Learn from the mistakes of others

politics used to be the art of managing the competing interests of the people.

now it seems to be the art of competing to manage the people in line with interests.

politics used to be the art of managing the competing interests of the people.

now it seems to be the art of competing to manage the people in line with interests.

having dragged my sorry ass through some recent commentary regarding "the shiavo case", including:

• www.discourse.net: the_politics_of_the_schiavo_bill


• ideoblog: ideoblog schiavo_the_rig


• www.professorbainbridge.com: emroper_v_simmo

my take on it all comes down to this: there is a continuing power struggle going on - and that is what this case is really about: who has the power.

if the 'right to life' mobs win, things will become very difficult, very quickly, for a lot of people living in america. and by proxy, elsewhere that the usa can extend its influence.

[i have no illusions that the 'right to life' movements are a single, coherent group - any more that those who oppose them are coherent and coordinated.]

---

as freeland puts it "we want your soul" :
( Read more... )

having dragged my sorry ass through some recent commentary regarding "the shiavo case", including:

• www.discourse.net: the_politics_of_the_schiavo_bill


• ideoblog: ideoblog schiavo_the_rig


• www.professorbainbridge.com: emroper_v_simmo

my take on it all comes down to this: there is a continuing power struggle going on - and that is what this case is really about: who has the power.

if the 'right to life' mobs win, things will become very difficult, very quickly, for a lot of people living in america. and by proxy, elsewhere that the usa can extend its influence.

[i have no illusions that the 'right to life' movements are a single, coherent group - any more that those who oppose them are coherent and coordinated.]

---

as freeland puts it "we want your soul" :
( Read more... )

here in australia, we do not have a bill or rights. or any comprehensive statement of individual and/or collective rights. our constitution provides very few guarantees for us, the people. unlike the usa or canada. indeed a great many industrialised democracies. practically all of our legal rights are set out in subordinate legislation. and further complicate dby the federal-state-territory distribution of powers and responsibilities.

the many arguments for and against a bill of rights in australia have been neatly summarised elsewhere by one of our high court justices, justice michael kirby (an internationally respected human rights jurist).

into this mess, we have the notion of the universal id card as a panacea for all manner of ills and wrongs. some of which arise because we lack a definitive statement of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of individuals in our society.


mr howard, 'our' prime minister briefly supported a call from a state premier to introduce a national id card.

the age has since reported that the (federal) govt rules out national id card scheme.


as a bit of background, when a previous government suggested intorducing such a system, among it's loudest detracters was mr howard.

it's a very curious thing to see how easily even politicians are affected by their own efforts to induce short-term memory in the population.

here in australia, we do not have a bill or rights. or any comprehensive statement of individual and/or collective rights. our constitution provides very few guarantees for us, the people. unlike the usa or canada. indeed a great many industrialised democracies. practically all of our legal rights are set out in subordinate legislation. and further complicate dby the federal-state-territory distribution of powers and responsibilities.

the many arguments for and against a bill of rights in australia have been neatly summarised elsewhere by one of our high court justices, justice michael kirby (an internationally respected human rights jurist).

into this mess, we have the notion of the universal id card as a panacea for all manner of ills and wrongs. some of which arise because we lack a definitive statement of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of individuals in our society.


mr howard, 'our' prime minister briefly supported a call from a state premier to introduce a national id card.

the age has since reported that the (federal) govt rules out national id card scheme.


as a bit of background, when a previous government suggested intorducing such a system, among it's loudest detracters was mr howard.

it's a very curious thing to see how easily even politicians are affected by their own efforts to induce short-term memory in the population.

it's amusing, and alarming, to hear politicians getting themselves all confused.

take, for example, mr jack straw, foreign secretary of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. mr straw got hot under the collar about a report written by an independant foreign affairs think tank, Chatham House (formerly known as The Royal Institute of International Affairs). The think tank, amongst other things, concluded that:

A key problem for the UK in preventing terrorism in Britain's the government’s position as ‘pillion passenger’ to the United States' war on terror. Formulating counter-terrorism policy in this way has left the 'ally in the driving seat' to do the steering. This is one of the key findings of Security, Terrorism and the UK, a new, long-planned briefing paper to be published on Monday 18 July by Chatham House and the Economic & Social Research Council.¹

in response, mr straw thought that the following was appropriate:

"The time for excuses for terrorism is over," he said. "The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq."²

seems to me that mr straw has trouble distinguishing between a conclusion about risk factors, and political statements about policy.

The Chatham House report, written by Frank Gregory, of the University of Southampton, and Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the University of St Andrews, said: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism."

They added: "The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States."³

perhaps the only people who can't figure out that direct invovlement in trampling around on the territory that al-qaeda was created to protect might have some connection to a risk of attracting al-qaeda's attention are the politicians making the decisions to be trampling around in the middle east (and associated 'islamic states/territories) ...

it's unfortunate that western leaders can't wriggle out of their own propaganda straight-jackets to accept that accepting the fact that their choices have associated risks, is not the same as:

1. saying the choices were wrong; or
2. justifying the associated risks; or
3. making excuses for anyone; or
4. wanking in public.

but then, i may have just hit the nub of the problem.

if the politician's had been less evasive about why they wanted western military intervention in afghanistan and/or iraq in the first place, they'd be having less difficulty 'selling' the consequences now.

---

1. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
   <http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>
2. James Sturcke and agencies, "Straw rejects war link to bombings", The Guardian Unlimited, Monday, July 18, 2005.
   <http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1531005,00.html>
3. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
   <http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>

it's amusing, and alarming, to hear politicians getting themselves all confused.

take, for example, mr jack straw, foreign secretary of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. mr straw got hot under the collar about a report written by an independant foreign affairs think tank, Chatham House (formerly known as The Royal Institute of International Affairs). The think tank, amongst other things, concluded that:

A key problem for the UK in preventing terrorism in Britain's the government’s position as ‘pillion passenger’ to the United States' war on terror. Formulating counter-terrorism policy in this way has left the 'ally in the driving seat' to do the steering. This is one of the key findings of Security, Terrorism and the UK, a new, long-planned briefing paper to be published on Monday 18 July by Chatham House and the Economic & Social Research Council.¹

in response, mr straw thought that the following was appropriate:

"The time for excuses for terrorism is over," he said. "The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq."²

seems to me that mr straw has trouble distinguishing between a conclusion about risk factors, and political statements about policy.

The Chatham House report, written by Frank Gregory, of the University of Southampton, and Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the University of St Andrews, said: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism."

They added: "The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States."³

perhaps the only people who can't figure out that direct invovlement in trampling around on the territory that al-qaeda was created to protect might have some connection to a risk of attracting al-qaeda's attention are the politicians making the decisions to be trampling around in the middle east (and associated 'islamic states/territories) ...

it's unfortunate that western leaders can't wriggle out of their own propaganda straight-jackets to accept that accepting the fact that their choices have associated risks, is not the same as:

1. saying the choices were wrong; or
2. justifying the associated risks; or
3. making excuses for anyone; or
4. wanking in public.

but then, i may have just hit the nub of the problem.

if the politician's had been less evasive about why they wanted western military intervention in afghanistan and/or iraq in the first place, they'd be having less difficulty 'selling' the consequences now.

---

1. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
   <http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>
2. James Sturcke and agencies, "Straw rejects war link to bombings", The Guardian Unlimited, Monday, July 18, 2005.
   <http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1531005,00.html>
3. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
   <http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>