It’s Bennelong time since the rock’n’roll

...Bennelong lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely time. It’s why Howard will lose.


In other news, I was forced to argue a position I disagreed with last night. This was because Sherd took the point of view I would normally have argued, thus forcing me to argue the opposite.

Why?

Well, what’s the point of all agreeing? You don’t learn anything that way.

We were watching Insight again and this time the farmers were whinging about water.

“Stuff ‘em” said Sherd, “They should have thought of it before. They made their choice, and they can’t expect people to bail them out just because the world has changed. That’s what happens – things change, people go under, businesses which are no longer viable fold.”

As I said, I have generally taken that line. I realised, through being forced to find a way to argue the point, that this sort of position is flawed.

I’ll use an example. Sherd and I come from similar backgrounds. One of the things people like us believe is that we’ve royally fucked over the indigenous people of this country. We wandered in here, claimed the whole joint by landing in one spot, and told them to deal with it.

So we agree in principle that we have a responsibility to disadvantaged people to help them, if it is our power to do so. The methods we use are often terrible – paternalistic, patronising, downright insulting in many cases.

But the intent is the same.

So we agree that we cannot expect a particular group of people to just suddenly cope when there is a significant shift in the priorities and aims of the dominant culture. We are not people who get the shits with drunks, homeless people, long term unemployed. A lot of these people are victims of circumstance. They have been taught their whole lives that the world works a certain way, and they have lived their lives to suit.

Suddenly they find out that the world has moved on, and they need to adapt. We believe they need to given a chance to do so, and some help if they need it.

How are farmers any different? Sure, they used wasteful practices for many years; they degraded the environment they were in. They lined their pockets with no thought for the future.

But they always had, and they didn’t know any different. Some would say that’s a pretty weak excuse, but it’s used for a lot of things.
And even if this was entirely their fault it doesn’t change the reality – there is not enough water, and a hell of a lot of farmers are going broke.


All of the solutions offered are going to cost money and are going to cause grief to various groups.

Carrying on with “I told you sos” doesn’t do a lot to help the situation. Some people even suggest that farms are unnecessary full stop, and we could shut them all down.
I’ll tell you what, you sit in the corner with Pauline Hanson and her 2% tax on everything while you read “Economics for Dummies”.

I am not arguing that farmers are right. Quite the opposite really. They’ve stuffed the joint up with unsustainable land management, by trying to force a European way of doing things onto a land which can’t handle it.

But all of us are complicit in this. We all benefit from relatively cheap groceries, good food standards and standard of living originally built on a century of farm prosperity.

So we need to change the way we do things on the land in this country. Whether we do it by appointing an autonomous body (politics), diverting a river from the tropics (stupidest idea I’ve heard since nuclear power) or getting people to move to where the water is (holy shit – you mean people aren’t welded into the Murray Darling Basin!?), I don’t know.

But whichever way we do it, let’s do it fairly and reasonably.

This country is quite mean enough already.

Know your enemy

I was reading another one of my regularly visited sites the other day and I came across a discussion of the relative merits of the Islamic and Christian faiths.

While I was reading through it I was almost tempted to comment. However, the fact that a lot of the comments are clearly penned (or should that be keyboarded?) by dangerous loonies caused me to desist. That and the presence of others who clearly have the same view as me writing more coherently on my behalf.

I remember sitting on a Shinkansen (Sherd, should that have a capital?) next to my grandma. I asked her what religion she had followed as a girl.

"None", came the reply, "And I certainly don't follow any now, well, not seriously. Religion is for weak people with nothing better to do. I am not an empty person." Or words to that effect. The actual words would have been more disjointed - just think Yoda - but I'll not confuse you.

Now, I wouldn't go to that extreme, but I have always had a lot of difficulty understanding why people feel the need to have these beliefs for no concrete gain. Sure, you do get some social benefit on occasion - charities, a sense of well being, friends - but the strategic application of alcohol and chocolate can have the same effect.

I figured, though, that if they weren't hurting anyone, I didn't care what they got up to.

As a kid I came to the conclusion that a belief in a higher power or powers was a result of the fear caused by an inability to comprehend the universe. Try this, close your eyes, imagine sitting at your computer (you might have to close your eyes after you've read the whole passage), then imagine where the room is in realtion to the house, then the suburb, then the city, then the country, then the globe, then the solar system - you get the idea.


If you keep going far enough you get to a point that you don't know. Then you ask, where the hell am I?

God provides a simple answer to that, and you can go on about your day. Or you can ignore the question completely. Or perhaps you can ask the question and be comfortable not knowing.

But if you're not comfortable, you either get comfortable or go crazy.

The question is: if people did not believe in gods, would more of them have focussed on trying to answer the questions, or would everyone have flipped out?

Which doesn't really bring me back to the article.

There is a lot of back and forth about which religion is the most peaceful/ violent/ tolerant/ etc. It's pretty clear to me that it has bugger all to do with religion, and more to do with the adherents.

So if we accept that Muslim extremists are more common than others (I must say I don't actually accept this for a second), then what is the reason?

The Christians seem to attribute that to the religion, but not in a balanced way - their view is Muslims are extremists because of the religion, but Christians that are extremists have lost their way. The Muslims seem to fall into the trap of demonising Jews, which just makes them look stupid.

The extremists, from all religions, appear to come from poorer areas. I just can't think of an example of rich people blowing shit up.

There are the Muslim groups, the Christian groups (you know, Branch Davidian, skinheads, National Front types), those crazy Aum Shinrikyo dudes (not sure what their caper was) and even a Jewish one.
And then, of course, there are all those Leftist type groups - Shining Path, Baader-Meinhof (that last one I got from Ludlum books - it may or may not be real and I can't be bothered checking). Relgion is generally not an issue for these types.

Obviously, religion is not the issue. As much as god-botherers give me the shits locking them all up will not solve the terrorist problem, even if it would enable our society in general to move forward in other ways.

They all have one thing in common, though, and that is a general grievance with the world at large. If we spent a bit more time and resources on figuring out exactly what that was, and adressing it, maybe we wouldn't have all these dramas (except for those Aum blokes, maybe, and those ones with the sports shoes and the comet with the stupid name).

Settle for nothing now...

Hey guys.

No chance to post this weekend. I've been drinking, resting, drinking, painting, sleeping.

But I did read this the other day. From the Noam man.

It makes interesting reading.

And, another photo.

This is not a great one. It's a shot of the temple at Southbank.

Essentially, a lesson in why you should pay attention to your ISO setting.

For this shot it was set way too high, hence the amount of noise.

Cheers.

Why people that don't know should shut up and listen: part 2

As someone recently said when asked "Did you inhale?"

"Of course, that was the point".

This from a middle aged politician. You see, apparently it's okay to have smoked a few joints, done a few lines of coke, and be a recovering alcoholic.

But, to anyone over forty and a disturbing amount of naive tossers under, popping a pill is one step from heating a spoon with a dirty Bic.

I think this is understandable, if not exactly reasonable. For example, I am not personally in favour of skydiving. It can kill you, it's really expensive and it seems like a lot of effort to go to for a brief thrill.

But I've never done it, and I probably never will, so I keep my mouth shut. If you want to do it, go for your life. The only thing I'll say is - make sure you have a decent parachute.

It would be handy if the rest of the world would do a similar thing with drugs. If you've never done it (and I haven't, but I've heard all about it) then shut up.

Because all this ridiculous panic and misinformation just makes it less likely that drug users ever get their parachute.

Annabel Catt died on the weekend at a dance festival. The usual media frenzy ensued. Then we find out today what every person that has ever bothered to research the topic already knew - she didn't take ecstasy.

Pill testing would have saved her - nobody in their right mind willingly takes PMA.

On top of that, the police have refused to release information about exactly what type of pill it was - the colour, the shape, the logo. Because this might encourage young folk and it might put the message out that the pill you have is okay if it's different.

No. It won't.

What it will do is make it more likely someone else dies.

People aren't that stupid. They'll take the information they have and make an informed choice. Statistically, most ecstasy users are well educated, stable, intelligent people. But because pills are illegal and not that easy to come by - (nobody just walks up and offers you a pill - you have to ask for them), nobody is going to throw theirs away on the off chance it's a bad one. They'll neck it, and hope.

So make up your minds, legislators.

If you don't want people to die, help them figure out a safe way to do what they're going to do anyway.

Or be honest and tell us you don't care.

Enough with the for-your-own-good bullshit.

Please go and have a look here.

Learn something.

I can almost believe that they're real....

Pictures of you for you today.

But first.

I just watched the Insight episode on SBS about David Hicks. Big names they had on, too.

Michael Mori, Colonel Clink (at least, I think that's what the prosecution guy from the US was called), Ruddock, Hicks' dad - the whole crew.

I'll tell you something. I generally start discussions trying to keep a level of objectivity.
Personally, I can't stand the antics of the conservatives parties of Australia, indeed, the world, but I realise a lot of what they do can look reasonable for those with a different set of ethics or morals. And a lot of people tend to ascribe motives depending on a personal like or dislike for a particular politician.
As an example, Turnbull the Toff-man announced a politically motivated band aid idea to ban incandescent lightbulbs.
"Too little, too late, what a joke" we all said. And it the motivation behind the announcement is a joke. We all know that the Howard Government doesn't believe it's really a problem.

However, ask yourself what you would have said had Peter Garrett made the same announcement.

Just saying...!

Anyway, balance, objectivity. I will support people who want to have a say on most anything. That's what democracy is all about.

Except when I hear people say that Hicks is being treated fairly.

Bullshit. I don't care who you are, where you come from, and what causes you to think Hicks should be where he is - the fact is, if you do, you are an idiot.

You have no cause to even open your mouth on the topic.

Thinking about it is making my head sort of boil at the moment, so I'm going to put a couple of photos up.

Two American Audio turntables, Numark mixer, a couple of vinyls.

An experiment with depth of field, that sort of thing.

And a hell of a lot of fun. If you don't like dance music, you are both too old and too young. And narrow minded. Oh, and this crap electro they're playing in clubs now for the posers is not dance music. We're talking 140bpm, children.

ISO: 100
Focal length: 20mm
F-number: F/13
Shutter speed: 1/8 sec



Australia Day.

Couple of nice young ladies.

An experiment in combining exposures - the sky from one, the foreground from another.

ISO: 200
Focal length: 18mm
F-number: F/5.6
Shutter speed: 1/25 sec

Anyway, that's it for now.

Cheers.

Tyrant or visionary - a matter of perspective

I have an addiction to certain sites on the internet.

No, I know what you’re thinking, but I’m not 16 anymore, so now it’s news sites, politics blogs, and photography websites.

One of them I read regularly is the Asia Times. It gives a slightly different perspective on world events. It is good to see things which aren’t filtered through the Western media now and again.

Also, as someone recently pointed out to me, after the flush of excitement over the new Labor team evaporates, the election process here is likely to become interminably boring.

I came across this article.

I really urge you to have a read. It really confirms what most of us already believe – the leader of North Korea is a more than slightly deluded lunatic and his apologists even more so.

Crazy stuff. Talking about “use its nuclear umbrella to contribute to maintaining peace and security” and invoking the name of gods. Weird rhetoric about history and duty to the people and the Axis of Evil…oh, wait…was that someone else?...

I’m all confused.

Try something for me. Replace “DPRK” with “USA”. See how it reads.

Let me know how it goes.



Oh, by the way, I’ll post some photos when I get my bloody home computer back on the net.

Cheers.

CODA: Okay, you all need to look at this too.

Think when you vote

I have always been a Labor supporter, and I really can’t foresee a time I won’t be. I have come close, on occasion, to voting for other parties. There was a time I was particularly unimpressed with the gutless position Labor took on ‘border control’ and environmental issues. At that point I came close to voting Green, but I was keener to get rid of Howard and it would have been a wasted vote. Of course, as it turned out, I should have just done it.

I will definitely be voting Labor at the next election. Rudd, his touch of smarminess aside, really does seem to have what it takes to win it. I think the punters will believe it and, as long as nothing goes wrong, he’ll be our next PM come, say, October this year. Labor won’t win the senate.

Of course, eight months is a long time.

A terrorist attack, a boatload of refugees, a riot in Lakemba where an Anglo gets killed – this will bring fear back into the equation.

Today there was a post on Blogocracy about being fed up with politicians lying. This was primarily a response to Howard’s flim-flamming about whether he criticised the whole Democratic Party, or just Obama. Tim Dunlop gave it a clearly anti-Howard slant, but then it makes for a good antidote to almost every other news.com opinion page.

The responses varied. Many were rabidly anti-Howard, and more attacked the left for their audacity – “Yeah, but, you lied TOO!!” – childish arguments from both sides.

There were also some well thought out comments from both sides.

Anyway, the comments raised some questions for me.

Basically, I am not stupid. I realise that a lot of politicians from all sides of politics lie. They all spin the truth, and try to convince the public they’re not full of shit.

So if they’re basically the same, why do I vote Labor?

It’s a good question. Mangoman, for example, supports any team who plays against Collingwood, and hates any team playing against Carlton. Similarly, I had recently fallen into the trap of supporting any team that played against Australia in the cricket, mainly because the sheer size of the Aussies’ egos meant only a handful of spectators could fit in the MCG with them.

These things are perfectly reasonable, if you’re talking about sport.

I realised, though, that a lot of people vote like that. I certainly did, for a while. I blame my parents for that. Now, though, I can ask myself why I vote that way.

It’s probably because my parents taught me a few things about the world. Ridiculously high HECS debt aside, 12 years (yes, that’s right TWELVE) of uni have taught me things. As have books. And the Discovery Channel.
So I though I’d make list, like a Cosmo quiz, and find out who I should vote for. It’s simple – write down the things you feel matter, then align a party to them. The party with the most hits wins!

1. Everyone is equal, i.e. position is nothing – well, broad small ‘l’ liberal tradition would get the vote there, but the Liberals are a conservative party with an ironic name, so one point to Labor.

2. Collective action makes people more powerful – (thank’s to the mangoes) no contest. Although Labor at times risks its union base, Howard’s IR laws are a joke

3. People in authority are not always right – this goes against both parties from time to time, so, no points. Bob Brown tends to stick it to people all the time. Often he’s a bit loony, but I like that too. Greens 1 point.

4. Economic rationalism is a foolish dream based on an overly simplistic world view – again, this is something both parties got wrong – Greens, one point.

5. Music is important – sounds frivolous, and it is, but I like music. Peter Garrett gets a point for his party. Used to be the Greens, now it’s Labor.

6. Governing with one eye on the Bible is dangerous and inappropriate in a secular country – Difficult, this one. Both the major parties have their fair share of god-botherers. I still have faith in Rudd not to let his religion cloud his decision making, like it does with Abbott, but am still concerned. Labor, ½ a point.

7. The environment actually matters to us, maybe more than our mortgages and mining jobs – Howard’s recent backflip is less than convincing, but Labor still panders to the unions on this point. Greens, 1 point.

8. Nuclear power is dangerous, unnecessary and discussion of it diverts resources from renewable energy – Rudd has recently ruled out nuclear as an option. Labor – 1 point.

9. Internal party structure makes for a coherent and powerful political force – I am going to have to give this to the Libs. The idiotic factional shit that Labor goes on with is more conservative than the Tories. Sort it out.

10. Dubya is a dangerous fool who will go down in history as the worst president the US has ever had – this is the kicker. Most of the US can see this. Most of the world knows this. Most of Australia believes this.

Except Johnny. Labor 1 point.


Score – Labor 5 ½ out of 10
Libs 1 out of 10
Greens 3 out of 10

The world gets madder..

Or should that be more mad?

Apparently not – Word has put the annoying green squiggle under that.

The big news today is the AC Neilson poll results. Rudd has severely outpolled Howard again, and this time by quite a margin.

Well, that I was supposed to be the big news. Unfortunately Howard said something, and as Howard tends to do when he is allowed to speak for himself, he stuffed it up. It has caused quite a kerfuffle (love that word – the spell check thinks it is “kafuffle” – stupid Miscrosoft). Almost every new website I checked had the story on its front page.
The Blogocracy post today generated a flurry of excitement but I think there is an orgy of glee from the Left for the wrong reasons.

Perhaps from a foreign policy perspective it is not very intelligent to jeopardise relations with an ally like that.

On the other hand, will this really jeopardise relations? Surely Obama is smart enough to know that it is only Johnny’s opinion. I think most Americans are smart enough to realise that whatever Latham said, and whatever Johnny says, the two countries are more than the opinions of their leaders. Whatever you say about Bush, I think most Americans are more intelligent than we give them credit for - remember, most Yanks don’t vote.

I don’t think the content of Johnny’s words will lose him many votes - on the contrary, I remember a fair bit of the reaction when Latham made his comment was “good on him, he can say what he wants.” Those of us who realise it was a stupid thing to do in light of intrenational relations may be right, but that doesn’t change the fact that a hell of a lot of Johnny lovers don’t care about that.

It is right to acknowledge this bodes well for Labor, but mainly because it shows that Howard is losing it a bit. He wouldn’t have made a mistake like this a while ago.

He really is getting old.

Finally, I have just read a comment on the Obama story by a right wing nutjob. It was a comment on the main Obama story on the new.com website.

This guy used a Noam Chomsky quote to support his contention that left wingers are idiots and Howard and Bush are top blokes.

And he wasn’t being ironic.

Puritanical psychosis

I am surely not the first to observe this phenomenon. It is prevalent in many Western countries, in particular the US. I am not entirely sure of the historical basis for this, but I suspect it has to do with the weird folk with buckles on their hats who murdered the native folk and only shagged for procreation.

As an aside – it may be the result of too many movies, but I cannot think of these folk without imaging the devil and glowing eyes.

You may ask yourself what has inspired these thoughts. Of course, you may not, but I have to assume that you do – artistic purposes, you understand.

I used to subscribe the Bulletin magazine. It was not a bad read, and I could leave it lying around on the coffee table to make me look intelligent. About the time the editor of the Bulletin moved to Channel 9 to work on their news section, the Bulletin went to shit. It became nothing more than a print version of the Sunday program, and, at times, started to resemble A Current Affair. I made my decision to cancel my subscription, and did so. Of course, they only got my request to cancel after I had already paid for another year, so I still get the bloody things.

Occasionally there are flashes of its former brilliance. Firstly, they gave Tim Blair the arse, which was a good start. Then they had Peter Garrett on the cover. This last made me question my decision to cancel for a moment.

Until this week’s.

It started out quite well, actually, with an insightful and well written piece about the coming election.

But the twenty plus pages of business crap were not a good thing. Then Newsweek.

Which brings me to the topic.

Americans are even more obsessed with sex than the Poms. To read Newsweek, you would thing that the single greatest threat to the youth of today is them seeing a naked boobie.

Not getting hooked on ice.

Not getting morbidly obese and going blind from diabetes.

And certainly not getting shipped off to a Gulf State to fight for another man’s oil.

No, seeing Britney’s shaved nether regions is a direct threat to their moral fibre.

Internet porn is going to bring down Western Society.

I recall watching an interview with Spike Lee a few years back. He had just made a movie in which he had deliberately added some ultra violent death scenes – people getting their ears ripped off, shot in the face, that sort of thing. He did it to make a point.

You see, his movie also had some graphic sex scenes.

Funnily enough, the sex scenes had to be removed. None of the violence did.

Is it me, or are our morals completely stuffed? Perhaps we don’t want our kids imitating Britney and shagging crap rap stars (I, for one, would advise every one to avoid that), but maybe we don’t want them slicing off small chunks of their mates brains and eating them, either. (I once saw ten year olds watching Hannibal).

Suffice to say, the Bulletin still sucks.

A bit of both

Yay!

I'm happy. Although Kruddy still worries me a bit, the rodent worries me more and it looks like he's getting shafted!

Normally I surf the net at work to look for news stories, but tonight I watched Kerry and the parliament coverage.

Johnny is really starting to look irrelevant. His new thing is drawing the line on nuclear, it seems.
Labor won't consider it, the Libs are pushing it.

I think he's stuffed it. It might be wishful thinking, but I don't think people are going to go for it.

Anyway, this is supposed to be for photos, so I'm going to put up some really old ones. They're pretty crap, taken with my little Canon Ixy 50. I've played with them a bit on Photoshop.


The Energex building on Kingsford Smith Drive.


A boat. On the river.



An alley.


A church and random duck.



Same church, sans duck.

All these were taken on a drunken walk home sometime last year.

Adios.

Angry gnomes and obscene gestures

A quick trawl through some international news netted me this from the UK and this from the US

Obviously, both report the same thing. It is interesting to note that the UK report paints all Americans in a pretty bad light, pointing out the inappropriate reaction of the authorities.

Read the CNN report, it was all a bit of a joke. They take pains to point out that it only happened in Boston – no one else in the States appears to be as humourless - they even put them in Texas!

The devices were planted by Turner Entertainment, though. (Who owns CNN?)

So I was forced to have a look at the Fox news website to get a balanced opinion *chokecoughsplutter*. They, of course, have a balanced approach, labelling the “suspects” as “wild” and “mocking”.

Which, in fact, is reasonable given their status as artists.

Then I got distracted by this IMPORTANT INFORMATION. You need to scroll down to the two interactives.

I have just contacted Fox to see if I can get a copy of these downloaded to my mobile phone – because I need them always.

Finally, a happy development. These signs are now for sale on eBay! US$625 at last count.

PS. this just in

from the toast woman.

Thanks. I cried.