Whiney Songs Re-Redux

I was thinking over the issue of whiney pop songs recently, mainly because there have been so many comments nominating whiney songs that I had completely overlooked, such as the Kinks' Tears of a Clown. That started me looking for whiney songs written by other highly rated pop-groups and the list started to grow embarassingly; John Lennon has at least two to his credit, Yer Blues and The Ballad of John and Yoko. The latter stretches the boundaries of the category, because it has nothing to do with lost lerv and everything to do with having a martyr complex.

Here's a whiney song about sexual frustration, that I've run through the Google translator with the usual pleasingly absurd results. Andrew Marvell, eat your heart out.

Mrs. Will operate - it now is or never
gives me your love, and
I will pour your heart with the tenderness without end

that I know that you want to see to me, but you have fear
of what I could have on my thing of the spirit
you from me be safe can
to take large care of your love
whether you become me you mine give to let

Mrs. Will operate - it now is or never
gives me your love, and
I will pour your heart with the tenderness without end

Made nobody say to you never only the facts of the pit of the life
there is so much for you must learn,
and I would teach you fortunately,
if I could reach only you
and recover your love in the return

Mrs. Will operate - it now is or never
gives me your love, and
I will pour your heart with the tenderness without end

Now Where Did He Get That Idea?

This is probably not the best time to mention this, but this report from The Age (link via Tim Dunlop) has me wondering which newspapers John Howard has been reading recently.

Remedial Google Practice

Up until a few days ago, I'd never heard of Francisco de Eguia; he gets a mention in The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas as, seemingly, the first person to carry smallpox to Mexico in 1519. It's only a passing mention on page 96 so I'm unable to tell you if he had any other claims to fame. Later, another Francisco de Eguia served in the Peninsula wars - he may have been a member of the noble and ancient lineage of Eguia whose arms are:

Of gold, with five panelas of gules put in sotuer, and bordura of sinople with a gold chain.

I don't know what that means either; the best I can come up with is that it's a gold shield with five red (gules) panelas in a sotuer. A panela is either a pan (Portuguese) or a small cigar, or one of those hunchbacked heraldic animals that look like roadkill. So a sotuer could be either a heraldic stove, some kind of humidor, or a road.

It's a bit stiff that the reputation of a noble house with such a fine (if incomprehensible) escutcheon should be remembered more for the fact that an early de Eguia was Mexico's Patient Zero (especially if, as is quite possible, he wasn't a real de Eguia at all). So, if you happen to go to Spain and find yourself a guest in a house where they have a shield with five red panelas in a sotuer hanging over the mantlepiece, it would probably be tactful to avoid mentioning Mexico.

While we're on the subject of the international trade in infectious diseases, it's worth mentioning that while the Spanish and Portuguese explorers might have taken smallpox to the New World, they did take home one unpleasant souvenir of their own; syphilis. In Syphilis and the Shepherd of Atlantis, Stephen Jay Gould tells the story of the naming of syphilis with the help of Nahum Tate's English translation of Girolamo Fracastoro's Syphilis sive morbus Gallicus (Syphilis or the French Disease):

To Naples first it came
From France, and justly took
from France his name
Companion from the war....

If then by Traffick thence this
plague was brought
How dearly dearly was that
Traffick bought!

If you want to read more of Nahum Tate's writing, a good place to start is his famous revision of King Lear in which Edgar gets the girl.

Afterword: The Slave Trade is where I found much of the information for that Who Am I question earlier this week.

Bugger!

As several commenters have pointed out, the post below gets it wrong: here's the passage from the judgement that I missed, thanks to inept use of the technology.

1159 The applicants have pleaded that the Commonwealth had a policy that called for the removal of part Aboriginal children without regard to their individual circumstances. Using the purported existence of such a policy as a lynch-pin, the applicants have then argued that that policy was imposed by the Commonwealth on those who were responsible for the administration and implementation of the legislative schemes that were contained, first, in the Aboriginals Ordinance and, then, in the Welfare Ordinance. The next step in the applicants' argument was to the effect that the Commonwealth, having imposed its policy on the Directors, had thereby caused the Directors to refrain from acting in accordance with their own opinions or had caused the Directors to act without having regard to the interests of the children.

1160 That submission suffered from a lack of support from the documentary evidence. I have already set out many of the writings that were tendered on the subject of "policy". The 1952 principles were clear and concise and I see no reason to withhold from saying that they applied four years later at the time when Peter Gunner went to St Mary's. The position that existed in Lorna Nelson's time was not so clear cut however. It would probably be necessary to go back to the situation that existed prior to the Second World War. Even so, there was nothing in any of the writings that would justify a finding that all part Aboriginal children had to be removed or that all illegitimate part Aboriginal children had to be removed or that all illegitimate part Aboriginal children living in native camps had to be removed. Then, if one moves from "policy" to "implementation of policy", the evidence failed to establish that there even was, at any time, activity on such a scale that it could be said that a general policy of removal was then being enforced. The writings of the patrol officers to which reference has been made have indicated that there was a matter of selectivity based on the personal circumstances of the individual children. As I said at the outset of these reasons for judgment, the evidence does not deny the existence of the stolen generation and there was some evidence that some part Aboriginal children were taken into institutions against the wishes of their parents. However, I am limited to making findings on that the evidence that was presented to this Court in these proceedings; that evidence does not support a finding that there was any policy of removal of part Aboriginal children such as that alleged by the applicants: and if, contrary to that finding, there was such a policy, the evidence in these proceedings would not justify a finding that it was ever implemented as a matter of course in respect of these applicants.

1161 These conclusions do not, however, bring the claims of false imprisonment to an end. To establish imprisonment, it will be sufficient to prove that there was a constraint on an applicant's will that was so great as to induce him or her to submit to a deprivation of liberty; physical force need not be used. A mere taking and detaining will be sufficient and it can be effected as a result of the accumulation of the actions of two or more persons. Thus, it could be that the combined actions of Miss Shankelton and Mr Penhall might be the catalyst for the cause of action. [My emphasis]

I think that's enough; right now I have some serious sulking to do. Anyone who doesn't consider this an adequate retraction can "porcreateagte with my handsomee loinmds, loinmsns" (I think that last is an MSN Messenger plug-in or something).

The Not So Condensed Andrew Bolt

(We read Andrew Bolt so that you don't have to)
In today's column " Why I won't change" respected journalist and commentator Andrew Bolt tells us why he goes on, in the face of constant carping and misinformed criticism of his motives; he's doing it all for the kiddies. To protect them from lies such as:

Between 1910 and 1970 up to 100,000 Aboriginal children were taken forcibly by police or welfare officers. Most were under five years old. They are known as the "stolen generations" ...

To be Aboriginal was enough. They were taken because it was Federal and State Government policy that Aboriginal children -- especially those of mixed Aboriginal and European descent -- should be removed from their parents ...

Bolt refers to the Federal Court Hearing into the case, which is also summarised here. He says:

That hearing cost at least $10 million and ran for a year, talking to all kinds of witnesses. It was, [Robert] Manne said early on, the best investigation we'd get into the worst area for child stealing.

But the findings? That Peter Gunner's mother had in fact signed a form to permit her son to go to a home in Alice Springs and get some schooling. That Cubillo couldn't be said to have been stolen either, not least because her mother and grandmother had died, her father had vanished, and it was hard to tell who in the hard bush was actually looking after the little girl.

But more than that, the court said it hadn't found anyone who'd been stolen in the NT, and the "evidence does not support a finding that there was any policy of removal of part-Aboriginal children such as that alleged by the applicants".

Here's a little challenge; visit either of the two links to the Federal Court transcript or summary. Call up your browser's "Find in this Page" function and enter the text in bold in the search dialogue. Now click the "Find" button.

I've been trying this for the past ten minutes and the results have been rather interesting to say the least. Especially when you consider point 200 of O'Loughlin J's decision:

200 The extracts from the documents that have thus far been identified are sufficient, in my opinion, to justify a conclusion that the Commonwealth Government had, since about 1911, pursued a policy of removing some part Aboriginal children and placing them in institutions in Alice Springs and Darwin. The material is not sufficient to sustain a finding that this policy applied to all part Aboriginal children. On the contrary, it would seem that it did not have such a general application. The probabilities are that the policy was intended for those illegitimate part Aboriginal children who were living in tribal conditions whose mother was a full blood Aborigine and whose father was a white man. The Commonwealth, in its final submissions, claimed that it cannot be determined whether the policy was consensual or forced, and if it was forced, the extent to which that was so and was justified by normal welfare considerations. I agree that words to that effect are not to be found in the writings that were tendered in evidence. But there are two comments that must be made in respect of that submission. The first is that there were no words in the written material that would have prevented non-consensual removals. The second is that Aboriginal people would not have been concerned with the formalism of a Government policy. What would have concerned them would have been the practical implementation of that policy by patrol officers at the grass roots level. [my emphasis again]

It looks to me like Bolt has verballed Judge O'Loughlin, in the same way that Phillip Adams verballed Dubya. I look forward to the calls from Prof Bunyip, Tim Blair et al for Bolt's dismissal. He's been just as naughty as Phil.

Hawking Watch

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.wIthout it, we would stagnate. Goedels theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians.I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

Gödel and the end of physics, Stephen Hawking

Situational Ethics

The Common Man has posed an interesting moral conundrum.

Whiney Songs Redux

In a comment to The Ten Whiniest Songs in the History of Pop Music, James Russell asked what the criteria for whininess are. I suppose it's a fair question - what does it take to make a truly whiney song?

The first, obvious requirement, is a good dose of self-pity. I don't think there's going to be any controversy over this one. Whiney songs are about feeling sorry for yourself. It can be the result of a broken heart (Sylvia's Mother) or unrequited lerv (Living Next Door to Alice) or chronic failure to find a lover who shows proper consideration for your finer feelings (A Good Heart) but self-pity is a constant.

That's why Meatloaf's Two Out of Three Ain't Bad didn't make the list; it's more of a sleazoid, commitment-phobic song than a whiney song. I briefly considered listing Julie London's Cry Me A River but that would have been an obvious mistake; it's far too scornful and sarcastic. A great song about lost lerv but not at all whiney.

The second major requirement is that the self-pity of the singer be made very evident; the singer must really whine. It's all in the vocals; the extended "pleeeeeeze" in the chorus of Sylvia's Mother is a paradigm case of the whiney vocal, as is Feargal Sharkey's agonised "I kno-ow". If the singer isn't up to a really good whine, a whiney song needs a whiney musical accompaniment, especially one that's heavy on minor chords and portentous musical effects (Nights in White Satin).

Put those things together, and you have a whiney song. I'm only sorry that I left What About Me off the list. It's a hell of a lot whinier than Arkansas Grass (which is still a pretty damn whiney song).

Mr Alston's Curious War

If a football team has a doctor, a stretcher and an ambulance on the sidelines, this does not mean that it is predicting or warning of the likely occurrence of serious injury. It is merely taking sensible precautions in case the worst case scenario eventuates.

Former Senator Richard Alston's submission on ABC bias to the ABA.

Mr Alston's complaint relates to this AM report, which he described in his letter to Russell Balding of 28 May as "an example of a beat-up". Now that I've seen Mr Alston's submission to the ABA, it's possible to present a revised transcript of the AM program, showing how the item should have been presented to avoid "beating it up":

LINDA MOTTRAM: International aid agencies are saying that they're well prepared for the war..

Having spent six weeks reporting from Baghdad, our Middle East Correspondent Mark Willacy is now in the Jordanian capital, Amman, and he joins me on the line now.

Mark, what are the aid agencies saying, what estimates are they making of the likely refugee count from this conflict?

MARK WILLACY: Well Linda, we've got groups like the Coogee Juniors Ladies Auxiliary and the International Rugby Union warning of a possible crisis, as they put it, in Iraq, mainly because of a shortage of half-time oranges there and the possibility of hundreds of thousands of kids might invade the field at half-time. But I've been told that they have plenty of linament and bandages on hand, so we shouldn't be worried if the play gets a bit rough.

Muin Kassis is working with the Coogee Juniors Ladies Auxiliary here in Jordan.

MUIN KASSIS: As a Jordanian myself, I think I'm born and raised here and I know the conditions in this country, and I think the Coogee Juniors Ladies Auxiliary have done a tremendous job. Is that enough for your listeners? I have to go and cut orange quarters now.

Who Am I?

Born in 1632 I was educated at Westminister School and Oxford. In 1663, while teaching at Oxford I became an investor in the company of Royal Adventurers into Africawhich held a monopoly on the English African trade - including the slave trade, which comprised a quarter of its income.

In 1670 I drafted a constitution for the new colony of Carolina, the "Grand Model". Under this constitution, the common people had no voting rights nor could they leave the land they worked on without permission of the land's owner. The "Grand Model" also included a paragraph describing slavery as an "institution to be accepted."

In 1672, when the company of Royal Adventurers was wound up, I invested 400 pounds in the its successor, the Royal Africa Company. I invested a further 200 pounds in the Royal Africa Company in 1675.

In 1690, in a major work of political philosophy, I described slavery as a "state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive".

I died in 1704.

The Condensed Andrew Bolt

(It's like the Shorter Henderson, but slightly more noxious).

In today's column, "PM's riot rescue", respected journalist and commentator Andrew Bolt reflects on the underlying causes of the Redfern riot and the generally crappy state of Aboriginal politics in Australia. Bolt suggests that the Duck of Steel has been given a perfect opportunity to repeat his statesmanlike performance during the Tampa incident:

It took the Tampa to save John Howard from what seemed certain defeat at the last election.

Now again facing defeat, Howard may be miraculously saved by his second Tampa - the Redfern race riot.

Bolt eventually reaches the conclusion that it's time for somebody to play the race card, so long as it's done with enough finesse to avoid the appearance of racism. John Howard may not be up to this, but someone else might be:

... perhaps Redfern isn't Howard's new Tampa, after all. Perhaps it is Peter Costello's instead.

The Ten Whiniest Songs in the History of Pop Music

(In no particular order)

Sylvia's Mother - Doctor Hook

Living Next Door to Alice - Smokie

A Good Heart - Feargal Sharkey

Nothing Compares to You - Sinead O'Connor

Ruby - Don't Take Your Love To Town - Jimmy Dean/Kenny Rogers

Mrs Brown You've Got A Lovely Daughter - Herman's Hermits

Arkansas Grass - Brian Cadd & Don Mudie

To Love Somebody - The Bee Gees

Nights in White Satin - The Moody Blues

Mandy - Barry Manilow

Britain 5, Denmark 1, Australia Nil

There are plenty of news reports on the release of five Brits from Guantanamo Bay; such as this report from The Independent.

The five freed British detainees at Camp Delta in Cuba will be flown home in the next few weeks after the Government admitted they posed no terror threat. To minimise the humiliation of its closest military ally, the White House allowed the Foreign Secretary to announce the news first.

Mr Straw said that police would consider whether they should face questioning under the Terrorism Act 2000. But within minutes of his statement, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said that "no one who is returned ... will actually be a threat to the security of the British people".

The Foreign Secretary said that discussions were continuing with the US authorities over the other four Britons [still in custody] but the Government still believed they "should be tried in accordance with international standards or returned to the UK".

Meanwhile, here in Australia:

Australian terror suspects David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib would remain in Guantanamo Bay despite the decision to release five Britons from detention, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.

Mr Ruddock said the British developments made no difference to Hicks and Habib as Australia would not be able to charge them if they were returned to their home country.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw today announced that five of the nine Britons being held at the United States's base in Cuba would be returned to the UK, where they face arrest under the Terrorism Act.

But Mr Ruddock said the same situation would not apply if Hicks and Habib returned to Australia because terrorism offences did not exist under Australian law at the time they were believed to be associated with terrorist groups.

"Being associated with terrorist bodies was an offence created after September 11, (2001)," Mr Ruddock told Sky News.

"At the time that these people as alleged were involved with al-Qaeda ... those offences were not offences under Australian law.

"So if Hicks and Habib were returned to Australia we would not be able charge them with terrorist related offences."

...

Mr Ruddock said the men had been the subject of extensive examination by the American military and were regarded as being involved in terrorism at a senior level.

So the government's highly principled position on Hicks and Habib isn't going to change; because they're in the embarassing position of having no laws which would allow us to put Hicks and Habib on trial in Australia, they'll continue to accede to their detention. Whenever the government is questioned on whether it might have some responsibilities to Hicks and Habib as Australian citizens, we'll be reminded that these men are regarded as terrorists. No evidence need be produced for this assertion - the word of the American military was good enough for Dazza and it's good enough for Phil. The fact that neither Hicks nor Habib has yet been tried or convicted is irrelevant; it might matter to lawyers, judges and the occasional legal academic, but it hasn't mattered to Federal Attorneys-General for the best part of two years.

Paperback Writer is no more. Dan at Tubagooba has the details.

Talent Spotting

A highly competent manager or a visionary thinker would almost certainly be taking a huge pay cut already to serve in politics – and they'd naturally ask themselves if that sacrifice was really fair on their children.

Colostomy Lugs in The Hun

... the changes that will be wrought under the Latham-inspired, Howard-executed plan will more than halve the total remuneration of MPs in many instances.

A change of that dimension can only make Parliament a far less attractive proposition for high-quality people who, by dint of their talent, are blessed with alternative career options.

Gregory Hywood in The Age

The Federal Magistrates Court has dismissed an appeal by high-profile businessman John Elliott against a bankruptcy notice.

It is related to the failure of the company Water Wheel Holdings, of which Elliott was a director.

The bankruptcy notice was taken out by the administrator of Water Wheel Holdings. It attempts to recover $1.4 million in compensation for the company's 200 creditors.

Administrator Nick Brooke says Mr Elliott must pay him by midnight, or he will institute bankruptcy proceedings in the Federal Court.

ABC News

It looks like there are still visionary businessmen out there who might be attracted to a parliamentary career after all; it's just a matter of knowing where to look.

Gareth Parker has salvaged an intemperate Bunyip moment from the memory hole. In the words of the immortal Stan Lee, 'nuff said.

Santoro Watch

With so much informed comment decrying Howard the Duck's recent, and potentially crippling, backflip on federal MP's sauperannuation entitlements, I thought it time to take another close look at one of the government's star committee performers, Queensland Senator Santo Santoro. It's a sobering thought that the recent superannuation changes mean that people of the calibre of Senator Santoro will no longer find federal politics an attractive alternative to highly paid sinecures positions in corporate management.

Senator Santoro was in fine form on Monday when he confronted his old adversary Mr Russell Balding, Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Commission during another session of the Senate Estimates Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (PDF File). Senator Santoro began his interrogation of Mr Balding with this clear warning that, although he had been hampered by being given only 30 minutes for questions, his forensic intelligence would not be deterred from pursuing the truth about the ABC:

Senator SANTORO — I have a great number of questions—about 80 or so—which I am not going to be able to get through in half an hour. I intend to place some of them on notice. Mr Balding, I am very grateful for some of the answers that you have provided to questions that I have placed on notice. There are some questions which I am going to refer back to in some of my oral questions, and I will be putting some further questions on notice because I was not satisfied with the answers and, in one or two cases, lack of answers. I mention too that, if I am not satisfied with the documents or answers provided in the future, I will be using the FOI mechanism to seek out further responses and further documents. It is something I do not want to do, but I intend to pursue matters under FOI provisions if I think it is necessary.

Mr Balding — The ABC takes its accountability to parliament very seriously, particularly in respect of coming here and in the amount of time and effort we put into answering the questions on notice, not just from the government senators but from the opposition. I want to assure the committee that ABC resources do go to a lot of trouble in researching and providing as comprehensive answers to the questions on notice as possible.

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. But Senator Santoro wasn't having any of this evasive nonsense:

Senator SANTORO — Thank you. As I said, I am generally satisfied, but there are some areas which I might pursue further. Mr Balding, would you be in a position to provide to the committee, for each member of the board who made an overseas trip over the past 10 years—that is, February 1994 to February 2004—details as follows: the member of the board who took the trip; the purpose of the trip; whether the board member was accompanied on the trip by a family member, relative, friend or other person; the cost to the ABC, if applicable, of this person's travel, accommodation and any other charges incurred that were met by the ABC; the date and duration of each trip; destination or destinations visited; hotels and/or other paid accommodation; the cost to the ABC overall of each trip; and a copy of the report on the trip by the board member? Within the briefing material that you or your officers have with you today are you able to provide that detail?

Mr Balding — Definitely not over the last 10 years—that is a fair amount of time and a lot of detail. We would have to go back into our archival records and that would take a fair degree of effort to pull out. I am quite happy to take that on notice, but 10 years is a long time to go back.

Senator SANTORO — Would you take that on notice and undertake to provide the information?

Mr Balding — Yes.

Game and set to Senator Santoro; whatever finanicial skeletons the ABC has been hiding in its archives are finally going to be dragged out into the light of day. With Russell Balding committed to providing a proper accounting of ABC board members travel over tha past ten years, it was time for Senator Santoro to move on to present misuses of ABC funds:

Senator SANTORO — I would be grateful if I could have a look at that. Mr Balding, is it true that the following ABC personnel accompanied federal opposition leader, Mark Latham, on his recent east coast bus tour: a current affairs journalist, a radio journalist, a TV journalist and two crew? Can you tell the committee how many ABC staff members are employed by ABC offices in localities on the route travelled by Mr Latham and his entourage?

Mr Balding — I am aware of a number of journalists accompanying the Leader of the Opposition. I have not got the detail in respect of that with me, but I can provide that.

Again, the Senator shows his determination to get to the truth in the face of an obviously evasive answer:

Senator SANTORO — Would you be able to give me an opinion—if not now then certainly as a considered opinion as a question on notice—about whether the investment in the travelling party outlined above represented good value for money when in situ staff might have covered the Latham trip on its news value?

Balding responds with this pathetic excuse:

Mr Balding — I believe it would be of good value. The accompanying of prime ministers and leaders of the opposition is a very important news and current affairs issue. It is also important to have consistency in respect of that travel. I think it would be disjointed if we had different journalists coming in at different stages of the actual trip. I think the Australian public would want consistent reporting of trips such as that. But I am more than happy to take those questions on notice and give a detailed response.

Balding's reply misses the obvious difference between accompanying a prime minister on tripa undertaken in the performance of their office and trips taken by opposition leaders purely for the sake of electioneering. While this distinction is obviously not lost on Senator Santoro, it is lost on Labor's Senator Sue Mackay, who later in the session attempted to pull Balding's fat out of the fire with this question:

Senator MACKAY — I have one last question, before we break, to follow-up from Senator Santoro. Can you take on notice which journalists, of whatever medium, accompanied the Prime Minister on his recent trip to Western Australia, as well as the cost to the ABC of that involvement?

Mr Balding — Yes, we can provide that.

As I said, that came later. Let's return to Senator Santoro's questioning; in the next exchange, the Senator's penetrating intelligence comes to the fore, demonstrating how little Balding knows about the organisation he purports to manage:

Senator SANTORO — Thank you, Mr Balding. Are you aware of a new IPA backgrounder just published by the Institute of Public Affairs that is entitled Anti-American bias collective: your ABC and the Iraq war, written by journalists Tim Blair and James Morrow?

Mr Balding — No, I am not.

Senator SANTORO — It is quite a major publication and quite a major backgrounder.

Mr Balding — When was it published?

Senator SANTORO — About a month ago.

Mr Balding — I can research that.

A patently inadequate response; Balding is clearly unaware of the contents of a major report critical of his organisation. Senator Santoro spares Balding nothing as he continues to probe this obvious failure:

Senator SANTORO — Within that analysis it finds examples of fairness in the face of what it terms the ABC culture. It notes these were often presented by reporters in the field who found facts at odds with what apparently their presenters wanted to hear and to broadcast. It found in the main the ABC's coverage of the war was negative, defeatist, anti-American and skewed heavily against the Australian government. Would the ABC be prepared to provide the committee with a copy of any assessment that has been made of the IPA backgrounder's contents and assertions?

Mr Balding — We would.

Senator SANTORO — Would you or your officers be able to confirm if any assessment or scrutiny has been made of that IPA backgrounder?

Mr Balding — I am not aware of any at this stage. No, we are not aware of any at this stage.

Senator SANTORO — Would you undertake to review that paper and then provide the committee with your considered response to that paper?

Mr Balding — Yes.

After pursuing Balding throught this string of terse evasions, Senator Santoro nails him on the subject of the ABC's biased reporting from pre-war Iraq. In the end, Balding is reduced to a very rude interruption of the ever polite Senator:

Senator SANTORO — I am grateful for that. One of the more interesting things identified in that IPA backgrounder was the ABC's failure to locate in prewar Iraq any significant number of citizens opposed to the regime of Saddam Hussein, and a general failure to indicate why people living in a dictatorship might be disinclined to speak out publicly against a murderous dictator. That was one of the findings of that particular paper. Given the Saddam regime's rule of fear and network of informers, do you think the prewar reluctance of Iraqis to publicly express an antiregime view was perfectly natural caution on their part? Do you think that ABC journalists sent to Iraq to report the crisis and subsequent conflict should have been awake to the possibility that individual Iraqis they approached for vox pops might not want to risk committing suicide just to get on the ABC?

Mr Balding — We will take all that on notice, and we will have to give a very considered response to that.

Senator SANTORO — But assuming that that—

Mr Balding — I am not aware of the report and I have not read the report and I do not know whether those are the findings of the report or someone else's views and opinions and I do not know what the status of the credibility of the report is. Those are things I need to look at in a more considered way, and I am more than happy to do that.

The committee took a break from 10:03 am to 10:16 am. This gave Balding enough time to get onto the Internet and come up with this ridiculous excuse for his ignorance of the IPA report and its contents:

Mr Balding — Following up on an earlier question from Senator Santoro, who referred to the IPA report and asked whether we had read it and what our views on it are, I am advised that that report has not as yet been published. I just put that on the record.

CHAIR (Senator Alan Eggleston, Liberal) — The IPA being the Institute of Public Affairs?

Mr Balding — Yes. We would not be in a position to respond to that question on notice at this stage because the report has not been published.

CHAIR — Does that report have a name or is it just as Senator Santoro referred to it?

Mr Balding — It is as Senator Santoro referred to it. Apparently on their web site it says that it will be published shortly.

CHAIR — I have not received it yet, and I am a subscriber to the IPA, so I can confirm that it has not yet been published. We will now proceed.

It says very little for the competence of the ABC's journalistic staff that they were unable to obtain an as yet unpublished IPA report, when Senator Santoro could get hold of a copy. Perhaps the Senator might be persuaded to provide ABC staff with some remedial training in the art of cultivating contacts during the next parliamentary recess.

Update: David Tiley has raised the issue of the cost to the taxpayer of Senator Santoro's inquisition into the ABC. This question was raised in the committee too:

Senator MACKAY — Out of curiosity, Mr Balding, how much has it cost the ABC to date to answer Senator Santoro’s questions on notice to date? Have you ballparked it?

Mr Balding — We have not done that detailed analysis for questions on notice but, as I said, the ABC take very seriously our accountability to parliament and we do apply a lot of time and effort on the answers. I am aware there is a question from Senator Cherry, I think, asking for information on some follow-up questions from Senator Santoro on freedom of information. We are in the process of providing that information back to the parliament.

Senator MACKAY — Is that via an FOI request from Senator Cherry?

Mr Balding — No, I think it was a question that Senator Cherry asked in the Senate.

Senator MACKAY — It was a breakdown, was it?

Mr Balding — Correct.

Senator MACKAY — Irony intended: can you take my question on notice?

Mr Balding — Yes.

Senator SANTORO — I would be very interested in that answer myself. I will give an opinion as to
whether I am getting value for money too.

Senator Kemp — If we are going to look at the costs of questions that Senator Santoro is asking the ABC, perhaps we had better do it for other senators as well.

Senator SANTORO — I made a mental note to make that an additional question on notice for you, Mr Balding.

Senator MACKAY — That is absolutely fair enough.

Our Religious Correspondent Reports ...

Millenarian Andrew Bolt, author of the new catechism Veritas de Mendacia has come in for a bit more attention over the past few days than some people might think he deserves. At Sedgewick's place Colostomy Lugs ties with Comical Ali for the 2004 Ari Fleischer award. And at Crikey, Iain Lygo says:

When the Sydney Institute gets Andrew Bolt to speak about truth in journalism, their last tiny shred of credibility has surely evaporated into thin air.

Lygo goes on to examine Bolt's own record of truthfulness in journalism in some detail. There's some interesting E-Mail feedback from the Lugs himself after Lygo's article. Bolt's initial retort to Lygo provides food for thought:

But going through the rest of his crud would be a waste of time, given that the only people who could possibly be convinced by what he says are those who are impervious to reason and evidence.

With that in mind I might take the rest of the week off.

(Thanks to Chris Sheil for the links).

Update: In the first of today's Bulls, Erogatio Superciliens, the Southbank Savonarola has finally nailed his colours to the mast - almost:

Among the politicians, Treasurer Peter Costello was one of the few, along with Health Minister Tony Abbott, who dared to attack Latham's populist prancing over this – that is, until Howard, the man they both hope to replace, started prancing, too.

...

And now, with even the lure of the super gone, the danger is clear. Soon the only people who will think the pain, frustration, effort, abuse, humiliation, uncertainty and loneliness of federal politics is worth that $102,000 will be the obsessives – or mediocrities who couldn't find easier money elsewhere.

I'm talking about people who couldn't even get [a] job as a researcher, or middle manager at a transport outfit.

And when that happens, we really will have an excuse to despise our politicians – as well as the leaders who did so much to keep our brightest people out of politics and the running of this great country.

That's a very clear and unequivocal statement of where Andrew stands on the future leadership of this country - he's firmly in the "Anybody but Howard or Latham" camp. It's equally clear that he won't be putting himself up for Judith Troeth's spot on the Liberal Party Senate ticket at the next election.

In today's second Bull, Bolt presents his catechism on the Redfern riots:

WHO'S to blame for the Redfern riots? Drunken thugs and guilt-ridden whites who have poured money into the hands of Aboriginal agitators.

He concludes:

Who gives a f... about white society any more?

"White" society? No, it's civilisation that's at stake - a civilisation that offers more hope to Aborigines than any Lyall Munro.

And I do give a care. The question is: do enough others now care, too?

That's actually helpful; now I know the polite way to ask a right-wing sheila if she'll let me into her pants.

Qu(ot)e?

The modern democratic system is not based on power but, rather, on authority. It is misguided to regard the likes of George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard as wielding power in the normally accepted meaning of the term - if only because what they can do is constrained by various legislative and judicial procedures.

Rather, Messrs Bush, Blair and Howard exercise authority. Elected leaders govern, in between elections, on the basis of the legitimacy which comes from election. Consequently, attacks on politicians as a profession are essentially assaults on the political system itself - because they challenge the very legitimacy on which, in democratic societies, authority is based.

Gerard Henderson outlines the minimalist position on democracy in the Sydney Morning Herald (link via Back Pages)

I wonder where Gerard stands on the subject of government ministers who attack the legislative and judicial procedures which constrain their authority and prevent them from indulging in the naked exercise of power.

The Diamond Bigger Than The Ritz

AM reports that astronomers have discovered a 1500 kilometer wide lump of crystalised carbon (a diamond to us plebs), 50 light years from the earth. Now there's something worth going into space for.