The Difference Between Reporters and Ramseys

Fear not, Howard Haters! According to Ramsey, the “intervention” is just a white man’s plot to steal the black man’s land!

As we all know, any policy which is even slightly politically motivated is worthless. And Howard has a secret plan to achieve everything we haaaaaaaate! So let’s stop this evil land grab!! Nothing is more important than protecting the Land Councils, isn’t that right?

Update: The Duckpond fairly says of this post that “he vents his emotions rather than engage in cool dispassionate analysis,” and adds that “the commenters take it all in their stride”. He goes on to say that

Sometimes we need passionate reason without resort to argumentem ad hominem.

I’m not as sure. Sometimes a bit of fire is needed to remind people that this is more than an exercise in symbolic logic.

This entry was posted in Politics - national, Politics - Northern Territory. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The Difference Between Reporters and Ramseys

  1. zoot says:

    The pills Jacques, the pills! You’ve forgotten to take your medication again.
    And when you’ve calmed down, how about attacking the bore’s arguments? (I’m sure they’re vulnerable to rational argument)

  2. Jacques Chester says:

    Yes, I realise I was a bit short on this one. He trolled and I bit. It’s just that arguments like this have shit me off for years. “Oh it’s bad because, you know, it’s like a land grab”.

    I mean:

    * Which is more important, land or freedom from sexual assault?
    * Traditional owners have very little say over the land. It’s run by the land councils.
    * How *dare* people from the NT presume know more about the situation than Alan Ramsey, Bestriding Colossus of Sydney!

    Bah.

  3. SJ says:

    Get your hand off it, Jacques.

    * Which is more important, land or freedom from sexual assault?

    How exactly is the sexual assault issue addressed by taking the land back?

    * Traditional owners have very little say over the land. Its run by the land councils.

    If land councils are giving insufficient say over the land to traditional owners, how exactly is this problem solved by taking the land away from them altogether?

    * How *dare* people from the NT presume know more about the situation than Alan Ramsey, Bestriding Colossus of Sydney!

    Some white lawyer from the NT (Reeves)is bound to know best because?

  4. Ken Lovell says:

    “… how about attacking the bores arguments?”

    This would be problematic, given that Ramsey has perfected the art of copying and pasting to such an extent that it’s often hard to say exactly what his argument is. At least he cites his sources.

    The Skelton piece, relying so heavily on people who declined to be named and anonymous officials, doesn’t even do that.

    The police don’t seem able to prevent crime in dysfunctional suburbs of the major Australian cities. Why a Surge of coppers in the NT should succeed in indigenous townships still remains to be explained.

  5. Patrick says:

    I’m surprised that you even read Ramsey! Surely you have better things to do! Go and make a serious comment on Kim’s female genital mutilation thread (linked to in missing link) for example :)

  6. Jacques Chester says:

    I can’t recall how I came across it, just that it gave me the irrants.

    The point of land-vs-sexual assault generally is that it’s not about taking the land. The land councils are not the traditional owners. Taking the land off the councils and giving it in freehold to locals is not a land grab from anyone but self-serving fatcats in Alice Springs.

    Some white lawyer from the NT (Reeves)is bound to know best because?

    Because:

    * He’s probably actually met blackfellas, unlike Ramsey who reads about them.
    * He’s a former politico and in the NT politics involves endless discussion of the issues that the rest of the country is only now taking an interest in.

    It’s like asking why an engineer in Darwin would know more about cyclone coded construction. It’s part of the landscape, part of what everyone deals with every single day.

    I lived in Darwin for most of my life and I went to highschool with kids from all over the topend. I’m sick of blowhards from Sydney and Melbourne deciding that the locals are ignorant hicks who “just don’t get it”. It’s foolish, arrogant, and the exact precursor to every other aboriginal affairs fuckup of the past century.

  7. SJ says:

    The point of land-vs-sexual assault generally is that its not about taking the land.

    Um, yes, so why has Howard sexual assault with land title?

    Taking the land off the councils and giving it in freehold to locals is not a land grab…

    But that’s not what’s being talked about, is it. I’m not an expert in this area, and if you could expand on this point I’d be grateful.

    Because:

    * Hes probably actually met blackfellas, unlike Ramsey who reads about them.
    * Hes a former politico and in the NT politics involves endless discussion of the issues that the rest of the country is only now taking an interest in.

    And Hitler actually met Jews, shared a country with them, and was a politician, which I’m sure made him more qualified than anyone else to know how to deal with them? (Note that this is purely a comment on the argument that you’re using. I’ve got no idea what Reeves is like, and make no judgement on him one way or the other.)

  8. SJ says:

    Should be “why has Howard tied sexual assault with land title”

  9. Dave Bath says:

    SJ: you ask “Why has Howard tied sexual assualt with land title?”

    I think that is entirely the wrong question. The questions should start with
    1. Why isn’t he looking at the recommendations from Anderson/Wild?
    2. What information/insight has he got that Anderson/Wild didn’t have.

    Even better, the questioner could go past the Anderson/Wild recommendations and look at page 129 of the full report which gives SOME details on a nearly-two-decades old apparently successful NZ program addressing similar issues: recidividism down to 5% it seems, and millions saved in the process. A similar program was started in the NT a few years back, but it withered away and there were no efficacy studies done. (I’ve got details, including more in-depth studies on the kiwi programs here)

    So, the better questions might follow this line :
    1. “Why hasn’t Howard tried something that has been shown to actually work?”
    2. “Has he invited some of the Te Piriti Correctional Services gurus across the ditch to give us a hand setting up similar programs?”
    3. “Has he invited some of the Maori elders who worked with the program to come over and consult with our tribal elders?”

    At the same time, I reckon most of the media has been sleeping on the job, and are still thinking “No one knows what to do about this”. Have any of them actually picked up the report, no just the “executive summary recommendations”? I can’t believe that there is some hope there, asking to be picked up? Try googling “Te Piriti” or “Kia Marama” at theage.com.au or news.com.au. These programs should at least be part of the debate.

  10. David Coles says:

    Ramsey assumes that Howard and Brough were being cunning. I think the truth is that they were looking for something that would look good and needed to round out the package. Not cunning – dumb.

    They have wanted to set up a leasing arrangement on townships for years. There are good reasons for doing it but only if it is done with the strong support of traditional owners.

    Surely the debate should be about the most effective means of dealing with abuse rather than the diversions.

    I do wonder whether Alan Ramsey will ever come face to face with the ‘Darwin school principal’ that he lists as part of the Task Force. Miriam Rose Baumann is a senior woman of the Nauiyu community at Daly River. She has been principal of the school there for many years.

  11. Jacques Chester says:

    As usual, Noel Pearson says it better than I could:

    This is my two-step reasoning for supporting intervention.

    The first step is that you have to know what happens in these communities week in, week out. Urban-based critics simply do not know the realities. Neither did 90 per cent of Australia until recently. There is now no excuse because there has been a major expose and official report in almost every jurisdiction.

    The second step is that once you have knowledge of the realities, you must find its continuation unacceptable. Therefore you support intervention. By all means, we can argue about the kind of interventions that should be undertaken, but two things are not negotiable in this discussion.

    From today’s Australian: http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/action_only_way_forward/

  12. Pingback: LAND RIGHTS « DUCKPOND

  13. Taztigger says:

    Better to be a Howard Hater, than a Howard Fellator

  14. wmmbb says:

    I think to call the opponents of the government “Howard Haters” was either infantile or equivalent to racist stereotypes. What I have noticed is these epithets are sometimes internalized.

    If Howard believes his motives have been misrepresented, or his actions unjust characterized, by me at least as racist opportunism out of the Textnor play book, then he has himself to blame.He should as a democratic political leader make his motives and his goals transparent by allowing democratic review and investigation. Scrutiny was denied by holding a press conference prior to question time on the final sitting day of parliament with the objective of wrong footing or more deviously wedging those opposed to the your actions, which conceivably may include members of your own political party.

    The likely explanation for Howard’s action is to political ploy, not to address the issue of child abuse, to take away land rights. Now if this is not Howard’s purpose, he must engage us with something more substantial than spin. We expect racist innuendo from Howard, and doubtless it will be politically successful now as in the past.

    The moral commitment for us as the electors is not that it works but whether it wins.

  15. Jacques Chester says:

    There does seem to be a current of people who genuinely hate the man, for whom every action of Howard must be read down as cynically as possible. For them Howard is the guy who could walk on water only to be told that “he can’t swim” and “he’s just trying to wedge the fisherman vote” or some such thing.

    Why does it matter if he’s a master politician? Even they do good sometimes. It may be fun to be suspicious of the motives, but so long as the outcome is good I couldn’t care less if his motives were to serve alien masters through hybridisation programs.

Leave a Reply to zoot Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.