A Photon in the Darkness: A Field Guide to Quackery and Pseudoscience – Part Two

A Photon in the Darkness: A Field Guide to Quackery and Pseudoscience – Part Two

A Photon in the Darkness: A Field Guide to Quackery and Pseudoscience – Part One

A Photon in the Darkness: A Field Guide to Quackery and Pseudoscience – Part One

Part 2 to follow. Prometheus describes Q&P in extremely easy to understand terms. This info is presented like a biology text book.

Fundies Say the Darndest Things

Now this is an interesting little site - Fundies Say The Darndest Things - you have to admit, Christian 'mentalists are nothing if not creatively stupid.

This one is my current favourite - YOU MUST CLICK HERE!!

A Slight Case of Overbombing Part 1 – Why people do not choose to be gay.

This one is an absolutely crazy mad one. It will probably run to 3 parts, but I don’t know yet.

Our federal government just gets more and more reactionary. And eventually they get to that point where you have to ask, “What is the deal?”

Readers will know that over the past two years, there has been a move by several jurisdictions around the world to have gay marriage legalised.

Most people would, of course, say, “Why not? What’s wrong with that?”

This writer is about to get married, and so this rings a bell with him. That is, myself.

(My word, this talking about oneself in the third person can get confusing).

The point that I have steered away from, is that the Australian federal government, has for those of you who don’t know, shored up the legislation regarding marriage so that it specifically refers to marriage as being a Union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Mmm. Now if this isn’t homophobic discrimination, I don’t know what is.

First of all, let’s look at the underlying issue. Gay men and women would like to get married to each other.

In some bizarre conclusion, the federal government, headed up by the socially progressive PM John Howard and his equally small-l liberal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock have concluded that gay marriage is “anti-family”.

Anti-family?? What drugs are they smoking?? And where can I get some??

The whole thing about gay marriage that I thought would appeal to the increasingly conservative Einsteins in Canberra, is that marriage is supposed to encourage a monogamous family unit, which is about as family as you can get.

OK. So we can safely say that the anti-family line is outright bullshit. The government is certainly pandering to groups that claim to be “pro-family”, however, the family issue with regards to this is clearly a red herring.

This position is unacceptable to gay Australia, and quite rightly so. But I don’t think that the government fully comprehends the implications of what they’ve done.

Take a hypothetical gay couple who have decided that they wish to get married. We’ll call them Chuck and Randy. They now do not have that choice, unless they marry someone from the opposite sex. This is unacceptable to them, as they are in love with each other.

If they have a civil “commitment ceremony”, this is not considered, in the eyes of the law, anyway, to be the same as a wedding between a man and a woman. This leads to all sorts of problems with regards to things like estate planning, child adoption, tax, superannuation, name changing etc.

Chuck and Randy are pretty much screwed, unless they can do some tricky legal manoeuvring.

And all because they are pre-disposed towards members of the same sex.

Now it is generally agreed these days that most of the evidence suggests that gay humans are genetically blueprinted to be gay.

There are still idiots out there who believe that one chooses their sexual preference.

Let’s run with this.

Do you remember when YOU chose your sexual preference?

I don’t remember. I don’t remember because I DIDN’T GET TO CHOOSE. I WAS ALWAYS ATTRACTED TO WOMEN, AND I WAS NEVER ATTRACTED TO MEN.

This speaks volumes for the minority of people who believe that one’s sexuality is a matter of choice. Logic dictates that anyone who chose to be straight falls into one of the following camps (an unintentional pun, but I think I’ll let that one slide, hee hee):

1. The obvious conclusion is that they are clearly bisexual. This is just common sense – if you are mentally saying, “I will only chase chicks, and not blokes, even though I am also attracted to them,” well, you bat for both teams, sunshine. There is no other conclusion that you can arrive at.

2. On closer inspection, however, another possibility presents itself. Once upon a time, people who were gay were heavily discriminated against. Oh, wait a minute, they still are. Anyway, if you were a chick who was into chicks, and you were terrified that you would be marginalised (which sadly still happens), you might make a conscious decision to pursue a relationship with a bloke. In other words, you are gay and you are choosing to be straight.

3. Lastly there are a few people out there for whom options A or B do not present themselves. Given the logical impossibility of a straight person choosing to be straight, let’s say that you don’t harbour a sexual attraction to either men, or women. For simplicity’s (and countless other’s) sake, we’ll also assume that you aren’t into animals, kiddies, ashtrays, fire hydrants, etc. By choosing to pursue a trans-Platonic relationship with someone from the opposite sex, you are pretty much denying the fact that you are asexual, bub.

So, those who chose to be straight are clearly gay, bi or “a”.

Which begs the question – what must you be if you choose to be gay?

And given that people usually choose to be straight in order to avoid harassment, persecution, violence, bigotry, stigma, etc, what reason would one have to choose a gay lifestyle?

We’ll look into these in our next instalment.

My Lolita Complex

When the Greatest Movie Franchise of all Time® opens up again in June, well here, anyway, I aim to be one of the first in the door.

Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace will gross more than Episode 4 - A New Hope, Episode 5 - The Empire Strikes Back and Episode 6 - Return of the Jedi put together. Bet your superannuation on it.

And when it does, we (being me and a select group of my mates) will triumphantly traipse down to Village's Gold Class cinemas in the Crown Casino complex to partake of this piece of movie history, from the convenience of fully wound back Jason recliners.

Yes folks. This year, Star Wars is back, and I, for one, am most pleased. It seems that this year is The International Year of the Movie, with the return of, not only George Lucas and Co, but also, Terrence Malick (whose The Thin Red Line is apparently the character piece of the year. I say 'apparently', as I haven't even had a chance to see it, yet) and Stanley Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut), as well as a new Bond flick (come to think of it, wouldn't this be the Greatest Movie Franchise of all Time ®?) and the most cool The Matrix, which I saw recently, and I dug immensely.

But back to Star Wars. Instead of Luke, Leia, Han etc, we get a young Obi-Wan, and a younger Anakin Skywalker as well as guys with the names of Qui-Gon Jinn and Darth Maul. Highly entertaining, and most exciting.

I grew up with Star Wars. My family and I went to the old Skyline Drive-In in Frenchs Forest to see this movie, not long before they pulled it down to build an industrial park. I had a Star Wars figurine - the inimitable wookiee Chewbacca (one of the funniest names for a character in movie history, methinks), and was in to see the other Star Wars pictures with my family, but both at the Hoyts Twin (now a 7 cinema multiplex, but becoming a 200 cinema megaplex or something in the not too distant future) down at Warringah Mall. I wasn't obsessive, or anything, hell no. I didn't fork out for one of those way cool Darth Vader costumes, for instance, or read those books regarding what Han Solo did in his subsequent life after he and Leia lived happily ever after, but I still regard with some interest, all goings on in that galaxy far, far away, and I like asking questions regarding the whole thing, like:

What game, for instance, were Han and Lando playing the night that Lando lost the Millennium Falcon? Was it, as I have long suspected, Manila? What made Boba Fett such a damn good bounty hunter, and why did he fly around in a spaceship that looked sorta like the head of an elephant? Why was Darth Vader such a bad bloke? Who was more evil: Darth Vader, or Ernst Stavro Blofeld? Was Blofeld, as some have speculated, James Bond's father? When will they make a Bond film with Salacious Crumb as a baddie?

[Now if you want it to be a total surprise, (and I direct my comments here to a certain old school friend of mine who is now art director at a prominent Australian music monthly) don't read any of the hype, and don't watch the trailer. Just go in there and be impressed at the sheer extravagance of the budget that has been spent.]

Only one month to go. Sigh.

Mind you, you wouldn't know it, with the stink over Lolita having not died down yet.

This has brought out political opportunism from all sides of Parliament. Politicians called for Lolita to be banned, thus ensuring that the movie was seen by more than who would have originally given the film more than a passing glance, not to mention, bringing it to the full attention of the yellow-plastic-raincoat-brigade.

But what these people don't seem to realise, is that if you were to ban Lolita, you would have to ban Nabokov's book, and Kubrick's movie of the same name. As well as Frank Moorhouse's novel The Everlasting Secret Family, a sordid tale involving a club that little boys joined in order to pick up old sleazebags, and then become paedophiles themselves. This suspect tale, incidentally, became a very weird movie with Mark Lee and John Meillon in, and it goes without saying that this particular movie would have to be banned as well.

I'm not siding with the movie. I do not support paedophilia. I have it on very good authority that this movie is about as boring as urinating in the Tanami desert and waiting around for a Grand Canyon to form. Or listening to a whole Backstreet Boys album.

What I'm saying is that politicians in Canberra are a shameful bunch of political opportunists who scramble over one another to secure votes when opportunities like Lolita arise, and ignore the fact that there is true evil out there that needs to be dealt with, like heroin addiction.

Unlike, of course, our heroes in Star Wars, who do it because it's right, not necessarily popular.

Sometimes fantasy is better than reality. I wonder if Helena Christensen or Christy Turlington would be interested in making a movie with me?

Big Day Out 99

Geez it's been a while since I wrote a Diatribe. I know how lazy I am, and I hang my head in shame, but here it is: a summation of the return of one of my favourite events, the Big Day Out.

We started off the day with a brief bit of the Dirty Three. We were too far from the stage, so we went to the main stage to see Even.

Even were really good. I've never liked much of Even's work, but I thought that on the main stage they put in a ripsnorter of a set, and it was a shame to leave them for the 3RRR stage where Snout were playing.

But before that, we saw a sterling set from Matt Walker and Ashley Davies, in the hall. These two musicians make acoustic music beautiful again.

We didn't see enough of Snout, but from what I saw, they weren't their usual selves. Usually, they seem to work, but on the day, they were missing something. So we went to catch the Superjesus on the main stage.

This was the only time all day that they got the sound right on the main stage, and the Superjesus were performing well. Frontwoman Sarah McLeod has come a long way from when I last saw them, and their sound was tight and together.

3RRR stage again for Ash. Their thin sound problems grated on us, and we didn't hear them play 'Kung Fu', so we went off to the main stage to catch Regurgitator who I thought were alright, considering the sound problems on the main stage.

On a side note, it seems to be tradition that the sound on the outdoor stages at the BDO is nothing better than appalling. This year, they not only maintained that tradition, they redefined the term 'sonic muck'. Only on the 'Essentials' stage was the sound any good, probably because it was in a hall, and thus not subject to the noise restrictions of the outdoor stages.

But it was the Essentials stage where we went for the next band, Brisbane's Not From There.

Not From There have a sound that has been described as 'industrial', 'thrashy', 'dissonant', 'discordant' and 'arty' amongst others. I call it incredible. Even though the guitarist sings most of their material in German, you don't have to understand a word to get the general gist of this music, as I found. We watched in awe until they played Sich Offnen, and then went off to the main stage where Soulfly were playing.

Now, who would you expect to be louder, an arty noise band such as Not From There, or a sick Brazilian 'tribal metal' band? It certainly weren't Soulfly, and I could see metalheads shaking their heads in disbelief, not banging them, you understand, as the only parts of the mix that we could hear were the double kick drum and Max Cavalera's tortured metal vocals. We left after one song for a bit of a wander around.

Now, I know people who didn't go, as the price was a little steep. Up $20, in fact, on previous BDOs. But on walking around, we worked out that that was because they had included an extra stage (the new Skate stage) and an extra dance floor (the Hot House). Not being into canned music (the topic of conversation amongst us who are not boom-chi-boom-chi literate was whether it would be worthwhile checking out Fatboy Slim later in the day, as he might be "playing live". He wasn't), we spent most of the day moving from stage to stage.

And so it was back to the main stage for the Living End. And don't the kiddies love them. They sound a little bit like the Clash beating up members of the Stray Cats, but I thought they were good, plus, the thought of Topper Heddon and Slim Jim Phantom engaging in fisticuffs intrigues me. Possibly the biggest mosh of the day, next to Korn.

We went off to the hall to see Sparklehorse, who were, quite simply, breathtaking. Think country-pop, without getting phony Nashville, or folky, and were worthy replacements for Wilco, who pulled out.

On to the 3RRR stage for a brief spot of the Mavis's. Personally, I think they did well considering that Becky had to spend the gig sitting down on account of the fact that she had apparently slipped a disc.

Then it was back to the hall for Antenna, a band featuring Australian music legends Dave Fawkner (ex-Hoodoo Gurus) and Kim Salmon (ex-Scientists, Beasts of Bourbon and current Surrealist) as well as most of Sydney electronic crew Frontside. I thought they were very good. Chrissie Amphlett didn't make an appearance, but Matt from the Mavis's did.

Off again, we were, this time for a little bit of the Fun Loving Criminals on the 3RRR stage. They were, quite simply, lame, although, I could see the potential there for enjoyment. Indeed, after the event, all the reviews that I've read of the Fun Loving Criminals at the BDO have praised them incessantly, but we had to move on to see a little bit of Korn on the main stage.

Possibly the biggest mosh of the day, the sound, I noticed was a little better here, but still not good enough, and what was the echo off the stand? Most uncool, I thought. Anyway, I thought Korn played competently, and the kids loved them, and showed their appreciation in the mosh pit.

What is it with 'moshing' anyway? I liked it better when it was called 'slamming'. It was less gratuitous, ie people only slammed when the music was fast and loud, not all the time, and if people fell down, people made room so that that person could be helped to safety. Now it's just a session of aggression therapy featuring your average Moe babysitter and his mates, and if you're female, then be prepared to have your breasts ripped off in the most un-called for and obvious display of gropage I have yet to bear witness to. Bring back the honour system, oh, and by the way, it is most hard to see the band through a hundred bodies all crowd surfing at the same time. If someone tries to use my back to get up on top of everyone again, I will deliberately move out of the way at the right moment, just in time to have them come crashing to their death.

After we had seen enough of Korn, we moved off to the 3RRR stage again to catch a brief glimpse of Happyland. What we saw was actually good, and I welcome the chance to see a full set from them, preferably inside, and properly soundchecked.

Only after two songs of theirs, we went off to the Skate Stage to see The Mark of Cain, but the sound on this stage was possibly the poorest of the day, rendering TMOC's sound laughable, and you do not laugh at The Mark Of Cain.

Loss of respect for legends due to poor sound quality is one thing, but we went and saw Marilyn Manson's full set, as we'd been promised controversy. Alas, Manson didn't provide, however, he did provide a very professionally executed glam rock show, complete with the word 'DRUGS' in 5 metre high neon letters.

At this point, allow me to have a whinge at the kiddies who found it necessary to throw their empty (or, sometimes, not quite so empty…) water bottles at the performers. This is just plain deplorable. I have read numerous stories of how Kram from Spiderbait and Daniel Johns from Silverchair have been injured by flying missiles hurled from the audience. In Kram's case, it was an unopened can of beer. One day, a band is just going to walk off the stage two songs in, and the audience, being as aggressive as it is these days, is going to find the person responsible and beat them to a pulp.

Hole on the main stage to finish off the evening. I saw about five songs, and thought they were about 4000% improved on the putrid performance that they put in at the BDO about three or four years ago. But we left to catch TISM on the 3RRR stage after this, and apparently they went downhill after this because you know who talks too much and doesn't play enough music.

As always, TISM put in a superb set, marred only by, yes, you guessed it, sound problems. Ron Hitler-Barassi's poem was about how he took Marilyn Manson out to the suburbs, and how Manson despaired at the fact that there were people there more grotesque than him. Hitler-Barassi also claimed to have slept with Courtney Love.

Highlights

Antenna, Matt Walker and Ashley Davies, Even, the Superjesus and Not From There

Standout Highlight

Sparklehorse

Lowlights

The sound quality, Fun Loving Criminals, bottle throwing yobbos, gratuitous crowd surfers, drinks prices

Worth the price?

As always, the answer is a resounding 'yes', and I am unanimous in that.

1998: The Year in Review

If you've looked at the news this year, you'd would be thinking that only four things were important.

Monica Lewinsky.

The bombing of Iraq.

The collapse of the South East Asian economies.

And, Seinfeld's last episode.

And these all annoy the living snot out of me, because these were all fine examples of hypocrisy in action.

Take the South East Asian economic crisis. First of all, Mahathir Mohammed, the Malaysian Prime Minister makes the absurd claim that those economies were in ruin because of speculative trading by hedge funds. This was always going to be laughable coming from a guy who gets rid of political opponents by having them arrested on trumped up charges of sodomy. Not to mention the fact that if this was the case, we would have seen a correction straight away as traders sought to capitalise on this.

But then various economic gurus got in on the act, and started the ball rolling by saying that unchecked trading by hedge funds was getting out of hand, and, in one case of abstract expressionism, would apparently lead to the "collapse of capitalism" internationally.

As I guffawed my way through all the various reading material that was presenting itself, it became clear to me that economic gurus themselves were showing hypocrisy that was blatant in a way that the Wiggles are the Spice Girls for a new generation.

I might just quickly point out that, although the Spice Girls are now history, and we shall hear less and less of them, until the odd one turns up in a Penthouse centrefold, the Wiggles have been around for a good many years, catering to their core audience, longer than the Spice Girls ever were. Plus, the Wiggles never 'sold out', to use a terribly cliched and pretentious phrase.

But back to the topic at hand.

If you recall 1997, you may remember that the Nobel Prize in Economics was won by a group of speculators who somehow managed to make billions of dollars with a trust fund that they set up specifically for that purpose. Or maybe you don't.

Anyway, the economic line of thought these days has swung 180º to the point where making profit out of international hedge funds is no longer 'cool'. People of the standing of the IMF, World Bank, George Soros, Warren Buffett et al are lining up to push the point that there should be more controls on speculative capital flows.

The fact these people and institutions are condemning a free market in capital is all of rude, arrogant and downright disgusting, when you consider that these people make their profits out of hedging their capital. George Soros once made a few billion dollars out of gambling on sterling, in the space of a few days. The sheer tenacity these people display borders on the paranoid.

I refuse to comment on Monica Lewinsky, and the Iraq thing. Americans just earn my contempt, these days. It is the world's decadent Roman Empire, and I welcome the day when the lean and hungry barbarians from the south come in search of the wealth that the USA has plundered from them. Viva la revoluçion!

But I will comment on the last episode of Seinfeld.

Not much annoys me. I hate war. I hate horseracing. I really hate Seven's Summer of Tennis. But Seinfeld was truly the pits.

This show ran for nine years, and was as close to a creative vacuum as you could get. Honestly, the jokes were as tired as an episode of Hey! Hey! It's Saturday! You had this show that was seriously, seriously, unfunny. And don't say it wasn't: there is enough evidence to suggest that it was the worst TV show ever to go to air. When one hack in the media put Seinfeld up there with Cheers, MASH, and the Mary Tyler Moore Show, he was spouting hyperbole that could lead to a suicide attempt a few years from now.

Here are a few reasons why Seinfeld doesn't even make it into the top ten thousand sitcoms of all time.

• The Young Ones, Blackadder, McHale's Navy, The Phil Silvers Show, Get Smart, Newsradio, need I go on?
• Jerry Seinfeld's monologues - excruciatingly bad. Not only can this guy not act, but he cannot deliver a punchline, and his twee observations on life are so bad, that I genuinely felt embarrassed for the guy.
• Kramer. One jerk of the head, one joke. The fact that people continually found this funny says far too much regarding the quality of TV programs at the moment.
• Elaine. Surprisingly, she had the best material on the show, but had to put on this whiny voice in order for the viewers to find something about her that was less likeable than the star so that she didn't get her own Frasier-esque spin-off.
• George. Funnier than the rest of the (regular) cast combined. Maybe because Jason Alexander can genuinely act, yet just wasn't good enough to redeem this truly lamentable piece of televisual excrement.

The sad fact about Seinfeld was that a "show about nothing" - which it was not, unironically - pulled so many gullible viewers, when it was as funny as lifting the top off a scab. Yet, people will also watch Mad About You, which is nearly as bad. I just don't get it. I have to say this, though. I have changed my mind on Friends. It can actually be quite good in spots, especially when the characters aren't trying quite so hard to be likeable, and also when David Schwimmer's and Jennifer Aniston's characters aren't within cooee of the camera.

But I think that it is time to wrap up, so here are my picks of the year.

Best Movie: Wild Things - this had me going from start to finish. Denise Richards provided the best two parts of the movie, and it had more ridiculous twists in it than you could poke a stick at. Special mentions should go to Neve Campbell and Kevin Bacon on a job well done.

Best CD: The Dandy Warhols Come Down (The Dandy Warhols) - These guys played a whole CD of drug-taking psychedelia and get up and get down pop that is best played loud enough for the neighbours to yell: "Hey, turn that hippy shit off!!"

Best computer game: Unreal - when you're in that corridor where you've just pressed the two big red switches, and the lights go off one by one, you think that you've just entered Hell. Truly a masterfully atmospheric game, with lots of violent carnage, the way we all like it.

Best song: Sich Offnen (Not From There) - When this guitar hits you, it's like being slammed into the side of a freight train that's being pulled by about five locomotives, and with it's killer chorus, "I watch you laugh/I watch you cry/I watch you fade away/ahhoooooooooo," you will never want to not hear that song again.

Best Sit Com: Newsradio - this one snuck up on me faster than a pensioner on a longneck of Carlton Draught. Every character is insane, and it showed the genius that was Phil Hartman, before his untimely demise.

Bloke(ette) of the year: (past winners include Carlos the Jackal, Jackie Chan and Heidi Fliess) This year, and no surprise, I gave it to the late Phil Hartman. But in an interesting twist, he dead-heated with Christina Ricci. We all loved Phil, without exceptions. We loved Lionel Hutts, attorney-at-law. We loved the has-been actor Troy McClure, who you might remember from such films as "Dial M for Murderousness" and "The President's Neck is Missing". And we all loved The Real Deal with Bill McNeill. RIP Phil. We'll miss you. But Christina Ricci? Let's just say that no former child star has ever exuded sex appeal in such a way before, and this includes Drew Barrymore, Macauley Culkin and Shirley Temple.

Well, that was my year in hindsight. I hope that no one mentions 1998 to me again. Happy Hanukkah, and remember that Santa only wears red because Coca Cola made him do it.

All Pledge Allegiance to the Little Red Man

It's going to be interesting in the future, when anthropologists look back at the twentieth century. People follow this interesting custom where, whenever they walk up to a set of traffic lights, they have to wait for the lights to change. Suddenly there is this whole pagan ritual where you stop at the sight of the Little Red Man. And you may only continue when a little green one takes his place.

A fire breaks out, and suddenly, a swarm of firemen are telling you what to do. And afterwards, you're like, "bless those brave souls."

Did you watch the westerns where the posse is after the Red Indian, sometimes played by Charles Bronson, just because he was red, and presented a subversive bit of opposition to the status quo, not because he'd ever done anything wrong?

Red is used as a rebellious colour, often signifying the triumph of the left, such as was the case in the recent German elections - although the alliance with the Greens tends to subdue the impact of this. After all, isn't the Little Green Man the mortal enemy of the Little Red Man?

Not to mention adolescent males, and their… hmm, I'll just leave that one.

I'm struck at this point by the whole symbolism of the whole thing. Is it any coincidence that the greatest football team in the world wears red? Go Swans. We must all pledge allegiance to the Little Red Man, wherever He may be.

And it is funny how the media, who would usually make such a big fuss over seemingly little things like this, don't seem to notice this. The hated Adelaide Crows - they won a premiership this year with red in their colours.

But the media can say some amazingly silly things. Like for instance "Fatal Gas Explosion Kills 2". Well, der, if it killed people, then it's going to be fatal. And then there is the stultifyingly stupid observation of the Herald Sun, no less than 4 weeks ago bemoaning the fact that Collingwood were going to finish the year a long way down the ladder: "…Collingwood have never, in the whole history of football, finished lower than fourteenth…"

Unbelievable. Just conveniently ignore the fact that before 1985, there weren't even 14 sides in the competition. That one had me rolling on the floor in mirth. Laugh? I nearly declared Celine Dion listenable.

But it's election time, and I'm trying to see how soon it is before the ALP declare their colours as red and, um, red, while those blue-bloods, the Libs, try to regain some pride from the swing against them at this election. The fact that the Howard government have sacrificed a few of their colleagues for three extra years in power is moot when you've been re-elected, but I think that Howard and Costello et al should be quietly thanking their lucky stars that the ALP couldn't get their act into gear on concentrating on the GST, and that the voters still had an axe to grind over Labor's last stint in office.

Actually, I tipped a hung parliament.

Now, I usually find elections to be more than just a little irritating. I thought, at the last federal election anyway, that none of the major political parties deserved my vote, and voted accordingly (read informally).

But this year, I actually had a think and voted properly.

Notwithstanding my usual act of political bastardry in that I insist on numbering all the boxes below the line on the Senate sheet (this year - 63 in Victoria), I think that I made a good choice. Because while the Democrats insist on grey as their political colour, they're usually a fair bunch. Not to mention infinitely preferable to One Nation, who I might add, have as their colours a big yellow streak down their backs.

On this subject, did you hear the champagne corks a-poppin' when it was revealed to the political landscape that Pauline Hanson would not have a seat in the House of Representatives, leaving 'Pauline Hanson's One Nation', as they're properly known (no false modesty, here) without their own namesake in a caucus of, at last count, only one Senator. I thought it was great. Oldfield could not have planned it better, especially after Hanson went public with her ludicrous claim that One Nation would pick up ten to fifteen seats. Good riddance, I say, although, it would be fun, as it was noted in the election day Weekend Australian, to have her turn up at the next election for comic relief. Pauline Pantsdown, while funny and all, is just not the same. Even funnier, is the way Oldfield's leadership aspirations went out the window when he failed to win a seat in the Senate.

As for Gareth Evans falling on his sword when it was hinted that the ALP would not make government, that was just odd.

And what happened to the Greens? Is it just me, or have they really gone off the boil, lately?

Cheryl Kernot. She truly could be considered 'green' in light of her highly questionable decision to stand in a marginal seat after the ALP promised her so much. The question must be asked here, did they do a 'Pauline' on her? And if so, who was the David Oldfield character responsible?

Speaking of marginal seats, it was kinda cool to see Alexander Downer nearly going down to John "ex-singer of Redgum" Schumann. I wanted to see Downer come through by 19 votes so that Schumann could say, "aw, it was only 19…"

Also highly laughable was the Libs winning a seat off the Nats. That has to be good for harmony within the coalition.

Pluses from this election included Tim Fischer, who somehow managed not to appear like a complete dork, at any time during this election. Part of the credit for this must go to the National Party hierarchy, who somehow managed to give their party a lower profile than the reborn DLP, whom I noticed had candidates for the Senate.

Also, I liked the cut of Simon Crean's jib. Methinks that the ACTU has created another future leader of the ALP. Let's hope that Bill Kelty doesn't find out about this, we don't need any more silly hair in politics.

So we have three more years of Coalition policies to look forward to. I think that it's good that the Dems have the balance of power in the Senate, because they are going to make 'Honest' John look pretty damn silly when he tries to put his tax policy through.

How do the ALP pick themselves up after this? I don't know.

My suggestion is that they should wear more red.

The Most Legendary Movies of all Time

I've just seen Armageddon, and I'm proud to say, I enjoyed it immensely.

Yes. I enjoyed that movie. Not a hard thing to say, is it?

It is a movie like this which shows up movie critics as the bunch of certifiable wankers that they are. Firstly, Armageddon is released amidst the brouhaha surrounding a movie with a budget bigger than the GDP of several third-world countries, and naturally, the critics have a field day panning a movie which they haven't even seen, in a backlash rivalling The Wave in the other asteroid movie (or comet, whatever it was). Then, after seeing it, in a backflip to end all backflips, it suddenly becomes cool to say that they liked it.

In The Big Issue and Juice, this movie was canned by the reviewers, simply because it wasn't a low budget arthouse flick.

By the time Beat and In-Press got around to review it, that had changed to, "yeah the plot had more holes in than all the cheese in Switzerland, but it looked impressive, and you gotta like that." You actually had movie critics backlashing against the backlash, because it happened to be the cool thing to do.

I liked it because, although it was completely improbable, sorry, impossible, it looked good. The sets were good, the photography was good, the costuming was spot-on, the special effects were A1, oh, and the scene where New York cops a meteor shower was absolutely first class.

But more than that, I liked the scene where Ben Affleck's character is in a romantic interlude with Liv Tyler's character. Now while this is going on, there is music in the background provided by Aerosmith, which is fronted by none other than Steve Tyler, who happens to be Liv Tyler's dad. Deliberate? But wait. There's more. Liv Tyler plays Bruce Willis's character's daughter, all during a movie where Willis and L.Tyler were allegedly romantically linked.

There is about four layers of irony during that scene. Hilarious, I thought.

But that is merely the intro section to what I consider to be the most legendary movies of all time.

Now, those of you out there reading this who are movie critic types, then just stop reading this and go back to that half finished Stephen Downes food article, because, there is nothing on this list directed by Serge Bunuel, Akira Kurosawa, Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock.

The list reads as such:

=1. This Is Spinal Tap (dir: Rob Reiner)

This movie was legendary for the number of Rock and Roll bands who, whenever something goes wrong in their lives, say, "That was Tap-esque". Famous for inspiring music critics everywhere to say, "(insert band name here) had their amps well and truly turned up to eleven." Not to mention "(insert band name here as well) have had more guitarists than Spinal Tap have had drummers." This movie had Christopher Guest (from The Princess Bride), Michael McKean (Laverne and Shirley) and Harry Shearer (The Simpsons) as the main protagonists in the band, as well as appearances from Billy Crystal, Dana Carvey, Patrick McNee, Paul Shaffer, Fran Drescher and Bruno Kirby.

=1. The Blues Brothers (dir: John Landis)

Famous for being the movie in which the record was set for smashing up cop cars (142?), Jake and Elwood Blues' path to destruction had them being chased by police, nazis and rednecks, while accompanied by most of the members of Booker T and the MGs. Cameos included Frank Oz, Carrie Fisher, Steven Spielberg, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Cab Calloway, Ray Charles and others. The scene where one nazi says to another nazi, "I've always loved you," is to die for.

3. Ben Hur (dir: William Wyler)

A curious inclusion, nonetheless a still impressive movie these days. The inclusion of the lamentable Charlton Heston was more than made up for by a stellar bit part from Frank Thring as Pontius Pilate. But of course there is always one scene which makes this must see viewing, and that is, natch, the chariot race. There is always something about a biblical epic that is incredibly hard to avoid, and that goes for the next one as well.

4. The Ten Commandments (dir: Cecil B de Mille)

This stands up today as an incredible achievement in film. Extras everywhere, huge sets, Yul Brynner's amazing performance as the Pharoah, where he hams it up in a splendidly tongue in cheek way, and, ol' chisel chin himself, the aforementioned and abysmal Charlton Heston. Sent up mercilessly by Mel Brooks et al, this movie contains one of the most incredible scenes ever filmed, the parting of the Red Sea, which still looks good in this day and age.

5. Spartacus (dir: Stanley Kubrick)

I'll go out on a limb, here and say that this is the best flick that Kubrick ever did. Another 'biblical' epic (that word gets stretched a bit, but there's nothing wrong with that), featuring Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, it really doesn't have much structure to it, but has some of the most authentic battle scenes ever, courtesy of Kubrick's eye for detail. The scenes between Douglas's character and Curtis's character come off amazingly homoerotic, and yet, what was cut from the movie manages to outdo this. Possibly the earliest movie to have two gay characters as the lead roles.

6. Star Wars (dir: George Lucas)

When Sci Fi is tackled, the results can either be supremely rivetting like this one, 2001 or Ridley Scott's Alien and Blade Runner, or spectacular failures like David Lynch's Dune. This one succeeded in spite of patchy dialogue, because it looked good, and it had a brutally good story. Witness James Earl Jones' Darth Vader, the most evil screen villain ever and Alec Guinness as the aging Jedi, Obi Wan Kenobi. Special mention should also go to Peter Cushing as the Death Star's governor Grand Moff Tarkin. It's interesting to note that Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) went on to obscurity, while Harrison Ford was launched into superstardom.

7. 2001 (dir: Stanley Kubrick)

Another really good Sci Fi flick. Although Kubrick tended to drag out some scenes a little too long for my liking (for dramatic effect, I'm told) this space yarn is something that you can really go to town on. The scenes in space are really agoraphobic, and the scenes inside the spacecraft (plural) and with the Monolith are just so well done that you actually want to be up in space with them as they go off into the universe.

8. Apocalypse Now (dir: Francis Coppola)

A really weird little 'Nam flick that just got weirder and weirder as the movie continued. GIs from America go to 'Nam, get bombed, go surfing, get bombed while going surfing, and meet up with a crackpot played by Marlon Brando who has set up his own little republic amidst the mayhem. Quote from the movie which you will hear ad infinitum from anyone who has seen the movie - "I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

9. Die Hard (dir: John McTiernan)

This was the movie that sparked the renaissance of what I consider to be the supreme genre of movies - the High Budget Action Movie. Bruce Willis is a cop trapped in a building where a maniac terrorist, played in superb fashion by Alan Rickman, has everyone but him under control. A well executed piece involving much bloodshed and explosions, as well as some quirky quotes from Willis himself. Spawned two sequels that, while good viewing, are just never going to come close to this one. Much like Blues Brothers 2000, actually.

10. You Only Live Twice (dir: Lewis Gilbert)

James Bond never got better than this. Sean Connery is at his most misogynist and is strangely compelling, and he gets help from Q in the form of a wicked gyrocopter as well as the Japanese secret service's entire staff of trained Ninjas. Blofeld was never better than when he was played by Donald Pleasance, and the photography, sets and general atmosphere throughout is excellent. You get the feeling that Connery enjoyed himself immensely when he was making this.

11. Goodfellas (dir: Martin Scorsese)

Scorsese has made the gangster flick genre all his own. While others have had a crack at it, none has quite had the way of pulling it off in the same way that Scorsese has, with the possible exception of Coppola's Godfather series. The mafiosi, played by Joe Pesci, Ray Liotta, and Robert de Niro are the most disturbingly violent bunch of misanthropes ever, and, by the end of the movie, you cannot trust anyone. Or so it feels.

12. Taxi Driver (dir: Martin Scorsese)

This movie launched Scorsese's career. Robert de Niro is excellent as a New York cabbie pushed too far, and when you get to the redemption at the end, you wonder how he could've gotten away with it. To watch here is Harvey Keitel as the pimp with absolutely no morals whatsoever, as well as Jodie Foster in one of her earlier roles as a ten year old hooker. Surprisingly good bit parts are provided by the likes of Cybil Shepherd and Albert Brooks, although, "You looking at me?" must rate as a truly harrowing piece of moviedom.

13. Alien (dir: Ridley Scott)

Picked ahead of Blade Runner and the other Alien movies, because his one was a truly frightening piece of space cinema. Sigourney Weaver hasn't changed in nineteen years, and is quite the heroine in this, although she is almost overshadowed by the likes of John Hurt, Tom Skerritt, and the incomparable Harry Dean Stanton. After seeing this movie for the first time, I had this malevolent mistrust of cats for quite a while. Not to mention having egg on my face.

14. The Naked Gun 2½ (dirs: David Zucker)

This is quite possibly the silliest movie I have ever seen. It is certainly the funniest. Quick quiz: Why is irony, satire and other cerebral forms of humour celebrated at the expense of slapstick, toilet humour, idiot humour and smut, when, given, (and it is most definitely given) that these are more funny forms of humour? Anyway, Leslie Nielsen is out of control as he deadpans his way through a movie packed with more jokes per second than any other movie ever. Incidentally, Robert Goulet makes a groovy villain.

15. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (dir: George Roy Hill)

Quite simply, the best western ever made. Paul Newman and Robert Redford just come out with the buddy thing happening in vast quantities, their on-screen presence greater than other buddy combinations such as Matthau and Lemmon or Martin and Lewis. The music of Burt Bacharach can not be heard after this movie without seeing them riding double-dink on bicycles round a farm, or holding up banks throughout Bolivia as 'Los Bandidos Yanquis'. Incidentally, the last scene from the movie could be the most important scene in movie history.

16. Cool Hand Luke (dir: Stuart Rosenberg)

Another movie with the indomitable Paul Newman as the drunk who gets arrested while sawing the tops off parking meters and sentenced to hard labour on a prison farm. Newman keeps trying to escape, and eventually pays the price but not before the immortal line, "What we have here, gentlemen, is a failure to communicate," is spoken.

17. The Terminator (dir: James Cameron)

"Arrrrrrrnnnnniiiieeeee!" we all cried after seeing Arnie as a cyborg blowing up virtually every thing in sight, and Linda Hamilton was forced into a serious situation as the mother of the unborn John Connor. Actually, T1, as we now fondly refer to it, was a really dark movie, shot mostly at night, with not much daylight in sight, and gruesome flashes to a future where computers control our destiny, and Arnie the evil cyborg lurks around every corner and says "Get Out!" and "I'll Be Back." For quote junkies, this movie was a veritable cornucopia of seething Arnie one-liners.

18. True Lies (dir: James Cameron)

Completely over the top, this send up of James Bond never stops. Firstly, we have not one, but two Arnies - Schwarzenegger and Tom - who do the buddy thing surprisingly well. Then, you have Arnie and his wife (the irrepressible Jamie Lee Curtis) take on an army of terrorists and almost completely wipe them out in a remarkably bloody scene, part of which involves an Uzi on autofire tumbling down stairs. After which, a bridge is destroyed and a nuclear bomb goes off wiping out the Florida Keys. But that's not enough. Arnie then jumps into a Sea-Harrier and takes out an entire office building. Outstanding stuff, which confirms James Cameron as a hero of action movies of the highest budget.

19. Police Story 2 (dir: Jackie Chan)

Jackie Chan's piece de resistance has everything a good action flick should be. Having not seen much of Chan's earlier work, I don't know how the rest of his back catalogue compares, but I know good when I see it, and this is it. Car chases which go down mountain sides destroying a shantytown in the process, and martial arts sequences that are absolutely evil, compete with sometimes shoddy (but always hilarious) subtitling which adds to the charm of Chan the unlikely-looking action hero.

20. Raiders of the Lost Ark (dir: Steven Spielberg)

The genius of Steven Spielberg was once again made manifest on this, the first Indiana Jones movie. While others prefer Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, this has the best story of the three, as Harrison Ford in the role of Indy goes mental trying to retrieve the Ark of the Covenant from under the noses of the Nazis whilst dealing with asps, boulders, poisoned spears, and finally, Lefty himself.

---

So there you have it. The twenty most legendary movies of all time. Movies to miss out (but not by much) were Tim Burton's Batman and The Nightmare Before Christmas, Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Jaws, Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, John Woo's Face Off, Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, Oliver Stone's Platoon, Otto Preminger's The Man with the Golden Arm (featuring the late and great Frank Sinatra), Dennis Hopper's Colors, Douglas Trumbull's Brainstorm, Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter, Abel Ferrara's Bad Lieutenant and more.

Stay tuned for, next month, the preview to the election we had to have.

A Political Manifesto

OK. By now most of us have heard of the One Nation controversy sweeping the country, and no doubt have formed our own opinions on how the country should or should not be run. I personally would like to make it clear that in my opinion, if there is an anti-Christ, then David Oldfield fits the bill - firstly for the hateful agenda that One Nation are pushing, secondly for the weirdo element that One Nation are bringing out of the woodwork, and thirdly for the obvious and shameless manipulation of a bunch of simpletons into doing his bidding.

But this has lead to a good thing - people are now starting to think about which ways the country can be directed.

I personally hate the way that One Nation means I now have an obligation to vote properly at the next election. Before, I was quite happy to vote informal, and up until the age of 24, I hadn't even enrolled to vote. Given the choice as we usually are between Candidate A and Candidate B, and finding that other than cosmetically, the major political parties' policies are identical, the voting process for me has been an exercise in merely escaping the fine levied for not voting. Given that the two addresses I usually quote are in safe Labor and safe Liberal seats respectively, where I put my numbers really does not make a difference.

I could whinge like this for hours, but I won't. Instead, allow me to present you with a theoretical overview of some suggestions to make the country run better.

---

1. Unemployment and Trade

High unemployment in this country is caused by a combination of high imports compared to low exports and a general economic lull.

Why are imports up and exports down? The two are unrelated - exports are down despite the Keating Government's recognition of the fact that our secondary industry base is next to non-existent, and also that most of our exports are from our primary producers, and most primary commodities are in the middle of a price slump. Consequently, we only export low value commodities, and this means that dollars coming in are not going to be able to match those flowing out.

Thus when we can't match more efficient producers - read more heavily subsidised ones - we disadvantage ourselves by not following suit and subsidising ours. However, this is economically unfeasible. We can't afford this - in Europe and North America, agricultural subsidies are paid for by tariff protection on imports, and while this could be seen to be in breach of GATT treaties, retaliating as proposed by the loony right is not going to lead to us producing anything more efficiently in the long term.

It is interesting to note, that the loony right proposes that primary industry be protected. This is such a load of rubbish for all the reasons that I will now explain.

1. On paper, primary commodities are going down in price. This means that by protecting, for instance our pork producers, we are going to be forking out more and more in subsidies, and reaping less and less in tariff income. This may not sound good to the pork producers of Queensland, but stuff them. If they were producing more complex goods than pork products, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.
2. Australia is ideally placed to produce manufactured and processed goods. By this I mean that we have barely any arable land to farm and graze on. We really should not have as big a forestry industry as we do, as we can not sustain it. Yet we do have one of the biggest mining industries in the world, and as most manufactured goods ultimately come from the ground, we have a vast supply of metal, coal, and other stuff for producing manufactured goods. We don't have enough oil, but with prices as low as they are at the moment and likely to stay low, I don't see why we should worry.

It also follows that imports are high for no other reason than the fact that we don't produce anything that will compete.

The slump in our economy is a serious problem that will only be fixed by government intervention. Yet this problem can be fixed at the same time as our trade problems.

Most interestingly, in fixing this problem, it can also be seen that our problems with our rapidly plummeting exchange rate can also be fixed at the same time.

1.1. State Owned Industry

I propose a return to state-owned industry.

"You lefty sonofabitch, Dikkii," one of you has just said. Never mind the fact that I'm an unrepentant capitalist pig.

This has to sound eerie to all you un-left types (ie those who don't want to admit to being deemed 'right'), but, in spite of the 'world's greatest treasurer's predictions a decade ago, Australian industry has been unwilling to go into secondary industry, nor even out of the industries they are currently in.

But think of this - a state-owned car company

Now, in these days of economic rationalism, it makes sense for a car to be made in Australia by an Australian-owned car company. If this were the case, thousands of jobs would be created, and a company would be created with a view to being floated/sold off in, say, ten years time.

The government may even choose to do it in partnership with private enterprise, if they were reticent about picking up the tab themselves.

The vision I have for a state-owned car company is one that makes a car that is the most efficiently produced car in the world. A car where engine parts, panels, taillights etc can be readily exchanged between models. This manufacturer would be starting out from scratch, and would be able to eliminate all work practices that were inefficient, before any work was begun. And, as Australia produces massive amount of steel, this would reduce costs further, as raw materials wouldn't have to be freighted around the world.

And it wouldn't just have to be a car company. The same thing could be done with black goods and pharmaceuticals. I honestly believe it would work - and we'd make a killing at the same time.

1.2. Massive Infrastructure Projects

We all know how these things get the voting public in, and we all know how they spark optimism on the stock market - just take the example of the high speed train link between Sydney and Canberra. A train using technology that's 30 years old gets the nod just 'cause it's been tried and tested. That blows. 30 years old? Surely that means it's already out of date?

Well, anyway, the upshot of that is that it increased investor confidence, and that is a good thing as can be seen by the resulting shot in the arm that the economy was perceived to have had (not to mention, the impact that it will have on the coalition's chances of getting re-elected).

What I'm proposing here, is projects that are so big, they would employ hundreds of thousands of people, and quite possibly change the climate of a great portion of Australia.

1.2.1. A Sea link between Lake Torrens and the Spencer Gulf

This is such a logical thing to do, I cannot believe it hasn't been done yet. Lake Torrens is below the surface of the sea, and it isn't far away from it. A canal could be dug, big enough to take cruise ships, or even cargo ships, and this could take advantage of South Australia's undoubted mineral wealth. A shipping canal, incidentally, would be cheaper than rail infrastructure, for this distance, anyway, and would also be able to take more tonnes of cargo.

Then we'd have a flooded Lake Torrens. What next? Lake Eyre? Possibly. But we have to bring more industry into the area. What I now propose is something I believe hasn't ever been done anywhere in the world before.

1.2.2. An Artificial Mountain Range in the South Australian Desert

And a big one at that. This could be built, say, somewhere north of Roxby Downs, and could actually be built quite huge - I'm talking at least three or four thousand metres above sea level.

This would create weather conditions in the desert that would induce precipitation - ie rain and snow.

Yes folks. A ski resort can now be built from scratch, with the world's greatest access. An airport can be built just down on the other side of the snow line with a resort above in mind. The road up to the resort can have no bends in it.

So at the end of it all, there would be massive amounts of tourism, as the biggest ski resort/alpine national park in the country could be built there. That's not all, though.

The snow and rain that would fall on a big mountain would cause serious irrigation of the surrounding area. Voila! Flowers in the desert. Not to mention the fact that the countries biggest hydro-electric scheme could be built at the same time - and in these days of diminishing fossil fuels, we need it.

It would also solve the problem of what to do with our sewerage and landfill problems. Just treat it, pack it up and ship it to the spot, where it would be deposited to form the biggest dump in the world. No more dumping it at sea. No more filled up valleys. No more reclamation of our beautiful waterways.

And don't say it can't be done. In Japan, they have a history of reclaiming land by bulldozing mountains and filling in harbours with the rubble - this wouldn't be different and it would solve a lot of ecological problems.

---

2. Tax and Welfare

Tax is a problem that is causing all sorts of problems at the moment. Some say that we have a complex and unfair tax system. The coalition government think that they can remedy this by getting rid of a few indirect taxes and replacing them with a broad-based consumption tax. The Labour opposition think that this would be unfair.

Highly hypocritical, in light of the fact that a few terms of government back, they promised L-A-W tax cuts and no GST and then had the tenacity to not only not deliver the promised tax cuts, but then go on to raise wholesale sales tax.

But I would like to make it clear that I do not support the government's tax package.

While it removes a few little tax idiosyncrasies, it fails to go the whole distance. It removes unfair taxes like FID and GDT as well as wholesale sales tax which penalises exporters, it still leaves Payroll Tax.

For goodness sake, Payroll Tax???

We want to increase employment, not penalise businesses for hiring people.

Although I applaud income tax cuts, it means that now, the government has suggested a 'user-pays' system for people buying things, which means that the battlers of society will now have to fork out extra for food.

I propose a fairer tax system that goes further, and would still allow us to cut income tax rates and raise welfare payments.

2.1. A narrower-based GST

This would not apply to food, rent, power, public transport and other things that the poorer members of society need in order to survive. It could not be accused of being regressive. Indeed, where any of these are being sold to personal consumers, it would be seen to be fair.

Of course, by food, I don't mean that in a five star restaurant. Food sold here would have to be taxed.

2.2. An increase in Excise Taxes on Petrol, Alcohol and Tobacco

This goes without say. None of these are good for anybody. Incidentally, in case you wanted to speak up to defend alcohol, it's interesting to note that while current stats say, in the States, that if everyone drank a glass of wine a day, 25,000 lives would be saved from such ills as cancer, heart disease and suchlike, current stats also say that if everyone stopped drinking altogether, about 30,000 lives would be saved from other ailments, as well as third party deaths resulting from, for example, drink-driving.

Do your maths.

2.3. Removing Payroll Tax

This one is stating the bleeding obvious.

2.4. An increase in the Luxury Goods Tax

Of course, this one would have to be looked at. But I think that the definition of what is a 'luxury good' really needs to be looked at, in light of the fact that, for example, tampons get taxed as a luxury good.

"Hmm. I just won the lottery. What will I buy? A Ferrari? A house in Woollahra? Oh I know, I'll buy a box of tampons."

(Apologies to that Adam Spencer guy on JJJ)

2.5. Increasing welfare payments

Increasing welfare payments would ensure that low income earners get a better wage. How? I will come back to this in a moment.

2.5.1. A quick lesson about capitalism

I'm gonna digress here and lead a big spiel about capitalism. The left bag capitalism as being a tool of the ruling elite to oppress the under classes, and propose that other economic systems should be examined as alternatives.

Well, it can't be done.

Capitalism is like gravity. It is always there, and it sucks. But it can be used to an advantage.

But didn't they used to have socialist economies that didn't feature capitalism?

No. All they had was a scenario where markets were controlled to a certain extent. Markets. That word capitalism again.

Socialism failed, because markets cannot be manipulated. Originally, the government proposed that prices be fixed at an unreasonably low or high level. This meant, as demand increased over time, that shortages or surpluses would occur. So, in order to keep the economy ticking over, the government would pick up the difference, buying those VCRs which didn't sell and importing loaves of bread to sell to the masses, in order to peg the prices. In the end the rubber band had to snap back.

2.5.1.1. The Rubber Band Principle

This merely says that if something is overpriced or underpriced, the price will eventually have to adjust.

This can be applied to, for example, a Coke ®. If, say, a 375mL can of Coke® is priced too high, the price will eventually come down as those who would usually buy it realise that they are not going to get value for money, and the number of units sold drops too far.

But it can also be applied to other examples:

2.5.1.1.1. The Stock Market

Let's just say that a stock market index, for example, the Dow Jones, has been appreciating at the rate of 4% when the underlying stocks have been posting profits that have only been appreciating by 2%. There will have to be a correction, eventually.

2.5.1.1.2. The Exchange Rate

How about when a currency is consistently depreciating, despite the fact that it's economy is staying constant, it's government is posting fiscal surpluses, and inflation is next to non-existent. The value of that currency will eventually have to be revised upwards.

2.5.1.2. Democracy and revolution are capitalist decision making processes

Anywhere where a decision is made is capitalism in action. Consider the action in buying a Coke ®. You can either buy a Coke ®, a Pepsi ®, another brand of softdrink, a beer, a loaf of bread, something else, or nothing at all. Very easy. What is going to give you the most value for money at that particular point in time? If you want that Coke ® bad enough, you will have already weighed up all the pros and cons and you will have decided that the Coke ® is the way to go.

You will have noticed that in those pros and cons, some of them will be non-financial. A pro, for example, is that Coke ® tastes good. A con, on the other hand, is that it rots your teeth.

Hence it can be seen that other decisions you make, whether financial or not, are inherently capitalist.

Do you go to the toilet? Or do you put up with the pain at the pit of your stomach until your bladder ruptures?

Democracy can be viewed this way. On polling day, do you do any of the following?

1. Vote for the Liberal candidate;
2. Vote for the ALP candidate;
3. Vote for the One Nation candidate;
4. Vote for someone else;
5. Vote informal; or
6. Not even turn up to vote?

In Australia where voting is compulsory, you may have decided that a fine is affordable, and thus, as you really can't be bothered turning up at the polling place, you stay in bed all day sipping pina coladas.

(Actually, this may be a financial decision making process, as you may have sussed out their respective tax packages before considering your final decision and seeing how much you'll be affected)

Let's say you decide to vote for someone, because they'll put pressure on the Indonesian government to 'get the fuck out of East Timor' (little reference to graffiti scrawled on the wall of our house, recently). Doing this, in effect would give you value for money, so to speak, as you would like to see an end to Indonesian repression in East Timor. Capitalist decision.

But let's say that you live in a country that is being ruled by a fascist military junta. You have the following decision

1. Put up with it;
2. Speak out, in the hope that those in charge will come to their senses; or
3. Revolt.

You know that if you make the last decision, you have to work out whether the cause you are fighting for is the right one (you don't want to replace the current junta with another that's just as bad), whether the chance that you'll be killed or incarcerated is a big enough risk to take or whether the existing junta is really bad enough for you to take that sort of action. (Really, has there ever been a good 'fascist military junta'?)

Again, capitalist decision, which ever way you look at it.

Incidentally, revolution is a case of a rubber band snapping back, as the government is overpriced, and not appropriate value for money.

---

So how, if you increase welfare payments, will this cause an appreciation in the minimum wage?

Let's face it. Human beings are essentially lazy and greedy. So if the dole is more than the minimum wage, people are more likely to quit their jobs and go on the dole. Thus, if employers want employees, they are going to have to offer more.

I propose that welfare payments get indexed to a rate above that of the current rate of inflation. This would ensure that employers pay their employees fairly.

---

3. Education

3.1. Secondary Education

I would like to see a system in place where everyone gets a fair education. For a start, it is now being seen as increasingly vital that people not leave school until they finish year 12. Secondly, there is confusion between states regarding final year qualifications. Thirdly, it is seen as being important to get a good mark in order to get into a good course that will maximise your income on graduation from uni. Fourthly, it is increasingly obvious that not enough money is going into government schools.

I propose that year 12 be made compulsory for all school students.

Now, don't give me that bull about some students being not smart enough to hack it. There are students graduating from uni with certified cases of cerebral palsy. This means that they are officially not very bright, if IQ tests are anything to go by. If a student wants to pass badly enough, they will.

Next, I propose that a national certificate of education, with tertiary entrance qualification to be put into force in order to iron out discrepancies between states.

This is just common sense.

The third one, I will try to fend in just a moment, and the fourth one - no more money for non-government schools at the expense of government schools.

This is contentious. On one hand, there is the argument that the government should look at their own schools before any others, and on the other hand, there is the argument that parents of kids who go to private schools pay tax as well.

So make private school fees tax deductable.

3.2. Tertiary Education

Enough with these high cut-offs to get into certain courses, for example medicine and law. Put more money into these faculties so that more students can study them.

Open up these courses so that anyone can do them. The professions would say that this opens them up to unemployment, but that doesn't matter - the rubber band principle says that after a couple of years of this, the courses would shrink back in size, as graduates fail to find jobs and the resulting publicity makes school leavers fully aware of this.

The rubber band principle also says that doctors and lawyers fees would also come down in price, as more of them are forced out into the marketplace, which can only be a good thing.

One thing that could also be pointed out here, is the legal doctrine that says that you can be found guilty if you a break a law that you are unaware of.

Considering that a law degree takes 4 years, and not many people get into it, this is grossly inequitable and unfair. Therefore, it is in the interests of all Australians, that they should be able to get into this course if they want to.

And instead of taxing people for getting an education, the government should be providing incentives for kids to get educated. So make all uni fees tax deductable.

---

4. Conclusion

So that is some of my ideas to make the country run better. Ultimately very expensive, but they all pay for themselves.

And you've gotta love that.