What’s so bad about bloggers being named?

Joe Boswell writes: Re. “SA law demands ID for bloggers, commenters on election” (yesterday, item 17). Your correspondent Margaret Simons is surely right to suggest that The Adelaide Advertiser, South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson and others would do well to take a cold shower.

It’s also obvious that the South Australian government (like so many others) is overly fond of launching high-handed and authoritarian assaults on basic freedoms, and hypocritical with it.

But what exactly is so dreadful about requiring people to identify themselves when they speak in public? It’s hard to think of any other measure that would so quickly and easily improve the quality of public debate, particularly on the internet.

It is, sadly, unenforceable generally, but the principle is sound, and not just during elections.

We willy willy like him:

Thomas Flynn, executive director of Australians For Constitutional Monarchy, writes: One of the most amusing things about those who would abolish the Australian Monarchy — at least as revealed by the organisation the Australian Republican Movement — is their utter lack of self awareness.

David Donovan complains about media coverage of the visit by Prince William to Australia. What he alleges is bias: that is to say he reckons the media determined the story in advance and then went out to find footage, vox pops, and pictures to fit this preconceived story rather than providing an objective account of what happened.

My impression is that in terms of enthusiasm for the story the media read the public mood about right — it tallied with the response expressed to me by plenty of people who are not particularly monarchical. Certainly we heard from the naysayers: there was TV news footage of people who did not know, care, or like that the Prince was in town.

However, it is revealing that, judging by this article, David Donovan is clearly unaware of the enormous media bias in favour of the Yes case at the 1999 referendum. That bias (demonstrable not merely alleged) really counted as it was in the context of a referendum vote.

To begin with Donovan might read Nancy Stone’s account of coverage in The Age and The Australian, Proceedings of the Samuel Griffith Society. In the 12 weeks before the referendum on 6th November 1999 “there was not one week when column-centimetres in the “Yes” camp did not exceed those in the “No” camp, usually overwhelmingly”.

It is the considered opinion of Greg Barns, the ARM’s campaign director in 1999 that since the referendum “[t]he media are central in keeping the republican issue alive for the ARM” (Greg Barns and Anna Krawec-Wheaton, An Australian Republic, chapter 1, p.23). Barns also tells us that throughout the 90s ARM activists “cultivated media interest in the republican issue and tirelessly ‘fed’ [sic] the media with relevant stories about the republic” (ibid., p.19).

Perhaps Donovan would prefer a return to the days when the media were the ARM’s lapdogs? The British journalist Bill Deedes (who cut his teeth in the Abyssinia Campaign in 1936 and had a long experience of such things) said of the republic referendum “I have rarely attended elections in any country, certainly not a democratic one, in which the newspapers have displayed more shameless bias. One and all, they determined that Australians should have a republic and they used every device towards that end.” (Daily Telegraph (London), 8th November 1999).

To sum up, it is clear that the republicans would never have made the headway they did in the 90s did they not have the media on their side and they would have disappeared entirely from the scene since then had they not managed to keep the media onside. It is hardly surprising that the media were interested in Prince William’s visit. Visits to Australia by members of the royal family are not that common. For David Donovan to insist that Prince William is not “relevant” to modern Australia is absurd.

We know Donovan does not like the fact that Australia is a constitutional monarchy, but he should at least acknowledge that nevertheless a constitutional monarchy we remain. Prince William will be King of Australia one day — bearer of the crown from which all authority in Australian governments flows. That might make HRH odious to the ARM but it also makes him relevant to Australia.

Zachary King writes: I, like most Australians, think David Donovan should just f-cking get over it already.  The media went nuts for a handsome Prince, who just happens to be from our Monarchy?  Well colour me surprised. Sweet, merciful Jesus man, that was the most petulant article I have a read in years and I have read The Latham Diaries.

And calling the PR efforts on behalf of the royals ‘foreign interference in Australian domestic affairs’ reeks of a level of paranoia that Robert Mugabe would be proud of. You must be well worried about Disney pushing Hannah Montana onto us unsuspecting rubes.

For the record I am strongly for a republic, but this sort of world class whining is more suited to well, a whinging pom.  This kind of childish, huffy, querulous piece does far more damage to the republican movement than some purported media bias about that charming young man from England.

Fruity over fructose:

Michael R. James writes: Re. “Where’s the F word … err fructose … in healthy thinking debate?”  (yesterday, item 16). David Gillespie incriminates fruit juice sugars as a causative factor in childhood obesity. Well, yes and no.

He is quite correct, sugar is sugar whether it is “natural” or added. As with most things, moderation is the key. Sugared soda drinks are much worse because they don’t cost much and are consumed in increasing quantities — at fast food places they practically force them on you in supersize deals. This may be the largest single cause of American obesity — and perhaps ours as well — if at least partly because too many people seem blissfully unaware of what they are consuming, as Gillespie has previously reported.

But real fruit juice is unlikely to be a major problem not least because it is much more expensive and kids will not drink nearly as much of it.  I have always thought that the western habit of force-feeding children with gallons of milk is also highly suspect.

I concur with other comments that exercise does in fact have benefits, for example in overall fitness. Having better muscle tone also means a higher resting activity which burns more calories even when we are sitting at a desk. It is critically important to have our kids do regular exercise when they are young, so they adopt it as a lifelong habit. I don’t mean lifting weights at the gym or running marathons, but walking to school would be a big start.

The current obsession of counting calories burned off by a given activity is typically misunderstanding how our bodies work (and it turns out that most gym activity is lost by gym-bunnies immediately rewarding themselves afterward by eating a donut washed down with a sugary soda or beer. Doh!)

Have some sympathy for Paul Lucas (Queensland’s Health Minister) who was admitted briefly to hospital over the break.  It was due to light-headedness apparently caused by not eating enough while attempting to diet off some of his ….ahem….surplus calorific reserves.  A bit of fruit juice would have probably got him through the day.

Riddle me this:

An anonymous Crikey reader writes: I wouldn’t bother emailing you except that you might possibly be the faintest light of journalist integrity in this godforsaken land. I imagine that you have heard or read about the (hamstrung carefully comissioned) inquiry in Britain about why they entered what Dutch inquiry labelled an illegal war in Iraq.

It’s been très interesting has it not? The disappointingly same old same old Obama government in the States has steadfastly ignored the British inquisition and in the best interests of the American corporate/political establishment decided to look forward not back.

But what about Australia?

Why for the sake of humanity and our belief in ourselves as a decent law abidng nation do we not drag that snivelling rapacious little nabob Howard and his co-conspirators into a no holds barred, criminally accountable inquiry into Australia’s gung ho involvement into a war that SO many Australian’s didn’t want and SO many innocent Iraqi’s died in?

Riddle me this, oh mighty Crikey, is the lie the only truth we have left?

Can’t run the postal system, but will run a bank:

Ross Townson writes: Re. “AussieBank: the Government thinks it’s a good idea – does Ahmed Fahour?” (29 January, item 1) I’m not typically one to complain, but it is ridiculous what passes for ‘customer service’ as Australia Post these days. Having lost two  parcels of mine this month (including one containing airline tickets) it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that I would want to chase them up.

According to my local post office, however, it is; when I phoned them I was told curtly they were “too busy to go looking for my parcels” and I would have to come in.Notwithstanding the obvious fact that, whether I come in or not, they will still have to waste their precious time looking for my parcels, since when is ensuring mail is actually delivered such a low priority for the postal service? I suppose that’s the comfort of operating in a monopoly.

So, unhappy with the curt treatment I received (and unable to commit to leaving work and physically embarking on a wild-goose chase), I contacted the general Auspost hotline, intending to vent my frustrations and force some kind of top-down resolution on those that wronged me.

How wrong I was. I was placed in a queue, from which I was removed to a second queue, where the kind voice suggested I make an appointment for one of their “most experienced” staff to call me back, as they were, again, “too busy” and would not be answering my call. So I wait to make my appointment. Another 10 seconds pass before I am informed that no, I would not be granted one, as all appointments are full. Beep, beep, beep.

So it is that I have no tickets for my upcoming holiday, no resolution and no means of redress. Ahmed Fahour, if you are reading this, it seems you have your work cut out for you. Please start with making sure the mail actually gets delivered. In the meantime, I’m chasing up replacement plane tickets. Thanks.

Terminally ill aren’t ‘parasites’:

Jenny Morris writes: Ah, Denise Marcos (yesterday, comments), an advocate of voluntary euthanasia who tells it like it is: terminally ill “elderly person[s] … in the final weeks of their life” are “parasites on our… health systems”, and  bumping them off (though it’s not clear precisely when this will happen) will “channel resources to the sick” and “nobody gets hurt”.

At least you’re honest, Denise.  Just hope I don’t run into you when I’m old, ill, and a bloody inconvenience, as I think I’ll be hurt — and dead — unless I can make a run for it out the hospital door before you get to me for my “voluntary” and eternal departure package.

Dads and divorce:

Chris Lehmann writes: I am a little bit bewildered Samantha Kennedy by your comments  (yesterday, comments), “they hate being generically judged but believe they have every right to do it to others” and “I actually wouldn’t have any problems with either of these two men’s comments if they stuck to the facts instead of their own, extremely obvious, angry opinions”.

My point was that it is a two way street in marriage breakdowns, men are not always the bastards…. and rather than being angry I started over again from scratch and just got on with making the lives of my children and my life as normal as possible.

I am not alone, there are plenty of dads who are good men but the opportunity to be involved in being more involved in the upbringing of their kids is taken away from them AND their children.  This is wrong. The prevailing narrative that comes from most of the contributors who have being getting airtime on this issue is that women are better carers, and dads are violent is just not backed up by the facts.

If you read the recent press, the emotive “violence” angle is the barrow that is being pushed, and loving, nurturing dads like me who pay triple their child support assessment, do their ex-wives gardening, and pay sporting out of pocket expenses so their kids can have as rounded and as normal a childhood as possible. I want my kids to see dad taking an interest in where they live (66% of the time), and respecting the job their mother does, even when it is not reciprocated.

It sounds very much like YOU are angry.  I am not judging you or anyone else, and i do not endorse the comments of Neil Pentecost with regards to 14 and 15 year old girls (I have 3 girls, 18 to 14) it just makes my blood boil to hear stereotypes of men being peddled as violent, and “lesser” parents in this debate. Involved and responsible fatherhood is not a hardship or a handicap for children who have been affected by divorce.

Just look at the camera, Barack:

Peter Longhurst writes: Am I alone in seeing or not seeing the US President’s  point blank refusal to look into the camera? Every speech I have seen him give shows a head to the right and a head to the left-never a straight to the camera look. Is that normal for politicians and statesman style people giving speeches?