One of the major Leftist gripes du jour would have to be the clamp down on dissidents in Tibet and China in general. With rage, even many in the Right are wondering why we ever chose to hold the Games there and we all hope faintly that this action may precipitate some sort of change there. I recall there was a time in which the East was slightly more relaxed and open minded regarding differing views. No, I’m not talking about Jiang Zemin or even Mao; you’ll have to go back much further.

The story goes that the great Kublai Khan entreated Marco Polo to convince him of the merits of Catholicism. He challenged him to bring him back 100 Catholic priests to argue their case and if they could convince them, the Mongol Empire would convert. Proselytizers would salivate given this opportunity today and lament the opportunity long lost.

What a sorry state the Vatican was in at the time. Polo arrived home to a divided church, in which the Papal chair had been vacant for three years. The bitter disagreement between French and Italian Cardinals had produced the longest impasse in Papal history. They were too interested in arguing over who should be the Pope at the time to care about something as insignificant as China.

When the new Pope finally ascended, his response to Khan was nothing short of abysmal by modern evangelical standards. A mere two friars were sent, who became discouraged half way there and turned back home. The whole Christian world has the rest of history to lament such foolish inaction.

I recently joined the “Bureau of Public Secrets“’s mailing list. Ken Knabb, who runs the BoPS, is famous for his work translating Situationist Guy Debord’s works from French and re-interpreting them in a post-Situationist framework with elements of Zen Buddhism.

I know, he sounds crazy but Knabb’s book “The Joy of Revolution” contains some writings regarding the state of American democracy and the role of grass-roots volunteers and members of the Democratic party in the reinvigoration of progressive politics. Knabb writes of how the American political system exists between an overt minority dictatorship (oligarchic, rather than monarchic) and a covert minority dictatorship. What, then, should be the goal for those looking to effect change? Should volunteers get behind a radical anti-establishment candidate like Obama or look to more direct methods of activism?

The following article is reproduced from the BoPS website with permission (October 2006, no copyright).

Andrew, Chris and I had a good chat today about the differences between the American and Australian political systems and how elements of each could be introduced to the other to reform them and make them more democratic. Andrew’s point was that the two-party system in the USA still allows a multitude of voices to be heard from one party during things such as the Primary campaign. Chris and I argued that the American Primary system is so broken that it is un-(and anti-)democratic.

The diversity of views doesn’t arise from the two party system, as Andrew believes, but from the separation of the branches of government. Because the head of government is directly elected, it is possible for the parties to debate issues internally and show these debates to the public. Party discipline is less strict than in Australia because the President doesn’t have to rely on the support of their own party’s majority in the Houses of Congress to decide the direction the nation will take. In Australia, the Prime Minister must enjoy the confidence of the House of Representatives (lest a motion of “no confidence” be passed and the PM forced to the polls) in order to govern. As a result, party discipline is enforced by Whips and “rebel” MPs may lose their preselection should they cross the floor to bring down a government Bill.

This post is the second in a series of five taken from “Aboriginal Australia, Non-Aboriginal Australia”, an essay by John Tracey.

So what is a “non-Aboriginal” person? I believe Oodgeroo Noonuccal was the first person to use the term “non-Aboriginal”. It was a subtle but radical redefinition of race relations. Instead of defining Aboriginal people by their difference from mainstream Australians, this new term define mainstream Australians by their difference from Aboriginality. A “non Aboriginal” person is easy to identify within the ATSIC definitions, as someone who fails the test of Aboriginality.

But do non-Aboriginal people also have ancestors? Are we not also connected through our bloodline to the very first humans? Of course we are, unless we belong to a different species. The Aboriginal view of reality by way of dreaming is equally applicable to European or any other non-Aboriginal bloodlines. But while the specific places where our ancestors were born and are buried do exist, they are not on this continent.

It seems, then, that the difference between an Aboriginal person and a non-Aboriginal person is a matter of bloodline but not necessarily genetics. This definition of difference still does not explain difference in culture, consciousness and behavior. There are many Aboriginal people who work in the mainstream institutions such as the bureaucracy or church who believe and behave in ways identical to their non-Aboriginal associates. Similarly there are many non-Aboriginal people who play important roles in Aboriginal society – including traditional tribal society – which are identical to their Aboriginal associates. Some non-Aboriginal people even achieve tribal initiation, fully incorporating them into traditional family structure, but this does not change that persons bloodline or dreaming.

It seems to me that the difference between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal culture, consciousness and behavior is a very different question from the difference between an Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal person.

Calling all cyclists who are fed up with Local and State Government failures to provide safe and direct routes for Brisbane cyclists.

Detours of bikeways due to major infrastructure projects like the North South Bypass Tunnel, AirportLink and Northern Busway are severely impacting upon the ability of cyclists to ride in safety, particularly on Brisbane’s north side - which is already poorly served for cycling access.

A protest ride is being organised by the Central Business District Bicycle User Group (CBDBUG) to highlight the frustrations of cyclists and the dangers we face.

Time: Friday 9 May 2008. 4:15pm for a 4:30pm start.

Meeting Point: Corner Gregory Tce and Bowen Bridge Rd Herston

Route: Bowen Bridge Rd Herston to Federation St Lutwyche and back to Gregory Tce (Total Distance: 3km)

The ride is pro-cycling, not anti-infrastructure development (although we would like a more balanced development)

A media release will be organised as part of the protest, highlighting these issues - we need a decent turnout by cyclists riding on the day to really make our point.

The ride will not go ahead unless we have at least 20 confirmed starters, so please RSVP to John Lister on john@whcp.com.au or 0428 667 827 by Wednesday 7 May 2008.

All riders must adhere to Qld Road Rules and ensure that you:

• Wear an approved and fastened bike helmet at all times
• Have a bell or horn in working order
• Do not ride more than two abreast

For more information on the CBD BUG visit us at http://www.cbdbug.org.au or email convenors@cbdbug.org.au

Paris 68-08. Was 1968 the most revolutionary year of the 20th Century?

When: 16th May, Friday 6:30pm
Where: Emma Goldman Room, Ahimsa House

A forum on the world-wide struggles and themes which were raised in that year and have continued through to the present.

Speakers from these sponsoring groups:
Brisbane Labour History Association, Institute for Social Ecology, Rank and File Group, 17 Group, The Greens, Indigenous Activists.

Speakers will include:

• Sam Watson
• Drew Hutton
• Greg Mallory
• Maria O’Neill
• Gary MacLennan
• Brian Laver
• Jim Prentice
• Dan O’Neill.

There will be ample opportunity for participation from the body of the meeting. All are welcome to speak in this two hour seminar on 1968 and the late 60s generally. Live music and records from the time. BYO and food available.

Brian Laver
Institute for Social Ecology
Contact: admin@ahimsahouse.com.au Tel: (07) 3846 5077

Reformist Labour Mayor of London “Red” Ken Livingstone has lost to Conservative fop Boris Johnson in what is being reported as Labour’s worst local government elections since the 1960s. Livingstone, who gave London its successful Congestion Charge was expelled from Labour a few years ago, running as an independent, and re-admitted to the party recently. The balance of power in the London Assembly will be shared between the Lib Dems, Greens and British National Party which will make for an interesting term.

Could Livingstone’s Labour membership have been a curse at these local elections? Gordon Brown isn’t exactly the breath of fresh air that England had hoped for after Tony Blair’s leadership. Brown was very much the Costello to Blair’s Howard but actually got a chance to lead the nation. The Conservatives, under David Cameron, have consolidated since the last UK general election and the local government results put the Conservatives in good stead to win the next elections. Cameron, like Rudd, is relatively young and more moderate than many of those in his party. Will the next UK election be a repeat over Australia’s 2007 election?

Again, I’ve probably missed posting one of these for a while. Today, I’ll start with what I’m reading.

• Gorbachev’s Memoirs
• Robert Manne’s “Dear Mr Rudd”
• Ken Knabb’s translation of the “Situationist International Anthology”
• Anthony Giddens’ “The Third Way - Renewal of Social Democracy”

The PhD scholarship for a Humanities and Social Sciences student is $20,007, which is below both the industry award stipend (by about $6000) and the poverty line according to an article in today’s The Australian. It seems there’s more to the “starving postgrad student” stereotype than any notion of such students living a life of attending the theatre and drinking caramel lattes at trendy inner suburban cafés.

Yes, you can make the argument that the market for postgraduate degrees fluctuates as demand for such graduates changes and that there’s a supply side issue of the number of places universities are willing to offer but the fact remains that these people are researching and studying (often full time with very little time to work outside the university) to take home a pay packet which is below the poverty line. This isn’t unskilled labour, this is an intellectual marathon. A PhD, even in fields which might be described as “soft” sciences, is an immense amount of work which takes years to complete.

The following series of posts by John Tracey are excerpts from a document by John Tracey entitled “Aboriginal Australia, Non-Aboriginal Australia”. - Sam Clifford

Firstly, for those who have not read a similar disclaimer in other things I have written, I am Irish and English by bloodline. I am the first of my family to be born in Australia.

The now defunct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) defined Aboriginality – a precondition for voting in ATSIC elections – as being born of at least one Aboriginal parent and being recognised and accepted as an Aboriginal person by an Aboriginal corporation. This definition seems to have been widely accepted by Aboriginal people and the mainstream bureaucracy.

The first Aboriginal Protection Acts that were instituted around Australia at the beginning of the twentieth century identified “full blood”, “half cast”, “quadroon” and “octoroon” as being legally “Aboriginal” but if the Aboriginal bloodline was 1/16th or less then these people were legally white. The ATSIC definition of Aboriginality pays no such attention to what percentage “Aboriginal” a person is, only if a person in holistically Aboriginal based on a bloodline connection, no matter how distant or thin. Indeed the many fair skinned Aboriginal people today and their unrestricted involvement in Aboriginal culture, spirituality and politics indicates that “race” is not a key factor in “Aboriginality”.