Real Americans™ - as Palin would have it - are fighting for their lives.
Soon these working class white folks, who proudly eschew the biased liberal media in favour of Fox pundits like Hannity, will be sent off to face government death boards who will prescribe mandatory euthanasia. Or something.Even if they're not, it's socialism gone mad, just like with them Nazis. Or, worse, like Europe today.
The venom with which factions of the American public have resisted Obama's promise of "free universal health care" (legal notice: not actually on offer) and its attendant death camps (ditto), may seem surprising to those of us who live in countries where governments still subsidise medical treatment.
But are anti-Obamacare protests masking prejudices that have been bubbling under since Obama's election last November? According to Ex-Pres Jimmy Carter, it's all about race.
Plenty of folks (Real Americans™ prefer to be called folks, not "people") from the south still have reservations about the ability of a black man to run their country. Of course, the liberal scum media have been jumping up and down with excitement over the claim.
The demented socialists at the BBC have been using it as their lead item for twenty-four hours straight. After months in which America seemed to have resigned itself to having a black president, those deeply-held prejudices have bubbled to the surface.
This might just be the self-satisfied carping of European liberals, however, as there has been comparatively little coverage of Carter's comments in the US. As of today, neither CNN or the New York Times feature the story on their front pages. Fox News does, but at least their coverage is balanced and unbiased - bagging Carter for playing the 'risky race card'.
Carter's comments follow last week's interjection by Republican Joe Wilson during Obama's health care speech. As Obama was promising illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from health care changes, Wilson yelled out "You Lie", which was seen as a serious breach of decorum.
A New *spit* York *spit* Times *spit* opinion piece by Maureen Dowd, reprinted locally by Fairfax, claimed what Wilson really meant was "You lie, boy!" and that his inability to control his outburst reflected a disbelief that "one of them" could really be President. Bush never had to deal this sort of thing. Well, not in Congress, at least.
George Bush shoe attack
Dowd's comments have been embraced by the liberal media, just as Wilson's outburst has been plastered on placards and bumper stickers all across the States by Real Americans™. "Obama liar!" has become a popular chant for anti-Obamacare protestors, even as the Right express outrage at Democrats playing the race card.
Certainly, the Right would never do such a thing. Well, except for Glen Beck and Sean Hannity (see above), obviously. But then Obama did go out of his way to appoint a "Latino" Judge, when there were plenty of decent, sensibly-aged white men who could have done the job without running the risk of fiery, Hispanic outbursts.
And he did suggest white police were acting stupidly by arresting a black professor. I mean, it's getting so you can't arrest a black man anymore, just to be on the safe side.
On the other hand, he did weigh in with some "off the record" comments in which he branded Kanye West a "jackass" for stage-crashing poor Taylor Swift in her moment of glory. But there's no saying he didn't stick up for the white girl just to throw us all off the scent.
So, is Obama a black supremacist, waiting to revenge his people on their former slave masters? Well, no-one's asked him, but the White House was quick to deny that Joe Wilson was being a racist. If it takes one to spot one, then Obama's failure to finger Wilson can only count in his favour. Still, a recent photoshoot might bring us closer to the true state of affairs.
And we know all about their racist struggles against "the Dark Side" - finally exposed to be run by two sensibly-aged white men. One of whom, when he took his helmet off, did look a bit like John McCain. Coincidence? I think not.
You can tell this is true because the liberal media has been supressing the story. It took courageous conservative blog Conservative Brawler to bring the issue to our attention some months ago. Video evidence follows.
Obama Jedi Mind Trick (Not actually as funny as it wants to be)
I don't have any children. As a result, I have no interest in children.
In fact, their appeal is largely lost on me. To be honest, most of them look the same, until they start to dress themselves, at least. And they smell.
Honestly.Try going to a midday cinema session during the school holidays if you don't believe me.
Generally, I prefer to forget that children exist. I do have friends with children, which is unfortunate, but they're generally good enough not to bring them to the pub. It's hardly an original observation that parents tend to narrow their world view until their offspring obscure all (there's probably a good evolutionary reason for it), but it makes for poor conversation. I mean, I don't follow the football, so if that's all someone wants to talk about, I'll go sit somewhere else.
Sadly, we are expected to care. Even more sadly, social networking allows parents to expect us to care all the time. About everything from the filling of a nappy to how little sleep they managed the previous night. I'm wary about accepting friend requests from old school friends, as there is the very good possibility that they hope to use Facebook to tell as many people as possible about their incontinent offspring. There are some things you don't want to be reading over your cornflakes.
I've discussed this matter with my childless friends and we've all come to the same conclusion - some parents need to be trimmed from your newsfeed. There are countless groups on the wonder of children, yet, curiously, there are no groups (that I could easily find) about how sick people are of hearing about other people's babies. Here then is a genuine social taboo: it's not acceptable to tell your friends that babies bore you. Why? It can't simply be out of fear of causing offence. If that was the case, a lot of slow walking people wouldn't be worrying so many people out there are wanting to punch them in the back of the head.
Instead, the discomfort in badmouthing children highlights the liminal space between public and private that social networking occupies. The more we engage with sites like Facebook, the more difficult it is to function with integrity. The more public we become, the less private we can - or should - be. The most interesting interactions and conversations are forced offline, where no-one is listening. On the flipside, sites like Facebook might be a more pleasurable environment if people understood its public nature.
Not everyone will want to see graphic photos of the birth of your child. (What next, a video of the conception?) Seriously, half-chewed cornflakes can be really hard to fish out from your keyboard. I enjoy hearing people reflect on the minutiae of their days.
I like reading people reflecting on issues, however trivial. I find most things interesting. Even those quizzes that tell your friends which animal you would be if, you know, you were an animal. But I deserve the right to complain when someone keeps banging on and on in my virtual ear. Like if someone's going on and on about how much they hate kids.
Of course, I also reserve the right to non-hypocritically reverse my position in a few years time when I have kids of my own. But you'll love them. And find them endlessly amusing. Oh look, vomit. How sweet. For what it's worth, I also hate happy people. And people who post updates about Jesus. Currently, I have three friends on Facebook. (One of them is my mum.)
A clip from Martin Bashir's controversial documentary "Living with Michael Jackson"
I've never liked Michael Jackson. There, I've said it. Now, I've worked as a music writer (still do, when I have time), spent 10 years working in record stores and have generally been the sort of sad music obsessive who thinks the book/film "High Fidelity" is a portrait of a sensible, well-adjusted young man, if not actually an instructional text. But I remember my childhood disappointment whenever I realised the clip Rage were playing was "Bad", rather than Weird Al Yankovic's far more entertaining "Fat".
My preferences in this matter remain mostly unchanged. I think I was briefly interested in the spectacle of the "Thriller" clip but the actual song left no traces. In that way, it worked as a preview of the last 20 years of so of Jackson's life, when the spectacle came to far exceed the content.
Of course, I'm not saying that I was untouched by his death. There was the usual compassion at the death of a fellow human being, but I was quickly alienated by the incessant blanket coverage. Sadly, with the announcement of a homicide ruling, the saga's legs are looking all too strong. Media coverage of grief, in the wake of a public icon's demise, seems an increasingly blind and brutal beast. The news attempts to reflect public opinion and then magnifies it exponentially until there is only one opinion to be had.
Perhaps understandably, it's not terribly fashionable right now to raise the topic of Jackson's alleged paedophilia, his bizarre family arrangements or his slow, plasticised transformation into a skinny Elizabeth Taylor (via Diana Ross). Death, particularly when the media is watching, makes saints of us all. Witness Jade Goody's transformation from chav-scum pariah to working class martyr. It took an Australian princess to bump Princess Diana off the cover of every single copy of Woman's Weekly and New Idea, but that won't stop her eventual canonisation when we discover her offspring were conceived immaculately. (One of them, certainly, seems not to have required her to sleep with Charles.) Di's death transformed news coverage of the death of an icon. At the time, the news seemed surprised at the strength of feeling from the public, but lessons were learned. The readiness for mass grief is now permanently in the wings, with coverage tending to focus on how we all feel about the loss, to the point that it becomes hard to believe that any of us are carrying on with our tiny lives.
But what if our own grief isn't up to scratch? It can be hard, in these times, to be a cold-hearted bastard. To remain unmoved by the endless tributes and emotional outpourings. Suddenly, we non-be-grievers are aliens to our fellow men and highlighted as such by each new bulletin. Of course, being cold-hearted bastards, we may not care. But maybe we should. Because, really, what's all this grief and tribute-making doing on the news? Was Jackson's death really the most important news items for that many days running?
The BBC reportedly received a vast number of complaints for its incessant coverage, but defended its decison on the grounds that it rated well and "undoubtedly a great many of you were extremely interested." The story was popular, certainly, but can an entertainment story really warrant such coverage to the exclusion of other ongoing stories? When you're chasing the interests of the public, rather than protecting their interests, the answer is probably yes. The charts on the BBC News site (and many like it) are sorted by "Most Read", "Most Emailed" and "Most Watched" but, curiously, not "Most Important." Judging importance might be a subjective decision, but it's still one that might be better made by an informed professional. Here's the current top 5 "Most Shared" stories at the Beeb.
It's hard not to think that chasing news in order to satisfy the clickings of the great unwashed makes a tendency to sensationalism and spectacle somewhat inevitable. On the other hand, maybe I'm being elitist and contrary. Probably. Maybe Jackson's cultural status earned him a couple of weeks at the front of every bulletin.
But, still, wouldn't it be more helpful to see a chart of "Least Read" stories, instead of an endless feedback loop reminding us what we're supposed to be interested in?
The good news is that After Dusk 3 is recorded and just needs to be mixed and uploaded.
The bad news is that both myself and my computer have been ill this week. The computer is on the mend, but still missing a bit of crucial software, while I am lying around the house feeling sorry for myself. Which is quite fun, actually.
I'm hoping we'll see After Dusk 3 toward the end of this week.
I always wince at sweeping statements about the internet in terms of what it is right now; what it does right now; its social significance right now etcetera etcetera, but that won't stop me having a go. What the internet is, right now, from where I'm typing, is chatter. People endlessly talking and sharing their opinions, regardless of whether anyone asked them. And, yes, that kettle is looking particularly black, isn't it? Of course, we're all being asked, all the time, wherever our browsing takes us. Facebook denizens are constantly filling out the kind of surveys we used to cross streets to avoid. My favourite beverages? Sure, I'll spend five minutes selecting those. (Tea, Red Wine, Ale, Soda Water, Cider, since you're wondering.) Which Doctor Who am I? (Tom Baker; and no, I didn't cheat.)
Once upon a time, you wouldn't have known the significance of these items. (Facebook)
The news and you News sites are increasingly in on the game, rarely finishing an article without inviting discussion from anyone who has - quite unexpectedly - found themselves in possession of an opinion. In some ways, this is a natural extension of a decades-long shift from the news telling us what has happened to telling us what they've learned about how we feel about what has happened. But what are news sites to do with the tsunami of knowledge-lite opinion likely to result from an invitation to comment? In a litigious age with all manner of interest groups ready with their defamation writs, is it safe to vent the village idiot's voice? Australian news site newmatilda.com recently found themselves having to remove the option to comment on certain stories following complaints of anti-semitism from the Australian Defamation Commission. According to newmatilda.com editor, Marni Cordell:
the site had turned off comments on articles about Israel/Palestine until it developed the technical ability to moderate comments on the site. “We are appalled to find ourselves hosting Holocaust deniers and racists. Such comments in no way reflect the views of the staff of newmatilda.com. Obnoxious comments aren’t limited to articles on this issue, but Israel/Palestine does provoke a greater volume of impassioned and divergent responses than any other.”
An end to moderation? While a number of international sites, such as the BBC, no longer moderate user comments, instead relying on inappropriate comments being 'reported' by other users, heavy moderation is commonplace across Australian news sites. It's likely that, as website volume increases (or funding decreases), these sites will soon find it impractical to continue current levels of comment childcare. Obviously, this will contribute to free-flowing and lively discussions. Well, maybe. What is worrying is the general standard of comments currently finding their way through the heavy moderation process. And when I say worrying, I mean faith-in-countrymen-shattering. Here's a fun and entirely random selection from the Herald Sun (okay, they're mainly from Andrew Bolt's blog, as it saves time):
Sandllands has a disease called SPS "small penis syndrome". That is why he is nasty all the time and does not care for others. Perhaps the $15,000 shortfall to the little boy could be spent on surgery for himself to fix up his life long problem Kerry of Sydney
Well, it might be hard to argue Sandilands was actually defamed by this statement, given his current public standard.
The only moderate muslims are the ones that don’tfollow their religion.
If you can take it, here's a selection of wonderful human beings commenting on a post by Andrew Bolt in which he suggests that women are "more superstitious" (why do I suspect he means "more stupid"?) than men because they are "doing more to tackle climate change". My favourite? Hard to pick, but at a pinch:
Most women I know are morons.
Given the author is a woman called Franny, it's hard to argue. If you can stand more, Crikey had an interesting post about moderation on Bolt's blog back in February.
Indian students protest in Flinders Street. Photo by Will Ockenden.
I was actually going to write about bogans this week, in the wake of Melbourne mayor Robert Doyle suggesting we essentially build a bogan proof fence, keeping undesirables from the Western Suburbs from besmirching our city streets. There are so many issues connected with Doyle's apparent snobbery - class, crime, cash and even, I suspect, ethnicity - that I could easily ramble on the topic. But I won't. Well, just a little. Researching the bogan issue for a feature, I stumbled across www.bogan.com.au. (Never again will I struggle to explain the concept of bogan to a foreigner, thanks to their handy 'Bogan of the Week' gallery and concise history of the term.) Of uncomfortable interest was a forum thread complaining that the analogous Sydney term 'Westie' had been co-opted by 'the Wogs, Fobs (sic) or the Refuges (fully sic)'. Another proud Australian tradition eroded, allegedly, by our multicultural society. These are testing times, it seems, for our national identity. In the wake of recent protests by Indian students, Australia is having to defend itself against accusations of racism and comments such as those above provide unfortunate evidence for the prosecution.
Then, today, worse was to come. Punjab Place, a small cul-de-sac in the Queensland suburb of Logan, is to be renamed 'Oak Tree Place' following complaints from local retirement home residents. According to news.com.au, resident Ron Edmonds denied any racist intent, claiming the new name was "just a nicer name." However, the developer responsible, born in the Punjab, has said he believes it to be "clear cut racism" and the president of an Indian association agrees. Instead, the story seems to highlight which cultural icons we continue to privilege. There's not an Oak Tree in sight on the street in question, so the name is hardly more fitting, aside from the Anglophilic imagery it conjures up. English tree good. Indian place name "not so pretty". Of course, it's a complete non-story, but it chimes with ongoing tensions between the Indian community and, well, whoever it is being racist towards them. Is it all of us? The story, slight as it is, reminded me of comments from 4us, a set of four films made by refugee children settled in Melbourne. One of the films, 'In My Shoes', sees a group of Sudanese and Somali teenagers talking about their experiences encountering prejudice in Australian society. It's confronting stuff. The comment that stayed with me was that Australia, as the kids saw it, wasn't really a racist place. But it was intolerant of different religions - in their case, Islam. In other words, Australians don't mind where you come from, but struggle to accept that other cultural backgrounds may come to play a role in the public sphere. I don't know how true that is, but felt challenged by this insight. Which leads me to another fluffy story covered by a few news outlets today - the Paris Burqini Ban. Both the Age and news.com.au have latched on to this story, allowing themselves a hint of outrage at these intolerant Frenchies banning a great Australian invention. Whether the ban or the complaint from the banned burqini wearer are politically motivated is impossible to say, but it follows controversy following a blanket ban on religious wear in state schools.
Comments on the news.com.au article predictably range from 'they should go home' to 'people should be free to wear what they want'. While many were amusing and many others depressing, one that seemed relevant to this post was:
It would be very sad if a place like France was to loose it's cultural identity. For Australia it's not so bad, we don't really have a cultural identity. So I can accept it. But France is renowned for it. Posted by: Goosens of Hervey Bay
Goosens isn't the first to suggest it, but do we really lack a cultural identity? If so, why do we react uncomfortably when the influence of other cultures enters the public sphere? Is "bogan" our sole contribution to global culture?
The misadventures of time-travelling detectives Kilbey Salmon and Nero Dusk.
AFTER DUSK
Behind the scenes. The author rambles on about writing, influences and whatever else comes into his ale-soaked head.
THE COMPLETE PODCASTS FEED
This feed snags you both of the above podcasts in one fell swoop. Any extra podcasts will also be made available on this feed.
OLDER PODCASTS:
ELECTRICITY
When a virtual stranger calls Aston Somerfield a few hours before his death, fate catches up with him, derailing his barely-made plans. Amid a hundred boozy evenings and romantic deadends, a mystery unfurls.
HOW TO DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY
The podcast that started it all. Meet Kilbey, Nero and Theo in the first draft of their first adventure.
Myke Bartlett is a writer, journalist and the author of the series of podcasted stories 'The Terrible Business of Salmon & Dusk.'
He also wrote the podcasted novel 'Electricity.'
Subscribe to this podcast
