Bits and Pieces (xi)

Joe Biden just couldn’t wait. Barely 37 days after his inauguration, he’s already got brown, foreign blood in his Democratic hands.

His very woke supporters – rainbow flags and all – are duly impressed. In particular, they loved the professionalism with which his Defence Secretary, Steve Austin, announced the deed:

(source)

(source)

A glorious victory in the fight for racial equality.

----------

Last week the Fair Work Amendment (ironically called “Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery”) Bill 2020 – IR Omnibus Bill – passed in the House of Representatives: 65 to 61. The media did not find that newsworthy, I think, because nowhere could I find reference to it.

 

Among those who voted for the Bill was independent MP for Warringah Zalli Steggall, darling of the local identitarian Left.

The COALition had already dropped the scrapping of the better off overall test (BOOT).

Welcome as that victory of the union movement is, it’s only partial, for the other changes remain in place. In particular, the redefinition of casual worker as whatever employers deem fit and the eight year-long greenfields enterprise bargaining without a bargain are still there.

The Bill goes now to the Senate.

 

This ad caused a lot of fake outrage among the commentariat. To me, it still tells the story. Judge by yourself:

 

----------

If one measures industrial peace by the number of days of work lost because of strikes (aka industrial action), Australia has long been a land of peace:

(h/t Gareth Hutchens)

 

That peace was legally forced upon workers. But the law never constrained employers in the same measure:

(source)

----------

In Australia chattel slavery never existed … formally. It was abolished in most of the British Empire in 1833. Which did not stop from quasi-slavery being found in Oz.

The thing is chattel slavery remains unlawful today and yet, we have “runaways”, at least according to an ABC report by Stephen Dziedzic, Evan Wasuka and Eliza Goetzev.

----------

(source)

We’ve seen the images: heavily-armed US National Guard troops deployed to protect the US Capitol after the January 6th riots.

I’ve never heard any Australian remarking on this detail: those troops were wearing battle fatigues … camouflaged. Details like that, however, did not go unnoticed to eagle-eyed American identitarian, liberal/Leftish intellectuals.
 

Greens, ochers, browns, frequent in camouflaged gear, are scarce in towns. Therefore, it makes no sense – those intellectuals found after typically careful consideration – to wear camouflage in urban environments. Instead, those intent on remaining unseen in the middle of a city should wear civilian gear.

Therefore – one should conclude – people wearing counterproductive camouflage in a city don’t really know what they are doing. They are “playing at being soldiers” – was the judgement of those philosophers.

 

Well, they reasoned that way in relation to the January 6th Capitol rioters, haphazardly dressed but also wearing camouflage gear.

 

But the same reasoning also applies with at least equal force to those troops – fully dressed in camouflage clothing – after the riots (or to the NFAC black self-protection militia, dressed in black from head to toe even during daytime).
 

Alternative counterexplanations as evident as “people may use clothing to identify their group membership” or “people may no want to remain unseen”, or “people didn’t have any other gear”, or indeed,  “National Guard troops also wore camouflage” never crossed those intellectuals’ minds.

Why not? Frankly, it beats me. A possible explanation is that they are not very good philosophers. Or maybe it’s just a matter of intellectual laziness ("Sorry, honey, I’m too tired or busy or have a headache or not in the mood to think”).

 

The advantage of those explanations is that they pass the Occam’s razor test.

 

Another possibility – which I find more persuasive – is that they did not really want to find other explanations: these philosophers feel in their bones that Trump fans are somewhat less than human – less than people – therefore incapable of rational thinking; therefore the most irrational and disparaging explanation – permanently on the tip of their tongues – is the best explanation. They, in other words, are not trying to explain a puzzling behaviour, but using a behaviour they are eager to find puzzling to confirm their prejudices.

Whatever explanation works for you, there’s a lesson there for the hoi polloi: just because one cannot (or will not) understand someone’s behaviour, it doesn’t mean that behaviour is proof of stupidity. If one cannot understand someone’s behaviour -- unthinkable as this surely is to those all-knowing intellectuals -- maybe, just maybe, one didn’t think hard enough.

 

That’s a valuable lesson, yes?

----------

I’m a big fan of ABC’s “Planet America” weekly report on American politics – a surprisingly appropriate mix of humour, analysis, interviews and fact-checking. Its presenters, Chas Licciardelo and John Barron, don’t always get things right, but at least they try.

And they have long maintained the thesis that histrionics, hyperbole, and hysteria are not exclusive property of the MAGA crowd. They also believe this is largely due to people willingly surrounding themselves with information sources that confirm their own preconceptions.

 

Amen.

----------

I wonder what Peter Hartcher’s stance on the Hungry Panda affair is. For one, he is sympathetic to gig economy visa workers (sympathy towards foreign workers in words is de rigueur in his milieu, not because they are workers, but because they are foreign). For another because the Transport Workers Union was the only union he did not lambast as “militant thugs”.

Now, Chinese visa workers working for Hungry Panda are striking (not really, because legally speaking they are not recognised as workers, but as contractors, just like in Australia legally there never were slaves, although there were and are runaways) and the only people supporting them are … the TWU.

Will we see Peter uttering a good word about unions, for once in his life? Or will he revert to his union-bashing default? After all, those guys are breaking the legally enforced industrial peace bosses enjoy in Oz.

----------

Matt Bruenig and the MMTers don’t see eye to eye on a great many things. But at least these days I’m sure they both have reasons to share a laugh with the travails of Neera Tanden. Schadenfreude is sweet, yes?