Zero Tolerance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.