A Change of Tack

I’ve met enough Global Warming Deniers recently for me to realise that the Al Gore inspired climate change message isn’t getting through to everyone (for the record that continually re-surprises me). Despite the success of Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth (and the resulting rise in media coverage of the topic), just enough misinformation remains in the public space to lead some to believe that the issue remains undecided.

As I’ve asserted in past, the Jury came back long ago on this issue and the link between burning fossil fuels and increased global temperatures is as locked in as scientific inquiry can be. Unfortunately, in Australia (and in much of the Western World), the rigour of the scientific community is given less credence than the ‘investigation’ of Today Tonight or the ruminations of ‘Johnno’ from down the local pub. Hearsay and rumour all too easily trumps detailed analysis (i.e. “I heard those scientists were warning about global cooling 10 years ago and now they’re saying the opposite, you can’t trust them” – I swear someone said that to me recently with a straight face).

With that reality in mind, let me come at this from another direction. We have a limited, finite supply of fossil fuels. That’s a stone cold fact. The amount of coal, oil and gas currently underground is the amount we’ve always had and always will have. (I appreciate that slightly more becomes available with improved mining technology, but that doesn’t add to the overall amount on earth). Estimates of these reserves are shady at best – perpetuated as they are by energy companies with varying agendas – but suffice to say our supply will last some hundreds of years at most. A 2001 BP analysis estimated that we had about 50 years of oil, 75 years of gas and 200 years of coal at 2001 usage levels. With demand from India and China climbing exponentially, I think it’s fair to say that we’ll have mined and burned every last morsel (including the rest of the Amazon, everyone’s coffee tables and all those old newspapers) by 2200 – if things go exceptionally well from here (but probably sooner).

To my mind, that means that my hypothetical great-grandson may find himself sitting around in the dark on the floor (or maybe a plastic, non-flammable chair if he’s lucky) of his apartment wondering what we were all thinking. The lad makes a good point. Now seems the ideal time to fine tune alternative energy sources (all of them: wind, solar, nuclear, rodents on wheels) at a national and international level, and to get something sorted before we have to return to working by moonlight. It makes excellent financial and logical sense to get ahead of this demand now and to develop renewable energy technology now, rather than in 100 more years.

So, hopefully some of you Deniers like that argument a little better. It’s easier to digest. No more coal equals no more TV (and no more current affairs), no more refrigeration to keep those Extra Dry’s cold, and no more petrol to keep your SUV or people mover on the road. Whatever you’re preferred reason, it’s never been a better time to collectively wean ourselves off coal (clean or otherwise), oil and gas - and glance ahead to the future.

Back to Work

Well, since the memorable 100^th post a fortnight ago, it’s been all quiet on the posting front. At that time, John Howard was still Prime Minister – and still a member of parliament. I had spent the election campaign oscillating between hope for change and fear that the nightmare would continue. It seemed a logical (forgone) conclusion that Howard’s time would end, but the closer the election got, the more I was afraid that he’d slide across the line one more time.

On election night, I gathered a few close friends around the White Unit and tried to act natural while the votes started to tumble in. During the day I’d managed to find a couple of Liberal die-hards (who were climate change deniers to boot) while I was out and about – and their confidence further undermined my own. It was an unbelievable relief then, come 10pm or so, when the Libs conceded and Kevin ’07 became a reality. Champagne corks popped, high fives were exchanged and laps of honour were taken.

In the following days though, as the hangover wore off, and the afterglow faded, I couldn’t help but wonder what the day-to-day changes would actually be. 11 long years in the wilderness and finally, the time had come for Labor to put out. To his credit, Kevin has so far not disappointed me. Kyoto is ratified and we’re back in the climate change mix. The troops are still slated to come home from Iraq. Julia is in charge of education (a sign at least that it will be finally given its due) and Workchoices is dead in the water. Even Republicanism is being whispered about again. Clearly, there’s a whole lot of heavy lifting to be done, but so far, I like where we’re headed. For the record, I’m expecting more of Kevin than I did of Johnny – so he had better keep coming up with the goods.

The only sour notes from the election were predictable ones: Alex Hawke and Peter Costello. My nemesis, Mr. Hawke was named the new member for Mitchell (overwhelmingly) despite being right-er than a Hanson family reunion. It’s criminal that he should be the member for anywhere, but I’ll keep my eye on him, I assure you. We also got to see Mr. Costello’s true colours: he dropped his bundle and sulked away like a toddler with a scraped knee. He wanted to be handed to reins of the greatest Democracy in the world, but shied away from doing the hard yards that Opposition requires. We dodged a massive bullet by thwarting his run for the Lodge and for that I will always be thankful.

Don’t Fuck This Up Australia

Today’s post in an important one for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it marks 100 posts (who better to raise the bat on our behalf than Boony) since this whole crazy affair began back in September 06. It’s a milestone I wasn’t expected to reach given that precious few share my core belief that I’m actually going to be President one day. Second of all, this is my last chance before tomorrow’s vote to urge you all to get rid of Howard – a job that I sincerely hope that you’re up to.

In review, it’s been an epic 100 posts, during which we’ve managed to cover off on plenty of big issues. Most passionately, I have sought to emphasise the necessity of the separation of church and state (a point crystallised by my preferred evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins) though that is the tip of a growing iceberg. This Administration has also been outspoken on the persecution of the gay community (and the suppression of gay marriage), the taboo nature of euthanasia, our societies reluctance to donate their organs and whenever possible, the ineptitude of the United Nations. Closer to home, my Chief of staff was scathing in his condemnation of Bogans and our public transport quagmire alike. Most recently, questions of torture, racism and the coolness of Anti-flag have consumed our thinking – until giving way to the Kevin 07 juggernaut.

Squinting through the tears of nostalgia, that brings me to my next point: It’s Time. After 11 years of Howard’s erosion of public services, xenophobia, war mongering and arrogance we finally again have the opportunity to do something about it. We’ve had our chances in the past, and squandered them – only adding to the smugness with which we are governed. Tomorrow as you ready for the polls I want you to think back of the decade passed: the public services lost, the widening gap between rich and poor and the complete mismanagement of our foreign policy. I need you concentrate all your rage into a bitter little ball and release it in the form of a non-liberal vote (better stick with Greens if you’re not a Labor fan – the Dems are dead in the water). If you love your President at all you will heed my call, and elect anyone but Howard (until, you prove otherwise – you’re all on notice).

In closing, I want to thank my loyal readers for their continued support – you are the people in the forest that hears my tree fall - so that I know that it makes a sound. I pledge to be here in 100 more posts time, and to continue questing for the Presidency. Just make sure you do me one favour in the meantime: don’t fuck up tomorrow.

A Loophole in the System

After realising that I was going to be unable to vote on Saturday (due to an intense and all day game of cricket) in the upcoming federal election, I decided that I had a couple of options on my hands. The first required me to fill in an application to postal vote with explanation which sounded like far too much hard work. The second was to go into a polling office this week and place my vote early. Seeing this country isn't ready for our great "future" president to be elected

just yet, I had to resolve myself to voting for one of the current major parties.

When I made the trek into a dodgy and run down polling centre that was obviously struggling with the day full of people trying to vote early. The workers were struggling with the combination of rubbish everywhere, lack of resources and some very unhappy voters. Whilst waiting in the queue, I noted people were being turned away due to being in the wrong electorate and chuckled to myself thinking at least that wasn't me. When it was my turn, the lady "serving" me asked why I couldn't vote - I told her the cricket reason. Now I'm the first to admit that playing a game of cricket probably isn't up there on a list of national reasons to skip voting but I thought that it shouldn't matter. I was rudely told that it indeed wasn't a significant reason and that I should learn to read the rules of early voting before I turn up. The woman then proceeded to tell me that I had to be going oversees, interstate or ill in order to vote early. I was so angry at this and joined the line of people leaving dissatisfied.

At the exit I turned around, lined up again and when I got to the desk(another person this time) and was asked the same question - to which I replied "I'm going oversees". I then proceeded to vote early and the problem was solved.

The reason for my maiden rant on AFP was to suggest a better system. I know you can vote anywhere on Saturday and I support compulsory voting but there has to be a better way. There will be millions of other people that have equally as mundane excuse as to why they can't vote on Saturday that will either cop the fine or run into the obstacles as I have. I would like to know why after the advertising campaigns have finished, polling booths can't be opened up for a period of 5 days or so. This would allow people who are keen to do the right thing, an opportunity to do so without having to lie. It is the reason that the early polling stations and the people who work in them are now dead to this organisation. They should be very worried for their jobs because when the true great leader of this country comes into power - they will find themselves lining up at Centrelink. Rant over, the Secretary has spoken!

Hail to the Chief

It should come as no surprise to you all, that I consider Stephen Colbert to be my mentor in the world of political commentary – and more recently in the running for President stakes. Colbert started out as a correspondent on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show back in ’97, but was launched on a solo juggernaut in 2005 with the debut of his own show: The Colbert Report. Those of you unfamiliar with his work should do yourself a favour and get familiar with it – the man’s a comic genius. His show is basically faux news, mocking the bevy of political pundits that make their living clogging cable news channels in the US (and increasingly here). Though he describes himself as "well-intentioned, poorly informed high-status idiot" his parodies are generally on the money and the show overall is surprisingly informative.

So, given that he was already top of my hero food-chain I didn’t know where to look when Colbert threw his hat into the Presidential Ring for 2008. Prompted by his adoring fan base, some sections of the media and his own supercharged ego, Colbert announced his run on The Daily Show wheeled in on a carriage drawn by Uncle Sam. Surprisingly to many, the ‘campaign’ began developing elements of semi-seriousness: A campaigning weekend in South Carolina, a filed Democrat application to be on the primary ticket in that state and polling numbers suggesting he was ahead of many other (lower tier) legitimate candidates (these were contrasted against less serious elements, such as his Doritos’ sponsorship and chosen running mate - himself).

Unfortunately, the buzz that had started to build around Colbert was quickly quashed by the kill joys at the South Carolina Democratic Executive Council who voted 13-3 to reject his application. Part of their reasoning that Colbert was not ‘a viable candidate’ may have been justified given that he only planned to run in one state – but some media reported that the ‘real’ candidates had intervened to suppress his growing popularity. Whatever the case, it was a disappointing turn of events. (As an aside, Colbert also planned to run as a Republican but couldn’t afford the ludicrous $35,000 filing fee!!)

In honour then of Colbert’s aborted run, and as a reminder to be better prepared for my own, the right hand side-bar now contains the Colbert 08 Memorial Boards. The ‘On Notice’ and ‘Dead to Me’ boards are one of my favourite jokes from his show – if you wrong him, you get put on notice, and if you persist then you’re dead to him. A simple, effective and hilarious system. You will note that my absentee (non-posting) ministers are already on notice, as is work choices and you the voting public (more on that later). Tony Abbott of course, is long dead to me.

In Case of Emergency

You know what my favourite type of justice is… poetic justice. This is the type exacted on the most deserving of antagonists – in a manner usually including some delicious irony. Given that I’m partial to this sort of cosmic ledger-balancing, I had a particularly pleasant week – capped as it was with yet another interest rate rise and continued decline of the Howard re-election campaign.

Allow me to elaborate. For many of his 11 years as PM, Howard has frequently played the interest rate card. The basic story goes: rates were through the roof (and in the teens) when Labor was last at the helm under Keating/Hawke and have been significantly lower ever since – how can we ever trust Labor again…ever. In 2004, low rates was one of the pillars of his comfortable election win (along with fear of terrorist attack and fear of Mark Latham). At stages when Labor momentum has mounted, the economic scare campaign has only intensified and the same old comparisons to the Keating years are made.

So it seems fitting then, that the pressure of rising interest rates is finally coming to bear on the Coalition. Following six successive rises since 2004, rates have reached a 10-year high – and the media are all over it. Costello is finally admitting that the rates are not totally within the government’s control (set as they are by the independent Reserve Bank) – while Howard is meekly reciting an “it would be worse under Labor” mantra. Pathetic. Finding themselves backed into an economic corner, the Libs reach for the miniature hammer hanging beside the small glass cabinet above Howard’s desk which reads “In Case of Emergency Break Glass”… and hurriedly bust it open.

Apparently inside they found a small slip of paper, penned by Howard himself when he was younger and bolder. The paper merely reads: “Spend the surplus!” – and so (promise to) spend they do. School tax rebates exceeding $9 billion, tax cuts of $1.6 billion for first home buyers and over half a billion for child care – bringing Howard’s total promises to greater than $60 billion (The Age noted: “In a speech… lasting just over 42 minutes, Mr Howard's pledges amounted to spending at a rate of $3.7 million a second”). The actions of a desperate man – but again, actions tinged with irony. All that spending is guaranteed to lead to only one thing: higher interest rates.

Get in on the Ground Floor

Mid-week, another Presidential milestone was passed – my second birthday as the head of a fictional Administration. As with last year, I was disappointed to see that no Marilyn Monroe look-a-likes leapt from cakes and no one sang me a single verse of Happy Birthday Mr. President.

Still, all was not lost. My Ministers were on hand (check the archives, not only do I have ministers – they even used to post) for some low key celebrations and I added a shiny new Nintendo Wii to my collection (do yourself a favour and get one). The highlight though was clearly the gift I received from the First Lady – the novelty t-shirt pictured above (the blog address is on the back). For the record, those are my real pecks, and no I don’t work out.

As I wore my new t-shirt out and about on Saturday, I was pleased by the response. Shopkeepers congratulated me on my fake position and passers-by promised to keep an eye out for me on the upcoming ballot. It made me wish that my official campaign to seize office in this country was a decade or two closer than it’s currently scheduled to be…

All that positivity though got me thinking. After convening my cabinet we agreed that it’s time to being the viral campaign of hearsay and propaganda that will lift this Administration from relative obscurity – to national renown. To aid in this cause, I’m offering to supply Presidential t-shirts to loyal AFP citizens for cost price (which, incidentally is $45 – novelty t-shirts don’t go cheap). If you’re interested in being a part of the juggernaut (hurry because it’s on the launch pad), email me at australiasfirstpresident@gmail.com with your request. Remember, nothing expresses your serious political views more eloquently than a hilarious (or in this case, novelty) t-shirt.

My Offer Still Stands

Back in the early days of my Presidency I explained one of the key perks of holding the highest fictional office in the land: three free assassinations. With my band of ASIO snipers at the ready, I need only deliver the name of an adversary – and he/she would be ‘rubbed out’. Three exterminations, no questions asked. At the time I considered it obvious that my first target would be none other than the Honourable Tony Abbott MP. His far-right wing positions and his gross mishandling of the Health portfolio made it clear to me that Australia would be bet off without him. I can assure you that the passage of time has not changed my mind.

Unfortunately, in the intervening time though, I have not risen to Presidential power. The order for his termination was never given; his concrete shoes were never poured and no sniper’s bullet ever locked and loaded. Mr. Abbott has continued to persecute marginalised sectors of our society (gays, aboriginals, the sick and elderly) and run the health system into the ground (I’d say “I told you so”, but I’m not the gloating type) – but somehow remains a revered Liberal Minister. His behaviour this week though has pushed his bar of intolerance and arrogance higher than usual, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the PM was starting to wish that he’d heeded my warning.

In an action packed few days, Abbott managed to insult dying asbestosis sufferer Bernie Banton (of James Hardie fame), was caught calling (opposition health spokeswoman) Nicola Roxon’s comments ‘bullshit’, and was half an hour late to a televised 1 hour debate with the same woman. Tony capped his day by reneging on the governments bail out/management plan of Tasmania’s troubled Mersey Hospital. Smooth. He spent much of the afternoon trying to apologise for all this, a task that was clearly foreign to him – but a necessary one given the looming election. For mine, his mumbled calls for forgiveness fell on deaf ears.

Overall, Tony’s week has crystallised two thoughts in my mind. Firstly, when I finally do sit down at my mahogany Presidential desk, his name will still be the first that I ink on the back of a coaster (subsequently passed down the line to my ASIO men). In the meantime though, I’m content in the knowledge that Abbott’s continued existence increasingly weighs heavy around the neck of an already drowning PM. If everything goes to plan, they’ll disappear below the surface together and I can spare my assassination for someone more relevant.

My Gagged Adversary

Committed AFP checkers will recall that the former head of the Young Liberals and the currently preselected member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke, was recently nominated to be my nemesis. The combination scarecrow, tin man and cowardly lion (pre-wizard of course) seemed to have just the right mix of characteristics to play the VD to my penicillin (look it up). The challenge was issued - and while I know that Mr. Hawke is an avid AFP reader – he has remained uncharacteristically silent.

For a while there I considered that his non-responsiveness may have sprung from the nagging self doubt that must accompany the persecution of minorities, or from the guilt that stems from a life lived in an elitist bubble. It even occurred to me that he was (sensibly) lying low, after Michael Towke, a fellow member of the Liberals Right Wing (cult, sect, whatever) was publicly humbled after his failed attempt to usurp the Sydney seat of Cook. In reality though, it was none of the above and I should have known better. Earlier this month the Liberal Party issued a gag-order, officially barring Hawke from media interviews – and I presume, sparring with the future President of Australia.

In these pre-election weeks, muzzling one of your most notorious and controversial candidates is a fabulous idea – at least in principle. There is nothing worse that could happen to the government, than their youthful Mitchell candidate (described by Labor as "an extremist and a divisive character") espousing his anti-gay, anti-migrant, ultra conservative views – not to mention his contention that the concept of an Aboriginal Stolen Generation is a fallacy. Still, personally, it’s a shame. How would Spiderman feel if Dr Octopus had to fight in a straight jacket? Would it have been as impressive if David had slain Goliath, while the big man was on his knees? For the time being, this showdown is more whitewash than arm wrestle.

My personal disappointment aside, gagging a zealous partisan is only a short term solution. Eventually Alex will need to hit the campaign trail and leave the rarified confines of David Clarke’s (right) wing –powerless to hide his true self from the public any longer. The good people of Mitchell will then hopefully be given the opportunity to known the true extent of the conservative that they are voting for. In the meantime, given my desire for a worthy adversary, I may need to look for a new nemesis.

A Clear Winner

According to the word on the street, I was one of the few people under 40 to sit through Sunday night’s debate. For those of you that missed it, I can give you a one sentence summary: Rudd dominated. The collective press are putting Rudd’s emphatic victory down to his position as the challenger (his fresh ideas and ability to stand at the podium without collapsing) – but for mine his win was all to do with substance and very little to do with incumbency.

For starters, Rudd’s a hell of a debater. He’s a polished, articulate speaker who has taken great pains to de-nerdify himself and to reach out to the common man. In general, his points were peppered with optimism and a sense of looking forward. In comparison, Howard seemed to be stilted (and at times petty) as he tried to deliver the same script that got him over the line last time. Economic management, low interest rates, national security, economic management….and so on. It was heavy going. Without having to sift through the whole 90 minutes of dialogue, I thought Rudd’s debate win was sealed in 3 areas in particular, finally highlighting some differences between himself and the PM.

1. Workplace Relations

This is undoubtedly a defining election issue. The Work Choices plan the government have implemented has been generally unpopular, particularly with workers (not so much with businesses) – as it seeks to cheapen the cost of labour in this country. Of course, as President, I would scrap it. On the other hand, Labor’s close ties with Unions have hurt them in the past given wide acknowledgment of the problems associated with the balance swinging too far back in this direction. Rudd did particularly well in navigating the mine field that is his 7/10 likely Union Ministers, while quoting Costello’s view that a minimum wage is the only working condition that isn’t negotiable. The public have the choice between likely expansions to work choices (and less guaranteed benefits) and the familiar yet icy grip of the unions. Expect to see much more on this.

2. Economic Management

Interest rates were 17% last time Labor was in government… I realise that, but I'm over it. That was a long time ago, and the sins of the father shouldn’t be visited upon the son (Rudd also noted on the night, that they were pretty high when Howard was treasurer during the Fraser years). I also don’t like the method the Libs claim is best for keeping rates low – fat budget surpluses. I would gladly see interest rates edge a little higher, if the coffers could be opened and some of the billions could be spent on health and education infrastructure – the very thing the Rudd suggested would help to strengthen the economy into the future.

3. Working Families

The clearest difference on the night was the overwhelming perception that Rudd cared about us battlers. He used his closing remarks to emphasise his concerns about everyday pressures: the cost of education, groceries, petrol and child care. In contrast, Howard claimed that his generous tax cuts were relief enough. The Libs mantra of we’ve “never been better off” was successfully spun to portray them as arrogant and out of touch. For the record, Howards closing remarks focused on national security, and a greater emphasis on Australian history in schools. An oversight, I would’ve thought.

Given Rudd’s dominance, I still have some concerns. Costello is planning to debate Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan next week – a match up that is much more in the Libs favour (I got a funny feeling Costello is going to crush him). We’re still also five or so weeks out from the election and poll leads have a habit of disintegrating as the intensity of the campaigns increases. The Liberal fear machine is still working up its momentum, and Rudd is one gaffe (or punched cab driver) away from obscurity. Kevin’s doing well, but this election is far from decided.

Kevin 07

Well, it’s been a while; almost a month actually, and not a single post. Rest assured though, this President is alive and well – bracing himself for the flurry that the election season will no doubt bring. A big contributor to my leave of absence was the failure of my (until now) trusty Acer laptop. From its keys, this very Administration sprung to life – only to wither and die just when I needed it the most. In retribution I’m vowing never again to buy an Acer product, employ officials on my staff who use them, or to stop if I see an Acer employee crossing the road. The wheel of justice has turned.

Still, if I’m going to be honest, my new $1500 paperweight wasn’t the only reason for my time off. The same old news cycles had begun to wear me down: Bush is dumb and getting dumber (“the childrens do learn”); the UN bumble on, powerless to solve small problems, let alone global warming and Darfur – and here at home the Liberal election machine was firing up to dupe us again. It was this last point in particular, that weighed down on me. While many are saying that Kevin 07 is inevitable, I have the cold, horrible feeling the Howard may have one more in him.

At this time in the last election cycle the Labor faithful had cause for optimism. Mark Latham, the young firebrand was at the helm, promising fresh ideas and enthusiasm (not to mention a new take on using the term asshole in press conferences). Howard lagged in the polls and the ‘time for a change’ line was getting trotted out country wide. The leaders debated on channel 9 and as the ‘worm’ turned in Latham’s favour, even the doubters dared to hope that Howard’s time was up. History reflects though that the opinion polls weren’t worth the $13/hour call centre employees that had gathered them. The Libs refocused the campaign on the War on Terror and Interest Rates (they threw in a tax cut) and sprinkled in a bevy of spending promises for health and education. Levering off our fears and pandering to our hopes – Howard’s Libs were clear winners.

Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Put like that, its no wonder I’ve got déjà vu. Howards trails in all the opinions polls. We’ve already been promised our $20 a week tax cut, some action on Aboriginal reconciliation (finally) and the same increased health spending we were promised last time. Interest rates (which are out of the governments control of course) and economic management are again key issues. The occasional Terror Alert adds icing to what is starting to look like a (familiar) but edible cake. I guess I'd be laughing too.

Naively though, I’m back in the Oval Study, daring to hope that this time it’s different. Kevin Rudd is no Mark Latham and Peter Costello is no John Howard. Another term has passed and we’re all just a little bit sicker of the getting screwed over by ‘the man’. The next few weeks promise to be full of dirty, personal politics – but your President has returned, and we’ll get through it together.

IVF Suit

In the last day or so a lesbian couple who sought IVF to have a child have been all over the media – unfortunately though, it’s for all the wrong reasons. The couple are suing Dr Robert Armellin, the clinician they say negligently caused them to have two children and not the one they asked for. They accuse the doctor of incorrectly implanting two embryos and are pursuing a civil law suit to the value of $400,000 – the cost of raising their ‘surplus child’.

News of this case troubles me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I would classify this as a frivolous law suit. No question. It should be immediately (laughed) tossed out of court and the women in question forced to pay for wasting the court’s precious time. IVF is painful (emotionally and physically), costly and success rates are low. Many couples try repeatedly and fail. Multiple embryos are often implanted to increase the chance of success. Having a successful procedure is something to be treasured – the concept of ‘too successful’ doesn’t occur to most childless couples (gay or straight). The scourge of the frivolous law suit has long sickened the continental US and is emboldened with each new victory. It is a disease that I had hoped we would be largely spared of, as a people who supposedly pride themselves on common sense.

Second of all, and perhaps more important is the impact this saga is having on the rights of same sex couples to have a family though IVF. At a time when the issue is still divisive and certainly topical, this bad publicity is sure to be extrapolated. Critics are bound to seize upon this suit as reinforcement of unfair (and plainly incorrect) stereotypes which seek to undermine the value same sex couples place on having children. The quotes already in print from this case implying that the women had allocated enough love and resources for one child, but not for two – are damaging in general, but particularly so for same sex couples, already under fire.

Overall then, this case represents a two fold danger. Frivolous law suit season could be upon us, and anti-gay rhetoric could be louder than usual in the coming days. My advice then is to fight the urge to make a quick buck via a dodgy law suit, but to even more strongly repel the (all too common) human failing of judging minority groups by the actions of a few.

Keep an Eye on Pakistan

While we spent our collective week fretting about the APEC fence, the danger posed by anarchist hippy protesters (and j-walking accountants) and the nerve of those Chaser Boys – the relative stability of the subcontinent looked increasingly shaky. General Pervez Musharraf has ruled Pakistan for nearly 8 years as both military commander and President after taking power in 1999 in a bloodless coup d'état. Recently though, his people are crying out for a return to democratic rule and for Musharraf to go - throwing the future of the nations 160 million Muslims into question.

Pakistan was ‘created’ in 1947, following a British plan to partition their colonies in the subcontinent along religious lines. Majority Hindu regions become modern day India, while corresponding Muslim areas comprised East and West Pakistan (with East Pakistan subsequently succeeding to become Bangladesh). Soon after the partition, the British abandoned the region and years of rioting and blood letting followed. Civil war, corrupt governance and tensions over disputed territories (particularly Kashmir) have meant that Pakistan’s 60 years of sovereignty have been filled with violence. In this context, you can appreciate the relative calm (death remains a part of everyday life) that Musharraf’s military rule has brought – even though it has come at the cost of true democracy and many civil liberties. He is such a polarising figure that he has endured at least 3 assassination attempts since 2003.

Let me assure you at this point, that this is not a useless history lesson. The politics of such a populous Muslim nation and their role in the wider world couldn’t be more important. It’s the kind of thing that should be played on the evening news in preference to Hollywood gossip and petty local political. Currently, Pakistan is classified as an ally of the US, and has at least given the pretence of battling Al-Qaeda – while objectively they have drifted away from democratic ideals that had started to take hold prior to the coup.

In the coming months, Pakistani’s will come to a very important fork in the road, Musharraf is almost guaranteed to go – but who will he be replaced by? Down one path Pakistan can return to Democracy and demonstrate that Islam and this form of governance are not incompatible. The Army will be separated again from the Government and faith in the judicial system and free press restored (these have been eroding fast of late). Alternatively, military rule will continue, and more and more rights slowly stripped away. Extremism that flourishes in the border regions of the nation could take wider hold and 'The West' could lose an invaluable ally. Whatever the case, Australian’s should care very much about that outcome.

Scrap Workchoices

Industrial Relations (IR) policy here in Australia is a thorny issue in the lead up to the soon-to-be-announced election – perhaps even the decisive one. While health care, education and infrastructure may be just as important, it is the work place where Australian’s are feeling the most immediate threat. In this context, the performance of IR Minister Joe Hockey and his opposition (and Deputy Labor Leader) Julia Gillard couldn’t be more crucial over the next month. They’ve been trading jabs for a year or so already, but for mine, Julia is gathering momentum – and clearly out boxed Hockey during last nights ABC debate.

The reason simply put, is that the Labor party seem to at least be heading in the right direction: establishing a fair balance between workers and employers – something of particular importance for our poorest workers. They realise the value of collectively bargained agreements, as well as the flexibility for people pulling down 6 figures or more, to sort themselves out. In contrast, the Government seems to have noticed that businesses (and the economy) grow faster when labour is cheaper – and are letting ‘the market’ decide how much 10 hours on a production line is worth (not much).

The value of a good IR policy was impressed upon me as I worked my way through Uni at a bottling plant in the western suburbs. The plant was a microcosm of the wider workforce: the 50 or so employees included a CEO, marketing department, sales force, scientists, engineers, forklift drivers, cleaners and production line workers. In the same car park, the CEO’s yellow Peugot convertible (he even had driving gloves and cap for winter) nestled next to my 1981 commodore with the cracked head. It was an amazing learning experience. The degree-qualified staff enjoyed fat salaries and air conditioned offices, while the battlers pulled 12-hour shifts in the stifling bottling plant. The years I spent there taught me two things about Unions: without them, low-skilled workers are helpless and at the mercy of fast-talking HR managers – but also that Unions can quickly over-reach and become obstructive.

It seems obvious to me then, that the Government’s role is only to fine tune that balance. Let Unions represent blocs of unskilled workers to guarantee minimum conditions, but allow employers to sack problematic workers and to be free of unnecessary strike action. Last night, on The 730 Report, Julia Gillard said as much – while Hockey sought only to demonise Union involvement and to point to our growing (resource fuelled) economy.

Philosophically, we are being presented with two options. Under Labor we will continue to protect our lowest paid workers, allowing them to bargain for better pay – coupled to increased productivity. In contrast, the Libs are sending the message that our international competitiveness and economy at large rely on reducing labour costs and that maintaining basics rights is an unnecessary expense. Viewed in this light, there seems to be no contest; happy workers are productive workers - and trying to compete with China’s low cost labour force by oppressing our own is a fool’s errand.

Alberto Gonzales

If anyone was wondering how long an elected Administration official can get away with lying to the public and Congress for – the answer is about 6 months; and we have US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to thank for that insight. The troubled Gonzales finally bowed the chorus of calls for his resignation, ending a farcical period for the Bush Administration and its allegedly non-partisan Justice Department.

Gonzales became Attorney General in February 2005, after a Texas law career marked by a long association with Bush. Most notably, Gonzales was appointed Secretary of State (of Texas) and elected to the Supreme Court in that state – both personal nominations by then Governor Bush. If nothing else, the Bush Presidency has taught us how valuable he regards loyalty (certainly above competence), and Gonzales is a loyal foot soldier (yes man), if ever there was one.

Gonzales proved to be an invaluable tool in Bush’s War on Terror, presiding over the obliteration of many the basic rights prisoners of war have previously been granted. He was instrumental in the creation of Camp X-Ray (Guantanamo Bay), the necessary side-stepping of the Geneva Convention and the designation of detainees as ‘enemy combatants’ (thereby leaving them in legal limbo). His suppression of habeas corpus (the right to seek relief from unlawful detention; literally the prisoner’s right to appear before a court) consigned many, like David Hicks, to languish in Gitmo with no oversight.

Still, it wasn’t until Gonzales pressed his luck in the homeland that his actions came under closer scrutiny. His role in laws allowing warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens and the dismissal of 8 US Attorneys (for political reasons, ie: they were not sufficiently pro-Bush) sparked particular outrage. Congress’s questioning of Gonzales turned into a circus as his memory failed him. In one sitting he was heard to say “I do not recall” over 70 times! He was subsequently accused of lying to congress, a charge Stephen Colbert hilariously defended, on the basis that maybe Gonzales is just retarded (see below).

In all, it’s a great relief to many that Gonzales is gone. Coupled with the departure of Iraq War architect Donald Rumsfeld and Root of All Evil, Karl Rove – a light is appearing at the end of the dark tunnel that has been the Bush Presidency. Now, if only we could do something about Cheney, and Bush himself, we’d be getting somewhere.

The Straight Talk Express

Lately, it seems to me that dishonesty has become a disproportionate part of the society I live in. It’s probably a consequence of getting older and having the naivety of youth stripped away (or at least eroded), but I’m feeling like lying is the new black (I appreciate that maybe everyone always lied this much, but this is the first I’ve heard of it). As I bumble my way through my day, more and more often, I’m becoming entangled in one tangled web of deceit after another (and not small lies either, but complicated, interwoven tales that require effort to create and to maintain). Such are the lengths of some of these imaginings that it is often necessary to take a break from logic and reality to maintain my sanity.

The fashion of bending, shaping and sucker punching the truth comes undoubtedly from the top down in our culture. Politicians are so synonymous with lying that the concept has become a cliché. Still, I guess I often marvel at the extent to which the lies are peddled to and accepted by the public; it seems that there is no limit to the spin. Take the scandalous case of the Liberal pre-selection for the federal seat of Cook as a recent example. The nominally chosen candidate, Michael Towke was accused of branch stacking, blatantly making up his CV – including his education and work experience, and of being part of a right wing conspiracy involving my nemesis. Instead of disciplinary action, the state executive of the Liberal party has given its full support to Towke (despite compelling evidence) – in exchange for his withdrawal. The solution then was to counteract Towke’s initial set of lies with some Liberal Party sanctioned ones. He who lies last, lies loudest.

There would of course be 1000 other examples every day – the strange thing at the moment though is that getting found out in your lie doesn’t seem to have consequences. Iraq had no WMD’s, there was no actual evidence to trial David Hicks, Mohamed Haneef was not a terrorist and the world won’t end if the next US President is a Democrat. Peter Costello does not have mystic power over interest rates, Kevin Rudd is not (generally) a drunken pervert and nuclear energy is not the slippery slope to the apocalypse.

This sort of environment makes politicians who specifically purport to tell the truth all the more popular (though none ultimately follow through). It’s the reason John McCain was such a popular Presidential candidate for a time back in 2000, driving around as he did in a bus dubbed the ‘Straight Talk Express’. It also explains why his popularity has waned of late; he got all establishment and forgot to just keep telling it like it is. In Australia, we generally lack a straight talker, but Kevin Rudd is trying and I appreciate his effort. Note it down now though, when it comes time for this Presidential Campaign to lift off, it will be on one key platform: the truth.

Until then, I have few suggestions for fighting back against the culture of deceit. There will always be liars, and there will always be people who are prepared to be lied to. You can all start though by weeding out the more elaborate webs that have been spun in the corners of your lives and refuse to accept the dreamy imaginings your associates have some how manipulated into ‘fact’. Breaking down these most audacious of stories will help bring us back to a situation where lying is the exception and not the rule. After all, indulgence makes us complicit in the lie - as Homer Simpson famously pointed out: “it takes two to lie: one to lie and one to listen.”

Gossip-mongering

Across the world, it was a busy news weekend. Hurricane Dean lashed Jamaica and generally terrorised the Caribbean; the Gaza strip was plunged into darkness following the EU’s cancellation of fuel aid; space shuttle Endeavour prepared for re-entry despite damage to heat shields (a fearful reminder of the 2003 Columbia disaster); Mattel recalled 18 million lead tainted toys, and a suicide bombing in northern Iraq claimed up to 500 lives. Surely, these few examples were at the forefront (or at least in the top 10) of reports I saw over the weekend? Mmm, Nah.

Evidently, Kevin Rudd’s 2003 visit to a New York strip club is more news worthy than all of these, demanding an inordinate amount of airtime and comment (including 7’s Sunrise tour of the facility this morning). I have two problems in particular: 1. Our media has become so frivolous and focused on scandal and hype that it has forgotten its role as public educator (as distinct from entertainer) and 2. How far back are we to reach in order to smear an otherwise quality candidate, and how trivial need the offence be?

Firstly, our pathetic media. My criticism is restricted primarily to commercial television and print, as SBS and the ABC do a passable job of reporting with integrity and world context. It’s a favoured rant of mine and admittedly an easy target. Ten’s first at five circus, the current affairs phenomenon – and don’t even get me started on what passes for breakfast news. Over time the content has been continually watered down and jazzed up, lots of flashing lights and little that will invade your consciousness. Report on the fashion show, play up the latest P-plater tragedy, throw to the weather gimmick, finish with a panda bear wearing a nappy, and that’s a wrap. It’ll never cease to anger me. My solution is to beam Al Jazeera into all our living rooms – the details of which will be forthcoming in a future post.

The primary issue here is the extent to which we will all tolerate the smearing and muck racking that passes for politics these days. It seems that the campaign for PM has already degenerated into a contest about who can dig up the most embarrassing fact. Rudd’s wife’s multinational screws over some workers, Howard and Costello hate each others guts and both forget the name of the candidate they are supporting. All of which says very little about the quality of the candidate or their ability to be leader, let alone their little talked of policy positions. Rudd’s current Strip Club predicament is no different. Rudd’s clearly a family guy, not a noted beer enthusiast, and arguably an awkward geek. Still, he had a few too many to drink and got carried away with the (no doubt forced) male bonding. Who hasn’t been there? He woke up with a headache, a bag full of regrets, and no doubt that dirty feeling that won’t go away even after 1000 showers (that strip clubs are notorious for). Again, that doesn’t make him the Lone Ranger either. This isn’t a debate about the existence of strip clubs in our patriarchal (misogynistic) society – but a question over whether going into one means that you lack moral fibre or are unfit to lead our country.

I would argue not. Political leaders are human beings too and I wish the debate could be elevated above fear mongering and smear campaigns – and that we could have an adult conversation. Let’s talk about health care, our military commitment and the un-affordability of housing - and stop giving air time to year’s old scandal and gossip.

All Love is Equal

I have to say upfront that I’m not much of a protester. I traditionally don’t march, don’t sign petitions and most certainly don’t shout pithy slogans into a megaphone. This stems mostly from the feeling that no one in power is listening – if you get less than a million strong, it barely makes a ripple and you were better off staying home. Think work choices, voluntary student unionism and the war in Iraq. Come APEC time, the water cannons and marbles (to roll under the mounted police) will be out, but again it won’t change a damn thing. Bush will continue to do as Bush wants. My attitude, as you would all be well aware is to sweep to power, and make the changes myself.

This weekend though, I made an exception. I marched and chanted my way down Oxford Street, in support of same-sex couples searching for equality. While I maintain that Howard and Rudd were no doubt oblivious to this occasion (no doubt at the city to surf), it’s a cause I’ve long embraced. A June report by The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission only increased the urgency of this issue in my mind, finding that same-sex couples were discriminated against in 58 areas of legislation. In the workplace, in relation to superannuation and in generally being recognised on all those occasions that only ‘partners’ are admitted (hospital visits, access to shared children etc). As was often said on the day, same-sex couple are segregated into a third tier (below married and de facto heterosexuals), often finding themselves in legal limbo.

It was a great day out. Various speakers highlighted the difficulties society has placed in the way of same-sex couples. I found none more compelling than the representative from Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), who simply wondered why her 3 children (1 straight, 1 gay, 1 lesbian) were treated so dramatically different? Two are discriminated against and marginalised, while the other is free to love and be loved. Her sentiments reflected the slogan of the day: All Love is Equal.

In the end, I was pleased to hear that Malcolm Turnbull has decided to take up this fight (making him one of only a handful of high-profile politicians to be interested), but fear that full rights to marriage and children for same-sex couples remain unacceptably distant. The protests will continue as public support increases and if we have to wait until I’m President, equality for same-sex couples will be signed into law on Day 1.

Kisschasy

Kisschasy are a relatively new Aussie rock band and as of today, friends of the Administration. Their debut album United Paper People (2005) was catchy and is on pretty high rotation at the White Unit (I’m working my way towards the full house but c’mon, have you seen the interest rates?). I can highly recommend “The Shake” and “Water on a Stove”, if you want a taste of their infectious sound and you’ve probably already heard “Do-Do’s & Whoa-Oh’s”.

Not all rockers have a message though and prior to the release of Hymns for the Nonbeliever (2007) I would’ve generalised Kisschasy into that category. Catchy but not political. Their first single from the new album though, “Opinions Won’t Keep You Warm at Night” definitely does have something to say for itself. Something about John Howard being a bit pathetic - and Bush and Blair being in love. The lyrics aren’t all that strong or deep, but the clip is a cracker. This doesn’t classify as a war anthem, but I like where the boys’ heads are at.

The 48 Laws of Power

(Spoiler Alert: The Secret is that buying the book makes the woman who wrote it rich)

At the moment I’m reading Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power. It contains many valuable lessons for aspiring President’s and power hungry janitors alike. With the upfront premise that telling the truth is for suckers, it contains gems such as “use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim” and “court attention at all costs”. If you’ve been plotting a bloodless coup in the staff room or a hostile take-over of the typing pool, this book is for you.

Clearly the moralists amongst you will be arguing that deceit is wrong and that the ‘game of power’ should be avoided, let alone perfected. Greene though would (rightly) counter that the game is constantly in play around us, and to ignore it, is to become its victim. My philosophy is that knowledge is the real power – including knowledge of Greene’s 48 Laws, gleaned from the greater leaders, con-men, charlatans and artisans of history. Almost all of the laws I have sifted through so far have rung true to some extent, usually recognisable as incarnations of modern day snake oil salesman and Machiavelli wanna-bes.

Let me give you a practical example. Law 27: Play on People’s Need to Believe to Create a Cult like Following. In short, Greene proposes that the world is full of gullible people, dying to believe in something (anything) – and that this can (and has been for centuries) taken advantage of for personal gain. He even prescribes 5 steps to creating your own cult: Keep it Vague; Emphasise the Sensual over the Intellectual; Borrow the forms of Organised Religion; Disguise your Income and Set Up and Us-Versus-Them Dynamic. So, its simple. Start out with a generalist premise, the vaguer the better. Toss in some sciencey-sounding words and ‘expert testimony’. Install a hierarchy, and a way to increase your rank. While you fleece your followers, disguise the fact that their money is paying your team of butlers. And most importantly, create the impression that non-believers are out to undermine all that you worked for.

Not convinced that you get away with this crap in the 21^st century, or that Greene’s book has relevance? In modern times the establishment of a cult following seems to have gotten easier, not harder. It seems primarily to be a number of followers issue when it comes to credibility. David Koresh led a cult, while Ron L. Hubbard founded a religion. Faux religions though are not my beef today – it’s the tying of financial reward to mysticism that Law 27 particularly brought to my mind, in the form of The Secret.

The 2006 film and book are classified as ‘self-help’, sharing with you the secret law of attraction, summarised as: ask the universe for anything… believe you can have it… and it will be yours. The movie includes footage of a young boy wishing for a shiny new bike, and it being delivered coincidentally by his grandfather – not to mention a grown man changing the gears (on his sofa) of an imaginary Ferrari, before star-swipe to him washing that dream machine… It follows Greene’s steps eerily closely. Things are kept very vague (like how does wishing for a bike make it appear?), the screen is often shrouded in smoke amidst shots of old parchment and genies appearing from their bottles and the practitioners are given made-up titles (what the hell is a metaphysicist?). Other peddlers of the Secret give testimonials, amounting to: “I was poor until I started selling this myth, and now own a fleet of Lear jets”, leaving unsuspecting idiots naïve to the fact that it’s their money fuelling that fleet. The illusion is completed with the warning that sceptics are out there that will seek to suppress the secret and deprive you of your millions…

I can’t go on. Millions of suckers, dying to believe, all for the low low price of $49.95. In the year 2007, astride the information age, this hoax has been perpetrated on countless gullible souls. My antidote, other than becoming President and outlawing stupidity – is to get yourself a copy of Greene’s Laws and at least familiarise yourself with ‘the game’, and its insidious practices, even if you don’t intend to play it. Law 27 will save you from The Secret – while the other 47 laws will equally educate you about the devious facets of the world we live in.

I can guarantee you two things: 1) Greene's book is not 'self-help' - its history. Those ignorant of history are doomed and so forth and 2) you’ll need to actually get off your lounge to buy it – the universe won’t bring it to you, no matter how nicely you ask

My Nemesis

Everybody needs a nemesis. This is especially true if you’re supposed to be something of a crusader. Batman had the Joker, He-man had Skeletor and even Maggie Simpson had the baby with the mono-brow. A nemesis gives you focus, somewhere to direct your fury and an obstacle to triumph over. Aspiring to a leadership position that doesn’t yet exist, has made the search for the bane of my existence proportionately difficult – but at last I have found him: the pre-selected member for the Federal Seat of Mitchell, Alex Hawke.

Alex is the former head of the Young Liberals and is being touted as the poster child of the Christian Right faction of the Liberal Party. It’s a mantle he’s obviously comfortable with, quoted in a number of newspaper articles as saying: "Nobody joins the Liberal Party to be left-wing. If you stand for compulsory student unionism, drug-injecting rooms and lowering the [homosexual] age of consent, you can choose the Greens, Labor or the Democrats". Clearly, he’s a charming fellow. Alex was also implicated in the ousting of former NSW opposition leader John Brogden (by Brogden) – following a campaign of press leaks and other friendly fire. Most recently, Mr. Hawke is alleged to have been involved in branch stacking and other graft during his successful overthrow of long time Liberal stalwart Alan Cadman. 70 year old Cadman served in the House of Representatives since 1974.

As you can see, Alex is my polar opposite on a range of issues and accordingly, an ideal nemesis. Alex had frequently pushed an anti-gay agenda; I have a heart. He ambushed an experienced and highly regarded elder statesman for his personal gain; I have courage. Alex is also the protégé of State MP David Clarke (leader of the hard right) and a Hillsong aficionado; I have a brain. The stage then is set and the gauntlet has been thrown down. Unless you’re off to see the Wizard anytime soon Alex, you’ve been unanimously pre-selected to be my arch-enemy.

Civil Liberties

Beware this evil little Elf-man

Do me a favour. Get out your diary or novelty calendar and mark down this month - July, 2007. Make it in red pen. It’s the month that some of our most fundamental liberties were eroded. You’ll be able to look back on this time in a few years and realise that this was the start of the decline – you might even be called upon to recall for your children what it was like before the war with the terrorists began.

Since the War on Terror™ was heralded in 2001, American citizens have seen their individual freedoms chipped away (most notably by the Patriot Act) and the rights of detainees (both US citizens and foreign combatants) all but removed - all in the name of greater public safety and combating the terrorist threat. The story goes a little like this: your safety cannot be guaranteed unless you consent to giving up rights you once held dear, like the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the right to basic privacy… and so forth.

So, while this has been happening abroad for five years or so now, I thought for some reason that we would be immune to it here. We’re a tolerant nation, right? Even dare I say an enlightened one? Well, not so much anymore. The case of ‘suspected terrorist accomplice’ Mohamed Haneef, together with expanded police powers to obtain DNA samples from anyone suspected of a crime have called into question the very notion of civil liberties here in Australia. I’ve got two problems in particular; 1. Anyone of us can be detained with very little actual evidence under the Terrorism Act and 2. The media are perpetuating the idea that this imposition is necessary for our safety.

It makes me so angry; I don’t even know where to start. Let me summarise the case against Haneef. His second cousin (or uncle, or brother depending on your media outlet of choice) was allegedly involved in the bombing of Glasgow Airport earlier this month. As Haneef tried to leave Brisbane Airport he was Tazered by AFP members and detained. He is accused of giving his cousin a mobile SIM card found at the bomb site (false), of buying a one-way ticket home (true, but irrelevant), of living with accused terrorists in London (false) and most recently of plotting to blow up a 77-storey gold coast high-rise (genuinely made-up). The AFP has also recently admitted writing the names of terrorist suspects in his diary…presumably to shore up their paper thin case. Given the clear lack of evidence against Haneef, the AFP were forced to let him go on $10,000 bail – until of course the government (via Kevin Andrews, the evil pixie) intervened and cancelled his visa, for associating with criminals. [A federal justice reviewing the decision has already noted that he would fail these criteria, having represented a number of murders during his time a defender…] Haneef is now in detention (in solitary confinement 23 hours a day) awaiting trial, or a review of his visa situation.

Let me summarise further. An Indian migrant has ‘an association’ with someone who turns out to be a suspected terrorist. He goes on holidays and takes some photos of a popular landmark. He tries to fly home to see his new wife and baby. Frankly, it makes me afraid. I hate to think how many people I have ‘an association with’ – and if someone blows up the Eiffel Tower anytime soon, my photo album (containing many up close shots of the structure of the tower) could get me in some hot water. It seems in that instance I could easily find my good self detained by the AFP – an organisation who seem to be revelling in their new found ability to keep alleged evidence a secret, and to invent it when all else fails.

My plea then, is not a new one. We must protect the rules and laws that have kept us safe up to this point. You are innocent until proven guilty. That proof needs to contain actual evidence. The government have no place meddling in this process. The media have even less place – stop running pictures of exploding vehicles and buildings when they have little or no relevance to the story. Get out of the fear business.

The reality is, you realistically have much more to fear from an over zealous government taking away your rights than a lone bomber and an explosive vest.

War Anthems 2

Given that my first war anthem (Dashboard Confessional’s “Slow Decay”) was sabotaged by the youtube video vanishing from the face of the earth, let me give it another try. If anyone hasn’t heard Pink’s “Dear Mr President” yet, it’s high time you did.

Early in her career, I think it’s fair to say that Pink was a pretty standard R& B/ Pop kind of performer. Her 2001 album though (M!ssundaztood) marked a change to a more rock oriented style – and I’m guessing there wouldn’t be anyone out there that didn’t bust the occasional move to “Get this Party Started”. Aside from her support of animal rights group PETA (she’s a strict Vegan), and her criticism of Australia’s care of our exported sheep – I didn’t know all that much about Pink. She occasionally pops up with a no-fur, anti-KFC message, but admittedly I (ignorantly) thought she was pretty one dimensional.

Her latest album (I’m Not Dead) has changed my mind. It contains two songs in particular which defy the pop princess stereotype and have an important message to share. She sings “I Have Seen the Rain” – a Vietnam War protest song written by (and sung with) her father, and the previously mentioned “Dear Mr. President”. I recommend listening to both, but today “Dr Mr. President” in particular. It’s not exclusively a war anthem – more of an anti-Bush anthem – but it’s his war, so I’m allowing it. The song covers the mistreatment of Hurricane Katrina Victims, the war in Iraq and the Bush Administrations homophobia. I particularly like:

“What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say
You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine”

What kind of father indeed. This President applauds the sentiment and vows to take a walk with Pink anytime she wants to check in on my policy decisions. If you’re going to take a stand as a leader, you should be taking defensible positions that you can publicly defend. Pink may have her critics – but she’s using her popularity to send an important message and as far as I’m concerned that’s all we can ask.

30 Days

It’s good to be back, time has gotten away from me lately, as my employer has decided that running for President needs to come second to my real job sometimes. Hopefully we can keep that to a minimum, going forward. A lot’s happened since last post: Bush commuted the sentence of his crony Scooter Libby, the Pope said that all other forms of Christianity were flawed and Kevin Andrews revoked the visa of a suspected home-grown terrorist accomplice – despite precious little evidence. I’ll try and get to all that if time allows this week, because my most pressing concern right now is tell you all about 30 Days.

Remember Super Size Me from back in 2004? It was a documentary created by (and starring) Morgan Spurlock. Essentially, he ate exclusively McDonalds for 30 days – until his doctor made him stop. He gained 11kg during that time and it took him 14 months to fully recover from the experiment. The movie single handedly cured me of a growing ‘medium quarter pounder meal’ addiction, and for that I will be forever grateful. To his credit though, Morgan has not rested on his fast-food fighting laurels, continuing to push back at big corporations and consumerism – most notably in his upcoming movie What Would Jesus Buy? In the meantime though, he has churned out two (6 episode) seasons of a reality TV show called 30 days.

The concept is simple but powerful: force two people with opposing views on a controversial issue, and make them live together for 30 days. It’s an exercise in seeing another’s point of view; in walking a mile in someone else’s shoes – to borrow a cliché. It might sound a bit thin – until you watch an episode; they are compelling. Season 1 includes episodes on Muslims in America, a devout Christian living with a gay man, some power guzzling new Yorkers living on an hippy eco-friendly community and most jarringly Spurlock and his fiancé living on minimum wage for a month. Suffice to say, they struggle.

Season 2 is even better, tackling some of the most often talked about questions of our age. A pro-choice woman lives with a pro-life minister who runs a refuge home for mothers. The behaviour of some of the pro-lifers is truly amazing (and not in a good way). There’s also an episode about immigration, new age therapies and outsourcing. An atheist lives with a Christian family but as in season 1, the most confronting episode stars Spurlock himself. He goes to jail for 30 days, including 72 hours in solitary confinement. The conditions were atrocious, even in a medium security facility – and it made me realise that prisoners are a forgotten and silent population.

In short, go rent it, download it, or leave a comment and I’ll post you a copy. The show encapsulates a basic premise of our society that is so often overlooked: empathy. If you can see an issue from both sides you are far more likely to take a moderate position and to be less adversarial. It an idea that is enjoying a mini-resurgence in American politics, after 6 years of Bush led divisiveness – and one that we need more of here at home. Empathy for refugee seekers, for terror suspects held without evidence, for our poorest citizens and even for us oppressed atheists. Season 3 is due later in the year, so get onboard.