I want to be like Kobe, like Kobe!

If you're a sports fan and you haven't heard the news, read on. If you're not a sports fan, this is probably worth reading anyway - at the very least to marvel at the spectacular skill levels of professional athletes at the height of their prowess.

Today, Kobe Bryant - coming off the back of a month where he scored over 45 points four times in a row, and a career high of 62 points in three quarters of the Los Angeles Lakers' defeat of Dallas - scored 82 points, as the Lakers beat the Raptors into submission, 122-104.

When you consider that the league leader in points averages around 30 points in the modern game (though since his scoring outbursts of late Kobe has boosted his average to around the 35 mark), it is an extraordinary figure.

But it is extraordinary for so many more reasons: because, after the crises surrounding Bryant and a rape lawsuit that he fought and overcame through 2004, many said he would be past his peak; because, after petty arguments made team conditions unbearable, and star coach Phil Jackson quit and Shaquille O'Neal demanded a trade, everybody said Kobe was incapable of bearing the weight of the team's leadership; because it's better than Michael ever did; just because.

This season, after talks-a-plenty with Kobe, Phil Jackson returned to coach the Lakers. Just this week, after advice from NBA Hall-of-Famer Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal patched things up with Bryant on court before the Heat, O'Neal's new team, played the Lakers. Perhaps these were the two things Bryant needed resolved, because today's performance is an astonishing feat.

Bryant's total beats nearly all records - only Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point total, set some 44 years ago, betters it. He becomes only the fifth player to record over 70 points in a game, and if his form continues, he might even do it again.

Regardless of what you think of the man, the team, or even the sport, Kobe Bryant's performance today is a remarkable display of human athleticism and talent.

Check out the boxscore here.

Look Ma, I got me some more bombs

Apparently not content with simply bombing the shit out of civilians in countries they're occupying, America has again branched out and bombed the shit out of civilians in a country that they heard might have, somewhere, possibly maybe had something to do with a bunch of terrorists they thought could have done some really bad stuff at some point in time.

As Carlotta Gall's report in the New York Times details, the bombing of a village in Damadola, Pakistan, was ostensibly targeting Al Qaeda number two man Ayman al-Zawahiri. Instead the strike resulted in at least 18 civilian deaths, including six children.

But the report continues:

[A] Pakistani official who spoke of Mr. Zawahiri suggested that the death toll was higher, and he said that at least 11 militants had been killed in the attack. Seven of the dead were Arab fighters, and another four were Pakistani militants from Punjab Province, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the news media.

News that America is doing what it does best - bombing targets indiscriminately and with information so shady it makes Don Quixote look reliable - is not surprising in itself. News that they're doing so in densely populated regions of countries they're supposedly on good terms with though, is something else entirely.

Soon you'll be reading this on a computer screen. Oh, wait

According to a report in Saturday’s A2 section of The Age, it won't be too long until books start disappearing off the shelves - and not in flurry of sales.

Of course, to readers of perpetually obsessed techno-lovers Wired or Slashdot, this news isn't really news at all. Electronic books - or "e-Books" - have been available to download for years now, and "tablets" - the portable devices with which to read them - have been the subject of the techno savvy's dreams for just as long.

Furthermore, this here article is only getting to you through the wonderful magic of the internet.

Still, as much as I - and, presumably, you the reader - have embraced the world wide web and all its marvellous peculiarities, there's something romantic about the tangible beauty of clutching a book, a real book with pages and scuffmarks and dog-ears - not just a computer screen.

I imagine the backlash will be widespread. Like the vinyl fanaticism that resurrected itself after the introduction of compact discs (and the supposed demise of records) one suspects that real books won't die out quickly.

In fact they're unlikely to die at all. Perhaps it's an obvious point, but so many great institutions - libraries, parliaments, universities and schools - have such great collections of literature that a truly bookless world is a virtual impossibility.

Nonetheless it would be reticent of us to laugh in the face of the encroaching technology too haughtily. The obvious advantages hold sound arguments: the chance, as Bill Gates recently pointed out, to spend $400 on a tablet for access to a lifetime of books instead of the endless costs of perpetuating a "real" library; the masses of space that would be saved by these portable devices; the mind-boggling potential for research and referencing for academics - not to mention the rest of us.

But there are sure to be more arguments not yet considered. How long will it be before pragmatic environmentalists realise the advantages of a non-paper based medium and embrace it with militant fervour? How soon will books become just another haven for entrepreneurial advertising companies, selling off strips of our viewing space catered to our personalities and reading habits?

So far, the issues being debated focus solely on the ethical considerations of copyright and ownership. But soon all this and more will come to the fore, and the e-Books debate will be suddenly complex.

Indonesia we love you

It appears that John Howard is about to sign away any last chance that Schapelle Corby, Australia's true blue and much loved convicted drug smuggler, might have had at a final reprieve - however slim that chance might have been.

As reported in today's Age (and here and here too), the Prime Minister John Howard is set to sign a security treaty with Indonesia after lengthy discussion between Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer and his Indonesian counterpart, Hassan Wirajuda.

Corby herself - equal parts stuck up "model" and western suburbs bogan - doesn't concern me too much at all. But where the US's insistence on "liberating" Iraq by any means necessary is taking the idea of forced equality and democracy to disturbing extremes, this bowing down to Indonesia - who have yet to prove any real commitment to human rights beyond a few cursory gestures to their western counterparts - is the other extreme, and frankly just as worrying.

My rather liberal, to say the least, views on drug laws aside, it is now universally agreed among tolerant, progressive nations that a fifteen year sentence for posession of four kilograms of marijuana is punishment far in excess of the crime.

This is but one example however, brought to our attention only because of Ms Corby's photogenic nature and frenzied family (not to mention their slightly insane lawyer; it was all a little bit soap opera-ish, really).

Further examples abound though: human rights abuses by security forces and the Indonesia/Australia/East Timor oil debacle to cite just a couple. East Timor's subjugation at the hands of the Indonesian army (with, unsurprisingly, the backing of the US and muted support from Australia) has long been an issue, but succesfully avoided the Australian media for some twenty-five years. Now things are - at least slightly - on the mend, and even as the actualities of day-by-day events call for objectivity in an arena filled with moral posturing, it's difficult to forget the atrocities that Indonesia have committed in years past.

Certainly, smoothing relations with Indonesia, one of our closest and largest neighbours, is a fine and necessary goal, but when it comes - as this seems to - at the extent of human rights, the issue is much more complex. The fact that the rights at risk here are not those of Australians necessarily is not the point at all: taking a stance and standing up for the rights of people the world over is something that would do Australia, and the Howard Government, an enormous amount of credit. Moreover, it would be a moral stance that few other states have been willing to make, but much overdue and extremely worthy of praise.

Alas, we seem to be heading in the opposite direction.

A disincentive for democracy

I mustn't be a very good lefty.

Well, sort of. I guess I am in that I'm all with the embracing the pinkos and hugging the trees (and I'm even a vegetarian).

But when it comes to waxing lovely about this wonderful representative system that we all call democracy, I'm a bit of a dismal failure. And not just because I adore communism or socialism (I don't, really). I really just think democracy's a bit rooted, to be totally honest.

We're an apathetic bunch, us Aussies. I hate to keep going back to Mark Latham as my starting point, but there's been little better analysis than his in recent times. In the Diaries he talks about politics today as rotten to the core with artificiality, "temporary, shallow and vacuous". The problem is that nobody really seems to give a stuff.

The public noticed the problem, raised a few complaints, then went back to watching Big Brother as the pollies all sat around on their arses laughing at the stupid voters and cashing in their governmental allowances.

People have been talking about the slow decline of social democracy, participatory democracy, for years now. The problem is that there seems no saviour, nobody who really wants to get down and dirty to do something about it. The politicians, as Latham so astutely and depressively announced time and time again, don't give a stuff. And the people don't either; that's the problem.

The general public seems to expect democracy to only take hold at election time. Vote in the people who'll suit you best and then switch off the telly (and the brain) for another three years. Everybody wants the chance to see in the government that they want, but nobody wants the continued responsibility once things start going wrong. And that's just the first problem.

There are further, deep, structural problems with democracy. At its core is a defence of selfishness rather than selflessness, despite everybody shouting otherwise. The flaws show up from the beginning, and when you couple democracy with capitalism, who can be surprised when the result is the most exploitatively selfish system imaginable? Democracy rewards those who vote to look after themselves and those closest to them; is it any wonder that the Liberal party keeps getting voted in?

Democracy is a hierarchal system of minute representation, where each constituent is given a tiny slice of the cake and told to hang on as tight as they can. It's no surprise then that those getting their hands on inordinately large portions all want to wolf it down as quickly as possible. In return, the rich get richer and the poor just keep on getting poorer.

And what about that tricky notion that we actually know what's best for ourselves anyway? Is it not an inherent contradiction? Sure, I know what's best for me, so I'll just vote in this group of bureaucrats to ensure that I'm told exactly what it is that I need to do.

I must have missed something, but it just seems a bit ballsed-up to me.

Of course, the whole thing raises quite a few ethical dilemmas: I know for a fact that I don't always make the best decisions for myself, but I'll defend my right to make those (sometimes misguided) decisions to my last breath. And I guess that's what democracy is really for: our chance to make the decisions that basically just fuck ourselves over.

But what about the others being fucked by our decisions? Those who can't stand up for themselves, or just don't know how?

When the system's skewed so far towards helping those who help themselves, what becomes of the helpless?

Lathamitis

So I'm still slogging my way through The Latham Diaries, and it's still quite a page turner. (It's just a pity about my goldfish-style attention span.) It's not that Latham's faults are necessarily intertwined with his strengths, as some have said, but more that he seems to move so quickly from one to the other.

Although I realise that I'm a bit behind, say, the world, in my comments on the book here, most of the material being discussed is at the very least a year old anyway, so I'd hope another couple of months on top of that shouldn't be too stressful.

Latham's January 4 2004 entry starts off strong with a few dot points on his policy ideas for the upcoming year. As evidenced by the plentitude of Latham's essays (here and here)and even books on policy related matters (mostly economic or community - socio-economic? - based), this is the area in which he excels, and it is in stark contrast to Beazley's reactionary Opposition. So as a new leader, Latham came on strong, and his diary entry is a valid record of that.

But then he fell into that same hole as always - the same one he never seemed to see.

"Saw the enemy [Liberal Party members] today in the Trust Box at the SCG for Australia versus India," he begins. That's all fine. He goes on to detail the perks and extravagances of his day, and the fact that "it's the world's best job: great view of the ground, chat away about the game, food and grog laid on, and you get paid for it".

Sure thing.

But then, his description of the other Trust Box guests: "a combination of ex-sporting heroes, business donors and political hangers-on, all enjoying the largesse with their nosebags on".

Er, what's that Mark, face still too stuck in your own nosebag to see the hypocrisy here?

The thing is, there's no dishonesty here, really. Latham admits the perks afforded to him, and he doesn't proceed to "Labor in theory but elitist in practice" displays as the others he criticises do, but it's his failure to realise the parallels between his own position and those he so admonishes that leaves him on such shaky ground. Latham's views are for the most part well thought out, defensible, and measured, but until he realises that most people are quick to turn into hypocrites the second free stuff starts getting piled at their feet, he'll continue be seen as the man who never saw the forest for the trees.

And I guess there's no point thinking otherwise now: he's set it all down in print.

Aussie Aussie Aussie...

As Crikey's December 13 editorial pointed out, in an October 2001 election speech Prime Minister John Howard described Cronulla and its surrounding suburbs as "a part of Sydney which has always represented to me what middle Australia is all about".

No real surprise there, but when you consider this in the context of this week's shameful race riots at Cronulla beach, where people of "middle eastern appearance" were set upon by drunken racist thugs, it's at the very least a trifle disturbing.

So much analysis isn't really necessary, because as Crikey further quotes, Howard continued to set the record straight. "If you listen to the people of this part of Sydney, you've got a pretty good idea of what the people of Australia are thinking and what the people of Australia want from their leaders".

Of course, this was all back in 2001, but if you're in any confusion as to what Howard's thoughts on the Cronulla crowd are these days, his hasty damage control should set the record straight. "I do not accept there is underlying racism in this country" quoth our apparently straight-faced PM, simultaneously staring down mobs of "Aussie blokes" (mate) chanting slogans like "wogs go home" and "no more Lebs".

Howard didn't even see much wrong with these top Aussie sorts getting around cloaking themselves in Australian flags.

At least Costello had the balls to put that one to rest. It's a pity the same can't be said for our Prime Minister. If this isn't proof that the Liberal party is One Nation mark II, I don't know what is.

Men and women divided

Tonight, when I was at work, a lady rushed into the store looking flustered and very, very worried. She looked Indian, perhaps Sri Lankan, with a small gold stud in her nose, beautiful eyes filled up with tears.

"A man's been following me," she said.

I looked out the window and couldn't see anybody, but she wasn't lying. She hung around for a bit, called a friend, and eventually ventured home. I hope she made it back safely.

Apparently the man who had been following her had started some time back - about a kilometre or so - and she knew he was following because she had taken back streets to avoid him... Yet he kept reappearing.

It's all very disturbing. There's no point saying that it's symptomatic of a greater problem within society, because as much as the media likes to blow such things out of proportion, an individual is never anything more than just that - an individual situation. It has no greater bearing on anything else in the world than its one instance. Yet such things require a contextual opinion to be formed around them, and that context is becoming increasingly troubling.

Was this lady being targeted because of her vaguely Muslim appearance? I don't know. I do know that three years ago that probably wouldn't have even be a question that I would need to ask myself. Saying things are unsafe, that women or men or children or whoever have to lock themselves inside at night, is pointless and untrue. Presuming that the ills of society are going to come crashing down on each of us individually is going to achieve nothing. Yet it's a scenario that we're being asked to consider more and more.

It doesn't help that despite decades of feminist struggle for equality and respect the gender divide seems to be widening again in many ways. Ariel Levy's new book speaks for that, as do Maureen Dowd's New York Times columns. Even The Age's Opinion Editor, Sushi Das, has been getting into the swing of things, with a slightly misguided essay on the unfortunate reticence of men to enter the debate. (Misguided because she misses the point herself: screaming 'Why won't you talk about it, men!?' isn't the most welcoming invitation to debate). Das also makes the mistake of simplifying the debate: women are now either "look-pretty-for-him" types or "hot-and-raunchy Paris Hilton" whores, whilst the men sit back and drool.

As unfortunate as Das's polarisations seem (and her refusal to acknowledge that there are plenty of men around who still prefer those intellectual women - and just as many women striving to be them), there is a great deal of truth in them. Too many women and young girls (and more disturbingly their celebrity role models) seem content to act as objects of sexual gratification in return for the attention of neanderthal men who are just as much to blame. Whilst the vicious circle continues situations like the one I witnessed tonight will continue to be the norm - and so will the disgusting behaviour witnessed in Cronulla over the weekend.