Diplomatic language is not folly, it’s a necessary façade

Paul Daley wrote a piece in The Guardian yesterday called The dangerous folly of Australia’s come-what-may sycophancy towards Trump is on full display. In it, he argues that America and its position has changed, and Australia is foolish to continue to act as unquestioning allies.

Everything said in the piece is true and all the points made are valid ones.

Here’s a counterpoint though:

There is nothing to be gained for Australia from hairy-chested opposition to the new US administration. Not in public, anyway.

Most people who work with Trump know full well he is a psychopath. The only difference is whether they think it’s a good thing to be used to their advantage (possibly because they’re psychopaths too), or a bad thing to be managed since the highest court in the country has ruled the president untouchable.

Falling into the latter category was Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley. Observing Trump’s mental breakdown following his 2020 election loss, Gen. Milley called a secret meeting of officials in charge of the National Military Command Centre and instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.

He also made contact with the Chinese military to assure them there would be not be any attack, no matter what rhetoric they may hear.

This is what patriotism looks like.

While Elon Musk and his teenage army of bad coders are conducting an ideological purge of all US government mechanisms on Trump’s behalf, it is reasonable to expect there are still a few General Milleys around.

In the meantime, it does not advance Australia’s interests to antagonise a man and an administration who above all want to be admired and feared. Especially when between them, they probably couldn’t name Australia’s prime minister or find Australia on a map. Trump clearly has NFI what AUKUS is.

Much as I despise the “small target” strategy which Labor has employed for the last 30 years on every level with varying degrees of failure, dealing with Trump is one time where it’s appropriate.

Everyone in the Australian government knows Trump is an idiot and they all know we know it too. Saying so out loud in an official capacity, while being a commendable statement of principle, would not achieve anything positive for anyone.

Diplomacy with the Trump administration is all about letting the baby have his bottle. It’s not about appeasing a tyrant, which Trump undoubtedly is. It’s about leveraging the mentality of a man who will agree with whoever he last spoke to as long as they tell him how big and strong he is, to our advantage.

Maintaining normal diplomatic language towards the US government is no less a dangerous folly than tubthumping denouncement which would only achieve a pyrrhic victory at best. International diplomacy is about saying what you need to get what you want while knowing where you stand. 

Why the duct-taped banana is a true work of art

Oscar Wilde said all art is quite useless. Many disagree but at a level of human necessity, he was correct. You can’t eat art. You can’t build your house out of it. You can’t burn it for fuel (at least not for long, anyway). So it’s kind of like gold in that sense. Its only value is the value we place on it.

Last week, the value of US$6million was placed on a work of art consisting of a banana-duct taped to a wall. (Okay, maybe you can eat art).

What makes this a true work of art in late 2024 is that it is quite simply stupid. It’s a stupid price for a stupid work. We can all agree on this. It’s simply stupid.

One of the cures for ethylene glycol (or antifreeze) poisoning is to get the patient drunk and keep them drunk. Stay with me here; I’m going to make a connection.

Ethylene glycol on its own will not kill you. The problem is the liver will convert it into chemicals which will kill you.

However, the liver also prioritises the chemicals it processes. Ethanol, or drinking alcohol, is a much simpler chemical than ethylene glycol and the liver processes the simpler toxins first. By getting the patient medically drunk on ethanol, the liver spends all its time processing the ethanol, and the ethylene glycol passes through the body unprocessed. If successful, the patient lives do to another stupid thing another day.

I wish to present the theory that the liver is not the only organ which processes the simpler things first.

We live in a world full of relentless, toxic stupidity.

We see Israel bombing hospitals and murdering children in the name of self defence and there are people willing to accept this logic even when the stated objective is one that can only be described as genocide.

At the same time, it’s somehow controversial that Ukraine would defend itself against a hostile invasion by a notionally far more powerful nation. In the world I grew up in, powerful countries consuming smaller ones was considered bad. Then again, taking the wider view of history, maybe this value was just a 20^th century blip, but I’m holding onto it.

Meanwhile, America has elected a carnival clown as its leader for a second time. And said clown wants to put the guy who became a multi-billionaire from government contracts in charge of cutting government waste and a science denier in charge of the country’s health.

Each of the three paragraphs above contain so many complex layers of unfathomable stupid as to leave the normal, compassionate human brain beachballing.

It’s much easier to process the stupidity of an artist duct-taping a banana to a wall and getting someone else to pay $6million for it.

I’m sure there are people willing to justify the rationality of this, but they are far fewer and further between than those willing to accept the stupidity of Israel, Russia and Trump.

That makes it easier for us all to process too. In a world where even objective reality is somehow up for debate, we can comfort ourselves that we can all at least agree that paying a stupid sum for a stupid banana taped to a stupid wall is stupid.

For sure, it’s a sad indictment of us all on many levels, but this is a piece of stupid we can all process without killing ourselves and for a moment, the really toxic stupid does us a little less harm.

And that is art.

 

The role of White Woman Tears in the Olympic boxing controversy

I’m not sure if this has already been mentioned but I think a significant factor in the Olympic boxing kerfuffle is White Woman Tears.

Imane Khelif was born with a vagina. According to TERFs and other basic dickheads, this is the one and only criterion by which someone can be considered a woman. So what’s the problem?

Of course she punched her opponent in the head. That’s LITERALLY the ENTIRE POINT of the event. If this disturbs you, and fair enough, then your issue is with the entire sport of boxing and I would probably agree with you there.

And of course Angela Carini cried when she was defeated so comprehensively. Be honest, that’s all part of the reason you watch, isn’t it? The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, right?

But upon seeing the expression of emotion by someone who conforms more than her opponent to western and media stereotypes of how a woman should look, a lot of people are assuming she was treated unfairly.

Does Imane Khelif have an unfair advantage because of her relatively unusual genetic makeup? Of course she friggin’ does! Have you only just figured out how sport works? If every competitor were perfectly matched, every game would be a tie, every race would be a dead heat, every shot would hit the target perfectly. That is not how it works, and yet the people claiming unfairness in this event are the same people who deride “snowflakes” for wanting a “participation trophy.”

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. If Imane Khelif was born great, good for her. If the greatness she was born with outweights the greatness Angela Carini achieved, that’s just the way it goes in the pursuit of faster, higher, stronger.

 

A modest proposal for reforming the US Supreme Court

Judges on the United States Supreme Court have lifetime appointments. The reason for this is logical. It is intended to make them absolutely fearless in their judgements and beholden to no-one, not even those who put them there.

It makes perfect sense in principle that this should make the court incorruptible. However, since the US constitution was written on the ‘reasonable person’ principle, and many of those making the appointments and judgements can no longer objectively be considered reasonable people, things have gone awry. Allegations of conflicts of interests and “gifts” are eroding confidence in the court

If the framers of the US constitution had their time over, they would possibly realise they created a nine-headed king. You might remember they had a bit of a thing against kings.

To restore public faith in the court, I humbly suggest some possible reforms: 

A 9-headed king, yesterday

1: Term limits

The term should be generous – at least 12 years so as to be longer than a 2-term presidency. 25 years would not be out of the question. However, this would create the problem of Justices having an eye on their next gig or retirement plan. This problem could be offset by some of the suggestions below.

 

2: Pay them so much nobody could possibly bribe them

The current salary of a Supreme Court Justice is $298,500. No small amount for sure, but quite modest for the amount of work and responsibility they are expected to take on. It’s certainly not enough to fund they lifestyles we know some of the Justices enjoy. This naturally leads people to wonder how they make up the balance, regardless of whether they do it through wise investments or iffy favours.

In fact, adjusted for 2023 values, Supreme Court salaries have trended downwards over the last 30 years, having peaked in 1969 at an equivalent rate of just under $500,000. It’s entirely likely the judges are making less than the attorneys presenting arguments to them.

I know it’s not a popular view that public servants should be paid more. In 2024, even a million dollars a year might not be enough to prevent them lending an ear to potential benefactors. However, this expense would be offset by savings in the implementation and consequences of judgements which benefit only a monied few.

 

3: Ban all receipt of any benefits from anyone including to family

There are far too many loopholes in gifts to judges. As such, this rule must also apply to a judge’s family and close friends, who will have to be named and declared upon appointment and every year during their appointment.

Any product or service of any kind which is not directly paid for by a judge must be declared and audited annually. This also applies to spouses, children, parents, siblings and close friends. If a judge’s spouse gives them a Christmas present worth over $100, it must be declared. Get an upgrade on a flight? It must be declared. Spend the weekend at a rich friend’s house? Declare the relative value of that stay.

Judges will be audited annually and any breach will result in a mandatory 5-years’ imprisonment and being barred from employment for life. The Supreme Court itself will be barred from hearing appeals on any such breaches and will be judged by Congress.

Yes, it’s harsh. But service comes with sacrifice. At least they’re not being shot at.

 

4: Overturning a previous Supreme Court judgement would require a majority of at least seven

This will avoid perpetual relitigation of cases every time the court changes.

 

5: Mandatory retirement at 75

As a rule, I am not keen on mandatory retirement but a line had to be drawn somewhere. We have decided that 18 is a reasonable age for someone to be able to make adult decisions. Some people are more than capable of making adult decisions at 16. Others are totally incapable even at 30.

Likewise, some people remain fighting fit and sharp at 85, and some are completely gaga by 65. 75 is a reasonable age to maintain experience on the bench with appropriate turnover. Current rules state that a retired judge’s pension can be no less than what they were earning at the time of retirement. They would be barred from taking any other form of employment.

 

These are five reasonable suggestions. Or perhaps you have a better idea. 

 

 

The trans children’s TV character nobody noticed

It’s one thing for television to be inclusive of all types of characters – people feel accepted when they see themselves in art – but there will only be true equality when their difference is no big deal.

One long-running animated series has done just that, and done it so well that nobody even noticed.

The Penguins of Madagascar is a spin-off of the film Madagascar, and made by Nickelodeon. It features characters from the film, anthropomorphised animals, living in New York’s Central Park Zoo.

One refreshing aspect of the show is many of the animals go against the stereotype often ascribed to them in fiction. The elephant is a bit dim. The squirrel is basically a stoner. The kangaroo is an arsehole. And it’s the kangaroo I’d like to talk about.

The kangaroo character is named Joey after the word for a juvenile marsupial, proving the creators did a bit of research. He has a masculine name, a masculine voice, and is referred to as “he” by all the characters, including himself as he regularly refers to himself in the third person. He is selfish, aggressive, and generally a bit of a dick.

He also has a pouch.

We all know that only marsupials born female have a pouch. Clearly, Joey is the first openly pre-op transgender character in a mainstream television program.

And while the other characters have plenty or reasons to dislike him, this is never one of them. In fact, it’s never even mentioned. The characters don’t mention it, the producers never called attention to it, the fans didn’t seem to even notice. It is universally accepted that Joey is a male who happened to be born with a pouch.

Bravo Nickelodeon for this inclusivity. And it didn’t even trigger a massive right-wing cancellation campaign. Well played!