Aussie Stadium

Australia'’s first World Cup in 32 years was a remarkable experience that no one wanted to end. We'’re accustomed to matching it with the best, and we want more, such as hosting the 2014 or 2018 World Cup. I wish the A-League success, but I'’m not sure derbies between Newcastle and the Central Coast are going to cut it.

The best reason to host the World Cup is that we'’d automatically qualify, a rule brilliantly exploited by the hosts of next year'’s Asian Cup:– Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam – which have grabbed an unprecedented quarter of the spots. Anyone who'’s suffered through the agony of 32 years of unsuccessful qualification campaigns won’t begrudge the Socceroos one free ride.

Perhaps our old pals the South Africans might even let us host a token game here and sneak in for 2010? It’'d be nice, too, if the games didn’t stretch beyond midnight to give the Europeans a taste of their own time-zone medicine.

They talk about about how Aussies aren'’t real football fans, but throughout the cup, millions of us showed our commitment by waking up at painful hours of the morning. And I’'m tired of reading about how England fans have the most spirit. (Which seems to simply reflect that England fans drink the most.) Let’'s see how many of them wake at 4am to watch their team flop out in a penalty shoot-out.

Then there’'s the home-crowd advantage that propelled the South Koreans to a semifinal in 2002. Many World Cups have been won by host nations and Germany’'s third place win –– where Portugal (ironically) couldn’t buy a free kick –– showed why. After our treatment by officials this year, FIFA owes us a bit of biased refereeing.

There is one potential problem with the 2014 bid, which is that, so far, it'’s been spearheaded by the South Australian Premier, Mike Rann. Frankly, if we’re hosting the World Cup, Adelaide'’s not getting more than a quarter-final. It'’s got to be Homebush, or, begrudgingly, the MCG.
Then again, the event requires at least 10 stadiums, so Wollongong, Newcastle and even Canberra would probably get a crack.

Next to Kaiserslautern, a town of less than 100,000, Adelaide is a bustling metropolis. So come on, FIFA, bring the World Cup down under to build the game in Oceania and Asia. We might even give a match or two to New Zealand. If we have to.

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

$10,000 to drink with rich tossers, anyone?

"Will Sydneysiders pay to skip to the front of the queue and drink with beautiful people?", Amy Wild asks in an article about a new member's bar, De Nom. In a word, nup. Especially when the going rate is $10,000.

Apparently members' bars are the thing in London and New York. Yawn. Those cities have always been full of tossers who make themselves feel better about the general emptiness of their lives by participating in activities that exclude other people. It's the whole basis of the aristocracy. Some people judge coolness purely on the basis of how difficult it is to get in, imagining crowds of people who are desperately jealous of them. Some people have a problem.

De Nom's co-owner, Paul Schell, says he thinks the idea hasn't taken off here previously because "Aussies don't believe in elitism". No, we don't. We are generally uncomfortable with exclusivity – with being treated as if we're special while the riff-raff wait outside. Most Aussies would rather have a beer with those riff-raff.

After all, there wasn't a special section at Gallipoli for privileged Diggers who could sip champagne behind a velvet rope rather than going over the top. And if the Diggers didn't do it, then I'm against it. (Then again, as if people as rich as this had to go to war.)

To be fair, I can understand something of the appeal of an exclusive bar, because any half-decent watering-hole in Sydney is packed to the gills on Friday and Saturday nights. You can't ever hear yourself talk, let alone sit down. Sometimes that's fun, but if you want to enjoy conversation – let's say you're on a date or something – it's completely impossible. I don't know anywhere that's guaranteed to be quiet and pleasant.

But bars like this aren't a good solution. Can you imagine the kind of people who'd frequent a bar which costs $10k to join? That price point automatically excludes anyone creative (not to mention journalists), and any academics or students, or anyone who works for the government or an NGO. Virtually anyone interesting, in other words. Anyone genuinely cool probably can't afford the drinks, let alone the membership fee. In fact, pretty much everyone besides investment bankers and 'old money' snobs is going to be frozen out. I can't imagine a less attractive crowd.

As luck would have it, though, I found myself accompanying a friend to this bar a few months ago – I don't think it had a name or a pricetag at that point. (I don't usually move in such refined circles, but it's nice to see how the other half live sometimes.) It is extremely beautiful – the atmosphere was lovely and the service very friendly. I'd have liked to go there again before I read about this. Now, I'll clearly never visit again. Which I'm sure the door policy would've guaranteed anyway.

The disturbing thing, though, I found, is that to enjoy De Nom, you have to be comfortable whooping it up in a Versailles-like environment. Whereas I couldn't help but remember why the French invented the guillotine.

The plan will probably work brilliantly, because those privileged enough to get inside will take enormous delight from that, and from their ostentatious little solid-gold cards, and the feeling that they're special. Whereas the rest of us will be absolutely delighted that we can't get in to De Nom.

Deal or no deal, Howard should go

I wrote a piece last week saying that this was just another tepid iteration of the same old Howard-Costello story, but things have changed dramatically since then. A former minister, Ian McLachlan, sensationally claimed that Howard had offered to hand over the leadership after 2 terms. Now Costello has just come forward to say that Howard had offered to leave after a term and a half, in order to dissuade the then-Deputy from taking a tilt at the leadership in 1994. In other words, he's calling the PM a liar – a very Green Left Weekly moment.

I've just seen the footage of Costello's press conference. He was far from his usual confident self, with a half-smile on his face showing how clearly he realised the gravity of what he was doing. He also seemed fairly upset, and he seemed to be taking considerable offence at the PM's denial of Ian McLachlan's allegations. I almost didn't recognise him without his usual smirk.

He's unlikely to want to be pressured into leaving by Costello. In fact, this controversy has probably removed any chance of Howard leaving in the next month or two. But it's hard to see how leaving isn't a good idea for the PM. He has to hand over soon to give the Liberals any chance of winning the next election, as another poll is due next year, and the electorate would need to get to know his replacement. So it's really now, or in 2-3 years – and that might not be attractive for a man who would then be approaching seventy.

The other thing is that the Government seems to be running out of puff this year. 2005 finished in a legislative frenzy, with the Coalition using its control of the Senate to push through much all of the legislation that has been on the backburner for years – workplace relations reforms, VSU, the sale of Telstra. Even the ABC has now been largely stacked with conservatives. The only reform on the horizon presently is to the media laws – and the rapidly changing online landscape has reduced their potential impact. The PM has now achieved virtually everything on his long-term agenda, and it's hard to see what else there is left to smash.

What's more, the builders are in at the Howards' home in Wollstonecraft, leading to further speculation that Howard is on the verge of departing.

It's also been a relatively difficult year politically for the PM. WorkChoices has proven enduringly unpopular, with the surprising revelation that there's life in the union movement yet, and the AWB enquiry has substantially undermined credibility in the government. Labor has been regularly performing well in the polls, even though Kim Beazley is hardly spectacular. You can only imagine what a half-decent leader might do.

There is no huge impetus for Howard to retire, and I imagine he won't. The PM's usual response to these situations is to tough it out. His personal popularity is still enormous, and it's highly unlikely the party would want to drop him for Costello, deal or no deal.

But with the next election looming as a difficult fight, I really can't see why he would want to stay.

Here's Radar's latest odds on when Howard will actually leave the building.

• At a time of his choosing – 20/1
• At a time of Janette's choosing – 2/1
• Whenever the party room wants him to step aside for Tony Abbott – 5/1
• When Peter Costello goes under a bus – 250 /1
• When his approval ratings average matches Bradman's 99.94 – 1000/1
• When Labor has a strong, popular leader with a good enough platform to threaten him – 100,000/1
• When his colleagues use WorkChoices to make him do the same job for half the pay – 50/1
• When the renovators finish installing the white picket fence around his Wollstonecraft home – 5/1
• When Richard or Melanie is old enough to take over – 20/1
• When Costello gets the numbers – Never

Beauty pageants are skin shallow

I know I'm going to get into trouble for this from a legion of geeky fans, just like I did with the chess piece – but I can't help but comment on the media frenzy over Sabrina Houssami. As with the chess thing, we have the perfect ingredients for a 'lighter side of' piece – an amusingly petty feud in a group that's fun to sneer at, and an photogenic heroine. But reading about the Sydney Uni psychology student who's been controversially crowned Miss World Australia, I couldn't help but ask myself one thing: why would anyone intelligent want to enter a beauty pageant in the first place?

To begin with, Houssami's ethnicity and religion are raised in this article yesterday, which makes the point that she's "Australia's "first contestant of Islamic and mixed cultural background". I guess it's possible to argue that she's raising the profile of those communities – being a kind of cross-cultural ambassador. Combating racism is a fine thing. But surely all that entering a pageant really does is raise awareness that women of Indian-Lebanese background can be hot? Other than for complete Neanderthals, that's not exactly an astonishing revelation.

The article also mentions that Houssami's a member of Mensa, and a bit of Googling reveals that she claims to have an IQ of 140. If I were a member of Mensa, I'd hope I was smart enough not to mention it publicly for fear of being sniggered at, or worse yet, perceived as a bit of a snob. But let's assume for argument's sake that she is, in fact, terrifyingly smart. That makes it even harder to understand why she's willing to parade around wearing a sash.

I take most ranting about the patriarchy with a grain of salt. But surely if a sinister global brotherhood of men does run the world, beauty pageants are one of the most transparent frauds it's ever perpetrated. They are ogle-fests, nothing more; a walking, talking version of FHM dressed in a layer of patronising trash about global understanding that infuriates anyone who actually works towards it. The constant appeals to 'world peace' are a comedy cliché. Sure, you can change the world while being perved on in a swimsuit, but only for millions of teenage boys.

So will Houssami swimsuit up? Yesterday's article contained this gem of a paragraph:

Miss Houssami also hopes to dispel myths about Islam by competing. "Religion is something that is interpreted by the individual and I try to focus on the moral values of religion," she said. "I will wear a bikini but not a string bikini, so as long as it is not skimpy."



How does quibbling slightly over the precise degree of skimpiness of your bikini encourage a focus on the moral values of religion? I don't know what her beliefs are – but seriously, what on earth do bikinis have to do with religion. The only thing I can think of is that her actions would outrage many devout Muslims and Hindus, and that's hardly a myth. Is she going to get the radical wing of the BJP to stop protesting beauty pageants? Does she plan to convince the Muslims who rioted in Nigeria when Miss World was scheduled to take place there that they shouldn't have burned churches and killed over 100 people?

The real myth here is that beauty pageants are about more than physical appearance. Sure, winners spend a year doing charity work, and pay constant lip service to a variety of causes. Houssami may be able to accomplish more than most. But look at the achievements of Australia's most successful beauty queen, former Miss Universe Jennifer Hawkins. I'm sure she presided at hundreds of unnoticed charity events, but the only time she generated real headlines was when she accidentally showing her buttocks at a Westfield. Since her 'reign' ended, she's done really important work on Dancing With The Stars and The Great Outdoors. That's fine for someone who aspires to be a lifestyle TV presenter, but no-one should kid themselves that beauty pageants are about more than that.

The definitive scholarly work on the subject, Miss Congeniality, concluded with the character played by Hollywood's most openly nerdy actress, Sandra Bullock, still feeling uncomfortable about the whole idea, but seeing more worth than she'd expected in her fellow contestants. That ultimately makes it all the more distressing that they've been conned into a competition that is ultimately only interested in their bodies. And the film, like so many other pop-culture treatments of the subject, mocks beauty pageants, and in particular their charitable ambitions. Sadly, I have yet to see Miss Congeniality II: Armed And Fabulous.

This myth that if you get famous for your beauty, people will care about your brains as well was even perpetrated by Sydney University in its gushing writeup of Houssami's success. Presumably the marketing department hopes she'll encourage international and full-fee student enrolments, which seems to be its major aim these days. The university tackily compared itself to Houssami as a place of great beauty that's also top-notch intellectually. How completely embarrassing.

Perhaps the university would like to host the 2008 event, which is apparently planned for Australia? It could give all the contestants honorary degrees.

Our society looks down on beauty pageant contestants, the same way it looks down on celebrities like Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson. Sneering at them allows the mainstream to feel better about their own lives, and that's why we like to be amused by silly fights like this one over Miss World Australia. If Houssami really is smart, she'll relinquish the title and spend the time working in an area where her brains will be the main thing people notice. Oh, and where she doesn't have to wear a swimsuit.

When you're beautiful and intelligent, many doors are open to you. What a shame to go through the one marked "demeaning".



Dominic Knight

Yawn, it's another leadership 'challenge'

I am utterly sick to death of Liberal leadership speculation. It is truly the most irritating, repetitive news story I can remember, recurring with even more frequency than those perennial "Scud knocked out in first few days of Grand Slam" headlines – the latest iteration is the 9142nd, by my count. In fact, I reckon I'm even more sick to death of the phoney war between Costello and Howard than I am of Kim Beazley.

Pete, it's time to put up or shut up. And since we all know you don't dare take on the PM, it's time to zip it.

But no. Instead we're trapped in an endless cycle of identical leadership speculation stories. They always works like this.

Step one: Peter Costello does something ever so slightly provocative – in this case, refusing to rule out the existence of a leadership deal with John Howard. Of course, he didn't exactly rule it in. In effect, he said nothing at all. So it's pretty desperate headline grabbing by either him or the media – both, probably. Here's what he actually said:

PETER COSTELLO, TREASURER: I'm certainly not going to speculate on these things in the jungles of the Solomon Islands.

NARDA GILMORE: There has been speculation that John Howard is preparing to make an elegant departure at the end of this year. Today, Peter Costello wouldn't rule out a deal.

REPORTER 1: Is there an understanding between you and Mr Howard as to his departure?

PETER COSTELLO: Look, these things are worked in the interests of the Australian people and the Liberal Party and the people concerned, and there's no point in speculating on them.

NARDA GILMORE: When asked whether he thought that voters had a right to know, he was just as ambiguous.

PETER COSTELLO: Well, voters get the right to vote. That's the critical thing, and they'll get the right to vote on who they want to run the country.

REPORTER 2: So you wont be telling them any time soon whether there'll be a leadership transition before the next election?

PETER COSTELLO: And they'll have plenty of information at the time of the election.

It couldn't be more vague. Certainly unworthy of the 107 stories indexed on Google News.

Step two: John Howard flatly rejects the idea, usually by saying that he will remain as leader as long as the party room wants him to, like he did three years ago. (Update: he just did again.)

Step three: Just about every other senior Liberal comes forward supporting Howard, because they know he's far more popular than Costello. Today, Downer and Nelson.

Step four: Costello invariably retreats, tail between legs, and the waiting continues until his next vague comments are interpreted as a leadership bid by a media desperate for political headlines in a situation where we have the same dull leaders we had ten years ago. Here's the one from last December. And the one from last July. And one from August 2004. And so on, ad infinitum.

Paul Keating showed how you win the leadership. You mount a bid, fail if needs be, retreat to the backbench, get the numbers and then go for it.

But the problem, of course, is that unlike the Hawke-Keating situation, where he was seen as arrogant and out-of-touch (Hawke, that is, not Keating – that came later!) the only person who's the least bit interested in Costello becoming leader is Costello. And the desperate media.

Well, and me, now, because I really can't stand any more of these articles. Is that his strategy, perhaps?

Of course, if Costello were to retreat to the backbench, and not hold the deputy leadership he's had – astonishingly – since the Downer disaster of 1994, he wouldn't be seen as the leader in waiting. He'd quickly be forgotten.

And this whole strategy of calling for greater federalism is hardly going to inspire anyone to support him. I happen to think he's right, and that our system is an unfortunate political compromise from Victorian times, foisted on us by the need to convince small states to sign up to Federation. It's stupid to have duplicated education, health and other systems when there are states as small as Victoria, Tasmania, WA and South Australia. But if Costello starts arguing that, all he's going to do is lose the Senate – in which these smaller states are overrepresented, something they really rather like.

As his championing of an issue that will only lose him votes proves, the Treasurer hasn't half John Howard's street-smarts, and never will. His only hope of becoming leader is for Howard to retire, or even more unlikely, Beazley to beat him. In the interim – let's say for the next decade or so – he may as well take up some sort of hobby, golf perhaps, and keep on being the next cab off the rank.

Costello is truly the Prince Charles of Australian politics – the eternally frustrated successor that no-one really likes. His Royal Highness took up watercolours to cope with being eternally frustrated in his hopes of taking on the top job, and eternally less popular than the incumbent. The Queen won't leave Buckingham Palace except in a hearse, and we know how much the PM admires her.

In the meantime, all we can do is beg Costello to stop this ridiculous cycle of incredibly puny leadership challenges. Otherwise the public may do something really rash, like vote Labor.

No ifs or butts

It’s rare that NSW is left behind by Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania on matters of social policy. But those three states banned smoking in pubs on July 1, while NSW has merely reduced the floor space available to smokers from 50 per cent of the venue to 25 per cent.
Nonsmokers here will have to wait another year for a complete ban.

As an asthmatic, I’ve got a medical excuse for my whingeing, but I’ve always hated smokers for polluting my air, stinking up my clothes and making me feel less cool. We passive smokers get neither the benefit of a filter nor the opportunity of striking James Dean-like poses on bar stools.
I can’t wait until smokers are forced to shiver outside while those of us without addictions sit in the warmth, composing the eulogies we’ll deliver at their premature funerals.
A pub ban isn’t just sensible because cigarette smoke is unpleasant and dangerous for patrons and bar staff. Most addicts I know began as social smokers – an ironic term given how antisocial it is to include others in your decision to contract lung cancer.
Many of life’s foolish decisions – ordering a Budweiser or doubling up on Queen of the Nile – are made in pubs. Starting smoking is but another. Smokers are gradually, and rightly, becoming a lower class of citizens who are forced to huddle in doorways and view photos of gangrene. But I think we should make the choice to smoke a constant irritation, the same way smoking has inconvenienced the rest of us for decades.
Cigarette vending machines should be banned and smokers instead forced
to sign lengthy contracts whenever they buy a packet, writing their initials next to every single known health risk. Also, more effective warning slogans, such as SMOKING MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE WARNEY should be introduced. Why not print them on the actual cigarettes?
But the best way of discouraging smoking would be to raise taxes to $20 a pack, and then print a picture of that $20 note on the pack.
There’s nothing the public hates more than forking out money to the Government. Imagine the disincentive if they printed Peter Costello’s grinning face on the box as well. Better yet, the State Government could impose an additional $3.50 cigarette tax that went straight to the Cross City Tunnel operators.
It’s time Aussie drinkers treated smokers the same way they treat teetotallers and blokes who order drinks that come with little paper umbrellas – as pariahs.


Photo: Angela Wylie; digital mischief: Kate Oliver

The next threat to our troops in Iraq: Lee Harding

Like anyone with even part of an intact brain these days, I'm not a massive fan of the war in Iraq. But – to echo the caveat given by every American Democrat – I don't want anyone to think I'm against Our Troops. On the contrary. I think they're magnificently brave for going to Iraq, which is still an appallingly dangerous place. Because instead of welcoming us with "open arms", as we were promised, the Iraqis are welcoming us with just plain arms. So, I say good on the troops for representing Australia's national interest in sucking up to America no matter how stupid the cause. I really respect their bravery. Which is why I don't think they should have to be 'entertained' by Lee Harding.

In case you've forgotten who he is – and who could blame you? – Harding is the annoying punk with multicoloured hair from Australian Idol. He's released an album, What's Wrong With This Picture. To which the answer is surely obvious, if it's a picture of his hair.

Still doesn't ring a bell? Read Wikipedia's incredibly harsh description, which refreshingly violates their 'neutrality' rule:

The image that Lee Harding has come to associate himself with has come under fire from many aspects of the music community, and the consumer public in general. Many fans of punk rock music accuse Lee of being ignorant of what punk really is, and simply marketing himself in a watered-down version suitable for viewers of Australia Idol. He's also been targeted as blatantly forging his career in a mainstream environment with big-label backing, akin to "selling out" (although that term implies a degree of integrity existed in the first place). Many critics of this manufactured artist laughed at the irony in the title of his first album, "What's Wrong With This Picture?". Many label Lee as a poseur of the punk-music industry, who compromises his interpretation of punk with what suits a more commercial market. Sadly, many people despise him for his idiocy and stupidity. He lacks interest and "flavour", and some claim he is a stereotype and a loser.

Harding's also become increasingly known for the tastelessness of his lyrics, as Wikipedia points out:

He has also come under recent criticism over the lyrics to his track "Call The Nurse", in which he warbles: Cos I need drugs, I need drugs, something that works. It ain't good, cos I get wood, lying here, thinking of her, more than I should. Many parents have consequently banned their children from listening to Lee Harding's debut album.

And really, if kids aren't listening to Harding, who is? Apart from our unfortunate troops, I mean.

Although for sheer insensitivity I prefer the lyric from his first single 'Wasabi', where he, in a desperately contrived attempt to rhyme with the Japanese horseradish dip, says a girl is "like a tsunami / could wipe out an army". Specifically, an army of 229,866 innocent people. An appalling tragedy has never had such a glib lyrical reference.

Perhaps he'll update it for the Iraq situation? "Like al-Zarqawi / could wipe out an army" would scan beautifully.

And Lee, if you read this, here's a freebie for your next album: "She takes me up to heaven / Like those killed on 9/11". Just give me some of your royalties, would you?

(Actually, to be fair – or in fact, even harsher – it's not like Lee actually writes his own lyrics.)

Just how unpopular is Harding? Even the Herald-Sun – not generally the arbiter of cool – mocks him, calling him a "punk wannabe" and "faux-punkster". That's gotta hurt – it's like being dissed by your nan.

And fair enough. Even though he sings over thrashy guitar, his vocals have that irritating trademark Idol inflection – too much whiny vibrato, the hallmark of a singer with no taste. He's like a member of N'Sync whose head's been hit by several paintbombs. Really, no punk would ever sing like that. In fact, no rock star of any description would ever sing so effetely (if you don't believe me, check out his latest single.) Even Shannon Noll makes him look like a wuss.

Harding calls it a "once-in-a-lifetime experience", which I guess it will be if he's immediately killed.

Look, I shouldn't be too harsh on the guy – he's a soft target (and I'm sure the insurgents will think so too.) And at least he's trying to help as well as resuscitate his career. Plus, there's a long and proud tradition of great artists going to entertain troops, including one of my favourite American comedians, Al Franken.

As hard as it is for someone who enjoys sitting on his backside as much as I do to relate to the plight of an Aussie soldier, I strongly suspect that if I was stuck in Iraq, terrified that the insurgents were going to kill me, having Harding come to sing wouldn't exactly brighten my day.

Although his willingness to go over there has inspired this weary cynic to actually believe in something for a change. Conscription.



Dominic Knight

JK, you're killing us

So, J.K. Rowling has revealed that two characters will die in the final Harry Potter novel, sparking off the now-traditional speculation over exactly who she's killing off. A third has been saved the chop, apparently. It's all very dull to the non-believers, I'm sure. But as a paid-up Potter nerd – yeah, I'm quite the hipster – I can't resist speculating on who's getting the axe.

Voldemort: Well, either he dies or takes over the world and kills everyone. Which would make for a much more entertaining movie. Evens

Ron Weasley: A tragedy for book fans, a blessed relief for movie viewers. Although the overacting that would be involved in his demise has me terrified already. 40–1

Nearly-Headless Nick: It's a shame he's already a ghost, because it'd be fantastic to know John Cleese could never come back. Impossible

Luna Lovegood: The Athena Starwoman of the series should have been offed two books ago, before the joke got old. 10–1

Ginny Weasley: Dumped by Harry so she wouldn't be killed – a far better breakup line than "It's not you, it's me." 50–1

Dobby the house-elf: The Jar-Jar Binks of the series, and the character I'd most like to see killed. 100–1

Draco Malfoy: I'd like to see him offed, just to upset all the teenage girls who think Tom Felton's hot. 25–1

Professor Dumbledore: Already dead, but I wanted to include him just to spoil it for everyone who hasn't read book 6 yet. Get with the programme, people! Impossible

Cho Chang: Rowling's far too politically correct to kill her token Asian character. 200–1



Hagrid: A waste of space for several books now. And a lot of space at that. 5–1

Hermione Granger: As irritating as she is, she can't be killed, or the old men in dirty raincoats won't stump up for the movie. 100–1



Harry Potter(TM): The subject of much speculation, but JK Rowling won't kill him off. The action figurine manufacturers wouldn't let her. 1000–1

Dominic Knight

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

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