(Spectator leader Oct 7)

News that Julia Gillard has enlisted the scriptwriting services of stand-up comedian Corinne Grant comes as no surprise. But Corinne will struggle to maintain the high comedic standards.

Who can forget gems such as “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” said with a straight face? Or the hilarious “I am the best person to lead this country,” a line delivered with all the quixotic defiance of Python’s Black Knight.

Julia’s deft touch involves taking what we know and twisting it with biting sarcasm: “What I've said to Kevin is I think that this is the best (time for him) to spend more time with his family, which I know is one of his key priorities."

As Corinne knows, the set-up is always important in writing a killer gag. Having dismissed the Howard government’s Pacific Solution as “costly… and wrong in principle” Julia them embarked upon a series of side-splitting alternatives. "In recent days I have discussed with President Ramos-Horta of East Timor the possibility of establishing a regional processing centre” got a few laughs, but nothing like the awesome satirical irony of the Malaysian solution.

Students of stand-up will study the Gillard technique for years. On tackling climate change: "A representative group of Australians drawn from all walks of life will help move us forward," was funny enough, but Julia milked it to the hilt: "The committee concluded that in view of the creation of this committee that the proposal of a citizens' assembly should not be implemented."

Every great comedian has a predictable catch-phrase. “Just like that!” was Tommy Cooper’s, used whenever calamity struck. Julia has her own punchline for whenever she stuffs up: “Mr. Abbott will need to take the responsibility for that.” It’s a good gag, but it’s wearing a bit thin. Over to you, Corinne.

THREE LITTLE WORDS - LAND FOR PEACE

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7277013/three-words-youll-never-hear-from-loewenstein-and-his-bds-pals.thtml

Nazism, fascism, apartheid, neoconservative imperialism and America’s escalating war machine: Antony Loewenstein spewed up the lot in his recent article about ‘Zionism’ on the ABC’s The Drum Unleashed. It was heavy going, deliberately timed for the run-up to Palestine’s bid for statehood at the UN last week.

We learned that: ‘America and Israel have contributed to a decade of unprecedented decline and imperial overreach,’ that ‘our politicians are obsessed with displaying loyalty to Zionism at every opportunity,’ and that ‘Turkey and Egypt turning away from the Zionist state’s arrogance is a welcome realignment.’ Really? From a supposed peacenik, the idea that the diplomatic breakdown between two countries is to be welcomed is disturbing.

Earlier, Kathy Newman, Justice for Palestine’s Brisbane spokesperson, gave as her reason for boycotting chocolatier Max Brenner ‘the Israeli regime’s brutal colonisation of Palestine’. And the NSW Greens are most agitated by what they call ‘the siege of Gaza and imprisonment of 1.5 million people’.

Inflammatory stuff. Loewenstein loves to throw up a hazy smokescreen of pseudo-intellectual themes with which to shroud his dark, angry musings. ‘Perpetual war’, ‘collective punishment’, ‘Western exceptionalism’ and ‘the Zionist Diaspora’ all get served up.

Missing, of course, is the crux of the matter. Three little words that never seem to rate a mention. No, I’m not referring to Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions. I’m referring to Land for Peace.

Until the various antagonistic tribes (Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the ayatollahs, the Assad Syrians, the new Egyptian leadership, etc) swear to make genuine peace with Israel, then the issue of land (a viable Palestinian state, settlements, Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan, south Lebanon and so on) is not even worth discussing because it won’t, and can’t, be resolved.

Loewenstein and his ilk are quick to see basic security issues as a sinister plot. Er, no… other nation states call it ‘survival’, and it’s a normal response to unrelenting aggression. Hamas is dedicated to the obliteration of Israel and the annihilation of every Jew. We all know about Ahmadinejad, his potential nuclear arsenal, his whacko fantasies and his revolting calls for Israel to be wiped off the map. So where are the Australian boycotts, divestments and sanctions of Iranian goods and businesses?

The tarnished label of ‘Zionism’ and the issue of settlements is at best a red herring. Linking them to Nazism and apartheid is an intellectual obscenity. Israel is a democracy — still the only one in the region — and the tenor of its government shifts from Right to Left as it does in any democracy. Under the left-wing Barak administration, Israel offered Yasser Arafat 97 per cent of the West Bank, all of Gaza and a chunk of East Jerusalem with which to create a Palestinian state. In return, Arafat gave them the second intifada and a thousand dead Israelis. Land? Yes. Peace? No.

In 2005, the right-wing Sharon administration handed autonomy of the Gaza strip to the Palestinians. In return, more than 10,000 rockets were launched from Gaza into the backyards of Israeli homes. Land? Yes. Peace? No.

In 2000, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon. In response, Hezbollah chose to murder three Israeli soldiers and provoke a war. Land? Yes. Peace? No.

In 2008, conservative Prime Minister Olmert presented the Palestinians with a map offering a land area equivalent to 100 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip after land swaps, as well as comprehensive proposals about the other issues. The Palestinians responded with silence.

Land? Go for it! Peace? Nope.

Only two weeks ago, the new Egyptian PM redefined the long-standing Camp David accords — in which Israel returned the Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty — as ‘open to discussion. We could make a change if needed.’ So he’s happy to hang on to the land, but peace is now dismissed with a shrug.

Land? Yes. Peace? ‘Not a sacred thing,’ apparently.

Conversely, in 2003 the Israelis completed construction of their much-maligned security barrier. And suicide bombings (and Israeli deaths) plummeted dramatically. Peace? Sort of. Land? No, sorry.

Seems there’s a pattern here. It is hardly surprising that the Israelis are reluctant to hand over any more land when every time they do the promised ‘peace’ never actually eventuates.

‘The time has come for our men, women and children to live normal lives, for them to be able to sleep without waiting for the worst that the next day will bring,’ stated Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, addressing the General Assembly of the UN last week. Words that could just as easily and appropriately have been uttered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But as Abbas held up a copy of the membership demand he had handed to Ban Ki-moon, crowds in Ramallah and across the West Bank did not appear to have peace in mind. ‘With our souls, with our blood, we will defend Palestine!’ they roared.

Whatever happens during the direct negotiations in New York, it will only be another step in this endless, tragic dance. Groundhog Day, Middle East style. Some 64 years ago, the promised Palestinian state never materialised because the land originally proposed for it by the UN was gobbled up, with the West Bank and East Jerusalem snaffled by Jordan, Gaza grabbed by Egypt and a miniscule area taken by Israel for security.

So here are a few questions of my own: Why isn’t Jordan being asked to cede territory to the new Palestine? Why are Palestinians treated as second-class citizens in Jordan? Do the Jordanians have any hot chocolate shops we can all
go and boycott?

Loewenstein’s pulse-racing accusations and undergraduate fixations make for great copy. But the truth is far simpler. The Israelis will give up the land when Hamas, Hezbollah and other murderous entities give up trying to kill them.
‘When Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip the entire world applauded,’ Netanyahu said ruefully, ‘but we didn’t get peace, we got war.’

The Palestinians will get their land. When Israel gets her peace.

VOTE 'NO'

http://tiny.cc/4hvl4

“4 words for you brother: No Justice, No Peace.” That was the polite part of the email. The rest chastised me for being a “degenerate Zionist hack” who “regurgitated other people’s lies” and so on, following an article I wrote wondering whatever happened to the principle of Land for Peace? For those too young to remember, this was the rather quaint concept whereby Israel would hand over disputed (or as my new email buddy would no doubt see it “brutally colonized”) land in exchange for recognition of Israel’s right to exist peacefully alongside her neighbours.

There was a time when Land for Peace was accepted by all sides as the basis for solid negotiating on what would then become the two state solution that would give the Palestinians their own country.

Clearly, the goal posts have now moved. If my anonymous email correspondent does indeed speak on behalf of many Palestinian sympathisers, as he or she clearly believes, it is illuminating. The deal is no longer Absence of Land equates to Absence of Peace. It’s now Absence of Justice equals Absence of Peace. Which is a problem for all sides.

Land and Peace are both definable, objective bargaining chips. A border is a border. Peace is peace. (For those in the Middle East unfamiliar with the term, it means not killing, hurting or abusing each other.) Justice, on the other hand, is entirely subjective. It exists purely in the eye of the beholder, or indeed, the person making the judgement. So the new deal, if I am to understand those four words correctly, is “until you give us what we deem to be our just deserts, we are prepared to attack you.”

This sentiment was echoed when Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas held aloft a copy of the UN membership demand he had handed to Ban Ki-moon. Palestinian crowds, watching on TV, did not appear to have a strong lust for peace. "With our souls, with our blood, we will defend Palestine!" they shouted.

Which I mention only by way of explaining why I believe Australia should vote ‘no’ to the Palestinian bid for recognition of statehood in the United Nations. The goal of the UN is to ensure that the nation states of the world live in peace side by side. The UN was established to ensure this could occur. The UN’s emblem of the olive branch is a symbol for peace, dating back to ancient Greece. The United Nations does not send in troops, it sends in Peace Keepers.

According to Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all … peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”

And therein lies the fundamental question. Can a new State of Palestine guarantee and accept the obligations of peaceful co-existence with its closest neighbour? Is it “able and willing” to do so?

There is no question that the Palestinians must have their own state. And also that both the Israelis and Palestinians should be able to sleep at night without wondering whether a bomb will come crashing through the roof. Abbas, with all the best will in the world, simply cannot guarantee peace, when his partners, the Hamas rulers of Gaza, have as their stated goal the obliteration of Israel and of every Jew.

The Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman has urged Abbas to return to peace talks and to halt what he sees as his efforts to delegitimize Israel, including using phrases in his UN address such as “racist, colonialist, annexationist, brutal, ethnic cleanser, and aggressive;" to describe Israel. Words hardly designed to achieve "the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security."

Hillary Clinton maintains UNESCO should "think again" about voting on Palestinian membership, saying it’s "inexplicable" they would consider pre-empting any vote by the Security Council, a vote that the US may well veto. Why? For the simple reason that such a vote, far from encouraging peace within the region, may well achieve precisely the opposite. A negotiated, comprehensive, genuine peace must come before, not after, recognition of statehood. Through direct talks between the two parties.

Julia Gillard has sensibly intimated that Australia will vote ‘no’ to Palestinian statehood at this stage, arguing it is “not the path to peace.” Kevin Rudd, ever keen to curry favour with his UN chums for his own self-interested goal of landing a major gig there, wants Australia to abstain. I believe that is in nobody’s interest other than possibly his own.

Using the threat of “No justice, no peace” may well be a powerful rallying cry for those who – like my email mate – clearly feel aggrieved or disenfranchised. But it is not the basis for statehood. The United Nations already has to deal with too many states beholden to violence as a means of settling old scores. It doesn’t need another one.

LOUIE THE FLY FAKES HIS OWN DEATH

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/louies-demise-was-a-sting-operation-20110924-1kqku.html

Surprise surprise. Louie The Fly faked his own death. The announcement only two weeks ago from Mortein that they intended to eliminate Australia’s most famous advertising icon was a stunt all along.

On September 11, the Sun Herald reported that Reckitt Benckiser, the British-based owners of Mortein, had “decided to kill off Louie The Fly once and for all.” Claiming it was a hard decision, marketing director Chris Tedesco said “Louie can no longer showcase the advancements of the complete Mortein range."

Yet on Friday, came an apparent change of heart, as Chris claimed to have “been amazed by the incredible reaction to our announcement.” Like a modern-day Roman emperor, he is now giving the public “the opportunity to decide whether to kill or save the much-loved icon,” adding “Louie has a special place in Australian's hearts… If the public wants to continue seeing their beloved Louie on TV screens then they can vote to save him on his Facebook page."

Emotional blackmail! We all knew Louie was a gangster, but holding the nation to ransom is a first, even for him.

Louie’s Facebook page boasts nearly sixteen thousand people who “like” it. Thumbs up! In social media terms, that is a very healthy result. Louie himself appears to be enjoying the controversy, thanking his fans for “kickin' up such a stink everyone... the latest buzz i'm hearing is that The Boss who wants to kill me might be listening to you!”

Louie has always been a rogue and a scoundrel, which is part of his larrikin appeal. Normally he’s trying to outfox “Mum” and her can of Mortein, but now it appears he’s tried to hoodwink us all.

Such contrived stunts are increasingly common in advertising, where marketers are desperate to get consumers to “engage with their brands” in the relatively low-cost world of social media. Generating free publicity through a newsworthy stunt, and then driving people online, is now a common marketing strategy. What is news? What is real? What is advertising? As we approach summer and the highly competitive “bug season”, Louie clearly couldn’t resist this potent stew of free publicity.

Where most Aussies will be amused by the harmless prank there is always a risk some will not enjoy having been deliberately duped. Consumers are funny like that.

Last May, Matt Moran admitted his “spontaneous outburst” on Masterchef was a hoax designed to generate publicity on youtube for charity group OzHarvest. His fellow foodie Matt Preston was involved the previous year in a similarly faked up “live” episode involving some spilled salmon roe and his own sponsor. Mr. Tedesco, a highly talented marketer who arrived in Australia only last year from the UK will of course be familiar with the famous British hoax campaign for Heinz Salad Cream, where a much-loved brand was similarly “rescued” from extinction by the public. The woman behind the stunt was hailed as Marketer of the Year.

Deliberately courting controversy will always work if you adhere to the philosophy that any publicity is good publicity. But at what point do consumers weary of marketers tinkering with their favourite brands and manipulating their emotions? Vegemite’s recent 2.0 iSnack shenanigans generated heaps of publicity, most of it unwanted, but it is telling that you will find no mention of the entire fiasco anywhere on their website. In the US, Toyota are currently being sued over a creepy online hoax gone awry.

Will Aussies take umbrage that their affection for Louie has been deliberately manipulated? Or will they see it as just another fun chapter in the colourful history of our loveable larrikin fly? 

2UE JOHN STANLEY INTERVIEW (Louie The Fly)

http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/the-killing-of-louie-the-fly/20110924-1kq6d.html

ADVERTISING ICONS DROPPING LIKE FLIES

 http://www.smh.com.au/execute_search.html?text=rowan+dean&ss=smh.com.au

Advertising icons are dropping like flies. Not only is Louie The Fly destined for the scrap heap, but so are the Paddle Pop Lion, the Coco Pops monkey and the Fruit Loops Toucan.

The Obesity Policy Coalition are responsible for the latter being targeted for removal, on the grounds that such charismatic characters are responsible for one in four of our kids being overweight.

But the demise of Louie The Fly is entirely different. His death is self-inflicted. His owners have decided they no longer have any use for him, despite his proven marketing skills. But no matter how often you kill him, he keeps coming back. He has disappeared from our screens several times before, always to return.

According to adman Tom Moult, who won the Mortein business in the mid 90s by bringing back Louie, “they’re dreaming if they think they’ve got rid of him. Louie’ll be back. Guaranteed.”

Reckitt Benckiser, which now owns Louie, specialize in products that clean or kill things, bugs and germs included. The ‘‘power brands’’ making up over 70 per cent of its profits include Dettol, Nurofen and Harpic.

Mortein, invented in Australia in the 1870s, was one of the first brands to aggressively market itself on TV. Rumour has a former managing director once downing a glass of Mortein before a government inquiry to prove it wasn’t dangerous to humans.

Mortein’s biggest markets outside Australia are India and Brazil, neither of which is particularly fussed about our Aussie icon.

That is a problem for Reckitt Benckiser, which clearly prefers their ad campaigns to be consistent across the globe. Unfortunately for Louie, he is no Paul Hogan. His appeal remains strictly local. There is something unique to the Australian mindset that is comfortable feeling affection for a character whose greatest talent is getting himself killed. Call it the Ned Kelly Syndrome, perhaps.

Popular advertising properties are hard won. The legend of Louie, including his disputed origins – apart from Bryce Courtney, several others claim to have come up with the original idea – are the stuff of which advertisers dream.

I was privileged to be responsible for making the ads marking his fiftieth birthday in 2007. Not many campaigns have lasted that long, which is why Kellogg’s and Streets will resist calls to get rid of the Paddle Pops Lion, the Coco Pops Monkey, the Toucan and so on.

But in all likelihood, they will eventually follow KFC’s example (of dispensing with kid’s toys) and offer up the Lion and the Monkey as lambs on the sacrificial altar of political correctness.

Given the value to a brand of a creative device such as Louie the Fly, it would have been a hard decision for local RB marketing director Chris Tedesco, an ambitious and talented American who only arrived here from the UK twelve months ago, to consign him to the great big dustbin in the sky.

“Mortein is not just about killing a bigger range of bugs, but has continued to innovate beyond fly sprays and we feel Louie can no longer showcase the advancements of the complete Mortein range," Tedesco maintains.

According to Tedesco, getting rid of one of Australia’s most popular advertising icons, and risking any potential consumer backlash, is the right step.

"It was a hard decision,” Chris says, “but Mortein has decided to kill off Louie The Fly once and for all.”

I wouldn't bet on it. Some advertising icons simply refuse to die, no matter what the marketers wish for.

After having been unceremoniously dumped, the classic VB music is now back on our screens. “Which bank?” was successfully resurrected after a lengthy absence, and will no doubt be again at some point. The reason is simple: focus groups. If Mortein sales start to dip in Australia, Louie will find the defibrillators quickly being strapped onto his chest.

It will be interesting to see what Reckitt Benckiser now do creatively with Mortein. Its other advertising campaigns do not offer a great deal of hope for those who prefer their advertising to be lateral, quirky or subtle.

Readers can make up their own mind about the appeal of TV campaigns for Vanish Napisan, Easy Off BAM, Finish, Harpic, and Pine O Cleen.

SBS's HIGH WIRE ACT

http://tiny.cc/dhx46

The decision by public broadcaster SBS to screen the documentary ‘Man on Wire’ on the tenth anniversary of September 11 seemed at first to be either incredibly insensitive or downright cheeky. Yet this bizarre juxtaposition became irresistible to watch and every bit as poignant and thought-provoking as the many hours of heart-breaking commemorations of the tragedy of 9/11 on other channels.

In the film, one man's peculiar lifelong obsession with the World Trade Centre sees him embark on a madcap scheme involving deception, security breaches and death-defying bravery in order to walk a tightrope suspended between the twin towers.

Philippe Petit, an eccentric juggler and Parisian street performer somehow manages to pull off a most extraordinary feat of human ingenuity and imagination; so that on a brisk morning in May 1974 New Yorkers woke to see the magical sight of a man on a wire seeming to walk, almost religiously, on thin air high above their heads. In the preparation for this surreal moment, we see the story unfold not only of how the twin towers were built, but also the significance the WTC held as a symbol of the imposing power and monumental magnificence of the United States in the last century.

The expressions of awe and amazement on the upturned faces of New Yorkers who witnessed Petit’s illegal feat were in heart-breaking contrast to those more familiar ash-covered, horrified looks of terror and fear we saw on exactly the same sidewalk a generation later.

Some of the footage, filmed long before the horrors of 9/11, eerily predict and evoke the fragility and dangerous vulnerability of the towers. We see the endless stairwells, the sheer height of the two edifices, and the criss-cross metallic structures that would come to epitomize the visual nightmare of Ground Zero, being gracefully lifted into place only a few decades earlier, high above the Manhattan skyline.

The deception and subterfuge involved in getting the trapeze wire into place also have uncanny overtones of the elaborate plotting that went into Al-Qaida’s most infamous act. Months of preparation went into planning the operation, involving fake uniforms, detailed study of the infrastructure of the towers, last minute hiccups and the fear of discovery. Strangely, a primitive weapon – a bow and arrow - is all it takes for Philippe Petit and his ardent followers to straddle the two mighty towers, just as a pair of cardboard box cutters was all it took for Mohammad Atta and his evil gang to bring them down.

Equally, the bravery of the tight-rope walker and his unshakeable determination to conquer the challenges of the ultimate high-wire act and emerge victorious are as simple and as powerful a metaphor as could be found for the bravery and determination of the thousands of individual acts of heroism and self-sacrifice that were performed by the rescue services and countless others on 9/11.

Dubbed the “artistic crime of the century”, the guerilla-like campaign detailed in ‘Man on Wire’ can almost be seen as the beginning of an era where individuals learned that they could capture the entire world’s attention through one dramatic, sensational and headline-grabbing act of daring. Post-modern in the extreme, Petit was selling nothing. No message, no protest, no politics. Just fun and adventure for the sake of his art.

Yet his ability to grab the media’s attention through a visual event and get himself on the front page of every newspaper in the world is also the hallmark of the terrorist outrages that culminated ten years ago in the one of the greatest crimes of this century.

But above all, what comes through so strikingly from the documentary is the depiction of the gloriously optimistic and innocent times that have now been lost. Philippe Petit's extraordinary stunt was only possible due to the trust and complacency of a society living without fear, in a world where human ingenuity and imagination could be harnessed solely for such child-like self-belief and daring. The world of unbridled ingenuity and carefree self-confidence that has always been the hallmark of the West, and at the heart of the American dream. Thank you, SBS, for reminding us – intentionally or otherwise - how sorely it is missed.