MRM -- NY

MRM-NY

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:58:00 +0000

I have launched a new blog, www.mrm-ny.blogspot.com

I kept only one magazine from October 2006 -- the month I quit drinking -- and this was it

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:55:00 +0000

MRM to retire

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 03:37:00 +0000

Musings, Ramblings, Mumbings today goes to Bloggy Heaven.

Conceptually, the blog never worked. This is a medium that, at its best, provides instanenous and authentic insight, news and opinion in ways that the mainstream press is unable (see dailykos.com as an example of what I mean). At their worst, blogs are just vanity projects, inane, self-important and flatulent. MRM Central decidedly fell in the latter category, for all that it contained the occasionally well-formed sentence.

For that reason, I bid my small and never-expanding readership a fond farewell. Since I know most of you by name, and am related by blood to a large proportion of you, it is hardly Sayonara.

Sickness Irks

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:18:00 +0000

Back when I was a chain-smoking alchoholic for whom the closest thing to exercise was occasional and half-hearted masturbation, I couldn't really get angry about getting sick. Flimsy as it may have been at the time, my self-knowledge was sufficient that I understood that a cold or flu was the least I could expect given my death-defying lifestyle.

Now that I am a non-smoking, non-drinking, daily working-out, just-lost-12kg paragon of human health, then getting a humdinger of a flu a'la RIGHT NOW is very, very annoying. It is Jana Pittman annoying.

Nick Lyon's Powerhouse Retort to My Retirement Musings

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:09:00 +0000

Check this out from an old friend in reponse to my Bangkok Fever Post where I pondered hanging up my keyboard:

Phil

You’ve been in New York! New York! Crumbs man! Bill’s was growing horns while Hillary was hocking the family Halliburton stock to stay the game, Obama ‘The Hope’ was out now and appears to be heading for The Office, National Sorry Day unfolds with theatrics on a plate[PQ - this was a big miss], cats started kissing dogs, and where’s Musings? The silence was unbearable. Where? Swanning about in the eye of it all, having a crisis of confidence about whether or not to blog!

Whilst Musing’s occasional disappearing acts are definitely part of both its charm and a great source of material upon your return, the timing on this one hasn’t suited me, or I suspect, other Musings devotees at all. Whilst the race for Presidency unfolded, we discover after weeks of (una)Musing silence, that you’ve been phaffing about taking wheelchair rides in Bangkok twirling thumbs over whom to flog your next recovery piece to [PQ - my 'next recovery piece'? - you make me sound like an industry! I have published a total of ONE piece on recovery]. Musers have been adrift, adrift I tell you, doggy-paddling furiously in the high-seas of recent events without the smug intellectual boutique confidence afforded by our Musing’s water-wings [smug intellectual boutique finally gives the genre a name - well done].

So here’s some feedback.

In 2008 Musings is not only published in real-time, but also recycled. Your readers shamelessly flog your daily opinions as their own around water-coolers, hopelessly chic Sydney restaurant tables and (with highly-affected poise) from the darker corners of their Notting Hill members bars [great sentence]. The problem is that now there’s an expectation that Musers will ALWAYS be IMMEDIATELY armed with perspicacious insight and witticism regarding the events-du-jour. So whilst you’re sucking down Shirley Temples on unscheduled leave in the Big Apple [ha ha], LOYAL Musers, stark naked for an opinion when it's most expected from them, are avoiding their water coolers, excusing themselves from their restaurant tables and retreating into the dark corners of their members bars, only to be spotted as stressed faces lit pale blue by the glow from their Blackberrys nervously thumbing for a new Musing posting. In short, passing your material off as our own has raised an expectation amongst our contemporaries; disappear for 3 weeks and you hang us out to dry.

Personally I can think of few peoples opinions of New York I’d rather read than yours. As Musers we subscribe and visit your blog because we SEEK your opinions on whatever is crossing your bows. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t visit, so where’s your risk of inflicting anything unwanted? Your pieces possess the rarest cache of qualities; wit, alacrity, elegance and an enviable (Quin-esce) brevity-of-phase that seems to arrive online with a speed that’s suggests you find this level of quality effortless. More importantly, if PQ’s words cease to be written they’re most likely to be replaced by someone of a poorer quality. You’re heading t’ward the top of your game, get on with it man.

Thanks for the last year’ s blogging… wonderful, wonderful work old friend.

Nick Lyon

P.S. Involuntarily blew snot all over my keyboard in fierce spasm of laughter when reading the ‘You’re a Looney’ post.

Touché, touché and touché again.

No, You Weren't Mistaken - that was the voice of the fat lady singing

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:16:00 +0000

Very quick note on the US Presidential race for those readers who rely somewhat on MRM to keep abreast.

Hillary is finished. Obama will be the Democratic candidate for President. The media is serving its own lust for a competitive contest narrative by pretending Hillary has a chance, but she doesn't. Here's why.

The Democratic candidate is elected by a combination of two kinds of delegates that attend the nominating convention: pledged delegates (two-thirds) and super-delegates (one-thirds). Pledged delegates are elected in the fifty primary and caucus elections that we have been witnessing in recent weeks. Super delegates are not elected at all; they are party officials, elected representatives, governors, Senators, etc. They are the party "big-wigs" who act as insurance in the event that the democratic process is indecisive or throws up an untenable outcome.

Hillary cannot overtake Obama on pledged delegates - his lead is around 150 and to claw that back, she would need to win every upcoming contest by 20 plus points. There is a candidate in the race consistently winning by those margins, but it isn't Hillary. She may win Ohio next Tuesday and may even scrape through in Texas (although Obama is finishing very strongly there), but the idea that she is going to rack up huge net delegate gains belongs in the realm of fantasy. Obama will remain ahead by roughly the same margin.

The only strategy left standing is for Hillary to rely on the unelected super-delegates to usurp the will of the people and swing their votes behind her. If this were to occur, I wouldn't be a shopfront in Chicago for all the tea in China. If a flatulent concoction of cigar-chomping apparatchiks wielded their numbers to snuff out an Obama candidacy, riots and party disintegration would follow as night does day. The fact is that super-delegates are politicians in their own right and, whomever their first preference, are not likely to compromise their own standing by becoming party to anti-democratic manoeuvring. The super-delegates will follow the votes of rank and file Democrats and elect Obama.

There is one other wrinkle that needs mentioning, and it relates to Michigan and Florida. Both these states timed their primary contests to occur earlier in the process than the Democratic Party found acceptable. As a result, all candidates agreed to boycott the states (i.e. not campaign there) and to the principle the delegates elected would have no vote at the Convention. In the case of Michigan, only Hillary had her name printed on the ballot. This seems fairly straight-forward -- but Hillary's people now need the Michigan/Florida votes and have obscenely contorted themselves to make the case for their inclusion. It is a despicable and desperate act of doublespeak that, thankfully, is being treated as such by pretty much anyone who isn't on Hillary's payroll.

So, my fellow non-Americans, forget the hoopla about Ohio and Texas. Obama has this thing won.

Airport Wheelchair Action

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:05:00 +0000

My magical New York adventure is over. Sadly, I developed a fever on the last day and the flight back so far has been a complete nightmare. I was met in Bangkok (I am flying Thai Airways) by a wheelchair attendant who took me to the airport medical centre where they gave me drugs in rock star quantities. I feel somewhat better, although the final leg remains daunting.

I didn't post in NYC because I felt it would be the cyber-equivalent of forcing your neighbours to watch your holiday slide show. A friend of mine also made the point in passing about the fundamental narcissism of blogging, something that gave me pause. "How funny," she said, "that people think their opinions about stuff deserve publication" - words not directed at me, mind you, but pertinent nonetheless. This negativity could be the fever talking.

I plan to work on an essay entitled "The Unexpected Pleasures of Sober Travel" over the coming days - I guess the Canberra Times again? Any other ideas for publishing vehicles would be gratefully recieved.

Prediction

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:34:00 +0000

I think disappointment beckons for us Obamaniacs. He didn't have enough time to ride the South Carolina wave into 22 states in a week. Momentum was his - and the Kennedy stuff was magic - but the obstables he confronted are too great -- white women, Hispanics, southern men, to name a few. He will fall short of expectations on Super Tuesday and Clinton will move into presumptive frontrunner status, a perch from which its hard to fall.

And my heart - and millions of similar hearts - will be broken.

Yes, He Could

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:53:00 +0000

The other day I wrote of convetional wisdom and how its recent miserable record of getting things wrong was the last, lingering hope for Barack Obama's extraordinary and inspiring candidacy.

Conventional wisdom dutifully failed, and Obama's crushing victory in South Carolina has blown the joint apart.

I link to some smart analysis here, and here.

Here are the bare bones as to why this result matters: Polls said he would win by 10-12 points; he won by 28. He was only expected to win 10 percent of the white vote; he got 25 percent. Sixty-five percent of blacks were pegged to vote for him; over 80 percent did, and they turned out in unprecedented numbers to do so. More people turned out to vote for Obama yesterday than did for all candidates combined in 2004.

And then he gave this speech, perhaps his best so far this campaign. And, boy, that is saying something.

Next comes February 5th - Super Tuesday - when 22 states have their turn, including New York, California, Tennesee, Arkansas and Illinois. This is tough for Obama and he trails in most places, although by low double-digits which is surmountable given the Carolina blowout.

The two things that will drive the Super Tuesday strategy are story-line and momentum; whomever has greater control over both will prevail.

Rudd's G-G Form Guide

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:02:00 +0000

Given that the PM chose country and western singer (emphasis on first syllable naturally) Lee Kernaghan as Australian of the Year and a professional motorcycle rider with the surname Stoner and the first name Casey as Young Australian of the Year, a good bet would be on Kenny for Governor-General. This would complete the Bogan Trifecta nicely.

This craven battlers-pandering would be understandable -- even admirable -- if this were six months before an election, but just a few months after taking office? Surely this is the time to reward precisely the kind of person who won't endear you to Puntersville -- an Aboriginal academic, perhaps, or a gay poet. This is the small window within which a centre-left government can hold true to their instincts before the inevitable posturing aimed at securing the fleeting and fickle affections of the kind of voter who would call their sons Casey and who fail to see Australian country and western music for the cultural fraud that it is.

We Got Another Future, Instead

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:34:00 +0000

I own a book called Preparing for the 21^st Century by acclaimed historian and futurist Paul Kennedy. It was published in 1993.

I checked the index the other days for entries under:

Terrorism
Islamic Extremism
Internet
World-wide Web
E-commerce
Biotechnology

There was not a single entry. You would imagine that, for a futurist, writing a book about the 21^st century that fails to mention terrorism or the Internet would be a humbling experience, but not so for Mr Kennedy. He has kept writing books and making predictions. His latest, Parliament of Man (2006), predicts the future of the United Nations (the planning department of which should not invest too much store in its conclusions if his earlier efforts are any guide).

Preparing for the 21^st Century is a laughable failure of the book, but at the time of publication there was no way of knowing this: the 20^th century had seven years’ left to run and that is plenty of time to sell books, let alone conjure up even grander and more plausible-sounding predictions for future books.

This is awesomely unaccountable, and it is action of which I want a piece. I want to be both pundit and critic, gloriously unburdened by real-life consequences. I want the right to be wrong.

Taking the US Democratic Primaries as a current example, the disparate and multitudinous voices of the punditry are given vent through the Mainstream Media (MSM), cable TV, talk radio and Internet, and are eventually distilled into the conventional wisdom (CW). This is how it has played out over the past month, and where it points now.

CW #1: Hillary Clinton cannot lose Iowa because it is a state with an overwhelmingly white population that historically rewards establishment candidates in preference to insurgents like Obama.

Hillary Clinton lost Iowa by nine points, which left some explaining to do. No problem – blame CW, and move on:

CW#2 Conventional wisdom failed to take into account the unprecedented turnout among young voters for Obama. Obama cannot now lose New Hampshire because of the momentum and buzz generated by winning Iowa.

Obama lost New Hampshire by 3.6 points. Move on:

CW#3 Conventional wisdom failed to take into account the last-minute impact of Hillary’s emotional display on television and the late surge in women voters. Notwithstanding his unexpected loss in New Hampshire, Obama will still win Nevada because he has secured the endorsements of key unions in a highly unionised Democratic electorate.

Obama lost Nevada by 5.5 points. Soldier on!

CW#3 The unions in Nevada don’t matter as much as conventional wisdom suggests, and Hillary got a big boost with Hispanic voters. Obama will still win South Carolina but the Clintons have diminished the result in advance by making it about race (more than half the voters in SC are black) thereby limiting his momentum going into the 22 Super Tuesday states on February 5^th, where Hillary will clean up and clinch the nomination.

This is where CW stands.

The last, best hope for Obama is that it is wrong yet again -- it is fair to say that history is on his side.

Kim Beazley Extends Condolences to Ted Heath's Family

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:42:00 +0000

Kim Beazley today expressed his sadness at the passing of former British Prime Minister Edward Heath.

"I offer my personal condolences to the Heath family whose shock and grief must be doubly acute since Ted Heath died previously in 2005," Mr Beazley said.

"Their familial angst must be further compounded by the circumstances of his most recent death. It is beyond comprehension that a British Tory octogenarian would be found naked in a New York apartment. The prescription drug part of the story is far more in keeping," Beazley concluded.

How the Word 'Pakeha' Makes Kiwis Seem Less Racist

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:57:00 +0000

As I was leaving my local shopping centre on Friday evening, I noticed two young women of Chinese appearance standing somewhat pointlessly in the carpark surrounded by IKEA bags heaving with the sort of items one buys when one is building a household from scratch. Fresh off the boat, I thought. They must have noticed me noticing them because one of them asked “Is this where you wait for a taxi?” “No”, I responded, which was the polite way of saying “you would have as much chance hailing a taxi on the moon”. I asked them where they were going and they said Richmond and since we were already in Richmond, I offered to give them a lift. They readily agreed, which suggests they weren’t paying much attention during stranger-danger lectures at Primary School. Once we piled their new flat’s worth of stuff in my boot, we were on our way. I asked the girl sitting in the front which part of New Zealand she was from. She was amazed that I had been able to guess this from her accent which, according to her, was undetectable to most people she dealt with (which led me to surmise that most people she dealt with are hearing-impaired). She pointed to her friend in the back and said “She’s a Kiwi too.” I was struck by this.

The word Kiwi is a colloquial term for New Zealander in the same way that Aussie is for an Australian. But the Kiwi-Chinese girls in my car on Friday night illustrated a significant and revealing difference in the usage.

The word Aussie carries ethnic baggage in a way Kiwi does not. A fifth-generation ethnic Chinese is not, and can never be, an Aussie. A 2^nd generation Greek or Italian who, in appearance, is indistinguishable from his Anglo-Celtic neighbours, is also not an Aussie. An Aboriginal is by no means an Aussie. An Aussie is a white Australian, plain and simple.

The easiest argument here is that Australia is simply more racist than New Zealand, a view held firmly, and with considerable smugness, across the Tasman. The morphing of racial and national identity symbolized by the word Aussie – particularly in phrases such as Aussie values, the Aussie way of life, etc. – is just more evidence of Australia’s ethnocentricity.

I think there is an explanation as to why the words Aussie and Kiwi have evolved differently that does not hinge on Australian bigotry. It relates to the Maori word Pakeha, which denotes Caucasian. This is a contentious word among those it describes – many regard it as offensive and sinister and others find it useful and even affirming. The latter group – of which I am a fully paid-up member – tends to fall into the demographic category known as LSIUPM(PH)*

Whatever its merits, the existence of the word Pakeha as a way of describing white New Zealanders allows the term Kiwi an inclusiveness that Aussie lacks. To put it another way: if Aussie did not carry an ethnic connotation, the alternative means of denoting the same idea are each flawed in their own way: white (too racist-sounding), Caucasian (too ethnographic), Anglo-Celtic (too hyphenated). The term Anglo is used from time to time, but is vague and inexact (especially since it technically excludes everyone who isn’t English by extraction).

It is feasible to imagine that, if the word Pakeha did not exist or hadn’t taken hold in New Zealand, the word Kiwi could well have taken on a racial subtext like Aussie, or another such word may have emerged in its stead. What comes first, the word or the meaning? Deeply Orwellian territory, and too dense a subject for so dense a scribe.

*Latte-swilling, Inner-Urban, Post-Modernist (Possibly Homosexual)

Katsambastard

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:57:00 +0000

When I worked for the Victorian Labor Government, my role had something to do with the Upper House -- I was drinking very heavily at the time so I can’t be more specific.

Through the haze, however, I can clearly recollect a certain Liberal Party Upper House member called Peter Katsambanis. During Question Time, he was directly in my light of sight and I took an instant dislike to him.

I don’t mind Tories that fit the Tory mould. Alexander Downer is one such example – how can you hold his conservatism against him? It is a genetic inheritance for which he cannot be blamed. He falls into the category, as memorably described by Blackadder, of fat Tory landowners who become M.P.’s when they reach a certain weight.

Such Tories tend to be politically moderate, respectful of the primacy of Parliament, and gracious to their opponents.

Those who chose conservatism as an ideology – as opposed to inheriting it as a fait accompli – are a much viler breed. They are to the comfortable Tory establishment what evangelical Christian fundamentalism is to the Church of England. They are driven, fanatical and absolutist.

As I surveyed the opposition benches of the Victorian Upper House, it wasn’t hard to see that Katsambanis was of the latter, evangelical ilk. He was young (real Tories make money and enter Parliament in their late forties or fifties), Greek (real Tories aren’t Greek) and snotty-nosed (Tories have hankies).

Having noticed that, I widely promoted the adoption of a nickname – Katsambastard -- which, for reasons I still fail to grasp, did not stick. I also fed a Labor frontbencher a line to use against Katsambastard’s constant use of a laptop in the chamber – “Is that the sound of one hand typing?” – which brought the House down. I considered him my nemesis but then shunned the word when I realized its Greek etymology gave him a head-start.

Katsambastard got booted out of Parliament and disappeared from public view – until today.

In today’s Age, he writes a first-hand account of his capsicum spraying at the hands of Police at the Australian Open tennis two nights’ back.

Never has police brutality caused such a warm glow inside.

The Age Bluett

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:26:00 +0000

The Age scales new journalistic heights yet again this morning with its front page scoop on the drastic decline in Uni students opting for teaching as a career. The opening paragraph stings with impact:

Victorian students are turning their backs on teaching careers, with experts blaming poor pay and job security.

Wow. I can see how this bumped the Senate committee findings on the inadequacies of rural broadband off the front-page!

This is a big story: poor pay and conditions are driving young people away from teaching! And how do we know? Because EXPERTS are telling u!

The set-up of this story means its merit is largely dependent upon the credibility of its EXPERTS. Let me demonstrate what I mean here by playing “Who Do You Believe”:

UN Panel Warns that Climate Change is Accelerating

Richard Wilkins Scoffs at Climate Change Reports

Or, to be fair:

Richard Wilkins Predicts Big Box Office for Latest Will Smith Movie?

UN Climate Change Panel Predicts Will Smith Flick Flop?

Back to today’s Age scoop where EXPERTS have confirmed a drastic cut in teacher-trainees. We finally meet the EXPERT (singular) in the seventh paragraph:

Australian Education Union state president Mary Bluett said relatively low pay in state schools was turning Victorian students away from teaching in droves.

Mary Bluett's job is to increase the pay and conditions of teachers; it is why she gets out of bed in the morning. Teachers could be remunerated like neurosurgeons and Mary Bluett would still say it’s not enough – that’s her job. For the Age to dress her as an EXPERT to bolster a flimsy non-story is, alas, typically lame.

The headline should really be:

Mary Bluett Understands the Benefits of Pushing Out Media Releases in Early January

Speed Reading

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:34:00 +0000

Drug addiction holds a morbid fascination for many people, which I suppose explains the otherwise inexplicable publication in today’s Age of “How it feels…to have your life destroyed by drugs” (I cannot find it online).

The article, ghost-written in the first-person with a sort of faux-street-authenticity, is useful to the extent that it summarises quite succinctly the fatuous mythology surrounding addiction.

“How it feels” is the story of a woman whose long-term addiction to speed cost her everything -- money, car, kids, home, dignity, etc. She tried and failed rehab repeatedly until she hit rock bottom and kicked her speed habit three years ago. She confesses to some heroin and prescription drug use since, suggesting a sobriety of the most tenuous kind.

There is nothing wrong with her story itself. Addiction is a bitch.

The problem lies in the narrative style and its flawed underlying philosophy. The problem starts with the title: “How it feels to have your life destroyed by drugs.”

Drug addiction, we are told from the get-go, is analogous to cancer or a car crash: it is a catastrophic event that happens to you. It is something over which we have no control.

The subtitle confirms the writer’s complete surrender to addiction mythology:

"An addiction to speed cost one woman her kids, her home and her business”

It is as if the women were walking down Chapel Street minding her own business and someone slipped a speed addiction in her handbag.

The woman herself explicitly warns “it could happen to anyone” which is demonstrably false when one considers my Mum.

The addict’s responsibility is minimized; the addictive power of the drug and the pain of withdrawal are grossly exaggerated.

The 12-step philosophy – promulgated by AA and its off-shoots – involves a substance-centred view of addiction that medical science does not, and will not, support. It is the disease concept that places alcoholism and drug addiction alongside diabetes and heart disease as incurable, inheritable and chronic conditions. This absolves the addict of responsibility and allows them to live with the consequences of their behaviour and explains their relapses.

As a self-help philosophy, it has been a qualified success. As a matter of medical science, it is a crock. The messy truth is that addiction is a behavioural disorder with deep-rooted social and psychological causes unique to each addict.

In the media debate around addiction, the 12-steppers hold almost complete sway, partly because AA members inhabit every newsroom in the Western world, and partly because the treatment industry profits from a thriving addiction mythology.

Sillification

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:29:00 +0000

The stupefying arrogance and grotesque ugliness of the Australian cricket team is now well understood outside of only the narrowest Australian minds, so I will not bore you with highlighting it further. I will, however, touch on the specific matter of the alleged racial vilification of Andrew Symonds by Harbhajan Singh because it points to a broader problem with this 21^st century approach to addressing abuse of all kinds.

The alleged facts are clear: in the course of a heated cricketing contest, Harbhajan Singh called Andrew Symonds – whose parents are from the West Indies - a monkey. On paper, this appears a fairly open-and-shut case. It is probably – in a strict legal sense – racial vilification.

But let’s get real.

Andrew Symonds is a strapping 6’4” man-stud with abs you could bounce coins off, buns of moulded steel, and - in all likelihood – a package that would not look out of place between the hind-legs of a Melbourne Cup winner. He is prime alpha-man-meat who probably did it with identical twins three days after he reached puberty at the age of 10. He could impregnate with a sideways glance.

Harbhajan Singh is a bearded Sikh who would struggle to get in a root in a brothel. On a Tuesday night. In the midst of a recession.

One is a sex symbol; the other a Sikh symbol.

To suggest that Symonds has been “abused” or “vilified” by a spin bowler in a turban with a comical Indian accent is to defy common sense.

To me, it shares the hallmarks of the so-called child abuse involving 18 year old male students and 22 year old female teachers. We all tut-tut appropriately and talk about abuse of trust and pretend it’s no different to a male teacher-female student scenario. But we all know it’s not the same, and that the 18 year old in question is off signing autographs, and that his father is secretly very proud indeed.

Political correctness seems to hinder our ability to apply common-sense to accusations of abuse, which is dangerous because they are extremely easy to make.

The Bradley Effect in New Hampshire?

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:24:00 +0000

Many years ago, an African American Democrat, Tom Bradley, ran for Mayor of LA and narrowly won. This shocked, because all the polls had indicated he would bolt in by a whopping margin. Hence the term "Bradley effect" was coined to describe a phenomena -- in parts psychology, sociology and psephology -- whereby voters overstate their voting intentions for black candidates because they want to appear racially tolerant, but in the privacy of the ballot box they vote against them.

The theory held for many years over a number of races where polls inflated the black candidate's eventual support, but was declared redundant in 2006 where election results in such elections produced no such dissonance. A charismatic black Democrat, Harold Ford, lost his Tennessee Senate race, for example, and the election figures were predicted accurately by pollsters.

Obama's shock loss to Clinton will give rise to prognostication about the re-emergence of the Bradley effect. People will point to the absence of secret ballot in the Iowa caucus as evidence for the oddly disjointed outcomes between there and New Hampshire. With a secret ballot in play, they may argue, the Bradley effect will imperil Obama's chances at the Presidency.

I hope to the non-existent God that it ain't so.

Hillary's Big Fat 35 Years

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:06:00 +0000

Hillary goes on and on about her "thirty-five years" of experience that uniquely equips her to be President, and how this is a contrast to Obama who was still wearing shorts 35 years ago.

Let's dissect this a little.

Eleven of said 25 years Hillary spent as First Lady of Arkansas. This is a job currently held by Mrs Huckabee, a woman so spectacularly unimportant that I couldn't be bothered finding out her first (or Christian, as she would prefer it) name. For a further eight years, she was doing what Mrs Bush is doing now.

The combined experience of Laura Bush and what's-her-name Huckabee, plus some high-priced lawyering and a few years as a Senator thanks to name recognition and money made possible by her marriage, does not -- to quote political scientist Shania Twain -- impress-ah me much.

I hope she gets out before she trashes her husband's reputation as well as her own.

Obama Victory Speech

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:58:00 +0000

This is surely the best political oratory since yours truly represented the Tairangi Ward on the Porirua City Council circa 1989.

I will just let one more thing stand for the record: since becoming a state in 1846, Iowa has not once elected an African-American to anything - not even ward councillor in a piss-ant local authority due west of Shitsville.

It is impossible to overstate the profundity of this moment. Conservative columnist David Brooks of the NY Times (reg req'd) pegs it best:

This is a huge moment. It’s one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.
Iowa won’t settle the race, but the rest of the primary season is going to be colored by the glow of this result. Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.
And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?
Obama has achieved something remarkable. At first blush, his speeches are abstract, secular sermons of personal uplift — filled with disquisitions on the nature of hope and the contours of change.
He talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. He seems at first more preoccupied with changing thinking than changing legislation.

Cometh the Hour...

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:35:00 +0000

Cometh the Man

Canberra Times runs Clark-Howard post

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:28:00 +0000

Here it is.

The Age Misfires on Iowa and Money

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:18:00 +0000

In the litany of American crimes held to be self-evident by many of my ideological kin, one is that US Presidential elections are hopelessly corrupted by money. It stands alongside the CIA props up dictators and US Foreign policy is driven by lust for oil as a foundation stone of the Great-Satan-Thesis so heartily subscribed to by the left-liberal elite.

When they were teaching the Great Satan Thesis at Left-Liberal Elite School, I think I must have been at home nursing a hangover. I don't think the US is evil at all. I think it is big, lumbering, stupid and flawed, as well as inspiring and remarkable. I think it has the best and worst of everything -- except scenery; New Zealand has the best scenery -- and it repels and awes in equal measure. It is flabby and indulgent and extroverted; both intense and intensely shallow.

The Age today pays due homage to Iowa Caucuses by running a front page article and photo-spread not given justice by the online version. As usual, the Age gets it half-right: the start of the Presidential primaries in Iowa is indeed a monumental event, the outcome of which will profoundly impact the world as we know it. Conjure in your mind a world with Obama as US President. Then think Huckabee. It is as if someone taped over your copy of Mr Smith Goes to Washington with Deliverance.

As I said, the Age got it half-right by dedicating their front page to coverage of the events in Iowa. But what of their angle?

The Age deemed that the issue of greatest significance is role of money in US Presidential races, by focussing on the personal fortunes and campaign war chests of the respective candidates.

How bizarre and revealing that the newspaper would resort to such a hoary old chestnut. Their timing, as always, is abysmal.

There is scarcely a day on the US political calendar where money has less influence than today -- that is the very point of the Iowa caucus.

It is a small state of 3 million people and only 10 percent or so of them turn up to the Republican and Democratic caucuses. This has a great equalising effect. Even a modestly funded candidate – like Huckabee – can compete with big money candidates like Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani (who is tanking in Iowa). In states like Florida and California, poor candidates cannot possibly fund the TV advertising necessary to reach voters; in Iowa, they meet them in small groups and one-on-one and make their case. The obvious example is Mike Huckabee, who arrived in Iowa with $12 and an expired Borders voucher and looks set to win or at least come second.

The day when money matters least in US politics is when the Age leads with how much money matters in US politics. If Editor Andrew Jaspan made lucid editorial judgement a New Year’s resolution, I hope he has better luck getting fit and spending more time with his kids.

John Roskam: Intellectual Helium

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:33:00 +0000

John Roskam, executive director of the so-called Institute for Public Affairs, is nothing if not a wrath-magnet. His column today on religion and politics is easily the worst of the dozens I have read on the topic. It is little more than a motley collection of fallacies and truisms stitched together by bad ideas. The man is intellectual helium. (When I first read it I thought he must have been hungover from New Year’s Eve celebrations when he wrote it. On second reading, I think he was still drunk.)

Part of Roskam’s problem is that he takes all his cues from the right-wing noise machine in the States and then applies it to Australia, something he lacks the subtlety or dexterity to pull off. This is absolutely the case here, where, for example, he makes a turgid argument about the Left’s misreading of the constitutional separation of church and state in a way that is clearly meant for the US (this argument is yet another example of how Roskam attributes false ideas to his opponents in order to knock them down – the Left are perfectly clear on the subject of church-state separation). The whole article reeks of this kind of sloppiness. One highlight is his depiction of Opus Dei as a “social group”, a term even the most craven Vatican apologist could hardly use with a straight face. Later on, he writes that Kevin Rudd is a Christian socialist in the present tense. This is either careless or deliberately misleading and, either way, it reflects Roskam’s slapdash approach to the truth.

When he is not distorting for effect, he is making philosophical observations that are almost alarmingly unsophisticated. Today it is that all politics has a moral underpinning and therefore the secular left are wrong to disdain religion. The first part of the sentence – that all politics has a moral component -- is so screamingly self-evident that it is probably taken as a given among the orang-utan tribes of the Malay Peninsula. Roskam then attempts to pull a swiftie by equating morality with organised religion, a debating trick that would be discarded as too transparent by year 9’s. He then confirms his own muddle-headedness by castigating church leaders for taking stances on certain political issues – David Hicks and Work Choices he offers as examples – suggesting that churches should only engage in politics when it assists the conservative cause. Roskam has nowhere near the grunt to carry such an argument off, so the column winds up an incoherent space-filler.

I have written before that John Roskam is part of a scam perfected in the US: the formation of so-called think-tanks to provide a veneer of authority and independence as they go about promoting the political ideologies of the corporate big-wigs and reclusive tobacco billionaires that sign the pay-cheques. It is a shame that Australia’s right-wing lobby can’t scramble together enough dough to pay someone who can think and write at the same time.

It is important to note that Roskam also provides cover for the Age, a newspaper under pressure to demonstrate it is not entirely captive to the inner-city left. Roskam may be a tool, but he is a useful one.

MRM@themovies: Atonement

noreply@blogger.com (MJR) — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:04:00 +0000

Atonement is a lyrical masterpiece by any measure, but that it is achieved against the backdrop of Keira Knightley's epic vapidness makes it a true marvel.

Atonement is based on Ian McEwan's book of the same name and it is undeniably novelistic: the film's titles emerge on the screen as if by a typewriter the signature tap-tap-tapping of which features heavily in the film's score. The novel is extremely self-referential as it is, making this one of the most challenging of literary adaptations -- the film of a novel within a novel, as well as of the novel itself. Add to this McEwan's subtle and delicate emotional landscape -- not to mention Knightley's casting -- and the potential for a cinematic debacle was immense, forboding and well-averted.

Atonement begins with Briony Tallis, a thirteen-year old girl at her family's luxurious estate in the 1935 English summer. A curious and gifted child, she witnesses a series of interactions between her sister Cecelia (the shiteous Knightley) and the handsome housekeeper's son, Robbie Turner (James McEvoy, The Last King of Scotland). This culminates in an act of shattering consequence for which she is fated to spend the remainder of her life seeking the atonement in question; to say more would spoil things.

Director Joe Wright is a relative novice -- he is only 35 years old -- but inexperience is the last thing on display here. It is a virtuoso effort, elegant and seamless. The one-camera tracking shot at Dunkirk, which lasts for over five minutes, is a thing of rare and affecting beauty.

James McEvoy is outstanding here as Robbie, and both actors filling the role of Briony (Saoirse Ronan and Romola Garai) are superbly cast. Between the three of them, they manage counter the weighty awfulness of Knightley -- this is not to be sneezed at.

FOUR AND A HALF STARS
Oscar buzz: Big chance for Picture, Actor (McEvoy), Director (Wright) and Supporting Actress (Saoirse Ronan)