No Smoking!!

As a former smoker I feel oddly compelled to live up to the stereotype and get stuck into smoking. While reading Quadrant I came across Matthew R. Digby's 'Tobacco, Seduction and Puritanism' and was disturbed by what I'd found.

Page after page delivers the history of tobacco and how great it is until the end where he embarks on an attack on the anti-smoking lobby, and attempts to connect the, in my opinion, un-connectable. He claims that the rise of fundamentalism and growing stability have seen the retreat of secularism and tolerance therefore, since cigarettes are 'symbols of the bohemian and the creative... draconian smoking laws are passed with...little argument'. And here I thought that 'draconian' smoking laws were passed because cigarettes kill the smokers themselves and, incidentally, possibly those around them.

He then takes issue with workers having to smoke outside rather than in their tea rooms, and how cold and wet they become as a consequence of our hysterical attitude to smoking. As a non-smoker I resent having to sit in a room full of smoke because someone feels that they're so important that their wishes override mine or anyone else's. Since smoking is a choice one makes, then why should the non-smoker be subjected to that choice purely because they have the misfortune to work with a smoker. If you choose to smoke, choose to go outside.

Therefore I'm relieved with the new smoking laws. No longer will I have to wash my clothes because I stepped into a bar for an hour, and just maybe, maybe, the odd old lady at the pokey machines will step outside for a cig and rethink how she's spending her money.

Digby then comes up with this beaut:

'The carnage is almost inconceivable-in 2006 around five million people died of tobacco related disease. Every person should know the dangers of smoking, and they do.
But we have demonised tobacco.'

Doesn't it appear that he'd just explained why it's demonised?

Sheridan At His Best

Good old Greg Sheridan has come out of the wood work again to give us his expert assessment on recent defense statements from the government and Labor. It's more or less what one would expect from Greg, glowing praise for Howard and itty bitty nit-picking for Rudd, but let's see some highlights:

'On Iraq he (Rudd) says that Labor will withdraw the 500 Australian combat troops in Iraq but this will occur in deep consultation with Washington and over two troop rotation periods, which means they may not come out for another 12 months, by which time, though he doesn’t say it, anything could happen. He says that in committing to Iraq, Howard has made “the greatest failure of Australia’s national security interests since Vietnam”.
This line of rhetoric plays well in some parts of the media, which is why Rudd uses it, but he makes no effort to sustain the argument. '

Does Rudd really need to make the effort? The war in Iraq has cost around 66,000 to 73'000(this always varies) civilian lives, some 3'500 U.S military lives, has badly consumed resources as to make a more determined focus on Afghanistan impossible, affirmed the image of the U.S Al-Quaeda tries to encourage in every Arab mind and made it nearly unthinkable for us to send forces to help people in countries like Sudan. It's a disaster! Clearly everyone except Sheridan realises this.

'The only specific disadvantage to Australia that Rudd cites is that “we have become a greater terrorist target than would otherwise have been the case because of our participation in the war”. '
If Rudd really believes that, then surely he should withdraw troops suddenly, decisively, with a flourish, a la the Spanish. Not only will he sensibly not do that, but he will keep the rest of the Aussie forces - another 900 troops - in the Persian Gulf as part of the Iraq theatre in support of the US-led coalition. '

It would be incredibly naive to believe that we have not become more of a target from venturing everywhere with our ally. Yes, we were already a target. No, I'm not saying that we should let fear dictate policy and not do what we believe is right, but, let's be honest, the more we tag along the more an attractive target we become.

Sheridan also doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that Rudd doesn't want to do a Latham and alienate himself from the U.S, hence the slow withdrawal. Also, let's be clear, Labor were against the war, they were right and the government wrong, but we're there now and consequently hold responsibilities to which Rudd is profoundly aware. This is not a contradiction at all, one can acknowledge that the war made us a bigger target and accept our current obligations.

'This all speaks well of Rudd’s essential centrism and conservatism in security policy, but it demolishes his argument about the increased terrorist threat to Australia. Can you just imagine Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in their cave at al-Qa’ida central, just inside or just outside Afghanistan, saying to each other: well, we did have those infidel kangaroos high on our terror target list when they were in Iraq but now that they’re only fighting us in Afghanistan, where we are, and supporting our enemies throughout the Persian Gulf, we’ll give them a free pass and not send any more terrorists after them. '

Here Sheridan must be assuming that Al-Quaeda are actually responsible for the latest attacks. We all now know that the most frightening terrorist threats are home grown extremists, or those who've merely grown bitter over our recent folly in Iraq with no Al-Quaeda connection at all. Indeed Sheridan knows this as well, so I'm confused with why he's suddenly so Al-Quaeda focused.

And what does Sheridan have to say about Howard?

'Howard’s speech was bold, strong and one of the best he has given on strategic issues. The defence update was certainly the best written such document - or at least its first two chapters, which provided its overview - in many a year. '

Could we have expected anything less?

On another note, Sheridan gets a cameo in this months edition of conservative magazine Quadrant. David F. Mosler had this to say:

'Historically both Left and Right have produced critics of America but today the Right argues the U.S.A does nothing wrong (Greg Sheridan, for example, the foreign affairs editor of the Australian) while the Left argues the U.S.A does nothing right. The Right view is simply silly but the Left view is a more complex problem.'

Getting bagged from your own side, poor "scooter".

Tipping

Beware, this may be a sensitive issue for some.

Frequently I’ve enjoyed a fine meal out with friends, a few naughty drinks and cheeky laughs to only have it all fall horribly flat when the bill comes crashing down on the table. The good banter turns to deafening insults because my friends can’t seem come to grips with the fact that I don’t tip! I don’t mean to sound like Steve Busheme in ‘Reservoir Dogs’ but I just can’t do it.

You see, I’m not one for following social etiquette when it can’t be justified and tipping in Australia, I’ve discovered, can’t be justified. If I were in America where it’s part of the system I can accept the unfortunate position that that system puts some workers in, and therefore I can justify tipping. But here?

The first criticism I want to deal with is that I’m not tight. I give to buskers, beggars, charities and little Adi in Indonesia once a month. So I feel that such a charge isn’t fair, but more on this later.

I’ve found that most people haven’t even thought about this and how tipping slowly became the norm in many places. Therefore when I object, they always produce the same arguments. I’ll address these in their usual order:

‘They have to work at night, so tipping is how we reward them for their sacrifices’

Firstly, this makes them sound like Jesus except he, in all his glory, wouldn’t have wanted a reward. Secondly, who tips the night shift worker or the truck driver who delivers your petrol at night so you can conveniently fill your car and get to where you want to go? Also, didn’t these people accept the job knowing that they would be working at night?

‘But they have to deal with people as well’

So does the guy behind the McDonalds counter, who incidentally is probably paid less, yet no one feels compelled to tip him. Nor do people tip call centre workers who are consistently abused, or night shift service station employees who deal with the drunks once they’re kicked out of the bars.

‘But they aren’t paid much’

This is wrong in many cases. I have friends who’ve worked in hospitality and have been paid far more than me while having their incomes supplemented, by those paid less, due to the tipping etiquette. I’ve known people on the barest wages who’ve thrown in money to tip those paid nearly double their own salary.

‘What if you get good, even exceptional, service?’

So what you’re saying is that I should pay them more to do their job properly, otherwise they’ll feel compelled to treat me like crap? No one pays me more to do my job properly. Also, if you receive exceptional service should you be guilted into paying more? Maybe the menu should have options so that you can have a choice of whether you really want to pay more. Like: Chicken Parma $15, Stir-Fry Noodles $12 and Exceptional Service an extra $10.

‘You’re just a tight-arse!’

At this point (and it always gets to this point) I know I’ve won the debate. Unable to successfully justify tipping they predictably reach for insults. Then someone will always pipe up with:

‘Look, I’ll pay your part then….’

If I may psychoanalyse this, they’re really just saying ‘I’m so generous that I’ll even pay double!’ and the masses are supposed to view them with reverence. It’s more about them than the argument.

The worst development in bars in recent times has been the tip jar. There’s no room in a bar for exceptional service, and barely any time for interaction. You order your drink, they get it, you pay, they move on. Why should anyone feel they must tip for this meagre exchange?

Now be gentle guys.

The Left Are Lazy

Pauve Sarkozy, he just can't win! First he's threatened by militant wine producers who apparently can't trust a president who doesn't drink wine, then he draws fire from the French Left for jogging!

'Worst of all, say these heirs of Sartre and Saussure, the very act of le jogging - or le running as it is now more fashionable to call it - is a cultural humiliation. It is, in the first place, an offence to national honour, they say, that the President of the Republic should totter back into the Elysée Palace looking like a sweat-drenched miniature version of Sylvester Stallone.
But as you would expect of French philosophers, they make a deeper point. Jogging, they say, waving their Gitanes angrily at the camera, is a Right-wing activity. It is all about the management of the body; it is about performance, and individualism, and the triumph of the will.'

But here in Australia we know that's all wrong. Jogging's really more of an elite, chattering classes, inner city, chardonnay set, latte belt, guilt industry sort of affair. (did I forget any?) What's really right-wing is walking!

Or maybe all exercise is right-wing. That must be why I'm so lazy.

Spooky!!!!

ABC vs The Australian Part 2 (gotcha!!!)

Yesterday The Australian clearly believed that it had caught the ABC in the act. Following Liberal MP Tony Smith attacking Labor, and a byte with Michael Costa arguing "the folly of climate change zealots". (that's balance in The Australian, he is Labor after all). Cut & Paste featured an interview on Fran Kelly's show with some "Indigenous leaders":

'Tjakamarra: Mate, I agree with John Howard's message, you know. That's good. I'm happy to see the army. Army people to come and talk to us.'

'Kelly: The men who are hurting the children and hurting the girls, will they be scared of the police?'

'Tjakamarra: They will. That's good ... It's right for the Government to step in and help the kids for, like, you know, child abuse and kids not going to school ... If they wanted to help Aboriginal people with substance abuse, they're welcome, you know. We'll help them, as the leaders from the community.'

Then they showed what they must have believed was our lefty aunty at her lefty best on AM 20 minutes after the interview:

'From the introduction to yesterday's ABC radio AM program 20 minutes later: PRESENTER Peter Cave: There's growing resistance in indigenous communities to the federal Government's interventionist emergency plan in the Northern Territory.'

Wow! Apparently The Australian has trouble with the idea that a handful of Aborigines in an ABC studio can support an idea, while resistance against it simultaneously grows in the wider community.

It's a tough stretch of the imagination I know.

ABC vs The Australian, the bias war.

I know, why didn't I call this blog The Australian watch? But anyway.

The Australian decided to wish the ABC a happy birthday today by slagging them off in timeless Australian fashion:

'At age 75, it is time Aunty abandoned its adolescent mindset. It is a misallocation of taxpayers' money to fund shows such as Spicks and Specks while neglecting news and current affairs coverage in Darwin or Hobart. While hit programs such as The Chaser's War on Everything would be unlikely to be funded by the commercial sector, quiz programs would be happily taken over by commercial broadcasters, freeing up funds for news, current affairs and investigative journalism.'

I like Spicks and Specks, so do many people, and it doesn't seem to have dawned on The Australian that maybe the ABC's funding troubles are directly tied to.....I don't know.......the lack of funds given it by the federal government. Ever keen to see the ABC go into privatisation The Australian can't even envisage the most obvious solution.

'As The Australian has observed on many occasions, the ABC continues to be afflicted by what seems to be almost an endemic bias.'

Yet, The Australian seems completely blind to it's own. This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. As has been demonstrated recently, The Australian is quite partial to outbursts against the 'Psycho Left' or 'The Coalition of The Whining' where the Left is castigated, misrepresented and dually shat on. Cut and Paste acts as a bulletin board where Right-wing pundits are sourced from around the world to coax us to the dark side, and the Left are quoted at their very worst. The opinion page is made up of conservatives of varying degrees and the odd Labor party member for 'balance'. It's a joke. Oh, and there's Phillip Adams, they don't let you forget that.

'What they fail to acknowledge is that the mainstream parties they criticise are supported by 90 per cent of taxpayers, while the left perspective they adopt is shared by the remaining 10 per cent.'

Really!!!! My god people they aren't only Left, they're green Left!!!! And if you had any doubts as to where The Australian stands on the issue of the ABC's future funding:

'SBS, like many public sector broadcasters around the world, has shown that it is possible to generate income from the private sector without becoming its captive. The ABC should channel its creativity into developing original funding arrangements and focus on its core business as a provider of accurate, balanced information.'

Accurate and 'balanced' just like The Australian....Oh please. And never mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of Australians don't want the ABC to reach for the private sector to generate funds.

Sure the ABC is publicly funded, but if you're going to attack it for bias you'd better look in your own backyard first and make sure you're at least aware of where the centre is. These constant Murdoch media attacks appear as nothing more than silly attempts to redefine the middle.

'

Ideological Sleeper Cells

What the hell is an "ideological sleeper cell"?

A Mr Kara-Ali was quoted in The Australian today as stating that he believes there are up to 3'000 Muslims in Australia in "ideological sleeper cells".

No it's not people who have infiltrated Australia lying in wait until triggered when they'll attack us with new political parties, freshly penned letters to editors etc.... He clarifies:

"I believe in Sydney alone there's about 2000 and 3000 young Muslims vulnerable to being radicalised," he said.

"There are ideological sleeper cells waiting to be completely radicalised. Because radicalisation ... is to act upon your extremist teachings."

Now there's clearly nothing funny about what he's saying if it's true, but "ideological sleeper cells"? Either they're in real sleeper cells or they aren't. The general community are already scared shitless at the prospect of there being real sleeper cells amongst them, so do we really need to create sub-categories in order to keep them vigilant?

The Australian's editorialists clearly love the idea:

'He estimates there are between 2000 and 3000 radicalised Muslims in Sydney alone and possibly double that in Australia, who are ideological sleeper cells and who could become extremists.'

You think it'll catch on?