(Above: found here, in a piece scribbled in the days before Annabel Crabb fled the granny Herald for aunty ABC. Now it seems a big, large, obnoxious rat is fleeing the granny ship).
Excellent news. Unsurpassing joy. A bit like listening to Beethoven's Ninth a couple of times in a row.
Latham's anger, which stemmed from a paranoid belief Gillard and Labor had complained to Channel Nine about his 60 Minutes appointment, may have been counterproductive in that it could increase sympathy for his target. But the intention was clear. Latham, a product of the NSW Labor Right, has now turned on virtually all his former political friends - from Gough Whitlam to Gillard.
Then there is Malcolm Fraser. Interviewed by Fran Kelly on Radio National on Friday, he replied "no" when asked whether the Coalition was ready for government. This comment created considerable media interest. Yet it was not really news at all. In fact, Kelly asked virtually the same question before the 2007 election and received much the same answer.
I have done a detailed critique of Fraser's memoirs in the coming issue of The Sydney Institute Quarterly. The book is littered with errors of commission and omission. Some of the historical howlers are just that. But others seemed designed to present Fraser as how he wants to be regarded today - a small "l" liberal in the tradition of Robert Menzies.
There are two problems with Fraser's self-image. First, he was a small "l" liberal on some issues - such as apartheid, refugees and indigenous affairs. But he was a hard-line conservative on foreign policy and national security matters when prime minister.
Fraser even put about 2000 armed members of the Australian Defence Force on the route between Sydney and Bowral following the Hilton Hotel bombing in Sydney in 1978, enlisted to protect visiting heads of government attending a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. No other Australian leader has so deployed the ADF during peacetime.
Second, Menzies was no small "l" liberal himself on foreign policy and national security issues. His memoirs tell us much about how he regards himself but little about Australian politics or the history of the Liberal Party.
Fraser's comments attacking Howard, Abbott and the contemporary Liberal Party are no more inherently newsworthy than Latham's continuing diatribes against Kevin Rudd, Gillard and modern Labor.
Latham and Fraser are both big names. And both have time to devote to keeping themselves in the news on account of the fact they are in receipt of taxpayer-financed allowances, made possible by once having led their respective parties.
The media do themselves no credit when they encourage the personally embittered to castigate the parties they once led. Manifestations of retirement syndrome are not a pretty look.
Excellent news. Unsurpassing joy. A bit like listening to Beethoven's Ninth a couple of times in a row.
Well not really, but the news that Miranda the Devine is leaving the Herald to work in Murdoch-land means that one more serial pest has found a natural home in the fortress of weevils.
The good news is told in Crikey's What was David Gyngell thinking? ... Devine goes national for a song.
And it's worth contemplating what's the song in question. According to Crikey, the News tabloids involved in the scooping of the fetid Herald pool are likely to have stumped up over $240,000 a year for the benefit of Ms Devine's opinions - which must give the gherkins who offer up their thoughts to The Punch, Australia's most cheap skate conversation at least a nano second's pause for thought.
If ever there was a clear demonstration that the free market for ideas in Australia is stuffed, the Devine grandly reveals that the shift isn't for mere sordid money, but for the braveheart idea of leaving the small Fairfax pond to work for those purveyors of quality journalism, the Murdoch tabloids, such as the HUN and the Daily Terror, in the guise of a "national correspondent".
Yep, in the rough equivalent of the grand global financial meltdown, the marketplace for ideas counts for nothing up against the marketplace for shit stirring. Which in turn makes me wonder why people pay for the pleasure of being outraged by the Devine, firing off indignant messages about what has always been a fire free zone when it comes to coherent thinking or useful insights.
Happily it means we'll be thinking much less about the Devine, because we never, for example, visit the HUN, because it's the home of dolts ... and Melbourne's welcome to it.
Not to worry, there are plenty more loons on the pond, which naturally brings us to our resident prattling Polonius, Gerard Henderson, and his offering Latham and Fraser can afford to intervene in the news.
Henderson spends the first half of his column slagging off Mark Latham, for living off his parliamentary pension, and turning himself into a grub on grub street, and for his approach to Gillard in the street, with its implicit and explicit aggression - and who could argue with any of that?
Latham's anger, which stemmed from a paranoid belief Gillard and Labor had complained to Channel Nine about his 60 Minutes appointment, may have been counterproductive in that it could increase sympathy for his target. But the intention was clear. Latham, a product of the NSW Labor Right, has now turned on virtually all his former political friends - from Gough Whitlam to Gillard.
But what's amusing is the way Henderson then proceeds to a kind of moral equivalence which sees our favourite old squatter, incited by too many dull rural board games like Squatter, given the same kind of dusting up.
But what's Malcolm Fraser's crime? Has he been caught in the streets waving his finger at Tony Abbott, aggressively shaking his hand, towering over him, and giving him a good paranoid going over?
No, he's simply expressed a point of view:
Then there is Malcolm Fraser. Interviewed by Fran Kelly on Radio National on Friday, he replied "no" when asked whether the Coalition was ready for government. This comment created considerable media interest. Yet it was not really news at all. In fact, Kelly asked virtually the same question before the 2007 election and received much the same answer.
What a shocking crime. Here at the pond we're still reeling at the thought of it.
But hang on a second. Does Henderson even pause for a moment to think that he himself is being a kind of verbal thuggee by equating Latham and Fraser?
No, because he needs to get in his own bit of paranoid indignant finger waving:
In Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs, which is co-authored by Fraser and Margaret Simons, it is recorded that "Fraser refuses to say how he voted in [the] 2001, 2004 and 2007 federal elections". The message is clear. These days Fraser prefers Labor governments. It is made clear Fraser "said many times that the Howard government did not deserve to be re-elected". In other words, Fraser's position with reference to Tony Abbott is identical to his attitude to John Howard.
Dear me, how shocking. Why surely that makes him worse than Latham, a quisling, a traitor, a lickspittle fellow traveller with the left. A man who by all accounts might have voted according to his conscience and his inclination. For the wrong side! Batting and bowling and fielding for the wrong team!
The man is in such moral and theological error that he makes the street stalking Latham a model of piety. Such a litany of errors:
I have done a detailed critique of Fraser's memoirs in the coming issue of The Sydney Institute Quarterly. The book is littered with errors of commission and omission. Some of the historical howlers are just that. But others seemed designed to present Fraser as how he wants to be regarded today - a small "l" liberal in the tradition of Robert Menzies.
By golly, this man must be taken down a peg or three:
There are two problems with Fraser's self-image. First, he was a small "l" liberal on some issues - such as apartheid, refugees and indigenous affairs. But he was a hard-line conservative on foreign policy and national security matters when prime minister.
Yes folks, there's the astonishing sight of a hard-line conservative abusing a hard-line conservative for being a hard-line conservative. Monty Python does't get any better than this. so what's his chief hard line conservative crime. Defence minister during the war in Vietnam say? No, no, no:
Fraser even put about 2000 armed members of the Australian Defence Force on the route between Sydney and Bowral following the Hilton Hotel bombing in Sydney in 1978, enlisted to protect visiting heads of government attending a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. No other Australian leader has so deployed the ADF during peacetime.
Yes, and after an explosion which only killed three people and only wounded seven. Why at the time I remember urging Fraser to deploy a squadron of easter bunnies, mingled with a squadron of Santa Claus's and position them along the streets in a way that would spread calm, perhaps even a little joy amongst the populace.
Fraser chose to ignore my advice, preferring to act out his brutalist Soviet leader fantasies by deploying the army. The streets ran red with blood, but who can forget that poignant moment when a young student thrust a flower down the barrel of a gun as the tank lurched towards her?
The contrast to the security deployed during the APEC summit by John Howard couldn't be clearer. Howard understood the benefits of tension-relieving comedy, and so arranged for the Chaser lads to crash the barriers, making Australian security a laughing stock around the world. Spirits were immediately lifted, laughter reigned supreme ... There, that's genuine honourable hard-line conservatism.
But now we return to the indignant, outraged Henderson for a bit more of his spray. Because you see, suddenly it's okay to be a hard-line conservative again, even a Ming the merciless:
Second, Menzies was no small "l" liberal himself on foreign policy and national security issues. His memoirs tell us much about how he regards himself but little about Australian politics or the history of the Liberal Party.
Oh dear, talk about complete confusion. Fraser claims he isn't a hard line conservative but he is, or was, and says he's like Menzies, whom he thinks wasn't a hard line conservative but he was, and so he's just like Menzies because they're both hard line conservatives.
I give up. Can we just try to work out the ins and outs of hard line conservative Stalinism?
Still there's a point, and here it is:
Fraser's comments attacking Howard, Abbott and the contemporary Liberal Party are no more inherently newsworthy than Latham's continuing diatribes against Kevin Rudd, Gillard and modern Labor.
Actually if Fraser stalked Abbott in the street, can I dare to think that it might be newsworthy.
But as for the rest Henderson of course is right.
Henderson's comments attacking Fraser, Latham, Gillard and the contemporary Labour party are no more inherently newsworthy than Miranda the Devine's continuing diatribes against greens, feminists, bicyclists and public servants.
Never mind. It seems they're worth a pretty penny.
Time for one last bout of sour grapes and jaundiced rhetoric? Sure thing:
Latham and Fraser are both big names. And both have time to devote to keeping themselves in the news on account of the fact they are in receipt of taxpayer-financed allowances, made possible by once having led their respective parties.
The media do themselves no credit when they encourage the personally embittered to castigate the parties they once led. Manifestations of retirement syndrome are not a pretty look.
So Latham and Fraser are one and the same, a street stalker the moral equivalent of a man expressing his views.
Meanwhile, in other news today, Malcolm Fraser went on Sky News, and savaged Laurie Oakes, while also delivering a vitriolic spray at Tony Abbott and jolly Joe Hockey. Oops, we seem to have got that wrong. It's Mark Latham comes out swinging at veteran journalist Laurie Oakes.
One senior Nine insider conceded the aggressive presence of Latham in Brisbane on Saturday had inflamed the controversy: "I don't think he sets out to intimidate: it's the style of the bloke.
"He's a big f..king boofhead.
"He'd been standing back, then he went forward. ... he's 11 foot tall and weighs 20-stone - he's just naturally an intimidating presence."
"He's a big f..king boofhead.
"He'd been standing back, then he went forward. ... he's 11 foot tall and weighs 20-stone - he's just naturally an intimidating presence."
Why that sounds just like Malcolm Fraser.
You see, the media do themselves no credit when they encourage the personally embittered to castigate parties and personalities on the basis of cheerleading, fear mongering views. Manifestations of commentariat columnist syndrome are not a pretty look.
But at least the Devine's 'not a pretty look' is no longer in the Herald, leaving Henderson looking more and more like a shag on the rock. Not a pretty look ...
Not that we intend any disrespect to shags or rocks. We love 'em, close kissing cousins to loons as they are ...
(Below: a couple of red eyed shags on a Falklands rock).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.