Dikkii's Diatribe

Rock epic of the month: "Gods of War" (Def Leppard) 1987

2009-08-31T02:02:00.000+10:00

Rock epics of the month is a series of posts where I'll look back on classic examples of what I think is the greatest excess of rock and roll - the rock epic.

This month, I'm going cock rock again. Sorry.

Every now and then, music reaches a production high point that just makes you breathe out a sigh and go, "Damn!".

We saw it in the sixties with Sgt. Pepper's, in the seventies with The Dark Side of the Moon and in the nineties with Ministry's Psalm 69 and Massive Attack's Blue Lines.

In the eighties, these production high points happened in cock rock land with two acts and two producers - Bruce Fairbairn with Aerosmith on Permanent Vacation and Pump, and Robert John "Mutt" Lange with Def Leppard on Pyromania and Hysteria.

And it's with Def Leppard that we go to for this one.

They'd released their breakthrough release in the US with the well received Pyromania in 1983 and chose wisely when following this up to work with Lange again. Hysteria sold twice as many copies as Pyromania - being 20 million. That is positively enormous.

I was prompted to write about this one, when a friend of mine talked about the impact that Def Leppard had on her. I must admit to being somewhat ambivalent to the impact of cock rock, generally, but I thought I'd go online and have a listen to this album (and Pyromania) in full again to get an idea of what it was all about back then.

Hysteria is everything a cock rock lover loves. Big riffs. Big high screaming vocals. Guitar solos all over the shop. And enormous hair all round, usually mulleted.

Naturally, I'm still not convinced about the worth of this genre in the pantheon of rock and roll, but I can respect the place that Hysteria, and for that matter, Pyromania holds within the affront that cock rock presents to good taste and indeed, to rock and roll itself. After all, can we not also celebrate rock and roll's missteps as well as the high-points within those missteps?

Anyway, it's a wonder that Def Leppard were able to get this album out at all. Drummer Rick Allen was involved in a car crash prior to recording this and as a result, became rock's most celebrated one-armed drummer. Lange had to be talked into producing this after the band had flirted with the idea of Jim Steinman or producing it themselves.

It does speak some amazing volumes of the loyalty of the band members: Most bands would have parted ways with Allen, but they encouraged him to soldier on, developing a modified drumkit enabling him to play with a lot of foot pedals and one drumstick in hand.

On Pyromania, Phil Collen had been brought in on guitar to replace Pete Willis who had been fired for alcoholism. But things were not well with the other guitarist Steve Clark, who was slowly dying of the exact same thing. As a result of Clark's unreliability, Lange chose to get Collen to do quite a lot of the solo work. This supposedly caused a rift in the band, although I suspect that it was between Clark and the rest of the band.

So on to "Gods of War" which occupied six minutes and 37 seconds. This is actually surprisingly good, although the first and second refrains are somewhat iffy ("On a countdown to zero..." and "Here it comes...") because they require a key change which does, while I'll admit sets up the chorus quite nicely, appears slightly out of kilter with the rest of the song.

The song starts off with a fairly simple, yet iconic bassline from bassplayer, Rick Savage. Clark starts playing the intro riff for a couple of bars, then it's all on from there. The chorus is killer with some awesome cock rock screaming from vocalist Joe Elliott, but the tune really kicks into an open goal just before the end when the last minute kicks in, with some nice guitar riffing, subdued soloing and sound-bites of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher that indicate that, whatever else, they loved a good military dust-up.

The proper video features bits from Top Gun. Quite ironic when you consider that this is quite an anti-war song, and that Top Gun was such over-the-top, flag-waving, pro-American propaganda.

Anyway enjoy this live video. It should take you back to the days when rock concerts only happened in stadiums and realises that this tune was a fully worked live proposition. Enjoy:

Feng shite. Oil of Snake.

2009-08-30T17:36:00.002+10:00

FSM bless the Chaser boys. Here's a little snippet of what we won't be seeing again on our screens for a little while:

Let's have a laugh!

2009-07-05T01:52:00.006+10:00

Oh homeopaths, you're just too easy. Why does anybody buy this stuff?

Thank you Sean the Blogonaut.

Rock epic of the month: "Let There Be Rock" (AC/DC) 1977

2009-06-30T13:41:00.007+10:00

Rock epics of the month is a series of posts where I'll look back on classic examples of what I think is the greatest excess of rock and roll - the rock epic.

I have tickets to see AC/DC next year. Yes folks, I will be one of those black-clad bogans seeing these guys live.

And I guarantee you this: I too will be perpetrating the following atrocities in the name of rock:

Punching my fist in the air;
Goat’s head salutes;
Air guitaring; and
Headbanging

And maybe some slamming as well, although AC/DC have never really been a band that you can slam to.

OK. So to celebrate, I’m doing ‘Let There Be Rock’ this month.

Acca Dacca were never really a band that did anything other than meat and potatoes rock and/or roll. I can find very few bona fide rock epics in their vast back catalogue so it’s either this or ‘Night Prowler’. So I thought I’d go for the screaming obvious and do this one.

‘Let There Be Rock’ clocks in at 6:06. And you know, the album that it’s off (Let There Be Rock, of course) correctly shows a band hitting some sort of creative stride. In the case of this tune, however, the tune just takes off like a racing car and keeps going like it’s completely out of control.

Phil Rudd’s drums sound like a gorilla is pounding on them and lead vocalist, the late Bon Scott just sounds like he’s totally mental as he tells the tale of how ROCK!! came into being. But while Angus Young might be the face of AC/DC, here the focus is on the rock solid riffing of Malcolm Young on rhythm guitar and bassist Mark Evans.

If there was any doubt (surely not) prior to this album that Malcolm Young is the engine room of this band, then this album, and this song in particular, put all speculation to rest.

The fact of the matter is this: AC/DC simply would not work without the riffs of Malcolm Young. You can remove Angus, because he’s essentially visual: The thing that everyone remembers about AC/DC songs if you're listening to them at home is the monolithic riffs of Malcolm. Even if some feel that they’re a bit samey.

Incidentally, have you ever seen people criticise AC/DC for this, and then it turns out that they’re fans of another “samey” act such as The Cure or The Church? I have. But this is their thing, their schtick. Their particular aural signature, if you like.

Malcolm Young’s riffs are iconic. End of story. They’re so iconic that The Cult had some sort of accident in the eighties and recorded an entire album where they thought they were AC/DC – Electric.

But don’t let me tell you. Check out this video of the song in question. Bon Scott as the preacher man looks absolutely certifiable. Angus is dressed as a choirboy or something with a cardboard halo:

Let there be rock!

Why The Chaser should not be called to account

2009-06-08T22:43:00.010+10:00

It's amazing what gets the creative juices flowing again. I haven't really blogged seriously for quite some time. I haven't even looked closely at the blogs I like.

But this isn't about me. Well, maybe it is a little bit.

But you know, anger is an energy. And last week, I had it in spades.

Last week, Wednesday night on ABC1, the TV sketch comedy show The Chaser's War on Everything broadcast this little sketch:

I admit not to seeing it at the time. I'm not usually home on Wednesday nights, so I usually wait until Thursday night to watch the repeat on ABC2.

On Thursday, I suddenly noticed a flurry of Twitter posts calling for the heads of the Chaser boys. Investigating this further, talkback radio and the media were all over this sketch, calling it a variety of names, usually preceded by "sick".

I must admit, my curiosity was well and truly tweaked by the time that I got around to watching the repeat.

Once the episode had finished screening, I had one of those "Is that it?" moments, where I felt that I had missed something. And sure enough, I had.

The ABC and The Chaser had cut the frigging scene!!

That's right, folks. They had, not only cut it, but they had issued a statement on video apologising for it, and regretting any hurt that was caused. Not only that, I think that it was Julian Morrow who had indicated that they had called the real Make A Wish Foundation to apologise.

The ABC have since taken The Chaser's War on Everything off the air for two weeks.

But let's have a more critical view of this than what the mainstream media have done.

I'll just get this one out of the way quickly: Anyone who listens to talkback radio, NOVA or the Austereo networks deserve contempt. How is this related to this post? It's only related in passing, but I thought that I'd get this one out there. Indeed, I have given Ms Dikkii instructions that, should she catch me listening to talkback radio, she's to immediately have me taken out the back and shot.

Secondly, who made it this far who believes that the sketch was making fun of sick kids? If you answered "yes", you also deserve contempt. This sketch was actually making fun of frivolous charities like Make A Wish. I'll discuss them more in a few moments. Which begs the question: If The Chaser did call Make A Wish to apologise, precisely how insincere was the apology?

Thirdly, The Chaser's modus operandi (as suggested by the title of the TV show) is to make fun of everything and anything. This means that charities (I use that word only in its strictest legal sense) such as Make A Wish were ripe for targetting.

Fourthly, I have no evidence that talkback radio shock jocks actually looked at the sketch prior to going nuts about it. Just think about that for a while.

Fifthly, why the talkback radio shock jocks left Andrew Hansen's marvellous Billy Connolly impersonation untouched (from the same episode) is a mystery to me.

Finally, The Chaser have done far more controversial stuff than this in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Which begs the question: Now that cutting stuff is an option with these guys, exactly what is going to be cut next?

The Chaser boys are certainly not stupid. The fact that they've swallowed any pride that they might have and apologised is understandable, in light of the controversy that this sketch created.

But here's the thing: They should not have apologised. Nor should they have caved into ABC management over this. I have lost a great deal of respect for them over this and whilst I'm not greatly convinced that the apologies were sincere, the record will show that this is an apology that has been made. And it will be harder in the future for Morrow, Hansen, Craig Reucassel, Chris Taylor, Chas Licciardello and Dominic Knight (I'll leave Charles Firth out of this) to back down and claim that they were coerced into making this apology.

The sketch was squarely aimed at frivolous charities like Make A Wish. The Make A Wish Foundation are there to assist dying children by granting them a wish or two before they die. They make a big song and dance over flying terminal cancer patients to Disneyland or introducing them to Pink.

This might sound wonderful to you and some of you are probably asking, "Dikkii. Why not grant these dying kids a dying wish?"

I put it to you that the Make A Wish Foundation is diverting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars away from legitimate medical research. Indeed, their 2008 annual report makes the astounding claim that they:

...met all of its Wish granting obligations for 2008...

Obviously, what constitutes a "Wish granting obligation" is a grey area, as they also say on their application form that granting a particular wish is entirely up to the Make A Wish Foundation.

In 2008, they raised AUD 1.75 million. And while this is small compared to some charities, the question should be asked, couldn't this money have been better spent funding legitimate medical research?

In the pages of the annual report, wish recipients talk of meeting the Mythbusters or going to see Liverpool play.

Liverpool. Flying economy class from Melbourne to London's Heathrow airport currently costs about AUD $1,680 through Thai which I used Webjet to find for me. Add in spending, transportation, accomodation, tickets to the game and similar for a minder (presumably a parent) and you are looking at about AUD $10,000 all up. Probably more.

Wouldn't it be better if this amount of money was spent on legitimate medical research?

This blogger is more interested in stuff that the charity is rejecting. While we know that someone in 2008 according to their annual report got to go to Seattle to see the Boeing factory, what about the kid whose wish for a blowjob from Cameron Diaz was knocked back? This may sound extreme, but exactly what gets knocked back? What wishes don't they grant, and what is their internal wish granting criteria?

I would, therefore like to issue a wish of my own in the middle of all this: The Make A Wish Foundation should come clean about the quanta of denied wishes. That is, we should get details about exactly what is being declined, how many, and what is their internal wish granting criteria.

Taylor's closing words from the sketch were, "They're only going to die anyway." Charities like Make A Wish make us feel good about spending on the terminally ill, and not on research that might have prevented these kids being terminally ill in the first place. They must, therefore, be called to account and not The Chaser.

Rock epic of the month: "Dry The Rain" (The Beta Band) 1997

2009-04-30T23:38:00.004+10:00

Rock epics of the month is a series of posts where I'll look back on classic examples of what I think is the greatest excess of rock and roll - the rock epic.

I wasn't about to let another month go by without doing one of these, but I thought I'd open with some correspondence that I got from a regular reader a little while back. In it, he complained that that I've never made it clear what a 'rock epic' is.

Actually, I did, way back in the first one in this series, however I will re-state it:

There are no hard and fast rules for what a rock epic actually is, but the general agreement is that it needs to go for more than 6 minutes and has long bits where there are no vocals.

Another complaint is that when I lead into the song itself, I seem to end abruptly. I can only attribute this to the fact that I normally try to embed a YouTube video of the tune in question at the end of each post.

Naturally, the YouTube vid doesn't make it into the RSS feed or my emails, if you get my posts in your inbox. So you'll have to click on the post heading if you want to hear the tune.

With that out of the way, please allow me to roll on to this month's rock epic, which is "Dry The Rain" by The Beta Band. A Scottish band from St Andrews who formed in 1996, they were the pioneers and to my knowledge the sole proponents of a genre known as "folk-hop". Obviously, that's a blend of folk and hip-hop.

I never understood the Beta Band until after they had broken up, but this tune, man it pushes all the right buttons. Six minutes and five seconds of blissful mellowness.

This was on their Champion Versions EP, which was the first recording that they released. Later on, it would be bundled in with the The Patty Patty Sound and Los Amigos del Beta Bandidos EPs to form their The Three EPs compilation in 1998.

The thing that made this song is that scene from High Fidelity. Barry, played by Jack Black has been having a great time blasting "Walking on Sunshine" by Katrina and the Waves in a record store owned by Rob Gordon. Gordon (John Cusack) goes mental and takes it off. Not long after this, he says to Dick (Todd Louiso), "I will now sell 5 copies of The Three EPs by The Beta Band,"and rips into this tune at about the 3:40 mark.

But this ignores the build up. The intro and verses of this tune are reasonably mellow and jangly. After the second chorus the thing just builds and builds and builds until the certifiable money shot of the tune at 4:06 or thereabouts. The vocals come back in for the outro ("If there's something inside that you wanna say...") while a trumpet and a flugel horn wail away over the top.

Man I love that bit.

Anyway, here it is from YouTube. Enjoy the bejesus out of it folks, because it is quite frankly immensely powerful for what essentially a jangly little tune.

Cracking the sads with the media, episode 426: The GFC and superannuation

2009-04-06T15:02:00.006+10:00

Those who read this blog will know all about my thoughts on the media. Some of you will also be probably saying, “There’s been a GFC. Why have you been so silent?”

I admit to being busy with other stuff in meatspace, and I haven’t blogged in a little while, so shame on me. But finally, I’m going nuts again, and you can all shut up and read for all I care because there’s stuff that simply has to be said.

The media has been all over superannuation funds for quite some time. True, this is the biggest exposure Australians will ever have to volatile investment markets outside their own home. And yes, for those of you who like to read between the lines (you know who you are) there was a subtle dig buried in that sentence.

Part of the negative press aimed at super funds is simply unwarranted, and here’s the reason why: Chances are big that you need to shoulder what could potentially be the lion’s share of responsibility for that diminishing nest egg.

That’s right folks. You, or at least most of you who are reading, are almost fully culpable. Not your super fund. Possibly your financial adviser, if you have one, but this ain’t aimed at you if you have. That will be the subject of a different post, so if you have a financial adviser, you can consider yourself in the clear. At the moment.

For those of you who don’t use a financial adviser, I suspect that you are having a grand old time criticising your super fund for what is, for most of you, a year and a half of negative returns. Let’s face it; we love to have a go at stuff that shits us. As a nation, we love to stick it up the poms when they’re complaining, but to be frank; we’re a nation of whingers. Possibly even worse than the English.

We’re also a nation that hates to accept personal responsibility.

Put these two traits together, and you’re left with the kind of sensationalist reporting that sees the media (News in particular, but Fairfax is a close second) putting out tripe like this or this and Australians lapping it up like the sheep that that they are.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Australians are shithouse investors and it’s time that you were all told. As an investor, the chances are that if you’re reading this, you suck.

Permit me to now explain why you potentially suck.

Superannuation is not a type of investment. It’s a tax environment.

John Smith (not his real name) is 58 and recently retired. Naturally, he’s rather upset at his super fund’s return of -20% over the past year. And he’s only in the fund’s ‘balanced’ option.

He spots an ad for an online account in the newspaper paying 4.50% and thinks to himself, “At least this is positive.”

John empties his super fund and sticks the entire amount, lock, stock and barrel into this online account. John is, quite frankly, a goose.

On John’s current marginal rate of tax (30%), the rate of interest becomes less attractive at 3.15%, not including Medicare.

On top of this, John simply doesn’t want to know that he could have invested in a cash option in his super fund which is only taxed at a concessional rate of 15%. He’s that pissed off. In fact, the bank that offers this account also offers an identical account to self-managed super funds, thus yielding a superior return after tax of 3.825%.

And because John is not 60 yet, he’s going to be in for a fright at tax time when he finds himself hit with a tax bill in the tens of thousands of dollars on his lump sum super withdrawal.

Can it get any worse?

You bet. John also couldn’t care less that, had he switched to the pension phase of super, his assets aren’t even subject to tax on their earnings. Holding this online account within a self-managed super fund in the online phase would have yielded the full 4.50%.

Not only that, because John has withdrawn the amount from super he is going to have serious problems if he ever wants to start up a super pension, because he won’t be able to get the whole thing back into super if he tries. Amounts able to be contributed to super in a financial year are subject to contribution caps, which limits his flexibility in this regard.

John might be a retiree, but I have no sympathy for him.

Notice that I haven’t talked about John’s potential exit fees, John’s lost insurance coverage or the likelihood that he’ll miss a market upswing. Well I wasn’t going to, anyway.

You choose your investments (part 1)

Jo Phelps (not her real name) is 40 and a manager with an HR recruitment firm.

About a year and a half ago, she received her annual super statement from her fund. Jo was in the balanced option of her fund which had been performing quite respectably for the past four years posting regular returns of 15%.

Her balanced option is about 70% shares and property and 30% cash and fixed interest.

But when she saw the returns on the fund’s ‘high-growth’ option, her eyes lit up as it showed average returns of 25-30% regularly over the past 4 years. The high-growth option is predominantly shares with a smattering of property. There is about 3 or 4 % cash in the portfolio.

Jo rings up her fund and demands to have a switch form sent out. The staffer on the end of the line helpfully suggests to Jo that she speak to a financial adviser before going ahead with the switch.

Jo helpfully suggests to the staffer that she takes her offer of financial advice and sticks it where the sun doesn’t shine, because after all, all financial advisers only recommend stuff with kickbacks for them. “I don’t need a financial adviser,” she casually mentions, “please just post the form.”

The switch was processed and now Jo feels shell-shocked by negative returns of -35%.

Jo would like to know this:

Aren’t fund managers meant to see this sort of stuff coming and take action to stop it?
I mean, I know that there’s no such things as psychics, but couldn’t they have short-sold or something? and
Given that employers have to contribute into superannuation, how come the government can’t guarantee it like bank accounts? I mean really, all Australians should be protected from the downside, shouldn’t they? They guarantee bank accounts; superannuation funds aren’t really that different…

Jo had no idea that a high-growth option could go down as well as up. Mind you, if you’d told her a year and a half ago, I don’t think she would have given a stuff.

You choose your investments (part 2)

Brad Dawes (not his real name) works in a blue-collar job. He’s twenty-something.

When he started with his current employer, he couldn’t be bothered filling out the super forms. He did ask at the time, “So let me get this straight: I don’t have to fill this in. You’ll sort it out for me with this ‘default’ thingy?”

To which the answer was, “Yes”. Natch.

About the only form that Brad filled in correctly was the bank account details for where he wanted to be paid.

The super from Brad’s current job now goes, by default, into the balanced option of the default super fund offered by his employer. Brad doesn’t know how these funds are invested, and really couldn’t care.

Brad’s super is all over the place. All default funds provided by previous employers and all different.

All the negative press about super has Brad looking at the one or two statements (out of the six or so funds he’s ever joined) that he regularly gets. Brad now has the following criticisms of super:

I could invest my funds better than my super fund could;
What’s with all these fees coming out? This is a scam;
What do you mean, ‘Share prices have gone down?’ Isn’t super meant to be invested in property which never goes backwards? (This is Brad’s opinion, not mine)
I didn’t choose to have my super here. I shouldn’t suffer as a result.

About the only good thing you can say about Brad is that he’s finally shown some interest (even if only passing) in his super as a result of this.

But he’s dead wrong about not choosing to have his super where it is: He chose alright. He’s also not worthy of sympathy.

Retirees are not always worthy of extra sympathy

Let’s go back to John Smith again. Sorry John, but you’re particularly worthy of some stick.

About three years, John decided he’d retire when he turned 58.

John’s super was in the balanced option, which his super fund recommends for periods of 4-5 years or longer. That’s right: 4 to 5 years minimum.

John consciously chose to leave his super in the balanced option, because, “It’s doing pretty well there.” Unlike Jo, he looked at the more aggressive options and thought that they seemed pretty aggressive for him. That’s OK.

He looked at the less aggressive investment options and was put off by the lesser returns. And I’m sure you can see why.

But, looking at the recommended minimum timeframe on his balanced option, he thought, “Well it’s only a recommendation.”

Fast forward to a year and a half ago. John looked at his super fund again, and he thought the exact same thing.

That’s right. With a year and a half to go until retirement, John completely disregarded the recommended minimum investment periods and consciously chose an investment option suited to 4-5 years or longer.

John is now shitted off with his super fund when really, John should be shitted off with himself.

It’s probably worth mentioning that you should plan your exit strategy from the outset. John didn’t even do this with three years to go.

So what can investors learn from this?

You choose your investments. Read the sodding disclosure statements – they may look like slickly produced marketing paraphernalia (and to be honest, most are) – but they have to contain stuff you need to make an informed decision.
The default option isn’t some kind of magical tool that posts excellent returns while protecting investors from market downturns.
Read the bits about how your funds are invested. Also read the bits about recommended minimum timeframes. If you don’t understand how an investment option works, ask an adviser, ask the fund and if they can’t tell you, steer the fuck clear of it.
No one is psychic. Especially not fund managers.
Have you switched to cash? You may learn the hard way that markets can rise violently as well as fall. Chances are you’ll miss out and by gee, won’t it be costly?
No one rings a bell to let you know that the market has bottomed out. Think of this if you’re attempting to time your way back in.
Super investments are taxed at 15 %. Non-super investments are taxed at your marginal rate. This should be a no-brainer but you would be surprised at the number of people who couldn’t give a shit about this.
When you next whinge about your super fund’s non-performance, compare it to something that vaguely resembles it. Comparing a balanced option with anything other than a balanced non-super managed fund is only going to make you look like a moron. Even that is pushing it. Do not compare a balanced super option with an online bank account – geez do I have to spell it out?
Good, fee-for-service financial advisers are there to help out people who know bugger all about investing. There is a very good chance that you form a subset of the latter half of the previous sentence.
I’ve heard people whinge about their super fund’s performance who are in defined benefit schemes. I’m not kidding. If you don’t know what investment option you’re in, or even the fund’s design, find out. Number 3 above should help you.

That’s it. I’ve had a gutful. You can all get stuffed.

Disclosure: This blogger works for a service company that services super funds. He also used to work as a financial planner. And he most likely posted bigger declines in his superannuation balance than the lot of you (if expressed in percentage terms).

Standard but necessary disclaimer: This is not advice. Only a complete idiot would think that any of this constituted advice. It's not even vaguely reasonable to consider this to be advice. If you are in any doubt as to the content of this, see a good, independent financial adviser immediately. They do exist.

The return of sharpies

2009-04-01T02:28:00.008+11:00

Yes folks, I'm calling it now. Sharpies are back.

We had the short-lived bogan revival, but now it's time for the real deal. We've already seen the return of the rat's tail at schools around the country, but now the clippers are coming out and it's business all round, except the tail. Or even the mullet-light.

And with the heat on bikies at the moment, it's time for those with rough as guts tendencies to find new digs.

I'm celebrating this by hucking up and spitting forcefully into the eye of good taste. Slipping into a pair of skin-tight acid-washed ankle-freezers and bunging on my cardie, it's time for me to ching! ching! ching! cash in on this ferocious era.

Yes, it appears that the [I was threatened to remove this, so I did] had it all over their rivals in Forest Hill, so this one's for them:

[Censored due to similar bullying]

And we all remember those pricks from Funkytown:

And for those of you who fondly remember the days when the inner suburbs were a place of bloodshed and pain - and not the oasis for yuppy wankers that they are now, here's a fond little reminder of when things were BAD:

And I wasn't talking bad in the Michael Jackson sense, oh no.

But wait folks. There's more.

The infamous Footscray Sharps are back with an almost exclusively female brethren (sistren? I give up). Here's one for you, sisters:

Trucker's caps are popular these days.

Here's a little something that I prepared earlier:

Speaking of hats, the little known Toorak Sharps are back too. I plan to cash in on that as well, assuming that Mummy let's them play:

Finally, here's my favourite. Just one for my homies:

Remember, kids: Order yours two sizes two small otherwise you won't look authentic enough.

Edit 16/09/2009: I was bullied into removing certain items from this webpage. If you're reading this, you know who you are, and I'm not amused. There's nothing artistic about threats of litigation.

Dikkii re-enters the blogosphere?

2009-02-10T00:19:00.004+11:00

I've been a bit quiet of late. A bit of work. And, for some reason, I've started studying again.

Plus I'm doing some more stuff on the music front - I recently joined another band, and apparently I'm going to get more work with another one that I haven't played with for a while.

The new band is relying on me to write arrangements which is quite a lot more time consuming than I remembered. Some might ask, "Well why don't you just do that the jazz way where you just write a 'head' and then let the music form around that?"

Sorry, my mind doesn't work like that.

Songs to me are little planets all of their own and need to be fleshed out with their own little microcosms before you let the natives trample all over them. I find it really unfulfilling when you leave a tune as a kinda 'Argo City' thing and expect it to add its own surrounds. Particularly when you have dreamed up a great intro or ending. Or even a good middle 8.

I don't even write my own stuff: Imagine how time consuming this would be if I did? All I do is arrange other tunes - although I think that I have a pretty good ear for what works and what doesn't.

Summer is hectic down here, and I'm finding that I simply don't have even the time to read the blogs I love reading. So sorry all you folks who write great stuff - you know who you are. Eventually, I will come back to the blogosphere with a passion.

We've had heatwave after heatwave here as well as particularly nasty bushfires, and I work with someone who lost their house to the fires. It's goddamned nasty that the fire authorities believe that most of them appear to have been deliberately lit.

I have a bit of travel for work lined up in the next few weeks, and I know that this will keep me from blogging as well.

But do stay tuned - I will be back out there, eventually. I just have to try to find some kinda space.

Party on, y'all.

If I hear of another US industry being bailed out...

2009-01-09T00:41:00.004+11:00

This from AAP:

Two porn moguls, including Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt, are seeking a $US5 billion ($A7 billion) bailout from Washington, arguing that the limp US economy has thrown cold water on the adult entertainment industry.

Flynt and Girls Gone Wild video series creator Joe Francis asked the newly convened 111th Congress "to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America" in a bailout move similar to the one set aside for US auto manufacturers.

"Congress seems willing to help shore up our nation's most important businesses, (and) we feel we deserve the same consideration," Francis said in a statement.

"In difficult economic times, Americans turn to entertainment for relief. More and more, the kind of entertainment they turn to is adult entertainment."

The pair were quick to admit that "the 13-billion dollar industry is in no fear of collapse, but why take chances?"

Francis, recently imprisoned for nearly a year on a prostitution-related charge after pleading no contest in a plea bargain, cited industry figures that show adult DVD sales and rentals decreasing 22 per cent in 2008, as people turn to the internet for adult entertainment.

"With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind," Flynt said.

"It's time for Congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."

Flynt said people were "too depressed to be sexually active."

"This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such, but they cannot do without sex."

The original article might be found here.

Obligatory holiday post

2008-12-23T00:30:00.009+11:00

Hi all.

I'm off on Wednesday for a few days up the coast soaking up the balmy sea air and avoiding sunburn.

For those of you who read my blog from colder climes, there is something truly wrong about singing Christmas carols about snow, roasting chestnuts and one-horse open sleighs when the weather outside is verging on 35 to 40 degrees. Celsius.

(Or, if you like, spare a thought for Sean the Blogonaut. He lives in the middle of Australia where the temperature gets into the mid forties during the day, and then plummets to seriously cold levels overnight. Thank goodness we at least have the moderating influence of the sea where I live)

On Christmas Day, normally, I will be up around midday - because I like to sleep in. Then I will get up and stuff myself silly on turkey, ham, salad, maybe some chicken, prawns, Balmain bugs or lobster (depending on availability - looks like lobster is out this year), mussels and a variety of deserts including pudding.

Then we might get in a trip to the beach before opening presents, having a nap and then finally passing out in front of the TV in a bloated state.

It's all good.

So anyway, on to my annual holiday post.

Bloke of the year goes to Joe Biden, who, after spotting that Dick Cheney was planning on scuttling away without anyone noticing, put the boot in and shitcanned him, calling him, 'the most dangerous vice president we had probably in the American history'.

Dick Cheney, you might recall is still currently the Darth Sidious character to George W Bush's Dark Helmet. An odious guy who will be remembered for pulling the strings in the worst administration in US history. Oh yes. Harding, Nixon, Hoover - they had nothing on the ~~Cheney~~ Bush Administration in terms of general awfulness.

But enough of this. Here's some holiday reading for you:

Dikkii's Greatest Hits for 2008

=10. Go Placidly Amid The Noise and Wait

=10. Something I noticed recently

=10. Are Fiscal Deficits Really That Bad?

=10. Yes, I have a new favourite TV show

9. Keysar Trad on polygamy

8. The art empire strikes back

7. Brutal carnage!

6. Denial. Or why people actually drink.

5. One more and then I'll shut up. For a while...

4. Holy Frottage, Batman!

3. Blackmail And The Catholic Church

2. An open letter to artists everywhere

And, you all know how I love to big-note myself. I bet you can guess what is going number one here:

1. This blog is culturally significant. Official.

So party on and enjoy the summer. And, if you're reading this from the Northern Hemisphere, OUCH!

Edit 05/01/2008: Yes, I know that this didn't go up until January. I totally thought I'd posted it, when I in fact hadn't done so. I was in a hurry to pack and go off to the coast at the time. For the record, Christmas lunch was turkey and cranberry sauce sandwiches in a picnic area in the remotest corner of East Gippsland, Victoria.

Guest Rock Epic of the month

2008-12-04T13:58:00.003+11:00

Greetings,

Dikkii has graciously allowed me to present this month’s rock epic. I am not really sure of the format but will endeavour to produce some interesting reading. I have decided to give everyone an insight to a wonderful performer who I finally had the privilege of seeing over the past weekend so the basis will be a run down of the concert and some quiet thoughts from the Hulk. I hope you enjoy.

It is a rare occurrence these days when one has the opportunity to witness a truly great performer, artist, lyricist and ambassador to the music industry who has been around for more than a couple of years and whose music catalogue extends further the one great album. I truly believe these days that so many are quick to point out how good a performer is based on nothing more than maybe one or two top forty hits. Sure they may be a good performer but will they one day be truly great? Do they write their own lyrics? Do they play an instrument? Do they have a degree in music of some sort? Have they played with some of the other truly great performers of the world? And furthermore has their music stood the test of time where they are respected worldwide not only for their performances but for the substance that their art has delivered and continued to deliver over many years?
I had the privilege of attending a show with one such artist on Saturday night and if I were to use the word great to describe it that would be a gross understatement. I am talking about none other than Billy Joel. A man whose humble beginnings playing in a piano bar turned into international superstardom over a 30 year plus career. From the very beginning before even entering the concert you can tell how this man has survived for so long in arguably one of the toughest professions in the world, especially at the present. The excessively wide age gap between the crowd said it all. It was clear to see how many generations had been positively affected by this man's art.
Song one answered many questions such as: Is he going to be able to play his songs as good as he used to? Is he still just as adept on the piano? etc. To put it in perspective, the man is 60 plus years old and starts the show with "Angry Young Man". For those who don't know this song, it starts off with one of the fastest piano pieces imaginable and for a person of that age endeavouring in such a task and completing it perfectly quashed the questions you may have had in relation to this with the utmost authority. Proceeding on, many performers I have noticed do little or the bare minimum to incorporate the crowd and personalise it. Come out, play songs, say thanks, concert over. The same cannot be said for Billy. Immediately after this first song he addressed the audience and when I say that, he actually had a chat like we were sitting on the couch at home having a beer and a ciggy. This made it feel like you were the only person in the room. A refreshing change I must say. But what I think it says more is that it shows the difference and maturity compared to someone a little less "seasoned" in the art form.
From songs such as Big Shot, Allentown, a haunting and a slightly bluesier rendition of New York State of Mind to the later classics such as We didn't start the fire, he did not miss a beat (Pardon the cliché). Other notable performances were, You May Be Right, Only the Good Die Young (which was a song written in reference to him trying to top himself apparently) Its still rock and Roll to Me etc. The most wonderful thing he did though was too play some of the more obscure songs that are never heard on the radio but are equally as good, at least for all the die hard fans. I refer to this as he played a song off the Turstiles album called Vienna. A song that he wrote referring to the 2nd World War where he is basically saying "Don't worry, Vienna will always wait for you" being the city that remained independent of the war itself, (or mostly). This was a treat which I did not even imagine witnessing. Having said that, it was a clear illustration of what a great performer or wannabe great performer should try to accomplish.
The rest of the show had all the bells and whistles without "over production" and ridiculous pyrotechnics which do nothing but take the emphasis away from what you are actually there for. Also worth a mention, he decided to get one of his roadies up on stage and while he jumped off the piano and grabbed a guitar, his roadie sang Highway to Hell by AC/DC. Another indication of a performer who understands his audience. Skilled art? I will let you decide.
Through the many great albums and an endless list of “actual” hits that most would know coming off albums such as Streetlife Serenader, Turnstiles, Piano Man, Glass Houses, 52nd Street and so on, the concert could have gone on all night without a break from the crowd singing every word, but it did not need too. It was all answered in the climatic ending when 15,000 or so people, all on their feet, arm over each other shoulder, Billy on the piano and a Harmonica around his neck singing the one and only...... Piano Man.
It was a a remarkable experience and one I will remember affectionately for a long, long time and even though I am a tragic fan, I would still, as unbiasly as possible, recommend giving yourself the honour of being in his audience if you get the chance. Most of today’s acts are incomparable, but I do hope some of the musical talents in the world take a leaf out of Billy Joel's book so future generations can experience what we all have.
This will conclude my guest role on Rock Epic of the Month. I do thank Dikkii for the opportunity and hope you enjoyed it. I will look forward to any comments you may have.

The Hulk.

The Series Reboot

2008-12-04T00:53:00.006+11:00

A little comedy gem that I found this year was Review with Myles Barlow. Hilarious. Basically, it's a bit of a waltz through the sheer pretence that is arts review programs.

ABC and SBS have a few of these, but after Review has been on air, I'd be surprised if the ABC shows one again for a little while.

The twist is that Barlow (played by Phil Lloyd) reviews anything.

Here's Barlow reviewing bareknuckle boxing:

And here's Barlow reviewing open heart surgery:

Barlow reviews lying:

At The Movies co-host David Stratton reviews Barlow:

Which leads to this exchange where Stratton kicks Barlow's arse:

I start with Myles Barlow, because I'm going to do a review of my own. Basically, the series reboot is totally in at the moment.

I've just seen Quantum of Solace, the second in the rebooted series of James Bond flicks and boy, do I feel confused.

The series reboot thingy is more than just a remake. It goes beyond just remaking a movie franchise to completely redesigning it from the ground up.

When Casino Royale came out in 2006, it basically threw away the previous movies and started from the beginning again. It was as if Blofeld, Tracy Bond, Q, Pussy Galore and Holly Goodhead didn't exist. Which might have been a good thing.

Bond was probably getting stale. I once remarked that tradition dictated that each Bond movie had to be more over the top and unbelievable than the previous one. This tradition had to come crashing down in a screaming heap eventually, which it did with Pierce Brosnan's last outing as 007 in Die Another Day. I enjoyed Die Another Day. At least I did up until the clearly fake computer generated wave off the coast of Iceland that Bond surfs down the face of. After this I felt a bit queasy for the rest of the movie and didn't enjoy it so much.

The spy thriller movie had a serious workover with the superb Jason Bourne trilogy. Obviously, this made the producers of the Bond movies sit up and take notice, because they completely re-engineered Bond for Casino Royale.

Not long before this, though, Christopher Nolan had given Batman the reboot treatment with the excellent Batman Begins, followed by The Dark Knight which was also excellent. Soon enough, others had to follow - Superman Returns did a partial reboot in pretending that the (admittedly piss-poor) Superman III and IV movies were never made, and The Incredible Hulk tried to make up for the Hulk movie of 2003.

So on to Quantum Of Solace. Is it just me, or was I watching two movies at once?

We had an old Bond movie - tuxedos, hotels, incidental music with new Bond - improved car chases, fight scenes, rooftop chases.

We had two plotlines - a simple one, and an utterly convoluted mess.

We had the same actor playing M (Judi Dench) as the old M. And essentially the same character. I still think that this might be a smidge anachronistic.

We had hi-tech resources at MI6, but no hi-tech toys for Bond himself.

And we had a bad guy with a stare that seemed almost like Auric Goldfinger was back.

Don't get me wrong - Daniel Craig is great as the new "gritty" Bond. And I like the idea of a reboot - let's face it, the old movies didn't have a great deal of respect for fans with their cavalier attitude to continuity. But are they "Bond movies"?

Stratton and Margeret Pomeranz gave this three stars. I concur.

Save the Net

2008-11-28T00:18:00.009+11:00

The Get Up! group has launched their campaign against mandatory internet censorship. It's worth getting behind.

For those who don't know, the federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy is proposing internet censorship at ISP level. In my opinion, the moves being planned are an INTERNATIONAL DISGRACE!!!

From Wikipedia:

In October 2008, Senator Conroy announced that filtering of illegal material would be mandatory for all Australians, and there would be no opt-out provision.

Wikipedia refers to this article to cite this.

From Get Up!'s website:

The Federal Government is planning to force all Australian servers to filter internet traffic and block any material the Government deems ‘inappropriate’. Under the plan, the Government can add any ‘unwanted’ site to a secret blacklist.

Testing has already begun on systems that will slow our internet by up to 87%, make it more expensive, miss the vast majority of inappropriate content and accidentally block up to 1 in 12 legitimate sites. Our children deserve better protection - and that won't be achieved by wasting millions on this deeply flawed system.

(Their emphasis)

Regular reader Paul has already pointed out on his blog that anything that gets introduced can be gotten around. And it looks relatively simple too - any 12 year old kid can do it.

The thing is, why should the rest of us carry the can for parents who are too irresponsible to supervise their kids on the internet? Or install their own net nanny programs?

I actually think that we probably need to consider something far more serious than just joining an internet petition. I for one will be sending a snail mail letter to my local MHR, Jenny Macklin, who also happens to be the federal Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

But I'd like to go one step further.

Conroy's faction within the ALP is the Transport Workers Union. This is their website. And this is their email address: twu@twu.com.au .

Let's go berzerk and bombard them with complaints. After all, Conroy responds to a higher power, and it's them. He will do their bidding.

(Thanks to Sean the Blogonaut)

Are Fiscal Deficits Really That Bad?

2008-11-23T00:56:00.006+11:00

We've been hearing a lot in the media about this subject at the moment. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Opposition Leader are forthright that budgets should not slip into deficit.

Yet we heard the other day from the governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, that we probably shouldn't be so concerned should it actually happen, provided that increased government expenditure was being made in the right places. Presumably, his definition of "public investment" is a reference to increased expenditure in the regions covered under the heading, "infrastructure".

After this seal of approval from Stevens, it wasn't then, a real surprise that the Treasurer and the Opposition Leader voiced their disapproval of such moves. Deficits are seen by the electorate as a sign of fiscal irresponsibility and are considered political dynamite for an incumbent government, even if they can be defended on prudent economic grounds.

So, for the layman, why might a fiscal deficit be defensible and when might a government use it?

The answer lies in the government itself. Governments are traditionally the biggest business in a national economy. In most places, anyway - I know about countries like Finland where the domination of companies like Nokia almost relegates government involvement to "minor player" status.

Governments make money through taxation and then spend it through government expenditure. How much and where the government spends then becomes rather powerful as it can turn entire economies.

The power that government expenditure has was really only realised towards the end of the 1930s during the Great Depression, when an economist named John Maynard Keynes worked out that if people and businesses weren't spending, then governments had to pick up the slack.

Governments then went berzerk, borrowing and spending. In fact, the Australian Federal Treasury did not post a single fiscal surplus between the thirties and the late eighties. I was surprised that it took this long, given that Keynesianism fell almost entirely out of favour in the late seventies as stagflation thanks to rising oil prices took hold, and increasing importance was places on interest rates to sort economies out. This, incidentally was single-handedly due to the work of another economist in the sixties, Milton Friedman, who predicted the events of the seventies, and was lauded as an economic prophet of sorts, as a result.

The discarding of Keynesianism and the adoption of Monetarism was merciless. But the strange thing was that as interest rates started to play a greater role in regulating economic activity, a kind of reverse-Keynesianism crept in in a number of places, in particular, the US and the UK where Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher launched a dual assault on the role of government spending. Consequently, in these places, the end result of cutting government services and slashing taxes was that more money was free to pump up these economies. This actually led, in parts, to the record inflation of the eighties, followed by the crash of 1987. And the resulting recession, which was a fierce one. Strangely though, Reagan and Thatcher are lauded by conservative politicos as visionary.

What a bunch of twats.

Reagan and Thatcher were reducing government participation in the economy and increasing reliance on interest rates which pumped more money into economies that eventually overheated as a result. The recession of the early nineties cost Thatcher and her successor John Major their jobs, as well as eventually ensuring defeat for George HW Bush.

Keynesian economics has a time and place. Using fiscal power to fuel the fires of booming economies is not it. Reducing the role of government fuels economies and is thus, despite what conservative economic pundits will tell you, Keynesian.

Over twenty years since the crash of 1987, it appears that the role played by government expenditure is back as a viable tool for getting economies moving again. In Australia, we're now in a position where we're seeing major economies like the US and the UK, possibly even Europe, moving into recession once more, and having to resort to spending their way out of the mess.

Australia isn't yet obviously moving into recession, hence the obstinacy on the part of the government and opposition, however, Stevens has a point, which he spoke about in another part of the same speech: If our economy slips downhill as a result of us talking our way into another recession - Stevens isn't the first to notice this - can't fiscal deficits be used by Australia as a sort of pre-emptive strike?

I don't see why not.

Rock epic of the month: "Gravity Grave" (The Verve) 1992

2008-11-18T00:14:00.005+11:00

Rock epics of the month is a series of posts where I'll look back on classic examples of what I think is the greatest excess of rock and roll - the rock epic.

Shoegazing. What a genre. And it appears to be back, under a term that I have come to deeply despise, "Nu-gaze".

Shoegazing got its name from a variety of bands from London and the Thames Valley who were known for plugging in, switching on, turning the amps up to eleven and playing their guitars through three or four hundred different effects pedals. The act of "shoegazing" itself seems to reference the inordinate amount of time that guitarists in these bands spent looking at the floor, no doubt more interested in their setups than interacting with audiences.

The acts that people seem to remember from this period were the louder bands, My Bloody Valentine, Ride and Swervedriver, however there were three distinct versions of shoegazing for which these bands really only formed the first, louder version.

(Never mind that Swervedriver really were more rock than shoegazing, anyway)

Version two was a poppier, upbeat sound characterised by early Blur, The Charlatans and the Boo Radleys. Blur would probably go on to reap the greatest success of these acts, however, it is interesting to note that really, only the Charlatans managed to last the distance.

And then there was version three. A druggy, slowed down sound that was best characterised by acts such as Slowdive, Chapterhouse and finally, in the last days of the movement, The Verve.

Simply "Verve" initially, The Verve would be forced to add the "The" to the start of their name when poncy wanker jazz label, Verve Records threatened them with legal action over the use of their name.

The Verve were still their original line-up here - vocalist Richard Ashcroft, guitarist Nick McCabe, bassplayer Simon Jones and drummer Pete Salisbury. "Gravity Grave" itself originally surfaced on their EP of the same name which was issued in October 1992. This blogger notices that Gravity Grave seems to have now become the title of a single from the Verve EP, even though that EP was issued in December of that year and contains horrible edits of both "Gravity Grave" and "She's a Superstar".

By the time that The Verve got around to issuing their initial recordings, shoegazing was on death row. The first of the new wave of Britpop was coming through, heralded by the likes of Pulp, Suede and Blur, who had long hated being lumped in with the shoegazing crowd and were well on their way to recording a single-finger salute to the scene in their second album, Modern Life is Rubbish.

Meanwhile, Ride were languishing, My Bloody Valentine had broken up, Swervedriver were looking to replace their rhythm section, and the rest of the shoegazing scene seemed to be in total disarray.

Enter The Verve, who really were quite unlike anything else that the scene had thrown up, up until this point. For starters, they were from Wigan. The Verve entered to a rapturous response from critics and other bands alike, which, in the British music scene, is normally considered a kiss of death. And it kinda was, eventually.

But anyway, on to "Gravity Grave". The Gravity Grave EP (their third release after two well-received singles) contained the full length version of this tune, which at 8:21 is a gobsmackingly beautiful piece of spaced-out meandering. Kicking off with an echoey bass groove courtesy of Jones, "Gravity Grave" quickly establishes where its going as McCabe lets rip on the guitar with some squalls of feedback and some quite loud harmonics all the way through.

Ashcroft's vocals are soft and understated all the way through, although he never ever really went berzerk except in a few places. And there's this vague sound like a harmonica all the way through, which is so far back in the mix, I'm not even sure if it actually even is that.

And to get an idea of the difference between The Verve and some of their peers, compare Salisbury's restrained sticks work to that of Loz Colbert (ex-Ride, now with The Jesus and Mary Chain) and Adi Vines and Jez Hindmarsh (both of various incarnations of Swervedriver) whose approaches seemed to be to beat the living snot out of their drumkits. Salisbury's light patter on the toms is quite a bit different.

The Verve went on to release one album in this sound (A Storm in Heaven) before reluctantly embracing the Britpop wave that had engulfed the UK by that point with their second and third albums, A Northern Soul and Urban Hymns, recorded with the addition of Simon Tong on additional guitar and keyboards.

They then broke up in 1999 before reforming in 2007, without Tong who had gone off to do a stack of work elsewhere, mainly with various projects of Damon Albarn's.

But here's some of "Gravity Grave". It's only four minutes of it, but it's really only had the last part slashed off it. Please sit back and enjoy.

Dikkii's Adventures in Linuxland

2008-11-11T13:46:00.016+11:00

Some of you who read this blog occasionally may recall that earlier this year, I decided to wade out into the world of Linux. Specifically, I installed Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy Gibbon) onto my desktop to dual-boot with Windows Vista.

Since then, I:

updated to Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) with a minimum of fuss;
bought an Eee PC running Xandros;
installed EeeXubuntu (7.10) on to the Eee PC;
upgraded it to version 8.04; and
upgraded it to version 8.10.

I’ve since replaced EeeXubuntu with Ubuntu-Eee 8.04 and installed Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex) on my desktop.

I’ll discuss these in future posts.

This is spooky stuff for someone who was, up until that first post, a Linux virgin.

Not only that, but it has also hammered home to me several revealing things about Linux that I was previously unaware of.

The first thing I found out is that Linuxers are a welcoming bunch when it comes to new users.

The second thing is that Linuxers can be a dismissive bunch when it comes to new users. Check out this exchange.

It is this mixture of contempt and friendliness that has me so intrigued about the attraction of this OS to Linux users. And, after some months of use, I really do think that it is more of a threat to the dominance of Windows now than it ever has been: Observe the new bunch of mini-laptops (I refuse to use the term "Netbooks") that are now shipping with a Linux distro as standard.

But to this observer, Linux has a way to go before it gets things right. Here are some criticisms:

A. The Command Line

Linuxers appear to worship this thing.

Which is odd, because the rest of us really fucking hate it. Windows might have a DOS prompt available to be used, but does anyone really know of any “Mums and Dads” using Windows who have actually attempted a DOS command in the last fifteen years?

Does the Mac OS even have a command line?

I hear defendants of this appalling anachronism all the time banging on about how you can do all sorts of awesome shit with it, but they only ever quote examples that have no relevance at all to Mum and Dad users.

Mum and Dad users. I’m going to use that line a lot today.

Mum and Dad users are truly the meat and potatoes that Linux has to conquer before Linux has even a small chance of taking a bite out of the Windows, or even the Mac markets. At least as far as end users are concerned. And while Linux users are forced to use this groaning relic of days gone by for even simple matters, Linux will simply not get any traction in the real world.

The core problem is that Linux has, since its inception, been used by computer nerds everywhere who will tinker away on anything, getting probably more joy out of the tinkering itself, than the actual results.

And yeah, there might be fantastic stuff that the command line does that Windows can’t do, but consider this: Mums and Dads aren’t doing that kind of “awesome shit”.

In fact, it almost looks to me as though there’s a deep-seated sense of denial that the command line is a problem. The command line might as well shine one's arse to a crystal finish while humming the 1812 Overture - your average Windows user would rather run a mile in pouring rain to avoid use of this thing.

Lesson 1: Drop the denial and get over it. For Mums and Dads to even be remotely interested in using Linux, the command line simply has to go the way of the DOS prompt. Anything else is just not good enough.

B. Half-baked update releases

I'm using Ubuntu on my desktop. Ubuntu is probably the best supported Linux distro on the market at the moment, which I'm rather happy with. But I expect that had I installed Fedora, Mandriva, OpenSUSE or any of the other entry-level distros, theirs wouldn't be all that much less.

Ubuntu is easy to use, is excellently documented and easy to install.

But it does have one major problem, which can be covered in one word: Punctuality.

Yes folks, Ubuntu is updated once every six months. Consequently, by hook or by crook, they will get new versions out by the end of April and October every year, even if they have to cut corners to do it.

I had so many problems with drivers not being ready and other niggling issues when I went to upgrade from Ubuntu 8.04 to 8.10 that I trashed the entire Ubuntu partition and re-installed from scratch. I'm glad I did.

Actually, I had less trouble upgrading it on my Eee PC, which was running an unofficial, and cut-down variant of Ubuntu.

But here's the thing: A new OS should be mostly OK out of the box. I still have to run various scripts and configuration changes just to get the screen fonts looking acceptable.

And then there's Open Office - it looks outright wrong. Launchpad tells me that it's a bug that is being sorted and will be eventually backported. It's bad enough that the Ubuntu developers and testers can't see fit to stick Open Office 3.0 in as standard - they're sticking with 2.4.

We're going to have to wait until Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty Jackalope) to get this version of Open Office.

On the other hand, if this was GNOME, they'd be releasing it as an update - so why should Open Office be different? After all, you can bet your bottom dollar that an office suite is the NUMBER ONE reason why your Mums and Dads have a desktop PC in the first place.

Lesson 2: Mums and Dads do not want to have to run scripts and config changes to fix an officially released version of their operating system. It should be good out of the box. If it isn't, there is nothing wrong with delaying the release of the next version. It's not like anyone's paying for it. Except maybe Canonical, Novell, etc.

C. Linux forums

Linux forums are littered with users of various levels of experience. And newbies.

Newbies ask innocent questions on these forums and rightfully expect at least some kind of constructive answer. What newbies don't expect is "This has been answered before. Don't you know how to use the 'search' function?"

Half the time, newbies don't even know what the keywords are that they're meant to be searching on. And when they do, half the answers to their problems are riddled with jargon from what can sometimes appear to be a smug and cliquey bunch of regular forum users.

Mums and Dads in particular want to know how to do something, or to fix something. The level of assumed knowledge of users in these forums seems to be well past newbie level, so answers only ever seem to half-answer questions and then come out with such pearls of wisdom as, "Compile the rest of the kernel as you choose and install it in your boot manager's menu."

WTF? I know what this means, but I've been stuffing around with Linux for six months now. What the hell does your average Mum or Dad make out of this?

Lesson 3: I had to look up what "backported" means. Mums and Dads aren't quite as patient: If jargon isn't obvious, change the fucking word. Or better yet, actually explain what it is you want them to do. Do not assume they know your jargon: Chances are they don't.

D. Open Office

Open Office is the single application that most Mums and Dads want working when they first install Linux. It should be in tip-top shape upon installation of your new Linux distro.

Lesson 4: Mums and Dads do not want to plough through countless internet searches and fruitless forum reading to find out why Open Office looks amateurish and fuzzy. Known bugs should be either fixed, or listed somewhere easy to find.

Lesson 4A: Do not release a version of a Linux distro without ensuring that Open Office runs properly first. Or that the most recent release has been included. Not sure that I need to resort to "Mums and Dads" here - this is quite frankly astounding.

Anyway, believe it or not, I've found the Linux experience rewarding, and I've learnt a lot.

Then again, I have more patience than some.

To My American Readers

2008-11-05T01:29:00.003+11:00

Good luck with the upcoming elections. You, unlike us Aussies, have a democratic right not to vote.

My only explicit wish is that you don't choose to exercise this right.

(I have another wish, but I'm sure that you already know what that one is. It relates to the outcome, but far be it for me to attempt to influence your voting.)

Woo-lovers fight dirty

2008-11-03T13:34:00.008+11:00

Robert Lancaster, founder of the sites Stop Kaz and Stop Sylvia Browne recently went to hospital. During this time, a cybersquatter bought the domain name for Stop Sylvia Browne and started using it for evil.

This is just not right. Horrid woo-merchants like Sylvia Browne and her ilk are a DISGRACE!!!

So, in the name of all that's good in the world, we're fighting back. Here's what you can do to fight the good fight:

Change all your links to Sylvia Browne to http://stopsylvia.com .

And just because I can, please allow me to do the following:

Sylvia Browne
Sylvia Browne
Sylvia Browne
Sylvia Browne
Sylvia Browne
Sylvia Browne
Sylvia Browne
Sylvia Browne
Sylvia Browne

and

Sylvia Browne

Thank you for your indulgence.

The Elephant In The Centre Of The Room

2008-11-02T00:42:00.005+11:00

There's another reason why those of us outside the US want Barack Obama to win the US presidential election on Tuesday. Imagine the carnage that will eventuate on world markets if the McCain-Palin ticket gets up?

It's almost too frightful to contemplate.

Discuss.

I haven't blogged much recently

2008-10-31T00:36:00.008+11:00

I have been meaning to blog more recently, but I just don't seem to find all that much time to do it.

Here are a couple of things that I've been meaning to blog about:

1. The forthcoming atheist bus advertisements in London. Due January 2009.

2. The Rudd Government's bank guarantees, and how non-bank lenders and investors are being done over by this. Naturally, I plan to take a balanced and fair view. Yeah right.

3. Hedge funds getting burnt by Porsche's takeover of Volkswagen. Who ever suggested that I'm immune to feelings of schadenfreude was out of their freaking minds.

4. Horse racing and the fact that I hate the Spring Racing Carnival and all the hype that goes along with it only slightly less than how much I hate Seven's Summer of Tennis.

5. My recent installation of Ubuntu-Eee on my Eee PC. It went very well, thank you.

6. My growing dislike of social networking sites. And my increasing reliance on a few of them.

7. The realisation that if something isn't done soon about Melbourne's train system, it'll end up like Sydney's.

8. The Federal Government's plan for an internet makeover, Chinese style. Fight this one with a passion kids.

9. Ubuntu 8.10. Where's the hype?

Anyway, I am getting round to it. Just haven't had time is all. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

On the subject of Glarbism

2008-10-23T19:58:00.009+11:00

I was recently reminded of glarbs on Bronze Dog's blog. I find the Glarbism phenomenon fascinating.

Have you ever met a Glarbist? I haven't, but nonetheless, I still find Glarbism fascinating.

According to Glarbists, glarbs are flarschnikit. I kid you not.

Everything that we know about glarbs is contained in the holy book of the Glarbists. That particular text, titled The Holy Book Of The Glarbists, is apparently a long and largely boring read.

That is, unless you like the parts which just bang on about how great glarbs are. They make up about three quarters of The HBOTG. Personally, I would consider this to be dreadfully boring and self-serving. Mind you, I have to be honest here and say that I don't know of anyone who has ever read it.

So glarbs are flarschnikit. These are possibly the most amazing ultra-beings ever. Put it this way: being flarschnikit means that they would kick the arse of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god to His Hell and back again.

Can you imagine how cool it would be to be flarschnikit? Certainly makes "omnipotence" and "omniscience" look weak.

Not only that: Deities are their minions!!!

How do the Glarbists know this? The HBOTG says so.

I must admit that just like BD, I'm somewhat doubtful about this one. I'm not even sure that I fully understand flarschnikity terribly well, but I know better not to ask a Glarbist: They won't tell you, because, as I pointed out before, glarbs are flarschnikit.

Glarbist apologists see this as the ultimate proof of glarbs. After all, if glarbs weren't flarschnikit, then glarbists wouldn't clam up on the subject, would they?

If you suggest otherwise to a Glarbist, this is where they get all judgemental about how "you'll end up bluggling in Flornath". Or accuse you of being "gobatastic".

I'm not convinced. Certainly, in glarbism, there are some weird stuff. Take the story about the prophet Humbert The Kidiphiddler. Certainly, I would have thought that he would have ended up in glorious Butnuggarts for this, but instead, Glarbist dogma has him beelittling about in deepest Num-b'Atooz.

Where then does Flornath fit in? How does one "bluggle"?

Ah, but the Glarbist has the answer for you on this: It turns out that glarbs are flarschnikit.

Not only that, but I was scratching my head at this bit in the Book of Chunder where the relatively realistic story of Peter And The Testchoob-b'Aybiz is related. Turns out that it's merely a metaphor and isn't meant to be taken seriously.

But what really gets me is later on in the Book of Chunder during the Coming Of The Whore Of Howwidstern where our metaphorical Peter proclaims the gobatastic virtues of the Whore, and is immediately spifflockated by the glarbs.

Turns out he'd forgotten that glarbs are flarschnikit. This, incidentally, is meant to be taken literally, hence my confusion.

If you wonder how Glarbists know that The HBOTG is accurate, they've got an answer to that, too: As it happens, glarbs are flarschnikit. End of discussion.

BD really went to town on this, and I have to thank him once again for bringing it to my attention. It really was interesting to go back and re-read his take on this.

Glarbism is not for theological beginners.

Ernie/Piranha Club, 19 October 2008

2008-10-20T00:07:00.009+11:00

Once again, Piranha Club - still called "Ernie" down my way - comes through with the goods.

Enjoy.

Rock epic of the month: "Glósóli" (Sigur Rós) 2005

2008-10-14T00:37:00.006+11:00

Rock epics of the month is a series of posts where I'll look back on classic examples of what I think is the greatest excess of rock and roll - the rock epic.

This month, I'm really stretching the bounds of what can be considered "rock".

Sigur Rós burst out of Iceland in the mid-nineties, and some said at the time that they probably would have been long forgotten if it wasn't for a fascination with Icelandic culture that was brought to the world's attention via the work of former Sugarcubes frontwoman Björk Guðmundsdóttir, an Icelandic singer who probably would be better described as a performance artist. Or even a complete nutcase.

But where Guðmundsdóttir mined a genre all her own, Sigur Rós were probably better described as riding the wave of a peculiar genre known as post-rock.

Post-rock really was lazy journalist-speak for "How the frig do we categorise this?" It included acts like Tortoise, Mogwai and Don Caballero, and has since been used in arrears to describe some of the work by bands such as Public Image Ltd and the later work of Talk Talk.

Things that post-rock bands seem to have in common is a complete disregard for structure, as well as using their instruments in different ways to provide textures that would otherwise not make an appearance in rock music.

Sigur Rós started in Reykjavic and were named after Sigurrós, the sister of singer and guitarist Jón Þór "Jónsi" Birgisson. Completing the band were Georg "Goggi" Hólm on bass and Ágúst Ævar Gunnarsson on drums.

(Fair dinkum, there's a reason why keyboards in the anglosphere don't have accented letters, not to mention Þ (thorn), ð (eth) and Æ (ash). It's because these letters were replaced in old English by different combinations of letters that do the same thing. I am getting so tired of typing these, but I'll struggle on.)

Anyway, not long after their first album, Von, Birgisson, Hólm and Gunnarsson were joined by Kjartan "Kjarri" Sveinsson on keyboards. They soon released Ágætis Byrjun, an album that introduced the world to Birgisson's penchant for playing his guitar with a cello bow.

Gunnarsson left the band soon after to be replaced by Orri Páll Dýrason who joined the band to lend his skills to the outrageously, pretentiously titled ( ). ( ) featured eight untitled tracks guaranteed to send you barmy, and introduced Birgisson's new fascination with singing gibberish which he called, "Hopelandic".

Their previous groundwork could be described as parts that were either truly "cutting edge" or straightforward wank. In 2005, Birgisson, Hólm, Gunnarsson and Sveinsson lay down tracks in the studio for the album where their experiments with sonic textures finally coalesced into something that, while still pretentious, hit the mark musically. That album was called Takk... and was, just like its predecessors, extraordinarily well received by the critics.

Unlike Takk...'s predecessors, though, you got the distinct impression that this time, the effusive praise from the critics was a bit more sincere, rather than, "Oh shit, I better give this one top marks, because I don't know what the hell is going on and I'll look like a philistine if I don't."

The towering "Glósóli" (6:15) was the apotheosis of this album. Featuring a nice rhythmic groove, courtesy of Hólm and Dýrason, this just moseys on down with rather lovely keyboard cascades from Sveinsson.

Over the top, but nicely buried in the mix, is Birgisson's completely weird-arse falsetto, which almost certainly relegates Guðmundsdóttir's to the top of the "normal" heap.

And it builds. Oh my sweet FSM, how it builds.

By the time that this tune finally unleashes a full-blown scary monster, Birgisson has put his voice away and is blasting out klaxons on his guitar, turning all atmospheric on us at just about the right time.

Oh, and the video is absolutely perfect too.

Be blown away by this. It is frightfully good stuff.

Go Placidly Amid The Noise and Wait

2008-10-13T01:58:00.005+11:00

Given the carnage on the markets over the last week or so, it was only a matter of time before the we got some irresponsible media reports.

So far, I give a qualified single thumb up to the media for restraining themselves from the kind of sensationalist and hysterical spectacle we saw during the tech wreck. At no stage have we seen the media, en masse anyway, hinting that everyone should sell up before (paper) losses get too great. At least, in Australia, anyway.

The reasons for this are twofold:

1. The tech wreck ended up as, by and large, a bit of a non-event in this country. We're not a hi-tech country. We weren't subject to mass IPOs of dubious quality floating on the market in the same way that countries like the USA were. Needless to say, those in the media who got a little crazy after the events of 2001 looked like geese, and probably felt a little sheepish afterwards as well.

Enough with the animal insults.

2. The Australian economy is in great shape. Our banks are totally not in need of "guaranteeing" in the same way as what is going on in Europe and North America at the moment. Never mind that, though. Our Federal Government guaranteed them today.

OK. Up until quite recently, we did have a bit of an inflation problem. On top of that, we did have a real estate bubble that, thankfully, appears to have sprung a slow leak thanks to our (still relatively) high interest rates. But in the overall scheme of things, we're doing OK.

We don't have a property price crisis like over in the States, though. Yet.

It did make me wonder though, during the week, when I turned on the news to see that some commentators are now starting to consider the distinct possibility that a housing price slump could hit Australia. I would personally welcome this, however, it could cause some grave havoc.

Consider this: In the 1980's, the median house price was set at around about three times gross household income, based on figures I saw during the week. Now, it appears to be about seven and a half times. In real terms, this is simply too much for most householders to afford, and should ring alarm bells anywhere, in the same way that the USA's foreign debt at around 350% of US GDP is at the moment.

By the end of the week, the massive spin doctoring machine that is the Real Estate guilds in each state had reversed this talk, and were even talking up their industry, with headlines like "Housing Prices Bottoming Out", amongst others.

You have to hand it to the RE guilds. The media is totally in their thrall. Media Watch, a couple of weeks ago focused on the attention that Sydney newspapers paid the sheer spin and dishonest figures that the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales like to put out to support their arguments. Figures that, when compared to those churned out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, seem totally incredulous. The Daily Telegraph even held up the REINSW as being the "peak body" when it came to these figures.

I'm at the point that when I see a property story on the news, I simply don't believe a word of it if there is even only a one-word quote from anyone associated with these bodies. The fact is, the RE guilds represent real estate agents. They do not present fair figures honestly, and how the media don't see through the rubbish that they put out every week is one of life's little mysteries that we'll never see solved.

But on the whole, the media has been relatively controlled on the stampede for the exits that we're seeing in equity markets at the moment.

I did, this week, see something that made me wince.

Marcus Padley, a stockbroker, and regular columnist for The Age usually writes some insightful articles on finance.

Padley, for those who don't know, possesses a sharp mind and one of the silliest egos in finance this side of the late Rene Rivkin. He writes a tip sheet, which is relatively highly regarded, called "Marcus Today". Obviously, Padley was oblivious to the groans that went on around his office when he decided on that one.

Padley wrote an article in The Age which in my honest opinion, is the stupidest and most irresponsible op-ed piece during a financial crisis that I have ever seen. It was titled, "Take your money and run - it's worthless advice".

Cop a geek at this. Padley writes the following choice quotes:

"If I was still holding stocks, yes I'd still sell them... But I come at it not with an opinion about the direction about the sharemarket, but from a human perspective."

Padley has essentially held out a red rag to the bears and said, "Go on. Sell up. You know that you want to."

"But [don't hold on to your stocks] if you can't afford any more losses and are in pain. The definition of "can't afford" in my book is this, if I had to go home to my wife and tell her our expectations are going to have to be lowered."

(My emphasis)

OK. We're all going to have reduced expectations as a result of this. In Padley's opinion, everyone must sell everything, lock, stock and barrel.

"Who wants to play in a casino? The volatility has reduced the market to a casino. In a casino, no opinion has any value."

Your average investor might just as well give up at this point and shoot craps, because this is what Padley is suggesting that the market is no better than.

This is despite the fact that we know a great deal of market behaviour over the long term, which tilts the odds firmly back in the direction of an investor. Unlike our craps table at the casino, which is rigged against you from the start.

This is just the first third of an article which Padley manages to break every rule in responsible journalism. By essentially saying, "everyone should sell, without question," Padley has crossed the line into Personal Financial Advice territory, and should have the book thrown at him by ASIC.

Elsewhere Padley offers these little gems, which I have paraphrased:

Avoid losses. Therefore, avoid the market as well. It doesn't matter if you are in it for the long term or not.
I agree that the herd mentality is good. Stick with it and you can't go wrong.
Optimism is just that. Even if it backed up by the sheer force of history that suggests that investing for the long term requires a buy and hold approach.

Honestly, the whole thing almost reads like a parody. If this is Padley's idea of a joke, it's not funny, and he should be hauled over the coals as soon as the moment arises.

On top of this, Padley is a stockbroker. This means that whenever another sale is done, he collects a commission from it. Ka-ching!

Out of 5 stars, I give this disgraceful effort a bitch slap. Padley needs to wake up to himself.

Standard but necessary disclaimer: Only a complete idiot would think that any of this plausibly constituted advice. It's not even vaguely reasonable to consider this to be advice. If you are in any doubt as to the content of this, see a good, independent financial adviser immediately. They do exist.