Thank you NetGalley for the two fiction uncorrected proofs sent to me for in exchange for honest reviews. Each must be given a star rating for NetGalley and I gave The Final Case 5* and The Watcher Girl 3*.
David Guterson The Final Case Alfred A Knopf 2022.
How can my words, reviewing The Final Case, aspire in any way to catch all the wonderful the ideas, phrases, characterisations and plot of this amazing novel? They cannot, but here is my attempt to encourage you to read and reread David Guterson’s latest work. Even ‘work’ is too harsh word for this story that flows so beautifully, that reflects so warmly on the central character’s relationship with his father, Royal, his mother, sister and wife; and that so succinctly tells us how stringently the law should be interpreted. The bleak story of Abeba, the Ethiopian girl named Abigail by the American couple who adopted her, is woven into this landscape, with razor-sharp commentary raised by the legal case in which not only the behaviour of individuals but the insidious impact and extent of ideologies are laid bare. See complete review at Books: Reviews
Minka Kent The Watcher Girl Thomas & Mercer, Seattle, 2021.
This novel has so much potential: a damaged main character, with a fascinating occupation; a plot woven around her potential redemption; family drama; and chance meetings that pose the possibility of solving at least one of the main character’s challenges. Grace McMullen tells the story in the first person, advancing her as the person with the strongest emotional tug on the reader. She is flawed, her attitude towards her family making this most apparent. However, she remains a character who is worthy of sympathy – we want Grace to win some sort of resolution to the challenges she has faced as a child and adult. See complete review at Books: Reviews
After the Canberra Covid update: Is America at risk of a civil war? Heather Cox Richardson and the American Constitution, 1776 and 2021; visit to the NGA; Cindy Lou eats out.
Post lockdown Covid in Canberra
There were 884 new cases recorded on 27 January and 73 people are in hospital with 4 in ICU, and one ventilated. Boosters are at 43.5% for those over eighteen; 60.3% five to eleven year olds have received their first dose; and 98.6% of the over twelve population are fully vaccinated.
Travel news is disappointing, as Australia has been taken off several countries’ lists of travellers who are welcome.
On January 28th the new cases recorded were 734, one death, and sixty six people in hospital with five in ICU and one ventilated. The one dose figure for children between five and eleven is now 63.3%. The January 30 new case figures show another improvement at 584 new cases; followed by another small improvement on January 31, with 537 new cases. On the day an anti-vax group demonstrated at Parliament House, amongst their claims that children should not be vaccinated, it was pleasant to note that the ACT rate for one dose for children five to eleven has climbed to 68.1%.
New cases recorded on 1 February – 522. Figures for children between five and eleven are heartening as the majority of them return to face to face teaching – 69.4% have had their first dose. There are now 3,750 active cases in the ACT, and twenty six deaths have been recorded since the beginning of the pandemic. There are now sixty four people in hospital including one in intensive care and being ventilated. The ‘low level public health social measures’ are being extended for a further four weeks.
There were 549 new cases of Covid recorded on 2 February. Boosters are at 51.2%. The percentage of children five to eleven who have been vaccinated with one dose is 70.9%. There are now 3,386 cases, with sixty one people in hospital, and one of those in intensive care and ventilated.
American Civil War?
Lawrence O’Donnell The Last Word MSNBC continued his series on whether there is a civil war brewing in America. A House Divided covered a critic of the ideas aired in last week’s episode.
Lawrence O’Donnell seemed to be more closely aligned with Fintan O’Toole’s reservations about the prognostications about another civil war in America at this time. In particular, the possibility that the prophecy could suit the aims of some of the insurrections at the Capitol was raised.
Heather Cox Richardson discusses the American Constitution, the reality of the historic events of 1776, and the poverty of the argument that it has anything to do with January 6 2021.
January 29, 2022 (Saturday)
I’ve thought a lot lately about Representative Lauren Boebert’s (R-CO) tweet on January 6, 2021, saying, “Today is 1776.” It’s clear that those sympathetic to stealing the 2020 election for Donald Trump over the will of the majority of Americans thought they were bearing witness to a new moment in our history.
But what did they think they were seeing?
Of course, 1776 was the year the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence, a stunning rejection of the concept that some men are better than others and could claim the right to rule. The Founders declared it “self-evident, that all men are created equal” and that ordinary people have the right to consent to the government under which they live.
But that declaration was not a form of government. It was an explanation of why the colonies were justified in rebelling against the king. It was the brainchild of the Second Continental Congress, which had come together in Philadelphia in May 1775 after the Battles of Lexington and Concord sparked war with Great Britain. At the same time they were declaring independence, the lawmakers of the Second Continental Congress created a committee to write the basis for a new government. The committee presented a final draft of the Articles of Confederation in November 1777. Written at a time when the colonists were rebelling against a king, the new government decentralized power and focused on the states, which were essentially independent republics. The national government had a single house of Congress, no judiciary, and no executive.
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States,” it read. The organization of the new government was “a firm league of friendship” entered into by the states “for their common defence.” With the weight of governance falling on the states, the confederation languished. It was not until 1781 that the last of the states got around to ratifying the articles, and in 1783, with the end of the Revolutionary War, the government began to unravel. The Congress could make recommendations to the states but had no power to enforce them. It could not force the states to raise tax money to redeem the nation’s debts, and few of them paid up. Lacking the power to enforce its agreements, the Congress could not negotiate effectively with foreign countries, either, and individual states began to jockey to get deals for themselves.
As early as 1786, it was clear that the government was too decentralized to create an enduring nation. Delegates from five states met in September of that year to revise the articles but decided the entire enterprise needed to be reorganized. So, in May 1787, delegates from the various states (except Rhode Island) met in Philadelphia to write the blueprint for a new government. The Constitution established the modern United States of America. Rather than setting up a federation of states, it united the people directly, beginning: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It corrected the weakness of the previous government by creating a president with explicit powers, giving the government the power to negotiate with foreign powers and to tax (although it placed the power of initiating tax bills in the House of Representatives alone), and creating a judiciary. Those still afraid of the power of the government pushed the Framers of the Constitution to amend the document immediately, giving us the Bill of Rights that prohibits the government from infringing on individuals’ rights to freedom of speech and religion, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on. The catch-all Tenth Amendment stated that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That reservation of powers to the states created a crisis by the 1830s, when state leaders declared they would not be bound by laws passed in Congress. Indeed, they said, if voters in the states wanted to take Indigenous lands or enslave their Black neighbors, those policies were a legitimate expression of democracy. To defend their right to enslave Black Americans, southern leaders took their states out of the Union after the election of 1860.In the wake of the Civil War, Americans gave the federal government the power to enforce the principle that all people are created equal. In 1868, they added to the Constitution the Fourteenth Amendment, which declared that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It gave the federal government—Congress—the power to enforce that amendment.
It seemed that the Fourteenth Amendment would finally bring the Declaration of Independence to life. Quickly, though, state legislatures began to discriminate against the minority populations in their borders—they had always discriminated against women—and the American people lost the will to enforce equality. By the early twentieth century, in certain states white men could rape and murder Black and Brown Americans with impunity, knowing that juries of men like themselves would never hold them accountable.Then, after World War II, the Supreme Court began to use the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to overrule discriminatory laws in the states. It ended racial segregation, permitted interracial marriage, gave people access to birth control, permitted reproductive choice, and so on, trying to enforce equality before the law.
But this federal protection of civil rights infuriated traditionalists and white supremacists. They threw in their lot with businessmen who hated federal government regulation and taxation. Together, they declared that the federal government was becoming tyrannical, just like the government from which the Founders declared independence. Since the 1980s, the Republican Party has focused on hamstringing the federal government and sending power back to the states, where lawmakers will have little power to regulate business but can roll back civil rights.
That effort includes rewriting the Constitution itself. In San Diego, California, last December, attendees at a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s policy conference announced they would push a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, returning power to the states. ALEC formed in 1973 to bring businessmen, the religious right, and lawmakers together behind legislation. So far, 15 Republican-dominated states have passed legislation proposed by ALEC to call such a convention. In another nine similar states, at least one house has passed such bills, and lawmakers have introduced such bills in 17 other states.
ALEC formed in 1973 to bring businessmen, the religious right, and lawmakers together behind legislation. So far, 15 Republican-dominated states have passed legislation proposed by ALEC to call such a convention. In another nine similar states, at least one house has passed such bills, and lawmakers have introduced such bills in 17 other states.
The insurrectionists’ cries of 1776 remind me not of the Founding era, but of 1860. In that time, too, people believed they were creating a new country and recorded their participation. In that time, too, the rebels wanted a country with a weak federal government, so they could be sure people like them would rule forever. *
I have added these photos from the insurrection.
Visit to the National Gallery of Australia
This was a pottering visit , rather than one to see the Jeffery Smart Exhibition which is currently showing. Although I am disappointed at the loss of any significant contribution to children’s participation at the Gallery, the general exhibitions were thoroughly engaging.
Betty Muffler’s work makes an excellent introduction to the multitude of indigenous art works that now appear at the gallery.
The Know My Name exhibition continues to be a source of information and pleasure.
Cindy Lou Eats Out in Canberra
A visit to Milligram at Woden plaza was mixed – the coffees arrived promptly, the seating was pleasant enough, as were the staff. Amazingly, there were two pats of butter with the two slices of toast. However, the wait for that toast and eggs was a huge disappointment. Even worse was the wait for the avocado toast with tomatoes and an egg. The dish was also disappointing, with cold cut up tomatoes on a mash of avocado, small pieces of haloumi on one piece of toast and one egg. Sliced avocado, slices of succulent grilled haloumi and cooked tomato would have been so much more palatable. The lemon was a nice touch.
Disappointing cold tomatoes and rather dreary avocado after an even longer wait.
Nice toast with plenty of butter after a long wait
The positive part of this experience was the feeling that it had to be forgotten as soon as possible. At Espresso Room a caramel slice cut in half and a lovely hot coffee made to my order were brought promptly.
Here at the seating is varied, with comfortable lounge chairs at low tables, as well as conventional seating. With Julia Child’s admonition above what more could I have wanted? Perhaps less than perfect cafes exist just for the pleasure of finding an antidote!
A morning at Kingston Foreshore was a pleasant experience, with a long walk along the water ending a lovely chat with a coffee. The coffee was prompt, despite the café being fairly full, and delicious. The breakfasts I saw being brought to other tables looked immense – and beautifully fresh. I stuck with the coffee (The Cat’s Pyjamas brand) and a walk as a change from too much indulgence.
Edgars Inn Ainslie is a favourite, with its wooden tables, shelter and heating in the cold weather, and today with the heat, several excellent fans. The menu combines a range of smaller dishes, familiar fare, and several interesting salads. Today I enjoyed the fish and chips, served with a good wedge of lettuce with a pleasant dressing. Tartare, tomato sauce and a wedge of lemon were generous accompaniments. The only thing missing were the greedy seagulls which accompany any such meal in one of my favourite cities, Fremantle Western Australia. The few tiny birds who hop around hopefully do not compare with the predatory swoop of a seagull. My friend’s steak sandwich was replete with salad and served with chips.
In case anyone is concerned about the unhealthy nature of some of these outings, Cindy Lou eats a lot of salad, vegetables and fruit when she is at home. Oh, and the occasional chocolate bar. She loves the Julia Child quote too much, perhaps.
Elizabeth’s Strout’s Oh William! is the fiction reviewed this week, together with two non-fiction books, How to Read Like a Writer 10 Lessons to Elevate Your Reading and Writing Practice by Erin M. Pushman, and Burton I. Kaufman’s , Barack Obama Conservative, Pragmatist, Progressive. NetGalley provided me with the uncorrected proofs of the three books in exchange for honest reviews.
Elizabeth Strout Oh William! Viking (Penguin Random House)2021.
My first, but certainly not last, novel from this talented writer. I am glad to see that Lucy Barton’s story has been partially written, as here in Oh William! she appears as William’s former wife (he was her first husband) and I would like to know more of the woman who took his last name but relinquished it gladly after eleven years. Who is this woman who became William’s wife, took his name despite her friend’s interrogation, said she did not care about being a feminist, wanting so much to be free of herself, and yet, after William’s mother dies becomes Lucy Barton again? Lucy Barton for the remaining nine years of their marriage? Effected the change almost by chance when she had her driver’s license renewed? Then, took it so seriously she bothered with court documents to do so? Left William, after twenty years of marriage but grieved over their separation? Is concerned about the pain for herself and their two daughters, but remains resolutely apart? Complete review at Books: Reviews
Erin M. Pushman, How to Read Like a Writer 10 Lessons to Elevate Your Reading and Writing Practice, Bloomsbury Academic 2022
As Erin Pushman suggests, reading to become a better writer is a useful process. However, it has its downside for Pushman and her book. I could not help but read it using the process she advocates -reading it as a potential writer of a similar narrative. That is, a narrative which is aimed at producing writers who, using what they have read, improve their own writing. Starting from this premise, I could not help but compare How to Read Like a Writer with similar information books, with the underlying question to myself – how would I write this book? How could it better achieve its purpose? Having read numerous books about scriptwriting, and some about writing short stories, while I feel that Pushman has much to offer, I have some concerns about the ability of the work to stand alone as an instructive writing text. I would have preferred clear short statements and observations to the somewhat ‘wordy’ narrative. Books: Reviews – for complete review.
Burton I. Kaufman’s Barack Obama Conservative, Pragmatist, Progressive, Cornell University Press, 2022, is a timely read as President Joe Biden attempts to traverse the same recalcitrance from the Republicans – even where they are not in the majority. Then, as now, they do not have to be in the majority, making a mockery of the magnificent win in Georgia run offs by Democrats, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff which promised so much for Democratic Party values and President Biden’s program. The Obama years provide an instructive, as well as fascinating, read to a person unfamiliar with American politics, and a deeper analysis of these years for those more with more experience of the way in which the President and Congress work together to achieve, or in many instances, obstruct, the policy process. See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
The topic covered after the Covid update is the role and upsurge of Independents in the Australian Federal Parliament, with reference to Total Control and articles from Amanda Vanstone and Bob McMullan.
Covid in Canberra since lockdown ended
New cases recorded on the 20th January – 892, with 4,447 active cases. Sixty two people are in hospital with three in ICU and two ventilated.
On the 21st January 826 new cases were recorded – is this the decline in cases we have been waiting for? Great news about the vaccinations for children five to eleven – 41.7% have had their first dose. Boosters for those over eighteen are also proceeding, with 36.4% having had three doses.
There is sad news that two Canberra Covid deaths were recorded on the 21st. This brings the total to twenty two deaths in Canberra due to Covid, with the total number of cases recorded during the pandemic at 29,245.
The lowest daily total of new cases, 666, since 3rd January was recorded on January 22nd. This increased to 694 on the 23rd. And again on January 24, with 756 new cases recorded. Over 50% of children five to eleven have had their first dose; and 39.6% of people over eighteen have been given boosters.
The new case figures for the 25th and 26th January are 904 and 896. The decline in cases seems to have been brought to an abrupt halt, with perhaps a glimmer of hope with today’s figures. The total of active cases is 4,745; children five to eleven are no 54.5% vaccinated with their first dose.; and booster doses for those over eighteen are now at 42.8%. There are sixty seven patients in hospital, including five in intensive care one of whom is ventilated. School face to face returns are proceeding as planned with the majority of students returning on 1 February.
Total Control is a political drama produced by Blackfella Films for the ABC. It follows the political activities of Alex Irving and Rachel Anderson as they move from party affiliations to become Independent Members of the Australian Parliament. That the white male leaders of the main political parties are egregiously overdrawn is a pity. Why, with leaders such as these wouldn’t Alex and Rachel choose to meet to discuss the wisdom of being Independents? However, both women’s portrayals do much to counteract this failing, and their story, together with the others who meet with them is pertinent to the rise in Independents in the Australian Parliament.
The discussions between the Independents and the Green Party representative seem realistic, and identify the problems and advantages for people who wish to avoid being part of one of the main political parties. Some of the would be Independents choose a different path from originally envisaged, demonstrating the ways in which negotiations might be resolved. However, at the end of series 2, there are Independents who could, with the relationships formed between several women, and that between Alex and another Indigenous politician, leave the way open to further dramatisation of the political and personal relationships forming in the federal parliament. The portrayal in this series, sympathetic to Independents, is at odds with the opinions expressed by Amanda Vanstone in the Canberra Times.
Amanda Vanstone’s article below is an opinion piece and provides an interesting and informed perspective on Independents. Bob McMullan’s article is focussed on the coming Federal Elections and the role of Independents. He considers their prospects in a sharp analysis of the seats, past results and current polling.
More independents in parliament are not the answer
Independents Zali Steggall, right, and Helen Haines. Picture: Sitthixay Ditthavong
If you think our federal parliament has been less stable over the last 15 years or so wait until we get more independents in there. If instability and uncertainty is what you want, vote independent. It is a warm and fuzzy, feel good word.
Conveniently independents don’t have to tell you much about the philosophy that guides their decision making. In fact they indicate they are independent of the two main streams of political thinking that have emerged over the last few hundred years. Untied by the burden of working within a team they will be free spirits wafting from issue to issue as they please.
Governments don’t get to waft around with such luxurious indifference to the issues of the day. Problems get bowled up to governments and like it or not they have to be dealt with.
The awkward reality is that when we vote for our local member we are at the same time helping to construct the makeup of the next parliament. Politics101 tells us the party with the majority of members in the lower house forms government. If neither gets a majority then who forms government is decided by whatever deal can be struck with minor party and independent members. The horse trading starts on day one.
Picture yourself as one of say five members who collectively can give one party or the other the right to form a government. Do you think, Pollyanna style, that each of these five will just go with the party they intuitively prefer? Or do you think there might be some bargaining? Some demands to be met before your support is forthcoming. In less attractive language its called blackmail. Or holding to ransom.
Either of the major parties may have the support of millions of Australians but these independents might start with only 20 or 30 per cent of the vote in their electorate. They just have to come behind one of the major parties and generally ahead of the other candidates. As candidates with fewer votes than them are excluded the preferences are allocated. Its a fair system.
It is just worth remembering that you may get people in parliament who start with the first preferences of one third of their own electorate. They then collect the second, third and maybe fourth choice votes of excluded candidates. And with that uncertain ragbag of begrudging support they get to decide who forms our government.
Government is a team. Independents don’t always join the team, they simply indicate to the governor-general who they will support. Thus they remain unfettered by the laborious burden of resolving differences of opinion, of listening to the views across Australia. That’s the work left to the major parties. The independents come in after that work has been done and simply haggle.
Someone holding the balance of power in the reps or the Senate might not be so crude as to say “I’ll support you on this bill if you do x, y or z”. That would feel too much like cheap horse trading. They might rather say “I’m very concerned about (insert here some pork barrelling issue)”. Surprise surprise the issue is dealt with and the independent supports the legislation. Starting off with a 30 something per cent voter support and ending up holding a government to ransom is an extraordinary outcome.
In the Senate, independents can get elected with a small portion of a Senate quota and still end up holding a government to ransom. A government can be elected with a clear mandate for a particular policy and a minor party in the Senate feels entitled to block the will of the Australian people.
It is a very frustrating system. Having two houses elected on different systems does make for dynamic tension in the parliament. For all its faults it is better than a unicameral system where one party does what it likes for a few years.
There’s always plenty of criticism, some of it justified, of how the major parties conduct themselves. However, thinking that might be fixed by having more so-called independents in parliament is not so much delusional as it is crazy.
Recently out of the mouth of one aspiring independent came the pompous promise to remain independent and represent their own electorate’s view. The reality that their own electorate will not have a unanimous view on anything just hadn’t dawned. Will they remain independent of donors who funded their campaigns?
What will they do if a majority of people in their electorate are opposed to something which is objectively in the national interest. Please spare me the platitudinous rubbish that some come out with …”I’ll listen to my electorate”. Really? Independent candidates tend to imply that they will always do what their electorate wants. I hope not. Public opinion is mercurial and fickle. It must be taken into account. But the real question is what is in Australia’s best interest.
We don’t get that by going around a table and asking “what does your electorate think” and drawing up a table of the most preferred ideas. It’s laughable. We do it by teams of representatives listening to experts in the problem, to experts in policy design and working to find the best way forward. The electorates views don’t always win. Gun control legislation after the Port Arthur massacre is a classic example.
Consider that a number of people get elected on a platform of more action on climate change. What action? Will they get together and agree on some policies to put to the electorate or would that be too much like forming a party? Good heavens, they’d have to meet and despite no doubt differing views come to some sort of compromise.
Or are they marketing themselves as people of such wisdom and insight that you and I should just trust that they’d do a better job than anybody else. They won’t come out and say it but they believe it.
Ego rarely markets its true self. “I’m an egomaniac and I’m certain that I’ll be better than others at being a member of parliament” isn’t going to win votes. I’m independent sounds much better.
Amanda Vanstone is a former Howard government minister and a fortnightly columnist. This article first appeared in The Canberra Times
Bob McMullan
Will Independents hold the balance of power?
Bob McMullan
There are of course many important questions to be decided by the forthcoming federal election. The most important question is: who will form the government after the election? This will determine the future of many important issues for the next few years. An important subsidiary question is: will anyone be able to form a majority government?
I am not intending to canvass whether this would be a good thing or not. Rather, I am seeking to suggest the most likely outcome by analysing the prospects of independent and minor party candidates. My starting point assumption is that most of the incumbent independents and minor party candidates will retain their seats:
Bob Katter in Kennedy Andrew Wilkie in Clark Rebekah Sharkie in Mayo and Adam Bandt in Melbourne Helen Haines in Indi will have to fight hard but for the purpose of this article I am assuming that she will hang on. The situation in Warringah is not so clear, but the desperation of the Liberals to get Gladys Berejiklian to run suggests that without her Zali Steggall will probably retain that seat also.
To assess the significance of other possible independent victories it is necessary to examine the underlying statistical situation. Based on Anthony Green’s post-redistribution analysis the state of the parties is:
Coalition 76 ALP 69 Greens 1 Katter 1 CA 1 Ind 3. (This does not take into account Craig Kelly’s switch from Liberal to UAP in Hughes as I consider that to be irrelevant to any assessment of the likely outcome in the House of Representatives). On the basis of this pendulum Labor would need a 3.1% swing to become the largest party and 3.3% to be able to form a majority government.
Polling suggests that this is a real possibility but the 2019 election showed the dangers of taking that at face value. If Labor gets the sort of swing that polling averages suggest then they will win irrespective of the likely results for various independents and minor party candidates.
However, caution suggests that any analysis should assume a close result in which case the independent and minor party results could be significant. Anthony Green published a very interesting article about independent candidates’ prospects in the 2019 election. His key assumption was wrong because he assumed that all the polls pointing to a Labor majority result were correct. He wasn’t alone in making that mistake. However, his analysis of the underlying factors which influence whether Independents will win particular seats or hold the balance of power was basically sound.
His view was:
1) Experience at both state and federal elections is that independents are much more likely to win traditional conservative electorates. 2) Most independents poll poorly. 3) Independents hoping to poll well must announce themselves ahead of the election and must run in the right seat. 4) Mathematics mean independents are more likely to win safe seats. 5) Winning in a safe seat requires an independent to poll a minimum 20%, more likely 25 to 33% of first preferences.
This sets a high bar. Just wishing will not be enough. An effective campaign and a vulnerable opponent are required. So, which of the many Independents who have already announced they are running has a chance?
In attempting to give some examples I could not hope to be exhaustive as there are too many candidates. I am sure I will miss some significant ones but I hope to capture the electorates most likely to contribute to the likelihood of a hung parliament.
Coalition held seats at risk
North Sydney Held by Trent Zimmerman (lib) with a margin of 9.3%. The ALP vote in 2019 was 25% and this may be too high to allow for a successful Independent. The Labor party has endorsed a high-profile candidate which suggests the leading Independent, Kylie Tink ,will not make it unless she can eat very significantly into the sitting member’s primary vote. In a normal election this would be most unlikely. The special factor in this and other blue ribbon Liberal seats in Sydney and Melbourne is the potential for a campaign based on the argument that a vote for “X” is a vote for Barnaby Joyce to be Deputy PM. If MS. Tink campaigns around this sort of theme she has a chance.
Wentworth This statistically looks more promising for the Independent, Allegra Spender, as Dave Sharma (Lib) only won by 1.3% from the incumbent Independent, Kerryn Phelps, while the Labor vote was only 10.9%. However, it is much harder to win at a general election than in a by-election such as that won by Dr Phelps. Nevertheless, once an electorate has felt the power that can flow from voting Independent there is often a propensity to do it again.
Hume This is a real wild card. The sitting member, Angus Taylor (Lib), has been embroiled in the sort of controversy that makes a member vulnerable. The statistics appear more challenging, but I think Ms. Ackery has a real chance.
Flinders With Greg Hunt retiring and given the reasonably strong performance by Julia Banks in 2019 (13.8%) Claire Boardman has a chance. However, I suspect the Labor Party will do too well to give her a chance of coming second.
Goldstein Zoe Daniels is the type of high-profile candidate who could break through here. If she can seriously eat into the Liberal vote and get ahead of the Greens (14% last time) she would have a realistic chance of getting ahead of the Labor candidate (28% last time) and could win.
Boothby Sadly, I am certain Jo Dyer has chosen the wrong seat in which to run. I knew her as a very competent and engaging arts administrator when I was Arts Minister. She is the type of Independent who could bring a valuable perspective to the parliament, but Boothby will be a very close contest between the major parties and Jo will be squeezed out. There are other South Australian seats she might have won, but not this one.
Higgins This was a close contest last time and is likely to be a three-way contest between Liberal, Labor and the Greens again. At this stage it is too close to call.
Kooyong Very high-profile Green and Independent candidates gave this a major effort last time and fell short. It is hard to see it being harder for Josh Frydenberg this time.
There are other possible such as Mackellar and Berowra and interesting cases such as Nicholls, but the seats I have considered seem most likely at the moment.
Three-way challenges
In addition to Higgins (listed above) there are other interesting potential three-way challenges such as Brisbane, Ryan and McNamara (discussed below). Closer to the election it may be possible to make a more accurate prediction of the likely outcomes in these seats. For the moment all that is possible to say is that they will be interesting and any of Liberal, Labor or Green victories are possible.
Labor seats at risk As Anthony Green says, Independents are more likely to win in coalition held seats. That appears to be the case again this time. However, some seats currently held by the ALP will be under serious challenge from minor parties.
McNamara This seat was a tight three-way contest last time and is likely to be so again. It appears to be the Greens best chance of gaining a second House seat so will be a major campaign and spending focus for them. Unless the Liberal primary vote drops a long way (37% last time) it would require a 3-4% switch from Labor to the Greens for the Greens to come second and have a chance of winning. With a newly elected sitting member and a strong Labor primary vote in Victoria any of the three results is possible but the sitting Labor member, Josh Burns must start as favourite.
Hunter The results from last election would suggest that One Nation has an outside chance of winning this seat. This appears to have been an anomalous result and while it may be under threat from the Liberals it is hard to see One Nation winning it.
Cunningham and Cooper These have been Green targets in the past and are likely to be so again. It is hard to see them winning Cooper against Ged Kearney, at least while Labor is in opposition. However, the retirement of Sharon Bird may provoke some interest in Cunningham.
On balance, this analysis suggests at least the six sitting Independent and minor party candidates will be returned with up to four or five other realistic chances.
It would only be likely that there would be a Labor government dependent on minor party and Independent support if the ALP wins some seats but not quite enough. That is, if Labor gains a swing greater than 3% and less than3.5% approximately. This is a remote possibility, but it is possible. However, as soon as the coalition loses one seat they will be dependent on cobbling together support from a range of Independents, at least some of whom may not sit comfortably with the Nationals.
This week the Democratic Party has been dealing with the Freedom to Vote Act (see below) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (see below) in an attempt to prevent voting suppression legislation enacted in several states and to establish democracy in voting. With the debates that ensued regarding the filibuster and its impact on what could happen in the Senate in regard to these bills, and the mixed background of the Democratic Party on the substance of what makes a democracy it seemed pertinent to post a review of What It Took to Win A History of the Democratic Party by Michael Kazin, and to be published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in March 2022. The uncorrected proof was provided to me by NetGalley for an honest review. The complete review appears at Books: Reviews
My review of John Lewis: The Last Interview and Other Conversations, Melville House, 2021 appeared in the blog on November 17, 2021.
I have added commentary on a book that I have not reviewed, but is relevant to the debate about the attack on the Capitol, democracy and voting rights, How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them by Barbara F. Walter. Walter was interviewed recently on MSNBC, (and again on 18th January) where she gave an excellent account of her chilling perception of the way in which American democracy is being subverted. There are mixed reviews about the book. See reviews below.
Articles that appear after the Canberra Covid update are:
Summaries of the The Freedom to Vote Act S. 2747 and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021; reviews and comment on How Civil Wars Start; Heather Cox Richardson 12th January 2022; Heather Cox Richardson 16th January 2022; something lighter – holiday on the South Coast; Australian politics – ALP improves in the polls; Bob McMullan – ACT Senate and independent candidates.
Canberra Covid update
On the 13th January 1,020 new cases were recorded. There are now 5,004 active cases, with twenty four people in hospital, including three in intensive care, two of whom are ventilated. Those over twelve who are fully vaccinated – 98.6%
New cases recorded on the 14th January – 1,125 (885 PCR and 240 RAT).
ACT residents aged 5-11 who have received one dose of the vaccine – 15.3%; those aged 18 and over who have received their booster – 28.1%.
New cases 15th January – 1320.
On January 16th it was reported that testing facilities are under pressure because of the lack of testing materials for PRC testing. RATs tests will be distributed to those in most need. There were 1,601 new cases, and one death was recorded. The total number of deaths from Covid in the ACT now stands at nineteen. On each occasion ACT Health has extended its condolences to the families.
Australia has reported the highest number of Covid deaths since the pandemic started – seventy seven.
On January 18th the number of new cases recorded was 1,860. Now 30.2 % of ACT children between 5 and 11 have received one dose of the vaccine. There has been one death, sixty three people are in hospital, and six are in ICUs. This nearly doubles the number of Covid-19 patients in Canberra hospitals over the past four days.
The Canberra Times reports that modelling suggests that the ACT may have reached the peak of the Omicron wave.
January 19th figure for new cases is: 1,467, with PCR tests finding 654 cases, and RAT, 813.
ACT residents between 5 and 11 who have received one dose of the vaccine : 34.3%. Patients in ACT hospitals: sixty, with five in intensive care, two of whom are ventilated.
Summaries of the voting acts under consideration by the American Senate
The Freedom to Vote Act S. 2747
This bill addresses voter registration and voting access, election integrity and security, redistricting, and campaign finance.
Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.
Next, the bill establishes Election Day as a federal holiday.
The bill declares that the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless, at the time of the election, such individual is serving a felony sentence.
The bill establishes certain federal criminal offenses related to voting. In particular, the bill establishes a new criminal offense for conduct (or attempted conduct) to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote or helping someone register to vote.
Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including by requiring states to conduct post-election audits for federal elections. The bill outlines criteria for congressional redistricting and generally prohibits mid-decade redistricting.
The bill outlines criteria for congressional redistricting and generally prohibits mid-decade redistricting.
The bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (passed House August 2021)
This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices may take effect. Preclearance is the process of receiving preapproval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making legal changes that would affect voting rights.
A state and all of its political subdivisions shall be subject to preclearance of voting practice changes for a 10-year period if
15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the state during the previous 25 years;
10 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years, at least 1 of which was committed by the state itself; or
3 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years and the state administers the elections.
A political subdivision as a separate unit shall also be subject to preclearance for a 10-year period if three or more voting rights violations occurred there during the previous 25 years.
States and political subdivisions that meet certain thresholds regarding minority groups must preclear covered practices before implementation, such as changes to methods of election and redistricting.
Further, states and political subdivisions must notify the public of changes to voting practices.
Next, the bill authorizes DOJ to require states or political subdivisions to provide certain documents or answers to questions for enforcing voting rights.
The bill also outlines factors courts must consider when hearing challenges to voting practices, such as the extent of any history of official voting discrimination in the state or political subdivision.
Heather Cox Richardson, January 12, 2022
The struggle between the Trump-backed forces of authoritarianism and those of us defending democracy is coming down to the fight over whether the Democrats can get the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act through the Senate. It’s worth reading what’s actually in the bills because, to my mind, it is bananas that they are in any way controversial.
The Freedom to Vote Act is a trimmed version of the For the People Act the House passed at the beginning of this congressional session. It establishes a baseline for access to the ballot across all states. That baseline includes at least two weeks of early voting for any town of more than 3000 people, including on nights and weekends, for at least 10 hours a day. It permits people to vote by mail, or to drop their ballots into either a polling place or a drop box, and guarantees those votes will be counted so long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day and arrive at the polling place within a week. It makes Election Day a holiday. It provides uniform standards for voter IDs in states that require them.
The Freedom to Vote Act cracks down on voter suppression. It makes it a federal crime to lie to voters in order to deter them from voting (distributing official-looking flyers with the wrong dates for an election or locations of a polling place, for example), and it increases the penalties for voter intimidation. It restores federal voting rights for people who have served time in jail, creating a uniform system out of the current patchwork one. It requires states to guarantee that no one has to wait more than 30 minutes to vote.Using measures already in place in a number of states, the Freedom to Vote Act provides uniform voter registration rules. It establishes automatic voter registration at state Departments of Motor Vehicles, permits same-day voter registration, allows online voter registration, and protects voters from the purges that have plagued voting registrations for decades now, requiring that voters be notified if they are dropped from the rolls and given information on how to get back on them. The Freedom to Vote Act bans partisan gerrymandering.
The Freedom to Vote Act requires any entity that spends more than $10,000 in an election to disclose all its major donors, thus cleaning up dark money in politics. It requires all advertisements to identify who is paying for them. It makes it harder for political action committees (PACs) to coordinate with candidates, and it beefs up the power of the Federal Election Commission that ensures candidates run their campaigns legally. The Freedom to Vote Act also addresses the laws Republican-dominated states have passed in the last year to guarantee that Republicans win future elections. It protects local election officers from intimidation and firing for partisan purposes. It expands penalties for tampering with ballots after an election (as happened in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the Cyber Ninjas investigating the results did not use standard protection for them and have been unable to produce documents for a freedom of information lawsuit, leading to fines of $50,000 a day and the company’s dissolution). If someone does tamper with the results or refuses to certify them, voters can sue. The act also prevents attempts to overturn elections by requiring audits after elections, making sure those audits have clearly defined rules and procedures. And it prohibits voting machines that don’t leave a paper record.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) takes on issues of discrimination in voting by updating and restoring the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) that the Supreme Court gutted in 2013 and 2021. The VRA required that states with a history of discrimination in voting get the Department of Justice to approve any changes they wanted to make in their voting laws before they went into effect, and in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, the Supreme Court struck that requirement down, in part because the justices felt the formula in the law was outdated.
The VRAA provides a new, modern formula for determining which states need preapproval, based on how many voting rights violations they’ve had in the past 25 years. After ten years without violations, they will no longer need preclearance. It also establishes some practices that must always be cleared, such as getting rid of ballots printed in different languages (as required in the U.S. since 1975). The VRAA also restores the ability of voters to sue if their rights are violated, something the 2021 Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee decision makes difficult. The VRAA directly addresses the ability of Indigenous Americans, who face unique voting problems, to vote. It requires at least one polling place on tribal lands, for example, and requires states to accept tribal or federal IDs. That’s it. It is off-the-charts astonishing that no Republicans are willing to entertain these common-sense measures, especially since there are in the Senate a number of Republicans who voted in 2006 to reauthorize the 1965 Voting Rights Act the VRAA is designed to restore.
McConnell today revealed his discomfort with President Joe Biden’s speech yesterday at the Atlanta University Center Consortium, when Biden pointed out that “[h]istory has never been kind to those who have sided with voter suppression over voters’ rights. And it will be even less kind for those who side with election subversion.” Biden asked Republican senators to choose between our history’s advocates of voting rights and those who opposed such rights. He asked: “Do you want to be…on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?
Today, McConnell, who never complained about the intemperate speeches of former president Donald Trump, said Biden’s speech revealed him to be “profoundly, profoundly unpresidential”.
Heather Cox Richardson, January 16, 2022 (Sunday)https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com
Author of How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America
Republicans say they oppose the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act because it is an attempt on the part of Democrats to win elections in the future by “nationalizing” them, taking away the right of states to arrange their laws as they wish. Voting rights legislation is a “partisan power grab,” Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) insists.
In fact, there is no constitutional ground for opposing the idea of Congress weighing in on federal elections. The U.S. Constitution establishes that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”
There is no historical reason to oppose the idea of voting rights legislation, either. Indeed, Congress weighed in on voting pretty dramatically in 1870, when it amended the Constitution itself for the fifteenth time to guarantee that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” In that same amendment, it provided that “[t]he Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”It did so, in 1965, with “an act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution,” otherwise known as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a law designed to protect the right of every American adult to have a say in their government, that is, to vote. The Supreme Court gutted that law in 2013; the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act is designed to bring it back to life.The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a response to conditions in the American South, conditions caused by the region’s descent into a one-party state in which white Democrats acted as the law, regardless of what was written on the statute books.
After World War II, that one-party system looked a great deal like that of the race-based fascist system America had been fighting in Europe, and when Black and Brown veterans, who had just put their lives on the line to fight for democracy, returned to their homes in the South, they called those similarities out. Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York had been far too progressive on racial issues for most southern Democrats, and when Harry S. Truman took office after FDR’s death, they were thrilled that one of their own was taking over. Truman was a white Democrat from Missouri who had been a thorough racist as a younger man, quite in keeping with his era’s southern Democrats.
But by late 1946, Truman had come to embrace civil rights. In 1952, Truman told an audience in Harlem, New York, what had changed his mind. “Right after World War II, religious and racial intolerance began to show up just as it did in 1919,” he said. ”There were a good many incidents of violence and friction, but two of them in particular made a very deep impression on me. One was when a Negro veteran, still wearing this country’s uniform, was arrested, and beaten and blinded. Not long after that, two Negro veterans with their wives lost their lives at the hands of a mob.”
Truman was referring to decorated veteran Sergeant Isaac Woodard, who was on a bus on his way home from Georgia in February 1946, when he told a bus driver not to be rude to him because “I’m a man, just like you.” In South Carolina, the driver called the police, who pulled Woodard into an alley, beat him, then arrested him and threw him in jail, where that night the police chief plunged a nightstick into Woodard’s eyes, permanently blinding him. The next day, a local judge found Woodard guilty of disorderly conduct and fined him $50. The state declined to prosecute the police chief, and when the federal government did—it had jurisdiction because Woodard was in uniform—the people in the courtroom applauded when the jury acquitted him, even though he had admitted he had blinded the sergeant. Two months after the attack on Woodard, the Supreme Court decided that all-white primaries were unconstitutional, and Black people prepared to vote in Georgia’s July primaries. Days before the election, a mob of 15 to 20 white men killed two young Black couples: George and Mae Dorsey, and Roger and Dorothy Malcom. Malcom had been charged with stabbing a white man and was bailed out of jail by Loy Harrison, his white employer, who had with him in his car both Malcom’s wife, who was seven months pregnant, and the Dorseys, who also sharecropped on his property. On the way home, Harrison took a back road. A waiting mob stopped the car, took the men and then their wives out of it, tied them to a tree, and shot them. The murders have never been solved, in large part because no one—white or Black—was willing to talk to the FBI inspectors Truman dispatched to the region. FBI inspectors said the whites were “extremely clannish, not well educated and highly sensitive to ‘outside’ criticism,” while the Blacks were terrified that if they talked, they, too, would be lynched.
The FBI did uncover enough to make the officers think that one of the virulently racist candidates running in the July primary had riled up the assassins in the hopes of winning the election. With all the usual racial slurs, he accused one of his opponents of being soft on racial issues and assured the white men in the district that if they took action against one of the Black men, who had been accused of stabbing a white man, he would make sure they were pardoned. He did win the primary, and the murders took place eight days later.
Songwriters, radio announcers, and news media covered the cases, showing Americans what it meant to live in states in which law enforcement and lawmakers could do as they pleased. When an old friend wrote to Truman to beg him to stop pushing a federal law to protect Black rights, Truman responded: “I know you haven’t thought this thing through and that you do not know the facts. I am happy, however, that you wrote me because it gives me a chance to tell you what the facts are.”“When the mob gangs can take four people out and shoot them in the back, and everybody in the country is acquainted with who did the shooting and nothing is done about it, that country is in pretty bad fix from a law enforcement standpoint.”
“When a Mayor and City Marshal can take a…Sergeant off a bus in South Carolina, beat him up and put out…his eyes, and nothing is done about it by the State authorities, something is radically wrong with the system.”
In his speech in Harlem, Truman explained that “[i]t is the duty of the State and local government to prevent such tragedies.” But, as he said in 1947, the federal government must “show the way.” We need not only “protection of the people against the Government, but protection of the people by the Government.” Truman’s conversion came in the very early years of the Civil Rights Movement, which would soon become an intellectual, social, economic, and political movement conceived of and carried on by Black and Brown people and their allies in ways he could not have imagined in the 1940s. But Truman laid a foundation for what came later. He recognized that a one-party state is not a democracy, that it enables the worst of us to torture and kill while the rest live in fear, and that “[t]he Constitutional guarantees of individual liberties and of equal protection under the laws clearly place on the Federal Government the duty to act when state or local authorities abridge or fail to protect these Constitutional rights.”
That was true in 1946, and it is just as true today.
‘How Civil Wars Start,’ a Warning About the State of the Union
When Barbara F. Walter began writing “How Civil Wars Start” in 2018, the few people who heard that it was “about a possible second civil war in America” thought it was “an exercise in fear-mongering,” she writes in her acknowledgments, “perhaps even irresponsible.” That “even” gives you a sense of Walter’s cautious inclinations. As a political scientist who has spent her career studying conflicts in other countries, she approaches her work methodically, patiently gathering her evidence before laying out her case. She spends the first half of the book explaining how civil wars have started in a number of places around the world, including the former Yugoslavia, the Philippines and Iraq.
Only a fanciful vignette about two-thirds of the way through — envisioning a morning of chaos in November 2028, with bombs going off across the country as California wildfires rage — made me think that Walter was “fear-mongering,” or at least pandering to our most literal-minded instincts. Then again, if things are as dire as she says, forcing us to see what a collapse might look like may arguably be the responsible thing to do.
Barbara F. Walter, the author of “How Civil Wars Start.”Credit…Debora Cartwright
This evening, Senate Majority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced that he would bring voting rights legislation to the Senate floor for debate—which Republicans have rejected—by avoiding a Republican filibuster through a complicated workaround. When the House and Senate disagree on a bill (which is almost always), they send it back and forth with revisions until they reach a final version. According to Democracy Docket, after it has gone back and forth three times, a motion to proceed on it cannot be filibustered. So, Democrats in the House are going to take a bill that has already hit the three-trip mark and substitute for that bill the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. They’ll pass the combined bill and send it to the Senate, where debate over it can’t be filibustered. And so, Republican senators will have to explain to the people why they oppose what appear to be common-sense voting rules.
“The voting rights measures appear to have the support of the Senate Democrats, but because of the Senate filibuster, which makes it possible for senators to block any measure unless a supermajority of 60 senators are willing to vote for it, voting rights cannot pass unless Democrats are willing to figure out a way to bypass the filibuster. Two Democratic senators—Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV)—are currently unwilling to do that. Nine Democratic senators eager to pass this measure met with Sinema for two and a half hours last night and for another hour with Manchin this morning in an attempt to get them to a place where they are willing to change the rules of the Senate filibuster to protect our right to vote. They have not yet found a solution.
She suggests that we have gotten to this point because of a “failure of the imagination”; our realm of possibility has been hemmed in by the historical example of the American Civil War, with its muddy embankments and men on horseback. The range of her case studies implies that another damper on the American imagination has been an insistent exceptionalism — the belief that political collapse is something that happens elsewhere.
Contemporary civil wars are in some sense common (Walter says there have been “hundreds” in the last 75 years), and in another sense rare. In any given year, only 4 percent of the countries that “meet the conditions for war” actually descend into one. “Civil wars ignite and escalate in ways that are predictable; they follow a script,” Walter writes in her introduction, in what I thought was a bit of mechanistic hyperbole. It turns out that she and other scholars have identified certain risk factors, signs that things are starting to go awry.
Walter has a political scientist’s fondness for data sets and numerical scales. She says that the United States is firmly within the “danger zone” of a “five-point scale” measuring factionalism and a “21-point scale” measuring a country’s “polity index,” where a full autocracy gets a -10 and a full democracy gets +10. (We’ve slid from +10 to +5 in a few years, occupying what Walter and her colleagues call the not-quite-democratic and not-quite-autocratic zone of an “anocracy.”) The numbers serve a function, corralling troubling observations into a cold system of measurement that presents itself as beyond dispute, seemingly nonpartisan and scientific. The numbers also allow her to offer empirical grounding for her work while she makes her way toward some blunt conclusions: “Today, the Republican Party is behaving like a predatory faction.”
Of course, nothing is beyond dispute anymore — and the book has a chapter on that, too. Social media, for all its initial promises of interpersonal harmony, has become an efficient machine for stoking rage, tearing people apart when it isn’t bringing extremists together. An “ethnic entrepreneur” seeking to amass power by making bigoted appeals to a particular group doesn’t need an especially sophisticated disinformation campaign to get people to feel fearful and despairing, convincing them to turn against a democracy that includes people they hate. There’s comfort in assuming that autocracy has to arrive with a military coup: “Now it’s being ushered in by the voters themselves.”
America lucked out, Walter says, because “its first modern autocratic president was neither smart nor politically experienced.” She ticks off the risk factors that have already been met here — factionalism, democratic decay, lots of guns. There is also, crucially, a once-dominant group whose members are fearful that their status is slipping away. It isn’t the downtrodden masses that start a civil war, Walter says, but rather what she and her fellow scholars call “sons of the soil.” Their privileged position was once so unquestioned and pervasive that they simply assume it’s their due, and they will take to violence in order to cling to power.
Walter’s earnest advice about what to do comes across as well-meaning but insufficient — though I’m not sure how much of it is her fault, considering that the situation she has laid out looks too inflamed to be soothed by a few pointers in a book. “The U.S. government shouldn’t indulge extremists — the creation of a white ethno-state would be disastrous for the country.” Thank you, Professor Walter. She proposes that the government instead “renew its commitment to providing for its most vulnerable citizens, white, Black or brown.” This, too, seems unobjectionable — but she also makes clear that right-wing militias planning to kidnap and murder government officials are zero-sum thinkers; they experience any benefit that might be shared by people who don’t look like them as a grievous loss.
While the blithely unworried are hindered by too little imagination, the florid fantasies of QAnon show that some Americans are beset by too much of the same. Walter mostly sticks to citing the scholarship in her field, but at one point, discussing the sinister clowning of Alex Jones, she reaches for Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” The absurdities are by definition preposterous, but Walter’s book suggests that it would be preposterous to assume they’re irrelevant; it’s only by thinking about what was once unfathomable that we can see the country as it really is.
How Civil Wars Start And How to Stop Them By Barbara F. Walter 294 pages. Crown. $27.
A critical review appeared in The Economist, January 8 – 14, 2022, pp68-69. It begins, ‘It is hard to overstate the danger Donald Trump poses to America and the world, but Barbara Walter manages it’. The reviewer claims that she has written two books, accepting her ‘well – argued one about what caused past civil conflicts around the world’ but posing that the other is ‘a tendentious one’.
Lawrence O’Donnell, The Last Word, MSNBC, is conducting a debate on this issue on his program. A House Divided started on the 18th January, 2022. The first speakers were Barbara F. Walter and Kurt Andersen.
Below: comments from How Civil Wars Start.
.
Something lighter – holiday at the South Coast
A mix of gloomy and sunny days, with a mix of great activities
Australian Politics
The SMH article below suggests a positive change in the ALP vote. It also refers to the increase in popularity of independent candidates. Bob McMullan’s article, that follows refers to the role of independent candidates vying for the second Senate position in the ACT.
Sydney Morning Herald, 18 January 2022, David Crowe 7 hrs ago(slightly edited)
Coalition primary vote drops below Labor’s for the first time: Resolve survey
Soaring virus infections have fuelled a backlash against Prime Minister Scott Morrison over his handling of the pandemic, slashing the Coalition’s primary vote from 39 to 34 per cent and vaulting Labor into a strong position ahead of this year’s federal election.
Labor has increased its primary vote from 32 to 35 per cent since November, generating a powerful boost for Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese ahead of the election due by May, while the Greens have held their support at 11 per cent.
While Mr Morrison has an edge over Labor leader Anthony Albanese as preferred prime minister, he leads by only 38 to 31 per cent and has lost the double-digit margin he held on this measure just two months ago.
The exclusive results in the Resolve Political Monitor, conducted for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age by research company Resolve Strategic, show the swing has come at the same time voters marked the government down on its management of the pandemic.
While the Resolve Political Monitor does not calculate a two-party vote for the major parties, given the result is often within the margin of error, the swing against the Coalition in this new survey was large enough to give Labor a clear advantage ahead of the election.
“The contest has been quite close up until now, but Labor now holds a significant two-party preferred vote lead,” said Resolve director Jim Reed.
“The Coalition needs to be well in front of Labor on primary vote to win because they get a minority of preferences from minor parties and independents, and they’re just not there at the moment. In fact, this is the first time they have trailed Labor on primary vote in our tracking.”
The five-point swing against the Coalition came at a time of furious debate about the government decision to deport tennis champion Novak Djokovic, soaring infections from the Omicron strain of the coronavirus, pressure on hospitals, long queues at testing centres and a shortage of rapid antigen tests.
The grim mood in the community was confirmed in the Resolve Political Monitor national outlook index, which fell to 88 points in January from 102 points in November and 110 points in October. The index is based on questions to voters about whether they think the national outlook will get better or worse.
Asked about their personal outlook, however, respondents kept the index unchanged at 108 points.
Mr Morrison said on Monday he believed the way to withstand the pandemic was to “push through” the rising cases, noting that vaccination rates were high and the overwhelming majority of Omicron cases led to very mild illness.
Mr Albanese has campaigned in marginal seats with a promise to run a government that rewards aspirational workers, while accusing the government of being too slow to supply RAT kits in the same way it lagged in the purchase of vaccines last year.
Voters cut their rating on Mr Morrison when asked which leader and party were the best to manage the COVID-19 situation.
On this issue, respondents gave Mr Morrison and the Coalition a lead of four percentage points over Labor, but the margin shrank dramatically from 13 points in November and 25 points after the federal budget last May.
Asked about health and aged care, voters favoured Mr Albanese and Labor with a lead of six percentage points, up from three points in November. This reversed the government’s lead on the key issue in monthly surveys from April to September.
The question for voters on policy performance asked: “Please tell us which party and leader you think would perform best in each area.” Mr Morrison and the Coalition kept their lead over Labor on economic management, but it slipped to 13 percentage points in January compared to 16 points in November.
Asked about jobs and wages, voters favoured Mr Albanese and Labor by four percentage points, reversing the government’s lead of two points in November.
The responses showed Labor had gained ground with voters during the Christmas and New Year period on its ability to manage key election issues, while Mr Albanese also improved his personal standing.
While 41 per cent of respondents said Mr Morrison was doing a good job as Prime Minister, up from 40 per cent in the last survey, the number who said he was doing a poor job rose from 49 to 50 per cent. This meant his net performance rating remained negative.
Voters also gave Mr Albanese a negative rating in net terms, with 34 per cent saying he was doing a good job as Opposition Leader while 41 per cent said he was doing a poor job.
Mr Albanese improved his net performance, however, from minus 14 percentage points in November to minus seven in January, and his rating on this measure was better than Mr Morrison’s for the first time since the Resolve Political Monitor began last April.
The Resolve Political Monitor was conducted from January 11 to 15 and asked 1607 voters their views in online questions put in a random order to avoid a “donkey vote” with the results. The results were based on a representative sample of the wider population with a maximum margin of error of 2.5 per cent for the national figures.
Because the Resolve Political Monitor asks voters to nominate their primary votes in the same way they would write ‘1′ on the ballot papers for the lower house at an election, there is no undecided category in the results, a key difference with some other surveys.
Support for independent candidates rose from 9 to 11 per cent from November to January, at a time of heightened media interest in non-party candidates who are challenging Liberal MPs, while Pauline Hanson’s One Nation was unchanged at 3 per cent.
This meant 31 per cent of voters favoured a choice outside the Liberals, Nationals and Labor, a slight increase from previous surveys and a much larger result than seen at the last election, when the figure was 25 per cent. Support for independent candidates is difficult to gauge on a national scale when contests vary greatly in each electorate.
Many voters acknowledged their support could change, with 27 per cent describing themselves as uncommitted.
ACT Senate teases again Bob McMullan
There is speculation at almost every federal election about the Liberals losing their ACT Senate seat.
But they never do.
Why might this year be different? There are a number of reasons to look at this possibility again in 2022.
The Liberals have a very weak candidate.
2. It should be a strong election for Labor in Canberra and they have a strong candidate.
3. Some interesting Independent candidates are already in the field.
However, it is important to give some statistical background to illustrate the magnitude of the task.
Therefore, to win any Independent will have to take votes from the Liberals unless the Labor party vote, which was 39.35% last time increases significantly at the expense of the Liberals.
The result was not very different in 2016. The Liberals received 33.21% on that occasion, which left them only fractionally short of a quota. The Greens received 16.1% which left them under half a quota. These figures illustrate the magnitude of the task. But they also show that it is not impossible.
To look at the reasons for reconsidering the possibility in more detail, the Liberal candidate will be the same as last time, Zed Seselja. He may be seen as a weak candidate at any time but especially so at this election as he has demonstrated how far he is from majority community attitudes in Canberra with his approach to the euthanasia issue. He also seems out of step on the Integrity Commission question as well as key issues like climate change.
If he was stronger there would be no point in taking it further. However, his weakness opens up the possibility of change. The Labor Party always does well in Canberra when the party is in Opposition. The polling at the national level looks strong and Katy Gallagher is a popular and effective Senator. This gives the Labor Party the potential to eat into the Liberal party vote and leave them shorter of a quota than in the past two elections. Over the last twenty years the highest ALP first preference vote in the Senate in the ACT has been 42%. In these promising conditions for the Labor vote in the ACT it must be possible for Katy Gallagher to equal this vote, although it is hard to see it going any higher in the current circumstances. Should she achieve this result primarily by taking votes from the Liberals this would reduce the vote for Seselja to about 29.5% to 30%. This would still leave him in a strong position but nevertheless vulnerable to the right challenge.
What of the Independents and minor parties? The Greens always get from 16% to 20% and they are likely to do so again. But it is very difficult to imagine voters who previously voted for the Liberals shifting their votes to the Greens. The Greens usually campaign to win disaffected Labor voters rather than to win over Liberals. This is a strategy that will never succeed in winning a second senate seat in Canberra. Should there eventually be a third senate seat in the ACT the Greens would have a strong chance of winning it. But at this election I assess that they have no chance of beating Zed Seselja.
There are two high-profile independents who seem likely to be able to get sufficient signatures to gain above-the line status for the purposes of this election.
The first to nominate was Kim Rubinstein. She would be a terrific senator and is much more in line with the majority ACT views than Zed. However, it is not obvious that she will eat into the Liberal vote. Perhaps she will because she has strong credentials and her campaign focus on the Integrity Commission issue may play well. My concern with her candidature is that she is likely to be in competition with the Greens and Labor rather than winning former Liberal voters.
The other high-profile independent is David Pocock. While he has strong green credentials his sporting history and overall record may make him the most likely to eat into the Liberal vote and therefore have a realistic chance of winning. Given the nature of the challenge he seems the most likely candidate to be able to defeat Senator Seselja.
But it won’t be easy.
The “secret sauce” for a successful campaign is getting the Liberal vote below 30% and ensuring the combined vote of the Independents is sufficient that with ALP preferences the leading candidate can get above the Greens and, with a strong preference flow, beat Zed.
The arithmetic makes it clear that it will not be easy. But given the national political climate in which Independent candidates are challenging previously safe seats this is the strongest chance ever.
What the statistics make clear is that once again the most likely outcome is that the Liberals win the second seat. The next most likely outcome is that David Pocock will win the seat, although it is difficult at this stage to predict which of Pocock or Rubinstein has the better prospects.
What is also clear is that no one else has a chance.
A Western Australian writer, Liz Byrski author of At the End of the Day, and Jane Cockram, another Australian, are featured this week. Both books are uncorrected proofs sent to me by NetGalley for review.
Liz Byrski At the End of the Day Macmillan Australia, 2021.
Liz Byrski has once again given voices to people who for a long time have been silenced. She answers the question, can romance really be created around people in their seventies? Indeed it can, and while romances are an important feature of At the End of the Day, there is more. Although ageing has increasingly become a focus of fiction, Byrski enhances her depictions of the two ageing main characters in this novel by giving them backgrounds that expand the way in which they are developed. Miriam Squires (Mim) and Mathias Vander meet on a plane flying from London to Australia. Both harbour a past that incapacitates them, physically and emotionally. Mim’s physical difficulties are apparent; Mathias’ physical manifestation of a blow from his past appears only when he is under extreme mental stress. However, both are emotionally inhibited, a flaw that each intuits in the other, finding the distance it imparts engaging rather than repelling. Full review Books: Reviews
Jane Cockram The Way From Here HQ Fiction Harlequin Enterprises (Australia), 2022.
Velazquez’s version of the story of Martha and Mary, where Martha is busy in the kitchen and Mary sits at the feet of Jesus listening, and the accompanying adulation of Mary’s attitude in comparison with that of Martha has always struck me as unfair to Martha. So, with this prejudice I come to the story of a thoughtless, lively, living in the moment sister who is compared to her advantage with her organised sister. I found Susie an almost intolerable character in the early part of this novel. Her assumptions about her attractiveness to men and patronising attitude to Mills (as Camilla is known to her family), her behaviour that brooked little opposition, the letters that she almost demanded Camilla read and act upon in the event of her death made her an uneasy character for me to identify with, have empathy with, to want to get to know better. See full reviewBooks: Reviews
‘Kitchen scene with Christ in the house of Martha and Mary’, Velázquez, 1618
Articles which appear after the Covid report: An example of Health Measures Report and Assistance – ACT Health; Cindy Lou comments on recent eating out; Leah, walk (with a lovely gesture from a Canberra resident) and lolling; New York Times on tourism with an environmental aspect; CNN on the Capitol Riot; Excerpts and photos from Speeches on Voting Rights speeches from Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden in Georgia; CNN, Congress and filibuster.
Covid in Canberra after the end of lockdown
As with everywhere else in Australia the number of cases of Covid has risen well beyond previous experience because of the Omicron variant.
New cases recorded on the 6th and 7th January were 992 and 1246. On the 8th January 1,305 new cases were recorded. There are now 4,941 active cases in Canberra and 3,112 negative tests have been recorded.
As a result of the Omicron spread hospitalisations have increased; the vaccination program has been accelerated; a new clinic has been opened and additional mandatory public health measures have been introduced to slow the spread. The rapid antigen test is now accepted to confirm Covid 19 cases, and a PCR test is no longer required. There is a dedicated web site with information for people who have tested positive.
January 9 new cases results – 1,039 and, a drop in recorded cases with 938 on the 10th. Patients in hospital on 9 January are twenty seven, with four in intensive case and ventilated. On the 10th January hospital numbers increased by one, with four still in intensive care but only three are ventilated.
January 11 – 1,508 new cases, and one death; January 12 – 1,078. ACT residents over twelve who are fully vaccinated : 98.6%; ACT residents aged 18 and over who have received their booster: 25.6%. There are now twenty three people in hospital, with three in intensive care and two ventilated. Children under twelve are now receiving their first doses of vaccine.
An example of the ACT Health information (at 9 January, 2022). It would be interesting to have examples from other states and countries to compare the way in which Covid information is being communicated.
Did you get a positive rapid antigen test (RAT) result?
You no longer need to get a PCR test to confirm you have COVID-19.You can usually safely manage COVID-19 at home if you:•
. are under 65
• have had at least 2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine (for adults)
• do not suffer from any chronic health conditions, and • are not pregnant Most cases we are seeing in the ACT have a mild illness and will recover in a week at home. Some people may not have any symptoms at all.
Please call COVID Care@Home as soon as possible if you meet any of the criteria below that may mean you are eligible for specific treatment:• over 20 weeks pregnant• an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person over 55• aged 16 years and over and unvaccinated/only had 1 dose • significantly immunocompromised.
ACT Health will have a form available shortly for you to tell us if you have had a positive RAT result. Registering will enable us to connect you to the care and advice appropriate to you.
In the meantime, please record the date of your positive RAT result and follow the advice for people who have tested positive for COVID-19, including isolating for 7 days and telling your household contacts they should complete a RAT or PCR test and isolate for 7 days www.covid19.act.gov.au/covid-positive
If you develop severe symptoms (particularly severe headaches or dizziness, difficulty breathing, chest pressure or pain), call triple zero (000) straight away and tell the ambulance staff that you have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
A Sunday morning walk through Haigh Park to the Braddon eating places is always a delight. This Sunday was particularly pleasant, with a simple but delicious breakfast at Lonsdale Street Café. My skinny, weak latte (not to everyone’s taste , I agree) was perfectly made – and prompt, although the café was fairly full. Sharing the fruit toast was made easy, with the offer of additional utensils and table napkin. The service was prompt, efficient, and friendly. Although I would always like more butter with my toast, the one portion went a long way as the toast was hot. It was also thick and soft inside with a crisp crust. A lovely start to the day.
I visited Eight /Twenty for a very different type of breakfast. Fortunately while my companion ordered, I had observed the huge amounts being taken to other tables, so decided upon a coffee. Of course, I then picked at the meal next to me. A piece of toast (crisp and hot) with the flavoursome beans made a very pleasant light breakfast. Even with that depredation upon the meal, some had to be left behind! The coffee was good – my weak skinny latte and my companion’s more acceptable flat white. The service was pleasant, although a little slow on this extremely busy Christmas holiday occasion.
The popularity of the Braddon cafes is well deserved, as on Christmas Day it is possible to find a lovely breakfast spot. This has changed from several years ago when McCafe (not to be sneered at, the coffee and muffin on a Christmas Day 2015 forage for sustenance was terrific) was the only venue open.
I visited Blackfire again for an impromptu lunch. Our arrival just an hour before closing time was handled with efficiency and friendliness. At no time were we hurried, or made to feel that time was short. Although we were asked to choose a dessert if we wanted one, reflecting the imminent closing of the kitchen, we remained feeling welcome customers – and of course, we’ll return. Perhaps we’ll be kinder to the staff next time, and make our decision to eat at Blackfire a little earlier.
New choices were the empanada, tomato and caper salad, and chorizo dishes. I enjoyed the prawns once again, and the delicious Chef’s four tastes made a delightful end to the meal for both of us.
Fish and chips – huge; hamburger – generous
Edgar’s at Ainslie provided me with a huge meal – delicious fish and chips which competed with those I have eaten in Fremantle surrounded by seagulls and in sight of the ocean. Edgar’s provides a very different scene, but one which I enjoy, winter or summer. Edgar’s provides great cover and warmth from the Canberra winter, and in summer, lush vegetation in pots, with the blinds out of the way to provide for through breezes. My meal was splendid – crisp batter, succulent fish, and very nice chips. I would have liked a salad, and unfortunately no side salads are available. However, I shall continue to enjoy the fish and chips on occasion, and make sure I have some fruit when I get home. On other occasions I shall order either the courgette or smoked trout salad, both of which are also delicious – and infinitely healthier!
This was a lovely sight on our afternoon walk with Leah. What a delightful idea.
Leah has disappeared from the Covid series as I am no longer recording Covid Lockdown walks. She still enjoys her walks but deserves acknowledgment for another of her qualities – lolling with a touch of grandeur .
Hadrian’s Wall, in Northumberland, England, was chosen for the “52 Places” list. Andy Haslam for The New York Times.
“52 Places,” our annual list of global destinations, looks at spots where visitors can be part of the solution to problems like overtourism and climate change. It highlights where endangered wild lands are being preserved, threatened species are being protected, historical wrongs are being acknowledged and fragile communities are being bolstered.
Rioters protesting the results of the 2020 election rally at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Capitol riot
What’s happening today: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced several events at the Capitol that will commemorate today’s anniversary, including a prayer, a moment of silence on the House floor and a conversation led by two historians aimed at preserving narratives of the attack. Lawmakers will also share their accounts, and President Joe Biden is expected to deliver remarks later today.
More than 100 activist groups are planning nationwide vigils and gatherings as part of a “Day of Remembrance and Action.” The events will encourage people to demand more protections for democracy and voting rights.
Former President Donald Trump was scheduled to hold a press conference today, but canceled after advisers warned the event could be detrimental to him and other Republicans.
Where the investigations stand: A House select committee to investigate the attack was formed last July, and isn’t planning to release a report until this summer. However, over the last few months, the committee has issued more than 50 subpoenas to individuals and organizations — including some of Trump’s closest allies. Here is a partial list of those called to appear so far. The committee has also acquired texts and other communications that they say illuminate the actions of Trump and other leaders as the insurrection unfolded. During the committee’s first and only public hearing so far, law enforcement officers gave harrowing testimony of their firsthand experiences during the attack. Here’s more on what else the committee has done, andwhat its strategy is for 2022.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department is in the middle of the biggest investigation in FBI history. About 700 people have been arrested for their roles in the attack, and hundreds more are still at large. Prosecuting them all could take years, and some legislators are growing impatient with the investigation’s pace and perceived lack of aggression. However, Attorney General Merrick Garland said yesterday that the Justice Department “remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law” no matter how long it takes.
How January 6 has changed everything
It’s hard to quantify the impact of the insurrection, which has altered our political discourse, our social relationships, our technology and the lives of survivors.
It has put us in more danger. The director of an intelligence group that analyzes the global violent extremism community says the extremist momentum that drove the insurrection “has not diminished — it has spread in all directions.” One related example: About 9,600 threats were made against lawmakers in 2021, according to the chief of the Capitol Police — a dramatic uptick.
It has made us question how we communicate. Lawmakers have tried to rein in social media giants like Meta, the parent company of Facebook, because of the role the platforms allegedly play in allowing misinformation and violent plans to circulate unabated.
And we think it will happen again. Experts have warned another major threat to our democracy is a very real possibility, and the public seems to agree. One recent poll shows we expect this to happen again, with 62% of Americans saying they expect the losing side in future presidential elections to react violently.
Vice President Kamala Harris and Voting Rights Speech in Georgia
President Joe Biden and Voting rights Speech in Georgia
5 Things Tuesday 4 January
Congress
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has announced the chamber will take a vote on whether to change the Senate’s legislative filibuster rules. The filibuster is a common delaying tactic meant to drag out debate and make it harder to get things done. In recent months, Democrats have discussed various changes to the filibuster rule to avoid stalling legislative decisions on key issues like voting rights and the debt ceiling. Schumer has said the tactic has become weaponized in the Senate, and the body must evolve to be more efficient. However, any major changes are unlikely to pass due to widespread resistance from Republicans and Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Schumer says he is hoping for a vote by January 17.
This week I review two non fiction books, Carbon Queen The Remarkable life of Nanoscience Pioneer Mildred Dresselhaus by Maia Weinstock, and Elisabeth Galvin’s The Real Kenneth Grahame The Tragedy Behind The Wind in the Willows. Both were provided to me by NetGalley as uncorrected proofs in exchange for an honest review.
Maia Weinstock Carbon Queen The Remarkable life of Nanoscience Pioneer Mildred Dresselhaus The MIT Press, 2022.
This inspiring biography begins with a stunning idea which brings to life the ‘what might be’ of women’s lives and celebratory status. At the same time as being instructive, it is heart-breaking – the fictional accounts of the accolades that Mildred Dresselhaus might have received if women were treated equally are graphic reminders that indeed they are not. Carbon Queen is the story of a woman whose accomplishments exceeded even those that the General Electric video described and enhanced in the prologue to this biography. Carbon Queen is a compelling mixture of scientific information and an account of an impressive woman’s life as scientist, academic, teacher, mentor, parent and partner drawn together by a writer whose scientific background is valuable, and understanding of women’s position is sensitive, well researched and well written. I was interested that Maia Weinstock referred to women’s work at home as well as in the paid workforce, so gently expressed, but nevertheless making a salient point. Books: Reviews for full review.
Elisabeth Galvin The Real Kenneth Grahame The Tragedy Behind The Wind in the Willows White Owl Pen & Sword 2021.
Elisabeth Galvin’s sensitive interpretation of the lives of Kenneth Grahame, Elsie Thomson, and their son Alistair, is a gentle reflection on three lives that come together, move far from each other, return with affection mixed with a massive lack of understanding, and find a way of living and parting that, while often dysfunctional, seems to have been understood in this family and amongst their friends. This is not to underestimate the tragedies they experienced, but Galvin’s work gently discusses these and then moves forward – as indeed did the adult Grahames.
Galvin’s language and the way in which she combines quotes, her interpretation, and kind reading of events in the family, their personalities and relationships with neighbours, friends and work colleagues forms a dappled patchwork of images, ideas and intuitive commentary that reflects the water and surrounds which were the background for the animal adventures in The Wind in the Willows. Galvin does not adopt the lively tone familiar in many of the Pen & Sword publications, rather her own language is quite straight forward, depending on the addition of well selected quotes to liven the narrative. I like the way Galvin’s approach harmonises with the stories with which the reader will be familiar – the language of river, woodland, four animals of very different demeanor and a narrative that lives up to the title The Real Kenneth Grahame. Books: Reviews for full review.
Articles placed after the Covid report are: Heather Cox Richardson – two articles about American politics; Zora Simic review of Difficult Women; Vanessa Thorpe, racist ‘casta’ paintings; comment on Roslyn Russell’s similar research; and article – Robert E, Lee statue and Black History Museum.
Post Covid lockdown ACT
Gum blossoms on the south coast
New cases recorded in Canberra on the 30th and 31st December – 253 and 462. Active cases are now 1,658, with six patients in hospital, but none in intensive case or ventilated.
On 1 January, 2022 there were 448 new cases recorded. Quarantine rules, like those in five states and territories, changed from midnight on 31 December.
Close contacts, who receive a day 6 negative result from their test may now leave quarantine from day 7. Close contacts are required to avoid high risk settings , such as hospitals and aged care facilities for another 7 days unless seeking urgent medical care or have prior approval.
Comprehensive lists of exposure sites are updated daily.
New cases for 2 , 3 and 4 January are 506, 514 and 926. There thirteen people in hospital with one in intensive care. On 5 January 810 new cases were recorded.
Yesterday, Josh Kovensky at Talking Points Memo reported that the Trump allies who organized the rally at the Ellipse at 9:00 a.m. on January 6 also planned a second rally that day on the steps of the Supreme Court. To get from one to the other, rally-goers would have to walk past the Capitol building down Constitution Avenue, although neither had a permit for a march. The rally at the Supreme Court fell apart as rally-goers stormed the Capitol.
Trump’s team appeared to be trying to keep pressure on Congress during the counting of the certified electoral votes from the states, perhaps with the intent of slowing down the count enough to throw it into the House of Representatives or to the Supreme Court. In either of those cases, Trump expected to win because in a presidential election that takes place in the House, each state gets one vote, and there were more Republican-dominated states than Democratic-dominated states. Thanks to then–Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) removal of the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments, Trump had been able to put three justices on the Supreme Court, and he had said publicly that he expected they would rule in his favor if the election went in front of the court.
This story is an important backdrop of another story that is getting oxygen: Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro’s claim that he, Trump, and Trump loyalist Steve Bannon had a peaceful plan to overturn the election and that the three of them were “the last three people on God’s good Earth who wanted to see violence erupt on Capitol Hill.” According to these stories, their plan—which Navarro dubs the Green Bay Sweep—was to get more than 100 senators and representatives to object to the counting of the certified ballots. They hoped this would pressure Vice President Mike Pence to send certified votes back to the six contested states, where Republicans in the state legislatures could send in new counts for Trump. There was, he insists, no plan for violence; indeed, the riot interrupted the plan by making congress members determined to certify the ballots.
Their plan, he writes, was to force journalists to cover the Trump team’s insistence that the election had been characterized by fraud, accusations that had been repeatedly debunked by state election officials and courts of law. The plan “was designed to get us 24 hours of televised hearings…. But we thought we could bypass the corporate media by getting this stuff televised.” Televised hearings in which Trump Republicans lied about election fraud would cement that idea in the public mind. Maybe. It is notable that the only evidence for this entire story so far is Navarro’s own book, and there’s an awful lot about this that doesn’t add up (not least that if Trump deplored the violence, why did it take him more than three hours to tell his supporters to go home?). What does add up, though, in this version of events is that there is a long-standing feud between Bannon and Trump advisor Roger Stone, who recently blamed Bannon for the violence at the Capitol. This story exonerates Trump and Bannon and throws responsibility for the violence to others, notably Stone. Although Navarro’s story is iffy, it does identify an important pattern. Since the 1990s, Republicans have used violence and the news coverage it gets to gain through pressure what they could not gain through votes. Stone engineered a crucial moment for that dynamic when he helped to drive the so-called Brooks Brothers Riot that shut down the recounting of ballots in Miami-Dade County, Florida, during the 2000 election. That recount would decide whether Florida’s electoral votes would go to Democrat Al Gore or Republican George W. Bush. As the recount showed the count swinging to Gore, Republican operatives stormed the station where the recount was taking place, insisting that the Democrats were trying to steal the election. “The idea we were putting out there was that this was a left-wing power grab by Gore, the same way Fidel Castro did it in Cuba,” Stone later told legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. “We were very explicitly drawing that analogy.” “It had to be a three-legged stool. We had to fight in the courts, in the recount centers and in the streets—in public opinion,” Bush campaign operative Brad Blakeman said.
As the media covered the riot, the canvassing board voted to shut down the recount because of the public perception that the recount was not transparent, and because the interference meant the recount could not be completed before the deadline the court had established. “We scared the crap out of them when we descended on them,” Blakeman later told Michael E. Miller of the Washington Post. The chair of the county’s Democratic Party noted, “Violence, fear and physical intimidation affected the outcome of a lawful elections process.” Blakeman’s response? “We got some blowback afterwards, but so what? We won.”
That Stone and other Republican operatives would have fallen back on a violent mob to slow down an election proceeding twenty years after it had worked so well is not a stretch. Still, Navarro seems eager to distance himself, Trump, and Bannon from any such plan. That eagerness might reflect a hope of shielding themselves from the idea they were part of a conspiracy to interfere with an official government proceeding. Such interference is a federal offense, thanks to a law passed initially during Reconstruction after the Civil War, when members of the Ku Klux Klan were preventing Black legislators and their white Republican allies from holding office or discharging their official duties once elected.
Prosecutors have charged a number of January 6 defendants with committing such interference, and judges—including judges appointed by Trump—have rejected defendants’ arguments that they were simply exercising their right to free speech when they attacked the Capitol. Investigators are exploring the connections among the rioters before January 6 and on that day itself, establishing that the attack was not a group of individual protesters who randomly attacked at the same time, but rather was coordinated. The vice-chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Liz Cheney (R-WY), has said that the committee is looking to see if Trump was part of that coordination and seeking to determine: “Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceedings to count electoral votes?”
Meanwhile, the former president continues to try to hamper that investigation. Today, Trump’s lawyers added a supplemental brief to his executive privilege case before the Supreme Court. The brief claims that since the committee is looking at making criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, it is not engaged in the process of writing new legislation, and thus it is exceeding its powers and has no legitimate reason to see the documents Trump is trying to shield.
But also today, a group of former Department of Justice and executive branch lawyers, including ones who worked for presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging it to deny Trump’s request that the court block the committee’s subpoena for Trump’s records from the National Archives and Records Administration. The brief’s authors established that administrations have often allowed Congress to see executive branch documents during investigations and that there is clearly a need for legislation to make sure another attack on our democratic process never happens again. The committee must see the materials, they wrote, because “[i]t is difficult to imagine a more compelling interest than the House’s interest in determining what legislation might be necessary to respond to the most significant attack on the Capitol in 200 years and the effort to undermine our basic form of government that that attack represented.”
Heather Cox Richardson
December 30, 2021 (Thursday)
On January 6, insurrectionists trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election stormed the U.S. Capitol and sent our lawmakers into hiding. Since President Joe Biden took office on January 20, just two weeks after the attack, we have been engaged in a great struggle between those trying to restore our democracy and those determined to undermine it. Biden committed to restoring our democracy after the strains it had endured. When he took office, we were in the midst of a global pandemic whose official death toll in the U.S. was at 407,000. Our economy was in tatters, our foreign alliances weakened, and our government under siege by insurrectionists, some of whom were lawmakers themselves.
In his inaugural address, Biden implored Americans to come together to face these crises. He recalled the Civil War, the Great Depression, the World Wars, and the attacks of 9/11, noting that “[i]n each of these moments, enough of us came together to carry all of us forward.” “It’s time for boldness, for there is so much to do,” he said. He asked Americans to “write an American story of hope, not fear… [a] story that tells ages yet to come that we answered the call of history…. That democracy and hope, truth and justice, did not die on our watch but thrived.”
Later that day, he headed to the Oval Office. “I thought there’s no time to wait. Get to work immediately,” he said.
Rather than permitting the Trump Republicans who were still insisting Trump had won the election to frame the national conversation, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as the Democrats in Congress, ignored them and set out to prove that our government can work for ordinary Americans.Biden vowed to overcome Covid, trying to rally Republicans to join Democrats behind a “war” on the global pandemic. The Trump team had refused to confer during the transition period with the Biden team, who discovered that the previous administration had never had a plan for federal delivery of covid vaccines, simply planning to give them to the states and then let the cash-strapped states figure out how to get them into arms. “What we’re inheriting is so much worse than we could have imagined,” Biden’s coronavirus response coordinator, Jeff Zients, said to reporters on January 21. Biden immediately invoked the Defense Production Act, bought more vaccines, worked with states to establish vaccine sites and transportation to them, and established vaccine centers in pharmacies across the country. As vaccination rates climbed, he vowed to make sure that 70% of the U.S. adult population would have one vaccine shot and 160 million U.S. adults would be fully vaccinated by July 4th. At the same time, the Democrats undertook to repair the economy, badly damaged by the pandemic. In March, without a single Republican vote, they passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan to jump-start the economy by putting money into the pockets of ordinary Americans. It worked. The new law cut child poverty in half by putting $66 billion into 36 million households. It expanded access to the Affordable Care Act, enabling more than 4.6 million Americans who were not previously insured to get healthcare coverage, bringing the total covered to a record 13.6 million.
As vaccinated people started to venture out again, this support for consumers bolstered U.S. companies, which by the end of the year were showing profit margins higher than they have been since 1950, at 15%. Companies reduced their debt, which translated to a strong stock market. In February, Biden’s first month in office, the jobless rate was 6.2%; by December it had dropped to 4.2%. This means that 4.1 million jobs were created in the Biden administration’s first year, more than were created in the 12 years of the Trump and George W. Bush administrations combined.
In November, Congress passed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that will repair bridges and roads and get broadband to places that still don’t have it, and negotiations continue on a larger infrastructure package that will support child care and elder care, as well as education and measures to address climate change.
Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal report that U.S. economic output has jumped more than 7% in the last three months of 2021. Overall growth for 2021 should be about 6%, and economists predict growth of around 4% in 2022—the highest numbers the U.S. has seen in decades. China’s growth in the same period will be 4%, and the eurozone (the member countries of the European Union that use the euro) will grow at 2%. The U.S. is “outperforming the world by the biggest margin in the 21st century,” wrote Matthew A. Winkler in Bloomberg, “and with good reason: America’s economy improved more in Joe Biden’s first 12 months than any president during the past 50 years….”With more experience in foreign affairs than any president since George H. W. Bush, Biden set out to rebuild our strained alliances and modernize the war on terror. On January 20, he took steps to rejoin the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords, which his predecessor had rejected. Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized that Biden’s leadership team believed foreign and domestic policy to be profoundly linked. They promised to support democracy at home and abroad to combat the authoritarianism rising around the world.
“The more we and other democracies can show the world that we can deliver, not only for our people, but also for each other, the more we can refute the lie that authoritarian countries love to tell, that theirs is the better way to meet people’s fundamental needs and hopes. It’s on us to prove them wrong,” Blinken said. Biden and Blinken increased the use of sanctions against those suspected of funding terrorism. Declaring it vital to national security to stop corruption in order to prevent illicit money from undermining democracies, Biden convened a Summit for Democracy, where leaders from more than 110 countries discussed how best to combat authoritarianism and corruption, and to protect human rights.
Biden began to shift American foreign policy most noticeably by withdrawing from the nation’s twenty-year war in Afghanistan. He inherited the previous president’s February 2020 deal with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, so long as the Taliban did not kill any more Americans. By the time Biden took office, the U.S. had withdrawn all but 2500 troops from the country. He could either go back on Trump’s agreement—meaning the Taliban would again begin attacking U.S. service people, forcing the U.S. to pour in troops and sustain casualties—or get out of what had become a meandering, expensive, unpopular war, one that Biden himself had wanted to leave since the Obama administration. In April, Biden said he would honor the agreement he had inherited from Trump, beginning, not ending, the troop withdrawal on May 1. He said he would have everyone out by September 11, the 20th anniversary of the al-Qaeda attacks that took us there in the first place. (He later adjusted that to August 31.) He promised to evacuate the country “responsibly, deliberately, and safely” and assured Americans that the U.S. had “trained and equipped a standing force of over 300,000 Afghan personnel” who would “continue to fight valiantly, on behalf of the Afghans, at great cost.”
Instead, the Afghan army crumbled as the U.S began to pull its remaining troops out in July. By mid-August, the Taliban had taken control of the capital, Kabul, and the leaders of the Afghan government fled, abandoning the country to chaos. People rushed to the airport to escape and seven Afghans died, either crushed in the crowds or killed when they fell from planes to which they had clung in hopes of getting out. Then, on August 26, two explosions outside the Kabul airport killed at least 60 Afghan civilians and 13 U.S. troops. More than 100 Afghans and 15 U.S. service members were wounded. In the aftermath, the U.S. military conducted the largest human airlift in U.S. history, moving more than 100,000 people without further casualties, and on August 30, Major General Chris Donahue, commander of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division, boarded a cargo plane at Kabul airport, and the U.S. war in Afghanistan was over. (Evacuations have continued on planes chartered by other countries.) With the end of that war, Biden has focused on using financial pressure and alliances rather than military might to achieve foreign policy goals. He has worked with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to counter increasing aggression from Russian president Vladimir Putin, strengthening NATO, while suggesting publicly that further Russian incursions into Ukraine will have serious financial repercussions.
In any ordinary time, Biden’s demonstration that democracy can work for ordinary people in three major areas would have been an astonishing success.
But these are not ordinary times.
Biden and the Democrats have had to face an opposition that is working to undermine the government. Even after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, 147 Republican members of Congress voted to challenge at least one of the certified state electoral votes, propping up the Big Lie that Trump won the 2020 presidential election. Many of them continue to plug that lie, convincing 68% of Republicans that Biden is an illegitimate president.
This lie has justified the passage in 19 Republican-dominated states of 33 new laws to suppress voting or to take the counting of votes out of the hands of non-partisan officials altogether and turn that process over to Republicans.
Republicans have stoked opposition to the Democrats by feeding the culture wars, skipping negotiations on the American Rescue Plan, for example, to complain that the toymaker Hasbro was introducing a gender-neutral Potato Head toy, and that the estate of Dr. Seuss was ceasing publication of some of his lesser-known books that bore racist pictures or themes. They created a firestorm over Critical Race Theory, an advanced legal theory, insisting that it, and the teaching of issues of race in the schools, was teaching white children to hate themselves. Most notably, though, as Biden’s coronavirus vaccination program appeared to be meeting his ambitious goals, Republicans suggested that government vaccine outreach was overreach, pushing the government into people’s lives. Vaccination rates began to drop off, and Biden’s July 4 goal went unmet just as the more contagious Delta variant began to rage across the country.
In July, Biden required federal workers and contractors to be vaccinated; in November, the administration said that workers at businesses with more than 100 employees and health care workers must be vaccinated or frequently tested. Rejecting the vaccine became a badge of opposition to the Biden administration. By early December, fewer than 10% of adult Democrats were unvaccinated, compared with 40% of Republicans. This means that Republicans are three times more likely than Democrats to die of Covid, and as the new Omicron variant rages across the country, Republicans are blaming Biden for not stopping the pandemic. Covid has now killed more than 800,000 Americans.
While Biden and the Democrats have made many missteps this year—missing that the Afghan government would collapse, hitting an Afghan family in a drone strike, underplaying Covid testing, prioritizing infrastructure over voting rights—the Democrats’ biggest miscalculation might well be refusing to address the disinformation of the Republicans directly in order to promote bipartisanship and move the country forward together.
With the lies of Trump Republicans largely unchallenged by Democratic lawmakers or the media, Republicans have swung almost entirely into the Trump camp. The former president has worked to purge from the state and national party anyone he considers insufficiently loyal to him, and his closest supporters have become so extreme that they are openly supporting authoritarianism and talking of Democrats as “vermin.”
Some are talking about a “national divorce,” which observers have interpreted as a call for secession, like the Confederates tried in 1860. But in fact, Trump Republicans do not want to form their own country. Rather, they want to cement minority rule in this one, keeping themselves in power over the will of the majority. It seems that in some ways we are ending 2021 as we began it. Although Biden and the Democrats have indeed demonstrated that our government, properly run, can work for the people to combat a deadly pandemic, create a booming economy, and stop unpopular wars, that same authoritarian minority that tried to overturn the 2020 election on January 6 is more deeply entrenched than it was a year ago. And yet, as we move into 2022, the ground is shifting. The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol is starting to show what it has learned from the testimony of more than 300 witnesses and a review of more than 35,000 documents. The fact that those closest to Trump are refusing to testify suggests that the hearings in the new year will be compelling and will help people to understand just how close we came to an authoritarian takeover last January.And then, as soon as the Senate resumes work in the new year, it will take up measures to restore the voting rights and election integrity Republican legislatures have stripped away, giving back to the people the power to guard against such an authoritarian coup happening again. It looks like 2022 is going to be a choppy ride, but its outcome is in our hands.
As Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), who was beaten almost to death in his quest to protect the right to vote, wrote to us when he passed: “Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part.”
Current affairs and culture from Australia and beyond
The concept of the ‘difficult’ (I use the phrase ‘troublesome) woman is one I used in my work on Barbara Pym’s novels and short stories, and anything that uses this concept resonates with me. So, here is a review of a book I would have liked to have read and reviewed.
Awkward squad
Books | “Difficult” women have often played key roles in feminist history
English political activist and suffragette Annie Kenney under arrest, date unknown. Pictorial Press/Alamy
The history of feminism is packed with women who changed the world but have since been forgotten or cast out because they were in some way “difficult.” Take birth-control advocate and sexologist Marie Stopes, for instance. While she’s hardly disappeared from view — her name is attached to a worldwide sexual health organisation — her avowed support for eugenics and her egomaniacal personality mean she is not easily embraced as a feminist pioneer. Historians can provide context to make Stopes’s views more comprehensible, but she’s not going to cut it as a reclaimed icon in the same way as anarchist Emma Goldman, who now adorns t-shirts and tote bags. Goldman was “difficult” too, of course, but in ways more appealing to contemporary sensibilities.
In her refreshing pop history Difficult Women, British journalist Helen Lewis makes room for the likes of Stopes, one of the better-known figures profiled among an eclectic (though mainly British) group that also includes working-class suffragette Annie Kenney, trailblazing football player Lily Parr and Maureen Colquhoun, who in the 1970s became the first “out” MP in British history. The subtitle — A History of Feminism in 11 Fights — refers to how the book is thematically organised around various struggles (like divorce reform, the vote and access to education), most of which remain unfinished or ongoing business (sex, love, work and, perhaps especially, time). Hers is a productive approach — the examples are mostly confined to Britain but still have the capacity to surprise or even enrage, and every theme translates to Australia. While we have had no-fault divorce since 1975, they still don’t have it in Britain. Access to safe abortion remains an issue everywhere, and every victory is hard-won.
For readers attuned to feminist debate and conflict, the subtitle also suggests a history of feminists fighting each other over the best way forward. And while there’s certainly some of that, including Lewis’s sharing of her own exasperation with present-day “woke” culture and what she sees as its unreasonable demands, the real substance here is in her vivid accounts of a range of feminist causes and the women who have helped to advance them. Her appreciation of her subjects — even, or especially, when she disagrees with them or they’re not particularly likeable — is contagious.
Some of the difficult women are long dead, among them Caroline Norton, who began lobbying for women’s custodial rights in the 1830s when she lost custody of her own children after her husband George sensationally put her on trial for adultery. Or Sophia Jex-Blake, one of the Edinburgh Seven campaigners who won the right for women to study medicine in the 1870s (with the “proviso that lecturers did not have to teach them alongside the men”). When required, Lewis dutifully and sometimes performatively speaks to historians and visits archives, but she’s best in journalist mode, interviewing surviving “difficult women” or activists who continue the fight.
These include the formidable Erin Pizzey, possibly the most influential domestic violence campaigner of all. Pizzey would be a “feminist hero,” writes Lewis, if not for the fact that her theories about gendered violence have morphed so far from feminist analysis that her most receptive audience is now among men’s rights activists. Lewis offers a sympathetic and clear-eyed account, reinforcing the point that “Pizzey’s difficult relationship with feminism does not mean that she has to be written out of the story.”
Lewis is no feminist theorist, but mostly this works to the book’s advantage. She concludes with her own manifesto for difficult women, by which stage the point has already been well made. Of greater interest is how she brings different feminist activists, thinkers and texts together around a shared theme. In the chapter on time, she interviews sociologist Arlie Hochschild, best known for the sometimes-misused term “emotional labour,” about how her own experiences as a working mother informed books like The Second Shift (1989). Lewis also gives due credit to Selma James as a feminist visionary, noting that her 1952 pamphlet, “A Woman’s Place,” written from the perspective of a working-class, immigrant woman, anticipated Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963) by over a decade.
Lewis’s ambivalence about the campaign for which James is most famous — Wages for Housework — makes for a layered and lively analysis, including for readers like me who gravitate more to James’s politics than those of Lewis. Nor does it preclude her from having a lightbulb moment about the Marxist influence on feminism. “It’s an odd quirk of history,” writes Lewis, “that most of today’s younger feminists know little about Marxism” yet “we have inherited an intellectual tradition steeped in it.”
The Marxist influence on feminism includes intersectionality, a feminist theory Lewis is better at applying than pontificating about. She offers, for example, a thoughtful and fresh account of Jayaben Desai, who as a recent South Asian migrant led the historic strike at the Grunwick film-processing lab in the mid 1970s. Elsewhere, Lewis wades into what she calls the “intersectionality wars.” As a high-profile, white, middle-class feminist in Britain, Lewis has been targeted as irredeemably privileged, but her lamenting of this treatment reads as more defensive than insightful.
Mercifully, she keeps that discussion short, otherwise it might have dated or limited the appeal of what is a pleasingly ambitious and wide-ranging feminist read. While immersed in it, and ever since, I’ve been imagining an Australian equivalent. As Lewis so effectively demonstrates, difficult women have been a driving force wherever feminism has taken root, and it’s important to honour them, flaws and all.
Zora Simic is a Senior Lecturer in History and Gender Studies in the School of Humanities and Languages at the University of New South Wales.
Reenvisaging racist artefacts
The following stories, an art gallery exhibiting racist art which had been destined for destruction, and the Robert E. Lee statue removed from its former public place being placed in the Black History Museum are exciting in their potential for a thoughtful discussion. The first was posted on Facebook by Roslyn Russell. With a Barbadian colleague she has been researching an 18th century artist, Agostino Brunias who also depicted slave societies. Catherine McCormack, Women In the Picture Women, Art and the Power of Looking, Icon Books Ltd, London, reviewed on 31 March, 2021, see Books: Reviews , debates the validity of continuing to exhibit misogynist paintings, by replacing ill informed sexist explanations with those informed by feminist understandings. This is another contribution to the debate supporting the notion that knowledge based exhibitions should replace arguments for destruction.
Gallery aims to reclaim narrative with its racist ‘casta’ paintingshttps://www.theguardian.com/profile/vanessathorpe
The Guardian Australian Edition Sunday 26 December 2021, Vanessa Thorpe
Curator of new show tackles racial stereotyping using depictions of scenes of colonial life in the Caribbean and South America
One of the 18th-century ‘casta’ paintings in the Leicester collection. Photograph: Leicester Museum & Art Galleries
Exploring Leicester Museum & Art Gallery 12 years ago, trainee curator Tara Munroe came across a stack of discarded oil paintings. The troubling scenes they portrayed would go on to change the direction of her career and may soon alter wider attitudes to art history.
The paintings depicted wealthy colonial life in South America and the Caribbean, and had been marked for destruction by the gallery. But the images, which each subtly grade racial and social distinctions, spoke clearly and powerfully to Munroe.
“To me, they are beautiful paintings but they have a very dark message within them,” she told the Observer as she prepared for the first public display of the unrestored paintings, in Leicester in the new year.
Now an expert in black heritage and the director of Opal 22 Arts and Edutainment, Munroe has doggedly continued her research into the origin and meaning of the five rare late-18th-century works she found. First, she persuaded the city’s art gallery & museum to save the works that had originally been categorised as distasteful and irrelevant, then she started to try to discover who had painted them and why. In the last few months, she has won funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund to curate a further, bigger exhibition of the paintings in 2023.
The works are examples of a genre known as “casta paintings” and there is only one other collection in Britain. It is also thought there are only about 100 complete or partial paintings known of anywhere, making the Leicester find of international significance.
Tara Munroe, curator of the new exhibition. Photograph: Martin Neeves
“I want to help people understand the history of racial stereotyping in the colonial era and how the colour bar actually worked. I’d also like to link it to the academic discipline of critical race theory,” explained Munroe. “I’m from a mixed Caribbean background myself, although I am paler skinned, and so I know it is important to study the way colour has been used. It is why the paintings connected with me so much,” she said.
The re-evaluation of the paintings Munroe put in train is an instance of allowing prejudiced art back into the visual arts canon, or even “un-cancelling”, and it remains an unorthodox, sometimes controversial approach.
Some of the terms used then are now regarded as offensive. “Mulatto is still understood,” said Munroe. “And there are others such as Lobo, or wolf, which was what someone half-Indian and half-black was called. I want to move away from these labels without losing the history, and to be honest I’m scratching my head about the best way to do it.”
Munroe, who grew up in Luton, has Chinese and African heritage, and recalls that at school fellow pupils would ask what she was. “My mother would just say ‘green with pink spots’, but that didn’t really help me,” she recalls.
Casta paintings date from the 1600s to the beginning of the 19th century and were designed to show race and class divisions in Spanish colonies. Facial expressions and physical attitudes all encode the hierarchy and status of the people painted, and sometimes racial mixtures are identified and inscribed on the canvas. The works Munroe found, which also express contemporary anxieties about racial mixing, were originally donated to the Leicester museum in 1852, by Joseph Noble, a lord mayor of the city.
“For me, perhaps the biggest interest to this story is how it shows that we see things differently when we come from a different perspective,” Munroe explains. “A lot of people had looked at these paintings before, and they were just being used to train picture restorers before they were destroyed. It was only because I was working there that I saw something in them. There is a new level of understanding that comes when you have different people working somewhere.”
After the restoration work is complete later next year, Munroe plans a series of events and lectures with the aim of understanding the progression of academic attitudes to racial identity.
Richmond’s Robert E. Lee statue will move to the city’s Black History Museum
Crews remove the statue of Robert E. Lee in Richmond on Sept. 8. Pending city council approval, the statue and eight other Confederate monuments will be moved to Richmond’s Black History Museum.
Steve Helber/AP
The massive statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in Richmond, Va., taken down in September, will be moved to the city’s Black History Museum, Gov. Ralph Northam and Mayor Levar Stoney announced Thursday.
The Black History Museum and Cultural Center of Virginia will take the 21-foot-tall statue of Lee and the pedestal it stood on, which became a rallying point for protests against police brutality in the summer of 2020. Eight other Confederate statues that were removed around the city will also be moved to the museum.
“Symbols matter, and for too long, Virginia’s most prominent symbols celebrated our country’s tragic division and the side that fought to keep alive the institution of slavery by any means possible,” Northam said in a statement provided to NPR.
“Now it will be up to our thoughtful museums, informed by the people of Virginia, to determine the future of these artifacts, including the base of the Lee Monument which has taken on special significance as protest art.”
The museum will partner with The Valentine, the city’s oldest museum, to get input from the community on how the statues should be displayed. Before any of that can happen, however, the plan still needs approval from the city council.
The decision on what to do with its statues is part of a larger nationwide conversation on removing, replacing and renaming Confederate symbols — and questioning what remembering history looks like in a public space.
Richmond was capital of the Confederacy for most of the Civil War, from 1861 until 1865. And Virginia once had the most Confederate statues in the country.
In Charlottesville, Va., the city council recently decided its statue of Lee — the proposed removal of which helped spark the deadly Unite the Right rally in 2017 — will be melted down and turned into a public art piece, a project that will be led by the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center in town.
Andrea Douglas, the center’s executive director, told NPR she hopes Charlottesville’s plans will help guide what other cities do with their Confederate monuments.
“Can we create something that defines the community in the 21st century? What does Charlottesville want to be? We describe ourselves as a city that believes in equity, that believes in social justice, so what does that look like in a public space?” Douglas asked.
“This is really not about erasing history. It’s about taking history and moving forward,” she said.
The Jefferson Davis statue will now reside in the black History Museum, Richmond, with appropriate information.
Two fiction books are reviewed this week, Ilsa Evans, The Unusual Abduction of Avery Conifer and Miranda Rijks What She Knew; and one non-fiction, Rosemary Griggs’ A Woman of Noble Wit, Matador 2021. All of these books were provided to me by NetGalley, as uncorrected proofs, in exchange for honest reviews.
Ilsa Evans The Unusual Abduction of Avery Conifer, HQ Fiction, 2021.
There is so much to recommend this novel. The social comment around domestic violence is treated with sensitivity, drawing out the complexities, but acknowledging that whatever they may appear to be, action to prevent such violence is non-negotiable. Characters are flawed, but most have likeable qualities, or at least those that can be understood. Avery, the subject of the title, is appealing, carefully and realistically depicted, with none of the annoying qualities that so often hamper the characterisation of fictional children. The plot is a combination of fun and gravity. Overall, I found this a stimulating, and enjoyable read, laughing aloud at times, but always appreciating the seriousness of the motivation for two grandmothers, and a great grandmother to take their grandchild away on what could have been, in less able hands, a high-speed car chase or a similarly dramatic and unrealistic endeavour. Instead, Isla Evans opts for inadequate accommodation near an Australian country town. Books: Reviews
Miranda Rijks What She Knew Inkubator Books, 2021.
My first Miranda Rijks, and it shall not be my last. What She Knew is a satisfying read, with a title that resonates with the content, and a very smart combination of domestic drama and crime. The characters are believable, with no great potholes in their motivation and their representation. None made me wonder why they behaved as they did, each was devised to play his or her role with meticulous attention to the situation, event, or relationship.Books: Reviews
Rosemary Griggs A Woman of Noble Wit Matador, 2021.
Rosemary Griggs takes her title from the description of Katherine Champernownes (c1519-1594) in The Book of Martyrs, under her name upon her second marriage, Katherine Raleigh. The attributed phrase appears well into this fictional account of Katherine, ‘our heroine’ as Griggs designates her in the ‘cast list’ at the end of the book. However, it is used on several earlier occasions to emphasise one of the influential characteristics of the woman who wanted more from life than that determined by her gender and the times. Books: Reviews
Covid update in Canberra after lockdown lifted
New cases recorded on the 23rd December reflect the increases observed in most states of Australia since the advent of the Omicron variant. The eighty five cases is a record for the ACT. The number of Covid patients in hospital remains at three, and none is in intensive care or ventilated. Masks are being worn, as mandated, inside, and in the majority of cases I observed this morning, by choice in the street.
There have been 5215 negative tests received in the 24 hours to 9am on the 23rd.
Cases reported on 24th December – 102. People continue to wear masks where they are mandatory, but also on the street in shopping areas.
Cases reported on 26th, 27th and 28th December – 71 new cases, 189 new cases and 252 new cases. Testing Centres are now prioritising those at the highest risk of exposure to Covid 19. On December 29th , 138 new cases were recorded.
Cindy Lou reviews two Canberra restaurants – fortunately she was able to eat out on several occasions before the Omicron variant made doing so far less attractive.
Braddon Merchant is an attractive venue, a very short walk from the Eloura Street light rail station – just over the road. Taking advantage of this was a delight – two glasses of the champagne, sold by the glass. Although there was a high level of chatter and laughter, the noise level was moderated by the environment. It was easy to talk and hear each other despite reasonably large groups close by. Staff were pleasant, efficient, and informative. The menu provides for two or three courses to be ordered (with several choices in each course). When I was unable to order a dessert – yes, the first two courses were delicious and generous – the waitperson suggested that an option for our next visit would be to order a shared entrée and desert, and a main course: two courses, but even more choice. This sort of staff suggestion is such an asset to a restaurant – with this type of friendliness why would one not return?
My entrée was the asparagus with a luxurious egg on top of crisp asparagus, a delicious sauce and wasabi leaves.
The second entrée was pork neck, pork skin, beetroot and leaves, with mustard and jus.
Barramundi with artichokes. The skin was crisp and the fish succulent – some of the nicest fish I have been served recently.
My friend’s main course, with pasta, courgettes, and broth was also delicious.
Another visit to Tilley’s was fun with friends. My prawns in a light pastry with a sweet chilli dip, and a friend’s crisply battered fish were very good indeed. However, the courgette fritters (pictured a couple of weeks ago) won the day again for the other diners. A crisp colourful salad made an excellent accompaniment.
Last week’s delicious gelato was at Gelobar.
Northern Land Council 21 December 2021
David Gulpilil Ridjimiraril Dalaithngu’s journey home begins.
On Saturday 18 December, Rirratjingu Clan Cultural Ambassador, Witiyana Marika, gathered local family and friends to mark the start of renowned actor David Gulpilil’s journey home.
Witiyana paid his respects to David Gulpilil, and sent him on his journey home by singing his story: his clan estate, his name, his land, his tree, his waterhole. Witiyana acknowledged the great mark David Gulpilil had made, his achievements as a Yolngu movie-star and his role in bringing greater understanding about Yolngu culture to wider Australia.
David Gulpilil Ridjimiraril Dalaithngu’s cultural funeral will be held on-country during the 2022 dry season.
Further details will be released in due course.
Exhibits at the Ian Potter Centre Melbourne
Items from A Possum Skin Cloak On Country Series by Lorraine Connelly -Northey
Book reviews this week include non-fiction – Christian Lamb’s Beyond the Sea A Wren at War ; John Marsden, Take Risks; and Elie Mystal Allow Me to Retort A Black Guy’s Guide to The Constitution and fiction – Kathleen McGurl’s The Girl from Bletchley Park. All of these books are uncorrected proofs provided to me by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
Christian Lamb Beyond the Sea A Wren at War Ad Lib Publishers Mardle Books, 2021
Christian Lamb has brought together three experiences in Beyond the Sea A Wren at War: her work as a Wren in a variety of capacities; her marriage with its beginning in wartime and its aftermath as a ‘sailor’s wife’; and experience as an interested, and later, expert gardener. I was pleased to read the material that went beyond Lamb being a Wren at war as some of this was familiar through my reading Peter Hore’s Secret Source Churchill’s Wrens and the Y Service in World War 11. For the complete review (and the earlier one of Peter Hore’s book) see Books: Reviews
John Marsden Take Risks Macmillan Australia 2021
My knowledge of John Marsden is coloured by my reading of one of the most devastating novels I have read, So Much To Tell You, Letters From The Inside. I read to keep my daughter company, rather than for my job as an English teacher; Marsden did not feature in my particular classes. My grief at the end of the novel was so complete that perhaps it was as well he did not. Reflecting some of the distress at the end of that novel is my reading of the beginning of Take Risks, when Marsden describes his schooling at The Kings School in the 1960s. His resilience is remarkable; amongst the terror, authoritarianism, and mediocrity, he dreamed of a different type of education, with teachers of considerably dissimilar qualities, in surrounds suited to educating young people. See complete review Books: Reviews
Elie Mystal Allow Me to Retort A Black Guy’s Guide to The ConstitutionThe New Press New York, 2022.
Elie Mystal’s title is apt for this book which combines uncomfortable and sometimes abrasive language with arguments (or retorts) that certainly encourage a rethink of the American Constitution and the Amendments. Some readers will not like the abrasive quality of the language; others will find it energising. Mystal certainly maintains the forceful presence he radiates in television debate when it is translated to the page. I found myself having to pick my way through some of the debate. Regardless of my reservations, I found this book a worthy contribution to discussion of the American Constitution; the role of wealthy white men in its writing, interpretation, decisions about the Amendments and interpretations in the courts; and the way in which black and coloured Americans and women can be neglected in the law. And, indeed, Elie Mystal has every right to question my reservations about his language. With such a story to tell, with its horrific unpeeling of the discrimination that remains, despite the Amendments, his language cannot be other than strong. So, cast aside reservations, and read this illuminating, but distressing ‘Retort’. See complete review Books: Reviews
Kathleen McGurl The Girl from Bletchley Park HQ Digital, 2021.
The Girl from Bletchley Park is written from the perspective of two strong women, Pam and Julia, whose choice of partners and careers form the basis of the narrative. Their stories are told alternately, from Pam’s perspective during the second world war, and Julia’s in the present day. Both narratives involve the complexities both women face in dealing with romance, marriage, and paid work. Pam’s story raises the serious ramifications of choosing a partner from the beginning of her relationships with two distinctly different men. Julia’s story begins after years of happy marriage which has produced two teenage sons. Books: Reviews
Articles that appear after the Covid report are: Cindy Lou’s reviews of Melbourne eating; Willie Geist Interview with Hillary Clinton; Harold and Maude at 50 years of age; Alan Kohler, AEC; The National Gallery of Victoria; Heather Cox Richardson and the BBB Infrastructure Bill; and the link for her discussion with Ken Burns.
Covid in Canberra since lockdown ended
The big news this week is that Canberra once again has a mask mandate. Only inside venues are affected, so shopping, eating out except while seated, eating or drinking – all indoor settings, apart from a place of residence, will require masks. Not a hard requirement to follow. Aged Care facilities will also be impacted by the Omicron variant’s ‘taking a hold’ over the border in New South Wales. These facilities will reduce the number of visitors to residents to five per day; no restrictions are in place for end-of-life visits.
Another new feature of dealing with Covid is the opening of bookings for five to eleven year olds for vaccinations.
New cases recorded on the 15th, 16th and 17th were seven, eleven and twenty. After the decrease in numbers in past weeks this increase on the 17th is disheartening. A slight decrease was recorded on the 18th when there were eighteen new cases. This number was repeated on the 19th, and on the 20th and 21st December there were thirteen and sixteen cases recorded. Today, the 22nd December, there were fifty eight cases recorded. There are three people in hospital, but none in intensive care or on a ventilator. There are now 174 active cases in the ACT; 98.4% of Canberrans over twelve have been fully vaccinated; and the total number of cases for this outbreak is 2,241.
Cindy Lou’s Reviews of more Melbourne restaurants and cafes
Grand Hyatt, Collins Street
Breakfast at the Grand Hyatt, Collins Street, is generous and absolutely delicious. We chose from the a la carte menu, but on another occasion would love to try the glorious buffet. The prices are really reasonable, the service impeccable, and the setting very pleasant indeed.
Le Petit Chateau
A light lunch at Le Petit Chateau was another culinary delight. Smiling service, a pleasant environment, and nicely presented flavoursome baguettes made a lovely lunch.
Rumi Brunswick
We had mixed experiences at Rumi. The restaurant was generous in allowing our small group to book outside the usual reservation time, and even more so when some of us were late. The menu is interesting, and the service was prompt. However, the restaurant is not suited to audible conversation, even in a group of six. The noise level was quite high – obviously people were enjoying themselves – and this encouraged us to have our savoury courses and leave to have huge gelatis a little further along the street. The food was pleasant, and clearly from the photos, we ate almost every scrap. But with no real stand out dishes, it was disappointing. Although the lamb was well received and the chicken succulent, some dishes were cold, and the anticipated cauliflower dish did not meet expectations.
Gelato – I did not look at the name, oh dear, I’ll have to return
We really loved our desserts. After a short walk from Rumi the gelato on display offered everything we wanted. We were encouraged by the friendliness of the staff, but I have to admit the variety of offerings in the gelato and cake cabinets was the real drawcard. It was immense. Of course, it was impossible to try only one flavour. My scoop of honey comb, and on top one of panna cotta, were delicious. To add to the decadence, they were served in a chocolate coated cone.
The Quarter, Degraves Street
The best eating experience on this visit to Melbourne was The Quarter in Degraves Street. This lane is the home of many cafes, some of which remain closed because of Covid – the closures are a sad reminder of the impact of closures and closed borders because of the dilatory nature if the Federal roll out of the vaccine. The menu combines the simple with the somewhat adventuresome, all nicely presented, generous in size, and delicious. Service is friendly and efficient. The Bao variety was excellent, with chicken, tofu and lamb (easily changed to suit dietary requirements); the lamb salad succulent; and the special order of a simple tomato and cheese sandwich (not on the menu) came with a smile. I loved the venue, the food and the atmosphere. A terrific end to my Melbourne culinary experiences.
It was lovely to visit Hosier Lane on our way to The Quarter.
Hillary Clinton shares the life lessons she learned after the 2016 election
In part one of this week’s Sunday Sitdown, former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sits down with Sunday TODAY’s Willie Geist to share the life lessons she learned and setbacks she overcame after her loss in 2016. Clinton reveals her thoughts during Donald Trump’s inauguration speech and opens up about the effects of showing her emotions in the public eye.Dec. 13, 2021
‘Harold and Maude’ at 50: An Oral History of How a ‘Harrowing’ Flop Became a Beloved Cult Classic
Alan Kohler: Why Donald Trump should make us thankful for the Australian Electoral Commission
As we watch the slow, momentous collapse of American democracy, a Scott Morrison-ism comes to mind: How good is the Australian Electoral Commission?
In Australia, Donald Trump would always have to win fair and square, and if he lost there would be no polls a year later showing that 80 per cent of his party still think the election was stolen, as 80 per cent of US Republicans apparently do of last year’s US election.
The latest American outrage is a PowerPoint presentation written by Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, entitled: “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan”.
It was a plan for overturning the 2020 result and installing his boss as the winner, and started with: “VP Pence delays the decision in order to allow for a vetting and subsequent counting of all the legal paper ballots”.
They would then go on to declare a “National Security Emergency”, based on the proposition that Venezuela, which is itself barely alive, interfered
in the US election for some reason, and then declare electronic voting in all states invalid because of that foreign influence and only “count paper ballots or revert to a constitutional remedy delegated to Congress”.
Bear in mind, the author of this insane sedition was the President’s Chief of Staff.
Pence refused to do it, which led to a mob storming the Capitol Building on January 6 shouting, among other things, “Kill Pence”.
Republicans are now preparing for the 2024 presidential election by launching campaigns to install Trump allies as the electoral officials in a number of key states.
That project is running in parallel with a Republican push across the country to enact voter suppression laws based on Trump’s election lies.
And now Donald Trump is favourite to win in 2024.
Thank God for the AEC
As I read about all this, all I can think is: Thank God for Tom Rogers.
Rogers is the Australian Electoral Commissioner and he wouldn’t stand for any of the nonsense going on the United States – in fact his mere presence and the existence of the AEC stand against both the perception and reality of electoral fraud in this country.
I’m not suggesting the AEC is perfect, and I’ll get to its imperfections later, but it’s worth remembering that the only serious challenge to the integrity of Australia’s electoral system occurred in 1977 when Reg Withers, the then Minister for Administrative Affairs, tried to change the name of the Gold Coast electorate to McPherson over the head of the Australian Electorate Office, as it then was.
There was a Royal Commission. And Reg Withers lost his job.
Seven years later, the Hawke government rewrote the electoral laws and turned the office into an independent statutory commission with powerful laws to both run and regulate elections.
The minister behind that was Mick Young, Special Minister of State, but he was forced to step down when he failed to declare a Paddington Bear in his wife’s luggage at the airport – which, as an aside, was a wonderful, nostalgic, affirmation of Australian political integrity, and something that would definitely not happen today.
Anyway, his key adviser, the future Treasurer Wayne Swan and an architect of the new electoral laws with Michael Maley of the AEO, kept the project going with Swan’s new boss, Kim Beazley.
Watching what’s going in the US now, it’s pretty clear that while that legislation is not usually remembered among the Hawke/Keating government’s most significant reforms, it might well have been the most important of all.
Australia takes for granted a network of strong federal and state electoral commissions that operate the elections, as well as their funding, and that stand as a bulwark against creeping modern fascism.
Solution in search of a problem
Lately we’ve been having a silly, unnecessary argument about voter IDs: They’re not required when voting in Australia and some bright spark in the Coalition persuaded the Prime Minister to back the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 to require them, but it expired due to lack of interest.
The system works fine, which we can now see more clearly by comparison with a certain democracy where it’s not working fine at all, except …
The AEC should get more involved in enforcing truth in political advertising and the transparency of political donations, preferably with a cap on federal election expenditure by parties and individuals.
South Australia has had truth in advertising laws since 1985, Queensland has real-time political donation disclosure, and New South Wales has a cap on spending.
The AEC doesn’t enforce any of those things, but it should.
Clive Palmer can spend any amount of cash he likes and in the process he and Craig Kelly can distort the election with lies.
Perhaps a better idea might be to have two federal bodies: One to operate elections and the other to regulate the behaviour of those involved, a bit like the Reserve Bank and APRA operate in the financial system, with the RBA running it and APRA watching the banks.
Either way, it’s time for another look at the way the Australian electoral system works.
Not that it’s broken – far from it – but it could do with a service.
Alan Kohler writes twice a week for The New Daily. He is also editor in chief of Eureka Reportand finance presenter on ABC news
First published in The NewDaily , December 16, 2021.
The National Gallery of Victoria
We had a short visit to the National Gallery of Victoria, visiting the highlight of the Pink Pool, and joining the enthusiastic audience of a dance group that combined hip hop moves with those of the Indigenous dancer who introduced the performance. On the way to the Gallery, moving bird silhouettes are a fine feature.
Moving birds are placed alongside the tramtracks – they are fantastic
The Pink Pool
Dance at the National Gallery of Victoria
Heather Cox Richardson – Build Back Better Infrastructure Bill: Joe Manchin and the Republicans
December 20, 2021 (Monday)
On Fox News Sunday yesterday, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said he could not support the Build Back Better infrastructure bill, a measure that is central to President Joe Biden’s vision for America.
Negotiators have been working on the measure for months. At the end of March, Biden called for the American Jobs Plan, a $2.3 trillion bill designed to support well-paid American jobs by investing in a wide range of projects, both taking care of long-deferred maintenance on roads, bridges, pipes, and our electrical grid, for example, and also investing in education, elder care, and alternative energy to help address the climate crisis. Republicans refused to get behind such a sweeping package, so to get Republican buy-in to a measure that would spend federal money, rather than cutting taxes, negotiators broke Biden’s initial measure into two bills.
One was a $1.2 trillion package that focused on hard infrastructure like rebuilding roads and bridges, and bringing broadband to communities that still don’t have it. About $550 billion of that money comes from new appropriations, and the rest is regular spending that Congress moved into the measure. Some Republicans were willing to support this bill, but it was too small to win the full support of progressive Democrats, who wanted a much bigger package. This bill is now commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill (although its name is actually the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act).
The other measure is the Build Back Better bill, which focuses on human infrastructure like childcare, eldercare, lower drug prices, universal preschool, the Child Tax Credit, and measures to address the effects of climate change. This bill began at $3.5 trillion. Republicans said no across the board to this one. Conservative Democrats Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) also said they could not support it without significant cuts, and so negotiators whittled it down to $1.75 trillion. To get both measures through required a delicate balance. On the one hand, progressive Democrats refused to agree to the bipartisan bill unless conservative Democrats agreed to pass the larger bill. On the other hand, Republicans refused to have anything at all to do with the larger bill but would not give enough votes to the bipartisan bill to pass it without the help of the progressive Democrats. So Democratic leadership made a deal that the two bills would move forward together, but then conservative Democrats wanted to move forward with the bipartisan bill and to wait for a score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to see how much the larger bill would cost.
Finally, in November, the Democratic leaders got a firm promise from the conservative Democrats that they would pass a version of the larger bill. On that promise, the progressive Democrats agreed to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which they did, and Biden signed it on November 15. So when Manchin announced on the Fox News Channel that he would no longer support the Build Back Better bill in any form, the wrath of the betrayed fell on him. Manchin cited concerns about the cost of the bill, but he used the CBO analysis of what the bill would cost if its provisions were all renewed for the next decade, an analysis requested by Senate Republicans, rather than what is actually in the current bill. While long-term concerns are not necessarily illegitimate, concerns about extensions not yet voted into law contrast strikingly with a lack of concern over the 2017 Republican corporate tax cut and 2018 budget, which were projected to cost $5.5 trillion if all aspects were extended for ten years, and which passed nonetheless.
Those who had relied on Manchin’s promise, including the White House, were furious. “If his comments on FOX and written statement indicate an end to that effort, they represent a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position, and a breach of his commitments to the President and the Senator’s colleagues in the House and Senate,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said.
The death of the Build Back Better bill would have huge repercussions. First of all, infrastructure spending is popular in general, both because of the projects it would accomplish and because of the jobs it would provide. Second, without the extension provided in the Build Back Better bill, the child tax credit that has lifted so many children out of poverty will expire, and the child tax credit is very popular (not least in West Virginia, where 181,000 families with 305,000 children benefited from the payments). The president of the West Virginia AFL-CIO, Josh Sword, asked Manchin to get back to the bargaining table, pointing out that the Build Back Better bill would not only lower the cost of health care and child care, but also shore up the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, which provides benefits to thousands of coal miners. It also protects workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively, creates jobs for home care workers, expands care for seniors and those disabled, and invests $4 billion in coal communities “to attract manufacturing companies that will provide good-paying, union jobs.
The reason all this matters so much is that Biden and the Democrats are trying to restructure the nation around ordinary Americans rather than the wealthy. Since 1981, when Ronald Reagan took office after telling Americans, “[i]n this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” the prevailing pressure on the American government has been to cut taxes and slash government regulations and investment in order to free up private capital to invest in a growing economy. But while those who pushed so-called supply-side economics promised it would create widespread prosperity, their system never delivered. Instead, the rate of economic growth did not increase dramatically, while, as the country cut taxes again and again, wealth moved upward. Meanwhile, as deficits and the national debt mounted, Congress cut social welfare programs and investment in infrastructure, and the country has fallen behind other nations.
Republicans insist that investing in the country is socialism that will destroy the economy, but in fact, Congress’s investment in the economic recovery through the American Rescue Plan, passed by the Democrats in March without a single Republican vote, has created the fastest rate of economic growth the country has seen in decades. Growth in the first two quarters of the year, before the Delta variant started to spread, was over 6%. That investment has created more than 6 million jobs since January, the highest rate in history, and new unemployment claims are the lowest they’ve been in more than 50 years. When Manchin said he would stop this investment by killing the Build Back Better bill, Goldman Sachs immediately predicted 1% less growth in the economy, saying that failure to pass the bill had “negative growth implications.” The bank cited the end of the child tax credit, along with the loss of other spending, as central to its analysis.
The Build Back Better bill, along with the other initiatives of the Biden administration, is not simply the pre-1981 government resurrected. It reworks the old New Deal government that focused on good jobs for men who headed households into a modern vision centered on children and families and the communities that support them. It is no wonder that the Republicans have refused to deal with the measure at all, and that the Democrats have had to—and likely will continue to have to—devote a lot of time and energy to pass it into law.–
Edited at 11:50 on Monday night to remove a paragraph about a tweet from Manchin I said was from tonight, but it was from October. I’m sorry about that.
See also, Heather Cox Richardson’s discussion with Ken Burns.
This week the books reviewed include one fiction, and one non-fiction. Both uncorrected proofs were provided to me by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
Liane Moriarty Apples Never Fall Macmillan Australia 2021
I am thrilled to have received this impressive new novel from Liane Moriarty. While I have enjoyed all her novels, I was a little disappointed with Nine Perfect Strangers. However, Apples Never Fall is such a triumph, my previous disappointment is irrelevant. Apples Never Fall is an engrossing and intelligent novel.
John Callow The Last Witches of England A Tragedy of Sorcery and Superstition Bloomsbury Academic 2022.
This is a well-designed narrative, following the steps by which the last witches in England became the victims of poverty and changing social and religious ideas. Both factors had an impact on the development of superstition in Bideford, England, where the women lived, and Callow’s narrative makes this case well.
Articles this week appearing after the Post lockdown Covid report for Canberra are: Kevin Rudd and the Senate Report into Rupert Murdoch; Cindy Lou’s remarks about several Melbourne restaurants she visited recently; Paul Mecurio’s tilt at state politics; Guardian Master class online with Maggie O’Farrell and Kate Mosse; and Brian William’s departure from The 11th Hour.
Post lockdown Covid results for Canberra for this week.
From the 9th December to the 11th there were four; six; an eleven new cases recorded. Pop up Pfizer clinics were established from Monday 13th December. One new case was recorded on the 12th December and three on the 13th. Some schools have recorded cases, and been closed; one has had to only require a class of students to self isolate. Tasting facilities are now making arrangements to accommodate changing needs. Masks remain a requirement on public transport, and restaurant staff wear masks. Cases recorded on the 14th and 15th numbered four and seven. Updates to requirements will occur at 11.59 tonight.
‘A rare example of political courage’, backed by half a million Australians
Kevin Rudd
It is a rare example of political courage — the sort we should see every day but has been made possible only with the backing of more than 500,000 ordinary Australians and their relentless demonstration that the public is demanding action to protect our democracy.
For more than a year, a cross-party panel of senators has been weighing all the evidence for and against a royal commission. Against the background of a ferocious bullying campaign by the Murdoch empire, the senators considered more than 5000 written submissions and conducted five days of open hearings. They interviewed Murdoch’s top executives, award-winning journalists, former politicians, media industry experts, academics and others. I was one.
Media regulation in Australia is “weak, fragmented and inconsistent” with a patchwork of co-regulators, self-regulators and non-regulators responsible for enforcing standards that are frequently breached without consequence.
This has bred “corporate cultures” within large media companies — chiefly Murdoch’s News Corporation — that view themselves as beyond accountability for their actions, even when they spread deliberate disinformation.
The convergence of traditional media platforms — print, radio, television and online — into online platforms, including social media, and Murdoch’s rising influence across these domains has bolstered the case for a single platform-neutral regulator.
And the proper response is not more piecemeal reform but a judicial inquiry with the full powers of a royal commission. And this must be at arm’s length from the nation’s politicians who are, frankly, too vulnerable to Murdoch’s political manipulations. Several witnesses attested to this insidious influence as a major barrier to change.
I would expect this independent royal commission-style inquiry to examine every aspect of the media landscape — including the hurdles for smaller publishers, the state of public broadcasting, social media platforms and Murdoch monopoly which dominates our national conversations through its 70% domination of daily print readership.
Supporters of strong public broadcasting, including the ABC, should have confidence that a royal commission will investigate better funding models and enhanced protections for editorial independence. The fact that the Murdoch empire, which incessantly campaigns against supposed “left-wing” bias at the ABC and the “digital dystopia” of Facebook and Google, is willing to pass up the opportunity for a broad-based royal commission that would examine those claims speaks volumes. If Murdoch has nothing to hide from a judicial inquiry, he should have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in these recommendations that should surprise anyone. Australians know instinctively that it’s not right that we have the most concentrated media landscape in the democratic world. And they are sick to their back teeth with a public debate that is driven by the commercial objectives and ideological preoccupations of a 90-year-old American billionaire and his family.
What is most surprising to me is that the senators — including all Labor senators — demonstrated the courage to call out the problem and advance a solution. This would have been unthinkable to many only a year ago; it is a testament to the more than 500,000 Australians who signed the national petition for a royal commission last year, and the many more who have joined the campaign since then. I am grateful to each and every person who has raised their voice.
So what should happen now?
It would be unacceptable for Parliament to ignore the Senate’s detailed recommendations, including a judicial inquiry, a permanent trust to support new local news and journalism traineeships, and broadband upgrades to ensure fair access to digital media.
The Murdoch media is working overtime to discredit this report and pressure all political parties to throw it in the bin without even reading it. Some members of Parliament — particularly those who hold marginal seats, or whose political fortunes hinge on appeasing the Murdoch beast — will find themselves in the media firing line over the coming days.
If these recommendations are dismissed out of hand, it is not only an abrogation of responsibility to the Australian people but a show of disrespect to the senators who have poured a year of their life into producing this detailed report. They have scratched at the surface of Australia’s media diversity problem and decided, in good conscience, that there’s a lot more to investigate.
Murdoch’s cut-throat lobbying tactics can be intimidating. But thoughtful politicians should think carefully before siding with Andrew Bragg and Murdoch against their own colleagues and rank-and-file supporters who are now powering this movement.
The best way that Australians can achieve a royal commission is to continue to let the political class know that, if politicians have the courage to speak out, the Australian people will have their back. I’ve launched a community organisation, Australians for a Murdoch Royal Commission, to do just that and I’m delighted to have hired Sally Rugg as national director.
I’ve been a member of the Australian Labor Party for 40 years, and I’ve seen a lot of big debates in that time — economic policy, foreign affairs, marriage equality. Few campaigns start with widespread support political support on their first day, but the strongest ones are powered from the ground up.
Only by continuing to demonstrate widespread public support to rein in the Murdoch monopoly, and let diversity flourish, can we hope that public figures will gain the confidence to join the Senate committee majority in siding with the interests of our democracy.
Cindy Lou visited restaurants in Melbourne- none of them posh, but an interesting range.
Lamb and Flag
One of the most interesting was the Lamb and Flag in Brunswick. This pleasant venue, with its simple menu, was a delight. We chose from the menu, and the specials. On this occasion these were a smoked salmon sandwich, and a roast beef sandwich. Both were fresh, and presented with potato crisps – a very British feature, which I found rather nostalgic. The main menu offerings included a bacon butty and a roll with bacon and extras. The coffee was good. The prices are commensurate with the food, which, while not glamourous, was filling and part of a lovely occasion with very dear friends. As well, making a contribution to this courageous venture amongst the multitude of Brunswick’s restaurants and cafes was a pleasure.
The Lamb and Flag provides a pleasant and relaxed social environment that fully meets the principle purpose of this restaurant as a community service. To be able to chat as long as we wanted, while another patron spent her time on her laptop, and people came and went provides the nucleus of a successful community social environment. In addition, free meals are provided on Thursdays, for anyone who arrives wanting something filling and tasty. In 2022 the Lamb and Flag intends to provide a venue for musicians who would like a receptive audience for their early endeavors.
Il Solito Posta
The Il Solito Posta is a lively, comfortable and fun Italian restaurant in a basement venue just off Collins Street. There was a buzz of conversation, with good humour obviously a huge feature of this friendly restaurant. At the same time, it was easy to hear the conversation at my table – an important feature in my view. The food was generally good, although the tiramisu was a little disappointing. The herb read was excellent – hot, full of flavour, crisp and generous. i enjoyed my chicken , fennel and rocket salad – particularly when paired with the crunchy garlic and rosemary potatoes. The pasta sauce from my companion’s dish was also a good accompaniment to the potatoes. The wine was good – and served in very generous portions! Overall, I would make this my ‘go to’ restaurant when staying in the vicinity in Melbourne. Although the food was not stunning, the ambience was everything it should be, and something to be enjoyed over again.
Starbucks
Yes, I had to have my Starbuck’s coffee and bun – another reminder of London in which I like to indulge when possible. The reminder is that without the free Wi-Fi available as drank my coffee I would have been out of touch for several weeks while the Wi-Fi was being installed at my apartment. On the chain coffee front, I received a notification from Costa that as I had not used my card for a long time it would be cancelled – together with the eighteen beans (!!!) I had accrued. I wrote to Costa, saying how much I missed their inviting venue in Cambridge, and that I would be returning as soon as possible. Their reply was so jolly – they will renew the card when I get back to Cambridge, and not only that, but my eighteen beans will be intact. So, these coffee shops are not part of the magnificence of London, but they provided a service when I was living there for which I am grateful. And, I wonder what I can buy with my eighteen beans?
Strictly Ballroom’s Paul Mercurio’s surprising career change revealed
Jesse Hyland For Daily Mail Australia 21 hrs ago (slightly edited in this post)
He’s a renowned actor and dancer who most famously starred in Baz Luhrmann’s classic film Strictly Ballroom.
But it was revealed on Saturday that Paul Mercurio is making a big career change to state politics from his usual work in the arts and as an entrepreneur.
Mercurio is currently a councillor for the Mornington Peninsula Shire and runs his own company selling spices and chutney, according to News.com.au.
He is also an actor and a dancer in his spare time and appeared as a judge on this year’s Dancing with the Stars.
The 58-year-old has nominated to run for Labor in the seat of Hastings, which is in Melbourne‘s outer south east, for the 2022 Victorian state election.
Mercurio is among four others to put their hand up for the seat of Hastings.
The battle for Labor preselection will be held on Monday.
Guardian Master class online
While I was living in London I attended several of The Guardian masterclasses and found them great value. They were informative, well organised and lots of fun. It was thrilling to walk from Kings Cross station to The Guardian offices for the classes. Eating lunch together with the other participants was a particularly fine feature of being able to attend in person. I have not been to an online class, but this one looks excellent.
A masterclass in novel-writing with Kate Mosse and Maggie O’Farrell
In partnership with the Women’s Prize Trust, this novel-writing workshop will provide insights into the creative process of two global bestselling authors, and give you or your loved one the confidence to take your writing forward. Order your combined book and course ticket before 17 December and receive a copy of the Women’s Prize for Fiction Journal, packed with beautiful illustrations as well as inspirational quotes and writing tips, before Christmas.
StellaRay Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.) Saturday December 11, 2021 · 1:44 PM AEDT
The “darkness of the edge of town has spread to the main roads and highways and neighborhoods,” Williams lamented. “It’s now at the local bar, and the bowling alley, at the school board and the grocery store. And it must be acknowledged and answered for.”
“Grown men and women who swore an oath to our Constitution, elected by their constituents possessing the kinds of college degrees I could only dream of, have decided to join the mob and become something they are not while hoping we somehow forget who they were,” he continued.
“They’ve decided to burn it all down ― with us inside,” added Williams. “That should scare you to no end as much as it scares an aging volunteer fireman.”
Brian Williams
I have written other diaries about Williams, whose show I greatly enjoyed and I will miss. I know there are those who will not ever forgive him his trespasses, but I see him as a man who redeemed himself, and did so in a way that benefited many, including me. I found his show the perfect end to an evening of big news. There was a smart calmness about it. He asked good questions and no one can ever accuse him of not listening to the answers.
I think it is interesting that he also said on his sign off that he is not a “liberal or a conservative, but rather an institutionalist.” I get this, assuming the institutions are of our choosing and sturdy if not perfect—which clearly Williams is no longer sure of, nor am I.
I thought his words were well chosen and scary as hell. For as much as there are certainly others saying the same thing, there was something about Williams terse brevity, his choice to make these his last words on his show, that really rattled me. Not that I need to be more rattled than I am these days by what’s going on.
But I was struck by the idea that when we talk about “messaging” I think this is what it’s about. We need more people WITH A PLATFORM to step up and say, “hey folks, we’re on the ledge of loosing our imperfect republic, our highly flawed but great democratic experiment. Open your eyes. We are hanging on by our freaking fingertips.
There will be those who say this is hyperbolic—but I now think those are the same sort who didn’t see Hitler coming, even after the Brown shirts had arrived. And make no mistake about it, the Brown shirts have arrived in the United States of America. They just go by a different names these days. All sorts of names, but most disturbing of all is this name: the Republican Party. There is no “both sides do it” in this ultimate game, despite my opinion on the many imperfections of the Democratic Party.
I think there is no doubt this is who Williams was talking about. Yes, we are on the edge of destroying ourselves the way every great nation/culture from the beginning of time does: from the inside out. And maybe, while one side is worse than the other here—as in not both siderism— it is also true that the other side fails us when they don’t find the strength to fight, tooth and freaking nail.
What we desperately need is more people with big voice to step up and do what Williams did—scare us out of our complacency. Because even in the midst of a culture grinding epidemic, so many in this country don’t get it—going about their ways as if nothing can touch us, not even a killer pandemic, because we’re just that special, and maybe just that spoiled.
Whatever you think of Brian Williams—and I expect to hear from his detractors here too, as I have every time I’ve written about him—he spoke the dark truth boldly.
This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member. Make YOUR voice heard!Login or create an account.
A suitable photo for completing a lovely few days in Melbourne.
One of the books I have reviewed features in the final round for the Goodreads Best Books of 2021, and another I reviewed, is a biography of Amanda Gorman. Marc Shapiro, Work Up: The Life of Amanda Gorman reflects upon the life of the finalist, writer of The Hill We Climb, An Inaugural Poem for the Country and was reviewed on 28 July, 2021. Come Fly the WorldThe Jet-Age Story of the Women of Pan Am by Julia Cooke was reviewed on 17 March, 2021. See Books: Reviews
The book reviewed this week is Fiona Hill’s There Is Nothing For You Here Finding Opportunity In The 21st Century HarperCollinsPublishers Boston New York, 2021.
Fiona Hill’s father did readers of this book an immense favour when he told his daughter, ‘There is nothing here for you, pet’. That wise understanding of Fiona Hill, together with his and her nurse/midwife mother’s steadfast support, joined by various people along the way, gave this resilient, thoughtful, and intellectually astute woman the power to study and excel, find a range of a careers, and most effectively, a voice. See full review Books: Reviews.
Canberra post lockdown Covid
There has been one confirmed case of the Omicron variant in Canberra recorded, on December 3. On 2 December eight new cases of Covid were recorded, and on December 3, four cases, including the one of the new variant, were recorded. There were four people in hospital, with three in intensive care, although none is ventilated. At this stage the total number of cases for this outbreak in Canberra is 2,022; ACT residents over twelve who are fully vaccinated is 97.9%. Children have been back at school for four weeks.
On the 4th, 5th, and 6th December there were seven, six, and six new cases recorded. On the 7th and 8th there were three cases, and then eight, recorded. On the 8th there were 79 active cases, with 1,675 new negative tests recorded. Two dose vaccinations for people over twelve are now at 98.1%.
Cindy Lou eats out in a variety of venues in Canberra – and enjoys them all.
Blackfire
It was very pleasant to return to Blackfire with friends. Having enjoyed the prawns so much on the last occasion, I opted to have them again, with the crab and prawn filled peppers as an entrée. Again, because of my great experience with the crème caramel (of which I could only share a small portion) I took the opportunity to order a whole one this time. Two of my friends opted for the two entrées as well, and we ordered some bread to soak up the delicious sauce with the prawns.
As always, service was pleasant and efficient. The atmosphere is delightful, with the tables spaced well, and the noise level low. Covid protocols were observed.
Years ago we found Blackfire when looking for outside seating for breakfast, and were impressed. We have now enjoyed several lunches there, with large and small numbers, and several dinners. This is always a really enjoyable venue and I shall certainly return.
Soul Origin
Quite a contrast, but nevertheless, an enjoyable casual meal, was my huge salad at in Soul Origin in the Woden shopping centre.
A section has been set aside for eating in Covid aware circumstances, with good spacing, hand sanitiser and check in.
The food ranges over a variety of filled rolls and a large swag of salad choices. The portions are more than generous – and that was for the small dish.
Tilley’s Devine Cafe and Gallery
Tilley’s is always fun, not only is it a reminder of the success of a small business venture financed and encouraged under the Hawke Labor Government, but it provides good food and service, and a comfortable venue. This time I sat inside, and fumbled with ordering from the table – it worked! The music is low enough to hear conversation; the floor is carpeted, again helping keep any noise down; and families, couples and groups are all customers.
Drinks that arrived promptly; salt and pepper squid; lots of wicked sweet potato fries; and zucchini fritters. The sauces accompanying each dish were also very good indeed.
Heather Cox Richardson
Heather Cox Richardson
Disconnect between the popularity of the Biden Administration policies and the President
November 27, 2021 (Saturday)
Today, Nate Cohn noted in the New York Times that the policies President Joe Biden and the Democrats are putting in place are hugely popular, and yet Biden’s own popularity numbers have dropped into the low 40s.
It’s a weird disconnect that Cohn explains by suggesting that, above all, voters want “normalcy.” Heaven knows that Biden, who took office in the midst of a pandemic that had crashed the economy and has had to deal with an unprecedented insurgency led by his predecessor, has not been able to provide normalcy.
In her own piece, journalist Magdi Semrau suggests that the media bears at least some of the responsibility for this disconnect, since it has given people a sense of the cost of Biden’s signature measures without specifying what’s in them, focused on negative information (negotiations are portrayed as “disarray,” for example), and ignored that Republicans have refused to participate in any lawmaking, choosing instead simply to be obstructionist. As Semrau puts it: “Democrats want to fix bridges, provide childcare and lower drug costs. Republicans don’t. These are political facts and voters should be aware of them.”
To this I would add that Republican attacks on Democrats, which are simple and emotional, get far more traction and thus far more coverage in the mainstream press than the slow and successful navigation of our complicated world. In illustration of the unequal weight between emotion and policymaking, Biden’s poll numbers took a major hit between mid-August and mid-September, dropping six points. That month saw the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was widely portrayed as a disaster at Biden’s hands that had badly hurt U.S. credibility. In fact, Biden inherited Trump’s deal with the Taliban under which the U.S. promised to withdraw from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, so long as the Taliban met several requirements, including that it stop killing U.S. soldiers. When Biden took office, there were only 3500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, down from a high of 100,000 during the Obama administration. Biden had made no secret of his dislike of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and, faced with the problem of whether to honor Trump’s agreement or send troops back into the country, committed to complete the withdrawal, although he pushed back the date to September.
What he did not know, in part because Trump’s drawdown had taken so many intelligence officers out of the country, was that as soon as Trump’s administration cut the deal with the Taliban, Afghan troops began to make their own agreements to lay down their arms. The Biden administration appears to have been surprised by the sudden collapse of the Afghan government on August 15. As the Taliban took the capital city of Kabul, Afghans terrified by the Taliban takeover rushed to the Kabul airport, where an attack killed 13 U.S. military personnel who were trying to manage the crowd.
Republicans reacted to the mid-August chaos by calling for Biden’s impeachment, and the press compared the moment to the 1975 fall of Saigon. That coverage overshadowed the extraordinary fact that the U.S. airlifted more than 124,000 people, including about 6000 U.S. citizens, out of Afghanistan in the six weeks before the U.S. officially left. This is the largest airlift in U.S. history—the U.S. evacuated about 7000 out of Saigon—and evacuations have continued since, largely on chartered flights. By comparison, in October 2019 under Trump, the U.S. simply left Northern Syria without helping former allies; the senior American diplomat in Syria, William V. Roebuck, later said the U.S. had “stood by and watched” an “intention-laced effort at ethnic cleansing.” And yet, that lack of evacuation received almost no coverage.
Complicating matters further, rather than agreeing that the withdrawal was a foreign policy disaster, many experts say that it helped U.S. credibility rather than hurt it. According to Graham Allison, the former dean of Harvard Kennedy School, “The anomaly was that we were there, not that we left.” And yet, in mid-September, while 66% of the people in the U.S. supported leaving Afghanistan, 48% thought Biden “seriously mishandled” the situation.Aside from getting the U.S. out of Afghanistan, is it true that Biden has not accomplished much?
Biden set out to prove that democracies could deliver for their people, and that the U.S. could, once again, lead the world. He promptly reentered the international agreements Trump had left, including the Paris Climate Accords and the World Health Organization, and renewed those Trump had weakened, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Biden set out to lead the world in coronavirus vaccinations, making the U.S. the world’s largest donor of vaccines globally, although U.S. vaccinations, which started out fast, slowed significantly after Republicans began to turn supporters against them.
Under Biden, the U.S. has recovered economically from the pandemic faster than other nations that did not invest as heavily in stimulus. In March 2021, the Democrats passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan stimulus package to rebuild the economy, and it has worked spectacularly. Real gross domestic product growth this quarter is expected to be 5%, and the stock market has hit new highs, as did Black Friday sales yesterday. Two thirds of Americans are content with their household’s financial situation. The pandemic tangled supply chains both because of shortages and because Americans have shifted spending away from restaurants and services and toward consumer goods.
The Biden administration mobilized workers, industry leaders, and port managers to clear the freight piled on wharves. In the past three weeks, the number of containers sitting on docks is down 33%—and shipping prices are down 25%. Major retailers Walmart, Target, and Home Depot all say they have plenty of inventory on hand for the holiday season. With more than 5.5 million new jobs created in ten months, unemployment claims are the lowest they have been since 1969, prompting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) office to tweet, “Armstrong Walks the Moon!… Wait, sorry! That’s a headline from the last year unemployment claims were this low.” Workers’ pay has jumped as much as 13% in certain industries, and there are openings across the labor market.
The American Rescue Plan started the reorientation of our government to address the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the wealthy who have dominated our policymaking since 1981. It provided more than $5 billion in rental assistance, for example, and expanded the Child Tax Credit, so that by the end of October, $66 billion had gone to more than 36 million households, cutting the child poverty rate in half. Over the course of the summer, Biden negotiated an extraordinarily complicated infrastructure package, winning a $1.2 trillion bipartisan bill that will repair roads and bridges and provide broadband across the country, and getting the larger, $2.2 trillion Build Back Better bill through the House. Now before the Senate, the bill calls for universal pre-kindergarten, funding for child care and elder care, a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and protection against climate change. Has the Biden administration accomplished anything? It has created a sea change in our country, rebuilding its strength by orienting the government away from the supply-side economics that led lawmakers to protect the interests of the wealthy, and toward the far more traditional focus on building the economy by supporting regular Americans.
The books reviewed this week were provided to me by NetGalley. They both reflect upon women’s fight for the vote. The Accidental Suffragist and The Rebel Suffragette tell the stories of two rather different women, the first in fictional form, and the latter non-fiction. Both are worthy contributions to winning the vote for women in America and Britain. Well, at the time the stories end, for a particular group of women!
Galia Gichon The Accidental Suffragist Wyatt-Mackenzie Publishing 2021.
Winning women’s suffrage in America and Britain was an arduous journey, and even then, in both instances the vote was limited to women over thirty, and in Britain a property condition imposed another restraint. Since the centenary of each, fictional accounts of both fights for women’s suffrage have been published in celebration of women’s achievement. The Accidental Suffragist by Galia Gichon is a very worthy fictional companion read to Sally Nichols’ Things a Bright Girl Can Do, a fictional account of the British women’s fight for the vote, won in 1918. In America, women’s suffrage was initially won state by state, but it was not until 1920 nationally women were given the right to vote through a federal amendment to the Constitution. Gichon is celebrating that achievement in her book.
Beverley Adams The Rebel Suffragette The Life ofEdith Rigby Pen & Sword History 2021.
I was drawn to this book by the title as I had not heard of Edith Rigby and was interested in what Beverley Adams believed made her a rebel suffragette. I had thought of all the women involved in fighting for the women’s vote as rebels, after all, they were seeking to undermine the political power men exerted (well, some men) through the ballot box, and ultimately in parliament. However, I soon realised that Adams was indeed right to describe Edith Rigby as a rebel, denoting her as special in her adoption of the cause for women’s voting rights, and others she espoused. I also regret having been in Preston for a conference and not realising that in that city there were remnants of a history that I would have been thrilled to learn.
New cases of Covid on 25th, eight; 26th, eight; 27th, seven.
On the 27th November the ACT Government introduced precautionary measures in response to the emerging Omnicron variant of Covid 19. These are relevant only to travellers from South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Seychelles, Malawi and/or Eswatini. These travellers are subject to a Covid test and quarantine.
New cases on the 28th, 29th and 30th November are: seven, seven, and four.
I had a Pfizer booster on Tuesday and spent all Wednesday in bed, so this post is late. Great to have the booster, but bad to miss a deadline.
Erin Brockovich, Superman’s Not Coming, (Books: Reviews) hopefully would be pleased with the following outcome to deal with the immediate situation in Flint, and the long term resolution of the problem with lead pipes offered under the Build Back Better legislation enacted by Congress.
Michigan judge approves $626 million deal to settle Flint water crisis lawsuits
“The settlement reached here is a remarkable achievement for many reasons, not the least of which is that it sets forth a comprehensive compensation program and timeline that is consistent for every qualifying participant,” U.S. District Judge Judith Levy wrote in the 178-page opinion.
The state of Michigan will pay about $600 million for its role in the crisis, while Flint will pay $20 million, McLaren Health will pay $5 million, and Rowe Professional Services will pay $1.25 million.
In 2014 and 2015, regulators from then-Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration allowed Flint to use water from the Flint River without properly treating it.
Residents started complaining of health issues such as hair loss and rashes, and a group of doctors found dangerous levels of lead in the blood of children in September 2015. The city switched back to a Detroit regional water agency the next month.
Children who were ages 6 and younger will receive more than half of the settlement, while the rest will go to other affected children, adults who can show an injury, businesses, and anyone who paid water bills. Attorneys are seeking as much as $200 million from the settlement, but the judge said that will be decided in the future.
“We hope this settlement helps the healing continue as we keep working to make sure that people have access to clean water in Flint and communities all across Michigan,” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer said in a statement.
The $626 million settlement was originally reached in August 2020 and received preliminary approval in January.
Corey M. Stern, a partner at Levy Konigsberg who served as counsel for some plaintiffs, said that the settlement “would not have been possible without the children and families of Flint relentlessly taking a stand against those who failed to keep them safe.”
“Although this is a significant victory for Flint, we have a ways to go in stopping Americans from being systematically poisoned in their own homes, schools, and places of work,” Stern said.
Rick Snyder, who was governor of Michigan from 2011 through 2018, was charged with two misdemeanor counts of willful neglect of duty in January related to the crisis. Eight other former state and local officials are also facing criminal charges.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Bob McMullan
The small talk about Albanese and small targets is wrong
(Image: AAP/Joel Carrett)
The notion that the federal Labor leader is running a small-target strategy ahead of next year’s election flies in the face of the facts.
When the prevailing orthodoxy doesn’t seem to fit the underlying facts, it is wise to question the orthodoxy rather than the facts. I don’t see the facts which back up the “small target” theory about Labor leader Anthony Albanese’s approach to the 2022 election.
With the latest NBN announcement the current opposition has more policy out there at this stage of an election cycle than any opposition I can remember in the past 50 years except those led by John Hewson in 1993 and Bill Shorten in 2019.
I understand that different people have different priorities which they would like a Labor opposition to campaign on. And, obviously, such people will be disappointed when the party displays priorities other than those they would like to see.
But with an election probably six months away it is ridiculous to expect a well-organised opposition to have all its policies laid out by now. Not because they will be stolen or attacked, but to ensure there is room for new announcements during the campaign.
Can you imagine the outcry should the Opposition leader get up and say at the campaign launch that “all our policies have already been announced”. However many policies had already been launched, the hue and cry about a small-target strategy would be off and running again.
Striking a balance between early announcements to give candidates and supporters something to campaign on and keeping enough back for the campaign is an art, not a science. I don’t know Albanese’s plans about this balance but I have been involved in running enough campaigns to understand the nature of the challenge.
I appreciate if you are a male over 60 you might not think the extensive policy Albanese announced some time ago on childcare is important. But thousands of women (and men) with children regard it as their number one priority. It is an important economic and social policy. It is also a major point of policy difference between the government and the opposition in the lead-up to the election.
If you are a comfortable middle-class citizen in secure housing, you may not regard social and affordable housing as a priority, but hundreds of thousands of Australians who are struggling to find adequate housing appreciate the priority it has received from the opposition. The announcement of a $10 billion fund to build new affordable housing is another important point of difference. It is also a policy with obvious social value and one that will create lots of working-class jobs.
Everybody regards domestic violence as an important issue but very little has been done about it. The current opposition has the strongest policy I have seen on the issue.
I have written about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament issue here before. I think it is the most important long-term issue that will be decided by the election outcome. And there is no equivocation from Albanese on this crucial and controversial issue.
The public is crying out for a national anti-corruption commission, but it is not an easy issue to get right. It seems to me Mark Dreyfus and the Opposition have done a pretty good job of getting the balance correct.
The latest NBN announcement is a big issue and a bold promise. The difference between the government’s destruction of the planned NBN rollout and the opposition’s commitment to provide $2.4 billion to renew a public NBN is stark.
Of course, there are issues close to my heart that the opposition has not been brave on yet. And maybe they never will make an announcement on the aid budget or arts funding. But the big picture is more important than any individual priority. By election time there will be plenty of issues of contrast between Labor and the Coalition — not about everything, but about a lot of very important issues.
The excellent review of the last Labor campaign by Jay Wetherill and Craig Emerson made it clear that policy discipline is important. In 2019 many fine policies went unnoticed because there were too many policies out there for the public to comprehend.
I am not aware of the Opposition’s intentions on future policy announcements. I know they will be somewhat constrained until they have seen the Pre-election Fiscal Outlook or, more probably, the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. I hope and expect they will have a lot to say between now and the election, but the idea that they are running a small-target strategy flies in the face of the facts.
There are two cardinal rules to remember about policy announcements when running an election campaign from opposition. The first is you don’t have to be able to do everything before you do anything. The second is “gouvenir est choisir”. This is a famous quote from former French prime minister Pierre Mendes France which translates as “to govern is to choose”.
When judged against these two rules the Albanese-led opposition measures up quite well with six months to go. It is not perfect but that is not the standard I would set to judge it by. Time will tell if the strategy and the leadership style will be successful. But a small target it is not.
This article was first published in Pearls and Irritations.
THE WOMEN WHO MADE AUSTRALIAN TV PART 3
BY JEANNINE BAKER
WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander viewers are advised that the following program may contain images and/or audio of deceased persons.
This is the third article in a 4-part serieson women’s contribution to early Australian television production.
Director Marion Ord, continuity girl Betty Barnett (standing) and camera operator Bob Feeney filming Valley of the Sentinels in Newnes, NSW, 1971. Courtesy Australian Broadcasting Corporation – Library Sales
While key creative roles in Australian television in the 1950s to the 1970s were dominated by men, some women also forged careers as producers and directors, mainly in light entertainment, children’s, educational and documentary programs. The NFSA collection helps tell the stories of some of these groundbreaking women.
At the ABC, radio producer and accomplished musician Margaret Delves was one of the first 6 producers selected for ABC television in 1956. She produced live entertainment and game shows, and the ABC’s first educational TV program, Kindergarten Playtime. see the full article at Television: Comments
You no longer need to get a PCR test to confirm you have COVID-19.
You can usually safely manage COVID-19 at home if you:•
Most cases we are seeing in the ACT have a mild illness and will recover in a week at home. Some people may not have any symptoms at all. 
Please call COVID Care@Home as soon as possible if you meet any of the criteria below that may mean you are eligible for specific treatment:• over 20 weeks pregnant• an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person over 55• aged 16 years and over and unvaccinated/only had 1 dose • significantly immunocompromised. 
ACT Health will have a form available shortly for you to tell us if you have had a positive RAT result. Registering will enable us to connect you to the care and advice appropriate to you.
In the meantime, please record the date of your positive RAT result and follow the advice for people who have tested positive for COVID-19, including isolating for 7 days and telling your household contacts they should complete a RAT or PCR test and isolate for 7 days 
If you develop severe symptoms (particularly severe headaches or dizziness, difficulty breathing, chest pressure or pain), call triple zero (000) straight away and tell the ambulance staff that you have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
Robin's Room 