AUSTRALIA'S FIRST PRESIDENT

Courage

2012-02-15T14:23:00.004+11:00

It should come as no surprise to any of us that perennial Cowardly Lion and conservative darling Alex Hawke should rise this week in parliament to offer the same tired arguments for the ongoing discrimination of his fellow Australians, based on their sexual orientation. Ceasing to be a nemesis of any intellectual depth (or even capable of an occasional novel thought), Hawke served only as a mouthpiece for the same trite justifications that the Right insists on clinging to in their stand against equality. While recent evidence points to an IQ deficiency as an important factor in conservative thinking – I will press on as though Alex and his brethren can be reasoned with.

Hawke was roused from his comfortable, affluent and largely white (homogenous) slumber by two private member’s bills (including a Bandt/Wilkie one) to be introduced to legalise gay marriage. The main tenant of his opposition (and of the Right’s) seems part historical precedent, part procreation. My first appeal though would be to drop the bullshit and just come right out and say “the bible told me so”. Hawke is transparently and enthusiastically affiliated with the Hillsong Pentecostal megachurch, bible literalists “teaching homosexuality is unnatural, opposing embryonic stem cell research and abortion on the basis that human life commences at conception” (They are also creationists and want it taught in schools… my enduring pet hate). We need not look far for the source of his illogical anti-gay message – but we should at least expect honesty about its origins (he should also pipe down on the procreation line, given that the 34 year old has no kids of his own).

In Hawkes ‘intensive research’ (its fine for me to use Wiki Alex – but you’re an MP – get an intern to do some real research), he cites the Californian referendum question (known as Prop 8) that banned gay marriage in that state (which was just overturned and heads to the Supreme Court)… and that only 10 countries and 7 US States allow it – as an indication of its non-mainstream nature. The US is an interesting case and indicative of the turning tide in favour of equality – almost certainly serving my case better than Hawkes. The 7 states have come on board in less than a decade, with additional legislative measures succeeding in Washington state and New Jersey (though their fat Republican governor is vowing a veto). Most importantly though, public opinion passed parity in 2011 – meaning a majority now support gay-marriage. Multiple polls here in Australia suggested an even larger majority in support (see Wiki). Perhaps Hawke needs to check his definition of ‘majority’.

Hawke’s conservatism on gay marriage is fundamentally flawed. First, had he a shred of insight, he’d appreciate that in championing small government and opposing the allegedly encroaching Nanny State (see his opposition to plain paper packages for cigarettes) – a non-hypocritical stance on same-sex couples should be one of equality. It isn’t the government’s role to interfere. Second, change for minorities rarely (if ever) comes through referendums, or majority support. As I saw Rev Al Sharpton recently say, if he had waited for the majority to award civil rights to black Americans, he’d still be sitting at the back of the bus – justice requires political leaders who will show leadership and moral courage to bring about change. Unfortunately for Australia (and for our Cowardly Lion in particular), courage is in short supply – and the Wizard sometimes seem far, far away.

Quit Whining.

2011-07-15T12:23:00.001+10:00

After a decade of hand wringing and backsliding, Australia finally seems set to take (some) proactive action on climate change. Prime Minister Gillard announced at the weekend that our 500 largest polluters will be taxed $23 per tonne of carbon emissions, effective from July 1, 2012. She has spent much of her time during this ‘debate’ fending off Tony Abbott’s never-ending fear campaign and the similarly limitless stream of dumbass questions from reporters and the public. The PM has also endured a near constant press barrage, continued (bullshit) snap polling (of 500 randoms) and that pillar of journalism the Daily Telegraph running uniformed headlines on a loop. To her credit she has pressed on, compromised with the Greens (praise be to Bob) and has the numbers to turn a plan into a law.

The premise for those who haven’t been playing at home is simple. Currently, industry is under regulated, particularly with respect to the environment and is generally free to pollute as they like. The new carbon tax provides an economic incentive for big business to try a little harder to not rape and pillage the planet – and over time they might sort their shit out. That’s it. Unfortunately a number of Abbott and industry-based misconceptions remain clouding the issue – that is, until I set them straight.

1. Jobs will be lost.

Sure they will – they often are. There was a little event in our relatively recent past called the Industrial Revolution. During this period rafts of jobs were lost, and new ones created. I’m sure at the time there were some calls to defend the jobs of Johhny Blackmith and Charlie Milliner – but at the end of the day, the greater good caused us to march on. As I’ve said previously we can already foresee a clearly defined time when coal miners jobs will be at stake – like when the coal runs out. The mines and plants won’t be shuttered overnight, but they will ultimately close. They call that the circle of life. Importantly, mining jobs won’t immediately move overseas either. The thing about mining is that you have to locate your mine in the vicinity of the minerals (preferably).

2. Households will pay more.

We always seem to – tax or not. With respect to energy, prices have risen on the back of the mass privatisation of the power sector and the now de-regulated nature of the pricing. The government monopoly has merely been replaced by collusive private companies and has not had the desired effect of increasing competition. Irrespective of this, the Gillard plan provides a range of tax cuts and family payment/pension increases that they propose will see most people break even or be slightly better off (and then they get accused of Socialism!) At any rate, I support pricing electricity at a level higher than ‘cheap’, in order to encourage usage cuts – oh, wait, where have I heard that idea before?

3. Other countries aren’t onboard.

No, not all of them are. China isn’t. India couldn’t give a fuck. They are both too busy dragging their mega-populations out of poverty. In contrast our political stability and wealth give us the luxury of considering the way we do business. Not only is it morally right, it’s the fundamental choice between being a leader and a follower. We can drag our feet and sulk (the official Liberal policy) – or we can innovate and have a go (which is more ‘Australian’ Tony?). The idea of an investment fund for renewable technology already has venture firms re-gearing and plotting the best way to be on the ground floor of the next big thing. My feeling is that if we invent usable, practical solar technology for instance, our old friends China will be banging down our doors to buy it.

What we should be focused on is how many concessions have already been made - only 500 companies are to be taxed, coupled with significant exemptions to key polluters like agriculture and fuel – and how we best press for more effective reform. Instead, Abbott and now O’Farrell remain committed climate-change deniers, and scare-mongers. Worse, some random Liberal MP who I’ve never heard of - Sophie Mirabella – tried to get her name in the paper by saying Julia Gillard was as deluded as Gaddafi if she thinks Australians want a carbon tax. Evidently, Sophie is our Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research… I’d laugh if I wasn’t so scared.

And so, I call upon the nation to quit whining, pay a few extra bucks a week (should that come to pass) and do something proactive for the planet. The Libs are selling fear and more of the same – our PM is proposing the hard road, and the high road – I’m with her.

Actual Evil

2011-06-17T16:12:00.002+10:00

The Bush Administration talked at length about Evil – the capital-E type that has to be fought on a global scale. Terrorists are Evil and the countries that harbour them formed an Axis of Evil. Saddam Hussein was Evil, sometimes Islam itself is Evil along with Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic Congress. Sadly, this hyperbole was not only counterproductive foreign policy, but was a cover for much more tangible acts by the Administration that were a much better fit for the definition of evil. Vice President Cheney, long stereotyped by the left as a black hearted villain, has his fingerprints all over the worst of it and has more than earned his reputation.

Some of the worst damage was done (to the environment anyway) when George Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation - introduced by Texas Republican Joe Barton, Tea Party member, Oil industry shill and bona fide global warming denier – sought to provide direction for the future of US energy. However, the bill basically packaged subsidies and incentive for oil companies (including some to drill in the Gulf of Mexico) and the nuclear industry, very much at the expense of the environment and common sense. The most damning provision: the “Halliburton loophole” which exempted Big Oil from oversight by the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Air Acts (and EPA) – effectively giving them free rein to pollute as they please in pursuit of oil and gas. The loophole is named for the biggest benefactor Halliburton, an oil and gas multi-national formerly run by none other than Dick Cheney.

Nauseating as this appears already, I haven’t got to the kicker yet. Josh Fox’s documentary Gasland details how the loophole has been exploited in particular to extract gas from America’s widespread shale deposits, using hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ (it’s a must watch doco, which I will not remotely do justice here). In short, the gas companies pump a shit load of pressurised fluid (and chemicals) into their gas wells to fracture the rock layer and release their bounty. Two problems. The first is that they were never obligated to release the ingredients in their fracking mixture. The second is that the majority of the fluid leaks into the water table – causing people’s drinking water to catch fire! Turns out that typical fracking fluids contain a range of known carcinogens, toxins, alcohols and hydrocarbons – all of which are a bad idea to drink, breathe or be near. Gasland documents a number of poisoned (and flammable) water supplies, dead animals, sick humans and fracked wells as far as the eye can see. It also shows the widespread denial of this problem, the power of the gas lobby and the paralysis of the US Congress (The FRAC Act, closing the Halliburton loophole has languished without a vote since January 3, 2011).

Come the end of Gasland, I was too angry to speak. For the sake of corporate profits, under the cloak of job creation and energy independence, 38 US states have now been pillaged by fracking. The scale of the problem defies comprehension. To add insult to injury, Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security is lobbying on behalf of the gas industry to take fracking to Pennsylvania. While he claims not to be a lobbyist, he recently described fracking as harmless and claimed that flaming taps were a naturally occurring phenomenon. I hope he chokes on his fat salary. In closing, this kind of ignorance to scientific fact (ie, what is carcinogenic and what is not) has become the hallmark of so many of our bad decisions from creationism to climate change denial. While most prevalent in the US, I’m afraid to say that both fracking and stupidity are cropping up more and more here in Australia.

The Illusion of Choice

2011-03-31T09:09:00.002+11:00

Muammar Gaddafi is a madman no doubt, and one hell of a son-of-a-bitch. I’m one of many who welcomed the hail of 124 Tomahawk cruise missiles that signalled the end of his massacre of his own people (by some estimates, this kind of ‘freedom’ retails for only $186 million). Still, when reading Gaddafi’s political manifesto The Green Book the other day, I was struck by at least one semi-sane observation – Western democracy does not deal in freedom in the strictest sense, but merely provides the illusion of choice. His example of a referendum was most interesting: the people vote (providing the smoke and mirrors), while usually only two options are given (providing the stitch-up).

Now, reiterating that Gaddafi is madder than a hundred hatters – and emphasising that much of his Green Book is racist, impractical and at times downright offensive – in this particular instance I think his point is a valid one. Our recent shambles of a State election serves as a nice example. Dissatisfied with the corrupt and inept Labor Party, the people swept them aside and replaced them with Barry O’Farrell’s Liberals. If not for cardboard cut-out Peter Debnam, this would’ve happened 4 years ago. This issue is not that Labor got shafted, but that we have merely traded one bunch of do-nothing bullshit artists for another – and really what choice is that?

Commuting in the lead up to the elections I was frequently accosted by Liberal pamphlet-handlers looking to cover the considerable spread required to claim my seat. One particularly brave soul stopped me to ask the secret to winning my demographic – who he claimed were particularly reluctant to accept his paper propaganda. If I could name one thing that would make me vote Liberal, what would it be? Easy, I say. Make the fucken trains run on time. Make them run when it rains, and not sputter to a halt when it’s too hot. Put some millennium trains on the long trek to Campbelltown – and run some more services so that I don’t feel like I’m being crammed in enroute to Auswitch every day after work… mid rant it hit me then – not only had Labor let me down for nearly two decades, but there wasn’t a single thing the Libs could do to make a lick of difference. The trains are shit and will always be, until I gather the MX-deadened plebs and lead them to revolt.

In the meantime, what am I proposing? Certainly not Gaddafi’s popular committees (for direct democracy) – because try as I might they make almost zero sense. More likely I think we’d be better off disbanding State Government all together. The sole purpose they seem to serve is to antagonise their Federal counterparts (if from the opposite party) or blindly support them (if of the same). Oh, that and get completely drunk with the ‘power’ that only comes with the front bench of our State government – the power to sell of State owned assets, push through crooked land deals and abuse waiters at Iguana Joes. Wiping out state governments all together will see a sharp decline in the amount of pointless current affairs interviews I have to wade through, dramatically cut the percentage I’m lied to about improving my hospitals – and is just the kind of public sector job trimming that I can really get behind.

Raise My Taxes

2011-03-15T21:05:00.002+11:00

We live in mediocre financial times. Thanks to the giant dicking handed out to us by bankers and Wall Street types, economies the world over are struggling – with even the might US economy hit hard. Discounting the fact for the time being that the mega-gambling that brought us here continues unabated (and not a single CEO was brought to trial) the GFC is the current go-to excuse to slash budgets and dodge investment projects. Budgetary considerations have provided cover for Republican Governor Scott Walker to dismantle teacher’s unions in Wisconsin, for national Republicans to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and even Obama to cut ‘socialist programs’ that provide food and heating oil to poor people. In short, budget deficits have signalled an all out assault on the all that the Left (I mean actual Left, Barrack) holds dear – and I fear that the Right are just getting warmed up.

The budget slashing bent that is so gripping the US is accentuated by the insistence of both parties to neither cut defence spending (over $700 Billion and ~20% of the total) – nor to raise taxes, even on those earning over $250k a year (the famed ‘Bush Tax Cuts’). The blind alley that this leads to is that ultimately, budgets are balanced on the backs of those can least afford it (the poor, minorities, single parents etc)– and that major public services like hospitals, police, teachers, roads etc suffer. While cuts (or ‘savings’ as the British press is trying to re-brand them as) provide short-term relief from outright bankruptcy (44 of 50 states are looking at deficits) the deteriorating infrastructure becomes more costly to repair, and skilled state workers leave to pursue greener pastures. The time then has come for politicians to stop pretending that there are no other options – and commit to increasing revenue by raising taxes.

Now US Republicans have formed a pseudo-religion in recent times based around continued tax cuts ‘smaller government’ (whatever the hell that is) and trickle down (fuck they have some fancy euphemisms) economics - despite their Messiah Ronald Reagan’s actual history of raising them. As is often the case, Australia has been largely spared the worst of both the GFC and of the necessity to slash public sector budgets – though the aversion to tax increase (of any kind) runs true in most of our politicians, but especially so in our conservatives. The Abbott Liberals (much like their Republican counterparts) are fast becoming the party of No. Their feet dragging and hand wringing on the Flood Levy, in the wake of Cyclone Yasi is indicative of their scare-first, think last mentality. Following such a biblically-sized flood event Gillard’s Labor proposed (and eventually secured) a $2.88/week contribution from someone earning $80K – and nothing from those earning under $50K. Given that Abbott was neither divinely tipped off prior to the flood, nor did he hammer a single nail in pursuit of an Ark – that seemed like a pretty reasonable thing for those of us unaffected to do.

So while my Presidency will herald an age of utopian socialism (where your higher taxes translate to actual health care, education and transport) we should strive in the meantime for the best maintenance of the common good. In contrast to the ‘every man for himself’ narrative crammed down our throats by TV we should be collectively happy to forgo our cup of coffee or can of Mother (I’m looking at you Bogans) if it helps a Queenslander have somewhere to live again. The same goes for the carbon tax – though I’ll get to that.

No god but God

2011-02-25T15:35:00.000+11:00

There is no religion that can lay claim to ‘clean hands’ in terms of violence, discrimination, corruption and so on – certainly not with any historical perspective, and not even if you want to restrict the debate to my lifetime. The major religions each harbour extremist elements in the present day: evangelical Christians restricting abortion access and persecuting gays; Israeli Jewish ‘settlers’ inching their way beyond internationally agreed borders and inciting violence, and the advent of the suicide bomber in the name of Islam. In line with a Dawkins-ian view of a religion-free world, each bears the responsibility for harbouring (if not abetting) these elements within their broader following. Despite the shared nature of evil in the name of religion, Islam has been called out for particular recrimination, particularly after September 11 (and the 2002 Bali Bombings for Australians).

In Australia, anti-Islamic sentiment is steadily rising, despite Muslims accounting for just 1.7% of the total population. In a recently released University of Western Sydney survey of racial attitudes NSW was found to be one of the least tolerant states, with nearly 55% of respondents expressing anti-Muslim attitudes. Though this number is maybe a little higher than I would’ve imagined (my faith in my fellow humans is often unrewarded) – it’s no surprise that Islam has become the go-to scapegoat for all manner of issues. The discrimination is endemic and regularly reinforced in forms as diverse as our nightly current affairs enema (eating a Halal sausage will make you a terrorist!), sitting members of Parliament (I’m looking at you, federal Liberal MP Kevin Andrews) and web-based nutbags such as those at the Australian Islamist Monitor (I offer no link, to discourage your traffic…).

Now, in the next few hundred words I appreciate the miniscule odds of changing a single mind already devoted to an anti-Islamic position – but I’m going to try nonetheless. I would begin by saying that I was personally disappointed in my own lack of knowledge of Islam – despite claiming to be a somewhat educated man. My starting position was one hobbled together from hearsay, myth and media. The Prophet, Saudi Arabia, burkas and bomb-vests… and I’m ashamed to say, very little else. This situation has marginally improved thanks to Iranian-American writer and scholar, Reza Aslan (if I get back into the swing of this, he might get a post of his own, but until then, check his site) and his history of Islam: No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. To be remotely cognisant in a debate around Islam, I would say it is required reading. To perhaps induce you to get a copy, I learnt the following critical things about Islam:

1. The Diversity of Islam

Tempting as it is to clump the approximately 1.5 billion followers into a single stereotype, they are anything but homogenous. Aside from geographic and ethnic differences (Arab, African, Asian etc), Islam is divided into Sunni, Shia, Sufi (and a range of smaller) denominations. The combination of these factors leads to the striking differences in practices we see between an Iranian Shia and Turkish Sunni (not even accounting for the different Sunni schools of thought). Suffice to say, they do not represent a united front.

2. Socialism and Egalitarianism

The founding principles of Islam extol religious pluralism, gender equality, economic socialism (with an emphasis on helping the poor) and war only for self defence. So the Qur’an says, Muhammad founded his movement in the oasis of Medina where he co-existed peacefully with Jews and Christians, empowered women and collected taxes to be redistributed amongst the tribe. Subsequent veiling and subjugation of women, clashes with Christianity and Judaism and the use of jihad as on offensive weapon are by-products of reinterpretations of Islam over 1500 years by power hungry misogynists. Something Christians should recognise all too well.

3. People of the Book

The Qur’an considers Jews and Christians (amongst others) to all worship the same true God of Abraham, and together with the Torah and Bible to complete Gods divine revelations to man. As such, they were not initially competing ideologies but highly inter-related (and it seems to me, largely based on very similar mythology). The People of the Book were originally allowed to live freely amongst Muslims, trading and working with them – as I alluded to in the case of Muhammad’s Medina. It struck me as rather amazing that such a gulf could have evolved over time – such that we now consider Islam and Christianity to not only be non-compatible, but in active conflict.

So then, I accept that the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden (and Muammar Gaddafi for that matter) are Muslims – of that there is no question. However, I would also contend that there are many more than a billion Muslims, who are peaceful, non-terrorists and that it is ignorant to judge the whole by a few (it’s preposterous to think that all Catholics are paedophiles… right?). At the very least, take the reasonable position of finding a fact or two about Islam before you leap on the hate bandwagon – keeping well in mind that their religion is at its root not that much different to yours.

A Green Revolution

2010-08-19T15:55:00.002+10:00

It’s human nature to ignore bad news - sure the soccer ball growing out of my abdomen is probably cancer, but maybe I’m just putting on a few spherically shaped pounds. In this way, I’ve been loathe to acknowledge that Julia is our new PM, and that she’s a very strong chance of being a regular MP again after Saturday. Since her Caesar-ian knifing of KRudd in the 48 hours after I begged her not to (I was shocked to find she wasn’t a big AFP fan) – her fortunes have gone from bad to worse… and Tony Abbott, like King of the Zombies, keeps on coming back to life.

The campaign has been hard for me to tolerate. Watching Julia and Tony argue about who is tougher on boat people, or who knows the least about broadband is nauseating at best. They seem to be falling over each other as they clamour to the political Right in a last ditch attempt to capture the coveted bogan vote. Overall, they’re presenting distressingly similar platforms – based on all the old favourites: xenophobia, homophobia, lip service on hospitals and school, and blanket climate change denial. Worst of all, both sets of promises have been carefully staged, so that the funding is spread over many years… and much of it won’t take effect to 2012 or later. In short, big headlines and no substance. The only thing running in Labor’s favour is Abbott’s black, black heart. His well known conservative (read evil) stances strike just enough fear into the minds of your moderately informed voter that Julia just may squeak in.

All of which leaves us an unenviable Hobson’s choice. We can elect any PM we like, as long as they are a dark hearted political monster. At a time like this, I rue that the Greens are more novelty organisation than third choice candidate. On actually reading through some of their policies (free university (and cancelling HECS debt), scrapping mandatory migrant detention, a carbon-trading scheme and emphasis on mental health), they actually present a good contrast to the major parties. Generally, they seem to make logical (Leftist) sense. They even claim to be after the tax breaks given to the rich, in true Socialist style. Problem is that the electorate love a winner – and accordingly like to cast their vote on the winning side. The Greens, unlikely to win more than a handful of seats, are thus unlikely to garner much support outside their base – which is a shame.

With that said, nothing good can come of Saturday. A hypothetical Labor win will be sullied by the spectre of Rudd’s political assassination, and Julia’s pitiful vote buying promises. Abandoning the boat people, homosexuals (for shame Penny Wong) and the environment has left a sour taste in many a mouth. Worse, if Abbott actually hoodwinks his way to a win, I have little choice but to migrate – I just couldn’t sit here and watch him smugly ruin my country. Contrary to Latham’s donkey voting suggestion (idiot should never be allowed on air again) I’m voting for the Greens and I hope they win more than their share. I suggest that you do the same.

Don’t Believe a Word

2010-06-21T21:46:00.003+10:00

My old mate Kevin Rudd has been taking a hammering lately in the press. Opinion polls show his popularity plummeting (replete with magazine covers depicting him skydiving without a parachute) clearly in favour of my favourite nemesis, Tony Abbott. There is talk of him stepping aside, to allow Julia a clear shot at saving Labor’s ass - and for the life of me, I can’t begin to figure out why. From where I’m sitting, Rudd has chipped away at reform here and there, and while disappointing on key issues (boat people, gay marriage, pussying out on the ETS etc) has made a reasonable fist of his first couple of years. He has the charisma of a discarded chip packet, but he’s intelligent, measured and reliable – all of which suit me just fine. In defence of Dear Leader, let me offer the following:

1. Polling is Bullshit

Snap polling of the kind snaffled up by the mainstream media is flat out crap, no question. Cold calling 1000 respondents, asking them leading questions and then over interpreting their responses is the definition of disingenuous. Extrapolation of this kind of data (+/- 10%) is an affront to logic – but fuck it makes for catchy headlines. Given that actual investigative reporting and thoughtful journalism are both long dead and buried, I understand that pages (of deathly ill) newspapers need filling. Unfortunately, the tail is more often wagging the dog these days – the media outlets take (or commission) the polls, report emphatically on the outcomes and then interview the pollies about their abrupt changes in fortune. Repeat. As news of the bad polling numbers soaks the next news cycle, prospects tend to get even worse… and so on. The only decent stats based political analysis is over at 538, but unfortunately Australia has no such equivalent.

2. The Mining Tax is a good idea

I’m constantly re-surprised that middle class voters can’t seem to get out of their own way. In the US, thousands protested to block health care and tax reform that would directly and substantially benefit them! Australian voters seem to be no different, allegedly opposing Rudd’s mining profits tax – despite the obvious fact that it is aimed at the enormous profits of mining companies. The realities of the tax seem simple. One of the main tenets of mining is that your mine needs to be somewhat close to resource you’re digging up. In contrast to manufacturing, the mining of Aussie uranium or coal cannot be outsourced to China. Given that business is booming, there are plenty of profits to share in – and my educated guess is that Rio and BHP are doing little re-investing in the WA towns that feed their monoliths. More likely, their fat CEO’s are smoking stogies and surveying their newly acquired islands from their shiny Lear Jets. Rudd, sneaky Socialist that he is, is right to go after a fair share of the loot.

3. Tony Abbott Couldn’t Lead a Conga Line

My position on Tony Abbott has been aired here frequently. Aside from his well documented offensive stances to women (young and old), gays, migrants, working Australians and the environment, I don’t even find him a particularly inspiring or even competent leader. Adding insult, he’s also a staunch Monarchist. My feedback from those seemingly predisposed to vote for him seems to be senselessly based on his ability to complete an Iron Man and accordingly how he looks with his shirt off. Fortunately, it’s not all smooth sailing for Abbott, as he tries to quell a revolt of his coalition Nationals and tries to spoil Rudd’s national broadband celebrations. I hope he chokes, and chokes hard.

Overall, the media have created a narrative in the last month or so, to try and add some interest to a contest that should by rights be a non-event. Kudos to them I guess – their power to perpetuate non-reality should keep you all awake at night. My great hope is that your average punter can somehow claw through all the crap and not fulfil this awful prophecy. My advice (eloquently put by comedian Lewis Black) – is that if you’re thinking that one of the candidates would be a really great guy to have round for beers, or to party with – vote for the other guy. Let Bush be a lesson to you all.

Going Down to Cuba

2010-04-29T09:22:00.002+10:00

I may be sounding a little more left than usual today – but I’ve never understood how a political system can be feared. The ‘West’ has spent the better part of a century struggling with superpowers like China and Russia, based largely on their embrace of non-Democratic governance. In defence of American-style democracy, we have been taught that Socialism is bad – and Communism is downright evil. Applying elements of morality, of wrong and right to a system of organising society is illogical to say the least. What’s worse is that this poorly thought out premise has been used as a driver to key moments in history – directly during the Cold War and notably by proxy in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba. While these failed projects are largely confined to dusty history books (certainly unread by the Bush-Cheney marauders), the Caribbean island of Cuba remains under siege.

Modern Cuban history is defined by the intervening hand of the United States. In 1952, the US backed the coup of military strongman Fulgencio. Batista summarily cancelled the scheduled elections (in which he was losing badly) and ruled over a “corrupt and oppressive” regime for the next 7 years. His ‘presidency’ was marked by close ties to the American Mafia (organised crime, gambling, brothels etc), the amassing of a personal fortune, and ongoing support of the US government. It should come as no surprise that he was ultimately overthrown by Cuban dissidents – including t-shirt adorning Che Guevara, and our old mate Fidel Castro. Fidel, as many of you will know, went on to rule Cuba for nigh on 50 years – surviving the botched (US-initiated) Bay of Pigs invasion back in 1961, the brink of nuclear war the year after, and numerous (would you believe 638?) CIA assignation attempts. He implemented a socialist state, based on Marxist-Leninist Communism – cancelling multi-party elections and giving the State control of property and infrastructure.

As a result, Cubans enjoy free life-time health care, education (and an accordingly high literacy rate), as well as heavily subsidised food, housing and utilities. In response, the US imposed a commercial, economic, and financial embargo of Cuba, which (remarkably) remains in place today. The embargo has since become a US law, with the stated goal of encouraging democratisation and improving human rights. Clearly, Communism is not all sunshine and lollipops (or we’d all be doing it) – Cubans queue for food staples and endure frequent shortages. Black market trading is rife, and fruit and vegetables are a newly acquired luxury. As a matter of their Dictatorship, rather than their Communism, they are also not allowed access to computers, are denied free speech, and dissidents are imprisoned, tortured, and occasionally summarily executed.

With that said, I maintain that Communism is nothing to fear in itself. Its spread cannot be contained militarily. Democracy – especially the corrupt, Capitalist style perpetuated by the US is not necessarily to be aspired to (I personally favour benevolent Monarchy, held to account by periodic revolution!). The Cuban Embargo is unjust, collectively punishing an innocent population. It isolates Cubans further, and (just like the Israeli blockade of Palestine) provides a go-to excuse for anti-US sentiment. Obama, disappointingly, has eased restrictions, but failed to lift the ban. As an ongoing symbol of US colonialism and Goliath-David bullying, I wish that he had the fortitude to push further. I’ll leave you with Jackson Browne’s thoughts on the matter – his song sparking my interest in the first place.

No Excuse for Ignorance

2010-03-31T09:39:00.002+11:00

Thinking back on it, I was a young man with a very fixed set of poorly thought out ideas. Not many of them would be popular with my current Administration. Hell, my younger self may even have found his arrogant ass on my assassination short list. While it’s a relief in itself to have softened many of my positions (and hardened a few others), it got me thinking about the cause. The boiled down, no bullshit explanation: information. As I got older, not only did I become exposed to a whole range of people with new ideas (hippies, feminists, Jehovah's Witnesses… you name it), but the internet arrived – and with it, unlimited information.

I was lucky enough to be born into the information age - the ‘internets’ went mainstream just as I got to uni, and by the time I left, it was hard to believe I ever lived without it. Nearly a decade later, we are flooded with data – any crackpot with a PC can start his own fake Administration – and it’s becoming harder and harder to separate the good stuff from the crap. With my own evolution in mind, I recommend adding the following bookmarks to your browser, and hopefully some new ideas to your schema:

1. The Daily Beast; I’ll freely admit to getting most of my news from Jon Stewart, maybe with an occasional sprinkling of New York Times (any left-er, and I’d be one of those crazy Obama Socialists… I know). I do try and get some balance by regularly getting some Daily Beast in my life. They generally trend a little left too – but entertain the idea of balance (they let nut-bags like Tucker Carlson write stuff). Madeline Albright is a contributor - but so is Sarah Palin, on occasion. For the record, Christopher Buckley is my personal favourite.

2. Al Jazeera (English); Now this is my true balancing force – and when I finally come to power, I’m going to beam it into all your homes in place of the 6-7pm crap that passes for news on Channel 7 and 9. They gained notoriety for broadcasting Osama’s video messages and are generally accused of perpetuating terrorist propaganda. In reality, they remain one of the most independent media sources in the Middle East. They have an Arab-centric view – which couldn’t be more different to most of ours – I defy you to read it and not learn something.

3. 3 Quarks Daily; I like this page most of all, mostly because the vast majority of it goes straight over my head. Its basic idea is to distil away the crap and post links to interesting pages in “the areas of science, design, literature, current affairs, art, and anything else [they] deem inherently fascinating”. I like to stop by and read an article I would not have otherwise searched for and which otherwise would not make the mainstream press. They’re not all winners – but stumbling on the occasional gem makes it all worthwhile.

That said, there is no longer any reason to perpetuate the set of ideas that you were raised with. The world has become a very small place. Challenge your perceptions, preferably with a first hand source, and see if they still stack up. Think Israel is blameless in their conflict with Palestine? Watch a 90 second clip of Palestinians smuggling cooking oil and medical supplies across the blockade – and see if your position doesn’t soften. I’m not saying my leftist meanderings are the only way (or necessarily correct), I’m just saying you no longer have an excuse not to know better.

Preferred Prime Minister

2010-02-18T17:49:00.001+11:00

One of my favourite mortal enemies has returned to the front pages, and so I wake from my posting-slumber. Tony Abbott has returned to the forefront of Australian politics and he has brought my rage with him. While the media collectively swoon over their latest iteration of the straight-talking everyman, I felt the need to offer a reminder of the cold black heart that drives this one.

Back in 2006 when my aspirations for higher office were first made public, I eagerly seized on the first major benefit of my hypothetic presidency: three free assassinations. At that time, I had no hesitation in penning my first nomination, The Honourable Tony Abbott MP. Without recapping too heavily, he stands directly opposed to apparently all of my Administrations positions – as a devout conservative (Catholic) he spouts the expected drivel. Over a year later, with Abbott’s foot lodged firmly down his own throat, my offer was repeated. At the time, my only solace was that he was one of many strands forming the noose that was slowly tightening around Howard’s neck.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of Kevin’07 and Howard’s demise, Abbott survived. He sensibly dodged the poison chalice that is the re-bound leadership - waiting until Turnbull had steered the Libs to relatively higher ground – before pouncing. On December 1 last year, he slithered his way to the party’s highest post by the underwhelming margin of 42-41 votes. Staggeringly, his springboard to victory was an increasingly popular one among his cronies on the Right: Global Warming Denial. His opposition to the governments (flawed, yet promising) Emissions Trading Scheme was just the populist stance he required – ignoring that fact that his own position was later described by Turnbull as “bullshit”. Eloquently put.

Since that time, Abbott has been particularly offensive to Australian women, counselling them on the value of their virginity (thoughtful), their ironing technique (charming) and describing Deputy PM Julia Gillard’s grin as “shit-eating” (classy). Worst of all, Abbott has promoted the bumbling Barnaby Joyce to the finance portfolio – a move that has left me speechless with disbelief. We all get collectively dumber every time Barnaby speaks and it destroys my faith in democratic governance that a man of his calibre can rise to such a post. Despite the clumsy start, compounding his own thinly veiled ultra-conservatism, Abbott is experiencing an extended honeymoon and currently winning in some preferred PM polls.

For me, it comes back to the type of leader we want for our country – the ‘good bloke’ the media seem to crave, or a serious, intelligent human. Currently, we have a thoughtful (ok nerdy) policy wonk, who speaks Mandarin and makes measured, logical statements. I guess in many ways that makes him ‘out of touch with the common man’ and not first on my invite list for a night on the beers – but isn’t that exactly what we want our PM to be?

Let them come

2009-11-19T09:50:00.002+11:00

I’ve never thought the issue of asylum seekers, or ‘boat people’ was all that complex. There are plenty of places in the world at the moment where people are getting bombed, or systematically killed off by their government – and it makes good sense for them to come here (by whatever means they can manage). It seems straight forward that we should be able to process them efficiently and humanely, accepting genuine refugees and deporting the imposters. This was as true back in 2006 as it is now. That immigration policy is so hard to enact here in Australia is no doubt due to the logic-free fear mongering that forms the basis of the public debate.

Let’s get a couple of things clear. First, the number of asylum seekers that Australia accepts is capped at about 10,000 – a relatively generous commitment by international standards, but still a drop in the ocean amongst our 22,000,000 inhabitants (this is also in the context of the 300,000 new migrants expected to arrive legally this year). Worse still, the recent media blitz concerning the ‘waves of boat people’ focused on just 78 Sri Lankans, fleeing the end of their civil war and systematic hunting by their government. Amongst the estimated 20-odd million refugees worldwide our ‘problem’ is definitely all style and no substance.

Second, much of the political backlash felt by the Rudd government has been due to the perception that he is somehow softer on refugees (perish the thought) and that the boat-flood gates are only just opening. While boat numbers dropped precipitously from a peak in 2001 (5516 refugees), coinciding with Howard’s Pacific Solution, there haven been about 1500 arrivals so far in 2009. While I agree that removing the deterrent effect of up to 3 years mandatory detention on a remote pacific island has contributed – it is surely the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and the crushing of the ethnic Tamils by the Sri Lankan government that is the chief cause of this increase. Some 800,000 Tamils have been displaced by the fighting (and government routing) with 150,000 pouring into camps in neighbouring India alone.

As with many of these apparently hot button issues, it is easy to side passionately with the political Right (and with intolerance) – until you have a single moment of real empathy. It’s easy to be against gay marriage, until your daughter is born a lesbian (see Dick Cheney) and easier still to be pro-war until your son is shipped to Afghanistan. Here in Australia we have the supreme luxury of judging the boat people, free as we are of religious or political persecution, or the risk of stepping on a land mine on the way to work. When you’re next getting your nightly serve of migrant-invasion propaganda, wonder what lengths you’d go to keep your family safe.

State of the Art

2009-06-27T15:22:00.000+10:00

Posting has not been as feverish around the Fake White House lately as I would’ve liked. Blame Obama and K-Rudd. It’s harder to be knife-edge vigilant when operations are now being conducted with sanity and moderation. Sure, both men are still guilty of mis-steps now and then – but the malice has disappeared from our governance. Obama is the Man of the People we’ve waited for, and Rudd is boring but generally a force of good (which is a nice change). Content that we’ve been given a reprieve from the fast train to Hell, the fever pitch has subsided.

Still, I’ve not quite gone into a coma. In fact, last week when the Hilltop Hoods released their 6^th studio album I was ready and waiting for it. The Adelaide hip-hoppers (Pressure, Suffa and DJ Debris) have been chiselling away at success since the early 90s, but started to make serious waves with The Calling (2003) and The Hard Road (2006). They do some party songs: Dumb Enough (“if I forgot your name I’m sorry – you’re probably pretty ugly”), What a Great Night (“put your hands up if you’re not too drunk to stand up”); chronicles of their slow rise to fame: The Hard Road (“I was going nowhere like a children’s letter to God”) and occasionally some political/message stuff: Circuit Breaker (“John Howard knows the taste of George’s dick!”).

The latest album, State of the Art (2009), has a similar mix of songs and the classic Hoods sound. But this is not a music review – and my heightened interest in the new album is due largely the standout last track: Fifty in Five. MC Suffa chronicles fifty years of history in a five minute track – covering off on politics, pop culture, current events, the War(s) on Terror… it’s really an epic. The song has played over and over in my head since I heard it, and as a conscientious President, I thought you should all be exposed to its power. Enjoy the clip below. I recommend reading along with the lyrics, the first time, for the full effect.

Torture – Plain and Simple

2009-04-28T14:49:00.002+10:00

After some years in the media wilderness, torture and its ethics have returned to the spotlight. Following the recent change in Administration, the Bush spin machine – once so efficient and clinical – is dead. Nuanced differences between ‘enhanced interrogation’ and torture are over and it’s time to take stock of the damage done. After some heated in-fighting, Obama de-classified a series of memo’s which amounted to Bush administration directives to the CIA allowing them to torture al-Qaida and other suspects held at Guantánamo and secret detention centres round the world. After eight years of secrecy and slight-of-hand, this kind of transparency makes me kind of nervous.

For context, the public have known about enhanced interrogation since Bush coined the phrase in 2002; a euphemism encompassing a range of aggressive and questionable practices – and equating very literally to torture (Bush continued past this time to insist that “we do not torture” – content to split linguistic hairs). At that time after a lengthier than usual rant, I concluded that while the appropriate position on torture was to avoid it (and to grab what little moral high ground was left) – the Bushies should at the very least be honest about the lengths they were going to, “to keep us safe”. Well they didn’t and they weren’t. And now, someone should answer for it.

I’m not actually sure what to be most angry about, wading through the recent disclosures. Maybe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times (so much for tricking him into simulated drowning – I think he’s on to you!), that the frequency of torture spiked just when the US were looking to justify their invasion of Iraq, or that Cheney and Rumsfeld really were the black hearted sons-of-bitches that we feared they were (don’t even get me started on that prick Alberto Gonzales…). While Obama is content to “look forward”, I want to see all the Bushies that dragged us down into the moral quagmire to be held accountable. If it’s good enough for Clinton, it’s good enough for Bush – bring on the show trials.

While we all wait for that not to happen, I can recommend some reading/viewing to give this whole torture thing a face you can see: 1) The 2007 Jake Gyllenhaal movie, Rendition. It tries to give a sense of the complexity of the torture question – but confirmed for me the obvious dangers of such primitive techniques: getting the wrong guy, and the validity of his torture-induced testimony; 2) Enemy Combatant: A British Muslim's Journey to Guantanamo and Back, a book written by former detainee Moazzam Begg. I defy you to read it and not feel empathy for the way he was treated – even before getting to Gitmo. Treating any human this way, guilty or innocent, murderer or terrorist is abhorrent and 3) A recent essay by Atul Gawande appearing in The New Yorker. In summary, solitary confinement will send a regular man crazy in about a month. Three tops. It’s chilling. While it focuses on the use of isolation in the US prison system (it’s rife) – I couldn’t help but think of poor old José Padilla, held in solitary for 3 and a half years, until he finally cracked…

Tipping Point

2009-04-08T09:19:00.002+10:00

The US is a notorious chain-dragger on a range of progressive issues. They seem to have a disproportionate number of evolution deniers, extremist pro-lifers and ‘traditionalists’ (read: homophobes). Increasingly, these issues are being decided in state and federal courts and finding their way onto ballot propositions (like Prop 8). While there have been setbacks (and there will be more), I get the feeling that on same-sex marriage at least, the scales may well be reaching tipping point.

While Proposition 8 was passed in California, effectively banning gay marriage in that state – Massachusetts and Connecticut continued granting marriages to same sex couples. This week, Vermont became the first state to pass laws to legalise same sex marriage. The legislature overturned the governor’s veto with overwhelming votes in both houses (100-49 and 23-5). So, 3 New England states (of the 50) support gay marriage – that’s hardly a turning tide, you might say – especially when 29 states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage…

What gives me hope on this issue is the recent battleground of mid-western Iowa. On April 3 their Supreme Court ruled the state's ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional – a clear victory in this war. Still, my interest was not only in the win – but in the arguments used by the prosecutors. Out-loud, in a courtroom, gay marriage opponents argued to continue the ban in order to: protect tradition, promote a good environment for children, promote procreation, promote stability in opposite-sex relationships, and save the state money. Let that sink in for a minute.

Now while, Judge Robert Hanson had the good sense to dismiss this arguments as insufficient, I’m pleased that these reasons were articulated – as I find them especially damaging to the opponents of same sex marriage. The prosecutors moved beyond simple religious (God Intended It) reasoning and skated out onto some very thin ice. Applied to the whole community, will marriage be denied to couples who create a ‘bad’ environment for children, or who choose not to (or are unable to) procreate? And are we seriously expected to contemplate that gay marriage undermines the stability of opposite-sex relationships? Please.

Overall, it was a pretty farcical case, which I hope does irrevocable damage to anti-gay crusaders everywhere. The stated reasons are based largely on a number of false gay stereotypes and could not possibly be digested by any self respecting individual (or court). The heterosexual community leaves in a giant glass mansion on this one, and I strongly suggest keeping these stones un-thrown.

The Limits of Tolerance

2009-03-18T13:59:00.002+11:00

The Catholic Church and I have an understanding. I let them continue to minister to their estimated 1.131 billion adherents and in exchange I expect them to keep their God-bothering to themselves. It’s like religious Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Admittedly, this has always been a tenuous relationship – they don’t care for atheists, and I’m not a fan of unabashed, arbitrarily administered social oppression. Still, we try. Unfortunately, His Holiness Joseph Ratzinger has been pushing the friendship lately, with a slate of proclamations and deeds that extend the limits of my considerable tolerance. I’m of a mind to put the Vatican On Notice, and here’s why:

1. Out loud Holocaust Denial

Look, I know that there are a percentage of nut-bags out there that insist that the Holocaust was manufactured by historians to increase sympathy for Jews. It’s not a new argument (though it never gets any more logical). Usually though, there’s an agenda: President Ahmadinejad needs to feed on anti-Semitic sentiment to distract his subjects from his ineptitude, while terror groups like Hamas and The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood espouse it as a matter of course in their fight against the Zionists. Still, one expects the Vatican (who stayed ‘neutral’ during the actual event) to have the sense be keep inflammatory rhetoric to a minimum on the subject. Reinstating excommunicated Bishop Richard Williamson – who popped up on Swedish TV claiming “that two to three hundred thousand Jews perished… but none of them by gas chambers” didn’t seem like a super smart play. The Pope described the reinstatement of a Holocaust Denier as "an unforeseen mishap”.

2. An Unnecessarily Rigid Pro-life Agenda

I also know that being a staunch Catholic (or even Christian) is often synonymous with a zero tolerance pro-life stance. I’ve never been one for issuing decrees on personal issues such as these – but in any case, it’s nice to think that in exceptional circumstances even one’s most deeply held views can be flexible enough to allow reason to prevail. Let’s say, if a 9-year old girl was impregnated after her step-father raped her – she would be at least be entitled to avoid giving birth to her own siblings? Right? Well, when it happened in Brazil this month, the Catholic Church excommunicated the girl, her family and the doctors who performed her abortion. As told by Time Magazine: "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. Evidently, an open and shut case.

3. Treating Abstinence-Only Sex Education Like a Real Policy

Abstinence-Only Sex-Education is not effective at reducing anything, except the levels of Government funding going to Actual Sex Education. According to the British Medical Journal there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" – a small detail that did not prevent the Bush White House from spending exhaustively on it. Now, while Bristol Palin and I agree that it’s a failed ‘policy’ – Pope Ratzinger disagrees, arguing that it has a primary role in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. He claims that “[AIDS] cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”. Indeed.

Such as it is then, I’m at the end of my tether with dear Ratzinger. I’m of course not a fan of organised religion at the best of times – but the Vatican seems to be going the extra yard lately to alienate friend and foe alike. In the wake of hundreds of years of corruption and greed, decades of child abuse scandals and an ongoing refusal to join us in the 21^st century - it makes a President wonder what it will take to bring the whole sham down.

Too Big To Fail

2009-03-11T12:14:00.003+11:00

As the United States government extended its bailout of massive insurance company AIG to USD$150 billion, President Barrack Obama and many others are declaring the company "too big to fail". This company did not materialise from thin air into a 200 billion dollar behemoth, nor was it operating under the radar prior to the financial crisis. It was merrily making enormous profits guaranteeing debts which in the climate of a booming economy is like fishing with dynamite. Much back slapping ensued and the regulators had a busy time congratulating themselves on creating such fine economic times to allow this prosperity. Then, wouldn't you know it, cracks started to appear in the aquarium and the AIG suddenly was reminded that the insurance business involves the risk that you'll occasionally have to pay claims. Further - if you're insuring copious sums of highly obscure engineered financial products like the CDOs that became worthless when the housing bubble burst, there's a very good chance that you'll find yourself having to pay lots of claims at once! Now of course as a business you would plan for such occurrences and spread your risk and keep sufficient capital reserves to survive such a scenario - wouldn't you...

You probably would unless you were too big to fail. Then you might be forgiven for thinking that since the government is certain to bail you out if you find yourself with hundreds of billions in liabilities, you may as well enjoy the benefit of that taxpayer funded insurance policy and go on taking enormous risks to rake in the profits. It's a pretty sweet deal to be sure - keep all the profits and pay nothing for the guarantee you'll be protected if it ever does go bad. That's why you wont hear one word of complaint from me about the behavior of AIG. They behaved as any rational company would under the circumstances.

My complaint is with the policies of market self-regulation and minimalistic government that created this mess. The abject failure of the regulators to manage the growth of AIG and others like it into giants too big to fail has ironically expanded the governmental realm far beyond where even the left-leaning major parties would have it. The US government now officially owns 80% of AIG courtesy of these loans and cash injections. It has been nationalised. The fact of the matter is it actually owns the losses of the entire company as it has made it perfectly clear that if the company needs further help it will be forced to step in. It just doesn't own all the potential profits, only 80%. Worse, it has owned the entire company ever since it allowed it to become so large it's failure would catastrophically destabilise the financial markets - it just didn't collect any of the profits back in those prime days either. Now the taxpayers are finally entitled 80% of their rightful profits but they find themselves proud owners of a steaming financial heap still hemorrhaging money courtesy of the financial collapse brought on by the risk-taking behavior the regulators implicitly sponsored.

Think on that some, dear voters. Next time you hear someone touting the evils of government interference, the infallibility of financial markets self-regulation and other such talk I hope you will consider the consequences carefully. You are paying a premium for your car or home insurance and you rightly don't expect it for free. Learn from our mistakes and don't allow this situation to arise again where the tables turn and you are the one writing insurance policies.

Presidential Medal of Freedom

2009-01-09T09:08:00.001+11:00

Still President Bush has another 11 days in office – and then we can start the clean up. It’s going to make Chernobyl look like a summer holiday. He’s been like a really bad tenant, cooking indoors on an open fire, raising chickens in the pantry and shitting in the sink. Unfortunately, the stakes were a lot higher than the upkeep of an investment. In the rudderless days of the transition between Presidents, Bush is focusing on crafting a legacy – while Gaza burns, economists despair and Afghanistan becomes the new Iraq (or Vietnam). Talk about bad timing.

In general, the long transition is a horrible idea. The outgoing President has idle hands and the knowledge that his position and privilege will soon be gone. In their final days in the White House, lame duckers often re-discover their power to pardon criminals (at random), dramatically modify legislation and tea-leaf that lamp that they’ve always liked so much. Bush so far has pushed through a few late night anti-environment bills and been sparring with his pardons (with the notable exception of Scooter Libby) – however, he is giving out Medals of Freedom like they’re candy canes at Santa’s Workshop.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest honour the US bestows on a civilian. It is awarded at the discretion of the President – I guess in a similar way to which the Queen hands out knighthoods. Past recipients include Mother Teresa, Muhammad Ali, Neil Armstrong (and Buzz), Jesse Jackson and Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf. All worthwhile nominees, given it is designed to recognize individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavours."

What I take particular issue with here is that Bush is blatantly using the medal to reward cronies and collaborators past and present. In 2004, he hung the medal around the neck of former CIA head George Tenet. The same George Tenet that presided over the colossal intelligence failures that led to 9/11 and who called invading Iraq a “slam dunk”. Worse however, this month will see the honour bestowed on three particularly dubious suspects: Tony Blair, Columbian President Alvaro Uribe and our own John Howard. Apparently, “all three leaders have been staunch allies of the United States, particularly in combating terrorism”. More accurately, these three leaders have blindly stuck with the US during their failed two front war and offered carte blanche praise for the unpopular Bush.

The whole affair has just added a final sour taste to the shit sandwich that has been the Bush years. The ceremony, no doubt hailing the success of the ‘coalition of the willing, will be one of Dubya’s final acts as commander-in-chief (hopefully) and an integral part of spinning a positive legacy. In the years ahead, I hope the medals bring cold comfort to Howard and Blair particularly, as they lay awake and wonder of their complicity in the worst US Presidency the world has seen.

Not a Dry Eye

2008-11-06T12:55:00.003+11:00

An astute summary of last night's mood, from Former Secretary of State Colin Powell (that guy is slowly clawing his way back up my ladder). Obama's victory was based almost exclusively on his inclusiveness. Powell's weren't the only eyes with tears in them during Obama's speech, that's for sure.

(By the way, the Daily Beast is a cool place to get your news if you don't have a better source - and it's good to see Hugh has graduated from Nine to CNN, well played)

Yes He Can

2008-11-06T11:18:00.002+11:00

My over-riding emotion yesterday was relief - pure and simple relief. After such a long campaign, with some many hopes riding on a single day, the weight of expectation was crippling. A few commentators were still entertaining thought of an upset, waxing lyrical about The Bradley Effect – but most of all the Republican fear factory had left more than a few voters with Obama related doubts. So, when Ohio was called for Obama early on, and the 2004 map shattered, all I felt was relief. President-elect Obama. It’s got a hell of a ring to it.

In the end, it was an Obama whitewash, like few of us dared to hope for (though one which 538 astutely predicted). The Dems won in Ohio, Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and crucially Virginia and Florida (all states that went for Bush in 2004). North Carolina and Missouri are yet to be called, but Obama could squeak home there too (not that it matters: his 349 electoral votes far exceed the 270 he required). The Dems have also extended their hold on the Senate (was 49-49 and 2 independents, now its 56-40 with 4 undecided) and House of Reps (won about 20 extra seats and hold their clear majority). Reaching the magical 60 senate seats (which stops Republican stalling tactics) would, for the first time in a long time, give the Dems complete control of all three branches of government.

The bad news from Election Day, to temper my celebrations came from the ballot initiatives in several states. California’s Prop 8 seems to have been passed (52-48%), banning gay marriage in that state (Florida and Arizona did the same). The benevolent people of Arkansas also saw fit to enact a ban on gay couples adopting, while Nebraska agreed to end affirmative action. All very, very disappointing. It was some consolation to see the passing of some more liberal initiatives in Michigan (medical marijuana and stem cell research) and Washington (euthanasia) – but still a bittersweet day.

Overall though, I’m glad that Obama (and Biden) will be given his chance to enact some of his vision. The doubters failed to deny him the highest office and he can now let his actions speak for him. The reality that he’s not a secret Muslim, or a communist, or just a fancy speaker will be plain for all to see. I have great faith that the much (if not all) of his agenda will be hotly pursued: battling climate change, ending the war, mending health care and turning the economy back from the brink. Already the world is more receptive to the US following the change of leadership – and me, like many others have a really good feeling about the next 4 years. Congratulations, Mr. President (elect).

No on 8

2008-11-05T08:57:00.002+11:00

The relationship between the individual states of the US and the Federal Union is a complex one. The courts are kept busy delineating a zigzagging line between the autonomy (and law making ability) of the states – and their subservience to Washington. The result is a patchwork of laws and regulations unique to each state, covering such weighty topics as the death penalty, the age of consent, gun ownership and of course abortion. Topical this week though, is again same-sex marriage currently only allowed in three US states (and 6 countries, none of which are Australia): Massachusetts, Connecticut – and up until today, California – but I’m getting to that.

Another peculiarity of the state law making process is the ballot initiative. Proposed amendments to the state constitution or laws are offered up for a referendum and decided by the people. I’m familiar with its work from Episode 23 of Simpsons Season 7 – Much Apu About Nothing. Aside from Homer’s hilarious “I would like to buy your rock” gear at the front end (introducing me to spurious reasoning), the episode parodies California Proposition 187 – which in a nutshell blames ‘immigants’ for rising costs, and voted to exclude them from social services. The episode showcases the ignorance and fear-mongering that often drives ballots of this sort.

Anyway, I could go on about the Simpsons all day, but the parallel is that today California votes on a range of initiatives, including the banning of gay marriage – by editing their constitution to read: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Arizona, Arkansas and Florida have similar homophobic votes today – while other states are seeking to make abortion more difficult to access, voting on medical marijuana, assisted suicide and ending affirmative action. Emotions, clearly are running high. The partisans from both sides have spent big, especially on Prop 8, seeing it (as always) as a leverage point to widen the ‘fight against gays’ (much of the ‘Yes’ funding has come from the Mormons and a crackpot millionaire named Howard F. Ahmanson).

On such an historic day – Obama’s landslide win – I’m hoping that many of these conservative ballot proposals are defeated. I feel particularly strongly about Prop 8 in California. I see California as a liberal, cosmopolitan state, and it makes good sense that they have equality for same-sex couples. The ‘Yes’ campaign has peddled blatant lies about the erosion of the institution of marriage – and the fall of the US… spreading the kind of baseless fears that have perpetuated racism for so long. Let me say this once more for the dummies – your loving marriage cannot be attacked by anyone, let alone by the loving marriage of a same-sex couple. Chisel it into your forehead. I’d clearly be voting ‘No’– and I hope the majority of Californians do likewise.

President Obama

2008-11-04T09:19:00.002+11:00

As an Australian, you could be forgiven for thinking that tomorrow’s US elections don’t affect you. Well you could have, back in the day when ineptitude wasn’t such a premium, and few believed that one man could destroy a whole country. Eight Bush years later and we know better: the country is heavily divided along ideological divides, the once powerful US (and world) economy is disintegrating and peace is a distant memory. So many of the assumptions of world order have been shattered, by the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, by the naming of an axis of evil and a spurning of diplomacy as a sign of weakness. Bush will long be remembered as the worst President they’ve ever had.

Having watched this disaster slowly unfold, it’s clear that the influence of the American President is far reaching. The limits of his power were assumed to be far smaller than Bush showed them to be. He unilaterally invaded Iraq, has held over 700 detainees in Gitmo without charge (270 remain) brought state sanctioned torture to the West and spied on his own citizens (not only is he stupid, he’s mean too). In this light, I hope you’d agree that this election is worth paying attention to and that the outcome has tangible consequences.

Without overstating my oft repeated pro-Obama position, the only logical winner tomorrow is Barack. Ideologically, it’s time to turn this car around, on its way to the extreme right – and head back to the centre. The Palin stereotype is the last type of governance the US (or the world) needs. The Republicans have run a fearful campaign, threatening everything from a Muslim Terrorist President – to married gay doctors performing abortions in the streets (Barack will take your money, your guns, and your freedom!!) The reality is, Obama will end the war in Iraq, wage a better one in Afghanistan, favour the middle class over the rich and take a shot at some real problems: healthcare and energy.

I’m as fearful as the next Obama supporter about an upset – but logic tells me that he will win in a landslide. His ground game is better, he has more money, and his positions are stronger. Long Red states could be swept aside, awash in Obama-blue. Despite that, I will sit here, madly refreshing 538 and CNN, watching every vote come in – waiting for the announcement that Obama is President elect. Don’t let me down America.

Raise the Alarm

2008-09-24T09:56:00.002+10:00

I’ve always been a fan of the Living End. They’re a great Aussie band. For a few years there I couldn’t get enough of them and will always remember their set at the Falls Festival back in 2003. Lead singer and guitarist Chris Cheney is a genius (and for the record, my preferred Cheney) and that night, he played like he’d made a deal with the devil. Back in July, the lads released their latest offering: a catchy album called White Noise.

It’s a good album, plenty to get into if you have the patience to listen. Track 9, 21st Century sounds like an updated version of We Didn’t Start the Fire, but a little darker (“Hefner is the devil incarnate”). In particular though, I was most pleased to hear track 2: Raise the Alarm. It’s the Atheist’s Anthem that I’ve longed for. My previous preferred band, Bad Religion, hint at the issue, with lines like “maybe god is just a chemical fiction” – but, The Living End have really nailed it here:

I may not believe in God
That doesn't mean I'm a lesser person
I still have a heart
And I know what it feels like to be broken

I may not believe in Jesus
But I believe in sacrifice
Life doesn’t always stand reason
No one ever gets a chance
To live it twice

The song articulates many of societies prejudices against atheists. We still have morals. We are still capable of virtuous actions. Organised religion does not have the monopoly on goodness (to say the very least). Watch the clip, listen to the song and re-think your position on atheists.

Too Close to Call

2008-09-17T15:11:00.003+10:00

The seemingly endless US Presidential campaign is finally drawing to a close, and the American people have a 50% chance of proving my strong belief that democracy doesn’t work. Its innate weakness is the inability of the majority to ponder deeply on the challenges of a global society – and the likelihood that showmanship (money and spin) will trump substance. Put simply, most people don’t know what’s good for them.

The remaining choices for US President exemplify this particular flaw. While the Democrats have promised healthcare reform, and end to the war in Iraq, middle-class tax cuts and to pay attention to the imploding economy – the Republicans are responding with character traits like honour, bravery, experience and propensity to fire a high powered firearm. With most polls showing a dead even race, I can’t help but wonder how this can be so?

Now, McCain has been drifting to the right ever since he last failed to get to the White House in 2000. His former reasonable stances on immigration, abortion, and foreign policy have dissolved in a froth of expediency. His pick of Sarah Palin as running mate, has confirmed that he’s out of drifting room and has crashed aground on Right-Wing Extremist Island. Sarah doesn’t think there is ever a justification for abortion. She’s a gun enthusiast (nut), has no real concept of foreign policy (except living across the water from Russia!), and very recently wondered aloud (and on camera) exactly what is it that the VP does… She was chosen specifically to appeal to the small town folk stereotype that she epitomises – and for the time being, it seems to be working.

I remain hopeful that sanity will prevail. Obama is a strong, articulate man. He’s not only got sound policy positions, but a star quality usually lacking in Democrats (excluding Bill of course). He’s chosen wisely in the experienced Joe Biden as his running mate. Together, they are the intelligent, non working class, non-small town types that I feel should be in charge of leading the free world.

Unfortunately, the international appeal of smart, reasonable men runs a strong chance of succumbing to the US tendency to choose conservative zealots who remind them of themselves. For my sake and yours, I hope this time will be different.

A White House

2008-09-08T10:32:00.001+10:00

Posting has been reduced to a trickle of late. The cabinet has undergone a series of serious geographical changes and time has been a hot commodity. My loyal Chief of Staff has gone trans-pacific and is now reporting (any day now) from Sunny California, while my missing Finance Minister has long since relocated to Dreary Old England. Meanwhile, in pursuit of the Australian Dream, I’ve uprooted the First Lady and we’ve headed west: the White Unit has been upgrade to a White House.

My change of venue in particular has brought a heightened sense of realism to many aspects of social policy that have long been an annoyance. Clearly, President-In-Waiting doesn’t pay anything like it should, so I’m now the proud owner of a mortgage I can’t afford. I also commute, like a sucker, via City Rail’s poorly run, shambles of a rail network. To ice the cake, The First Lady is quietly incubating a Presidential Heir, highlighting the meager allowances given to child bearing folk in our society in terms of maternity leave, child care and health cover. The whole affair has made me want to be President more than ever.

So, it starts again, with renewed vigour. The good people at Commonwealth Bank are On Notice – after mercilessly screwing me, while claiming to be “Determined to Be Different”. Don’t even get me started. City Rail has also made the list – though I’m hopeful that the fall of the Iemma Government will mean that the motto changes from “Ineptitude, it’s what we do”. Catchy. I’m also gunning for Big Pharma and our crumbling health care system – the lessons of Sicko are not lost on me, as they are on our present leaders. My mahogany desk, and faux seal are in place and the time for posting invective has returned.

Zero Tolerance

2008-08-04T20:42:00.003+10:00

Recently (or some months ago when it was still topical if you prefer), as I was pondering the merits of the sell-off of electricity infrastructure the Iemma government was eagerly spruiking, I had a memorable conversation with a member of the voting public. I was trying to be a balanced Chief of Staff and had asked the question of why we were selling the chicken to buy the eggs in an effort to convince my inner socialist that I was missing something. The answer I received startled me not in it's content but rather how readily it's owner had accepted the idea. "Historically, private utilities have been more efficient".

Of course you, dear reader, are right now asking that perennial 5-year old's favourite "But why?". Regardless of whether the management is private, government, or Tasmanian, the business is the same right? Same people selling their labour, same input fuel, same infrastructure expenses, same physics, same revenue from selling the end product. If the private sector really can run it more efficiently and still provide the same level of service then surely instead of handing it over to them we must ask ourselves why the state can't do exactly the same thing? And more to the point we should be furious that they are not!

The difference between some faceless multinational running things more efficiently or the state doing the same is crucial. One makes a tidy profit and blows it all on hats, and the other makes a tidy profit and blows it all on a pay-rise for teachers, nurses, policemen, or some extra express train services between Redfern and Panania, for example. You can be sure dear reader that this administration is furious. We could go on about similar tolerated inefficiencies in the banking or insurance sectors for example, but instead we'll save those for another post in a few weeks to keep the wolves at bay...

Simply put no company would be interested in buying any business they couldn't turn a profit from, and every penny of profit that could be made is one that should be being made now, and being spent on the good people of NSW. Thankfully there are enough sane ministers on both sides to have seemingly killed the electricity sell-off for now but it will raise it's head again and there are plenty of other examples. So ask yourself why, and be angry! Even if only for the tax break that's in it for you. And if you're a public servant, stop reading blogs and get back to work.

That Iguana Thing

2008-06-25T16:31:00.003+10:00

I rue the day that the Watergate office-apartment-hotel complex was built in 1967. Or maybe I should be ruing that the Democratic National Committee moved their headquarters there – and that Nixon decided to authorise robbing their asses. Either way, I have a lot of regrets that the aforementioned Watergate scandal became so damn famous that every political scandal hence forth needed a –gate suffix. Lewinsky-gate, Camilla-gate, Nipple-gate… there’s a million of them, too often coined by people not alive in 1972, or aware of the true origins of the name. It makes a man’s ruing fist ache with over use. The latest addition is a local one, Iguana-gate, referring to John Della Bosca and wife Belinda Neal running amok at Iguanas Waterfront Bar.

It only happened two weeks ago, but already I wish I was born without ears. Talk about over reporting. The hapless oppositions in both state and federal parliament have seized on the incident and have devoted most of their ‘question time’ questions to ‘getting to the bottom’ of the affair. In NSW, Labor is taking a beating, primarily because of the culture of corruption and abuse of power that is taking shape. Today, for the first time Barry O’Farrell out polled Morris Iemma as preferred Premier – something that I hope Iemma takes very personally; it’s like losing a popularity contest to a cardboard cut out. So far though at the federal level, Rudd has managed to float clear of Ms Neal’s scandal… but he’s not out of the woods yet.

My solution to this is twofold. For starters, Iemma has worn out his welcome with me. It’s time to bring him down. The media are speculating that the left wingers in the state Labor party are conspiring to over throw him and replace him with Carmel Tebbutt, Nathan Rees or even uninspiring John Watkins (I’m a Tebbutt man for the record) – something they should do post-haste. A clean slate is just what NSW needs right now, a purging of the corrupt mafia-esque cadre running the place. Axe Iemma, Della Bosca, Tripodi and my old mate Costa. The time for the rising of the left is here.

Second, Rudd should be sounding loud and clear that the era of arrogance and privilege associated with politics has passed - by making an example of Belinda Neal if necessary. The public are in a mood for change and for ‘new politics’ and have little tolerance for the old clichés. These include demanding a better table because you’re an MP, peer pressuring employees to doctor statutory declarations, and writing the club’s apology for them. Bringing (at least the pretense) of public service (and humility) back to the Public Service is the new black… get onboard or get run over by it.

So Close

2008-06-17T13:18:00.005+10:00

There’s only one thing worse than losing: coming within a whisker of winning – and then losing. The closer you get, the more it hurts. As Tiger tapped in for par on the 19^th (sudden death play-off hole) today, Rocco Mediate got a taste of what I’m talking about. So close to making history, to clinching glory and yet so very, very far. After 18 months of primaries, Hillary Clinton burns with thoughts of what might have been – and don’t even get me started on Al Gore.

As my man Barack clinched the Democratic nomination earlier this month, my thoughts turned to the biting disappointment that would accompany his loss in November. For me this would be accentuated by the knowledge that the Obama path leads us all out of the jungle, while McCain will only plunge further into it.

Logically, McCain shouldn’t come within cooee of the Presidency. I stand by my past assertions that he was the best Republican candidate, and I’m glad that he’s the nominee. He’s generally a straight shooter, has a proud military history and (was at least) considered a moderate amongst his right wing colleagues. As the race has progressed though, the 71 year old has tracked right, courting the support of the conservative base, and sticking with his pro-Iraq War stance. His suggestions for economic recovery and the environment are simplistic at best (and afterthoughts at worst). He’s also found himself continually justifying his involvement with lobbyists – and just lately, his temper (In 1992, after Cindy McCain teased her husband about his thinning hair, McCain snapped at her, in front of the reporters and two staffers: "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c—.") Nice C-bomb - way to court the female vote...

In contrast, Obama embodies the fresh start that so many of us crave. He is championing cornerstone Democratic causes like Universal Health Care, immigration reform and an end to the War – but he also promises a return to a less invasion-based foreign policy (Joe Biden will make a great Secretary of State). I’ve gone on and on about Obama over the last few months, I can’t say enough good things about him.

Given all that, why am I worried? The Republicans of this generation are a remorseless lot committed to winning at all costs. In the post-Karl Rove era, any and all tactics are on the table. So far in the campaign, Obama has been labelled an elitist, a secret Muslim, terrorist and an anti-white bigot, while the character assassination of his wife is only beginning (when they bumped fists on stage the other night – shown above -, FOX News asked whether it was a “terrorist fist jab”. Pricks. (For a full list of the smears, go to Obama’s truth site). Add to that the innate stupidity (and, don’t kid yourself, rascism) of the continental US and this election is by no means over.

So, fingers crossed that Obama keeps fighting the good fight, and steers a controversy free path to November (he’s had enough already). I’m hopeful that there are enough well informed Americans to see through the smear campaigns and carry him to a fairytale victory. Having gotten this close to history though, who can help but feel the specter of the corresponding despair that a loss will bring.

Oil Pressure

2008-06-03T11:32:00.002+10:00

I couldn’t help but notice last time I was filling up Commodore One (that’s right, I still pump my own gas… for now) that it cost nearly twice as much as it used to. Back in the day, a full tank would set me back $40 or so – and lately, nearly $85. Now, I’m not going to lie and say that it doesn’t hurt, because clearly it does – but I’m sick to death of hearing the whole country whine about it constantly. The rising fuel prices reflect some harsh realities that we all need to acknowledge, beginning with the obvious: this trend is not temporary.

For starters, the increase in prices reflects (the only) real cost to us citizens of the war in Iraq. Unless you’re deployed there (or were until yesterday), or know someone who is, the war is an abstract concept. The odd 30 second snippet gets on TV every now and then, but otherwise it bears no direct effect on any of us. Let’s face it – Iraq is a long way away. Unfortunately, the fighting there (and flow down regional instability) is the driving force behind rising crude prices… up from about $40 a barrel in 2001 – to $127 this week (and expected to reach $200 in 2009). Hopefully you don’t need me to pencil in the connection between crude oil prices and petrol costs (hopefully). Henceforth then, let your $85 tank remind you of the consequences of a hastily planned and poorly executed war.

More broadly though, the clamor for oil and petrol are representative of a problem more permanent than war: our supplies are definitionally finite. Delirious with our own oil driven technology, demand has grown substantially in a few short decades – Australia consumed 350,000 barrels/day in 1965, and in 2005, 884,000 (note that our consumption is dwarfed by US, China… well almost everyone). Meanwhile, supplies generally remain fixed. Sure, new fields are occasionally discovered, upgraded or invaded – but with demand how it is, the impact is minor. At current consumption, Saudi Arabia will be out of oil in about 80 years, and Canada (which produces at 1/3 the speed) will be oil-free in 150. Clearly, demand is not expected to flatten out overnight, so these projections are overly generous. The bottom line: if you eat your greens and exercise regularly, you could well see an oil-free earth in your lifetime.

If you aren’t scared by that prospect, you should be. The frustrating thing is that the current leadership paralysis means that solutions are not being explored. There is no over-reaching governmental push for smaller, more efficient cars; for bio-fuel; or more generally for innovation in this area. At present, the collective us are sitting on our hands, wasting valuable time scoring political cheap shots. Meanwhile, the Swedes – as is their penchant – are striding boldly (and logically) forward, vowing oil independence by 2020 (by cutting consumption, increasing efficiency, and exploring alternatives).

For my part (aside from pursuing the Presidency), I’m selling Commodore One and resorting to public transport. Sure, our Costa-tarnished trains are out-dated, crowded and don’t run on time – but I feel like it’s the least I can do. Aside from whining, what are you going to do?

Asleep at the Wheel

2008-05-20T13:51:00.002+10:00

Morris, Morris, Morris. You think you know a guy. Back in the middle of last year I thought we’d done the right thing re-electing NSW Premier Morris Iemma. Compared with his frail opposition and their leader Peter Debnam, he was an obvious choice. I was a supporter of the desalination plant – urging Iemma to press on with nuclear ambition, but warned him to “spend [his] political capital while [he] can”. Unfortunately, in the almost 3 years since his original ascension to power, Morris has lost his way, and expended all of my good will. I have that sinking feeling all a sudden that our great state is drifting aimlessly – and it’s iceberg season.

The Iemma government has quickly established a reputation as a ‘politics first’ administration. That is, working hard to save their own corrupt and inept skins, with media spin and old political maneuvering. For a time the cabinet was an all star line-up: convicted child sex offender Milton Orkopoulos, alleged (and unprosecuted) wife beater Phil Koperberg and shady nepotist Joe Tripodi. Unfortunately, Phil and Joe still grace our illustrious front bench – alongside my old bald nemesis, now treasurer, Michael Costa (I’ll get to him in a minute). Despite such a line-up the government enjoys a healthy parliamentary majority, propped up in power by the party’s dominant right wing faction.

The latest debacle is another presided over by (climate change denying) Costa. After his diabolical reign as Transport Minister (2003-2005), Costa went on to blacken the doorstep of the Roads portfolio, followed by Finance – before finally landing the Treasurer’s job. During his Transport tenure, the rail system verged on collapse, with line closures and strikes all too common (I spent many a commute cursing his name and shaking my ruing fist). Now, as Treasurer he’s overseeing the sell off of our state owned electricity generating capabilities. The short-sighted sell off has become popular lately at all levels of government - but runs directly counter to my beliefs that the state should run essential services (I’m so damn sick of the privatisation = efficiency mantra… just run public services better…).

So, overall, I’ve run out of patience with the Iemma government. They’ve shown themselves to be arrogant, generally misguided and at times plain stupid. Morris would do well to cut out some of the more cancerous members of his administration (do me a favour and start with Costa) but unfortunately it is their right wing factional support that keeps him afloat. With recent favourable opinion polling dropping to 28%, he could soon find that neglecting the public and our essential services will finally come back and bite him in the ass. Hell, if we had a decent opposition, it might’ve happened already. Makes an aspiring President think of stooping to lead the State Libs out of the wilderness (just for a second).

Exclusivity

2008-05-01T10:40:00.001+10:00

Yesterday, between epically pushing back the frontiers of science, I found myself talking to a French co-worker. Between thickly Franco-English exclamations, our conversation turned unwittingly to the Eurovision Song Contest. The contest (of the song variety, as the name suggests) has been running annually since 1956, and began with just 7 entrants (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Italy and Switzerland). This has swelled to 49 (who have been in it at least once) and includes countries as diverse (and non-European) as Israel and Morocco. According to old mate, it was originally designed to bury the WWII hatchet – and get the French and Germans to start talking to each other again. To make a long story short, he complained that Eurovision had changed; back in the day it had class and spirit – and above all exclusivity. C'est la vie.

While I’m not passionate about Eurovision, there are obvious parallels to other post-WWII institutions now crippled by their growing memberships. I’ve never been a fan of the United Nations, (though supportive of its initial ideals) primarily for this reason. Its original 50 member ranks (and 5 veto-ers) has swelled to a staggering 192 – with the recent inclusion of Montenegro – meaning that basically all independent states are onboard. While that’s heart warming, the practical upshot is that discussion amongst all these diverse constituents effectively makes agreement (and therefore action) impossible. Having Russia, China and the US as permanent veto-holders does a pretty good job of this in itself.

The European Union is no better. The original 6 founding states have now become 27 – with a legion of others clamoring to be part of the growing European family. In 2004, 10 new nations were added to the party, including Estonia, Dublin, and (the mother country) Malta. Here in 2008, the Europeans are left with a nominal group of countries with competing economic interests, clashing cultures and staggeringly different security outlooks. In reality, calling it a Union is a bit of a stretch…

While the jungles of red tape and intrinsic paralysis characterising the EU and UN make me angry, the similar problems with NATO are the most pressing at the moment. The founding 12 members have been joined by 15 others in the alliance designed to prevent WWII from recurring (the members agree to jointly defend any invaded ally). In short, NATO has become the proxy security force in the world, filling the void created by the UN and is currently responsible for leading the fight for Afghanistan. Unfortunately, political wrangling has hobbled the efficacy of a once forceful organsiation – with some members refusing to deploy troops or to use them in high combat areas. Iceland (who has no standing army) has 10 ‘soldiers’ deployed, Luxembourg 9, and Greece 130. Australia, not even remotely in the alliance has contributed 1100.

In general, all of these post-WWII institutions are bloated and inefficient – and we should be starting afresh. Scrap the UN, disband NATO and dissolve the EU. The whole point of having a club is exclusivity. Exclusivity is only achieved by discerningly admitting new members, who share the ideals of the organisation. NATO is a fighting alliance. You shouldn’t be able to join if you don’t have an army, or don’t want to deploy it. It should be made up of nations who share strategic goals – that way, we might actually achieve some security goals. I’ve grown tired of the indiscriminate inclusion-ism that is crippling the globe and have found another reason to come to power.

An Extended Honeymoon

2008-04-13T13:55:00.002+10:00

While I’m not really one for polling data, last week’s Newspoll showing Rudd ahead 73% to 9% (as preferred prime minister over Nelson) was pretty compelling. Polling – particularly phone polling 1000 odd citizens - is innately dodgy, but this time it’s reasonably safe to generalise that Rudd is flying and Dr Nelson is floundering. The Opposition Leader dismissed the numbers as evidence of an ‘extended honeymoon’ implying that voters were merely embracing the new face. Brendan should be so lucky.

Unfortunately for Nelson and his Liberal colleagues Prime Minister Rudd is turning out to be a better prospect that even his biggest supporters hoped for. Since coming to office he has issued a landmark apology to indigenous Australians, axed the unpopular Work Choices, ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is lobbying for a seat on the UN Security Council. In the few short months since parliament reconvened, Rudd has already filled in much of the pit of despair he inherited from his predecessor. This last fortnight has seen the PM climb even higher in my Presidential esteem, raising our international profile with a series of high profile meetings. He wants out of Iraq, deeper into Afghanistan, to free Tibet – and, hallelujah, to reopen the Republic debate (someone’s been reading my wish book again). Come week's end, he was doing material in Mandarin... the guy's in fire.

In light of all that Rudd has achieved in such a short time, it’s no wonder that Nelson is polling single digits and that the Opposition are languishing. Nelson is weak and downright abrasive at times. Speculation is rife about his ongoing leadership – not to mention the fate of former government double act Downer and Costello. The Libs, having been in power for so long, and led so decisively over that time, are all of a sudden lost in the woods. For Labors sake, and all of ours, let us hope that the Government continues to surge ahead, in the absence of a cohesive alternative government. There is still much to achieve – this honeymoon has a way to go yet.

Presidential Race

2008-04-07T13:37:00.001+10:00

If I thought that I’d gotten rusty after my fall from the posting horse recently, today’s title put that concern to rest. Presidential Race, now that’s a solid pun if ever there was one. Still got it… but pressing on. I don’t where you were on March 18^th but you probably didn’t get the chance to watch friend of the Administration Barack Obama’s historic race speech – subsequently dubbed ‘A More Perfect Union’. Sure you might have seen a few sound bites, but I can tell you that unless you saw the full 37 odd minutes (see below – already viewed some 4 million times) it wasn’t done justice. As many have commented since, the speech has the potential to be carved into history’s pages of Great Speeches alongside ‘I have a Dream’ (MLK Jr), ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ (JFK) and We Shall Fight on the Beaches (Churchill)

Obama’s speech came in response to growing racial tensions and controversy hounding the Democratic Presidential campaign. Following Bill Clinton’s charged comments about Jesse Jackson’s failed 1984 candidacy, and Geraldine Ferraro’s definitively racist "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position”, came incendiary footage of Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright. Rev Wright was YouTube’d screaming “Goddam America”, “for killing innocents” and stating that 9/11 was “America's chickens… coming home to roost." Fox News had a field day and some pundits wondered if this was the Obama killing gaffe that they’d all been waiting for.

To make a long story slightly shorter, Obama chose a bold route to settle some of the media fueled innuendo: meeting it head on. In his speech he argued for a frank public debate of race – in contrast to the current status quo – which sees black anger simmering from generations of oppression, and corresponding white discontent over perceived injustices around Affirmative Action. He then decided to stand by his pastor (while condemning his inflammatory words), who he said was a good man, prone to the passion and hyperbole stereotypical of black church leader of generations past.

When the dust settled, many on the right had dismissed Obama’s speech as empty (but pretty) rhetoric – preferring to pretend that the issue of race in America was settled by Lincoln and the Civil War. He was also attacked from the left, by those claiming that he had not done enough to quiet fears about his links to such an extremist preacher. Both were wrong and both missed the point. Obama grandly invested 37 minutes of his life trying to reopen an old wound – this time hoping to get it to heal properly at the risk of his locomotive career. He behaved like a great leader should: he was honest, (not patronizing) and inspirational. Whether he goes on to win the Democratic nomination, and then the White House or not – Obama has shown a depth of character that makes his peers look distinctly two-dimensional.

Beware the Censored Wiki

2008-03-13T21:03:00.004+11:00

Friends of the administration. Something terrible has come to my attention recently and I would be failing my duty of care to the public as Chief of Staff in the administration were I not to warn you all of the danger I've discovered. By now you would have noticed as you perused the Colbert '08 Memorial Notice Boards that Wikipedia has been placed On Notice. You see it seems this glorious collaborative wealth of knowledge is scarcely more than a sham. It is not, as I had believed in good faith, the source of all things factual. Evidently a team of Linux using, World of Warcraft playing, darkened room 'moderators' are censoring the 'encyclopedia' continuously, pushing their own agendas and turning the knife in the back of free speech with every keystroke.

Those of you who have been astute enough to source some information from sources other than Wikipedia will probably think I'm writing in response to the Donations-for-Edits scandal that has seen Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales' reputation shattered in recent weeks. Maybe you think I've got my back up in response to the donations rorting allegations made against the same St. Jimmy. Appalling as all of this is, and as much as I felt my trust in Wikipedia was betrayed, it is not a patch on the anger I can only imagine a loyal Australia's First President reader must have felt after a Wiki 'moderator' censored his or her informative edit to the Republicanism in Australia page recently.

This member of the AFP family noticed the aforementioned page failed to refer to the parallel Republic of Australia that has existed since our President took power way back in September 2006 - a significant omission. He/She dutifully edited the Wiki to make note of our great administration, in what can only be described as an unbiased, informative and most importantly factual paragraph. No sooner could this person take a screenshot of the page to forward to the AFP web team for archiving purposes, was the public's right to that knowledge violated by one of Wikipedia's army of censors.

Judge it for yourself, you can find the uncensored version of the page here, thankfully it was salvaged from amongst the thousands of emails Mr. President receives every day from the faithful. On behalf of the administration I'd like to sincerely thank the soldier of the truth who tried in vain to enlighten the world, whoever you may be. One day soon free speech will again be protected under the watchful eye of the Republic, in the meantime I implore you all to boycott Wikipedia, starve them of their ability to misappropriate funds, and to mislead the world. The truth is counting on you.

Hypocrisy

2008-03-12T14:54:00.002+11:00

Our society loves nothing more than tearing down our tall poppies. Public life these days is increasingly literal - a life lived out in public - and synonymous with being placed constantly under the media’s glare. The press pack sweat on indiscretions from our most revered members and (rightfully to a point) airs them to a hungry audience. It’s got a gladiator, Colosseum feel to it sometimes, as we delight in the in the devouring of another contender.

Lately, politicians and their increasingly unbelievable sex scandals are in high rotation. It seems that a week can’t go by without another (formerly) well respected official getting brought down for immoral behaviour. Most times the frenzy is accentuated by a second highly combustible ingredient: hypocrisy. In 2006, US Congressman Mark Foley admitted soliciting sex from underage male Whitehouse Page’s – while chairing the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children (who sought to target sexual predators!) Similarly, Megapastor Ted Haggard – who took a hard line against homosexuality (and was by all reports a raving wacko), was poetically exposed for buying crystal meth from another man he paid to have regular sex with. In 2007, US Senator Larry Craig completed an unlikely trio, convicted of soliciting his stall-mate for sex in the bathroom of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport following 16 years of strict conservatism (and a voting record to match).

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is the most recent to join the line of disgraced public officials, discovered employing the services of a $1000 an hour prostitute. Spitzer, likened to Eliot Ness, due to his campaign against impropriety in NY – and his alleged uncorruptability – fell hard and heavily from grace. My greatest disappointment though was not that Spitzer has a taste for expensive company (speculation is that he’s spent over $80,000 at the place, and I’m sure that’s the tip of the iceberg) – but that he dragged his devastated wife up on stage to share the spotlight during his apology. As you can see in the picture, she would’ve much rather been sitting down to a streaming hot bowl of razor blades…

I guess then, there are two issues here. First, have the common sense to stay out of trouble. Being a politician these days mean that all your skeletons, past, present and future will eventually be torn from the closet. Make the smart play and resist the temptation to abuse the power that comes with your office. Second, if you just can’t help yourself, have the courage to get on stage by yourself and take your lumps. The last thing anyone wants to see is your poor spouse ‘supporting’ you. It just makes us angrier.

While I’m here, I just want to send a warning out to my man Barrack. You’re our last hope that there can be a different kind of politician. The kind that isn’t secretly gay, while they rail against homosexuality or the kind that hunts down corruption, while lining their own pockets with cash. You're a clean cut, hope-peddling, family man. If by some twist of fate you end up plastered all over the press for not living up to the high standards you have set, then so help me, I will never trust another public figure again.

The Race Grinds On

2008-03-06T11:25:00.001+11:00

Goddam Hillary. Like a punch drunk heavy-weight, she just doesn’t seem to know when to stay down. In the wash-up of yesterday’s voting in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island (America’s Tasmania – we’d both cut them free to drift away if we could), two things are clear: 1. Obama failed to land a knockout blow and 2. Hillary was unable to make much of a dent on the points deficit that has her definitively in 2^nd place. There are plenty of measures of who’s in front or behind, who has momentum and who is dead in the water – but it is delegate count that will be the ultimate determinant come August.

On offer in yesterday’s contest were some 370 delegates. According to Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe, “Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183. That's a net gain of 4 delegates”. Nice math Dave, thanks for spelling that out for me. While there is some give in these numbers, given that some are only ‘projected’ while counting continues, his point is salient: the Clintonista’s failed to eat away Obama’s pledged delegate lead. Plouffe, clearly the campaign mathlete, claims that Obama maintains a “lead of more than 150 [pledged] delegates, and there are only 611 pledged delegates left to win in the upcoming contests” (this discounts superdelegates for the time being – CNN has Obama’s total lead at 96). In short, yesterday’s ‘win’ for Hillary was important for momentum (that intangible campaign propellant) but did little to improve her actual position (Texas is a case in point, Hillary won the primary, but the delegates were divided 65-61 – while Obama currently leads the concurrent caucus in the same state).

So, where to from here? Next we’re off to Wyoming and Mississippi; relatively small states (in delegate terms), where Obama is expected to win comfortably. In fact, many are predicting that Hillary will head straight for the next big state, Pennsylvania, where 188 delegates are on offer. In other words, the race grinds on. The fighting within the Democratic Party continues – most recently about whether or not Michigan and Florida’s disqualified delegates should now be included (which would be blatant cheating) - while McCain is sitting pretty as the confirmed Republican nominee.

The Dem’s need to step back and take a breath. Another month or two of tearing each other apart will put both Obama and Hillary at a disadvantage come general election time. McCain is now free to attack both – while they’re concentrating on each other. Inconceivably, we run the risk of seeing another Republican in the White House next year, despite the best efforts of the current one to put that idea to bed. For me, the solution is simple. The mysterious superdelegates need to coalesce around Obama; he’s the voice of change, embodying our hope of better governance – and he’s the one that can beat McCain. In an experience-off, American’s will take the hard nosed Vietnam Vet over the former First Lady everyday of the week. For Dawkin’s sake, someone (I’m looking at you Howard Dean) throw in the towel for her before it’s too late.

Masdar City

2008-02-29T12:02:00.000+11:00

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

2008-02-27T16:48:00.003+11:00

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

2008-02-21T14:02:00.001+11:00

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

2008-02-18T20:59:00.003+11:00

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

2008-02-08T10:51:00.000+11:00

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.

José Padilla

2008-01-30T16:21:00.000+11:00

Back in May 2002, an American citizen by the name of José Padilla was arrested in Chicago following one hell of a sight-seeing holiday. Padilla had travelled to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq – and arrived back in the US carrying over $10,000 and (so the CIA say) the contact details of a number of suspected terrorists. Things immediately started looking bad for the 32 year old. He was quickly declared an ‘enemy combatant’ (denying him any legal rights) and locked up in a military base in South Carolina – where he remained, in solitary confinement - for 3 and a half years.

As far as Terrorism cases go, Padilla’s seemed to be representative of many of the debates over their handling: the use of torture, the right to a fair and speedy trail, the necessity for hard evidence and the basic right of the government to pluck people off the street and hold them indefinitely.

Accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive ‘dirty bomb’ on US soil, Padilla was one of the first high profile captives – and a potential media victory for the Bush Administration. During his incarceration Padilla alleges that he was tortured: subject to sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, forced stress positions and injected with various drugs. Above all he was isolated so severely from human contact, that he exhibited “a facial tic, problems with social contact, lack of concentration and a form of Stockholm syndrome." A psychiatrist hired by his defense team diagnosed his condition as post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite this he was found to be fit for trial – and in late 2007 he was found guilty of conspiracy and providing aid to terrorists.

Last week, the now 37 year old Padilla was sentenced to a further 17 years in prison – in a case that presiding judge called “light on facts”. The judge also found that “there is no evidence that these defendants personally maimed, kidnapped or killed anyone in the United States or elsewhere,” and that “conditions were so harsh for Mr. Padilla ... they warrant consideration in the sentencing in this case”. Padilla is appealing, but is still looking down the barrel of a long lump – despite the lack of ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’.
It’s a scary case – one that speaks largely for itself. No one is saying Padilla was a nice guy, but plenty fear the precedent set by prosecuting on the basis of circumstantial evidence – and thought and not deed. Let me leave you with what I feel is an astute summary of the concerns here, penned by someone called Andy Worthington:

“[Seventeen] years and four months seems to me to be an extraordinarily long sentence for little more than a thought crime, but when the issue of Padilla's three and half years of suppressed torture is raised, it's difficult not to conclude that justice has just been horribly twisted, that the President and his advisors have just got away with torturing an American citizen with impunity, and that no American citizen can be sure that what happened to Padilla will not happen to him or her. Today, it was a Muslim; tomorrow, unless the government's powers are taken away from them, it could be any number of categories of 'enemy combatants' who have not yet been identified.”

Bad Religion

2008-01-25T10:42:00.000+11:00

Since happening across Anti-flag last year, my desire for an intelligent band to speak to me has gone unsatisfied. Apparently filling an album with meaningful lyrics and a message is harder than it looks. Still, I think that the search is over for the time being and I can fill my headphones with punk band Bad Religion.

The Californian punkers are you’re typical overnight success story – they had to work 25 years for it. Beginning in 1982, they have churned out a staggering 14 albums, without courting (or really achieving) ‘mainstream’ recognition. Their songs champion many pet causes of the left: free speech, disaffected youth, the environment, the War, Bush and obviously Religion (though Wiki claims that they use it as a metaphor for any situation where individuals are suppressed). Clearly, I like what they’re doing there.

Their two most recent albums, The Empire Strikes First (2004) and New Maps of Hell (2007) are particularly worth a listen. The first, according to guitarist Brett Gurewitz was dedicated to getting Bush out of office: “I'm not a presidential scholar but I don't think you'll find a worse president in the history of the United States. He's probably one of the worst leaders in the history of world leaders. I just hate the guy”. Who could argue with that? It contains some interesting titles: Sinister Rouge (church abuses), Let them Eat War (addressing poverty by spending billions on war), Athiest Peace (speaks for itself) – and the title track, challenging Bush’s pre-emptive strike doctrine.

The new album is just as good, though I’ve probably run out of space to go on about it too much. Below is the clip of one of my preferred songs: New Dark Ages – a sentiment that rings truer every day. In all, it’s great to have found another band that speaks intelligently about the mounting problems that the Bush administration has added to our collective world. At a time when speech is getting more and more constricted, at least someone is pushing back.

New Years Resolutions

2008-01-15T10:29:00.000+11:00

Having not posted since December 10th last year, I figure that it’s high time that I got back on the horse. Truth be told, I’ve been on holidays, sunning myself (in a sun safe manner of course) and sparing precious few thoughts for world politics. Still, all good things must end – and even Bush returns to work, once all the chainsaw-able things on his ranch have been chopped. I thought I’d kick of ’08 in the clichéd (but necessary) way that our society demands: with some Presidential Resolutions.

1. End the Writers Strike

If the US achieves ones thing this year (and that’s no guarantee), ending the 10 week Writers Guild of America strike should be that thing. The writers have downed pens in response to getting screwed out of growing Internet profits by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) – or Big Movie. There are currently no signs of a settlement and the last strike, back in ’88 lasted nearly 22 weeks (and cost about $870 million) – so most are settling in for a long fight. The greatest tragedy is that Jon Stewart’s Daily Show and the Colbert Report have been seriously disrupted… have you people no souls?

2. Stabilise Pakistan

Before Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, we had good reason to worry about the future of Pakistan. Now, clearly, that concern has increased. The US needs to tread very carefully in the coming months, else they risk losing a vital foothold in their actual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (let alone their hyperbole laden War on Terror). For once, they may do well to let the Pakistani people decide how they are governed – given the response to the US support for Bhutto. It’s a complicated problem, but one that should be addressed with the highest priority (as soon as the Writers Strike is over).

3. Anyone but Hillary

After the Iowa Primary on January 3rd of this year, I was on top of the world. The first real contest of the US Presidential race had gone better than I could have imagined: my man Obama was the clear winner for the Democrats and the Republicans had offered up Mike Huckabee - an anti-abortion, homophobic, evolution denying Baptist Minister (read typical Republican). In short, Obama was clearly going to be the 44th President of the USA.

5 days later, in New Hampshire, Hillary edged out Obama (39% to 36% - but 9 delegates each) and McCain was the surprise victor for the Republicans. Suddenly, the ordained establishment candidates were looking good again and all eyes are now turned to Super Tuesday (Feb 5th), when 24 states vote on the same day. I have high hopes that Obama/Edwards will be the Democratic ticket (and am staunchly opposed to a continuation of the Bush/Clinton dynasty). McCain, for the record, is the only Republican with a chance of being the next President, so fingers crossed one of the other freaks gets the nomination.

4. Keep the Peace with Iran

This seems to be a no-brainer to me. The last thing the Yanks need is another war. They need a continental outbreak of Ebola more than they need another war. Still, Bush and Cheney insist on rattling their metaphorical sabers, daring the Iranians into conflict. Last weeks naval incident in the Gulf was the latest example of sidling up to the brink. Dumb isn’t the word – but Bush needs a legacy and Cheney is running out of influence. I can assure you that war with Iran is very much on the cards.

5. Rail against the Popular Media

Finally, 2008 is going to be my year of lobbying against the popular media. This morning’s coverage for instance was devoted nearly wholly to a teenage (idiot) boy who staged a massive house party while his parents were away. Meanwhile, Bush signed an arms deal with the Saudi’s; a road side bomb was detonated in Pakistan’s most populated city and French President Sarkosy defended Iran’s right to nuclear technology. I’m just plain sick of being fed human interest crap, while the world burns.

A Change of Tack

2007-12-10T14:29:00.000+11:00

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

2007-12-06T14:11:00.000+11:00

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

2007-11-23T14:01:00.000+11:00

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

2007-11-23T10:52:00.000+11:00

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

2007-11-22T09:39:00.000+11:00

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

2007-11-13T14:27:00.000+11:00

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

2007-11-05T13:59:00.001+11:00

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

2007-11-01T14:57:00.001+11:00

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

2007-10-31T13:24:00.000+11:00

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

2007-10-23T12:07:00.000+10:00

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

2007-10-17T11:48:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-19T16:24:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-12T16:55:00.000+10:00

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

2007-09-05T16:15:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-30T14:49:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-22T16:31:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-20T13:06:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-14T11:39:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-08T16:24:00.000+10:00

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

2007-08-07T17:28:00.000+10:00

(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

2007-07-25T10:29:00.000+10:00

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

2007-07-23T12:40:00.000+10:00

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

2007-07-20T10:54:00.000+10:00

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

2007-07-18T11:07:00.000+10:00

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.

Equal Rights

2007-07-03T10:41:00.000+10:00

A close friend of the Administration sent me a link this morning to a petition urging the government to amend the law to give same sex couples the same legal rights as de facto heterosexual couples. It’s at times like these that I’m glad I have access to such an expansive readership. I urge you all to give your support to this cause by clicking on the link above and registering.

For the record, I think that gaining the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is a fantastic start – but that much more needs to be done. The view of this President is that the discrimination we see in Australia and throughout the world against homosexuals is akin to the treatment of black people in decades past. We need to strive for a day where the question of sexuality is not even asked. The happy marriage of a gay or lesbian couple, poses no risk to your own straight happy marriage – I promise.

Take this opportunity to record your opposition to this discrimination and cross off the days until my Administration comes to power and ends this tyranny once and for all.

Don’t Stop at Desalination

2007-06-29T10:31:00.000+10:00

Well done Morris Iemma. Despite the protests of a handful of Kurnell locals and the alarmist complaints of even fewer ‘scientists’ (“the drought is over”), Iemma is pushing ahead with a $1.8 billion desalination plant for Sydney. As Warragamba Dam hit 33.9% capacity a few months back, the plant project was tendered and the contract awarded. Regardless of the recent downpours – and dam levels reaching 50%, the plant is still going ahead, and rightly so.

The problem with the press and with our adversarial form of government is that you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Had Labor done nothing to combat the drought and growing water shortage except pray for rain – they would’ve been crucified had said rain not fallen. The Opposition were sweating on it. Now, having ponied up the dough for an ambitious desalination solution, a few weeks rain have prompted some to call the plant a white elephant, and to predict that Warragamba will soon be over flowing (Opposition leader Barry O’Farrell said: "Iemma ignored two months of record rainfall, and is still determined to put billions of dollars into this desalination plant,"). What a difference a few weeks makes.

This Administration’s view is that desalination is a great idea, if not an obvious one. Desalination of sea water is hugely popular in the Middle East (being mostly desert - Duabi wouldn't exist without it) and is growing fast in the USA, North Africa, Singapore, Spain, and China. If anything, Sydney is uniquely placed to meet the challenges of brine disposal (with the vast Pacific handy for dilution) and with a budget surplus to pay for the infrastructure. Employing some long sightedness not usually associated with our political leaders, Iemma’s view is that "the nation's largest city will not be brought to its knees by drought," – and he has implemented a practical solution. Water bills are expected to rise $30 a year over 3 years, and I think that’s a fair price to pay to be able to wash your car, flush your toilet and water your garden - guilt free.

Still, while he’s on a role, I’d like to see him press forward and bring nuclear power to NSW. The benefits seem obvious to me, and I have said as much previously. While we’re addressing water issues, it seems only logical to address expected power shortages and the challenges of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Mr Iemma said it was "possible" the state would need not just one, but two, baseload power stations by the middle of next decade to meet rising demand. Any new stations are likely to be coal-fired, mostly because of the fear campaign surrounding the use of nuclear technology (and the standing of the coal lobby) – adding further to our carbon emissions. Without going through my pro-nuclear stance again it telling that the US safely operate over 100 nuclear power stations and France has both the cleanest air and cheapest electricity in Europe because of its harnessing of the atom.

Chernobyl was a long time ago, 21 years in fact. Given that we build a first class reactor, and man it with sober, (non-retarded) trained engineers, it just won’t happen here. Spent nuclear fuel (waste) will only need to be stored in 50 years time, and then easily enough underground somewhere in the vast tracts of uninhabited land in the middle of our great continent. It’s time the fear campaigns were set aside and we employ practical solutions to real problems. Our future is inevitably a nuclear one, spend your political capital while you can Morris.

Driving Commandments

2007-06-26T10:50:00.000+10:00

Ah the Vatican, I love it how they keep their finger on the pulse. Only 100 or so years after the mass production of the automobile, they’ve decided to update their regular 10 Commandments and issue 10 ‘Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road’. It’d almost be funny if they didn’t issue them with a straight face. According to theologians the 36-page report was aimed at curbing increasingly unacceptable driving behaviour like road rage and hit-and-runs.

However, the guidelines also encourage people to pray while driving - something that nutbags like the Rev. Steven Sabo of Christ the King Church says he already practices. “I pray the rosary when I drive,” he said. “Unlike cell phones, prayer offers you a direct line to God.” That sounds real safe Rev. Sabo (nothing like being mid rosary when a kid runs in front of your car). My view is that in Australia at least we already have ‘guidelines’ for driving – we call them LAWS. We even have uniformed people who enforce said laws. It’s really a very convenient system, relying significantly less on an omnipresent, omniscient creator and much more on mutually agreed values. For the record, the full 10 are listed below, in case you’re seeking divine driving inspiration.

1 - You shall not kill (I’m sure I’ve heard this one before)
2 - The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.
3 - Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.
4 - Be charitable and help your neighbour in need, especially victims of accidents.
5 - Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.
6 - Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.
7 - Support the families of accident victims.
8 - Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.
9 - On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.
10 - Feel responsible toward others.

The good people at the Daily show gave this report a much fuller and funnier treatment than I, so enjoy.

77% of Aussies are Racist

2007-06-22T14:16:00.000+10:00

Australia’s treatment of refugees and its attitude to immigration generally have been shameful for some time now. During the 2001 election campaign, immigration and border protection became hot-button issues, following the Tampa affair, Children overboard affair, and the sinking of a dilapidated Indonesian fishing boat that was en-route to Christmas Island carrying over 400 asylum seekers (353 of these, mostly women and children, died). Our Governments response was the controversial Pacific Solution.

One of my first posts as faux President was the criticism of the Pacific Solution. The policy, which calls for mandatory detention and off-shore processing of asylum seekers was aimed primarily to be a deterrent and had no long term viability. My suggestion at the time remains relevant: have defined short detention periods necessary for health and background checks and use the time to teach English and other skills relevant to integration to Australia. Having ignored this fairly commonsense approach, Howard has finally fielded criticism he may find difficult to ignore – from his own regulatory body, The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC).

The HREO commissioner stated that "[It is] unacceptable in terms of human rights instruments to detain people and send them to be processed off-shore". It’s that simple. A no-brainer if you will. Typically though, the Howard Government change their policies only after the political tide has turned – and to save their own skins. Given that President Bush is on the verge of closing his preferred detention centre, Guantanamo Bay, Howard may need to return to the Pacific Solution drawing board. Hopefully it’ll be a little less Auschwitz this time.

Still, Howard can’t take all the blame, given that he is a leopard that will happily change his spots – to suit those of his electorate. To their credit, Sydney Hip-Hop outfit, The Herd have been trying to spread the word and educate an oblivious public. Their 2003 track ‘77%’ featured the line "77% of Aussies are racist", referring to the number of Australians announced in a survey that agreed with the Government's response to the Tampa incident. Their message is clear: we’re increasingly and generally a racist nation – despite most of us being recent (within 200yrs) immigrants ourselves. That’s right; each of us has some responsibility in the way this has all gone down. The song is now 4 years old, but much of it holds true (I like particularly “channel 9 fostering prejudiced mentalities” and “captain cook was the very first queue jumper”), and its well worth listening to. Maybe all of us could do with a bit of a wake up.

(Warning, the song includes not only the f-bomb, but the c-bomb. JJJ were happy to play it, in fact it was #46 in the hottest 100 in 2003 – but if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing, watch the clip without the sound).

Obama Girl

2007-06-15T14:02:00.000+10:00

My Decree must already be taking effect, as I just got word from a good friend of the Administration (nice work Stu) about a new pro-Obama campaign sweeping the US. I appreciate that not only have you heeded my proclamation and knocked off for the day mate, but you’re keeping AFP readers out on the cutting edge.

It seems someone has a crush on my man Barack Obama. She’s calling herself ‘Obama Girl’ and is getting a reasonable amount of airplay, if her blog is anything to go by. While Barack is happily married, I’m sure he’s very flattered – and there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Enjoy the video and thanks again Stu.

Presidential Decree

2007-06-15T13:30:00.000+10:00

There are plenty of perks to being a faux President. My secret service guys are always clearing areas before I get there, not to mention fitting my mortal enemies with concrete shoes. I get to veto stuff. I don’t like it – it’s vetoed. I don’t yet have the option of holding expensive fundraisers at Kirribilli, but my day will come. In the meantime let me exercise another of my preferred fringe benefits: the Presidential Decree.

For background this, my first Decree, was inspired by none other than Adam Sandler, who you might remember from such films as Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison. Restricted to bed the last couple of days with some sort of Avian Flu/Ebola hybrid (I’ve beaten it for the record), it came to pass that I watched Sandler’s 2006 box office hit Click. Given my past experiences with Happy Madison productions, I was expecting hilarity, but not necessarily a deeply penetrating social message.

It came as a surprise to me then that Sandler’s antics, in combination with the Hoff and the delightful Kate Beckinsale, left me deep in thought. The premise of the movie, in painfully short summary, is that Sandler has a remote that he uses to fast forward through the boring bits of his life (arguments, showering, dinners with his parents). He ends up spending several years on ‘auto-pilot’. Finally, he ends up running his company but is fat, divorced and unsatisfied. The movie is full of clichés and has many a similarity to the 1946 Film, It’s a Wonderful Life (not to mention Dickens’ 1843 classic, A Christmas Carol) – but was a stark reminder to me of the transience of life, and the ever increasing speed and length of our Rat Race.

With that said, I hereby order you all to take the rest of the day off. Decree issued. Go home and surprise your kids by picking them up from school. Play catch with little Johnny in the front yard. Take your dog for a walk. Call your parents. Buy your wife flowers and take her to dinner. If all else fails, run outside and dance around in the rain like an idiot (we live in a drought!). Sure, these are all clichés too, purposefully so – but life is short, so pick your favourite and get to it. I expect a full report on Monday.

Excommunicating MP's

2007-06-07T15:07:00.000+10:00

Try as I might, I can’t seem to escape the fact that Religion is increasingly part of our politics. I could choose not to post about it – but that doesn’t make it less of a problem. In the past I have trained my fire on Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott, but increasingly I see that to make an impact I have to look further up the chain. If I’m to cure our society of this gangrene, I need to take off the whole limb.

With that said, the source of many of the “In the name of Christ” edicts handed down in Australia (and in NSW particularly) is the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell. In general, Pell has a hard time keeping out of the public eye and is outspoken on the role Catholicism should play in our society, but he has been particularly vocal of late. Pell has steadfastly maintained an opposition to homosexuality (even when challenged personally by his gay cousin), is against the ordination of women and has tied global warming to an unhappy God. More recently, he was accused of sexually abusing a 12-year-old boy at a Catholic youth camp in 1961, revealing an attitude to child abuse that I find alarming. At best, he was passive in response to child abuse cases brought before him, though accusations of his role in cover-ups abound. His ambivalence on this issue is emphasised by his assertion that "abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people". A remarkable statement from the Church’s moral leader in NSW.

Earlier this month Pell piped up with his plan to require Catholic School principles to swear an oath to uphold the moral teaching of the Church. According to catholic news, the oath demands "religious submission of intellect and will" on questions of faith and morals - even if these are inferred but not defined by the pope and his bishops - and an acceptance that everything solemnly taught by church tradition is divinely inspired. This would be applicable both to their personal lives and in their interactions with, and pastoral care of, their students. His plan would most obviously affect the issues of homosexuality, birth control and abortion – topical to us all, but most pressing to teenagers forming their sexual identity. However, this obvious attempt to brainwash a generation of young people isn’t my biggest criticism of Pell – parents can easily choose a public (indoctrination free) education.

By far the greater evil is Pell’s unveiled attempt to influence Australian politics by appealing to (and threatening) Catholic parliamentarians. Yesterday, Pell pressured NSW MP’s to vote against stem cell legislation that would lift a ban on therapeutic cloning, bringing the state into line with the Federal law. He stated that there could be “consequences” for those voting for the bill, the implication being that they could be refused communion, or even excommunicated. How medieval. Thankfully, a conscience vote allowed the bill to pass 65 votes to 26 – despite the archbishop’s threats.

Members of Federal Liberal have been quick to defend Pell’s right to voice his opinion, including his protégé (and preferred page boy) Abbott, the PM and hand puppet Joe Hockey. However, Emergency Services Minister Nathan Rees was amongst the most vocal opponents, suggesting: “I think he's got three options: he can apologise; he can run for parliament; or he can invite further comparisons with that serial boofhead, [Sheik Taj Aldin al-hilali]”. In this Administrations view, the Archbishop should pipe down. He should be made to face a proper investigation surrounding his tacit acceptance of child abuse – but overall the position of Catholic Archbishop should put back in its place. Tend to your flock George, and leave the rest of us alone.

War Anthems 1

2007-06-05T10:35:00.000+10:00

Such is our culture that some of the most meaningful commentaries are made by musicians, authors and other artists, who are free from the constraints of other public figures. Some bands, make their messages part of who they are (like Anti-flag) – while others will just occasionally produce a song whose message is all the more powerful because it’s different from their usual fare. A couple in particular have gotten trough to me lately, in the context of the raging Iraq war and I’m going to post them in the next few weeks.

The first is by long time friends of the Administration, Dashboard Confessional (DC). Known primarily as an Emo band, DC traditionally plays songs about finding and losing love and has had tracks appear in Spiderman 2, Shrek 2, and on One Tree Hill. While I won’t bore you with how much of a fan I am, I’ve heard all their albums and was surprised when ‘Slow Decay’ appeared on their new album Dusk and Summer.

The song is below, overlayed on some footage from the 1996 Film, the War at Home. While the film was about a returning Vietnam Vet, with post-traumatic stress disorder – I think the clip is particularly relevant to those returning from (and being quickly sent back to) Iraq with the same issue. Listen carefully to the lyrics, Chris Carrabba is an amazing songwriter.

Note: The good people at YouTube have pulled the video for the time being - I'm looking for an alternative source and will try and fix it asap, because it was a great clip.

Time for Vision

2007-05-30T11:25:00.000+10:00

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately reading and watching the developments in the race for the US Presidency in 2008. It fascinates me. The parties have become so polarised in the last couple of years that each has staked out clear ground on most of the big issues (gay marriage, abortion, climate change, Iraq, guns etc) – and it makes for heated debate. The Dems control the Senate and Congress for the first time in a decade and that’s giving everything even more spice. The diverse range of candidates in the primary race is a positive too, providing subtleties of message with the party framework.

Unfortunately, our system couldn’t be more different – two candidates, each from parties which have many more shared values than opposing ones. Differences in policy, while being only minor, are amplified by the media, hoping to represent the occurrence of a true political debate. For the last fortnight at least, the media has focused on nothing but Industrial Relations, and Work Choices. Not, however, on the core issue of finding a balance between employer flexibility and employee rights – but on the slight nuances in the ever changing policies of the Government and Opposition. Neither group is suggesting any fresh moves – like refocusing our economy away from mining and manufacturing (where we will never be able to compete with China) to innovation, or a new industry driven by Green Technology. Both parties dither about who has more passion for protecting working families, while the media scrounge the personal lives of these politicians looking for dirt.

The whole affair with Rudd’s wife Teresa is pathetic. Countless hours of investigation uncovered some underpaid workers somewhere in her multi-million dollar conglomerate. The workers were compensated and she’s selling her interests here. Case closed. The implication that Rudd won’t be for workers rights (despite Labor’s strong Union membership) because his wife’s multinational got greedy is absurd. All it does is distract us from the actual IR policy debate. Rudd, to his credit, is trying valiantly to tackle some big issues, like climate change – while the Libs (and the media) seem content to snipe at him across the parliamentary aisle.

My point is, not only is the current way we do politics in Australia boring, but counter productive. Personal attacks and over analysis of every uttered word only draw our attention away from the facts. The Libs seem to be hanging their hopes on Rudd disintegrating, while Labor are hanging in there, not quite daring to hope that they're actually going to win. Its a shame, because at this time in the world there is plenty to talk about: The War on Terror (and in Iraq), Global Warming and our reliance on fossil fuels, Missile Defence and our growing water shortage. As citizens of this democracy we want these issues aired and debated. We don’t care about the intricacies of either leader’s personal life, we want only for them to stake out a clear position on the issues that will define the next decade of our politics and our country.

Take a leaf out of Obama’s book, and engage the people like they matter. Outline in brush strokes how you see the future of this great country. The time for pettiness has passed; the time for vision has come.

Creation 'Museum'

2007-05-28T14:46:00.001+10:00

Loyal readers of AFP may wonder why I detoured recently to lend my support to evolutionary biologist and atheist, Richard Dawkins. Partly, his views resonated deeply with thoughts of my own, that until reading his book I had not been able to articulate. More so though, his challenge to organised religion and particularly to religion’s growing role in government has come only just in time.

Don’t believe me? Think that the threat from religion trumping science is exaggerated? Perhaps you need to visit the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The $27 million museum opened its doors today, with the goal of righting the perceived wrongs taught by science and by Darwinian Evolution. The museum features model dinosaurs grazing in the Garden of Eden, side-by-side with human figures – and later aboard Noah’s Ark, escaping the Great Flood (the same flood which incidentally ‘created’ the Grand Canyon in 3 days). The overall premise of the museum, built by Young Earth Creationists, is that humans were created, pretty much in their current form by God, in the last 10,000 years.

This clearly flies in the face of generations of science, which estimate that the earth is more like 5 billion years old, with dinosaurs first popping up about 230 million years ago. Humans, for perspective as a species are about 200,000 years old (at most) – making it difficult for those dinosaurs to be aboard that Ark. The museum presents an untold number of fallacies, inaccuracies and outright lies, and is a scar on the face of science. It is abominations like this, which muddy the waters for an entire generation that moves me to favour atheists running things. Our faith, if we must have it, should be placed in science, in reason and in evidence.

Still, the extremists have the money and the power at present in the US as the moderate (and atheist) majorities lay dormant and unorganised. That may mean that the Creation Museum will persist for the time-being, but would a real museum need its employees to sign a statement saying: "no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record"? Their use of the word ‘museum’ devalues it for all of us. Let’s hope this scourge is stopped, before it inevitably reaches our shores.

Enhanced Interrogation

2007-05-26T11:14:00.000+10:00

Since the invasion of

Iraq

, the term ‘enhanced interrogation’ has become to torture what intelligent design is to creationism. In short, a euphemism. A shameless re-branding of a topic that is unpopular in the mainstream in an attempt to make it more acceptable. The analogy between torture and creationism ends there though, because the discussion of school curriculum pales significantly when compared to the subject of ritual prisoner abuse – particularly in light of its current context, justifications and growing links to patriotism.

Throughout history and across regimes, torture has enjoyed several periods of state sanctioned acceptability. The Catholic Church presided over Inquisitions in the late 1100s and early 1200s of heretics that achieved notoriety for their severity and liberal use of torture. Non-believers were most regularly suspended by their wrists – which were tied behind their back, a technique known as strappado – causing considerable pain and damage to shoulder joints in particular. Their Spanish Inquisition is particularly well known as an example of religious persecution and torture, though it was no more or less severe than other movements of the time. The Church was not alone either at this time of civilization, with general acceptance of torture common throughout medieval England and Europe. Thumb Screws, hot irons, drawing and quartering (see Braveheart), the rack and good old fashion beatings were in wide and accepted use, up until the late 1700s. The US was by no means exempt from this sort of cruelty, famously burning ‘witches’ at the stake in the late 1690s.

Such tales have formed the basis for many an urban legend and Hollywood blockbuster – but modern day torture has had the good sense to move underground, mostly. Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany are notable exceptions. It is also periodically brought to our attention that some regimes – say Saddam’s Iraq, or those mysterious Saudi’s still persist with these barbaric practices. The reality though is that it remains widespread, with Amnesty International reporting torture or ill-treatment by state officials in more than 150 countries from 1997 to 2000. It can be found amidst almost every conflict, in every corner of the world. The change in the last few years for mine is that Western countries are for the first time openly discussing – and attempting to justify – their use of torture, specifically to combat terrorism. Following decades of covertly pursuing torture as an interrogation tool, while publicly deriding ‘un-civilized’ regimes for doing the same – it is the height of hypocrisy, at the very least.

The US and its allies have been particularly vocal on the topic of late. Exploiting loop holes in the Geneva Convention, the euphemism of enhanced interrogation and the pressing threat of terrorism – the attocities of Guantanamo Bay, of Abu Ghraib and of proxy torture in secret prisons have been allowed to take place. Instead of remorse, the Republicans are upping the ante: Mitt Romney wants Guantanamo Bay doubled in size, Giuliani wants interrogators to be able to “do whatever they can think of” and fringe candidate Tom Tancredo has invoked fictional renegade Agent Jack Bauer (Tancredo is incidentally, an evolution denier). That is of course, except for the lone hand of John McCain, who having been tortured himself for 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton believes the US should be setting a moral example and not resorting to such barbarism.

Let’s get one thing clear; ‘enhanced interrogation’ is torture. It can involve sleep deprivation, extremes of hot and cold, ‘stress’ positions, intimidation with dogs, sensory deprivation, solitary confinement – and that old favourite of the Catholic Inquisitors, strappado (In November 2003, Manadel al-Jamadi was killed during an interrogation session at Abu Ghraib by this method). There’s also the widely referred to waterboarding technique, which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his face to simulate drowning, making the subject believe his death is imminent. Undeniably, if these techniques were performed on you – you’d think they were torturous.

So I think the US and her allies (including Howard, of course) have two options. 1. Take the appropriate moral stand and refrain from anything that could be construed as torture. Treat prisoners with dignity and respect and try to regain some ethical authority, or 2. Tell us the truth. If we really need to torture prisoners to be safe from terrorism, level with the public – in graphic detail – and make each and everyone of us understand the lengths we are going to. At the least, quit hiding behind political spin, and at the most acknowledge that torture is for torture’s sake. As Ulpianus noted nearly 2000 years ago: “The strong will resist and the weak will say anything to end the pain."

MC Rove

2007-05-23T11:28:00.001+10:00

Bush’s current Deputy Chief of staff is an enigma of a man by the name of Karl Rove. Australian audiences would only be familiar with his work after Kim Beazley accidentally sent condolences his way following Belinda Emmett’s death (instead of to Rove McManus of course). In the US though, he is acknowledged to be the ‘brains’ of the administration – and as Bush calls him, the “architect” behind many of their political strategies.

For his entire career, Rove has cultivated an aura of mystery and untouchability – while becoming a master of spin and political gamesmanship. In recent times, under the weight of what seems to be a never ending list of controversies, Rove has become even more elusive. Despite getting credit for derailing John Kerry in the 2004 presidential elections, being implicated in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame (a federal offence) and more recently for a role in the firing of Us attorneys – Rove remains aloof and closeted away from the media. That’s a controversy in itself – how does the driving force behind many of the Administration’s shadiest dealings avoid accountability?

Now, leaving the debate about whether Rove is Satan incarnate to one side – I wonder what possessed him to recently emerge from his shroud of darkness and at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner in Washington no less (see video below – it starts off a bit slow, but hang in there). I’ve never seen a more bizarre effort, from a weirder guy. For a mysterious, political guru – he sure made a tool of himself. Let me go on the record as saying that I’d prefer my Deputy Chief of Staff kept this sort of stuff to an absolute minimum.

Common Sense Prevails

2007-05-17T10:53:00.000+10:00

Following weeks of uncertainty and indecision surrounding the Australian Cricket Teams’ tour of

Zimbabwe

, the trip has been scrapped. Incredibly, our cricket tragic PM intervened, putting a stop to proceedings – promising to invalidate player’s passports if necessary to stop the tour going ahead. Given our history for watery foreign policy, Howard’s stand was a welcome change, and I applaud his decision. His motives have been tied to the forthcoming election, but I’m not that interested in his motives. The players are relieved that they don’t need to take a boycott into their own hands, their safety has been ensured and Mugabe has heard loud and clear that Australia don’t like where he’s steering Zimbabwe.

Criticism from former Australian player Dean Jones (and from the ICC) has focused on the lost opportunity to spread the influence of the game of cricket. Let’s keep some perspective though – as much as I love it, it’s a game. The ICC want to make their money, Jones wants to perpetuate the romanticism of spreading cricket to former British colonies – but seriously (and obviously), there are bigger issues here at stake. Jone could also do well to pipe down for a while, after his recent sacking from Sri Lankan television for calling South Africa batsman Hashim Amla “the terrorist”. Maybe Jones should also take a leaf out of Howard’s book and read the many valid reasons for boycotting the tour. The right decision has been made; let’s talk no more about it.

Giuliani's Dilema

2007-05-09T15:04:00.000+10:00

Pop Quiz. Which do you think would be more damaging to your Presidential campaign: a) Dressing in drag and having Donald trump rub in face in your 'breasts' or b) endorsing publicly funded abortions for poor women who need them?

This is a real question and one former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is no doubt asking himself right about now. The first of the two videos, from a Press Roast in 2000 shows the Trump routine - while the second is a brief statement from 1989. Yeah, thats right the 1989 that was 18 years ago.

Surprise, surprise, its the abortion statement that's promising to derail Rudy's strong showing in the Republican race to date. Party purists are denouncing his anti-abortion credentials, even has he vainly tries to reposition himself as someone who "hates abortion". I don't know what's worse, compromising your integrity to win the respect of your red-neck party loyalists - or caring more about someones view on abortion than their penchant for drag and ugly billionaires.

Costello Dupes Us Again

2007-05-09T14:42:00.000+10:00

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: democracy doesn’t work. In a true democracy, the combined will of the majority would ensure that many of our national efforts were directed to a common good. Sounds a little like Communism in some ways, which maybe explains why the West has feared it for so long – it sounds so foreign. The state of democracy here and in most other proponents is the same: a powerful few hold most of the money and most of the power – and use both primarily to perpetuate said money and power.

Bear with me here; this isn’t going to be a new communist manifesto. Following last night’s transparently short-sighted budget though, I’m wondering how much worse that would really be. In this instance the purse strings, on what is a staggeringly large purse, were only slightly parted – wide enough to offer a range of sweeteners to a soon-to-vote public. In short, tax cuts, one-off payments (read bribes) and half-measures were the order of the day, with an emphasis on maintaining low inflation, and of course: the fat surplus. In a widely choreographed move, Howard’s Liberals chose to preserve much of their (and by their, I mean our) $15 billion surplus, while spending just enough to try and bolster their poll numbers.

I’m not surprised – the budget is exactly as I thought it’d be. But I’m enraged. I’ve had enough of the way our politics is played and am crying out for a change. In my view, its nothing short of a disaster that Costello has smugly chosen to promise over $30 billion in tax cuts – amounting to about $14 a week, unless you earn over $180,000 or under $20,000 – and waste another $4 billion in ‘one off payments’ to swing voters like the elderly, veterans and carers. It was insane when they pulled a stunt like this last year, and it’s insane now. The biggest loser again was the public school system, whose $3 billion short-fall was again ignored – they were placated instead with a summer school program for teachers. Not surprisingly, this buck (like the hospital system) was passed to the Labor states.

The biggest tragedy is that the average punter probably content this morning with their extra $14 a week, while legions of the elderly celebrate their one-off $500 windfall – with everyone oblivious to the fact that they’ve been duped. For the umpteenth year in a row, a small cash sweetener has distracted the media and the electorate from Howard’s faltering government. The Libs poll numbers will no doubt improve and most likely, this stunt – and those upcoming could get them over the line again.

It’s sad really. The cycle has been set up and is now self-perpetuating. You cut taxes, we’ll re-elect you. We love one-off payments, and meagre increases. We fear high interest rates (especially those that are Labor’s fault), and yearn for economic growth. The Libs know the formula and have repeated it with staggering success. But do me a favour between now and election day: imagine an alternative. A government who tax you reasonably and diligently invest in education, health care, transport and other infrastructure. Higher education is affordable, if not free – you can have a complex operation like a heart bypass, without taking out a second mortgage, and your 10 year old knows how to read. The majority of us can agree that these are our true wants, and very few of us would list ‘fat surplus’ or ‘target inflation’ among our priorities.

I respect sensible economic management, but it’s about time the system started to work as it was intended: for the good of the majority.

McCain gets Onboard

2007-05-01T14:46:00.000+10:00

Finally, someone who gets their face on TV regularly agrees with me: the UN is obsolete and needs to be replaced. It has long been apparent to this Administration that the United Nations has become a victim of its own permanent members (and their vetoes). Its most common response to conflict and diaster around the world is increasingly, paralysis. Take your pick of Darfur,

Israel

Iran

and

Iraq

as examples of the UN’s stuttering non-influence.

US Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has decided today that this fact can now be viewed as a US foreign policy (and therefore campaign) issue - and he’s right. McCain, identifying the veto happy Chinese and Russians, has suggested a "League of Democracies" should be formed in the UN’s stead, allowing a smoother path to pursing US foreign policy, with like minded allies. His emphasis was on increasing humanitarian efforts, such as Darfur intervention, and fighting HIV – but he also referred to environmental and economic policy co-operation. Humbly, for a US Republican, he added "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom, knowledge and resources necessary to succeed.” Isn’t it nice to hear an American say that?

It’s not a flawless suggestion by any means, but it’s a good start. The underlying problem with the UN is that it has outlived its original design. The UN was formed in 1945 by the Allies, following their WWII victory. Composed of 50 nations, its prime purpose was to preserve the newly found peace. 62 years on, the UN now boasts 192 members (almost every independent state) and the common philosophy (and enemies) of the Allies have long faded. In its efforts to be inclusive, the UN has made it almost impossible to reach general agreement on virtually anything. Accordingly, McCain’s idea is to basically pare away dissenters (and vetoers) and to formalise alliances with like-minded nations. Like a coalition of the willing – but permanent.

McCain, for what its worth, seems to be nostalgic – in the face of a decomposing US reputation. From his comments, he appreciates that any new organisation will only operate as well as the US allows (their role as lone Superpower and the breadth of their influence is hard to deny, and their place in the driving seat of this League of Democracies is a given). He remembers a time before the US had expended its good faith with allies like Britain, (and even Australia) – and before Europe had had enough of their grandstanding. He’s trying to reach back to the close of WWII, where the US not only held international influence, but was trusted and respected. A time when pursing democracy still seemed like a valiant quest. However, given the behaviour of the US in the last decade and the implosion of their foreign policy, few share his vision.

McCain is a complex candidate. His reputation for integrity, ‘straight talk’ and idealism has long made him popular – while his support of Bush and the Iraq troop surge have pegged him back. He has recently courted controversy by advocating bombing Iran (with a song parodying the Beach Boys song Barbara Ann), and joking with Jon Stewart about IED’s, after his 'stroll' through Baghdad. He’s an old school conservative, but he puts his money where his mouth is. He's pro-Iraq, but his son is serving there. He's militaristic, but he's a Vietnam Vet and POW. Chances are he won’t win the Presidency or the Republican primary - but, I like him being in the debate, reminding us of what the US stood for in the past, and agreeing with me that the UN has passed its use by date.

Partitioning Iraq

2007-04-24T14:43:00.000+10:00

The war in

Iraq

has recently turned 4 years old, having degenerated into an all out civil war. US Military casualties as at April 18^th stand at 3,312 dead and almost 25,000 wounded in action, to make little mention of the 600,000 Iraqis, the Lancet estimates to have died. The current ‘surge’ plan, which began in February (& required an additional 20,000 US troops) aimed to quell insurgent violence, particularly in Baghdad. By any objective analysis, it has had little effect. On the contrary, Iraqi’s are increasingly resentful of their occupiers (if it’s possible to increase your hatred above 100%), with five massive car bombs recently emphasising that point (and killing 198). The Democrat controlled congress is trying vainly to set a timetable to end the war – but their efforts are made in the shadow of Bush’s veto pen – and are not likely to be effective.

So, what’s next? Where are our Aussie Troops (handcuffed to the Coalition Corpse as they are) headed? Is Bush ready to unveil his much anticipated (and probably non-existent) Plan B? Reluctant as the Republicans are to change course, or to take third party advice (even from James Baker), it is most likely that we’ll only be getting more of the same in the near future. However, recent events on the ground in the capital may give us a clue that Bush has finally realised that desperate times call for desperate measures and is at least considering the benefits of partitioning Iraq.

At this stage, no US officials are publicly entertaining the now passé idea of splitting the country into three, but the US 82^nd Airborne Division has begun to experiment with the idea at a local level. A 5km long, 3.6m high wall is being built around the predominantly Sunni district of Adhamiya in Baghdad to protect it from surrounding Shia communities (and insurgents). The wall is reminiscent of the Israeli security barriers, separating it from the Gaza Strip and West Bank – and it serves the same purpose: keeping its people in and the bombers out. Criticism of the move has come thick and fast from the Iraqi PM and ministers (who call it a big prison), while the US have quickly backed away from the wall, claiming it is a temporary measure.

Media hype aside though, the US are running out of options (and ideas) and everything should be on the table. The situation has more parallels with Israel than the physical appearance of the wall. In the absence of a diplomatic path to peace, the remaining options are to fight a protracted guerrilla war – or to retreat to your stronghold. Israeli statistics indicate that their (west bank) barrier has drastically reduced the number of Palestinian infiltrations and suicide bombings on civilians in Israel and in Israeli settlements, though the increased safety has come at the cost of Palestinian freedoms. In short, building a security wall is an extreme measure that blurs some ethical boundaries – but it’s effective.

As the Iraq war progresses the US will be increasingly concerned with what works, and have a shown a clear history of disregarding ethical considerations in past decisions. When shown to be effective in Adhamiya, more and more communities could find themselves hemmed in behind the concrete – and ultimately the partitioning of Iraq could be back up for consideration. If it means stopping the violence and letting the troops come home, that may not be such a bad result.