Masdar City

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of states overlooking the Persian Gulf, bordering Oman and Saudi Arabia. Vast oil and gas reserves (and corresponding spikes in world markets for these materials) have driven the economic growth of the UAE and made it one of the most developed nations in the Middle East, if not the world. The glittering city of Dubai, the business hub which literally sprang out of the dessert, is symbolic of their financial and technological successes. The country continues to enjoy “a massive construction boom, an expanding manufacturing base, and a thriving services sector”, all pointing to continued wealth and development in the future.

So, (almost literally) swimming in oil money, flush with technology and artfully managing a booming economy, most of us would be tempted to sit back, light a stogie and enjoy the fruits of our labour (and/or geological good fortune). To their credit, the UAE are doing no such thing. Instead they are investing billions of dollars in a project that the rest of the world has often talked of, but have not come anywhere near: building a totally sustainable, ‘green’ city.

Near the capital, Abu Dhabi, the UAE are planning a city that “will rely entirely on solar energy, with a sustainable, zero-carbon, zero-waste ecology”. The city, to be called Masdar City, will eventually house nearly 50,000 people, 1500 businesses and have “no point further than 200 m from a public transport link”. The project will also provide space for new universities which will specialise in grooming the next generation of eco-engineers (and the like). The promo video below gives a much more thorough description of the project and is reminiscent of the Cypress Creek video from You Only Move Twice.

Aside from the carbon capture technology (which is definitionally un-sustainable) that the project partly relies on, for its hydrogen power plant – the city is a phenomenal idea. Critics have already condemned it as a ‘symbol’ and ‘half-measure’ – but at a time when the rest of the world sits on their hands, it is a bold initiative. The initial investments have totaled some $22 billion and if that’s not putting your money where your mouth is, then I don’t know what is. It’s also inspiring to see a nation so reliant on oil for revenue, to acknowledge that those supplies will soon expire (like in 100 years, soon). They are currently trialing experimental technology (like concentrated solar plants) and ideas that could well be solutions to many of our environmental problems. Their foresight and pragmatism should make the rest of us ashamed of ourselves.

Sorry is a Start

An even fortnight ago, Kevin Rudd made his historic apology to Indigenous Australians. Rudd’s motion to the parliament was perhaps the most important of our generation, signaling a fresh start for the long failing reconciliation efforts of our nation. In the days leading up to the speech, I was skeptical of its impact – all too often politicians have promised change and fallen pitifully short. Ultimately, though it really was a “where were you when…” moment, rivaling the moon landing and JFK’s demise. I didn’t doubt the necessity of an apology – it was long overdue and a welcome development – but there are powerful symbols and then there is political pandering; there are apologies and there is lip service. Instructively, we were given a look at both on the day.

Rudd was gracious and thorough in his delivery of an unqualified apology. He drew particular attention to the Stolen Generation, both acknowledging the wrongs of the past and looking forward to a shared future. He headed to the opposite end of the old governments policy spectrum; disregarding Howard’s settlement on ‘regret’ and refusal to actually say ‘sorry’- in emphasis, Rudd punctuated his opening remarks with three “we say sorry”(s). Over the course of about 30 minutes, Rudd moved many in the audience to tears and was unanimously applauded for his sincere and complete apology. I was left with an undeniably positive feeling that the Reconciliation train was finally pulling out of the station.

That was of course until the Opposition Leader took his turn to speak. In equivalent time, Brendon Nelson went a long way to spoiling the mood with a display of Dickensian Bah, humbug-ery. After seeking to perpetuate Howard’s no-apology stance, and “cause a mentality of victimhood among indigenous Australians” – he begrudgingly agreed to support Rudd’s gesture. Instead of swallowing his pride and graciously getting all aboard, he sought to draw a series of fine lines, qualifying the Opposition’s involvement in the apology (most controversially: “it is reasonably argued that removal from squalor led to better lives…”) and emphasizing colonial good intentions. It was neither the time nor the place and by speech end, Nelson was talking to the backs of many protestors.

So, what have we learned? First, I think our choice of PM has so far been vindicated – his first act as leader has been to usher in a new era of atonement. Nicely done. He's a man of substance and of action and I hope his reign is long. Second, I think apologies are binary: you make them or you don’t. The minute that qualifying statements are made, the apology is dead in the water and you've wasted your time trying. The Opposition have been petty and bitter in the last few weeks, and the apology was no exception.

Finally, Rudd’s gesture is a strong symbol – but a symbol nonetheless. It needs to be followed up with meaningful change culminating in real improvements to the lives of Aboriginal people. That means continuing to consult with Aboriginal leaders and ultimately to invest real money in proposed solutions. Encouragingly, for the first time in a long time, I feel like we have a leader who will follow up his words with deeds.

Yes We Can

As I’ve watched the US Presidential primaries over the last fortnight, I’ve been reminded of little Lisa Simpson’s forced question to mayoral candidate Mr. Burns: “Your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?” A faux question if ever there was one, but one relevant to now Democratic front runner Barrack Obama.

With the Republican’s (sensibly) settling on McCain, it has been left to Obama and Hillary to fight it out for the chance to face him in the general election. Following the almost literal tie on Super Tuesday (there were many diverse interpretations on the technical winner – but trust me it was about even), Obama has won 10 states in a row. As he says, it was a diverse set of wins too: “in small states and big states; Red States and Blue States” What’s more, he hasn’t just squeaked home, he’s dominated – his lowest winning margin, achieved in Wisconsin this week was by 17 percentage points.

So, coming up are the allegedly make or break states of Ohio and Texas. If Obama wins either, the nomination is his – and even if he doesn’t, his momentum and current delegate lead will still hold him in good stead. To get back to Lisa Simpson’s loaded question, his popularity is easy to explain. Obama is a visionary. He inspires. He promises to turn a new page in politics and pull the US out of its deepening spiral. In short, he’s the opposite of McCain and the opposite of Hillary – and that, I assure you is a good thing.

Watch this clip and try not to get inspired.

Everything in Moderation

Loyal constituents. My position as Chief of Staff in the administration typical doesn't involve more than ensuring our President hasn't been the victim of a brazen shirt theft before recording public announcements in the White Unit, and always having a fresh cigar (and a Ben Franklin to light it with) handy in case any of the ministers stub out their current stogie. I do feel compelled however to overstep my role briefly and bring to your attention a disturbing realisation I have come to whilst strolling the hallway of power. Capitalism is a heartless bastard, and left unchecked it will oppress a good many of us.

It all started when my good friend Blackbird and his mate Squash decided they wanted rid of Pokies from their beloved South Sydney Leagues Club. They had a few reasons for wanting to do this and most people would agree they were pretty valid ones - most notably is that Pokies harm the community. They offer a gaming experience unique in that it requires nil human contact and nil thought. Drinks coasters jammed in buttons regurlarly play poker machines when an addict has run out of hands and someone could literally win the jackpot post-mortem (albeit heavily decomposed) if they died leaning on 'spin'. Every facet of Poker machines has been purposely tailored to be the most addictive it can be, and although not unique in the gaming world it is a mathematical certainty you'll lose in the end - operators can even tailor what percentage of your dole cheque they fleece. They are arguably the most addictive form of gambling available, although if I even need to argue then perhaps you'd be better spending your time at the Museum of Creation than reading this blog so as not to waste your time with silly stuff like thinking. For the record 85% of people in treatment for problem gambling are poker machine players.

Anyhow i digress, this isn't meant to be an anti-pokies blog. This was a simple matter for the boys, their club has a patronage on the lower end of the socio-economic scale and various sources estimated some 30-70% of poker machine revenue was coming directly from welfare payments, aka. 'our tax dollars' (that should have the attention of all you Alan Jones listeners out there). They figured the damaging impact was incompatible with the motives of the club and decided to axe the machines. Here's where it started to get a little scary for mine. Because the club is a little like Milo Minderbinder's sydnicate from Catch 22 (everybody has a share) it also has a board of directors bound by law to act "With the best interests of shareholders in mind". Roughly translated this means they are bound by law to chase the mighty dollar with all the one-eyed fervour of a lurch after a hare, using every legal means available to them, and completely disregard any other factors like taking food off people's tables. Pokies are a brilliant source of income - incredibly addictive and no human interaction (labour costs) means you jam them in the ground and sit back and count your money, in Souths' case over $1 million per annum after taxes and costs. This meant the directors could be hauled before the courts, banned from holding directorships or event sent to the big house for having a social conscience if they couldn't find a way to make throwing away that many Kerrys a good financial move. I personally can't believe they've done anything but fudge the numbers, and I think they've held onto the licenses so when that becomes painfully apparent they can at least say to ASIC that they've still got the license to print the money, they just need to restart the press.

Of course all companies can hold a shareholder vote to make a move that isn't necessarily the most financially sound, if over 50% agree there are other compelling reasons. But trying to get over 50% of thousands of shareholders to take a hit on their bottom line (many being businesses themselves who in turn would have an obligation to vote for more money for their own shareholders) is harder than the proverbial honeymooner's appendage, and this is where the government needs to step in to provide the necessary balance. I mentioned before companies are bound to use all legal means available to make money, and so it is the job of the government to restrict which means are legal to ensure the lurch doesn't proper fuck Joe Average. Just ask the average American if they think fully profit-driven privatised health care is a good idea? Evidently it makes terrible business sense to pay claims and you should avoid it all all costs! How did they not see that coming? So i'm not proposing we need radical changes in this country, nor am I anti-capitalism, everything in moderation. I'm just encouraging you all to be aware of the dangers of allowing the dollar to get too powerful, and of the creep away from government ownership and regulation. Because governments are meant to have a social conscience, and big business is required not to.

347 Days and Counting

On January 20, 2009 at 12 noon – we all get a new President of the USA. At this stage it might be Barrack, or McCain (or God forbid, Hillary), but one thing is certain – George Walker Bush will be out on his ass. Whether you prefer to call him Dubya, Spurious George or The Commander Guy ("My position is clear - I'm the commander guy."), come 20.01.09, the 43^rd President will thankfully be consigned to the history books.

For many of us, that day can’t come soon enough. The worst US President since Nixon (and maybe one of the worst of all time) has mired his nation in war and run it's powerful economy into the ground. Some blame his fierce ideological convictions (conservatives point to this as a strength), while the more obvious conclusion is that he’s just a stupid man. The kind of stupid that makes those around him dumber. The kind of stupid that gives you a headache thinking about it. His gaffes and outright fuck ups are so numerous that it’s becoming difficult for comedians to keep up the piss-taking pace.

In commemoration of Bush’s mind boggling stupidity, I give you a short clip of Will Ferrell doing Bush. It would be even funnier, if it wasn’t so accurate. Whenever I’m feeling blue (You’re my boy Blue), I watch it and I feel better. I am also adding an Inauguration Day count down clock - so you can play along at home. Only 347 days and counting.