Brilliant. Watch it while you still can.
Category: General
-
Bailouts
So the US Government bailed out Citibank. Add them to the long line of bailed out companies. They’re still blueing over the auto industry, but the likely outcome is more taxpayer dollars spent.
I know I’m not alone in thinking this, but has the world gone crazy?
Since when were Governments in the business of propping up failed companies?
If my business goes bankrupt next year, will the Australian Government bail me out?
I like the line from Romney on the auto industry: Chapter 11 bankruptcy is there for a reason. Why not use it.
A note of the political side: this is socialism at its worst coming from mostly the right, not the left, Australia and the UK excepted (although the UK is probably center right).
Big companies get tax breaks when times are good, but when times are bad the same taxes they avoided paying are used to prop them up.
The heads of the three US automakers flew to talks on a bailout in their private jets. Say no more.
I understand and respect the need to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression, but the message this sends to every person in small business who does it tough is beyond disgusting.
We live in strange times.
-
Take on Me A-ha
…and the sea will grant each man new hope, as sleep brings dreams of home.
Memories of my youth: Take on Me: A-Ha
-
Remembrance Day 2008
Lest We Forget.
Until the day I die I’ll always remember that my great-grandfather died on the Western Front, and that my Grandmother lost her father at such a young age, and her speaking of it when I was young (she has since passed on). We are the last generation to have met or have spent time with those who remember the Great War, but let us hope that future generations will never forget the sacrifices made by an entire generation for freedom.
The one fact that always startles me from an Australian perspective: 216,000 Australian casualties at a time the country had a population of 4.5 million. They say that no town was left without a casualty, and that 1 in 6 Australian families were directly affected, and that everyone knew someone in that total. There are towns today in France that still proudly fly the Australian flag in remembrance of their sacrifices.
-
An end to the politics of old
Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States of America. Voters have rejected the negative politics of McCain over something more positive.
Today’s coverage on The Inquisitr
Exit polls show economy number one election issue (update: Obama up)
-
We’re F*cked
So on Melbourne Cup day, the Reserve Bank of Australia cut interest rates by 75 basis points, or 0.75%, on top of the 100 basis points, or 1% cut last month.
We’re f*cked. Nearly 2% in 2 months….nothing I can remember in my life time. Massive economic stimulus attempt that could have only been based on figures that showed Ausrtalia sliding to a halt, or going backwards. It was nice to grow up through a recession, then beyond that. Gen Y and Z, welcome to my youth!!!!!!! 😉
-
How Obama is to the right in an Australian sense
The 2008 US Presidential election is getting unprecedented coverage in Australia. The Presidential debates were covered live here on major stations, and our television news, online news, radio and newspaper news is giving the elections serious coverage.
But how do the two sides compare in an Australian sense? Not everyone in Australia is following the news, and the depth of understanding in probably weaker again.
Traditionally Australian political parties have affiliations to American parties (often formal), for example the Liberal Party of Australia (our conservative party) has ties to the Republicans, the Labor Party to the Democrats. This split is reflected amongst newspaper columnists as well, for example Andrew Bolt is fiercely pro-Republican, anti-Democrat, but the divide has never made sense to me, because the policy divide isn’t anywhere similar to the Australian picture.
My wife recently told my mother to think of the two sides this way: The Democrats are the Liberal Party, and the Republicans Family First, because both are to the right in an Australian sense, but one is clearly more religious. It’s a generalization to be sure, but lets test it.
How Obama compares to the last Howard Government (and where applicable the Rudd Government)
I’m a former Howard Government staffer, as was my wife, so I’ve got some grounding in what the Liberal Party did in office. These points may generalize a little bit, but they are accurate without always referencing every fine detail.
Healthcare
Howard: supported universal healthcare through the Australian Medicare system. Offered tax incentives to those who took private cover
Obama: doesn’t favor state sanctioned universal healthcare, but is looking at a fallback option outside of the private system, an affordable health care pool
Result: Obama to the right of Howard
Defence (or Defense in US English)
Howard: troops in Iraq (and generally supported Bush), but most Australian troops in Afghanistan. Pro ANZUS
Obama: favors pulling out Iraq, increasing troops in Afghanistan. Pro Anzus
Rudd: favors pulling out Iraq, has kept troops Afghanistan. Pro Anzus
Result: Obama is to the left of Howard only on Iraq. May be more interventionist then Rudd
Industry policy
Howard: spent billions on propping up car industry, subsidising other industries. Reduced tariffs but didn’t remove them all.
Obama: talks about investing in industry, retooling car industry.
Result: about the same
Free Trade
Howard: started signing free trade agreements later into his term, previously more a unilateralist. Generally free trade, although conceded may conditions in various FTA’s.
Obama: wants conditional FTA’s. Regarded as anti-free trade, but hasn’t ruled them out
Result: hard. Obama wants different conditions in FTAs, but Howard regularly had conditions as well, so Howard wasn’t a pure free trader either. Obama slightly to the left, but not by a lot.
Farm policy
Howard: unprecedented socialist on farm policy, billions in subsidies.
Obama: not clear. Farm subsidies aren’t talked about much because generally both sides in the US support them.
Result: about the same.
Welfare
Howard: cracked down on unemployment benefits, but didn’t abolish them. Number of disability pensioners ballooned. Australia still has a generous social welfare system
Obama: wants the state to look after people more, but hasn’t proposed Australian style system.
Result: Obama to the right.
Environment
Howard: soft on global warming, but backed clean coal and some alternative industries.
Obama: strong on global warming, talks about investing billions in green energy.
Rudd: talks strong on global warming, but hasn’t done much yet.
Result: the environment isn’t necessarily a left/ right divide anymore, but Obama to the left
Taxation policy
Howard: cut taxes at all levels while in power. Did offer tax cuts to middle class only at times. Didn’t offer relief in Fringe Benefits Tax but some Capital Gains Tax relief
Obama: will cut tax for middle class, increase for wealthy, but rates are still much lower then Australia
Result: actually about the same. Howard did target tax cuts for the middle class, and the wealthy still pay tax at higher rates.
Education
Local/ State issue in both countries at some levels.
Howard: increased funding in education, talked about choice and standards. Tax help for early childhood education/ daycare.
Obama: wants to increase funding in education, supports “charter schools.” Wants to target early childhood education.
Result: about the same. Obama more to the right on some things, left on others.
Higher Education
Howard: supported HECS/ HELP, the system where University students don’t pay upfront, but pay back the Government when they earn, although increased fees significantly. Government still major backer of University system
Obama: wants to make College more affordable. Is not proposing a HECs style scheme from what I’ve read. College in the US primarily private or nonprofit run.
Result: Obama is a shift to the left from Bush, but is still way to the right compared to Howard.
Retirement/ pensions
Howard: free market superannuation where savings are invested with fund managers. However, increased the compulsory rate employers must contribute to super.
Obama: anti-free market 401ks, but isn’t proposing compulsory employer contributions from what I can read
Result: about the same. Howard increased taxes on employers and forced them to contribute more to retirement savings, yet was to the right on where the money should go.
-
Top Gear Australia fails because it’s just a car show
Two episodes in, and it looks like Top Gear Australia is in some serious trouble, dropping 250,000 viewers to come in a 674,000 viewers and last in its time slot.
It may be an SBS show, but this is an SBS that does advertising now, and it relies on viewers to work that; low viewers, high production costs = not going to last.
So what’s wrong with Top Gear Australia? The answer is quite simple: it’s just a car show.
The original and best Top Gear out of the UK is a car show as well…but it’s also entertaining, and it’s also great to watch visually. I’m not a “car person” as such, I don’t follow motorsports, I don’t have a big or flash car, and my technical knowledge of cars is limited, but I watch every single episode of Top Gear.
There’s the entertainment angle. I know the Australian producers didn’t want to copy the UK format and have their own Jeremy Clarkson, but it’s the character narrative that makes Top Gear UK so special. From Clarkson’s buffoonery, through to the interaction with May and Hammond, and even their own characters, playing on their own strengths and weaknesses that just works. The Australian hosts don’t have the same chemistry, nor are they nearly as entertaining.
Then there’s the visuals. Top Gear UK is visual porn. Beautiful cars, beautiful and interesting scenery, often combined with some fun challenges as well. It’s part travel show, part personal diary (side stories around the key story). It’s also the editing as well: the way the visuals are presented, mixed, and with the music and voices overs added. Even if you hate cars, there’s something in Top Gear UK you will enjoy every episode. Top Gear Australia tries hard, but it doesn’t come close visually.
There’s also the content side. Top Gear Australia just did Ford vs Holden, a giant yawn for me, but something rev heads would have loved. On other cars the focus in on the tech specs, the functionality, typical of people heavily into cars, but not quite as interesting to others. Top Gear UK provides a full narrative, from Clarkson’s humorous comparisons, through to practical use cases. You do get the specs, but its part of a broad picture, that is more accessible to more people, even those who might not fully get the value of the specs provided. You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to know that 1000hp is powerful for example, but you don’t need full discourse on how that’s important to rev heads.
My only compliant: I wish Top Gear UK wouldn’t take such a long summer break…I need a Clarkson hit 🙂
-
Change starts from the ground up
On September 8 I wrote a post observing a noticeable difference in Australian politics of late: that voters were sick and tired of negative politics, are were looking for positives, and this showed in recent election results. I put the question to the American test, noting that Obama was running a far more positive campaign than McCain, asking “Have voters in Western democracies had enough of the politics of old?”
The ultimate judge of that will be the November US Presidential election, but along the way, something interesting is happening.
After watching the first US Presidential debate live (I still find it amazing that these are being showed live here…on more than one channel…although naturally I streamed it) I called the debate for McCain by a nose on the grounds that he, in my opinion, delivered key points more decisively, and that after the debate I could recall more of McCain’s key points than Obama’s. Obama spoke less in sound bites, and spoke in more depth about the issues, and he presented a more positive take on what he’d do, vs McCain’s preference towards negatives. I recall someone on FriendFeed saying that Obama came across like a Professor, and that Americans don’t vote for intellectuals.
Everything I’ve learnt from years in politics, both as a two (and a bit) times staffer, a one time campaign manager, and serving numerous other times on campaign committees, writing propaganda and the occasional speech, along with some reasonable experience in marketing (including a degree in the subject) told me that McCain won that debate.
I was wrong. Every poll showed that Obama won. It was a triumph of substance over style, of a positive message trumping a more negative one.
Today we had the VP debate. Anything other than Sarah Palin breaking down and blubbering Alaska Alaksa for an hour was going to be a positive for a candidate who a growing chorus of pundits on both sides of politics have labeled unfit for the role. She did good. In fact, in terms of establishing herself as not being completely clueless it was a good win.
Some are arguing that Palin won the debate. The right is arguing that she connected with voters, that her key messages struck home, and that her “folksy” appeal defined her as someone people could connect with, even if her grasp of the English language is at times lacking.
Biden on the other hand came over as solid, articulate, and perhaps at times too academic. His delivery of key points was at times great, but at other times he let the finer points get in the way, and some of his arguments were too academic for the audience. If Obama looked like a Professor, Biden looked like the 90 year old Dean of the University.
This debate I called for Biden. If it had been held 3 months ago, I would have called it the other way.
The polls, Fox aside, support the notion.
The electorate is changing.
At a time of economic crisis, and with wars on several fronts, the American people are looking past the politics of old, the politics of negative spin and sound bites, and want something more. It can be the only explanation for Obama and Biden winning both debates among swinging/ undecided voters in particular. Intelligence and a deep understanding of the issues are less of a crime in 2008.
There’s also the defeat of narrative + negativity over positives and intellect. Notice how McCain in the first debate referred to his experience in Vietnam, and how Palin said that only McCain knows how to fight and win. Being in a POW camp deserves respect, but it doesn’t give you a special ability to run the free world over your opponent. Notice Palin’s constant references to Alaska, and hockey moms, and her disabled child, having 5 children, running a small community etc etc…great narrative that may connect on some levels, but it’s no longer a vote winner over what you are capable of delivering and what your policies are.
Change starts from the ground up. If the polls continue, and Obama wins in a landslide (or something close to it), the people of the United States will join others in Australia and the United Kingdom in finally rejecting the negative politics that became the defining factor of all three in the late 90s and into the first decade of the 21st century. We’ll only know in November.
-
Worst Ruddy speech ever?
Apparently the PM spoke at the UN yesterday. The Oz has the full transcript here. The takeaway: look at the sound bites. One line statements after one line statements. Waffles McRudd. Soundbite over substance. Worst Ruddy speech ever. Howard may not have been perfect, but he at least understood that delivering a speech required substance..any substance at all.