TheGeoffRe(y)port

Had to laugh at reading this one. So there’s a global food crisis going on, and President Bush recently put out a statement attributing a bunch of the problem to developing nations like China and India experiencing economic growth, and basically finding themselves with a middle class:

During a news conference in Missouri, Bush mentioned India’s growing middle class, and said “when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.” This came on the heels of a similar statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that had already upset many in India. (Source: International Herald Tribune)

So the Indians got a little bit peturbed at being blamed for the global crisis, and told George exactly what they think is going on:

“George Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics,” Jairam Ramesh, the minister of state for commerce, told The Press Trust of India after Bush’s remarks, which he said proved again how “comprehensively wrong” Bush is.

“To say that demand for food in India is causing increase in global food prices is completely wrong,” Ramesh said.

Politicians and academics in India cite various other reasons: diversion of arable land in the United States and Europe into ethanol production; trade subsidies by the United States and Europe; and the dollar’s decline. (Source: International Herald Tribune)

Issues like this are the reason it’s impossible not to wince when you hear comments from politicians (American or Australian) that talk about the importance of “protecting the American/Australian way of life”. Because while there’s a bunch of values tied up in our “way of life”, and probably some values that are worth keeping, it also encompasses a presumption of standard of living which is completely unsustainable if applied to the global population. We’ve got to recognise that the standard of living we have taken for granted in countries like our own are way beyond the resources of the world, and that any effort to “make poverty history” requires a violent reduction in western affluence).

So well done to India for telling the Yanks where they can shove it.

This is one of the most amusing attempts at gathering sympathy that I’ve heard in a long time:

“The motor vehicle industry has slammed a budget plan to increase the tax on luxury cars, saying it will hurt families struggling with the higher cost of fuel and could force makers to drop safety features.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has confirmed that tomorrow’s budget will increase the tax on cars of more than $57,000 from 25% to 33% and will affect about 105,000 car purchases a year.

The plan is part of budget cuts aimed at the wealthy.

Mr Swan said the changes would mainly affect imported cars such the S-Type Jaguar, and increase its price by $2600.” (Source: The Age - Squeals over plan for luxury car tax)

Let me just be certain that I have this correct: an extra 2 and a half thousand on cars over $57,000 is going to “hurt families struggling with the higher cost of fuel”. If families are hurt by how much it costs to fill up with petrol, maybe they should be considering a slightly more affordable vehicle. It makes me sick; this deeply embedded sense of entitlement for excessively luxurious items that has been bred through this consumer culture of ours. Because that quote there my friends would make me vomit, if I wasn’t so busy laughing.

photo credit: Howie_Berlin

Immediately after Heath Ledger died, especially for the time that it looked more likely that it was a suicide rather than accidental death, the reactions were remarkably interesting. There was the standard fan response - tributes and the like, but there was another response that I found to be remarkably interesting. It came in letters to the editor and blog comments and went roughly along these lines:

• “Why would he do this to himself?”
• “This guy had everything, and yet he’d kill himself”
• “How dare he do this?”

It wasn’t just disbelief - this was an angry response. The very same comments could be heard about Britney Spears’ latest breakdown, or whichever celebrity it is who has been caught drink-driving or checked into rehab. There is a real anger that these people would have everything - and “everything” is the word that gets used to describe it - and yet that’s not enough for them.

It seems to me that this anger doesn’t look much different to the sort of righteous indignation we get from fundamentalists at having their nicely boxed theologies challenged. Celebrity, and with it the concept that fame and fortune are somehow the pinnacle of human endeavour, is the state religion. So it doesn’t go well when someone’s actions come along and challenge that. 

Ever since I saw the movie with Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving (possibly the most underrated Australian actor in the business, I’ve had a bit of a “thing” about “V for Vendetta”. So after I made some noises about the graphic novel when we saw it at Borders on our honeymoon, the lovely Rebecca duly took note and made sure that a copy came my way when it came to birthday time. It hasn’t taken long for me to devour the book, and it’s rekindled my intrigue.

At it’s heart “V” strikes at a number of things that resonate with me, as well as draws attention to a few things that I’m not as sure about. For starters, there is the revolution against a fascist totalitarian state. And it strikes at something deep inside (likely put there by WWII movies and computer games) that makes is just fantastic for someone to be beating up the fascists. There’s just something deep down that wants to barrack for the guy who is starting the revolution. I came out of the movie the first time ready to bust some heads.

But it poses some big questions, particularly around justice. V kills - not indiscriminately but with the moral self-certainty of a vigilante. The ethics of “just-war” type thinking, mixed in with the problem of cheering for a terrorist (particularly in today’s climate) give a great opportunity to re-evaluate exactly what you believe in these situations.

The graphic novel is noticeably different from the film (partly out of necessity: the novel was written in the early 80s and set in the late 90s) but the film certainly stayed true to the heart of the comic. It’s a really fun read, but I must admit I couldn’t read “V” talking without hearing Hugo Weaving’s voiceover ringing through my head.

Purple-hearted Mark will love me for picking a fight with his arch-enemies the wee-girls, but when I read this on The Age (stolen from the West Australian) I couldn’t let it pass without comment:

“WEST COAST chief executive Trevor Nisbett has accepted responsibility for the scandals that have rocked the club but defended his job and said calls for his sacking were naive because no single person could change the player culture at a football club.”

So it’s naive to suggest that you should remove a significant part of any problem, because it doesn’t make up the whole problem. Nisbett is right though - no one person is able to change the culture of the football club, and so as a result the entire management of the club should resign if they are serious about changing the culture.

I’m aware that this makes me a hypocrite, having already joined in a synchroblog for “Australia Day”, but I think that this is an issue that rates a mention. I was spurred into posting this after getting hassled by little Paulie for having a reference to “Invasion Day” in my Instant Messaging status.

I think that it is a disgrace that our national holiday occurs on a day that commemorates white settlement in Australia. I am deeply proud to be an Australian, and I think it is a very important thing to have one day in our year that we can sit back and be thankful for the wonderful country that us good guys live in. But I think it stinks that our only real chance to do that is on the day that white people came to settle in Australia.

Reconciliation with our indigenous people in Australia, both on a practical as well as a symbolic level is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) and most important issues facing our country over the next couple of decades. But a mindset that says that we should celebrate the birth of our nation on the date of the arrival of the first fleet (because like it or not, that’s what Australia Day is saying), is a mindset that alienates and increases the psychological and idealogical gap between indigenous Australians and the rest of this nation.

It’s time for this nation to grow up, to recognise that not everything great that happened in Australia was brought about by European settlement, and to find a national day that can unite, rather than divide this beautiful and great nation of ours. I’m suggesting Federation Day, which given that it falls on January 1, should have the holiday landing on January 2. What’s more Australian than giving an extra day to recover from your New Years party with a national public holiday?

For More Information:

• Australia Day - Wikipedia
• AustraliaDay.gov.au on “Australia Day and Reconciliation”

(crossposted from Amateur Theology because I think as many people as possible should see this.)

The video that the below clip is from is perhaps the best description I’ve heard of for why there’s something deeply wrong with the consumption-centric system that our economy is based on. It puts out the big picture for what Brian McLaren describes in his new book “Everything Must Change” as “the suicide machine”. So please - set aside 20 minutes to watch the whole video here, and understand what’s wrong with the system that our world economy is centered around. The Story Of Stuff

Hat tip to Paul

My wedding is in 33 sleeps. That’s coming up, really, really quickly. And it’s important, it’s big, and it will be very exciting. But it’s not the key part. The important thing is that in 33 sleeps, I’m going to be married. And that’s a whole different kettle of fish. Because while the people who are making small talk (and there’s nothing wrong with that at all) are asking “How’s the wedding preparations going?”, the people who I’m in really close relationship and who are wanting to find out what’s really going on are much more likely to ask something along the lines of “How are you going with preparing to be married?”

It’s a curious phenomenon that a culture who isn’t really sure what it wants to do with marriage, really wants to do something big and impressive for a wedding. And while I’m in awe of my bride-to-be’s ability to resist the pretentious and expensive in favour of the personal and home-grown, there is constant pressure to go bigger, more spectacular, more more more more more. We want to celebrate our wedding, we want it to be a very special day, but we don’t want to incur the sort of costs that are going to send us and our immediate families into debt. And ultimately - it’s a party. A big party, a nice party, a party with a beautiful sacrament in a church beforehand,  but it’s a party.

But preparing for a marriage. Wow. Marriage will surely be one of my life’s biggest challenges, and it’s a big call to be going into this thing. There’s so many ways I can stuff it up - and probably some of them that I will. There is no doubt in my mind that Rebecca and I should be taking this step together, but I’m nevertheless terrified by the scale of this commitment we’re entering into. It’s exciting, and it’s a happy feeling, but it’s undoubtedly mixed with fear and terror.

So how’s the wedding preparation going? Good. How’s the marriage preparation? That’s a bigger and better question.

From the BBC:

” A study of the world’s power stations has shown the extent to which developed countries produce more carbon dioxide per head than emerging economies.

Australians were found to be the world’s worst polluters per capita, producing five times as much carbon from generating power as China.”

But we’ll still have an election based on who will keep interest rates lower and give the biggest tax cuts.