Movies we've seen - 'Australia'.

Went and saw the film 'Australia' this afternoon, we wanted to see if it lived up to the hype and it's budget.

The short way to to put it is that if Baz Luhrmann wanted it to be a blockbuster epic (with a message) that will be a rival to 'Gone with the Wind', it falls short.

The scenery was great, the plot quite good, the actors did a good job (both lead and supporting). Things went bad however, when Luhrmann inserted his 'message', and that message was heavily worked on from beginning to end. The message was his view on what is called the 'Stolen Generations'. I felt like I was being preached at.
Since it was part of his storyline, read more about 'the Stolen Generations' here (Wikipedia).
(Of interest, the same problems that drove that policy, is being addressed in the Northern Territory these days by a set of laws collectively called 'the Intervention'. Which suggests there's more to the problem than Luhrmann lets on?).
The treatment of Aboriginal Australians was portrayed in the worst light possible. And that is not the only way the movie goes too far. It's a bit too 'TryHard' in many places - to the point that if you wanted to parody parts of it - you couldn't do any better than it does itself.

Entertaining, pity about the preaching. Worth seeing, but I'd wait until you can get it on DVD at a discount if I were you. Non Australians might find the cliched Ocker aspect entertaining.

3 1/2 out of 5.

[Update 6Dec08 - Another review - by a scriptwriter - here.]

Thoughts on the coming Nov 4th US elections...

I won't get to vote in the coming US elections, where positions from President, Senate (p/of), HoReps, through on down to Sheriffs and school boards get elected across the US. But I, and the rest of the world will be affected by the results. Which is why it's well worth taking an interest.
(As an example, the US legislation that enabled 'sub-prime' mortgages has a flow on effect for the world financial markets, through on down to what interest rate my mortgage costs, and the negative effects on the balance of my superannuation portfolio - and I live on the opposite side of the world. It affects YOU as well, at least indirectly, but probably directly).

The position most of interest (but not the only interest - the results for Congress are also of importance) is the choice the US voters make for President, between John McCain and Barack Obama.

The polls say Obama will win, so I will think aloud on this.
Looking as objectively as possible at the "junior senator from Illonois", I see a young, gifted politician who is an excellent 'networker', and a charismatic public speaker.
Examining his resume, I DON'T see a background, or skills which prepare him for the job he is applying for from the US electorate, that of President of the USA (POTUS). In particular, I don't see a background preparing him for the job as the most powerful, and responsible 'Chief Executive' in the world.
The most obvious thing to me (besides the inexperience - Sarah palin has more executive experience than Obama) is that Barack Obama has a political ideology substantially to the left of mainstream America.

In John McCain however, I see someone who as we Aussies would put it, has 'the runs on the board'. His commitment to country, and selfless service in the military, and in government service as a long time elected represenative are beyond reproach. In him I see a mature, and principled public servant.

Then there are the questions about Obama which follow;

Why spend 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church if he didn't agree with him, or wasn't influenced by his views? (Listen to this!).

There's the questions over the relationship, and what Obama knows of the past of William (Bill) Ayers.

Then there's ACORN 'voter registration drives'.

There are questions about credit card donation improprieties to the campaign.

You have to worry about how he plans to (if he can), fulfil those supporter expectations though.

And we haven't even begun to examine his foreign policy yet. Will he stand up to the threat Iran poses? Or the challenge of China? Whatever you may think of President Bush, he has taken the fight to the terrorists, and they have had little chance to engage in mischief for that reason. If the pressure is taken off them....?

As Melanie Phillips in the UK puts it;

"...You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant (sic) radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so...". [Melanie Phillips 'The Spectator' (UK) 14 October 2008]

I fear it's going to be 'interesting times' if he wins. (Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times").

Interesting Op-Ed in 'The Australian' by one John McCain

A very interesting Opinion Piece in todays 'Australian'.
'Alliance into the 21st Century' ['Australian', 23 Sept 2008, John McCain]

"A LITTLE more than 100 years ago, president Theodore Roosevelt's Great White Fleet steamed into Sydney Harbour...".

"...In the middle of 1908, Australians and Americans recognised immediately the kindred spirit of two rugged and energetic peoples separated by half the globe but united by shared hopes for mankind. That initial friendship would be forged into an inseparable bond through many struggles in the years to come. Ten years after the Great White Fleet left Sydney Harbour, American soldiers would serve under Australian general John Monash at the decisive Battle of Hamel on the Western Front. My father and grandfather would both serve side by side with the Royal Australian Navy in the Pacific theatre, turning back the Japanese tide and then building a post-war network of alliances that would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity in Asia.

From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen first-hand how succeeding generations of young Americans and Australians have been ready to step forward together to defeat aggression and provide relief and recovery for the stricken...."

It may be a little more obvious why I hope John McCain and Sarah Palin are the next President and VP of the US - we KNOW John McCain is Australia's friend, and will engage with the world. Obama on the other hand spent much of his childhood in Indonesia (a country not necessarily our friend).

(I also had a look to see where else that article showed up - and found another great blog/site - Pat Dollard - described as an 'anti Michael Moore' - so he can't be too bad a guy)

Democrat supporters hit bottom, commence digging.

I suppose politics in any country can be a nasty business. This last week has seen some nasty politics in the US.

John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. The Governor of Alaska is now the Republican Party's VP nominee.

It didn't take the 'liberal' bloggers at Kos etc long to go for her.

First, they circulated a rumour that her 4 month old son wasn't hers, but her daughters. (And prior to that, some nasty innuendo).

Then they dredged up a 1986 drink drive offence of Todd's.

Then, when it was revealed her 17 year old daughter was pregnant, she became fair game.

Then there was the snide commentary on the wife/mother/career gal thing. (Now THAT was interesting coming from the supposedly pro-feminist, pro affirmative action left!).

Thing is, it just made the bias of the MSM (main stream media) and the hypocrisy of the 'liberal' left so much more clearer. And it actually seems to have backfired against them.

The satire it inspires is entertaining at least.

How do you pick the right person for the job?

I've been in the position a few times in my working life when I've had to interview, either alone or as part of a panel, applicants for jobs. Not an easy thing to get right, but after a while, you learn to 'read' the CV/resume, and also that your hunches and instincts are worth listening to.

I won't get to vote on who becomes President and VP of the United States, but I do know who I would vote for. Who, and on what basis I would choose them for the job.

Who? Lets first discuss how I'd evaluate them.

First, actions speak louder than words, have they had similar jobs in the past? How did they do? If this job has more responsibility, can they 'grow into' the job.

Secondly, when you interview them, do they tell you what they think you want to hear, or do they give you the full story, warts and all. Do they have principles? Do they freely admit their past mistakes and shortcomings?

Do they have some new ideas, or at least some guidelines and principles that would steer them through their work?

And lastly, what impression do they leave? What is your gut feeling? (Because that is often your subconscious summation of all of the above - and in my experience, FAR more important than how their resume reads).

So, based on that, how would I vote in the coming US election?

John McCain. Even more so since the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Obama gives a good speech, is good at telling an audience what it wants to hear, but his track record shows no experience that indicates he is ready for the job he has applied for.

More to come.

Olympics. Over for another 4 years.

Well, the closing ceremony of the Beijing 2008 Olympics is this evening (their timezone is 2 hours behind us). Our little family is having Chinese take-away in salute.

China put (I've heard) $40 billion USDs into these games. London apparently has a budget less than half that. Sydney's final budget in 2000 was substantially less even than that, made a small profit, and the state of NSW got some new, 1st class sporting venues which we still use. (Melbourne still has the MCG - upgraded for the 1956 Olympics). China's venues are apparently use-once facilities. I have to note that 40 billion is a pretty high PR bill - because it seems that's what it was.

Fine things were expected, promised even as a result of Beijing hosting the Olympics. Improvements in observance of human rights, more openness, a less autocratic state. From what I see, that didn't happen. China ran 'business as usual' as a totalitarian state.

The media had a chance to measure China against those expectations. They didn't. A chance to soften China's hard hand was lost.

Having said that, Australia did quite well though. By weighted measure according to some, best. More on our athlete's accomplishments here.

Sadly, the Olympics these days is less about just competing, and 'the glory of sport', and more about nationalism. That arguably has it's good and bad side (better countries do battle on the sports fields than the battlefield for national kudos methinks). Biased I unarguably am, but to me, the Sydney Olympics were a friendlier, more sports orientated event rather than a political statement. Others can make a more objective call on that, and I'm sure some shall.

Funding our old age.

A workmate put me on to this based on a reference in a newsletter he receives (Thanks Mark).

People the world over are living longer (places like Zimbabwe and Nth Korea excepted). Supporting those people in their old age is a different matter. In olden times, not many lived to be 'old', and in the third world, large families were/are common in part as a support mechanism for the older generation. But as mentioned here, things are changing. The world generally is tending to smaller families, and people are living far longer.

It seems there are 3 options to support the old; 1) expect the next generations to support you, 2) expect government to support you, or 3) put enough aside to support yourself. Option 3 seems to be the most 'moral' course to me, if you can.

Which is where this study becomes of interest; ['Global Aging and the Sustainability of Public Pension Systems', Capretta, 'Center for Strategic & International Studies']. Subtitled 'An Assessment of Reform Efforts in Twelve Developed Countries'.

Like most Aussies, I (and wife and daughter have their own 'super' accounts - it's an individual thing), have a 'Superannuation' account/portfolio (which has taken a battering due to stock market fluctuations of late), the idea being to provide for ourselves when we retire from the workforce. Australia gets good marks in the report. Of interest, Switzerland wasn't studied, though I would be surprised if the Swiss don't have it well worked out - it'd be out of character if they didn't. In the introduction it says;

"...Despite recent reforms, public benefit systems in most developed countries remain fiscally unsustainable—and even where long-term costs have been controlled, serious concerns remain. The United Kingdom, having stabilized future pension spending as a share of GDP, is now worried that it has done so at the risk of impoverishing the future elderly. As for the United States, reform appears to be on indefinite hold. America enjoys many advantages in confronting the age wave, from its relatively youthful demographics to its large funded private pension system. Yet its failure to engage entitlement reform could in the end leave it no better
off than many European countries facing far larger demographic challenges...".

Dry reading, some may say, but it'll be interesting for those who like to think forward to the future. The CSIS site itself is interesting as a think-tank on it's own.

[Update 9Aug08] Thought it might be worth adding some extracts and comments on the various economies referenced. (Quotes from here).

USA: "...despite its many advantages, a deeply polarized political environment and widely divergent visions for reform have made achieving consensus difficult—and left the United States facing a major long-term cost crisis...".

UK: "...the interaction of public pensions with the voluntary “contracted out” employer and personal pensions is complex and has come under heavy criticism for leaving a growing number of British workers with uncertain retirement income prospects...".

Sweden: "...a new system of “notional defined contribution” accounts supplemented by mandatory funded individual retirement accounts, leaves Sweden better positioned to confront the age wave than most European countries...".

Spain: "...When it comes to reform of its public pension system, Spain seems to be in a state of collective denial. With a fertility rate of just 1.2, among the lowest in Europe, it faces a future of extreme demographic aging and soaring retirement costs. Yet Spain continues to defer reform...".

Netherlands: "...the Dutch pension system remains unsustainable. With over two-thirds of men (and over four-fifths of women) exiting the workforce by age 60, early retirement is still the norm. The basic AOW public pension system, moreover, remains entirely unreformed...".

Japan: "...Japan is now the world’s oldest society— [old as in average age of the population] and a window into the near future for the rest of the developed world...".

Italy: "...Italy not only has one of Europe’s fastest aging populations, but one of its most expensive public pension systems as well. The combination of generous benefits, powerful trade unions, and unstable governing coalitions has made reform perilous for Italian political leaders..".

Germany: "...Germany’s public pension system is Europe’s oldest and one of its most generous..., ...there is growing resentment among younger Germans, who feel that they are being asked to pay for generous benefits for their elders that they themselves cannot hope to receive..., ...To avoid a future crisis, Germany must somehow jump start its new funded pension system...".

France: "...The French have long supported an expansive public sector, and France’s public pension system is indeed generous and costly..., ...the French are perhaps most attached to generous pay-as-you-go pensions, which they view as the cornerstone of solidarite sociale—and the most hostile to funded alternatives, which they associate with “Anglo-Saxon” capitalism..., ...Whether France can make sufficiently bold reforms, however, is open to question. At some point, the reality of scaled-back pension promises will collide with the French expectation of an expansive welfare state, with unknown political consequences...".

Canada: "...Canada’s public pension system is relatively modest by international standards, its cost is projected to rise rapidly over the next few decades as Canada’s unusually large postwar Baby Boom generation retires..., An interesting illustration - with probably global significance is a "...televised Parliament Hill steps confrontation between Mulroney and Solange Denis, an outraged near-retiree". (Lesson; politicians hurt the electorate's 'hip-pocket nerve' on such issues at their severe peril - best example I've seen).

Belgium: "...Belgium has been more reluctant than most European countries to pursue reform of its public pension system—and indeed, of its welfare state in general. With a large pay-as-you-go public pension system, the lowest effective retirement ages in Western Europe, and virtually no funded private pension savings, there is much reform that could occur..., ...Sooner or later, Belgium’s political leaders will be forced to face what nearly every other
European country is facing: significant reform of unsustainable public pension promises...".

Australia: "...Australian political leaders have demonstrated far-sighted initiative in preparing for population aging. With the superannuation guarantee, Australia has a near universal, fully funded, privately administered, and, as of 2005, individually controlled and portable, retirement savings program.
Today, over 90 percent of workers have superannuation coverage, and superannuation assets are growing rapidly...".

According to the Introduction; "...Australia, [is] the world reform leader...", "...no country, with the possible exception of Australia, can legitimately claim to have solved its old-age support problem...".

So there you have it. I'm now over 50. I could retire - early - at 55, which would mean a frugal retirement. Or, there is more to draw from each year that I leave my 'super' to grow. I'm not sure I want to drop out of the workforce early anyway. Work is about more than just the money. For many of us - it's doing something you feel is worthwhile. It's a social and friendship network, an external discipline to structure life around.
One thing I will agree with though, the thoughts of those German youths. I've paid a lot of tax for ~35 years, ~25% of which went to social security. If your taxes have paid for the pensions of others preceeding you, then ergo, you have some claim on some sort of quid pro quo in return.

Happy Birthday Switzerland!

(Image souced from http://worldgo.blogspot.com/2008/08/1291.html)

An important day has passed, and I missed it! As covered by Peter here, August the 1st is Switzerland's National Day (like Jan 26th for Australia, or July 4th for the USA).

Switzerland has a fascinating history, and a noble one. The Swiss have never been expansionists like the French under Napoleon, or the Germans (with the responsibility for 2 world wars and the holocaust in their past), nor have they tried to force an ideology on the world, like Russia/the USSR, and arguably China did/do. Instead, Switzerland has been an "oasis of peace and prosperity" especially during the last 2 'world wars' and most of her history.

They may not have the resounding words of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, but "Actions speak louder than words" and the Swiss backed their love of freedom and independence with action, not least by their enviable model, that example of the potent tool for maintaining a country's sovereignty and freedom - the militia based defence, but also with a steadfast commitment to what I will call "the participatory democracy". The Swiss entrust and empower their citizenry in a way that leads the world, and which the rulers of countries like China, Zimbabwe, and most middle eastern countries (with the notable exception of Israel) would never countenance.

So, a hearty "Happy Birthday" to Switzerland.

The Great (Fire)Wall of China.

Seems (why am I not surprised) that the Beijing games is off to a censored start.

After the IOC giving the impression that journalists in Beijing would be given full internet access and free reign to report, it isn't happening like that at all.

Censorship and restrictions are the way it will be it seems (although there has been some relaxation after world outcry).

China thinks of the Olympics as a huge PR exercise.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the world may get a glimpse of what China is really like, and may not necessarily like a lot of what that glimpse suggests.

Makes me even prouder of what Sydney was like as an Olympic host city.

Global Warming (now AKA 'Climate change').

I've been watching the issue of Global Warming with interest, and I've tried to keep an open mind. (Why is it now called 'Climate Change instead?).

The first thing that worried me was the lack of easily accessible basic data. It wasn't referenced in most of the sites I found, and I feel that it should be. If the Al Gores, Nicholas Sterns, and Tim Flannerys of the debate (who are NOT Climatologists), have seen data which convinces them, surely then that same data should be available to, should convince an objective viewer. Instead, we are often told that "the science is settled", accept that and act from there.

Well, after some research, I found the base data, the basic measurements that the debate centers on. The 4 main meeasurement nodes being; The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction (UK Met Office), data here; NASA's GISS (Goddard Institute), data here; UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville), (data) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems), (data).

When I look at that base data, graphed (a picture is worth a thousand words), I find things like this;

(Sourced from http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months)

and this;

(Sourced from http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months)

Now if you wade through the pinnacle of GW reports, the UN IPCC this 'Summary for policymakers' available here shows this graph (as close to a summary graphic as I could find);

(Sourced from http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm and reproduced for the purposes of reporting, research, study and review under Copyright protection exception provisions)

Which shows a steep and continuing rise in global temperatures. The noticeable difference is that the real world (per the measured data in the first 2 graphs), and the IPCC modelling haven't agreed with each other since about 2001 at least. That started me thinking, and looking.

When I searched, I found some excellent articles, like this one;

"I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting..., ...When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects...".
"...But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"...".

"The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever...."

The Australian, David Evans, 18 July 2008

And when you keep looking, you find sites like this one, (a computer programmer and 'Green' who makes a point of just presenting the data), and this one which provides "A Critical Examination of Climate Change". It also provides numerous links of interest.

You note the IPCC report says things like;

"...Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade..."

And yet you can go to sites like this (University of Illonois Cryosphere webpage) and compare satellite photos of Arctic ice extent which tells a different story - at least since 2007 when things chilled substantially (and you can plug in your own dates as verification). Also, Antarctic - Southern Hemisphere ice is increasing!

(This site has been tracking all the things they say are caused by Climate change - quite a list - who would have thunk?).

This article asks "if their case is so good, why try so fervently to extinguish other points of view?". Good question. (I'll add to this in coming days). Suffice it to say, the more I read, the more tending towards the sceptical I am becoming.

Happy Birthday, 'Uncle Sam'.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776...

....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

United States Declaration of Independence

Those have to be some of the most beautiful words in the English language... or any other for that matter.

Happy Bithday!

Power, Politics, and 'the little guy(s)'

3 things of note in the world of power and politics which serve to illustrate the relationship between power, politics, and the lowly punter, the 'ordinary citizen.
First we have Ireland and Zimbabwe, and then a local example (ie NSW state politics, and an extension into federal (Australian) politics.

The first involves the electorate in Ireland. Seems the public voted 'NO' in a referendum on ratifying the Lisbon treaty for the EU. Some in the EU (and Ireland) want to have the referendum repeated (and it seems, would like to do so until they get the answer they want). This has renewed calls for a vote in Britain on the treaty, but the UK government is resisting that call (possibly because they would not get the result they want?).
There are 2 issues there, one the merits of the EU treaty, the other the issue of democratic choice 'by the people'.

The second example is that economic basket case of a failed state - Zimbabwe.
There was a recent election there for the presidency - widely viewed as rigged. Now there is a run-off election scheduled. which few observers expect to be fair.
Makes you wonder how such a regime can claim legitimacy. Also makes you wonder why the rest of the world lets it happen. (And there are other examples for that - Burma and Nth Korea for example).

The third example we have an Australian couple, husband/wife, the husband being a NSW minister (for education), and the wife being a federal MP. Seems they had 'some words' with the staff of an establishment. Whatever happened, it has become a case of 'the little guys' vs the powerful and well connected. But the little guys aren't backing down. More.

Each example illustrates why 'the little guys' collectively, need to have the means, the institutions (and faith in those institutions) to curb arbitrary and capricious exercise of power.
This is why I believe in the tools of direct democracy - Initiative, Referendum, and Recall.
And in the case of places like Zimbabwe, have not the people there suffered past the point where more direct action on their part against an illegitimate regime is their moral right?

Free Speech - What's it all about?

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".
Attributed (arguably) to François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire).

I'm a fan of free speech. I don't see how you can have freedom, or say you are free, without freedom of expression in it's various forms.

In Canada at the moment, that freedom is being tested, and the outcome of that test is important for Canada, the Commonwealth countries, and western liberal democratic values in general.

What happened? Well, Mark Steyn wrote a book, and an article a Canadian Newsmagazine published, and some people took exception to it.

From the Wikipedia entry on Steyn;

"...In 2007, a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission"The Future Belongs to Islam", ^[34] written by Mark Steyn, published in Maclean's magazine. The complainants alleged that the article and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. Further complaints were filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused in April 2008 to proceed, saying it lacked jurisdiction to deal with magazine content. However, the Commission stated that it, “strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims . . .. . . . Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.” ^[35] Critics of the Commission claimed that Maclean's and Steyn had been found guilty without a hearing. John Martin of The Province wrote, "There was no hearing, no evidence presented and no opportunity to offer a defence -- just a pronouncement of wrongdoing."

Now, in these PC times, there will be many who condemn that article, and the writer, without even reading it. Perhaps without even knowing it's general thrust. For them, it will be enough that those who share their politics and ideology have condemned it.

I believe robust debate on contentious topics is absolutely necessary in a free society. That is how problems are identified, and the fix to those problems found. More to the point, the body politic has ownership of the process of identifying, discussing, and fixing problems. Not only is a mistake in resolution then less likely to happen, but if it is a mistake, it's a collective one, rather than an individual one that many pay for.
Put another way, if you don't talk about a serious issue now (no matter how rigorous the debate) you may end up fighting about it later (and by that I mean fighting and dying about it later).

So, think about your views on Freedom of Speech. Read the article. Form an opinion for yourself as to if it's 'hateful' then follow the trial, and the discourse on this issue and test.

Collect the information available, inform yourself, decide for yourself.
There are those who would deny you the basic information to be able to make up your own mind. They would be quite happy, however, to rid you of those irksome first steps, and helpfully decide what you should think on your behalf.

More on the trial here, here, and here.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones - but words can never harm me"
(Children's schoolyard chant c.1960s Australia).

Movies we've seen. 'I am Legend' and 'Charlie Wilson's War'.

Two movies we've seen lately. 'I am Legend' with Will Smith a weekend ago, and 'Charlie Wilson's War' yesterday, stars Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julia Roberts.

1. 'Legend was OK. Worth the time and money to see, and had a useful comment to make on the perils of genetic engineering and what I will call 'science without oversight', and it's pitfalls (an example is Australia's Cane Toad problem).
(I recall a similar movie starring Charlton Heston - 'Omega Man').

Entertaining, with 'useful issue raised', 3.5 out of 5.

2. 'Charlie Wilson's War' was excellent. Strong performances from 3 actors (Hanks, Roberts. and an excellent one from the lesser known? Philip Seymour Hoffman - who plays Gust Avrakotos - THAT's an interesting yarn too!).

Surprisingly, it's a true story. That of Congressman (ie US House of Representatives) Charlie Wilson and his leadership of the support program for the Mujahideen against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. (c1980 - this is way before 9/11 - and helped lead to the downfall of the USSR).

Quote fom the movie; "...A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village says, 'Oh how wonderful.' But a Zen master who lives in the village says, 'We shall see.' The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in the village says, 'Oh how awful.' The Zen master says, 'We shall see.' The village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go to war. But, because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, 'Oh, how wonderful.' The Zen master says, 'We shall see.'...".

Recommended 4.5+ out of 5.

New blog listing - 'Labor Watch!'.

You will see listed on the 'Blog Roll', a new site; 'Labor Watch', which has as it's aim;

"The Federal Election held on 24th November, 2007 was won by the Rudd led Australian Labor Party(ALP). This gave Australia wall to wall governments where the only Liberal in a position of power, is the Lord Mayor of Brisbane which is stacked by the ALP. The role of "Labor Watch!" is to monitor the wall to wall Labor Government to hold them responsible for their mismanagement.".

Whatever your political leanings, I believe that scrutiny and questioning of politicians and parties is a healthy thing.

A pity we don't have more of the tools of Direct Democracy to 'keep the bastards honest'. Specifically Initiative and Recall (we have Referendum). (And a better 4th estate - the media - to aid transparency in the political process whilst we are at it).

A view of 'the Middle Kingdom'.

Things were so much more straight forward during the Cold War. It was pretty obvious to us who the 'other side' were, and they were there, and we were here, and there was very little interaction, and virtually no reliance of one bloc one to the other for trade or commerce.

These days, things are different. The 'other side' is really other sides, and interaction, trade and commerce is intimately intertwined. We need oil from the middle east, yet that is where many of those who view the west as enemies come from. We import cheap goods from China, export our resources, yet China is an up-and-coming economic and military power.

So when I see thought provoking articles like this one (found via Samizdata), I try to visualise where it's all heading.

Gary Rosen from 'Commentary' magazine (must remember that one - looks like good journalism) visited China and got quite an education. Not just on what China has achieved in less than 20 years of embracing a market economy, but in how things are done there;

"...One might have an abstract sense of the scale and density of China’s hyper-development, but seeing it on foot or from the window of a minibus is another thing altogether. The massive, anonymous glass-and-steel office towers and concrete apartment blocs simply go on forever, and the traffic is a heart-stopping game of chicken, with bicycles, “trishaws,” and motorized carts flowing heedlessly into lanes of overloaded trucks and speeding Buicks and BMW’s. This is the ground-level view of a decade-and-a-half of roughly 10-percent annual growth in GDP, a period during which hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted from poverty...".

"...As he spoke to us in a glass-walled conference room, the smog outside was so thick that nearby buildings were visible only in outline. “Is this a ‘good’ air day?,” I asked, pointing toward the street. Without missing a beat, he replied, “it takes an expert to determine that.”...".

"...When I asked him what would happen if protesters wished to speak out about Taiwan or the human-rights situation in China, he said that “the public-security apparatus would decide what is appropriate,” noting (without apparent irony) that “this is how it is done in every country...".

"...“China has a population of 1.3 billion people, including the 23 million people of Taiwan. It is not for them to decide their own status.”...".

"...Thinking about Yuan and her friends—cosmopolitan, English-speaking students at China’s most elite university—I find it difficult to imagine that the People’s Republic will easily contain them. Some will undoubtedly be co-opted by economic opportunities, like much of China’s middle class; others will end up serving the Chinese state, perhaps in a role like that of Mr. Huang, practicing the “techniques of hospitality” on foreign visitors. But it seems just as likely that, following the lead of the previous generation, they will begin to ask why China, alone among the world’s great nations, cannot enjoy the full range of modern freedoms. Their protestations aside, they may yet have their own Tiananmen. If it comes to that, one can only pray that this time it turns out very differently....".

When reading, not just that, but many things on China, I am left with the feeling China has made some issues for itself to deal with. How, for example can you educate and open up a society without that society observing and questioning? And if the answer to that question is not what the rulers are prepared to accommodate?

What of China's neighbours? Taiwan has the Sword of Damocles hanging over it. I suspect China has some scores to settle with Japan. And if it wants 'liebenstraum' and resources - what then?

And that is only part of the modern equation. Add in the Islamic world, India, Russia, the 'United States of Europe' (the EU) and the world is most certainly a very differt place than it was pre-1989!

Oz Election - from the outside.

Found this interesting snip in 'The Australian';

"...Rowan Callick, watched the election with Chinese officials, and their amazement at what happened on Saturday night is revealing. As Callick reported yesterday, Chinese diplomats were agog at the very idea of a government being turfed out overnight and were fascinated at the civility of the leaders. They were amazed that outgoing prime minister Mr Howard had the dignity to address the people in the face of such a crushing defeat and at the generosity of Kevin Rudd's acceptance speech. Whatever their political views, all Australians should be proud of the exemplary way in which the elections were conducted. Indeed, watching the controlled chaos caused by 13 million random acts of democracy, seeing senior ministers put out of a job and newcomers triumph, resonates deeply with the Australian psyche. But it is more than that. It ensures that passing legislation, whatever its merits, is not enough. Governments must be able to take voters along with them. Even a government such as Mr Howard's, in the rare position of holding a majority in both houses of parliament, did not have unfettered power. In the end it was answerable at the ballot box, where judgment was merciless..."

Nor was this the only interest shown, now or in the past. More here for election tragics.
[ 'Political Compass' -worth visiting]

Australia (and a coupla 'Ordinary Australians') vote.

As some may have noticed, I've been off line for about 2 weeks. We have been moving things around in our house, and one result was I only just got internet access back.

It's election day here in Oz. Our family voted this morning, and significantly, Daughter voted for her first time, having turned 18 less than 2 weeks ago (but you can register on the electoral roll at 17 to vote once turning 18).

It's just gone 5:30 here. Polls close at 6PM. Things happen quickly after 6. The Electoral Commission staff at each booth (polling station) close the doors, shutting in themselves and the Scrutineers - (a representative for each candidate in that seat who helps ensure the process is proper and above board) - in and the first, quick count is done by them, and phoned to the AEC, and by the Scrutineers to the candidates offices. (The first figures are known by 6:20 usually). (I used to Scrutineer).

Some thoughts;
. Labor/Rudd has been consistently ahead in the polls all year.

.It is the result in the 20 or so 'Marginals' which truly count - and will decide the election outcome.

.There is apparently a late surge towards Howard and the coalition (Lib/Nat).

My call? A Labor win.
I will update later tonight.

Update 25 November 2007: (These jotted down as we watched the coverage)
My promised update (though a little late - we had 'family stuff' to do).

.6:00PM Polls close in NSW and Vic (still 1 hr to go in Qld, as they aren't on Daylight Saving).

.6:05PM 'The Australian' newspaper exit polls suggest voting 53% labor to 47% coalition on 2PP (2 party-preferred) basis (we have preferential voting here in Australi - not first past the post).

.6:07PM Exit polls suggest PM Howard is in danger of losing his own seat of Bennelong.

.6:35PM First figures in from small booths - 15 of vote counted. exit polls showing 7% swing to labor - landslide material!

.6:55PM Former PM Hawke says "this feels like his 1983 win" Lib MP/Minister Joe Hockey says this is " end of the Democrats".

.7:12PM Lindsay showing 10% swing to labor. Almst certainly a loss for the libs.

.7:23PM Eden-Monaro 53/47% on 2PP "strong swing to labor in key seats".

.7:46PM "5% swing to labor in Qld. Ch7 computer predicts 76/72 seat split in House of reps (ie a labor win).

.8:00PM Polls close in WA (3 hrs behind eastcoast Melb/Syd).

.8:25PM Mark Kelly claims Eden-Monaro for labor - 1st seat claimed!

.8:30PM Julia Gillard says labor can form government.

.8:40PM Jeff Kennet says it looks like John Howard has lost the election and lost his seat.

.8:44PM "Queensland really delivering for labor"

.8:51PM Ch7 commentator Mark Riley calls it - labor victory. 6.5% swing nationally to labor.

.9:06PM First figures from WA. Ch7 election computer calls labor victory.

.10:05PM Howard phones Rudd to concede.

.10:36PM Howard arrives at Wentworth hotel in Sydney and gives speech conceding defeat (quite dignified and gracious).

.10:50PM "The Howard era has ended".

.11:05PM Rudd delivers victory speech at Suncorp stadium in Brisbane.

(All this scrawled down on the back of an envelope as we watched the tally unfold).

Why did they lose? In my opinion; WorkChoices (Industrial Relations legislation), and that the electorate has a better memory that some think - eg "who do you trust to keep interest rates low", Also, alienating 1.5 million voters who happen to also be gun-owners in 1996 didn't help, eventually.

Election 2007.

PM Howard has been to see the Governor-General. Writs for the election have been issued, and Australia goes to the polls on November 24th for a federal general election (including, as is normal, only half the Senate).

Over at Samizdata, Paul Marks asks:

"In Australia there is a budget surplus, unlike most nations. Taxation, in total, is lower than almost all other Western nations. Unemployment is about 4% of the workforce - the lowest it has been for decades. Both industrial output and GDP are growing at more than 4% (higher than almost all nations in the Western world), and this growth has been going for years.

And everyone tells me that Mr Howard is going to lose the general election.

Why? Someone explain this please.

"It is Iraq" - but Australia has had virtually no casualties in Iraq. I can not believe that the nation that suffered the mass murder of its citizens in Bali is going to submit to the will of Al Qaeda (which is what running away from Iraq would be).

"It is Kyoto" - but this agreement did not even limit India or China (the latter the biggest producer of C02 emissions), even the Democrats in the American Senate were not interested in ratifying such an absurdly biased agreement. Why should Australians wish to do so?

No I do not understand. Why should Australians wish to throw away their economy? All their prospects for prosperity tossed away on unlimited power for the unions and endless government Welfare State spending. I do not deny that most Australians are going to do this (I can not argue with a nine month opinion poll lead), but I do not understand why they are acting in this self-destructive way."

There were/are many replies, many along the same lines as mine, which was;

"I'm an Aussie voter. I also have a strong view on one particular issue, which influences my vote - but I'll leave that to last.

Firstly, the Australian electorate doesn't see one party being better than the other on economic management. The foundations of deregulation, floating the dollar, et al, were Hawke/Keating Labor reforms NOT coalition ones.
Some of us remember Howard as the treasurer in the Fraser gov - and that gov was not a shining star of economic management or ideas (Keating/Hawke in contrast were far better).
And, last election, a big issue was (mostly mortgage) interest rates, and the coalition line was they would stay low under them, 5 rises in a row has somewhat put paid to that argument, and in large part their credibility.

Second. 'Workchoices', which a significant portion of the workforce feel very uneasy about - if not for themselves, for their children, unskilled spouse, etc. Reform is good, but it perhaps went too far too fast.

Third. Howard is seen as a 'my way or the highway' sort of operator. Party discipline is iron-clad (unlike, say, US representative votes on issues).

Personally, I would usually be a coalition voter. But that one particular issue I mentioned is the '96 Howard gun laws. I'm a 'sporting shooter'. At least one factor that is not on the radar, but still very much out there is that alienating ~1.5 million voters is not going to help you, sooner or later.".

The wonderful Right to vote.

Australia will go to the polls shortly to elect a new government at the federal level. It hasn't been called yet (the Prime Minister gets to decide timing) but it's due not later than 3 years after the first sitting of this current Parliament. (S28). It'll probably be mid to late November.

When I look at the rest of the world, especially places like Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, I really appreciate how precious that right is.

We are one of the few societies that made it through the 20th century as a free country choosing it's governments by popular democratic means. The list is indeed short. Not many more than Australia, Canada, NZ, the USA, Switzerland. Britain doesn't even make that list because elections were suspended for 'the duration' of WW2.

We, our friends and allies, as a bloc, saw off the Fascist challenge (Germany, Japan) in WW2. Outlasted and 'called' the communist challenge that was the cold war. Unfortunately, as one foe is bested, it seems another threat emerges (or maybe multiple threats?).

What unfortunately is different this time is that there seem those who like the idea of adopting the style of those societies in fighting those new threats. Who seem to advocate limiting the rights and freedoms that make us different (and better, happier, and freer) to 'them'.

I don't agree with that. We fought and won against our earlier foes by embracing and building on those freedoms, declaring that those differences was what was worth fighting for. In the final analysis, it's what we stand for that makes the struggle worthwhile.