A column about marriage

I’ve thought a lot about marriage in the past few months. Not for myself, but because my late-20s and early-30s friends have been pairing off like the protagonists in a Jane Austen novel, and I can hardly avoid the topic whenever yet another invitation arrives. I’ve got half a dozen booked in before the end of the year, and if there aren’t a few dramatic break-ups soon I’m going to have to get a whole separate credit card just to pay for the presents.

My group of friends have had some lovely weddings so far, and I’m sure the next batch will be wonderful. But it’s also given me a taste of the enormous hassle that’s involved – although I suspect ‘distaste’ might be more accurate. Oh yes, everyone suddenly wants to be the computer nerd’s friend when it’s wedding time, because we know about tricky things like mail merging invitations, fancy fonts and design programmes. Still, at least they’re then obliged to invite me.

I was quite shocked recently when I spent an afternoon helping a friend choose between indistinguishable Norah Jones covers bands. My only strong view, though, was that the cost was obscene, and that I should give this writing lark away and just play music at weddings. I swear that if I ever get married, my guests will be entertained by one solitary primary school kiddie on a recorder.

Then there are the venues. Because so many lovestruck Sydneysiders are dumping most of a year’s salary on their nuptials, you have to book the good places months in advance. And then everyone has to find a venue that another friend hasn’t used, which is well nigh impossible. One ambitious couple has planned a whole weekend, which has led to my entire group of friends horse-trading over who gets to get which of the limited cheap beds in the rustic hamlet they’ve chosen. I’m on the verge of warning them that while I think a weekend away will be brilliant, if the bed thing can’t be sorted out, I’m going to be crashing on the floor of their honeymoon suite.

One sensible couple’s gone for a relatively simple solution, and booked a harbour cruise. Very picturesque, and everyone can put the inevitable wedding vomiting down to seasickness. Unfortunately that idea’s been used now, though, so I’ll probably have to resort to the pokie lounge at the Rooty Hill RSL club if I ever get hitched.

Alternatively I wonder if McDonald’s does wedding receptions as well as children’s birthday parties? The celebrant could be Mayor McCheese.

Most of these couples aren’t religious, so it’s been interesting watching friends wrestle with the question of whether they should tie the knot, and what difference it ultimately makes. Nearly all of them conclude they want to, because even though they understand all the patriarchal objections, it just makes a difference to their relationship. Certainly it gives everyone a wonderful day, and a wonderful hangover the following morning

Despite my increasing familiarity with the endless minutiae of marriage, one thing escapes me. I just can’t understand what particular aspect of the process means that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Phillip Ruddock just overruled what was admittedly a fairly crude attempt by the ACT to legalise civil unions, but the UK and several other European countries seem to have managed it with minimal fuss. Celebrating love, making commitments and having parties are all fine things, surely, regardless of the sexuality of those involved.

I’m really looking forward to all of these upcoming weddings, and I’m sure they’ll be extremely happy, festive occasions. What a shame that none of them will be gay.

Paris' single... in the musical sense

So, La Hilton has become the umpteenth celebrityette to release a single. 'Stars Are Blind'. And imagine my surprise when I discovered it's become one of the most downloaded songs from several music services. I can relate to a degree of curiosity – which I just satisfied for free here – but not actually paying. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's not that bad?

And yes – certainly compared to what I was expecting, it's not bad at all. Sure, it sounds like a UB40 B-side from 1988, and her voice has gone through more tricky production to boost it than Kylie's, but it's very listenable bubblegum pop, really. Which is fortunate, because we won't be able to avoid it for the rest of the year.

The video (link on her official site), unsurprisingly, has Paris cavorting on a beach with a spunky guy. I'm not sure whether they filmed it specially or just edited up some tapes from E! News.The surprising bit is that not only do they not have sex, but she keeps her clothes on. There's a first time for everything.

I've always admired Paris' dedication to going just that little bit further to get publicity. Britney Spears has just rocketed back into the spotlight with a portrait on the cover of Vanity Fair that shows her naked and pregnant. Whereas Paris, I'm sure, will appear on the VF cover with a photo of the actual conception.

But you have to admire her attempts to be famous for something other than just being famous. (Or, as seemed likely at one point, for marrying someone else called Paris. I'm still devastated that didn't work out.) With that massive inheritance on the way, she could have just bummed around doing nothing. And she does, most of the time. But as well as just being a trust fund brat ("Trustafarian", as one of my friends dubbed it recently), she's also been a critically panned actor, model, author, podcaster and TV star. She even wants to prove to audiences that she can sing. Or probably do anything, really.

Let's hope she makes a go of the music thing. She's running out of artforms to fail in – and I can't see her trying painting, or writing a novel. She's going to remain in our headlines no matter what, it seems, so there might as well be a reason for it.



Dominic Knight

It's time to go, smut

I haven't been devastated by the news that Big Brother - Adults Only will join Doug Mulray's Naughtiest Home Video Show in the dustbin of smutty television history after complaints by Coalition MPs. Since suffering through an episode last year about a man lighting his own farts, I've tended to view the show as the televisual equivalent of a lobotomy, except with a surgeon (Gretel Killeen) who didn't want to be there.

Still, to paraphrase Voltaire, I do not agree with Adults Only, but will defend to the death Ten's right to screen puerile trash. A member of the Coalition party room, according to The Age, described such programs as "crude, lewd little twerps bouncing around half-naked" in "material of mind-boggling banality". True, but surely that's an accurate summary of Ten's entire line-up.

I wonder if this furore is just politicians taking revenge for Big Brother Up Late regularly outrating Order in the House. Footage of Parliament regularly contains more offensive language and puerile behaviour than Adults Only. It seems a bit rich for them to criticise others for polluting the airwaves.

But what really irritates me is that these MPs have boasted about putting pressure on Ten to axe Adults Only for more favourable treatment over the new media laws. Such far-reaching policies should be decided on the basis of long-term public interest, not trade-offs that allow wowsers to impose their tastes on the rest of us.

Barnaby Joyce is the last person (or perhaps second-last after Fred Nile) I want to decide what's screened on television. And that's why even though I dislike the show, I object to Ten giving in and axing it. What's screened on television should reflect broader tastes than those of the Coalition party room. Otherwise we'll be left watching Bradman documentaries and The Partridge Family.

Joyce asks how he's supposed to explain scenes of simulated anal sex to his daughter. First, I think he should explain why she was watching an MA15+ rated program. More importantly, I'd much prefer his daughter to grow up learning that anal sex exists and is part of some adults' lives than adopt her father's head-in-the-sand attitude to gay marriage.

Given all the publicity, it's impossible to argue that viewers masochistic enough to tune into Adults Only didn't know what they were getting. This censorship by conservative politicians sets a worrying precedent. It's a great shame our society is not grown up enough to allow mature audiences the right to watch shows that are as puerile as they like.

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Giveaway

Warren Buffett's always been a man to follow the dictates of his own conscience, and that's why investors revere him. Following his own principles both in terms of how he invests his money and in how he chooses to live, he refuses to behave as other rich men do, still living in a modest house and driving an old car. He has long maintained that he would give most of his money to charity rather than his descendants, and now has done exactly that, signing over 85% of his wealth to a number of charities. That's US$38 billion. Which makes him the biggest philanthropist in US history.

I particularly like his decision to give most of the money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, following Buffett's famous principle of finding organisations where strong management is in place. Most philanthopists would have established their own Foundation or Center, something to glorify their own name and ensure it lives on. Whereas Buffett simply decided that Gates was better at distributing charitable funds than him, so decided to join with him to do it.

The decision follows Gates' decision to retire from Microsoft over the next two years and devote himself largely to charitable work. The Gates foundation has truly noble aims, primarily the eradication of disease and furthering education. The Times provides handy comparisons for just how much money the Foundation now has:



The Gates/Buffett annual outlays should, when both men’s contributions have been fully disbursed into the fund, rise to well over $3 billion in today’s money, of which about three quarters is currently directed towards international assistance to the very poorest in the world.

For comparison, Unesco, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, distributes about $700 million. Two American philanthropists alone, in other words, will have contributed more to alleviate poverty and disease than the UN’s principal development arm.

What I most admire about Gates and Buffett's gestures is that their actions tacitly acknowledge that they simply have too much money. That there's something awry in an economic system that can concentrate so much in the hands of so few, and that it's the responsibility of those who hit the jackpot in global capitalism to redistribute their absurdly good fortune.

While their children will, of course, be well provided for, Gates' heirs will not be burdened with too much money, or forced into continuing a family concern that their skills may not necessarily be suited to. This flies in the face of one of our society's core values, the goal of accumulating wealth cross-generationally.

But you don't have to have dozens of billions of dollars to have too much money. Many of us do. Drive through some of Sydney's more well-heeled suburbs and you'll see evidence of people who honestly can't think of enough things to spend money on, so they blow millions on too much space and flashy renovations. And if you still want evidence that having too much money can be bad for you, look at Paris Hilton.

Better to do what Buffett has just done. Accumulate if you must – in some professions, or with some talents, it's fairly inevitable for some to do so in a capitalist society. But know when to say 'when'. Having enough to be comfortable yourself and provide for your children really is all that's necessary.

It's not a complete defence to be cash-strapped either, really. The extent of economic imbalance with the third world between Australians and those in the Third world is less than with Buffett, but it's still enormous. And hardly justifiable. When a rational person distributes resources between two groups of equally deserving people, they don't massively advantage one group just because they can. Well, unless they're a soccer referee in a Juventus game. (Sorry, had to get football in there somewhere – I'm still smarting from the loss against Italy.) And yet that's exactly how the global economy works – on an unfair basis that would create major tantrums if it were applied to distributing lollies among young siblings.

So it's ironic that improving the Third World has become the lot of a capitalist like Buffett. And it's wonderful that he's done so much for philanthropy already – not only was there his donation, but the flow-on treatments among other entrepreneurs have already started a sense of charitable competition. Ultimately the question that we should all be asking ourselves in response to Buffett's gesture is this: how much, really, can my kids and I afford to live without?

Italy, and then what?

I know a few of you are annoyed that I keep writing about football. Well, all I can say is that if you aren't as obsessed with it as I am, you're missing out. It's the biggest sports story of my lifetime – forget the America's Cup. I know I have. The World Cup has been incredible so far – the match between Portugal and the Netherlands, with 16 yellow cards, was an absolute cracker. But one of the best stories so far has been Australia's. If the nation doesn't get into the round-ball game after as exciting a World Cup as this, we may as well shut down the A-League and get Fatty to stomp all over SBS's "Told you so" sign.

Tonight's match against Italy is the real thing. Taking it to Brazil in the group games was impressive, but both teams could qualify from that point. Now we're playing with live grenades – literally, if some of the Italian tackles in their now-infamous match against the USA were anything to go by. For once, we may not be the only ones giving away free kicks.

I said it last game and it didn't eventuate, but this is the game for Mark Viduka to show us he's not just a holding midfielder who's too tubby to run back from the goal. Former captain Craig Moore stepped up against Croatia with a brilliantly-struck penalty. Even Harry Kewell finished a game as a hero instead of limping off. Now it's time Viduka pulled his weight. And there's a fair bit of that.

With record ratings, it'd be fair to say the Socceroos have convinced the nation, and also the world. And incredibly, even the English are complimentary about their efforts – partly as a means of criticising their own lacklustre team.

But the future of the game beyond this World Cup is largely unclear. Here are the odds on what might happen.

• As in South America, it will undergo a successful merger with the sport of diving: 4–1
• The game that has now moved beyond its traditional base of migrants and inner-city trendies will rapidly returned to it because it's only on Fox Sports: 3–5
• More specifically, our newfound love of football will be quickly replaced with a newfound hatred of Fox Sports' Robbie Slater. You Premier League fans know what I'm saying: 3–1
• It will be basketball's turn to be a brief Sydney fad again, followed by AFL: 15–1
• Yearning for more exciting, skilful football, millions of new fans will turn to the A-League for all of one game: 2–1
• The sport becomes annoyingly ubiquitous and desperately bland after Westfield's Frank Lowy buys the whole thing: 50–1
• The game's future will be assured when we start regularly playing England at it: 5–1
• The lure of the Socceroos' next international campaign, the Asian Cup, draws viewers in their dozens: 20–1
• Australians will renounce their love of obscure sports they can dominate and genuinely compete with the rest of the world : 10,000–1

Putting the Sunday back in schools

I banged on earlier in the week about what a big issue the separation of church and state is in American politics. Well, imagine my surprise when the same issue, which is usually not on the table in more secular Australia, cropped up in the news this week in the guise of a push to introduce chaplains into state schools, currently a religion-free zone except for the odd visit of scripture teachers that always used to mark the period when my friends and I opted for the non-scripture lifestyle, and gambled on poker instead.

Given the weight of liberal principle against states endorsing or sponsoring religion, I can't believe this is being seriously suggested – and with state funding to boot. Even more astonishing is Labor's meek capitulation. Latham burnt the party so badly that it simply won't take a stance on anything – other than WorkChoices, of course, because of the trade union influence. They're so utterly terrified of being voted against that they seem never to entirely oppose anything.

And while Jenny Macklin's tenure as Deputy Opposition Leader has hardly been a glorious one – which is probably why she hasn't been mentioned in both leadership spills that occurred during it – I cannot remember a more insipid performance from her than giving in on the point, and expressing limp concerns about religious diversity. Labor once split over religious school funding issues, and it seems that the modern party has forgotten the principles behind it.

This chaplain proposal is extremely radical because it ultimately diverts public funds for the purposes of religious indoctrination and allows approved religions to infiltrate state schools. If parents want to expose their children to their religion, there are ample opportunities through religious schools, all of which extensive receive state funding, and many of which are inexpensive. Every church also runs youth programmes.

But not only do I disagree with the plan on principle, I think it's completely unworkable in modern, pluralist Australia. Let's start with the most obvious problem. Which denomination will supply the chaplain? There is no dominant denomination in Australia to make this easy. Do we go with Catholic, Anglican, Uniting Church, Charismatic, Seventh Day Adventist or Mormon? Let's not forget that all these groups distrust one another's theology, so the presence of, say, an Anglican chaplain as a "mentor" would probably make Catholic parents uneasy, or vice versa. I would expect devout Christian parents in one denomination to prefer to have no chaplain than one who might establish a strong bond with their children and influence them to join a different denomination.

And let's not baldy assert, as John Howard does when he wants to win votes by bashing gays over marriage, that Australia's founded on identifiable "Christian values", so we should just have Christian chaplains. This doesn't excuse those in favour of this crackpot scheme from having to specify which brand of Christianity they wants to promote.

Really, how will consensus on this ever be reached? Even the members within one denomination – the Anglicans – can't agree over values issues like women priests. Sydney's Anglicans are forever at odds with the rest of the country's Anglicans, and threatening to splinter off into their own group.

By contrast, the Uniting Church includes not only female priests, but some gay ones. So can we have lesbian chaplains? Or have they got to be men? Celibate men? How on earth can these decisions be made?

Presumably the four Liberal MPs who are sponsoring the bill are mainly in promoting the ideas of their own particular group/s – because, of course, every denomination takes the view that believing in one of the others might wind you up in hell. And this won't be much of a mentoring programme if it condemns kids to eternal fire and brimstone, will it?

Even those four might not agree. One of the bill's proponents, Louise Markus, is a member – and former employee – of Hillsong, a rapidly growing church that's often criticised by other denominations. Is controversial Hillsong to provide chaplains?

That's just the Christians. A far bigger problem is the existence, as much as some politicians may wish to ignore it, of multiple religions. What are Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Scientologist, Satanist and every other fringe religious group's parents supposed to do? And why should they not have publicly-funded recruiters in our schools as well? Of course, at $70k per chaplain, having multiple chaplains would be even more of a hideous waste of public funds than having one.

Christians such as Victorian MP Greg Hunt says that current state schools are "anti-religion", because Christians often like to assert that secularism is just as much a religion as their own. But it isn't, because unlike virtually all religions, it promotes the idea that multiple religions can be valid, but that religions ares not a question for secular institutions like state schools to decide. Even if they are anti-religion, it's still better to have schools that render pupils overwhelmingly secular, and thereby free to make up their own minds, than have them promote one religion over another to vulnerable children..

Fortunately, there's an easy way parents can give children access to chaplains who support the precise flavour of religion that mum and dad do. It's called sending them to religious schools. State schools, by contrast, should be equally open to all children, and provide an environment that doesn't comment on religion in any way, or privilege one kind of lifestyle over another, allowing parents to raise their children however they want.

Providing chaplains in state schools not only violates a fundamental principle within a tolerant liberal society – that the state should not privilege one religion over another – but has so many practical problems that it could not possibly be implemented to the satisfaction of anyone. Thank God.



Dominic Knight

Pranks for the memories

David Whitley writes: Office pranks are a time-honoured tradition, and now that just about everyone has their own computer, a whole new world of possibilities has opened up. Let's face it, if your colleagues didn't want their machine tampered with, they shouldn't have left it unattended when they went for lunch, should they?

BROKEN MONITOR
An oldie but a goldie, simply go to your colleague's monitor and switch the contrast down to the bare minimum. This makes the screen entirely black, no matter how often they switch the computer on and off, pull the plugs out and scream.
EUROPOP FAN
If your colleagues truly despise a song, think how delighted they'll be to hear it every time they open a program, receive an email or minimise a window.
First, get hold of a truly irritating tune (perhaps Barbie Girl by Aqua or The Logical Song by Scooter) and then save it to their computer. You'll need to convert it to .wav format (download a free converter at www.mp3-to-wav.net).
Next, go into the computer's control panel, then "sounds and audio devices". Under the sounds menu, there is a list that allocates a noise to certain actions. To change these, choose the action, click "browse", find your song then "apply" it. Depending on how vindictive you're feeling, Barbie Girl can be applied to just about everything one could possibly want to do on a computer.
TOURETTE'S LETTERS
Ideal for sorting out people who don't proofread their letters. Go into Microsoft Word, where you will find "autocorrect options" under the "tools" menu.
This is where you can pre-program common typos to be automatically replaced with the correct version. However, it is also where you can change ordinary words to potty-mouthed obscenities that will get people into trouble should they send the document without checking.
If you're going for a short-term laugh, replace a common word such as "and", with something filthy, such as "f---". This is likely to be spotted quite soon so consider changing less common words to something not quite so obvious, such as "both" to "booty" or "funds" to "funbags".
UNRESPONSIVE DESKTOP
Imagine the panic if nothing on your desktop responds when you click it? Now imagine how funny it would be if it happened to the git who sits opposite.
This can be arranged. When he or she is out, jump onto the machine and close all the programs down so you're left with the display they get when the computer first loads up. Hit "print screen" on the keyboard and then open up a drawing program, such as Paint.
Hit "control v" and it will paste in your screenshot of their desktop. Save this as a jpeg.
Now you need to return to the desktop and drag the icons (my documents, recycle bin, etc) into a new folder, so that this is the only folder remaining. Then go to control panel and "display". Under the "desktop" menu is where you can change the background. Browse to find your screen shot and make sure it's stretched to fit the screen.
"Apply" this, and when your colleague returns, they will find something that looks like their desktop, but isn't. They'll try to click on folders that aren't there and generally get quite angry. To reverse, drag all the icons out of your new folder and revert to the original background. And be quick - they'll be back before you know it with a busybody from the help desk.
What's your favourite office prank? Tell us at radar.smh.com.au.

Dude, where's my ballot?

All governments reform the electoral system to benefit themselves, so we shouldn’t be surprised the Coalition is using its Senate majority this week to change Australia’s electoral laws.

The biggest change is closing the rolls on the day an election is called. Since the Prime Minister has the advantage of choosing the date, young first-time voters will miss out unless they’re organised enough to enrol in advance. And what are the chances of that?
The Government says the aim is to crackdown on electoral fraud and improve the roll’s “integrity”. However, it is likely to have the opposite effect. More than 400,000 people enrolled or changed their address in the seven-day grace period before rolls closed during the last election campaign, according to Australian Electoral Commission figures.
This is a massive chunk of the population who would now be disenfranchised. In a society in which it’s compulsory to vote, erecting barriers to help people comply seems foolishly contradictory.
Why the change? Polls regularly find that young people favour Labor and other left-wing parties such as the Greens (whose preferences generally return to Labor), by something like a 60-40 ratio over the Coalition. Which is probably why the left side of politics sometimes suggests reducing the voting age to 16, and hardline conservatives presumably fantasise about restricting it to propertied octogenerians.
Other changes include banning prisoners from voting and, perhaps most indefensibly, ensuring that political donations of up to $10,000 don’t have to be declared. Repeated in each state, this could lead to close to $100,000 being banked by the major parties without any accountability, as Democrats Senator Andrew Murray points out. He’s in
an independent position on this, as surely nobody will blow their money trying to win favour from his disappearing party.
The right to know who is contributing to politicians’ campaigns is fundamental in a democracy. These decisions should not be made by their potential beneficiaries: our independent electoral commission would be far more appropriate.
But try convincing MPs to hand over the keys to the system that determines whether they stay in their jobs. It’s like asking an intoxicated person to decide whether they need another beer.
So if you aren’t enrolled to vote, sign up before the rules change and you have to submit a blood sample and a promise to vote Liberal to get on the roll. Or if you’ve missed out, just slip your local MP $9999.

Read more of Dominic Knight on the Radar blog, www.radar.smh.com.au.

Thou shalt remember the Ten Commandments

I'm a massive fan of Stephen Colbert, the host of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report. First he launches an entire show based on impersonating Bill O'Reilly, then he takes the piss out of President Bush at the White House Correspondents' dinner right in front of his face. Now he's made headlines with a brilliant interview embarrassing the guy who must be the dumbest politician in America, even including the President – Georgia Congressman Lynn Westmoreland.

The interview reveals not only that Westmoreland has no idea about Colbert even after the Bush incident made national headlines, but that his media advisers clearly don't either. Under Colbert's faux-Republican questioning, the Congressman admits to being the "do nothingest" in a do-nothing Congress, having introduced no legislation whatsoever – along with "one other do nothinger. I don't know who that is, but he's a Democrat."

He's asked what he would get rid of to balance the Federal Budget, and immediately replies "Department of Education" – and fair enough, it clearly never did anything for him. Then Colbert baits him into saying he'd cut social security, running rings around him to the point where he says he just has no idea. I've never seen so many confused looks.

Then Colbert asks him about the one policy he has actually supported, a measure to display the Ten Commandments in the House of Representatives and the Senate because "it's not a bad thing for people to understand and respect", because "if we were totally without them, we may lose our sense of direction." So Colbert asks him to actually name the commandments, and he gets up to about three before running out of steam.

By now, Westmoreland's next re-election bid would have been on the skids, if anyone actually watched Comedy Central in the States. And reading the desperate attempts of his team to spin their way out of the embarrassing situation is almost as funny as the original interview. On the charge that he hadn't authored any legislation, Westmoreland's press secretary said that he "didn't come [to Washington] to make government any bigger." Which tries to hit the Republican hot-button of big government, but sounds far more like an argument that he didn't go to Congress to actually do anything. Republicans hate big government because they think it wastes their precious tax dollars. And there may never have been a bigger waste of tax dollars than this guy.

And the defence to the Ten Commandments stuff-up, a hugely embarrassing failure for someone who presents themselves as a conservative Christian? He claims to have actually gotten to about seven, but Colbert edited that footage out. Which, of course, doesn't in any way address the problem of having been caught out. He should have started by posting them in his office, just off camera.

What I like most about Colbert's piece is the way that it attacks Westmoreland's attempt to blur the separation between church and state – a key principle in the US Constitution that's regularly ignored by vote-seeking Republicans, even as they insist that the amendments on guns are sacrosanct. Colbert asks Westmoreland if he can't actually think of a better building to display the Ten Commandments in than Congress – like, duh, a church; making the point that they aren't allowed to be displayed in government buildings – but unfortunately the Congressman is floundering so heavily that he doesn't bite.

Lynn Westmoreland may refuse to be labelled a "Georgia Peach", but this sure is a peach of an interview.

(While we're looking at political video clips, check out the footage of Bush alongside an impersonator at the same dinner Colbert spoke at. For all his faults, the President certainly has a great sense of humour. And far better gags than his impersonator, what's more. Can you imagine John Howard doing this?)



Dominic Knight

What I've learnt from the World Cup

Didn't Our Socceroos make us proud this morning? This whole football bandwagon's an absolute pleasure to be on. If only a few referees could climb aboard occasionally. Now, I've spent far more hours than is healthy watching the World Cup so far, and in an attempt to retrospectively justify it as "research" for this blog, here's what I've learned about the world game during the first week and a half.

1. Based on the two matches so far, it seems Australian players are so skilful that they can regularly foul their opponents without actually touching them
2. David Beckham has skills other than modelling, nanny-shagging* and poncing about
3. A Brazilian player called Ronaldinho is the best in the world, except at playing Croatia and Australia
4. Harry Kewell can occasionally finish a big game without contracting a groin injury
5. On global sport’s biggest stage, Australia’s football team can hold their own, but our supporters are looking woefully outclassed with “Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi oi oi”
6. We should seriously consider imprisoning Guus Hiddink so he doesn't move to Russia. Let's use those detention centres for something worthwhile for a change
7. Argentina can win football games without needing to deliberately handball their goals
8. America has developed its own sports because it’s completely rubbish at the one everyone else plays
9. South Korean football fans are not concerned about perpetrating their nation’s reputation for conformity
10. As good as he is at scoring goals, France's star player Thierry Henry is even better at pouting and complaining to the press
11. Brazil play football as if they were dancing the samba, according to the commentators. Which means that the samba is a dance where you throw yourself on the ground, clutch your knee and grimace in agony before getting up and jogging away once a free kick is given
12. England seem like an excellent team with a genuine chance of winning this World Cup – but only to the English
13. France shouldn’t expect to make the knockout rounds when they’re coached by Jim’s dad from American Pie
14. In a bid to make the World Cup more open, Brazil have agreed to play with a large handicap. His name is Ronaldo
15. Despite its misleading name, players in the ‘striker’ position do not score the goals for the team if they’re Mark Viduka

* Of course, that's alleged nanny shagging. Personally I've always thought Becks would be far more likely to give his affections to his hairdresser



Dominic Knight

A column about football and multiculturalism

Like most of the planet, I’m unable to think of anything other than football at the moment. I’ve become so obsessed that I’m even typing this during the clash between those footballing powerhouses Ecuador and Costa Rica. So apologies to anyone who’s sick to death of it, and I promise I’ll write about something else next time. Well, unless the Socceroos make the second round.

And they might just. Because a strange thing’s happened to our football team. They qualified over Uruguay through determination and luck more than anything else, and I wasn’t expecting much more from them. But then they beat Greece and drew with Holland in the friendlies, and I started to suspect something was up. Could it be that despite the sport’s obscurity here, our years of qualification heartbreak and Mark Viduka’s innovative non-score approach to the ‘striker’ position, our football team is actually quite good?

The first match against Japan certainly silenced the doubters. At least, the last ten minutes of it did – their moans were pretty loud after the Japanese ‘goal’ in the pub where I was watching. I would have thought Australians would have been more likely to confuse the sport for rugby than Japan’s two forwards. But the controversy laid the foundations for an absolutely incredible finish.

What on earth has Guus Hiddink done to that team? The man is an absolute magician. Perhaps he could even save the Labor Party.

Speaking of which, let me join with the ever opportunistic Anthony Albanese by pointing out that dual goalscoring hero Tim Cahill is a Balmain boy. Yes, that’s right – he grew up here. Of course, he had to leave here and move to the UK to make it as a footballer, but let’s not focus on that. Let’s also not focus on his cynical tackle that might have conceded a penalty. Cahill is a genuine local hero. Let’s hope he drops by sometime.

But I’m hugely proud of the Socceroos, so much so that I went out to blow $130 on their somewhat garish shirt. And one of the things that make me proudest is how the team is showcasing Australia’s multiculturalism. Surnames like Culina, Schwarzer, Aloisi and Viduka demonstrate the diverse, harmonious society we’ve built. Finally, after Pauline Hanson and Cronulla, we’re projecting a positive image of Australia as a multiracial society.

I couldn’t help noticing what a stark contrast the Socceroo lineup made with monocultural Japan, which has always discouraged immigration – except, it seems, of Brazilians such as their one non-Asian player, Alex. Brazilian-born players are representing 4 other nations at the Cup, and I’m astonished we haven’t any. What’s DIMIA doing?

English football has been consumed by debates over nationality this year, with many commentators slamming Champions League finalists Arsenal for fielding teams without a single English player. The bottom line is that, as the fans increasingly are coming to understand, it just doesn’t matter. Most Arsenal fans don’t care where their team comes from as long as it plays well – and the adulation of captain Thierry Henry is an example of this. A Frenchman has surely never been so popular in London.

Putting its sometimes racist past behind it, football is increasingly becoming a completely global game. Ethnic origins are coming to matter far less than identification. And even though many Socceroos come from migrant families, and have themselves migrated overseas to work, they are distinctively Australian. And they reflect the wonderful diversity of this country, where ethnic backgrounds are celebrated, but ethnic divisions are de-emphasised. There could be no better representatives of the melting-pot that is modern Australia, and I hope they know that the entire country is behind them. At least until they’re knocked out. After all, we are Australian.

Nano-sized wages for iPod factory workers

I love my iPod. I never go anywhere without it. It has thousands of songs on it. It has all my appointments and contact information. In short, it's pretty much my best friend. But can you believe that some people in China are apparently complaining to Western journalists about their working conditions when they are surrounded by thousands upon thousands of iPods for up to 15 wonderful iPod-filled hours?

Not that they can afford to actually buy them, what with apparently being paid between $50 and $99 a month. But hey – it gives them something to aspire to, and that's how capitalism works.

In one factory, they're locked up, according to The Mail on Sunday's investigation (There isn't a direct link because they didn't publish it online, but here's another report and some photos.) In another, there are armed police officers keeping them in, and they get only a few possessions and a bucket to wash their clothes.

Apple has said it's investigating the allegation, and reiterated its standards: "Apple is committed to ensuring that working conditions in our supply chain are safe, workers are treated with respect and dignity, and manufacturing processes are environmentally responsible", they say.

This is a very embarrassing situation for the company, which has such a hugely trendy image. Steve Jobs, famously, was a hippie as a young man, travelling to India in search of enlightenment. When you open an iPod, it says "Designed by Apple in California", throwing up images of a hipster campus where design geniuses throw around cool ideas. When what it should say, if this is true, is "Made by sweatshop workers in China".

Clearly, the conditions are outrageous, and I'm glad Apple's getting embarrassed by this press – the only mechanism that can improve labour conditions in China, realistically. My leftie knee-jerk reaction is that they should immediately improve matters, of course, but how much? I have great difficulty knowing exactly where the line should be drawn. No-one in this country would dream of working in conditions anything like those described. I certainly wouldn't. And as much as we complain about WorkChoices – and so we should – the reality is that our labour force is in five-star luxury campared to China's.

But the flipside of that, of course, is that we don't have much of a manufacturing industry. It's far too expensive to make things in Australia because of our civilised labour standards. And Apple's policy allows for worse conditions than Australians would cop – a 60 hour maximum week and only one day off a week. Even judging by the letter of their rules, it's hardly a picnic working for Apple. But I suspect most Chinese workers would rather work under somewhat arduous conditions than see their work disappear, and remain in poverty. It's the great dilemma of international trade.

So what gives? Fortunately, in this instance, the solution is actually really simple. Because iPods are extremely profitable to manufacture, far more so than computers. Opinions differ on exactly how much the markup is, but one investigation by iSuppli found that the US$199 iPod nano costs $90.18 for parts and $8 to assemble, meaning a profit margin before marketing and distribution costs of 50% That doesn't factor in R&D either – but still, it's a huge markup.

Apple's a luxury brand, and that means low price sensitivity. People tend to buy their gear even if it's more expensive. Personally, I'd mortgage my future kids for the latest doohickey with an Apple logo on it, and scarily I'm not alone. And that is what makes the possibility that the local suppliers are gouging their workers all more despicable, when Apple could easily take slightly less margin and still be hugely profitable. It dominates the portable music market, and sells at a premium. I don't know that sweatshops are ever excusable, but they are surely that much less justifiable when Apple is making such a whopping profit. It would hardly hurt them to increase the workers' pay even by 50%.

As Wired points out, it's particularly ironic for a company that's traded on images of genuine advocates of the poor like Gandhi and impoverished farm worker advocate Ceasar Chavez. Seems they're not Thinking Different from any other greedy company. And the damage this story is doing to their image will also have a substantial financial cost, as it discourages their core market.

Even if the conditions for workers do improve substantially, it's going to be hard to completely enjoy the luxury that is my iPod having thought about the lifestyles of the previously faceless people who make them, and will probably never be able to afford expensive gadgets. As patronising and insubstantial as it is. Western guilt's a powerful motivator for third-world change. If only companies like Apple did a better job of monitoring their suppliers and looking after their workers, and it wasn't quite so necessary. But if a company as PC as this one can't resist abusing its poorest workers to drive up profits, then the sad fact is that we can't trust any company to do the right thing when it sets up a manufacturing plant in developing countries.



Dominic Knight

Too many balls in the air

NSW is a state without a dominant football code. Victorians define themselves in terms of their game, which is why it was so pleasing when the Swans snatched the AFL premiership last year. And the rest of the world, of course, is obsessed with football, except Americans, who never care what happens outside their borders, and Canadians, whose love of ice-hockey reflects their dismal climate.

Rugby league used to be our game, but News Ltd's attempt to build it up almost destroyed it. Most of the clubs we grew up with have been amalgamated or excluded and sell-out crowds are rare nowadays. Many have given league away, except on State of Origin night.
These days, a Sydneysider's football preference is determined by how posh their school was, how much they like Melbourne and whether they find Reg Reagan funny. Despite the World Cup in Germany, football is unlikely to unite us because Sydneysiders are fickle and insist on trophies. Melburnians back their AFL teams for life, but Swans crowds drop away whenever the team isn't winning.
It's sad because we never get to experience the mania currently sweeping Europe and Latin America, where homes are draped in flags and the entire male population wears team colours for a month. Winning the Rugby League World Cup for the umpteenth time against the likes of Lebanon and the Cook Islands doesn't have quite the same sense of occasion.
Of course, Sydney's mix of codes has its benefits, including fewer hooligans. English football fans, by contrast, like to beat the rest of the world in every sense. Some of the country's prime hooligan exports couldn't even wait until they got to the first game in Germany to start smashing things, vandalising an airport cab in Cologne.
Best of all, mixing and matching codes gives us enormous variety. This past week has been one of the most entertaining ever. We had the Wallabies-England Test, the Swans' thriller against St Kilda and, of course, the Socceroos' first World Cup win in 32 years, plus an Origin match tonight. It's amazing anyone has turned up for work at all.
And while some Latin American players have been shot for failing at the world's biggest sporting event, we can just move onto the next code for our dose of patriotic triumph. 2008 Rugby League World Cup, here we come.


Read more of Dominic Knight on the Radar blog, www.radar.smh.com.au.

Thanks for the mammaries, The Sun

I'm going to resist the temptation to rave on about the Socceroos match, not in the least because I wrote something on football for tomorrow. Suffice it to say that it was one of the greatest experiences watching an Australian team I've ever had, and I will never disparage Mark Viduka again. And by "again", I mean until he next misses a penalty. So instead, let's talk about another fascinating, very hot and sweaty story out of Germany – the sex book published by Paul McCartney's estranged wife, Heather Mills.

I've never seen a more blatant piece of hypocrisy than this article from The Sun, which absolutely goes to town on Mills. They slam her for appearing in lewd sexual photographs – and then reproduce them in high quality. And if that wasn't OUTRAGEOUS enough, to print it the way the Sun website would, they followed it up with two separate stories featuring MORE of the filthy photos. Just in case we weren't titillated – sorry, I mean appalled – enough in the first place.

"Many of the images are too explicit to print in a family newspaper," it primly says. Family newspaper? We're talking about one of the few papers in the world that not only still prints Page 3 girls looking almost indistinguishable from Mills in these photos, but operates an entire soft-porn website full of them. I've no moral issue with including a link to the site, by the way, because it's part of a "family newspaper".

What amazing hide to on the one hand serve as the UK's leading distributor of titty photos and on the other criticise someone for photos where the only discernable difference is that there's a partner. Which provides Mills with an excuse, which is that they were supposed to be educational – a defence that can hardly be made of the Sun's usual page 3 fare, unless you're looking to be educated about just how ghastly breast implants can look.

The Sun has PROVEN that Mills' photos AREN'T educational, though, by showing them to "Passers-by quizzed by The Sun on Britain’s streets", some of whom stopped salivating briefly enough to condemn them:

Facilities manager John Bertram, 52, of Manchester, said: “It would need more text and less in the way of edible undies and thongs. In this situation Heather is definitely a porn star.”

Printer Andrew Love, 42, of Basildon, Essex, declared the book “fairly hard core”.

And engineer Stuart Lye, 31, of Chingford, Essex, said: “After ten pages it’s clear you’re not going to learn much with all these whips and things.”

Now that's investigative journalism. But if that wasn't enough to prove that this is porn, not education, the Sun primly points out that "The filthy volume features 112 pages filled with pictures — and contains NO accompanying words."

Which, in another article saying virtually the same thing, affords a great opportunity for an activity The Sun likes only slightly less than reproducing mammaries – German-baiting:



The German book featuring Heather contained page after page of no-holds-barred images with NO WORDS. Mr Page said: “Maybe they do things differently in Germany.

When you click on the photos, though – which are helpfully included just in case we doubt their SHOCKING nature – suddenly the tone changes to the jolly, blokey lads'-mag caption tone they use for their own smut. Forget the condemnation – there are lame Beatles puns to be made:

• Get back ... Blonde claws co-star with scarlet-painted nails
• Oil you need is love ... Nude Heather smears lotion on fella’s body during shoot for book, published in 1988
• Strawberry feels forever ... suggestive porn snap with male co-star
• You're Going To Lose That Girl ... unless you handcuff her!
• And worst of all: ... Card Day's Night ... strip poker by any chance?

They only remember to condemn their high-resolution immoral photo specials in one or two pictures. But even then, they won't stop the crappy puns. Hence "Ticket To Ride ... another shameful picture".

Other than conceding it's quite amusing that the squeaky-clean Paul McCartney's wife was in cheesecake shots, I find it hard to care less about this story. And neither, I'm sure, does the paper's readership. What they do care about, though, is maximising their breast-viewing opportunities. And that is why, ultimately, Rupert Murdoch is a media genius like no other. He's not afraid to get his tits out. And if it means mounting a campaign against smutty photos to provide the opportunity, then so much the better. Sorry, I mean to say – that's so much the BETTER.



Dominic Knight

How to stay awake during the World Cup

It's great that Australia's in the World Cup, but it will come at a terrible price to our body clocks. Hardcore soccer fans have always stayed up into the painful, wee hours of the night to watch the world game, but for many Australians, this will be the first time they've regularly gotten up at ridiculous times just to stare at a bunch of guys passing a ball. Here are some tips on how you can stay awake throughout Germany 2006.

Adjust your body clock. The simplest way to enjoy the Cup is to adjust your body clock so you sleep during the day. Your work performance may be detrimentally affected if you choose to take your regular 8 hours between 9am and 5pm, but it'll be worth it to enjoy football's month of months. Some say that taking melatonin helps, but there's an easier way. When it's time for you to force your body to go to sleep, simply read one of the collected speeches of Phillip Ruddock, and you'll be dozing before you can say "Amnesty badge". I've put a sample at the end of the article, because I want you to finish reading all of my suggestions before you go to sleep right here and now. Caution – it's a powerful sedative.

Make your body think it's in Germany. A similar process, but conducted using cultural triggers rather than adjusting the body clock. Simply don lederhosen for the next four weeks, eat schnitzel and schnapps, yodel whenever possible and speak only in obtuse compound nouns. Then you will find you truly become a personthebodyofwhomshallhavebeensuccessfullyconvincedthatitisindeedingermanythroughout-
thetwothousandandsixfifaworldcup, to literally translate the German noun that was coined specially for the occasion.

Drink energy drinks. Red Bull, V and Sprite Recharge aren't bad, but you'll need more than that after a couple of nights. That's where an intravenous adrenaline drip comes in. It really is the ultimate energy drink!



Have friends over to watch the games. Make sure they are extremely interesting, have more energy than you and aren't afraid to prod you if you seem to be dozing off. But on no account invite over Phillip Ruddock (see below.)

Get on the phone. If you're too pathetic to have friends who'll watch the football with you, you still need not watch the game alone! And talking will help you stay awake. But don't wake up anyone in Australia who might not be interested in the game. Germany is a very hospitable country. Just dial any random number and chat away while you both watch the game. It's the least they can do as official hosts of the World Cup. But don't on any account call anyone in France, though, lest you be forced to spend 45 minutes discussing how they would definitely be winning if Djibril Cissé hadn't been injured – which anyone who's watched Liverpool during the past few seasons will recognise as a ridiculous notion.

Apply pain to your body. As even the most humble trainee guard at Guantanamo Bay knows, it's very hard for people to sleep while they're experiencing excruciating pain. So simply apply a nipple clamp during the game. If you don't have one, you can alternatively put a staple into your bottom. This won't be necessary when watching the Socceroos, when Australian fans will feel indescribable agony whenever Mark Viduka has the ball in what for other players would be a scoring position.

Go out to a pub that's screening it. Visit a backpacker pub in particular, and you'll find you won't be able to go to sleep during the game. However you will be able to sleep with a backpacker that you'll regret hooking up with in the morning, so please be careful.

Play loud music. If you play dodgy techno at high volumes, your body will involuntary twitch, as if it was in the gym, generating the energy you need to stay awake. As an added bonus, the atmosphere created by the crap Euro house music will make you feel like you're really in Germany. In 1991.

Swap your armchair for a unicycle. As any circus clown or indeed person familiar with gravity knows, you can't stay still on a unicycle. You have to pedal backwards and forwards, which will keep you awake. And if you drift off all the same, the pain from your collision with the floor and mangled unicycle will wake you back up again immediately.

Fly to Germany. If you are actually in the host nation, the time zone and general excitement will keep you awake. But don't wait – leave today. Guus Hiddink has until Saturday to finalise his team, and there's no way you won't be able to slot in at the last minute to take the penalties ahead of Mark Viduka. No experience required – his hasn't exactly helped.

WARNING – Transcript of Phillip Ruddock speech.



Beware, the following WILL put you to sleep. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading the following paragraphs. In particular, if you care to leave a comment thanking me for these helpful tips, please do so before embarking upon the following speech.

Welcome to the launch of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Modelling and Analysis Program – or as it is will be more commonly referred to ‘CIPMA’.

2. CIPMA is important for a number of reasons.

- It recognises that our critical infrastructure is complex and inter-related and vital to the well-being of our economy and society.

- It is a strong and practical example of business and government working together to protect our critical infrastructure from all hazards - including crime, natural disasters and terrorism.

- And it puts Australia firmly at the forefront of critical infrastructure planning and analysis.

3. But most all - CIPMA is important because it represents the next step in the genuine partnership between business and government to protect our critical infrastructure.

4. To date, much of the critical infrastructure protection effort has focussed on the immediate tasks of identifying where threats or vulnerabilities exist and acting quickly to address them. This work continues to be important - but it is only part of the critical infrastructure protection equation.

5. Apart from identifying and rectifying weaknesses, we also need to understand how the different pieces of the critical infrastructure jigsaw fit together. Once armed with this knowledge, we then need to plan accordingly.

6. Quite clearly, the time is right to advance a more strategic, long term and sophisticated approach to the protection of our critical infrastructure.

7. This is where CIPMA comes to the fore.

- CIPMA will help us understand what parts of critical infrastructure are most important.

- It will help us to identify areas of greatest risk.

- It will help us gauge what the flow on effects will be if one part of our critical infrastructure is compromised - And it will help us assess which critical infrastructure relationships are strong and to pinpoint those relationships that need reinforcing.

8. These new insights will feed directly into the decision making processes of both businesses and governments.

9. CIPMA will offer new solutions. It will identify better courses of action. And it will guide investment, risk management and business continuity strategies.

10. In essence, CIPMA will contribute to more targeted, cost efficient and critical infrastructure protection policies.

And ultimately it will ensure our critical infrastructure is better protected.

Business-Government Cooperation

11. To say that we live in a complex world and that we need to understand the dependencies and inter-dependencies that exist is almost stating the obvious in a gathering of industry and research representatives such as the one we have here today.

12. But to ensure that understanding flows from the top to the bottom of government and private companies requires the cooperation and input of all those involved.

13. Business and government share a vested interest in the insights CIPMA offers - but CIPMA could not exist without the input and cooperation of both parties.

- Industry has the raw data that the model needs.

- The Government has the capability and the security guarantees needed to turn that data into meaningful output.

14. CIPMA represents yet another example of what can be achieved when business and government work together in the national interest. It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Trusted Information Sharing Network (TISN) and the goodwill, mutual trust and productive partnerships it is fostering.

15. Over the past three years the TISN has succeeded in bringing business and government together.

Once again it has played a key role in bringing together all those involved in CIPMA.

Scope of CIPMA

16. Initially CIPMA will focus on three hig h priority sectors – energy, communications, and banking and finance.

17. We have with us today leading industry representatives from these sectors. I would like to congratulate Keith Orchison, Bill Davey, and John Guerts for their roles in the TISN and for their commitment to CIPMA.

18. The success of CIPMA depends on industry input. The support you have shown, and the support of your sector has been integral to getting us to this stage.

19. I know from an industry perspective, confidentiality of data is paramount. I want to assure you the Australian Government fully appreciates your concerns.

20. I think you can see - from the lengths we have gone to with the secure facility and from the security restrictions surrounding this program - just how seriously we are treating the integrity and confidentiality of the information you have entrusted us with.

Inter-Agency Cooperation

21. I would also make mention of those government agencies that have made such a vital contribution to this project.

CSIRO and Geoscience Australia, led by the Attorney-General’s Department, have established a formidable development team. And the Defence and Science Technology Organisation is also offering assistance to the CSIRO on specific aspects of the capability.

Collaboration with the United States

22. Earlier this afternoon I was shown around the secure facility that houses CIPMA.

I was very impressed with what I saw. Without doubt, Australia has now become a world leader in detailed critical infrastructure modelling and analysis.

23. Many of you would be aware that the United States is also working on its own critical infrastructure modelling program. Plans are well underway for Australia and the US to cooperate on this type of work in future. And I understand the US is very impressed with the detailed scale of the CIPMA model.

24. This recognition is another example of the high esteem with which Australia is held in the international community.

- Our research and increased capability will ensure we continue to be at the forefront of critical infrastructure protection and security issues.

- And it reinforces the point that a Homeland Security type Department in itself is not a panacea for achieving cooperation between government agencies to ensure an effective approach to national security issues.

Conclusion

25. As I said earlier, we do live in a world where relationships get more complex and more inter-dependant every day.

26. CIPMA will help to build a more complete picture of the complexities and inter-dependencies that lie below the surface of our critical infrastructure. It is a challenging technical and intellectual exercise which will guide policy and decision making and ultimately deliver real world benefits for all Australians.

27. We are entering a new, exciting and sophisticated phase of critical infrastructure protection planning in Australia.

I offer my congratulations to all those associated with CIPMA and I eagerly await the first round of outcomes from the modelling and analysis capability.

Porn to Queen Four

I don't know much about the heady world of international chess. But I do know it doesn't need an Anna Kournikova. No sport does. During her brief period of trying to play tennis, Kournikova grabbed headlines and sponsorship dollars, turning her matches into a sideshow, and failed to win one singles title. So the fuss over Australian Arianne Caoili seems a little unfortunate, because what the Kournikova label actually means is that she's a laughing stock.

It's not a particularly reasonable comparison, either. All that the newspapers have to go on is that she's ranked a mere seventh in a fairly lame Internet Chess Beauties competition. (How lame? Its founders write "Fortunately, we, who believe that chess can be not only serious and tiresome work but also just fun, are not two few, indeed!" Sound like real party guys.) A "respectable seventh", the Herald article calls it. Boy, talk about drawing a long bow. Bobby Fischer's probably eighth.

Of course, no-one's actually suggesting that Caoili is going to start raking in Kournikova-like income – let's not forget she was the highest-paid sportswoman in the world, depressingly for any sportswoman who, unlike Kournikova, is great at their sport. She seems like a precocious girl, who's also more than a little naive – her website, which will presumably be relaunched with heaps of attractive shots now the media's interested, displays a fairly charming lack of self-awareness. For instance, her 'thoughts' page, which she claims is reserved for "random craziness" and which will surely disappear as soon as she hires a PR agent:

Socks: Why do socks have to be paired? What has society done to make anyone who doesn't wear the same paired sock on each foot feel guilty? Why can't we wear odd paired socks without the traditional, high class fashion police gasping out of shock? (Sorry, Arianne, Edmund Capon got there first.)

Dwarfs: Sensitive little souls they are.

Breathing: Why is it that we can't eat through our nose, but we can eat and breathe through our mouth? We don't eat and breath through the bottom, I think this is a blessing. Is this a good point, or not really?

Not really, Arianne. But it's better than the one about 'dwarfs', who are particularly sensitive about being called that.

She's also whacked up a few singing samples, just in case she gets any visits from record producers who might be interested in signing chess starlets who can sing a natty version of 'Over The Rainbow'.

Let's face it – the reason everyone's interested in Caoili is not because they're swooning over her. It's because her story's become an internet phenomenon to snigger at. Because the idea of chess having any kind of glamour babe is a contradiction in terms. It's a bit like dubbing someone the Pamela Anderson of librarians.

All this, though, was before yesterday's story, though. Now, the main reason everyone's giggling is that two chess players fought over her. In other words, there was a nerdfight. Specifically, 30-year-old Danny Gormally punched 24-year-old Levon Aronion at the Chess Olympics. And if that wasn't funny enough, both guys have glasses. Brilliant. Come on, guys, there's no need to resort to violence. Settle it like men – with a chessboard.

But really, who'd fight over the Anna Kournikova of chess? Winning would make you – shudder – the Enrique Iglesias of chess. Although according to the Herald-Sun, he's the David Beckham of chess. Which is even more wishful thinking than calling her daughter the sport's Kournikova. Where's the evidence of Aronion's sarongs or difficulty stringing a sentence together?

Of course, this incident – which may lead to disciplinary action for Gormally, another hilarious notion – was an instant checkmate as one of those 'quirky' stories that media organisations love to add a 'lighter side' to the generally dreary news. And when it's about a pretty girl, they get to chuck in a cheesecake photo. Check out the Hun's, which puts the usually-reliable SMH's one to shame.

Let's hope Caoili enjoys her 15 minutes of fame, and that she doesn't suffer under the delusion she'll have many more. Sure, Kournikova hung around for years, but she got shots of her underwear on TV all the time. Whereas the best Arianne can hope for, probably, is a follow-up piece when she hook ups with Aronion. Unless she isn't next attacked by a sensitive dwarf next time, irate about being patronised on her website. That'd be a lighter-side-of double-whammy.

Okay, onto the next quirky internet story. Has that three-armed Chinese baby done anything interesting lately? Forget Arianne already, he's just had one of them cut off!

Dominic Knight

Photo taken from Caoili's website

Schapelle: The Anniversary

How soon we forget, Australia. A year ago, we had only one name on our lips and a ghastly one at that: Schapelle. You remember her, right? Because back before the media flipped over Beaconsfield, their tawdry sensationalism was directed at a “Gold Coast beauty student” caught with enough marijuana to fuel Cheech and Chong’s entire careers.

Schapellegate didn’t exactly show the public at its best. Not only did we all know she was innocent despite inadequate evidence, but we indignantly rang up 60 Minutes’s People’s Trial to say so.
The voting worm overwhelmingly exonerated her but then again, it had also predicted Mark Latham would be the next Prime Minister.
Even more contemptible were the large number of Australians who rang Jakarta to demand that their tsunami donations be reversed. Their thinking being that we only reach out to victims of unthinkable tragedy on the understanding they’ll rig their justice system for us a few months later.
The main reason we’ve quietly forgotten Schapelle, though, is that we aren’t as sure of her innocence any more. The Bali Nine reminded us that it is actually possible for young Australians to be guilty of serving as drug mules.
Even more damaging, the reports about the rest of Schapelle’s family didn’t exactly provide her with innocence by association.
Her father, Michael, has been fined, but not convicted, for possessing cannabis and her half-brother, James Kisina, has been arrested on drug charges. Meanwhile, her mother unhelpfully uttered the immortal phrase that she wasn’t too bothered about the jail sentences because at least she knew where her children were.
That’s not to say Schapelle’s guilty. If her family were into drugs, she may have been framed, and the dodgy baggage handler theory has some weight. All we know is you’d have to be an idiot to try to get into Bali with a bulging boogie board bag, and even more of an idiot not to DNA-test that bag during the trial.
Which brings us to Hotman Paris Hutapea, the lawyer whose best idea for freeing Schapelle was to pay a famous soapie actress to say that “the Corby” was innocent. Jakarta’s so-called defence gun proved even less helpful than “Mad” Ron Bakir, and that’s saying something. And now the drugs have been destroyed, the truth will never be known.
By contrast, we are unable to forget Michelle Leslie, who went on 60 Minutes last week to complain yet again about being in the public eye. So let’s forget her instead, and take a moment to remember Our Schapelle, now very much Their Schapelle. How she must wish that instead of being trapped in Kerokoban prison, she’d been trapped in a Beaconsfield mine instead.

Take that, tunnels and ticket touts

Our city, it is becoming increasingly clear, is run by halfwits. One bunch of bureaucratic fools tried to improve our road system, but instead they gave us Cross-City congestion and a tunnel no-one uses. Another pack of incompetents tried to protect our precious Ashes tickets from being swamped by English fans, and ensured that the only place you can now buy tickets is the Barmy Army website. We Sydneysiders are a placid lot, and it takes a lot to get us riled. But we've had enough, and we're taking matters into our own hands.

The Cross-City tunnel's 50% discount ends today, and will be replaced with a permanent reduction of just 17c. People had started to use it because they felt that it was quite a good deal at $1.78. But now that it's going back up, guess what'll happen, Cross City Motorway Pty Ltd? We'll stop. It doesn't matter how much advertising there is. Sydney has made its position to the operators entirely clear: with all due respect, we contend that it's a bloody rip-off. And we simply aren't going to use it. So there. We'd rather sit in an interminable traffic jam, thanks all the same.

Nor do we appreciate being bullied into paying an exorbitant toll by road closures. A toll road should offer a superior service at an attractive price. You don't just bully people into using it. That's tantamount to extortion.

It's not a good thing that the government's decided to reopen the closed roads, though; with the possible exception of the Druitt St dogleg which just seems like a deliberate attempt to irritate motorists. Making William St less trafficky and keeping cars off Darlinghurst residential streets is clearly a good idea. Cars should be bypassing the city from east to west on a motorway, the same way they do from north to south. If they aren't, everyone loses: the residents, the operators of an unprofitable tunnel, the government which is clearly going to lose the inevitable court case and have to shell out even more compensation than the contract specified, and above all the drivers who sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Only Sydney could take a great idea and botch it so badly through bureaucratic penny-pinching and mismanagement.

These State bureaucrats are the same geniuses that redesigned Australia's one world-famous building, the Opera House, so that it didn't have enough seats to host opera profitably, and priced ordinary people out of the market.

We're at the point now, I suspect, where the government should just buy the stupid thing – they're going to have to shell up whopping fines as it is – charge $1.50 and hope they don't lose too much money on the deal. At least it'll deal with the congestion, the original point of the whole exercise. Except for the tunnel operators, who foolishly thought they'd been issued a license to print money. Next time, do your market research.

But the Cross-City Tunnel looks like a work of prophetic genius next to the "Australian Cricket Family", Cricket Australia's attempt to keep Ashes tickets for Aussie fans. The English fans had their own smaller allocation in designated areas, as you'd expect, and we wanted to keep our home-crowd advantage. So how did they do it? Rather than giving first dibs to people like my parents, who've shelled out to watch SCG Tests for the past few years and therefore count as genuine fans who actually support Australian cricket, they shafted us and set up a "foolproof" anti-scalper and English fan system. They didn't even get an email from Ticketek to say – hey guys, CA's got a new, stupid-ass system you might like to know about. Thanks, Cricket Australia. Enjoy the sea of Union Jacks at every Test this summer.

CA created an Aussie test in an online questionnaire where you had to tick which team you supported and nominate your favourite player – as if scalpers and dodgy English backpackers have too much integrity to lie. You can just imagine the sunburnt lager louts wrestling with their consciences, saying "Cor, I'd love to watch them Ashes, but if it means tickin' a box sayin' me favourite player's Warney on an online form no-one will ever read, then no flippin' way."

Then there was the requirement that you needed an Australian mobile and address. Well, I challenge the ACB to identify one single cricket fan in the entire United Kingdom who doesn't have some compatriot mate down here on a working holiday visa whose details they could use.

But dumbest of all was the decision to set the number of tickets anyone could buy at 10. What possible justification is there for so many? They may as well have just dumped the tickets into a truck and shipped them directly to dodgy scalpers. And what nationality is virtually every scalper in Australia, by the way – as anyone who's ever queued outside a cricket ground could tell you? English.

We're spitefully getting some of our own back, though. I love that we've launched a fake-bidding vendetta against the eBay scalpers who've ruined our summer of Ashes-watching. May the Don heap blessings on everyone who frustrates an English scalper. And I hope every Australian fan remembers the way we've been treated, and refuses to buy a single ticket to next summer's Tests. Let's see how many of the Barmy Army members who've joined the Australian "cricket family" turn up to next year's Tests against India, shall we?

And next time some idiot bureaucrat stuffs up our lives with this kind of moronic bungling, let's adopt the same principle we're using for the Cross-City Tunnel and eBay. Swift popular punishment that directly affects their bottom line. That's what they care about, so that's where they must be hit. Hard. I vote that when the Ashes start, we divert all the English tour buses into the Cross-City Tunnel and then seal the stupid thing off at both ends for five days, successfully killing two birds with one stone. Then we'll go and reclaim the seats that are rightfully ours. Now there's a land rights movement to reclaim sacred sites (for instance, Yabba's Hill) that even John Howard would support.

Latest odds on the Socceroos

The Socceroos have raised fans' hopes with a win over European champions Greece, and a valiant 1-1 draw against third-ranked Holland. What has it done to their odds of going through to the second round in Germany?

Harry Kewell leaves field with groin strain – 99 to 100

Harry Kewell leaves field with groin strain within first ten minutes of firt match – 98 to 100

Australia beat Japan, giving nation false hope – 4 to 1

Socceroo defender wins ball without fouling – 50 to 1

Australia-Croatia match a dull, defensive nil-all draw – 3 to 1

Mark Viduka allowed to take another penalty after failing against Uruguay and Holland – nil

Viduka grabs the ball and doing it anyway – 3 to 2

Australia scores against Brazil –5 to 4

Australia scores against Brazil, not including own goals – 25 to 1

Public support Socceroos passionately until five minutes after they're eliminated – 5 to 6

Dominic Knight

A column about gay families

Last week, a Tempe childcare centre was catapulted into the national spotlight over its use of a gay-friendly children’s book. The Rainbow Cubby House featured a family with two dads, and comes from a series, ‘Learn To Include’, which was created by a lesbian and her daughter to redress a lack of children’s books with families like theirs.

Premier Morris Iemma grabbed headlines in condemning it, saying “2-year-olds should not be dragged into a debate about gay rights.” And Federal Family Services minister Mal Brough said that the centre should stick to more innocent activities like “finger-painting and having fun”.

Debate over the issue consumed talkback radio and online discussion sites, as irate lefties defended the idea of actively promoting tolerance even at such a young age, and the family values lobby weighed in with their view that they didn’t want their children’s minds warped with pro-gay propaganda.

I’m not entirely sure this is the best way to promote tolerance. While clearly well-intentioned, a ‘Learn To Include’ series sounds somewhat preachy, and it seems a shame that rather than writing an inherently meritorious children’s book that happened to include a gay family in it, the series had to be so self-consciously educative. And it does seem a little peculiar to be explicitly directing social engineering programmes at toddlers.

But the outrage of the critics has been absolutely astonishing. Gay families are a reality in modern Australia, and particularly in the inner west. It’s hard to see what precise harm results from a childcare centre reflecting its demographic makeup in its choice of children’s books. The politicians suggest that these issues should not be allowed to disrupt the supposed innocence of kiddies at play – but the reality is that the issue is already there whenever these children whenever they talk about their mummies or daddies. The supposed choice between militant promotion of gay rights and fingerpainting is a furphy. Rather, the a choice between books with exclusively heterosexual families, and more diverse ones which reflect the children’s actual lives.

To contrast with a different kind of diversity, it’s hard to imagine our Italian-Australian Premier shoving his oar in and criticising the use of books that include migrant families as an improper pro-multiculturalism statement. And what, really, is the difference?

The major difference is that, as the Coalition’s ban on gay marriage proved ahead of the 2004 Federal Election, there are, sadly, still votes in gay-bashing in Australia. And that’s what this is about. Premier Iemma’s re-election depends on winning the electoral middle ground that John Howard so successfully took from Paul Keating, and who have remained with Bob Carr on a State level. So he does not want to look too progressive. Whereas Tanya Plibersek, the Federal Member for Sydney – a very safe, left-wing seat – was only too happy to commend the books when they were launched.

Ultimately, the incident is a sad one, because it shows how far acceptance of homosexuality has to go in our community. It’s tolerated, mostly, but a long way from being treated as so normal that it’s unremarkable. If a childcare centre in an area with a high concentration of gay families can’t use a book with two dads without it becoming a national issue, what hope this there of non-fictional families with two same-sex partners being treated as equal? A lot of grown-ups could benefit from having their minds moulded by the ‘Learn To Include’ series.