Recipe: Prawns and shaved zucchini with Champagne butter sauce

Prawns and shaved zucchini with champagne butter sauce on angel-hair pasta

Ingredients
300gr Prawns (uncooked)
1 Zucchini (shaved thinly)
1 Red chili
1 Clove Garlic
1 Leek
1 Tbsp Butter
1 Tbsp Preserved lemon (finely chopped)
1 Tbsp Parsley
a few sprigs of Thyme
1/2 cup Sparkling white wine (or Champagne)
Squeeze of Lemon juice
Fresh Angel-hair Pasta

Method
Fry the chili and garlic in a little olive oil until fragrant
Add the butter and finely chopped Leek and cook until leek has softened
Add the prawns and fry until they are just cooked
Add preserved lemon and sparkling white wine, reduce heat, add the zucchini and cook until liquid has reduced slightly (be careful not to stew the prawns)
Add parsley, lemon juice and thyme and stir through for a few more seconds
Season and Serve with the fresh pasta

Enjoy with the rest of the sparkling

Too relaxed and comfortable

In 1996, John Howard stated that he wanted to see Australians "relaxed and comfortable" and now, in 2011, we're seeing the economic results of this maxim. In four terms of government, keeping specific classes of people "relaxed and comfortable", the Coalition built a dangerous entitlement culture which has led to an unsustainable structural deficit within the economy. Middle-class welfare has made Australians so relaxed and comfortable that they feel that the government is responsible for maintaining their lifestyles when they make a decision that would normally make them worse off. In the past, Australians accepted that buying a house, having a child, sending children to private schools, having private health insurance, having a new large car and purchasing large consumer items such as plasma TVs would have financial consequences - consequences that they themselves would have to manage. However, the previous Coalition government have convinced them that these decisions ought to be funded by the government.

In a recent interview on 7:30, a 'typical Australian family' noted that "the big winners from the [2011] Budget will be caravan parks, because that's where we're gonna take our holidays for the next three years."

So, it appears that we've become so 'relaxed and comfortable' about living on government handouts that we expect them to fund our holidays too.

According to the opposition, the subsidisation of the lifestyles of Australian people can be funded without raising taxes but this does raise the question of just how the Coalition can fund this ever expanding welfare spend. Cutting 12,000 public servants and cancelling the NBN will be insufficient over the long-term to pay for it, but these are the only big ticket "saving" items that the opposition has put forward.

As with the opposition's direct action plan on carbon (which I have discussed previously), middle-class welfare of this nature will continue to expand pressure on the budget, necessitating cuts to expenditure that must extend beyond public sector job cuts and the rolling back of the government's programs. So once again the questions must be asked: "how much are they going to borrow?", "what are they going to tax?" or more likely, "what are they going to cut?" to keep Australia "relaxed and comfortable".

Cheap political points at the expense of the justice system

Once again the opposition are attacking and undermining the democratic institutions that underpin our society in another appeal for cheap votes. Liberal Senator Julian McGauran has used parliamentary privilege to launch and extraordinary attack on the Melbourne academic who provided expert witness testimony in the case of the man who threw his daughter of the Westgate bridge - R v Freeman [2011] VSC 139 (11 April 2011)

Sen. McGauran used the the parliament to attack Graham Burrows as "a psychiatrist of last resort and one who will sing whatever song the defence wants". Not only is this an appalling attack on Mr. Burrows but it is an attack which undermines our justice system itself. Expert witnesses need to be able to give their evidence in difficult cases and not have parliamentarians calling for them to lose their job.

Sen. McGauran fails to understand that the primary duty (see form 44A) of any expert witness is to the court and not to any particular side of the case - and it is up to the jury, not parliamentarians, to decide on the weight of that evidence. In this particular case, the jury did not agree with Mr. Burrows' evidence. This in no way determinative of the veracity or otherwise of Mr. Burrows evidence - the jury has decided that there was more evidential weight to the expert testimony of the prosecution (as well as other evidence adduced in the case) and it is beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Freeman committed the crime. In essence the system appears to have worked as it should so it is difficult to see that Sen. McGauran's attack is anything other than an abuse of parliamentary privilege for the purpose of scoring the very cheapest of political points.

These cheap political points come at the expense of the integrity of the system itself. It undermines justice if an expert witness is second-guessing their evidence because they are afraid of being attacked in parliament. It undermines their fundamental duty to the court to provide their expert witness testimony if they curtail the way they present their evidence for fear of an attack on their reputation.

Members of the opposition seem to be happy to undermine fundamental societal institutions such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and now the justice system itself. This pernicious grab for votes shows that the Liberal party is happy to appeal to the extremes of society to pursue its cynical attempts to gain power at the expense of the fundamental institutions of this country.

The rule of force undermines justice

The mythologising of the recent killing of Osama bin Laden has already begun with the Right (particularly in America) already claiming that the Bush-era policies (unfortunately carried over into the Obama administration) of torture, extra-judicial killings and using the rule of force over that of law have been vindicated. However, the actions by the US to assassinate bin Laden are likely to be more counterproductive to the War on Terror as they undermine the rule of law and give succor to those who would prefer an anarchic international system ruled by force and supported by perpetual conflict. This is precisely the sort of world in which the poisonous ideas of Osama bin Laden and his ilk gain credence and following.

Although there are many valid criticisms that can be leveled at the United Nations (and in particular the archaic United Nations Security Council system), it at least provides the legal framework for the operation of international security. Unfortunately the US-led war on terror has done much to undermine this system - particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has been argued by critics of the invasion of Afghanistan, that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) never authorised the use of force in Afghanistan. The two instruments that are widely thought to have authorised the use of force are:

1. UNSC Resolution 1368 which firstly re-affirms the right to self-defence in Article 51 of the UN charter and states in clause 3:

"[The UNSC] Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;"

2. UNSC Resolution 1373 imposed a duty of Member States to:

"Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;"

Proponents of the invasion argue that, although the resolutions do not specifically authorise the use of military force, the harbouring of Osama bin Laden by the Taliban constituted an illegal act for which they should be held accountable. Furthermore, the right to self-defence from terrorist act would include bringing to justice the perpetrators of terrorist acts and those who provide material support to those perpetrators. However, while proponents of this argument are happy to apply it to the situation in Afghanistan, they are loathe to apply it universally.

The view that sovereign nations habouring terrorists provides a blank cheque to use military force is also held out as the reason for the ability of US forces to raid the compound in which Osama bin Laden was hiding. This action has even further damaged strained relations between Pakistan and the US which ultimately undermines the ostensible aims of the War on Terror to make the world safer. An unstable Pakistan would be disastrous, which is probably why the US has made little noise about the fact that bin Laden had been hiding in relative plain sight in Pakistan for anything up to ten years.

The problem of the raid is that its aim was not to arrest bin Laden, but to assassinate him. An arrest operation would likely have garnered less criticism - particularly if that arrest had led to a trial, either in the US or preferably before the International Criminal Court (although the US is not a signatory to the ICC). This would have sent the message that there are international crimes for which a person may be arrested and tried, rather than the message that the US can go into any country and assassinate whomsoever it pleases. One could imagine that if other countries pursued the same policies there would be uproar - and an ultimately unworkable and unstable international system.

This is why the rule of law must be applied universally. The trial before a competent court with access to a defense counsel gives authority to the decision to arrest and supports a workable international framework for dealing with international criminals. Although the ICC would be preferable, an American court would have sufficed in this instance and the potential breach of international law (although it could be argued that UNSC Resolution 1368 authorised the action) could be remedied. There has been precedent for this in the past.

The bringing to trial of international war criminals sends a message to people who would commit these types of crimes that they will be arrested and bought before the court as a common criminal, and not assassinated and martyred by a State which holds as little regard for the law as they do.

Freedom from speech

It was Voltaire who said (paraphrased): "I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" in his defence of the importance of freedom of expression. However, he did not go on to say "I'll defend to the death your right to not be criticised when you say something stupid" which appears to be the instant reaction that comes from the right-wing commentariat every time they are subjected any criticism of their views. Often this criticism is framed as somehow interfering with their right to free speech (although they are very happy to dole out criticism of other's views).

In Australia, this attitude was hardened during the Howard years, particularly during the rise of One Nation. Comments criticising the idiotic statements by Hanson were countered by the phrase "political correctness" (see previous blog post). In fact, it was Howard himself that lent credence to this position by commenting that the expression of these views showed that a "pall of political correctness" had been lifted from Australia.

Since then, the right has become emboldened to expect that their commentary will go unchallenged as the mere mention of "political correctness" along with other right-wing favourites such as accusations of "left-wing bias", "chattering classes" and "chardonnay-sipping lefties" can defeat even the most structured and compelling of arguments.

In fact, any criticism at all is construed as the inherent left-wing bias of the media that in some way is out to gag those poor commentators of the right - who, of course, don't get any coverage for their views.

The recent offensive comments by Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby have added a new excuse to the lexicon of right-wing commentary: "the vitriol of twitter". Indeed, according to Jim the offensive comments should have been allowed to pass uncritically as they were just a reflection of his views and those of "older diggers" who had come to not recognise the Australia in which they lived. Wallace accused [video] a small cabal of "twitter activists" who sought to "manipulate the media" of taking his offensive comments out of context. So it appears that "twitter activists" can be added to "chardonnay-sippers, "inner-city latte drinkers" "political correctness" and "chattering classes" as pejorative terms that the right can use to defeat any argument or criticism.

Free-speech is a nebulous thing to the right-wing commentariat. It is something that they should enjoy without criticism or having to defend their comments in any way. It only extends to things they agree with and things that they don't should be censored.

So although we may take Voltaire's words to heart and attempt to defeat stupid comments with reasoned argument (or reasonable criticism), the right (and in particular the Christian right), continue to use pejorative accusations to howl down anything with which they don't agree.

In the end, maybe it is Voltaire's famous prayer that ultimately explains the right's continual making of indefensible, idiotic comments and their outrage at the criticism that follows:

"I always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: "O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!" God granted it."

Recipe: Crispy Mongolian Tofu

Crispy Mongolian Tofu

Ingredients

Crispy Tofu
1 pkt of firm Tofu
3 TB cornflour
1 Tsp garlic powder
pinch salt
3 TB peanut oil for frying


Sauce
2 TB Dark Soy sauce
1 TB Light Soy sauce
1 TB Chinese rice wine
2 Tsp Rice wine vinegar
1/2 Tsp Sesame oil
2 Tsp Brown sugar

Stir-Fry
2 cm piece of finely chopped fresh ginger
2 cloves Garlic
1/2 Tsp dried chili flakes
3 Spring onions (green and white parts separated)
1 Capsicum
1 Bok Choy chopped
(any other vegies you'd like)
1 TB peanut oil for frying

Method

For the crispy tofu:
Combine flour, salt and garlic powder
Cube the tofu and coat with the flour mixture
Fry in the oil until crispy (not brown) and set aside on kitchen paper to drain.

Stir-Fry:
Quickly fry the chili flakes until fragrant and then add the garlic, ginger and whit parts of the spring onion. Fry for a few seconds more.
Add the chopped bases of the Bok Choy and the capsicum( and any other veg that need longer cooking)
Stir fry for 2 minutes or so.
Add green parts of the spring onion and bok choy leaves
Stir fry until cooked.

Add the combined sauce ingredients

Stir through the vegetable mix until all the vegies are coated (if the sauce is too thin, add 1 Tsp cornflour dissolved in a little water)

Just before serving, add the crispy tofu and stir to coat.

Serve with rice.

The Art of Censorship

Australia has always had a sorry record  of censoring the arts. From literature through to film, Australia's censorship scheme has been accused of being arbitrary and of being subject to political interference in what is meant to be a independent regime. This is despite the fact that the object of the scheme, set out in the classification guidelines, is to:

"...give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:

1. adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want;
2. minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;
3. everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive;
4. the need to take account of community concerns about:
1. depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and
2. the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner."

Despite these principles, a new attempt by the conservative elements of the Liberal party and the overly powerful Australian Christian Lobby to control what adults can see, is being mounted through the current inquiry into the Australian Film and Literature Classification Scheme chaired by conservative Christian Sen. Guy Barnett. Submissions to this inquiry have suggested that all art should be subject to classification before public display, and that the defence of "artistic merit" be removed. These submissions imply that this new regime merely "harmonises" the classification of artworks with the scheme that applies to other forms of media. However, this is just a thinly veiled attempt to use the economic disincentive of the requirement to classify artworks as a censorship regime.

The minimum fees applicable under the current regime range from $520 for a publication to $990 for a short film. A review of an adverse finding by the classification board is listed at $8,000. The visual arts, particularly the fine arts, has not been a traditionally high-earning sector for the vast majority of participants and so a financial imposition of this magnitude is likely to bar the display of their works for reasons of financial means rather than artistic merit or even the supposed "protection of minors from material that may harm or disturb them".

Although the proponents of this new regime argue that the classification of artistic works in this way is to prevent artworks being displayed that are grossly offensive, they continue to use the example of Bill Henson's work (described by Liberal Senator Julian McGauran as "paedophilia art") which was classified by the classification board as 'PG'. Regardless of what artistic merit or otherwise is attached to Henson's work, it is obvious from the continued use of this example that the real motive of these senators is to place an unacceptably high financial bar to the display of such work. This is despite the fact that it is unlikely to be classified in such a way that it cannot be displayed. It should be of grave concern that the classification scheme is to be subverted in this manner.

The display of artistic works is an important feature of any society; it adds richness and challenge to the way that we see ourselves. The creation of financial disincentive for artists to display their works is a grave act of subversive censorship. It should concern us all that those who advocate this regime are unable to see that a depiction of nudity is anything other than sexual in nature. This perception of the arts by the ACL and Liberal senators is more a reflection of the prurience of their own perceptions rather than the moral probity of their position.