American Leadership

For a view on the what next few US Presidential terms may look like have a squiz at a set of essays published in Foreign Affairs magazine. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, running for the Democratic and Republican Presidential nominations respectively, write their thoughts on the future of American Foreign Policy.

Obama, whose visionary style I find quite inspirational, speaks in his article of the work required to regain the world's trust in American leadership. In discussing plans to resolve US involvement in Iraq, limiting nuclear proliferation, fixing the UN's increasingly soft hand (e.g. inaction in Darfur), etc – Barack invokes King and Kennedy, as is becoming his trademark

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich".

Particularly impressive is Obama's emphasis on increasing assistance to weaker states such as Pakistan, so that they don't turn to extremist groups for the source of their future prosperity.

Romney, whilst not the same oratorical league as Obama, states his case for renewing US military strength as the method of restoring America leadership in the world, using Reagan as his historical hero of choice "There have been four wars in my lifetime. None of them came about because the US was too strong." I would suggest Romney's approach to resolving the Islamic jihad threat as misguided. Whilst he commendably realises (unlike his President) that fighting terrorist cells is different to nation state wars, his answers are still based on a demonstration of strength, believing that "this will eventually bring them around to our way of thinking".

Disappointingly, they both remain committed to US dominance in the nuclear space – neither talk about getting rid of nukes, just limiting adoption by others. It's the great shortcoming in the present non-proliferation treaty – those who had exploded the bomb before as certain date are ok, everyone else is prohibited. And rapidly growing nation states like India are unlikely to remain quiet in their discontent in the years to come.

How history may reflect on Dubya

Given that hindsight is 20-20, I often wonder how we may reflect on things in years to come. There's an interesting article in the Washington Post that offers such an insight comparing George Dubya to British politicians circa WWII. Apparently the Prez likens himself to Churchill. In this piece a historian opines that it may not be the original Winnie Blue that Dubya is most like, but rather his predecessor. Sadly I don't think Dubya will be as forgotten as Chamberlain.

Barry Jones offered a slightly more candid insight in his speech at the 8th Annual Manning Clark lecture. He noted that Bush had more in common with Osama than himself – and as is Barry's style, fully backed it up with logical thought.

Ultimately, much of how we reflect on Dubya in years to come will be a function of how the Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East in general fares over the next couple of Presidential terms. Therein lies some hope for the world.

How sweet it is

We were undermanned, underexperienced and supposedly outclassed.

Little did the Chardonnay set of Sydney Swines supporters expect a Magpies team filled with debutants to give them a football lesson in spirit and toughness at the stoppages and close contests. Although by now they should now to expect that the Magpie Army is ever present and ever vocal.

As you can read here even Tim Shame is getting on the Magpies bus after that spirited victory, where the only time the Swans got a sniff was at the bottom of the packs.

Running out victors by 19 points 10.16 (76) to 8.9 (57)- a fantastic highlight of the game was Magpie first gamer Martin Clarke getting 20 touches and shutting down two experienced Swans forwards first Schneider and then Buchanan. Pies spotted Clarke in Ireland 10 months ago (fellow Irishman turned Sydney Swan Tadgh Kennelly notes he was the Gaelic Football equivalent of the next Chris Judd!!). Now after playing only a handful of games (literally the 14th time he has played a game of Australian Rules) he's dominating at the top level.

About the only thing that could have surprised all attending was the return of a prodigal son, one Uncle Rob Pender (centre of picture). Sponsored by Reschs DA, the big man returned to the fold and donned the Black and White for the first time in nearly two decades.

Welcome back to the greatest club on earth Uncle Rob.

They're baaaaaack

Cast your mind back. The year is 1995. Paul Keating is PM, Downer is Opposition Leader, Super League is making steps forward, Qantas is privatised, the Qld Parliament is hung (wow!), and the Warringah Council becomes the first council in Australia to use dung beetles to pick up dog droppings (it really is amazing what people put on Wikipedia).

More to the point the Australian music scene is somewhat violently divided. Nirvana is big, Silverchair takes note of this and win a SBS new band competition with a song called Tomorrow (If I seem a little jaded about this I can explain why). On the other hand Peter Andre has just enjoyed a big year, whilst Maria Carey and N-Trance have dominated the charts for most of the year. Essentially there's a musical war between grunge, pop or if you're on the fringe you might be a raver and listen to that "bloody computer doof-doof stuff which has no right to be called music".

Then they came.

Artist: The Chemical Brothers
Album: Exit Planet Dust

The first ones to really make great songs out of electronica. Not just beat mix records or rip off old tracks (although they have re-done some things brilliantly). They are ground breaking. They frequently merge rock, pop and house music and artists from all genres work with them. And they have not stopped breaking ground ever since.

If there's one thing you know about them, it's that their next album will always produce something you didn't expect, and that it will shape the future of a lot of music that will be released in the next few years.

And now it is here.

At what price?

Hallelujah brothers and sisters - it finally seems that momentum is gathering for the environment to be a critical election issue. What I find ironic and interesting is those still arguing against the immediate action required, are still focused how much it will cost us as a society to rectify the issues (of course they then remember to deny that any such issues really exist - "it's all just a natural cycle". Sure, just ask farmers near Newcastle who've gone straight from drought to flood).

So if we accept for a moment this argument - that action will represent a significant cost to our booming economy and standards of living - what price are we prepared to pay to ensure a safe, clean and healthy environment for future generations? If we to accept the reports of Stern or the IPCC and do the requisite economic modelling on the investment price of new technologies, replacing or building infrastructure, etc - and then translate this into a per capita taxation price - what would we be prepared to pay?

$5 a week? Maybe $10? At what price point would you say - "no, this is costing me too much and impacting my standard of living?"

My fear is that the issue of our environment may follow the all-too-well-trodden path of aid to third world countries - being the biggest issue of a particular moment but we fail to ever actually resolve it. Governments make largely token efforts e.g. we'll give you aid with a massive interest rate or tie it to trade barriers in our favour, and the general public will come together to record a LiveAid CD, then for the large part forget about the issue.

I hope I'm just being overly cynical.

A blog is a diary

Each time I write something in my diary that I feel comfortable sharing with the world I share it here.

I'll let you know when I get there.