Rundle on Remembrance Day:

David Havyatt writes: Re. “Rundle: ask not what your country can do for you, but how often you can die for your country” (yesterday, item 4). I would not like to see Crikey degenerate into a forum for the so-called “history wars” that have been notionally conducted in Quadrant and our daily press. However, I do believe it possible to have a more nuanced view of Australia’s role in WWI (and other wars) than either it was heroic sacrifice in defence of freedom, or that it was misguided young men deceived by leaders intent on pointless causes. War is not simple, its consequences are dire for victor and vanquished alike.

Both Niall Fergusson and Phillip Bobbitt describe the period 1914 to 1990 as “The Long War”, in kind with earlier epochal wars that constituted a number of battles. They describe this war as a long battle between three contending ideas of the nation-state; parliamentarianism, fascism and communism. The war ended with the victory of parliamentarianism. Was ever battle justified? No. Was every strategy well thought through? No. Were the leaders always honest with their people and blameless in the execution of the war? No.

But if we ask “was the war as a whole worth fighting?” I think the answer is yes. And certainly the individual soldiers, whether deceived, manipulated or even blood thirsty and racist in their own right, suffered a fate that you and I would not care to suffer.

Rundle claims “In recent decades, Remembrance Day has been subtly changed, from an ‘appreciation’ of sacrifice, to a more fuzzy humanist reflection on loss. But its purpose remains to sanctify unthinking sacrifice for national purpose.”

It is none of these, Remembrance Day is a day for reflecting on the folly of war, the necessity of engaging in it and the tragic individual consequences it produces.

James Burke writes: Reading Guy Rundle on Afghanistan is like reading Christopher Hitchens on Iraq. You think, jeez, I used to credit this bloke with possessing some insight and wit, when did he lose it and turn into a raving fruitcake? And when did these supposed lefties decide their cause was advanced by becoming apologists for one or another mob of fascist grubs?

Now Rundle claims “even the Pacific war began as a European encirclement of Japan, as a way of maintaining European colonial dominance.” Actually, it began with the Japanese attempt to conquer China and enslave its people — admittedly in imitation of previous European behaviour around the world. Japan’s later overrunning of Southeast Asia was a desperate attempt to counter trade sanctions imposed in retaliation for the China war (is this the “encirclement” he refers to?)

He goes on, “the propaganda subsequently used to inspire people to fight turned it into a race war — the ultimate dehumanisation of the Japanese as subhuman”. The Chinese and Koreans would doubtless assert that it was a race war long before whitey got involved. But then, Rundle doesn’t seem to care about any conflict that doesn’t involve Australia or other “imperial” countries which offer comfy targets for his pen.

Hence his failure, in any of his Afghan rants, to speculate about what might happen if foreign forces were to withdraw (other than a flippant comment about remote bombing, which was oddly echoed by George Will).

Greg Williams writes: Basically Mr Rundle’s philosophy seems to be one of “a country not under direct threat of attack should keep out of the war”.

Doesn’t quite work that way, Guy (e.g. visions of you in 1942 on the bridge of the pride of the Australian Navy — the Manly Ferry SS South Steyne, armed only with your rapier wit and iPod, leading the fleet out through Sydney Heads, heading for the Coral Sea to hand over a biting column to the Japanese navy and curtly texting the U.S. to keep their noses out of it, as the Japanese fleet was not heading in their direction!)

But then, in the same article, Mr Rundle expresses uncertainty as to whether the Japanese ever really, truly intended to invade Australia at all: presumably on the basis the Japanese presence in Papua New Guinea was merely a group of badly behaving foreign backpackers dressed up in ridiculous-looking baggy shorts, acting like the members of a NRL team’s end-of-season trip to Bali.

Steven McKiernan writes: I’ve got my southern cross tattoo in green and gold. I’ve downloaded the Last Post as my ringtone. I’m sucking down VB and thinking why my mate’s uncles came back from war silent, brooding and viciously violent. I’ve got my flag to drape myself in at the Big Day Out as I go looking for new-Aussies to harangue.

Remembrance Day 2009 comes the day after the simulacrum of the Berlin Wall being breached, a reaffirmation of the Domino Theory writ large as Europe finally realises that Nationhood is a disease and anathema.

If we forget the individuals and their communities who responded to the politician’s calls, if we forget the creation of pacts and alliances based upon mutually assured destruction then we will repeat the mistakes, the carnage and the devastation.

By all means “Have a beer instead, feel the sun on your face, and live the life these people never got to” but also remember the civilians who were corvee’d, bombed and starved to death by all the nations armies in the pursuit of their geopolitical obsessions.

Remembrance of Peace and it’s infernal brother is what occurs on 11 November, even for the CUB sponsored blue singleted d***heads, they just don’t know it.

Kevin McCready writes: A brilliant Guy Rundle article. Two points:

  1. Some do take Anzac Day seriously — both major parties reinforce it by promoting the war cult.
  2. The bigger issue of why humans go to war might have benefited from a read of Howard K Bloom, The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into The Forces of History. He explores the biological basis of “evil”. Some humans, not all, are wired for aggression — it’s simply part of our genetic diversity. Unfortunately due to the workings of the Australian book market you’ll have to get Bloom’s book OS or have the good luck of a friend sending it to you because he thought it would interest.

Polling:

Keith Perkins writes: Re. “The Newspoll numbers The Australian won’t print” (Tuesday, item 2). It was Melbourne Cup day and I had just spent hours the previous evening analysing “Essential” and “Morgan’s” most recent polls, both showing only miniscule variations from their previous polls. It was then that I became aware of Newspoll’s most recent result, a result that even if only partially correct should have thousands of Australia’s punters rushing to obtain the lucrative odds on offer about the coalition winning the next Federal Election.

Not being prepared to accept this Newspoll aberration I decided to conduct my own poll.

Being aware of where the most profound political knowledge is to be found I hastened down to my local pub and targeted in on a small group in the back bar. This group was busily engrossed in something in the newspaper which they, no doubt considered of some great importance.

“Ha,” I thought, “these blokes are analysing the polls, they should be quite prepared for my questions.”

When I suggested this they looked at me as though I had just arrived from Mars.

“It’s Cup day you bloody nong, we’re studying the form.”

Undeterred I returned to this group as soon as the horse thingy was over and bought them a round of drinks, which didn’t cost a fortune as there were only five of them. It was then that they agreed to participate in my poll.

To my question “who do you think will be Australia’s Prime Minister after the next federal election”, two said Kevin Rudd, two said Malcolm Turnbull and one, quite seriously, said Pauline Hanson.

After spending hours analysing my small, but highly professionally conducted poll, I reached a conclusion that after the next Federal Election Rudd and Turnbull will be joint Prime Ministers and that Pauline Hanson will win a seat in Parliament then resign within a week and be offered a job, on $500,000 a year, as Ambassador to Christmas Island.

I admit that my poll could be a wee bit unreliable but I doubt if it’s any more so than the Newspoll abnormality of last week.

Two Face Rudd:

Luke Miller writes: Re. “Racial equality impossible under the constitution” (yesterday, item 15). It’s taken a while, but I think I’ve finally figured out Rudd’s modus operandi. He SAYS stuff progressive people want to hear, but actually DOES what is wanted by conservative people. It’s a clever way to keep both the big-idea-loving Left on side and the cash-loving Right.

For example, last week he compared climate change sceptics to the smoking lobby of the 1980s, but his emissions trading scheme falls far short of cutting the pollution the best science suggests. On basic human rights, Rudd says he wants to remove discrimination against gay people but then he goes and votes for banning gays from getting married. And of course most famously, he says “Sorry” to the Aboriginal people, but in places like the Northern Territory, his policies are the same oppressive and discriminatory policies that our country has promulgated since the 1840s.

Is it two-faced? I’m beginning to think maybe it is.

Shock jocks:

Ronnie Girdham writes: Re. “Singling out Muslims for shock value” (yesterday, item 17). I heard that talk-back caller to Mike Smith on radio 4BC on Tuesday who caused the jock to go off his trolley.

The caller was drawing on the principle of the freedom quote　attributed to Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But he confused the sentiment with the issue, leading to a flood of calls of outrage and Smith weighing in, making a pretty shabby job of trying not to appear racist.

Yasmin Khan has no doubt suppressed her anger, given it due consideration and made some balanced arguments and logical remarks. Quite a difference between two commentators.

The parallel import restrictions on books:

Author Jackie French writes: Re. “In terms of books, it’s a less-than-PIRfect world” (yesterday, item 3). Guy Rundle gets it; Bernard Keane misses by a mile. Authors LIKE on-line book sales and E books — you sell more books, even if you make less money per book. If the government takes up Rundle’s “tax breaks for authors suggestion”, I’ll pick up the Crikey coffee tab for a year.

Just about every other low paid profession deserves tax breaks more than us. Sitting at a computer working on your most recent obsession and waiting or reviews to say you’re wonderful can’t compare with say, cleaning up the nappies in a child care centre, or scrubbing bathrooms in a hotel.

Niall Clugston writes: Finally we have a rational debate on Parallel Import Restrictions! (When it’s too late?) It seems inevitable that Australia, as an English-speaking country with a small population, will give economic support to its culture. Various protectionist and subsidy schemes have been tried.

Guy Rundle proposes tax breaks for authors. But why not turn things upside down and subsidise consumers? Why doesn’t the government fund discounts for Australian books? This would support the industry and at the same time provide cheaper books. Yes, it might be expensive, but it’s better than sinking money on failed artistic projects!

To Pilger:

Oliver Whitla writes: Re. “Talking the Town: John Pilger receives the Sydney Peace Prize” (6 November, item 5). Margot Saville is reminded of the verb “to Pilger”, as she attends John Pilger’s awarding of the Sydney Peace Price. Her readers are pointed to the verb’s meaning as to “present information sensationally in support of a particular conclusion.”. How strange it is, then, that she then proceeds to liken the event to Scientology and write off the audience as either her “Birkenstock-wearing Balmain neighbours” or media students from UTS, both of which are “…there to have their belief systems reinforced and receive the word of the prophet”.

I suppose it is a thin line between thought provoking commentary and judgemental generalisations. However, it is downright amusing that Margot has made a case to be cautious of sensationalism, but then commits herself to doing exactly that in the very same article.

I wasn’t there, but I would suspect that most of the audience were there to respect the contribution that John Pilger has made to his field? I warn you though, Margot, this may indeed involve a standing ovation or two for your “prophet”, John. Perhaps some of the audience may have agreed with Margot’s point that John was not qualified to speak so casually on the NT intervention, but perhaps others may have thought his summary was spot.

Based no doubt upon the experiences of his life’s work focusing on different forms of oppression and the way in which truth is often mangled to maintain the status quo.

NSW Greens:

David Shoebridge, Convenor, The Greens NSW, writes: Re. “Times changing rapidly in the Middle East” (Tuesday, item 14). For clarity I would appreciate it if you could place this statement on the record regarding Antony Loewenstein’s article. While the Greens NSW has agreed to discuss a possible one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and believes it needs discussing, the Greens NSW remains supportive of the national policy advocating a two-state solution.

The Catholic Church:

Tanya Smith writes: Re. “Video of the Day” (yesterday). Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs. Catholics should be compulsory viewing for anyone who argues that religion has a positive impact on society.

The shift in audience views from before the debate to after — the Catholics lost around 2/3 of their initial support and Hitchens & Fry picked up around 90% of the previously undecided vote — says it all.

If those are the best arguments the Catholic Church can come up with given an equal hearing against its critics I don’t know why anyone even bothers to listen to it anymore.

Croakey:

Dr Peter Short writes: Re. “Crikey costs trimmed, but not the attitude” (Monday, item 17) (). I am absolutely amazed that you should withdraw your support for Croakey. The health system of this country and health issues in general are of great ongoing significance to the community of this country. With the range of possible futures for the system put forward by governments and clinicians it is a very interesting time ahead, and one that seemingly Crikey is happy to walk away from.

Surely something as fundamental as health care should be kept. Croakey is a breath of fresh air amongst the (at time boring) rants about Rudd, Rees and all the others.

Put up the subscription rate by a dollar a year for all and keep Croakey within the fold!

Lady Mayoresses:

Wendy Cheng and Susie Norton write: Re. “Lady Mayoress ruffles feathers among Melbourne’s old money set” (26 October, item 11). As former Lady Mayoresses we were deeply concerned about some of the accusations and references made in your article.

References such as “city’s old money” (we wish!!), “matriarchy” (sorry to the many young on the Committee!), “traditionally dominated by ageing dames” (gracefully too with big hearts; forgot to mention that!), “with weekdays to burn” (we all wish!), “ladies who lunch “(we wish again!), “Toorak madams with lots of dosh” (we wish again!) and [weekdays to burn] (We didn’t realize this referred to many ladies on the Committee with full time jobs, part time jobs, all volunteers etc!).

Really you should have found a much better source than this. Maybe this person was certainly ageing! Check the postcodes of all members too; you might be surprised.

And “…Campbell is not popular (maybe because) she has a job.” Once again, no homework done … both of us had (still do have) full time jobs when Lady Mayoress so this source is really out of touch and totally ignorant of the facts.

These comments truly insulting to every person (you obviously don’t know there have been males on the Committee too) who has ever been on this Committee and those who are currently members of this incredible group of volunteers committed to raising funds for the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation.

The only comments/statements which were correct were those in relation to Julie Leeming.

Yes, she has most certainly helped raise millions on behalf of the Committee, she is a keen golfer, she is the wife of former Pilkington chief and she is an Australian citizen. … well done … all correct!

Puppetry of the pedants:

Angus Sharpe writes: Chris Harrison (yesterday, comments) says that “The preposition “for” is incorrect and superfluous”. If the use of a word is “incorrect” it cannot also be “superfluous”. With pedantry, perspicacity is paramount.

Nigel Brunel writes: Hear here Chris — keep it up.

Mick Callinan writes: I think you are being a bit unfair to Chris Harrison, labelling his comment “Pedant’s Corner” when he went out of his way to say that he is not a pedant.

Surely if pointing out an error is pedantry, then Crikey‘s correction and apology to News Limited (yesterday, comments) (Oh, the irony) over the Newspoll story is pedantry too. What could be the difference apart from the possibility of legal action?

I can only say that if there was any money in suing over grammatical errors in Crikey, I wouldn’t be a pedant, I’d be a vexatious litigant.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name — we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.