Tuesday, August 25, 2020

 

How to Help Minority Students Feel That They Belong

How to Help Minority Students Feel That They Belong 1
Micere Keels

College students from underrepresented ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups do not want “safe spaces” so they can hide away from challenging ideas. On the contrary, many of them relish exposure to stimulating new ideas. But they also need “counterspaces” in which they can recover from harm they experience on their campuses.

So writes Micere Keels, an associate professor of comparative human development at the University of Chicago, in Campus Counterspaces: Black and Latinx Students’ Search for Community at Historically White Universities (Cornell University Press).

She and a team of researchers periodically surveyed a cohort of more than 500 black and Latinx students at five historically white institutions and interviewed 70 of them. Minority students continue to face questions about their presence on campuses, she says, from outright racism to small-scale but powerful slights.

A lack of preparation for the way things work on campuses often leaves them vulnerable, students reported. For example, not understanding how residence-hall assignment works, they may find themselves clustered in less-desirable parts of the campus.

Many minority students, including academically well-prepared ones, come to campuses already wounded by long-perpetuated racial-ethnic inequity, Keels says. Many are first-generation students, some of whose parents are ambivalent about their collegegoing. Many of them also struggle financially. When a crisis arrives, they may feel alienated by demeaning responses from administrators.

Minority female students may find themselves marginalized even more than their male counterparts do, Keels reports, because of the dual legacies of racial/ethnic and gender stereotypes. She says in an interview that many campus administrators are blind to such dynamics.

When it comes to increasing “diversity” in enrollments, she asks, “to what extent do administrators think that the bulk of their job has been done once students get onto campus?” She suggests that, consciously, or more often subconsciously, administrators have historically viewed “diversity” as a matter of colleges’ simply assimilating minority students while remaining unchanged.

False inclusivity and what to do about it are among the topics minority students need to work out, she says. For that, she suggests, they need “counterspaces": favored gathering places like cultural or resource centers for minority students, or programs of study that are conducive to positive identity formation. They may have to figure out how best to press their colleges to set up such resources.

In those counterspaces, Keels says, identities that are disparaged or ignored in campus cultures are not just explored and deepened but also critiqued. In that way, students may create for themselves a genuine sense of belonging on campus. Lacking that sense, they may retreat from campuses altogether.

Keels says she uses the word “counterspaces” because the term “safe spaces” has been co-opted by commentators who appear hostile to the presence, let alone success, of minority students.

While many administrators oppose such caustic views, she says, that does not excuse their lack of attention to the realities of racial and ethnic experiences on campuses. Why, she asks, does American higher education continue to fail to use data about students to build better predictive models of which minority students will experience various kinds of strife? “We found that doesn’t happen,” she says.

No wonder, she says, that campuses occasionally erupt over racial and ethnic issues. News coverage of those eruptions often leads hostile observers to deride student demands for “safe spaces.” Such sneers ignore, she says, that minority students have often “been talking to their institutions for years, asking for safe spaces, or ethnic-studies offerings, or increased faculty diversity,” and yet have felt unheard.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

If you, like I, work in any sort of music-publicity or -journalism capacity, you'll have noticed that record companies are moving away from sending CDs in the mail – expensive, cumbersome... – in favor of sending reviewers and radio stations emails that provide access to digital files of newly released albums. The companies provide either streaming or downloading of music, but stipulate, in aggressive legal language, the conditions under which the recipient of the email can access the digital files. In essence, there's little difference between the stipulations for streaming or downloading, as this typical policy makes clear:


THIS MUSIC FILE IS WATERMARKED.

IF YOU ARE GIVEN RIGHTS TO STREAM, DOWNLOAD AND/OR BURN THIS MUSIC TO CD, EACH COPY WILL CONTAIN A UNIQUE WATERMARK AND BE TRACEABLE BACK TO YOU. IF YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS NEEDED TO PREVENT MUSIC PIRACY, YOU WILL THEN BE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DOWNLOAD OR STREAM THE MUSIC FILE. THESE TERMS ARE PROVIDED IN FULL IN THE "VIEW WATERMARK POLICY" LINK.

THESE TRACKS WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL YOU HAVE ACCEPTED [company]’S TERMS. [Company] RESERVES ALL RIGHTS.


NOTICE REGARDING USE OF THIS PRE-RELEASE MUSIC FILE

This music file is WATERMARKED.

Music piracy is a serious threat to the record industry. [Company] needs your help to fight it. Depending on the terms under which this music was sent to you, you may either download this music file or stream it only. By downloading or streaming the music file you are agreeing to the following terms which are needed to prevent music piracy.

Please be aware that this music file contains a unique encrypted WATERMARK to enable us to trace any use of this music file in breach of these terms. If you are not prepared to accept these terms please delete the music file now or contact the person who supplied you with the music.

• The music file (and any copies if applicable) is for your professional use only.

• You may not sell, give, transfer, lend or grant access to this music to anyone else. In particular you must not make the music file available on the Internet for download or streaming.

• If you require that another copy of this music be sent to another person for professional reasons, please contact the person who sent this music to you and we will attempt to accommodate your request.

• You must keep the music file (and any copies if applicable) secure, may not alter it, and must take care to ensure they are not copied or taken by anyone else.

• [Company] reserve the right to require deletion of the music file and any copy thereof, if applicable, if it believes that these terms have or may be breached. [Company] has not sold this music to you and retains its copyright ownership in this music.

We are carefully monitoring the use of our pre-release copies and view all infringements of our rights extremely seriously. We fully reserve our rights and will, if necessary, bring legal proceedings to enforce our rights. You will be held liable and responsible for any unauthorized use of the relevant recordings, whether undertaken by you or by any third party to whom you supply the recordings (such supply itself being a breach of these terms).

Thank you for your help in fighting music piracy and enjoy the music.



[Industry PR person],

Please stop sending me these emails [with directions on how to stream/download company's new releases of music] – let me tell you why.

Your conditions – the watermarking business (appended below) – may seem a good idea to you, but really what it does is require reviewers and others in publicity roles to keep track of all downloaded or streamed music, for all eternity. That's an absurd-enough condition, but what makes it worse than that – onerous, and obnoxious – is that, taken literally (as your legalese suggests we reviewers would be wise to take it) it criminalizes even well-intentioned publicizing of your music by any means, whether purposeful or inadvertent.

For example, it would mean that I would have to:

- make sure that no one so much as hears the music to which you provide access; I'd have to make sure I shut all my windows in case someone walking by outdoors overheard it.

- remember never to say to a fellow music aficionado: Hey, check this out; play it on your radio show; write an article about how good this artist is.

- inadvertently include it on a mixed-music cd that I give to associates by way of publicizing your company's artists, and encouraging sales of their music.

- (remember to) refrain from playing it at a house party for friends, 37 years from now.

- be alert enough to erase it all from my computer before I become so senile, at the age of 94, that I forget that you have legally bound me to not, say, give my computer to a great grandchild who might then listen to the music.

All of this, upon pain of prosecution by your legal department. Please!

Those are just some of the scenarios that your legal stringencies ignore in the interests of overprotecting what you take to be your own interests. In fact, however, the policy, while its thrust and intent are clear, simply is outmoded and in the end obnoxiously belligerent. I simply don't imagine your products so essential to my efforts at publicizing music (at no charge to you and similar companies, let it be noted) under such silly and aggressive conditions.

So, please remove my address from your records.

Unless, of course, you'd like to pay me for the work I've been doing for you, at no expense to you?

Sincerely....




As I upload this exchange, another thought occurs to me: How presumptuous is it of record companies to make statements such as this: "Music piracy is a serious threat to the record industry. [Company] needs your help to fight it."

The approach of the companies is, to begin with, obnoxious, burdensome, and presumptuous; it also assumes a power over recipients of the music, for all time, regardless of whether they use the digital files in good faith, or not; but this sanctimonious statement about how they "need our help to fight it"... Well, again, puh-lease!

Friday, December 21, 2007

The abject morons who run this country wonder why the rest of the world considers its self-serving disingenuousness over Iraq so laughable and evil. Well, it might help if the mighty free press could leaven its fawning support of US military adventurism with some basic measures of journalistic integrity. It's a joke, of course, to imagine that that bloated poseur, Lou Dobbs, would be the one to lead the way, there. Hence:

To: Lou Dobbs
Re: Fact checking
December 21, 2007


The name of the Australian Prime Minister is not, as you report, Paul Rudd. It is Kevin Rudd. Lord help us! Your show consistently dumbs down the news in the most appalling way – it is jingoist, self-congratulatory, and lamebrained. Could you at least do a fact check of the names of other nations' leaders, and other basic facts?

Thursday, November 15, 2007

To: Alexander Downer, Foreign Minister, Australia
Re: Balibo 5
November 15, 2007

Mr Downer,
In view of this:"Balibo 5 deliberately killed, coroner finds," perhaps you can suggest in your delicate diplomatic exchanges with Indonesian government officials who must be treated with kid gloves that, as they are already five gratuitous up on us, perhaps they can give us back five of the Australian kids they have on death row on charges hardly worthy of five-year prison terms.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

To: Kevin Andrews, Australian Minister for Immigration
Re: Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has condemned an assault on a police officer by a group of youths in Melbourne's south-east as not reflecting "the Australian way of life" ... Police, who are questioning an 18-year-old man over the incident, have confirmed that the group approached by the detective included Sudanese youths.

October 10, 2007


Pauline... er, I mean, Kevin,

So, you have imaginatively condemned the Noble Park attack on a police detective as "not part of the Australian way of life." Indeed, you may be correct, there. Recent news reports indicate, after all, that a quite extraordinary proportion of the Victorian police force is on the take, rather than being beaten up.

But on the matter of bashing: I and many Australians who grew up in the 60s and 70s were well aware -- all too often through personal experience -- that it was an "Australian way of life" for police cadets to be taken out by more senior officers and initiated into the force by being invited (or, if necessary, ordered) to bash the living daylights out of some completely innocent youth, ideally a poofter or a dago. A rallying cry went out from seemingly every squad car: "Fuck it, mate, they're hardly Aussies, are they."

Beautie, Kev. Now there's an Australian way of life we should celebrate.

Of course, the bashing and framing did not stop there. For starters, a large number of young people who ventured onto the street were framed by cops, apparently for the cops' own... amusement? The standard M.O. was to charge anyone they liked, or didn't, with abusive language and resisting arrest. So much the better if the people falsely arrested told the cops to fuck off, and then could be savagely beaten with a warped sense of duty and justification.

I doubt, somehow, that anything has changed (cf. news reports on police involvement in organized crime, and more, in seemingly every state of the commonwealth).

Of course, Kev, that's not what you're really on about, when you speak of "not part of the Australian way of life." What you mean is, "This is being done by darkies, mate. Let's keep those animals out." You're right to suspect that you don't need to be subtle in your lamentable racism. And you, the minister for immigration. Good on ya, Kev. Fly that flag.

I wonder, though, whether a smart move for any department of immigration might be to severely restrict the intake of white-skinned, British wankers who persist in becoming, over the generations, cynical racist arsehole Australians.

With due disgust,

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Y'All at Alaska Airlines,

I think it'd be best if you didn't insult our intelligence with this kind of pitch. We all know that airline service is becoming drastically depleted, and that the airlines' attitude to flyers is derisive. We all know that food options are not "exciting" and that they do not amount to being "even more" but rather sadly less. Let's be realistic. When one is entrusting one's life to the almost incredible prospect of aeronautic lift, it is unsettling, and annoying, to have one's patience tested by this kind of appeal through simulation and unreality.

Sincerely


On Sep 25, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alaska Airlines Insider wrote:

Hello,

Exciting meal changes are in the air ... literally! We now have even more options from First Class to the Main Cabin when it comes to dining. Enjoy Northern Bites or, now, Anytime Picnic Packs, on flights more than 2 1/2 hours in duration.
Editor, NYT,

Your article, "If It’s Hip, Fast and Furious, Is It Cricket?" by Somini Sengupta, strikes me as verging on the fraudulent. In trumpeting India's victory in Twenty20, a new(ish) form of international cricket, the article does not mention, at all, that Twenty20 is merely a more telescoped version of limited-over (40- or 50-over), one-day cricket that has been played at the international level for over 30 years, and at all other levels since...oh, the 11th century.

Sentences like this: "The games ... each took about three hours, in sharp contrast to the customary five-day test match."
serve spuriously to frame the article, because that is not the relevant comparison.

For three decades, now, cricket has featured (stooped to) colorful clothing (whence the mocking description for limited-over cricket, "the pyjama game") and ridiculously exaggerated and aggressive antics ("powerfully athletic" players dancing victoriously... not to mention players' harassing of umpires with innumerable bogus and coercive appeals for dismissals of batsmen).

Much of the limited-over games' antics have expressed, and have come to be fueled by, grotesque indulgence in nationalism of which, I fear, the NY Times article is another expression. Your correspondent seems to have successfully counted on your own innocence about the game.

Monday, July 09, 2007

I ask you: How long can a person go with virtually no sleep? I just ended five straight weeks of being unable to get to sleep before 6am. Well, I exaggerate, a little: There were three nights in there when I was asleep by 4am. I went to bed at a decent time, most of those days, but nothing happened. I laid down exhausted, and instantly was revived by some sort of strange electricity through my body. I listened to aggravating birds twitter starting at 3:15am, followed by a brief silence around 3:45, followed by a full-on chorus of persistent but sonically uninteresting birds going on an on through until full dawn.

Two nights ago I finally took an antihistamine-packed OTC sleep draught that severely dried out my left out so that I've been in blurring pain since. Then I took melatonin, with so far uncertain outcomes.

All through the five weeks, I maintained my exercise routine of twice-a-week "core" strengthening classes, one hour each, and four one-hour aerobics sessions. Those are all painful undertakings at the best of times, but are agony when one is zombified.

Not that I'm complaining.

During this stint I was patient for three weeks, mildly pissed for one, and then finally pissed to the point of cursing volubly, for the last several days.

All this is, of course, a legacy of my ancestry, on my Mum's side. Fortunately that side also confers extraordinary longevity (through all of this my heart rate and recovery remained excellent), so one takes the good with the appalling.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

To: Wayne Swan, Shadow Treasurer, Australia
Re: Prime Minister's charges that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is actually plotting to help Labor overthrow him -- no!!!

Mr Swan,

The ABC reported today your response to Howard's charges that "the ACTU is only interested in using the Labor leader Kevin Rudd as a puppet to secure power for union bosses" and that its manual on how to influence swing voters was "a dirty tricks manual and it is calculated through techniques of misrepresentation, push polling and the like to achieve one purpose... That is to install the leader of the Opposition as the prime minister."

According to the ABC: "Labor treasury spokesman Wayne Swan says the strategy is preferable to automated messages, such as those employed by the Liberal Party at the last election"; the ABC also reports that you said: "I'll tell you what's not really appropriate, it's the use by the Liberal Party of those spooky campaign robots that they bring out every election. At least there'll be some real people out there campaigning for the Labor Party."

Why, I wonder, do you play into Howard's hands by granting his weasel comments any respect – and, hence, credibility – at all? Why not just say: "In this matter, the PM is, as so often in the past, laughable. He really is a twit, sometimes. His claims are two-faced, stupid, and so steeped in hypocrisy as to beggar the imagination of the voting public. Still, let's agree that we do need to grant him some small measure of pity, because he is rapidly returning to the pathetic, snivelling hole that he dug for himself in the 1980s and 1990s before stumbling into power: the dark rut of an insignificant, puling, crawling also-ran. Long may he return again to insignificance, inconsequentiality, and invisibility."

Why don't you go on the attack, instead of mounting mealy-mouthed defenses that only permit the little weasel to seem to be doing something vaguely statesmanlike as he snivels to the larger dimwits in the populace? Please don't tell me that you employed a diplomatic response because that is what your hired consultants have advised you to do. I suspect, however, that that is what they are telling you and your colleagues in this era of the Labor Party, when the memory of men with guts, like Keating, Hawke, and Whitlam, have become dim ones, indeed.

It is most telling how clearly delineated Howard's real nature appears, when one lives away from the daily dosing of the voters by his well-oiled PR machine; it's also clear, from here, how easily influenced are some of Labor's leaders in whom we place out hopes of deliverance from him. The country may well not be delivered, if you and your colleagues don't act like you have some iron in your blood.

Sincerely

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Dear Editor, NYT

As you report today, the immigration "reforms," as currently contemplated, would "admit foreigners who scored highest on a scale that values advanced degrees, skills approved by the Department of Labor, and fluency in English, much more than family ties."

Discontinuing the practice of favoring family ties seems a step towards fairness – why should the childless and those dispossessed by or distant from "families" be penalized? (And isn't "family" a strangely little-inspected category, anyway?)

But your report errs in just the way that the proposal's backers do. You find no one in Congress, the Administration, or among informed observers of this whole grandstanding, dishonest, self-satisfying, and condescending push for "reform" who can state the obvious: The proposal, while deemphasizing mere familial genetic inheritance, does advance a quasi-eugenic measure of immigration worthiness.

Not only are the historic precedents of that thinking telling, and frightening; the theory underlying it – that smart people or ones privileged enough to receive education are most worthy (fair-minded? honest? neighborly?...) – is inane.

What might be the alternative? Well, for starters, an American Community in which citizens of all North and South American countries could, with background checks, move freely around the hemisphere, and work wherever they could find work. We might then see just how quickly non-US citizens happily left the US, to go back to their families and home territories, as soon as their economic needs were met. We might also reap the rewards of having the most intrepid, resourceful, family-independent travelers stay.

Sincerely

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

To: Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Re: Richard Perle on "America at a Crossroads"

The early episodes, by Frontline, were excellent. But now you have a clearly deluded maniac, Richard Perle, serving up the most contradictory, self-aggrandizing rubbish, and it is by no means journalism, but rather is an advertorial for the ranting menace of savage evil.
My objection isn't only to Perle's politics, which are in any case so incoherent as to be unworthy of categorization as politics, rather than mere opinion. What really is grotesque about his contributions is that, first, you paid him to compile them; second, you inflict them on Americans trying to sort through incredibly complex and baffling events; and third, they are underpinned, laced, and riddled with sheer insane ramblings about why he has been right to advocate, influentially, a whole string of miserably failed American incursions into unwinnable foreign wars: He is right, he says, because he grew up somewhere or other, is really a Democrat, loved JFK, and is as a result passionately in favor of defending oppressed peoples, everywhere. He so lacks introspection that he cannot see how highly selective he is in which incursions he backs, and favors, and with what duplicitous "evidence" of need. So, not only does he remain utterly silent and in stunning denial about the disasters that have accompanied every single campaign, but he also has no sense of hypocrisy in his ignoring the cruel despotisms that we have at best ignored and in many cases supported in Central America, East Timor, and countless other places – the dozens of interventions that the US has shunned or lied about staying out of, always in favor of its "interests."
The man is so deluded that it's simply outrageous that you give him unchecked air time. In one way, fortunately, his addled, self-congratulatory, self-absolving contributions serve the ends of helpful presentation of complex issues: He is so far gone in his self-delusion and hubris that he interviews a series of people who demonstrate clearly why he is abjectly wrong about everything -- there are mothers of dead American soldiers who shame him with their empathy for the dead on all sides; there are observers with a knowledge of the interests of other madmen, like the devils of Al-Qaida. The latter tell Perle, quite plainly (sounding the same notes that many other informed observers did in earlier episodes) that the actions of Rumsfeld and his co-conspirators have been as if sent by Allah to the depraved likes of Usama bin Laden.
And yet, Perle gleefully grabs onto every demonstration of his nonsensical, fanciful, international-relations-101 thinking. Why? Because he believes that it only reinforces his all-seeing wisdom on all matters of US foreign policy.
His diatribe tonight was a classic evocation of pathologized belief, at work. I trust CPB is deeply ashamed to have aired it.

Monday, April 16, 2007

To: John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia
Re: Anzac Day hypocrisy

So, your campaign to win over the voters with pathetic hypocrisy – "My view is that Anzac Day is a very sacred day and I don't think that anybody should be into trying to give it any kind of political spin." – is in full swing. You should be ashamed of yourself, but it seems unlikely, from the above, as from so much else that you've said and done, that your soul has any access to shame.

Saturday, March 31, 2007

To: William Glaberson, NYT
Re: Australian to Serve 9 Months in Terrorism Case; March 31, 2007

Mr. Glaberson: Your coverage of the sentencing of David Hicks is thorough. Thank you for bringing this shameful matter to American attention. I wonder, though, whether your interpretation of the Australian government's involvement in the dealmaking isn't a bit credulous. The beleaguered and discredited Howard government is being assailed from all sides for its lockstep support of American brutality in its war, as in its treatment of detainees (including Mr. Hicks, whose agreement now to deny he was brutalized is surely just another instance of his brutalization). Is it not likely that, rather than pressing the Bush Administration, as it claims, it instead has been colluding to make the "resolution" of the Hicks scandal (whatever his real, and now indeterminable guilt) as favorable to its election chances as possible. You report that Howard & Co. have been in friction with the American torturers, but surely there has been far greater cooperation in dissembling and disinformation, than anything else?

Sincerely

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

To: Phillip Ruddock, Attorney General, Australia
Re: David Hicks, Guantanamo Bay detainee
March 27, 2007

Mr Ruddock,

The ABC reports:

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has rejected suggestions the plea was made under duress. "I don't know what the duress is," he said.

When you swore an oath to uphold the law and to honour truth, didn't you imagine that it would be a breach of the spirit of that law to engage in gross disingenuousness, over and over again? When you act to cover over improper legal procedures, in this way, are you not committing yourself to a course of action that should end in your resignation, and disgrace? Are not the facts of Mr Hicks' actions, which surely now will never be ascertained, irrelevant to your own culpability?

Disgusted,

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

To: Peter Beattie, Premier of Queensland

Mr Beattie,

ABC.net.au reports: Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he has smacked all three of his children and he does not support a push for law changes in the area. … "I think that any parent has the right in my view, within reason, provided there's no permanent damage or injury, to smack their child," he said.

Then, instead of going with your ill-researched and –considered opinion, arrived at by some sort of arrogant belief that you know best, why don’t you refer to the research literature, which demonstrates quite clearly that you are wrong.

For starters, do you know what “permanent damage or injury” entails?

And, moreover, let me ask you this: When a parent hits a child, who can possibly win that fight? So, when grown children hit an aged parent, or anyone they take offense to, what lesson do they bring to those encounters?

As in the matter of the name of Townsville’s stadium, you have mistaken your own inclinations for fact, and you have declined to inform yourself open-mindedly and responsibly.

Sincerely

Monday, February 12, 2007

To: John Howard
Re: Aha, now I understand!

John Howard: "My charge is that the consequences of the policy you [Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd] are advocating would be to destabilise Iraq and threaten the security interests of this country through a defeat of the United States in Iraq," he said.

Ah, now I see: Your American friends have stabilised Iraq. And you fear that the constant stream of deadly attacks by insurgents will be disrupted by a pullout.

Why didn't you say so, before.

You really do make yourself look more and more foolish. And not just yourself.

Sincerely...
To: Brendan Nelson, Defence Minister, Australia
Re: Standing up for whom?

ABC.net.au reports: Defence Minister Brendan Nelson is standing by the Prime Minister's criticism of US presidential candidate Barack Obama, who wants troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by March, 2008. ... "Our Prime Minister quite rightly is standing up on behalf of Australia and those countries who believe it is absolutely essential that America not face defeat in Iraq," he said.

Do remind us, Mr. Nelson, what percentage of Australians wanted to stand up for this campaign. Was it 5%, or 7?

Sincerely,

Sunday, February 11, 2007

To: John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia
Re: Comments about Barack Obama

Go ahead - decline to retract your inane, irrelevant, little-man comments about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. You make yourself a figure of mockery in the United States; you make Australia a laughing stock among thinking Americans, and a subject of hostility among the vast majority – the non-thinking ones; and you make Australia even more loathed by militant and even moderate Muslims who see the West slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians, all in the name of... “freedom”?

Your comments continue your lamentable record of pandering to the US in its Iraq debacle. You congratulate yourself of your brave show – all show – of force on behalf of the US as it clusterbombs Iraqi citizens. Of course, it is not you who make any sacrifice, nor you who face any danger.

And, to make your empty gestures even more grotesque, no one in the US cares about what you’ve so snivellingly done on Bush’s behalf – those who support Bush’s insane actions don’t even notice you, nor Australia. Do you imagine that a nation that would support the clusterbombing of civilians going about their daily business would be open-eyed enough to notice its purported allies, its diplomatic sycophants? Trust me, I have lived in the US a long time, and no one, not even the well-read, notices that Australia has so feebly supported these war crimes.

Finally, there is your unhinged comment that began “If America is defeated in Iraq...” Are you joking? The United States had lost this war within seconds of embarking on it so duplicitously. It, like little sidekicks like you who wilfully declined to call it to task, will be judged harshly by history. One can only hope that no retribution will come to Australians, nor to Americans of good will towards fellow men and women, as a result of your and your cronies’ escalation of these conflicts, and your depraved, politically expeditious and cowardly vilification of Muslim citizens, and now of Barack Obama, a man of unquestioned good will who refuses to use the lives of Americans (and Australians) and Iraqis for political pointscoring. If only you were man enough to refuse, too.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

To: Phillip Ruddock, Attorney-General, Australia

The Age: “Mr Ruddock said while the US had not yet told him what charges Hicks would face, he was confident the accused terrorist would receive a fair trial.”

Can you possibly be this naive?

But perhaps I should be asking: Can you possibly be this
disingenuous? Or plainly dishonest?

By the way, with respect to your decision in November:

In 2006, Philip Ruddock blocked a gay Australian man from marrying in Europe. Ruddock refused to grant a gay man living in the Netherlands a 'Certificate of No Impediment' document required by some European countries before marriage, to prove foreigners are in fact single. Ruddock decided that such documents were not to be released to gay and lesbians individuals intending to marry overseas. The government made the statement, ""Following the advice of the Australian Attorney-General's Department we herewith certify that Australian law does not allow the issue of a Certificate of No Impediment to Marriage to persons wishing to enter into a same-sex marriage." He went on to say that he did not believe there was community support for same-sex marriage.

– is this your idea of democratic rule: That you sound out something fatuously called “the community” to determine whether it supports a practice, and then make it so? This is the infamous tyranny of democracy, writ large. No doubt you applaud the country’s history of other bigotries, too, as those, too, were backed by majority support?

Sincerely...

Friday, January 19, 2007

In an update on the treatment of David Hicks, a 5-year-long Australian detainee at Guantanamo Bay, the ABC reports, Friday, January 19, 2007:

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has welcomed the publication of new US rules to put Guantanamo Bay detainees, including Australian David Hicks, on trial.
Mr Hicks's defence team and the Opposition have criticised the new military commission system, which allows the admission of hearsay evidence and testimony gathered under coercion.
Mr Downer says the challenge now is for the US to charge Mr Hicks so his case can be heard.
"Let the military commission hear those charges and if David Hicks and his defence want to appeal against any adverse decision that may come forward from the military commission, they can," he said.
"They can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States."
The Law Council of Australia says the new military commission rules have thrown the right to silence out the window.

AND:
In a separate development, it has been revealed that a public affairs officer with the US Embassy in Canberra, not a doctor, assesed the mental health of Mr Hicks.
Yesterday the Foreign Affairs Minister said he had received a report suggesting Mr Hicks was in good physical and mental health.



So, a letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Mr. Downer,
Do you have no ethical sense, at all? Do you have no inclination to take a principled position in face of American trammeling of not just their constitution, but also of common decency?
Please imagine this: Australia is overrun by the angry invaders we all fear, and people who have breached common practices of courtesy and ethics are detained. How would you want to be treated?
Now, please apply that to people like Hicks, and please make some sort of decent representation to the American torturers... Oops, coercers.

Sincerely...

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

I omitted to mention earlier that Montana was picturesque:





And, earlier, in Australia, Lake George was as strange as ever, and as empty as it often is:



So, here's how it went down. I was in the vicinity of Banff:




The weather was curious: sleet, driving and freezing rain, slush, snow, sheets of ice, and then winds so fierce that cars were being blown off the road:




I drove a small country highway up towards Lake Louise, and saw, first, the usual, standard, laid-on Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. One had stopped some traffic and was licking salt off wheels and grilles:




I continued on, driving almost imperceptibly, to maximize the chances of seeing something more impressive. I rounded a bend and, at 30 paces, a huge black wolf stepped out of the woods, slunk across the road, and proceeded up a snowbank into the woods on the other side. I reached for my camera while keeping my eye on the animal, and managed to pop off one shot:




but by then I was drifting straight into a snow bank, and was soon lodged there.
Two cars were close behind, full of families, and the kids were most amused, and they ran up the road to get another glimpse of the departing wolf, which their two sets of parents had not seen, as they'd been intent on my unorthodox driving.

Fortunately one family was in an enormous pickup, and towed me out.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

To: Kevin Rudd, probably leader of the Australian Opposition, later today

Mr. Rudd,

Winning the leadership vote, if you do, is one thing, but I hope you realize that galvanizing Australian voters will take more than defeating Mr. Beazley, who has been a near-dead dog for years. His problem has been that he delivers all his pronouncements, well-reasoned though they are, with the same, flat intonation. You, I regret to note, are no better, in this regard. The result surely is to rob your statements of their power. Australians have become lazy political animals, during the last decade, and require a little more drama if they are to pay heed.

So, as I suggested to you some months ago, please consider dramatic coaching, because charisma does count. I notice, too, that you seem not to put your observations in large context. For example, when you have commented on the AWB debacle, and other scandals such as Howard & Co.'s blatant lies about refugee incidents in Australian waters, and about our involvement in the clusterbombing of Iraqi citizens going about their difficult lives, you do not say, for example: "Howard has been lying; he has been lying about a lot of things; these are grave matters. He must resign from office, and be charged with war crimes. That is how grave his offences have been."

Voters need, now more than ever, vibrant, inspiring leadership, not the sort of dull politicism that you, like Mr Beazley, have been offering. Please, change your methods of presentation, or we will suffer another three years of mongrel Liberal leadership.

Sincerely

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Premier Beattie,

Lord help us, indeed, when a premier of a state of Australia, 150 years after the introduction of general, free public education, can say what you are saying:

ABC News Online
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Beattie looks for heavenly help for drought-hit farmers
The Premier is urging Queenslanders to get behind a church campaign to pray for rain.
Peter Beattie says he asked the heads of church to consider the move because Queensland is facing its worst drought in 100 years.
...
"The heads of churches, Christian churches throughout the state, have responded enthusiastically to the call to galvanise the powers of prayer at this critical time and I also have written to the leaders of other religious communities asking them to support this effort as well."


Perhaps you are merely pandering to public opinion (i.e. public ignorance), or perhaps you are trying to cover the trail of your own incompetence in preparing better for water crises. But, the question remains: Have you thought to consult studies on the issue of noetic prayer? They do not, to say the least, give your hairbrained current scheme (that is no scheme) much chance of success. Surprise, surprise!

In fact, xome studies have suggested that people who are prayed for actually fare less well than others, but that might have been simply because people who know they're being prayed for anxiously conclude that there must be a very good reason for such an unlikely approach:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000AFE22-9D1E-146C-9D1E83414B7F0000&colID=5

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302177.html

Puh-lease!

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

To: Kevin Rudd, Australian Labor Party Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Trade and International Security.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, 31 August 2006 3:33 PM
To: Rudd, Kevin (MP)
Subject: Mr Kevin Rudd

Mr Rudd

I noticed, last night, while watching Lateline, as I’ve noticed in the past, that you have excellent ideas for the country. Just as important, you have telling comments to make about, for example, the current shambles over the AWB rorts.

But here are my two concerns:

First, like Mr Beazley, your delivery is flat. Your affect is flat. Your demeanour is strangely unchanging. I wonder if you might consider some sort of dramatical coaching, because, as is clear from the current state we’re in, in parliament, the good people of Australia just don’t vote for ideas; they vote for their weird notions of charisma. Being ratbags, like Howard & Co., seems to appeal, and I imagine it’s only because they seem to have drive and “attitude,” even though they have all those in caustic and generally obnoxious form that is mistaken for personality.

Second, you do not provide a larger context for your comments about the AWB scandal, nor other scandals such as the bald-faced lies of Howard & Co. on the attacks on Iraq – I mean, primarily, the cluster-bombing of simple Iraqis going about their everyday lives. You do not say, for example: “Howard & Co. have been lying about AWB bribes; they have been lying about lots of things; these are grave matters; they either must resign from office, or be impeached.” Or, “Howard & Co. lied about Iraq, and have been murdering civilians by the many, many thousands with heinous weapons of mass destruction; these are crimes against humanity; Howard & Co. must be removed from office and made to face war-crimes tribunals. That is how grave their offenses have been.”

Voters need to be told. Alas, as 10 years of election results show, only a minority of them are capable of thinking and analyzing these events, for themselves.

Sincerely


REPLY:

Thanks for taking the time to bring your concerns to my attention.

Kind Regards,

Kevin

Sunday, October 22, 2006

TRICYLE DAYS




Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Mr Rudd

I noticed, last night, while watching Lateline, as I’ve noticed in the past, that you have excellent ideas for the country. Just as important, you have telling comments to make about, for example, the current shambles over the AWB rorts.

But here are my two concerns:

First, like Mr Beazley, your delivery is flat. Your affect is flat. Your demeanour is strangely unchanging. I wonder if you might consider some sort of dramatical coaching, because, as is clear from the current state we’re in, in parliament, the good people of Australia just don’t vote for ideas; they vote for their weird notions of charisma. Being ratbags, like Howard & Co., seems to appeal, and I imagine it’s only because they seem to have drive and “attitude,” even though they have all those in caustic and generally obnoxious form that is mistaken for personality.

Second, you do not provide a larger context for your comments about the AWB scandal, nor other scandals such as the bald-faced lies of Howard & Co. on the attacks on Iraq – I mean, primarily, the cluster-bombing of simple Iraqis going about their everyday lives. You do not say, for example: “Howard & Co. have been lying about AWB bribes; they have been lying about lots of things; these are grave matters; they either must resign from office, or be impeached.” Or, “Howard & Co. lied about Iraq, and have been murdering civilians by the many, many thousands with heinous weapons of mass destruction; these are crimes against humanity; Howard & Co. must be removed from office and made to face war-crimes tribunals. That is how grave their offenses have been.”

Voters need to be told. Alas, as 10 years of election results show, only a minority of them are capable of thinking and analyzing these events, for themselves.

Sincerely


Response:

P...

Thanks for taking the time to bring your concerns to my attention.

Kind Regards,

Kevin

Friday, September 15, 2006

The Australian Prime Minister has called for immigrants to be tested for knowledge of English, and to embrace Australian values more uniformly.

PM John Howard:

I am writing to support your call for immigrants to assimilate to the Australia that they find upon settlement here. I am, like you, outraged by these peoples’ lack of commitment to this responsibility.

How do you like your witchetty grubs? I love em raw, but on a Barbie they’re scrummy, too.

Which are your favorite Noonga languages?

Do you prefer throwing your spear with or without woomera? I have trouble with those, so will be impressed if you’re a deft hand in huntin game. Same goes for scroungin bush tucker. Goodonya! I mean, I thought you lived in a house and had real fancy cookin-blokes.

Oh, yeah, and goodonya for what you said about Greeks, too. I grew up among em and we rubbished em and some people still don’t like the way some of em gang up in men’s only smoking clubs and make their daughters miserable with picked hubbies, but at least a lot of em only speak Greek on the sly now.

But they still don’t speak Noonga like you. Let’s make them foreigners obey other aussie values, too, like venal consumerism, smug nationalism, condescension to little foreign people and locals with dark skins, cruelty to refugees, increasing idolatry of filthy lucre, capitulation to crass commercialization, obedience to our globalist masters, thoroughgoing deception in leadership and public office, and persistent ethnocentricism after 225 years’ of opportunities to learn from 50,000 years of civilization.

Jump up, whitefella.

Monday, June 12, 2006

The Australian Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, has exercised his supposedly ceremonial powers to overturn the Australian Capital Territory's civil-union law.

This is reminiscent of the action in 1975 of "Sir" John Kerr, who used similar supposedly ceremonial powers to dismiss the first Labor government in 30 years.

To: Governor-General
Re: ACT civil union law

Mick,

Who do you think you are? John Kerr? Nothing serves better than a little overweening moralistic egomania as a vehicle for overstepping your ceremonial role.

Perhaps you think you are The Queen, and don't like the thought of any others on your block?

Friday, May 19, 2006

To: Kim Beazley, Leader, Australian Labor Party
Re: The Tree of Knowledge

For goodness sake, Mr. Beazley, don't fall into the oldest pit in the paddock by whining on about how ghastly it is that a NATIONAL MONUMENT has been sabotaged and it's all such a terrible, terrible TRAGEDY... blah blah blah.

The tragedy is that the Labor Party now lacks any sense of drive and guts. Whining about a tree only adds to the Party's blooming image of hand-wringing sterility.

So, here's my suggestion: Say "The tree of our founding is dead; long live the tree and the shade of decency it symbolized; but, more importantly, long live a future where the people of Australia will wake up and realize that the Liberal Party of John Howard is rotten, corrupt, and geriatric to the roots. And then, the people of Australia may join us, starting today, in planting, cultivating, and harvesting a new growth of the humane, caring, and fighting Australian spirit that the Tree of Knowledge represented."

How about something like that? And please, please, get someone to show you how to be assertive, and to SPEAK WITH INFLECTION, rather than in your characteristic monotone. You may be a decent bloke, but the people want a leader with gumption.

Yours,

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

To: KCTS public television
Re: Prudery on your station's programming

Puhlease! Can you tell me which silly prude blurred the breasts of the elderly Australian Aboriginal woman on your program about the number one, which is now airing? If your station did, it's only further evidence of how sad your thinking has become.

REPLY:
Your comments, concerns, and suggestions are welcome and appreciated, and also play an important part in KCTS' future programming. The comments you made in your recent email regarding the censoring of aboriginal breasts in "The Story of 1," have been passed on to our programming staff, which relies on viewer input when making future programming decisions.
Please be aware that we did not produce this program, and aired it as we received it.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
Best regards,
Viewer Services
KCTS Television

Friday, March 03, 2006

To: South Dakota State Senator William R. Napoli
Re: Abortion ban legislation
You seem to be a sincere representative - a rare enough thing - but you also seem, I'm afrad, woefully out of touch with the reality both of today, and of the yesteryear that you glamorize. The kind of "family values" that you invoke to justify your oppressive legislation never did exist for vast numbers of Americans - not even South Dakotans. They would seem, instead, to be a figment of your nostalgia for something you had, or that you perhaps think you had, and that you think existed in the neighborhoods around you. If it really was a reality, well aren't you lucky? You also give an example of events that would permit abortion, under your proposed legislation: A young virgin is raped, sodomized, and impregnated, and carrying the child to term would literally kill her (what from, exactly - a ye olde South Dakotan fall from patriarchal grace?). Well, aren't you a generous soul! Really, Bill, do ask around.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Governments are prone to rank disingenuity the world over. This Australian government minister would have her subjects believe that it took eight months for her to make "this principled decision."

To: Amanda Vanstone
Re: Your principled decision in the Jovicic case
March 1, 2006

We the Australian people should be reassured to discover that, despite your earlier hardheaded denial that this man's case warranted more subtle deliberation than you had at first persistently and righteously given it, you now, eight months later, have had a sudden surge of moral decision-making ability. That's what you get elected for. Sure!

But please, if a decision needs to be made again, about anything of substance, at all, do feel free to consult someone – some ordinary person who does not possess your divine dispensation to make stupid decisions, insist they're correct, and then eight months later seek congratulation for having "compassion for some cases."

I'm told you're highly intelligent; I trust you can use some of that brain power to designate, designate, designate to someone with perhaps less raw IQ, but with a modicum of moral discernment that can be swung into action faster than in eight months.

Sincerely,

Monday, February 27, 2006

Someone, please, tell me I'm not reading "this" in this, the 21st century.