The Rules: The Wizard Doesn’t Live Here

I can’t stand it when people refer to Australia as Oz. It has rankled for ages. I’m not one to stand on protocol, I’ve no time for patriotism just for its own sake and I’m about the least jingoistic person I can think of, but can’t we at least have the self respect to spell our name correctly?

Usually, I brush it off, but I was disturbed to see this weekend, the #HillaryOz tag on Twitter being promoted by both the ABC and the US Embassy, which goes by the handle, USAembassyinOZ. It’s one thing to use it as slang, but when official representatives start using it, that’s just undignified. I’ve felt this way ever since the Australian bit of Live Aid was called “Oz for Africa.”

I understand the need to abbreviate, but couldn’t we at least say Aus? That’s at least accurate, and it’s only one letter longer. Since it’s the internet, you could even abbreviate it to au and people should know what you’re talking about.

It really pains me to sound like such an old fart about this, but this is Australia, not Ozstralia. I’m an Aussie, not an Ozzie. I would expect the USAembassyinOZ would be there to make diplomatic representations to the Wizard, and HillaryOz would either involve some ruby slippers and finding her way back to Kansas, or a special visit by the US Secretary of State to a gritty prison.

Dear Republicans,

Congratulations! Finally you don’t have Nancy Pelosi to kick around any more. Good for you!

Now it’s time to put up or shut up. If the budget is not balanced, the war not over and full employment not restored in two years’ time, then we will know who to blame.

Don’t think me harsh in saying that. I’m only applying the same standards you set for the other side. In fact, you barely waited three months into the new guy’s term before talking tea parties and reloading and secession and all kinds of hooey. So I’m actually being pretty generous in giving you two years. Everything that has happened since 2006 has been Pelosi and Reid’s fault. You didn’t even wait for the inauguration to begin blaming the economy on Obama. And whenever anyone pointed out the parts Republican congresses, senates and the Bush administration played in getting to the current situation, you said that was in the past and it’s all the Democrats’ fault now.

Well, now it’s your fault again. I’m a reasonable person and normally I would give an incoming government at least a year before thinking that any situation is entirely of that government’s own making. But the American public has embraced you and your values – and your values are that the slate is wiped clean with the changeover. By your own pronouncements, you own this. Everything that happens next is your fault.

This has been the biggest spending election ever with $3.4 billion (an increase of 50% on the 2006 mid-terms) spent by campaigns talking about fiscal responsibility and restraint.
Good luck!

The Best of the Best-Ofs: Paul McCartney

In a 40-year post-Beatle career, Paul McCartney has released three compilations – considerably less than many of his contemporaries. Curiously, they all deal with less than half of his career.

Wings Greatest – 1978
Does exactly what it says on the cover. Wings only made one more album after Wings Greatest, the excellent but hit-free Back to the Egg so it can still be considered the definitive Wings collection. It collection does stretch the definition just a little by including two tracks originally credited to Paul & Linda McCartney, but no-one could possibly begrudge that. It includes five non-album singles but for reasons of space, leaves out Listen to What the Man Said. Wings Greatest remains the only album that contains the full version of Junior’s Farm.

For: Succinct
Against: These days, represents a comparatively short phase of McCartney’s career.


All the Best – 1987
Originally released as a double-LP All the Best contains nine tracks that were also released on Wings Greatest and add the hits from the 80s. It includes the first album releases of C Moon, We All Stand Together and Goodnight Tonight, although the latter was not included on the single CD. Contains one new song, Once Upon a Long Ago.

The US version of All the Best had a slightly different tracklisting, and includes the live version of Coming Up, (which was the A-side of the single in the US) rather than the album version.

For: Great artwork, Only album release of Once Upon a Long Ago
Against: CD version drops three tracks.


Wingspan – 2001
Released alongside the television documentary and book of the same name, Wingspan is sensibly divided into two themed discs, Hits and History. The collection does employ a rather curious definition of Wings’ career. While it’s fair enough to include pre-Wings tracks from McCartney and Ram, it also covers part of Paul’s post-Wings careers, but suddenly stops in 1984.
On the Hits side, it’s all the usual suspects – ten tracks previously included on Wings Greatest and fourteen that had been on All the Best. The History side delves deeper and does a good job of being a true best-of, including underrated tracks like Heart of the Country, Take It Away and Rockestra Theme. It also includes an early demo of Bip Bop/Hey Diddle, which was previously unreleased and should have remained so. Where available, radio edits included which may be interesting for completists but does an injustice to a beautiful song like Waterfalls, and wasn’t Junior’s Farm already short enough? Again, Coming Up is replaced with the live version on the US version. The smarter thing to do would have been to include it on the History disc, since the live version has never been available on CD outside the US.

For: Comprehensive, separate Hits and History discs, remastered.
Against: Edited versions, weird time period.

If you had to choose one, choose....
Wingspan. All these collections sell McCartney’s catalogue short on one level or another, but Wingspan is the most comprehensive.

Band on the Run from Wings Greatest

Band on the Run from All the Best

Band on the Run from Wingspan

See also,

Never Stop Doing What You Love – 2005
This collection was issued as part of a sponsorship deal with and investment company. Although never commercially released, it is available online from certain sellers. It’s mostly a predictable collection of hits, but also includes Put It There, The World Tonight and Calico Skies, making it the only McCartney compilation to include anything after 1984.



The McCartney Years – 2007
As a collection of videos, this is the only McCartney collection to give equal representation to all stages of his career from 1970 to 2005.

A Political Draft

I’ll say this from the outset: I know nothing about sport. I only know as much as I accidentally pick up when I’m not paying attention, so I will allow for the fact that some of my analogies may be invalid, but I still stand by the idea. It’s an idea that I first had close to 20 years ago and I was reminded of it by Joe Hockey this week.

Joe Hockey is a nice, decent bloke who is probably out of his depth speaking on treasury matters. His suggestion this week that government should consider regulating interest rates charged by banks is something that ought to be a bit of slam-dunk populism. However, Hockey has been mocked from all sides for it, mainly because such an idea goes against his entire party platform. And that brings me to my, admittedly ill-informed, sport analogy.

There is no assumption that a footballer will play for the same side every season. There are players that will stay with one side for their whole career and others who will play with several. Fans tend to stick with teams rather than players. If their favourite player moves to another team, they might be disappointed, but only the most one-eyed of fans would scream “traitor!” Likewise, most of the player’s former teammates will understand that these things happen.

My question is, why can’t we do the same thing with politics?
Oh sure, there has been the occasional ‘defection,’ and a few turned independent, but most people – politicians and voters alike – assume that once someone is an MP for a certain party, they will always be aligned with that particular party. I think parties should be more like football teams. At the end of the season, everyone is a free agent again and they go to the team (or party) that they think will perform the best, or makes them the best offer.

Pick any parliament in recent memory and imagine they all forgot what party they belonged to. If this were to happen, then by far the biggest voting block would be made up of the right wing of the ALP and the left wing of the Liberal party. The remainder would be split into two smaller blocks, the left wing of the ALP plus the Greens, and the right wing of the Liberal party plus the Nationals. Okay, I know that’s an oversimplification but I think it comes pretty close.

Why can’t we all be mature enough to let members choose the party that best reflects their values today rather than having to stick with who they chose in their 20s, or when they first decided to run? Why should a large section of the party, whether in government or opposition, have to hold their noses when voting? I’m not talking about some kind of Rob Oakeshott, bi-tri-poly-partisan love-in. I’m suggesting it should be more like the AFL draft – players pick their sides and side pick their players according to what suits them best at the time.

Such an arrangement may be useful in the US system as well. I've always liked the fact that members are independent and that there’s no assumption that a member will vote a certain way just because of their party. However, this can go too far in the other direction and make party platforms rather pointless. If the Republicans win control of congress and the senate as expect, I don’t think it will really make any difference. Democrats watered down legislation in order to appease the minority, which many Republicans then voted against anyway. However, that didn't stop some of them going back to their districts and bragging about the funding they had won in bills they voted against. I say if they're going to give Republicans control of congress, they might as well make them responsible for it too.

In Joe Hockey’s case, it might mean he skips over the ALP and goes straight to the Greens with his banking policy. I really have no idea what his thinking is, or if he has just spoken without thinking things through. It's certainly amusing that he’s offered a suggestion that would be pretty out-there even for the ALP, and now Tony Abbott and the banks have to deal with it, but none of that is any reason why Hockey shouldn't say what he feels either as shadow treasurer or as a representative. Perhaps the Libs are allowing this to continue as evidence that they really are a broad church, knowing they will never have to make good on it. It is heartening to know there are still some in the Liberal party who think that, at least under some circumstances, the role of government is to govern.

Godwin’s Law of Climate Change

Anyone who has been around internet discussion and debate for more than a few months (and if you haven’t, how the hell did you find this ’blog?) will be aware of Godwin’s Law, which states, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

Neither Godwin’s Law, nor any of the published corollaries, say anything about the validity of such comparisons, they merely observe the likelihood. Be that as it may, there is the view that anyone who “goes Godwin” in a debate, does so out of desperation in a losing argument.
Disclosure: I have, in the past, fallen into this trap. In some instances I stand by what I said and in others, it was a cheap debating tactic. I never said I was perfect. I never even said I was good.

I propose a Godwin’s Law of Climate Change, which would state that the longer a discussion of climate change goes on, the more likely it becomes that those who dispute human-caused climate change will attempt to turn the topic towards the behaviour of Al Gore.

It is somewhat amusing to see people who would usually defend the right of people like Rupert Murdoch to make as much money as they can by whatever means they can – and who would likely decry any criticism of such tycoons as ‘the politics of envy,’ – turn around and cite the money Al Gore has made from his carbon trading business and film, as evidence that climate change is all a money-spinning beat up. There are a few things that don’t stack up about this theory. One is that carbon credits would have to be the slowest get-rich-quick scheme ever. The other is that the success of An Inconvenient Truth was pretty damn unlikely. A film about the former vice president and his PowerPoint presentation? Oh yeah, that’s got ‘Box-office smash,’ written all over it! Steven Spielberg must have been kicking himself.

Is Al Gore a hypocrite for his use of air travel and big house? Maybe he is and maybe he isn’t. I don’t care. I’m not here to defend Al Gore. I’m saying he’s irrelevant. Climate change is an issue that exists independently of the existence, behaviour, or even girth of Al Gore. If you hadn’t heard of climate change before An Inconvenient Truth came out, then you really haven’t been paying attention.

If you want to debate the science of climate change, then let’s have that discussion. If you think carbon trading is bullshit, that’s a debate worth having. But if all you have to talk about is Al Gore, then you lose.

A Beginners Guide to Spinning Election Results

If your side wins,
“The people have spoken!  Hail their wisdom!”
The result can only be a ringing endorsement of your policies and not a default vote to keep the other, even worse mob out.

If your side loses,
“The people were conned!  Pity them their stupidity.”
The only introspection you are allowed is into how you failed to get your message across.  Of course they would have supported your policies if only they’d understood them, poor lambs.

The Rules: Intelligence

Don’t tell me that you’re intelligent and rational.
Intelligence and rationality are self-evident.
If you have to loudly proclaim how intelligent and rational you are, you’re probably a wanker.