Epistles from the Apostles
I'm quite surprised at this post.
Gievn you are a lefty, aren't you supposed to approve of big powerful government?
I would have expected such a post on a more conservative blog.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by your comment. Your understanding of the categories 'right' and 'left' is as simplistic and duplicitous as the posts on your blog.
There is nothing 'Labor' about the present Vic Govt and, in any case, leftists from a range of traditions (from the anarchists, to Chomsky, to Foucault) have done more than any rightist when it comes to exposing the consequences of Govt surveillance and control.
I don't believe that Foucault ever declaredhimself to be a lefty. If so, could you please show me a link?
As for Chomsky, he is allegedly from the libertarian left, but at the same time excuses the conduct of socialist tortalitarian regimes, so there's a bit of dissonance there.
I know you might be dissapointed that the Voc Govt isn't as left as you would like, but that dosen't mean its not Labor.
I'm not going to do your research for you. I'll give you only a brief snippet.
Foucauly supported rights for women, gays, prisoners and immigrants, supported lax drug laws, flirted with the French Communist Party, critiqued conservatives in books, essays, and newspaper articles, supported the Iranian revolution (in so far as it was initially spearheaded by leftist students and workers) and was supportive of the May 1968 uprising.
I don't have links for these things - you might wish to consider reading a book.
The slur against Chomsky is trite, and has been dealt with by him many times. He is not 'libertarian', rather, he links himself with the anarcho-syndicalists, and cites the Spanish Republicans and Israel kibbutzim as ideological pre-cursors.
I'm not a fan of Chomsky's. Most of the rightist slurs against him, are not documented. Chomsky gives himself wiggleroom.
The idea of religious groups distributing social services, goes back to Bush. Besides breaking church/state boundaries, it amounts to the church cares for the poor, and the government takes care of the rich.
"Foucauly supported rights for women, gays, prisoners and immigrants,"
Well, that must mean he's left. I mean, who else would support any rights at all for these people? Hang them, all of them! And spit on their graves! Why, isn't that the platform the Coalition went with to the last election?
I read an excellent essay by Keith Windshuttle debunking Chomsky which mentioned his attitudes towards the killing by political regimes of their own citizens.
RE, what have you got against Chomsky? I'd be genuinely interested to hear.
I'd argue that churches distributing social services pre-dates Bush. The 19th Salvation Army in England is one example that comes to mind.
So are you suggesting that Foucault is a conservative? He's regularly demonised by the Tory press for being either on of a post-modernist or Marxist.
I mean, who else would support any rights at all for these people?
Not your fellow travellers in the Coalition, that's for sure. They've stymied every attempt to get a better deal for immigrants, refugess, homosexuals, etc. Further abroad, we see the contempt that rightists have for women illustrated in the likes of Ann Coulter, who declared that women shouldn't get the vote.
Windshuttle is little more than a Culte War cypher, whose name will be forgotten in a few years, unlike Chomsky.
"So are you suggesting that Foucault is a conservative? He's regularly demonised by the Tory press for being either on of a post-modernist or Marxist."
My understanding is that he was a Nietzschean. It's also possible to be neither right nor left. Contrary to your assertion, my " understanding of the categories 'right' and 'left'" is not " simplistic and duplicitous".
"They've stymied every attempt to get a better deal for immigrants, refugess, homosexuals, etc. "
That's not correct. For example, migration has actually steadily increased during the Howard years and the Howard govt removed some of the inheritance discrimination encountered by gay couples.
Windshuttle will undoubtedly be remembered. He is one of the culture warriors who has already delivered victory to the right in the culture wars. The works of his that will be forgotten are his left wing ones in his earlier years.
My understanding is that he was a Nietzschean.
Read Foucault. Whilst he claimed in interviews to have been influenced by some of Nietzsche's works, he did not declare himself to be a 'Nietzschean', and his books seldom cited Nietzsche at all.
It's also possible to be neither right nor left.
Indeed, but this is clearly not the case for Foucault.
Foucault's work, if I can summarise it in a simplistic way, was a critique of how power and knowledge (two sides of the same coin for Foucault) inflitrated what he called discourses, and exerted control over people's lives. Specifically, this involved an examination of various institutions (schools, prisons, clinics, etc). Whilst his critique of power was not Marxist, it was broadly leftist for the reasons I outlined above, and Foucault supported a range of leftist causes.
A conservative would probably be unable to read Foucault at all, and certainly not without some horror, which is probably why one almost never sees a Tory citing Foucault.
A libertarian may have some sympathy for Foucault's critique of Governmental institutions and their control over people, but they'd still have to come to terms with the fact that Foucault was leftist, French, and allegedly po-mo. Furthermore, Foucault was hradly arguing for a libertarian utopia (less tax, more guns, free incest for all), as most of the institutions he critiqued are not the object of libertarian scrutiny in any case.
For example, migration has actually steadily increased during the Howard years and the Howard govt removed some of the inheritance discrimination encountered by gay couples.
Howard was quite happy with the concept of migrants as cheap labour (457 visas, for instance). His treatment of refugees was appalling, however, and his Government did all they could to prevent gay marriages and the like.
Windshuttle will undoubtedly be remembered. He is one of the culture warriors who has already delivered victory to the right in the culture wars.
This is comical, and is precisely why the likes of Windshuttle will not be remembered. Who, outside of a few bloggers, could possibly care less about Windshuttle, or his culture wars, for that matter? His intellectual output, as with that of most of his fellow travellers, is too scant and sketchy to be of lasting significance.
His intellectual output, as with that of most of his fellow travellers, is too scant and sketchy to be of lasting significance.
Don't forget "error ridden". 
"Howard was quite happy with the concept of migrants as cheap labour (457 visas, for instance)"
Actually, migrants have not served a cheap labour, but instead as skilled labour. ie: most of them would be paid far more than the average salary.
I also note a contradiction in your world view: whilst migrants re subject to the same labour standards as anyone else, you believe that left to the market, Australian born workers would be worse off (hence your opposition to workplace deregulation). But logic dictates that foreign-born workers will not be less expensive to hire since they are subject to the same protections.
Windshuttle has actually exposed numerous errors made by left wing historians, particularly Henry Reynolds.
The right has won the culture wars because few intellectuals today accept the black armband view of Australian history.
Actually, migrants have not served a cheap labour, but instead as skilled labour. ie: most of them would be paid far more than the average salary.
Yes, there are some skilled migrants, such as much-needed doctors employed in our hospitals. There's also the cab drivers and fruit pickers.
I also note a contradiction in your world view: whilst migrants re subject to the same labour standards as anyone else, you believe that left to the market, Australian born workers would be worse off (hence your opposition to workplace deregulation). But logic dictates that foreign-born workers will not be less expensive to hire since they are subject to the same protections.
I'm opposed to workplace deregulation for a number of reasons; primarily, however, I think it makes most workers worse off.
As for 'protections' - bullshit. The migrant only gets to keep his/her visa insofar as an employer supports it through sponsorship. This precarious position is hardly the same for all workers.
When people think of Australian intellectualism, particularly those from overseas, we may hear names such as Patrick White, Germaine Greer, Robert Hughes, or indeed, even Henry Reynolds mentioned. You won't hear Windshuttle.
The right has won the culture wars because few intellectuals today accept the black armband view of Australian history.
The only people in the country who even think there's such a thing as a 'black armband view of history' are a handful of embittered rightists, declining into senility and irrelevance. It's a bit like that Japanese soldier (whose name I forget) who kept hiding in the jungle, fighting WWII long after it had finished. Like you and your rightists, he was on the losing side.
Like you and your rightists, he was on the losing side.
LOL. Very good Rev.
Sounds like the same program Optus use given every single fuckwit I talk to has to be given the same fucking information and none of them have access to a central fucking record.
Fuckers.
But logic dictates that foreign-born workers will not be less expensive to hire since they are subject to the same protections.
Except in reality they are not and used in many cases as cheap labour, such as skilled workers deemed as 'apprentices'.
But as inefficient as it is, I know someone, in this case, has access to it, and I know this person/people is Governmental.
But yes, they are as incompetent as Optus. But hey, no Govt person will call you at 9 in the morning...
Hey Rev, have you seen the BBC mini series called The Last Enemy? It's on in the UK now.
Some guy returns to Britain after being away for 4 years and a series of terror attacks has prompted a voluntary opt-in database called TIA (Total Information Awareness) to be installed by the government.
Being a voluntary opt-in system is the argument used to push it through parliament. Of course there is a deeper & more sinister agenda to have everyone on the database:
-If a TIA member interacts with a non TIA member, they are flagged
-The police all carry ID card readers
-You can't enter government buildings or attend certain events unless you opt-in to TIA
-It tracks you from birth to death
-The commercial aspect to predict shopping habits is part of it (as well as future crime habits).
-It's publicised as a tool to fight terrorism & crime.
Sound familiar?
The difference between TIA and CRIS is that TIA was written from the ground up. I got the feeling that this mini series is basing TIA on the proposed ID Card project in the UK.
Scary indeed.
Haven't heard of it - I'll try to find it and check it out.
Thanks for the info, Terry.
"I'm quite surprised at this post.
Gievn you are a lefty, aren't you supposed to approve of big powerful government?
I would have expected such a post on a more conservative blog."
Do you think the repeated evidence to the contrary will ever alter Leon's insistence on believing that lefties are in favour of "big powerful government"?
Isn't it amazing how none of the lefties whose blogs he reads ever advocate anything of the sort? Obviously Leon knows what they want better than they do.
Commenting by HaloScan
