socialscapegoat.com » Features

The Enemy of My Enemy

Evan Hughes — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:59:49 +0000

Man what a crazy few weeks it’s been. I’ve been trying to get into the frame of mind to write some sort of Climate Change related blog but before I put metaphorical pen to paper some new development happens that derails my original rant. From leaked e-mails to coalition leadership challenges to the ETS failure in the senate to Turnbull calling Abbott’s stance on climate change “bullshit” to NASA scientists discrediting the effectiveness of an ETS to Tony Abbott backflipping on never introducing a carbon tax to more leaked documents, it’s amazing anyone has managed to keep up.

Easily my favourite quote of the saga comes from the usually overly verbose Kevin Rudd when called on to public debate Tony Abbott on climate change mere hours after the ETS failed:

“I’d suggest the Leader of the Opposition calms down, puts in the hard yards and actually develops a policy”

Sometimes simple is best.

Which kind of brings me to the crux of why I am writing. I could easily rehash a lot of what has already been covered by the media and the blogosphere in the last few weeks but what’s the point? You can probably read a far better blow by blow of the events on Crikey or the ABC’s excellent new analysis site The Drum. Instead I thought I’d offer my two cents on Australia’s options for tackling climate change in the very near future.

In my opinion a cap and trade emissions tax, especially one that contains as many concessions as Rudd’s, is fundamentally flawed. All it’s going to do is allow big polluters the ability to buy their way out of reducing emissions while patting themselves on the back for doing such a great job with the environment. To quote NASA climate scientist Dr James Hansen in his interview with Lateline on Monday night: “Basically … it’s like the indulgences of the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church would sell forgiveness for sins. This was great for the bishops, they collected a lot of moolah, and it was great for the sinners, because they got forgiven and they could still go to heaven or at least they thought they could.”

I’d prefer a more hard-line stance against the big polluters but right now that’s not going to happen. Rudd is too afraid of pissing people off to enforce a carbon tax without a trading scheme or even to pass laws criminalising pollution. So what we get is an ineffectual policy – it’s like if your doctor tells you to change your diet or you’re going to die and you decide switching from regular to diet coke will be enough.

But what’s the alternative? When the election comes what will the opposition bring to the table? At the moment, nothing. The coalition, while making all the right noises, essentially would prefer to deny that climate change is even happening. Sure, Abbott and his Shadows will formulate some sort of climate change policy to counter the government but in the words of Malcolm Turnbell “Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing”.

So the options are either go with the party that will do nothing or go with the party that will do something which will probably do very little to reduce the impact of climate change. Sheesh.

When faced with a choice like this my decision of who to support comes down to the proverb The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend. If inaction is the enemy of climate change and the ETS is the enemy of the coalition’s policy of inaction then the ETS is my friend.

I may not agree with it. I may not have faith that an ETS can stop the climate change juggernaut but it has my support. Because I’d like to think that when the party that is proposing the ETS sees how ineffectual it is in practice they’ll propose stronger and stronger measures until we get to a point where we’re able to turn the tide. A party that doesn’t have a policy or whose policy is likely to be a metaphorical figleaf can only be worse.

Of course when Abbott announces his policy I will judge it on its merits. I just don’t have faith that it will amount to anything that is remotely near effective enough, even by the diet coke standards of the ETS.

And for those climate skeptics out there I leave you with this: The World Meteorological Organisation has announced that 2009 was Australia’s third hottest year on record with above normal temperatures recorded on all continents. 2010 is tipped to be even hotter. As a result the 00’s are the hottest decade so far. Followed by the 90’s then the 80’s.

Notice a pattern here?

Oh the times – nothing is changing

Claire Connelly — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:14:56 +0000

Come gather round pollies wherever you roam,

And admit that the voting electorate’s grown.

First Costello & Nelson – now Malcolm & Joe,

The history of old you’re still paving.

Then you’d better stop spilling & start to evolve,

For your lies are most frustrating.

Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pens,

And explain to Australia why Tony’s our man.

Reclaiming Australia back from the left -

In the wings there’s a Mad Monk in waiting.

Climate change denier and evangelist,

Is it too late to go and exchange him?

Is there anyone left worth voting for at all?

Oh the times - nothing is changin’.

Come senators, backbenchers, please head the call,

Enough of your factions and late night phone calls.

Pick up a paper – Australia’s appalled.

In the polls your perception is waning.

The electorates raging has rattled your core -

Even the far right is railing.

Come Mothers and Fathers all over this great land,

And take back our bodies from that crazy man.

Your sons and your daughters aren’t beyond his command,

But his relevance is rapidly aging.

He shouldn’t be leading if he won’t lend a hand,

For Australia something needs changing.

The line, it is drawn, the vote, it is cast.

This may be the first but it won’t be the last.

Our present will shortly resemble the past.

Our freedom is rapidly fading.

As long as the liberals are led by that Man,

It’s another four years of labor.

Please kick out The Monk while you still have a chance!

Oh the times, they need changing!

Xeno vs Xenu

Claire Connelly — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:51:00 +0000

It’s the first sign of the apocalypse, when religious prophets can’t turn a profit from their followers.

It’s a slippery slope Mr Xenophobe Xenophon is just beginning to skate on.

You mellow headed moderates may argue “oh, he’s just concerned for people’s welfare. Won’t somebody please think of the children!”, but do not let your fair-minded fundamentalism mislead you.

Behind this veneer of balance and compromise there lies a darker truth.

Oh it may seem harmless at first, but what starts out as just innocent accusations of exploitation and abuse may result in an impoverished God!

Today it’s the Church of Scientology, tomorrow it could be your local Mosque, or Synagogue, or Buddhist temple, and before you know it tax-happy Xenophon will be taxing the legitimate religions too!

Just imagine the horror: Hillsong or the Catholic Church bereft of funds, forced to stand on street corners, shivering in their itchy trousers, holding signs proclaiming “the end is nigh” scribbled on the backs of cardboard boxes with stolen pens who instead of being ordained in their ministries, are forced to live like beggars because their last payment was deposited in the House of Parliament instead of the House of the Lord.

Should the Australian government really be taxing God? Because that is what they want to do.

Do you really want that on your conscience Australia?

Do you?

What is this, the Middle Ages? I mean helloooo – poverty is so last century! The only people who take a vow of poverty these days are nuns, and everyone knows they don’t count !

(Pfft! Women.)

Australia, it is our responsibility as decent God fearing people to stand up for our tax exempt religious institutions’ right to impart enlightenment.

Is it too much to ask that we part with a generous portion of our income in return?

Well Mr Xenophon, Mr. Goody-Two-Shoes, Mr. religious-morality-this, and God-is-a-tax-evader-that – you are impinging on the rights of the prophets, the chosen, the glorified, and the godlike to accept outrageous offerings from people who are merely looking for self-improvement and meaning.

Religions have been making lots and lots of money from their followers for thousands and thousands of years, (how do you think the Vatican was built for Christ sake?)

Well, yes – technically it was for Christ’s sake, but nonetheless – why are you trying to change precedence?

I mean honestly, what good is there in being able to convey the voice of God, if it doesn’t come with constitutionally guaranteed tax exemptions?

Get with the times man! Everyone does it. Even a seat in my synagogue requires a yearly fee because: enlightenment requires sacrifice.

Are you suggesting that I risk redemption by withholding the donation that was rightly theirs in the first place?

And now not only does our charity get called into question, but the Church of Scientology might actually have to pay taxes?

And why? Because they believe in aliens?

Believing in aliens is no more ludicrous than believing in an invisible and benevolent force that controls the entire universe, past, present and future!

Shun the non-believer! (Shun! Shun!)

Don’t think we don’t see what you are doing, Xeno.

Don’t think that the bizarre similarity between your surname and that of your opponent is the only coincidence in this little sparring match.

You criticize religious institutions for turning a profit from their followers but you just want a slice of the pie!

It is no more your place to question the complex inner dwellings of Scientology, than it is to question the love Catholic priests show for alter boys, or Hillsong record label owners penchant for Rolls Royce’s, or Buddhist monks to pave their temples in gold with massive sitting deities, or the right a Rabbi has to run a legitimate cocaine, drug, and prostitution ring.

These are chosen people Xenophon! Leave it alone! These are Gods people, and by God they know what they are doing.

And who are we, mere public servants, to question that?

Have some faith man!

Unlike you, real leaders believe in financial risk! And so should we!

And as for this whole mind control accusation, I don’t know what you are getting your knickers in a knot about.

Mind control is a central tenet of religion.

What is religion but the assertion that God and religious clerics know what is better for us than we do?

And now you are trying to take that away from us too!

It’s lunacy and liberalism run mad I tell you!

Without tax exemptions, Australia would be poorer for it.

No longer would our buses, overpasses, billboards & televisions be the bearers of the Good Word – those Jesus is LIFE ads would be the first to go!

Next it will be Carols by Candle-Light, then Christmas & Hanukah, and before you know it there will be no religious holidays at all!

Humbug!

Do you want that Australia?

DO YOU?

Write to Mr Xenophon today and tell him that he is going TO HELL if he makes those who believe in cuddly aliens rather than the lord almighty (blessed be he) pay taxes.

Xenu the Almighty
c/o Nick Xenophon
212 Grenfell Street,
ADELAIDE,
SA, 5000

It’s a slippery slope.

A SLIPPERY slope.

Discrimination: is laughter the best medicine?

Claire Connelly — Thu, 14 May 2009 05:24:00 +0000

The Foundry’s anti-discrimination ad was made with a clear and legitimate intent to persuade Australians to reconsider their prejudices.

Though confronting, it clearly submits an argument for tolerance, not divisiveness.

A little background information: The ad below was scheduled to appear on the ABC-TV program The Gruen Transfer on May 13, 2009 but due to the shocking nature of the ad, it was not approved for broadcast by the ABC.

They have allowed the content to be used online to facilitate debate and discussion.

The following video includes not only The Foundry’s ad, but also a panel discussion with its creator, Adam Hunt, about the reasons for the ad’s approach.

If you are likely to be offended by issues of discrimination in race, religion, sexuality or body size, please don’t watch.

Due to the controversial nature of the ad, I was unable to embed the video on here, so please use the link below to view, (preferably in a new tab):

http://www.antiprejudicead.net/landing.asp

I’m not really sure how I feel about this ad.

On the one hand, I’m not comfortable with the tradition of political correctness that has plagued the 21st century.

When it comes to prejudice, I am a firm believer that either everything is funny, or nothing is funny.

I think that silencing people who are going to have the thought anyway but stifle themselves so as not to be inappropriate, isn’t putting an end to discrimination – it’s a band-aid solution.

On the other hand, my first thoughts upon seeing this ad, were that the jokes preceding the one about fat chicks were so appalling, I couldn’t even remember what the joke was – and in that, the point of the ad was lost.

Personally, I think this ad failed because the personalities these actors portrayed were deliberately nasty people, as if “nasty people” are the only ones that make racist jokes.

The panel makes a good point: inevitably, four or five beers down, even the most timid people become what we would deem “socially inappropriate.”

The truth is, not all racist/prejudiced comments are made by racists, and I think that is where this ad falls down – we fail to recognise ourselves in it.

Perhaps a better execution would have been to script it in a way where the people making the jokes deliver them in a way they believe to be harmless – (the same way that my dickhead friends deliver absolutely appalling jokes that are so shocking, we have no choice but to laugh).

In delivering the same point, in a more rateable way, perhaps we could begin to recognise that something we previously thought to to be harmless is actually hurtful, discriminatory, and prejudiced whether the intent was there or not.

As a Jew – I was not offended by the joke that was made in the ad, because I knew that the intent was to deconstruct our prejudices, not empower them.

However, I have been the subject of anti-Semitic jokes on more than one occasion, and it is upsetting.

I used to date a particularly nasty guy who, when I told him I was Jewish, asked me “don’t Jews usually shave their heads before having a shower?”

I was stunned to silence.

I could not believe that someone who supposedly cared about me, could be so rude, so offensive.

After regaining my voice however – I promptly broke up with him.

Which brings me (finally) to my point – is it the intent of the jokes we find offensive, or the jokes themselves?

I’m going to channel Malcom X here for a second and suggest that perhaps the only way to disempower prejudice – is to laugh:

(”Porch-monkeys 4 life, – it’s ok I’m taking it back”).

I’m not sure that we can ever truly remove discrimination, but I think a good way to start is to take a page out of Clerks II, or Dogma, or South Park and be indiscriminately discriminate.

There’s power in satire, and what better to be able to make fun of ourselves, as much as we do of others?

Adam Hunt should not be made to apologise for the strength of the concept.

The idea is good, the execution is flawless, but perhaps the shock factor has distracted from the point of the ad.

I also think that the point of living in a democracy is to read controversial books, or watch controversial ads, and then talk about them.

There is no point in not allowing this ad to run.

Perhaps it should go to air on the ABC.

Perhaps it’s actually a good thing that people are up in arms about this ad, because it’s the only way to make any real progress.

There is no other reaction to be had after watching this advertisement, than to feel complete and utter disgust.

Even people who aren’t that easily shocked said they felt they had been abruptly uprooted from their comfort zones.

And if any progress is to be made in reducing and obliterating discrimination, that is where we are going to have to exist for a while- out of our comfort zone.

Let me know what you think about this ad.

Post your comments below.