View From The Couch - 26/Jul/2016

Runaway Trump

Since confirming his nomination as GOP nominee for the POTUS elections, the critiques, the attacks and brickbats have mounted against Donald Trump. It's game on for everybody to have a hack.

First cab off the rank was Michael Moore who pessimistically prognosticated a Trump win.

I can see what you’re doing right now. You’re shaking your head wildly – “No, Mike, this won’t happen!” Unfortunately, you are living in a bubble that comes with an adjoining echo chamber where you and your friends are convinced the American people are not going to elect an idiot for president. You alternate between being appalled at him and laughing at him because of his latest crazy comment or his embarrassingly narcissistic stance on everything because everything is about him. And then you listen to Hillary and you behold our very first female president, someone the world respects, someone who is whip-smart and cares about kids, who will continue the Obama legacy because that is what the American people clearly want! Yes! Four more years of this! 

You need to exit that bubble right now. You need to stop living in denial and face the truth which you know deep down is very, very real. Trying to soothe yourself with the facts – “77% of the electorate are women, people of color, young adults under 35 and Trump cant win a majority of any of them!” – or logic – “people aren’t going to vote for a buffoon or against their own best interests!” – is your brain’s way of trying to protect you from trauma. Like when you hear a loud noise on the street and you think, “oh, a tire just blew out,” or, “wow, who’s playing with firecrackers?” because you don’t want to think you just heard someone being shot with a gun. It’s the same reason why all the initial news and eyewitness reports on 9/11 said “a small planeaccidentally flew into the World Trade Center.” We want to – we need to – hope for the best because, frankly, life is already a shit show and it’s hard enough struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck. We can’t handle much more bad news. So our mental state goes to default when something scary is actually, truly happening. The first people plowed down by the truck in Nice spent their final moments on earth waving at the driver whom they thought had simply lost control of his truck, trying to tell him that he jumped the curb: “Watch out!,” they shouted. “There are people on the sidewalk!” 

Well, folks, this isn’t an accident. It is happening. And if you believe Hillary Clinton is going to beat Trump with facts and smarts and logic, then you obviously missed the past year of 56 primaries and caucuses where 16 Republican candidates tried that and every kitchen sink they could throw at Trump and nothing could stop his juggernaut. As of today, as things stand now, I believe this is going to happen – and in order to deal with it, I need you first to acknowledge it, and then maybe, just maybe, we can find a way out of the mess we’re in.

It's not a happy thought, and he's right in assuming we're all in denial that this is going on.

The more urgent hit came from the Washington Post, famous as the home of the guys who brought down Richard Nixon. This time it appears they're not taking any chances.

DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, thisweek became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew. 

Any one of these characteristics would be disqualifying; together, they make Mr. Trump a peril. We recognize that this is not the usual moment to make such a statement. In an ordinary election year, we would acknowledge the Republican nominee, move on to the Democratic convention and spend the following months, like other voters, evaluating the candidates’ performance in debates, on the stump and in position papers. This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views on all the candidates. But we cannot salute the Republican nominee or pretend that we might endorse him this fall. A Trump presidency would be dangerous for the nation and the world.

And on it goes, right down to the end where they say:

The party’s failure of judgment leaves the nation’s future where it belongs, in the hands of voters. Many Americans do not like either candidate this year . We have criticized the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, in the past and will do so again when warranted. But we do not believe that she (or the Libertarian and Green party candidates, for that matter) represents a threat to the Constitution. Mr. Trump is a unique and present danger.

Look, I don't know about you, but the candidacy of Donald Trump and the surprising Brexit vote and even the election of Tony Abbott indicates a world where democracy seems to have one to mean much less than it used to. We seem to be voting in favour of less tolerant less meaningful, less nuanced, less informed, less intelligent positions in spite of ourselves. A little like how we seem to like to cut off our noses to spite our own faces or cut off our dicks to spite our balls. We should know better than to be voting in the likes of Abbott or Turnbull, or listening to demagogues lie Farage, Gove and Boris Johnson, or for that matter making one Donald J. Trump a serious candidate for the Presidency of the most powerful nation on the planet on nothing but a promise to make that land great again (whatevertjhe hell that means). There are a lot of asshole voters giving into their inner fascist assholes in the first world.
I don't exactly relate to that mentality.

In that light, it is perhaps valuable to assay the catastrophes of the past that we as humans inflicted upon ourselves.

So zooming out, we humans have a habit of going into phases of mass destruction, generally self imposed to some extent or another. This handy list shows all the wars over time. Wars are actually the norm for humans, but every now and then something big comes along. I am interested in the Black Death, which devastated Europe. The opening of Boccaccio’s Decameron describes Florence in the grips of the Plague. It is as beyond imagination as the Somme, Hiroshima, or the Holocaust. I mean, you quite literally can’t put yourself there and imagine what it was like. For those in the midst of the Plague it must have felt like the end of the world. 

But a defining feature of humans is their resilience. To us now it seems obvious that we survived the Plague, but to people at the time it must have seemed incredible that their society continued afterwards. Indeed, many takes on the effects of the Black Death are that it had a positive impact in the long term. Well summed up here: “By targeting frail people of all ages, and killing them by the hundreds of thousands within an extremely short period of time, the Black Death might have represented a strong force of natural selection and removed the weakest individuals on a very broad scale within Europe,“ …In addition, the Black Death significantly changed the social structure of some European regions. Tragic depopulation created the shortage of working people. This shortage caused wages to rise. Products prices fell too. Consequently, standards of living increased. For instance, people started to consume more food of higher quality.” 

But for the people living through it, as with the World Wars, Soviet Famines, Holocaust, it must have felt inconceivable that humans could rise up from it. The collapse of the Roman Empire, Black Death, Spanish Inquisition, Thirty Years War, War of the Roses, English Civil War… it’s a long list. Events of massive destruction from which humanity recovered and move on, often in better shape. 

At a local level in time people think things are fine, then things rapidly spiral out of control until they become unstoppable, and we wreak massive destruction on ourselves. For the people living in the midst of this it is hard to see happening and hard to understand. To historians later it all makes sense and we see clearly how one thing led to another. During the Centenary of the Battle of the Somme I was struck that it was a direct outcome of the assassination of an Austrian Arch Duke in Bosnia. I very much doubt anyone at the time thought the killing of a minor European royal would lead to the death of 17 million people. 

My point is that this is a cycle. It happens again and again, but as most people only have a 50–100 year historical perspective they don’t see that it’s happening again. As the events that led to the First World War unfolded, there were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big was wrong, that the web of treaties across Europe could lead to a war, but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit, and Trump are dismissed now.

It makes for some sobering reading. The rest of it is no less somber and sobering. History tells us we're heading in for some self-destructive times. We'd better take note.

Meanwhile The Arseholes We Have Down Here

It's no secret Kevin Rudd wants to be the Secretary General of the UN. He has two problems on that front. One is that the Australian government hats officially endorse him as the Australian candidate. The other is that Helen Clarke is also running. While none of this is fresh news, the Australian Government has prevaricated mightily over Kevin Rudd's candidacy. In short, they don't want to give him the nod in cabinet. Why? Partisan politics.

Except John Key over in New Zealand's quite happy to endorse Helen Clark, who was the NZ Labour Prime Minister.

Mr Key, who hails from the conservative National Party in New Zealand, is barracking hard for his former Labour party rival Ms Clark to become the UN Secretary-General.
It marks a curious contrast with his Australian counterpart, Malcolm Turnbull, still struggling to decide whether his government will do the same for Mr Rudd. 

Mr Key also revealed he had spoken to Mr Turnbull about the race and was quizzed about whether he'd asked him not to support Mr Rudd. 

"I've had a couple of chats with him about it," Mr Key told breakfast television in New Zealand, but was coy about details. 

"All I'd say is if any person wants to be in the race, be in the race … You've got to get either your host country, preferably, or a country, to nominate you. At the moment, he [Mr Rudd] doesn't have a country nominating him. 

"I still think anyway, if it's a drag race between Kevin Rudd and Helen Clark, New Zealanders - and I reckon a hell of a lot of Australians - know who the best candidate is, and it's not Kevin Rudd."

It's all bit academic really, because the man in the lead is Antonio Guterres from Portugal. All the same, it's worth pointing out that Kevin Rudd was quite nice to departing Coalition politicians. The least they could do is return the damn favour. The fact that they don't immediately say yes says tons about these people. 

IOC Takes A Stand Against Doping And Passes The Buck

Nobody really has spine. 

It seemed a mere formality that the entire Russian team would be rubbed out, saving the Olympics any more of the embarrassment that the host city keeps heaping on itself with incomplete facilities. 

There was an expectation – not a mere desire – that Russia would be excluded.
Instead, the Olympic Committee's executive board has displayed the type of leadership that allows doping to flourish: it passes the buck and instructs individual sporting federations to decide which Russian athletes can compete in Rio. 

In other words, it has been left to sporting federations to wade through a legal minefield … in 12 days. 

Some of these sporting federations are loyal to Russia and the bottomless money it provides. Some are too scared. Some are complicit to doping themselves, turning a blind eye to the poison in their own sport and yes, cycling, we are looking at you. 

The IOC has had an appalling bet each-way. Foremost, it is a slap in the face for WADA, which has again been undermined. 

"WADA is disappointed that the IOC did not heed WADA's Executive Committee recommendations that were based on the outcomes of the McLaren investigation and would have ensured a straight-forward, strong and harmonised approach," WADA president Sir Craig Reedie said. "The McLaren Report exposed, beyond a reasonable doubt, a state-run doping program in Russia that seriously undermines the principles of clean sport embodied within the World Anti-Doping Code." 

That's not a few rogue athletes. That's not even a rogue sport. That's a rogue country. If the same happened here, we'd be calling for Royal Commissions, lifetime bans and jail time for those responsible.

Oh the outrage blahblahblah. As I asked - rhetorically - in my previous entry, are we done with this PED hysteria yet? We really need a new approach to the problem especially if the body that allegedly is in most favour of the current method of shaming athletes and banning them, won't back itself to carry out its policies. Go figure.  

We live in a world where haters are gonna hate and cheaters are gonna cheat. It's just the way it goes when sport is anachronistically wrapped up in nationalism of 200-odd nations,some of whom have no shot at any medal, but more importantly some of whom whose national pride depends upon it. Like Russia and Australia. The dumbest thing about the Olympics is how somebody from some nation wins a gold medal and the whole nation gets to thump their chest over that win. This idiotic bit of identification is bolstered by nationalist sentiment and misplaced identity politics. These are really 19th century kinds of modes of thinking, unbecoming of the 21st century. Yet here we are again at another Olympic Games ready urge our boys and girls on to medals. 

Go you beautiful Aussies as you swim through the raw sewerage waters of Rio! Do we relate to this experience? Really?  

Quick Shots 31/Jan/2016

Cannabis In Focus

It's one of those days where the news is telling you something. First off, there's the report that the Budget Office modelled what the GST revenue would look like if marijuana was legalised. The estimate sits at about $300m year.

The PBO, which was set up to provide independent and non-partisan budget analysis to politicians, did the costings at the request of libertarian crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm, who wants marijuana fully legalised.

If such a policy were introduced in July 2017 it would raise $600 million in GST revenue in the first two years, the PBO found. 

That money would flow on to the states but the policy would also help the federal government through reduced law enforcement costs. 

The government would save about $100 million a year in reduced Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force costs, the PBO says.

So tire's actually a money incentive to legalise marijuana that's spelt out in a report. $300m a year is not chump change. That's money right now that's totally underground in the black market so you'd think it would been the interests of the government to stop letting that revenue going the pockets of criminals and put it to good use. There's even a $100m dividend for the savings with the AFP which could be put to use elsewhere. You'd think it's a no-brainer, but I guess it's just too permissive and too hard for conservatives to do it. 

In the mean time, there's reports of some idiot kid who consumed "synthetic cannabis" and got himself killed. I guess if you're young, you do these things. But you also think that if marihuana was legalised, then the temptation to put weird chemical cocktails into your system might be significantly lowered. 

So there's that too. 

When Amanda Writes You Off, Maybe You Should Go, Tony

Here's Amanda Vanstone doing the statesmanly thing and whacking her own. 

Unless I have been lied to, and that can happen, Abbott has told a number of people that he is young enough to have another crack at the leadership. Even if that is meant in the most pure and innocent form, as in "Well, the Prime Minister might be hit by a proverbial bus", it does not augur well for the future. It shows an incapacity on Abbott's part to see what went wrong and how much of that related to his own behaviour. It also reveals a failure to recognise that there are others who have come up in the ranks and will continue to so do. It is not a static world through which only he progresses. 

Sadly, it would also mean every decision Abbott makes will be firstly about positioning himself for that opportunity rather than firstly about securing a team win now.
Political teams are like rose bushes – you have to keep pruning or there are no new blooms. When John Howard gave me the flick in 2007 he offered to say that I had decided I would move on. I declined the offer; the truth is what it is. My press release thanked him and the Liberal Party for the opportunities I had enjoyed and others had missed out on. My spot was filled by Malcolm Turnbull. Pruning delivers results. 

Bronwyn Bishop, Philip Ruddock and a few others should stop being so selfish, start showing a bit of gratitude for all they have enjoyed, and allow some new blooms to burst forth. 

People might say that "You have had a fair go; now you should be fair and go" sounds harsh. But in this case I think it would be the best and fairest thing for Abbott. And for the party that gave him such tremendous opportunities.

It's kind weird when Amanda Vanstone is the voice of reason, but there you have it. It's noteworthy. 

It's A Horrible Year So Far And It's Forecast To Stay That Way

What do you do? The war opened pretty badly for the markets. If anything had anything to do with China, it's been like a baseball bat to the head, although ASX isn't as bad as other markets. It's been pretty ordinary more than anything else. The Santa rally was hardly anything to write home about. The IMF downgraded growth forecasts for the year, with only a month in. 

The survey run by Business Day says it's going to stay this way for the rest of the year. It's going to be not enough growth, not enough inflation, not enough employment, but not enough bad news for rates to be cut further. It's enough to make you take up Astrology, apparently. 

Of course, Japan's central bank just cut their interest rates to negative, so chances are, there'll be a flood of money form Japan looking at our 2% interest rate thinking it's a great deal. 

Over The Ditch And Down The Slope

New Zealand is apparently headed for outright deflation. 

A 1.8 per cent slump in tradeable prices drove the weak quarterly CPI number, particularly for vegetables and fuel, where a stronger Kiwi dollar over the period played a part in depressing prices. Domestic prices rose by 0.5 per cent, or by 1.8 per cent year-on-year, thanks to higher housing and airfare costs.

"With dairy prices still sliding, and 2 per cent inflation more elusive than ever, we expect a genuine easing bias" from the RBNZ next week, TD Securities economist Annette Beacher said. "Anything less will reverse today's NZD sell-off, and more."

No government or central bank likes a deflation. The thing is, it's not bad for everybody. If somebody is sitting on cash, waiting for the right price, a deflation is exactly what you want. The corresponding lowering of interest rates to spur you to spend that money is just the government and the central bank bullying you out of your cash position into riskier assets. 

News That's Fit To Punt - 28/Jun/2012

Don't Cry If You're Not Going To Fix It, Lady

If yesterday was a day we learned why the Coalition was full of shit, then today was a day to understand why we can't trust the Greens in the least bit. After all that good will was marshaled by the independents to put through the Oakeshott bill through the Lower House yesterday, giving some hope that something could be done. Yet today we find that political cynicism triumphs such good intentions and we are left with a defeated bill, with more boats on the way and presumably more drownings to come. Well done Greens, you have managed to support the Coalition with your balance of power. What's really curious is this bit:

Senator Hanson-Young called on the government to have urgent talks with Indonesia and to give funds directly to the UNHCR, Indonesia and Malaysia to make people safer ''in their ports''.

The senator choked up when she recalled the plight of refugee "Hussein" and his long and dangerous journey to reach Australia.

"These are the lives of the people we are playing with," she said.
"This bill does nothing to protect Hussein".

Excuse me Ms. Hanson-Young but it does protect Mr. Hussein if it deters him from getting on that boat. That choice and the attendant risks of getting on to a leaky boat rests entirely with Mr. Hussein. The government's argument is that if getting on the boat is futile because you end up back in Malaysia, then it serves to protect Mr. Hussein from himself and from making a particularly stupid and desperate mistake - and after all is said and done, this is what is being discussed. So if you can't understand that, then I can't seriously support a party that places you in a position where you grandstand and then scuttle this deal.

As Senator Xenophon so eloquently put it, the stench of compromise is not going to be as bad as the stench of death. The Greens chose death on their High Road. I don't know how they can live with themselves, but surely hypocrisy is now a national game that everybody's going to play.

But please, spare us your undignified crocodile tears. If you won't take a hit to save lives, then you're not in a position to lecture us from your stupid High Road you imagine you are on; You may as well fuck off into the night of history, you stupid, stupid cow.

One Win For Kim Dotcom

Here's an interesting moment happening over the ditch.

A New Zealand High Court judge has ruled that police search warrants used to seize property from Megaupload's founder Kim Dotcom were illegal.

Justice Helen Winkelmann found that the warrants used did not properly describe the offences to which they were related.

Kim Dotcom was arrested in January when the FBI shut down his fire-sharing website aming claims it had cost copyright holders more than $US500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The FBI agents had been accused of underhanded behaviour by Dotcom's lawyers in the High Court after they secretly copied data from his computers and took it overseas.

Justice Winkelmann has also ruled it was unlawful for copies of Dotcom's computer data to be taken offshore.

She ordered that no more items taken in the raids could be removed from New Zealand, and instructed the attorney-general to return clones of the hard drives held by New Zealand police.

Wow. Take that, FBI! So it seems one cannot simply say, 'copyright infringement' and then confiscate computers, at least in New Zealand. Very interesting development.

Today's Whaling Guff 28/05/2010

See You In Court, Slanty-Eyes!

Australia is pressing ahead with its International Court case.

The Federal Government will initiate legal action against Japan early next week over its "scientific" whaling in the Southern Ocean.

The legal application will be lodged with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Environment Minister Peter Garrett announced this morning.

In a statement Mr Garrett, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the decision had not been taken lightly and had come after the government tried to reach a compromise with the Japanese Government through the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and bilateral talks.

The ministers' statement says the legal action is about one dispute with Japan in an otherwise "comprehensive strategic, security and economic partnership".

"Both Australia and Japan have agreed that, whatever our differences on whaling, this issue should not be allowed to jeopardise the strength and the growth of our bilateral relationship," the statement said.

Mr Garrett said: "We want to see an end to whales being killed in the name of science in the Southern Ocean."

They - as in the anti-waling lobby - are saying this fulfills an ALP election promise and so this is a good thing. It's questionable politics at best. The SMH analysis on the move is here.

By committing to a Hague case — but only if significant progress has not been made in diplomatic efforts — the ALP politically trumped the Howard government on the one environmental cause that almost all Australians support.

But would they really go so far as to upset a country who is a crucial economic and diplomatic partner over a few whales?

Instead of rushing to the lawyers when they first came to power, Environment Minister Peter Garrett and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith sensibly attempted to first hammer out a compromise with the Japanese.

For three years Smith and Garrett tried different avenues. They flirted with a small working group within the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which is trying to break the impasse between whaling and anti-whaling nations. They held bilateral meetings with Japanese officials. And they held out hope that the change of government in Japan last year would present new opportunities to cut a deal.

But in the end the compromises on the table from Japan weren't enough. Left with no option Smith informed the Japanese Government last night that papers would be lodged in The Hague early next week.

The timing of the case is not accidental. Next month the IWC will meet in Agadir to discuss a compromise deal put forward by the IWC chair that allows Japan limited commercial whaling rights in the Southern Ocean.

If that deal passes Australia will no longer be able to take Japan to the International Court of Justice. Japan would have a legal right to continue its commercial whaling operations in the Southern Ocean.

Darren Kindleysides, director of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, says Australia's case will likely centre around "abuse of rights".

Those "rights" are a loophole in the 1949 Whaling Convention that allows member countries to kill protected whale species for scientific purposes. Australia will allege Japan has been abusing this loophole for commercial gain.

I'm sort of worried by how they're glossing over the clause at the IWC which allows scientific whaling, and calling it a loophole. I'm also worried about the fact that they don't mention that it is agreed at the IWC that any whale taken for research purposes can't just be thrown back into the sea, it has to be sent to the market. So the Australian case that the research whaling is a front for a commercial whaling industry is going to have a hard time proving their case given that the Japanese whaling fleets are abiding IWC rules to the letter.

Australia sure has its work cut out. And oh look, emissions are up.

Anyway... the response in Japan is pretty mature.

「事実なら大変残念だ。調査捕鯨は（国際捕鯨取締条約で）認められており、それに従ってやっていく。日豪関係全体を悪化させたくないが、駄目なものは駄目と主張していきたい」と述べ、６月にモロッコで開かれる国際捕鯨委員会（ＩＷＣ）総会などで反論していく考えを明らかにした。

豪州はＩＷＣで調査捕鯨廃止が認められなければ国際司法裁判所に提訴するとしていたが、事実上それを前倒しした形。その点について赤松農相は「豪州も秋に総選挙があり、労働党政権は厳しい。そういうことも多分、背景にある」との認識を示した。

The minister for Agriculture Hirotaka Akamatsu said they disagree with it, that they'll fight it at the IWC meet and also words to the effects of "look the Labor Party over there have a tough election coming up later this year so they have to do what they have to do."

Here's some differing perspective from New Zealand.

New Zealand says it won't consider joining Australia's international legal action to stop Japanese whaling until diplomatic efforts fail, because going to court is a risky move.

The Australian government announced on Friday that it will initiate action in the International Court of Justice in The Hague next week.

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key told reporters that New Zealand would stick to a "diplomatic route" with Japan over the issue.

"The legal opinion we've had is that court action may or may not be successful, but it's certainly far from a sure bet," Mr Key said on Friday.

"The reason we've gone down a diplomatic solution is not because we're afraid of a court case but because the advice we've had is that it's more likely to be successful.

"In the end, if that diplomatic route is unsuccessful then New Zealand will make a decision about whether it's going to join Australia in the international court of justice.

"It doesn't mean we wouldn't join Australia if the diplomatic solution has been extinguished."

Mr Key said the court process could take years and would be a risky move.

"If they go to court and they lose there are real risks here so that is the whole point," he said.

"That's why if we find a diplomatic solution it might be a lot better than a court case that we could lose.

"If we thought a court case was clear cut and easy to win then obviously that might be the fastest way to do that."

It's interesting that New Zealand is taking this position given that it is one of their citizens and not an Australian citizen sitting for trial in Tokyo over the recent Sea Shepherd actions and altercations with the research whaling fleet.

Meanwhile, here's more from the IWC itself.

Monica Medina, the U.S. commissioner to the IWC, told reporters at a briefing that the Obama administration cannot accept the commission's current proposal, which allows the hunting of too many whales. But Washington is willing to continue talks to see if a stronger accord to protect whales can be settled at the IWC meeting in Morocco, she said.

Medina, who's also a principal deputy undersecretary in the Commerce Department, said: "The IWC is fundamentally broken and must be fixed." Negotiators recognize that whaling continues despite a moratorium.

"The idea would be to cap that whaling and to get it under the IWC's control so that it can be monitored," she said.

The chairman of the IWC, Cristian Maquieira, said at the briefing a successful deal next month could bring international whaling under IWC control -- something that's not happening now.

"The negotiations will be very, very complicated and very, I suspect, intense, but I do look forward to a positive outcome," Maquieira said. "I'm optimistic that we will arrive at some understanding."

He was careful to note that the IWC proposal is only meant to spur negotiations -- not to be a final agreement. "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," Maquieira said.

I think they're being coy. Whaling by Japan, Norway and Iceland during the last 25 years has always been under IWC control as such. What's really being negotiated is numbers and really, at the end of the day, that's what the commission is supposed to do: broker numbers. If talks at the IWC fail again, I guess the world will be watching the trial in the Hague. Joys of joys.

New Zealand Opts To Deal

Who Would Have Guessed?

What do you know? New Zealand is willing to deal and back the compromise plan to reduce the absolute number of whales that are killed.

New Zealand has backed the compromise pact, which would lift the current ban on commercial whaling while reducing the number of whales killed by Japan under the guise of "research".

NZ had been one of Australia's staunchest allies in the fight against Antarctic whaling.

But now the country's whaling commissioner, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, says he'll support the compromise proposal at the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in June, the ABC reports.

Currently, commercial whaling is banned but countries can hunt whales in the name of science. Up to 1900 are killed each year.

Australia wants Japan to stop whaling, but Japan insists that it has the right to hunt whales.

The issue has been stuck in diplomatic limbo and there is an increasing push to find a compromise, alarming conservation groups.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett spoke out against NZ's support for the compromise proposal.

"I am alarmed and very concerned that NZ would support a proposal that is flawed and represents a huge compromise to pro-whaling nations," he said.

"Australia cannot support the compromise package now being discussed in the IWC."

That package was loaded in favour of the whalers, Mr Garrett said.

Well Peter Garrett would say that. In a trade off between numbers and principles, the Australian government wants to hold on to the principles and not trade away anything at all AND have their way. I don't think that's how deals work Mr. Garrett.

Of course that being said, this is April Fools day, so who knows if the New Zealand government is really considering this move.

UPDATE: here is an article with a better explanation of the NZ position on the issue.

Former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, who chairs an International Whaling Commission (IWC) group trying to negotiate a deal, said the IWC could fall apart.

"I think there is a big risk of that and I don't relish it," Palmer told reporters in Wellington.

"We cannot afford to see the end of the International Whaling Commission because if it comes to an end, there will be no international instrument for protecting the whales."

It raises the question what happens to the issue of controlling whaling if the IWC were to fold. After years of fruitless wrangling, it may actually be getting to the point where Japan, Norway, Iceland and Russia walk out o the IWC and there would be no agreement whatsoever.

Palmer said he was not confident the opposing sides of the whaling argument could agree on a workable deal, but said it was important they were still talking.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully also described a deal as "a long shot" but said it was worth trying.

"All the alternatives to holding these discussions are truly awful," he said.

Australia has taken a harder line, saying it will take Japan to the International Court of Justice if it does not agree by November to stop hunting in Antarctic waters.

New Zealand said it there was a good chance court action would fail, leaving controls on hunting weaker than ever.

That can't be good. Here's another article with some interesting points:

Since there seems to be no way to stop Japan from killing cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), the Obama Administration is poised to compromise on commercial whaling in order to secure broader, more effective regulation by the IWC. If Japan chooses to cooperate, that is. Its recent success at thwarting protection for depleted, sashimi-bound Atlantic bluefin tuna during a UN wildlife session does not augur well.

IWC meetings are rancorous affairs at which neither side wins the three-quarters majority needed to change anything. Founded by whaling nations, the IWC was taken over by whaling opponents in the 1980s, since which time Japan has used foreign aid to recruit support from Caribbean and Asian countries. (Dominica dramatically reversed its pro-whaling position last year.)

A three-year effort to reorder the IWC (read the talking points from a recent working session) would create a South Atlantic Sanctuary and beef up conservation efforts to help the world's biggest mammals cope with oceanic pollution, ship strikes, climate change, and sonic disruption. In an historic compromise, countries that hunt whales could do so along their coasts--and Japan could continue to exploit Antarctic waters--but only under an enforceable legal agreement that the U.S. official said must unquestionably cap whaling "at a significant decrease" below the current fatality rate. "Numbers are key."

So that means Mr. Obama AND NZ are both on board with the compromise plan. This is interesting because it means it's up to the UK and Australia to continue with the strident antics at the IWC, but neither seem to have taken into account just what happens after the IWC falls apart.

News That's Fit To Punt 04/06/09

A Jury Of One's Peers

Pumpkin's evil father and failed martial arts instructer and alleged sometime murderer Xue, is facing trial for his misdeed. A few days ago I read this article and got to this bit and it made me chuckle:

Xue has pleaded not guilty to the murder and at one stage applied for bail, apparently hoping to work to pay his legal fees after NZ authorities were slow to approve legal aid funding.

He was deemed a serious flight risk and refused.

His case made news headlines when it was revealed his legal team had applied for taxpayer funds for a private investigator to look into the backgrounds of jurors in his trial. New Zealanders were outraged at the application, which was declined by Legal Services.

Then of course, I found this one which made me really laugh:

A jury of 12 women has been chosen for the trial, which is expected to go for five weeks and include evidence from more than 110 witnesses from New Zealand, Australia and the US.

A jury of 12 women! The man has no chance.

Which got me thinking... Can it really be justifiable to have a jury of 12 women in a case where there was clearly domestic violence and expect it to be fair and impartial? Wouldn't it be like say having Adolf Hitler getting an all-Jewish jury or OJ Simpson getting an all-white jury? Or for that matter the crazy Kangaroo court presided over by a Kurdish judge for Saddam Hussein? Surely the conflicts of interests are there to be seen by all.

How would it even be remotely justifiable in saying that the trial was fair and impartial under the system when any person looking in from the outside can clearly see there are agendas and interest that pertain to race and gender, plastered all over these case?

There's no way known these 12 New Zealand women actually share any kind of cultural or social values with the Xue, the accused. To say that they are his peers, is stretching the definition to breaking point. The guy might be a scum bucket S.O.B., but this jury is most likely not going to reflect well on the court when the come to a verdict in 3 minutes flat and decide on locking up Xue for the rest of his natural life.

ABC Suspends Chasers

The Chasers ran a skit poking fun of the Make a Wish FOundation. It has provoked cuch fury in the public, the ABC has decided to bench the show for a couple of weeks.

ABC Managing Director Mark Scott announced the decision tonight after the furore surrounding the sketch, "Make A Realistic Wish", which went to air on Wednesday night.

The decision, made with the ABC's Director of Television, Kim Dalton, followed discussions with The Chaser team.

"We have decided that this is the most appropriate course of action," Mr Scott said.

"It gives the ABC an opportunity to complete a review of editorial approval processes. It also gives The Chaser a chance to regroup and review their material.

"In making the wrong judgement call we have let down our audience and the wider community. We need to fully review the ABC's approval processes for programs that deliberately challenge public attitudes."

Well, the joke always hurts when it's pointed at you, and you can't help but be in the situation you're being lampooned for. Most parents of sick kids don't choose that situation out of joy or pleasure.

The Chaser boys sure missed on this one in one critical way: they decided to turn their considerable skills for derision on a largely weak, benign group. The Chasers were always at their best poking fun at the powerful, like the Prime Minister or his Treasurer. They're not so good if they're dumb enough to pick on a weak target that gets a break from just a out everybody in the community.

In fact it should be one of the covenants for satirists that they only take on the large, powerful institutions. Not the weak, the poor and wretched.

The Who To Come Back Down Under

Pleiades Mailbag Presents!

I can't explain the eternal appeal of this band, even after they've lost their rhythm section to rock'n'roll deaths - heck I still love them - and they just keep going. They're also one of the bands that I do blog about when news comes my way, so here it is. The Who are touring Australia to kick off the Melbourne Grand Prix amongst other things.

While they’re yet to announce a series of tour dates, British rock ‘n roll legends The Who have been confirmed as the special musical performance for the 2009 Melbourne Grand Prix.

Led by Roger Daltrey and Peter Townshend, the “My Generation” rockers will take the pole position at the famous car race, which last year saw New York City make-up rockers KISS closing proceedings. According to the band’s website, Townsend says he’s “hoping to see an even bigger crowd” at Albert Park next year.

“Few bands can lay claim to being among rock royalty, but British rock gods the Who must surely feature on any list of the best bands of all-time,” said Zara Lawless, Acting CEO of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation. “Last year, an estimated 65,000 people stuck around after the big race to see a full, two-hour concert extravaganza from KISS. If you thought that was big, I urge you to get along to next year’s Grand Prix to be part of an event that people will talk about for years to come.”

Dates for the 2009 FORMULA 1™ ING Australian Grand Prix are Thursday 26 – Sunday 29 March. Tickets will be available to the general public on Monday 3 November.

Don't know if I'd spend up big to be there when the city of Melbourne is going to be filled with Grand Prix tourists.

In conjunction with news about that tour, Pleiades also sent in this interesting article about the time The Who toured NZ in 1968.
This bit caught my eye for some reason:

"After the first show, in the intermission, Bob Pridden said 'I'm going to take their stuff off the stage seeing they're not coming back."

"I went 'What? What do you mean they're not coming back?'. I thought they were in the dressing room but as it turned out, they'd got a cab with Wiggy and gone back to the motel. I went back and they were all sitting on the floor, having a beer and talking about blowing the rest of the tour out.

"They were saying 'F*** it! Let's get out of here". So I was trying to explain that if they got up and walked out, they had to look at the fact they they were probably going to end up in a situation where these promoters weren't going to pay them. I think The Who were only getting about a thousand pounds a show!

"I said 'you've gone through all this shit, you've put up with the Australian end of it, and you've got one more day to go. You've got another show to do in Auckland and another day to go in Wellington and then it's over. At least if you do it, nobody can take your money away from you and let me tell you, you've earned it."

"So they came back and did the eight o'clock show and took the attitude that they were just gonna have a bit of fun with it, and that's what they did."

The Australian leg of the tour was infamous. The Australian press hounded them for their bad behaviour in the utmost Australian-Wowser way, and the band got more defensive as they fielded dumber and dumber questions from the hostile Australian press. I acually own a promotional poster from that tour. Anyway, the rest of it is a classic bit of Who-Lore so it's recommended reading. As they once sang, long live rock!

Thanks to Pleiades who sent in the link.

I'm Back From New Zealand

And It Didn't Hurt One Bit
The sheep-fucking jokes all go eastwards. The South Africans think Australians fuck sheep. We think New Zealanders fuck sheep. New Zealanders of course think we fuck sheep, but they're easily persuaded it is indeed the South Africans who do; this is mostly on the strength of the 1995 Rugby World Cup where some South African chef poisoned the All-Blacks the night before the Grand Final. And so it is in that spirit that I just want to quickly jot down some thoughts on NZ.

Sheep? What Sheep?
Considering that we were headed out into the rural area of NZ, and what with all the sheep-fornicating jokes, I expected to see whole lot more sheep than I actually saw. Indeed, the farms and paddocks mostly featured cows. Loads of cows. And one bull, which was happily having its way witha cow as we drove by.

Hung Election
Who really gives a shit about elections? I do.
Who really gives a shit about other countries' elections. I do.
And it so happened the Kiwis were out to vote during my stay there. Interestingly enough they don't have compulsory voting there, which means the issues of state are open to being taken hostage by the extremists of all persuasion by pure dint that political extremists are more likely to vote than moderate, easy-going, less-motivated folks. With one of the lowest voter participations in their history, the fate of the next NZ government came down to nearly equal measures right-wingers and splinter-special interest groups on the other ledger.

The Partying On The Right Are Now Partying On The... Far Right
The funny thing about trends in world politics is that the Old Left has fragmented into a bunch of single-issue causes while the Old Right has steadily drifted towards less and less liberal ideas. I don't really know why, but I can take a guess and it is the fact that in a world that increasingly relies on mass-media to carry a soundbite as THE MESSAGE, it becomes easier to just say the simple shit, reagardless of the quality of the soundbite as fact or truth. So if Truth is the first casualty in War, well, it's certainly the first thing that gets knocked comatose in an election.

Who Are You Exactly?
The funniest group of all the splinter parties in NZ is New Zealand First, an aberrant bunch of nobodies fronted by one Winston Peters. Winston Peters is legendary for being totally self-serving and vain and venal. Sure enough, he doesn't let anybody else in his party talk to the press. 'NZ First' went to the polls promising they would back which ever off the major parties came out with more votes. In other words his promise was that he would be part of a coalition government no matter what the agenda. In practical terms, a vote for 'NZ First' would mean more confusion, not less confusion, but that didn't stop him taking this truly absurd position. It was hilarious.
In the end, Winston Peters lost his seat of 21 years, but for reasons only known to the devil himself, in spite of the self-evident stupidity of their position and promise,' New Zealand First' won 7 seats. What does one make of this? I don't know.

So Why Is It So Exciting?
Democracy is cool. It's the only time you can go out there and put your views on paper and make it count; short of picking up arms and taking to the sea of troubles. I mean, I can write here endlessly about the injustices of the world and all that crud but it just doesn't do as much as voting against the current incumbent bastard. Anyway, if you hate a politician, there's nothing like ballot to do the work of a bullet. And if you hate all politicians, then it's still worth putting that down on the ballot.

The New Zealand election revealed a whole lot more about the importance of compulsory voting in our own fragile democracy that keeps on getting subverted by bureaucrats and non-liberal Conservatives who would rather not let us have our say. We live in dangerous times when the hard-won fruits of history (such as separation of Church and State) are being rescinded by asshole governments around the world and we as the populace are doing jack-shit to stop these bastards from doing so. Seriously folks, if you don't like the way the world is run, you should take time to vote carefully.
Watching another country go through the motions really made me envious we won't be having a Federal Election for a long while and that the bastard incumbents will be in there, ruining our nation for a long time more.

And One More Thing About Traveling In Times Of Terror
I always get stopped at customs coming back to Australia. They always look at my passport and ask me asshole questions.
This time, a guy asked me if as a film-maker I'd made anything he'd know. I said, "not likely."
They asked, "how long have you been in your business?"
I said "twenty years."
"Twenty years in the business and nothing I've ever heard of?"
Fucken Jesus. I felt like saying: "Go catch a real terrorist or something. For fuck's sake, leave me alone, you stupid, stupid, stupid cunt."
But of course I didn't. That's why I'm writing it here instead. Custom officers really suck scrapie sheep cocks. If the film 'Max' is anything to go by, when I'm the dictator, I'm sending these SOBs to be made into lampshades first.

A Quick Note About Working With Geoff Murphy And Brian A. Williams
I promise to write more about this one day, but not tonight. I do want to report a couple of things. We holed up in Geoff's mountain cabin for 8 working days and knocked out a script we were all happy with. Now that's pretty amazing considering that we all have very different tastes and temperaments; and it wasn't exactly a camel by committee either. So I'm happy to report here the expedition was a great success.

I will report one funny anecdote. Geoff was working on the sound post of 'Under Siege 2' when in storms Steven Segal who starts to complain about the sound effect of a single gun. He says to Geoff that the specific type of gun used on screen does not make such a loud sound; but Geoff explains this is the movies and people expect to hear a dramatic bang when there's a dramatic bang on screen. Steven Segal huffs and puffs and says: "but I'm only interested in making realistic pictures."

...It's even funnier when you have seen the ending of that film. :)