The President we just didn't have to have

From The Age, January 6, 2009
Frank Rich

How could someone so slight inflict so much damage?

WE LIKE our failed presidents to be Shakespearean, or at least large enough to inspire Oscar-worthy performances from magnificent tragedians like Frank Langella. So here, too, George W. Bush has let us down. He is not a memorable villain so much as a sometimes affable second banana whom Josh Brolin and Will Ferrell can nail without breaking a sweat. He's the reckless Yalie Tom Buchanan, not Gatsby. He is smaller than life.

The last poll on Bush's presidency found that 79 per cent of Americans will not miss him after he leaves the White House. He is being forgotten already, even if he's not yet gone. You start to pity him until you remember how vast the wreckage is. It stretches from the Middle East to Wall Street to Main Street and even into the heavens, which have been a haven for toxins under his passive stewardship.

The discrepancy between the grandeur of the failure and the stature of the man is a puzzlement.

The one indisputable talent of his White House was its ability to create and sell propaganda both to the public and the press. Now that bag of tricks is empty as well. Bush's first and last photo-ops in Iraq could serve as bookends to his entire tenure.

On Thanksgiving weekend 2003, even as the Iraqi insurgency was spiralling, his secret trip to the war zone was a PR slam-dunk. The photo of the beaming commander-in-chief bearing a super-sized decorative turkey for the troops was designed to make every front page and newscast in the country, and it did.

Five years later, in what was intended as a farewell victory lap to show off Iraq's improved post-surge security, Bush was reduced to ducking shoes. He tried to spin the ruckus as another victory for his Administration's program of democracy promotion. "That's what people do in a free society," he said.

Bush remained oblivious to each and every pratfall on his watch. Iraq burned, New Orleans flooded — and Americans essentially stopped listening to him after hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, but he still doesn't grasp the finality of their defection.

Lately he's promised not to steal the spotlight from Barack Obama once he's in retirement — as if he could do so by any act short of running naked through downtown Dallas. The latest CNN poll finds that only one-third of his fellow citizens want him to play a post-presidency role in public life.

Bush is equally blind to the collapse of his propaganda machinery. Though no one is listening, he has given more exit interviews than either Clinton or Reagan did.

Another, far more elaborate example of legacy spin can be downloaded from the White House website: a booklet recounting "highlights" of the Administration's "accomplishments and results". With big type, much white space, children's-book-like trivia boxes titled "Did You Know?" and lots of colour photos of the Bushes posing with blacks and troops, this document is the literary correlative to "Mission Accomplished": Bush kept America safe (provided his presidency began on September 12, 2001); he gave America record economic growth (provided his presidency ended in December 2007); he vanquished all the leading al-Qaeda terrorists (if you don't count the leaders bin Laden and al-Zawahri); he gave Afghanistan a thriving "market economy" (if you count its opium trade) and a "democratically elected president" (presiding over a corrupt government); he supported elections in Pakistan (after propping up Pervez Musharraf past the point of no return).

If this is the best case that even Bush and his handlers can make for his achievements, you wonder why they bothered. The audacity of its hype helps clear up the mystery of how someone so slight could inflict so much damage. So do his many print and television exit interviews. The man who emerges is a narcissist with no self-awareness whatsoever.

The president who famously couldn't name a single mistake of his presidency at a press conference in 2004 still can't.

He can, however, blame everyone else. Asked if he feels any responsibility for the economic meltdown, Bush says: "People will realise a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived." Asked if the 2008 election was a repudiation of his Administration, he says "it was a repudiation of Republicans".

"The attacks of September the 11th came out of nowhere," he said in another interview, as if he hadn't ignored frantic intelligence warnings that summer of an al-Qaeda attack. But it was an "intelligence failure", not his relentless invocation of patently fictitious "mushroom clouds", that sped us into Iraq.

The crowning personality tic revealed by Bush's final propaganda push is his bottomless capacity for self-pity. "I was a wartime president, and war is very exhausting," he told C-Span.

With this level of self-regard, it's no wonder that Bush could remain undeterred as he drove the country off a cliff. The smugness is reinforced not just by his history as the entitled scion of one of America's aristocratic dynasties but also by his conviction that his every action is blessed from on high. Asked last month by an interviewer what he has learned from his time in office, he replied: "I've learned that God is good. All the time." Once again he is shifting the blame. This presidency was not about Him. Bush failed because in the end it was all about him.

Your Essential Guide to Surviving Baz Luhrmann's `Australia'

From Cinetopia, Jim Schembri, November 28, 2008

You've been hearing about it for over a year. You've read the stories, seen the ads, watched the interviews, downloaded the promos, heard the gossip - but now the moment of truth has arrived. It's finally time for you to join your fellow citizens and dutifully file into the nearest multiplex to bear witness to the epic cinematic masterpiece that is definitely not Baz Luhrmann's Australia.

To help you through the ordeal here is a quick checklist of items to take in with you:

A Handful of No Doz: That first hour can be really tough to get through. These should help perk you up.

Large Oriental Hand Fan: In the camp-fire scene where Hugh Jackman pulls off his shirt to reveal the kind of ripped torso you usually see only in high-end gay porn you're going to need some air circulation quick smart to keep you from swooning.

Small Plastic Beach Bucket: To catch any drool resulting from the same scene.

Keep Reading

.

Ghost Bikes

You may or may not know that I have become an avid cycling commuter over the last 5 years or so. This is not just because I don't own a car - if I did have one, I probably wouldn't use it to get to work. It turns out that once I had invested in a half decent, comfortable bike, that I actually quite enjoyed cycling, and arrived at work feeling like I had already achieved something for the day. Cycling to work in Vancouver was fantastic and very rarely did I miss an opportunity, even in the snow.

However, since moving to Melbourne 2 years ago I have become sufficiently concerned by the attitude and arrogance of Melbourne drivers to cyclists, that I find myself cycling less often now. This is despite Melbourne's supposedly excellent cycling infrastructure - you can put a bike lane in, but cars will just use it for overtaking, and beep at any cyclists that get in their way (to make a glaring generalisation). What wouldn't I give for Copenhagen style bike lanes?

Cyclists are frequently injured or killed on the roads, too often due to motorists' lapse in concentration and judgement. Of great concern, recently there have been two incidents in Australia (that I know of) of motorists purposefully ploughing into a pack of cyclists. And while it is well known that the 'safety in numbers' approach to cycling does help to reduce the risk of injury on the road, it is very difficult to convince people to cycle when they are understandably concerned about safety.

But what attempts are being made to change perceptions of cycling and cyclists?

The Victoria Police recently released a Google maps application that pinpoints the locations of all Victorian road fatalities, including an alarming number of cyclists. However, I am not clear how this will help, other than to highlight cycling black spots to those who choose to look at the application.

Advocacy group Bicycle Victoria provides a variety of services for members and non-members, including organising cycling events for all ages and abilities, lobbying local and state governments to improve cycling infrastructure, providing advice on safe cycling routes, the rights and responsibilities of road users, how to deal with aggressive drivers, etc. I am a member of BV.

Another approach, that I first heard about only yesterday, is Ghost bikes. Ghost bikes are art installations of sorts serving as memorials to cyclists killed on the road. They are typically old disused bikes, stripped of parts, painted white with a plaque bearing the cyclist's name, and locked to a fixed point at or near the site of the crash site. Ghost bikes have appeared in at least 68 cities around the world, and yesterday a ghost bike 'appeared' in Melbourne. So I went to see it:


This ghost bike was placed in honour of Carolyn Rawlins, a 32 year old solicitor who was cycling to work through the Melbourne CBD on October 14th 2008, before being struck and killed by a tour bus. Sadly, she was 12 weeks pregnant at the time. Sadder still, her husband only found out about her death when he read about it online.

Whether or not ghost bikes do any good is debatable. While they act as striking reminders of the dangers that cyclists face, they may also serve to scare off potential cyclists.

What is critical is that cycling conditions be improved so that cyclists will feel safe. This in turn will facilitate an attitude shift among all road users, to further improve conditions for everyone. For me the bottom line is, more cyclists on the road means less cars on the road. This should improve traffic conditions for everyone, not to mention the obvious environmental and health benefits.

Putting survival of the fittest in to practice

I was rofling for hours after I read this on RogerEbert.com:

--
The breeding properties of M&Ms

I received this message on the blog, but it obviously fits no known topic. The author is something of a mystery: "R. Crutch" no city, no e-mail. But I felt it necessary to share with you. RE

From R. Crutch:

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels.

Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them breaks and splinters. That is the "loser," and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.

I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world.

Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment.

When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3x5 card reading, "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes."

This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion.

There can be only one.

BXVI getting down with the times

"Young friend, God and his people expect much from u because u have within you the Fathers supreme gift: the Spirit of Jesus - BXVI."

Text message sent by Pope Benedict XVI to subscribing pilgrims on World Youth Day, July 15 2008. Reported in The Age.

Look I have no problem with technology being used in this way. But seriously, couldn't he have written "you" instead of "u". I'm not personally filled with "the Father's supreme gift" (at least, not knowingly), but I really think it detracts from the sentiment by writing it in txtspk.


Update, July 16th:
"The Holy Spirit gave the Apostles and gives u the power boldly 2 proclaim that Christ is risen! - BXVI."

Same deal. Look, if P.Ben* is going to go to all of the trouble to capitalise his Holy Spirits, Apostles, and Christ's, would it really be that much more trouble to write 'you' and 'to'? I'm just saying.

*He's in no position to complain about abbreviations under the circumstances!

Doesn't he have to do a postdoc first?

Talk about being fast-tracked because you're famous! This is crazy. Queen guitarist Brian May spent 33 years faffing with his PhD (not all that uncommon from what I've seen), albeit with some career distractions, and only months after graduating is appointed Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University in England. What ever happened to climbing the ladder!


I've been slogging at my postdoc work for more than 4 years and I'm not even close to being considered for Chancellor. I'm not even in the ballpark, or even within a 30 km radius of the ballpark. I'm stuck in traffic on the motorway heading in the wrong direction after I took a wrong turn and got lost on the way to the ballpark. And when I eventually reach the right ballpark (after visiting two or three wrong ballparks first), there will be no parking, and when I eventually find parking, I will probably have no change for the meter because I used it in the toll booth back there on the motorway.

Maybe it helps if you can play guitar.

Good to see that Canadian news is covering this.

Frankly, it was ridiculous of Australian police not to have been expecting the Chaser boys to pull a stunt like this - I mean, even I was expecting it! Also good to see that Alexander Downer has kept a sense of humour about it, despite the fact that it has made Australian security measures look about as effective as chicken wire. I can't wait to see the show next week!



----

Aussie comedy troupe rides 'Canadian' motorcade through APEC summit security

Published: Thursday, September 6, 2007 | 10:29 AM ET

Canadian Press

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Members of an Australian TV comedy show, one dressed as Osama bin Laden, drove a Canadian-flagged motorcade through two security checkpoints Thursday before being stopped near the hotel where President George W. Bush is staying.

The stunt embarrassed Sydney police who have imposed the tightest security measures in city history for a summit of leaders from Pacific Rim countries, including Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who arrived Thursday.

Police arrested 11 cast and crew from the TV program, "The Chaser's War on Everything," and impounded three vehicles, the Australian Broadcasting Corp., which airs the show, said on its website.

Cast members put together a sham motorcade, hiring two motorcycles and three large cars on which they put Canadian flags.

Police waved the motorcade through two checkpoints before pulling it over near the Intercontinental Hotel where Bush is staying.

Cast member Chas Licciardello got out of the car dressed in a white tunic and cap and wearing a long fake Osama bin Laden-style beard.

"No particular reason we chose Canada," cast member Chris Taylor was quoted as saying on the Sydney Morning Herald's Web site.

"We just thought they'd be a country who the cops wouldn't scrutinize too closely, and who feasibly would only have three cars in their motorcade - as opposed to the 20 or so gas guzzlers that Bush has brought with him."

All 11 were charged under new laws passed a month ago with entering a restricted APEC area, a police statement said.

They were released on bail and are to appear in court next month. Each faces a potential six-month jail sentence.

Bush is a frequent target of "the Chaser," as are Australian politicians. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the stunt proved security was working.

"Whatever you think of the humour of 'the Chaser,' the honest truth is they were clearly not going to harm anybody in a physical way," Downer said.

"They presumably were, as is the nature of their show, aiming to humiliate a lot of well-known people."

Why do women change their names?

Well this is an issue that's been on my mind lately, since I am merely 31 days away from getting hitched.

I've actually made my decision, and that is not to change my name. There are lots of reasons why I made this choice, mostly professional. But there are elements of feminism in my decision, and also I can't be arsed to do all the paperwork, get new bank cards, library cards, drivers license, etc... And Bryan's surname is so similar to mine that its not really worth the effort. Certainly there is no question of hyphenating our names without our kids suffering irreparable mental harm as a consequence. So anyway that's my choice.

Here's an interesting, and strongly worded article from The Age asking why women do choose to change their names.

----

Why do some wives still change their names?

Catherine Deveny
September 5, 2007

Insecure or conservative or stupid women are bowing to the wishes of their husbands.

WHO the hell is Jana Rawlinson? Jana Wendt I know, Jana Pittman I know, but Jana Rawlinson? So I check out the snap. It looks exactly like Jana Pittman. But her name is Jana Rawlinson. How bizarre. That has to be some crazy coincidence. A woman called Jana with a different surname who looks exactly like Jana Pittman. And, get this, she's a hurdler too. Freaky.

Oh, I get it. She has put a few noses out of joint in the past so she's keen on a bit of incognito action. You'd think she'd change her first name too. Then it dawned on me. She has got married, bizarre enough in itself these days, and changed her last name to her husband's. What an anachronism. Maybe she changed her name to go with the chastity belt, the crinolines and the stick "no thicker than his thumb" that her husband is allowed to beat her with.

Wake up! We are in 2007. Women are no longer owned by their father and then their husband. So why are some women still changing their surnames? And why do some men still want them to? It's sad, it's misogynous, it's archaic, it's insecure and it's unnecessary.

Why would you do something so drastic simply because you decided to delude yourself it was easier? Because you are deeply insecure, deeply conservative or deeply stupid. And in deep denial.

I ask women why they change their last name. They tell me "it's just easier". It's not. How easy is it changing the name on everything from your driver's licence to your library card? It's not. Many of the families I know have up to three different surnames and have no problem at all.

If people really believe that mum, dad and the kids having the same surname is easier, why doesn't the guy change his name? Why don't they flip a coin and it's heads we go for her surname and tails we go for his? Because it is not about it being easier. It makes me despair. We've come all this way and we're still here.

Many women will say that their husbands wanted them to change their surname. So they did. Here's a flash for you sister: if you do everything that your husband wants you to do, you may find yourself teetering round in a pair of stilettos and an apron all day saying, "Shall I fix some more food for you and the boys?", or wearing a burqa.

Thanks to feminism, women should be allowed and encouraged to do anything they want. But the question I ask is why do some women still want to change their surnames?

And not the stock answer they give, but why, deep in their hearts, they feel the need to dilute themselves.

So I kept reading the article and Jana has won a couple of gold medals. Good on her. She has an eight-month-old son and she was doing it for him. Here's a reality pill for you, Jana. You weren't doing it for him, you were doing it for you. He doesn't care.

Then it goes on to use the word "supermum" to describe her. How can a woman who has handed over her kid to be cared for by someone else while she has pursued her dreams with little or no thought to what the child needs or wants be described as a supermum? A supermum is a woman who has done the weekly shop with four kids under five and not killed any of them. If Jana had won the race with the baby strapped to her back while pushing a shopping trolley, I would have called her a supermum.

People are bagging Jana for putting her career above the needs of her young child. Which I can understand. What I can't understand is why the father is not mentioned at all. And never is.

Whenever two parents are working and the child is propped up on the sideline waiting for its turn, why is it only the woman who gets bagged, as if the father has no responsibility for the care of his own child? Why, when a woman is working, does she always get asked, "Who's looking after your children?", but the father never does? We need to take the focus off the role of mother and put it on to parents as a team.

Men have become much more hands-on fathers in the past 10 years and it has been magnificent to see. The kids, the dads and the mums have benefited greatly but we still have a long way to go. Dads, here's a sure-fire way of getting lucky tonight. Try this line: "I've made the lunches, done the reading and filled in all the excursion forms. The clothes are all laid out and I'm just going to put the kids to bed."

Rudd bemused at PM's Wiki ways

This is fascinating. I've been hoping for a change of government for the last 3 federal elections. But this time I actually think it will happen. I tell you, the Australian people are ready for a PM that spends more time at strip clubs than engaging the country in illegal wars.

-----
From Melbourne's The Age

August 24, 2007 - 8:53AM

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has questioned Prime Minister John Howard's use of public servants to edit Wikipedia entries to remove details that might be damaging to the Government.

The Age reports today that staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have made 126 edits to Wikipedia, on subjects ranging from the "children overboard" affair to Treasurer Peter Costello.

"I notice the Prime Minister is engaging public servants to change Wikipedia," Mr Rudd told the Seven Network today. "My own personal staff, I'm sure, look through Wikipedia to make factual changes, no excuses about that, but using public service departments to make sure the truth is delivered according to Howard?"

"On Wikipedia, anything can appear," Mr Rudd said.

"It is entirely legitimate for your personal political staff to make changes of a factual nature, but to engage public servants to go out there and re-edit history, it strikes me as odd to say the least."

A new website - Wikiscanner - which traces the digital fingerprints of people who make changes to entries in the online encyclopedia, identifies the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as the source of the edits.

Wikiscanner also identifies Department of Defence employees as the most prolific Wikipedia contributors in Australia.

Wikipedia is promoted as the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

The Department of Defence said yesterday it would ban defence staff from accessing the encyclopedia.

Defence computers were found to have made more than 5,000 edits to Wikipedia entries, including articles on the "9/11 truth movement", the Australian Defence Force Academy and the Vietnam War-era Pentagon Papers.

AAP

The most ridiculous probably non-spam email I've ever received

I received an email yesterday in my old UBC account that I don't really use anymore. The email came from a guy named Kallum at a University of Guelph email address. Here's what the email said:

Good Day Ms. Kidd,

I've been trying to find a research article for a friend but have so far been unsuccessful at my university and others. Access to the journal Nature Clinical Practice Urology seems to be very elusive, but the UBC library appears to have it. I was wondering if you've some spare time and are willing, if you could please download the pdf file of the article and email to me.

Library link: http://gw2jh3xr2c.search.serialssolutions.com/?V=1.0&L=GW2JH3XR2 C&S=AC_T_B&C=Nature+Clinical+Practice+Urology

Journal Name: Nature Clinical Practice Urology
Volume: 2
Issue: 1
First Page: 38

Thank you for your time and have a Great Day.
Kallum

This was followed 5 minutes later by another email from the same guy:

Hello again Ms. Kidd,

Forgot to put the year of that article on which is 2005.

cheers
Kallum

Now, I am perhaps a little on the gullible side on occasions, and have a tendency to believe things that my friends tell me - failing to understand why they would intentionally tell me a lie (but that's another story). However, I also consider myself reasonably savvy when it comes to recognizing an email scam (after some coaching from Bryan and other geek friends). For example when I received an email this morning from TD Canada Trust asking me to click on a link and verify my banking details, I gave it no more thought as I sent it to the trash. And I almost never reply to Nigerian bank managers requesting permission to store millions of dollars in my bank account.

But for some reason the email from Kallum seemed vaguely legit - perhaps it was the follow up email that made me think it was above board (because email scams would never involve a follow up email, right?). Or maybe it was the fact that he talked about universities and journal articles (academics are never involved in email scams, right?). So then with little further thought, I STUPIDLY clicked on the link on the first email, just to see what kind of article he was trying to get hold of. Not 10 nanoseconds after I clicked the link I regretted it and tried to close down my browser before it could open the link. Luckily I was saved by my browser requiring a password (I was at work), so I hit cancel and the link couldn't open.

I talked about it with Bryan last night and we both agreed that it was highly suspicious email and I should never click on links in highly suspicious emails. But I couldn't help thinking that it wasn't a scam, but just a really stupid email from a really stupid person. So this morning I forwarded the emails to Bryan to see what he thought of them. At the same time I googled some keywords from the link, the journal name, Kallum's full name, email address etc. It didn't turn up anything that indicated it was a scam. In fact it appeared Kallum was a grad student from Lakehead University (never heard of it!), despite using a UGuelph email address. It all looked pretty legit, and Bryan agreed that it did appear to be legit, but seriously misguided.

It's not uncommon for me to receive an email from someone looking for a copy of an article that I have written, but this article has absolutely nothing to do with me, and isn't even in my research area. I don't understand how or why he would randomly email someone at a UBC email address to ask them to send him an article from the UBC library. And why did he have to randomly email someone on behalf of a friend? Maybe his friend thought that randomly emailing people was a dumb idea, in which case Kallum should have listened. Hasn't he ever heard of interlibrary loans or document delivery? And how could he assume that I was "Ms. Kidd" rather than Dr. Kidd? I could have been the V-P for all he knew! (Although I admit I am sensitive about that, having had a major Vancouver news station discuss my research and refer to me only as "Sarah"). Why did Kallum think that a total stranger would feel like clicking on the link in his email and then go to the trouble of finding a journal article and sending it to him. What kind of person would click on a link in a strange email ?! *Ahem*

Now if anyone who is more scam-savvy than me can tell me anything about this then I'm all ears. Is it a scam that I almost fell for, or just some stupid grad student?



P.S. Blair, can you see how this post has nothing at all to do with weddings? See I can talk about other things sometimes.

Queen star finishes PhD thesis after 30 years

Brian May, the multimillionaire guitarist who founded the rock group Queen, has finally completed the PhD in astrophysics that he abandoned more than 30 years ago, The Times reported today.

Crikey! I bet they were threatening to make him pay full fees and cut off his scholarship! But you've got to admire anyone who can finish what they started, especially after 30 years.!

Groomzillas, who knew?

Having spent the last 6 months of wedding planning desperately trying to avoid being labelled a Bridezilla, I have recently discovered that there is such a thing as a Groomzilla.

The Age blog "Sam and the City" posted this yesterday, here's an excerpt:

Introducing the groomzilla: more feisty, mean and multi-tasking than his diamante-encrusted bride-to-be ...

While the groom's only task once revolved around arriving on time, fixing his tie, making his best effort not to kiss the bride's sister or gulp down too many shots of tequila before taking to the aisle, modern groomzillas seem to want more than their fare share of wedding-planning control.

According to male wedding portal groomsonline.com creator Mark Walerstein, 10 per cent of grooms involved in the wedding planning become bona fide groomzillas.

Let's start with the vanity side of things. Apparently, when you're a groomzilla, it's not only the bride that needs an entire army of technicians to get her into tip-top shape for the big day. Oh no. Groomzillas go all out too - plucking, preening, spray-tanning, manicuring, pedicuring and pretending to his mates that their stress-rash is as a result of too much time on the golf course. Could have fooled us.

As the wedding preps go on, groomzillas become so pedantic over seating arrangements, music selections, food-arrival timings, invitation wording, invitation sending, invitation RSVPing, who wears what (whatever happened to black suits?), what the videographer will be shooting, where the photography will take place and how they'll get from the nuptials to the cocktails, without getting stuck in the twilight-hour traffic and whether or not his hair needs another dye-job before the day, that it makes our bridezillas look like beauty queens.

Well all I can say is that so far Bryan has exhibited no symptoms of becoming a Groomzilla. None at all. Not that he's disinterested, but he's more than happy to leave most of the wedding planning up to me. I assume that mean he also has no fears that I will turn into a Bridezilla.

Did you notice the link to Grooms Online while you were reading that? Ok, there are infinity-squared wedding planning websites/forums/directories out there aimed at the female bridal party demographic, but who knew there was a role for Grooms Online? I checked it out, it features such helpful articles as:

Shape Up, Or You May Be Shipping Out. So you’ve finally landed yourself a bride and now you think you can let yourself go? Think again.

How To Plan A Wedding Like A Man. As the man, do you want to sit back and have her signature all over the entire affair? If the day is a success, the guests will have her to thank, or her mother. You cannot take pride in having helped to plan your own wedding. Even worse, if something goes wrong, your bride will have herself to blame. You may not be held accountable but without having participated, you will look like a loser who let his woman do everything. What kind of message does that send to her and her family?

The Skinny On Hiring A Stripper. When thinking about hiring adult entertainment for the bachelor party, be prepared have all your information ready.
This article also offers the helpful hints, Don't fall in love with the entertainers - The odds are you weren't the first guy to do it; Your money will only go so far, so find out how far; Be casual and not a horn dog.

Is this realistic? Do grooms-to-be find these articles helpful? Do they really refer to their bride-to-be as 'his woman'? The mind boggles. But here's my favourite bit of advice, this time aimed at the best man.

The Art of being the Best Man. Here are a few things that you might want to remember to take a long with you: Ceremony location, Date, Time.

Let me just say that if the Best Man needs to read this article, then he's under-qualified. And I don't need to be a Bridezilla to say that.

Now that's what I call research!

Study finds fruity cocktails count as health food

Reuters - Friday, April 20

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fruity cocktail may not only be fun to drink but may count as health food, U.S. and Thai researchers said on Thursday.

Adding ethanol -- the type of alcohol found in rum, vodka, tequila and other spirits -- boosted the antioxidant nutrients in strawberries and blackberries, the researchers found.

Any coloured fruit might be made even more healthful with the addition of a splash of alcohol, they report in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.

Dr. Korakot Chanjirakul and colleagues at Kasetsart University in Thailand and scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture stumbled upon their finding unexpectedly.

They were exploring ways to help keep strawberries fresh during storage. Treating the berries with alcohol increased in antioxidant capacity and free radical scavenging activity, they found.

Any coloured fruit or vegetable is rich in antioxidants, which are chemicals that can cancel out the cell-damaging effects of compounds called free radicals.

Berries, for instance, contain compounds known as polyphenols and anthocyanins. People who eat more of these fruits and vegetables have a documented lower risk of cancer, heart disease and some neurological diseases.

The study did not address whether adding a little cocktail umbrella enhanced the effects.

--

You know what this means? Yep, I am one healthy cocktail sipper. Muddle me another caipiroska, would you Darling?

1 oz vodka
1 oz fruity liquor (e.g. lychee)
half a lime, cut into wedges
1 oz sugar syrup (or 1 tsp sugar)
about 1/4 cup of fruit (e.g. lychee)

Muddle all ingredients together, shake with crushed ice and pour into a tumbler (including the ice). Serve with an umbrella, the sharp end of which is handy for picking out bits of fruit.

Live and die by the gun

From The Age, April 19 2007

The right to bear arms is enshrined in US politics and culture. The latest massacre will do nothing to change that, writes Gwynne Dyer.

YOU can imagine lots of countries where a candidate for the presidency might lie about owning a gun so as not to alienate the voters, but only in the United States would he lie and say he does own a gun when he doesn't.

That was Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's sin earlier this year — and he compounded it by claiming that he was a lifelong hunter. Diligent reporters checked and found that Romney had never taken out a hunting licence anywhere. (Where were they when President Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction"?)

The notion that the voters might punish a candidate for not owning a gun would seem simply bizarre in most jurisdictions, but it is a serious political reality in the United States. That's why hardly anybody in the US is using the latest mass slaughter by some enraged loser (33 dead at Virginia Tech) to argue for more gun control. There's not even pressure to renew the federal law banning the sale of assault rifles, which was recently allowed to lapse.

Gun control is a dead issue in the US, and it isn't coming back. There is a sound political reason for this, and there is also a rational explanation for it (which isn't the same thing). The political reason was simplicity itself: the Democratic Party realised that it wasn't going to win back a majority in either house of Congress if it didn't stop talking about gun control. The party's leaders looked at the political map after the 2004 election, a sea of Republican red with a narrow strip of Democratic blue on either coast, and realised that their problem was more than just George Bush's fatal charm. They weren't winning in "heartland" states because they were seen as trying to take Americans' guns away.

There are other issues even in Montana, of course, but enough people care passionately about their guns in Montana that it's hard to get elected there if you are seen as anti-gun. So now the Democratic Party's national platform commits it to uphold the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms — and in the 2006 election it won both the Senate seat that was being contested in Montana and the governorship of the state, for decades a Republican stronghold.

The campaign manifesto of the new Democratic senator from Montana, Jon Tester, claimed that he would "stand up to anyone — Republican or Democratic — who tries to take away Montanans' gun rights".

The new Democratic Governor of Montana, Brian Schweizer, says that he has "more guns than I need but not as many as I want … I guess I kind of believe in gun control: you control your gun, and I'll control mine." It's a whole new image for Democrats, and it won them control of both houses of Congress in 2006. (Yes, the war helped, too, but by itself it wouldn't have been enough.)

The Democrats were not going to lose the coastal states (where the effete intellectuals and most of the old urban working class live) even if they did drop gun control. They were not going to win in the heartland (where the born-agains and the Marlboro Men live) if they didn't drop gun control. So they dropped it, and now no large party supports it. That's the politics of it, and you can't argue with that.

There is another, quite rational reason why gun control doesn't get much traction in American politics any more. It's simply too late. This is a society that owns about equal numbers of wristwatches and guns: about a quarter-billion of each. There's no going back — and if practically everybody else has guns, maybe you should have one, too.

As various commentators will be pointing out soon, if just one of those 32 murdered students had been carrying a concealed handgun maybe the killer would have been stopped sooner. It's perfectly legal to carry concealed weapons with a permit in Virginia, but not on college campuses.

This loophole must be closed. At least, that is the way the argument is usually put in America, although the reality is not one gun per citizen over the age of 12, but some citizens with a great many guns and most citizens with none at all.

More fundamentally, the gun-control argument may be missing the cultural point. Most Swiss and Israeli households with a male between the ages of 18 and 45 also contain a fully automatic weapon, because the national military mobilisation model in those countries requires reservists to keep their weapons at home. Yet the Swiss and Israelis don't murder one another at a higher rate than people in countries such as Britain or Turkey, where there is relatively strict gun control.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people" is the best-known slogan of the National Rifle Association, the most effective pro-gun lobbying organisation in the US. But it's really a cultural thing: the British have bad teeth, the French smell of garlic, Americans tend to have more bullet-holes in them than other people. The slogan should actually go: "Guns don't kill Americans; Americans kill Americans."

---
And in a related article: Bush defends the right to bear arms

Oh look, that's just going too far!

According to my daily news source, Melbourne's The Age: (April 4th 2007)

Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards has acknowledged consuming a raft of illegal substances in his time. And in comments published today, he said he snorted his father's ashes mixed with cocaine.
"The strangest thing I've tried to snort? My father. I snorted my father," Richards was quoted as saying by British music magazine NME.
"He was cremated and I couldn't resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn't have cared ... It went down pretty well, and I'm still alive."

Keith, we all knew you were a bit wacky (wacked?), but that's just gross.

Update, 2 hours later
Umm... Is it cannibalism to snort a human being, or part thereof? The floor is open.

Update, April 5th
Disney is not amused. And now Keith and his publicist are going around telling everyone it was just a joke. Mmm Hmm.

Little Orphan Angie

From Melbourne's The Age newspaper, March 31 2007.

Some links added by me - for non-Australian's who don't know what a Daddo is.

The red carpets of Hollywood are crawling with a new stolen generation. Daniel Burt wants in.

AN ORPHAN IS NOT JUST for Christmas. They also make a great Easter gift. Soon, every celebrity will have one and the Third World will disappear, one boutique baby at a time.
If compassion were bird flu, Angelina Jolie would be laying eggs and begging for crackers.
Her latest recruit is a Vietnamese boy named Pax. Officially, he's the luckiest kid on the planet, but just wait until Pax hits his teens. You thought things were emotionally twisted for Oedipus. Having "the talk" with your mum never felt so wrong.
As for me, at the risk of jeopardising my inheritance, if it meant getting adopted by Angelina, I would happily murder my parents.
Hollywood's other do-gooders must be shattered. It's no longer enough to fly to Chad, grab a photo op with a cripple and be home in time for the Botox appointment. Where once celebrities spoke out against child labour, now they are adopting the workers.
Being in such high demand, orphans are getting picky. Many refuse to live with anyone who is not an Oscar nominee. I heard of one Kenyan kid who threw a tantrum when he learned that his new parent had only been up for Best Sound. Another had the indignity of being acquired by the winner of a Golden Globe. Her lawyers are in negotiations.
Celebrities seem to jump straight in the deep end. Why not start with an electronic pet? Like most orphans, they are compact, make funny noises and are made in Asia. Ensure you can tell the difference. One A-lister bought an orphan and spent 25 minutes looking for the "off" switch.
But these children are more than breathing toys. They constitute a new stolen generation, pilfered not by governments but movie stars. To safeguard against accusations of bias, many personalities endeavour to adopt children from every continent. Angelina wants a "Rainbow Tribe", the racial equivalent of collecting the whole set.
Celebrity lounge rooms become mini-United Nations. Parents don't reduce pocket money; they impose economic sanctions. Preventing fights becomes peacekeeping. And as with the UN, when it comes to housework, nothing actually gets done.
These kids go from dirt floor to red carpet. With so much at stake, I wouldn't be surprised if they puffed up their sympathy CV. Believe me, prospective parents, do your homework. What I thought was a diseased Cambodian toddler turned out to be a 33-year-old Adelaide IT worker with gout. The slob drinks straight from the carton.
Everyone knows famous people should get what they want. But competition is fierce and most are too busy to read every sob story. That's why orphans worldwide should be given tickets in a celebrity lottery. If your number comes up, you get to go home with Paris Hilton. Different categories mean B-grade celebrities get B-grade orphans. Booby prize gets a Daddo.
Some people deride celebrities who adopt the disadvantaged. They question motives, sincerity and aptitude. These cynics themselves haven't been altruistic since 1983, and even then it was walking home a drunk girl in the hope she'd ask them inside.
We commoners claim to lack the wherewithal for such charity. But all we need is a more extreme incentive. I suggest changing every African kid's name to iPod. Not only would we spend big, we'd also splurge on accessories.
Prevalence, however, ruins allure. Glossy magazines thrive on quirky cases of infants being plucked from obscurity. The public laps it up and intrusiveness is happily masked as goodwill. In reality, the constant threat of paparazzi is LA's answer to the ebola virus. And our abiding interest fuels its spread.
I wish the best of luck to Hollywood's new offspring. If there's ever an orphan shortage, give me a call. I can make a fall down the stairs look like an accident.

The highs and heartbreak of Valentine's Day

From The Age, Feb 14 2006

Love it. Loathe it. You can't avoid it.

Defining love is a slippery task, much like skinning an eel or holding a live swordfish while having your photograph taken. History is full of poets, artists and writers who have gallantly attempted - and utterly failed - to capture the mystery and majesty of love. Then again, this lot also had trouble remembering when bin night was, so who are they?

The only person to succeed in the endeavour was famed English writing guy William Shakespeare who, after decades of rumination, finally captured the very essence of love in a few simple words that were eloquent, powerful and universally resonant. Unfortunately, the day he did this was the same day construction began next door on four mock-Georgian townhouses and he was too busy arguing with the builders about the noise to jot it down, so we'll never know what he came up with.

Thus it is we turn to Valentine's Day as that one time of the year when we choose to express our affection for one another through the medium of flowers, imported chocolates, expensive dinners and glossy cards with the word "shag" on them.

To some people, Valentine's Day is a matter of life and death. That is, if their partner forgets, they'll kill them. Yet a large percentage of lovers neglect their romantic obligations and leave it to the very last possible minute to arrange something. Although these people come from all levels of society and thus defy easy categorisation, they can, in general, broadly be described as "men".

Precisely why it is that women place much more importance on Valentine's Day than men do remains a mystery. It may have something to do with how women crave romance and emotional connection in relationships, while men only seek somebody to remind them when it is bin night.

Also, the male brain is genetically predisposed to regard romance as a means of acquiring sex, whereas the female brain regards sex as something the male brain won't be getting any of unless he makes good with the five-star hotel package deal and two tickets to the opera.

It is extremely rare for men to receive cards on Valentine's Day, but if they do they must never, ever throw them out or lose them, no matter what. They must file the card away so that if the subject ever comes up it can be produced at a moment's notice as proof of his undying love. This will both ensure the stability of the relationship and secure the man's right to watch TV in peace.

Many long-term relationships are severely tested on Valentine's Day, for it is on this day when men will ask their partners for "special favours". This is usually stuff they won't even ask for on their birthdays. This raises the eternal question: can the romantic and the erotic co-exist? If the answer is "Yes", an even more pressing question arises: how do you hide rope burns during a board meeting?

The digital age has ushered in a new era of romantic expression and with it a whole new vocabulary as people send their Valentine's Day messages via SMS text. This is where people express the fathomless depths of their love through the medium of abbreviation. These are usually a variation of "I LUV U!" or "I SO LUV U!" or, even simply, "LUV YA!". To emphasise the sincerity of the message, "luv" will often be spelt "wuv", as in "I WUV U!". Anyone in a relationship with a person capable of sending such a message should immediately reply with "U R DROPT" and head to the nearest singles bar.

For some, Valentine's Day merely serves to remind them of how lonely and unloved they feel. These dejected souls employ many tactics to lift their sorry spirits, the most famous of which is the traditional sending of flowers to themselves in the office and then acting all surprised when the "anonymous" bouquet arrives. The ruse is typically uncovered by midafternoon, however, when they are found locked in the ladies room whimpering Jewel lyrics to themselves.

Thus it is that so many people remain cynical about Valentine's Day. They consider it a vulgar commercialisation of romance that degrades the very concept of true love. This view is held by people from all walks of life - astronauts, produce wholesalers, forklift operators, anaesthetists - yet they all invariably have one thing in common: none of them will be seeing any action tonight.

An old-fashioned guide for being a good spouse

Here are some good tips for every married woman to keep in mind. The authenticity of this article hasn't been determined but it is hilarious nonetheless. Unless you are very good at reading tiny writing, click on the image to see it full sized:

Obviously I will bear all of this advice in mind when my time to be a wife comes, and more than likly ignore it. But since every good wife needs a good husband, here's a Good Husband's Guide that I found online:

* Always make getting and keeping a full-time job with regular raises, benefits, bonuses and the potential for prestigious advancement your number one priority in life. Remember always that you have a wife and children who need your financial support, and that it is your responsibility to provide for them to the best of your ability.
* Always arrive home refreshed and happy - put your bad day or your confrontation with your boss, the traffic, the crowds or the physical exhaustion you might feel aside and try to arrive home as cheery and lighthearted as you possibly can. Your wife has been struggling with the children and the housework all day, she does not need to hear about how bad your day was.
* Be prepared to help with household chores when you get home - let your wife relax or talk on the phone since she has been dealing with these problems all day. Make supper for her often, and offer to clean up afterwards so that she may rest and feel appreciated.
* Do not bore your wife with stories of the troubles you faced at work today. Remember that you are lucky to have a job and that many other men would be happy to trade places with you. Remember that it is not masculine to complain or let worries trouble you. Your job is to provide, and whatever you must go through to achieve this is part of your lot in life. A good husband knows that he is lucky to have a wife at all, and that a woman wants a strong, silent man she can depend on.
* Never expect your wife to have contributed to the smooth operation of the household. She has had a busy day and cannot be expected to provide meals or clean clothes for you. Never insult her by asking her to do such things while you're out earning money. Be mindful always that your wife may think you are being sexist if you ask her to help make a home for your family as part of your partnership.
* Be prepared to account for your whereabouts every minute of the day, including an explanation as to why you were away from the phone when she tried to call or why you were unable to chat with her for twenty minutes when she did get through to you. You must always put her interests first, and be mindful of her natural suspicion about her husband's activities. A good husband knows that men can't be trusted, and that a wife has every reason to believe you will hurt and humiliate her.
* Do not grumble or gripe about handing over your paycheque to her - she is in control of your finances and knows better than you how to spend or invest your money. Never assume that the money you earn is yours to do with as you will - you have a family to think about now, and their needs must always come before your own.
* Listen avidly to your wife's complaints. She leads a hectic life and needs to feel listened to and appreciated. Never suggest ways in which she might solve whatever problem is vexing her. You need only listen; your suggestions are likely insensitive and unfeeling anyway. And do not counter with complaints of your own. She would love to have the chance to leave the house and work, she does not need to hear about how difficult your job is.
* Be prepared to give up your weeknights or weekends to whatever projects or socializing your wife has in mind. If she has determined that cleaning out the garage or painting the upstairs bathroom would be the best use of your time, never complain that you would like to relax or pursue personal interests instead. She has every right to expect that you will make repairs to the house or help her redecorate during your time off. Do not be so selfish as to ask for personal time. You are a family man now, you do not have the luxury of personal time.
* Always be prepared to take over in caring for the children when you get home from work. Your wife has been busy all day and deserves some quiet time. Allow her to watch television or chat with her friends on the phone, go shopping or simply relax. They are your children too, and it is unfair of you to expect to come home from a twelve hour day and simply put your feet up.
* Never grumble about having to support children you didn't want to have. If you were irresponsible enough to help her get pregnant, then it is your duty to pay for that child for the next eighteen years. If you decide to have sex, you must know that pregnancy may result and be fully prepared to take responsibility for it. This, of course, does not apply to her. She doesn't have to be responsible for her actions, and can abort a child she conceived any time she wants, whether this breaks your heart or not. Accept this stoically. She has the special privilege of being able to kill her unborn child, carry it to term and give it up for adoption, or have it and raise it all by herself if she wants, but you have the responsibility of simply living with whatever choice she makes and quite often paying for it, too. Remember, you have no right to be a parent and no right not to be a parent, you are just a man. A good husband knows his place.

Google Earth features naked sunbathers

This was bound to happen sometime. Yes, Google Earth is all-seeing and not afraid to tell everyone what you get up to in your backyard. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.

A sad loss for Australia

I think he was more widely known outside of Australia than he was to Australians, but Steve Irwin, who died today, was an Australian legend nonetheless.