Category: Blog posts

@frankscan65 (Frank Calabrese)

@simoncopland Shorter Suimopn (sic)- I prefer to support people dying at Sea so we  can feel good while eating our Tofu at expensive fundraisers

@simoncopland And onshore processing encouraging people smugglers – in other words Greens support profiteering from people dying at sea

@simoncopland No you prefer people dying sdo (sic) you can be pure – Enjoy being made obsolete like the Democrats you FOOL

@simoncopland You support People Dying END STORY

It’s an odd feeling to be told that you are actively supporting the death of people; to in effect be told that you are complicit in murder. It’s even more disconcerting when this comes from someone who is an ALP support (he has a little picture of Julia Gillard on his avatar), a party that, according to their policy platform, supports onshore processing.

Whilst my original reaction to these comments (and many more that I have seen on a similar vein) has been to say ‘what happened to a calmer debate’, on further thought, I actually think they say a lot about the nature of today’s asylum seeker debate. It is the comments like these, above all else, that make me absolutely sick with how this debate is progressing.

I have always struggled with the asylum seeker debate in Australia. It’s not that I have had trouble expressing my views, but I have always found the debate extremely poisonous. Despite this however, in many ways I felt like I could deal with it. The debate fit nicely into two opposing ideas; that either we wanted to ‘protect our borders’ and stop the so-called threats posed by asylum seekers, or that we wanted to take a more humane approach, which focused on the fair treatment of those seeking asylum.

Whilst I often felt sickened by those who advocated the former position in this debate, in many ways I also felt like I could engage with them. It was hard, but there was a clear distinction to be drawn.

The last few months however have completely turned this debate on its head and it’s terrifying. Instead of a debate about border security vs. the fair treatment of asylum seekers, suddenly our debate has become solely about the safety and welfare of asylum seekers. Suddenly the lives of asylum seekers have taken centre stage, with slogans like “stop the boats” being about people’s lives rather than border protection. Great, I hear you say. What’s your problem?

Yes, to have everyone suddenly caring about the welfare of asylum seekers is great. That’s what I want. What’s happened however is that, is that this new sense of care for asylum seekers we haven’t changed our policies, we’ve just re-branded them.

Suddenly, instead of using offshore processing as a way to protect our borders, it’s apparently there to protect the welfare of asylum seekers. Removing people’s basic human rights, sending them detention centres that we have no control over and directly contravening the UN Human Rights Convention are now all apparently moves that are now apparently good for asylum seekers. Treating people like dirt is no longer about punishing people for ‘jumping a queue’, but is instead about helping them by stopping their boats.

What’s even worse about this debate is that anyone who proposes something that doesn’t include offshore processing is suddenly accused of wanting to kill asylum seekers. Apparently having a humane approach to those coming for help and stopping people from taking risks at sea is incompatible. This is despite the evidence here, here and here (oh and here as well), that this idea is ridiculous. We can stick to our human right obligations and do the best we can to stem the flow of boats. We just don’t want to.

Policy debates take a particularly cynical turn when the real impacts of policies are hidden away in a sudden flurry of concern for the welfare of people. Very little has changed in terms of the ‘problem’ of asylum seekers, and no matter how much the ALP want to claim otherwise, offshore processing is still just as cruel as it was when Howard did it.

I’m not saying that people in the ALP or Coalition don’t genuinely care for the welfare of asylum seekers. But to turn the debate into one where we can only care about people by treating them like shit is truly deceptive.

Do you think science and arts degrees are poles apart? ANU Alumnus Phoebe Howe disagrees and she has the research credentials to back it up. “My Honours was a meeting between my two degrees, science and arts,” Phoebe explained. “I used social science research methods, but did so to address biophysical issues.”

Phoebe’s Honours thesis looked at the issue of climate change and tried to address the question of why is it such a difficult and contentious issue?

“The research was based around looking at communication within and between different kinds of community groups in the ACT in an aim to talk frankly about local climate policy. What was interesting was that the one thing that united people from these groups was frustration with our inability to make change. Even if people didn’t necessarily think we should take action on climate change, they were still concerned about things like the rise of adversarial politics, the growing bias and short term media focus and also short term thinking in processes in political decision makin,” says Phoebe.

“It was great because ANU has the flexibility to allow you to follow really novel ideas like this. If you want to do something different, you can do it here, but at the same time they do everything to make sure you do it to the best of your ability.”

Phoebe is now taking what she learnt from her research into the real world. “I am a climate change campaigner in the ACT with a group called Canberra Loves 40%. We began in 2010 and campaigned successfully for the ACT to commit to 40% greenhouse gas emission cuts by 2020. Now we are working to ensure that these cuts are implemented.”

In doing this work, Phoebe thinks her connection with the ANU will still be very valuable. “One of the great things about the University is that it challenged me to broaden my view and look at how I can use academia to help in my work. What I’m looking at is how I use my connection with ANU and possible future study to help effect community change.”

Last week I had the article ‘We need to return to our liberation roots‘ published in the Sydney Star Observer (if you haven’t read it I would suggest you do so if you want to read this post). There’s been a number of comments on the piece and quite a few negative reactions to it. So, I thought I would take this opportunity to expand on my argument.

Firstly, I think it is interesting that a lot of the comments on this post framed my argument as one that is anti-marriage. This is despite the fact that overall, I didn’t see this as an anti-same sex marriage argument. Whilst I used some elements of the marriage equality campaign as examples, this definitely wasn’t designed as an attack on the idea of campaigning for same-sex marriage. To be clear, despite the fact that I have reservations about many parts of the same-sex marriage campaign, I am not opposed to it. I just think we need to use it as a step to a broader goal of sexual liberation, not the end in and of itself.

Moving beyond this however, I think there were two lines of attack on my argument.

First, was that I am not being ‘practical’. This article was definitely not an attack on the idea of campaigns and movements being practical in their approach. In fact I think it is essential. My approach to a lot of these things is that practicality (along with radicalness) is essential to winning campaigns.

What I was trying to say in this article however, was that practicality should never come at the expense of our core principles. For me, there is no point winning practical fights if in doing so we throw out everything we believe in. Unfortunately this is what I think is happening in parts of the queer movement. In particular, what I am seeing is an exclusionary approach being adopted by many, in which particular queer groups (i.e. poly people) are being actively excluded in order to achieve short term goals. For me, that is not an acceptable cost to achieve these goals.

The second criticism has been focused at my class analysis of why I think these exclusionary approaches have become to proliferate. Some have called me classist and others have said that my approach would be to ‘exclude the middle class’ from the queer movement. Let me say from the outset, that is absolutely not what I was aiming to do. I have no desire at all to exclude anyone from any level of the movement (if I were the advocate excluding middle class people from the queer movement, I would be excluding myself).

My argument is about privilege. Privilege is an important factor in our society. Some people have it and they benefit from it. And even though sometimes we can talk about privilege between different social classes and groups, we very rarely talk about it within social classes and groups. My argument is that the reality is that, even though we may not like to talk about it, there are privileged elements within the queer movement; the middle class white activists I spoke about*.

Moving beyond this, my argument is not that these people need to stop being active in the queer movement. It is simply that they need to check their privilege as participants within this movement. I think that I, as a middle-class white man, need to ensure that as someone who does have privilege within my community based solely on those traits, ensure that I work as hard as I can to be an inclusive as a member of the queer movement. It is not about excluding myself because I have privilege, but rather making sure I don’t let that privilege get my issues ahead of others.

And that is where this argument culminates in my discussion on liberation. If you take an analysis of our society that accepts the role of privilege, then I think liberation is the natural course that we need to take. The simple fact is that the heteropatriarchy is based on privilege and no matter how much we fight for entry into it, someone is always going to be excluded from it. That is the natural way it works and that is why, as movement that I think is based on inclusivity, that we need to return to our liberation roots.

Anyway, I hope that explains what I was thinking more. Definitely happy to discuss more. This definitely is an interesting topic.

*Note that this description is a generalisation, and actively describes a social class rather than aiming to pin-point individuals. For example, it is clear that there are some middle class white people, such as those in poly relationships, who may not be privileged within queer debates. On the other side, you don’t actually have to be white to fit within this group. It is a general term, in which people move in and out of.

Has Julia Gillard been fooling us all along? Is she not actually the conservative we thought she was when it comes to marriage equality but in fact a progressive leader?

The Gay Star News reported yesterday:

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has told gays that her own relationship proves you don’t have to marry.

Gillard, who opposes same-sex marriage equality, isn’t married to her long-term partner Tim Mathieson but says they are still committed to each other.

She told ABC TV: ‘I think you can have a loving relationship of love and commitment and trust and understanding that doesn’t need a marriage certificate. That’s my life experience – so I’m speaking from that life experience.’

Despite the clumsy way Gillard expresses this (given the context behind this statement) these words should give us a moment of thought. When looking at them it’s hard to disagree with what she says.

Of course, as marriage is enshrined within our legal system I think everyone should be able to have access to it. Equality under the law is a basic principle I think we must follow. However, what I read into Gillard’s statement was more of a questioning of the very nature of marriage in itself. For me, what she was saying was that we don’t need marriage to enshrine people’s love at all.

This argument of course isn’t new. Many people have argued that what we really need to do is completely redefine the idea of marriage or abolish it entirely. As an institution that defines how people should shape their relationships, marriage puts people into boxes that they often don’t fit into. The question has to arise, why is the state involved in such a process? As long as they are consenting adults, shouldn’t we let people make decisions about their relationships for themselves?

Where Gillard’s statement was telling for me though was that I also think it called out some of the conservative tendencies behind the same-sex marriage movement (again I think without her meaning to do so). This is something I bang on about a bit (this is my second post on the issue in the past couple of weeks), but it’s worth pointing out again.

A lot of the narrative around same-sex marriage has been focused on this idea of ‘equal love’. It’s the basic idea that gay and lesbian couples love each other just as equally as straight couples and therefore deserve the same marriage rights as straight couples. We deserve the right to publicly celebrate our love the same way straight couples do.

This narrative moves beyond both the ideas of equal rights under the law and the issue of the legal rights that marriage brings. It is about the idea of marriage as a cultural institution, and in particular one that allows couples of formalise their love publicly. As gay and lesbian couples can’t celebrate our love in this way, we are unequal couples within our society (note that I am only talking about couples not because I have a problem with poly relationships, but because this is the dominant agenda of the mainstream queer movement).

It’s the same kind of narrative that I hear a little bit in the discussion about the removal of legal ceremonies from the Queensland Civil Union Legislation. Again, I fundamentally disagree with this move by the LNP. If legal ceremonies exist, everyone should have access to them. For many however this hasn’t been framed as an equality under the law question, it has been about the idea that this will remove the ability for gay and lesbian couples to express their love publicly.

The problem is that within all of this, there is an implicit idea that marriage is the only way people can express their love equally.By making this debate about ‘equal love’ what we are saying is that without marriage we can’t love each other equally, or properly celebrate our love publicly. The flow on effects of this are obvious; even when equal marriage occurs we will still have an institution we have defined as the ‘epitome of love’ and people who don’t fit within it will be left out.

What I am getting at here is Julia Gillard is right. We don’t need marriage to be able to express our love. In fact, when we start going down that path what we are doing is falling into a conservative trap that locks people into relationships that may not work for them.

So, is Julia Gillard more progressive than most of us when it comes to marriage? Even though I think it wasn’t meant, I think Gillard’s statement was probably one of the most progressive I’ve heard around marriage equality in a little while. The answer is probably no though, as her statements would only have been actually progressive if she had backed it up with questions around the institution of marriage itself. It’s pretty clear that these words haven’t come from a view of wanting to redefine or abolish marriage to allow for a more open and progressive approach to defining relationships. It is about trying to find excuses for her position.

But, for once, her words should cause a moment of thought about how we are framing our push for same-sex marriage.

One of the benefits of being a scientist is that sometimes you get to discover new things and if you’re lucky enough, you may even be able to get them named after you. RSES alumnus Chris Pigram, who is also the current Chief Executive Officer of Geoscience Australia is lucky enough to have done both. “I’ve had both a fossil and a cicada named after me,” Pigram says. “I found the fossil in some field work I was doing and it was named Linoproductus Pigrami.”
“The cicada is a little different. In some work we did studying the geological history of the island of New Guinea we helped some scientists who were having trouble figuring out how different cicada species came to the island. This resulted in the scientists kindly naming a number of cicada species after geologists involved in the project.” After the excitement of having both a fossil and a cicada named after him, Pigram now places his energy into putting his mark on Government policy and practice.
“I’ve worked in Geoscience Australia for many years now,” he says. “About ten years into working here I was provided with the opportunity to do a PhD at the ANU looking at sea level curves in the Miocene period. It was a fantastic opportunity which allowed me to come back into a leadership role here.” Now, as the CEO of the organisation, Pigram gets to work across a range of Geoscience issues at a top level.
“Geoscience Australia’s role is to be the Government’s advisors on Geoscience matters. We provide information and services for Government across a range of issues from minerals and energy exploration, to natural hazards to ground water management.” “Working in such a diverse portfolio comes with new challenges every day but it is that opportunity to bring science knowledge to an evidence base on national issues that gets me up every day,” Pigram concludes.

“The Greens aren’t part of our movement.”

You’re at it again Paul. I feel as though you can’t open your mouth these days without taking some sort of jab at the Greens. I’m getting used to it now and have learnt to live with it. But, what annoys me is you don’t seem to realise that these sorts of statements are  doing far more damage to the union movement than they ever will to the Greens.

Before I start though, let me set the record straight.

I am a Greens member. I have also been a union member for almost all of my working life. In fact, I was a union member and activist before I joined the Greens. I have been a delegate in every union I have been in and been extremely active in fighting for workplace rights, whether it was through involvement in the Your Rights at Work campaign or through local campaigns in my workplace.

And I’m not the only one. Do a quick survey of Greens membership and I’m pretty sure you would find an above average union density. In fact, some of the most committed unionists I know are members of the Greens and despite what you probably think we all do a pretty good job of aligning our Green and union values. In fact, if you look at the Greens policies you would probably find a party that has done a better job at aligning union values with our platform than any other party in the country, even the ALP.

But, I can deal with your attacks on the Greens. I know you see us a political opponent, even a threat. That’s not why you make me angry. I am secure enough in my commitment to green ideology and unionism for you not to bother me.

What really pisses me off though is that when you say things like this you’re doing damage to the union movement in this country.

As a lifelong unionist I (and I would hope you) understand that strong unions are built on a strong collective. Unionism is about using our collective resources to build power, so we can challenge the entrenched economic interests in our society. We need to work together as we cannot achieve what we want on our own. And yes, sometimes this collective can have different views, even different political alignments. What’s important though is that we work together in our workplaces when it matters.

Yet, when you says things like this it seems like you feel as though you are ‘above’ this collective. Apparently, you think you have the right to dictate who can be part of this collective and who can’t. Today, in one little sentence, you excluded over 10% of the population from this collective.

It’s this this same kind of thinking that obviously made you feel as though you  could go on live TV, and even worse do so as if you were speaking for the union movement, and dictate that Australia needed a new Prime Minister.

It seems like you think the union movement is not about the collective, but about you (and potentially a few of your mates). What you say goes and if people disagree with you, it is apparently your right to exclude them from the collective.

And do you know what Paul, this is why the union movement is struggling. Unions aren’t about you and your political influence. Unions are about workers. Unions are about the collective. My voice, along with the voice of every union member, is just as valuable and important as yours.

When you come along and say ‘sorry, you’re not part of my movement’ what you’re doing is creating a union elite that is actively destroying the collective foundation that unions should be built on.

And when you think about it that way, why on Earth would people want to be involved in unions? If you don’t feel like you’re going to have any say in a union or if you don’t feel you’re actually part of collective, then why would think being a member of the union would be effective? If it all about union leadership, then why would anyone want to join?

Paul, the Greens are not what is wrong with the union movement. You are what is wrong with the union movement.

Originally published in Woroni Magazine, May 2012

It’s a titillating tale isn’t it?

A new Speaker, Peter Slipper, is appointed the chair after a controversial defection from the Coalition. An openly gay man, James Ashby, begins working in his office. As the months go on, Ashby starts to feel like he’s being harassed. He alleges that he’s been asked if he can shower with the door open. Apparently he is sent dirty text messages and he has been sexually propositioned against his will.

Oh boy, it’s a sex scandal.

And even better than that, it’s a GAY sex scandal.

Gay sex scandals are so much better than those boring hetero sex scandals, and not only because you get the put the word gay into every sentence you write (I mean, when was the last time you heard someone talk about a ‘straight sex scandal’.)

No, they offer so much more than that.

Gay sex scandals allow us to pour out the built up gay jokes, stereotypes and innuendo we’ve been waiting to use for ages. We finally get to talk openly about the dirty, sex-filled lives of gay men. We can bring out all our innuendos and jokes and fill them with our newspaper columns – and nobody complains.

Oh, it’s just so much fun.

A gay sex scandal truly is a journalists’ wet dream (noting of course that any lesbian sex scandal would result in simultaneous multi-orgasms for every journalist in the country).

But, guess what! This one is so much better than your usual gay sex scandal! There is a third involved in this one.

After the original allegations about Slipper came out new allegations have arisen that the rumoured gay member of the Coalition caucus, Christopher Pyne, (noting of course that this rumour has never been proven to be true – not that we should care either way) once met Ashby. Even better than that, the meeting was late at night (in fact it was a drink) and at some point Pyne may or may not have asked for Ashby’s phone number!

That’s right; it’s a gay sex scandal triangle!

Of course, reporting about Pyne’s involvement has been focused on whether he was aiding and abetting Ashby in the development of his claims about Slipper (one must ask, since when is it a crime to help a colleague who is feeling harassed at work?). But we all really know that the information we’re really after is whether Pyne was trying to get it on with Ashby himself. That would make this story so much more fun.

And of course it must be true!

As a gay man myself, I have personal experience with what it is like to encounter other men in my workplace. When I see a gay man, I, like everyone in the gay community, can’t help myself. We are like the women who can’t help but get drawn into a pillow fight when watching a movie – if another gay man enters my office; we know that we are going to eventually get drawn into something.

We gay men are just like the women of the Victorian Age (and, according to some, the women of the modern age). We are driven solely by our irrational emotions, ours focused wholly around sex. Every 7 seconds – that’s how often we think about sex.

Mothers, lock up your sons. Children lock up your father. We gay men are out to get them. And if you don’t stop us we will bring them down – taking their career and the Government with them.

Of course, how else could accusations that Ashby was a ‘plant’ get by if it wasn’t for the overly sexual nature of gay men today? Of course someone could be a plant in an office like this – put a nice looking gay man in and of course Slipper is going to crack. We gay men can’t help ourselves – put the bait in front of us and we’ll take it.

Yes, there is nothing better than a gay sex scandal.

But at the same time, there is nothing worse than reporting on a gay sex scandal.

Journalists, after you (finally) drop the word gay in front of the word sex scandal when it involves two men, could you do one more thing for me? Next time, could you forget your stereotypes, drop the innuendos and stop writing as if sex is all that is on the mind of gay men.

Sexual harassment accusations are serious, and it would be great if we could treat them seriously as well, even if there is gay sex involved.

Originally published in New Matilda on 4 April 2012. (http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/04/all-hail-malcolm-turnbull)

Progressive people in Australia are facing a significant dilemma: as Prime Minister, Julia Gillard is disappointing many and Tony Abbott is not an acceptable alternative. If elected, he would be the most conservative prime minister in decades.

This dilemma is leading to some strange conclusions. Too many progressives are now looking back at the period of Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership with such rose-coloured glasses that they see him as the solution to all our ills. With his martyrdom over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and his support for same-sex marriage, Turnbull is now seen as having the passion and drive that is lacking in Gillard. He seems to have adopted enough progressive positions to forgive the fact that he is in the Liberal Party. He is apparently the perfect alternative.

Such an analysis however lacks a true understanding of what a Turnbull government would mean. Even in the unlikely event that Turnbull was returned to Coalition leadership sometime soon, promoting this Turnbull-as-saviour analyis is also to promote a politician who would take progressive ideals and policies backward.

If there is anything that has won progressive activists over to Team Turnbull it has been his stance on climate change. After his support for the CPRS brought down his leadership he became a hero to many in the climate movement.

What is forgotten is that in the negotiations around the CPRS, Turnbull significantly watered the legislation down from its already pretty rotten core. His amendments  included, among others, significant increases in compensation to polluting industries and the permanent exclusion of agriculture from the scheme. It was enough for the Australian Conservation Foundation to remove its support for the scheme. Based on this history, it is very possible that watering down the current carbon package could definitely be on the agenda of a Turnbull Government. It is hard to see any scenario where Turnbull would strengthen climate laws as prime minister.

In other areas as well, Turnbull has taken very conservative positions.

For example, Turnbull recently stated that he thought that the Fair Work Bill has gone “too far”. As leader of the Coalition he argued for the reintroduction of temporary protection visas and for offshore processing for all asylum seekers. He also continues to actively oppose the means testing of the private health care rebate, the Minerals Resource and Rent Tax and the National Broadband Network. It’s nice to think many of these positions would change if he was leader but the evidence of his time at the helm doesn’t suggest that will be the case.

Yet, what is worse about a potential Turnbull government is the ministers who would come with him. Based on his shadow cabinet from when he was leader, a Turnbull prime ministership would result in a cabinet including Eric Abetz, Christopher Pyne, Peter Dutton, George Brandis, Warren Truss and (if he wasn’t required to stand down) Tony Abbott. Given the changes that have taken place within the Coalition since he was leader, it is almost certain that we would see people such as Sophie Mirabella, Cory Bernardi and Michaelia Cash in some position of power too.

It’s nice to think that Turnbull could keep these ministers in line but we all know that a prime minister cannot control every element of their government. The decisions of ministers may not be as big as those of a prime minister but what we have seen with the election of Liberal governments in Victoria (with decisions around issues such as wind farm regulation, negotiations with nurses, and swearing in public), and in New South Wales (with its introduction of a “surrogate form of WorkChoices”), is that decisions that don’t make headlines in a campaign can have a huge effect.

There are genuine reasons to be disappointed with the Gillard Government. But to think that we can deal with this disappointment by making Malcolm Turnbull our Prime Minister is dangerous at best. A Liberal Government is a Liberal Government — no matter who is leading it.

If we want a progressive Parliament then we need to vote and campaign for a real progressive alternative. Gillard and Abbott may not be the people progressives want in the top job — but Malcolm Turnbull is certainly not the alternative we need.

Originally published in FUSE Online, 21 March 2012 (http://www.fusemagazine.com.au/index.php/regulars/op-ed/2217-role-models-by-john-waters) 

When we think of role models we think of sports hero, rock stars and Hollywood hunks.

 But, how about having a porn star as your role model? Or an alcoholic, verbally abusive owner of a local bar? Or, how about a member of the Manson family? For most people it would seem a ridiculous proposition, but for John Waters these are, amongst many others the very people he considers to be his role models. In Waters new book, ‘Role Models’, he takes readers through the stories of the people he considers to be his Role Models.

For those who are unfamiliar with Waters (and unfortunately if you read the book, you only get little insights into his life and career), he is a queer, cult hero. Waters is most famous for his work in movies, with his major successes being ‘Pink Flamingos’ and ‘Hairspray’. Waters also has an illustrious career in writing and other art forms – something that has made him a hero in queer, movie and art circles around the world.

( IMAGE: Pink Flamingos is a 1972 transgressive black comedy film written, produced, composed, shot, edited, and directed by John Waters.^[1] When the film was initially released, it caused a huge degree of controversy due to the wide range of perverse acts performed in explicit detail. It has since become one of the most notorious films ever made. It made an underground star of the flamboyant drag queen actor, Divine.)

In his new book, Waters takes a look at his own life and the characters that he has been surrounded by in throughout his life. The book takes you on a journey through a range of different stories, where Waters looks at the lives of each of the people who have shaped his life. These people are as diverse as they are interesting – they range from famous author Tennessee Williams, musician Stevie Wonder and fashion icon Rei Kawakubo to the more obscure, such as porn star Bobby Garcia, member of the Manson Family Leslie Van Houten and members of his community in Baltimore, bar owners Esther Martin.

Through each of these stories, Waters provides an engaging and entertaining narrative about the people who have shaped his life. And it is in this narrative that the real story behind Role Models develops. What Waters does is show that the people we may not normally consider to be worthy of being our Role Models can in fact be inspirations. Take Leslie Van Houten for example. In describing his relationship with this infamous member of the Manson family, Waters takes readers on a journey of a woman, who although once committed a heinous crime, is a kind, caring person who is suffering more than she deserves.

And that is what is great about the book. Waters manages to challenge how we think about role models in our society. Yet, it is in this analysis that Waters book can be criticised. Whilst engaging, the book is simply a collection of stories, and it lacks much of an overarching narrative. We don’t see an analysis of either the role of role models in shaping Waters and his work, nor as to why this work provides an interesting analysis to the world Waters lives in.

Simply put, it is hard to know why Waters wrote the book – was it to challenge our ideas of Role Models, or simply to provide an interesting collection of stories? I think the value of Waters’ book clearly lies in the former, but it is unfortunate that he doesn’t make that step and provide an overarching analysis to this work.

Despite this however, Role Models, is an engaging, and extraordinarily interesting work. Waters is a clear, concise and interesting author who writes with wit and charm. For anyone interested in the life of this cult hero, the idea of role models and hero idolisation in our society or just want to read an engaging novel, Water’s book is definitely worth the read.

Rating: 4 stars

Role Models is availabe at good book stores or at :http://www.amazon.com

Published at ABC The Drum on 29 February 2011

I recently saw the film The Ides of March. For those of you who haven’t seen it, the basic story (without any spoilers) follows Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), who is the junior campaign manager for a Democrat candidate for the United States president, Mike Morris (George Clooney). Morris is an idealistic progressive (think Barack Obama) who is locked in battle for the Democratic nomination with Arkansas politician Ted Pullman.

To cut a long story short, the movie follows Morris and Meyer’s inevitable corruption as they lose their ideals to make the necessary dirty deals to ensure that Morris gets the nomination.

Sitting through the movie I found it a rather enjoyable portrayal of American politics. This is a position that has been held by many critics of the film, with many describing it as eerily realistic. Yet, as I have thought about the film more since I’ve seen it, I have slowly become somewhat frustrated with the message it is selling.

You see, for me, The Ides of March, is not just a portrayal of the way the American political system operates, it also acts as a portrayal of the inherent way politics works. Coming from the movie, it is very easy to get the message that no matter how good or how idealistic someone is, they will always be corrupted by politics and power.

Looking at our politics today it is pretty easy to see that our community is taking a similar world view. It’s pretty easy to understand why as well. Just looking at the mess that is the current Labor leadership, and the negativity of the Coalition, politics is looking like a very dirty business at the moment.

Yet, what is surprising is that despite our dislike for many of our politicians we seem to have become so cynical that we simply accept this as the natural way. We see fighting between Rudd and Gillard and we say that that is what all politicians are like and that’s what they’re always going to be like. We’ve become so cynical that we ignore the good things and don’t fight against the bad.

You may want to call me naive or idealistic, but I simply don’t want to accept this. Whilst I see the bad things about our current politics, I also see a lot of good, and a lot of potential; but only if we grasp it.

Amongst all the infighting and backstabbing there are politicians, from all parties, who are actually working to create real change. There are many politicians who actually do care and we shouldn’t let these people suffer from the actions of others.

Beyond this however, the great thing about a democracy is that we get to decide who sits in our Parliament and who doesn’t. If we see politicians that we don’t like, who are not focused on the community, we get to kick them out. At an even higher level, if we really think our system is corrupt we also have the power to change it. Sometimes this may be difficult, with big powers often standing in our way. Yet, when we think about it, politics is about the way our whole society works and how our resources are distributed, so isn’t this a fight worth having?

John Acton was famously reported to state, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It’s a statement that has dominated much of our thought about power and politics. Yet, it is rarely known that when Acton made that statement, he actually said “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Instead of saying that power is inherently corrupting, what he was saying was that we must be wary of power and ensure we keep it in check. This is what democracy is all about in many ways.

It is time for us to stop seeing politics as all bad. Whilst we are right to be unhappy about the fighting between Rudd and Gillard and the negativity of the Coalition, that doesn’t mean we have to accept it. As a community, if we want better, we can demand it. Instead of just standing there and saying ‘what another dirty politician’, it’s time to stand up and say ‘that’s not good enough’.

There is plenty you can do. You can get involved in political parties to challenge the dirty politics of old. You can decide to support candidates who are willing and ready to make a difference, or you can run to change things yourself. You can send letters to newspapers or call in to radio stations demanding better. Or, you can get involved in social movements demanding change. There are so many people out there, whether on the left or the right, wanting something different and working towards it. You can join them.

It is time for us to stop being cynical and start demanding better.