Non-Agression Payment

To chew over.

John Howard is finally willing to accept that Australia is a South-East Asian nation with our first participation at the ASEAN summit, held in Laos. Well, South-East Asian enough to establish trade agreements that would 'lock Australia into a market of more than 500 million people with a total economic production of $863 billion' (ninemsn), but not South-East Asian enough to agreee to NOT BOMB the other countries in our region.

So, Howard doesn't want to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC). I can understand that. After all, apparently signing the TAC would prevent Australia from speaking out against humanitarian crises. Like how because we didn't have any treaties with Africa we were able to send over peacekeeping forces to Sudan and...oh, are you gesturing to me? Be quiet? But...b...why? Oh..I see.

In other news, John Anderson is reeling after that whole bribe-allegation thing. He's just stoked that maybe people will actually learn who he is now. You know, before the Liberals realise they no longer need the Nationals for safe passage of bills.

Also, hands up who heard about this story:
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11506725%255E26462,00.html

Yeah, me neither.

Blockbuster Entertainment

Man, I really like this ‘War on Terrorism’ movie. I mean, sure, it has its critics, but it’s on like, every channel! That many people can’t be wrong, right? Thing is, I can’t keep up with the story. Who is the bad guy again? It used to be bin Laden and some guy called Al Qaeda, then it was Hussein, now it’s like the Foot Clan or whatever those guys with stockings over their faces and swords are. Also, the good guys are a bit iffy. It’s all a bit complicated.

Also, the producers need to work out what the big action sequence is going to be. I mean, it was a strong opening with those planes and those buildings, but I was kinda confused after that. I mean, where’s the war? Afghanistan or Iraq? Seriously, noone is going to buy that shit. It’s unrealistic. The plot details are also fuzzy. The audience never gets to find out what’s happening where or why. I mean, shit, I may not be Einstein, but I don’t remember any piece of dialogue that sounded anything like arguments for war. They should have got Bill Pullman to do the President role instead. He did it so well in Independence Day. Everyone knew who the bad guys were in that. I mean, they were aliens!

Man, why couldn’t they get Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay or some shit to direct it? That way we’d know where everyone stood, none of this artsy-fartsy vague shit. I mean, I want value for money. I don’t want to pay for shit I don’t understand.

So yeah, if you could get onto that, I’d be much appreciative. Cheers.

...Come to think of it, I don’t much like this movie at all.

Arnie has never been 6 foot 2. Ever.

Testing to see if pictures work.

Phil Jamieson is my new hero

Ok, Phil, you've convinced me. All this time I thought you were just a moron, but now I realise you, sir, are a fully fledged genius. It's an easy mistake to make. Most folks are too stupid to notice the pithy and subtle nature of your lyrics. I have to confess that I was like so many of the plebs until recently when I stumbled upon your gift. Like, a few years back, when your band Grinspoon released that song 'Chemical Heart'? Man, there I was thinking you were a bufoon because you misused the expression 'can't see the forets for the trees' by turning it into 'can't see the forest FROM the trees', which, at the time, looked like you had totally misunderstood the point of the expression.
But now, sir, I must bow at your feet because it was all part of a plan, wasn't it? I had suspected as much - noone is that stupid - and what confirmed it for me was your new single 'Better Off Alone'. In its first line you sing 'I never gave a reason of why I didn’t call'. Oh man, that is awesome! To the idiots out in radio-land you are some fool who doesn't know how to conjugate verbs (or something) but your highly-evolved fans know what you're doing. You're making comment on an increasingly anti-literate society! You're deconstructing the very format that would ruin true creativity! Genius! How could I have ever doubted you?
What clinched it for me was that in the chorus of 'Better Off Alone' you sing 'You better off alone?' and then 'We better off alone?'. Like, rad, man. You don't even need to pretend to say 'are' anywhere near those questions! Simulatenously embracing and satiring the culture of cool ebonics and over-lenition. Once again, social critique where you least expect to find it.
Phil, I salute you and look forward to your next single, which will surely be a bastion of postmodern deconstruction, masquerading as a pseudo-illiterate tract. May your voice ring out on the airways forever more!

'Aw Ref, he's not playing fair!'

There was a time in my dark past when I didn't think Bill O'Reilly was too bad. Hell, I even own a book of his (which isn't so much a book as a collection of his interviews; you know, the ones where he yells over the top of any good argument and can shut down the interview whenever he wants).
Today on his show, there were a couple of things that made me laugh. One of the talking points was that Iraqi terrorists (he'll use this word unequivocally, but come 'insurgent', it's always 'so called insurgents')aren't adhering to the 'rules of war'. Hilarity.
Firstly, what the fuck is 'rules of war'? The victor makes the rules, makes history. Is it just me, or is the concept of having rules of war ridiculous? 'Aw, Ref!'
This rules of war thing lead to O'Reilly saying something about Kofi Annan didn't care about how many Americans are 'dying in the sand'. Yeah, well, Bill, maybe that' because he is worrying about the other billions of people on the planet that aren't Americans, selfish fuck. Like, you know, the Sudanese who are in trouble through no fault of their own. It's like jumping into the fire and then complaining that noone will help them out when they discover it's hot.

Oh and Iraqi police are deserting the force. Bill doubted that they even 'want freedom'. I can't help but think of Eddie Izzard's comment about Americans that they are taught to pursue freedom and happiness but they PURSUE it, you know. (Gun pointed) 'Come on, you fucking freedom...'
I guess it's all symptomatic of the 'hold their feet to the fire for democracy' approach to liberation.

Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State, now replaced by Condoleeza Rice. I don't know quite what this means yet, for the world's affairs.
Meanwhile, a man of 'middle eastern descent' (Fox News ;) set himself on fire screaming 'Allah, Allah' outside the White House.

Also, here, Parliament opened today. Bend over and kiss it.

Fresh Stab at Peace

This has got to be a joke, right? This could be an article on the Onion. But nope, our good friends at ninemsn and the White House have made oxymorons en vogue.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=22140

'At a joint White House news conference, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged their support for a fresh stab at peace.'

"We'll hold their feet to the fire to make sure that democracy prevails," he (Bush)said.

Sometimes words speak louder than actions, eh?

I may not know much about blogging, but I know what I (don't) like.

I refuse to be embroiled in the petty, petty, petty M A-B affair, so this is my disclaimer.
Note that I'm not going to use her name. It is apparently blogger etiquette to not use a person's real name. Hell, even the Capital Hill 'Washingtonienne' intern blogger didn't use real names.

The first entry into this blog explained that I started it up to see if I could gain any insight into why people do blog (blog is a verb too, apparently), in a kind of lazy, pseudo-ethnographic way. In my few months as a sporadic contributor to the net of inaccuracies and hyperbole that is the blog world, I have come to identify a few reasons as to why somebody would start, and continue to use, a blog. Let's pretend we can divide reasons for blogging into two categories.

1. Genuine creative outlet. Some people, like me, have little to no undertanding or ability in computer programming. A blog is a user friendly way to transmit one's thoughts, potentially to a large number of people. This, of course, assumes you have something to say and, frankly, blogs are usually run by people falsely thinking they do have something to say (excluding myself, I know I have nothing to say).
At the very least, a blog allows a person to say whatever tripe they care to contribute to the world, worthwhile or not. Even if one has nothing to say, the ability to say it far outweighs the need to have it said.

2. Personal outlet. If a blogger indeed has nothing to say, they might claim to use a blog as a journal or diary, unfit for anyone's eyes except very close friends. Except, as anyone who has ever left a diary open at a certain page so that somebody will see it and scream 'poor x!' knows, journals encourage self-serving crap and a level of simultaneous narcissism and self-hatred. Why would somebody broadcast their personal information over the net? Because it's not strictly personal, is it? What is the point of secrets if nobody knows them? Who will pay attention to your mental digressions if you can't tell anyone about them? Exactly.
An offshoot of the drown-in-own-sorrow journals is blogging as a way to keep track of important or semi-important events, a reference point for stories over beers. While these actually are terrible for mateship, since stories are transformative and get embellished and downright changed over time, it is nice to have some kind of record of a good night out to remember some of the never-sung stories.
Still, the question remains: why do it online rather than in a series of Word documents? It seems that bloggers cannot help but open thsemselves up to scrutiny.

So, then, should M A-B expect a level of privacy? Her having numerous blogs online (full of shit, but no more than any other blog, this one included) regarding somewhat personal matters coupled with a semi-public position has made her ripe for targeting. Well, how hard is that? I could pick any blog at random and write nasty things about it, using the kind of annoying hyperbole that often is found in place of reason or structured arguments.
Is it that being a member of a student organization rightfully open a person up to any kinds of attacks? M A-B hasn't helped matters by letting her personal and public life converge in some of her publications. That is, however, what the student press is about.

In sum, I don't know. Maybe the person in question deserves everything she gets, but I can't quite see why being 'deserving' should equal actually carrying out the deserts. So much for benevolence. I mean, scratch hard enough and you can find an idiot inside every 20 year old.

I'm not going to give an opinion on the girl herself. This isn't that kind of forum, and I'm not that kind of guy. In fact, student politics - or whatever we call this annoying sledging between moronic pinkos and derranged reactionaries - makes me sick to my very being.

M A-B may have said some repugnant things in her blogs, but does that make it ok to use them when attacking her repugnant actions as a member of student council? I don't know. Thus, since I don't know if the public and personal should converge, I can't get involved.

Truly Disappointed

Unsure about what to be more disappointed about: that Bush won or that the amazing adventure games I adored as a child no longer work on modern computers (Day of the Tentacle, King's Quest 6, Sam and Max...). I'm not even a video game person. I'm the guy that can live with 2 games: Halo and Leisure Suit Larry 1. Though you could add Lemmings to that. And Dig Dug on Apple II. This, of course, isn't counting NES/SNES games. Plus, Halo 2 comes out this week.
In any case, clearly the bulk of what I'm talking about has to do with a formative pastime for my generation.

Pop culture may very well be the most significant thing Western society has(put whichever term offends you in inverted commas) and frankly I'm sick of it getting belittled so often. Pop culture cannot help but impact you; if not directly, by way if your friends and any interaction with any cultural artefact. As my esteemed acquaintance Alex Jackson (check out his site)has said, a movie cannot help but comment on the society by which, and the time in which, it was made.
But pop culture gets belitted, as if Oscar Wilde was never a part of popular culture, and 'low culture' cannot become 'high culture' (oh, but it has).
Oh no, now we're into postmodern territory. Didn't want to be here.

However, maybe the belittling is part of it. By refusing to engage with pop culture, you are adding to the discourse. And I love that. We know it's trash, whether we embrace it or not. We realise it is only 'special' for a limited time, and in that time it's ok to feel for these characters(read: contestants); just don't bring up in 2004 how much you loved Mandy on the first season of Temptation Island.

Much pop culture becomes part of the collective memory (or, sometimes, the collective imagination) of a society. The way we remember (or are told about) different eras is based on pop culture. The nineties? Seinfeld, the Simpsons, Nirvana. Yeah, there was the Gulf War and other stuff. But were you there? Our depictions become our memory. Ooh, this is getting into all wooly Baudrillard stuff now.
This also involves nostalgia, which is a whole other big thing I also know nothing about. Once again, let's ignore that.

The depictions of celebrities enrich the culture too. Remember how much great subversive art, music etc. was created in the Thatcher/Reagan reigned 80s? In this way, at the very least, the (re)election of Bush is actually good for pop culture. How boring for the world if there was nothing to complain about or, for the escapist, nothing to be relieved from. Nothing for the apathetic citizen to say 'who gives a shit?' about and switch channels.

Pop culture means all there is a point-and-click approach to current affairs, making issues smaller and more manageable. All we need to know is that Bush is dumb, Kerry is boring, Howard has a funny voice, Michael Jackson rapes/makes love to children and Paris Hilton is a slut/moron/role model/genius and hey-presto, we have an easily communicated trope to deal with modern life.

And, yes, I am talking utter crap.


'To say the least I'm truly disappointed'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_culture

Alex Jackson's film reviews: http://cc.usu.edu/~alexjack/viddied.html