Attila the Pun

2005-11-21T11:23:00.000Z

So long, and thanks for all the fish

Hmm, the complete lack of posts may have been a giveaway anyway, but just to confirm, due to time constraints I am giving the blogging game away. It was great fun, and thanks for reading.

Cheers

Attila

2005-10-25T03:48:00.000+01:00

First they came for the treehuggers...

Well hoo-bloody-ray. Some people were worried that anti-terror laws could be used against groups other Al-Qaeda and its ilk. It looks like in Britain, that may well be true:

ANIMAL rights activists who glorify militant acts against economic targets and laboratories are to face prosecution under terror laws aimed at al-Qaeda supporters.

The new terrorism laws were designed primarily to target the so-called preachers of hate who glorify terrorist attacks. However, the Home Secretary told MPs and peers that animal rights supporters who celebrated militant attacks should also face prosecution.

Speaking to the joint Lords and Commons human rights committee, he said: “I certainly think that animal rights terrorism is something that has to be attacked. Those who argue that committing violent acts of terror to promote the cause of animal rights and who justify it by referring to it would be covered by this legislation.”

But surely these people just want to protect the animals - we couldn't call what they are doing "terrorism" could we?

That depends on whether you considered bomb attacks on the homes of executives as an act of terrorism I guess:

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) claimed responsibility yesterday for leaving an explosive device containing fuel outside the home of Paul Blackburn, the corporate controller of GlaxoSmithKline. It said that Mr Blackburn was singled out because GSK was a customer of the animal testing group Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). A GSK spokesman said that the device was left on the porch of the house in Buckinghamshire and caused minor damage. Mr Blackburn was out of the country but his wife and child were at home.

Charming.

A posting on the front’s website warned the pharmaceutical giant that more attacks would follow unless it severed its links with HLS. It said: “We realise that this may not be enough to make you stop using HLS but this is just the beginning. We have identified and tracked down many of your senior executives, and also junior staff, as well as those from other HLS customers. Drop HLS or you will face the consequences.”

Doesn't seem that different from Al-Qaeda' website rantings really. On a lesser, but still despicable, note - lets also not forget digging up the body of an 82 year old woman to hold her family to ransom over the remains.

2005-10-20T04:55:00.000+01:00

Silk purse made

How is this for a hatchet job based on flimsy evidence:

THE US and Britain have lost confidence in Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and are hoping that December's elections will bring a new and more efficient government.

Thats a big call, and I imagine there must be some decent evidence to back it up - statements by officials, some sort of action showing a loss of confidence.

According to US and British officials, even members of the Iraqi cabinet are dismissive of Dr Jaafari, a former doctor who lived in exile in Britain and Iran, and do not expect him to survive in the job.

So now we have the US government, the British Government and al-Jaafari's own cabinet apparently thinking he is a lame duck (as a side note, using the phrase "do not expect him to survive in the job" in relation to an Iraqi government official is in very poor taste). To support the claims so far we have unnamed "officials".

"I wish January were here now. This Prime Minister is not a natural strong leader," one US official said recently. A British source concurred: "The transitional Government is ineffective."

There is that pesky official again, with the huge backing of a "source".

Coalition officials complain that Dr Jaafari, 58, has been an ineffective administrator and indecisive politician.

More officials, but this time they don't even give them a country.

Some experts are increasingly asking whether the coalition faces "strategic failure" in Iraq after more than two years of ever-worsening insurgency and failure to deliver basic services.

So strategic failure gets quote marks, but this "story" doesn't quote a single named source, official or expert. Considering some "experts" were claiming failure about one month in, the fact that some experts are claiming it after two years is hardly noteworthy.

Despite violence that shows no sign of abating, State Department officials said Dr Rice was expected to stress the Bush Administration's view that progress is being made, citing last weekend's relatively peaceful referendum as an example.

How dare she cite the example of a legitimate constitutional referendum occuring in the middle east as an example of progress being made. Doesn't she know we are in a quagmire?

US and British officials hope that, if the constitution is approved, the next round of elections for a four-year government in a permanent system will prove to be the turning point.

Those officials have a position on everything! Call me crazy, but I would also imagine that the Iraqi people hope that the elections will prove to be another sucessful step on the road to democracy.

2005-10-18T08:19:00.000+01:00

The world in which we live

Did you ever think you would read the following passage in an op-ed piece in Britain's Daily Telegraph:

Compared to being force-fed Grandfather Smurf's genitals, having his village strafed in some clinical air strike is about the least worst option for Baby Smurf.

Read the rest (registration required) for the context.

2005-10-18T06:42:00.000+01:00

fight fight fight

A recent study has found that "armed conflict, genocide, political crises and human rights abuses" have fallen sharply since the end of the Cold War.

Whilst the decline in outright war accords with intuition, the decline in genocide since 1946 seems wrong. With the horrors in Rwanda and Dafur fresh in our minds, genocide (even ignoring the situations where the terms is grossly misused) would not seem to be on the wane.

So which countries have been causing the most trouble? Australia, that famous country of warmongers, comes in at number 5. Number 1 goes to Britain, which is not surprising given their post colonial history. Number 2 isn't a huge shock either, being the French. The USA and the USSR round out the top four.

So what has caused this decline? Considering the author of the report worked in the strategic planning unit in the office of Kofi Annan, the answer is not suprising - the UN.

Professor Mack, who was director of the strategic planning unit in the office of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan from 1998 to 2001, cites several examples, including a sixfold increase in UN efforts to prevent wars from starting, a fourfold increase in UN peacemaking missions to end unresolved conflicts and an elevenfold increase in the number of states made subject to UN sanctions.

Sure. The former colonial powers' declining willingness to get involved in their childrens' problems, not to mention the victory of the US in the Cold War, had nothing to do with it. It is the famously effective UN sanctions (like Iraq) and peacekeeping efforts (like Rwanda) that have made the world a safer place.

The report, produced under Professor Mack's direction by the Human Security Centre at Canada's University of British Columbia, also accuses the US State Department of "spinning the figures" on terrorism incidents to reinforce Washington's constant refrain that it is winning the war on terror.

The report points to an eightfold increase in significant terror attacks to support this. But what is a "significant terror attack" though? The report classifies it as one which involves loss of life (fair enough), injury or property damage over $US10,000. (emphasis added)

Ten grand? Does that mean that if a bunch of greenies vandalise an SUV (not too hard to cause $10k of damage if you really try) then that is a significant terror attack? If so, that means that an attack by a bunch of hippies on a hummer will be recorded in the same column as the attack on the London underground or even the World Trade Center. Using that criteria, then criticising the US for "spinning figures" is a bit rich.

2005-10-18T00:26:00.000+01:00

Not your father's toys...

When even Playmobil are getting into the anti-terrorism act, you know we are living in a new era. Now available - Playmobil security check in! It comes with two security guards, one smiling passenger, chair, metal detector, conveyor belt X-ray machine, luggage and two guns.

Amusingly, the luggage opens up and is the perfect size for one of the guns to fit in to. Thankfully the second gun fits into the hands of one of the guardsm presumably allowing them to shoot said terrorist nee passenger.

At $US15, thats a bargain. I look forward to Playmobil's Guantonomo Bay playset, and Abu-Ghrain prison fun house. Presumably it would come with a few dogs, and the figurines would clip together to form a human pyramid.

2005-10-04T05:00:00.000+01:00

Department of Foreign Affairs and Tinfoil

It is comforting to know that the people tasked with representing Australia overseas are made of pretty stern stuff. Take for example Tony Kevin - ex-diplomat, current conspiracy theorist. Here he tells Webdiary about his terrifying encounter with Australia's new gunships.

On a sunny and still Tuesday afternoon in Canberra, as Australian state premiers were somewhere down below debating with the Prime Minister the need for harsher national counter-terrorism laws, I was rambling with my kids and dogs on Red Hill, a nature park overlooking and about a mile from our national parliament house. Having a tea-break at Mitzi's Café terrace on top of Red Hill, I became aware of unusually noisy and frequent helicopter activity above me and started taking an interest. With Red Hill's grandstand view over Canberra, it was easy to see what was happening.

Two RAAF helicopters, one about 300 metres behind the other, were flying circuits around central Canberra: north-easterly from the Fairbairn RAAF base, west over the city centre and the Black Mountain public lookout, south over Red Hill, and east back to Fairbairn over the southern suburbs. It took them around 10 minutes to fly this circuit, and they kept going round and round.

First up, the RAAF doesn't operate helicopters - the Australian Army Aviation Corp does. A minor point, but it gets worse from there.

They each appeared to be mounted with two large lethal-looking missile launchers, slung beneath the cabin.

No they didn't.

As the helicopters flew maybe 100 metres above my head, I saw these four launchers clearly.

No you didn't.

I wondered if the loaded missiles were armed, and I wondered what would happen if one of these helicopters were accidentally to crash over populated central Canberra.

I wouldn't worry yourself too much Kevin - Australia's Blackhawks don't carry missiles. They don't have the capability to. What you would have seen are external fuel tanks. Equally bad in the case of a crash, but not lethal looking missile launchers.

Why were they there, so visibly and ostentatiously guarding the perimeter of my city and its visiting premiers? Was it to protect against incoming terrorist aircraft? Surely not an efficient way to do that - ground radar would detect any unaccounted-for flight movement towards Canberra, and ground-ready RAAF aircraft could be in the air within seconds from Fairbairn RAAF base, to intercept and if necessary safely shoot down suspected threats outside Canberra.

No, thats a retarded rhetorical question. Why would you use helicopters to guard against air to air threats? Only someone who thinks fuel tanks are missile launchers would even suggest it.

Was it to guard against a possibility of ground-to-ground missiles being launched at Parliament House from a terrorist car driven up Black Mountain or Red Hill? Surely not, because police cars stationed on both roads for the day would have been less intrusive and more effective in any emergency. There were no police cars I could see on Red Hill.

Assuming you were right, and they were missile launchers, then a gunship armed with a few Maverick AGM's would actually be more effective against a ground target than a few police with revolvers, but that is by the by.

Or was it what I think it was - a terror threat display, government-mounted to impress the visiting premiers with the serious reality of the threat we are all supposed to be facing from terrorism nowadays in Canberra? It was certainly scary enough, under those black missile-armed military helicopters circling low overhead every ten minutes. But maybe that was the point. Maybe it was meant to scare us.

oooh booga booga. Or maybe it was a training exercise. I saw a seahawk cruising around the city the day before the grand final and managed not to post about it, or wet myself.

But could our premiers be so dumb and naïve as to be taken in by such devices?

But you just said you were scared by it? Are you suggesting the premiers are made of sterner stuff?

As I wandered thoughtfully down a Red Hill walking track, the helicopters kept circling overhead. I looked up at them - I guess my face could have been photographed then. If I had been carrying my camera, I could have taken photos of the helicopters and their missiles launchers too. But it's probably a good thing I didn't. Taking photos of legitimate counter-terrorist government activity might soon be illegal.

Its probably a good thing you didn't, as people would point out that fuel tanks look nothing like missile launchers.

Actually, people in comments did point it out, and Tony was big enough to admit his mistake. But then he goes and ruins it again:

And yes, I took them to be missiles. My mistake. But hang on a tick - there is more to this true story. Also having a coffee on Red Hill - I don't think it was a latte - was a pleasant woman who was talking about the helicopters with me (as well as complimenting me on my dogs). She said those helicopters were armed. I asked how she knew and she replied she used to be married to an RAAF pilot. Gospel truth, Stuart. So maybe these helicopters were carrying a suite of "missiles, rockets, machine guns and 20mm cannons" as well as the auxiliary fuel tanks that I saw and mistakenly assumed to be missiles. Of course there is no reason for the helicopters not to be carrying both; and this lady seemed to know whereof she spoke.

Except that the RAAF doesn't use helicopter gunships and neither does the Army. There was a slight chance that they were the new Tigerhawks we are getting, but Tony has confirmed they were blackhawks, and they *aren't* armed with weapon pods. As an aside, who the hell still uses "whereof"?

And when you think about it logically, Stuart, what were the two helicopters doing up there flying around all day guzzling fuel and pilot flying hours if they did not have a military function ie. if they were not armed?

Wow, killer point. What possible military function could a transport helicopter fulfill if they weren't armed? Same thing for those damn Hercules planes...

What is this conspicuous threat display, this militarisation of Australian urban environments, if it is not to scare the s**t out of us?

Dunno - training maybe? Security? Anti-terrorism? I can think of several actually. And if the purpose is to scare the s**t out of us, they are failing miserably. Whilst the SAS doing a counter-terrorism exercise in the city would scare poor Tony, most people I know would go "wow, cool" and sit down to watch.

OK, maybe I am a paranoid conspiracy theorist - I don't think I am, but that is not the issue here.

I do, but lets move on.

The issue is, these things flying around and around over our heads all day are scary and are meant to be scary for most people who like me don't necessarily know what auxiliary fuel tanks look like.

Grow some backbone man.

They make us think there is something to be scared of, or why are they there?

Here is a good test to see if you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist - if you see a miliary vehicle in an urban environment, can you think of any reason it might be there, other than as part of a Government plan to cow the populace? If not, you are probably a paranoid conspiracy theorist, fairfax/ABC journalist, or both.

Of course, it would be unfair of me to label him a conspiracy theorist on the basis of that alone, so lets check out his blog:

I am now firmly of the view, on the basis of substantial, albeit as yet incomplete, public evidence, that the sinking of SIEV X was the result of planned acts of sabotage in Indonesia, involving use of undercover agents under a people smuggling disruption program that was being conducted by elements of the Indonesian police, who had been trained and funded by Australian police; and that Australian government agencies have much more knowledge of this suspected crime against humanity than they have so far admitted to the Australian Senate or people.

2005-10-04T04:54:00.000+01:00

Smack!

Further to the post below, two of the most talented writers getting around have their say on "root causes" and "why do they hate us?" - Mark Steyn and Christopher Hitchens.

Firstly, Steyn:

But, on the other hand, despite Clive Williams's game attempt to connect the two on this page yesterday, nobody seriously thinks what happened in Bali has anything to do with Iraq. There are, in the end, no root causes, or anyway not ones that can be negotiated by troop withdrawals or a Palestinian state. There is only a metastasising cancer that preys on whatever local conditions are to hand. Five days before the slaughter in Bali, nine Islamists were arrested in Paris for reportedly plotting to attack the Metro. Must be all those French troops in Iraq, right? So much for the sterling efforts of President Jacques Chirac and his Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, as the two chief obstructionists of Bush-Blair-Howard neo-con-Zionist warmongering these past three years.

...

It's not hard to understand. All you have to do is take them at their word. As Bassam Tibi, a Muslim professor at Gottingen University in Germany, said in an interesting speech a few months after September 11, "Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms, these mean different things to each of them. The word peace, for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or House of Islam -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought. Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or House of Peace."

and Hitchens:

Never make the mistake of asking for rationality here. And never underestimate the power of theocratic propaganda. The fanatics look at the population of Bali and its foreign visitors and they see a load of Hindus selling drinks—often involving the presence of unchaperoned girls—to a load of Christians. That in itself is excuse enough for mayhem. They also see local Muslims following syncretic and tolerant forms of Islam, and they yearn to redeem them from this heresy and persuade them of the pure, desert-based truths of Salafism and Wahhabism. (One of the men on trial in Bali had been in trouble before, in his home village, for desecrating local Muslim shrines that he regarded as idolatrous.) And then, of course, Australians must die. Why would that be? Well, is it not the case that Australia sent troops to help safeguard the independence of East Timor and the elections that followed it? A neighboring country that assists the self-determination of an Indonesian Christian minority must expect to have the lives of its holidaymakers taken.

...

So, what did Indonesia do to deserve this, or bring it on itself? How will the slaughter in Bali improve the lot of the Palestinians? Those who look for the connection will be doomed to ask increasingly stupid questions and to be content with increasingly wicked answers.

As always, well worth your time.

2005-10-04T04:26:00.000+01:00

The more things change

After the departure of Margo Kingston, the SMH has replaced her with journalist Andrew West. His spelling is a lot better than the margonauts, but unfortunately the content appears to be similarly themed. Why the called the blog "the contrarian" is beyond me - lets look at the posting on the Bali bombings:

I don’t want this to be my “Susan Sontag” moment, but in the wake of the second, awful – and yes, evil – round of bombings in Bali this past weekend, we need to ask a lot of questions. We’ve already started to answer some: who, what, when, where and how. But we still haven’t asked, at least not in any depth, the most important question: why?

We haven't asked why? For a journalist he appears to be amazingly out of touch. Ever since 9/11 we have been bombarded with demands that we ask "why do they hate us" and calls for us to look for root causes. That may not have swung into full swing after the latest murders, but it is only a matter of time (this article confirms that)

Why are the perpetrators – fanatics, lunatics, to be sure – willing to martyr themselves in process of murdering scores of innocents?

Let me guess - Jews, Bush, Iraq etc etc?

The late Jewish-American writer Susan Sontag won herself infamy in American conservative circles when, just days after the September 11 2001 attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, she wrote, in an essay in The New Yorker, “… whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards”. Sontag was emphatically not excusing the 9/11 mass murderers. She was merely trying to understand – in a provocative way – why such sacrificial madness was taking place.

Hmm, I am not sure which article he read, but I don't see that she was "emphatically not excusing" anybody, in fact she said that the 9/11 attacks were a "monstrous dose of reality" which were "undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions". It is only a brief article, and I struggle to find any reprimand for the perpetrators at all.

And she was rejecting the empty sloganeering of George W. Bush that the attacks were "cowardly" and "mindless".

Hang on - you just said the Bali bombers were "lunatics" - does that not suggest a degree of mindlessness? West is falling over himself to have sentences damning the bombers ("look - I condemned them!") but is contradicting himself when he actually sets out his arguments.

Like the bombings in Bali in both 2002 and last weekend, the 9/11 atrocities were anything but. They were meticulously planned – in the case of the World Trade Centre, right down to hitting the building in just the right place to raze it – and involved a perverted form of courage.

He is going so far as to elevate the 9/11 murderers' luck (the buildings collapsing in the way they did) to the level of meticulous planning.

The problem is that after any act of terrorism like the Bali bombings, the right-wing brands anyone who dares to discern the reasoning or the perverse logic behind the attacks an apologist, or charges them with blaming the victim.

Well gee Andrew, if you go around apologising for terrorists and/or blaming the victim, then don't act hard done by if the evil "right wing" calls you on it.

But surely if we are to stamp out, or at least limit, such carnage in the future, we must understand the perpetrators’ motivation or grievance.

Nope, their names and addresses would be more than sufficient for our purposes thanks.

It may be – and probably is – the case that their grievance is utterly without merit, completely undeserving of sympathy.

You aren't sure? He is suggesting that the people who incinerated 202 people in Bali in 2002, and dozens more this week might have legitimate grievances and may be deserving of sympathy. At the risk of being labelled right-wing, but I am pretty confident in branding you as an apologist on the strength of that alone.

This is not some 1970s social worker-style desire to understand the "pain" of the perpetrator. It is a clear-eyed, strategic need to determine the root cause of the terror.

Cha-ching! It must be his inexperience in working for the SMH that caused him to take this long before mentioning root causes.

And frankly, it is a way of avoiding the kind of quagmire in which US-led troops are now floundering in Iraq, where a combination of conveniently ignored pre-war intelligence and misdirected vengeance over 9/11 has lead to an unmitigated military disaster.

Stuff like this makes me want to grind my teeth to the bone. People have such short memories that anything that doesn't go perfectly gets labelled a disaster or a quagmire. No one would argue that the liberation of Iraq has gone perfectly according to plan. There is a military axiom that no plan surives first contact with the enemy.

That said, Iraq fell in a matter of weeks, and the losses sustained (both military and civilian) whilst tragic, are extremely minor when you consider the scope of the undertaking. In the history of "unmitigated military disasters" (I would consider the removal of Saddam as a pretty big mitigation) this doesn't even come close. Before people want to make stupid statements like that, I suggest they read a little history first.

We have a duty to mourn and a right to be angry over the latest outrage in Bali. But it would be grave mistake if our response was driven by rage and not reason.

You mourn out of duty? Big of you to agree with our "right" to be angry though. And what's wrong with rage? Blind rage can be counter-productive, but properly channelled rage can be extremely appropriate and useful. See here in that regard. Note the date when it was written.

2005-10-03T03:42:00.000+01:00

Mojo searched for

A Michael Gawenda column is often fairly self fisking. Sure, he occasionally says something less biased, but his angle on any story is well known before you even get past the first paragraph. This brings us to his latest effort:

When George Bush flew down on Air Force One to the hurricane-battered Gulf states for his seventh visit in less than two weeks, reporters asked him two questions shortly after his arrival.

Why was he doing all this flying up and down from Washington at a cost of about $100,000 a trip, and did he think he and his large entourage had got in the way of emergency workers in the aftermath of hurricane Rita with all these photo-opportunity visits?

These would be the same reporters that criticised Bush for not appearing to do enough I assume?

A year ago, the Bush White House would have noted the names of the reporters who asked these impertinent questions and then Karl Rove and his underlings would have made sure life was hell for them for ever more.

Dog whistle time. Gawenda has invoked the Rove keyword (second only to "neo-con") so we can all nod sagely, knowing that the Republican machine will crush all opposition. Does Gawenda have a single piece of evidence to back up his claim? Can he name me a journalist whose life was made hell by Rove and associated "underlings"?

A story that has done the rounds of foreign correspondents' circles in Washington for some time involves a British journalist based in Washington who flew to London to cover one of Bush's meetings with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. At a joint news conference with the leaders, the British journalist asked Blair to respond to the accusation that he was "Bush's lapdog". Tough question, no doubt, but a question that would not have surprised Blair, who is regularly subjected to far tougher questions from the British media.

This is all he has - a "story" that is doing the rounds of journalists. No names, no facts.

Blair answered the lap-dog question as a stony-faced Bush looked on. The story goes that after the news conference, a furious Bush told his aides that the reporter had insulted not just Blair, but the President. The reporter was never again to be allowed to attend Bush media briefings. Even when Blair subsequently came to Washington, the journalist was barred from the joint Blair-Bush news conference.

Surely it would be easy to name the journalist and confirm the "story". Isn't that what journalists are supposed to do? Instead we get a convenient rumour (which could have been invented for this column for all we know) with no substance. Great start Michael.

Something has changed in recent weeks. A year ago, no American journalist would have asked Bush whether his visits to hurricane-ravaged Louisiana and Texas to offer hope to victims and encouragement to rescue workers were getting in the way.

Really? Micheal is hoping that readers have the same sort of memory problems as the media, and will buy into his claims that 12 months ago Bush was all powerful, with no hard questions being asked by the media.

Something has changed about Bush. The charge by Bush haters that he was dumb and ignorant was always a dumb and ignorant charge, the result of hatred overwhelming rationality.

An accurate claim finally. Stopped clock twice a day I guess.

Since his politically disastrous handling of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, Bush has become a president who seems to have shrunk into just another politician. He seems to have been disconnected from the powerful aura of the office he holds.

"Politically disastrous" handling? Bush's poll figures may have taken a hit, but hardly into a disaster territory. Of course, the media decided that it was disastrous, thus it will be enshrined as having been so.

As a result, even journalists for the virulently pro-Bush Fox News Network have done what they never did before; aggressively question Bush about his Katrina failings.

What are the chances of Gawenda (or any other Age journo) referring to a network (e.g. the ABC) as "virulently" anti-Bush? About zero?

In the words of one commentator, George Bush seems to have lost his mojo and you don't need a literal definition of mojo to know what he's talking about.

No, but some sort of cogent point would help.

The hurricane visits, rather than repair the self-inflicted political damage caused by his initial tin-ear response to the vast suffering caused by Katrina, have made him look desperate, a president in search of photo opportunities.

Again, no polls, quotes or other evidence to back that up, it is purely Gawenda's opinion. Nothing wrong with that in an opinion piece of course, but when it is the basis of his whole article, it looks pretty flimsy.

He seems beleaguered, weighed down by problems; Iraq, hurricane destruction both human and material, an out-of-control budget, petrol prices at levels that could, on their own, destroy his presidency.

How exactly will they destroy his presidency? Is Gawenda seriously suggesting that Bush will resign over it? He can't be impeached, and he isn't allowed to run again, so what form will this "destruction" take?

And now there's the indictment on a conspiracy charge involving campaign donations, of Tom DeLay, the House of Representatives Majority Leader, the most powerful man on Capitol Hill, Bush's closest supporter and the man Bush has relied on to get his legislative program through Congress.

His closest supporter? What about the evil puppertmaster Karl Rove, mentioned earlier? Or the Vice President, Dick Cheney? Or does he only become Bush's closest supporter when he is indicted for something?

His ability to connect with the hopes and soothe the fears of much of middle America seems, at least for now, to have deserted him. He has lost his bounce, his sense of optimism.

Sorry Micheal, but are you expected me to take your word for it that Bush has lost his ability to connect with middle America? No thanks.

He is even starting to sound like Jimmy Carter, who was ridiculed by Republicans - and by much of the country - when he wore a cardigan as he addressed the nation almost 30 years ago from the Oval Office and suggested, after the oil price rises of the mid-1970s, that people put on their woollies and turn down their heating.

Oh really? Again, what has Bush actually said that sounds like Carter?

George Bush, Texas oilman, has now told Americans, in the light of rising petrol prices, that maybe they should leave their cars at home every now and then and take public transport. Maybe they should even think about car pooling, for heaven's sake!

Oh chortle chortle. What is wrong with those suggestions? Provided that he isn't wearing a cardigan whilst doing it, they sound like very sensible suggestions.

A year ago, the Bush Administration would have labelled such talk from Democrats as un-American.

What is with this "year ago" thing? And again, the whole sentence is complete BS. It is insulting that he thinks that we will believe that if a Democrat had suggested driving a little less, the Bush Administration would have labelled it as un-American.

But it's doubtful it will do Bush much good. What he needs is to find his mojo. A president without his mojo is prone to be asked rude questions by journalists, even American journalists, who no longer fear that their rudeness will be severely punished.

And thats it. Thats the sum total of the article. To summarise, here is the evidence that Gawenda has put forward to suggest that Bush may be facing the destruction of his presidency:

a) Bush got asked questions about his response to hurricane Katrina;

b) there is a rumour that Bush previously had an unnamed journalist banned for asking rude questions;

c) Bush hasn't banned any journalists lately

d) Gawenda thinks Bush looks desperate

e) Fox news has asked questions about his handling of Katrina

f) petrol prices are quite high

g) a prominent republican has been indicted

h) Bush has endorsed car pooling.

i) err, umm, mojo!

I think you will agree that nothing jumps out as being quite Watergate level stuff.

2005-09-28T07:43:00.000+01:00

Roll up roll up

Unfortunately, visiting Crikey to read that amusing Latham transcript also required me to swim through the rest of the rubbish there. A good example is an article by Christine Wallace on voluntary voting.

It ignores the fact that all the assumptions about voluntary voting (i.e. it favours conservatives) are about 60 years out of date, and whips out every tired cliche in the book:

If you're sick, poor or exhausted trying to cover a minimum-wage job, you're more likely to skip voting if there's no penalty for doing so. And it's not thrashing the class stereotype too hard to suggest such voters tend to back the Democrats in the US and Labor in Australia.

Sick people are more likely to vote Labor? Does she have figures to back that up?

Conversely, Ralph Lauren polo-shirt wearing Republicans (for Australia, read Liberals) keen on keeping tax cuts rolling are not going to miss out casting their vote, even if it means diverting the Beemer for five minutes on the way to the country club for a couple of Long Island Iced Teas. And while that may make only a couple of points difference to party support, that could be the difference between winning and losing.

There is a point to using outlandish stereotypes for amusement/wind up value, but that is high school level stuff. Besides, if these poor Labor voters decide not to exercise their right to vote in the way that their BMW driving cousins do, whose fault is that?

In the US, Bill Clinton wouldn't have won in 1992 had Ross Perot not split the conservative vote to stymie President George Bush Snr's re-election bid. Every US Democrat faces a formidable task every single election even getting supporters registered to vote, let alone getting them to polling booths.

Unlike Republicans, who can pack them in? Its funny how Clinton managed to win back to back elections then isn't it.

Senator Minchin told ABC Radio PM's Alexandra Kirk on Monday that last weekend's New Zealand election, with an 80% turnout, was an advertisement for voluntary voting. "I'll keep arguing the case for Australians to have the right to choose whether or not to vote, and I hope our Government will seek a mandate at the next election to be able to introduce voluntary voting if we're successful at the next election," he told Kirk.

Which if they won, people like Wallace would claim that it didn't represent a mandate of course.

Minchin said he hadn't discussed it with the prime minister but that "his personal view, I know, and he's expressed it publicly, is that he thinks you shouldn't be guilty of an offence for not voting." There are "many, many Liberals who share my view, from the Prime Minister down," Minchin told PM, "so I hope we can build a consensus around what is a very liberal position on this issue, and that we can give Australians the right that New Zealanders have."

I would have thought that giving people the right to vote (as opposed to the obligation) and removing the ridiculous offence of not voting, would be a pretty compelling argument. It certainly appeals to a few, judging by the reader reaction following the piece.

But of course, the section of the Crikey readership who like having the Government tell us what to do had to then pipe up:

Trevor Kruger writes:

Both Roy Morgan and Crikey seem to be guilty of aiding and abetting the spin of the politicians with regard to the myth of "compulsory voting" in Australia. What IS legally "compulsory" is for each voter to attend and receive voting slips at a polling booth at each election. One does not have to choose between persons or parties as the question suggests. Answering a question about how one feels about having to turn up on voting day addresses an entirely different issue.

I find this argument (which gets trotted out every time) deeply stupid and deeply insulting. They aren't even trying to defend the situation on grounds of civic obligation or responsibility, instead they argue that the government will only fine us for not showing up. What kind of ridiculous law is that?

Brian Mitchell writes:

It's a conundrum. How can one support a liberal democracy but insist on compulsory voting? The same way one insists on compulsory tax-paying, or compulsory testing to get a driver's licence, or on compulsory attendance at jury duty. There are benefits and responsibilities in being a citizen.

That's more what I expect, but its still wrong. Voting is a right, fining me for not exercising it transforms it into an obligation. I don't have a "right" to be taxed. As for driving, I am not fined if I don't drive, but if I want to drive, then I must do it in accordance with the law. Likewise, if I choose to vote, then I must follow the electoral laws. Nobody fines me if I choose to walk everywhere.

One compromise might be to confer voting obligations only upon those who register as active citizens.

Robert Heinlen in Starship troopers suggested you should have to do military service to qualify - fancy that idea Brian?

The unwashed masses would then be free of the onerous duty, but they should no longer be able to partake in activities such as government employment or receipt of government welfare.

According to Christine, public servants and dole bludgers all vote Labor anyway, so that sounds great from Minchin's point of view.

Margaret Kent writes:

Since when did Australians not have the right to "not vote"? What a furphy. Australians who are eligible to vote are legally obliged to attend a polling booth, have their names crossed off the electoral roll and return the ballot papers which they may choose to mark accurately or which they may choose not to mark at all, in other words, not vote. Get it straight Senator Minchin.

Good thing you are here to sort us out Margaret. To make you happy, would you prefer that we referred to it as "compulsory turning up to polling booths"" and called for its abolition?

Simon Rolfe writes:

Must be getting close to the silly season if this old chestnut is rearing its ugly head again. We DO NOT have compulsory voting in Australia. We have compulsory attendance at a polling station. It is not compulsory to fill in the voting form, it is not compulsory to put the vote in the ballot box.

See what I mean - is it not insulting that people consider that a devastating response to a situation where the government will fine (and potentially jail) you for not exercising your right to vote?

An anonymous subscriber writes:

If ever there was a reason to force people to vote it was the recent suffering of the poor and disadvantaged in New Orleans. If those folk had cast votes I don't believe they would have been so abandoned by their governments. There is nothing like the fear of loss of office to get pollies off their a*ses.

By that logic, shouldn't the conclusion be that those people should have voted? To conclude that the solution would be for the Government to fine them for not voting is peverse.

Robert Bruinewoud writes:

Provide me with proof that voluntary voting will produced better results for ALL Australia, and not just for certain sections of it, and I may be persuaded.

Better in what way? How about you will no longer be fined for failing to exercise a right?

True, I'm against voluntary voting because of what I see happening in the USA, but to call it "dislike" is too mild – "sh*t scared" might be a better description. And while Charles's examples of functioning democracies that do have voluntary voting is heartening, can we be sure that there are no communities in these countries who have lost their voice due voluntary voting?

Catch the secret codeword there? USA = we all nod sagely, knowing that the USA is close to a dictatorship, even though Bush could have easily lost, and is forbidden from running again (which in itself is anti-democratic). And how do they lose their voice? They don't. They may choose not to use it, but again, that is their choice. Personal responsibility people - live it.

Ben Aveling writes:

Voting is not mandatory in Australia. You are required to attend a polling booth and to have your name checked off.

Sigh.

2005-09-28T07:35:00.000+01:00

Commie lube

Its always nice to see that Australia can still produce goods the whole world wants to buy. Our latest and greatest export - Che Guevara lip balm!

The retailer describes it thus:

Exotic, revolutionary lip balm dedicated to the great, immortal icon of revolution, Che Guevara. 100% natural protection. Guava flavour. 4g tub.

I know that if I were ever a murdering commie, I would certainly want lip balm, and other skin care products, dedicated to my memory.

Some customers have left comments:

Name: Val
From:Miami, Florida,
Date:2005-09-28
Nice photo of Che you used for the packaging! If I use this balm, will it give me an obstinate, sexy lower lip like his?

Name: CJ
From:Boise, United States
Date:2005-09-28
Am waiting for your next great ideas: Hitler's Sunblock, Stalin's Eyeshadow, Pol Pot's Face Cream........

I was going to do a joke similar to that.

Name: Rob Redford
From:Hollywood, USA
Date:2005-09-28
I wondered how Che manage to keep his lips chap free while shooting prisoners in the back of the neck at La Cabana. He's so cool. Cheek bones that make women swoon.

Even Hollywood stars want some.

Name: Karl Marx
From:deep in the jungle, Bolivia
Date:2005-09-28
Capitalism at it's finest. Che would be so proud. Cool that you have guava flavor. He would have loved it as he begged for his life.

Now Karl, thats just mean. The same store also sells a "Bush Kit" which I was hoping was full of blood, oil and lies, but unfortunately appears to contain tea and damper ingredients.

2005-09-28T02:59:00.000+01:00

Turn it up

I remain eternally grateful that the Australian public had the good sense to not make Mark Latham our PM, but I will be damned if I can think of a political figure that has provided me with this much amusement in such a short period of time. When the Latham Diaries hit the bargain bin, I am pretty sure I am going to shark a copy.

I am not sure if Latham has completely lost it, or if he is just enjoying speaking to various media types in the manner in which he wished he always could have. Check out Crikey's transcript of a recent interview between Latham and the ABC's Matthew Abraham:

Abraham: It's okay to smear somebody if you do it with your name on it?

Latham: We're going to have to talk about specifics. You're making this generalisation, I don't know if you've actually read the book.

Abraham: I have.

Latham: Okay, you're making this allegation about smearing people. Give your listeners the specific thing that's got up your nose.

Abraham: In recent days, people have had to come out and deny the rumour that you've repeated in the book about them; Pru Goward, Kate Fisher, Kate Ellis, Kim Beazley's daughters.

Latham: Have you read the book? It's not Kate Fisher.

Abraham: I have read the book.

Latham: Kate Fisher's not in the book. Turn it up.

and

Abraham: Does it connect with you that you have smeared her because by repeating a rumour, that a lot of people wouldn't have been aware of,and saying this isn't true, it then raises the question - you get the rumour out there, it gives it a lot more credence than it may ever have had.

Latham: Well, maybe in your perverted mind it does, but it doesn't in mine. If someone says it's not true, they're saying that in black and whiteand this person's been hard done by, then the literal meaning of that means it's not true, this person's been hard done by. I don't know what you sort of get up to in your wild imagination when you read these things Matthew. Maybe like other people in the media with an obsession with sex, but you need to read the literal words there, take the literal meaning.

and

Latham: Turn it up, you're the one who just said in this interview that I spooked myself. I'm not complaining about it, I've set it down in the book. This is the Mad Hatter's tea party, as ever interviewed by you, you're just running around in circles. It's hilarious.

Abraham: Well, I'm glad you're enjoying it, I wouldn't want it to be an unpleasant experience. Your descriptions of women in the book as 'quality box and boiler bunnies', is that how you refer to women? What is a bunny boiler?

Latham: when you watch that movie with Glenn Close and Michael Douglas, Fatal Attraction is the name of the movie, she sticks the bunnies in the boiler. You need to go down to the pub, talk to your mates, get with the lingo.

Abraham: I don't spend a lot of time at the pub.

Latham: Oh no, I'm sure you don't.

I never rated Latham's "I use aussie lingo" approach, but when it comes to getting stuck into an ABC interviewer, I am all for it. He keeps going:

Abraham: You go into a fair bit of that about your previous wife, too, I just wonder whether anything is out of bounds?

Latham: Well it's all there in the diary and people can make their judgement. I found in public life the media had no ethics, there was no moral standard when you've got a cadre of journalists who go through garbage bins to find their stories I've got a fair bit to say about the media in this book in response, as you've pointed out.

Abraham: I wasn't asking about that but anyway.

Latham: No, you had another sexually related question and I think you really should see someone who's read Freud and can give you some better advice about how to handle these things.

Abraham: Well you can duck and weave around that one Mark Latham.

Latham: Got any more sex questions, this is so typical of the media and I think it's tragic that it's on the ABC, wouldn't you think thepublic broadcaster would want to talk about the serious issues in this book instead of a perverted commentator there, who's highlighted the sexy bits in the book and that's all he can get his hands on.

Abraham intends on wrapping it up with the traditional "thanks for speaking to us" line, but Latham won't have a bar of it:

Abraham: Mark Latham thank you for talking to 891 Mornings.

Latham: Yeah, well Matthew, good to know that you haven't changed one iota mate, and I'm very surprised your program never made it into the diary because you and the other jibberer were quite legendary in our office things never change, hey.

Abraham: Well I was disappointed I wasn't in there.

Latham: It's a miracle you weren't, my press secretary, you'll probably be in his diary he had quite a thing for you and I'm seeing him tomorrow and I'll let him know that nothing's changed there at the ABC in Adelaide and one of the joys of putting you on the list and doing the interview was just to check out that fact it's nice to have some consistency at the good old Adelaide ABC . You have a good day Matthew and I hope you can read the book in full and have a look at some of those public policy and bigger issues as well.

Abraham: Mark Latham thank you. Former National Labor Party Leader on 891ABC Adelaide.

Aaaah Mark - long may you hang around throwing hand grenades at the ALP and ABC

2005-09-27T05:23:00.000+01:00

al-Gold

Iowahawk has come up with quite the scoop - a guest post by none other than Abu Musab Al-Zarqawri, Senior VP, Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Let me tell you, he aint happy:

Case in point: after taking in the nards in Tel Afar last week, let's just say the martyr recruiting has gone a little slow. And speaking of 'a little slow,' can we talk about this latest busload of asswipes from Damascus? Jeez, I thought the Saudis were stupid, but these Syrians take the fucking baclava. Send one of these choads on a simple martydom operation against a Bagdhad collaborator elementary school, and they're like, "Durrrr, a thousand pardons effendi, I got lost! Doyyyy, can I have a martyrdom car with OnStar?" Then you end up having to print out MapQuest directions for them, which totally chews up printer cartridges, and they end up smeared along some desert freeway because they mistook the detonator button for cruise control.

and

So anyway, I'm dealing with this garbage yesterday, in the middle of a meeting with my French ad agency, when Achmed comes in and he's like, "come effendi! Allah be praised! The infidels are marching against the Satan Bush on the C-SPAN2!"

So I'm like, cool, gather up the boys and throw some Pop Secret in the microwave, this ought to be a morale booster. Allah knows we need one. Then everybody gathers around the TV, and they're all like ululating and shooting off the AKs, when C-SPAN2 breaks out of Booknotes for live coverage of the big insurgent offensive.

Holy. Fucking. Dung.

Have you every been at Friday prayers when somebody just totally rips a gigantic falafel gasbomb while the Imam is cursing the crusaders and Jews? That's what it was like around the TV -- total dead silence. And with every shot of another placard-waving elderly hippie moron, every pachouli drum circle, possibly even more silence.

Read the whole thing - I am confident it is the only place you will see the words "martyr-tard" and "bankles" used in the same sentence.

2005-09-26T23:50:00.000+01:00

Enough rope

Nobody has ever suggested that the Australian's "Cut & Paste" section doesn't have a sense of humour. Rather than present a devestating critique of stupid ideas, it sometimes just lets people dig their own hole.

For example - here is Jenny Garrett, Mungo MacCallum's girlfriend, in a February edition of the Good Weekend:

HE (Mungo) distresses me when he can't see beyond the depression of the immediate. After (John Howard beat Mark Latham in last October's federal election), he was very depressed. We both literally cried. He's a very passionate man. He yells at the situation, he yells at the stupidity of the Australian populace, he yells at his journalist colleagues, who he feels have let him down terribly. When he's depressed, he drinks to the point where I think it's endangering his health – at least a bottle of wine a day. We blame John Howard for a lot of things, and yes, John Howard drove him to drink.

A left wing journalist railing against the stupidity of the Australian people? I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

2005-09-26T01:00:00.000+01:00

Too small to play football

Giving hope to all of us who were not blessed with the physique to play professional sports is Michael King of the NY Jets.

Standing at 6'3 in real life, EA have made him approximately 7 inches tall in the new Madden Xbox game.

Check out the screenshots (scroll down for more)

Thankfully for the Jets, the collision box for King is the same as a normal player, so this pint size dynamo can still block and tackle like a full sized player.

2005-09-25T02:38:00.000+01:00

Rad

More internet nerd goodness - a homemade sentry gun.

It only fires plastic BB's, but it looks great, and I give him extra points for using his little brother as his test subject.

2005-09-22T07:02:00.000+01:00

All the lonely people

Have a look at the Getty Images photos for Cindy Sheehan's recent march on Washington. Here is the wire coverage it received.

How many people do you think attended this rally? Try this photo instead.

Thats right - about 30 people.

(via LGF)

2005-09-20T23:28:00.000+01:00

I'm so ronery

Paul Kelly celebrates the "death knell" of the Bush Doctrine:

THE North Korean agreement offers new hope for denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and for China-US relations; and, above all, is an incentive for a more realistic Bush foreign policy.

Yep, this agreement shows that the way to deal with power mad dictators is not through the threat or use of force, but through appeasement and bribery. Thats how you achieve a meaningful agreement which will be honoured by all parties.

The agreement is fragile and may not hold.

Funny you should say that Paul, here is the Age's Hamish McDonald:

NORTH Korea has backed away from a key part of its agreement to scrap its nuclear programs, less than 24 hours after the deal was signed following two years of wrangling with and its four main neighbours and the US.

The North Korean Foreign Ministry said yesterday it would not dismantle its nuclear facilities or return to international safeguards until Washington first provided it with light-water atomic power stations.

Well colour me shocked. The North Koreans have promised to give up their weapons program only after the US builds them nuclear power stations. We can of course trust the North Koreans to then honour their part of the bargain, rather than decide to dust off their program every time they feel like extracting some further concessions or aid.

2005-09-20T09:18:00.000+01:00

Hitch v Gruesome George

Christopher Hitchens has been an ideal pin up boy for pro-Iraq liberation people as he is an excellent writer, not afraid of a verbal stoush and best of all - a leftie.

George Galloway has been an ideal pin up boy for pro-Saddam people because he is pro-Saddam, pro-Syria, anti-US, pro-"insurgents" and best of all - absolutely shameless.

Hitchens has been on Galloway's cause for a while - pointing out the disgraceful situation of a someone, especially a member of the British Parliament, being an unabashed fan and cheerleader for fascist dictators.

His website contains his dossier against Galloway (using Galloway's own words) and makes interesting reading. Galloway in turn has heaped abuse on Hitchens during his recent trip to the US.

This background meant that a public debate between the two was always going to be fiery.

It is a shame that people's opinion of who won the debate seem to be entirely based on their existing thoughts on the war. My thoughts are pretty clear on that topic, so I will leave you to jusge who you thought presented the better case.

Here is a transcript.

For mine, it is pretty clear that Hitchens makes many damning points about the nature of Iraq and the "resistance", the anti-war "movement" and Galloway himself.

In return, Galloway attempts to discredit Hitchens (by pointing out his opposition to the first Gulf War - since acknowledged by Hitchens as an error by him) or just insult him. He also, three days after the anniversary of 9/11, whilst in New York, blames the US for the attacks on the WTC. That doesn't go down as well as he perhaps expected.

The transcript is very long, but some passages which I liked follow:

There are probably some people among you here who fancy yourself as having leftist revolutionary credentials, as far as I can tell that you do from the zoo-noises that you make... And the scars that you can demonstrate from your long, underground, twilight struggle against Dick Cheney. But while you're masturbating in that manner, the Iraqi secular left, the socialist and communist movements, the workers' movement, the trade unions, are fighting for their lives against the most vicious and indiscriminant form of fascist violence that any country in the region has seen for a very long time.

....

Well, that's easy then, leave them in control of Afghanistan, don't mess around with these people, don't make them angry, don't make them mean. It's your fault. Now this is masochism, uh, but it is being offered to you by sadists.

....

But, if you'll let, allow me to say so, Amy, just as I am not personally responsible for creating 100,000 al-Qaeda fighters, nor am I here as someone who can answers questions on behalf of the Bush administration, rather to the contrary. Um, the, it's, it's, it's a single issue question with me. I think the president was right to do what the previous president and vice-president, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore, had only promised to do, and what the United States Senate had only voted to do, which was to move Iraq into the post-Saddam Hussein era. All that was decided and repeatedly promised by the preceding administration and by the US Senate when George Bush was still a provincial governor of Texas. So I don't think this is a subject that can be changed just by saying Dick Cheney and knowing that there are enough morons that will always boo when you say that.

CH: I think I can be as precise, but perhaps not as terse as Mr. Galloway on this point. Um, I should thank him by the way, for eliciting, or allowing, allowing me to elicit, or you perhaps ladies and gentleman to elicit from him, what I feared, but didn't hope, but in other words a full declaration of support for the campaign of sabotage, and murder, and beheading that has taken the lives of great journalists, that demolished...

[Boos]

demolished the offices, demolished the offices, demolished the offices of the United Nations.

...

But I will have to add, that for people to start pumping out propaganda before the bodies have even been uncovered in New Orleans saying, and to make points, demagogic often, they wouldn't be dead if they weren't black. But people haven't been identified yet, whose parents don't know where they are. And to say this wouldn't have happened if we weren't wasting money on Arabs? That, that is an appeal to the most base, provincial, isolationist, and chauvinist mentality.

[Jeers/Applause/Boos]

CH: You're on TV.

...

And we have no right whatever, to, to, to, to insult, to insult the tremendous performance of the United States Armed Forces once they are put into action. And I will add one more thing, the 82nd Airborne and the 1st Air Cavalry, so far from being distracted by Iraq, have learned in Iraq matters of civil reconstruction, water-distribution, purification, culture. That have been extremely useful to them in New Orleans. The case, the case. Don't, I will advise you not to jeer these men and women while you're being televised, ladies and gentleman. I would advise you not to do it.

...

I'm not a member of the Bush entourage. I've never appeared on a public platform with a dictator, I never have and I never will. I couldn't face you if I had that on my record. It must be some sordid kind of displaced guilt that makes Mr. Galloway want to throw out accusations like this. I've never done that, and to come fresh from embracing these blood-stained bastards and to say to you that it's your fault that these people hate you. It's more than we should be expected to take.

[Jeers/"Go home!"]

etc etc. He ums and ahs more than Galloway, but he rips out some beautiful stuff on his feet. For his own take on it, look here.

2005-09-13T08:14:00.001+01:00

Sweet

Remember the Bugatti Veyron? Thats the new supercar that requires you to insert a second key to activate "speed mode" and reach its 400kph top speed.

Well, good news. Not only can it do four times the speed limit, but it will also pump out 574g/km of carbon dioxide and achieve fuel consumption of 11.7mpg. The greens hate it of course - it reeks of way too much fun.

As a matter of comparison - thats worse fuel efficiency than the Hummer.

2005-09-13T08:14:00.000+01:00

2005-09-08T01:20:00.000+01:00

Impressive

Credit where credit is due. I have been critical of Apple products and coverage in the past (and plan to be in the future), especially the blind adulation that the iPod receives.

That said, the new iPod nano appears to be a pretty sweet piece of kit. A colour screen is nice, the click wheel has always been their greatest asset, and you can finally get it in black (without the stupid red wheel of the black U2 iPod).

Of course, I am sure the sound quality is still ordinary, and it will still come with nasty cheap headphones.

2005-09-06T00:25:00.000+01:00

Jonah McBushChimpHitler

The Age is going for the ironic look today. We have Tony Parkinson, the last bastion of reason on Spencer Street, with this:

According to his critics, the President can be blamed for causing hurricanes because he ignored the risks of global warming. He can be blamed for exacerbating the consequences of Katrina because he diverted funds and manpower to Iraq. And he can also be blamed for the rape and pillage of New Orleans because his unfair tax policies inflicted on the poor and vulnerable no other choice.

As happened after September 11, the blame game is under way, with Bush cited as the reason for every ill visited upon his nation. The Jonah of the White House. On any calm analysis of cause and effect, of course, much of this hyperventilating is ludicrous, the product of anger, panic or hysteria. Some of it can be put down to partisan point-scoring.

Contrast this with the partisan point scoring by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto on the same page:

Teflon helped Bill Clinton slide out of disasters. George Bush seems coated with armour plating: dense, dull and impenetrable. Terrorists hurl fire and bombs; political opponents let fly insults and derision; Bush's own incompetence bombards him with boomerangs. Most recently, Cindy Sheehan has assailed the President with a mother's tears, which might have found a way to corrode his breastplate or trickle through the chinks. Yet Bush carries on, battered but essentially undamaged.

The undergraduate imagery doesn't improve from here.

Armour, however, is no protection against flood.

I knew Bush's decision to tell New Orleans residents to put on armour was a bad one.

Disasters usually distract critics, silence malcontents, flatter leaders, and improve presidents' ratings. Not this time. Katrina could be the storm that finally scatters Bush's strangely tenacious following.

Note the use of the word "strangely" - Bush has won 2 elections, but Felipe can't for the life of him work out why anybody would vote for him.

It is not just that he has handled the crisis badly. His first response was a bemused look, reminiscent of his mental paralysis at the news of 9/11. He then committed a terrible blunder, telling disaster victims to "take personal responsibility". The individualist message was miscalculated, offensive to the altruism that disasters always ignite.

How is that offensive to altrusim? Is he suggesting that if Bush had have said "don't do anything, the Government will come in and fix everything", things would have worked out uch better?

His gaffes don't end. In storm-torn Biloxi, he referred two distraught women, who collapsed in his arms, to the Salvation Army shelter.

I am not familiar with the incident he is referring to, but it sounds like he did the compassionate thing to me. Sure, he could have milked it - Clinton style - but referring traumatised victims to a Salvos shelter doesn't strike me as a "gaffe".

The terrible truth is now out: the Government cut flood prevention funds to pay for war.

And this "truth" is going to become another article of faith no doubt. File it under "Blood for oil, Plastic Turkeys, 100,000 dead etc".

Countless unbiased journalists have reported how non-government agencies, charitable institutions, and philanthropic individuals took care of Katrina's victims, while the authorities' efforts seemed invisible - as if the whole operation were a gruesome exercise in privatisation.

Does he care to name which journalists he considers unbiased, and by extension, which are biased?

Americans are bound to make a so far unspoken, but glaringly obvious, comparison with the resolve the Government shows when it tackles the President's real priorities: war, power, petroleum, environmental profligacy.

"War, power, petroleum, environmental profligacy" should be the Republicans election slogan in 2008.

For deeper reasons, the present crisis is particularly challenging for Bush. Like his counterparts in al-Qaeda, Bush is a fundamentalist, with beliefs undisciplined by science or reason.

Bush = Osama. You knew it had to get a look in somewhere didn't you.

Under the "yah boo" exchanges of religious and irreligious zealotry lurks a serious issue. Bush has staked his reputation on eco-scepticism. He doesn't believe in global warming. He shelves environmental projects. He despises Kyoto. He dismisses predictions that nature's revenge will swamp human arrogance. After Katrina, Bush's appraisals of environmental threats look worthless.

He hasn't staked his reputation on eco-scepticism, he has just refused to stake his nation's economy on the economic suicide pact that is Kyoto. And if Felipe is claiming that Katrina was caused by global warming, sorry climate change, then his appraisals of environmental threats are also worthless.

Despite the Lone Ranger rhetoric of freedom, amazing reserves of solidarity bind US society. It starts with neighbourliness, swells into civic pride, and becomes patriotism. My university opened its classes to students displaced from the Gulf Coast, helping to lead a similar movement around the nation. Schools where refugees have taken shelter have done the same.

Did the Government force the university to do that? Of course not, the citizenry acted on its own.

Bush, meanwhile, keeps promising a better future, when what the victims want is present relief. His uneasy optimism seems reflected in the gleaming eyes of fat-cat friends, prowling for prospective reconstruction contracts.

A sly Halliburton reference! We truly are in the presence of a master. Wait till KBR gets its first reconstruction contract - the conspiracy theorists (a.k.a. large sections of the Left) are going to be hysterical.

When the terrorists struck on 9/11, Bush could make any number of mistakes, and still gain in popularity, because there were aliens on hand to hate.

They weren't aliens actually - they were middle eastern muslim terrorists.

This time Bush cannot rail against God or, with his environmental record, make an enemy of nature.

So if he had have signed Kyoto, he could make an enemy of nature?

He cannot bomb the sea or invade the wind.

I warned you about the quality of the imagery.

Even in the context of a natural occurrence, where there is no real enemy, people still need to hate and long for vengeance.

Do they? That seems to say more about Felipe than it does about Bush or America. When an earthquake strikes, I have never seen people hating or longing for vengeance. I see people distraught, or thankful to be alive, but not longing for vengeance.

Slowly, inexorably, with a chilling uniformity, the accusing gazes are focusing on the White House.

dum-dum-dum-dummmmmm!!!!!

2005-09-05T08:56:00.000+01:00

Fun for the whole family

The comments to this story are amusing:

AUSTRALIANS are now less conservative in their social and political thinking than they were under Paul Keating.

The notion the country has swung to the Right under John Howard is challenged by the first major study of social attitudes since Labor lost power in 1996.

Australian Social Attitudes: The First Report finds most people are satisfied with the economic gains made since the Prime Minister's election, and that they enjoy their work, are proud of their families, and feel confident and optimistic about the future.

Most would happily give up tax cuts in exchange for more government spending on health or education, and support for immigration has more than doubled since the Keating years.

I query aspect of the study, particularly as people always claim in surveys that they would prefer services to taxes, but the "reader comments" are where the real fun is:

From: Alan
Comment: 1995 - Own 1 bedroom unit worth $60,000, mortgage 50,000 cc debt 0 2005 - Own 5 bedroom house worth 600,000, mortgage 250,000, cc debt 22,000 As you can see I've got a lot of equity now, but after I pay the mortgage and credit cards, I've actually got less disposable income! Especially with the high cost of food, so my lifestyle is worse, this does not make me happy I am also not happy with the social situation, particularly Health and education and the environment. With the high cost of fuel, why aren't the governement using the tax system to encourage us to drive more economical cars? How about anything burning less than 5 litres per 100km is gst free?

So you could sell your 5 bedroom mansion and spend your $350,000 on smaller house. Try sharing a room or two. For someone who is so concerned about the price of fuel, imagine how much energy it takes to warm a place that big. Oh, and stop buying stuff on your credit card. $22,000 at 17% interest - are you insane?

From: heartbeating=happiness
Comment: Richer? Where? My bank account isn't showing that. Seriously, HECS debts, a FTA - that hurts Australian Artists, Grants so hard to come by that Community Groups (eg. Radio Stations) are starting to fold because they can't afford to keep their doors open, how can this be better off for the Nation as a whole? And if you are richer don't you think it's because of YOUR efforts not Johnny's? and PS Johnny can my community's radio station have some money please?

Oh no - grants have become harder to come by for australian community radio stations? How terrible. Here is a tip - try podcasting. Harness new technology, rather than bleating for a public hand out. Oh, and I think your "PS" also explained your bank account status as well.

From: Noel
Comment: Jobwise, never been better off. Money, great. Happier? I will try to leave this now Howardized mediocre island of embarrassment as soon as it is possible to do so. Once proud to be Australian, now ashamed. Can't wait to leave.

So you have become wealthy and succesful here, but the rest of us embarrass you so much that you can't wait to leave? aw shucks - don't let the door hit you on the way out.

From: Tyson
Comment: It seems that the people who pay their own way in society are happier (as I am) while the people who live off the tax payer are unhappy. If you haven't paid for it don't complain.

I don't think Tyson and heartbeat=happiness would get along too well...

From: Jane
Comment: My financial situation is worse and is going to get worse. Mr Howard is intent on ensuring that single parents will no longer have a choice about whether they can be stay at home parents which may be in the best interests of their children. He is going to ensure that by forcing me to work, I will pay the highest possible rate of 'taxation' - higher than Mr Howard himself pays and I feel that the entire situation is contrary to international agreements this country has signed and ratified.

? Did we ratify the International Single Mum Treaty? I must have missed that one.

From: Belinda
Comment: I want to know who those 4000 people are, where they live and what jobs they are currently doing. A study of 4000 people is not an exhaustive study population in a country that has over 8 billion people living in it! I am definitely NOT richer since the Howard government (I refuse to say "since John Howard came into power") came into power nor am I happier. I am studying full-time at university, and have to work a casual job to pay for my living expenses because I receive no help from Centrelink apparently because my parents are supposed to support me (they don't). I can guarantee they are worse off as well.

This one is my favourite. I would love to know what she is studying at university. Not statistics I hope. She is mad that in a country of 8 billion people she is forced to get a job while at uni because the tax payer and mum and dad won't cough up the cash. Diddums.

From: Pauline
Comment: If this is true, why is Howard pushing ahead with his IR plans? He works with smoke and mirrors.

If you learned the secrets of the seven chambers then his tiger style would be no match for yours.

From: Kaister
Comment: Absolutely not. John Howard is a social criminal. All of my bills cost 10 per cent more, fuel prices out of control ( yes Johnny, you can give us relief from the excise short term), annexing the unemployed/ incapacitated with draconian welfare policies and pseudo - white australianisms... A litany of broken promises and half truths - no, my life is not better. Everything costs more, and half of those taxes that were promised for removal at the introduction of the gst weren't. So how can we be better off?

Those would be state taxes you are complaining about I presume?

The rest is either general bitching (mostly about petrol prices) or Howard cheerleading.

2005-08-29T00:51:00.000+01:00

tee-hee

With the current craze for hybrid cars in the US, it is good to see that Dodge are doing the environmentally responsible thing and introducing a hybrid version of their new Charger.

Check out the advert for it.

As autoblog point out, the Prius gang aren't amused.

I know people will create forums about just about anything - but a Prius? The heading says the forum is "The Only Online Community for Toyota Prius Owners and Enthusiasts"

Wow, I would have thought that Prius enthusiasts would require at least 3 online communities - one for each of them.

2005-08-28T23:43:00.000+01:00

Oh, those bananas

Joseph Wakim in today's Age:

After the Muslim summit, Islamic schools were put on notice that they would be audited to ensure that their students understand Australian history, culture and values or forfeit their government funding.

Yet there has not been one shred of evidence to suggest any un-Australian activities are taking place behind these school walls or any link between the schools' curriculum and London-style home-grown terrorists.

I don't know if it counts as a "shred", but how about this from the Age on July 31?

The teacher could not believe what he overheard. The "visiting" imam was launching into a tirade against the Jews and Americans that bordered on the ludicrous.

But then came the clincher, he recalled. "The imam told the students that the Jews were putting poison in the bananas and they should not eat them."

True, thats more anti-semetic than un-Australian, but its certainly a start. Of course the Age gave the school a sympathetic showing - i.e. the teacher was shocked that the imam could say such a thing. The imam wasn't named, but would it be a fair guess that if we looked at any of his writings, his anti-Jew sentiments would be pretty clear? Maybe not the "poisoning the fruit bowl angle", but the general gist.

It is not just visiting imam that may cause people concern at the Werribee school:

The treatment of female staff and students has become an issue over recent years, with attempts to pay female teachers less, prevent them from sharing offices with male teachers and the imposition of strict dress codes.

Treating women as second class citizens used to be Australian behaviour, but thankfully may now be described as un-Australian I think.

And from the same article, regarding another (unamed) school:

The teacher was alarmed by what she discovered in the school library. An image of Christ in a book on comparative religion had been defaced.

When she asked students to explain, they told her that another teacher, a devout Muslim, had asked them to demonstrate that Islam was the one true faith by striking the picture with sharpened pencils.

"They told me they had been made to line up and one by one stab the picture," the teacher told The Sunday Age. "As far as I know, the book is still in the library."

If it had have been in Art class, they could have submitted the picture to the NGV and probably received rave reviews of course.

In one case a non-Muslim member of staff was told to remove a crucifix from the dashboard of a car parked in view of the students and a female Hindu teacher was ordered to remove marriage jewellery.

The teacher, who was dismissed from the school because she was "over qualified", is now employed at a Christian faith-based school.

She says she has no regrets about leaving. "The atmosphere at the school was unhealthy," she said. "When you asked children to write about their favourite hero, they nearly always wrote about Osama bin Laden."

Nothing to see here, move along.

2005-08-25T05:08:00.000+01:00

Exit, stage right even

Remember the "non-partisan" group GetUp? Even though they claimed one of their reasons for existing was to combat Howard's control of the Senate, and their campaigns so far have been in relation to David Hicks and Voluntary Student Unionism, they continued to claim they were non-partisan.

Proof of this supposedly came from having John Hewson on the board. Yeah, that lasted about a month:

The former leader of the federal Liberal Party, John Hewson, has left the board of the new web-based political campaign organisation, GetUp! less than a month after its launch.

GetUp claimed he left because he was too busy:

GetUp! campaigner Lachlan Harris said Dr Hewson had been "really supportive in helping us get off the ground".

"He just doesn't have the time to make the commitment and so he's had to withdraw," he said.

Anybody believe that? Hewson didn't return SMH's calls, and his spokeswoman would only confirm that he had left.

The search is now on to find someone who is not aligned with either the Labor Party or the Greens to gain wider community appeal.

Good luck with that people. The media is so desperate to talk to any high profile person willing to attack Howard that there aren't many "non-aligned" types available. Instead, may I suggest Merlin (provided you dont have to be an Australian citizen of course)? Or maybe Julian Burnside SC - god knows he doesn't get nearly enough publicity currently.

This story brought me back to GetUp's website, where you can view their latest proposed advert. It is attacking VSU, following the standard "services and sports clubs will disappear" plan of attack.

Amusingly, the still photos they use in the ad are a) rugby b) cafe c) health services d) gym and e) cricket. For some reason they don't seem to include the other activities that your student fees pay for - like political advertising, subsidising "protest buses", womens rooms etc. Show me pictures of some arts students using my uni fees to photocopy pamphlets than delay my results by trashing the Adminstration building and I will sign up in a jiffy!

2005-08-25T03:06:00.000+01:00

Strange but true

The SMH puts this story in their "unusual tales" section, with a link from their main page headed "Strange but true". It should be headlined outrageous intimidation:

London: A family that breeds guinea pigs for medical research is to abandon its farm in a final attempt to get back the remains of a relative whose body was dug up by animal rights extremists.

David, John and Chris Hall said that Darley Oaks farm in Staffordshire in the English Midlands would close by the end of the year. Their family, friends and business associates have been subjected to a six-year campaign of intimidation that culminated in activists digging up and stealing the remains of Chris Hall's 82-year-old mother-in-law, Gladys Hammond, from St Peter's churchyard in nearby Yoxall last October.

Rather than portraying this as some sort of "Wacky foreigners" story, London's Daily Telegraph expresses a much more suitable sentiment (registration required):

The new-style animal rights nutter is as English as cream teas, and he or she is willing to engage in every sort of intimidation, issuing death threats, carrying out fire-bomb attacks, and basically indulging in a species of barbarity different only in degree from the "foreign" terrorists whose actions they find so incomprehensible.

Barbarity is a key word for these nutters: they think it is barbaric to sacrifice the life of small animals for the benefit of scientific research, but think it's OK to dig up the corpse of 82-year-old Gladys Hammond, as they did last October and then boast about where the parts of her body are hidden.

Animal rights "activists" who firebomb property in the name of their beliefs are just as reprehensible as anti-abortion advocates fire bombing clinics and should be treated as such.

2005-08-18T07:18:00.000+01:00

iGloating

It appears that I am not the only one who thinks that Apple gets an armchair ride from the techology press. Charles Wright (who has the Razor blog at the SMH) had this to say:

Here and in the Bleeding Edge column, your humble correspondent has for years been attempting to expose Apple's considerable failings in the area of quality control and product support. Apple, being possibly the world's most arrogant computer company, has largely ignored us.

It's always seemed to us one of those towering ironies that the company which has the world's most loyal customers - so fanatically loyal that they consistently rate it No. 1 for customer service - should treat them so badly.

There are a couple of reasons for this: (a) many Apple users believe that anything but blind enthusiasm might harm the company's prospects or their own reputation as superior technology beings, and are reluctant to complain and (b) many of the journalists who write about Macs seem to feel that they're honourary members of Apple's PR department, rather than working journalists presenting the news without fear or favour.

He links to an article by a US journalist attacking Apple's poor service. He then says this:

We doubt that this is going to cause a sudden interest by Mac writers in questioning the myth of perfection behind which Apple has been allowed to shelter for too long, but who knows, it might inspire Apple users to demand that the journalists reporting on the company do a better job.

On the other hand, we weren't all that surprised to find in the comments beneath Dan Gilmor's article the following accusation:

"I wonder how many years it will take until it is discovered that there’s “payola” in the blog world. 'Prominent' bloggers suddenly decide to go against a company because the competitor starts paying them ... and all of a sudden there’s 'more bad press for Apple'.

Some people are beyond help.

Amusingly, he gets pretty much the same treatment from the iMob in his own comments section:

I can't believe this.... I'm finally absorbing all these extraordinary comments and then I note that this whole episode is sponsored by IBM ....lets assassinate Apple! or at least allow the debate to solicate fear and concern.....wow the opposition must be truly concerned about Apples growing market share!

What a lame bunch.
Led from the bottom by the chap who upgraded his operating system without checking to see if his programs were compatable with it --
Through the chap who couldn't be bothered reading the manual and then gets hacked off when the problem is he didn't read the manual --
Right on up to incredibly complex and obviously unique stories of one-off errors.
What is the matter with you people?
Never had a car break down? A washing machine glitch? A watch stop?
Computers are bits of technology. They break. This is universal. Bits of Apple techology are no different in that regard. But do try to look at the whole picture.
Apple is a computer company so widely copied and followed that many things we think of as "standard" wouldn't exist without them. Things like the Windows operating system, the idea of plug & play, the idea that devices should just work.
Apple's constantly pushing boundaries. And yet no company has ever been more unjustly criticised for being simply _not perfect_.
Is there real news in Razor, somewhere?

how strange all the people with a beef with apple have bad things to say.... still if apple do give bad service which in 5 years and many varied devices ( i even dropped an i pod in a bucket of water and they fixed that)i've yet to expeirence, it is still better than having to deal with 10 times as many problems in microsoft land...

etc etc. It really is like you insulted their mother or something.

2005-08-16T07:53:00.000+01:00

A-a-awesome

Some of you may have already seen this, but if not, and you:

a) hate email and ebay scammers; and
b) have a spare 15 minutes,

then read and enjoy the story of the P-P-Powerbook. It is an absolutely brilliant story of when nerds attack.

I hope the wannabe scammer enjoys his new computer.

2005-08-15T01:37:00.000+01:00

Rad

So some of your mates think they are pretty smart because they built themselves a spud gun out of PVC parts?

Try a home built PVC flamethrower on for size then.

I love the internet.

2005-08-11T06:28:00.000+01:00

Down on success

Crikey.com.au has got stuck into the Downer family by criticising the recent winning of an exclusive scholarship by Alexander Downer's daughter, Georgina. They pose a series of rhetorical questions:

Does an Australian foreign minister have a conflict of interest if a close member of his family is awarded a prestigious scholarship by a country which uses such scholarships to "contribute to the maintenance of a strong relationship between the countries"?

Is an unfortunate perception created during a time of war when the daughter of the foreign minister receives a valuable benefit from one of Australia's key allies in that war?

But are careful to say this:

Crikey isn't suggesting any impropriety by either Mr Downer or his daughter in her successful application for one of the Chevening scholarships, due to be announced in a few weeks' time. Nor do we suggest any kind of direct interference by Mr Downer. (emphasis added)

Except that by writing the article in the first place, thats exactly what they are suggesting. To add to their suggestion of undue influence, they also decide to attack her academic results:

According to the application forms, Chevening scholarships are available each year to a small number of Australians who have "obtained, or expected to obtain, at least an upper second class undergraduate degree" (in 2003, for example, seven out of eight Chevening scholars had first class honours degrees). Georgina Downer was awarded a third class honours degree from Melbourne University.

Not only does the selection process include an interview component, but maybe the selection panel also realised that not all honours degrees are created equal.

After they contacted Mr Downer's office, they got this answer:

Through his spokesman Mr Downer told Crikey: "Every time she has been successful in life she has had to put up with this accusation. She should be left alone to pursue her own successful career."

I couldn't agree more - while they are at it, why doesn't Crikey also suggest that she only got her job at Minter Ellison (a top tier law firm) because the firm was hoping for government work?

Georgina Downer has not replied to our emails.

Good. What do they expect her to say?

In writing this story we do feel badly for Georgina Downer. She's not a politician and, as her father says, she should be left to live her own life and have her own privacy. She doesn't deserve this attention.

I am not sure I believe that they do feel bad, but either way, you can hear the "but" coming from a mile off.

But the harsh reality is that when someone decides to take on high political office they drag their families into their net. And in a democracy where proper and open conduct is critical, that's exactly as it should be. Which means that sometimes, in the interests of optics and fairness, family members of powerful politicians must refrain from doing things they could do if they weren't a close relative of a government minister.

You should certainly never take advantage of something like that, but nor should Downer's children be expected to hamper their own lives and careers because of it.

Alexander Downer shouldn't have done this to his daughter – or to Australia.

Ignoring the sanctimonious tone of that last line, it also sums up what is wrong with this article. What exactly is Downer accused of having "done" to his daughter and Australia? They keep saying they don't think he interfered, which means the only people that have "done" things are Georgina in applying, and the scholarship committee in awarding it to her.

What should Downer have done - told his 25 year old legally qualified daughter what she can and can't apply for? Spiked her chances by having a quiet word to the committee? Who would or should do that to their children?

Thankfully, Crikey's readership appears to have taken issue with this as well:

Now that my derision has subsided, I feel moved to respond to your two days of vilification of Alexander Downer, and now his daughter, for God's sake. What do you people know of proper conduct? (You have criticised the absolutely proper ostracising of the low-life socialite who Edward VII married). Now you are so small and narrow as to be critical of a perfectly good Australian sense of humour in Downer. Your attack on him in relation to his daughter is utterly and transparently petty.

and

Oh, bullsh*t! Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I read somewhere in this diatribe that Georgina Downer is a 25-year-old woman with a career of her own? What right has Downer or anyone else to direct or expect his independent adult daughter to limit her career ambitions because some idiot journalist somewhere might exercise their political prejudice against him on the basis of her actions? Grow up.

though there is this:

How could anyone with a third class honours degree be awarded a scholarship of any kind at any university – let alone a $50,000 scholarship at the LSE? Third class honours are virtually a fail. Even upper second class degrees will not get you a postgraduate position in many faculties at Australian universities. When I was involved in selecting graduates for employment somebody with a third would not even get an interview.

Funny, Minter Ellison didn't seem to think so. I guess a third class honour in creative writing or something similar may be considered close to a fail, but third class honours in Law at the University of Melbourne ain't no pushover. And then there is this:

The British public should be equally or more concerned that the British Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office with their Chevening scholarship are failing the people of Britain. Consider these facts. 1. Mummy is/was a British citizen and I believe has family in Britain. 2. Daddy was virtually an adopted Brit even to being a member of the British Young Conservatives. (Incidentally Radley College is a private school and not an Oxford Uni College, as the article implied). 3. Georgina has probably been to the UK more times than she can remember.

So he doesn't know the citizenship of her mother, he "believes" they have family in the UK, her father is an anglophile and Georgina has "probably" been to the UK more times than she can remember. What a well researched and fairly argued position to take.

The bottom line is that Alexander Downer annoys some people because of his background, family, education etc. This is a just another excuse to have a crack at him, using the success of one of his children as a convenient weapon.

2005-08-09T23:43:00.000+01:00

Article gets an "F"

Remember the snickering that occured when a teachers union in England wanted to replace the word "fail" with "deferred success"? If Neil Hooley's views are representative of the current crop of education lecturers in Australia, we could be heading the same way.

We can perhaps excuse ourselves a wry smile when we hear that the Federal Government is demanding that all schools fly the national flag. This is part of the agreement reached between Canberra and all states and territories on the provision of $31 billion of funding over the next five years. Interestingly, and as far as I am aware, flying the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander flag is not included in the contract.

Why is that interesting? Australia has one flag, that's the one that should be flown. I don't believe the flags of the states are part of the contract either, is that also "interesting"?

Unfortunately, it gets worse.

Yes it does.

States and territories are also required to ensure that student reports are based on a system of letter grades, A to E. Apparently, parents are confused by other terminology that might use words such as "established", "consolidated", "developed" and the like.

I am not so sure that parents are "confused", more likely they are annoyed or frustrated that such vague terms are used.

A grade of B, for example, is very explicit and everyone knows what it means.

Yep.

But if I received a piece of paper inscribed with the letter B and nothing else, I would have very little idea of what was intended.

And you teach at a university? Of course comments can be provided suggesting how work could be improved, but where is the vice in providing a grade as well?

We have a distinct choice here. Either it is appropriate to draw up an absolute scale that measures achievement, or we look at progress that has been made over time.

So applying that logic to sport, the award for "most improved" should be more prestigious than that for "best and fairest" because the B & F winner may have won it last year as well, and therefore hasn't made as much "progress" as the willing but inferior player? Actually, Hooley does attempt to apply it to sport:

Matthew Hayden, for example, took a decade to break into the Australian cricket team and overcame many hurdles along the way. An absolute rating during his journey may have been a fail.

Actually, on a scale of A to E, it would be perfectly possible to compare Hayden's career to his peers and come up with a mark. This could be done per season (his tour of the sub-continent getting an A, his current tour of England getting a D) or over his entire career.

The allocation of absolute grades to the learning of children fits into a particular logic of knowledge.

Uh-oh.

This says that schools are involved in the passing on of predetermined information or subject content that can be known, taught, assessed and rated accurately at each age or year level.

He has a problem with schools "passing on" information that can be "known"? What role does he think schools should perform?

An alternative view indicates that children learn by building their own knowledge and that learning is always a work in progress. Under these conditions, it is highly problematic whether predetermined content can be known, taught, assessed and rated accurately.

Any school whose "logic" states that "predetermined content" cannot be known or taught has no right to call itself a school.

Can we construct one paradigm as more equitable than the other?

I hope this guy doesn't lecture in grammar.

Does it really matter whether criteria are used, whether one logic or the other is followed? There are two concerns.

If you are lecturing teachers to believe that kiddies can only build their own knowledge, and cannot be assessed on predetermined content, then I have more than two concerns.

First, not all children approach learning in the same way and following one approach will, by definition, exclude large numbers of children who prefer the other. Second, adopting one logic, whichever it is, says to children that there is only one way to learn and that deviation from this leads to personal and educational failure.

Note to kiddies - believing that there can never be a "correct approach" and that on your "learning voyage" only you can "build your own knowledge" will lead to educational failure, except in arts degress and lecturing in education apparently.

What many teachers try to do to get around these problems is to develop an inclusive curriculum that recognises the different approaches. The framework of learning involves participation with the knowledge, ideas and practices of others, but the starting point for inclusion is the child's interests, history and intent. The framework is democratic and inquiry-based rather than autocratic and obligatory.

I would never suggest that education shouldn't be tailored to a child's needs to a certain extent, but you can never have a "democratic" and voluntary framework - otherwise most kids would vote to do bugger all. How much maths would get taught in a democtratic classroom...?

Parents will make up their own minds, but children may have little option to do so, locked in the iron cage of A to E determinism.

They got children released from compulsory detention, surely getting them out of determinism should be a breeze by comparison.

2005-08-08T23:30:00.000+01:00

Hysteria alert

Do you oppose compulsory student unionism? Well why don't you go burn some crosses then:

Federal Liberal MP Tony Smith's advice to his National (that is, Country) Party colleagues on this page on July 5 could not be worse. His constant identification of opposition to making fees optional as a left-wing plot is about as dated and accurate as the southern racists' claim (see Mississippi Burning starring Gene Hackman) that the civil rights workers murdered in 1964 were representing that terrible communist, Martin Luther King.

Thats from Robert Solomon by the way, ex-Liberal MP. I think its a great idea to try and convince people by comparing people you oppose to the KKK. Furthermore, I also try and gather all my historical references from Hollywood films.

2005-08-05T03:56:00.000+01:00

Nuclear powered George

A George Monbiot article is pretty much self-fisking. The fact that he really only has one or two themes (West = bad) makes it even easier.

Nevertheless, his current article in the Age (cribbed, unsurprisingly, from the Guardian) warrants a few responses.

Lets start with the headline:

The world learned nothing from Hiroshima

Not true. The world, or at least the countries which constitute it, learned not to f_ck with the USA face to face. After the unconditional surrender of Japan, wars occured by proxy (Korea, Vietnam) or by non-State parties (9/11).

Tomorrow is the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. The nuclear powers are commemorating it in their own special way: by seeking to ensure that the experiment is repeated.

Note the language - "seeking" - i.e. actively pursuing and "ensure" - guarantee it will occur. In other words, Monbiot is not saying that Chimpbushitler and his poodle Tony bLiar are bumbling along a course which might inadvertently lead to another nuclear attack, he is claiming that they are purposely trying to make it occur. Not a good start for the rest of the article.

Bush wanted to destroy the treaty because it couldn't be reconciled with his new plans. Earlier this year, the Senate approved an initial $4 million ($A5.1 million) for research into a "robust nuclear earth penetrator" (RNEP). This is a bomb with a yield about 10 times that of the Hiroshima device, designed to blow up underground bunkers that might contain weapons of mass destruction. (You've spotted the contradiction.)

err, no I haven't. Is the contradiction supposed to be that the US are developing nuclear weapons designed to destroy other people's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? If so, is there a contradiction in them developing planes which are designed to shoot down enemy planes?

You see what a wonderful world he inhabits when you discover that the RNEP idea was conceived in 1991 as a means of dealing with Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Saddam is pacing his cell, but the Bushites, like the Japanese soldiers lost in Malaya, march on.

Good point George - Saddam is the only tinpot dictator who has thought of hiding his weapons (or his command and communication network) in underground bunkers. With him out of the way, I don't think we need bombs of any sort anymore.

To pursue his war against the phantom of the phantom of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, Bush has destroyed the treaty that prevents the use of real ones.

There in a nut shell is the error in the thinking of many of the UN and international law boosters - the NPT does not "prevent" the use of real weapons, any more than the Treaty of Versailles prevented Germany rearming.

But the biggest disaster was Bush's meeting with Singh last month. India is one of three countries that possess nuclear weapons and refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Wait, so even with the NPT in place, at least three countries have managed to acquire nuclear weapons? Shouldn't the treaty have prevented this? And when you are quoting Iran to make your point, you know your are really in trouble:

The implications have not been lost on other states. "India is looking after its own national interests," a spokesman for the Iranian Government complained on Wednesday. "We cannot criticise them for this. But what the Americans are doing is a double standard. On the one hand they are depriving an NPT member from having peaceful technology, but at the same time they are co-operating with India, which is not a member of the NPT."

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, yet is widely considered to have developed, or be close to developing, nuclear weapons.

North Korea ratified the treaty, the pulled out over a dispute over inspections. They have also publicly declared that they do have nuclear weapons. This has all occured prior to the moves by Bush and Blair which Monbiot is so critical of.

Thanks to Bush and Blair, we might not go out with a whimper after all.

Pop quiz - who is most likely to launch a nuclear attack:

a) terrorists;
b) Iran;
c) North Korea;
d) United Kingdom; or
e) United States?

If it were a), b) or c), George would still have us believe, even as the mushroom cloud settled over London or Washington, that it was all our fault.

2005-08-04T05:17:00.000+01:00

Amazing what you can buy nowadays...

Crikey.com.au has an article regarding the recent comments made by Andrew Fraser, Associate Professor, Department of Public Law at Macquarie University.

The article itself isn't that interesting, but the Google Ad on the sidebar is magic:

White Slavery
Great deals on
White Slavery
Shop on eBay and
Save!
www.ebay.com

It would explain where Crikey gets some of its quality articles from I guess.

2005-08-04T00:51:00.000+01:00

Consulting the Oracle

Do my psychic powers know no bounds? This was how I finished a mini-rant against Apple:

Oh, you might want to join the rest of us and get used to a grown up 2 (or 7) button mouse as well.

Two months later, we get this:

Apple on Tuesday introduced its first computer mouse with multiple buttons, including four sensors and a tiny scroll ball. Although a departure from the company's traditional mouse, the "Mighty Mouse" looks very similar to the single-button model Apple has long produced.

Of course, in keeping with Apple's usual policy, this mouse will set you back $80. For a corded mouse.

2005-08-02T06:31:00.000+01:00

Movin' on down

Good news people. For all of you frustrated that Australia didn't have a home grown version of Moveon.org, there is now hope.

GetUp.org.au has now launched. Rather than one of those boring political parties that require attendence at branch meetings, handing out pamphlets, attending policy discussions etc, this is a political movement for the 21st century - high on indignation, low on required effort

Rather than sitting through tedious party branch meetings, the outfit will ask voters to donate to web and TV ads, think up their own campaign ideas and lobby politicians by email and SMS.

And the geniuses behind this?

The project is the brainchild of Jeremy Heimans and David Madden, who met while studying at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard in the US.

Last year the pair started Win Back Respect, a group that produced attack ads during last year's US presidential race arguing that George Bush's foreign policy was damaging America's world standing.

And look how sucessful they were.

Using small donations from online contributors, Win Back Respect paid for a speaking tour by General Wesley Clark and hired a charter plane for the Band of Sisters, a group of female relatives of US soldiers killed or serving in Iraq, to chase Vice-President Dick Cheney on the campaign trail.

Wow, they paid a losing Democrat presidential nominee to do a speaking tour, then exploited the deaths of US servicemen in Iraq to harass the US Vice-President. I can't wait for such tactics to be applied in Australia. Why not get Latham to do a speaking tour, or get relative of Bali victims to harass Treasurer Costello? Success in a bottle I tells ya.

Now Mr Heimans, 27, and Mr Madden, 30, want to translate that success to Australia, hoping to reach people who have progressive political views but little time and money.

I am pretty sure that line about success was meant with a straight face.

They have already made their first television advertisement — a spot that features ordinary Australians warning the Howard Government that voters will hold them to account for their Senate majority now that Parliament cannot.

So a movement that scorns traditional politics wants to remind a traditional (and highly sucessful) political organisation that they will have to answer to voters in a few years time? Wow guys, talk about subverting the dominant paradigm.

The group's initial recruitment target is the 69,000 Australian-based email subscribers of MoveOn, another political group in the US that campaigned to oust Mr Bush from office last year with donated funds.

Now here is a curious thing - how did they get those emails? The website of MoveOn states:

We treat your contact information as private and confidental. We will not provide your contact information to any other organization except MoveOn.org Civic Action unless you specifically authorize us to do so.

I wonder if all of these 69,000 people "specifically authorised" MoveOn to give their details to GetUp. If not, why should anybody believe GetUp when they claim:

GetUp will not provide your personal information to any other organisation except where necessary eg to verify credit card transactions or as required by law.

We won't sell, trade or exchange your information without your permission.

But I shouldn't mock them. This kind of organisation is drawing together people who have though a lot about the issue facing us today, and have meaningful contributions to make regarding improving things. People like "Sean":

"I'm concerned about education, environmental infrastructure, changes to industrial relations, and indigenous disadvantage. I want to do something about this stuff."

Right on man - lets fix this "stuff". Or "Alex"

"I want to be a member of GetUp because when the chips are down and we've got a big fight on our hands I am the kind of guy that thinks to himself, "Get up and fight!" GetUp typifies that type of Aussie determination I hold close to my heart."

Careful Alex - those sentiments appear to be endorsing violent resistance, not to mention stereotyping about Australian attitudes - you don't want to be brought before the GetUp People's Committee let me tell you. "Luke" is all about being fair:

"I'm getting involved because I just reckon this country's not fair anymore. Australia was always a fair country, but I don't think that's true anymore. I've joined GetUp to make this country a fair place again."

Fair enough. He makes a fair point really, repeatedly. Simon wants to do something, but doesn't want to have to pay membership fees or help out at election time:

"I joined GetUp because I'm not interested in joining a political party but I'm still interested in politics. I don't want to just have my say one day every three years."

OMG - by joining GetUp you can like totally SMS the Government everyday mang!

Labor should try and get GetUp to organise a flash mob at the next leadership vote.

2005-07-26T02:57:00.000+01:00

OMG - th1s is the hax0r!

I am not sure you could get a more specific audience that this would appeal to, but if you happen to play Real Time Strategy computer games online *and* you are a fan of WWII history, then I recommend you check out this.

Its the chat room traffic if WWII had been a RTS, starring Hitler[AoE], Eisenhower, paTTon, Churchill, benny-tow, T0J0 etc. Very clever in places.

2005-07-21T03:04:00.000+01:00

Reds over their heads

Via the House of Blair, comes this wonderful tidbit:

Green Left Weekly is facing a serious financial crisis. Last year we finished
with a $35,000 deficit and so far this year are almost $65,000 down — that’s a
combined shortfall of $100,000! We have borrowed to keep going, but if this
trend continues we can’t go on. It’s as simple as that.

I am sure this will upset the rest of you as it did me. Apart from signalling the continuing slow death of plain speaking alternative media in this country, it did raise two other interesting points:

1. Who is lending these monkeys the money? Surely any self respecting bank would laugh itself silly if these clowns came in looking for an overdraft facility?

2. Doesn't their impending doom suggest that the capitalist system is working a treat, and that therfore their entire basis for existence is wrong? Look at the facts - you publish a crap newspaper (i.e. your product) that hardly anybody reads (i.e. the market isn't interested in it) and therefore you don't make enough money to survive (i.e. you are non-sustainable). Survival of the fittest my friends, creative destruction, red in tooth and claw etc etc.

The Age should take note.

2005-07-14T23:56:00.000+01:00

On the other side

With such blind hatred of Bush and Howard, is it possible for Richard Ackland to write an even slightly balanced opinion piece?

THE war on terrorism doesn't seem to be going so well. The rhetoric from world leaders, and the Prime Minister, John Howard, keeps being cranked up, but the sound is dreadfully hollow.
Four days after the London bombings, the US President, George Bush, was making vacuous noises to a gathering of FBI trainees at Quantico, Virginia.

After introducing the Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, as "General" and referring to the Drug Enforcement Administration as the "Drug Administration", Bush got down to some well-worn tub-thumping.

Hold it right there. Unlike SMH readers, we have the benefit of the transcript. Here is what Bush said:

I appreciate our Attorney General, Al Gonzales, who has joined us today. General, thank you for being here. I want to thank Ambassador John Negroponte, the Director of the National Intelligence. Thanks for coming, Mr. Director. I appreciate Director Bob Mueller, of the FBI -- doing a fantastic job. Thank you, Bob, for coming. Director Porter Goss of the CIA; Administrator Karen Tandy of the Drug Administration -- the Drug Enforcement Administration -- (Laughter.) Thank you, Karen.

Which shows that Bush introduced him as "Attorney General", then made a verbal slip up - which he corrected - regarding the DEA. We will assume that Ackland has never misspoken in any form of public speaking before. Of course, without the transcript, you would never had known this, and the Bush McChimpHitler bandwagon rolls on.

To the graduating trainees: "America is counting on you to stop them [the terrorists]."

Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that, as Mark Twain said of Wagner's music, "it's not as bad as it sounds".

Is it only me that doesn't see anything wrong with Bush telling a group of FBI agents that their country is relying on them to stop terrorist attacks? I know Ackland must be extremely intelligent (he quotes Twain after all), so am I just too stupid to see the problem?

Bush reiterated that airport and seaport security was being strengthened, better visa screening procedures were happening, cross-border movement of terrorists was being checked, and critical infrastructure was being protected.

Thats a surprisingly accurate summary of what Bush said.

You'd have to go back to his speech on the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003, to find something even more delusional.

No one would argue that security arrangements in the US are perfect, but is Ackland suggesting that it is "delusional" to say that security has been beefed up since September 11? Is he blind?

There, the commander-in-chief proclaimed that the toppling of Saddam Hussein was "a victory in a war on terror".

So now suggesting that toppling Hussein (who supported and harboured terrorists) was a victory in the war on terro is even more delusional than suggesting that security has been increased? Oh jeez.

Now all the billions of dollars, the airport security, the round-the-clock watch on infrastructure, the new-fangled anti-terrorist laws, the entire apparatus seems incredibly misdirected in the face of a home-grown terrorist who is knocking up bombs in the bathtub in Leeds, who crosses no borders, who does not need a visa and whose training kit is on the internet.

Except that Leeds isn't in the United States Richard.

Still Bush insists Iraq is a "central front" in the war on terrorism. Howard thinks the same. "I want to make it very plain that this kind of attack [in London] will not alter the attitude of the Government of Australia towards terrorism and towards the commitments we have with our American, British and other friends to Iraq and Afghanistan." We will not be bullied. We will not be intimidated. Rah, rah, rah.

Sorry Richard, does rhetoric against terrorists bore you? Would you rather a more "nuanced" position be taken - where our leaders say that they understand the terrorists concerns and will seek to address the "root causes"? Depressingly, I think he would like a much more concilliatory tone.

But to be told by political leaders that we are winning the war and that this brutality cannot intimidate people, or that somehow the war in Iraq is stopping terrorism, is tripe.

Pop quiz - since the invasion of Iraq, how many terrorist attacks have occured on US soil? I will make it easier for you - how many have occured since September 11, and the increased security resulting from it? Give up? Answer - none.

What has been fascinating, though, is the way Blair has responded to this attack. Unlike Bush, Blair has not immediately looked to invade someone. Instead, he has talked about the need to address the hatred that is being taught to, and absorbed by, some Muslim youths.

I will say this slowly for him - The attackers on September 11 were from the middle east, trained and supported by Al Qeada, who in turn was supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush didn't immediately invade anyone, but when the US did retaliate, it was against a country that harboured the people behind the 9/11 attacks. The people who bombed London were from Britain. Therefore Blair is looking to address that source. Whilst talk of invading Leeds might make some happy, the approach Blair took is appropriate, as was Bush's.

2005-07-12T00:18:00.000+01:00

Phil stinks up the place

Who would have ever thought that Phillip Adams would jump on the "London deserved to be bombed" bandwagon?

Actually, I don't even need to paraphrase his position - the headline of his vile article is "Britain had this coming" Hear that Susan Levy? Phillip Adams thinks you deserved to die.

I struggle to express how angry this makes me. That someone could write this filfth at all is pretty disturbing, but to think that it appears in a national broadsheet, and that we pay him to host a weekly radio show, is even worse.

He attempts to justify this by suggesting that around 60 people will die in Iraq today, around 20 will be kidnapped, and then ludicrously claims that such events in Baghdad won't be reported in the Australian media. Have you opened a newspaper or listened to your ABC in the last couple of years Phil?

Then we get the "yes, but" approach:

Yes, what happened last week in London was appalling. But it happens every day in Iraq.

Not content with downplaying the outrage in London, he then seeks to *defend* Saddam's regime:

Things were crook before but have been far worse since.

Gassing Kurds was "crook"? Any by what measure are they worse?

Pinned down by sanctions, inspections and fly-overs, still licking his wounds from the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's greatest crimes were long behind him.

Well that's okay then. Forgive and forget I say.

The mass graves were history.

And you would prefer them consigned to the dustbin of history too wouldn't you Phil?

Unlike those humdrum bombings in Baghdad, the slaughter in London was big news. And let's be clear about it: the people who died in the subway tunnels and on the bus were victims of the Iraq war. They died because of Blair's London Bridge, the one he built from the Thames to the Euphrates.

No Phillip - lets be clear about it. Those people died because an unknown number of people detonated 4 explosive devices on three trains and a bus.

Had he not misled his nation into that murderous folly of an invasion, the people would have walked off the trains instead of being carried off on stretchers. Or had their body parts collected in bags.

Amazing that he knows the minds of the murderers so well. He knows that if it weren't for Iraq, this never would have happened. He knows that these scum wouldn't have just picked a different grievance - like Afghanistan or support for Israel. Amazing.

Blair's response? The same rhetoric, the same mock-heroics, a renewed commitment to the political and strategic idiocy of George W. Bush. You can hear his spin doctors thinking: "If we play this right, we'll improve in the polls."

Whereas we don't need to be mindreaders to hear Phillip use it to score political points - he has written it down for us.

And everyone, most of all Howard and Alexander Downer, knows this is twaddle. The selection of targets is largely based on involvement in, and enthusiasm for, Bush's new world order.

Only largely based? Weren't you just telling us that if it weren't for Iraq, and Iraq only, then the London bombings would never have happened?

The great divide between those who supported the invasion of Iraq and those of us who opposed it is as wide as ever. We seem to live in different universes, with both sides using the London bombings to support their positions.

Here, finally, he admits that he is "using" the murder of 50 people to support his position against the Iraq war. Don't accuse me of the same thing as you Phillip. Don't even dare.

UPDATE

Christopher Hitchens provides a list of reasons why Britain had it coming:

The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.

And even has words for Phil and his ilk:

I know perfectly well there are people thinking, and even saying, that Tony Blair brought this upon us by his alliance with George Bush.

A word of advice to them: try and keep it down, will you? Or wait at least until the funerals are over. And beware of the non-sequitur: you can be as opposed to the Iraq operation as much as you like, but you can't get from that "grievance" to the detonating of explosives at rush hour on London buses and tubes.

Don't even try to connect the two. By George Galloway's logic, British squaddies in Iraq are the root cause of dead bodies at home. How can anyone bear to be so wicked and stupid? How can anyone bear to act as a megaphone for psychotic killers?

Good question - do you have any answer Phillip?

2005-07-11T03:28:00.000+01:00

Brainbusters

Here is a wonderful collection of idiocy. It appears that the canadian "anti-globalisation media organisation" Adbusters, has gotten into the sneaker business.

Their logic is hilarious. Apparently Converse were okay with the kids, because, like Kurt Cobain totally wore them. But then Converse got bought by Nike (boo-hiss) so when your Converse got worn out, you couldn't buy new ones in good conscience anymore.

The solution? Adbusters will totally rip off Converse's intellectual property and make fake Chuck Taylor All Stars. Its okay though - they will use "organic hemp and biodegradable rubber" (don't leave your new sneakers in the sun kids!) as well as "ethical labour".

Amusingly for an "anti-globalisation" organisation, the search for an "ethical factory" took them to China, North Korea (supporting communist dictators - well done!) and Indonesia, before settling on Portugal. Sounds a bit globalised to me...

Apparently setting up a brand isn't setting up a brand though - by ripping off someone else's intellectual property you are making an "anti-brand"

Designed by John Fluevog, the "unswoosher" encourages you to "rethink the Cool". It has white handpainted circles, resembling a smudged-out swoosh - the Nike tick insignia - on the side, a black spot stamped on the sole and a small red dot on each toe, symbolising kicking Phil Knight's backside. "We are not just selling sneakers, but we are somehow slagging (Nike's) swoosh, letting millions of people around the world know that Nike is not cool any more," says Mr Lasn.

Wow, thanks for letting me know that Mr Lasn. Aren't you supposed to be opposed to corporations telling kids what to think?

And please tell me that this paragraph doesn't sound like it comes from an Adbusters press release?:

Adbusters has been criticising consumer culture and companies such as Nike, McDonald's and Philip Morris for more than 15 years through its eponymous bi-monthly magazine, which turns the tactics of glossy advertising against itself. It has been successful in encouraging people all over the world to participate in Buy Nothing Day and TV Turnoff Week, and launched Unbrand America campaigns.

Of course helping out alleged sweatshop workers isn't what its all about:

The organisation has pushed the anti-sweatshop line to promote the Blackspot sneaker, but Mr Lasn admits it wasn't his main motivation.

What he really opposes is the pseudo culture and empowerment that Nike, typical of many companies, delivers with its products. It "is ramming it down the throats of teenagers who don't know any better, by basically buying off celebrities to create (its) bogus cool," Mr Lasn says.

That wasn't put in quotes - the journalist is saying that Nike (and many other companies) deliver pseudo culture and empowerment. Was he pulling bongs with Mr Lasn before he wrote this?

But the real fun starts when you run the idea past other members of the loony left:

But not everyone is excited about Adbusters' new commercial project. Luther Blisset, a Melbourne-based writer for activist media website Indymedia, is sceptical about any long-term benefits of the Blackspot sneaker because it bears too many contradictions.

Not to mention no appeal or design skill outside ripping off a recognised classic.

"Corporations exist to make money," he says. "They can be as ethical as they want to up to a certain point where the actual profitability or viability of the project becomes a problem. These social relations that capitalism produces, you can't escape them just by adding an ethical tag to your product. They have to continually expand if they can survive, so they have to conform to the capitalist logic."

Well done to Luther for realising the purpose of corporations, too bad he seems to consider it automatically a bad thing. After all, who would want Adbusters to sell more shoes, thus providing more income for hemp producers, biodegradable rubber manufacturers and Portugese shoe makers? Companies are bad don'tcha know?

Simon Wood, editor of Melbourne-based biannual magazine Sneaker Freaker, owns more than 100 pairs of sneakers, mostly Nike. He likes the idea of Blackspot and the way its been marketed, but not the design. "If you ask anyone that likes shoes, they find that ultimately the product is really boring. It's not a good product," he says. "It's a shame they didn't think up their own design. They haven't spent any money on researching or anything."

Ignoring the credibility of a man who owns 100 pairs of shoes, he makes an excellent point - the shoes are an ugly rip off. Some people may have the money to buy these to make a statement, but most people will buy the original, or if they are looking for ugly rip-offs, buy a pair for $20 at the local market.

Mr Lasn considers himself a pioneer of a new, more effective phase of anti-globalisation activism. "A lot of activists and lefties agree with us, that we have to start being more effective and thinking outside the lefty box," he says. "Instead of whining about other peoples brands, why don't we launch our own anti-logo and demolish other brands, and instead of talking forever about killing capitalism, which isn't going to happen any time soon - it may never happen - why not create a more grassroots kind of capitalism that will improve people's lives?"

Instead of whining about brands, they are going to launch an "anti-logo" - isn't that pretty much a brand? Isn't selling it as an alternative to Nike, and stressing its ethical credentials what those of us in the real world like to call product differentiation or even *gasp* marketing?

Adbusters is now seeking to apply its grassroots capitalism model to other industries, namely hospitality and music.

I am looking forward to them breaking down the globalised model of music distribution that has led to bongo and tambourine music being controlled by a select few "suits".

"When you walk into McDonalds, your french fries may have come from 200 miles away," Mr Lasn says. "When you walk into a Blackspot restaurant, you know that every morsel of food that you put into your mouth comes from within 50 miles of where you are.

bwhahahaahah - where to start? Okay, by the same token, shouldn't my sneakers also come from 50 miles away, rather then Portugal? And music - does it have to be recorded by someone in my neighbourhood.

This is the childish contradiction that I have always struggled with in relation to "anti-globalisation" "activists". What the hell is globalisation? Is the internet not the most powerful engine of globalisation ever developed? Are they not massive users, and even advocates of its ability to connect people across geographical and cultural boundaries?

When they wanted to make some knock-off sneakers, they went to a foreign country to take advantage of its cheaper labour. When they wanted to sell them, they use a network of people around the globe to do so. But when they want a hamburger and fries, they want it to have been grown locally.

A bit of internal logic (and more frequent showers) is all I ask people.

2005-07-11T03:22:00.000+01:00

More stiff upper lip goodness

Further to my post below, here is a longer list of UK quotes after the bombing (thanks to Laura for the heads up).

It must be said that it easy to sound cocky when a) you haven't just been horribly injured or b) you are in Australia, but the combination of the stiff upper lip and the dry humour is a winner for me. Especially when it leads to stuff like this:

God I love the British...Nobody does pissed off disdain like 'em...

----------

When the news reporter said "Shopkeepers are opening their doors bringing out blankets and cups of tea" I just smiled. It's like yes. That's Britain for you. Tea solves everything.
You're a bit cold? Tea.
Your boyfriend has just left you? Tea.
You've just been told you've got cancer? Tea.
Coordinated terrorist attack on the transport network bringing the city to a grinding halt? TEA DAMMIT!
And if it's really serious, they may bring out the coffee.

----------

To quote an old Londoner who lived through the blitz and got caught up in the Canary Wharf explosion: "I've been blown up by a better class of bastard than this!"

----------

"We took on the Romans, the Saxons, the Danes, the French, William Wallace, the Black Plague, the Roundheads, the Great Fire, Napoleon, the Nazis, and the Blitz, and we're still here. You terrorists are bloody amateurs."

----------

"I'm vague on Muslim theology but the asshats responsible need to go to a "special paradise" where the virgins won't put out."

2005-07-08T02:41:00.000+01:00

Movie review

Saw War of the Worlds the other day. Very well made movie, but I have just two comments/questions (mild spoiler alert):

1. If the aliens wish to invade a country where every person has seen how to destroy an AT-AT in the Empire Strikes Back, then they deserve everything they get.

2. Why was that guy's camcorder still working?!?

2005-07-08T02:36:00.000+01:00

Stiff upper lip

The picture coming out of London regarding the bombings is still pretty confused, and there are a myriad of sources available for up to date information, so I won't try and duplicate those. All I will do is quote something which summed up what I love about the British character:

I have a prediction to make, that tomorrow we’ll find out whether Britons are, still, in fact, Britons. Many years ago I was working in The City and there were two events that made travel into work almost impossible.

The first was a series of storms that brought down power lines, blocked train routes and so on. Not surprisingly, the place was empty the next day. Why bother to struggle through?

The other event was an IRA bomb which caused massive damage and loss of life. Trains were disrupted, travel to work the next day was horribly difficult and yet there were more people at work than on a normal day. There was no co-ordination to this, no instructions went out, but it appeared that people were crawling off their sick beds in order to be there at work the next day, thrusting their mewling and pewling infants into the arms of anyone at all so that they could be there.

Yes, we’ll take an excuse for a day off, throw a sickie. But you threaten us, try to kill us? Kill and injure some of us?

Fuck you, sunshine.

We’ll not be having that.

No grand demonstrations, few warlike chants, a desire for revenge, of course, but the reaction of the average man and woman in the street? Yes, you’ve tried it now bugger off. We’re not scared, no, you won’t change us. Even if we are scared, you can still bugger off.

2005-07-05T09:12:00.000+01:00

Jobs for mates

Remember that strange column in the Age regarding the threats to the existence of the BBC? The one which raised suggestions of the new editor giving jobs to his mates?

It was written by Alan Taylor, and did not mention the ABC, or display any relevance to Australia whatsoever.

Well he's back, and it appears he is here to stay. Yesterday brought another article by Taylor, under the byline of "Eye on Britain". The topic was the possible introduction of ID cards into Britain. No reference to Australia, or suggestion of how trends in UK may be a forerunner of what we can expect here.

I guess Jaspan would just respond that the type of Age reader he is trying to attract is perfectly able to make any such connections themselves, and doesn't need his overseas mates to spell it out for them.

Or he could just be flinging plum jobs to his mates - you decide.

2005-07-01T04:49:00.000+01:00

no dah

An interesting interview with US President Bush by the Times' Gerard Baker contains this gem:

In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media.

Bush also drops a few jokes:

Mr Bush added a bust of President Eisenhower. It sits to the left of his desk, made from the timbers of HMS Resolute, a Victorian transport ship, another gift from the British. You’re probably the only people in here for whom I don’t need to explain what ‘HMS’ means,” he says. “My Texas friends have no idea what I’m talking about when I tell them.”

As expansive as he is, Mr Bush can’t help betraying a faint irritation at the intrusiveness of the modern media, with a reference to a famous brief medical emergency from a couple of years ago.

He points out the door in the well of the presidential desk, placed there by President Roosevelt to hide the fact that he spent his presidency in a wheelchair. “FDR was in a wheelchair and nobody knows. I choke on a pretzel and the whole world gets to hear about it.”

and Iran?:

Perhaps most revealing is his response to a question about Iran. His words are polite but the President’s body language is eloquent. As I read him a quote from the latest rantings of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, and remind him that the Iranian President was a leader of the students who took Americans hostage in Tehran in 1979, he is visibly agitated. He glances at his advisers with a look of disgust that suggests that the chances of a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis are remoter than ever.

The edited interview transcript is also interesting. On September 11:

So as long as I’m sitting here in this Oval Office, I will never forget the lessons of September 11, and that is that we are in a global war against cold-blooded killers.

Others have forgotten that, or choose to ignore it. On democracy in the Middle East:

Frankly, I rejected the intellectual elitism of some around the world who say, “Well, maybe certain people can’t be free”. I don’t believe that. Of course I was labelled a, you know, blatant idealist.

But I am. Because I do believe people want to be free, regardless of their religion or where they are from. I do believe women should be empowered in the Middle East. I don’t believe we ought to accept forms of government that ultimately create a hopelessness that then can be translated into jihadist violence. And I believe strongly that the ultimate way you defeat an ideology is with a better ideology. And history has proven that. Anyway, you got me going. Starting to give the whole speech again.

The whole interview is quite neutral, albeit with softball questions, and you end up with a much more positive impression of Bush than the vast majority of what you read in the media.

Of course, people will say that the Times is owned by Murdoch, so *of course* they want you to think that....

2005-06-24T01:09:00.000+01:00

The elephant in the room

Here is the News Ltd's report of the recent counter terrorism raids in Melbourne:

COUNTER terrorism agencies believe they have foiled an attack on the Melbourne Stock Exchange by a radical Islamic network linked to a covert group which has carried out surveillance on key Sydney sites.

It has been revealed Islamic extremists with cells in Melbourne and Sydney carried out reconnaissance missions on the Harbour Bridge and two Sydney oil refineries.

Now lets run the same facts through the Age-o-fia and see what we come up with:

ASIO and Federal Police officers have conducted secret raids on homes across Melbourne in the past week as part of an investigation into an alleged plot to conduct terrorist attacks on city buildings.

...

The Melbourne group was alleged to have loose ties with a radical Sydney-based group, which was said to have been watching possible targets including the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Opera House.

Read the whole report to satisfy yourself that I am not selectively quoting - notice any words missing?

2005-06-21T23:59:00.000+01:00

Backlash

Softly softly now - we don't want to appear that we are actually disappointed that Douglas Wood was released, so instead we can just snipe at the outskirts of the issue.

Tracee Hutchinson (who kindly informs us at the end that she used to work for Channels 7 & 9) suggests that Channel 10 secured the Wood story because 7 & 9 figured that the story is "dead in the water".

She shows her charm by comparing his capture and possible execution to a Big Brother nomination process:

The promos started rolling through Big Brother's live nominations on Monday night, which was unnervingly apt given we had all become bit players in this bloke's life, tuning in day after day to find out whether it was time for Douglas to go or not. And what form his eviction would actually take.

Then suggests that 10 prevailed because Wood was a fan of Sandra Sully:

Was it at the behest of our newest beer-drinking celebrity that Sandra won the day? Did she fit somewhere in the Freed Iraq Hostage's expatriate views of Australia, alongside the Geelong Football Club and Waltzing Matilda?

Oooh - good collection of sneers - the man drinks beer, likes football, and even sang waltzing matilda - what a yob! Not to mention the swipe at him being an ex-pat.

Or was it more likely the hostage would receive kid-glove treatment from a charming woman, whom I count among my favourites when it comes to reading news but whose mettle is yet to be tested when it comes to asking the tough questions?

He has been held by terrorists for 47 days, you don't think a bit of kid-glove treatment might be appropriate? Any anyway, what are the "tough questions" that need to be asked? He was kidnapped, locked up, beaten, shaved, videotaped, then released through sheer luck. Even if there were tough questions for him to answer, why would Channel 10 be less approriate than 60 Minutes - who gave Habib an armchair ride through his paid interview?

But now Wood has turned out to be a supporter of Bush and Howard, not to mention described the terrorists as "arseholes", its okay to pile on:

Or was it simply that the story was dead in the water the minute the hostage revealed himself to have none of the grace or dignity dished out to his brothers and looked like a blustering buffoon at his airport news conference when responding with a "definite maybe" to the question of going back to Iraq.

The nerve of the guy, after being kidnapped and threatened with execution, he didn't have th grace to empathise with his kidnappers after his release. What a buffoon.

It was enough that his words "God bless America" had been played over and over on his release, but the 20 years Douglas Wood has spent as an expat Australian in America were played out in all their cringe-worthy ingloriousness when he decided to meet our media singing a song about a sheep thief who would rather die than be caught for his crimes . . . oh dear!

Oh no - he is an ex-pat, lets not listen to a word he says. I hope this policy is more rigidly enforced next time Germaine Greer comes calling. Worse than being an ex-pat, he is living in America!

Sure, the story kept its pace thanks to the media, but it was absolutely, and categorically, power-driven from the front seat by John Howard and Alexander Downer. That made it different from the get-go. It became a national priority to "get our man home".

Isn't it terrible that the PM and foreign minister took any sort of leading role in freeing an Australian citizen? It is also instructive that Tracee suggests that the wider public didn't care that much about Wood, and the story only had legs because the Government "power drove" it.

I can't say for sure, of course, but I fancy I was not alone when I slunk away from the telly muttering unkind things under my breath about the hostage and his "business opportunities" in Iraq.

His line about going back to Iraq (since retracted) was silly, but this was a recently released hostage speaking off the cuff, not a carefully stage managed and scripted press conference. Why would you possibly be muttering unkind things about him?

And I bear him no ill will.

Thats big of you, really.

And so I'm back to the chequebooks and Channel Ten. Winners or losers? Like 'em or loathe 'em, chequebooks have become an integral part of commercial media, but perhaps what we are seeing is the first example of a discerning call by the veterans of the game. Have they let the story of the year slip from their grasp, or have they sniffed the breeze and decided that by Sunday we won't care?

Why? Because Wood didn't act the way you wanted him to? Does anyone believe that things would not have been different if Wood have have criticised Bush and Howard, denounced the Government's handling of his situation, and called for the removal of all troops?

2005-06-21T00:09:00.000+01:00

The worm turns

Did anybody think that these comments wouldn't get a reaction?:

Frankly, I'd like to apologise to President Bush and Prime Minister Howard for things I said under duress. I actually believe that I am proof positive that the current policy of training the Iraqi army, of recruiting, training them worked because it was the Iraqis that got me out. I am proof positive that the current policies of the Americans and the Australian governments is the right one.

As if on cue, here are the Greens:

Greens leader Bob Brown said Mr Wood was wrong in his analysis of Australian policy and it was unfair that he profit from his experience.

"I think Mr Wood is fortunately home, but there's 850 Australians who aren't," Senator Brown said, referring to Australian troops in Iraq. "Rather than just saying God bless America I would just say God bless those Australian troops and let's get them home."

Because Brown really cares about Australian troops you understand.

He said Mr Wood should donate the money he made in his deal with Ten to humanitarian causes in Iraq, such as children who had lost their parents in the conflict.

Selling your story always comes across as tacky, but I don't begrudge a man who has was held in captivity for 47 days by the headhackers from turning a quick buck. Hell, I am happy for him to take Channel 10's $250,000 purely for calling his kidnappers "arseholes".

Its funny, I don't remember the Greens criticising Mamdouh Habib for taking the (estimated) $100,000 from 60 Minutes. Shouldn't he have donated it to the orphans of Afghanistan?

2005-06-15T12:55:00.000+01:00

Off the deep end

If anymore proof was required that Michael Gawenda is completely unfit to be the American correspondent for a supposedly serious newspaper, his latest article should do the trick.

There is no need to feel bad about this, but Americans love Australia, though they know next to nothing about the place.

Awesome start Mike - an implicit suggestion that we should feel bad about Americans loving Australia, backed up by a complete generalisation that all Americans are completely ignorant about the place.

Even Americans who have visited Australia and just love the time they had there know virtually nothing about the place, which just goes to show that travel confirms rather than shatters stereotypes.

Travel around America obviously hasn't shattered his stereotypes about Americans - that they are all ignorant dumbasses. I would never suggest than an overseas correspondent should have an unabashed love for a country and its people, but why send someone with such ingrained prejudices?

When Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was in Washington recently, he delivered the annual Anzac lecture at a think tank. The audience was made up mainly of conservative think-tank types, Bush Administration officials and several American journalists who had come, it seemed, for a free lunch.

The attendance list at that lecture is not readily available, but are we supposed to take Gawenda's word for it that the entire audience was full of think tank types, Republican flacks and scabby journalists? I am not sure where Ambassador Ghazzati of Malaysia fits into those categories, but I am sure that Gawenda wouldn't generalise too broadly about the audience.

They all loved Downer's speech, and why wouldn't they? As one Bush Administration official said, he could think of no other country's foreign minister who would make such a speech, which was essentially a love letter to the United States.

Too bad for Michael - the text of the speech *is* readily available online, which allows us to see that his sneer about a "love letter" is pretty much a lie. I won't quote large extracts, but check out the subheadings (with my summaries):

The spirit of ANZAC - Talks about Gallipoli

Foundation of the alliance - Talks about Australia and America's record of fighting together in all major conflicts, the first co-engagement occuring under the leadership of the legendary Australian General - Sir John Monash

Operation Anaconda - Recounts the rescue of American forces by Australian special forces

Today’s alliance in Asia - ANZUZ, tsunami, Iraq

Building on our alliance - the US alliance is valuable to Australia

Conclusion - thanks the Australian ambassador, Michael Thawley, for his service.

So it is pretty obvious that the speech was closer to a love letter to Australia than the US. Of course you don't have to take my word for it - you can read the speech and decide for yourself, something Gawenda would probably rather you didn't do.

Clouds of nostalgia filled the room as the Americans recalled the time, in their age of innocence, when John Wayne and Gary Cooper vanquished the bad guys and then quietly rode off into the sunset.

Again, no photos are available to verify these clouds, but I am happy to call bullshit on that one. Oh, but points for the meaningless cowboy reference though - good to see that the Age style guide is the same as the SMH.

It is possible that even an Australian breast or two swelled a little with pride as Downer explained how we had "punched above our weight" in all the wars in which we had been involved.

Hmm, quotation marks suggest a quote. Lets go to the transcript:

We have fought together since then in every other major conflict: the Second World War; Korea; Vietnam; the first Gulf War; Afghanistan; and now Iraq.

I think that’s a proud record – a record of shared sacrifice in defence of the values both our countries hold dear.

It’s a record of standing up for the right of Australians and Americans – and of other peoples – to go about their own lives without fear.

It’s about their right to elect the government of their choice – and to throw them out if they do a bad job.

It’s about their right to worship freely, or not worship at all.

I challenge anybody to find a quote, even a horribly paraphrased one, which in anyway resembles Gawenda's.

Thing is though, a love based on what amounts to bulldust is infatuation, and we all know how quickly infatuation can be followed by disappointment and resentment.

Take shared values. When Americans talk shared values they mean Australians are like Americans, only nicer, more innocent. Not true. We may share a commitment to liberal democracy, but the fact is there are many fundamental values that we do not share.

Considering your record Michael, I am going to have to ask for proof before I believe any assertion by you about what Americans mean in any context. Just because we don't share every value does not mean that any American empathy felt with Australia is based on "bulldust".

The majority of Americans are regular church-goers and, according to polls, more than 80 per cent of Americans are believers. The majority of Americans believe in creationism rather than evolution. And many Americans believe that God loves America best of all.

You don't share those values Michael (and incidentally, neither do I), but you may find that quite a few people in Australia do. Lets ask the Australian Bureau of Statistics shall we?

In response to the 2001 Census of Population and Housing question, Australians' stated religious affiliations were: 27% Catholic, 21% Anglican, 21% other Christian denominations and 5% non-Christian religions.

Hmm, I make that 69% who believe in a Christian God. Looks like a shared value to me.

And the great American dream is not an egalitarian one: it is that every American, no matter how humble their origins, can aspire to be president, and if not president, then at least wealthy and successful.

Everybody has the opportunity, no matter how poor they are, or what race or gender they are, to be wealthy and sucessful? Sounds like the egalitarian dream to me.

Americans in the main do not resent or excoriate the wealthy: they hope that one day they, or at least their children, will join the ranks of the rich. There is no tall-poppy syndrome in America. Americans love rags-to-riches stories. They love success.

Is he suggesting that Australia doesn't share these values? That we excoriate the rich, we don't hope our children will become rich, we hate rags to riches stories and we hate success? Does he even read what he writes?

They don't even seem to mind that the super-wealthy, the top 0.1 per cent of the population, people who earn more than $10 million a year, are the major winners from the Bush Administration tax cuts.

As defined how? That they will receive the largest tax cut? Memo to Michael - if you cut a percentage tax rate, then the people earning more money will receive a larger tax cut.

It doesn't seem to matter that the gap between rich and poor in America is growing and becoming entrenched, that the chances of those born poor becoming even moderately wealthy are slim, that the American dream more and more is a fantasy.

Again Micheal, without any sort of support for that contention, we are going to have to wash those claims down with a Murray River's worth of salt.

The dream lives in the culture and in the American psyche and in the hearts of the millions of illegal migrants who have crossed the border from Mexico into America - "the Golden Land" as the Jewish immigrants of the early 20th century called it - with nothing but the clothes they are wearing.

Aah, smarty pants Micheal knows that this dream is just a fantasy, but these ignorant migrants just haven't caught on yet.

This is no different from Australian egalitarianism, which Prime Minister John Howard says is a defining feature of Australia's national character, even as Australia grows ever more unequal. Clearly, it takes more than reality to destroy national myths and dreams.

Egalitarianism does not mean that we are all exactly the same - living in the same houses, driving the same cars and earning the same amount of money. It means that we all have the same rights and opportunites, irrespective of our race, gender and economic circumstances. What we do with those opportunities is a whole different story. The fact that America is more willing to praise those that make the best of their lot is something to be admired, not sneered at.

Of course, the Australia Americans love, the Australia of vast empty spaces still to be settled and conquered, fabulous beaches, perennial sunshine, gorgeous women, incredibly friendly, uncomplicated people and unlimited opportunity, doesn't exist.

Again - is he suggesting that Australia does not have vast empty spaces, fabulous beaches, sunshine, gorgeous women and friendly people? I don't know which part of Australia he has been hanging out in, but that certainly doesn't sound like an Australia I would recognise.

Where does that leave the great American love of Australia? One thing is true: on any reckoning, we have been good and faithful allies, even if most Americans would be surprised to learn that for a significant number of Australians that is no cause for celebration.

Aaah - another claim regarding the views of a "significant" number of Australians, again without any kind of support. Actually Michael, the fact that we have been faithful allies with one of the world's greatest democracies, a country that helped liberate Europe, defended Australia, defeated the Taliban and removed Saddam, may be a cause of quite pride for a surprising (to Gawenda at least) number of Aussies.

2005-06-15T12:25:00.000+01:00

Tunnel Vision

I realise that it may come across as somewhat of an odd thing to bang on about, but tech writers' love in with Apple continues apace:

Rivalry, intrigue, passion and not a little espionage have coloured Silicon Valley since it was founded by Hewlett and Packard in their Palo Alto garage just after World War II.

Okay

But nothing is hotter than the rivalry between Microsoft and Apple, between Windows and Macintosh.

Say it together kids - Apple has 3% of the home PC market. Microsoft has close to the other 97%.

Thus, the Valley and the computing world were shocked when Apple's charismatic and egotistical co-founder/chief executive and "visioneer", Steve Jobs, announced that, after a 14-year association, he was dumping IBM as his microprocessor supplier and moving to Intel, on whose chips the hated Windows runs.

Any one that "hates" an operating system really needs to have a good hard look at themselves.

As John Markoff of The New York Times observed this week, "Jobs is a legend in no small part because he defied the monster combination that is Wintel - as the digerati call the Windows and Intel alliance - and lived to talk about it."

Did he just say "digerati"?

More than that, Jobs and Apple have led personal computer innovation and design. In those increasingly important areas, the Microsoft Goliath has always walked in David's shadow and if Apple plays the move to Intel as the industry expects, the shadow could get a lot larger.

Want to provide an example there bub? Apple makes an OS which will work on a select group of proprietary components. If Windows was as restricted as the Mac OS then the problems that people ascribe to Windows would disappear. So would the huge growth in IT, as the continual decrease in prices would slow considerably. I find it endlessly amusing that Macs, so beloved of the latte set, attempt to create a monopoly over software and hardware - something the "hated" Windows have never been accused of.

Don't believe me? Lets look at the 20 inch cinema display sold by Apple compared to the Dell 2005. Exactly the same Samsung panel, though the Apple is technologically inferior as it lacks built in USB ports. Apple's price - $1250. Dell's price - $949, delivered. They will throw you a 24 inch monster for $1600 if you like, unless you prefer to pay $2249 for a 23 inch Apple?

But the notebook issue probably was not at the top of Jobs' mind when he talked with IBM. More likely he was thinking about his new battlefield, consumer electronics and, specifically, Microsoft's new Xbox 360 and Sony's even more powerful PlayStation 3. They are as much internet-enabled home media and entertainment centres as they are games consoles, and that puts them right in Apple's ballpark.

In what way? Apple have the mac mini and the err, umm? Their game software is also 12 months behind the PC as a minimum, and will be even more behind the next generation consoles.

Apple intends to challenge them both directly, right in the world's living rooms.

With what exactly? Its going to take more than a one button mouse and a great advertising campaign.

With Microsoft and Sony moved to IBM, Intel is keen to keep its place in the enormous home entertainment market and Apple, boosted by the runaway success of the iPod, is a good bet in a tough game.

The runaway sucess of the iPod provides a good bet against Microsoft and Sony, moving to their second and third generation consoles respectively?

If the Xbox and PlayStation turn out to be serious contenders as broad-based home entertainment centres, bringing video-on-demand over broadband and offering online services of many kinds, then an inexpensive but powerful Mac alternative, probably more broadly capable, flexible and powerful than the other two, would be very attractive.

bwahahaha. Ignoring the fact that he has absolutely no basis for suggesting that any Intel based Mac will be any of those things, he has also ignored the large elephant in the room - a windows based media centre PC. You know the one - the cheaper, more powerful and continually upgradeable one?

I am sorry, but watching any organisation receiving endless free advertising and uncritical analysis bugs me, and Apple sums up perfectly many of the smug, condescending types out there. Don't believe me? Check out the final paragraph, man:

"He is still committed to the idea of an Apple culture," said Peter Schwartz, the co-founder and chairman of the Global Business Network, a Californian consulting firm. "It is the counterculture to the dominant Windows culture."

2005-06-07T02:21:00.000+01:00

Intel inside

Hey Apple fanboys - suck it up.

That's right, Apple are switching from IBM chips to Intel. Why? Hmm, could be because the IBM chips are too slow and expensive?

This means an Apple OS which will run on Intel chips. Which means clones running Mac OS. Which means all Apple will bring to market is very nice industrial design and a higher price tag. Just think of them as the anti-Dell.

Oh, you might want to join the rest of us and get used to a grown up 2 (or 7) button mouse as well.

(On a side note, if they wanted to be truly visionary, they would have gone AMD, but that is by the by)

2005-06-07T01:52:00.000+01:00

Fast frogs

I still don't think the new Bugatti Veyron is as good looking as the McLaren F1, but it has now officially knocked the F1 off for the title of worlds fastest production car (1001 horsepower helps in that regard)

But even more impressive (to me at least) is that to reach this speed you need to make the car go into "Top Speed" mode by inserting a special aluminium key.

The words 'Top Speed' then appear on the facia and the car begins a series of safety checks on such things as tyre pressures. Once complete, the chassis squats to just 65mm above the road at the front and 70mm at the rear. From now on, the diffuser flaps remain closed and the angle of incidence of the rear aerofoil is minimised to reduce wind resistance.

Touch the brake however, and you are back to being limited to "only" 375 km/h.

2005-06-03T00:15:00.000+01:00

Oh. My. God.

Judith Armstrong has finished her op-ed piece in today's Age with one of the most breathtaking bits of honesty I have ever seen, but we will get to that in a second.

Writing on the recent rejection of the European Constitution by French and Dutch voters, she faithfully follows the Fairfax style guide in her opening paragraph:

After the Republican triumph in the last US election, and the feeling that democracy was tumbling downhill towards some lowest common denominator, many began looking towards Europe to provide an alternative to US cultural domination.

Irrational swipe at Bushchimphitler? Check! So after the US held a free and fair election, there was a feeling that democracy was "tumbling downhill"? With a wonderful opening like this, you can just tell that Armstrong is an academic and a Fairfax contributor - the golden combo.

On October 29 last year the convention signed off on a document they believed revolutionary. Its aim was to "dare more democracy", its modus operandi ultra-democratic. Its 105 individuals, basically three delegates representing the heads of state and national parliaments of 28 countries, included the three who are still only applicants: Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. Tiny new boy Malta, with fewer than half a million citizens, enjoyed the same representation as France and Germany.

So giving tiny nations which aren't even members of the EU the same representation as much more populous nations is "ultra-democratic"? So if we abolished the House of Representatives, and just had the Senate (where Tasmania gets the same say as New South Wales) that would be a bold step towards "ultra democracy"?

Equally democratic but today somewhat amazing was the fact that the delegates identified "values" as the first and most crucial issue to be put up for discussion.

Not that amazing really. Getting agreement on such abstract concepts as "values" is a hell of a lot easier than agreeing on such boring things like executive powers, procedures etc.

Part one of the constitution is therefore headed human dignity, after which come chapters on freedom, equality, solidarity, citizens' rights, and justice. Not until these elusive concepts had been defined did the delegates turn their minds to part two, the procedures and institutions that would need to be put in place.

I would have thought that adopting the mantra of Bill & Ted ("Be excellent to each other") would have been a lot quicker, and achieved exactly the same result as those six chapters.

It was an enormous achievement that all 28 countries reached agreement. Getting consensus on such a highly sensitive declaration was a triumph given the number of languages involved. The spirit of compromise was expressed in the denial of any "official" language; of 20-odd "working languages".

Anybody here dealt with the Australian Government? The one that speaks the same language as yourself? Remember how much fun that was? Now imagine the Government had *20* languages in which to ignore/delay your question. Let the good times roll!

The bureaucracies were to be diminished but two new leadership slots created: a president, and a European foreign minister undertaking the central diplomatic role the EU needs to play in relation to the rest of the world.

Bwhahaha - the drafting of a constitution in 20 languages, and the creation of two new leadership slots will *reduce* the bureaucracies? bwhahaahaha

The European Parliament, the only directly elected EU body, yet the one most often treated with indifference, would gain new prominence, MEPs being urged under the constitution to strengthen their relationship with national parliaments.

What sort of constitution "urges" people to do anything? Can you imagine the result if the US constitution had "urged" the Congress to allow people the freedom of speech?

Nine countries have already supported the constitutional treaty but the French and the Dutch have famously voted against it, and their rejection is likely to be followed by those of Denmark and the United Kingdom - if either of these countries goes ahead with their referendums.

So this constitution, drafted by 105 unlected delegates, was put to voters - who promptly rejected it (Germany "supported" the constitution by ratifying it without a vote). Aint "ultra-democracy grand?

Armstrong is obviously a huge fan of democracy, so what does she think should be done about this rejection by voters. Simple - keep asking them until they give you the right answer!

So, in the acknowledged absence of a plan B, what will happen? The most optimistic case is that the question will be put again, and this time, pass.

Stupid voters. Anyone sense a bit of disdain for the electorate here? Don't worry, she doesn't stay this subtle for long.

Unfortunately there have been a few too many paragraphs without a crack at the US though - the editor won't be too pleased.

If the idealism expressed in the constitution devised by America's founding fathers has failed to stem materialism, imperialism, cultural arrogance and greed for oil, why put naive trust in Europe's democratic aspirations?

Aaaah, much better. Too bad she couldn't fit Gitmo, Abu Ghraib or plastic turkeys in there, but I shouldn't get greedy.

The answer is, because there is good reason to do so. America's belief in democratic values stood itself and the world in good stead for a long time. The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent failure to mend what was broken should not destroy our gratitude for US intervention in World War II, or the magnificent generosity of the Marshall Plan.

Thats big of you, really. Out of curiousity, what did they break and subsequently fail to mend? I know the statues of Saddam have seen better days, and his son's rape rooms have fallen into disrepair, but I see they have knocked up the odd parliament and constitution here and there.

In the event, a clear majority of the supposedly civilised French and Dutch populations have put fear and self-protection ahead of global balance.

Stupid stupid voters. Imagine putting something so stupid as "self-protection" ahead of such a fundamental concept as, err, "global balance".

This article provided such amusement that I really wasn't ready for the last sentence. Here we have somebody hinting at their utter disdain for the democratic process, who then comes right out and says what she is thinking:

If, as the adage goes, education is wasted on the young, it is tempting to wonder whether democracy is not wasted on voters.

Bravo Judith! Leave democracy to delegates I say.

She should be utterly ashamed for penning a sentence like that.

2005-06-01T05:26:00.000+01:00

Scandal!

Alexander Downer recently got into Labor's hero, Curtin, so today Alan Ramsey decided to have a crack at Downer's family history.

Under the oh-so subtle headline "A journey into Downer's dark past" we get a quick history lesson in the slaughter of Aborigines by early pastoralists.

Whilst I put little faith in any history told to be my Ramsey, I have no doubt that Aborigines were treated appallingly by early settlers.

We learn more specifically about Constable Willshire, said to have murdered a great number of Aboriginal people. We then get this:

The patriarch of the Downer family was Henry Downer, an immigrant tailor who arrived in Adelaide from England in 1838. Henry had several sons, among them John William, born in 1843, Henry Edward, and George. John William went on to get free secondary schooling by scholarship at Adelaide's Collegiate School of St Peter, "where he proved brilliant", according to the Australian Dictionary of Biography.

John William was later articled to brother Henry Edward, admitted to the South Australian Bar in 1867, and, with elder brother George, a prominent pastoralist, founded the "leading legal firm, J. and G. Downer". John entered state politics in 1878, became attorney-general in 1881 and was twice premier of his state - 1885-87 and 1892-93. At Federation in 1901 - by then Sir John Downer - he became one of South Australia's six original senators but resigned in December 1903 after missing appointment to the founding High Court.

John Downer died in 1915. He was twice married and survived by a son from each marriage. The son of his second marriage was Alexander Russell Downer, later a cabinet minister in the Menzies government in 1949 and, as Sir Alexander, Australian high commissioner to London in 1964. He, too, sired a son, Alexander John Gosse Downer, briefly Opposition leader in 1994 and John Howard's Foreign Minister for all of the last nine years as his reward for stepping down for Howard.

Quite a distinguished family history I would have said, and one fails to see any connection with the first half of the article. Were some of Downer's ancestors said to have also murdered Aborigines? Nope:

On pages 133 and 134 Roberts recounts how the notorious Constable Willshire, at his Port Augusta acquittal on multiple murder charges in 1891, was defended by the Foreign Minister's grandfather, "Sir John Downer, QC, former attorney-general and premier, with funds contributed by more than 60 supporters from Central Australia".

Thats it. That is the total sum of his connection. Downer's grandfather, a distinguished lawyer, once successfully defended a man charged with murder, who has also been accused of murdering Aborigines.

If Ramsey could draw a longer bow than this he would be recruited by the Olympic archery team.

2005-05-31T03:57:00.000+01:00

wtf?

I pride myself on being a person of reasonable intelligence, but I really need help to work out:

a) what the hell Jeff Lewis is talking about; and

b) how one manages to get paid to write stuff like that.

There is no doubt that the guilty verdict in the Schapelle Corby case marks a low point in Australia's relationship with Indonesia. The pendulum of sentiment towards Indonesia, so positive around the tsunami relief effort, has now returned to the negative arc.

I may not agree with him (negative sentiment during the looting of East Timor led to public rallies effectively calling for the invasion of what was still Indonesian held land by Aussie troops), but at least his opening makes sense.

He then does his best to give all academics a bad name.

In a post 9/11 world, where relative cultural differences have been amplified in the service of particular ideological and strategic interests, the Corby case illuminates once again the delicacy and contradictory character of the Australia-Indonesia relationship.

This "us and them", "good and evil", "clash of civilisations" rhetoric has clearly been marshalled in the Corby case, especially by the Australian popular media. The governments in Indonesia and Australia have been lured by polemical discourses that threaten their own recent efforts to stabilise the bilateral relationship. The retreat by the Australian Government and its chief policeman into the language of "independent sovereignty" risks the restoration of an East-West divide that so frequently impedes effective diplomatic and cultural interaction.

Having finished attempting to look intelligent, he then proceeds to patronise the Australian public:

The Australian public seems to have been seduced by a popular media that perpetually translates complexity into simple narrative polemics, a myth-making that has constructed Schapelle Corby as innocent victim of a pernicious, inept and corrupt judicial system.

As opposed to academics perpetually attempting to translate simple narratives into complex polemics of course.

The Nine Network, in particular, has represented Schapelle as a "victim-hero", the most familiar and frequently repeated motif of nationalism and xenophobia.

Like all the "victim-heroes" the media repeatedly showed during the tsunami to draw out our natural nationalism and xenophobia? Oh, right.

Of course, this perspective of Indonesia is both inaccurate and damaging. The Indonesian judiciary is a conventional civil system adapted from the Franco-Dutch model. There is a presumption of innocence, and, in this case at least, there is no evidence that corruption and ineptitude have contaminated proceedings.

I don't wish to wade into that aspect of the case, but surely when the head judge brags about his 400-0 record of convictions, the whole presumption of innocence thing looks a bit shaky?

This moral panic is not dissimilar to the anxieties surrounding drug use in Australia. Sadly, Indonesia's strategy of prohibition and punishment mirrors and magnifies the policies that have proven so ineffectual in countries such as Australia. While Indonesian discussions on illicit drugs have focused on crime and penalty, the related issues of social health, education and harm minimisation have been largely neglected. It is not surprising that many younger people in Indonesia are attracted to an anti-establishment cuek since authority has been so infected by corruption and repressive brutality. The savage prohibition of the drug laws seems to resonate with the same unconvincing rhetoric.

But wasn't he just telling us how the legal system was a conventional civil one, with no hint of corruption or ineptitude in the proceeding?

The Schapelle Corby case illustrates very clearly that a more broadly based dialogue on drugs is necessary. It is not good enough for the Australian Government to retreat from its regional responsibilities into a facile discourse of "independent sovereignty": diplomacy, above all else, is an exercise of mutual influence.

So this article is a call for drug law reform? I thought it was about the relationship with Indonesia.

If there is to be greater regional co-operation on trade and security, and if cultural interaction is to be further enhanced, then the respective governments must lead and inspire these accommodations of policy and support. Both governments must more actively engage in regional health and social issues, including drug policy and prevention strategies.

So Australia should be calling for changes in Indonesian drug policy, and Indonesia should be calling for changes in Australian harm prevention strategies?

Schapelle Corby is now part of the swelling army of convicted drug traffickers in Indonesia. While she has avoided the fate of the 20 foreign nationals on death row for comparable crimes, she nevertheless faces considerable time in abhorrent incarceration.

She is hoping, of course, that the appeal process or the Australian Government can save her. Like many other Australians, I hope that she is released.

Because you think she is innocent, or you think the sentence was too harsh, or you think the trial was flawed?

Not because I am convinced she is innocent of the crime, but because she is innocent enough to deserve understanding and compassion within a context of complex and rapidly evolving global contiguities.

When that is your penultimate sentence, you know your argument (if that is what this is supposed to be) is in real trouble.

2005-05-30T23:47:00.000+01:00

Freedom isn't free

Hilary Burden has penned a fluff piece on Tom Cruise's recent embarassing performance on Oprah. So of course this is the opening paragraph:

IN THE mouths of Condoleezza Rice and George Bush, the word freedom has taken on a bad taste. Using it as justification to invade countries and lecture undemocratic regimes, they have succeeded in turning freedom into a threat, as if to say, "You will be free only if you live by our rules and follow our example."

Is there some sort of style guide at the SMH that requires you to slip a George Bush reference in? But the best part is that she is actually criticising Bush and Rice for using freedom as a justification for lecturing "undemocratic regimes". What other justification should we use to lecture North Korea etc? Bad architecture and inability to design a decent motor car are universal traits among dictatorships, but I would have thought the lack of essential freedoms allowed their populace would be a much better place to start.

This standardised, centrally controlled, big brother version of freedom seems to advance that only an American sense of freedom is the right one, that US freedom is good, and anything that threatens it is bad.

"Standardised freedom" Is she referring to a relativist notion of freedom now? So we shouldn't lecture Cuba's government, because they are "free" to vote for Fidel only, and they might be happy like that?

The rest of the piece isn't worth reading.

2005-05-30T10:57:00.000+01:00

The sound of choking on weeties

Oh how it must annoy some people when one of their pet issues, one that they have spent years expressing sympathy for, printing posters and "demanding" action, gets hijacked by somebody who actually does something about it.

East Timor is a good example. There are some who were very genuine in their desire to see the country freed from the control of Indonesia, whilst there were others who just jumped on the current self-righteous bandwagon.

It is the latter group who have been the quickest to seize on the "Australia is trying to screw East Timor" express. Not being able to criticise the much hated Howard over actually helping free East Timor, they instead try and pin some sort of ulterior motive on him and his Government - in this case, gas reserves.

How it must gall them to see an article by Jose Ramos-Horta, Foreign Minister for the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, like this in Today's Age:

Nevertheless, I must speak in defence of Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Downer. It is well known how the left believes in its own claim to a monopoly on the virtues of compassion and solidarity. Conversely, those on the right are all greedy and insensitive.

God has bestowed on me a modest intelligence and certain wisdom enabling me not to be dogmatic and not to make sweeping judgements on those on one spectrum or another of politics or culture. We all have our virtues, failings and sins.

John Howard has been a true friend of Timor-Leste, so has Alexander Downer. Any other characterisation of the two in regard to Timor-Leste is simply unfair. I have witnessed from the dark days of September 1999 till our more hopeful and peaceful country of 2005 the generosity of the Australian people and of their leaders.

2005-05-27T02:48:00.000+01:00

Zing

It may come as little surprise to many that I am a fan of a lot, though not all, of Andrew Bolt's writings. His newly added forum just adds to the fun. Although the comments seem to broadly fall into two categories - "I love you Andrew, you are a light of reason in the darkness and the only reason I buy the Herald-Sun" or " - what have you got to say to that Andrew?!?!"

I give him a lot of credit for answering the questions though - can you imagine other op-ed journalists submitting to such scrutiny and actually responding to criticism? Try and close your eyes and imagine Phillip Adams doing it...

Recently he got stuck into the Age:

But you are right, Jon, the internet is a huge threat to the Age, which relies on the classifieds to prop it up. Add to that its falling circulation, and ... What I don't understand is why there is no real sense of crisis there, and demands for reform. Take, for instance, the way its bosses have allowed the paper to become so ideologically rigid that it appeals to a small social worker/teacher demographic, but not much beyond. That's madness.

But what is with that photo? I am assuming that a bi-weekly columinist at Australia's highest selling paper would get a strong say in what photo ran with his articles. The old photo featured the world's worst tie, but at least made him look human. I think the new photo is striving for the "serious hard hitting columnist" look, but only manages to pull off the "slightly handicapped schoolbook photo" look.

He also recently gave a (deserving) shout out to Tim Blair and the Bunyip. Considering the paucity of blogging by yours truly of late, I am willing to forgive him this snub...

2005-05-12T02:31:00.000+01:00

Kim Rove-ly

I am not sure if this has been raised before, but is it possible that Kim Beazley is a long term mole working for the Liberal Party? I am not referring to his two election defeats, and ambitions for a third, but rather Labor's amazing response to the recent Budget.

We have the Coalition being hassled over leadership speculation, then handing down a budget which heavily favours high income earners and tightens regulations regarding disability pensioners. So what does Labor do?

Says it will make a token effort to block the tax cuts, until Parliament sits again on August 9, or the Government has to call a special sitting on July 1.

Some low to middle income earners may think the tax cuts unfairly favour the well off, but they still want the $6-$10 a week that they will receive anyway. What they don't want is Labor making a "stand" supposedly on principle that will do nothing except delay them receiving the cuts for 6 weeks.

Added to Wayne Swan's hilarous claim that when he said Labor wouldn't oppose the cuts, he actually meant they would oppose the cuts, but wouldn't oppose tax reform, you have signs that Labor is determined to continue its descent into irrelevancy.

Labor has defended the decision as a "highly principled but brave decision". One would have thought he meant highly principled *and* brave decision, but never mind...

Costello, of course, loved it:

"He is a cheap populist who wants to try and play envy politics, which has no place in Australian society," Mr Costello said. "The last legacy of the Labor Party's control of the Australian Senate could be to deny Australians their tax cut on July 1, 2005 - the last stand of the Labor Party under Mr Beazley."

2005-05-11T08:41:00.000+01:00

Man bites dog

George Bush recently spoke to tens of thousands of cheering people in Tblisi, Georgia. This only received a mention in the Australian press because someone through a device which may have been an inactive grenade near him.

Compare this to the blanket coverage that even a pissweak anti Bush demonstration gets, and the media's claims of balance become ever more laughable.

2005-05-11T08:25:00.000+01:00

Mixed messages

I have tremendous sympathy for the family of Douglas Wood, and of course for Mr Wood himself. I also would also welcome anything that may help secure his release, short of paying a ransom, either morally or financially.

This is why I am very conflicted regarding the statement by the Islamic Council of New South Wales.

"The Islamic Council of NSW urges you to consider that any harm which might befall Mr Wood will reflect badly on us here in Australia, as well as upon you and all the just causes for which you are pressing," the statement says.

One would like to think that they would release Mr Wood because it is the only just and humane thing to do, not because failing to do so might reflect badly on Australian Muslims. And what is the "just cause" for which these murderous barbarians are pressing for? The withdrawal of Allied troops? A return to dictatorship? Civil War?

"For the sake of maintaining good relations with the Australian people and safeguarding the warm relations between the Australian people and the Muslim community in Australia, we renew our urging and trust that you release Douglas Wood."

It is strange that the consider the muslim community to be different from the "Australian people", though they may argue that this is the Australian people's fault, and not theirs.

And it emphasises that the Australian people "strongly sympathise with the people of Iraq and understand their predicament".

We do sympathise with the Iraqi people, and therefore helped them escape from the nightmare of decades of Baathist terror. We do not, in any way, sympathise with Mr Wood's captors. The suggestion that we do is the highly unpleasant undercurrent throughout this message.

The group argues Mr Wood should be released "as a token of gratitute towards the great Australian people who have demonstrated against the war in their tens of thousands, and still do so today in condemnation of the Western invasion of Iraq, as they call on the Australian government to withdraw its troops from the country".

I would like to think that many of the people who opposed the war, for whatever misguided reason, would have the moral sense to totally reject a token of gratitude from these masked head hackers. It is a terrible thing that I am not confident that many would.

I sincerely hope that Mr Wood is released unharmed, but am troubled by the nature of this message, coming as it does from one of Australia's largest Muslim associations.

2005-04-29T10:22:00.000+01:00

Vietnam is the new Iraq

Michael Gawenda is determined to refute allegations that journalists of a certain stripe are hopelessly fixated on viewing every war through the prism of Vietnam. Take it away Michael:

While thousands of Americans this week have walked the 100 or so metres of the wall, strewn at its base with single flowers, mostly roses, and fading notes and prayers left by relatives of the dead, the 30th anniversary of Saigon's fall has been largely ignored by much of the US media.

And so far, not a single senior politician, not in the Bush Administration, not in Congress, has even mentioned the anniversary.

That could be because for the US, the anniversary is tomorrow - April 29. Lets have a look then shall we Michael? Plus, do we have to have a statement from the President at every anniversary? Will Michael be writing this about the anniversary of Korea? Or Howard's failure to mention the Malay emergency?

But the objective that was to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction turned out to be a chimera; there were no WMD to be removed. And so the objective changed to bringing democracy to Iraq and to ensure, as part of the war on terror, that Iraq doesn't become a failed state, a haven for totalitarian Islamist terror organisations.

That really has become the defence mechanism of all those that opposed the liberation of Iraq and have found themselves on the wrong side of history - claim that those in favour didn't intend any democratic benefits either, and claim that WMD's were the only reasons provided.

Once again for those a bit slow to keep up - go to Instapundit's link rich list, and see for yourself what was said.

2005-04-27T05:01:00.000+01:00

Boomtown prats

Like you, there is nothing I enjoy more than listening to a member of Generation X bitch about how the baby boomers are ruining everything for them. It only gets better when the person complaining describes themself as a member of the "creative classes"

There's a disturbing trend in my well-educated, thirtysomething cohort.

Endlessly complaining?

At one end of the spectrum lie those who have been allowed to "grow up" professionally, provided they play the free-market game.

They have been "allowed" to progress their careers? Perhaps you mean "have" grown up professionally?

They generally work in finance and allied industries, have huge mortgages, high incomes, trophy spouses, nannies and membership of spa retreats.

They are in their 30s and they already have trophy spouses? Good work!

They think they're safe from the scrapheap because they're playing the game smarter than their peers stuck in a series of what generation X author Douglas Coupland called McJobs: "A low-pay, low-prestige, low-dignity, low-benefit, no-future job in the service sector and frequently considered a satisfying career choice by people who have never had one."

So they went and got high-pay, high-prestige, high-dignity, high-benefit, huge-future jobs? I would suggest they are playing the game smarter, and I have a fair amount of respect for them. So what's the problem?

Writing in 1991, Coupland was talking about flipping burgers. Today the phenomenon has expanded to embrace the so-called career tracks of younger professionals working in universities and other sectors that traditionally furthered the common good and increased the common wealth.

The plot thins...

Like the wider public these sectors used to serve, today these Australians are widely treated with something bordering on contempt, as what passes for national wisdom and debate turns into a dumbed-down mishmash of Hobbes and Hayek, based on knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

And who is to blame for this lack of respect for "these Australians"? It couldn't be their own arrogance in dimissing the majority of Australians, specifically those that pay the taxes which fund public sector wages, as dumb?

Rather, it's about direct comparison with the career trajectories of gen Xers of the so-called creative class in many other OECD countries. Here, you should be so lucky as to have a three-year contract as a bottom feeder in an arts faculty, where your load of teaching and bean-counting leaves no paid time for what you need to do to hold your job - a doctorate and refereed publications - never mind anything else.

You poor thing? Imagine a member of the creative class being forced to teach or do adminstrative tasks as part of their role? Don't we know that they need to be creating things for the common good?

There, you'd stand a chance of already being an associate professor, senior political adviser, published author or other established opinion former.

Smell the conceit. These nasty boomers are denying the chance for her and her friends to become established opinion formers - ohh the humanity.

As a consequence, more thirtysomethings harbour growing resentment of boomers. Downsizing may have sent lots of middle-aged white liberal men (and women) to the scrapheap, but this hasn't opened up a critical mass of space for younger voices who challenge, as Davis puts it, the old monoculture of white patrician liberalism, never mind economic rationalism.

So you like the fact that a lot of boomers got fired, but are annoyed that enough weren't fired to allow your mates to move up? Ever heard of a meritocracy?

A colleague of mine puts it like this: "Boomers are sucking the blood out of Xers. We work like dogs, pay hideous rents, have no job security, are so exhausted we have no time any more to think, let alone raise questions about the status quo and take action. Boomers aren't interested in us, except as a source of tax revenue for their pensions and looming health-care costs. That's why they're freaked that we're not having babies."

Boo-hoo. Generation X (and following generations) have grown up in an era of unsurpassed luxury. They have had education and travel options previously unheard of. Some may still be complaining that they weren't born in time for free university education, but seeing as there are now 4 times as many people going to university it is obvious more people are getting the opportunity to challenge the white patrician blah blah.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not casting another stone in what's shaping up as gung-ho intergenerational warfare. Some of my best friends are boomers, and beyond. But they tend not to be Big. They're more at the end of the spectrum of their own generation that can't or won't play neocon roulette, and who are paying their own hefty price.

wtf is neocon roulette? It is lazy intellectual short hand to drop a scary word "neocon" "Howard" and assume that everyone in your lovey latte set will nod sagely, agreeing with you that it must be bad.

Then again, they can generally afford it; but so can the Big Boomers. For all our sakes, more Big Boomers need to start growing older with more grace and generosity. If they can't surrender tenure, this means using their resources and experience to develop the talent of more challenging thirtysomethings, and beyond. (emphasis added)

And once again, we come back to the point of this entire rant - she hasn't progressed as far in the academic world as she thinks she is entitled to, and it is all the fault of Mum and Dad.

Why on earth did the Age print this?

2005-04-27T00:17:00.000+01:00

Spit on a digger day

Not sure how this slipped under my radar, but I have only recently had a chance to read Leunig's disgusting attack on every person who has ever voluntarily worn a military uniform.

We live in a national culture that glamorises soldiers, yet the sight of a military uniform with its obvious connotations of morbidity and violence provokes in me the question: "What sort of person is attracted to the killing professions?" Army recruiting advertisements beg the same question.

So Leunig sets out to tell us exactly what kind of bloodthirsty types these strange creatures are.

The raising of this query in public will bring hostile responses as well as the inevitable, "If it wasn't for soldiers you wouldn't have the liberty to ask that question", as if I owe my ration of happiness, sanity or spiritual health to militarism.

Hang on - it wasn't suggested that you owed your sanity or spiritual health to militarism, rather that you owed, at least in part, your ability to freely live a life as a "whimsical" cartoonist to Australia's armed forces. This point is "inevitably" raised because it is so fundamental, yet Leunig barely bothers to respond to it.

It seems to me, however, that human rights have historically been considerably established by those who were not soldiers and who indeed, in many instances, had to face the terror and repression of state military force in their various campaigns for social justice.

We can of course expect a long and distinguished list of examples for this.

It could be said, for instance that it was the troopers who fought against the cause of freedom at the Eureka stockade in Ballarat and slaughtered those who sought liberty and justice.

And thats it. The liberation of Europe in WWII. The defence of Australia in the Pacific. The (multiple) defence of Israel. The Australian intervention in East Timor. All these were achieved by the use of military force. And all of them could (unfortunately) be achieved no other way.

Soldiers mostly follow orders, they have "a job to do" regardless of whether they are rescuing civilians or shooting them.

Does no one else find it grossly offensive for him to suggest that Australian troops would blindly follow orders and shoot civilians because they felt they have a job to do?

Where the Prime Minister sees courage, decency and goodness in professional soldiers - all those "best and finest" qualities - I cannot help but also see the possibility of perversity, emotional sickness and a latent murderous impulse.

Leunig would also see those possibilities in every member of the Liberal Party, and anyone else he disagreed with however, so I am not sure we should take his opinion too seriously there.

The innocent question won't go away: "What sort of person volunteers to devote their life to the skills of destruction and the business of hunting, trapping and slaughtering humans?"

It is an undeniable fact that the main purpose of the Army is to train to kill the soldiers of the enemy most effectively. The ultimate hope is that by preparing properly for this, one would never have to do it. But it is a blatant distortion to suggest that the skills that the Army (and other branches of the military) provide are only useful for slaughtering their fellow man. I note that nowhere in the article does Leunig mention the tsunami relief effort. It was only the Army, with Air Force and Navy support, that could get food and aid on the ground as quickly as they did. Civilian organisations lack the skills, organisation and discipline to achieve anything close to that.

Is it possible for Leunig to consider that many members of the armed forces may have joined on the basis that they wished to be involved in operations like that? I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that the average member of the Australian Army who has served in the last few years would have achieved more humanitarian good than a person who has devoted their life to drawing ducks.

Anzac Day brings this question strongly to mind because I am asked each year to remember the soldiers who fought and to spare a thought for them, which I always do,

Thats big of you

but that's where the trouble starts because before too long questions arise and I try to imagine what sort of men would volunteer to invade a far-off land and perpetrate such murderous violence against its inhabitants.

Yeah, who would volunteer to invade a far off Germany and perpetrate such murderous violence against the Wermacht? Actually, Leunig is being disingenuous by only referring to Gallipoli there, even though ANZAC day is a remembrance day for all our service men and women.

Inevitably I then start to think and wonder about the forgotten men who on conscience and principle refused to take part in this monumental violence (where is their monument?),

Yeah, bugger all these shrines, statues and memorials to those who died serving abstract concepts such as freedom - where is the memorial to the dockers who refused to load the ships as a sign of solidarity with the Soviets?

In the grisly light of the fact that Australian soldiers so recently took part in the invasion of Iraq, which involved the killing of more than 100,000 civilians,

It comes as no surprise to some of us that the flawed Lancet findings have taken on the status as a "fact". Such a round convenient number to quote.

As for the men who refused the way of violence, there appears to be little cultural recognition or consciousness of those who rejected jingoism and the call to homicide, but who served their country well for an entire lifetime in creative, constructive and unglorified ways that are immeasurable.

Is Leunig angling for a Mr Curly statue? A duck remembrance day?

Grim authoritarianism, paranoia, guilt, fundamentalism, hostility, bitter or brutal outlooks and a difficulty with Eros, beauty and the feminine are all aftermath qualities that insinuate or assert themselves into family and institutional life with profound consequences.

Nope, he is just talking crap.

The violent, frightened mentality and fetishism of war, the domineering impulse, and the addiction to the "evil other" forever corrupt, disfigure and limit the societies that wage and prosecute the violent solution.

Which ever first year arts student he copied this off is going to be mighty pissed...

Soldiers can quickly tire of patriotism and piety in the globalised world. Many become mercenaries now and sell their souls to the highest bidder as hit-men; which may tell us something about what it takes to be a soldier.

This article tells us everything about what he thinks it takes to be a soldier. And it wouldnt be a Leunig piece without the mandatory swipe at Howard

No doubt many of those innocent young ADF people in uniform, photographed with the leering, beer-juggling Prime Minister, may in time see the light, take to his private enterprise ideas and move on to the big bucks

Innocent? I thought they were blood crazed killers intent on learing how to trap and slaughter fellow humans. I am so confused. What would Mr Curly do?

2005-04-20T07:47:00.000+01:00

Yikes

This story on the proposed "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act" in the US focuses on the 'parents protecting kiddies from violence', but the bit that grabbed me was this:

The bill also would make it a federal crime to use video cameras to record films in film theatres, and it would set tough penalties of up to 10 years in prison for anyone caught distributing a movie or song prior to its commercial release.

Filmgoers caught using video cameras in theatres would face up to three years in prison for a first offence and up to six years for later arrests.

I refuse to watch pirated movies (with such crappy quality picture and no digital sound, why do people bother - is it really that important that you see Star Wars 3 weeks before it comes out at cinemas?), but those penalties are ridiculous.

If you went into a cinema, assaulted the projectionist, then physically stole the print, you wouldn't get anywhere near three years in prison. But take a camcorder in, and you are looking at three years hard time, plus another 10 if you put that footage on Kazaa.

There is suggestion that the bill is largely aimed at protecting ClearPlay from lawsuits, but the draconian enforcement measures also give the impression that Congress is extremely receptive to the pleas of some of the most disadvanatged people in US society - film studios....

2005-04-17T23:55:00.000+01:00

(tax) free speech

Glenn Milne on the recently proposed changes to the Government's environmental grants program

AS his July Senate majority looms, John Howard publicly makes much of avoiding hubris. But behind the scenes this Government is moving ruthlessly to lock in its political ascendancy, even at the cost of free speech. Thus it was that early last week Environment Minister Ian Campbell announced that in the future government grants to environmental lobby groups would be capped at $10,000, rather than the previous $80,000.

The spin offered by the minister was that this would allow his department to better spread the available environment funds across a wider range of groups. So if you're a member of the Gulargambone Eucalyptus Tree Planting Society, you'll now have a better chance of getting a grant.

Though I am not familiar with the Society's fine presumably fine work, this sounds like an excellent idea.

That is true. But the real political sting in the tail of the announcement was that the larger, national environmental lobby organisations will now lose money – and, therefore, effectiveness. And these groups are almost universally critical of the Government's policies on issues such as global warming and the Kyoto Protocol.

I am familiar with their work, and this isn't striking me as a bad idea either. Milne then turns to the issue of the tax deductibility of these organisations, and the Government's attack on it:

It began in March 2004 during the adjournment debate in the Senate when Mason rose to address the house on the apparently benign subject of charitable institutions. The speech was anything but. Mason had in his sights the tax deductibility of charity organisations, a status that is granted with one caveat: such organisations must not engage in political advocacy.

Then Mason came to the point: "There is nothing wrong with groups and organisations in the community engaging in the political process – lobbying and campaigning. The only question is why such groups and organisations should get the tax breaks to help them do so. If the aim is to effect political change, shouldn't these charity workers actually join political parties, where the maximum tax deductible threshold is $150? Or conversely, if lobbying should have tax benefits for charities, then why not for everyone else as well? If it's OK for koalas and the homeless, why isn't it for sugar farmers?"

Couldn't agree more. It is blatantly dishonest to engage in political lobbying and advocacy under the guise (and tax status) of an environmental charity.

But if you think it's only environmental groups that are likely to be affected by the Mason campaign, think again. How would Catholic Health Australia be feeling right now? Remember it? It was CHA's head Francis Sullivan who devised Labor's Medicare Gold policy at the last election and then publicly endorsed it, with the weight of the Catholic private hospital system behind him. You may have forgotten, but the Government hasn't.

Considering Labor's performance at the election, and the reception that Medicare Gold received (outside of the cheerleaders in the media), I think the Government would love to install CHA as Labor's full time Health policy think tank...

The ball Mason set rolling in March 2004 now has the potential to knock over some very big skittles. And they will all be judged on their attitude to the Government. So much for free speech.

Sorry, you lost me there. Have they proposed laws banning these groups? Threatened some form of prosecution for their lobbying activties? No? So where is the threat to free speech? Maybe he meant tax-free speech.

2005-04-14T07:49:00.000+01:00

Getting Hitched

Ever wonder why Christopher Hitchens has so many fans among libetarians and other members of the "Right", and such enemies among the modern "Left"? Well apart from being described as "vile replica" of his former self by Tariq Ali, which would be enough to endear him to many, he expresses certain views that strike a very deep chord with some, including myself. Some of these views are on show in an interview with Daniel Smith of the Atlantic Monthly.

On the smoking bans in New York:

Those policies demonstrate a mentality of insecurity and ambition and pseudo-zeal. But undoubtedly you're right. The thing that more than symbolizes Bloomberg for me is the ban on smoking. It's moved a sensible aim—namely, the protection of nonsmokers from smoke—into behavior modification.

Sounds like speed enforcement in Victoria...

A lesser objection I have is simply that it makes bar owners and bartenders and waiters into de facto enforcers of the law. The law inverts the relationship between host and guest. It's a small thing, but it has kind of spoiled New York for me. I went out to a restaurant recently in Union Square—it was a very cold day, but my friends and I decided we would sit outside anyway so that we could have a smoke and not bother anybody. They said, "You can't do that." Why not? "Because you're underneath an awning. We have a table that's completely unprotected from the weather, just outside the awning. You can sit there if you like." And this all occurred before they told us what the specials were! Now, if you can't put up a shingle that says, "This is McShane's Old Irish Lodge, and if you don't like cigarette smoke you can stay the fuck out of my bar," then something essential about the whole idea of New York is gone.

On the endless claims that Bush has seriously eroded civil rights in the name of fighting terrorism:

The antiwar left made a huge thing about saying that Bush ignored too many warnings before September 11. But from the way they've reacted since, one would presume that they would have protested if he had taken the steps necessary to forestall the problem. I think what everyone ought to do at the basic minimum here is admit that there are contradictions in their position.

On the repeated jibes by antiwar types about "why Iraq and not North Korea?":

North Korea has threatened the invasion of South Korea; it's starving its own people to death; it's repeatedly caught sponsoring international terrorism; and it's obviously violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But North Korea has us in a stranglehold that Saddam didn't. We've let things get to the point where North Korea can—and might, given what we know of the nature of its regime—destroy the capital city of South Korea if we make a move against it. If we were an imperialist state we wouldn't give a shit about that. We'd just say, It's in our interest if the North Korean regime ceases to exist—too bad if South Korea ends up getting blown up. But we can't do that.

The shot about the imperialist state is a nice one. Hitchens is well read, and knows what an empire looks like. The US aint it.

On the "Iraq is a distraction from Afghanistan" claims

I've simply never heard anyone say that the job in Afghanistan needs more people. And it doesn't look as if it does. I mean, the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan are totally negligible militarily. It's a police operation. Afghanistan is now run by NATO. It's the strongest military alliance in the history of the world.

And the people who are now trying to claim that they oppose invading Iraq, but of course supported Afghanistan:

I'm an old left-sectarian street fighter, I happen to remember that most of the people who are saying this are the same people who were not in favor of invading Afghanistan either. They said it would be a quagmire like Vietnam and a graveyard of ambition as it was for Russia and Britain. I remember thinking that was nonsense at the time. Everyone now says that of course they thought all along that military action in Afghanistan would be great. No, they didn't! They hope that people will forget. They hope in vain in my case. I will never let them forget what they said.

Tell us Hitch - what about people who say that invading Iraq has created a breeding ground for terror?

Well, that's based on the assumption that al-Qaeda is in itself a response to the sins of omission or commission by the West. That's not true. The Administration had to find a legal and international justification for kicking out a keystone regime in the Middle East in order to alter the balance of power in the Muslim world. It needed to be done. But one couldn't just say, "Well, after an attack like September 11 we're going to have to alter the balance of power in the region." I wouldn't have minded if they had said that, but if you're going to go to the UN, you have to phrase it as if you're talking about something else.

You are never going to see Hitchens embraced by the many members of the American Right however, due to his views on religion:

Well, first off, I'm not, as people sometimes claim me to be, an atheist. I'm an anti-theist. I think the influence of religious belief is horrible.

...

It's the root of my whole existence as a writer—to destroy the illusions that arise from faith. And only some of those illusions are religious, which means that I'll never be out of business. There'll always be work to do.

The rest of the interview touches on his writings about Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger. Well worth a read.

2005-04-13T08:19:00.000+01:00

www.boom.com

Oh hello Mr Iraq-Insurgent-sneaking-up-on-a-US-base. That was a lovely remote controlled IED you planted last week. And that sure is a great mortar you are setting up in a patch of dead ground near the medical hospital. Oh I am sorry, did I forget to introduce you to *our* remote controlled ED's? Good bye.

By June, soldiers in the Army's Stryker Brigade, which operates mainly in and around the northern city of Mosul, will be able to pick out an individual anti-personnel munition from a minefield of hundreds and explode it by pushing a computer's touch screen from many yards away.

The system, known as Matrix, is part of the Army's emerging arsenal of "smart" land mines that military officials say are meant to do away with the accidental deaths and maimings caused by their not-so-smart brethren.

Twenty-five sets of mines, including M18 Claymores, and the laptops that trigger them over a wireless network are being rushed into the field after the system was successfully tested in September.

It is an unfortunate fact that landmines are a very useful weapon that leave a horrible and dangerous legacy long after a conflict is over. Using a system which renders them safe unless operated by a human is a terrific idea.

2005-04-13T06:44:00.000+01:00

Lethal wit

On the topic of amusing lines, Leigh Matthews continued his verbal stoush with Collingwood during the launch of the Salvation Army's Red Shield Appeal:

"If someone's weak, we're going to take advantage of that weakness as best we can," Matthews said, in comments replayed on ABC radio.

"If they're mentally disadvantaged, we're going to take advantage of that as we can . . . but we don't play Collingwood every week so we can't really do that."

2005-04-13T06:24:00.000+01:00

Well duh..

AUSTRALIA will not automatically sign a non-aggression pact with its Asian neighbours just because New Zealand has signed up, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.

Hardly an earth shattering statement by Lexie there, and it was probably in response to a stupid question by a journo.

Australia has consistently refused to join ASEAN nations in signing the Treaty of Amity and Co-operation, a pact banning the use of violence to settle regional conflicts.

But that's not all it bans, as the Professor has pointed out. Quoting a paper published by New Zealand's Centre for Strategic Studies, he notes that the treaty has imposed the following obligations on signatories:

1/ Refraining from criticising the actions of the governments of member-states towards its (sic) own people.

2/ Directing criticism at the actions of states that are perceived to constitute a breach of the principle of non-intervention.

3/ Denying recognition, sanctuary, or other forms of support to any rebel group seeking to destabilise or overthrow the government of a neighbouring state.

4/ Providing political support and material assistance to member-states in their actions against subversive activities.

If the Australian Government were to follow number 1 strictly then the same people criticising Howard for not signing the treaty would berate him for not criticising some Asian countries for their poor human rights activities. The News.com.au report continued:

But the Government eased its hardline stance against the treaty after ASEAN members flagged that being a signatory to the pact would be a precondition to joining the crucial East Asia summit later this year.

Why is the summit "crucial"? Sure, it would be nice for Australia to attend ASEAN shindigs, but there is not even a hint in this report as to why it is "crucial" enough to require Australia to sign a sweeping treaty as a condition of entry.

Downer also takes the opportunity for bit of old fashioned kiwi bashing as well:

"Australia is a proud and independent country and we're able to beat New Zealand at rugby, we thrashed them at cricket, and there's no reason why we should always do what New Zealand does.

"We're a bit more confident a country than that."

Unecessary? Certainly. Amusing? Definitely.

2005-04-13T03:02:00.000+01:00

Did you know?

To get in on the current Pope o-mania, can I point out that the Pope's full title is

"Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriach of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God"

Can you imagine the business cards?

By comparison, the Orthodox Pope goes by the much more reasonable

"Successor of Saint Mark the Apostle, Shepherd of Shepherds, Father of Fathers, Supreme Pontiff of All Metropolitans and Bishops, Judge of the World, and Beloved of Christ"

The Coptic Pope is positively restrained, being formally known as

"Pope and Patriarch of the See of Alexandria and of All the Predication of the Evangelist St. Mark"

2005-04-12T07:45:00.000+01:00

Women's sport isn't as good as mens..

Louisa Deasay appears to be labouring under the assumption that the sports media creates the public's interest in sport, rather than reflects it:

Open the sports section of any paper on any given day and you'll struggle to find a mention of a female sportswoman. Similarly, turn on the TV at a weekend and you'll be besieged by soccer, footy, motocross or men's basketball. Why is it that in 2005 women can vote, become self-made trillionaires, join the army, become the US secretary of state, (supposedly) become prime minister, but can't play in the AFL?

Maybe because top level sport requires speed and strength that women, unfortunately, can't biologically achieve? Why can I (supposedly) become PM, but not play in the AFL? Probably because I am slow and unfit?

Women need to be taught, just as men are, that their bodies are magnificent, powerful and capable of amazing physical achievements and not just skinny, weak-looking trophies made to grace the arm of a footballer on Brownlow night.

Couldn't agree more. I would fully encourage more participation of women in sport, but you can't force people to enjoy watching women's sport by mandating that the media give a certain amount of coverage to it.

The recent revelation that 80 per cent of the victims of the Boxing Day tsunami were women was partly attributed to the fact that women had a harder time climbing trees and running as fast as men. Even in Australia, who can be sure women wouldn't be as wiped out by a similar natural disaster, if we keep on shoving women's physical achievements under the rug and making it harder for them to be the best (sports) people they can be?

This has got to be one of the most laughable attempts to use a current tragedy to push an agenda that I have ever seen. She is suggesting that we are placing Australian women at risk of dying in a natural disaster because their failure to play enough sport will render them unable to run away quick enough or climb a tree high enough.

It doesn't matter if Little Athletics will take eight-year-old Jenny for baseball, for example. If all the media soaked up in Jenny's house reflect nothing but male baseball, Jenny is going to need five times more determination to continue playing if there's clearly no future in it. But if eight-year-old John enjoys baseball, he'll follow it through much more easily, not even knowing that he could have had a female rival; she dropped out years ago because she'd never seen a girl baseball player on TV and didn't want to be weird.

Johnny would also know that he would eventually have no female rivals by the time he finished puberty, because he would be a foot taller and 20 kilos bigger than them. And why would Jenny stop purely because there is "clearly no future in it"? Is Deasay suggesting that girls only play sport if they think they can go pro? What about the love of the game?

And when television, newspapers and radio start paying a bit more attention to women who are reaching the top of their games - or are even at the middle, as they do with men - then perhaps the wage gap, the sponsorship gap, and all the associated health gaps will begin to shrink.

Unfortunately I am worried that Deasay actually believes this - that if the media would just pay more attention to womens sport, then the public (and sponsers - back to the money issue again!) would, rather than acknowledging that the media and the money follow the crowds interest. The media has some part to play certainly, but all the media attention in the world won't knock a second off your sprint time, or add 200 meters to your drive.

Studies suggest that due to biological differences, women are better at some tasks than men. Similarly, biological differences mean that men at the elite level are better at sport than women.

2005-04-06T08:48:00.000+01:00

a thousand words

The Associated Press won a Pulitzer prize for Breaking News photography for their work in Iraq. You can see the photos here.

You will note that they all show US soldiers either being shot at, guarding prisoners, or dealing with wounded. The "insurgents" get a photo with a white dove on their shoulder (i kid you not) or else brutally executing an Iraqi election worker. You can see a summary of the controversy that surrounded that photo here.

I do find it amazing that they couldn't manage to fit in a single photo of that little election that the Iraqis had recently. You know the one, where 8 million people ignored the threats of murder to come out and vote. Where they were crying over their chance to finally have a say in who governed them. Any of this ring a bell? No? Didn't think so.

2005-04-06T05:13:00.000+01:00

Peace in our time

Nobody said anything in the media today which annoyed me, so it is time to see what our kooky cousins in Japan have been up to.

First up - a walking mech. With guns. Sure, the video available on the site makes it clear that the thing is made of fibreglass and can move at about 1 kilometre an hour, but who cares. An armoured robot's journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step...

Second - somebody has created a kit replica of the motorcyle from Akira. It is built on a scooter platform, and looks kind of dinky, but it is a postive development. Honda released a prototype some time ago that was heavily influenced by the design, so hopefully it is just a matter of time before I can ride my Akira-type bike to my job at the giant armoured robot factory...

2005-04-04T01:42:00.000+01:00

Why do they hate us?

Terrorism is bred by the "root causes" of poverty, resentment, the US blah blah etc etc - right?

The analysis of 500 members of Osama bin Laden's organisation has turned Western experts' presumptions about al-Qa'ida upside down.

Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist who conducted the study, said he assumed it would find that most recruits were poor and ill-educated.

"The common stereotype is that terrorism is a product of poor, desperate, naive, single young men from Third World countries, vulnerable to brainwashing and recruitment into terror," he said.

However, his study showed 75per cent of the al-Qaeda members were from upper-middle-class homes and that many were married with children; 60 were college-educated, often in Europe or the US.

And a lot of them were from Saudi Arabia - an erstwhile ally. The article finishes with this:

But Dr Sageman and Mr Anas agree that more recent al-Qaeda recruits are likely to come from less privileged backgrounds.

So you have admitted that your previous assumptions were completely wrong, but we should take your word for it that you will be correct about more recent recruits?

2005-03-29T00:30:00.000+01:00

Run away, run away!

Sigh. When a survey comes out, where should one turn to get the most selective interpretation of it? The Sydney Morning Herald of course. Using the calm headline of "Our new nightmare: the United States of America", the SMH tells us that:

Australians are as just as concerned about United States foreign policy as Islamic extremism and regard the US as more dangerous than a rising China, according to a new poll.

The Australians Speak: 2005 survey, commissioned by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, found 57 per cent of Australians were "very worried" or "fairly worried" about the external threat posed by both US foreign policy and Islamic extremism.

What this summary doesn't mention is that 63% were worried about "international terrorism", or that 44% were worried about illegal immigration and refugees.

Of course, without knowing the questions being asked, it is difficult to give any credence to a survey of 1000 people (that being .005% of the population) without knowing the questions asked. Enter Greg Sheridan:

The Lowy Institute poll on Australians' attitudes to international issues shows how the narrow sets of views held by foreign policy academics in Australia will inevitably replicate themselves in answers to questions designed by such folk.

...

On international law, respondents were asked to choose between these alternatives: "Australia should rely on international law even though decisions may go against us OR Australia should do whatever benefits us the most in any given situation regardless of what international law says."
Not surprisingly, the first alternative gets the majority vote.

But what would the answer be to a question phrased: If a group of officials from non-democratic countries with appalling human rights records operating in a UN committee directed Australia to do something the majority of its people thought was wrong, should Australia follow international law even though it involves doing wrong or should it do what it believes is right?

...

The pollsters' question on Taiwan is even more loaded. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the proposition: "Australia should act in accordance with our security alliance with the US even if it means following them to war with China over the independence of Taiwan."
Not surprisingly, a majority would not sign a blank cheque for a hypothetical war.

A more realistic question would have been: Do you think China is justified in mounting a military invasion of Taiwan, even if it causes tens of thousands dead, in order to reunify it with mainland China?

Of course his versions are just as loaded, but that is the whole point. The news reports covering this last night were at pains to stress that the Lowy Institute was "non-partisan", but its sympathies regarding foreign affairs are still pretty clear.

2005-03-21T03:23:00.000Z

Apple of his eye

Want more proof that Apple fanboys shouldn't do technology reviews? No? Well too bad, you can have some anyway.

Apple has been bullish in the MP3-player market. There's no sign of complacency either. It recently slashed the price of its regular iPod mini from $399 to a record-low $299 and introduced a 6GB model at $359, catching most of its competitors by surprise.

A "record low"? Is he suggesting that Apple have done something never before seen in the technology market and dropped the price of a product to something *gasp* lower than it has ever been before?

If you're a Mac user, the only choice you'll have to make is which iPod to buy, since few others support the Mac OS, let alone so elegantly.

Hmm, this could be because of Apple's piddling 5% market share I guess.

Those bound in Windows world, however, have plenty of options to consider.

Jesus, is he wearing a Steve Jobs t-shirt whilst typing this? Apparently there is no irony apparent to him when those of us bound in Microsoft enforced servitude actually have a *greater* choice available than Mac users.

All else being equal, however, the availability of accessories should be an important part of your purchasing decision. If you travel a lot and don't plan on carrying your notebook PC everywhere, then make sure there is a power adaptor.

Uh-oh mac boy - USB charging only for you.

Wired remotes, better-quality headphones, charging cradles, protective cases and spare batteries all make a difference to your total spend. You'll also want to consider battery life and whether the player can be used as a portable storage device for your data files.

And which of those come with the iPod mini? Hmm, none. But after looking at the competition, we get this:

There's no denying that Apple's competition has improved a great deal and players such as the Creative Zen Micro are great value for money when you take into account what's in the box.

As opposed to judging value for money by not taking into account what actually comes in the box?

In several key areas, however (such as simplicity of menu and controls, hassle-free music transfer, portable storage and elegance in design), the iPod still leads the way by getting the basics right and it's easy to see why it's the most popular player around.

Portable storage is a *plus* for the iPod? So basically, if you want a player that will only store music, requires a computer to charge, doesn't have an inline remote and forces you to use its, and only its, software, then the iPod mini still represents the best choice.

2005-03-20T23:28:00.000Z

I don't wanna be like Mike

Whilst it would be unfair to tarnish the reputation of an entire organisation through the actions of a select few, the record of sexual abuse by UN troops just gets worse and worse. For all the carping about the Iraq war being unilateral, it appears that as a parent, you wouldn't want the UN anywhere near your country or your children:

AUSTRALIAN soldiers drew arms to protect themselves from Jordanian peacekeepers after a Digger blew the whistle on other Jordanian soldiers' sexual abuse of East Timorese boys.

Corporal Andrew Wratten had to be evacuated and Australian commandos sent to protect Diggers in Oecussi, an East Timorese province in Indonesian West Timor, after he told the UN of the pedophilia that occurred in May 2001.

Corporal Wratten, who was working at a fuel dump in the enclave, was told by a group of children that Jordanian soldiers had offered food and money in exchange for oral sex and intercourse.

The allegations involved East Timorese minors, all boys, the youngest of them just 12 years old.

A Jordanian officer in HQ told the Jordanian contingent that Wratten had blown the whistle on their activities, so they came and threatened the Australians. Next time someone demands that the UN be sent in, I think the UN's record deserves serious consideration.

2005-03-17T22:01:00.000Z

Stoopid Orstraylans

Right from the get-go, you know this article in the Age is going to be a beauty:

A new award for an intellectual giant does not negate our cultural failings, writes Ashley Crawford.

Really? Giving one award to somebody won't automatically cure all our "cultural failings"? I am shocked. A theme of overbearing snobbery pervades the whole thing:

Smith has watched the dirge-like development of Australia's cultural life with an eagle eye. "Ambivalent" is the word he uses in his response to the Emeritus Award, for the simple reason that he has watched all too many sports figures heaped with praise while Australia's intellectuals have either fled the country or simply given up through lack of recognition.

One hopes he is less "ambivalent" about the $10000 cheque that accompanies the award.

"The reasons why are quite complex," he says. "I was married, I had a job. I knew there were opportunities for me overseas. I didn't stay for nationalistic reasons; I'm not a nationalist in that way, and I'm not a great admirer of the way this nation has treated its intellectuals. But at the same time I knew this country had a cultural future."

Wow, so we aren't facing a giant cultural black hole? Anyone who has seen an Australian film in the last five years may disagree with that.

In many ways, however, Smith is still awaiting the fruition of this vision. "We will become a more mature society," he says. "But we're still a young society, we don't have the cultural history of Europe or England or even the United States."

He is going for double points there - making the stunning observation that a 200 year old country doesnt have the cultural history of a 2000 year old country, plus the fact that we don't have the cultural history of "even the United States."

With his eclectic and roving eye, Smith is one of the giants of Australia's intellectual life. He remains staunchly committed to the notion of an intellectual Australia.

Thats big of him, but it makes you wonder whether he will ever be satisfied that there is such a thing.

"We're still not taken seriously," he says of Australia's standing overseas.

Oh, and your proof for this?

"I know to my cost because I have finished a book, which must be published in the Northern Hemisphere, and I have yet to find a publisher."

And that must be because of Australia's reputation as an intellectual backwater right - nothing whatsoever to do with the book? Lets have a look at the book:

Smith's latest opus is an important work on what he calls the formalesque. "The logic of it is this," he says: "We can't go on calling 'modernism' modernism forever. Modernism belongs to the last century, where abstraction was the dominant language.

I report, you decide.

2005-03-17T05:09:00.000Z

Talking crap, by Crikey

The Crikey community is hopping into Paddy McGuiness hopping into Alan Ramsey, with predictable results:

While many may call for Ramsey's head, his loss will be ours also. Ramsey fills a niche that needs filling. I like the fact that he quotes liberally from international sources. It helps to show up what a mindless little fish bowl most of our journalists live in. The fact that the newspaper lets him get away with it is their problem. I would never stop buying the SMH because of Ramsey, while at the same time I refuse to buy Thursday's publication due to the rubbish on the op-ed pages that day (I refuse to say her name). Tuesday looks likely to be the next day to go.

So you hate the mindless fishbowl that Australian journalists live in, but you will refuse to buy an entire paper because you disagree with one op-ed columnist?

In any case, the thrust of Ramsey's column (and Moyers remarks) is still true.

Well Moyer's remarks *were* Ramsey's column, and although it contained completely falsified remarks, we are supposed to be scared by the "thrust" of the column? Is that like the "fake but accurate" National Guard documents?

Failure to check sources is inexcusable, whether you're Alan Ramsey, Janet Albrechtsen, or whoever, and misquotes are relatively easy to check these days. Still, we need people prepared to stick their necks out in the interests of freedom of expression and free debate, and if they trip up, so be it.

Quoting entire slabs of other people's articles now counts as "sticking your neck out"? In that case, us bloggers must be a courageous lot...

The Moyers article raises serious issues about the role of religion in a secular state, and it's a pity that Ramsey did not even flag an Australian connection by mentioning Hillsong, Family First, or Cardinal Abbott's anti-abortion crusade.

Yes, it is a pity that Ramsey didn't add a local element, or add anything at all for that matter. This was one of McGuiness' criticisms.

Consider the facts: McGuinness was either pushed, or read the writing on the wall and jumped, from the SMH and Age last year. He subsequently indulged himself in a series of rants to Crikey about Fairfax's falling standards, incompetence etc. Gee, that's original - bagging the organisation that just sacked you. It had to be their fault, not his.

The Paddy piece in the Oz on Alan Ramsey contained what at first appears a gratuitous brown-nose of the appalling Tim Blair, but really on closer inspection is a job application for the Bulletin.

This guy doesn't even make an attempt at justifying Ramsey's appalling column, just attacks McGuiness. But the next is hilarious:

I have watched with growing concern as voices not in tune with the Government are being sidelined incrementally both in SMH and the ABC. Margo Kingston is hidden on-line, David Marr does not have a regular spot and now the prospect of Alan Ramsey being replaced by Michael Duffy (isn't he the one that hosts 'Counterpoint ' on Radio National?) reduces the spectrum of views expressed. On the ABC, Dr Michael McKinley is now rarely heard since he spoke out against the Iraq war.

Its the crushing of dissent I tells ya! Margo hosting an online discussion forum (I am being kind)whilst still managing to write an anti-Howard book and Marr not getting a "regular spot" after finishing up hosting a weekly television program are signs of anti-Government voices being "sidelined" Cue mass hysteria:

The pendulum is swinging too far to the right....and those who favour this should be aware of the danger of Fascism as it's extremity.

In case you missed it - Alan Ramsey quoting somebody misquoting somebody + PP McGuiness calling for his sacking + David Marr not getting a regular gig = Fascism.

2005-03-15T03:05:00.000Z

Did we forget to mention..

Tim Blair points to an article by Micheal Gawenda which claims that conservative bloggers were wrong about the liberal bias of the mainstream media:

Media coverage of the Iraq war by the American media was not biased in favour or against the war, according to new research, despite claims the coverage was generally biased and negative.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington think tank affiliated with Columbia University's school of journalism, looked at more than 2000 stories in newspapers and on television and websites.

Most were "straight" news reports, according to the survey's director, Tom Rosenstiel, with 25 per cent of the stories positive and 20 per cent negative. The rest could not be classified one way or the other.

I would be interested to see what they consider a "straight" news story, but even leaving that aside, I note that Gawenda doesn't mention this bit:

U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

or this:

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

and this directly contradicts Gawenda:

Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.

They can't both be right, and although 5% is not a massive difference, it will be interesting to see who is quoting the correct figure.

Well what do you know - Gawenda is wrong. I am shocked.

Update: Okay, I was wrong as well. Gawenda did mention the Bush/Kerry thing:

The report also looks at coverage of the presidential election campaign last year. It found 36 per cent of stories on Mr Bush were negative compared with 12 per cent for John Kerry, with 20 per cent of stories positive for Mr Bush, compared with 30 per cent for Senator Kerry.

But with this cop-out:

Mr Rosenstiel said these figures did not necessarily reflect bias but, instead, the fact that coverage was always more intense and questioning when it came to the incumbent.

Whereas the report says this:

When it came to the campaign, on the other hand, the criticism that George Bush got worse coverage than John Kerry is supported by the data.

2005-03-11T02:55:00.000Z

Smug mode

Yee-haa! Attila got quoted in the Australian. Kinda. Sorta. Not really.

In today's Australian, P. P. McGuiness takes the opportunity to gloat at the decline and fall of Alan Ramsey. He gives due credit to the blogosphere, stating:

The best of our local independent bloggers, Tim Blair (who happily has an institutional base and income from The Bulletin) put up on his website (www.timblair.net) at 10.49am on the Wednesday (on which Ramsey's column appeared) a piece pointing out that Moyers had got it wrong – that Watts never said: "After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back" – and had apologised to Watts.

I certainly wouldn't argue the naming of Tim as Australia's best blogger, but indulge me for a moment regarding Tim's post:

As should have the ideologue Ramsey, who’s been holding stoutly to a world view despite reality for some time. Why, it’s almost as though he’s delusional, or oblivious to the facts. Over to you, Media Watch; Ramsey deserves everything he gets.

(Via Attila The Pun and several readers)

I am of course also too humble to mention the link from Time's blog of the year, Powerline...

Of course, it can be depressing when you read others on similar topics, and they do a far superior job than you. Yes, I am talking to you Professor, among others...

As for the column itself, they have removed the offending paragraph, and posted a correction. Reasons why the remainder of the column should be given any credibility are not included in the correction.

2005-03-08T21:54:00.000Z

Oops

Sometimes they make it too easy. In another one of his cut and paste articles, Alan Ramsey quotes Bill Moyers, the founding director of Public Affairs Television:

"Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first secretary of the interior? He was the man who told the US Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in the light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said: 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.' Washington elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious."

The only problem is that he never said it. The journal which originally made the claim has admitted he never said it.

Powerline was all over this a month ago, including the op-ed response of Watt.

Does anyone seriously think Ramsey will publish a proper apology?

2005-03-07T21:59:00.000Z

Hear hear

Remember my rant some time ago about corporate responsibility? Well Paul Gilding (who is proof that some greenies are capable of rational discourse) is on the same theme today:

IF the Australian economy goes into recession, not only will it end our long economic boom, it will also be the end for many corporate social responsibility programs, with companies slashing or eliminating them to reduce costs. That will confirm what a weak and ineffective concept it is.

People concerned about environmental and social sustainability would be well served by the death of CSR. It needs to be replaced by a far more market-focused approach, a more Darwinian sustainability that sees environmental and social trends as opportunities for growth and competitive advantage.

Exactly - for a company, it should always be about the Benjamins. Increasingly, especially in the affluent West, the profits will flow to companies that people see as socially responsible - through attracting better staff, higher sales etc. For an artificial construct like a company, getting them to act in a certain way because it is the "right thing to do" is difficult if not impossible. A company should be a finely honed profit making machine:

But I don't want companies behaving responsibly out of moral guilt. This won't get companies to embrace sustainability with sincerity, let alone urgency or speed. I want companies to embrace sustainability because it will help them whip their competition. I want sustainability to be Darwinian.

My favorite paragraph:

This will apply in many different sectors, with the winners making more money - and good luck to them. I hope they rake it in. Those that fail to do so will fall by the wayside. Hey, that's what makes capitalism the cuddly creature it is. Winners win and losers lose. Creative destruction at work.

Worth a read.

2005-03-02T03:00:00.000Z

Next stop - legitimacy!

It will come as no surprise to many, but AFP have sunk to a new low in their struggle to label terrorists. The grand daddy of them all, Osama bin Laden himself, has now been described as a:

"Saudi dissident"

(via Chrenkoff)

2005-03-01T03:54:00.000Z

It is just like Vietnam

Lebanese are celebrating the resignation of the government. Sure, the Syrian backed President will want another pro-Syrian cabinet, but it is still a historic moment in that country's tortured history.

Check out a photo of celebration. Thats an interesting flag being waved. Could it be that those in the middle east have a somewhat different perspective on the evil neo-con conspiracy than the western left do? And wasn't the domino theory proven a myth in the 70's? I am so confused...

2005-02-28T02:32:00.000Z

Have some issues? Get some tissues

Today's twentysomething whine comes from Brigid Flanagan, a 23 year old International Relations Masters student.

This is where I stand. I am 23. I am a woman. I am highly educated. I am confident. I know my potential and my ultimate abilities. I believe I have got a lot to give.

Good for you, but not a situation screaming out for an op-ed piece I would have thought.

Like a great deal of my mates, I have been financially independent of my parents since leaving school. Juggling the demands of two jobs and full-time study is a reality I live with every day.

That aint easy, no argument there.

Knowing that my forebears fought hard for the eight-hour day, I resent working within a casualised workforce where nothing is guaranteed and a great deal is expected.

You have chosen to do an undergraduate degree, then chosen to do a masters, knowing that university has odd lecture hours. How can you then complain that you are forced to work casual hours? What sort of employer would (or should) take on an employee that can only work three hour shifts, or has to work after business hours? If you want to work 9-5, get a job with those hours.

My sister once worked a Friday night shift that finished at 11pm and had to be back at work by 7am the next morning.

With respect, but boo-hoo. If thats the worst you can come up with, then we are going nowhere fast.

I had to hold back the giggles as an area manager told me off for failing to reach a weekly sales target. Reminding me of the "performance-based rosters", I could not exactly explain that I had been up until 3am every night that week completing an important assignment or that I cared about my sales target even less than she did my dedication to my education.

I can't imagine why any employer isn't falling overthemselves to give Brigid whatever shifts work best for her needs. She has basically admitted that she doesn't give a toss about her job, and is just using it to pay the bills while she finishes her degree. Nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as both sides are honest with each other, but don't come complaining when a job you don't care about decides they don't care much about you either.

I am lucky because my other job is good to me and because I still live at home with my parents. Some of my workmates are not that fortunate.

Huh? When you were bragging earlier, you said you were financially independent. Living with mum and dad does not count as financially independent.

Having completed four years of university study, I have a major HECS debt and with an annual income of less than $20,000, a credit card debt that has hit $4500.

A HECS debt you don't have to pay off until your income gets higher. And what kind of poor financial management led to a credit card debt of $4500? Any holidays in there? A car maybe?

My grandparents are continually shocked at my acceptance of personal debt. For their generation, being thrifty was an attribute needed to survive the challenges of the Depression and World War II. The reality is that I will probably be in debt for the rest of my life.

A key point here - acceptance of debt. I do not argue that students are living the high life, but nobody living at home and working two jobs (with a bachelor degree completed you should be able to find jobs that pay better than $10k a year - I did) needs $4500 on their credit card. Your grandparents probably refer to it as "living beyond your means". And whose fault is that?

I largely blame the baby boomers for the creation of this situation.

I should have guessed.

Given a free tertiary education and largely supported by Commonwealth scholarships during the Whitlam era, the baby boomers enjoyed the freedom and power of being young and educated. They entered the workforce buoyed by their involvement in student politics and have failed to pass this gift on to the next generation.

Fishbowl alert. Have a look at the statistics for the boomer generation. How many went to uni? And what percentage were involved in student politics? The current campus left may look on the whitlam era with devotion (no HECS, vietnam protests), but for the majority of boomers it was as irrelevent to them as current uni politics are to most people today. Also, you have a free degree at the moment - HECS won't have kicked in. So any current financial difficulties can't be blamed on HECS payments.

Politically, these baby boomers have voted in consecutive conservative governments that have passed significant industrial relations legislation, environmental policies and education reform that has significantly altered the society that I am about to enter.

I think we can see where this is going - bring on the boilerplate:

The result of last year's federal election has shown that the generational weight of the baby boomers has little thought for the generations to follow. The old-growth forest in Tasmania's Styx Valley could not be saved and the fight against Brendan Nelson's tertiary fee increases was lost. I am waiting for the industrial relation reforms to fly through the Senate when it is reconfigured in July.

Now back to the whining:

This summer just gone, Zach Braff's movie Garden State, seemed to have an enormous impact on the group of 20-somethings I keep close and call my friends. An incredibly powerful statement on the transient feeling among my generation, the movie explores the idea that beneath the veneer of confidence my generation projects, we are all just a little bit scared, a little bit insecure and a little bit lost.

And what your grandparents would say to that (in a moment of candour) would be "suck it up". People of the X and Y generations have been given unparalled freedom and choice. They can decide to stay at home with their parents till their mid-20's, doing undergraduate and postgraduate study when the mood takes them. Then they may decide to travel for awhile, then maybe even look for a job. And during all this, some want to complain about lack of direction and insecurity.

Want some direction? Find some. Don't sit around complaining and blaming it on the generation that is housing and feeding you.

But I guess that is life.

Yes, that is life. Judging by her opening paragraphs, Brigid sounds like she has had a good one so far, and good luck to her. Writing angst filled op-ed pieces about racking up credit card bills and the travesty of having to occasionally pulling a double shift and missing mum's casserole does a disservice to those who truly are doing it tough in life.

2005-02-24T00:02:00.000Z

Whodunnit?

It is quite the mystery over at Blair's place. One of the howler monkeys at Webdiary wrote this:

This all adds up to lunacy. I'm appalled that Howard thinks he can get away with this. My father fought to keep Australia democratic and this is how we've ended up.

By allowing this to happen we are all shamed. Little by little we see our freedoms eroded. And where will it end? It will end with jack boots and brown shirts. Right here in our living rooms. That and Howard taking complete control of every arm of the government. Herr Howard the Hater.

Is this what we want? Not me! Killing democracy to make one man more powerful than all of us put together so one man can rule Australia like Sukarno ran Malaysia. You'd have to be crazy if you think I'm going to knuckle under jack boots and fascists. Over my dead body.
Everyone said he'd do this. My father - God rest his soul - knew it would happen. And it has. Down with Herr Howard!

All standard stuff really. But as the sharp eyed reader Hanyu points out, if you set it out differently, things change:

This all adds up to lunacy.
I'm appalled that Howard thinks he can get away with this.
My father fought to keep Australia democratic and this is how we've ended up.
By allowing this to happen we are all shamed.
Little by little we see our freedoms eroded.
A nd where will it end?
I t will end with jack boots and brown shirts.
R ight here in our living rooms.
T hat and Howard taking complete control of every arm of the government.
H err Howard the H ater.
I s this what we want?
N ot me!
K illing democracy to make one man more powerful than all of us put together so one man can rule Australia like Sukarno ran Malaysia.
Y ou'd have to be crazy if you think I'm going to knuckle under jack boots and fascists.
O ver my dead body.
E veryone said he'd do this.
M y father - God rest his soul - knew it would happen.
A nd it has.
D own with Herr Howard!

Hanyu guessed the Bunyip or EvilPundit. Both have denied it. Blair himself hasn't spoken on it. Well done to whoever it was.

2005-02-22T05:35:00.000Z

Brown from the waist down

Howard has announced that we will be sending a further contingent of 450 troops to Iraq. Their roles will include providing security for the Japanese troops stationed in the area and training Iraqi security forces.

The Japanese Government is happy at the announcement, as the Australians will be taking over the responsibility for the security of the Japanese engineers after the Dutch pull out. Britain is also happy, as they had previously agreed to take over this role. The deployment has also been approved by the interim Iraqi Government.

So who isn't happy? Bob Brown of course.

Senator Brown, in Perth for Senate hearings into the Iraq's wheat debts, said the move was both terrible and outrageous.

The troops are going to help protect other soldiers, as well as rebuilding roads and schools. This is "terrible" according to Brown.

"John Howard never told voters he would be sending 450 more troops to Iraq, never indicated that in the election campaign," he said.

"He effectively misled the Australian electorate on this issue and it is a huge mistake for Australia."

Thats because we hadn't been asked yet Bob. Howard also attacked Latham (he used to lead the Labor party) for his pledge to bring the troops home by Christmas. Hardly the actions of a man attempting to mislead the electorate about his intentions regarding troop deployment.

Senator Bartlett also had a crack, but is at least more sane:

"We understand there is a certain amount of 'You broke it, you fix it' for countries such as Australia that were part of the coalition of the willing," Senator Bartlett said.

"But we also ask the Government to get the bull out of the china shop and get all foreign troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, particularly any that are involved in any way in combat activities."

Couldn't agree more - the tricky part is when it will be "as soon as possible". I look forward to the day that all foreign troops leave Iraq as there is no longer any need for them. Regretably, that day isn't here yet. One of the things that will bring it closer is the training of Iraqi security forces, which is one of the jobs the diggers are going over to do.

2005-02-21T06:38:00.000Z

Couldn't agree more

This ranks relatively highly on the radness scale.

2005-02-21T06:08:00.000Z

iStupid

You would like to think that a technology writer for a major newspaper would do more than repeat whatever press release comes their way. Unless it is an Apple product of course.

Enter the Apple iPod Shuffle.

No display, no radio, basically a thumb drive with mp3 compatability. Wait, its actually:

The iPod shuffle is a brilliantly simple, funky music player with mass brand appeal.

There is no type of display whatsoever, no menu system and no click wheel.

Stripping it of all but the most simple of functions, then charging a brand premium, is "brilliantly simple"? Brilliant from Apple's point of view maybe, but surely not from a reviewer.

In comparison, it costs only 20 per cent more than a memory card of the same capacity.

Don't know where you are shopping pal, but try 1Gb of Kingston flash memory for as little as $130.

If you're going for long trips without a notebook by your side, however, its smaller memory capacity and lack of standard power adaptor (its lithium-ion battery charges directly from a USB port and an external charger is a $48 accessory) means the larger iPods are still a better bet.

Yeah, or a different flash based player that doesn't try and gouge you another $50 for a charger.

For the average commuter, jogger, or gym-junkie the shuffle is about the coolest thing that's happened to portable music yet.

That line has got to have come straight from Apple headquarters.

2005-02-20T10:23:00.001Z

Swampy, redux

I, of course, would never support physical violence against another person, but this is pretty amusing.

2005-02-20T10:23:00.000Z

Swampy, redux

I, of course, would never support physical violence against another person, but this is pretty amusing.

2005-02-19T05:51:00.000Z

Sod off swampy

This story is getting a fair bit of play in the blogosphere, and quite rightly so:

WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.
What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”

Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy.”

...

Mr Beresford said: “They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement.”

Last night Greenpeace said two protesters were in hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw, the other with concussion

I am surprised that this doesn't happen more often, particularly at logging protests. I guess they have gotten so used to having a heavy media and police presence at rallies that the idea that a bunch of pissed oil traders might go the knuckle never occurred to them.

2005-02-17T01:34:00.000Z

Compulsory freedom of choice

Sarah-Jane Collins is the NSW president of the National Union of Students. As such, she has a pretty vested interest in defending compulsory student unionism. As voluntary unionism has been attempted for the last 10 years, you think she would have had time to come up with some pretty compelling arguments to counter the Government's:

The federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, said this week: "It's a matter of principle in the 21st century that people should be free to join or to not join a [student] union."

Seems fair enough to me.

Nelson's argument is that universal membership of student associations contravenes the right to freedom of association, and that students should be given a choice as to whether or not they join.

Freedom of association being right up there with freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the pantheon of human rights.

The picture painted by the Government is one of exclusivity.

No, its one of freedom of association.

Student associations, the Coalition argues, take your money, invest it in fighting for communism, throw in some free beer and do nothing for students who are not interested in these things.

Thats not far from the truth, and the unions are their own worst enemy in the image they present, but it is not what the Government has argued. (as an aside, my student union spent a lot of money on promoting communism, but didn't give away any free beer as it would offend muslim students on campus)

So where are her arguments for compulsory unionism? You are removing a persons fundamental freedom, and imposing a financial burden on students, so you need some pretty powerful arguments to support it.

We may not see the advocates who push for change to university policy so that they are fairer and better for all students, nor do we notice the student representatives who argue for small but significant changes to practice on university committees and boards. And, unless we are in trouble with our studies, living arrangements or finances, we do not need the free legal advice, counselling and advocacy that student associations provide. Without crystal balls, how can we be sure that we will not need such services?

They are arguments as to why a student *should* join a union, not arguments as to why they *must* join a union.

Most of us sign up for and get involved in clubs and societies on our campuses, but few stop to think about the funding these clubs receive from student organisations, and how important it is to them.

You want to join a club, you pay to join it. That is how every other club (outside the precious uni campus) pays for itself.

The paper also outlines a process in place at most universities, by which those who do not want to join the students association can apply for (and are generally granted) an exemption.

So at "most" universities you can apply for an exemption and "generally" you are granted one? On what grounds? It is purely for those in financial difficulties, or can those ideologically opposed to compulsory unionism get an exemption as well? If you want to use it as a defence, you are going to need more detail than that.

The fight over voluntary unionism will be couched in terms of choice versus compulsion.

How else could you "couch" a fight which involves press ganging people into a union?

But what the Government will not mention is that students have already made their choice. In 1999 students came out in support of universal membership in large and determined numbers. In 1994, when the Western Australian Liberal government introduced voluntary unionism, students spent almost 10 years campaigning to have it reversed. The Gallop Government finally changed the legislation in 2003.

So if students are such a big fan of unionism, won't they all flock to join up under a voluntary regime? She doesn't even raise the free rider problem, which actually has some merit, and instead claims that students should be forced to join a union, because they are all in overwhelming support of it. If so, let them show it by joining out of choice.

The Government is trying to impose its ideology on the student body through voluntary unionism.

And you aren't imposing an ideology?

Over the years universities, their administrators and, overwhelmingly, students have rejected this policy. We will continue to say no and we will continue to fight for universal membership, because that is our choice.

bwhahaahah. It is students "choice" to be forced to do something? Did she even read this before submitting it? Also note the use of the word "universal" instead of "compulsory". Never let it be said that the left doesn't understand the power of attempting to control the language of a debate.

2005-02-16T10:44:00.000Z

Say sorry to the trees!

Climate change (it used to be called global warming, till we had a few cold summers) is a serious topic, requiring serious consideration and discussion. Therefore it is pleasing to see that environmental groups are no longer resorting to stupid stunts in order to get their "message" across:

Protesters from environmental groups including Greenpeace and The Wilderness Society meanwhile gathered outside Parliament House in Sydney to call on New South Wales Premier Bob Carr to lead the green fight.

The protesters set up an ice sculpture and watched it melt with the help of a wind turbine to mark their opposition to the Federal Government's stand.

The ice scuplture is the earth right? And global warming is the wind turbine yes? So we should not switch to "green energy" sources like wind turbines, err, right?

Melbourne didn't want to be outdone in stupid though:

In Melbourne, about 60 protesters on the steps of the Victorian Parliament waved the flags of the 141 countries that had signed the Kyoto Protocol.

The protest started with a passionate kiss between two people dressed as a beaming US President George W. Bush and a larger-than-life Mr Howard wearing a sash, saying: "I'm with stupid".

Eight years of Howard, and over four of Bush, and thats *still* all they can come up with? Bush is stupid and Howard is his lackey? Jesus people, at least some of you must have been creative arts students at Uni, how about getting some new shtick?

Of course, it is unfair to paint the whole greenie movement with the same papermache brush. Lets go to the Vice-president of the Australian Conservation Foundation:

"Australians have to continue to pressure John Howard in particular to realise he has to say sorry to the environment," he said.

Thanks hippy.