The Politics of the R-Word

In the past few weeks there has been a bit of a kerfuffle in America over the use of the word “retard”. It started when it was revealed that Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, during a meeting asked of a group of left wing health activists who were planning to advertise against Democratic member of congress “are they fucking retarded?!”

When news of this was leaked to the press, there were calls for him to apologise and some called for his resignation. The loudest call of course came from Sarah Palin. I say “of course” because as Palin has a son with Down Syndrome the media thinks her views on mentally disabled issues carry more weight.

What bollocks.

I have a daughter with Down Syndrome, and I can tell you I consider myself woefully unknowledgeable on issues relating to the mentally disabled. I know about things to do with my daughter, but I have no idea if, for eg, the services available in Victoria are better or worse than they are where I live. I am no more qualified to talk about mentally disabled issues than I am to talk about female health issues because I have two daughters, or about education issues because I went to school and my wife is a teacher. Sure I can talk about my own situation, and the issues that affect our family, but on the broader policy picture? I am as ignorant as those who don’t have children or siblings with a disability – all I’ll admit to having is a bit more understanding of the impacts of policy and programs which affect the mentally disabled.

But Sarah Palin waded straight into the debate (via her Facebook page) and called for Emmanuel's head. Obviously it had nothing to do with the fact he works for Obama…. Except that soon after right-wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh on the air said this:

I think the big news is the crackup going on. Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.

I mean, these liberal activists are kooks. They are loony tunes. And I'm not going to apologize for it, I'm just quoting Emanuel. It's in the news. I think the news is that he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters effing retards. So now there's going to be a meeting. There's going to be a retard summit at the White House, much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.
…

From the Wall Street Journal: "Emanuel Steps Up His Apology -- Rahm Emanuel privately apologized last week to the Special Olympics after the Journal reported that he used the word 'retarded' in a derogatory manner.  But advocates for people with disabilities didn’t think that apology, coming in a phone call to Special Olympics head Tim Shriver, was enough.  Now, Emanuel is taking his contrition one step farther -- hosting a delegation of advocates, including two people with mental disabilities, at the White House."  They're going to have a "Retard" Summit just like they had the Beer Summit.  But, folks, let's not forget, Obama insulted the Special Olympics on The Tonight Show.  I haven't forgotten this.  You know, here's the thing.  If you want to look at how this is broken down, Emanuel compares Democrat activists to retarded people, then apologizes to retarded people.  Not to the Democrats. 

Normally if you call somebody a retard, you apologize to them for calling them a retard.

So how did Palin react to that? Did she demand Limbaugh get taken off the air? Hell no! When asked about it she came out with this statement:

"Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name-calling at the expense of others is disrespectful."

So was this directed at Limbaugh? Hell no! She even got her representative to hurriedly call Limbaugh to explain that the statement did not refer to him or his comments.

A few days later Palin was interviewed on Fox news (who now employs her). The interviewer, Chris Wallace, asked about Limbaugh. Here is her contemptible response:

PALIN: They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. I agree with Rush Limbaugh. He was using satire to politically correct —

WALLACE: He used the “r” word.

PALIN: He used satire. Name-calling by anyone, I teach this to my children and you teach it to your children and grandchildren, too. Name calling by anyone is just unnecessary. It just wastes time. Let’s speak to the issues and — [...]

PALIN: I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there.

"Huh? She didn’t hear Limbaugh calling a group of people he didn’t agree with “f-ing retards”? What about this line Sarah:

Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.

Who was that bunch of people? “I mean, these liberal activists are kooks…a delegation of advocates, including two people with mental disabilities”

Sure sounds to me like Limbaugh is calling a group of people he doesn't agree with “f-ing retards” Oh wait, sorry. He didn’t use “f-ing”. Guess that makes it ok then …

And it was all satire????? 

I have to tell you Palin, I actually wrote an English Lit PhD thesis on satire, so this is one issue on which I can claim a certain level of expertise, and I can say there is nothing in what Limbaugh said that is the slightest bit satirical. Saying that a group of people, including two with mental disabilities, are part of a “retard summit” is not satire – it is just being cruel to people you don’t like.

Her inability to criticize Limbaugh (and let’s be honest her complete fear of doing so) on this demonstrates that she is little more the a puppet wielded by the far-right. This weak defence of Limbaugh alone demonstrates her unfitness for higher office. If Palin can’t stand up to Limbaugh on the issue which should be closest to her heart, then she will never stand up to him (or the far right) on any issue.

In response to Palin’s satirical defence, comedian Stephen Colbert absolutely skewered her. After showing the clip of Palin saying Limbaugh used the word satirically so it was ok, Colbert said that since his show was satirical (which it most certainly is – perhaps the best going around) it was ok for him to say “Sarah Palin is a f-ing retard!”

It was a point very strongly made. I have to admit I did not like the reaction of his audience – I felt too many were applauding him calling her it, rather than applauding the satirical point – namely that “satire” is not a get out of jail free card. But satire does often bite – if Palin and others have a problem with Colbert’s use of the word, then they sure as hell should have a problem with her defence of Limbaugh – and that is Colbert’s point (satire you see has a point) – Limbaugh’s point (if you can call it that) was that it is ok to call mentally disabled people retards, and that if anything Emmanuel owed Democrats an apology for calling them retarded. 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Sarah Palin Uses a Hand-O-Prompter
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Now I have to say I was more upset by Obama last year comparing his ability at bowling to the Special Olympics than by Rahm Emmanuel’s heat of the moment use of “retarded”. Why Obama would think the Special Olympics is worthy of use as a punch line is beyond me. But I hate the R-word; it is always used as a term of abuse, and it makes fun of people who, because of a condition they were born with, are unable to fight back. There is now a campaign to end the use of the R-Word. It is a campaign I support fully.

Today in the news there was mention of a Family Guy episode that has a character with Down Syndrome saying her mother was “the former Governor of Alaska”. Palin has come out and said the program was heartless. I haven’t seen the full episode, but the bits I have seen don’t denigrate people with DS at all – in fact from the parts I’ve seen it seems to treat the character with DS with respect. About the worst you can say is that the joke implies that Palin’s actual daughter has DS, though I don’t think this is the intent – which is why the joke is pretty unfunny, I’m not sure what point is being made.

I’m not a big fan of Family Guy – mostly because every week it seems to try and offend someone. However, I can recognise its humour (or attempts thereof), but I also recognise the dangers of humour used as a shield – generations of racism were excused by “Oh I was just joking”.

But for Palin to play the victim here is rather disingenuous. You can’t claim people you don’t like are not allowed to make fun of the mentally disabled or use the phrase “retard” as a form of abuse, if you say it is ok when done by people you agree with.

No wonder Begg-Smith avoids the media

Yesterday Dale Begg-Smith won silver medal in the Men’s Moguls at the Vancouver Winter Olympics. It was a great effort – given that he was coming off a knee surgery only 12 months ago, and the conditions did not suit his style (which is at its best the slicker and tougher the conditions are).

But today’s Sydney Morning Herald had on the front page an op-ed piece by Peter Fitzsimons:

Why Mr Miserable leaves us icy cold

You see Begg-Smith didn’t smile enough on the podium when he got his silver medal – or at least not enough for Fitzsimons’s liking. Did the article mention anything about him coming back from knee surgery? Did it say anything at all about his performance. Nope and Nope. Instead there was some bollocks about the reason Australian don’t like him is not because he has a foreign accent or a hyphen name (!). No it’s because he doesn't do good interviews or smile enough. 

The fact is he didn’t smile all that much when he won four years ago at Torino – so you can hardly say he is a sore loser. Obviously the guy doesn’t go for big showing of feeling (sounds pretty Australian to me).

Yesterday in The Punch Anthony Sharwood wrote a piece:

Is Dale Begg-Smith entitled to be a sourpuss?

Here is a line that Sharwood, the Senior writer for Australia’s biggest sports magazine Alpha, wrote in his piece:

Begg-Smith first showed his recalcitrance four years ago in Torino, when he was repeatedly quizzed about his business.

OK, so the media might’ve asked an extra question or two about moguls. But really, they’re snowy bumps and he skis them better than anyone. What else is to know?

Get that? A sports journalist telling us the sport is essentially yada yada yada. I can imagine him writing of Federer, “but really tennis is just hitting a ball back and forth, and he does it better than anyone. What else is there to know”.

And this guy is a sport journo? You’d think he would actually be interested in sport…

Sharwood throws this away in at the end of his article:

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard that Begg-Smith is incredibly popular with locals and kids in Perisher, to whom he willingly gives his limited time in the brief southern hemisphere training season.

You think if he wanted to slant his article differently he might have given that more prominence?

The odd thing is that being disappointed by coming second is not limited to Begg-Smith; have a look at Eamon Sullivan in Beijing.

But then Sullivan is easy on the eyes and gives a nice press conference so all is forgiven. Ditto the snipe from Fitzsimons about Begg-Smith spending most of the year in Vancouver. I don’t recall anyone being too up in arms about the fact all our best golfers live in America because (like Begg-Smith) that’s where the sport is, or that Pat Rafter for most of his career resided in the tax-free haven of the Bahamas. But then Pat was easy on the eyes and gave a nice interview…

The thing is when Begg-Smith went over the line he did show emotion – fleeting yes, but nonetheless it was there. And when he was beaten by the Canadian skier, he was the first to give him a congratulatory hug and was smiling while he did it. And funnily enough while watching the medal presentation he did smile when he got the medal – he just wasn’t during the official photos.

And as for interviews, well tonight I saw an interview he gave Matt Shirvington on Foxtel. He was gracious and very humble. When asked how it felt to be Australia most successful Winter Olympian, he immediately talked of how the team was full of great young athletes and they were all building towards a stronger showing in four years time – essentially saying yeah he might be the most successful now, but he hoped others would soon beat his achievements. So we have a guy who when asked to praise himself instead talks about other young athletes in the team. Yeah, let’s rip into him. What a prick.

Look, I would not say I was a Begg-Smith fan (I’m not into the mogols to really have a care either way), but when I snuck into the staff TV room to watch his run yesterday I sure was willing him to win. That he doesn't give enough interviews, or smile enough to please the sports “journalists” of this country, for mine, says more about them than him.

Newspoll: ALP 53-LNP 47: (or bound in shallows and miseries)

This morning we awoke to The Australian trumpeting the latest Newspoll with the headline: Rudd Hits a New Low. It is not until the 8th paragraph of the story that we find out the ALP had actually increased its lead from the previous Newspoll – going from 52-48 to 53-47. The story didn’t mention at all that both the ALP and Liberal Party primary votes had dropped 1%.

Now sure, it was not a great poll for Rudd. His net satisfaction rating is dropping – it is now at 10 (50% satisfied; 40% dissatisfied), and Abbott’s net satisfaction rating did hit a new high – 7 (44% satisfied; 37% dissatisfied). So we are at a point where more people are dissatisfied with Rudd than with Abbott. But on the preferred PM rating, it is still Rudd by the length of the straight – 55% to 27%. (And note, at the same time in 2007, the opposition leader, Rudd led Howard 47% to 37%! )

The poll also contained some questions on climate change. Only 73% of voters believe in climate change now compared with 84% last July. This is not too surprising given the fervour with which climate change deniers have been in the last 9 months; also given we now have a climate change denier as leader of the opposition, you will naturally get some wavering Liberals to believe it is now ok to think climate change is bunkum. And given Abbott has been doing his best to scare people about the ETS, and to make people think it is too confusing to bother with, it is also unsurprising that support for the ETS has dropped from 72% to 57% (interestingly 42% of Liberal Supporters are still in favour of an ETS). The loss of support in the ETS reflects that great quote by Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

And while those points were interesting, the question I found more worthy of note, was the that of who would make a better PM: Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott. The result? Gillard led 49% to 38%. The uncommitted was only 13% compared to 11% in the Rudd versus Abbott question. In other words, there are two people in the ALP whom people prefer as PM to Abbott. This is not a good sign for Abbott – especially as Gillard is certainly less friendly to the Liberal “base”; she is not actually a leader (and thus doesn’t have the incumbent advantage Rudd does); and there are not many undecided on the issue either.

It’s not surprising Rudd can beat Abbott as better PM, but for Abbott not to be able even to beat Gillard is pretty good evidence that there’s not a lot higher he can go. I’m not sure if anyone has become PM when they are (at best) the third most preferred PM in the country; somehow I doubt it has ever happened.

So sure this is a new low for Rudd, but you have to wonder about the ability of Abbott to lead the Liberals to any great peaks. 

Such doubts are reinforced by today’s kerfuffle over WorkChoices. Here’s Abbott on penalty rates:

When you think of the long term impact of Labor's new system and the re-emphasis on penalty rates, the weekend as we have known it will no longer exist," he told the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry on Friday. "That's the risk because there will be nothing open after midday on Saturday."

Mr Abbott's deputy Julie Bishop yesterday underlined the new theme of the Opposition's employment policy. "The fact is that there are workers now who are suffering under the new awards system. Because it's bringing back penalty rates on weekends, and inflexible work conditions," Ms Bishop said.

This required Joe Hockey, who was giving a speech at the National Press Club to say:

“We will not be legislating to remove penalty rates,"

Which is not quite the same as legislating to allow penalty rates to go (no one is suggesting the Liberal will ban penalty rates).

Anyone who thinks WorkChoices won’t get a huge run in this year’s election is kidding themselves. It took the ALP a long time to kick the “higher interest rates” tag – they paid dearly for it in 2004 (some 14 years after the high interest rates under Keating); so don’t for a second think the ALP won’t keep going back to the WorkChoices well – especially when Abbott so dearly wants to give them assistance.

Hockey’s actual speech was the usual sub-par effort he always gives – pointedly disconnected with reality and using nice phrases like “crowding out” as though he actually understands the term. Unfortunately for Joe his line about the stimulus putting upward pressure on interest rates is not born out by anything the RBA says – certainly not the minutes of this months meeting which were released today. Here’s a couple lines:

Year-ended underlying inflation was expected to decline further through 2010 to around or just below 2½ per cent, reflecting the earlier slowing in demand and wages and the appreciation of the exchange rate through 2009. Inflation was expected to pick up a little thereafter, to around 2¾ per cent by the end of the forecast period, as the expansion continued and the effects of the appreciation faded.

Yep  underlying inflation is expected to decline. So much for upward pressure on interest rates. Fiscal spending doesn't actually directly force up interest rates; what it can do is lead to an increase in inflation, and it is that which leads to increases in interest rates as the RBA tries to keep inflation down. Nothing in the minutes suggested there was this pressure.

The problem with Hockey’s belief that Australia must pay off its debt otherwise interest rates will go up is that it is (to quote Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry) “a gross oversimplification”. Here was Henry last week in Senate Estimate fielding the very question from Barnaby Joyce:

Senator JOYCE—Is it a fair statement that, if we keep borrowing money and our debt keeps getting larger, we would be putting upward pressure on interest rates?

Dr Henry—No disrespect, Senator, but that is a gross oversimplification of economic understanding of these matters. To illustrate, you will recall that during the early years of this decade, as debt was being repaid, interest rates were steadily climbing. So I think we should be careful not to rush into simplistic relationships between levels of debt and interest rates. In Australia since the early to mid-1990s—it is not necessarily true in other countries—it has been the case that, as government debt has been repaid, interest rates have increased, not fallen. That is not altogether surprising because governments have an enhanced ability to repay debt as their fiscal positions improve, which is fairly obvious, and their fiscal circumstances improve as the economy strengthens, which is also fairly obvious. As the economy strengthens, other things being equal, there is increasing upward pressure on prices and monetary policy responds to that. So it is not terribly surprising that we should see, as you would see if you were to have a look at the data, that since the early to mid-1990s the repayment of debt has actually been associated with increasing interest rates.

But Joe just bounds on in and makes that simplistic assumption.

It also ignore the crucial data on building approvals. Look at the graph on the right – notice the BIG divergence between total approvals and non-educational facilities approvals? Yep that is the school building stimulus at work. Take that away and do you seriously think unemployment would have gone down to 5.3%?

Of course not, because you’re not stupid. But that caveat doesn't seem to apply to Hockey – he thinks the Government is crowding out the private sector – ie we’re at full capacity and the Government is using up all the labour and materials and credit on hand.

I know, shake you head and move on… (it’s for the best)

And so how does Joe propose to reduce this evil debt? Does he think we need to slash middle class welfare, look for efficiencies or increase taxes? Of course not – he is a Liberal – a John Howard Liberal, and so he proposes to do what John Howard did best – sell something.

Hockey’s big economic measure is to sell Medibank Private. Hockey doesn’t say if selling Medibank Private will be better for consumers, will make the Private Health industry more efficient, or lower insurance premiums. Hell no! Why would you say anything like that – he is just selling it because it is there to sell, and it means when asked about any costing for anything, he can now just say – oh we’ll pay for it out of the sale of Medibank Private… except, he’s selling it to pay off debt.. so whoops he’s still short quite a few billion in savings measures given their “direct action” climate change policy. Hmmm might need to sell something else…

Hockey might also do well to cast his eyes to Queensland and ask how popular Anna Bligh’s privatisation plans have been.  It also gives the ALP a very easy response – first the Libs will sell off Medibank Private, then they’ll try to off load Australia Post... what next? ABC?…

The big problem with Hockey’s plan is that he is not doing it for any efficiency reasons (as is the case with states selling off public electricity). Heck you could even make the efficiency argument for the selling of Telstra, but here Joe is just selling it because he wants to pay off debt – a debt that the RBA is saying is not putting any pressure on interest rates or inflation. And given the Liberal Party’s form it would be accompanied by more assistance to the Private Health Insurance industry.

Joe would be a great financial advisor. He’d look at your mortgage that you are paying off comfortably, and he’d say… hmm that total debt is too high, I think you should sell your car. Have trouble getting around? Well with all the money from your car sale, you can now afford to rent a taxi.

53-47 is a low point for Rudd? With Abbott, Hockey and Joyce continuing to open their mouths, for the Liberal Party it could be a high point.

Flick of the Week: “… they mostly come at night... mostly”.

This week’s Flick of the Week takes us with Bill Paxton, from his role as astronaut Fred Haise in Apollo 13, to that of Marine Pvt Hudson in James Cameron’s brilliant sci-fi war film – Aliens.

Aliens may not be a perfect film, but I have to say I can’t find any faults in it. It is one of the best sci-fi films of all time – and also one of the best war films as well. Yes, a war film, because take away the special effects, the space ships, the android, and what you have is a war film in the tradition of Zulu – a small band of marines, defending an outpost against wave after ferocious wave of attacks from the enemy. What gets them through is their discipline, strategy and the self sacrifice of members of the unit. 

It’s why it doesn’t matter that the film is 24 years old – it hasn’t dated a whit (I’ll make a bet you won’t say the same about Avatar in 24 years… sure effects a re wonderful things, but story is eternal).

The film is also one of the very few sequels that is better than the first film. Sure Ridley Scott’s Alien has a great atmosphere and some brilliant scares, but this takes it to a whole new level – and has a much better group of supporting characters to Sigourney Weaver’s lead Ripley. It has Michael Biehn (who was Cameron’s go to guy in the 1980s – he was in Terminator and The Abyss) as Corporal Hicks who has to take over command, and he does so in the best tradition of those placed in similar positions in war films. The Sergeant of the platoon Sgt. Alpone – is also the perfect Sergeant; his lines are a direct descendent from those of Colour-Sergeant  Bourne at Rorke’s Drift: 

All right, sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast in bed? Another glorious day in the Corps! A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheck a fortune! Every formation a parade! I LOVE the Corps!

The Lieutenant in command of the platoon is a hapless newbie who after looking completely without use, comes through to show bravery when it most counts. There’s Paul Reiser in a bizarre role for those who only know him as Paul from Mad About You as the slimy corporate exec Bourke. There’s also Bill Paxton as Hudson – quite possibly the best cowardly marine in film history – a big talker when at base, but when the bugs count out to hunt, he’s the first to lose it, and finally Pvt Vasguez, the hard talking female grunt, who has the great comeback to Hudson:

Hudson: Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?
Vasquez: No. Have you?

In fact the film is so full of great lines that you wonder what the hell happened to Cameron’s ability to write a script.

But perhaps the main reason the film holds up so well after all these years is the excellent performance by Sigourney Weaver as Ripley. She is at turns fragile, hard edged, caring, and brutal. It’s a pity she was enticed back to do a couple more rather less wonderful sequels.

I first saw the film in the cinema as a 14 year old, and it was probably the first “scary movie” I had ever enjoyed. I think I enjoyed it because, a) it didn't involve Freddie Kruger or a script by Stephen King, so it wasn’t really horror, and because b) I recognised the war film conventions and thus I felt comfortable with the world the film lived within.

But be in no doubt this is an edge of the seat thrill ride.

The aliens in this film are almost the perfect film villains. They have no redeeming features – they exist only to kill other beings so they can create more aliens to kills other beings so they can create more aliens… Your know that this is a complete take no prisoners scenario, and these things are coming to kill. Which means they can scare the willies out of you, but that it is also a great delight to see them get blown up. By the time the series got to Alien Resurrection we had them taking on a motherhood role and we were supposed to have some sort of feelings towards them. Bugger that, the only thing to do with these guys is to “take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure”.

As with many films, this one was also released later in a Special Definitive edition, and like most such versions, it is not an improvement. Fortunately a DVD edition was released which has both versions on the one disc (fortunately as well I snapped it up at Big W for about $12). Apparently it’s not on Blu-Ray yet. When it does come out, I’m betting it’ll be a quick addition to any real film fan’s collection.

It is a great film all round, and one Cameron has yet to better. Best of all it is a great film to watch with the lights off, the sound up, and with a bunch of friends who know the dialogue, and so don’t mind you screaming out loud in a scared voice “game over man, game over!”

Previous Flicks of the Week:

Apollo 13 – Ron Howard
American Graffiti – Richard Dreyfus 
The Graduate – Dustin Hoffmann
All the President’s Men – Jason Robards
Once Upon a Time in the West – Henry Fonda
Mister Roberts – Jack Lemmon
Some Like it Hot – Billy Wilder
Witness for the Prosecution – Marlene Dietrich
Touch of Evil – Orson Welles
The Third Man – Trevor Howard
Brief Encounter - David Lean
Lawrence of Arabia – Claude Reins
Casablanca – Humphrey Bogart
The Big Sleep – Howard Hawks
His Girl Friday – Cary Grant
Charade – John Williams
Schindler’s List – Liam Neeson
Love Actually – Emma Thompson
Sense and Sensibility – Ang Lee
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon – Michelle Yeoh
Tomorrow Never Dies – Pierce Brosnan
The Thomas Crown Affair – Renee Russo
In the Line of Fire – Clint Eastwood
Where Eagles Dare – Richard Burton
Zulu – Stanley Baker
The Guns of Navarone – Peter Yates
Breaking Away – Dennis Quaid
The Right Stuff – Ed Harris
The Rock – Sean Connery
The Longest Day – Richard Beymer
West Side Story – Ernest Lehmann
North By Northwest - The first one

The Winter Olympics – I give it a 5.6 for presentation

When the Winter Olympics were last held in Canada (1988, Calgary), I cared about them. At that stage I was a religious watcher of all things sport – and that included Saturday’s Wide World of Sports, which also showed highlights from the World Cup Alpine events, the ski jumping competitions and also major figure skating events.

And as someone who always needs to barrack for someone in any sport, I had my favourites – in Downhill it was Purmin Zurbriggen, in the Ski Jump it was  Matti Nyukanen. I didn’t really have a favourite in the figure skating, but I had the terminology down pat – double axels, triple lutzes and all that. Thus when the Calgary Olympics started I was pretty excited. When Zurbriggen and Nykenen won Gold I was ecstatic. I remember seeing Dan Jansen (favourite for the 500m speed skating) fall on a corner, and saw his face of utter despair, knowing that earlier that day his sister had died of leukaemia. I knew the big competition between “the two Brians” in the men’s figure skating, and the rivalry of Katarina Witt and Debi Thomas in the women’s event as they both did routines to the music from Carmen. I think I even had a favourite luger (Georg Hackl).

Today the Vancouver Winter Olympics begin and I know nobody. Oh sure I know Torah Bright and Dale Begg-Smith. And I’ll hope they win their events. But alpine skiers? Ski Jumpers? Figure skaters? Speed Skaters? Nup –couldn’t name one. Back then I knew enough about the sport to decide not to like Alberta Tomba (though by the 1992 I was on his side). Even in 1998 I knew of Hermann Maier the great alpine skier from Austria. In 2002 I knew of Michelle Kwan the American figure skater. But somewhere in the past 8 years I lost interest.

Where did the interest go? It probably had a bit to do with the fact that far too many of Winter Olympic events are subjectively judged – ski jumping, all the freestyle events and of course the figure skating. I hate sports with judges. I don’t get why the mogols needs judging, nor how the whole damn thing works: so it’s not enough to be fast you have to do jumps that get judged on the way down? So I guess you have to decide between doing a great jump that will slow you down or a fast run… why? Just get down the damn hill and stop the clock! Same for the ski jumping? Can you imagine the long jump having marks for style? Just jump as far as you bloody well can, and give the Gold to whoever jumps the furthest. It ain’t hard, why complicate it with judges?

And all the terminology that goes with the freestyle events just annoys me – take the half-pipe – an event brought in just to cash in on the success of the Winter X Games – Torah Bright is hoping to do a “double cork 900'' (900 because it involved 2 1/2 spins, ie 900 degrees). Sounds great; it also sounds like something made up by the Gatorade marketing department.

And then there are the events that do use a stopwatch and no judges. The problem with these is that (except for the short track skating) they are all time-trails. One guy goes down the hill, then the next guy, then the next guy; or two guys go around the ice skating track, then another two, then another two. Now sure there is some suspense etc. But could you imagine the 1500m at the Olympics being run that way?

The great thing about athletic races is you are actually not racing the clock: you are racing against your competitors. A race can be slow purely because the field are trying to make life harder for runners without a strong kick finish; conversely someone may take the race out fast to blunt the kick of others. Races require strategy. Downhill events just require you get down the hill as fast as you can (which is good, but does lack something). The cross country skiing on the other hand does have competitors going against each other, but so slow is the event that watching it is like watching a Race Walking event.

Now yes I’m being a grumpy old cuss. I am also being rather hypocritical, because I know I’ll watch a stack of events, and I’ll be there saying, wow she really nailed that triple double axel rotator cuff.

And when the two weeks are over, I’ll look at my watch and wonder when the footy starts.

On the QT: Please Sir, May I have Another?

Today was the day we were promised the Coalition would take it up to Peter Garrett. After the pathetic effort on Tuesday (one question), and the bizarre, abbreviated effort yesterday (three questions), today was the day they were going to pummel him with question after question. The only problem was that not only did we all know it, Garrett knew it as well, and so 20 minutes before Question Time he gave a ministerial statement in parliament where he outlined all the advice and correspondence on the issue of roof insulation.

It was a smart tactic. He was able to make it at the time he wanted to (not in the morning, which is when the opposition wanted him to). He finished speaking 5 minutes before Question Time, which didn’t really give the opposition much time to go through everything he had said, and also too little time to quickly re-write some of their questions – this meant it was likely that most of what they would ask would have been covered already in his statement.

And so it was. Greg Hunt asked Garrett six questions, and in not one of them did Garrett look shifty or struggling for facts. He was able to repeat parts of his ministerial statement and looked well at ease doing so. By the third question the heat of the attack had gone out, and it was clear Garrett was safe. Failing the appearance of some smoking gun showing Garrett had lied in Parliament or ignored the advice of his Department, he was safe. So bizarre was it all that Hunt’s last question was about the Auditor General doing an audit of the program. Hunt seemed to be suggesting Garrett had interfered in the process. It was a last ditch Hail Mary Pass type question that Garrett swatted away easily.

The flogging by the lettuce leaf was well and truly limp at this stage. 

After a dumb question by Abbott to Rudd about something Lindsay Tanner may have said about the insulation scheme, Abbott’s last question was a warm up to a censure motion. The problem was it reeked like last season’s footy socks of a censure motion warm up. Rudd was all over it, pretty much telling Abbott to hurry up and move his censure. Rudd knew Garrett had done well enough; having to ask for his resignation was off the table.

And so Abbott did move a censure. Bizarrely though, he moved it against Rudd for not sacking Garrett. Why they did this instead of moving censure against Garrett himself, I have no idea. But then I haven’t understood much of the Liberal Party’s tactics this week.

Abbott, as he always does, got all screechy, and went way over the top suggesting Garrett would have been charged with industrial manslaughter were he the head of a public company in NSW (no idea why he picked on NSW). It was a dumb statement because it is impossible to prove –what company would Garrett be running where he is handing out rebates to other organisations to install roofing insulation? Or is he suggesting Garrett is the equivalent of the head of a roofing insulation company? If so he’s taken one apple and said hey, let’s compare it with this here orange.

The straws were well and truly clutched by this time.

So confident was Rudd that he didn’t even bother responding to the censure motion (which he did on Tuesday). He left it to Garrett, who was able to provide more information regarding the Auditor General, which made Hunt’s previous question look even more dopey. And by the time he sat down, the Liberal Party must have felt like the fools on Deal or no Deal do when they have three cases left and they choose to open the one with the $200,000 in it instead of taking the money. 

They must have been sure they were going to get him. But in the absence of Garrett having done anything wrong – eg lying to Parliament – the only way they were going to claim his scalp was if he looked so incompetent in his answers during Question Time that Rudd would have to sack him just to save face.  To do this the Libs really needed to have gone for his throat on Tuesday – when he would not have had a full briefing and most likely would still have been trying to gather all the correspondence together. Had they asked him 6 question then, they may have got him umming and ahhing, they may have got him saying something which he would then have to retract.

So confident were his answers today that the Libs didn’t even get to move any points of order against him. There were no moments where he slipped over words which resulted in the opposition yelling him down. In fact they were pretty quiet.

I think they knew they had lost their opportunity and today was just all for show.

In fact the best grilling Garrett got today was on the 7:30 Report. The opposition? Pah.

My hope is that today marks the day people start realising that Peter Garrett is a politician. Sure there’ll be some dopey column writers who will bemoan the ex front man of Midnight Oil is no more – and other will say he sold his soul. To them I say, grow up; Garrett obviously has, you need to as well. You want Garrett the front man? Put one of the CD’s on and enjoy. The bloke chose politics, and he chose it knowing what it meant.

Today was also a good day for the Government because the latest unemployment figures came out showing a decrease in the unemployment rate from 5.5% to 5.3%. This is nothing short of astonishing. Employment grew by  52,700 seasonally adjusted, and the participation rate remains steady.

No doubt Hockey will say this is evidence the stimulus should be wound back, which of course ignores the fact that from this quarter on the stimulus has a negative impact on GDP.

There were a few Dorothy Dixers on the figures of course. The best was done by Rudd when he brought up comments by Abbott, suggesting Australia should have followed New Zealand's lead and not going into massive debt. The only problem with that argument, as Rudd pointed out, was the New Zealand has just had 5 negative quarters of GDP growth,

Whoops. No wonder they weren’t able to nail Garrett – they can’t even get their won points right – what chance do they have of finding faults in others?

Lastly, after an answer by Nicola Roxon, Julia Gillard asked that Peter Dutton withdraw a comment he had made to Roxon (actually she asked “the current Member for Dixon”). No one had heard what he said. But so dumb is Dutton that after withdrawing the comment, he decided to use twitter to tell everyone:

telling nicola to get on her broomstick is hardly "grossly unparliamentary" as joolia claimed

Yep. This former policeman, former Minister in the Howard Government and current likely to be ex-member of Dixon thought yelling out that a woman should “get on her broomstick” and to call the Deputy PM of Australia “Joolia” instead of her actual name was witty. And not only that, he thought tweeting it so the world could see just how dumb he is was also a good idea.

And this opposition thinks it can win government?

On the QT: Game and Set

Question Time can in some ways be seen like a tennis match. Each answer by a Minister is an attempt to hold his or her serve as the opposition tries to break them. Unfortunately for the opposition, the Government also gets to serve against its own side, which means, unless a Minister completely stuffs up a response to a Dorothy Dixer, quite often the best the opposition can hope for is to take the set to a tie break, get a few lucky net cords, maybe the odd call by Hawkeye to go their way, and a 7-6 win.

Except today they seemingly had a good chance to break serve and take the set.

Yesterday it was noted by many commentators that the opposition had completely let Peter Garrett off the hook over the ceiling insulation and green loans scheme. Today it looked to be the day that Garrett would have to step on the court and show us what he’s got. 

The problem of course is that whole extra day he has had to prepare. Yesterday he would have been a bit cold and rusty; today he came out having spent the last 24 hours on  the practice court, and no doubt also having had to listen to a thorough explanation of the game strategy from coach Rudd.

And so when the first question came up today from Greg Hunt it did seem like the Liberals were a day late. Garrett’s first game was pretty solid – a few unforced errors, the game did go to deuce, but he was able to get through.

Luckily for the Government they had Barnaby Joyce to take some of the heat off and allow Garrett to drink down some Gatorade at the change of ends. Rudd was given the first Dorothy Dixer of the day, and the question was so targeted he may have well have been asked “Why is Barnaby Joyce a goose?” Rudd put down some good serves – his line of Tony “Straight Talk” Abbott was a definite ace – and when he referred to Joyce having Abbott’s “ring of confidence” it was a pretty nice forehand down the line to win the game.

The next question was from Abbott to Garrett. It was not very well structured, given it contained about 10 questions, but the point was sort of made. Garrett made some unforced errors when he got stuck in acronym land, and at one stage he was down break point when he referred to “the real time politics of the environment which we inhabit now”. Only some good talking points and a letter given to him during the answer enabled him to hold serve.

Next up was Wayne Swan – the Wally Masur of Australian politics (I have a feeling I’ve stolen that line from Bernard Keane, but if not I’ll claim it!). Swan joined in the Barnaby kick fest and he served out his game in his usual methodical fashion. Swan only ever gets into trouble on serve when he tries to emulate Lindsay Tanner. And he was in danger of making a few errors when he compared Abbott’s decision to appoint Barnaby Joyce to being like Parachute pants – popular for a while, but no one wants to be seen dead in them now. It was a cross court winner, but we did go to Hawkeye to see if it had landed out. It was just on the line.

Bizarrely Joe Hockey produced a map of the world and wanted to table it to show a map of the world which included Australia. No one knew why; and no one knew what the hell he was doing with a map of the world in the first place – presumably looking for a place to dump Barnaby for a month or so.

And then Andrew Lamming was up to try and break Garrett with a question about assessors for Green Loans (or something – the problem with many of the questions by the opposition is they had no cut through). By this time Garrett was finding his range with his ground strokes and proceeded to welcome the question because it enabled him to take the House on “a journey through the assessment process for assessors”. This was not a journey the House really wanted to take, but rather than produce howls of protest and calls for his head, the opposition pretty much took it like lambs (mostly because Garrett was actually answering the question, and so there was no call for points of order on relevance). He sat down having held serve – a bit shaky, again the game went to deuce, but he got through it.

Next up Lindsay Tanner had the good fortune to kick Barnaby Joyce. 40-love. Too easy.

And then something inexplicable happened: Joe Hockey asked Lindsay Tanner a question about cost blow outs. What on earth possessed the Liberal tactics committee to ask Tanner a question? They had Garrett struggling on serve – looking likely to be broken any time – and they decide instead to target the ALP’s best performer. It’s like saying, well I’ve got Andy Roddick struggling, instead of beating him I’ll stop and challenge Federer to a match. Insane.

You could also tell Hockey is not having fun at the moment, because when the ALP laughed at him for asking Tanner a question (essentially laughing because they all knew he was trying to clean up Barnaby’s mess) Hockey angrily said “oh they’re laughing, typical Labor with money”.  He was in full Mr Grumpy mode, and it is not a good look.

It was just a dumb tactic. And Tanner killed him. He smacked across some huge backhands that also damn near took out Tony Abbott as he stood at net.

The next Dorothy Dixer was to Nicola Roxen and it allowed her to indulge in her favourite sport of Tony Abbott impersonation. She ridiculed Abbott saying on the Alan Jones program that he hadn’t taken out $1b from the Health budget, but just that “the rate of growth [of the Health budget] slowed somewhat”. It was a beautiful line from the Alicia Molik of Australian politics (ok, I know I’m starting to stretch it here).

Then something even more amazing happened – Warren Truss was too slow to get up and so he missed his turn and the ALP got another question! This is tantamount to double faulting every point in a game. It was even worse, because the next Dorothy Dixer was to Julie Gillard (Steffi Graf – last one I promise) on women on workplace agreements and parental leave.

She absolutely smoked down four serves that were unreturnable. She too indulged in some Tony Abbott impersonation, repeating him saying on Alan Jones, that the SMH had rather jumped the gun on the parental leave policy story. At this point Wilson Tuckey let go with a long point of order that made no sense. Julia responded by saying “Wilson, the modern face of Liberalism, it's so attractive and so intelligent". About 30 seconds later (at which point she must have finally clicked that Julia had said something), Julie Bishop got up on a point of order asking Gillard to withdraw. She did, saying “I said the wrong thing, the modern face of Liberalism if Bronwyn Bishop”.

By this time the questions to Garrett seemed a long time ago, and in actual fact, because the Libs had missed a question, and had asked one to Tanner, it felt like the ALP had had four Dorothy Dixers in a row.

It felt like 5 in a row when the Libs next question was not to Garrett, but to Gillard! Inconceivable! It was from Pyne on the school laptops blowout in costs. Gillard having had so much fun in her previous answer just let rip at Pyne and Abbott and the entire Liberal side of life. Julie Bishop had had enough and had a jibe at Julia wondering if she had seen a hairdresser this week (yes that’s the usual level of wit from Julie Bishop).

After a Dorothy to Jenny Macklin, Joe Hockey got up and asked another question about cost blowouts to Lindsay Tanner. Inconceivable times two! At this point the ALP was up 5-3 and serving for the set. Lindsay put them away.

The day’s play was effectively all over. Abbott tried to ask Rudd a question on integrity, that had Rudd feeling so loose and relaxed that he let fly with volley after volley. By now, all that was left was for Craig Emerson to have some fun quoting Monty Python and Billy Joel, to call Barnaby Joyce Barnaby Bjelke-Petersen and it was time to roll up the net and head to the clubhouse for some Pims and Lemonade.

And the man drinking it down with the most relish was Peter Garrett, who must have been wondering how he could ever be so lucky.

Tomorrow the Libs no doubt will try for the third day in a row to break Garrett’s serve; but on the past two days’ performances, I wouldn’t be backing them to do it.