Politics

I was discussing the tense situation at the Thailand/Cambodia border with some colleagues, and one of us noted how some people in Thailand seemed to be relishing the prospect of war*. The conversation then got around to how many older people of all backgrounds speak fondly of wartime -- for example, I've often heard Australians and Brits speaking of the "good old days" when they actually mean World War II. Now I'm not suggesting that they actually enjoyed the killing, and certainly not the loss of loved ones. What I am saying is that war, or at least the perception of an "enemy", is a great social adhesive. (So, too, is a natural disaster, as evidenced recently in Australia.) Governments, although they speak peace, like the galvanising effect of a "good war" because it takes attention away from whatever else they may be doing. Certainly many in the media relish a stoush, real or imagined, because it allows them to foster an "us versus them" mentality that sells newspapers and drives radio and TV ratings. I've also met a few journalists who genuinley thought their life would not be complete until they could put on a tin hat (or whatever the modern equivalent is) and head off to a war zone. If they can't have a war, then they must write about other matters using military terminology ("the battle against cancer", any kind of sport reporting). Even various religious leaders have endorsed war when the basis of their belief is supposedly peace and love. Where is this largely self-evident rant going? you may ask. Well, nowhere in particular, except to say that it's something we all need to think about. If it takes an enemy for us to get closer to our friends, then we really need to stop and think about the "civilisation" we have built and where it is heading.
* Recommended reading: Voranai Vanijaka's column in the Bangkok Post Sunday.

In May last year, I wrote about (here) and broadcast (on 612ABC) my concerns that plans for the Australian pavilion at Expo 2010 in Shanghai showed our nation's name would be displayed on the building all in lower case, including the initial "A". I was so concerned that I emailed federal education minister Julia Gillard (who didn't reply at all) and her Queensland counterpart, Geoff Wilson (who said in reply that he'd look in to the matter). My sources in China have sent me photographic evidence that the English language has come up trumps. Here, at left, is drawing released last year and, at right, the building now under construction (with "Australia" in capitals):

Here's the relevant detail of the second picture:

There are the obvious ones -- characters such as the very camp Snap, Crackle and Pop, scary clown Ronald McDonald, the constantly resurrected Louie the Fly (exactly how good is Mortein if he keeps coming back?) and the Milky Bar Kid (that's showing my age). And then there are the not-quite-so-obvious ones, like Effie the annoying "Greek goddess", the ageless Amy from insurer AAMI, and Rampaging Roy Slaven and H.G. Nelson. I am, of course, referring to fictional characters who appear in the media and take on a life of their own. Today, I received an email from "Deborah" (she appears to have no surname) who is promising me the chance to win a million Qantas Frequent Flyer points if I buy certain Nestle products from Woolworths. Is she a real person or did somebody in an advertising agency somewhere just decide that "Deborah" was the kind of name that would inspire confidence and encourage me to open up my wallet? My point is that every day, in many ways, we are all being slightly deceived. Most of the time, we know what's going on, we play along with the game and no harm is done. But sometimes, it's a bit more subtle. For example, the TV satirist Stephen Colbert plays an exaggerated version of himself on television -- a character that gives him permission to say and do things that the real Stephen Colbert may not actually believe or ever do. Yet, a certain proportion of his audience think he's the real deal. The worrying thing is that many of our politicians are beginning to do the same thing. They are no longer real people, but the products of image-makers and spin doctors. They assume a different identity, and say and do things they don't actually believe in -- driven, of course, by dogma on one hand and polling on the other -- simply for the sake of re-election. When Kevin Rudd appears on a football broadcast, or Anna Bligh is on MasterChef, we have a right to ask: are they simply playing characters designed to portray them in a positive light or are they, to use one of Mr Rudd's favourite sayings, being fair dinkum? Because, if reality and fiction start to blur too much, we have reason to be very afraid.

At least I'm not alone ... according to a Sunday Mail poll, only 27 per cent of Queenslanders support Anna Bligh's extraordinary decision to appear in Celebrity MasterChef. Her excuse -- that it would highlight the use of Queensland produce -- is utter nonsense. How many of the four million people who watched the original MasterChef would know, or care, where the produce used by the cooks came from? In fact, research shows that the vast majority of people who watch TV cooking shows never try out the recipes (many of them don't even cook, they just like to watch). I'd have a lot more respect for Anna Bligh if she said she's doing the TV show simply because she wants to -- and I can't blame her for wanting to have her 15 minutes of national fame; I'd do it too, if asked -- and because her advisers (wrongly, it would appear) thought it might improve her image and distract attention from what's going on in state politics.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh is shaping up to be as much a media tart as her predecessor Peter Beattie. Bligh has announced she will appear on the celebrity version of Channel Ten's MasterChef to "promote Queensland produce". Methinks it's more about promoting herself and a government that's way on the nose. Queenslanders have a right to ask whether Captain Bligh's time would be better spent steering the ship of state rather than mucking about in front of the cameras while she's on our payroll. It's something an effective Opposition could really push hard on. When will we get one of those?

Couriermail.com.au is running an online poll, asking readers whether Queensland needs another royal commission in light of allegations of improper dealings between politicians and big business. On Friday, more than 90 percent of respondents said Yes, now the vast majority say No. I know online polls are notoriously unreliable, but how is it that the current result is so at odds with the more scientific Galaxy Poll in today's Sunday Mail, which concludes that the State Government is "on the nose"? Am I being cynical or has somebody - or some group of people with a vested interest and some IT knowledge that gets around the code preventing multiple voting - been pushing the button on the online poll again and again and again?

Queenslanders know how it goes: power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's time for another royal commission.