Bush's guns are aimed at his feet

In his article "The waning power of the war myth" (28/07) http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/08/28/war_myth/, Gary Kimaya rightly derides Bush's comparison of the current situation in Iraq with that of the Vietnam war.

There are certainly similarities - unflattering ones - but to insist that had the US stayed on in Vietnam the war would have been won is clearly an absurd attempt at rewriting history. Bush is of course busily denying responsibility for the current chaos in Iraq, but for all his propaganda, his people cannot ignore the obvious - their soldiers are being killed by the thousands, and things aren't improving on the ground.

It will never hapen, but if Bush were to withdraw troops and attempt a non-military strategy for stabilising the country, history and the American people would view him more kindly. However, he chooses instead to stubbornly stick to his guns - blowing up Iraq, American soldiers, and the Republicans' chances in the forthcoming election.

If, as it seems likely, the Democrats come to power, it will be interesting to see what effect a different approach will have. Surely anything is better than the mindless bloodbath Bush seems intent on continuing.

An orderly McKew is the key to victory

Jennifer Sexton's article in the Bulletin of 7/08 gives us a good picture of what looks to be a tough battle for the seat of Bennelong. I personally find the prospect of Howard's racism finally coming back to bite him a delicious prospect. With his infamous comments on Asian immigration in 1988 now echoed by his government's appalling treatment of Haneef, Howard can expect at best a backlash from his many Asian-born constituents and their families.

At worst, he could lose a seat once considered unwinnable by Labor.

His opponent, Maxine McKew seems intent on winning over voters one at a time - attempting to charm her way to parliament. This informal approach is her strategy for getting people to listen. Will they listen? Perhaps; but as with Rudd, it's more about her being a professional, uncontroversial alternative to Howard, rather than an inspiration to voters.

McKew's personable, smooth manner has been perfected after many years as a successful journalist. Though her campaign hasn't been perfect, she knows more than enough about politics to avoid the sort of situations which might dog any other political novices.

Whoever gave her the moniker of 'sexiest woman on television' obviously knows nothing about Mary Kostakidis. However, there are few people less sexy than John Winston Howard at the moment (or, arguably, ever) and unless she gives voters a reason NOT to choose her, the people of Bennelong might just find McKew attractive enough to give her the edge.

How To Use A Gap Year

So the Howard Government is trying to encourage young Australians to use their gap year doing something worthwhile for the country - by joining the army. And exactly whose country would they be serving the interests of? A government that commits Australian troops to cover the US' backside isn't exactly protecting the best interests of the nation. Sure, we got a pat on the head from Uncle Sam but the fact remains that our 'bond' isn't as secure as we'd like to think it is anyway.

Getting involved in a conflict based on lies and greed showed up this government for what it is - morally bankrupt. It always astounds me that so many of these publicly God-fearing politicians don't bat an eyelid at sending their own youthful soldiers into a potentially life-threatening situation for no credible reason.

Having said this, there is no doubt that Australian troops have done valuable work elsewhere (Pacific region, East Timor etc.). An army is an obvious necessity. I just think potential recruits should be aware of how little their government thinks of them before they are lured with promises of good pay and invaluable life skills. You'll never hear me say this again, but perhaps a Kontiki tour is the more sensible option.

Modified Rapture

So Australia is poised to open its doors to genetically modified crops on a mass scale. I'm in two minds about this move.
On the one hand, the new drought resistant wheat, hardier canola and nutrition enhanced fruit and veggies sound great. What could possibly be wrong with technology that makes farmer's work easier, as well as benefiting the community both economically and nutritionally? Well, potentially several things.
In The Age (12/08) Greenpeace spokeswoman Lousie Sales is quoted as saying that GM products lead to the creation of more resilient weeds, necessitating stronger pesticides. Furthermore, there has been research showing that rats given a diet of GM canola experienced significant growth of their livers - a study which hasn't been further investigated. But the Australian Government points out that Canada has employed the technology for 10 years without any harmful side-effects. These are all claims I would like to investigate further before I swallow them whole.
I suppose I'm a bit sceptical about the introduction of GM crops from another perspective. If, as the case might be, these supercrops are commercially and nutritionally preferable, they will most likely flood the market. What will happen to the richness and range of flavours currently available? Will they be bred out of existence, or at the very best only be available to a select few?
It seems inevitable that the government will lift the ban on GM crops in Australia - industry pressures are notoriously difficult to resist. Let's hope the consequences aren't as dire as the critics seem to think.

Politics and Personality Bypasses

I miss Paul Keating. Not necessarily because I agree with everything he says. but because he has that elusive thing in a modern politician - a personality.

Since the Labor Party effectively washed its hands clean of any distinctive ideology, the major parties have basically been competing to market often near-identical policies. This sameness seems to have extended to the politicians themselves. Why are there so few distinctive voices? The only figure who seems to show a glimmer of personality these days is Costello, and frankly his is one we could all do with less of. Nearly all the others, even a star recruit with an activist background like Garrett, are quietly and obediently toeing the party line.

Of course, no one wants a government full of unpredictable motormouths who'll not only shoot themselves in the foot, but probably take out half their own party while they're at it. That's probably why Bob Katter is an independent, and Mark Latham's disastrous stint as leader of the Opposition is certainly a case in point. A strong personality is not necessarily always a good thing, if it can't be reined in a little. But diversity of voice and opinion is something Australian politics needs. While the minor parties and independents might provide some of this, it's desperately lacking in the major parties.

Every time I turn to an article these days where Keating is quoted, I can't help feeling a little nostalgic. A man who can provide both a laugh and discussion is a valuable asset to his society. Keating is passionate, and probably bitter, but this does not discount the truth of some of his recent statements - truths his former colleagues wouldn't touch with a barge-pole, even if they most probably agree.

I'm not calling for question time to become a variety hour, but I do think it's important that ideas are discussed more vigorously. It's been said before, but the sad display of parliamentary bunfighting does nothing to dispel the general cynicism regarding politicians and their conduct. Some might say that Keating's barrage of insults were prime examples of this, but I disagree. To me, he was funny and provocative.

Even if you don't find the man amusing, he's certainly got the edge on the gallery of cardboard cut-outs we see fading into sepia before us today. At least he had something of substance to say.

Let's have a drink

Want to meet up for a drink? It's either one or the other alcoholic beverage, then. Very rarely do you go out of the house for anything less, and chronic coffee consumption presents its own set of problems.

Alcohol abuse isn't just a blight on remote Aboriginal communities - it's something that affects Australian society as a whole.
Adele Horan's article of 30/08 in the Sydney Morning Herald rightly points out that even a week without alcohol is a very trying task for most people. The recent launch of On the Wagon Week presumably launched a collective chill down the spines of adult Australia.

The binge drinking of teens and young adults has come increasingly under the microscope, but what of the hordes of parents who enjoy a glass or two "to unwind" after a hard day at work? It might begin this way, but I've heard anecdotally of many friends' parents who, after many years, are technically alcoholics.

There are several factors at work here.

Firstly, our casual approach to "having a few drinks" - i.e. getting blind. It's all treated as a bit of a laugh, really, and I've certainly enjoyed my fair share too. But when it becomes a ritualised, unthinking habit, it not only eats into our wallets and workplaces (sickies are a great Australian tradition), but it's setting us up for serious health problems in the future.

Horan also notes the alarming availability of cheap cask wine in large volumes - three or four litres for ten bucks. Until wine is taxed at a more consistent rate, this seems unlikely to change. Apparently the region in S.A. which produces most cask wine is home to two of that state's most marginal seats. It would be a foolish political party to upset the winegrowers here.

Other drugs are demonised, yet alcohol remains acceptable. If there are health warnings on tobacco pouches, why not on bottles of alcohol?

Australia is addicted. It's time to accept this, and look at either changing the culture, or preparing for a very long liver-transplant waiting list.