most practical ways to achieve a place at the table in our region. Countries around the world expend a lot of time, money and effort exercising soft power in their own regions and beyond.

Unfortunately, while other countries have been increasing their spending on "soft" diplomatic issues, Australia has been busy insulating itself from the outside world closing foreign posts, turning boats around, spying on our neighbours and thumbing our noses at the international community.

The Committee of Audit's recommendation to shut down the Australia Network is yet another blow to Australian regional relations at a time when we should be advancing, not retreating from the region. Our neighbours already view us with suspicion and skepticism, what kind of signal is turning off Australia's transmitters into Asia supposed to send? Well, nothing. Nothing but static.

It seems odd that this government finds millions of dollars to spend on international advertising campaigns designed to frighten people from getting on boats and coming to Australia, but can't be arsed spending a few measly bucks to send a positive message of Australia to our regional neighbours. Then again, this all might just be part of the plan to make Australia look as unfriendly and unwelcoming as possible for those who might attempt that "perilous" journey across the seas we sometimes sing of in the second verse of our national anthem. Perhaps the government should just start broadcasting episodes of Game of Thrones or Hannibal into Asia and call them "Australian reality TV". 

It is understood some in the government think the Australia Network's AM, FM and television broadcasts can be replaced with increased streaming of ABC News 24. This is impossible both in theory and practice. For one, much of the material the ABC re-broadcasts from BBC and Al Jazeera is licences for Australian broadcast only - the costs of expanding that licence would surely conflict with the Abbott government's desire to cut until bled dry.

Secondly, if anyone in the government had actually visited our regional neighbours, they would know that in the isolated highlands of Papua New Guinea, for instance, there is only one radio and a supply of Size D batteries between a village of 40 or 50 people. This is their link to the outside world short of hiking four hours to the nearest regional centre. There is no electricity and there sure as hell isn't any internet.

Thankfully the horror of an Abbott government was unknown to me, sitting in the smoking lounge of Munich airport in 2012. But with the Labor Party then continuing its exercise in navel gazing, it's hardly surprising we find ourselves with a government intent on making issues of humanity and conscience into crises to be exploited for electoral gain. Or that we have a government myopically committed to cutting, cutting and cutting some more, cost to the nation's heart and soul be damned. Or that we have a government completely disinterested in the world around it, except where trade deals can be done or administration of human dignity offshored to the lowest bidder.

Comparing today's Australia to the faux New York rooftop-inspired smoking lounge sponsored by British American Tobacco, I think it's pretty clear which one has less of a stench about it.

ANZAC Day

Bill Shorten and Paul Keating at Australian War Memorial Remembrance Day Ceremonies, 2013 Source: SMH

"...within Australia we were moving through the processes of our federation to new ideas of ourselves. Notions of equality and fairness – suffrage for women, a universal living wage, support in old age, a sense of inclusive patriotism … Australia was never in need of any redemption at Gallipoli, any more than it was in need of one 30 years later at Kokoda. There was nothing missing in our young nation or our idea of it that required the martial baptism of a European cataclysm to legitimise us."

Paul Keating, Remembrance Day 2013

ANZAC Day has become a day irrevocably bound up in uncritical myth and legend. Like a religious holiday, the same stories are told and re-told, changing subtly from year to year, altering in our imagination until all that's left is some vague notion of what we think may have happened.

Take that unimpeachable symbol of Aussie "spirit" and "mateship", Simpson and his Donkey. The average Australian can probably tell you a few things about him: he was serving at Gallipoli and ferried wounded soldiers from danger back to safety; he probably should have been awarded the Victoria Cross, but didn't - probably because of the British in charge at Gallipoli or something. I don't know, I haven't seen the movie in a while.

A commissioned officer in John Howard's Culture Wars, education minister Brendan Nelson told Australian schools to teach the "Australian values" such as those espoused by Simpson and the Donkey or else: "if people don't want to be Australians and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off."

This, of course was aimed at schools who dared to teach Islamic tradition or anything else culturally unsavoury to that band of old, privileged white men in government from 1996–2007. Howard had said he was prepared to "get inside" mosques and schools to make sure they weren't creating the next band of extremism.

With a little bit of intellectual curiosity, Nelson would have see the folly of his idea - Simpson deserted the merchant navy before opportunistically signing up as a stretcher bearer as means of getting back home to England. He wanted to get away from Australia, a country he was growing "tired" of. He was also an active trade unionist. While he performed his job admirably in Gallipoli, rescuing soldiers with a donkey got him out of the more dangerous stretcher-bearing routes where many men died ferrying the wounded back to safety. He was fatally wounded on one of these trips.

Propaganda publications like the Glorious Deeds of Australiasians in the Great War painted an image of untold glories that were swallowed whole by an Australian public in need of good news from the front. Like the stories of the Bible, the myths of ANZAC were spoken, re-spoken, collected and published. The myths, set in print, then became fact, rarely to be critically analysed again.

Until today, where there is a small, but growing movement contrary to the reinvigorated Howard-brand ANZAC festival. While it is incredibly important to remember those who have died in the service of our country, it is even more important to place that in a context.

Why? Where? When? How?

The day before ANZAC soldiers landed at Gallipoli, Ottoman authorities rounded up 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders and deported them. Most of them would later be killed. Thus began the Armenian Genocide, still denied by Turkey to this day, resulting is some 1-1.5 million deaths. An unabashed and unknown (in Australia anyway) act of inhuman savagery.

At Gallipoli, almost 11,500 Australian and New Zealand troops died. Some 21,000 British troops suffered the same fate. While the impact of the Great War can't be understated in its affect on two fledging antipodean countries, it is time to move beyond symbols and myths to something more nuanced and dignified.

Slow Burn on Fast Fashion (Part I)

It was an unexpected conversation. There I was standing before the soon-to-opened Australian high-temple to fast fashion, giant electronic imitation antique clocks counting down the hours, minutes and seconds until H&M opened their first local store. I had my camera in hand and snapped off a few shots when the customer service gentleman from the Bourke Street tram stop approached me.

"It's pretty crazy," he said. I let out a non-committal "hmmm" and formed the awkward smile when I haven't prepared my face to smile. I looked at the crowds passing by, the VIP railings being set up for opening night, demarcating the special from the plebs.

"It's just a shop," he continued, "in a month's time it will be forgotten about and the next thing will come along."

"It'll be sooner that that," I said, "the Emporium opens up in less than two weeks." Sometimes I wonder whether I actually say the things I say. This guy had the benefit of hours standing in front of fast fashion ground zero and he was going to say his piece, regardless of my additions or intentions.

"Sure, it's made a few more jobs, but it's all so cheap. What about the people who make these clothes? How to they make a shirt for $6?"

I followed up with a slightly more committal "Yeah, well..."

"And soon they'll want to stay open for longer. Myer wants to do 24 hour trading. I mean, what will that do to families? The workers? All the other shops will have to stay open longer just to compete, but they won't want to pay the proper rates."

Ah, retail! I know about retail, I'm in retail! "Yep, that's retail," I said, "Adapt and survive. I've been in retail for seven years and..."

"My wife's been in retail for 35 years," tram man said, "Thirty-five years. And for all the governement's opening up trade and Workchoices and all this other hot air, has it made out lives any easier? No."

Ooh...politics! I majored in politics. Maybe I can contribute to this debate, "Yeah, retail workers always get shafted..."

"And they STILL want to cut their wages. What, so they can work at 1am for the same wage as 9-5? I don't think so."

We were certainly in agreement at this point. "I completely agree," I began, "Look, I gotta head back to work, but it's been nice chatting with you."

"Oh, sure. You too. See ya."

Get Rooty-ed

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

How to become even less relevant

Warning: May contain traces of Docklands – © 2012

Myer CEO Bernie Brookes's ill-conceived comments on the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme say a lot about big retail's place as the least innovative, most self-aggrandising rent-seeker in the country:

How to Engage Key Deliverables

For me personally, it only took three hours of retail sales training to achieve this outcome. © 2013

Phrases and buzzwords I've heard recently that I shouldn't have:

• Incentify
• Solution sell
• Continuous improvement
• Positive selling
• Value add
• Time-poor
• Expectation management

It doesn't seem to matter whether they're a sportsman, corporate manager, retailer, university lecturer or Minister of the Crown, they are all, ultimately, at the end of the day, achieving the same outcome in terms of language use. In this increasingly competitive marketplace, there seem to be fewer unique selling propositions or key points of difference to attract the interest of key stakeholders by means of best-practice language utilization. The only solution is to implement a sustainable long-term strategy in order to facilitate effective growth, end-to-end.

Be engaged, be very engaged.

The artist formerly known as the Premiers' Conference

They're off to see the PM. The wonderful PM of Oz. Source: JJ Harrison, Creative Commons

Today marks the 35th Council of Australian Governments meeting. The usual conditions for the meeting have been met: Commonwealth issues some sort of Brobdingnagian policy edict with a deadline that has no hope in Hades of being met; the Premiers and Chief Ministers grumble about being poor and arrive one-by-one up Parliament Drive to the Ministerial entrance of Parliament House to make their case to assembled media.

The day ends with a happy photo opportunity and much hand shaking. Leaders stress the amount of common ground and look forward to further discussions. 

The world continues turning.

Mal-ware? A final word on the NBN

"One vote, mate. One vote." Source: Liberal Party of Australia website

There were a few awkward moments during the Coalition’s broadband policy launch. When Tony Abbott, hardly the nation’s most gifted public speaker, started using words like “megabits” and “HFC cabling”, one could see the technical elocution education that preceded it: “No, Tony, the iMac doesn’t have a tower...that’s it. All in there...yes, just the screen...yes, people watch television on computers. No, Tony, no more 68cm CRTs. No, you can’t buy your next TV from Brashes. Well, because it no longer exists...yes, some years ago now, Tony.”

It's All Just a Little Bit of History Repeating...

The National Copper Network?

A laser down an optical fibre – Souce: Timwether (Creative Commons)

(updated 10.8.2013 @ 0857 hrs)

Some initial thoughts on the Coalition's new broadband plan.

All too often, we chide our political leaders for having no "vision". For not being able to implement the big reforms that society needs. But when then-Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Conroy rejected the fibre-to-the-node tenders and announced a fibre-to-the-home National Broadband Network, the sharks started to circle. 

Why? 

Because certain groups and individuals were able to put forward a narrative that painted Labor's technological choice either, confusingly as an outmoded, fifty-year-old technology, or as a type of communications technology that was entirely unnecessary for current and future needs.

Then came the the car analogies...

"Co-investment" with a terrible rate of return

Cruze-ing towards oblivion – Source: Holden

From the Australian Government's New Car Plan (2008):

"A New Car Plan for a Greener Future brings the total level of assistance to $6.2 billion between 2008–09 and 2020–21, of which $3 billion is already committed, and $3.2 billion is net new funding. The government expects this assistance to stimulate industry investment of at least $16 billion in new capacity and new technologies – not to mention billions of dollars in wages and salaries for tens of thousands of workers."

This programme has no doubt been worth it to the 500 Holden workers who are soon to lose their jobs. Holden managing director Mike Devereux blames the cuts on virtually everything except the fact Australia produces car types no-one purchases. 

Limited News from News Limited

News Limited have continued their hatchet job against anything remotely resembling social and/or technological progress initiated by the Labor government. This morning's Daily Telegraph features an "article" telling us, the loyal readers, how the total cost of Comrade Conroy's National Broadband Network (usually suffixed with "debacle", "fiasco" or other emotive noun in News Limited's coverage) may exceed $90 BILLION. CRISIS!!