Royalist Pain Tony Abbott wants to name Knights and Dames as higher honors than otherwise accorded by the Order of Australia, but will they be supplementary or in replacement of any such honors conferred by his monarch, QEII? Does he get to whack them with a sword? What is it with this buffoon? A republic can't come soon enough.

Is Everybody Happy (Nowadays)? See? This is why the UN is bad: world government telling us we're happy, black helicoptors surveilling unhappy people . . . .

The Poor You Will Have with You Always (but not when you can make a buck off them) The decision by the current NSW government to sell the public housing in the Rocks and Millers Point isn't just heartless, it's corrupt. With the development of the former shipping wharves into a high-profile high-price precinct, complete with a high-rollers casino, was bad enough, bypassing normal planning reviews to largely benefit a single enormously wealthy man, but to now divest the poor of their homes to capitalize on the increased property values shows just how far the Liberal Party is willing to go to line their pockets and those of their wealthy patrons (read: masters). Community Services Minister Pru Goward says AUD$7 million has been spent on the public housing stock to be sold over the last two years and that this money could have been used to build more housing or conduct maintenance elsewhere in the State. I would suggest that the money has been badly managed in the first place, and in the second, spending $7 million on housing for the poor in the city is not "better spent" elsewhere - the poor deserve our compassion and our government's money. It's one of the things we pay our taxes for. 300 properties to be sold for upwards of 1.3 million apiece is certainly a lot of money, but it's a one-off. Less than half-a-billion dollars isn't going to get this government very far, not when it's committing itself to spending billions on unnecessary tunnels and freeways. The poor can't live in the street, but this heartless mob will have them there if they can. There just isn't time enough to get the ICAC onto this lot. (Link fixed.)

Two by Two Last year, Russell Crowe was Jor-El in Man of Steel. The Rabbitohs, of which he is part-owner, issued a limited edition commemorative jersey with the Superman 'S' on it. (No, I did not buy one. There's a limit to fan-boy gear even I will own. Besides, they only have "ladies" and kids left in stock.) This year he's in Noah. Will they do a special rain day match? Wear wet jerseys? Sell wet jerseys? Will mascot Reggie Rabbit come onto the field two-by-two? Will Russell get drunk post-game and fall asleep naked on the pitch? If they win the championship this year, will all the other teams and fans be denied access to the stadium while the climate-change floods rage outside and the South Sydney faithful huddle within, waiting for an opportune moment to send out pigeons and meanwhile subsisting on ANZ Stadium pies and hot dogs? Man, I can hardly wait.

Quiet, Loud, Both So, Yo la tengo at the Opera House last night. Don't think B. liked it much, but then again, I think I like them better as recording artists than performers. Yes, I'll listen to their records, but going to see them highlights some points recorded music disguises. Their singing voices seem to be quite weak. This may be deliberate. Their reliance on feedback effects is something I blame on Jimi Hendrix and Adrian Belew but don't get the impression they have the same . . . purpose. It seems more introspective and less playful. They have some good lyrics, when you can hear them, so maybe even when you can't, but who could tell? Finally, the Opera House is probably not the ideal venue. A smaller theatre or other venue would be more suitable. This, however, is a problem with Sydney. There aren't enough places for an international act to draw an adequate crowd, perhaps only from a promoter's perspective, though, as the New Pornographers, for example, played the Manning Bar and the Annandale Hotel, and even the Enmore would do better. I wonder about the "politics" of music promotion sometimes. Enjoyed the music, but it might have been a better night, somehow.

Every Road a Toll Road User-pays is not a good model for funding roadworks. Really big new highways and bridges or significant renovation works on such may require a toll for a period, but there’s a lot more to public infrastructure works than that. Claims that the fuel excise is user-pays ignores the plain fact that all tax goes into a single pool which is then allocated according to the government of day’s budgeting priorities. Which means building concentration camps in other people’s countries to house refugees Australia doesn’t want, buying fighter jets that are unproven and not even in production yet, giving tax breaks to the wealthy to have more children than the poor – not roads and bridges and airports. It’s just a draft report. The productivity commission hasn’t finished yet, although they were supposed to have the report out at the end of last month.

Advancing Australia’s Flag I’ve written about this before, but look: New Zealand is proposing to change their flag, and we’re not. Well, they are a more progressive country a lot of the time, even, apparently, when they have a Liberal government. I quite like the Aboriginal flag, but it will never be Australia’s. Too much politics. (There’s a science fiction movie with that crazy New Zealand actor, Sam Neill, in which he’s an Australian space explorer in the future, and he wears a flag patch on his uniform, with the union jack replaced by the Aboriginal flag; that was pretty good; still never gonna happen.) NZ has been prompted to make the change after being a bit fed up with having their flag and ours mixed up too often. Nobody mistakes ours for the UK’s, but if Canada can do it, I think we should be capable of achieving a unique design without reliance on mother England. If NZ does go to a fern or whatever, I say we just drop the crosses in the corner and have a nice Southern Cross on a field of blue (that isn’t the Eureka flag).

Keep Movin’ Movin’ Movin’ There has been years of talk of adding a second airport to Sydney and rarely any discussion of why it’s necessary. We’re not London or New York, after all, with millions upon millions of our own moving in and out; we’re mainly talking about international arrivals. So it’s good when someone raises the issue and asks: what will we do until then? Unfortunately the answer appears to be increase the number of planes coming through. While I agree that if capacity is the issue, it will be years before a second airport can serve it. But the experience I’ve had shows the problem not to be the carrying capacity of the airport in regard to takeoffs and landings but in moving people to and from the planes. Taxi queues are a trial at the domestic terminal, evidence it was designed with a different throughput methodology in mind, but one that no longer serves, if it ever did. People don’t want to park at the airport. It’s expensive, it can mean the family car is taken out of use, and the traffic getting in and out doesn’t help. People don’t want to do private drop-offs and pick-up, although they do, because of the traffic and the limitations on the design, which privileges long-term parking. Taxis are feral. The international terminal is not bad for taxis, although you’ll spend half the fare into the city just exiting the airport. There is a train, and it’s quick and relatively cheap, so long as you’re travelling alone and with minimal baggage. Once you add another passenger travelling with you, the fare has now gone up to be equivalent to a taxi, which latter has the obvious benefit of not having to lug your bags around. If you drive you are probably not going to miss your flight, but you will have to leave earlier and wait longer, especially along the various bottlenecks on the roads serving the airport, not least being within the last kilometre of the trip. You’ll eventually get into town for your meeting, too, but you’ll face the same bottlenecks, and more, in reverse, especially if you need to cross the CBD to get to your destination. Frankly, the roads that disgorge the daily commuters into the city aren’t up to it as it is, let alone with the addition of airport traffic. Adding additional flights to the mix is going to increase the numbers coming and going and exacerbate an already frustrating situation. And I haven’t even mentioned the curfew. Add changes here and the numbers are that much more and increase local community frustration. So let’s do something about the mass transit. Let’s make it easier to get to the airport from the scattered suburbs and give passengers a way to arrive in Sydney that doesn’t leave them queued up for hundreds of meters and as many minutes. Terminal infrastructure will have to be improved, too. If we’re going to screen people as extensively as America’s War on Terror ™ requires, we’re going to have to admit to it and have the capacity. It will be painful, but that can be mitigated. Possibly the Richmond RAAF base or other regional airport facilities could be brought into play, at least for some portion of domestic services. A new airport is inevitable, and I accept the need. We need to prove we can execute the supporting infrastructure before we start building it.

Medical Care, If You Can Pay for It In case you weren't listening in the lead-up to last year's September election, Tony Abbott promised no fundamental changes to, among other things, Medicare. In case you were dropped on your head as a child, Tony Abbott was lying. Today we have proof. Health Minister Peter Dutton, one of John Howard's henchmen prior to the 2007 election that saw the exit of the Liberals from government, has announced: "one important job of the Abbott Government is to grow the opportunity for those Australians who can afford to do so to contribute to their own healthcare costs." No, really, he said "grow the opportunity." What he means, of course, is that Medicare is not going to be universal health care in Australia anymore. It will be user-pays. Now, keep in mind that we already all pay a tax levy to fund Medicare, and that this levy, in the last, Labor, goverment, became means-tested (so that those "who can afford to do so" are already paying more to fund heathcare costs - not just for themselves, but for the whole country; and that, under Howard, it became compulsory to hold private health care insurance, the premiums for which are regularly approved for substantial increases. But we're going to "grow the opportunity" to pay more - not for the country overall, but for our "own healthcare costs." I do not object to paying taxes. Taxes are a public good and the price of living in a society. The society I joined has an admirable universal healthcare provision and a healthcare system that is second to none. But user-pays is the US model, pre-Obamacare (and post, pending refinements I'm sure a vast number of Americans are looking forward to under next-President Clinton), and it is the very model of unsustainable. If healthcare costs are indeed rising at unsustainable rates for Medicare, it's not Medicare that's the problem: it's the healthcare system. We need better, smarter care, not just more and paying more for it. In this latest example, Abbott and his ministers yet again prove they have no idea of the role of government, no vision, and nothing but their own pre-formed opinions on which to develop policy. We have a great opportunity to model significant advances in healthcare, but all they can think to do is to gut the system. Howard wanted an end to Medicare as much as he wanted an end of labor unions. He couldn't get it done. Abbott is well on his way to reducing the power of workers in favour of employers, and now he's proposed to complete the job of eliminating Medicare. Australia will never be the same if we let this happen.

Bush

Buying & Selling Part of PM Abbot’s “Stop the Boats” campaign was to buy the boats being used by people smugglers. Well, that wasn’t the best plan, probably, and certainly Indonesia didn’t think much of it. (If I was a people smuggler, I’d have my boat on Gumtree by now, though; sell one, buy more, smuggle refugees – the business model just gets better and better). It appears now it’s been abandoned, because we’re giving them away. To Malaysia, but that’s one of those irrelevant details. Good boats, too; used, but serviceable. Driven only on Sundays by little old lady admirals or something. “Stop the Boats,” “Buy the Boats” (and don’t forget “Deny the Boats”), “Donate the Boats.” What next?

Toiletries The shoe bomb, the underpants bomb, the toothpaste bomb. Which is worse? I’d be inclined to vote the underpants bomb for obvious reasons, but when you think about it, even if you survive the toothpaste bomb, all the fluoride will make you a communist.

Ahoy Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has told us that Australian naval vessels have inadvertently breached Indonesian boundaries at sea on multiple occasions when turning back refugees travelling by sea attempting to access Australia and claim asylum. Leaving aside the cruelty and hard-heartedness of the anti-refugee policy of the Abbott government, one wonders at the competence of our navy that they cannot operate so much as a GPS, let alone all the other equipment they have available to judge their position. No, actually, one does not so wonder. Because they were acting on orders, obviously. Nevertheless our PM, Tony Abbott, persists in the lie, claiming the sailors were distracted by wind or tide or other operational complexities. Such as playing Angry Birds on their phones, maybe (but that would mean access to equipment with GPS capabilities, so it’s unlikely). What kind of vessels are they operating? Is “Operation Sovereign Borders” being conducted on First Fleet replicas? Given Education Minister Christopher Pyne’s obsession with Australia’s glorious British past (more usually with how wonderful our boys were at Gallipoli), perhaps this is a revision to the naval college’s curriculum. What a government. There are two kinds of lies: those they tell and not telling us anything. Is this the best we can expect? Will “Stop the Boats” become “Stop the Tides”? Tony “Canute” Abbott needs to step up his game.

Stralians all, let us rejoice Here we go: who will be Australian of the Year (and what other country does this)? I reckon it will be . . . a sports person. Hey, I like Adam Goodes. He may be a football player, but he's got a brain and he's got heart and he's Aboriginal and stands up for it and against racism. But I like the scientists and artists more than the sports personalities on the basis that they are advancing the culture of Australia in ways the sports, to date, does not. When we can have professional sports that aren't sponsored and don't promote alcohol abuse and domestic violence (and in the latter case I admit they're trying, at least a little bit), then the players should be included in the nominations, for their individual efforts outside of sport. Too often that's not the case. If Goodes wins, however, I'd applaud, because he has made the effort on field and off. With Tony Abbott as PM, however, given his predisposition for engaging in sport to promote himself and his vision of the country, a non-sports selection is (a) unlikely and (b) more meaningful. Update: I was wrong: Goodes won. And good for him and us, I say, and continuing to be brave and outspoken. He'll cop some flak, I suppose, in the usual circles and with the usual circular logic and missing-the-pointedness, but he's a good choice.

Reviews I try to keep up, but most of the music reviews I read are disappointing in the end, so when I finally broke down and picked up the debut CD from Lorde I was not only greatly relieved to quite like the music but also very impressed. Now I don't know if the sophomore effort will match the excellence on display with "Pure Heroine" but I also don't think I care. This is an artist to follow for a while. It may be that, like many solo acts, Lorde doesn't immediately show the kind of growth that an ensemble act might, the various creatives push against each other to keep things fresh, and it may be the case that the second album is the stuff that didn't make the cut for the first blow-them-away effort, but I don't get that impression here. Lorde shows an independence and a creativity that shows just how deep her artistry goes, how far she'll push herself from the start. Her lyrics are insightful, honest, and poetic, but don't get sappy or shy away from the points she wants to make, without getting in your face. If you can't deal, that's your problem, and fair enough. I've got "Royals" stuck on replay in my head and I'm liking it. Bring it, kid; I'm in it for the long haul if you are. I've seen a lot of movies across a fair swath of genres, often in subtitles. One of my new favourites: The Great Beauty. This has to be one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen on film. It is often terribly funny, but then as often deeply touching, or disturbing, or sorrowful. How do you feel for someone like Jep Gambardella, whose talents have been so beautifully wasted, and who, at the same time, can both recognize this and completely miss it? Toni Servillo is a very expressive actor, his mobile face conveying so much that his words and his silences can belie. The film could be Fellini's but doesn't fail in its modernity. We are dealing with a contemporary, those of us of an age, that is, although I dare say there are many much younger who would do well to heed the message: don't deny beauty when you find it or you deny yourself.

The Poor You Will Have with You Always Especially if you can make sure they stay that way. Liberal Party policy seems intent on punishing the poor for being poor. The latest float: a co-pay for doctor visits. This doesn’t seem so controversial at first glance, but when you consider it in the overall context it demonstrates just how far market-based economics reaches into LNP policy. This is a political party that believes all the wrong lessons Tony Abbott has learned from the Jesuits: To him who has, more shall be given, for example. Along with the approved rate rise in private medical insurance cover, the highest in seven years, it’s clear that this government, like the Howard government before it, is intent on the elimination of Medicare. Private cover is, effectively, mandatory. If you don’t have private cover, you pay a tax surcharge, on top of the Medicare tax itself, and the longer you wait to take out private cover, the higher the penalty and premiums. Effectively, even though we have Medicare, everyone has to pay additional. And private cover, like in the US, pays out very little on claims, especially on anything that can be deemed elective, such as doctor visits. This year’s rate increase is already sending people to their insurance providers to adjust their deductibles, which means an increase in out-of-pocket costs. Meanwhile, the number of doctors who bulk-bill has and continues to shrink, which means that poor people already have less access to health care, and this would only be exacerbated by requiring even a small co-pay. The Liberals hate Medicare. They use it. They benefit from it. They hate it. They hate it because it was, by far, the most successful Labor policy initiative of all time. They hate it because it means that they have to pay for someone else’s benefit. They hate it because it helps the poor. They won’t say it, but it’s true. They’ll say: “personal responsibility,” as if getting sick was a character flaw, and they’ll say that until it’s them that’s ill and needs help. Of course, if they do get sick, they’ll go to their doctor and pay for it, go to the hospital and get a private room and jump the public queue and pay for it – if they can. The irony is that many of the public who support the LNP are, in fact, poor and middle class and will struggle or be unable to meet the expenses of private cover. They will, in fact, go to bulk-billing doctors and be admitted to public hospitals. What drives their thinking is merely selfishness and delusion.

TV & DVD I didn't get into watching Breaking Bad right off, so ended up watching the whole thing on DVD. Now that I've caught up with the rest of the world, I can finally talk about it. This has to be the best show ever. Well, o.k., sure, there were other shows out there that at the time were the best show ever, like Buffy or Hill Street Blues, and nobody can deny how far The Simpsons has penetrated the zeitgeist. But Breaking Bad was so enthralling, even as you knew it shouldn't be. I don't know that I'll watch it through again, now that I know how it all comes out, but if an episode is running when I'm scrolling through the channels, I'm likely to linger. Update O.k., so, in response to the comment received, why is this so good? Well, there are no extraneous characters for one thing. Across the entire season, everybody ties in, serves a purpose, either in the plot overall - and from beginning to end - or in pushing the character development of the majors. Take the tweaker friends who hang around Jesse; by the end they still drive the plot and Walt's character forward, although in Walt's case, backward may be more appropriate, since they are now contributing to a kind of redemption. The structure of the episodes is also very tight; even the less cliff-hanging endings still are cliff-hanging enough to make you want to know what happens next, and season-ending episodes more so. The idea that this is a show that somehow celebrates a descent into evil misses the point. Yes, Walt does in fact go, like Michael Corleone, deeper and deeper in, and although some of the more heinous acts are committed by others they are often committed on his behalf, whether directed or not. But what's fascinating about this is the way he clings, at least initially, to the idea that his actions harm no one who would not otherwise have been harmed. The meth-heads would still have been meth-heads; he just gives them quality, and helps his family as a result. Drug dealers and higher-ups get killed, but that's the life they chose and they deserve it, don't they? Unlike Walt, he justifies to himself, that is. And Walt's development as a character is mirrored, in different ways, by his wife, his brother-in-law, and his partner-in-crime, each having an arc equally fascinating to watch, and sometimes devastating. There are the drug cartels, the lawyers who practice to the letter of the law but not its spirit, the easy marks, the easy money, the police taking shortcuts and the police doing the hard yards. And there's the society in which it takes place and the politics, at least implied, that have gotten us there. So, tightly drawn characters and plots over a short timeframe, with insights that can be applied in a variety of socio-political real-life issues. What's not to like?

Cruel, not Unusual Do I care about The Race That Stops the Nation? No, I do not, except that it is cruel and enriches parasites.

Sydney’s Gatwick There’s a long-standing call for Sydney to have a second airport. The traffic through the existing airport is stalled by capacity and by the curfew. Eliminating the curfew is one option, but the position of the airport means a lot of people would be seriously inconvenienced by the late-night noise, so it’s unlikely to pass the palatability test among the political set. There’s also, however, another issue, one that isn’t addressed by any of the proposals for a second airport: the capacity to funnel those travellers into the city. All those additional cabs and private cars aren’t going to do much for any of the motorways in existence, already carrying more traffic than they were designed for, and then what are you going to do once you hit the actual city limits? As it is, four-lane traffic reduced to two lanes at the margins causes considerable pain. The single train servicing the existing airport is inadequate, as is the rest of Sydney’s commuter rail, so don’t expect that to get better anytime soon. Successive governments have failed to address the issues other than by redefining what constitutes “late” or reducing service. Imagine what building an airport further out would entail, and what that rail system would look like. Oh, the pain. Forget it. Virgin’s dummy-spit over international-to-domestic transfers, calling the current system at the current airport ”third world” isn’t so far off, although at least some parts of the third world, like Singapore, do quite well, thanks. I had more trouble in Switzerland transferring terminals, although that also involved an additional security check and customs. (What did they think I did after the first security check and while I was on the plane? Build a rifle out of cheese and biscuits?) There is effectively no existing infrastructure to transfer between terminals. But let’s think about that in relation to travelling to Australia. How many times will an international arrival require transfer to a domestic flight? If you’ve come to Sydney, more often than not you are not then on your way to Melbourne or, for that matter, to Wagga Wagga or Albury. It’s possible; it will happen; but enough to build a light rail transfer facility? Maybe not. A Virgin Airways executive may do it, in order to bounce around the places his or her planes go to in Australia, but business travellers more generally will come to Sydney to be in Sydney etc. There just isn’t the same level of international commerce headquartered in the regional cities and towns that’s going to see a lot of flight-hopping. If the conversation prompts improvements, let’s start with fixing the problems the current airport presents. This could mean building that second airport as a replacement for the majority of international flights, leaving Kingsford-Smith for the domestic – so long as there’s a good transfer function built, of course.

Travelogue, last leg After Rome, we flew to NYC, caught a cab to LaGuardia, and visited Mom & Dad in North Carolina. Then, after a too-brief visit, back to NYC. We stayed in a Holiday Inn in Long Island City, with a very nice view across the East River. As much as we wanted to see everything, we couldn't, with only two-and-a-half days of tourism available to us. We missed a few things due to a lack of prior research and no local expertise beyond my memory of the subway system. Luckily that was enough, mostly, for a few highlights. I don't often miss living in NYC and doubt I would be successful transitioning back, as the up-front costs would be extraordinary, but it was nice to see the old place, including many of the new things I've read about. So much new; it was good to see. So much old; it was good it's still there. (The subways, however, need a serious upgrade. Rome and Berlin were so much quieter and cleaner. Although their maps aren't as good as the MTA's.)