What are the personal reactions I have encountered since the riot?
1. Women in headscarves, normally a very common sight in Sydney's CBD and on the campus of the University of New South Wales, were nearly absent.
2. A university professor: "What were they hoping to accomplish? It seems so senseless."
3. A postdoctoral scholar: "Surely it is only a small minority that behaves this way."
I haven't yet had a chance to talk to my neighbors about it.
Two newspaper editorials to add to those quoted before: one decrying the exploitation of Australian multiculturalism for violent ends, and the other decrying American blindness (and by extension Australian blindness) about the degree of extremism rampant in the Muslim world.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
The Sydney Islamic riot
Yesterday, Islamic protesters rioted in Sydney's Central Business District, injuring six police officers. The riot was in conjunction with ongoing protests in the Arab world, supposedly over a dubbed video that defames the prophet Muhammad, blessings be upon him. One of the more memorable photos shows a young boy, certainly less than 4 years old, holding up a nicely pre-printed sign that said, "Behead those who insult the Prophet." I'm certain that that accurately reflected the boy's inner feelings.
Today, the politicians' reactions were as expected: pathetic. The rioters "damaged Australia's multicultural reputation." Their actions were "unacceptable." I am sure that will give the ringleaders pause before they try it again!
One opinion piece hit on an important point: the riot will certainly provide grist for the racism acknowledged to be a strong force in Australian society. And indeed, when I drove around the CBD today, I saw only one headscarf. They are usually ubiquitous. The actions of a few have spread fear to many--Muslims and non-Muslims as well. It appears that a riot is as effective as an act of terror in achieving that.
A couple of years ago in France, there were riots in some of the Muslim communities outside of Paris, supposedly because Muslims are marginalized in French society. One can be sympathetic. But yesterday's riot was in AUSTRALIA, people. The lives of Australian Muslims can only be described as idyllic. Muslims have no problem getting jobs here; there is certainly less prejudice against them than against aborigines (the Cronulla riot of a few years ago notwithstanding). They do have a TV show here called, "Are We Dumb, Drunk and Racist?" But the show makes it clear that, while it's not that hard to find the racists, they really are a minority.
Now, there is something more important beneath the surface. As noted, the riot coincided with worldwide protests against a film, and with the murder of a US Ambassador in Libya (for which those same protests were a diversion.) But was this Sydney riot really spontaneous? A video of the riot shot from overhead shows something very interesting: the bottle-throwers are several rows of people behind the front lines. They are actually pushing people in front of them to force contact with the police line, then are throwing their weapons. They not only incited the riot, they used a human shield, a familiar tactic in the Middle East. The video is clear enough to show the bottles flying from behind the human shield. And where did those glass bottles come from? The instigators brought the bottles with them, of course. They did not go to the local convenience stores, buy bottles of Bundaberg ginger beer, drink it, and then start a riot. THEY CAME INTENDING TO DO VIOLENCE.
The media reported that the protest was organized "using social media." But why does that imply that the riot was spontaneous? It doesn't. As the video clearly showed, the rioters were PREPARED, both with hardware and with tactics.
And now I have begun to reflect on the Arab Spring, which likewise was supposedly organized using social media. Who was behind it? Did it all really start with the self-immolation of a vendor in Cairo? Who benefited from it? And how far does their influence reach?
Perhaps the real instigators of yesterday's riot in Sydney were not even present at the riot. Perhaps not even present in Australia.
Today, the politicians' reactions were as expected: pathetic. The rioters "damaged Australia's multicultural reputation." Their actions were "unacceptable." I am sure that will give the ringleaders pause before they try it again!
One opinion piece hit on an important point: the riot will certainly provide grist for the racism acknowledged to be a strong force in Australian society. And indeed, when I drove around the CBD today, I saw only one headscarf. They are usually ubiquitous. The actions of a few have spread fear to many--Muslims and non-Muslims as well. It appears that a riot is as effective as an act of terror in achieving that.
A couple of years ago in France, there were riots in some of the Muslim communities outside of Paris, supposedly because Muslims are marginalized in French society. One can be sympathetic. But yesterday's riot was in AUSTRALIA, people. The lives of Australian Muslims can only be described as idyllic. Muslims have no problem getting jobs here; there is certainly less prejudice against them than against aborigines (the Cronulla riot of a few years ago notwithstanding). They do have a TV show here called, "Are We Dumb, Drunk and Racist?" But the show makes it clear that, while it's not that hard to find the racists, they really are a minority.
Now, there is something more important beneath the surface. As noted, the riot coincided with worldwide protests against a film, and with the murder of a US Ambassador in Libya (for which those same protests were a diversion.) But was this Sydney riot really spontaneous? A video of the riot shot from overhead shows something very interesting: the bottle-throwers are several rows of people behind the front lines. They are actually pushing people in front of them to force contact with the police line, then are throwing their weapons. They not only incited the riot, they used a human shield, a familiar tactic in the Middle East. The video is clear enough to show the bottles flying from behind the human shield. And where did those glass bottles come from? The instigators brought the bottles with them, of course. They did not go to the local convenience stores, buy bottles of Bundaberg ginger beer, drink it, and then start a riot. THEY CAME INTENDING TO DO VIOLENCE.
The media reported that the protest was organized "using social media." But why does that imply that the riot was spontaneous? It doesn't. As the video clearly showed, the rioters were PREPARED, both with hardware and with tactics.
And now I have begun to reflect on the Arab Spring, which likewise was supposedly organized using social media. Who was behind it? Did it all really start with the self-immolation of a vendor in Cairo? Who benefited from it? And how far does their influence reach?
Perhaps the real instigators of yesterday's riot in Sydney were not even present at the riot. Perhaps not even present in Australia.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Faith and politics in Oz
In Australia's 2011 census, it was determined that about 4 percent of Australians attend church on a given Sunday. About 25 percent of the population specified "no religion" on the census. So you would think that religion would be a weak voice in Australian society and politics.
But not if there are political points to be scored! The leader of Australia's Green Party has taken the Catholic Church to task for not putting enough priority on helping the needy. Well, actually, for not hewing to her priorities for social justice and the environment. The article includes the entire rebuttal from the Archbishop of Sydney--a worldly rebuttal, if I may so describe it: the Archbishop doesn't pine for her soul, he attributes her diatribe to her need for publicity.
Australia may be going the way of Europe in terms of the role of faith and religion, that is to say, secularization. Australia is also experiencing an epidemic of clinical depression: one in ten men suffer from it. Coincidence?
But not if there are political points to be scored! The leader of Australia's Green Party has taken the Catholic Church to task for not putting enough priority on helping the needy. Well, actually, for not hewing to her priorities for social justice and the environment. The article includes the entire rebuttal from the Archbishop of Sydney--a worldly rebuttal, if I may so describe it: the Archbishop doesn't pine for her soul, he attributes her diatribe to her need for publicity.
Australia may be going the way of Europe in terms of the role of faith and religion, that is to say, secularization. Australia is also experiencing an epidemic of clinical depression: one in ten men suffer from it. Coincidence?
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
A one-trick pony?
The previous post began to examine the idea that a developed nation, such as Australia, ought to strive for an economy with some depth. That is to say, the broader the economy's base, the more robust sectors it has, the less a crash in one sector will affect the whole.
This isn't my idea. A large Australian delegation, including both Opposition and Government leaders, visited the US in July to conduct numerous meetings and exchanges. One of the discussions was with former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. He made the very pointed comment, "I would warn Australia about over-reliance on commodities." By which he meant mining.
Mining is the leading revenue source in Australia. It is currently in a slump, tightly linked to the Chinese economy. Miners are looking for relief from the Government , but this is a Government committed to social programs for which tax income is essential. This is a debate at the most fundamental level: how much can government tax the leading industry of an economy, without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs? The latest stab at the goose is called the Mineral Resources Rent Tax.
Some people think that stimulating the Australian economy is a matter of financial policy . I know very little about economics. Instead, let's talk about people, about the highly skilled technologists needed for success in today's world. My technical experience is in areas such as spacecraft, robotics and ocean exploration. Australia's presence in these areas is nearly non-existent. Students and PhD's come to me to ask, "What's available in the US?" And my answer is always, "Plenty."
My naive view is that US government policy has had little to do with its economic success. Rather, the US apparently has a climate that encourages innovation, and a history of it. As a result, it's like a "brain magnet" that draws talented people from around the world into its innovation machine. US corporate taxes are actually quite high when compared to other nations (remember that in the US, state taxes add to federal burdens). But the other benefits of the broad US economy, including its fantastic education sector, make it a winner. That shining city on a hill is going to cause a brain drain in Australia.
If you have a technical background in Australia, you are in high demand in the mining industry. In some cases you can earn three times what other industries will pay. What impact does this have on other sectors of Australia? Well, for example, its Navy cannot get underway. There aren't the engineers to repair and maintain the ships. And what if mining doesn't provide you with the intellectual challenge you're looking for? My guess: you'll go abroad.
Australia needs to broaden its economy. It needs to invest in the growth sectors of technology. (Truth in advertising: I work in some of these sectors.) This can't be just a Government initiative, because governments are always inefficient at determining economic priorities. The miners have to pitch in. I believe that smart, wealthy miners can understand that they too need to invest in high-tech growth, even outside their own industry. Because they need bright people, and more of them. For instance, to design, manufacture, operate and repair their robotic mining systems.
With a broad technology base, bright people can go back and forth between sectors--space, telecommunications, robotics, semiconductors, marine engineering--which have many common skills. Does this really work? Well, Elon Musk started by developing PayPal. Then he created SpaceX and built rockets. Then he founded Tesla Motors and built electric cars. These were all fertile fields that he could farm.
Australia needs a broader range of fertile fields for its technical people. Does anyone here get this?
This isn't my idea. A large Australian delegation, including both Opposition and Government leaders, visited the US in July to conduct numerous meetings and exchanges. One of the discussions was with former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. He made the very pointed comment, "I would warn Australia about over-reliance on commodities." By which he meant mining.
Mining is the leading revenue source in Australia. It is currently in a slump, tightly linked to the Chinese economy. Miners are looking for relief from the Government , but this is a Government committed to social programs for which tax income is essential. This is a debate at the most fundamental level: how much can government tax the leading industry of an economy, without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs? The latest stab at the goose is called the Mineral Resources Rent Tax.
Some people think that stimulating the Australian economy is a matter of financial policy . I know very little about economics. Instead, let's talk about people, about the highly skilled technologists needed for success in today's world. My technical experience is in areas such as spacecraft, robotics and ocean exploration. Australia's presence in these areas is nearly non-existent. Students and PhD's come to me to ask, "What's available in the US?" And my answer is always, "Plenty."
My naive view is that US government policy has had little to do with its economic success. Rather, the US apparently has a climate that encourages innovation, and a history of it. As a result, it's like a "brain magnet" that draws talented people from around the world into its innovation machine. US corporate taxes are actually quite high when compared to other nations (remember that in the US, state taxes add to federal burdens). But the other benefits of the broad US economy, including its fantastic education sector, make it a winner. That shining city on a hill is going to cause a brain drain in Australia.
If you have a technical background in Australia, you are in high demand in the mining industry. In some cases you can earn three times what other industries will pay. What impact does this have on other sectors of Australia? Well, for example, its Navy cannot get underway. There aren't the engineers to repair and maintain the ships. And what if mining doesn't provide you with the intellectual challenge you're looking for? My guess: you'll go abroad.
Australia needs to broaden its economy. It needs to invest in the growth sectors of technology. (Truth in advertising: I work in some of these sectors.) This can't be just a Government initiative, because governments are always inefficient at determining economic priorities. The miners have to pitch in. I believe that smart, wealthy miners can understand that they too need to invest in high-tech growth, even outside their own industry. Because they need bright people, and more of them. For instance, to design, manufacture, operate and repair their robotic mining systems.
With a broad technology base, bright people can go back and forth between sectors--space, telecommunications, robotics, semiconductors, marine engineering--which have many common skills. Does this really work? Well, Elon Musk started by developing PayPal. Then he created SpaceX and built rockets. Then he founded Tesla Motors and built electric cars. These were all fertile fields that he could farm.
Australia needs a broader range of fertile fields for its technical people. Does anyone here get this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)