It is that time of year again. The Australian Open heads towards it's climax, Australia beats some disinterested tourists in cricket and Australia Day appears on the calender. However, something is different not only this year, but in the last few years as well. People seem to be giving a rat's arse about Australia Day. Quite a few seem to think it's more important than sport! What the hell is going on?
Patriotism seems to have become rather fashionable in recent years. Even some of the more ugly expressions of it, such as in Cronulla, seem not to have dampened enthusiasm for people in Australia going around pointing out to other people in Australia that they are Australian and are rather chuffed about the situation. Even so, the hype surrounding Australia Day is only now starting to reach ANZAC Day proportions.
One of the key ingredients this year was the Big Day Out flag controversy. Ken West's decision to ask people attending the BDO to keep (all) flags at home gave budding hyper nationalists around Australia all the ammo they needed to circle jerk about the flag and why anyone who thought that people wearing the flag like a cape in any social situation was a but excessive should be boiled alive in a vat of 100% all-Aussie Timor Sea oil. Sure people at last year's BDO in Sydney were politely by some punters asked to kiss the flag or cop a punch to the face, but how could one link the flag to such events? The flag represents everything that happened in Australia that we think is good. Nothing bad has ever happened in Australia with the current ensign flying proudly above us. Nothing. Never. Never ever. Got it?
On the day itself the whole thing went into overdrive. A critical analysis of the Day and why we are celebrating it on the 26th of January was thrown out the window as news coverage fawned over anyone with a nice thing to say about Australia. Meanwhile the flag was given superhuman powers by all except that rascal Luenig in a cartoon the day after. People even greeted each other with "Happy Australia Day", helping take nationalism along side Christmas and Easter to religious status.
In the end, I think my main problem with Australia Day as it currently is and patriotism in general is that is seems to be just plain pointless. Much like the related "Australian Values" debate, those who argue that Australia(n Values) is/are so great don't tend to answer why it is so. Why are Australian values better than these foreign values? What makes these values so Australian anyway? Why do people need to wear flags to a music concert? Why can't Australia look back on all aspects of it's history honestly rather than just glorifying the bits that make people feel all warm and fuzzy? Why are people proud of being Australians if all they did was be lucky enough to be born here? Me thinks I could be waiting for a while for the answers.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Sunday, January 14, 2007
LA Galaxy: The New Galacticos?
While the rumours had been circulating for months, it was still a surprise to yours truly when it was announced that David Beckham will be moving to the LA Galaxy at the end of the season. For one thing, it would seem to be a self declaration that he considers his England career over, having failed to make an England squad since the 2006 World Cup. Such is the mindset of English football that when Beckham originally moved to Real Madrid, there were fears from (admittedly few) corners that this would compromise his ability to be selected for the England team despite of Real being one of the biggest clubs in the world in a league that is often considered of higher quality than the EPL. No such grand claims can be made about the LA Galaxy and the MLS therefore unless Becks is able to pull a shifty and "discover" that he has American grandparents, it's fair to say that one can declare Beckham "retired from international football".
So what has motivated Becks to move over to a footballing backwater? Of course one could start and finish the argument with his staggering pay packet. Even in the financial la la land of professional football, Beckham's reported wage leaves everything else for dead. It's very difficult to believe that he is receiving such high wages merely for his (usually overrated) footballing ability. Cynicism over whether Beckham's real value to a club was due to his on field abilities or his ability to shift replica shirts with his name on the back has gone on as far back as his Old Trafford days. This cynicism can only he heightened when Figo, a much better player in my opinion can only get a US $6 million move to Saudi Arabia. Certainly football authorities in the US would love to have Beckham rekindle interest in football not seen since the Pelé days of the NY Cosmos, albeit without the disastrous crash afterwards.
However there is more to the move than this. Beckham's move will signal the dying stages of the Galacticos era at Real Madrid. Stranded on the bench since the start of the season, Beckham had little reason to stick around a sinking ship, especially since Real have not won a trophy since he arrived and show little sign of turning things around any time soon. Tim Stannard explains things more thoroughly here and on his blog, however I might just steal some of his words:
The Galacticos plan seemed so good at the time. Real Madrid were at the top of world football. The plan to stay there was to invest in only one or two world class players per season. This was kicked off with the controversial purchase of Figo from bitter rivals Barcelona for what was then a world record fee. The next season Zinedine Zidane joined the club from Juventus, breaking not only the world record transfer of Figo a year ago but also the world record fee set just two weeks before for Hernán Crespo's move from Parma to Lazio. Other stars such as Ronaldo and Beckham soon joined them and an era of brutal dominance not seen since Franco ruled Spain seemed assured. Then the craziness began.
Manager Vincente del Bosque was sacked just days after winning the La Liga. Then Claude Makelélé's demand for an improved contract were ignored and the (severely underrated) player was soon shifted off to Chelsea, where he has been kicking arse ever since. Attempted replacements such as Thomas Gravensen have proved to be disappointing. The only thing worse has been the off field politics, with the club having gone through four presidents in the last twelve months. And there biggest and fiercest rivals Barcelona look likely to win back to back La Liga and European Champions League titles. Bad times indeed at Santiago Bernabéu.
The Galacticos era is a powerful reminder to many that money is not the only thing which can bring success in football (Although it sure helps). Clubs built on more modest foundations such as Arsenal, Lyon and Bayern Munich have all tasted success in recent years aginst the Galacticos without sending the football transfer system into chaos. Meanwhile Real Madrid languish in comparative mediocrity. I suppose sometimes life is fair.
So what has motivated Becks to move over to a footballing backwater? Of course one could start and finish the argument with his staggering pay packet. Even in the financial la la land of professional football, Beckham's reported wage leaves everything else for dead. It's very difficult to believe that he is receiving such high wages merely for his (usually overrated) footballing ability. Cynicism over whether Beckham's real value to a club was due to his on field abilities or his ability to shift replica shirts with his name on the back has gone on as far back as his Old Trafford days. This cynicism can only he heightened when Figo, a much better player in my opinion can only get a US $6 million move to Saudi Arabia. Certainly football authorities in the US would love to have Beckham rekindle interest in football not seen since the Pelé days of the NY Cosmos, albeit without the disastrous crash afterwards.
However there is more to the move than this. Beckham's move will signal the dying stages of the Galacticos era at Real Madrid. Stranded on the bench since the start of the season, Beckham had little reason to stick around a sinking ship, especially since Real have not won a trophy since he arrived and show little sign of turning things around any time soon. Tim Stannard explains things more thoroughly here and on his blog, however I might just steal some of his words:
There is neither the time nor the space here to plough through the causes of their recent decline, but the short version puts the blame on the combination of the ridiculous dismissal of Vicente del Bosque, the wrong players being sold (Makelele, Solari, Cambiasso, Owen), the wrong ones being kept (Guti, Ronaldo, Roberto Carlos),and the wrong ones being bought (Gravesen, Baptista).
Having six managers and three presidents in three seasons and the kind of political infighting to make the downfall of the Tory party in the 1990s look like a minor spat was not that helpful either. It's this ongoing weakness for woolly thinking and politicking that was the major factor in yesterday's announcement of Becks' departure in June.
The Galacticos plan seemed so good at the time. Real Madrid were at the top of world football. The plan to stay there was to invest in only one or two world class players per season. This was kicked off with the controversial purchase of Figo from bitter rivals Barcelona for what was then a world record fee. The next season Zinedine Zidane joined the club from Juventus, breaking not only the world record transfer of Figo a year ago but also the world record fee set just two weeks before for Hernán Crespo's move from Parma to Lazio. Other stars such as Ronaldo and Beckham soon joined them and an era of brutal dominance not seen since Franco ruled Spain seemed assured. Then the craziness began.
Manager Vincente del Bosque was sacked just days after winning the La Liga. Then Claude Makelélé's demand for an improved contract were ignored and the (severely underrated) player was soon shifted off to Chelsea, where he has been kicking arse ever since. Attempted replacements such as Thomas Gravensen have proved to be disappointing. The only thing worse has been the off field politics, with the club having gone through four presidents in the last twelve months. And there biggest and fiercest rivals Barcelona look likely to win back to back La Liga and European Champions League titles. Bad times indeed at Santiago Bernabéu.
The Galacticos era is a powerful reminder to many that money is not the only thing which can bring success in football (Although it sure helps). Clubs built on more modest foundations such as Arsenal, Lyon and Bayern Munich have all tasted success in recent years aginst the Galacticos without sending the football transfer system into chaos. Meanwhile Real Madrid languish in comparative mediocrity. I suppose sometimes life is fair.
Friday, January 05, 2007
See You In Paris For NYE 2008!
Ever felt that New Years Eve is slightly (or indeed extremely) overrated? Sure there's the drinking and the fireworks, but I could get that at the football. Well at least I used to. Now they banned the flares and the only beer is Carlton Draught. GRRR!! And as for the slightly liberating ability to walk all over Flinders St, we did that when Australia qualified for the 2006 World Cup. However while there might be endless bullshit news articles featuring Z list celebs crap on about what they wish for in the New Year, the French, as they often do, show us the light. In what this blogger sees as much the same spirit as Festivus in combination with the French national sport of protest marching, people in Nantes have held a protest against the year 2007.
From the BBC:
How can you not love the French? (unless of course you were colonised by them) Protests, food and the Tour de France. Plus they didn't invade Iraq.
From the BBC:
French marchers say 'non' to 2007Hundreds of protesters in France have rung in the New Year by holding a light-hearted march against it.
Parodying the French readiness to say "non", the demonstrators in the western city of Nantes waved banners reading: "No to 2007" and "Now is better!"
The marchers called on governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race" and declare a moratorium on the future.
The protest was held in the rain and organisers joked that even the weather was against the New Year.
The tension mounted as the minutes ticked away towards midnight - but the arrival of 2007 did nothing to dampen their enthusiasm.
The protesters began to chant: "No to 2008!"
They vowed to stage a similar protest on 31 December 2007 on the Champs-Elysees avenue in Paris.
How can you not love the French? (unless of course you were colonised by them) Protests, food and the Tour de France. Plus they didn't invade Iraq.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Saddam Dies, Will Iraq Survive?
While it had been expected for some time, the timing of the execution of Saddam Hussein this afternoon (Melbourne time) a bit sudden. Reaction from the Coalition countries has been predictably positive, with Bush even getting into the idea that this was an important milestone:
Perhaps the effects of the Iraq Study Group report is starting to wear off on Bush. Whatever the case, I share little of the optimism displayed by Bush. Iraq still has massive problems to overcome to just stay together let alone become a model democracy and the death of Saddam I feel will do little to help the situation and could indeed make the situation a lot worse.
While undoubtedly Saddam was one to the most brutal dictators of the latter Cold War period, it looks more and more like it was only a strongman such as himself that could hold together the highly artificial state of Iraq. The tensions between the different demographic groups in Iraq have been exposed tragically since the US invasion with little hope of "putting the genie back in the bottle". The highly possible breakup of Iraq, already a rather loose three part federation, is likely to expose regional tensions, especially regarding Turkey and a possible Kurdistan. This conflict could prove an old saying about war "never believe that things can only get better".
Shifting focus slightly, I would also question the wisdom of executing Saddam rather than giving him a life sentence. To begin with, Sir Spell Cheque is against capital punishment, so of course I have problems with the execution on that fundamental level. However there is more to my opposition to the death penalty for Saddam than that. The trial was rather shifty to begin with, with judges and lawyers involved harassed and/or killed. Saddam should have been handed over to an independent international tribunal where a fair trial was much more likely. US refusal to hand Saddam over to such a tribunal leaves even less than cynical minds to wonder what motives the US had in keeping Saddam in Iraq. It surely could not have been fears of not securing a conviction over human rights abuses as, unlike with the WMDs, the evidence was overwhelming.
In his weaker moments Sir Cheque might start to think that Saddam had information that the US would prefer the world not to know. Could be a bit embarrassing. Unfortunately now we may never know. The phrase might say that we should learn history to avoid making the same mistakes, but it is hard to do when we are denied the information (i.e. history) in the first place. Was it worth the risk of creating a martyr that militant people could rally around to avoid the divulging of some embarrassing information in an international court and a slight propaganda boost in the US. Sadly only time will tell.
It is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself
Perhaps the effects of the Iraq Study Group report is starting to wear off on Bush. Whatever the case, I share little of the optimism displayed by Bush. Iraq still has massive problems to overcome to just stay together let alone become a model democracy and the death of Saddam I feel will do little to help the situation and could indeed make the situation a lot worse.
While undoubtedly Saddam was one to the most brutal dictators of the latter Cold War period, it looks more and more like it was only a strongman such as himself that could hold together the highly artificial state of Iraq. The tensions between the different demographic groups in Iraq have been exposed tragically since the US invasion with little hope of "putting the genie back in the bottle". The highly possible breakup of Iraq, already a rather loose three part federation, is likely to expose regional tensions, especially regarding Turkey and a possible Kurdistan. This conflict could prove an old saying about war "never believe that things can only get better".
Shifting focus slightly, I would also question the wisdom of executing Saddam rather than giving him a life sentence. To begin with, Sir Spell Cheque is against capital punishment, so of course I have problems with the execution on that fundamental level. However there is more to my opposition to the death penalty for Saddam than that. The trial was rather shifty to begin with, with judges and lawyers involved harassed and/or killed. Saddam should have been handed over to an independent international tribunal where a fair trial was much more likely. US refusal to hand Saddam over to such a tribunal leaves even less than cynical minds to wonder what motives the US had in keeping Saddam in Iraq. It surely could not have been fears of not securing a conviction over human rights abuses as, unlike with the WMDs, the evidence was overwhelming.
In his weaker moments Sir Cheque might start to think that Saddam had information that the US would prefer the world not to know. Could be a bit embarrassing. Unfortunately now we may never know. The phrase might say that we should learn history to avoid making the same mistakes, but it is hard to do when we are denied the information (i.e. history) in the first place. Was it worth the risk of creating a martyr that militant people could rally around to avoid the divulging of some embarrassing information in an international court and a slight propaganda boost in the US. Sadly only time will tell.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Eating Anything Halal Is Letting The Terrorists Win
One might consider reading publications such as Melbourne's Herald Sun as something beyond the pale for any self respecting human being. However, that would be denying the fact that the paper can provide some wonderful comic relief to a reader's otherwise deary and over-serious day. For example, take the situation that faced me on Saturday. As I eventually woke up, a fear came over me: I still needed to buy Christmas presents for my parents. These two had proven near impossible to buy for, and with under 48 hours to go, the pressure was on.
Having skipped breakfast, your writer had rushed down to the train station to head into the city in a tired, anxious and hungry state. The stress was getting to me and my iPod was stuck on a loop of Pan Sonic style "easy listening". How was I going to make my way through this? My salvation came in the form of a copy of that day's Herald Sun located on the seat of the train. (Never thought I would type that!)
I threw out the lifestyle and real estate sections, discarded the gossip columns at the back, disposed of the classifieds and tore out the jingoistic crap about Warne at the front of the paper. Within the remaining 9 pages, through all of the carefully placed puff pieces and advertising, I managed to find the reason why I still think, despite all logic, that the Herald Sun should be allowed to exist. The title grabbed me straight away, uplifting me with hope.
Could it be? Is this the article that will take my mind off of any serious issue that may be plaguing me and/or the world? I read on:
Having skipped breakfast, your writer had rushed down to the train station to head into the city in a tired, anxious and hungry state. The stress was getting to me and my iPod was stuck on a loop of Pan Sonic style "easy listening". How was I going to make my way through this? My salvation came in the form of a copy of that day's Herald Sun located on the seat of the train. (Never thought I would type that!)
I threw out the lifestyle and real estate sections, discarded the gossip columns at the back, disposed of the classifieds and tore out the jingoistic crap about Warne at the front of the paper. Within the remaining 9 pages, through all of the carefully placed puff pieces and advertising, I managed to find the reason why I still think, despite all logic, that the Herald Sun should be allowed to exist. The title grabbed me straight away, uplifting me with hope.
Unholy row at barbie
Could it be? Is this the article that will take my mind off of any serious issue that may be plaguing me and/or the world? I read on:
SOME parents are upset that an end-of-year barbecue is serving only halal meat.
Pascoe Vale North Primary School had its traditional Christmas party on Wednesday this week.The school served only halal sausages -- slaughtered and blessed according to rules set down in the Koran -- angering some parents.
YEEESSSSS!!!!!! I had hit tabloid comedy pay dirt. It had hit all of the buttons that need to be pushed in modern tabloid journalism.
- Something that can be used to beat up those evil Muslims with.
- The defence of the glorious tradition of Christmas, upon which the hopes of Peace, Western Civilisation and a local horse winning the next Melbourne cup, among other things rests.
- Evil state schools not being Christian enough (and in cahoots with the Muslims, can it get any better?)
Principal Peter Adams said the kids really liked the sausages.
"The sausages are from a local supplier and the most delicious sausages in the world," he said.
"Given the sausages were so delicious and tasted similar to ordinary sausages, for practical reasons we thought it would be easier to serve halal sausages to everyone.
"The kids had a great time and they all enjoyed the sausages."
Mr Adams said prep students also received presents from Santa at the party.
"Pascoe Vale North Primary students, teachers and parents believe the true message of Christmas is peace, love and tolerance," he said.
"At our Christmas party we celebrate it all and we had Santa who gave presents to all the preps."
What gives, Mr Adams? Don't you know that Andrew Bolt is on a well earned holiday? Couldn't you have joined in this blatant beat up? It's not as if people would have taken you're comments as being anything but sarcastic. But no, you just had to bring me back into the depressing real world rather than the comic book escapism that the Hun was going for. Thanks a lot.
P.S. Larvatus Prodeo also comment on the story.
P.P.S. If you can't tell that this post is somewhat sarcastic, then God/Allah/Buddha/whoever have mercy on your soul, even if it is not Halal.
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Demise of "Turkmenbashi"
A very intriguing geopolitical situation is emerging in Turkmenistan after the sudden death of its leader Sapurmurat Niyazov, aged 66 of a heart attack. Niyazov, or "Turkmenbashi" (Father of all Turkmens) as he preferred to be called was perhaps one of the most bizarre and authoritarian dictators of the Post Cold War period (Kim Jong Il/ Kim Il Sung aside). Apart from the Turkmenbashi thing, The Guardian lists a range of the more extreme facets of the Turkmenbashi's personality cult, including:
Pretty impressive, no? It will be difficult for the next leader of Turkmenisatn to top that. But who will that person be? The answer at the minute is that no one knows. Having banned all political parties and brutally repressed anything that might resemble a challenge to him, the Turkmenbashi has also failed to groom an obvious successor. The successor as stipulated under the constitution is currently under investigation and therefore ineligible. With Turkmenbashi ruling like an absolute monarch, there are fears that Turkmenistan could even collapse into civil war in his absence as there would be no one with the experience and skills to rule effectively.
But why does Turkmenistan matter? Sure, your average Turkmen might be interested in this news but why would anyone else give a rat's arse? The main answer is that Turkmenistan has the fifth largest natural gas reserves which end up in Europe via Russia. China is also interested in getting in among the action not only for energy supplies but also to reassert influence in the Central Asian region. The U.S. is also looking on with interest due to the geography as Turkmenistan borders both Iran and Afghanistan while also having a large coast with the Caspian Sea, a major oil reserve. It might be considered cynical and so 20th century to think that foreign policy (especially U.S. foreign policy) is driven by the desire for resources however it is hard to believe that such considerations will not play a major part in the coming weeks.
- Commissioning an Ice Palace (Turkmenistan is largely desert)
- Renaming January "Turkmenbashi"
- The construction of many gold statues that rotated so that they always faced the sun
- Published his own book ("Ruhnama") that became part of the legal code
- Banned opera and ballet
- Closed all hospitals outside the capital Ashgabat
Pretty impressive, no? It will be difficult for the next leader of Turkmenisatn to top that. But who will that person be? The answer at the minute is that no one knows. Having banned all political parties and brutally repressed anything that might resemble a challenge to him, the Turkmenbashi has also failed to groom an obvious successor. The successor as stipulated under the constitution is currently under investigation and therefore ineligible. With Turkmenbashi ruling like an absolute monarch, there are fears that Turkmenistan could even collapse into civil war in his absence as there would be no one with the experience and skills to rule effectively.
But why does Turkmenistan matter? Sure, your average Turkmen might be interested in this news but why would anyone else give a rat's arse? The main answer is that Turkmenistan has the fifth largest natural gas reserves which end up in Europe via Russia. China is also interested in getting in among the action not only for energy supplies but also to reassert influence in the Central Asian region. The U.S. is also looking on with interest due to the geography as Turkmenistan borders both Iran and Afghanistan while also having a large coast with the Caspian Sea, a major oil reserve. It might be considered cynical and so 20th century to think that foreign policy (especially U.S. foreign policy) is driven by the desire for resources however it is hard to believe that such considerations will not play a major part in the coming weeks.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Bush Announces That The Sky Is Blue
A big ol' storm is sure to be brewing in the coming days in the wake of the statement of George W. Bush regarding the war in Iraq. According to The Age, Bush has somberly changed his tune of the previous three and a bit years.
Of course, its not just the domestic political situation that Bush has to be concerned about. One very real possibility and perhaps the most logical one is the breakup of Iraq. To begin with, the south might want to create an independent state or join in some way with Iran. Not exactly a pleasant prospect for the U.S. government. A much more difficult juggling act is likely concerning the north, were the people there are likely to call for an independent Kurdish state. Often referred to as 'History's losers', the Kurds have copped the rough end of the pineapple after being sold out by the Western allies in the WWI Peace treaties. The establishment of any Kurdish state will not only upset U.S. 'enemies' like Iran and Syria, but most of all U.S. ally Turkey, who has fought a civil war against the Kurds for decades. How the U.S. responds to independence movements could alter the history of the region for decades to come. Given the track record, I do not hold much optimism for Bush to steer the issue in the right direction.
"I'm not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq except that it's going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices," he said, warning "the enemy is merciless and violent".However Bush hasn't let himself be totally consumed by common sense and logic.In a departure from his upbeat tone of only weeks ago, Mr Bush earlier admitted for the first time the United States was not winning in Iraq, approvingly quoting a top US general as saying: "We're not winning, we're not losing."
The remark, in an interview for the Washington Post, was a reversal from his promise that "absolutely, we're winning" before the November 7 congressional elections.
Still, given the constancy of the optimism that has emanated from the White House over Iraq, any cracks in the veneer are going to be seen to be "big news". With the Congress being handed over to the Democrats in January and many from the GOP deserting him in droves, it will be interesting to see if Bush can pull a solution out of the hat which is both effective and politically agreeable. I am not optimistic and can foresee a solution formulated with the later at the forefront with the people of Iraq given token consideration.Asked about those comments, Mr Bush said: "I believe that we're going to win" and added that "my comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted."
"I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can't run us out of the Middle East; that they can't intimidate America," he vowed.
Of course, its not just the domestic political situation that Bush has to be concerned about. One very real possibility and perhaps the most logical one is the breakup of Iraq. To begin with, the south might want to create an independent state or join in some way with Iran. Not exactly a pleasant prospect for the U.S. government. A much more difficult juggling act is likely concerning the north, were the people there are likely to call for an independent Kurdish state. Often referred to as 'History's losers', the Kurds have copped the rough end of the pineapple after being sold out by the Western allies in the WWI Peace treaties. The establishment of any Kurdish state will not only upset U.S. 'enemies' like Iran and Syria, but most of all U.S. ally Turkey, who has fought a civil war against the Kurds for decades. How the U.S. responds to independence movements could alter the history of the region for decades to come. Given the track record, I do not hold much optimism for Bush to steer the issue in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)