What The - Airbrushing/Photoshopping Fashion Mags

Was interested to read that the recent PETA campaign using Bethenny Frankel involved the use of Airbrushing/ Photoshopping. I didn't think much of it at first till I saw the comparison photo which shows significant alteration.

Interestingly, Bethenny seemed to be arguing she was happy with the outcome (mainly because the mods didn't alter her basic shape) - but puh-lease, so much is different here.

I'm thinking specifically about the look of perfection that so many women kill themselves for everyday after seeing images like the one on the right. Absolutely blemish free (whereas clearly she's not), the perfect tan, no lines or wrinkles and even her exposed boob got the chop!

I find this hideous - let us see the "real" person underneath - the image on the left gives us all a little hope whereas the image of the right is clearly out of anyone's league (including Bethenny).

What If - Protest Ship @ Gladstone?

News circulated yesterday that a ship had run aground in the Port of Gladstone however, that has changed today to be that the ship is actually anchored 15km at the entrance but, in doing so, blocking access to the port.

No-one seems to be asking the question - could this be some kind of protest? If the anchor is down and no-one can explain why, then one could assume that's it's deliberate. But why?

Panama registered. Sounds like a chinese ship - what could be going on here?

Thoughts - Public vs Private School Funding

An interesting discussion today on the ABC website following on a comment by outgoing Justice Michael Kirby arguing for Public School Funding.

The comments beneath are quite interesting in how many argue against themselves (i.e. I pay $10,000 a year in fees so my school is better - even though public schools do it for $7000 a year thus making them more efficient).

What strikes me as an obvious solution here is to tie funding to a particular purpose. So if a private school is getting $3000/head for capital expenditure, then the public system should get the same. You see, this is the problem. The private schools are garnering huge war-chests for capital development whilst the funding the public gets goes toward tuition - thus forever ensuring these schools progressively die.

Thoughts - Dealing with the Problem of AGW

Whether its Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anti-Global Warming (although, I mean the former), there's a lot currently riding on solutions resulting in turmoil within the Libs (horray) but other issues as well.

Personally, I'm uncertain about a CPRS or the ETS being a solution to AGW. Why? Because we still lack true leadership on the issue. You see, AGW (and its solution) are going to be long-term - we're talking 20, 50, 100 year timeframes. We really aren't going to see the long-term impact of AGW for many years to come. Remember, we're talking global climate - this is a massive beast with its own momentum - it heats slowly and, thus, will take equally long to cool. But it's that slow increase in temperature that's going to do us in - problem is, it's unlikely that many from this generation will wear the consequence of it - my daughter's generation probably will and certainly her children - but I suspect mine and those before me never really will. Yes, we'll have the occasional freakish event (e.g. Bushfires, Droughts, etc), but they will continue to ebb and flow as they have done for millenia. What seems irriffutable, however, is that warming IS occuring and at a rate much faster than normal. Yes, we're seeing the occasional variation - but only before people remain focused on the short-term.

And this comes to the crux of the problem. Like the current arguments (and both camps are equally guilty of this) of focusing on short-term events (like over attributing a bushfire to AGW or showing that for a couple of years, temps have been lower) - the approach remains coupled to the political cycle. There is NO long-term vision in ANY of this stuff (well, except, I'd argue, from Climate Scientists who, if I've listened correctly, continually pour water over short-term events).

So my concern for the ETS are as follows:

Firstly, as each year brings little change (the old frog being boiled), punters will increasingly grow to HATE the ETS - "nothing is changing - why are we having to pay?". So through each political cycle, there will be an increasingly beligerent move against such systems.

Secondly, I don't think people's behavour will change. Polluters will continue to pollute as consumers continue to drive their cars, build and live in crap houses and we'll buy all that crap we don't need. Yes, we'll pay more for it, but like all things - people adjust.

Another concern is that, as demand for pollutants (like coal) go down thanks to the ETS, it will continue to drive up its affordability as a source of energy - so the market ends up acting against itself.

However, I suspect my biggest concern is that business LOVES the ETS - they are rabid for it and they want it (or some do at least). Carbon is set to become the new CDO of the next decade - and likely lead us into another boom/bust cycle.

What we have here is a classic "let the markets fix the problem" solution - and the problem with this is that Greed tends to overcome Good.

But what of solutions?

For mind, the solution has just past us by - we missed it (ok, Howard missed it). The last decade saw immense wealth created - particularly in public circles. And what did we do with it? We blew it on wars, media, pop tarts, subsidising baby production and waste. At a time when we could've seen massive public expenditure on solar/wind/geothermal/tidal energy systems - we pissed it up against the wall (or saved it so we could bounce ourselves out of the GFC).

And this is our problem - we blew that once in a lifetime opportunity and it may never come again (or at least, not in time). So instead, we're forced to tax ourselves in an attempt to create an artifical market for alternatives. Of couse, all that really means is building Nuclear Plants (as business refuses to touch renewables (how on earth do they make money out of nothing?)) and leading us into the abyss that is nuclear proliferation.

Leadership

For me, this has been a classic failure of leadership - not just currently, but for decades - and on BOTH sides of government. Because this issue will outlive ANY government, it's solution MUST be bipartisan and reaffirmed in the public's mind. It's no good Turnbull et al now backing solutions when they failed to speak out under Howard - they look like they'd jumping the fence and acting out of character. This sudden awakening (even though we now know it isn't) only confirms fears in punters that this is a political issue, not a people issue - and they're untrusting as a result.

Turnbull and Hockey (and those who believe) should've been out trumpetting AGW years ago - even under Howard - and selling it positively like they've done with the Republic. But we haven't seen that so we're now screwed.

Young Home Owner Drop - You Don't Know Why?

Interesting news from the Reserve Bank today that the level of Young Home Owners (under 35yo) has dropped notably in the last 10-15 years.

Lots of pontification as to the cause - young people staying home, time take to save a deposit - but I would've thought it plainly obvious?

Most poor sods leaving Uni these days exit with a $30K debt and any idiot knows that this goes against you when trying to secure a loan. Is it unsurprising then, that young people aren't able to get a loan with this burden hanging over their heads - and even the timing is perfect - 10-15 years - pretty well marries up with the increase in HECS over the years!

Thoughts - Aussie Sporting Lowdom

I've pondered recently how we've become such poor sports in recent years - mainly dominated by the Australian Cricket Team, but often matched by others.

Most recently this came up in Australia's remarkable win over India in the 5th ODI. It was remarkable not for our win, but for the remarkable feat of Sachin Tendulkar's wonderful 175 - that brought India within 3 runs of victory - and chasing 350, that's nothing short of incredible.

Unfortunately, the Aussies seemed incapable of recognising this feat and instead, focused (as usual) on themselves:

'I don't think we did a lot wrong in the game,'' Ponting said. ''Sachin's innings would've been something that would've stolen the game from us. We did enough right in the game to win, and we got across the line at the very end. I can tell you now that the guys, even though we probably fought our way out of jail a little in the last half of the game, we were as excited out there and back in the rooms as we have been for any win that we've had.''

You know, I'm getting kinda tired of hearing about how wonderful we are - would be nice if we at least recognised and praised the efforts of our opposition. Is that asking too much?

Thoughts - Music Piracy - More Narcissism?

Lily Allen recently headlined a campaign AGAINST music piracy and, to her surprise, received quite a significant backlash from her "base" decrying her position.

Whilst I feel for Lily's position, I equally support some of the "justifications" often made in favour of piracy. However, I see those arguments in the light of a Gen-X mentality and is formed around the opinion that I want my music my way - so stop trying to shove overpriced CDs down my throat.

Problem is, I'm not sure Lily's base sees this in the same light. Much has been said about the narcissism of Gen-Y and, I'd argue, that the type of piracy that Lily is writing about comes from this "I don't give a shit about you, just give me my free music" mentality. I'd be very surprised if the majority of Gen-Y's have a position on anything that didn't involve themselves - so the usual arguments about "give us better access" or "stop with the crap CDs" won't cut it.

So, the question in my mind is - how does Lily (and the industry) stop this? I would've thought it was pretty obvious - you need to make it about them. Stop talking about all the musicians they're hurting - to be honest, they don't give a flying fuck if Lily goes down tomorrow - their attention span is too small to care. However, would you be better arguing that they're killing off their own ambitions to become muso's? Mmm, probably not a big enough audience on that one.

What about punishment? Threats haven't worked before and trying to nail people doing it is bloody hard - and look at the backlash it yields on the label/artist who tries to prosectute.

No, I suspect the only thing you can do is either:

• Accept the change (and find other ways of growing your revenue base outside of selling "units" or
• Fight back - whenever you find a song listed, start injecting shit into the torrents making them useless. Use technology to fight the technology. It's probably a loosing battle, but at least you'd get some revenge.

Ok, perhaps they're both silly - so here's my real suggestion. Stop selling narcissism in your music, your image and ... well, pretty well everything you do. You see, if anyone says narcissim, it has to be Lily Allen. The "I don't give a shit" persona could well be an epitaph for Gen-Y. Which is unfortunate because her lyrics don't seem to sell the attitude - if anything they speak the opposite. Makes you wonder if she's being sold a particular way?

Anyhow, if people want a different reaction from their punters - then try selling it through the messages they portray in their songs. Get angry about it. Sell different ideals to their people who are attracted to them. God, I'm starting to sound like a religious zealot.

Still, the problem remains that the industry is still stuck in the 60's in respect to how to sells music. Perhaps if artists actually made decent albums? Perhaps if we stopped packaging "Hits Of" albums and forcing people to digest and artists album than selectively picking the pieces they like? Perhaps just writing good songs and selling them differently? How about not producing any CDs (in hard form) but offering electronic copies from shops at a much reduced cost - and any album be they current or old. The capability exists - if I want Led Zepplin 1 - I should be able to walk into any music store and buy it. The problem comes from when it's not there.

Of course, the problem the industry has is, like newspapers, punters have moved on. Either you need to win us back or change.

Theory - Vista is WinME all over again!

I've been touting this for a while so about time I put it in writing.

I can't help thinking that Micro$oft has gone back to the future and is using a tried and tested method of moving money out of a sleeping giant. When Windows ME shipped in the late part of the 90's/early 00's, Microsoft knew they'd be facing a tide of resistence from users who had grown accustomed to the "safe ship" they had in Windows 98. It took some time, but now that it was stable, no-one was going anywhere.

It was a lesson learned from previous versions of Office - why move when the current version works fine thanks very much.

So, how do you move this lumbering beast? By releasing a flawed, crappy and useless piece of software. The howls of derision were long and lasting and within 12 months, lo and behold, we had Windows XP - a stable platform. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people moved in droves.

Roll forward to 2009 and we're about to see Windows 7 released to great fanfare. It's hot on the heals of the latest "Windows ME" - Vista - which was soundly rounded on for it's failings. Windows 7 has, of course, redeemed Microsoft and the pronouncement of it being a new stable platform has resonated widely.

From my own experiences, most businesses found the move to Windows XP a massive cost burden - and trust me, they were never going to consider Vista as a viable upgrade. They were happy on XP and were staying put - the howls about it's stability just gave them final support to go nowhere.

Now that Windows 7 is about to be released, it'll be interesting to see how many now make the move...

GFC - Blame for Toxic Mortgages

I've heard a lot of people bagging consumers for their choice in crappy mortgages as the prime reason for the GFC and whilst they have some blame to share, it's been clear that the banks hold a responsibility - and this piece in the Economist with Robert Reich sumed it up perfectly:

DIA: In America, there's a lot of anger aimed at corporate executives, especially in the finance industry. But by buying houses they couldn't afford, weren't American consumers complicit in fomenting this crisis?

Mr Reich: Yes. But the important question to ask, in terms of avoiding a repeat of this fiasco in the future, is which of these parties -- financial executives and mortgage lenders, or american consumers who took out over-sized loans -- were in the best position to know the risks involved and to avoid them. Many consumers had no idea what they were getting into. Mortgage lenders and the financial industry behind them had every reason to know.

One has to wonder how much impact the trend to on-sell mortgages had in this problem as many of the retail banks no longer maintained an on-going interest in the mortgages they granted. In fact, there's some talk that banks ONLY interest in the mortgage was for the $800-odd in fees levied at the start of the loan - everything after that was on-sold to a third (or as we've discovered, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th ...) party.

Thoughts - Higher Ed

A recent thread on LP discussed Andrew Morton's critique of Universities Australia's economic argument RE: the benefit of a University Education. The basic line was that Uni's are good because of the economic benefit they bring so we need more funding.

Of course, such a narrow focus for establishing credibility was always going to bring about a pile of criticism and as one LP commenter noted:

Education is also about intellectual enlightenment and personal empowerment.

which leads me to my gripe, namely the problem with our faux University system.

Since the late 80's when all the CAE's were converted to Universities, we've seen a gradually watering down of the role of our uni's from leaders in academia to churn factories for voc. ed. and in doing so, the old 2 year diploma's have been converted into watered down, 3 year degrees. In the process, the cost of education has gone up impacting on both Uni's and thus students.

Isn't about time we acknowledged that the majority of our uni's are no longer focused on academia and are instead producing viable fodder for industry? If we did that, then surely we'd be better returning to the CAE model where students wishing to gain pure employment could simply study a 2 year diploma - focused on their area of expertise - which would cost less to provide and thus burden the student less in the long run?

This would leave a small number of institutions to return their focus to what they did best - research (or prepare students for a life in academia). Yes, a lot of these students will go on to lead productive life in business, but unless the focus remains preparing students for research instead of preparing them for a job then, alas, I think we're all doomed (or at least, the quality of our education system and the future of pure science is).

Thoughts: A Time for Infrastructure

At a time of growing unemployment, resources prices falling and interest rates at near record lows, it beggars belief that anyone wouldn't agree with MASSIVE infrastructure spending ... NOW.

Cheap labour costs, affordable materials and a return on investment second to none - why haven't we seen/heard calls for substantial, nation building infrastructure projects? Some obvious suggestions:

• Stand Gauge Rail ACROSS Australia
• High Speed Rail between Capitals
• Massive Solar/Renewable Energy Generation Projects
• Hydro Plant on Burdekin Dam

These need to be on a grand scale with a 20-30 year payback on them but in doing so, not only would they instil confidence in business and ensure future productivity, but they'd also fill most with a sense of national pride (a la Snowy Mountains Scheme) which would further lift us out of the doldrums.

Thoughts: Internet's Impact on Newspapers

There's been a lot of commentary recently about how newspapers across the US are being forced to close down due to a lack of revenue. The most likely culprit they see for this is the internet.

Now, whilst I do agree that the internet WILL steal some revenue potential, it's the lack in readership that's the biggest cause and, I'd argue, that's got NOTHING to do with the Internet. No, I'd offer that it has been the media's obsession with faux news, gossip mongering and news by media release that has led to their demise. You see, there's only so much of this shite that you can take so what do people do to find real news about real events that hasn't been spun by someone.

You guessed it, the Internet.

If the media dropped this guise that they're presenting news rather than selling it, then perhaps they'd see the real problem here. Get rid of the Today Tonights, A Current Affair, Fox News, "The Sun" - shit, even 60 minutes is full of tripe these days - and return to proper journalism then we'd all be the better for it.

Problem is, I suspect they've all probably too late - we've found a better medium and getting us back will be near to impossible.

UPDATE: A great article posted by ex-ABC journo, Chris Masters, argues a similar case to mine - that only NEWS done properly will solve the financial problems of the trade.