5 posts tagged “liberal”

Rhonda-grant

[Cross-posted] I finally came across the full text of the press release attacking Massey University over its story on its alum Rhonda Grant, Miss Universe New Zealand’s second runner-up.
   You can read the statement from the Association of University Staff’s president, Assoc Prof Maureen Montgomery, via Scoop. I think she was pretty persistent, sending it out to the NZPA as well as other news sources—she really disliked the story.
   It’s a shame Dr Montgomery has received anonymous hate mail over this today, when her release is filled with good targets for debate.
   I respect her right to hold an opinion and I think she was right to circulate it, but I wonder just how it might benefit the Association of University Staff, or any institution promoting tertiary issues.
   A lot of the arguments are addressed in our own release, which pageant director Val Lott asked me to write. I was more than happy to put the record straight, something that Dr Montgomery gave me a good opportunity to do.
   You can tell Dr Montgomery failed to do what I thought academics should do first and foremost: get sufficient evidence and maintain an open mind.
   The story on Rhonda Grant was no better and no worse in quality terms than the puff pieces about alumni on the Massey University website, so we know she has been singled out.
   Dr Montgomery writes, ‘Massey’s story reads like the formulaic sort of thing that aspiring beauty queens are expected to say when interviewed on the catwalk.’
   As I said in our release, the reality is the interviews are tough—and there are no expectations of formulaic answers at Miss New Zealand.
   I defend the pageant because I know how tough the judging got: Rhonda was allowed to talk about nutrition, and other contestants were quizzed about everything from the moral repugnancy of bank charges to genetics versus socialization, depending on their university specialization.
   ‘One might expect a university public relations office to do more than piggy-back off what comes across as a publicity statement produced by the Miss Universe organisation,’ she said.
   Publicity statements from the Miss Universe Organization seldom focus on second runners-up but, whether we like it or not, Massey has engaged in journalism. We might argue over the quality.
   I share some of her concerns over objectification but I believe that was sufficiently addressed when Rhonda’s bikini-clad photograph was removed from the Massey University website in favour of something more conservative.
   Once that was done, then the complaint really is a case of the lady protesting too much, unless all alum puff pieces are equally, to use Dr Montgomery’s word, ‘banal’.
   And as deep journalism, maybe that’s not unfair—but it should apply fairly to all puff pieces, not just Rhonda’s.
   If it were couched in such terms, I would gladly stand by her.
   Dr Montgomery’s complaint on Rhonda’s piece specifically might be better directed at government educational policy that has supposedly bred a generation of sex-obsessed high school graduates who might find Rhonda Grant’s figure the reason to join Massey University.
   Actually, on the sexualization of youth, I would also gladly stand by her.
   But for now, as a colleague here at Lucire said to me today, ‘You have to ask yourself: what does Maureen Montgomery get out of it? It’s none of her business. Why has she been allowed to be involved?’
   I suppose the answer comes, rightly or wrongly, from the anti-American stances of liberal universities around the world, and Dr Montgomery’s own informs them. It helps the profile of the University of Canterbury, where she works, and cements its liberal position.
   My own father equated Dr Montgomery’s release to Rosie O’Donnell’s outburst on The View against Miss Nevada 2006 and Donald Trump: ill-considered, narrow-minded, poorly investigated and founded on opinion.
   Where Dr Montgomery and I do share some basic views is how images can shape agenda. I know this. I publish fashion magazines. Let’s not kid ourselves. 
   She wrote, ‘Massey University has provided an excellent example of how the desperation to market universities as “attractive” places to gain knowledge and transferable skills intersects with the use of the sexualized female body as a site of desire.’
   There is an element of truth to such statements, but I question if university choices are made based on attractive alumni—even with my rant yesterday on sexualization.
   When I went to university, I had far more pressing concerns such as degree programmes and career prospects.
   Vitally, we are talking about a story that is hard to find on the Massey University site—a site that had proxy errors in the small hours of this morning that rendered it inaccessible. If it were not for her own strong and widely disseminated disapproval, it would have been seen probably by a few dozen people—perhaps one prospective student.
   I’d personally have saved the energy for when universities started putting out alumni swimsuit calendars.
   By all means, speak out—I do on even lesser issues. But consider the effect of the publicity: right now, it seems Rhonda Grant is going to be promoted to national stardom on Close-up and Campbell Live, and the pageant will get prime-time coverage on the same day Miss New Zealand Samantha Powell did her Good Morning interview on TV One. Earlier today, Paul Holmes promoted this as a major item on his radio show in Auckland.
   We couldn’t have dreamed of this profile.
   This has played into the hands of the pageant exceptionally well and, as a judge, I thank Dr Montgomery, even if I do so somewhat selfishly.

I was reading on Humbled Infidel’s blog that the US Marines’ recruiting office is going to get kicked out of town (or has already?) by the Berkeley, Calif. city council.
   I don’t get it.
   I don’t care if you are anti-war or pro-war, this is a legal organization which has, as far as I know, a very small number of staff, and they don’t even actively go out to hand brochures to university-age kids.
   The proponents of getting them out of Berkeley are a group called Code Pink, which has engaged in some questionable activities, including painting graffiti at the office.
   The talk at the council meeting included notions that the Marines were ‘bombarding’ Berkeley citizens with ‘propaganda’.
   As a non-American looking in, it’s another one of those ‘I don’t understand the US’ things.
   I have a cousin who is a cop in Berkeley so maybe I should ask him just what is up there.
   Here’s my thought. Since this is a legal organization, it should be allowed to stay. Those people who commit crimes against legal organizations should be punished, not given full reign at council meetings.
   I thought the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution protected both sides, not just one, and before you question this non-American, yes, I did study your constitution at law school.
   If anti-war families are concerned their sons and daughters are being affected by TV advertising and the presence of this office in Berkeley, then the answer is really simple: talk to your children.
   Talk.
   You’ll find it’s easier than dressing up in pink and campaigning to run the Marines out of Dodge.
   Talk to them about why you wouldn’t want to see them joining up.
   Talk to them about why you think this War on Terror is illegitimate.
   Talk to them about your feelings of loss if they were to give their lives for something you don’t think warrants it.
   What is stronger? The word of a parent or the word of a government? I would have thought the former, but maybe I am wrong when it comes to these folks.
   From where I sit, 7,000 miles away from California, this isn’t about the presence of the US Marine Corps. This is about some people being incapable parents, unable to engage in dialogue with their children all their lives. And now they are shocked that they have formed minds and opinions unaffected by parental dialogue that probably never existed.
   They say they support the troops while they call them thugs and criminals.
   And now they want someone to blame for their own inadequacies: the advertising agencies, the US Government, the lone Marine sitting in the recruiting office providing information to those young people who enquire.
   To the anti-war groups: propaganda only works if you allow it to. Why else would you yourselves engage in propaganda of your own? In the hope that yours will work if someone allows your messages to enter.
   By doing it at local level you hope to counter major advertising campaigns at a national level. That actually makes a lot of tactical sense.
   But if young people are going in to this office, then it’s their decision to sign up. They have minds of their own and at whatever the age of majority is over in California state, it’s up to them. You have any time to say to your own kids or to those close to you, ‘Hey, I don’t agree with Bush and Cheney on this. Here’s why. And now you have to weigh up your options.’
   Removing a single office won’t change much because the real bombardment of the propaganda you cite is coming from a national source through national media. And those kids who want to sign up, heck, this is California. They’re just going to hop in to their cars and find another office.
   I prefer peace to war. But I prefer freedom to censorship.
   Meanwhile, it seems that after hearing submissions, Berkeley does not understand the rule of law or the US’s own Constitution.
   The message the city is telling us is this: you can come, but only if you agree with us. We don’t care if your group is legal. We don’t care if you have free speech guaranteed and enshrined by our Constitution.
   If you don’t agree with us, then you are out of here. Berkeley is a dictatorship not subject to the laws of these United States of America.
   That’s what I am hearing.
   I know Berkeley is liberal and I have visited there many times. And I have no problem with liberal viewpoints. As a Confucianist I would probably be classed as liberal in the traditional sense. One political survey puts me as a left-leaning libertarian, to the horror of my good conservative friends.
   Yet I seem to have a lot in common with conservatives when it comes to respecting the Constitution and the little matter of some Amendments ratified in 1791. It may pay to read just why these were proposed by James Madison; without the First, Code Pink would not even exist.
   But the Bill of Rights should also protect the Marines. This is about liberty and justice for all. Not some. What about the Second Amendment or does that not apply in Berkeley?
   Liberal does not mean closing our minds to alternative viewpoints. Actually, it means the opposite: that others are free to state their viewpoints even when we disagree with them. The principle is that through engaging opposing forces we can find better solutions.
   However, many liberals have forgotten that and their finest days under FDR.
   In this context, Berkeley ain’t liberal. The Council seems to be a Politburo unto itself.
   Yesterday, I MCed a very fun show where I had to thank the Red Chinese Embassy. I did it. I even gave it its proper title, ‘the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China.’
   Anyone who knows me knows I think this is an illegitimate embassy for an illegitimate government, and that I do not believe in UN resolution 2758. I think Henry Kissinger was a dickwad for his part in being anti-freedom when it came to the Chinese people.
   But this blog is my space. This is where I can say what I like and if I want to rubbish the commies and Henry Kissinger, I can.
   The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China is legally recognized by the country I choose to live in, and I have to respect its status in New Zealand. I might not privately accept it, but I respect it—just as I think anti-war groups have to respect the presence of pro-war groups in their cities and towns.
   Privately I can say what I like about the Reds, about their human rights’ record and about the fact that the Chinese people are in a state of war even though no casualties have been taken for a half-century. I have my right to free speech and I am going to use it.
   Publicly I was there to do a job and to conduct myself professionally.
   If I want the Embassy out of Dodge, I’m going to do it the proper way and campaign, but not lose sight of the freedom of speech each side has. The only way to remove an Embassy is to go to the source and convince the government of its illegitimacy. That is a near impossible task, but I still won’t shut my trap.
   I can influence those around me and if I have kids I will explain to them why the flag of the Republic hangs in my office, then they can make up their own minds.
   On that note, maybe I just don’t understand what the 21st century American family is like if Code Pink and Berkeley councillors believe it has little strength in the face of the US Marine Corps and an elected President who clearly stated that he would continue the War on Terror.
   And maybe I just don’t understand why I should even be familiar with the US Constitution if some Americans themselves don’t seem to care about their founding document.

After five terms, Australians have voted out four-term PM John Howard despite a strong economy (I imagine Liberal and coalition supporters will blame Work Choices) and voted in Mandarin-speaking Kevin Rudd and his Labor Party. Word has it that Mr Howard may even lose his own seat which has the largest proportion of non-Australian-born voters—including, most recently, a large group of Chinese who had moved from Red China.
   Traditionally, Mr Howard and the Liberals (note to our American friends: this means something different in Australia) have had support from southern Chinese, many of whom are traditional overseas Chinese who oppose the Communists. Since Deng freed up the Red territories, there have been more immigrants from the mainland, and these are generally Labor supporters particularly impressed with Mr Rudd’s linguistic skills and his work in Beijing.
   My witnessing of the campaign first-hand was brief while in Australia, but I noticed that the negative campaign of the Liberals failed to strike a chord with everyday Australians. After five terms, it is relatively easy for an Opposition politician to cry ‘Change!’ and Mr Rudd has been rewarded.
   The leftward shift may mean the US will lose a key ally in the Iraq War. However, if the Psychic Twins are right and Sen. Clinton takes the Presidency, then the leftward shift in Australia may keep the two nations closely tied together. Whatever the case, 2009 will look rather different to 2007 as the cycle swings again.
   I am sure the White House will have been watching this campaign closely, either learning from the right’s mistakes or seeing how a strong, shoulder-to-shoulder ally fared on Election Day. The news, sadly for them, was not good. And if there is a leftward trend in voting, then New Zealand’s John Key should not feel smug for a moment as an ineffective Leader of the Opposition against three-termer Helen Clark.

061231-ap-fordvideo-1

061231-ap-fordvideo-2

I didn’t blog about this at the time, though I intended to. Above are screen shots of an Associated Press video on President Ford’s coffin arriving in Washington, DC. As you can see, it was a bloody pain to watch. I know there are liberal journos over there in Washington—I remember one (conservative) foundation found that 93 per cent voted for Clinton and 7 per cent for Dole in ’96—and the conspiracy theorists would have put this reversed-and-upside-down treatment to them. Or, was it just because we are Down Under and this is the way AP broadcasts to us, figuring we are on the other side of the world?