Trying to interfere with ANU never goes particularly well for conservatives. Tony Abbott and his senior ministers led the charge against the university for divesting in fossil fuel company Santos in 2014, declaring the university was “stupid” to offload its investment. Weeks later, Santos’ share price fell off a cliff and four years on remains less than half of its level when Abbott and co were assailing the university. Oddly, we haven’t heard much from the government about ANU and Santos in recent times.
Abbott and his friends at News Corp have launched another holy war against ANU, this time over its reluctance to provide a figleaf of academic credibility to a culture war thinktank. Malcolm Turnbull, who sensibly declined to offer investment advice the last time ANU was in reactionary sights, has this time joined in, saying he would grill ANU Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt about knocking back the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation. That might be a difficult phone call for the Prime Minister, who wouldn’t be used to talking to someone who is not merely smarter than he is, but several orders of magnitude so.
There was once a time when Turnbull would even publicly fight back against News Corp holy wars. Almost exactly ten years ago, Turnbull was the solitary politician to defend Bill Henson against a News Corp-inspired assault for his (admittedly, at best problematic) photography. Not so anymore; as Michael Pascoe once put it so well, “somewhere, a leather jacket lies empty”. Other Liberals have been vocal recently, too. Victorian senators James Paterson and Jane Hume have spoken out. In news utterly and completely unrelated to that, both are facing preselection pressure from the religious fundamentalist right in the Victorian Liberals. The Liberals are a broad church, of course, but all the room’s over on the right side of the nave.
The Santos business was purely about money, and the idea that ANU should not, as it turned out, lose a considerable sum of its investments pandering to the climate denialists of the Coalition. The Ramsay business is about the altogether more serious issue of academic freedom and intellectual rigour. One might regard it as ironic that “western civilization” is being invoked as basis on which Abbott, News Corp and whatever right-wing chin-strokers they can dredge up to ride on Jerusalem seek to trash the basic idea that universities are places of critical inquiry, and a school where ideas would be uncritically celebrated is anathema to that. But “irony” isn’t exactly apt, because such doublethink — the equivalent of slapping the word “university” on the IPA and treating it as a place of serious learning — is consistent with what remains of the ideology of the Right.
That’s where freedom of speech is a fundamental right, until it is used by people who aren’t white males, or used to kick upward, not downward, at which point hysteria ensues. That’s where the rigour of the marketplace is celebrated, until one’s business mates need a favour. That’s where the virtues of small government are held to be unquestionable, until your opponent attempts to curb handouts to your allies, at which point one must yell “class warfare”. Where freedom of association is cherished, except in relation to unions, which must be relentlessly persecuted.
And all of these issues are held to be of paramount political importance, because they obsess the Liberal Party base. These are the people who seriously believe 18C is a barbecue-stopper around the country, who believe voters think of nothing but throwing off the yoke of political correctness. In fact, voters are focused on their stagnant wages, how their kids will be able to afford a home, and the appalling length of time they spend commuting. Obsessing about holy wars ill-serves a Prime Minister already seen as dangerously out of touch.
The Far Right continue to portray themselves as victims, even though their level of privilege remains largely undiminished over the last 30 years.
Good article. I’m becoming more and more despondent at the direction our government is taking us in. The PM and others are completely oblivious to what really matters. I just hope they will not get another term.
Another term ever …if the LNP ever get back it will have to be in a new form that has learnt some decency and fairness.
Turnbull and his government are not improving their position in the polls. Malcolm may be feeling he hot breath of the ‘delcons’ on his neck, so jump in and support them by having a go at a Nobel laureate. Just needs to add flying buttresses to the crumbling walls of his castle.
Assuredly there must be some mistake !
I just flipped over from Crikey’s article about Business kowtowing to China.
In that article our own Julie (pass the eyedrops) Bishop no less,said; Governments have no business in interfering or trying to influence Private Companies.
Now you are telling me that Mal Talkbull is doing just that. It’s ghastly and my ghast is totaly flabbered.
Locked deep in the dark world of the knuckle dragging neanderthals of the coalition, Tony Abbott and his band of 1950`s motley neo cons are slowly dragging the liberal party into political oblivion, while the rest of Australia prepares to vote themselves out of the darkness of the last 5 years at their first opportunity, these relics of a feudal past desperately try to swim against the tide, from being the envy of the world Australia has no become the joke of the world.
Brian, perhaps some other form of derogative association could be considered but references to Neanderthals do not advance your argument. Having written that you are not the first to abuse the term (on the pages of Crkey) – as a some flicking through of previous articles (of some years ago) suggests.
Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapien had a common ancestor roughly 600,000 years ago (could be a tad less) (or about 30 odd ice-ages ago). Homo n. existed for 300,000 years and Homo sapien for about 200,000 years (to date). Co-existence occurred for about 35,000 (odd) years. Homo n. had slightly larger brains and stood at about the hight of the average Victorian in the 1850s. Homo n. had superior night vision (and likely day vision), hearing and could withstand temperatures circa -20C without much drama. They were also
extremely strong. A fifteen year old Neanderthal girl could put a heavy-weight boxer on his butt in about one or two swings. The species extended from Spain to Mongolia. They were hunters, lived in small groups (where the females moved to the family of the male) and observed ritualised burial although more than such social practices remains a matter of debate and further research.
“while the rest of Australia prepares to vote themselves out of the darkness of the last 5 years at their first opportunity”
Such is by no means clear Brian. Are you still interested in that bet? Two party preferred is favouring the ALP but we’ll see when it comes to the crunch. As an aside I don’t much care as to who becomes P.M; even you Brian!
I read somewhere that Homo sapiens survived where Neanderthals didn’t because of the relationships they were able to build with wild dogs – dogs were afraid of the neans but warmed to the saps and helped protect them and find food. No wonder we love our dogs.
That was probably Pat Shipman’s “The Invaders” who posited (from DNA extrapolation) that Neanderthals lacked whites to the eyes and hence were unable to silently direct their hunting dogs.
In an LNL interview she said it was a long bow (sic!) to infer draw and more likely that dogs were first raised as food which came when called.
The entire dog/human thangy is more loaded with kultur klaptrap than anything this side of monogamy.
Worth a read though and she was no slouch in other anthropological writing.
Yes my own dog debunks this theory with her rude bias for the company of burly blokes.
“I read somewhere that Homo sapiens survived where Neanderthals didn’t because of the relationships they were able to build with wild dogs”
I happen to know and am able to maintain a discussion with physical geographers, palaeontologists and anthropologists but I don’t claim any great expertise. With that caveat tucked away, the source that you are relying upon, Andrea, I suggest, is on a par with Ron Hubbard.
The domestication of animals began just prior to the Neolithic (say about 5-6 thousand years prior) and Neanderthals had disappeared thirty odd thousands years prior. The evidence for domestication at the period identified is predicated, in the main, in the rapid increase of dog-numbers. Dogs (warning : Reader’s Digest version) ‘diverged’ from grey wolves being somewhat more ‘social’ and docile than other wolves. This topic is rather big and is littered with PhD theses. There is evidence that a divergence from the grey wolf ancestor occurred (via continuous but isolated breeding) over an interval from 35 thousand years ago (years before present or YBP – for the truly satinised) to somewhere about 20 thousand years ago – with the money being on 27,000 YBP – i.e. well after the extinction of Homo n.
However, hunter-gather societies were rather small communities and did not maintain unnecessary baggage. Thus it was not until the Neolithic (sedentary activity – agriculture for some) that the domestication of animals could be justified. The obvious question is : “how is it that the Neanderthals existed for 300,000 years (no dogs, wheels, or FB) and became extinct upon the threshold of the domestication of grey wolves”. Enough written : I think.
As an aside, all animals that are susceptible of domestication were domesticated by circa 4,500 YBP; about the time of the invention of the wheel; interesting huh?
The domestic dog is a member of the genus Canis. Canines include SPECIES such as foxes, wolves, jackals with hyenas in the rear – so to write. Hyenas, from a taxon perspective are actually closer to felines but their behaviour is much more canine in terms of social order (top-dog to base-dog), hunting in packs, being nocturnal and they attack prey with their teeth rather than with their claws – as do felines.
As for being able to determine the eye movements of other mammals and Homo n. or Homo s. in particular it is unlikely that the oscillation rate for the eyes of canines has that capacity of resolving power. In fact I’d be happy to wager a grand on the matter. Canines have di-chromatic vision (e.g. foxes – i.e. they cannot see “higher” [in wavelength] than green-blue) with dogs doing a bit (but not much) better. I think we get the dirft.
I haven’t looked for decades but the Encyclopaedia Britannica had, once upon a time (30 odd years ago) an excellent section on the domestication of animals.