Australia Day and the annual flag debate

So it's Australia Day today in the land down under.

A day to celebrate a bunch of bread thieves being dumped on the shores of Botany Bay so that instead of dying and rotting in prison hulks on the Thames they could hang about on sandy beaches in chains and get eaten by a bewildering variety of poisonous bitey creepy crawly things. And in the meantime they can set about doing their bestest to wipe out those pesky uncivilized native types just to fill in their spare time.

Huzzah!

And of course, a day to once more resurrect the annual debate about removing the Union Jack from the Australian flag.

Well, almost every year anyway. I remember it being a "hot issue" back when I was a teen. I remember reading one of those big arsed coffee table style reference books about the glorious history of Oz that my old man had that showed it had been an ongoing thing ever since they decided to make a flag that was all our own as opposed to just flying the Union Jack - sometime around '56 from memory (and no, I'm not gonna look it up right now).

Almost every year someone pops on the telly or the radio or both and says, "We needs our own flag and our own identity!"

Then someone else comes along and says, "You rebel scum!" asthmatic wheeze "What would we do without the Mother Country and the Queen and what about all those people who fought and died for that flag? Huh? Huh? HUH? And oh, yes, I am your father!" asthmatic wheeze

So...

a) what does the mother country and Queenie actually do for Oz these days - try getting a work or residents visa for the UK as one of HRH's loyal subjects and see how far ya get; b) there's a fuckload of people who helped build and make this country that had fuck all to do with good ol' Blighty - not to mention the folks who were camped hereabouts before old Blighty even knew the place existed; c) Yeah quite a few Aussies died under the Union Jack, but those who died serving under the current flag died in wars that were fought at the behest of Uncle Sam - oh, and a couple of stabs at "police actions" in Bouganville (a chance to try to be truly British and stomp on those cheeky damn natives) and East Timor.

And for the rebel scum...

Dontcha think it'd be a smart idea to actually ditch the monarchy thing and become a republic first before you start worrying about a piece of cloth?

While I am, as you can guess, in favour of being a republic, to be honest I don't think the flag is something that needs to be all that high on the agenda. For that matter, there are more urgent things to sort out than ditching the royals too.

Happy Australia Day!

Hate to break it to you, but Lonely Planet got it right

After a day filled with Monsterman bouncing around like a spider-monkey on acid, I flipped the idiot box on to catch a bit of the news while I threw together our evening meal.

As it happened, I was too late and only caught the last minute round-up of the evening news, but what I heard made me laugh. Not so much a laugh of merriment, but a wry, bitter laugh.

Seems no matter where you go or where you live, people don't like their home town (or county, state, territory or nation for that matter) being criticised - even when the criticism is accurate.

My home town it seems, is up in arms over its listing in a very popular tourist guide.

This is essentially what I heard...

"The tourism industry is jumping to Devonport's defence after a tourist guide's unflattering review.

The Lonely Planet website describes the north-west city as a "mildly menacing" place where speeding rednecks yell abuse at pedestrians.

It says Devonport is a place where people "imagine places elsewhere and more interesting" and where the "McDonald's drive-thru is the place to be on a Saturday night".

Daniel Hanna from the Tourism Industry Council has questioned the review's accuracy and credibility.

"I think that this is based either on a one-off experience or even second and third hand accounts," he said.

"I certainly commend Devonport in trying to take this on and prove the editors of Lonely Planet that they're wrong and that Devonport is open and friendly to visitors and does provide a good experience."

Ian Waller from the Cradle Coast Authority has told ABC Local Radio the Lonely Planet review did not reflect the feedback it is getting about Devonport.

The son of former Prime Minister, Joe Lyons, says his parents would have been appalled.

Peter Lyons says Devonport has always had its knockers and his parents would not have been happy with such a negative review..

"He'd have been appalled, both he and mum," he said.

"When he had to go to Canberra it was of course a matter of going by car to Burnie, by ship to Melbourne and then by train to Canberra so there was none of this flit over in an hour and a half.

"He used to get home as often as he could because it was a real haven for him."

But a local businessman has backed the criticism that keeping tourists there seems too great a challenge.

Restaurateur Tim Dyke says while some of the comments are unfair, he agrees the town struggles to sell itself to visitors.

"Devonport itself is just operated as a port city, I think, and never utilised its tourism potential."

"It seems to be a drop off point, where tourists who come in turn left and head straight to Launceston or turn right and head straight to Cradle [Mountain]," he said."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797633.htm?site=idx-tas

Oh my.

I just had to see the listing for myself.

And here it is.

"Devonport is Tasmania's third-largest city, but it is much less interesting than Hobart and Launceston. The Spirit of Tasmania Bass Strait ferry arrives from Melbourne every morning (and evening in summer) sounding its huge air-horn thrice as it advances toward its Mersey River dock, whereupon it pirouettes 180 degrees before sailing off again. Locals line the riverbanks to watch, wave and hope that something bright, special and glamorous from the Australian mainland might stay here to cultivate and grow in Devonport - it's like a cargo cult. But keeping people here is a challenge too large, and they only ever come to leave again to other more interesting places.

Devonport remains a sedentary, mildly menacing place: speeding rednecks in muscle cars hurl abuse at unsuspecting pedestrians before lining up at the McDonald’s drive-thru.

Last updated: 21/01/2010"

(I notice that it has been updated to remove the bit about the Maccas drive-thru being "The place to be on a Saturday night.")

Source: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/australia/tasmania/devonport

I cannot begin to impress upon you just how true the Lonely Planet listing is. Oh there's a minor bit of exaggeration - the young blokes hooning around in their cars are too wrapped up in trying to impress themselves, their mates and their bored-spitless but desperate-to-have-a-boyfriend-even-if-he-is-a-braindead-pillock girls with their hotted up Korean made cars and insanely loud stereos to hurl abuse at pedestrians - but otherwise, it is pretty much on the money.

This isn't a friendly and open accepting town. Oh, the people are friendly enough to be sure, but it is only on that surface level of not really considering any outsider to be worth being unfriendly to. And while it is not impossible over time to create your own little social niche and network here, an outsider is essentially (and always and forever) anyone who hasn't been here - and stayed here - since birth.

Attractions? Well they are, in all honesty, rather few. Outside of the river and the beaches, a couple of halfway decent pubs hopelessly spoiled by far too many gaming machines, and a fairly decent cinema, most of what Devonport has to offer are other places you can get to from it. Several gorgeous national parks that lie within a stone's throw come to mind. The highway out of it is another.

What Devonport offers up for accommodation is fairly meagre too. Unless you happen to like bed & breakfast style places (of which there are several very nicely appointed and maintained ones), your options are limitted to a couple of half-arsed hostels for backpackers, some rather dodgy motel style rooms attatched to a couple of the pubs, a "cosy cabins" site on the grounds of the old drive-in and the hideously ugly Gateway Motor Inn that, if I'm being generous, would have been only marginally in style in 1973.

Fine dining? I'd forget about that. Oh there are a couple of fairly decent higher end resteraunts (and by couple I mean two), the pub food and Indian resteraunt are pretty good, but other than that? Welcome to takeaway central. Useless bit of Devonport trivia for the day: after the tourist Mecca that is the Gold Coast south of Brisbane Devonport was the first town outside of a major capital city to have KFC, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Hungry Jacks (A.K.A Burger King - long story), Dominos and Subway franchises. Why? Because per capita, the people of this fine town consume more takeaway food than any other city in Australia...including the capital cities.

Customer service? Uh. Sorry, but no. That is one of those new fangled things they do in foreign parts and is generally something that seems to be best left alone. Perhaps it is because locals don't have anywhere else to get their goods and services (and that the tourists don't hang around very long) the people behind the counters don't really feel the need to appear enthusiastic about earning a minimum wage by waving stuff over a machine that goes beep at them all day. Of course, if you engage them in a conversation about anything but their day, they'll be cheerful and friendly as the next person - but don't expect them to initiate the pleasant banter. They're too busy trying to deal with the beeping.

Inclusive and accepting? Buzzzzz! Fail! Well, that is unless by inclusive you mean pretty good with people who speak English and look like them. Anyone else is obviously not from these parts and should be either a) feared; b) mocked, or c) be confident they are only passing through and won't be marrying your sister, settling down and stealing your job. This last category can be dealt with with a patronising smile and/or loud, slow, exaggerated English with accompanying mime where deemed appropriate.

As a place to live and bring up kids, its not that bad. And as I said, once you've been here a while, the locals folk accept you've decided to stay around for a while, relax and open up a bit more. Once they do that, like small town people pretty much the world over, they're more than willing to help out wherever they can. Just be aware that also like small town people pretty much everywhere, gossip is the main game in town and nobody is beyond being subject of it. Other than that, if you are capable of surviving without great dollops of society and culture, its quite and relaxed, not too expensive, more than six cars at the traffic lights is considered a jam, the shops provide the basic essentials of life, there's relatively little crime, and as mentioned, there are some lovely slices of nature right on your doorstep.

But as a tourist destination?

Despite the outrage being expressed by the Devonport Council and the Tasmanian Tourism Board, I have to side with the Lonely Planet - you're better off doing what all the other tourists do and turning right once you get off that boat.

Protestations To The Contrary

But I tell you I have control
Autonomy, freedom, choice – not
Bound
Here is the proof of it - I hold it
Here, in my hand
See it? Feel it?
Wood or rope or steel or flesh
Thrust, swing, squeeze, pull, or tighten, jerk
Now do you see?
Now do you feel?
No?

But tell you I rise above
I stand alone, stolid, individual,
The alpha never omega - don’t dare
Suggest mu to me
I’ll not be cowed by such – banality
That isn’t leather
See? Canines! Incisors! No false hoods
Or teeth here
Snap, chomp, nip or bite, suck
Chewing bullets like cud
Now do you see?
Now do you feel?
No?

But I tell you I have power
Authority, decision, command, no
Delusion. I know the truth of it – I see it
Up there, see?
See it? Hear it?
Writ up there large as legend, not
Myth, fantasy, dream, fable
From inside the borders of a cinema screen
Ruler, leader, warrior, king, no, criminal
Or gangster, just defence
What is not true I’ll make so
I believe it
Now do you see?
Now do you hear?
No?

But I tell you I am different
Unique, singular, exotic – nothing
Average. I speak the facts of it – I say it
Is unknown to me to be
Like anyone else.
See it? Realise it?
Not just one of the many, I will be heard – not
A sheep. Bah! Don’t think I can be
Constrained or restrained by the fancies
Opinion, trend, obsession, or fashion
Victim. I am this way in spite
Not because everyone else says
Now do you see it?
Now do you realise it?
No?

But I tell you I deserve respect
Adulation, desire, admiration, not
Ignorance – I claim it
See it? Know it?
By word, by deed, by ownership, by skill – not
Simple declaration and longevity. My word
Carries weight. There’s no bud in my barrel!
It’s my right! There is a revolutionary
Inside me.
Rebel, insurgent, dissident, agitator – no
Activist wannabe, me. But it pays to
Revere me for my
Power, control, difference, not
Just my words – words that burn with
Such truth to bring
Immolation, conflagration – a veritable pyre
How’s that for carbon neutral, you
Fuck?

No?

A letter to Mr.Rudd

Mr.Rudd,


Firstly, I'm grateful that you have enable such a method of communicating (somewhat) directly with you, and that I am able to do so. Such approachability is a welcome thing.


Next, as we are entering into the last year of your first term in office, I would like to congratulate you (somewhat belatedly) on attaining office. After 21 years as a voter, you are the first politician I have vote for as opposed to "against".


Your early actions in office made me proud of that choice; the apology to indigenous Australians; the ratification of the Kyoto protocols; the commitments to education, and; the restructuring of the hospital system - particularly in rural areas (though I continue to be irritated by the use of my local hospital as the battleground that brought that last about, but that is another topic entirely).


And I am pleased with the character of most of the members of your front bench.


Given that, it pains me to admit to some areas of concern that have me questioning the wisdom of my vote - or it would were it not for your opponents at the time.


Over the length of your government's term thus far though, I have been concerned at some of the stances, responses taken and policies put forth (in some instances greatly, in others only mildly surprised or disappointed). All of which potentially negatively impact on us on an individual, societal scale and have an impact on our economic viability and international standing - now and into the future.


I have been mildly disappointed at the backsliding regarding the issues of the environment and the continued scapegoating of developing nations as justification for our own nation dragging its feet. The strength of purpose and commitment evident at the ratification of the Kyoto Protocols has all but vanished, to the point all I hear are industry apologists and economic (ir)rationalists.


I have been disappointed (but not surprised) by the lack of progress towards improving (let alone federalising) our hospital system. Similarly, I am not surprised at how little progress has been made towards establishing a national curriculum, and though more funds have been injected into education, it falls far short of being either sufficient or appropriately directed. And while I was very disappointed at the refusal of our government to permit gay marriage, sadly I can't say I was surprised.


These areas disappoint me for the were a large part the reason I chose to give you my vote.


There are however, two additional areas in which your government, and by extention and at time specifically you, have disappointed, surprised and appalled me.


The first is the stance taken in regard to refugees and asylum seekers. The actions taken and words spoken by yourself and your front bench have been as bad (in my view) as those taken by the previous government. Perhaps worse because they come from a party that makes many claims about morality and social justice. To continue to use people in such straits as "fear levers" for the populace, to continue to quarantine them on Christmas Island, to continue to overstate the numbers of those seeking refuge here and understate how far below our U.N agreement those numbers are does a great diservice to our nation.


Similarly, the overwhelming eagerness with which our government representatives leaps to deny claims of any racism in Australia (for example: the way we are percieved in India at present, the blackface skit and KFC ad on TV), rather than actually address the issues highlighted doesn't do much to let the rest of the world know that we are not a nation of Pauline Hansons.


The second is that of the proposed ISP ban. Much like the previous issue, this disturbs and appalls me on many levels. The conflation of restricted content with illegal content is disingenuous at best - manipulative spin-doctoring and wilful concealment of facts (and other agendum at the most paranoid) at worst. Likewise the language used which joins disapproval of the proposed ban as being in support of child pornography and/or terrorism. That is patronising fear-mongering even in its lightest guise, and extremely offensive to those who oppose it as well. At its most extreme, it is a form of social engineering that is near Orwellian in concept and execution.


Let me say this straight out - I am vehemently opposed to child pornography and harm that might be done to our children.


I do not, however, consider this proposed ISP blocking, "cyber-safety" initiative to be an effective or appropriate approach to policing or preventing such abuses of our children.


Further, it is an overly heavy handed intrusion into the private lives and civil and human rights of our citizens. It is personal and intellectual censorship and an unwarranted intrusion into our homes and lives. It demonstrates an extreme disregard and lack of confidence in the abilities of parents to appropriately guage or decide what is right for themselves or their children - and at the same time allows those who would abuse children or support terroism underground where they are harder to trace.


Regarding the selection of sites to be blocked at the ISP level, the process is eggregiously flawed. As previously mentioned, "Refused Classification" is not an indication of legality, nor is it in and of itself a bar to ownership of material that is RC. That addition to the list comes primarily as a result of complaint or offense rather than on the basis of illegality is a disturbing matter. By such standards, homosexuality would still be illegal in Tasmania (as an example).


This ban, in addition to being ineffective (and erroneously advertised by Mr.Conroy) for the purposes it is supposedly intended, also restricts freedom of access to information and freedom of expression (both intellectual and personal). It makes it possible for "morality laws" to move from the public sphere to the private.


This is not the stuff on which a "knowledge nation" or nation of the future is built upon - let alone that of one which supports human rights.


The current government is an improvement on the one which preceded it, as you are as a leader, but, unlike the first year of office, only very marginally. It is my hope that you and your government will demonstrate a change and improvement in the areas of concern I have listed.


It is not, unfortunately, my expectation.


Sincerely,


*Me*