Radio Australia Today Editorial
Archive for January, 2009
Cambodia’s Pol Pot. He Never Fails to Shock.
15 January 2009
Today in the Breakfast Club we spoke with an Australian agricultural scientist who has spent a lot of his life travelling around the world helping farmers to grow rice efficiently.
Joe Rickman is his name, and he’s currently working in Africa, helping out in Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Burundi and Mozambique. Some of the places in there have been in the news for some not-very-good reasons. As Joe explained to us, when there are civic disasters like civil wars or floods, agriculture is an early casualty.
The same was true of Cambodia, where he was sent after the toppling of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime. There was a shortage of crops after Pol Pot, and Joe’s job was to try to build up agriculture again.
The shocking thing about this is why there was a shortage of crops. It seems that apart from killing the wealthy, the artistic and the famous, Pol Pot had agricultural scientists murdered as well.
We’ve known for years that Pol Pot harboured a strange kind of hatred for his own kind. Here was a man who split up families, murdered Cambodians on whim, and claimed to be bettering the country by destroying anything that was post-feudal. Hence the deaths of singers like Sinn Sisamouth, a man who was a star of the rock scene in Cambodia. Dancers, poets, actors, they all died at Pol Pot’s order.
But killing those who are trying to feed your people is the last word in the cruelty of this man. Joe and his team were needed in Cambodia because there wasn’t seed left to plant crops. These seeds had been eaten by a starving population.
At times we need to remember the story of people like Pol Pot. If we forget about them, then we forget how easily humanity can be turned in on itself, and how the effects of this turning can be felt for decades, like in Cambodia or Germany or, I dare say, in Rwanda and Bosnia.
Lest we forget.
- Phil
A Week to go: George Bush Thanks His Friends
14 January 2009
One week from today George W. Bush will be off to play golf, write his memoirs and look bored on a range of company boards.
That means he’s still got seven days of power. As I mentioned yesterday, he has given his last media conference, where he regretted very little (except for stuff that other people have done). He’s about to have a round of farewell get-togethers with his staff to thank them for their loyalty and service. He’s also going to be spending some time with Barack Obama, showing him the official washbasin and where the pencils are kept.
One of his biggest last acts though was only a few hours ago when he awarded the Medal of Freedom to some of his most loyal comrades, like former Australian prime minister John Howard, who was just given the medal in a special ceremony.
John Howard has been rather quiet since he was thrown from power by the Australian electorate 14 months ago. He’s given the occasional speech in the U.S. where he has questioned the more liberal policies of his successor. He was spotted at the cricket last week, looking rather ebullient, possibly because he was about to be given America’s highest civilian honour.
And now George Bush has bestowed the honour, citing that Howard brought ”unparalleled prosperity” to the Australian people and made efforts to “combat the scourge” of terrorism.
John Howard looked pleased (and perhaps a titch embarrassed) as the out-going Prez pinned the medal’s sash together:
(Reuters photo)
Two years ago these men, along with fellow medal recipient Tony Blair were among that elite as leaders of the western world. In a week’s time power will have passed from all of them. A good time to reflect that, as George Harrison once sang, All Things Must Pass.
– Phil
George Bush & the Art of (not really) Regretting
13 January 2009
George W. Bush poured his heart out at a media conference this morning.
He must have been in a reflective mood. Either that or the reality of the fact that his place in history has been cemented already. Like with Richard Nixon, nothing he can do in this last week is going to change the world’s view of his term in office. For Nixon, even his success in finally drawing a curtain on the war in Vietnam, the ending of the frost with China and the USSR made no difference come that day in 1974 when he announced he was not a quitter, and then quit. He continues to be remembered for his failings. The same could be said for Jimmy Carter. His ill-advised economic policies and the failed rescue of hostages in Iran in 1979 marred the memory of his incumbency. These are poor memories that despite Carter’s considerable post-offfice achievements, will never be forgotten.
George Bush would know this. He would be aware of the polls that have branded him an unsuccessful president. He would know that there’s nothing more he can do now. He will never be revered. To steal a metaphor from Arthur Miller, his thumbprint on the world will not be enshrined.
Consider all this when looking at this media conference. It was a media conference where George Bush did admit that he had regrets. The regrets were not so much for his own actions, but for the actions of others. For example, he regretted that his policies were blocked by congress. He also regretted the actions of American military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison where prisoners, alive and dead were humiliated. These were not actions by George Bush, but he regretted that others had done them.
As for regret of his own actions, he said his famous “Mission Accomplished” statement about the Iraq invasion was wrong. Bush admitted it sent the wrong message. He says he was trying to say something differently (sic), but didn’t actually say what.
The most bizarre part of the media chat came when he said he regretted that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Regret? Most people would be joyful that an erratic regime did not have the means to destroy billions. By unfortunate choice of words George W. Bush seemed to give the impression that he wished the weapons had been found, if only to justify his invasion.
As they say, words can’t break your bones, but they can last a lifetime.
George Bush is jovial man, apparently personally very charming. But limiting his regrets to incidents involving the actions of others is not going to invite the warm regards of his citizens. And as a democratically elected president, it is his citizens who will decide the succcess of his presidency. If they haven’t already.
– Phil
Golden Globes. Heath Ledger’s Joker nails it.
12 January 2009
Minutes ago the news started coming through of the winners for this year’s Golden Globes awards. The first announcement to make the wire services was that Wall-E, that animation about a robot that cleans a rubbish-filled and abandoned Earth, had with a Globe. A great film, as much for the social messages littered through it as for the animation (I mean let’s face it, all animations are pretty advanced now. Ever since Shrek, the characters in Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks have been life-like).
The next Globe to be announced was that for Sally Hawkins, who played the lead in Happy Go Lucky. She got the Globe for best Actress in a Comedy. Another well deserved win, although just about everyone I know found the Mike Leigh film irritating. Hawkins plays a teacher who is almost constantly happy. She has to deal with problems that her students are suffering; she is stalked by a weird driving instructor and has no boyfriend, but she stays irresolutely gay. I loved the film and her performance, but perhaps the concept of a perrenially bright person is too much for most people to handle. Clearly not though for the Golden Globe judges. I concur.
Then came the news that Heath Ledger has done it. His prodigious display as the Joker in The Dark Knight has won him a posthumous Golden Globe. I remember the scene when he walks into a mafia meeting. He has no weapon or henchmen, and puts the fear of death into these death merchants. In the audience, his flicking tongue and eye did the same to me. It was one of the great scenes in move making, almost matched by his later scene when his Joker, dressed as a nurse, skips down a road towards the camera, as a large building explodes in the background. Small things, little bits of actor business, and he does the impossible, that is, he out-does Jack Nicholson’s fabulous Joker from the 1989 Batman film.
There is debate about whether Ledger should have been eligible for the Globes, considering that he has died. This attitude doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. The Globes are not an encouragement award. They are not a talent contest. They are a recognition of what is the greatest performance of the year. His was the performance of the year.
Except maybe, the extraordinary performance given by Frank Langella as Richard Nixon in Frost/Nixon. By the time you read this, we’ll know if Langella got the Globe for his leading role.
For me the Globes are the awards of the year. The Academy Award is the one that most people look to, but the Globes just seem to get it right so often. I’ll always remember Cate Blanchett getting the Globe for her amazing portrayal of Elizabeth in the film of that name. Most agreed with that decision. But come Oscar time, Gwyneth Paltrow beat her for her performance in Shakespeare in Love. Gwyneth was terrific, but Blanchett had taken acting to another level.
In the end though, they are just awards, and we know that awards are subjective, and the quality of the entries is often not the only deciding factor.
Except maybe in the Golden Globes.
– Phil
Barack Obama and the Big Spend
9 January 2009
A few months ago George W. Bush announced that he was going to spend America out of recession. Or at least try to.
This move brought cheers from the markets, and some hisses from taxpayers who were going to have to pay for the big spend. Their biggest concern was that a lot of the proposed funds would be going to corporations who had not behaved particularly well and had got themselves into their own mess.
This debate all happened during the US presidential election campaign, and both John McCain and Barack Obama promised that any stimulatory packages they would consider once in office would be taut, focussed and targetted.
Well, now Barack Obama is days away from office, and his financial team has put together an audacious big spend that he hopes will be stimulatory and will keep a few American corporate icons in business. It’s a package that equates (in size at least) to George Bush’s: 775 billion dollars.
What is extraordinary is that the incoming president wants to combine this package with tax cuts (a stimulatory move that would have the nasty side-effect of reducing his income).
But what is heartening for people worried about global warming is that he hasn’t put that issue on the proverbial backburner. He is promising a doubling of alternative energies before the next election, and would modernise government buildings so that their power consumption drain will be less. A big spend.
This is all brave stuff. Like most of the countries in the world at the moment, Obama has gone Keynesian. John Maynard Keynes put forward the idea that when economies slow, the best thing governments can do is to stimulate by spending. Give people money, which they will spend, and companies will benefit. The government, in theory, will also get some of its investment back in taxes.
In the 1970s, Keynesian economics was poo-poo’d, because many countries had high unemployment and high inflation, and because Keynesian spending puts money in the economy, it necessarily causes inflationary pressure. In today’s recessions though, it isn’t so much inflation that is the worry, but corporate collapses, so a bit Keynesianism probably ain’t going to hurt a lot.
Until the time comes for Barack Obama and other world leaders to pay back the money.
These are all things that would be weighing on his mind right now.
And he’s not even in office yet.
As I said in an earlier blog: why would anyone want to be the US president?
– Phil
