February 2005 Archives

Perth is such a long way from Sydney. Easy to forget those over there, despite the fact that my anticedents come from that part of the world.

Didn't take too much notice of the WA state election campaign. Kept up to date with Rob's blog, but not much more than that. Took it for granted that Labor would lose. After all, they (seemingly) won last time because One Nation split the coalition vote. Huge conservative gerrymander. An uphill battle.

Until J.W. Howard wouldn't come to the party with Federal funding for Colin Barnett's proposed canal to supply water to Perth from the Kimberley.

Then, driving home late last week, listening to an interview with Barnett on the ABC's PM program. I didn't realise what a turkey he was.

"Yes, I'm [Barnett] going to go ahead with the canal. No need for costings or feasibility studies. I'm decisive, unlike the government who insists on looking at options and performing cost / benefit analysis."

Maybe Labor is in with chance!

Finally, the disastrous interview when the numbers didn't add up. Barnett debates with the media. "Of course I'm right!" Whoops, maybe there is a mistake. Most swinging voters would have made up their minds at that moment.

Labor is re-elected, keeping all the State governments in Labor's hands.

A nice result, at a time when progressives are on the back foot. Is it an omen? The heart says 'yes;' the head says 'no.'

Looks like an astute, switched on and very good looking pundit was correct when it came to the ICAC commisioner's interpretation of the evidence regarding the Strathfield Council bribery scandal.

Hunter S. Thompson is dead by his own hand. Anyone who's read anything of his cannot be too sad, or even mystified. Live by the sword...

His greatest contribution to the arts, I think, is Gonzo Journalism,

which throws objectivity out of the window and engages the writer's personal views.

I think this is great, objectivity is a myth anyway, the choice of materials presented and excluded always breathes in an air of the subjective.

No Gonzo from some at the smh, no real journalism either if you ask me. An article entitled

Pope calls gay marriage part of 'ideology of evil'

(and I really love the phrasing he uses here, reminds me of Bush and makes me wonder if the Pope writes his own books.) doesn’t even follow the title, instead they ramble off on tangents reminiscent of one of my first year philosophy essays (conceptually at least; scraped through with a C-). To me, this is disgusting journalism, the misdirection every bit as deplorable as Howard on more troops in Iraq and his defense of this backflip.

I ask you, if the norm of journalism in broadsheets is to deceive, is it any wonder that the government feels that it can do the same and get away with it?

True Gonzo Journalists are commentators like Margo Kingston, and I like when she says on Howard,

'If he gets away with this he really can get away with anything.'

I disagree with her a little, mainly because I think she's living in the past, but if you look at the title of the piece,

'Howard puts more Aussie bodies on the line in Iraq, minus mandate'

then read the closing line which I've quoted above, you see a degree of structure and synchronicity. Good quality journalism which I'll turn to again and again.

R.I.P Hunter. Some, at least, are waving the flag.

Brings back memories of the 60s. Australia's going to increase its involvement in an overseas conflict by sending more troops.

Never mind that only a few months ago during the election campaign the government categorically stated they wouldn't.

'Not enough military capacity' was the party line.

And isn't it interesting that the Brits asked as to send more troops? No toadying to those Americans!

Why am I not surprised by any of this?

I usually leave the critiques of Gerard Henderson's articles to those better qualified, however, I can't resist commenting on today's effort in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Gerard lays into those that 'don't get' that the world is at 'war on terror.'

Well, count me in, Gerry, because I've always had a problem with the term 'war' to describe prevention of terrorism. War is open conflict between armed adversaries. Acts of terrorism are are staged events planned in secret and perpertrated by criminals. Preventing terrorism more resembles police work than military action.

The act of flying planes into the World Trade Centre buildings was not an act of 'war,' but a criminal outrage of the worst kind.

It's understandable that the Americans were so incensed after the events in New York that they declared a 'war' on the perpetrators. What isn't excusable is the way they've used the 'war' on terror to persue other agendas.

What frightens people about this radical Islam brand of terrorism is that its adherents are not afraid to sacrifice themselves in the act, unlike traditional terrorists who want to live after the event. You can no longer take for granted that the stranger next to you won't commit a terrorist act in which he will die as well. However, the reality is that the chance of dying in a terrorist act is far less than riding in a motor vehicle.

Radical Islamic terrorism allows authorities to hype up the threat by calling it a 'war' and get away with using it to persue other agendas, like invading Iraq. Because we are at 'war,' it's OK to lock up suspects for years without trial, and send them to an accountable third world country for some information extraction under torture.

Right wingers like Gerry harp on about spreading democracy, but are quite relaxed about taking away some of our freedoms by accepting increased surveillance of the population in general, and vilifying anyone who has a more moderate view than their own.

Terrorists should be persued unremittingly for the crimes they commit, but that persuit should not lessen our democratic values. If it does, then the terrorists have won.

Songs, individual pieces of music by one artist or another, they carry with them the resonance of memory. As the artistic experience we can share in time and space with other people, these communal events capture a place in our beings which can echo thoroughly through us when they are repeated.

I was sitting in a student bar last night (as you do) having a few drinks and teaching Masa from Japan the right context to say 'nice one tiger' in (as I do) and a certain song came on over the sound system. Two flashes of feeling, separated by years and continents and much more besides, rose without warning within me, connecting three isolated events in my life with a sense of dramatic urgency, and when my focus returned back to where I was I thought it was interesting how music can do that.

(Been in Prague: short hiatus. Back again, top dollar.)

What is it with high profile, white collar crooks? As soon as they're caught with the hand in the till, the media legions swing to their defence.

Rivkin scored sympathetic publicity on the ABC's 'Australian Story.' Now Rodney Adler's getting the same treatment in today's Sun Herald.

At least it's not being funded by the public purse.

Mike Carlton yesterday predicted the line that would be pushed during Adler's sentencing hearings ....

Connoisseurs of these things will be looking forward to Rodney's appearance in court for sentencing. If the usual script is followed, the judge will hear lawyerly psalms about his previous good character, his exemplary work for charity, his legendary kindness to small kittens and old ladies, etc.

The disgrace is punishment enough, your honour. The fall from society, the ostracism from the world of business a condign penalty itself. And the shame visited upon the family. And, of course, there is m'client's remorse and repentance. What purpose could be served by sending this unfortunate man to jail?

What Carlton failed to mention was that the softening-up process starts well before the court hearing. The Sun Herald article would bring tears to your eyes ...

"It's a terrible burden on his wife and the kids ...... his wife has had to give up her charity work ..... his marriage has been stressed by the ordeal ...... he's been through four years of hell .... etc .... etc."

All crime effects the lives of close relatives of the perpetrators. It doesn't prevent the less well off criminals from going to gaol, and should have no bearing on Adler's sentence. The big difference for Adler's ilk is that they invariably have the cash to maintain the lifestyle when they emerge.

We can only hope that the judge is too busy on Sundays to read the papers.

I suppose with the allegations regarding Mamdouh Habib's movements in Afghanistan I should follow up my previous post.

It doesn't really matter that these allegations have been made; in my view, it doesn't alter the fact that Habib (and Hicks) have been appallingly treated by the government.

We live in a society governed by the rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty. Trials based on rules of evidence.

Regardless of the claims made by the government agencies, Habib was held without trial for years, sent to Egypt with the knowledge of the authorities, and perhaps tortured. He was never charged and placed before a court.

Here we are lecturing the Middle East about democracy, and the implied human right associated with it, while we debase those rights of some of our own citizens. (And a lot of Middle East citizens, come to think of it.)

I'm not suggesting that the authorities do not persue terrorists. However, once someone is detained for more than a short period of time they should be charged. If the evidence isn't there, they should be released.

What's the point of invading a country to install democracy if, at the same time, our democracy is degraded?

I posted a previous piece about the cavalier way the government treated David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib during their incarceration by the US. Since then, Habib's been released, and despite threats to prevent him from going public and profiting from his story, he's appeared on commercial TV (for a fee) with allegations of torture and Australian officials' compliance to the fact.

Last night the Attorney General, Philip Ruddock was interviewed on the 7.30 Report .... an interview which showed just how disinterested the government was in the welfare of an Australian citizen.

The interview needs to be read in its entirety, but I'll pick out a few quotes to give the idea.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Attorney-General Philip Ruddock joins me now from Parliament House. Philip Ruddock, as Australia's first law officer, why don't you know the reasons that the Americans released Mamdouh Habib without any charges, without any trial, after holding him for 40 months?

PHILIP RUDDOCK (ATTORNEY-GENERAL): Well, it's a matter of what the Americans are prepared to tell us, Kerry.......

....... A decision was made in the United States that they did not have evidence that they could put before a military commission to obtain a conviction. That's the judgment they made. They came to that view.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And you haven't even asked them why? I mean, you might say they've got a right not to tell you, but you haven't even asked them?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, we know what they've told us, and they've told us they did not have sufficient evidence to proceed with the prosecution, and I assume it relates to a range of potential issues that might be involved in that. .....

We can take it that the question wasn't asked.

O'brien then asked if the reason the US didn't proceed in charging Habib was due to the fact that the evidence could have been extracted under torture.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: .... there are a range of other issues and some people have written about these matters. Even before the military commission process, there is no guarantee that sensitive security related information might not be jeopardised if it were adduced before a trial.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But my question was, you can't rule out torture as a possible reason and you haven't answered that.

So there is a real possibility that Habib wasn't charged by the US because the evidence was extracted under duress.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Are you in a position to deny that the Americans involved with Mr Habib in Pakistan may have worked with Pakistan and the Egyptians to have Mamdouh Habib taken to Egypt for tough off the books interrogations where the niceties of human rights wouldn't have to be observed?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I'm not able to make observations on matters that I have no personal knowledge, and I have no knowledge...

KERRY O'BRIEN: That being the case, you can't rule out that he was tortured in Egypt?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: I have no knowledge as to what may have happened to him in Pakistan when our officials were not there. I have no knowledge of what might have happened to him in other places, if he were taken to any other places.

Makes you wonder why we have a Department of Foreign Affairs. Obviously not to ask any difficult questions of an ally to find out what's happening to our detained citizens, it seems.

Reading between the lines it appears the government didn't really care what happened to Habib. They put no pressure on the US for answers regarding Habib's status, even though they knew he'd been shipped to Egypt. They took the American's word that Habib would be charged, and assumed that Habib wouldn't be a problem as it was unlikely he'd be back in Australia for many years.

Now Habib is back, and has the potential to embarrass the government if he goes to court to claim compensation for his treatment and / or to retrieve his passport. He's not been charged or convicted of any crime, so the government will have to defend itself by producing evidence of wrong doing or prove he's a threat to the community.

The episode shows just how compliant we are to the United States, even in relation to the welfare of one of our own citizens.

The UK is a strong ally to the US, but they didn't desert their citizens held at Guantanamo Bay. The relationship between the UK and the US survived.

It's about time we stopped behaving like wimps. Time to stick up for our own.

Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK since 1997. He's a Scottish lad, from strong presbyterian roots, and I'm a bit of a fan.

Particularly of his plan and efforts to reshape the developing world, namely Africa, through the opening of trade barriers, 100% debt forgiveness and a doubling of aid. He's had this plan burning for two years, and the moratorium on debt for nations which suffered in the tsunami was like a prologue to his idea.

Critics of the plan, notably the US and Australia, surprise surprise, say that these plans are useless because of sketchiness regarding where the money goes. Fair enough, it's a problem with charity that I've had for a long time, but Brown is also:

"calling for new international rules to stamp out corruption, and said Britain hoped to secure a system of independent reports on the true state of government finances around the world to ensure aid money was spent wisely."

Which effectively counters the arguments of the warmongers, I think. Or could it be that, apart from wishing to maintain the status quo of rich and poor in the world, Australia and the US aren’t too keen on opening their books to any independent inquiries. Something to hide boys?

Last month there was a bit of tension between him and Tony Blair, well that's been going around for a while, but it came to the fore recently that Tony had promised to stand down in favour of Gordon before this years election, because he had lost the faith of the electorate over Iraq, but now he was going back on his word, and will be running for a third term. I presume this is because he saw how rubbish Michael Howard (Tories Leader) is. Australians should detect a ring a familiarity in this situation.

Brown appears labour in the true sense of the word, a member of the Christian Socialist Movement, he says he's all about equality, and his actions regarding the developing world seem to back that up.

Interesting site this:

An interesting aspect of the planned APEC summit to be held in Sydney in 2007, apart from dashing the ambitions of Peter Costello for another five years or so, is that it's traditional for the participants to attend a photo session wearing the host nation's traditional apparel.

On the radio yesterday morning, the presenter asked the listeners for their suggestions of what the leaders should wear in Sydney.

Suggestions ranged from Akubra hats with Drizabones, to Speedo budgie smugglers. (Wouldn't George look great in those?)

But the best suggestion, in my opinion, was that the world leaders wear t-shirts emblazoned with the words "I went to Sydney APEC 2007 and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!"

Priceless.

During 1981, I was in living and working in London, doing things similar to the Pig's foreign correspondant, ie, traveling, drinking and carousing (too much).

1981 was, of course, the year of the Royal Wedding. A dorky, gormless 32 yo prince was marrying a girl hardly out of her teens. It seemed then, and proven later, to be an unlikely match.

For years the press had speculated who Charles would marry, and the pressure was on to produce an heir for the throne. The problem for the establishment was that all eligible women of Charles' age 'had a past,' ie, had previous relationships. In the establishment's eyes, 'other relationships' meant ex-boy friends who may be willing sell juicy details to the rabid British press.

The pressure was on to find a girl with no past. That girl was Diana. I remember reading at the time that the worst thing they could find on her was that she was thrown into a swimming pool (fully clothed) at a party. She was a virgin. Perfect.

Of course, the UK at large was enthusiastic, but not everyone was blind to what was happening. On the week of wedding, 'Time Out,' the London 'what's on' magazine, had (a cartoon or a headline, I can't remember which) that went something like "This Week: The Royal Stallion is Being Led Out to Stud."

Now Charlie is going to marry his long term love. It'll be interesting to see how they are going to get around the legal implications of the next head of the Church of England's wife being a divorcee and a Catholic.

On the radio it was speculated that the States and the Commonwealth may have to introduce special legislation to accommodate the arrangement. Another reason for a Republic, in my view.

It's encouraging that the reaction to the news in Australia's been a collective yawn, unlike the near hysterical response in the UK. We really are growing up. Apparently, the news has boosted the membership of the Australian Republican Movement; another good sign.

It looks like Charlie's going to get what he's wanted all along. It's to bad that so many lives were destroyed along the way.

I feel like changing my name to Waldorff, one of The Muppets who sat with his mate above the stage and just commented on everything. But anyway...

From the UNWire yesterday I found out that out of all the money that governments around the world have pledged directly after the tsunami disaster, only a third has actually been delivered. The UN is:

"urging countriess to keep their promises as more funds will be needed for long-term reconstruction projects in the region."

More on how much countries have pledged here. Now, to me, the disaster was an absolute tragedy, but it wasn't the wake up call it was to some people regarding the interlinking of humanity, or like the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were for others regarding how the world perceives the west, or even the way some people say that Yann Martel's 'The Life Of Pi' led them to believe in God. To me, a frustrated idealist, this event and all things of a similar nature are like unopened emails in the inbox of the world. I feel like saying to the bum-faced old man sitting beside me:

"You know Stettler, I think it's gonna take aliens to do it."
"What's that, aliens?" he'd reply.
"Yep, little green men with lazers and flying hoosiewhatsits and big spider-walking thingies, they'd come right in and start blowin stuff up all over the place. That'd do it."
"Hrgh. Yup, I guess it would at that."
"Yep."
"Yup. So, how do you think they take their coffee?"
"What, aliens?"
"Yup."
"Well, I'm guessing they'd take it black."
"Yup, me too. Too much milk ain't good for ya."

Note: This post is a lot longer than normal!

This morning I had a late start for work. A Newcastle work colleague I was to meet 'on site' was delayed on the drive to Sydney. I had time on my hands, and was delivering the kids to school and daycare when I inadvertently tuned into Radio National's 'Religion Report' program.

Now it's not often I tune the radio dial that far to the left, and even rarer that I'd listen to a program about religion. I'm very much an agnostic; almost an atheist. But the subject was about religious diversity in Australia, and I was interested despite myself.

The first segment was about a report entitled 'Religion, Cultural Diversity and Safeguarding Australia,' written by the Australian Multicultural Foundation in association with the World Conference on Religion and Peace, and RMIT and Monash Universities.

Working in the shadow of September 11th and the Bali bombs, the report may have been conceived in a certain climate of anxiety, but in fact it paints a largely positive picture of how things stand between different faith groups, in spite of religious tensions on the global front. Certainly between Christians and Muslims, the report shows that September 11th has been the catalyst for a lot of open dialogue and mutual curiosity.

The report makes a number of recommendations to the government. These include replacing the reading of the Lord's Prayer in Parliament with a rotating roster of prayers drawn from various faiths .....

The only thing I know is that I know nothing.

Someone said that. Probably a Greek. Someone also said something along the lines of the more we learn, the more we realise how much we do not know. Whatever the case is, as some of you may know, I don't have regular internet access, and have been previously limiting myself to about 15 minutes a day. I've recently, after consultation with my doctors, upped that to about 30. What's the point of this? Ah... oh, yes, if there are readers who are writing please let me know where I can find what you've written in order that I may read it.

Like sands through the hourglass, these are the days of our lives.

Gotta love the Greeks.

Forgive me readers, for I've been a bad boy. It's been some days since my last post. As usual, the social life, family, work and borrowing the first two series DVDs of 'Blackbooks' got in the way of blogging.

Thankfully, the Pig's foreign correspondent took up the slack.

Flute had an attack of 'What's the meaning of life, the universe and everything' a couple of days ago. These attacks are not unusual at the Sty. It would be nice to be able to write as well as CL, have Flute's sense of humour, and have the following of Tim at Surfdom.

I'm resigned to blog in obscurity.

To be a popular blogger, apart from being able to write well, it helps to be a student, academic or a journalist. Time is less of an issue when you can mix blogging with the day job.

Being an engineering type is a definite disadvantage. Many tech heads, myself included, find writing difficult. Engineering companies have servers full of document templates to assist a workforce that finds maths easy and can visualise in three dimensions, but can't write to save themselves.

The engineering maxim when writing technical documents is "When in doubt, plagiarise." Shocking, yes, but remember that the important thing in these documents are the numbers, not the prose.

Anyway, enough of the naval gazing. Regular transmission will resume shortly.

There's little doubting Condoleeza Rice's talent and educational pedigree.
That she's been through a lot to get where she is perhaps makes it bad taste to criticize. Oh well, I haven't thought of a nickname for her yet.

So instead of Junior's 'Axis of Evil', Rice has "Outposts of Tyranny",where the US must help to bring freedom to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma and Belarus. No mention then of China, whose regime is comparable to those above at their lowest. Money does talk. No mention too, of Sudan, where a recent UN report said Sudan's government and its militia systematically abused civilians in Darfur. Mustn't have any strategic importance.

Perhaps all is explained when we hear what she said when talking about US/UK relations the other day:

"I decided to come first to Britain because we have no better friend; we have no better ally."

Mark my words, there is something weird going on. Hollywood has infested all walks of American life, even someone who graduated with a degree in political science at 19 has to speak using rhetoric so twisted it has no meaning. Arnie's right at home. I'd sooner vote for Tom Hanks though, you?

When I used to teach persuasive writing to high school students in the UK, I often used Junior's speeches. To flex my brain, and take a stab at rhetoric, here's a quote from his speech in January, with a little linguistic analysis afterwards, focusing on one language point specifically:

"It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."

Rule of Three: Perhaps the origin of the maxim, "the third times the charm". In order to generate rhythm, Junior's writers here employ similar sentence structure in the first two phrases, continuing and building the primal fire imagery in the initial verb (warms/burns), then, the secondary verb and final noun alliterate (repreated intial consonant sound) strongly across the phrases (feel/fight, power/progress). Apart from these variations, the first two phrases are structured identically. The final section should be the longest and the strongest, and it is: "one/un" assonate (repeated vowel sounds), and the 'fire of freedom' alliteration is returns the audience to the initial image of 'fire'. The sentence group is topped off through the provision of a focus for the fire: "the darkest corners of our world." The contrast between the language focus on the 'light', as opposed to 'dark', creates the image of one overpowering the other.

Now, this is the kind of stuff that my students were writing, or at least what I was encouraging them to write. My idea was that once anyone sees how these pieces are structured, they can see through the rhetoric and gain an appreciation of how an audience is manipulated. The problem is that the majority of audience members, or media-sponges, have no clue as to why they're influenced by rhetoric, if they even know what it is. I chose a political example, but the next time you see an ad, especially one from a company with a decent budget, take a look at how they're influencing people.

Miranda Divine talks about the abortion debate in today's Sydney Morning Herald. Miranda argues that the debate is being pushed by women, (funny that, last time I looked, Ron Boswell and Tony Abbott were blokes), and that staunchly pro-choice women, like Hilary Clinton, are changing their views.

They are women like the US senator Hillary Clinton, a high priestess of liberal feminism and "hero" of the pro-abortion lobby. Last week she softened her stand on abortion in a speech which drew "gasps and head-shaking" from some 1000 abortion campaigners in New York State.

"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate," she said. Her common ground includes preventing unplanned pregnancies, supporting sexual education, including "abstinence counselling", and encouraging adoption, The New York Times reported.

"We can all recognise that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."

How has Clinton softened her views? Has she ever said that abortion is preferable to preventing unwanted pregnancies?

What Clinton said is common sense. Abortion is tragic, and in a perfect world should be avoided. (I wonder about the "abstinence counselling," but she's probably being a politician and pitching at the religious conservatives.) Nowhere does she repudiate the principal of freedom of choice.

We shouldn't loose sight of the crux of the debate. On one side there's the extremist minority who want to remove the freedom of choice. On the other, there's the majority who want to retain the status quo. Of the majority, there are many who are uneasy with the subject and wouldn't have or condone an abortion, but acknowledge that the individual has the right to choose.

On AM this morning there was an interview with the most senior Anglican clergyman, Peter Carnley, giving his views on the newly reignited abortion debate.

As you'd expect, he is for tightening up of the rules, ie, making abortion harder to get. Let's examine what he said.

Well, I think [the abortion issue is] going to continually resurface until it's resolved because I think it's an unresolved problem and I think people generally are really concerned, and it simply will keep coming back.

Some people are really concerned, but they're a minority. Most people seem to believe it's a matter of choice.

The issue will never be resolved. It's like the argument between the left and right of politics. People have their own views of right and wrong.

Is the embryo in the early stages of pregnancy an individual entity or part of the mother's body? When does a fetus become self aware? There are arguments but no definitive answers.

Well, I think first of all, this is really a scientific question before it's a religious or a moral question. The scientific question is, when are we dealing with a human life?

And I think it's very clear that from, for scientific reasons, it's very clear that from the moment of conception, after about, you know, 3 weeks from fertilisation, from the moment of conception, we're dealing with an independent, human individual, and every human individual has a right to life and protection.

Peter seems to be a bit confused about when 'conception' is. Most people would know it's at the moment of fertilisation, ie, the fusion of sperm and egg. He is obviously grappling with the dilemma I stated earlier; when does life start?

I think it's fairly clear that from the moment of conception, we're dealing with an independent human life with and independent heartbeat, an independent blood circulation, an independent brain activity. I think for scientific reasons it's quite clear. I don't think we don't need much more information.

No, it's not clear, for reasons explained earlier.

When asked whether he agreed with making abortion harder to obtain ....

Well yes, but I would also support educational programs. I think these days, when people can control their fertility, there's really no need for abortion. There should be no need for an abortion.

In a perfect world, he's correct. It's a pity a large part of the religious opposition to abortion don't believe in contraception, either.

In the real world, women will conceive in circumstances where a child will be an extreme burden.

The only controls on abortion the Federal government can impose is through restricting Medicare benefits. If Abbott and his ilk gets there way, it will be poor and disadvantaged women who will suffer.

This issue is about imposing of the will of an extremist minority over the rest of the population. Well meaning these people may be, but the majority of population is content to leave the issue as a matter of individual choice.

The last few days have been gut-wrenching, from partying and decision making, my apologies for not writing sooner. My new favourite saying goes: in a decision between yellow and blue, I chose red.

Not going to London, staying in the Czech Republic, or sojourning to Japan. Soon going to travel for a bit more in Europe then return to Australia a bit more permanently. Lots of factors, swirling like fish in a giant blender (that doesn't chop them up, of course!), didn't even see the possibility until this morning.

A top dollar decision, made for no reason other than it's what I want to do. So I'll be the foreign correspondent for a bit longer, then I'll drop off the blogsphere like a good bottle of red, before coming back to be just a humble local reporter.

More topical, humourous and relevant posts coming right up.

Tough luck Lleyton. Larger (and taller) titans have gone less far.