... and Tinnitus for All

I return after a lengthy cyber-absence not to discuss important but dull matters such as the Victorian State election (more on that shortly if I find time in the Christmas rush and can be bothered), but instead something of much greater personal import - the recent Metallica concert at Rod Laver Arena.

Sorry to gush, but quite simply - it was fantastic. Which is something I would have been highly unlikely to say 20 years ago.

This is because like a lot of people, my musical tastes were heavily influenced by the time I spent at university, where whole days devoid of lectures were spent in a vegetative torpor just listening to music. Unfortunately for any head banging bands looking to establish a toehold in my record collection, in the mid to late 1980s anything to do with metal was very much on the nose. The charts were dominated by gender-bending new romantics with flowing mullets, while synthesisers and electric drum kits were the instruments of choice as opposed to heavily distorted electric guitars. Bands such as Culture Club, Tears for Fears and Human League ruled the airwaves and Midnight Oil were about the heaviest thing played on Brisbane radio. It's hard to imagine given their enormous stature today, but after a run of ordinary albums in the mid-1980s even AC/DC were regularly sneered at by most people and dismissed as aging bogans who were well past their prime.

Yet in spite of the prevailing mood, Metallica went from strength to strength. 1986's sprawling "Master of Puppets" was followed in 1988 by the solid "... and Justice for All" , which contained the brilliant single "One". A couple of years later when, thanks to bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam, rock fans around the world ditched their fetish for synthesisers and once again demanded music with a bit more noise, they released the mega-smash "Metallica". Somewhat predictably after such enormous success, the band then descended into drug-addled chaos for a few years. After releasing only two mediocre albums for the rest of the decade, they regrouped in 2002 for the "St. Anger" sessions which also spawned the bizarre but compelling Rockumentary film "Some Kind of Monster". Which is round about the same time I started to stop regarding them as solely the the preserve of bogans and started taking a bit more interest.

Unless you've seen the film it is a little difficult to sum it up for you in a pithy one-liner, but a couple of fairly apt descriptions might be "Spinal Tap without the satire" or "Let it Be for headbangers". To this day I can't fully understand what would possess such a successful and popular band to air all their dirty laundry in public like that. It's not like they would need the money after selling over 100 million records worldwide, so why do it? The film contained many cringeworthy moments, mostly involving Lars Ulrich either hurling abuse at another band member or the "high performance" psychologist they hired at prodigious cost to help the band resolve its issues. However in spite of these moments, by the end of the film you can't help but feel some admiration for the band for being honest with their fans and giving them a warts and all insight into the trials and tribulations of a high-profile rock act. It's difficult to see other mega-selling bands like U2 or Coldplay doing the same; they would be far too "brand conscious".

Regardless of the merits of doing the film, by the time the "Death Magnetic" world tour came around, it seemed to have a cathartic effect on the band. The new album represented a genuine return to form with killer guitar licks, James Hetfield's trademark growling vocals and Ulrich's machine-gun delivery on drums. So when a friend asked me if I wanted a ticket to one of their Melbourne shows, I was only too happy to accept. Even at a cost of $185.

I can now genuinely say it was worth every penny. The opening tracks from "Death Magnetic" were accompanied by a stunning laser display reminiscent of Pink Floyd at their best. Known for mixing up the set from night to night, there was a liberal and quite surprising sprinkling of very old tracks, as well as a cover of Bob Seger's "Turn the Page". The band clearly knew however that some tracks were non-negotiable with the fans and the performance built to its crescendo with "Master of Puppets", "One", "Nothing Else Matters"and "Enter Sandman". My ears were ringing for 2 days after that little lot.

What was perhaps most pleasing though was the largely "no frills" approach to the whole concert. Instead of surrounding themselves with a host of tour musicians like many other big acts have done in the past, it was just the 4 of them up on stage making a heap of noise and registering on average about 250 beats per minute. The perfomance lost none of its effect by not having say a string quartet for "Nothing Else Matters"or a keyboard player. It's a great lesson I think for any up and coming bands of the virtues of Keep It Simple, Stupid.

I was also greatly encouraged by the fact that four 50 year old men can take enough drugs and alcohol to make Keith Richards blush, spend 5 years nearly killing each other and still turn up a couple of years later with a cracking new album and a live show that would smack the likes of Lady Gaga out of the park. Maybe Neil Young was right when he sang "Rock and Roll will never die". Let's hope they come back and visit soon. We need dinosaurs like Metallica roaming the world to remind us of the time when they ruled over everything.

Oh, and one final point - there is a rumour circulating on the internet that Kirk Hammett is gay; after seeing his wife when she came on stage, I am pretty sure that's not the case, but as for the new bass player ...

So Close and Yet So Far

Gutted. Angry. Frustrated. Dumbfounded.

Just 4 of the myriad of emotions I felt when the final siren sounded just after 5pm on Saturday. Mind you, the fact that I was sitting in the Collingwood official match function for the entire afternoon didn't particularly help matters. Although after the match, I have to say that for a bunch of feral, tattooed and toothless bogans they were remarkably gracious and well-behaved. Perhaps they appreciated that but for a rogue bounce of the ball in the last 2 minutes of the drawn match, the premiership would have gone our way and there would have been no second chance the following week.

Still, as Ben Cousins' guts say, such is life. We swallow the bitter pill of defeat and move on. I have to say, though, the proselytising from the football press in the last few days has been pathetic. Their dribble demonstrates that either they have the combined intelligence and memory of the average goldfish, or, more likely, don't have the fortitude or diligence to look beyond the bleeding obvious and write something with some genuine insight. "Collingwood dynasty to reign for the next 10 years", "St Kilda premiership window closed, need to drop down the ladder to re-build", they loftily intone. Well, morons, here are some facts that even your tiny brains ought to appreciate:

• It's true that the Saints face a massive challenge to come up for next year. However, let's not forget that a lot of premiers in recent years challenged for a long time and even lost the odd grand final before finally breaking through. The Swans stormed into the grand final in 1996 only to lose convincingly to North, but then hung around the top 8 for the next 8 years before finally winning in 2005. Even now, some 14 years later, they are still regular finalists. A similar thing could be said of the Brisbane side of 1995 which were perennial contenders until 2004 when they tried for one premiership too many and as a result, didn't turn their list over enough, the consequences of which they are still suffering today.
• Apart from this year's grand finalists, which sides are going to seriously challenge next year? Forget Brisbane, the Gold Coast and West Coast. Richmond and Melbourne should improve, but enough to have a tilt at a flag? Unlikely. Hawthorn have the talent but can't seem to recapture the form of 2 years ago. Essendon's list is rubbish and they have an untried coach who will also turn out to be rubbish (see below). Geelong have lost their coach and best player. North and Sydney are honest but also lack the cattle required. That doesn't leave many teams knocking seriously on the door.
• Much has been made of St Kilda's ageing list and the consequent need to "bottom out". This is of course utter rubbish. You don't need to "bottom out" in order to achieve success; this repeated assertion in the media is particularly annoying as it's patently untrue. Just look at clubs like the Swans, Geelong and Adelaide who have managed to reach the finals regularly over a long period of time without needing to finish 14th-16th and collect priority handouts from the AFL. They have managed to continually contend through astute drafting and in Sydney's case, a spectacular hit rate of "recycling" players. Which leads me to my next point ...
• First round draft picks are highly over-rated. Let's look at some number 1 picks by way of example. While no-one can debate the genuine star rating of a Hodge, Riewoldt or Cooney, other high draft picks, while usually serviceable players, don't necessarily turn into superstars. Would you consider Brett Deledio, Des Headland or Travis Johnstone to be better players than say Dane Swan (58), Sam Fisher (55) and Mark LeCras (37)? Of course not. The clubs that are continually successful are the ones that see value in the draft and exploit it rather than trying to punt on one or two first round picks.
• Now, turning to Collingwood. Assuming some of their players avoid jail after the post-premiership escapades, they've got challenges of their own next year - all of their own making. How do you deal with a situation where a proven premiership coach with the fire still in his belly has to stand down at the end of next season and hand over to his unproven deputy - and then hang round watching for the next 3 years while he potentially mucks it all up? I know what Eddie McGuire was trying to do, but to Malthouse the situation must now be particularly galling in light of last week's win. No one can predict how this will play out but if Malthouse decides he wants to coach on somewhere, it's unlikely either he or McGuire will back down from a bunfight - something that's hardly conducive to a back to back premiership tilt.

Of course, the beauty of football is that next year will of course prove completely unpredictable, and some team that everyone thought was rubbish will probably come from nowhere, street the field and claim the flag. However you just wish sometimes that some of the volumes that gets written about the sport had some decent thought given to it instead of just recycling predictable themes like lauding the successful grand finalist and bashing the loser.

2 other things worthy of comment before I sign off on footy for the year and take aim at some other suitable targets. Firstly, Gary Ablett's "defection" to the Gold Coast. Surely no-one could be surprised by this. Apart from the money, could you imagine what it would be like living down in Geelong with the name "Gary Ablett"? It would be horrendously suffocating, a bit like what it must have been like living in Adelaide with the surname "Bradman". The poor kid probably couldn't fart without it making the Advertiser. Full credit to him for using the opportunity to extend himself and then having the gumption to show up to the Best and Fairest (which to my mind he should have won easily).

Second, Essendon appointing James Hird as coach. Haven't those idiots on their board learned anything? Champion players often don't make good coaches, and they NEVER make good coaches with no prior coaching experience. Look at Tim Watson - tremendous player, godawful coach. Michael Voss - serviceable first year, but then made some colossal trading blunders and now the Lions are short-priced favourites for the wooden spoon next year. KB at Richmond, Royce Hart at Footscray - the list goes on. It's hard to know exactly the reasons why, but people like Leigh Matthews and Paul Roos are rare beasts indeed.

Although he was a tremendously skilled and courageous a player, not to mention an eloquent and well-presented media commentator, history suggests Hird will fail as a coach. While he has many good points, Hird has at times showed a concerningly petulant and cranky side that will not serve him well when the team is 1-9 and 2 key midfielders are out for the rest of the season. Anyone remember his extraordinary spray of the umpires on the Footy Show? Anyone remember his completely graceless radio interview on 3MMM after the 2001 Grand Final? What side is going to come out when the chips are down and the supporters are demanding quick answers? One thing is certain, he won't be able to call on Mark Thompson for help as Geelong will take Essendon to the cleaners in court - and rightly so if Essendon tries it on.

All I can say to fellow Sainters, is lick your wounds, watch the Aussies lick the Poms in the Ashes, then regroup stronger than ever in 2011. As always, it promises to be a fascinating season.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Like most of the nation, I awoke on Sunday morning to a state of utter confusion. Labor seemed to have lost power, but equally, the Coalition didn't seem to have won it.

Then the horrible realisation dawned on me. With neither party able to control the House of Representatives, Bob Katter could wind up holding the balance of power.

Oh ..... my .... God.

How did things degenerate to the point where this ghastly eventuality could come about? Unfortunately, after what must surely qualify as the most negative election campaigns of all time, the major parties have only got themselves to blame for the mess they find themselves in. And frankly, they fully deserve it. As the computer geeks know, if you feed garbage to someone or something, then you're likely to get garbage back in return. That's what now awaits the party which manages to convince an eclectic bunch of independents to support them - 3 years of garbage where they have no real mandate to implement their legislative agenda (whatever that is) and where it could well be a major battle to get even the most simple bits of legislation through both houses of Parliament.

I have to say that unlike the 2007 campaign which offered the tantalising prospect of seeing John Howard lose both the Prime Ministership and his seat, this time I lost interest very early on in the piece. Judging by the whopping 20% of voters which one poll determined as "undecided" only 2 days out from the election, I wasn't alone. Why did voters react in such an apathetic manner? I can only speak for myself but frankly, I think a lot of it had to do with the dreadful campaigns run by both major parties and the utter contempt they showed for the electorate's intelligence by doing so.

This was a campaign which was dominated by banal platitudes and was almost entirely bereft of policy. Is it any surprise that any voter with half a brain switches off when you consider some of the dross that was served up during the campaign:

• Gillard overusing the hackneyed and ultimately meaningless expression "moving forward" (or "Mervyn Ford" if you want to adopt the phonetic spelling) to such an extent in her opening speech that it became instant Chaser-fodder and had to be dropped by the spin doctors. Subsequent attempts to appropriate Barack Obama's "Yes we can" were equally pathetic and self-defeating.
• Abbott visibly wincing at the leader's debate because his PR people had told him to present a restrained, moderate facade when we all knew he wanted to cut loose and box Gillard round the ears.
• The complete failure of either leader at the debate to go into any policy issues, and then subsequently refusing to engage in any further debates except when polling showed their party slipping behind.
• Abbott refusing to be drawn at all on how he planned to pay for any of his measures because he well knew that they would involve deeply unpopular cuts to spending, and Labor failing utterly to take him to task on that.
• Gillard coming out at the start of week 3 of the campaign and announcing that she was going to be the "Real Julia"; well, that was terrific because the Julia who was behaving as the puppet of whatever focus group Mark Arbib and Karl Bitar told her to sure sucked big time. However, shouldn't we voters be entitled to see the "Real Julia" all the time? How can we be expected to trust her otherwise?
• The ridiculous focus of the both major parties on the 2000-odd boat people who arrive here each year and a piddling government debt of 2% of GDP as opposed to critically important issues such as tax reform, infrastructure building and climate change.

On the night of the election, Gillard borrowed Bill Clinton's line after the 2000 presidential election to the effect that the people had spoken, but she just wasn't quite sure yet what they'd said. Well, if she doesn't get it, the number of undecided voters 2 days out from the election, the Greens winning their first ever House of Representatives seat and the election of possibly 4 independents from rural Australia should give her a few hints. If not, I'll spell it out for her:

• We are sick of having politicians running the country whose policies and behaviours are directed not towards doing the right thing but instead towards getting themselves re-elected and who therefore let their actions be dictated by PR consultants, the media and focus groups. Here's a news flash - you are elected by the people, so start governing for the people instead of simply trying to appease a bunch of contemptible parasites.
• We elect leaders to lead the country, not to manage it. If we thought solid economic management was all that was needed to bring about a happy and prosperous society we probably would have left Howard in charge. However, it is not that simple and the government has much more responsibility for its citizens than just growing the economy at 3% per annum. It is up to you as the appointed leaders to determine the right social policies for the country and implement them decisively and without fear of the possible consequences.
• Pushing political "hot buttons" like attacking boat people is not a winning strategy except for bigots and xenophobes, people whose votes you shouldn't want anyway. Most people with half a brain and any sort of moral compass will see through these cheap shots and punish you electorally. Put forward genuine, well-thought out policies and people will give you the benefit of the doubt.
• Be yourself, not someone the spin doctors want you to be. It worked for Bob Hawke, Jeff Kennett and even Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The voters want to see the real person, not some plastic, made-over robot who speaks McKinsey-style management gobbledegook instead of plain English.

There are a few pointers for you, Julia. It may however be too late for her to take notice. As at the time of writing, both parties are fiercely lobbying the different independents in a bid to gain power. Bob Katter aside, my initial impressions of them were fairly favourable. They appear to be fairly genuine and passionate representatives of their electorate who obviously some time ago looked at the party machine and made the moral decision that staying in that system was not the best way for them to look after their constituents. How ironic it is now that real people like this now look like having a say in the country's affairs instead of a conditioned backbench hack involved with one of the major parties.

Despite both major parties getting their just desserts, this election result isn't a good outcome for the country. Both domestically and internationally, we will likely suffer in some ways as a result of the inevitable political uncertainty we now face. Locally, much needed legislative reforms may not occur now for 3 years or at least be so badly compromised as to not be worth passing in the first place. Internationally, companies who would have otherwise invested here may now face uncertainties over things like tax or changes to foreign investment laws which may now deter them from investing. Whichever party does win power will have to work twice as hard to keep the country on an even keel.

One can only hope that when the Cabinet is locked up in a room deep in negotiations with Bob Katter on climate change legislation at 2am on a cold Canberra morning, they reflect on their behaviour during the 2010 campaign, curse themselves silently and then vow to never let this sort of thing happen again. Who knows, by being his usual capricious self, Bob might yet force significant behavioural change on the major parties. What a delicious irony that would be.

In the meantime, get ready for 3 more years of garbage in, garbage out.

Shoot The IT Crowd

A chill ran down my spine last week when I came across an article about problems Apple were having with the new version of the iPhone. Granted, its not something one might ordinarily get alarmed about, such as finding Russell Brand hiding in your wife's closet or discovering that another member of the Bush family is going to run for president. However, my concern was simply this: Apple along with Google are one of the last bastions of competency and innovation in an industry that is generally run by complete and utter imbeciles. If Apple suddenly can't get their products to work properly, then what hope have we got? We will flounder forever in a sea in frustration and anger as our machines seize up, wireless networks drop out and someone from a so-called "help desk" in Bangalore who can't speak English gives you glib advice like switching the computer off and on again.

During the GFC, everyone was looking for whipping boys to blame for what happened. The two favourites were banks and the car industry. Banks copped a serve for irresponsible lending practices, while the carmakers got it in the neck for laying off workers in the thousands and then rather inappropriately letting their CEOs charter a private jet to fly to Washington to lobby for government aid.

I'm not saying that these industries weren't culpable and to a large degree, they deserve a lot of the new regulation that has been imposed on them. However, in their defence, at least their products WORK. If you buy a car, you can be reasonably assured of driving it home without the engine seizing up or one of the wheels falling off. Similarly, if you go into a bank and withdraw money from an ATM, hey presto, the machine will dispense the cash you ask for. Sadly, as anyone who has ever bought a new computer knows, this is simply not the case with anything produced by the IT industry. Which is why they deserve a huge kick in the pants from governments worldwide so that they are forced to atone for the untold misery they have caused their customers.

Listen to this anecdote and see if it sounds familiar. About a year ago, my wife and I bought a new Lenovo laptop computer (yes, I'm prepared to name and shame). We took it home, tried to set up a home wireless network then quickly worked out that something was wrong as the laptop wouldn't pick up the internet if it were more than 2 metres away from the desktop computer. After ringing the "help desk" and being put through to somewhere in the US or Canada, we were told it had a faulty antenna and we should post it up to a service company in Sydney. This we did, only to wait 4 weeks without hearing a peep. When we tried to track the computer down, we were again put through to Canada, where the disembodied voice I spoke to told me he would have to get someone in China to call me. I offered to bet the voice $10,000 that no-one in China would ever call me, but being American, he didn't understand the sarcasm.

Of course, the bet turned out to be a good one and in frustration I asked the service company to locate the computer and return it to me so I could take it back to the store. When I did get the computer back I was told I couldn't get a refund because the computer was under warranty for 2 years - even though they'd already demonstrated monumental incompetence by completely failing to fix the problem ! With steam coming out my ears I phoned a different Lenovo number with the intention of complaining until I was blue in the mouth, only to be again re-routed to another disembodied voice in Canada. Fortunately this voice had a brain larger than your average peanut and was able to fix the problem for me. It wasn't a faulty antenna at all, it was an incorrect configuration which was able to be rectified by typing in "$%56#r3tpxxx!//" or something equally counter-intuitive in at the DOS-prompt. Now being able to access the internet, I immediately set to writing a stinging e-mail to Lenovo only to be stymied by the fact that what was represented as the "@" key on the keypad was in fact the "%" key, thereby necessitating a search to find what key was in fact the correct one. This turned out to be the "$" key, which was itself having an identity crisis with the "?" key. It was around this time that I burst into tears.

That computer aged me 5 years. Its crapulence was boundless. I hated it so much that when it got stolen from our luggage en route from JFK back to Melbourne I nearly threw a party. Yet time and again, the people who run these companies serve up this rubbish and as consumers, we just roll our eyes and cop it. It's not good enough, and it's time for this fraud on the public to stop.

I personally find it staggering that regulators aren't awake to what's going on. Aren't they aware of the armies of people employed by organisations just to keep their IT infrastructure going? Again, drawing a comparison with automobiles, if cars broke down as often as computers, there would have to be 500 times as many mechanics as are currently employed in this country. In fact, every CBD carpark of any size would probably need to employ 4-5 full time mechanics just to ensure that everyone could get their vehicles started to get home. As a society would we put up with cars that were so unreliable, with all the safety and time consequences that would cause? Of course not, we would demand much better. So why do we accept that IT glitches are a necessary evil in life?

I think part of the answer is because when computer systems DO work properly, they are so useful and positive for productivity that we are prepared to put up with a bit of inconvenience for the benefits they bring. This would be fine, except now because of the fact that computers are so useful, they have become so ubiquitous that when they do fail, productivity grinds to a halt. I know when the business I work in changed hands recently and the team had to get 150 new staff onto the company's server, it meant we were without e-mail or other vital applications for the best part of 2 days. This is not to denigrate the team who did the job as they did a stellar job in the circumstances but it does highlight how dangerously reliant we have become on technology.

Any technological innovation throughout history always comes with teething problems. Certainly cars weren't as reliable back in Henry Ford's time, and new medicines can often have unfortunate side-effects that no-one could have predicted based on what was known at the time. The same is true of the computing industry but surely now the devices have been around long enough that reliability can be improved and they can be made more user-friendly? Surely also governments need to recognise the waste and frustration everyone suffers as a result of IT glitches and start sanctioning the industry for failing to deliver products to acceptable standards. I feel so strongly about this that I would probably even vote for John Howard if he agreed to address the problem. But then it would probably turn out to be a "non-core" promise, so I would wind up getting shafted both ways.

On one positive note, I see that Bill Gates has effectively pledged most of his ill-gotten gains towards ridding the world of malaria. If he is successful, and if heaven and hell do exist, then he might (just might) get away with 10,000 years in purgatory as opposed to eternal damnation for all the misery caused to the public by Word, Outlook and most particularly, Powerpoint.

Thanks for hearing me out. I'm now off to re-boot my temper.

Glad we Sorted that Out

A fortnight really is a long time in politics. 2 weeks ago, Kevin Rudd was ensconced in the Lodge, picking fights with mining companies and otherwise busily contriving ways to lose what should have been an unloseable election. Now all of a sudden we have Australia's first female PM (although not, as you might think, the first ranga) who has quickly cut a deal with the mining companies and, you would expect, will just as quickly head to the polls to cash in on her current media honeymoon.

Rudd really had to go. The mining tax was the last in a long series of policy stuff-ups which made the Feds look spookily like their inept counterparts in NSW. What I found frustrating about issues like the mining tax and emissions trading was not the content of the policies themselves, but that they were sold to the public in such an incompetent and slapdash fashion. Rudd himself must take a lot of the blame for this. Being a typical micromanager, he found it impossible to delegate responsibility for anything to capable and experienced ministers such as Gillard, Tanner and Ferguson. The results of this everyone can see for themselves.

It's probably not surprising that Bill Shorten and others decided to act when they did and install Gillard as PM. The fact that until this week's detente, the miners were convincingly winning the PR battle is simply staggering. While it's true that most people welcome any new tax about as warmly as they would a bad case of haemorrhoids, you would think the public wouldn't have too much of a problem with this one. After all, here are some home truths about mining companies:

- They dig up as much of Australia's irreplaceable mineral resources as possible, ship it off shore and then pocket the proceeds for themselves to pay to their shareholders and their senior executives.

- They expect taxpayers to subsidise these activities by lobbying the government to construct rail, port and other infrastructure which will help them get the minerals from the mines and out of the country quicker.

- At the first whiff of an economic downturn, and having enticed workers in their thousands to godawful places like the Pilbara or Moura, they will lay off those same workers en masse rather than wait for things to recover.

- They have to be continually embarrassed by incidents like OK Tedi and the current BP spill into adopting appropriate environmental controls over their activities, rather than taking the initiative.

I'm not intending to be overly critical of mining companies; after all, they are answerable only to their shareholders and their brief is therefore to maximise profit rather than worrying about things like their employees' mortgages or environmental degradation. However, my point is that what they get up to is hardly likely to endear them to the greater population and therefore, you would expect a new tax on their activities isn't going to get the average man in the street's back up.

Perhaps that what Rudd thought too. Whatever the reason for the lack of industry consultation and ad campaign to support the tax, the government were criminally unprepared for what was always going to be a highly predictable and emotive backlash from the mining lobby. I don't know what Rudd expected them to do - dance a jig? The sight of a mine worker on a TV advertisement saying what a champion his employer is as opposed to the evil Labor government is almost Pythonesque in its irony. However because of the government's inaction people seemed to be buying it, leading to their approval rating dropping faster than Elders' share price.

So it was out with Kevin and in with Julia, who in true Hawke-like fashion, saw the value in consulting with the industry and wound up getting a deal done. Good for her. She will find that engaging with Cabinet, business and the electorate instead of behaving like a cantankerous headmaster will reap great rewards. It will be interesting to see how the election campaign unfolds but I would expect her to return Labor with a comfortable albeit reduced majority. After all, if you were a woman, who would you vote for? One of your own kind who has risen to the highest office in the land, or someone who would prefer you chained full-time to the stove and washing machine?

Finally, to Rudd's immediate predecessor, John Howard who during the week had his nomination for ICC President rejected by India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and the West Indies. I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that during the 1970 and 1980s, he persistently opposed South Africa's estrangement from international sport despite their apartheid policies, but then was quick to unilaterally call for estrangement for Zimbabwe as soon as Robert Mugabe implemented a similar regime.

John, just so you get it - BOTH regimes are odious. If it's not cool for black people to marginalise white people, then its also not cool for white people to marginalise black people.

But what is kind of cool is having a 'ranga, female Prime Minister - who unlike Thatcher, has a feminine side to her. Despite the inevitable barrage of political ads, I await the next 6-9 months with great interest.

Populate and Perish

Flash forward, Melbourne 2030, population 6.2 million.

It's 5pm on a Wednesday afternoon and I've just come out of a meeting in the city. As a 60-something looking to slow down, I'd much rather be someplace else. However about 10 years ago, in order to pay for a raft of desperately-needed infrastructure to service the exploding population, the government passed a law preventing anyone under 75 from drawing down their superannuation. So I'm stuck working for at least a few more years, but it's not all bad. Thanks to the influx of people, real estate markets are booming and there's plenty of consulting work for a grizzled industry veteran like me.

What to do now? There's no point trying to catch a train home, they'll be jam packed until at least 9. A cab? Maybe, except the roads will be gridlocked until 8 and I couldn't be bothered trying to direct a driver who neither understands English nor can work his GPS. There's nothing for it, then - it's off to the pub for a couple of hours.

I call my wife on my new AppleIvidPhone and tell her I'm going to be late. In the background I can hear the noise from the construction site next door where our neighbour's old house is being demolished to make way for 5 new townhouses. I can tell by her expression that it's driving her mad, but it doesn't matter as in a couple of days we are off to Japan for a holiday and will be getting away from all the disruption. The dollar is buying 500 Yen at the moment which is a bargain in anyone's language.

I get hold of a couple of industry mates and we arrange to meet at our usual watering hole on Lonsdale Street close to Spencer Street station. Years ago, the now-defunct newspaper the Age used to have its headquarters here, but the site was redeveloped about 15 years ago into a thriving restaurant, office and residential precinct. We order our drinks and as usual, start talking about the good old days when Melbourne was half its size and beers only cost $4 a pot.

But tonight, I just can't seem to get into the banter. A lot is on my mind. First and foremost is the question, do I really need to keep working and putting up with living in town? The place had really gone to the dogs in the last 10 years. Surely we've got enough capital behind us, even disregarding the superannuation we're never going to get to enjoy. The block next door to us just sold for redevelopment for $10 million, meaning our place is probably worth at least $12 million. Then there's the investment units we bought about 20 years ago. Together they're worth at least $10 million. But then, what happens to our kids? They're still living at home because inner city housing has now become ridiculously expensive. Sure, they can get something pretty cheap on the urban fringe at Yarra Glen or Pakenham, but why would they want to live out there when they both work in town?

There has to be an answer though. Maybe we can maintain a townhouse somewhere in the City and then pick up something liveable in the Dandenongs where we can spend our dotage. After all, people's obsession with living on the coast has meant the mountain areas are relatively more affordable. Time to start doing a bit more research and speaking to some agents. Draining my beer, I excuse myself and head for home on another depressingly over-loaded train. Smiling wryly at the young Asian student who is wedged into my left armpit, I wonder at the madness of politicians who let this all happen. Sure, the future is bright for the country, but did it really have to be so crowded?

Trying to predict the future is of course a mug's game, but on the current growth trajectory of the Australian population, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the scenario above eventuates pretty much as I have described it. On current forecasts, the population is likely to hit 36 million by 2050 and eventually peak at somewhere around 50 million. More locally, it is estimated that approximately 90,000 people are moving to Melbourne each year, meaning that by 2030 the population could well be in excess of 6,000,000, making Melbourne the approximate size of current day Hong Kong or Rio de Janeiro. When you consider that the population of Australian has only just reached 22 million from 8 million just after World War 2, adding another 14 million people in just 30 years is a pretty scary prospect and is going to have profound consequences on the Australian way of life.

Despite the looming demographic challenges of such a steep increase in population, politicians on both sides of the fence seem oddly blase about it. There seems to be a view that a large immigration intake is overwhelmingly positive, as it will bring new skills and cultural benefits to Australia as well as allow us to fulfil our economic potential and become a big player on the world stage. At the same time, giving away $5000 to encourage people to have children they might not otherwise have had is seen as a clever initiative to supplement migration.

To give you an idea how favourably disposed governments are to immigration, net overseas migration into Australia in the 2006/7 year totalled a whopping 177,600 people, or to put in in perspective, the equivalent of the entire population of Geelong moving to Australia in one year. I expect this figure reduced a bit during the GFC but more recent figures were not available on the government's website. However you would expect based on prior year's figures that the net intake annual would still be well in excess of 100,000.

When I read figures like this and then see Rudd and Abbott on the television talking tough on border protection, I just laugh. What they conveniently fail to mention is that the average number of boat people that have landed and been detained in Australia in the last 2 years is around 2500, and even that figure represents a big spike from the longer term average of 600. It is highly disingenuous for politicians to make a big song and dance about guarding our back door from immigrants when they have the red carpet rolled out at the front. They also conveniently gloss over the fact that most immigration offences come not from boat people but from people "overstaying their visa" (read: doing a runner and effectively becoming illegal immigrants like boat people) or abusing the terms of their visa. Instead of belting up a few desperate boat people, what the government should be doing is working out how the hell they are going to settle all the new arrivals here in a way that doesn't cause rioting on the streets.

I should point out I am not against migration per se. It is crucial for keeping the culture and the economy young and vibrant. One need only look at the example of Japan over the last 20 years to show what can happen to a country when immigration is not encouraged. Nor do I think we should discriminate as a nation and prefer migrants from one part of the world over another. The ugliness of the White Australia policy and more recently, Pauline Hanson, were not among our proudest moments as a nation.

What I would seriously question however is the VOLUME of immigration, particularly when you consider the limitations Australia suffers from. A significant part of the country is desert and as a result, we are one of the most urbanised countries on Earth. Nearly 2/3rds of the population live in the 5 main capital cities, and disregarding Canberra, the biggest inland city is Toowoomba in Queensland at 128,000. Where does the government think all these migrants are going to move to when they come here? Quorn? Quilpie? Of course not, they're not stupid. They are going to move where the jobs are and they can have a good quality of life, namely the capital cities and coastal areas. This of course puts massive strain on infrastructure such as housing, water and my great bugbear, roads. Just ask anyone who has tried to drive up to the Sunshine Coast from Brisbane on Boxing Day how the roads are coping.

Secondly, as well as being one of the driest countries on Earth, we are also one of the most isolated. It's one thing for someone to migrate from say Poland over to the UK, as the two countries are relatively proximate and it is fairly simple to both integrate in the new country and stay in touch with friends and relatives in the old. Moving from Poland to Australia however is a whole different thing and it is therefore not entirely surprising that migrants from places like Sudan or Albania feel incredibly isolated when they move here. The result of this is that ghettoes form as migrants from the same country band together, often resulting in ugly racial confrontations like that in Cronulla a few years ago. The government ought to be investing more time and resources in making the people who are already here feel welcome and settled instead of rushing like mad to bring in the next batch.

High immigration intakes aren't all bad though. It's true that we do get a lot more cultural divergence in our society and anyone who owns inner-city or coastal real estate is going to become incredibly rich if the size of our population does swell by 60% over the next 20 years. But ultimately we have to weigh these sorts of benefits up with the costs. Do we really want Sydney to become like some upstart Manhattan? Do we really want our pristine beaches like Peregian and Vivonne Bay crammed with ghastly high rise apartments? I for one would be happy to sacrifice seeing my wealth double every 8 years so that my children can afford to buy a house, I can ride on a train without dying of asphyxiation and can water the garden without feeling like a criminal. I suspect also many others would be prepared to make a similar sacrifice.

Following the fall of Singapore in 1941, the Australian government reacted with justifiable alarm at the threat posed to our sovereignty following the sudden breakdown of British Imperial power in the Asia-Pacific. The Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell coined the expression "Populate or Perish" and embarked after the war on a program of large-scale immigration to help ensure that Australia would be able to withstand invasion.

How ironic it is that 70 years on, instead of stopping us from perishing, large-scale immigration is causing us to perish in so many ways. Water shortages, inadequate social infrastructure and rampant development of our coastal areas all act like painful paper cuts to our way of life. Our government, however, with its obsession with the economy and continuing growth, doesn't see the bigger picture. By maintaining high immigration levels and trying to get Australia into the global big league, they ignore the punishing effect their policies have on the daily lives of their citizens.

And that is a far bigger tragedy than any GFC will ever be.

Treat the Cause, not the Symptoms

Given the ANZAC Day commemorations going on both around the country and in Turkey, it is an opportune time to reflect on the wars which Australian servicemen have been involved in and what legacy those conflicts have left on both Australia and those who served. Whatever the conflict, from Gallipoli to Afghanistan, those politicians or ex-soldiers entrusted with the commemoration speeches seem to evoke the same themes: sacrifice, heroism, endurance, extreme courage under adversity and last but not least, mateship.

These are all noble human qualities, and it is widely acknowledged that the extreme circumstances of war do in fact bring out the best in people. Luckily, I don't know this first hand and hopefully my children never will either. However, on the flip side, anyone with a friend or relative who has served in active combat knows that their experiences cast a pall over their life and will often cause them great difficulty in fitting back into normal society once their service is over. What can make things especially galling is where the cause that they were fighting for subsequently proves unjustified or politically unpopular.

In this regard, you have to feel for the veterans of conflicts like Vietnam, Afghanistan and the two Iraq wars. Unlike the two World Wars where the battle lines were clearly drawn and there was an obvious purpose to the conflict, post-WW2 and especially since the fall of the former Soviet Union, the question of who the good and bad guys are has become a lot more complex. Also, after everybody realised what the atomic bomb was capable of, no-one was prepared to go to those lengths again to decisively end a conflict. This effectively meant the end for conventional warfare as a successful means of conflict resolution, with the result that in subsequent battles, the stronger power (most often, the USA) found itself after some initial successes mired in never-ending guerilla combat with an ever-more elusive enemy. Think about it and you will realise that sovereign countries seem to no longer represent the enemy; instead, the wars tend to be waged against extreme religious groups such as the Taliban, shadowy insurgent organisations such as Al Qaeda or most bizarrely, on words such as "terror" and "terrorists".

Given the dynamics of the modern world, dropping a few bunker-buster bombs is no longer an effective means for sovereign nations to resolve their differences with another. In circumstances where the electorate are generally well-educated and won't swallow propaganda, government budgets in the western world are stretched to the limit and the enemy, if you can actually identify them, won't engage on your terms, leaders need to get a lot smarter about dealing both with world troublespots such as the Middle East and organisations like Al Qaeda. For example, instead of reacting to a terrorist attack by blowing up the country that is supposedly harbouring them, governments would do well to examine closely the geopolitical reasons behind why the attack took place and take heed of these in the context of their future foreign policy decisions. In the long run, addressing the causes of why a terrorist attack has taken place by removing the reasons for resenting rich countries is a far more effective solution than instead treating the symptoms of terrorism by incarcerating people for years in detention or spending billions on ineffective airport security measures.

To illustrate my point, assume that a disenfranchised, uneducated young man observes US forces walking the streets of Kabul and rightly or wrongly, despises what he sees as an invasion of his country. He may also remember the repellent nature of the Taliban regime, but sees this as the lesser of two evils and therefore, becomes ripe for recruitment by the rebels. If on the other hand, instead of troops he witnessed American contractors building hospitals, schools or other social infrastructure pursuant to UN sanctioned aid packages, then he is clearly going to be far less motivated to attack Americans or American interests.

Despite the obvious logic to this approach, unfortunately when confronted with a threat, countries still tend to shoot first and think later, mostly with disastrous humanitarian and monetary consequences. For instance, following the September 11 attacks, the USA has spent $1.03 trillion on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, at a time when it can ill afford the money.

Let's think about that sum for a minute - $1.03 trillion - and put in in perspective. Based on 2009 profit figures, Australia's biggest company, BHP Billiton, would need to operate at that level for 67 years to earn that amount of cash. Based on an average price of $550,000 that's enough loot to comfortably buy every house in Melbourne, probably leaving enough loose change to throw Geelong into the bargain. And to earn that sort of coin, a schoolteacher earning $50,000 per year would need to work for 20.6 million years.

It's only when you think about the vast amount of cash in these terms that you begin to realise how much good that money could have done both domestically and on foreign aid schemes abroad if it hadn't been flushed down the toilet on these two ridiculous wars. This from a country that signed up to the Millenium Development Goals to annually contribute 0.7% of GDP to overseas development (roughly $100 billion, or 1/6th of the Pentagon's annual budget), but is now refusing to honour its commitments, citing a lack of belief if in the utility of foreign aid and other more pressing priorities.

I hate to keep rabbiting on about the US government and in particular, the Bush Administration, as it gets tedious after a while. However, even in its weakened economic state, the USA is still the dominant military and economic power in the world and is therefore in the best position to make positive change in this area. This is why it is so frustrating when its leaders, often completely at odds with public opinion and the lessons of history, persist with foreign policy that exacerbates rather than helps solve major problems in the world.

In terms of history, one need look no further than the different approaches adopted by the victors after the two world wars. After WWI, the allies adopted a punitive approach to Germany, forcing it to make severe war reparations. Unsurprisingly, significant resentment grew from within Germany which contributed to the rise of the Nazis and a resumption of hostilities within 20 years. Learning the lessons from this, after WW2 a more collaborative approach was taken through the implementation of the Marshall Plan to rebuild war-ravaged Europe. The result this time was completely different, with the western world enjoying many years of economic prosperity and no more conflicts of the scale of WW2.

In fact, the words of General George Marshall when he announced the plan, while uttered over 60 years ago, are never more relevant than today. This is what he said:

"It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist."

One hopes that the US administration might again soon heed these words. Who knows, with Obama fresh from at least a partial victory on health care reform, maybe he will be emboldened to make some changes in other areas like increasing foreign aid and cutting back on defence spending. In doing so, history shows that would be a big step towards eradicating extreme poverty in the world and creating lasting peace.

What a prospect, prosperity and peace. That would REALLY give us something to celebrate on ANZAC Day.

Who Said Cricket was Boring?

As Richie Benaud and his alter-ego Billy Birmingham have said ad nauseam, it's a funny game, cricket. What other game in the world involves standing round in the blazing sun for 5 days in uncomfortable attire with the possibility that at the end of the match, there won't be a winner? This very fact has been the cause of many a household argument in Australia, as wives simply cannot comprehend how their spouses can stay glued to the television for 5 consecutive days watching a spectacle in which the participants, to the untrained eye, barely seem to move.

The argument usually escalates when the watching of cricket interferes with the moving of heavy objects or other household chores that the lady of the house considers would be a better use of her husband's time. The argument typically ends with the husband reluctantly flicking off the television and shuffling off to resume chores while a shrill voice behind him screams: "How can you watch that boring crap all day?"

I can handle being berated for being a sloth but I do take exception to that last comment. Because to me and millions of other Australians, cricket is patently not boring. While it is true that a lot of test matches turn out to be one-sided, there is nothing quite as gripping as a game that goes deep into the 5th day with the batting side needing to score only a modest total to win but with the pitch wearing fast and starting to keep low and turn sideways. It's in these high pressure situations that legends are made and you learn which teams have the mettle necessary to win the fight. Good examples are the 1992-3 Adelaide test where the West Indies defeated Australia by 1 run despite a gallant rearguard action by the Australian tail and the more recent Ashes test (also in Adelaide) which looked to be headed for a tame draw before a dramatic English collapse handed Australia an unlikely victory.

That said, and despite my enthusiasm for all forms of the game, I regret to say that during parts of last summer, I found myself agreeing with the wives of Australia: the cricket was fairly boring. Still smarting from losing the Ashes, the capable but far from great Australian team wiped the floor with two very poor sides in the West Indies and Pakistan. The Pakistanis in particular were very disappointing. Despite possessing some good young talent, the coaching staff had clearly neglected to teach them even the basics of fielding. I lost count of how many "sitters" went down but the number must have been well into double digits.

As for the Windies, the rise of "Twenty20 Cricket" seems to have polluted the mindset of their team to such an extent that they are now incapable of applying themselves for the full 5 days necessary to win a test match. They would perform convincingly in the odd session here or there but would then squander it in the next with awful shot selection or wayward bowling, which completely released the pressure on the Australians. It's hard to see the South Africans, Indians or even the English performing so poorly, so as a forerunner to next year's Ashes, it was not a very good build up for the Australians.

Off the field, it was the same story - highly tedious. The retirement of Shane Warne has left a huge void in this area. No players were caught trashing schoolkids cameras, there were no texting scandals and no-one was sanctioned for on field sledging or getting plastered in a seedy Kings Cross bar. Also in this era of uber-fitness, David Boon's Melbourne-London benchmark of 44 cans is likely never to be broken. It was if the whole cricketing community had taken a leaf out of Kevin Rudd's book and resolved to bore everyone into submission.

That is, until about 4-5 weeks ago, when cricket once again found itself on the front page. For probably the wrong reasons, granted, but nonetheless at least cricket had become interesting again. First, naked pictures of Michael Clarke's fiance, Lara Bingle, found their way into the public domain, sparking a controversy that eventually ended with Clarke breaking off the relationship. Secondly, John Howard crawled out from under a rock and was nominated by Australia and New Zealand to take over as the ICC president from 2012.

The media circus surrounding "Bingle-gate" was extraordinary. All sorts of people seemed to have something to say on the issue, including politicians, past Australian captains, the head of the AFL and respected cricket writers like Peter Roebuck, who really should have known better than to weigh into such a tawdry debate in the manner in which he did. Reading some of the vitriolic rubbish written about Bingle, you would think she had not only slept with every sportsman in Australia but broke up the Beatles, brought down the Profumo government and generally surpassed the Whore of Babylon as the most notorious scarlet woman in human history. It's easy to forget amongst all the gutter press that the girl is only 22 years old, and who among us could claim not to have made some mistakes with relationships at that age? Gee whiz, Madonna is still doing it and she's way past 50.

I don't know how much of what what written was true, and frankly couldn't care less. The only relevant thing to me arising out of the whole fiasco is how Michael Clarke the cricketer responded. For that, he gets full marks. Fresh from giving Bingle the boot, he flew straight back into a scrum of annoying Kiwi journalists and then proceeded to tear the New Zealand attack apart in the two tests.

It is truly the mark of a great sportsman when you can put aside your personal issues like Clarke did and perform to the best of your ability. Clarke's performance was reminiscent of Warne in the 2005 Ashes when despite going through a divorce, being busted on camera sporting Playboy underwear and a massive inflatable condom and having his more sordid text messages published daily in the local rag, he delivered a series of heroic on-field performances and almost single-handedly retained the Ashes for Australia. As for whether Clarke is better off personally after the whole sordid affair - frankly, that's no-one business but his.

Turning now to the Howard appointment, you have to seriously ask what on Earth the Australian and New Zealand delegates were thinking. I don't dispute that Howard is passionate about cricket; in fact, I would say that his love of the game is matched only by his complete inability to play it. However, I would seriously question his ability to deal appropriately with the ICC nations who have predominantly coloured cricketers - which these days is pretty much everyone except England, Australia and New Zealand.

We have all witnessed first-hand Howard's behaviour while Prime Minister of this country. While too canny a politician to ever promulgate or explicitly adopt racist policies, his conduct over his long tenure as PM would no doubt have raised the eyebrows of even the most ardent Howard apologist. As a great prophet once said, "by their actions you shall know them". Further, as the maxim goes "leopards don't change their spots".

In an era where the game's power base is moving towards the sub-continent and away from England and Australia, what effect will the appointment of someone with Howard's attitudes have on the administration of the game? Is he likely to encourage and promote the massive Twenty20-driven revenue growth coming out of India, which has the potential to underpin the viability of the game worldwide for decades to come? Hardly likely, as that would undermine the position of the game's traditional powers. More probably he will endeavour to frustrate the Indians through measures such as banning overseas players from the IPL and thereby promote the interests of England and Australia. The result will invariably be a divided ICC board, with the likelihood that in-fighting will severely retard the global advancement of the game at a time when it could, instead, be entering a new golden age.

Morally liberated people like Bingle make me wonder while morally repugnant people like Howard make me sad. However, you do have to acknowledge they make life, and cricket, much more interesting.

Take note, Kevin Rudd.

And the Oscar goes to ... "The Hurt Locker". We Hope.

It's Oscar time again, and the suspense is building. Despite a field of reasonable contenders, two films stand out. The first is a big budget fantasy laden with one dimensional characters. It has a hero, a predictable storyline and ultimately ends implausibly but happily and predictably with the meek inheriting the Earth. In fact, whoever wrote the Beatitudes could just about sue for copyright infringement.

The second film, however, is dark, gritty and somewhat violent. It contains many anti-heroes, but no obvious heroes. Like its competitor, the film is long, yet so gripping and suspenseful that the time spent in the cinema passes in a flash. You leave with the feeling that you have witnessed something quite special, but you are not quite sure what that is. It is only much later when you have had time to digest it all that you truly grasp the brilliance of the movie and the genius of the director.

Naturally, given it's a bunch of unadventurous Americans who award the Oscar, the first film wins hands down.

You could easily think I am predicting the outcome of this Sunday's Academy Awards, when James Cameron's 10 foot purple aliens go up against Katherine Bigelow's malediction on the Iraq War. Instead, however, I am recollecting what happened at the 1994 awards, where "Forrest Gump" swept all before it and Quentin Tarantino's brilliant "Pulp Fiction" went largely ignored. History has since proven the Academy's decision to be flawed, as "Pulp Fiction's" influence continues to reverberate around the film industry today, while "Forrest Gump" has proven to be just another forgettable "feel good" movie.

Will history repeat itself? It's entirely possible, as "Avatar" is indeed an impressive visual spectacle - but then so it should be, given the phenomenal budget. However, if the true measure of the worth of a film is the extent to which it leaves an indelible effect on its audience, then "Avatar" plainly should not win. In terms of its plot, characterisation and themes, it constitutes fairy floss next to "Hurt Locker's" meat and potatoes. One hopes that the Academy will recognise this, ignore the James Cameron cheer squad (aka the mainstream press) and award the Oscar to his ex-wife's film.

What was so good about "The Hurt Locker"? War movies are a dime a dozen - let's face it, the way the USA executes foreign policy ensures there is plenty of material to exploit - and most of them are complete rubbish. Some of them are no more than "splatter" movies set against the backdrop of a war, with multiple explosions and one-dimensional villains being the order of the day. Others make the mistake of trying to depict war as a glorious battle of the righteous USA against whoever their current arch enemy is, be that the Vietcong, the Japanese or Saddam Hussein, when any moviegoer with half a brain knows the reality of war is far more complex. (NB- In this vein, I hope the idiots who made "Pearl Harbour" are reading this; then again, I doubt they can actually read. They certainly can't read history books accurately).

The ones that work don't fall into these obvious traps and ensure that the human element of war is squarely in focus and that the main characters are properly developed. This is not to say that the films don't involve plenty of carnage - it is just that the carnage is there to complement the storyline, rather than be the storyline itself.

"The Hurt Locker" certainly fits this category. The film, while not a documentary, is filmed in a documentary-style and centres around the travails of a 3-man US Army bomb disposal team working in Iraq. When the leader of the team is killed by a remotely detonated bomb, he is replaced by a battle-hardened maverick, Sergeant Will James, whose cavalier but highly competent methods immediately create a conflict with the other two members of the team. The action flows thick and fast as the team are confronted with a succession of nerve-jangling situations including expertly concealed bombs, getting caught in a sniper fight in the middle of the Iraqi desert and finding an Iraqi child who had been befriended by James earlier in the film killed and stuffed with explosives during a raid on a warehouse. With each new scene, a caption runs across the bottom of the screen identifying how long the team has to go in its tour of duty and leaves the viewer begging the question: are all of the team going to make it through? As this is clearly not a movie destined for a happy ending, this is far from a certain thing. The team gradually come to appreciate James's considerable skill, but remain wary of his often reckless behaviour and as a result, the built up tension between them simmers beneath the surface before erupting in a drunken barrack room fight one evening.

The climax of the film involves James attempting but failing to save an Iraqi civilian who had been strapped with bombs by his captors. After this incident, the team's tour of duty finishes and we see James trying unsuccessfully to re-adapt to civilian life back in America with his wife and child. The movie ends with James rejoining the war effort for another year long tour, leaving the viewer with the distinct impression that given the events of the last 30 days, James would be very unlikely to survive.

What distinguishes this film from one such as "Avatar" is that the characters are very real and therefore behave in a realistic fashion when confronted with a variety of ghastly situations. As such you find yourself getting under their skin and empathising with them, something that is impossible in "Avatar". Also the main messages of the film, such as the value of maverick operators in otherwise regimented armies, the futility of fighting a campaign such as Iraq using conventional warfare and the issues faced by war veterans trying to reintegrate into normal society, while clearly evident, are not rammed down your throat like they are in "Avatar". Instead of feeding you mind candy, the "The Hurt Locker" aims like all good cinema to provoke, shock and most importantly, get you to think about its subject matter and themes.

I was impressed enough to rank it second behind "Das Boot" in my list of favourite war movies. Other worthy films, in no particular order, include "Full Metal Jacket", "Platoon", "Apocalypse Now", "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Gallipoli", "Memphis Belle" and "The Deer Hunter".

Let's hope the Academy agrees. Filmmakers ought to be encouraged to make original, thought-provoking films like "Pulp Fiction" and "The Hurt Locker", and apart from a killing at the box office, what better encouragement is there than an Oscar? While it's a big ask to knock off a contender with a $230 million budget to spend on the production, hopefully the judges see past the whizz-bang special effects and look to the underlying quality of the movie. At that level, it really is no contest. "The Hurt Locker" by a mile. Check it out if you haven't already.

Why Abbott is Abhorrent

Let's face it, while Australia got through the GFC relatively unscathed thanks to some decisive action from the government, there's still a lot to dislike about Kevin Rudd and his team. The man himself is terminally bland, speaks in a language that sounds like it's been scripted by Accenture and micromanages everything to such an extent that very little actually gets done.

He seems determined to eliminate colour out of politics entirely, with the result that his Cabinet is collectively about as interesting as a vanilla milkshake (the feisty 'ranga, Julia Gillard aside). Draining all the charisma and mojo out of someone like Peter Garrett is a big ask, but K-Rudd seems to have managed it. There is a lot of talk - far too much for my liking - on issues such as becoming a republic, climate change and improving the lot of aboriginals, but precious little action.

However while I find Rudd mildly irritating, the prospect of Tony Abbott becoming Prime Minister fills me with horror. This is because despite being leader of the Liberal Party, Abbott is not a liberal thinker - he is a conservative. And not just a small "c" conservative, he's right up there on the political Richter scale among the likes of Bush, Reagan and Thatcher.

Worryingly given it's an election year, Abbott seems to have made a reasonable start as opposition leader. The buffoon who went round picking fights with asbestos victims at the last election has had a makeover from the spin doctors and the 2010 version comes across as much more polished, cuddly and moderate.

Don't be fooled though. It is all a front designed to recapture the middle ground. Abbott is about as cuddly as an echidna with a bad case of psoriasis. If he gets elected, we will be right back where we were when we finally saw the back of that pox on society, John Howard. Let's be absolutely clear here - a vote for Tony Abbott is not a vote for the liberal party; it is a vote for the conservative party. To illustrate my point, let's consider the differing viewpoints of conservatives and liberals on a range of issues:

• Conservatives believe steadfastly in God, however only one that is Christian and protestant. Maybe a Catholic one at a pinch; but certainly not a Jewish or Islamic God. A fair few liberals also practice a faith of some sort; but also recognise that their faith isn't the only one out there and that we need to show tolerance to peoples of other creeds.
• Conservatives think the White Australia Policy was a terrific idea and should still be going today; liberals recognise that blatantly racist policies like this are entirely inappropriate in the modern era.
• Conservatives believe in capital punishment for certain crimes; liberals believe that no crime could be so heinous as to merit such punishment, and that the punishment is probably worse than the crime itself.
• Conservatives believe that welfare shouldn't be the government's responsibility and should be provided solely by charity groups; liberals recognise the need for government to provide a reasonable safety net.
• Conservatives think that homosexuality is an abomination against God; liberals believe that while it might not be for them, what happens in people's bedrooms is their own business.
• Conservatives think that any trade union or other employee association which stands in the way of big business making money should be outlawed; liberals believe big business should be entitled to make money, but recognise the need for a fair working arrangement between employer and employee.
• Conservatives think all boat people are cynical queue jumpers who should be sent straight back to their wartorn home countries on the first available 44-gallon drum. Liberals, while concerned about border protection, realise things are not that simple and that certain asylum seekers ought to be allowed to settle here.
• Conservatives think government should be as small as possible and taxes as low as possible. Liberals recognise that governments have certain basic obligations to their citizens and need to provide certain services to enable society to function properly.
• Conservatives think the monarchy should continue forever; liberals are genuinely puzzled as to why our head of state isn't Australian.
• Conservatives think that climate change is a load of piffle dreamed up by socialists to stop big business making money; liberals deal in reality.

I could go on ad nauseam, but I'm sure you get my drift. This is not to say that I don't agree with conservatives on some things (capital punishment for driving at 40kph in the right lane is something I would like to see), but when you go through the list above, I definitely don't want one of them running the country. The scary thing is that Tony Abbott probably believes most of this stuff and if he gets elected, he is going to be driven to do what he believes. Why wouldn't he? That's what we all do, isn't it? Spin doctors are pretty adept at dressing up a donkey and calling it a stallion, but they aren't miracle workers. They can't do personality and conscience transplants.

It's a very human trait to quickly forget what went on in the past and move on with our lives. After a gruelling 2 years going through the GFC and listening to Kevin spout incomprehensible nonsense, people might start scratching their heads and begin thinking that John Howard wasn't so bad after all. Well, don't. In case you have forgotten, here are some of the things that Howard and his bunch of morally bankrupt bovver boys did:

• Locked up refugee children in hell hole camps in the middle of the desert, or sent them off to that lovely island paradise, Nauru. That's after they falsely accused their parents of throwing them off the boat.
• Got us involved in two costly and unnecessary wars with countries that posed no threat to Australia, merely because George Bush had a whim that Saddam Hussein had some peashooters and Osama Bin Laden was hiding under a rock somewhere in Afghanistan.
• Along with - guess who, George Bush - failed to sign the Kyoto protocol or develop any policy to address climate change until he realised too late it might be a vote winner.
• Cynically played up non-existent terrorist threats with the express purpose of scaring the bejesus out of the population and ensure they wouldn't vote him of office.
• Implicitly approved of Pauline Hanson, and annoyed our important Asian trading neighbours to the extreme by letting her run unchecked around the country stirring up racial hatred.
• Failed to do anything to advance the health and wellbeing of aborigines and let them wallow in squalid camps in the Northern Territory.
• Gave away millions as a "baby bonus" to bogans to spend on plasmas in pursuit of a misguided view that a country that is 90% desert somehow needs a lot more people.
• Subtly sabotaged what was meant to be a bi-partisan republic debate and ensured the republic referendum never had a prayer of succeeding.
• Frittered away the windfall benefits of the biggest mining boom in a century on unnecessary tax cuts and pork-barrelling. Don't blame K-Rudd for the deficit; blame Costello.
• Made Islamic Australians feel unwelcome in their own country.
• Hobbled the ABC and the CSIRO by putting in McKinsey-trained halfwits to run them like businesses instead of how they were meant to be run.
• Brought in employment legislation so draconian and odious that it ultimately proved their undoing.

Again, I could go on, but I'm afraid I will burst a blood vessel if I do. Still, if you think all this stuff is terrific, then go ahead and vote for Tony. After all, it's not like the incumbents are that inspiring, are they. Just don't come crying to me if the Chinese cut all trading ties with us and we spend billions invading some country ending in "Stan".

How depressing. Neo-Con Tony or Kevin "Programmatic Specificity" Rudd. It's a bit like choosing between sticking your fingers in a paper shredder or, to quote Blackadder, beating your tongue wafer thin with a meat tenderiser, then stapling it to the floor with a croquet hoop. Maybe I'll pick up my family and go live somewhere else where they have a decent government.

Hmm, let me think. The only place that comes to mind is Mars.

Let's Leave Saving the World to Scientists

Happy (belated) new year. I have taken a hiatus over summer, but am now back to continue my disgusted cry from the heart of the beast.

Part of the reason I have been "offline" is that we went on a family holiday to the USA for just under a month. It was an interesting trip on a number of fronts (not the least running into the serial texter Shane Warne on the flight from LA to Vegas) but it was good to spend most of the time in the Big Apple and get a feel for the American "zeitgeist". 4 things were clearly apparent:

• The economy is still well and truly in the toilet, the west coast in particular
• Tiger Woods is a very naughty boy
• As far as a lot of Americans are concerned, events in the rest of the world to them are about as relevant as what is happening on Jupiter (not that that is a news flash)
• Barack Obama's honeymoon is well and truly over, to the point where that bastion of quality journalism, the New York Post, was practically calling for his lynching

You have to feel a bit for Obama. Taking over as he did from the Idiot Son, and with the country in a dreadful economic mess, it's hard to think of any recent political leader assuming office with greater expectation on them. Despite what seem to be well-meaning attempts to reform health care, boost the economy and address climate change, all he seems to have done is disappoint the liberals, who don't think he has gone far enough, and infuriate the conservatives, who think that public health care and conserving the environment are insidious Socialist conspiracies.

The sight of a frustrated Obama being shut out of Premier Wen's suite in Copenhagen while trying to salvage something out of the farcical climate change talks pretty much summed up his year. It was also a stark reminder of the impotence of politicians in bringing about real change in the world, which given the weight of expectation on him, probably explains why Obama is about as popular as a fart in an elevator right now. For me, episodes like Copenhagen just reinforce my view that any great advances that are going to improve the lot of humankind are best left to those qualified to deliver them - scientists. Which leads, finally, to my point.

I have to say the whole direction of the climate change debate confuses me greatly. Unlike halfwits such as Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott, I am prepared to accept the consensus view of 97% of the world's scientific community that the planet is getting hotter. The fact that 6 of the last 10 summers have been the hottest on record clearly support this view, and if Minchin bothered to go back to his native Adelaide this summer where the mercury has rarely dipped below 40 degrees, he might just change his mind. I also accept that human activity is probably contributing to the changes and that humankind therefore should do something to address it, in much the same way that we stopped putting ozone-depleting fluorocarbons in fridges years ago.

What I find difficult to swallow, however, is the indignant moralising of environmentalists and some world leaders that the ONLY way to address the problem is to repent for our past sins and stop putting carbon into the atmosphere. The fact that the whole thrust of the Copenhagen talks and Kyoto before that were confined solely to the politically expedient method of cutting greenhouse emissions rather than considering other solutions just highlights how the wrong people have hijacked the debate. In order to fix this problem, we need clever scientific solutions, not drawn-out and potentially counterproductive talks.

For centuries, science has managed to come up with remarkably simple solutions to problems that seemed insurmountable at the time and which confounded the politicians of the day. When New York was overrun by horse dung in the late 19th century, some clever people came up with the motor car as an alternative means of transport (which ironically was seen at the time as a fabulous outcome for the environment). Putting fluoride in water, as opposed to fridges, has provided a massive benefit in terms of preventative dental care while putting cheap filters on power station exhaust stacks fixed the problem of acid rain. In the field of economics, Keynes and his theories, which seem blindingly obvious today, had a major role in ending the Great Depression.

Similarly, a team of scientists in Seattle have come up with a solution for dealing with global warming which is both remarkable in its simplicity and the cost to implement. Recognising that following major volcanic eruptions, the Earth goes through a period of a cooler than usual climate, the team determined that this was caused by the volcano belching sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, or layer of atmosphere immediately above the troposphere. While sulphur dioxide is also a by-product of man-made industrial processes, the gas generated is not emitted with enough force to shoot it into the stratosphere and it remains in the lower atmosphere, where it has no cooling effect.

What the team proposed was building some form of "hose", which could either be a stand alone structure or be attached to major power plants which, instead of leaving the gas in the troposphere where it would be just another pollutant, would pump it into the stratosphere, thereby simulating a volcanic eruption and have a beneficial cooling effect. Rough costings for building such a structure would run into millions (as opposed to the billions proposed by the Stern report measures) and start having an immediate effect (as opposed to the Stern report measures which will take decades before having a meaningful effect).

This is just one of a number of remarkably simple ideas currently being considered by the scientific community which could, if implemented properly, bring about a quick and easy solution to the issue of climate change. However, it is hard to see something like a sulphur dioxide pump being considered seriously by the world's politicians or environmental evangelists. Using more pollutants to fix our pollution problem? It would not be politically correct at all. Far better to have massive talk-fests every 4 years and try and persuade China and India that they shouldn't have the free ride to industrialisation that the western world had. Good luck with that.

Unfortunately, world governments are set on going ever so slowly down the carbon reduction route, the targets for which are inadequate for us to stop some of the worst effects of climate change. While this might be frustrating, it is hardly surprising as governments are not wired for finding quick, simple and cheap solutions to problems; nor are they likely to do something that may be remarkably effective if it is likely to be unpopular. Inevitably the fix for most of society's problems comes from people like scientists and economists, whose thought processes aren't constrained by political correctness, media scrutiny or the need to be re-elected in 3 years time.

If the government really wants to get serious on climate change, when the next global climate change gab-fest comes around, Kevin Rudd should just give it a miss and donate the saved airfares and accommodation costs to the CSIRO. They're 1000 times more qualified than him to save our wretched souls.