At the moment if you could kidnap the top 6 in the Liberal Party and hold them to ransom, you'd be lucky to get 50c.
posted by Rollo at 13:57
0 comments
November 27, 2009
At the moment if you could kidnap the top 6 in the Liberal Party and hold them to ransom, you'd be lucky to get 50c.
November 25, 2009
Horse 1052 - 2012 is Bunk
Before the media decides to spin its wheels with hype about this 2012 movie or whatever it is, let me state quite categorically that the world will not end on December 21, 2012. I have documentary evidence to prove it.
1. Pepsi Perfect
"Huh? What's that?" I hear you ask... well actually I don't hear you ask since a) I don't know who you are and b) this is the medium of text and to be perfectly honest unless you have some sort of text-to-speech program then of itself text will not speak.
"Huh? What's that?" I hear metaphorically you ask... that's better.
I want you to cast your minds back to that brilliant documentary series Back to the Future; specifically in Part II when Marty McFly walks into the Cafe 80's and order said Pepsi Perfect (see below).
I ask you, how is Marty McFly able to walk into the Cafe 80's on October 26th, 2015, if the world had ended in 2012? Obviously 2012 was followed by 2013, 2014, 2015 etc.
2. People Cashing In
"Huh? What's that?"
http://www.2012officialcountdown.com/
I'm ready to take action! I'm tired of all the misinformation surrounding 2012.
I'm ready to learn the truth about 2012 and get real information. I understand that for the locked-in low price I'm getting unlimited and instant download access to the entire package...
bla bla bla, what is this really about? Ahah!
NOW: $49.95
GET INSTANT ACCESS NOW!
Click Here To Pay By Credit Card
I'd like to ask you "Official Countdown" people, why you have the gall to charge people $49.95 for something that's unpreventable? In if fact the world is going to end on December 21, 2012 (and I note that no-one is even sure of the date of this) then isn't that money better off in everyone else's hand anyway? What you are in effect is stealing their money so that you can presumably live it up in the mean time.
I have heard all sorts of theories about why the world is going to end in 2012, and most of them revolve around the Mayan Long Calendar. Most sensibly Sandra Noble, the executive director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies in Crystal River, Fla. has said that to render Dec. 21, 2012, as a doomsday or moment of cosmic shifting is "a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in."
3. It Doesn't Make Sense
Logically the very existence of a doomsday implies that there is a supreme being / God / god(s). Using those same rules of logic, why would that supreme being tell of the time that they were going to return and end it all?
If anything that would by inference negate any cause to live moral, upright and just lives because just like a group of teenagers at home whilst their parents are away, it would give them the freedom to act exactly how they felt like and then just clean the place up at the last minute. Alternatively if there wasn't any hope for these people, then you'd have to assume that this supreme being was pretty heartless for creating humanity in the first place.
Logically it follows that actually telling humanity the date in which the world is coming to an end implies either that the supreme being is either stupid or heartless.
Thankfully this isn't the case:
Matthew 24:36-39
But the exact day and hour? No one knows that, not even heaven's angels, not even the Son. Only the Father knows. The Arrival of the Son of Man will take place in times like Noah's. Before the great flood everyone was carrying on as usual, having a good time right up to the day Noah boarded the ark. They knew nothing—until the flood hit and swept everything away.
"Huh? What's that?"
At this exact moment in time, everyone is pretty well much free to do whatever they like*... and be held accountable for it, because although December 21, 2012 probably isn't the date that Christ will return to judge the living and the dead, He is coming. The next question is what do you do about it? And is it appropriate?
*everyone was carrying on as usual, - that seems to be quite apt to describe what's going on right now eh?
1. Pepsi Perfect
"Huh? What's that?" I hear you ask... well actually I don't hear you ask since a) I don't know who you are and b) this is the medium of text and to be perfectly honest unless you have some sort of text-to-speech program then of itself text will not speak.
"Huh? What's that?" I hear metaphorically you ask... that's better.
I want you to cast your minds back to that brilliant documentary series Back to the Future; specifically in Part II when Marty McFly walks into the Cafe 80's and order said Pepsi Perfect (see below).
I ask you, how is Marty McFly able to walk into the Cafe 80's on October 26th, 2015, if the world had ended in 2012? Obviously 2012 was followed by 2013, 2014, 2015 etc.
2. People Cashing In
"Huh? What's that?"
http://www.2012officialcountdown.com/
I'm ready to take action! I'm tired of all the misinformation surrounding 2012.
I'm ready to learn the truth about 2012 and get real information. I understand that for the locked-in low price I'm getting unlimited and instant download access to the entire package...
bla bla bla, what is this really about? Ahah!
NOW: $49.95
GET INSTANT ACCESS NOW!
Click Here To Pay By Credit Card
I'd like to ask you "Official Countdown" people, why you have the gall to charge people $49.95 for something that's unpreventable? In if fact the world is going to end on December 21, 2012 (and I note that no-one is even sure of the date of this) then isn't that money better off in everyone else's hand anyway? What you are in effect is stealing their money so that you can presumably live it up in the mean time.
I have heard all sorts of theories about why the world is going to end in 2012, and most of them revolve around the Mayan Long Calendar. Most sensibly Sandra Noble, the executive director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies in Crystal River, Fla. has said that to render Dec. 21, 2012, as a doomsday or moment of cosmic shifting is "a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in."
3. It Doesn't Make Sense
Logically the very existence of a doomsday implies that there is a supreme being / God / god(s). Using those same rules of logic, why would that supreme being tell of the time that they were going to return and end it all?
If anything that would by inference negate any cause to live moral, upright and just lives because just like a group of teenagers at home whilst their parents are away, it would give them the freedom to act exactly how they felt like and then just clean the place up at the last minute. Alternatively if there wasn't any hope for these people, then you'd have to assume that this supreme being was pretty heartless for creating humanity in the first place.
Logically it follows that actually telling humanity the date in which the world is coming to an end implies either that the supreme being is either stupid or heartless.
Thankfully this isn't the case:
Matthew 24:36-39
But the exact day and hour? No one knows that, not even heaven's angels, not even the Son. Only the Father knows. The Arrival of the Son of Man will take place in times like Noah's. Before the great flood everyone was carrying on as usual, having a good time right up to the day Noah boarded the ark. They knew nothing—until the flood hit and swept everything away.
"Huh? What's that?"
At this exact moment in time, everyone is pretty well much free to do whatever they like*... and be held accountable for it, because although December 21, 2012 probably isn't the date that Christ will return to judge the living and the dead, He is coming. The next question is what do you do about it? And is it appropriate?
*everyone was carrying on as usual, - that seems to be quite apt to describe what's going on right now eh?
posted by Rollo at 17:02
0 comments
November 23, 2009
Horse 1050a - additional
As quickly as Erin Jones' "Grant Blog" appeared, it is being pulled back into the scumspawn from whence it came. It is now a mass of white space, broken links and text. Which all goes to prove that a scam is still a scam...
http://www.erinsgrantblog.com/?c=au&aff=sg&id=vcsuc
or a great steaming pile of electronic kaka.
http://www.erinsgrantblog.com/?c=au&aff=sg&id=vcsuc
or a great steaming pile of electronic kaka.
posted by Rollo at 14:20
0 comments
Horse 1051 - Stupid News for Stupid People
Mr Murdoch has spent the best part of the last fortnight having a giant whinge because people are accessing his news websites and aren't paying for the privilege. After attacking both the BBC and the ABC as well as Deutsche Welle and Japan's NHK, he now intends to place a so called "pay-wall" around his websites so that people can not gain access unless they pay. He has even threatened companies like Google and Yahoo that he intends to debar them from displaying News Corp news articles via their news feeds.
In Australia, people are most likely to get onto the internet via one of two service providers; those being Optusnet and Telstra Bigpond. People already pay their internet service provider to get onto the internet, why should consumers in principle be asked to then pay again?
My second question of Rupert is "Why do we want top pay?"
I had a look at the "Most Popular" box at http://www.news.com.au/ and found the following:
1. Climate expert 'cheered' by Aussie's death
2. Facebook bikini photo 'cut insurance'
3. Bouncer's foot almost severed by machete
4. Australian Idol winner announced
5. Rann slams 'malicious' sex talk
6. New baby joy for mother of murdered trio
7. 'JFK nephew barred from communion'
8. ADHD guidelines pulled after drug scandal
9. Rare Charles Darwin book found in toilet
10. School mistress 'had sex with students'
To be honest I didn't even read any of them (nor do I intend to) but do any of these news stories seem like "quality journalism" to you? Mind you I do ask the question as to why these are the most popular? As time goes on, people are voluntarily reading less; and progressively becoming more stupid. The "Most Popular" stories at news.com.au are the natural outcome of this.
Is that the fault of the media selling less intelligent crud, or is it the fault of society generally because they are not prepared to think? I still haven't worked out the answer to this.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2745070.htm
Rupert Murdoch: The fact is there's not enough advertising in the world to go around to make all the websites profitable. We'd rather have fewer people coming to our website but paying.
The bottom line is the bottom line. Murdoch is after all a businessman and it does cost money to produce journalism; the fact remains that he does have the right to ask for payment for that product. In that respect, then taking money from stupid people is probably fine.
In Australia, people are most likely to get onto the internet via one of two service providers; those being Optusnet and Telstra Bigpond. People already pay their internet service provider to get onto the internet, why should consumers in principle be asked to then pay again?
My second question of Rupert is "Why do we want top pay?"
I had a look at the "Most Popular" box at http://www.news.com.au/ and found the following:
1. Climate expert 'cheered' by Aussie's death
2. Facebook bikini photo 'cut insurance'
3. Bouncer's foot almost severed by machete
4. Australian Idol winner announced
5. Rann slams 'malicious' sex talk
6. New baby joy for mother of murdered trio
7. 'JFK nephew barred from communion'
8. ADHD guidelines pulled after drug scandal
9. Rare Charles Darwin book found in toilet
10. School mistress 'had sex with students'
To be honest I didn't even read any of them (nor do I intend to) but do any of these news stories seem like "quality journalism" to you? Mind you I do ask the question as to why these are the most popular? As time goes on, people are voluntarily reading less; and progressively becoming more stupid. The "Most Popular" stories at news.com.au are the natural outcome of this.
Is that the fault of the media selling less intelligent crud, or is it the fault of society generally because they are not prepared to think? I still haven't worked out the answer to this.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2745070.htm
Rupert Murdoch: The fact is there's not enough advertising in the world to go around to make all the websites profitable. We'd rather have fewer people coming to our website but paying.
The bottom line is the bottom line. Murdoch is after all a businessman and it does cost money to produce journalism; the fact remains that he does have the right to ask for payment for that product. In that respect, then taking money from stupid people is probably fine.
posted by Rollo at 11:20
0 comments
November 19, 2009
Horse 1050 - Erin's Amazing Grant Checks
I love it when spam comes through my inbox; I especially love it when the author of that spam clearly didn't bother to do any research at all. This then is said email:
http://www.erinsgrantblog.com/?c=au&aff=sg&id=vcsuc
My name is Erin and I'm from Sydney, Australia. I figured out a way to get free cash from grants. Here's the situation, each year billions in grants are given out to people like me and you. The thing is, most people don't think they qualify for a grant and never apply, this makes it easier for the people who actually try.
Below is a picture of the actual grant check I received in the mail:
Does anyone else see three critical errors with the email?
Firstly, before we even look at the the photograph itself, there is the certain problem of receiving a grant check from the government. We happen to live in Australia, and as such in Australia we don't actually have grant "checks", unless of course we are making sure something is correct, or perhaps threatening an opponent's king in chess. No, in Australia the instrument used to transfer monies from one person to another is a "cheque".
Since Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1755, the British Commonwealth more or less standardised its spelling of the word cheque, and the Americanism check didn't actually appear until Noah Webster's blatant vandalism of the English language with his American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828
Oops.
Secondly, if you look at the picture supplied, this clearly does not look like any cheque ever written by the Reserve Bank of Australia. Grant Cheques would be brown in colour, they certainly do not feature the Australian flag on them, nor are they emblazoned with Maple Leaves and they most definately not endorsed by the Receiver General for Canada.
Oops.
Thirdly, if you follow any of the links within the website (and I do mean website, for although it does say Erin's Grant Blog, it clearly isn't a blog, since there are no new posts, none of them are dated etc.) you are redirected to:
http://www.successgrants.com/index.php
This website is plastered with the American Flag, the White House, and Benjamin Franklin's face smiling at us from several US $100 bills (I used that term in deference to the fact that in Australia, a banknote is a note and not a bill, since a bill is essentially a demand notice to pay).
Oops.
So Miss Erin Jones (if that is indeed your real name), quite contrary to what you have suggested in that "If I can save you some time and grief, the stuff I did here is free to get started and took me a long time to research." you haven't done any research at all. In fact, me with barely 8 seconds of "research" have concluded, that your blog (which isn't a blog at all) is a) trying to sell me something and b) a great steaming pile of electronic kaka.
Of course it does suggest that the fact that I'm finding holes in spam, must mean that today is a very boring day indeed.
http://www.erinsgrantblog.com/?c=au&aff=sg&id=vcsuc
My name is Erin and I'm from Sydney, Australia. I figured out a way to get free cash from grants. Here's the situation, each year billions in grants are given out to people like me and you. The thing is, most people don't think they qualify for a grant and never apply, this makes it easier for the people who actually try.
Below is a picture of the actual grant check I received in the mail:
Does anyone else see three critical errors with the email?
Firstly, before we even look at the the photograph itself, there is the certain problem of receiving a grant check from the government. We happen to live in Australia, and as such in Australia we don't actually have grant "checks", unless of course we are making sure something is correct, or perhaps threatening an opponent's king in chess. No, in Australia the instrument used to transfer monies from one person to another is a "cheque".
Since Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1755, the British Commonwealth more or less standardised its spelling of the word cheque, and the Americanism check didn't actually appear until Noah Webster's blatant vandalism of the English language with his American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828
Oops.
Secondly, if you look at the picture supplied, this clearly does not look like any cheque ever written by the Reserve Bank of Australia. Grant Cheques would be brown in colour, they certainly do not feature the Australian flag on them, nor are they emblazoned with Maple Leaves and they most definately not endorsed by the Receiver General for Canada.
Oops.
Thirdly, if you follow any of the links within the website (and I do mean website, for although it does say Erin's Grant Blog, it clearly isn't a blog, since there are no new posts, none of them are dated etc.) you are redirected to:
http://www.successgrants.com/index.php
This website is plastered with the American Flag, the White House, and Benjamin Franklin's face smiling at us from several US $100 bills (I used that term in deference to the fact that in Australia, a banknote is a note and not a bill, since a bill is essentially a demand notice to pay).
Oops.
So Miss Erin Jones (if that is indeed your real name), quite contrary to what you have suggested in that "If I can save you some time and grief, the stuff I did here is free to get started and took me a long time to research." you haven't done any research at all. In fact, me with barely 8 seconds of "research" have concluded, that your blog (which isn't a blog at all) is a) trying to sell me something and b) a great steaming pile of electronic kaka.
Of course it does suggest that the fact that I'm finding holes in spam, must mean that today is a very boring day indeed.
posted by Rollo at 09:57
0 comments
November 17, 2009
Horse 1049 - Silver Arrows
http://www.brawngp.com/readstory.asp?bgp=j%C1%AA%C0rZ%7Cg
Mercedes-Benz will enter the Formula 1 World Championship with its own team, beginning with the 2010 season, and Daimler AG and McLaren Group will change their form of cooperation with effect as of 13 November 2009. This was announced by Daimler AG today.
http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-921-657499-1-1253028-1-0-0-0-0-1-13472-614322-0-1-0-0-0-0-0.html?TS=1258409891618
Nobody wasted any time with this one. It seems as though the media people probably already have everything printed in lieu of the next international motor show. Ross Brawn must've known something and that's why he was cagey about his dealings with Richard Branson and his Virgin Group. As it is, it leaves Brawn GP as the most successful team in GP history, having secured the World Driver's Championship with Jensen Button and the World Constructors Championship for 2009, thus Brawn GP leave the sport being the only team in history with a 100% success record.
You can of course expect over the next few months images of Fangio and Moss though I suspect that they may want to sort of gloss over the events of the 1955 Le Mans 24 Hour Race when Pierre Levegh's Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR crashed and killed 84 spectators, and nor do I think that they'd show Mark Webber and Peter Dumbreck's mishaps in the 1999 Le Mans 24 Hour Race when they both flipped their Mercedes-Benz CLRs during the car's only competitive outing. Though the car which they'll most likely show will be 722, another Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR which Moss used to win the 1955 Mille Miglia and Targo Florio.
For me this is a trip down a Nostalgia Lane that had already been long demolished before I was even born. Mercedes had built some truly glorious Grand Prix cars in the 1930s but from 1955 until 1985 Mercedes-Benz' official involvement in motorsport was nil. It wasn't until 1995 that they returned to Formula One, and then they didn't really show their colours until 1996.
Speaking of that colour, the "Silberpfeile" or Silver Arrows, is a story which legend would suggest is pure accident and was the result of shaving off the paint from a Grand Prix car to make it comply with a weight limit. Whatever the case, both Audi and Mercedes-Benz both list Silberpfeil-Grau, or Silver Arrow Grey as a colour that they sell their road cars in, but as far as GP racing is concerned...
...the Silver Arrows are back.
posted by Rollo at 09:59
0 comments
November 09, 2009
Horse 1048 - When the Wall Came Down
The 9th of November 1989 will live long in people's memory as it was primarily a day of decreased geography, and when two countries once again became one.
The events of that cold day in Berlin meant little to me as an 11 year old. I was far away and safe on the other side of a television set, but I imagine that the effects of that day would be immensely changing for the people that lived there.
People of Berlin in some cases had been separated from even members of their own family since 1961, and that morning and day as people moved again between two halves of a previously divided city, would have been very strange. The U-Bahn and S-Bahn underground trains that would have previously passed through so called "phantom" stations, where the railway lines passed underground into another country and then back out again, now stopped at these stations for the first time in 28 years.
The wall itself was a physical symbol of the "iron curtain" which had descended across the Continent from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic.
The then Conservative PM Margaret Thatcher said:
"We do not want a united Germany. This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security."
Admittedly President Mitterrand of France warned Margaret Thatcher privately that a reunited Germany might “make even more ground than Hitler had” only a few weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, newly declassified documents reveal. So it certainly seems that the prospect of a reunited Germany scared Western Europe.
It is a credit to the German people though that the reunification process went reasonably smoothly. The expected drag on West Germany's economy never really happened, because the work ethic of Prussia which was firmly in the East, put paid to that.
If anything, one Germany I think has showed the world that it is possible to peacefully acheive something great. The people of Ireland, Palestine and Korea aught to take note of this, because there is far more joy in breaking down barriers than erecting them.
Aside:
9th November was also the date of Der Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass) which in 1938 saw about 500 Jews murdered and a further 25,000-30,000 placed into concentration camps to eventually be murdered. I bet that the GDR Politbüro
were keen to have that story of history quietly pasted over.
The events of that cold day in Berlin meant little to me as an 11 year old. I was far away and safe on the other side of a television set, but I imagine that the effects of that day would be immensely changing for the people that lived there.
People of Berlin in some cases had been separated from even members of their own family since 1961, and that morning and day as people moved again between two halves of a previously divided city, would have been very strange. The U-Bahn and S-Bahn underground trains that would have previously passed through so called "phantom" stations, where the railway lines passed underground into another country and then back out again, now stopped at these stations for the first time in 28 years.
The wall itself was a physical symbol of the "iron curtain" which had descended across the Continent from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic.
The then Conservative PM Margaret Thatcher said:
"We do not want a united Germany. This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security."
Admittedly President Mitterrand of France warned Margaret Thatcher privately that a reunited Germany might “make even more ground than Hitler had” only a few weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, newly declassified documents reveal. So it certainly seems that the prospect of a reunited Germany scared Western Europe.
It is a credit to the German people though that the reunification process went reasonably smoothly. The expected drag on West Germany's economy never really happened, because the work ethic of Prussia which was firmly in the East, put paid to that.
If anything, one Germany I think has showed the world that it is possible to peacefully acheive something great. The people of Ireland, Palestine and Korea aught to take note of this, because there is far more joy in breaking down barriers than erecting them.
Aside:
9th November was also the date of Der Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass) which in 1938 saw about 500 Jews murdered and a further 25,000-30,000 placed into concentration camps to eventually be murdered. I bet that the GDR Politbüro
were keen to have that story of history quietly pasted over.
posted by Rollo at 09:43
0 comments
October 31, 2009
Horse 1047 - Scab Day (Halloween)
Welcome to the 56th state in the Union, Australia. Apparently, we like District of Colombia (51), Puerto Rico (52), Guam (53), Canada (54), Britain (55) have joined the United States.
I didn't realise that this had happened until Saturday night when we celebrated that most stupid of holidays, Halloween.
Ah yes, Halloween, the day in which children go from house to house in the hope of scabbing lollies from other people. Now whilst I don't object to charity, I'd say that 102% of the children that I saw (allowing for a 2% margin of error) on this year's Scab Day run, were in no need of charity whatsoever. Certainly a great deal of them were in dire need of a walk outside, but luring them out with sweeties is hardly what you'd call sensible.
What would happen for instance if I were to walk 9 doors up the street and ask for lollies? People would think that I'm insane, and then probably ring up some gentlemen in blue to put me up for the night at Her Majesty's Hotel. What happens for instance if the kiddies happen to knock on the door of someone who especially likes children... a lot... I mean a whole lot. There'd be an outrage, and especially considering the hoo-haa in the news of late about one such person who happened to be near a school, why do parents allow their children out on Scab Day runs?
As far as I can make out, there isn't even a need in this country to even celebrate Scab Day. I mean the day after it is All Saints' Day (November 1), which according to the Roman Catholic church is a "Holy Day of Obligation" on which "the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass" but somehow you don't see parents sending their kiddies along to that now do we?
It would appear that this is purely a marketing push by Allen's, Cadbury, Nestlé, et al. to foist the sale of their produce onto the public. Quite apart from the fact that it's mainly an American tradition, which we don't really need (though I can see the value in Thanksgiving), why do we need to release a whole bunch of children onto the streets full of sugar? What happens when they turn 12 or 13 and become punk teenagers? Eggs, that's what.
No sir, I don't like Scab Day and nor should anyone else. No-one in their right might would vote for a National Annoy The Crud Out Of Your Neighbours Day would they? Then why send your kiddies out to do it for you?
I didn't realise that this had happened until Saturday night when we celebrated that most stupid of holidays, Halloween.
Ah yes, Halloween, the day in which children go from house to house in the hope of scabbing lollies from other people. Now whilst I don't object to charity, I'd say that 102% of the children that I saw (allowing for a 2% margin of error) on this year's Scab Day run, were in no need of charity whatsoever. Certainly a great deal of them were in dire need of a walk outside, but luring them out with sweeties is hardly what you'd call sensible.
What would happen for instance if I were to walk 9 doors up the street and ask for lollies? People would think that I'm insane, and then probably ring up some gentlemen in blue to put me up for the night at Her Majesty's Hotel. What happens for instance if the kiddies happen to knock on the door of someone who especially likes children... a lot... I mean a whole lot. There'd be an outrage, and especially considering the hoo-haa in the news of late about one such person who happened to be near a school, why do parents allow their children out on Scab Day runs?
As far as I can make out, there isn't even a need in this country to even celebrate Scab Day. I mean the day after it is All Saints' Day (November 1), which according to the Roman Catholic church is a "Holy Day of Obligation" on which "the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass" but somehow you don't see parents sending their kiddies along to that now do we?
It would appear that this is purely a marketing push by Allen's, Cadbury, Nestlé, et al. to foist the sale of their produce onto the public. Quite apart from the fact that it's mainly an American tradition, which we don't really need (though I can see the value in Thanksgiving), why do we need to release a whole bunch of children onto the streets full of sugar? What happens when they turn 12 or 13 and become punk teenagers? Eggs, that's what.
No sir, I don't like Scab Day and nor should anyone else. No-one in their right might would vote for a National Annoy The Crud Out Of Your Neighbours Day would they? Then why send your kiddies out to do it for you?
posted by Rollo at 13:08
0 comments
October 23, 2009
Horse 1046 - Hazem El Masri MP
I haven't read the article in today's Daily Telegraph (not do I intend to) but across the front page are plans for the Liberal Party to run Hazem El Masri as the proposed candidate in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly electorate of Lakemba.
The question being asked at the moment is "What makes the Liberal party think that an ex-Rugby League player suitable to be a member of parliament?" The answer as I'm about to explode is, "Who Cares? It's irrelevant"
A member of parliament and indeed any elected official's job is in essence very simple. They are there to represent the people of their electorate in the parliament. Quite literally an elected representative should be one who is elected and is therefore popularly chosen; and a representative, that is, someone who will stand and speak on behalf of the people who elected them for that purpose.
The reason why I think it's totally irrelevant about what the chosen person's background is, is mainly because there aren't really any hard and fast rules about who is the best person to speak for the electorate.
The beauty of the parliament lies in the fact that provided the people's voice is being heard (and in this case through the vehicle of their elected members), then the member's background really does not matter a fig.
Some of the greatest politicians that we've had in Australia have been: a train driver, a garbage collector, a secretary for an Australian rules football club, several barristers and lawyers, a dairy and peanut farmer, a miner, and even an umbrella mender*. I can see therefore no reason why a Rugby League player shouldn't be in theory any different.
The question isn't one of whether Hazem El Masri would be suitable as Premier of the State of NSW or even the Prime Minister, but rather "will he serve the people of Lakemba as their elected member?" Personally I think that if Hazem listens to what his electorate tells him and is then able to let that voice be heard, then the job is well done, which after all is what everybody expects of their elected representatives.
*Ben Chifley, Nathan Rees, John Curtin, Bob Menzies, Alfred Deakin, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Andrew Fisher, Billy Hughes - what a ragged lot!
The question being asked at the moment is "What makes the Liberal party think that an ex-Rugby League player suitable to be a member of parliament?" The answer as I'm about to explode is, "Who Cares? It's irrelevant"
A member of parliament and indeed any elected official's job is in essence very simple. They are there to represent the people of their electorate in the parliament. Quite literally an elected representative should be one who is elected and is therefore popularly chosen; and a representative, that is, someone who will stand and speak on behalf of the people who elected them for that purpose.
The reason why I think it's totally irrelevant about what the chosen person's background is, is mainly because there aren't really any hard and fast rules about who is the best person to speak for the electorate.
The beauty of the parliament lies in the fact that provided the people's voice is being heard (and in this case through the vehicle of their elected members), then the member's background really does not matter a fig.
Some of the greatest politicians that we've had in Australia have been: a train driver, a garbage collector, a secretary for an Australian rules football club, several barristers and lawyers, a dairy and peanut farmer, a miner, and even an umbrella mender*. I can see therefore no reason why a Rugby League player shouldn't be in theory any different.
The question isn't one of whether Hazem El Masri would be suitable as Premier of the State of NSW or even the Prime Minister, but rather "will he serve the people of Lakemba as their elected member?" Personally I think that if Hazem listens to what his electorate tells him and is then able to let that voice be heard, then the job is well done, which after all is what everybody expects of their elected representatives.
*Ben Chifley, Nathan Rees, John Curtin, Bob Menzies, Alfred Deakin, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Andrew Fisher, Billy Hughes - what a ragged lot!
posted by Rollo at 08:40
0 comments
October 13, 2009
Horse 1045 - Koup de Grace
Something distinctively strange is going on. Kia have within a calendar year, managed to produce two cars (yes count them, one, TWO!) that
a) don't make me want to vomit profusely all over the place and
b) actually might like to have (not buy, just have).
The Kia Cerato Koup is possibly the only genuine coupe on sale in Australia currently for less than an average year's salary. The only thing that might come close is the Mazda RX-8 which retails at just a shade over $50K, but fails the very definition of a coupe because it has... four doors.
That's the rub. There are plenty of sporty hot hatches out there and even in three door, but a 3-door hatch, no matter what the manufacturers try to tell you isn't really a coupe. They're 3-door hatches.
I must admit that Mitsubishi probably ruled the roost for a long time on this one with its Lancer. For a while Proton continued this vein with a virtual copy the Proton M21, but since about 2000, in Australia the segment has been... empty.
It's odd. Australia used to have quite a number of coupes. The Monaro, Falcon, and Torana were Australia's favourite sons, and for a while we saw the odd Chrysler Charger and even BMW's 3 & 6-series' have all had a punt but of late... nothing.
The Cerato Koup runs to a pretty standard formula: 2L, 4 cylinders, 115kW. What really makes this interesting is that it uses Hyundai's Theta II engine. Hyundai bought 51% of Kia back in 1998 (though probably only owns about 40% now) and I suspect is using Kia in much the same way as the VW/Audi Group does Skoda. The bits in the Cerato Koup will probably appear in Hyundais in about 15 months.
So what do I actually thing about the car? From an internal vision point of view, it's better than the Astra Sport Hatch, the Honda Civic and the Ford Focus. The front styling is as sharp as any of the aforementioned and I suspect that because we get the 2L and not the 2.4L that they do in the USA, that there is less weight over the front wheels and therefore it should produce a more positive handling car. Of course if anyone from Kia wants to give me a Cerato Koup then be my guest. They say charity begins at home, and I don't see why it shouldn't be mine.
I never thought I'd say this, but Kia are shooting skywards at a tremendous rate of knots. The Kia Soul is ironically a soulless box, but the upcoming Venga, ex-cee'd and Pro-cee'd are a step forwards. And as for the Cerato, it's a real Koup. (pun intended)
a) don't make me want to vomit profusely all over the place and
b) actually might like to have (not buy, just have).
The Kia Cerato Koup is possibly the only genuine coupe on sale in Australia currently for less than an average year's salary. The only thing that might come close is the Mazda RX-8 which retails at just a shade over $50K, but fails the very definition of a coupe because it has... four doors.
That's the rub. There are plenty of sporty hot hatches out there and even in three door, but a 3-door hatch, no matter what the manufacturers try to tell you isn't really a coupe. They're 3-door hatches.
I must admit that Mitsubishi probably ruled the roost for a long time on this one with its Lancer. For a while Proton continued this vein with a virtual copy the Proton M21, but since about 2000, in Australia the segment has been... empty.
It's odd. Australia used to have quite a number of coupes. The Monaro, Falcon, and Torana were Australia's favourite sons, and for a while we saw the odd Chrysler Charger and even BMW's 3 & 6-series' have all had a punt but of late... nothing.
The Cerato Koup runs to a pretty standard formula: 2L, 4 cylinders, 115kW. What really makes this interesting is that it uses Hyundai's Theta II engine. Hyundai bought 51% of Kia back in 1998 (though probably only owns about 40% now) and I suspect is using Kia in much the same way as the VW/Audi Group does Skoda. The bits in the Cerato Koup will probably appear in Hyundais in about 15 months.
So what do I actually thing about the car? From an internal vision point of view, it's better than the Astra Sport Hatch, the Honda Civic and the Ford Focus. The front styling is as sharp as any of the aforementioned and I suspect that because we get the 2L and not the 2.4L that they do in the USA, that there is less weight over the front wheels and therefore it should produce a more positive handling car. Of course if anyone from Kia wants to give me a Cerato Koup then be my guest. They say charity begins at home, and I don't see why it shouldn't be mine.
I never thought I'd say this, but Kia are shooting skywards at a tremendous rate of knots. The Kia Soul is ironically a soulless box, but the upcoming Venga, ex-cee'd and Pro-cee'd are a step forwards. And as for the Cerato, it's a real Koup. (pun intended)
posted by Rollo at 13:37
0 comments
October 09, 2009
Horse 1044 - Why I Hate the propsed Human Rights Act
http://www.theage.com.au/national/human-rights-act-would-give-canberra-final-say-20091008-gp2d.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/human-rights-act-promises-a-fair-go-20091008-goz6.html
The SMH and The Age on their front covers today, are both running articles about the proposed Human Rights Act which the Federal Government intends to put before the parliament. Personally I think that such an act if passed is a disgusting and dangerous piece of legislation, because of several higher operating principles.
1. It encourages limitation of humans rights merely to those listed in the legislation.
Believe it or not, discussions were held on this very topic 110 years ago when the Australian Constitution was being framed. The people looked at the example of the American Bill of Rights which formed Amendments to the US Constitution and concluded that the laws which were being passed, although were being made in reference to those rights, considered nothing beyond those rights as written in the legislation.
When you consider possibly one of the Declaration of Independence which inevitably led to the creation of that document, it is important to take note of one specific word.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language" and one of the most sweeping statements of human rights ever written, but take note of that word "among". That is not to say that what followed was all of the unalienable rights endowed by one's Creator, but only some among them.
2. It removes powers from elected representatives (ie the Parliament) to unelected persons (ie the judges and bureaucrats).
The really ironic thing about this is, that the most vocal people on this topic are two people in Australia's political history, that I most often disagree with; namely Menzies and Howard.
"A bill of rights would diminish parliament's authority by transferring decision-making authority to unelected judges, accountable to nobody in the barest theoretical sense.
I've always held the classical view that the public elects members of parliament, who pass laws hopefully in the public interest and those laws are in turn interpreted and enforced by courts.
If adopted, a bill of rights would politicise the appointment of judges, increase the volume of litigation and would not in any way increase the rights and protections now available to Australian citizens".
- John Howard, 27th Aug 2009
Sir Robert Menzies responded to Lionel Murphy in the early 1970s on this subject when the former attorney-general had sought to establish an international covenant of civil and human rights in Australian law.
"In Australia it is necessary to remember, when discussing civil liberties and rights, that one of the functions of common law has been to protect the individual against infringement of his or her personal rights"
- Sir Robert Menzies, 17th Jul 1971
The principles which Menzies and Howard are talking about are ironically even more fundamental than that proposed Act which the Parliament would pass. Howard's argument rests on the fact that the Parliament is ultimately answerable to the people, and Menzies reminds us that common law is ultimately based on the principle of equity: what is fair and just.
By actually enacting a Bill of Rights, the rules with regards what is fair and just are subverted by what is legal.
3. Do we really need a fourth Bill of Rights?
Rather than repeat myself on this subject, I'll provide the link here:
http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2008/05/horse-882-bills-of-rights.html
But as it stands there are already three Bills of Rights which have legal force in Australia. Namely the English Bill of Rights 1689, the Scottish Claim of Right 1689, and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/aep/1688/caep_16880002_en_1
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/asp/1689/casp_16890028_en_1
Legally if the existing legislation is either being ignored or trampled, then why does anyone think in their right mind think that new legislation is going to change anything? If the laws already exist USE them.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/human-rights-act-promises-a-fair-go-20091008-goz6.html
The SMH and The Age on their front covers today, are both running articles about the proposed Human Rights Act which the Federal Government intends to put before the parliament. Personally I think that such an act if passed is a disgusting and dangerous piece of legislation, because of several higher operating principles.
1. It encourages limitation of humans rights merely to those listed in the legislation.
Believe it or not, discussions were held on this very topic 110 years ago when the Australian Constitution was being framed. The people looked at the example of the American Bill of Rights which formed Amendments to the US Constitution and concluded that the laws which were being passed, although were being made in reference to those rights, considered nothing beyond those rights as written in the legislation.
When you consider possibly one of the Declaration of Independence which inevitably led to the creation of that document, it is important to take note of one specific word.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language" and one of the most sweeping statements of human rights ever written, but take note of that word "among". That is not to say that what followed was all of the unalienable rights endowed by one's Creator, but only some among them.
2. It removes powers from elected representatives (ie the Parliament) to unelected persons (ie the judges and bureaucrats).
The really ironic thing about this is, that the most vocal people on this topic are two people in Australia's political history, that I most often disagree with; namely Menzies and Howard.
"A bill of rights would diminish parliament's authority by transferring decision-making authority to unelected judges, accountable to nobody in the barest theoretical sense.
I've always held the classical view that the public elects members of parliament, who pass laws hopefully in the public interest and those laws are in turn interpreted and enforced by courts.
If adopted, a bill of rights would politicise the appointment of judges, increase the volume of litigation and would not in any way increase the rights and protections now available to Australian citizens".
- John Howard, 27th Aug 2009
Sir Robert Menzies responded to Lionel Murphy in the early 1970s on this subject when the former attorney-general had sought to establish an international covenant of civil and human rights in Australian law.
"In Australia it is necessary to remember, when discussing civil liberties and rights, that one of the functions of common law has been to protect the individual against infringement of his or her personal rights"
- Sir Robert Menzies, 17th Jul 1971
The principles which Menzies and Howard are talking about are ironically even more fundamental than that proposed Act which the Parliament would pass. Howard's argument rests on the fact that the Parliament is ultimately answerable to the people, and Menzies reminds us that common law is ultimately based on the principle of equity: what is fair and just.
By actually enacting a Bill of Rights, the rules with regards what is fair and just are subverted by what is legal.
3. Do we really need a fourth Bill of Rights?
Rather than repeat myself on this subject, I'll provide the link here:
http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2008/05/horse-882-bills-of-rights.html
But as it stands there are already three Bills of Rights which have legal force in Australia. Namely the English Bill of Rights 1689, the Scottish Claim of Right 1689, and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/aep/1688/caep_16880002_en_1
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/asp/1689/casp_16890028_en_1
Legally if the existing legislation is either being ignored or trampled, then why does anyone think in their right mind think that new legislation is going to change anything? If the laws already exist USE them.
posted by Rollo at 10:38
0 comments
October 07, 2009
Horse 1043 - You Know What I Mean about Ridiculous Assumptions
Advertising is supposed to inform prospective customers about products and/or services in the hope that people will buy said same products and/or services. Simple enough, but whilst most advertising for the most part either fails to do much for me or annoys me, the following two adverts I find intriguing for the wrong reasons.
They came on during One's telecast of the Japanese GP, and I noticed immediately that the same guy making ridiculous assumptions, also knows what I mean about oil.
Now fair dos that this chap is an actor and trying to earn a living, but this falls into the same category as Angus Sampson doing adverts for NRMA, Maggi noodles, and the Nissan Navara. None of these adverts make me want to rush out and buy the products in question, but I have noticed the work of the actors.
If Coca-Cola stopped advertising tommorrow, would they instantly lose market share? Possibly. The phenomenon of Ad Creep has been noticed before, perhaps most obviously by Fry in Futurama when ads were "Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and written in the sky." Surely there must be some point when it's simply useless... or in this case a ridiculous assumption that although I may know what I mean, that I'm going to buy anything.
They came on during One's telecast of the Japanese GP, and I noticed immediately that the same guy making ridiculous assumptions, also knows what I mean about oil.
Now fair dos that this chap is an actor and trying to earn a living, but this falls into the same category as Angus Sampson doing adverts for NRMA, Maggi noodles, and the Nissan Navara. None of these adverts make me want to rush out and buy the products in question, but I have noticed the work of the actors.
If Coca-Cola stopped advertising tommorrow, would they instantly lose market share? Possibly. The phenomenon of Ad Creep has been noticed before, perhaps most obviously by Fry in Futurama when ads were "Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and written in the sky." Surely there must be some point when it's simply useless... or in this case a ridiculous assumption that although I may know what I mean, that I'm going to buy anything.
posted by Rollo at 10:59
1 comments
October 01, 2009
Horse 1042 - Mad Bad Barry Hall to go to the Dogs
In this the week after a brilliant AFL Grand Final when Geelong took what was rightfully theirs and St Kilda saw their dream smash into a million tiny little pieces right before their eyes, you'd expect that footy news would be light on... not today!
The theory goes that Big Mad Bad Barry Hall will be joining the Western Bulldogs in 2010 in return for a second round draft pick for Sydney. If this happens then all other clubs in the AFL should be put on notice, for next year they could be reunited with a friend called PAIN.
It would mean that the Doggies forwards line-up would have two names up for a fight, and certainly two names who can put them between the sticks. Namely: Hall and Akermanis.
Aker himself was famously involved in a dustup with Leigh Matthews whilst he was at Brisbane, and since he's moved to the Dogs, they've come 3rd in two seasons and them made it to the semis on both occasions. Will the arrival of Mad Bad be enough to finally take them back to the top?
Whatever happens it will be good to see Mad Bad Barry back to his mad bad best as a madman. The AFL needs a few mad bad madmen.
posted by Rollo at 10:53
0 comments
September 30, 2009
Horse 1041 - The Death of Austext
“Seven is aware that Austext has many loyal supporters and we know that many of you will miss the Austext service. We sincerely regret any inconvenience the cessation of this service may cause and we have endeavoured to provide you with as much notice as possible.”
Channel 7 started offering teletext services in 1977 with the system going live in 1982, but now on 30 Sep 2009, some 32 years after it began, Austext dies. Naturally Channel 7 cites technology issues and upgrade expenses and the internet for the service being shut down, but really it comes down to a matter a of commercial viability.
I will be quite unhappy when tomorrow morning, Austext will be no more. How many people has sat staring at a screen waiting for sports results to change, willing the numbers to click over?
120, 140, 160 - National News, International News, Sports News... 329, 333 the Weather for Liverpool and Sydney... and then... sans teeth, sans eyes, sans everything...
Where do all the calculators go when they die? Silicon Heaven? Will Austext join them? Goodbye sweet Austext, you blocky thing you.
Channel 7 started offering teletext services in 1977 with the system going live in 1982, but now on 30 Sep 2009, some 32 years after it began, Austext dies. Naturally Channel 7 cites technology issues and upgrade expenses and the internet for the service being shut down, but really it comes down to a matter a of commercial viability.
I will be quite unhappy when tomorrow morning, Austext will be no more. How many people has sat staring at a screen waiting for sports results to change, willing the numbers to click over?
120, 140, 160 - National News, International News, Sports News... 329, 333 the Weather for Liverpool and Sydney... and then... sans teeth, sans eyes, sans everything...
Where do all the calculators go when they die? Silicon Heaven? Will Austext join them? Goodbye sweet Austext, you blocky thing you.
posted by Rollo at 14:27
0 comments
September 28, 2009
Horse 1040 - V8 Supercars "Memory Hole"
Horse 1039 has now got a dead link thanks to either the people at Holden or the people who run the V8 Supercars. I did a google search for a key phrase and found that the Motor Report also took the grab and that Carpoint were also suspicious about who spoons out the information:
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/43149/v8-supercars-toyota-lukewarm-on-future-participation/
http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/motorsport-highs-and-lows-for-v8-supercars-16823
Another matter this week which reflects V8 Supercar racing in a different light is the removal -- or attempt to remove -- a story from the website V8Supercars.com.au because it wasn't music the V8 Supercars Australia honchos wanted to hear.
We heard that the boys at V8 Supercar headquarters weren't happy with the story and that V8SA media manager Cole Hitchcock was delegated to contact the man with the contract to supply the editorial content for V8 Supercars.com.au, Neville Wilkinson of V8X, to get the story removed. The story's headline, 'Holden may not play if CoF isn't right', promptly disappeared from the site news list or story menu.
Importantly:
We still feel the bottom line is, as we said at the outset on this matter, that V8SA is being thin-skinned and intolerant of views that don't align with its own.
How very interesting all of this is. Whilst I could make mention of this being rather like the pages of Pravda and information mysteriously "disappearing" in Soviet Russia* it smacks more of a situation of being inside Oceania's Ministry of Truth in 1984 where the revision of old newspaper articles in order to serve the propaganda interests of the government is routine. I don't really know who is at fault here but someone is operating The Memory Hole.
It could very well be that either the V8SA themselves or Holden didn't like the adverse reaction to the story or perhaps this may have been a "rogue" story which was known inside the editorial staff of the website that was only half cleared and in an effort to ensure content was kept up was released.
Either way, the whole thing looks very suspicious indeed, almost as though my accusation in Horse 1039 has far more credence than first thought.
*In California, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, The Party can always find you!
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/43149/v8-supercars-toyota-lukewarm-on-future-participation/
http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/motorsport-highs-and-lows-for-v8-supercars-16823
Another matter this week which reflects V8 Supercar racing in a different light is the removal -- or attempt to remove -- a story from the website V8Supercars.com.au because it wasn't music the V8 Supercars Australia honchos wanted to hear.
We heard that the boys at V8 Supercar headquarters weren't happy with the story and that V8SA media manager Cole Hitchcock was delegated to contact the man with the contract to supply the editorial content for V8 Supercars.com.au, Neville Wilkinson of V8X, to get the story removed. The story's headline, 'Holden may not play if CoF isn't right', promptly disappeared from the site news list or story menu.
Importantly:
We still feel the bottom line is, as we said at the outset on this matter, that V8SA is being thin-skinned and intolerant of views that don't align with its own.
How very interesting all of this is. Whilst I could make mention of this being rather like the pages of Pravda and information mysteriously "disappearing" in Soviet Russia* it smacks more of a situation of being inside Oceania's Ministry of Truth in 1984 where the revision of old newspaper articles in order to serve the propaganda interests of the government is routine. I don't really know who is at fault here but someone is operating The Memory Hole.
It could very well be that either the V8SA themselves or Holden didn't like the adverse reaction to the story or perhaps this may have been a "rogue" story which was known inside the editorial staff of the website that was only half cleared and in an effort to ensure content was kept up was released.
Either way, the whole thing looks very suspicious indeed, almost as though my accusation in Horse 1039 has far more credence than first thought.
*In California, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, The Party can always find you!
posted by Rollo at 14:43
0 comments
September 25, 2009
Horse 1039 - Well Done Holden... Bullies.
http://www.v8supercars.com.au/content/hero_news/september_2009/holden_may_not_play_if_cof_isnt_right/
Neither the prospect of technical rule changes that dilute the level of General Motors DNA in a Commodore V8Supercar or the entry of other brands onto the grid impresses Holden, says its motorsport manager Simon McNamara.
"If they go down a path that doesn't suit us in any way shape or form then we just won't do it. Simple as that," McNamara said.
Well done Holden, absolutely true to form. It must be said at this juncture that both Holden and Ford when it comes to motorsport in Australia generally treat the fan as chumps.
Ford's greatest hour in 1977 was won by the Moffat Ford Dealers Team but over the next three years they gradually pulled back their effort when in 1980 Ford didn't supply any real effort at all until 1992.
When Ford did finally decide to again put their tag on a motorsport team, they picked Dick Johnson and just to prove their loyalty they then picked Glen Seton, then Gibson Motorsport before buying out the two latter. And then when Stone Brothers and 888 were more successful that their own team, they dumped them all cold.
Holden on the other hand were perfectly happy to bask in the glory of Peter Brock through the early 80s but when Holden and Brock parted ways, from 1988 onwards they kind of tightened their grip over the sport.
CAMS were bullied and harassed by Holden until the creation of the 5L formula in 1992 and the eventual split when Holden and Ford assumed partial control of the sport through manipluation of the new V8Supercars series. They effectively denied both Mitsubishi and Toyota from entry at various stages and there was the curious case of the Bathurst 24hr races where Holden bullied PROCAR into admitting a GT2 car (in their Monaro 427C which was virtually a hybrid of a V8 Supercar with a racing Corvette C5 engine) into a GT3 race.
Now that the V8Supercar category could be opened up (notwithstanding the fact that GM itself declared bankruptcy) Holden are again trying to bully the motorsport world; basically saying if they don't get what they want, they're taking their bat and ball and going home.
Quite frankly I would not expect anything less from Holden or Ford for that matter. Whilst they both rant long and loudly how it was they who built V8 Supercars to where it is today, they conveniently forget the decade that went one before 1992, when both of them showed chronic neglect of the sport. All Holden have done with this weeks statement is shown that they still treat motorsport in Australia and the fans as chumps. Well done Holden.
Neither the prospect of technical rule changes that dilute the level of General Motors DNA in a Commodore V8Supercar or the entry of other brands onto the grid impresses Holden, says its motorsport manager Simon McNamara.
"If they go down a path that doesn't suit us in any way shape or form then we just won't do it. Simple as that," McNamara said.
Well done Holden, absolutely true to form. It must be said at this juncture that both Holden and Ford when it comes to motorsport in Australia generally treat the fan as chumps.
Ford's greatest hour in 1977 was won by the Moffat Ford Dealers Team but over the next three years they gradually pulled back their effort when in 1980 Ford didn't supply any real effort at all until 1992.
When Ford did finally decide to again put their tag on a motorsport team, they picked Dick Johnson and just to prove their loyalty they then picked Glen Seton, then Gibson Motorsport before buying out the two latter. And then when Stone Brothers and 888 were more successful that their own team, they dumped them all cold.
Holden on the other hand were perfectly happy to bask in the glory of Peter Brock through the early 80s but when Holden and Brock parted ways, from 1988 onwards they kind of tightened their grip over the sport.
CAMS were bullied and harassed by Holden until the creation of the 5L formula in 1992 and the eventual split when Holden and Ford assumed partial control of the sport through manipluation of the new V8Supercars series. They effectively denied both Mitsubishi and Toyota from entry at various stages and there was the curious case of the Bathurst 24hr races where Holden bullied PROCAR into admitting a GT2 car (in their Monaro 427C which was virtually a hybrid of a V8 Supercar with a racing Corvette C5 engine) into a GT3 race.
Now that the V8Supercar category could be opened up (notwithstanding the fact that GM itself declared bankruptcy) Holden are again trying to bully the motorsport world; basically saying if they don't get what they want, they're taking their bat and ball and going home.
Quite frankly I would not expect anything less from Holden or Ford for that matter. Whilst they both rant long and loudly how it was they who built V8 Supercars to where it is today, they conveniently forget the decade that went one before 1992, when both of them showed chronic neglect of the sport. All Holden have done with this weeks statement is shown that they still treat motorsport in Australia and the fans as chumps. Well done Holden.
posted by Rollo at 12:53
0 comments
September 22, 2009
Horse 1038 - Nissan GTR, The Menace of Godzilla
GTR: Three letters that either bring peril to the Australian Touring Car fan or lament, as they remember the terror that was "Godzilla"*.
Somewhere in Victoria, presumably Clayton Business Park the so called "Car of Tommorrow" is being built and tested, and although it might be the first technical step forward for the V8 Supercars, the finished product will more than likely be yet another single overhead cam, rocker driven, 2 valve, 5 Litre V8. How dull.
Why do I even mention this? Well over in Japan, the GTR wasn't killed off. In fact the car continued to be raced, and the Japanese Group A series developed into the Japanese Super GT Series. The cars themselves are quite mental, and the letters GTR still hold a great deal of menace.
The Nissan GTR GT500, is now a 4.5L, camless, 4 or 5 valve per cylinder (depending on which produces the best tune for the circuit) V8. Like the rest of the cars in the series they're limited to 500bhp.
Now this is a bit of Wild Mass Discussion (WMD) but I'm wondering how difficult it would be to take that 4.5L V8 and bore it out to 5L, and then drop the whole drivetrain into a Nissan Maxima.
Actually come to think of it, there are a whole slew of V8s that are already raced in the world hovering around the 4.5L mark, such as Lexus' SC430 in Japan and their IS-F in America, BMW's M3, as well as the DTM Audis and Mercs. Would Holden and Ford let anyone else play with them though? Of course not. Holden and Ford are whingers.
PS: Even more mental looking than the Nissan GTR GT500 is the Toyota Corolla Axio GT300. It's a Corolla?!
*or indeed if they're even older than that - the GTR-XU1.
Somewhere in Victoria, presumably Clayton Business Park the so called "Car of Tommorrow" is being built and tested, and although it might be the first technical step forward for the V8 Supercars, the finished product will more than likely be yet another single overhead cam, rocker driven, 2 valve, 5 Litre V8. How dull.
Why do I even mention this? Well over in Japan, the GTR wasn't killed off. In fact the car continued to be raced, and the Japanese Group A series developed into the Japanese Super GT Series. The cars themselves are quite mental, and the letters GTR still hold a great deal of menace.
The Nissan GTR GT500, is now a 4.5L, camless, 4 or 5 valve per cylinder (depending on which produces the best tune for the circuit) V8. Like the rest of the cars in the series they're limited to 500bhp.
Now this is a bit of Wild Mass Discussion (WMD) but I'm wondering how difficult it would be to take that 4.5L V8 and bore it out to 5L, and then drop the whole drivetrain into a Nissan Maxima.
Actually come to think of it, there are a whole slew of V8s that are already raced in the world hovering around the 4.5L mark, such as Lexus' SC430 in Japan and their IS-F in America, BMW's M3, as well as the DTM Audis and Mercs. Would Holden and Ford let anyone else play with them though? Of course not. Holden and Ford are whingers.
PS: Even more mental looking than the Nissan GTR GT500 is the Toyota Corolla Axio GT300. It's a Corolla?!
*or indeed if they're even older than that - the GTR-XU1.
posted by Rollo at 14:25
0 comments
September 21, 2009
Horse 1037 - Structural Separation of Telstra
I'm going to choose my words very carefully here, and produce the reasons why I think that Telstra should undergo a structural separation.
Telstra is a very highly vertically integrated company that exists within a natural monopoly. That is, they are the biggest player in terms of scale and therefore are able to control prices; they are what economists call "price makers". They own the infrastructure, the wholesale rights to that infrastructure and the retail business which is attached to it therein.
If this was a road, they'd own: the Road, the Traffic Lights and something in the order of 90-95% of all of the Cars on the road.
My esteemed collegue the Noble Prawn had this to say:
"Yet this morning, the Australian government has decided that it doesn’t like an Australian company being too successful. After all the the time, money and effort that Telstra has invested into becoming the leaders, the Government has decided that it’s time to slow it down."
http://jamisonprawn.net/2009/09/telstra-is-being-successful-quick-lets-put-a-stop-to-it/
Sep 15, 2009
The basic question that needs to asked here is "What is the definition of successful?". Success for every private company is mainly defined by a single outcome - profit. Unfortunately, that profit is extracted from none other than the consumer.
The consumer on the other hand doesn't really care who their provider of services are. What the consumer's basic desire is, are reasonable services at a reasonable cost. Is Telstra "successful" because it genuinely provides reasonable services at a reasonable cost, or is it using its position which it inherited as a natural monopoly to overcharge its consumers?
That question can not be answered currently, because in coming up with a charge model, Telstra which also owns the infrastructure and the wholesale rights is able to shift costs around its accounts internally. What a structural separation would do would actually force the company to track costs through itself, rather coming up with a generic wholesale charge rate.
There is another issue contained within the Prawn's post, and that is an ethical question which is wrapped up with a closing paragraph:
"Bring on the comments telling me that Telstra is a big bully and that it’s the right thing for “competition” and for Australia – I’d love to hear them and I’m ready for a fight. Cos you try and tell me that the government isn’t being the biggest bully of them all right now."
15 Sep, 2009
A company by its nature is essentially an amoral organisation, that is not to say "immoral" which implies "not right" behaviour, but "amoral"; that is, without morals. The company even said as much within its 2003 Annual Report:
"Rather than being on the superhighway most of us are limping along a two-lane road and the rest, mainly but not all in the country, are still on a dirt track - let Telstra go and do what it wants. At the very worst we will end up with a world class piece of infrastructure."
The 2003 Telstra Annual Report
If you let a company "do what it wants" then the inevitable outcome is one of maximising profits, which again are extracted from the consumer. Does that imply reasonable services at a reasonable cost? The direct answer is no. If a company was able to "do what it wants" it would invariably charge the consumer as much as it could possibly get away with (which from the company's perspective is entirely fair and reasonable). But this is in stark odds to the wishes of the consumer, and it's not like they can easily go elsewhere when the the infrastructure and the wholesale rights to that infrastructure are owned by the same company.
So then, is the government acting like a bully? Quite frankly it is, but it should in theory be acting on behalf of the electorate, rather than unnamed shareholders. They of course have the basic right at law to exercise this right as well:
Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act (1901)
51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
v. Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services.
xxxi. The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws:
http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/par5cha1.htm
What is of course the definition of "good government"? Admittedly that has never been tested in the High Court of Australia, but anything which is for the betterment of the Australian people must surely fit that definition.
As for whether Telstra should be compensated for the loss of its assets if that's how this proposed National Broadband network is to come about, then the answer is obviously "Yes" and on "just terms" whatever that would happen to be.
Horse 1037 - Aside:
The European Union when it came to the issue of functional separation produced a hideously massive document extending into just over 12,000 pages, but it was quoted in the House of Reps this afternoon:
Functional separation has the capacity to improve competition in several relevant markets by significantly reducing the incentive for discrimination and by making it easier for compliance with nondiscrimination obligations to be verified and enforced. In exceptional cases, it may be justified as a remedy where there has been persistent failure to achieve effective non-discrimination in several of the markets concerned, and where there is little or no prospect of infrastructure competition within a reasonable timeframe after recourse to one or more remedies previously considered to be appropriate.
However, it is very important to ensure that its imposition preserves the incentives of the concerned undertaking to invest in its network and that it does not entail any potential negative effects on consumer welfare.
Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Union on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services.
Telstra is a very highly vertically integrated company that exists within a natural monopoly. That is, they are the biggest player in terms of scale and therefore are able to control prices; they are what economists call "price makers". They own the infrastructure, the wholesale rights to that infrastructure and the retail business which is attached to it therein.
If this was a road, they'd own: the Road, the Traffic Lights and something in the order of 90-95% of all of the Cars on the road.
My esteemed collegue the Noble Prawn had this to say:
"Yet this morning, the Australian government has decided that it doesn’t like an Australian company being too successful. After all the the time, money and effort that Telstra has invested into becoming the leaders, the Government has decided that it’s time to slow it down."
http://jamisonprawn.net/2009/09/telstra-is-being-successful-quick-lets-put-a-stop-to-it/
Sep 15, 2009
The basic question that needs to asked here is "What is the definition of successful?". Success for every private company is mainly defined by a single outcome - profit. Unfortunately, that profit is extracted from none other than the consumer.
The consumer on the other hand doesn't really care who their provider of services are. What the consumer's basic desire is, are reasonable services at a reasonable cost. Is Telstra "successful" because it genuinely provides reasonable services at a reasonable cost, or is it using its position which it inherited as a natural monopoly to overcharge its consumers?
That question can not be answered currently, because in coming up with a charge model, Telstra which also owns the infrastructure and the wholesale rights is able to shift costs around its accounts internally. What a structural separation would do would actually force the company to track costs through itself, rather coming up with a generic wholesale charge rate.
There is another issue contained within the Prawn's post, and that is an ethical question which is wrapped up with a closing paragraph:
"Bring on the comments telling me that Telstra is a big bully and that it’s the right thing for “competition” and for Australia – I’d love to hear them and I’m ready for a fight. Cos you try and tell me that the government isn’t being the biggest bully of them all right now."
15 Sep, 2009
A company by its nature is essentially an amoral organisation, that is not to say "immoral" which implies "not right" behaviour, but "amoral"; that is, without morals. The company even said as much within its 2003 Annual Report:
"Rather than being on the superhighway most of us are limping along a two-lane road and the rest, mainly but not all in the country, are still on a dirt track - let Telstra go and do what it wants. At the very worst we will end up with a world class piece of infrastructure."
The 2003 Telstra Annual Report
If you let a company "do what it wants" then the inevitable outcome is one of maximising profits, which again are extracted from the consumer. Does that imply reasonable services at a reasonable cost? The direct answer is no. If a company was able to "do what it wants" it would invariably charge the consumer as much as it could possibly get away with (which from the company's perspective is entirely fair and reasonable). But this is in stark odds to the wishes of the consumer, and it's not like they can easily go elsewhere when the the infrastructure and the wholesale rights to that infrastructure are owned by the same company.
So then, is the government acting like a bully? Quite frankly it is, but it should in theory be acting on behalf of the electorate, rather than unnamed shareholders. They of course have the basic right at law to exercise this right as well:
Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act (1901)
51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
v. Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services.
xxxi. The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws:
http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/par5cha1.htm
What is of course the definition of "good government"? Admittedly that has never been tested in the High Court of Australia, but anything which is for the betterment of the Australian people must surely fit that definition.
As for whether Telstra should be compensated for the loss of its assets if that's how this proposed National Broadband network is to come about, then the answer is obviously "Yes" and on "just terms" whatever that would happen to be.
Horse 1037 - Aside:
The European Union when it came to the issue of functional separation produced a hideously massive document extending into just over 12,000 pages, but it was quoted in the House of Reps this afternoon:
Functional separation has the capacity to improve competition in several relevant markets by significantly reducing the incentive for discrimination and by making it easier for compliance with nondiscrimination obligations to be verified and enforced. In exceptional cases, it may be justified as a remedy where there has been persistent failure to achieve effective non-discrimination in several of the markets concerned, and where there is little or no prospect of infrastructure competition within a reasonable timeframe after recourse to one or more remedies previously considered to be appropriate.
However, it is very important to ensure that its imposition preserves the incentives of the concerned undertaking to invest in its network and that it does not entail any potential negative effects on consumer welfare.
Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Union on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services.
posted by Rollo at 14:55
2 comments
September 14, 2009
Horse 1036 - Bakkie to the Ute(ur)
It is an open secret that I really like the idea of a ute. To me they represent the whole idea that you can have an entirely practical two door coupe, and still fit a shed load of stuff in the back, and quite possibly the shed (if you dismantled said shed).
Imagine then my excitement when I heard on the news this afternoon, that Ford in South Africa, intend to turn the already cool Fiesta 7 into what Seff Efrikens call a "bakkie" or what we'd call a ute.
The current 1.6L Ford Bantam (derived from the Mark 5 Fiesta) will set you back 115,950 Rand. Whist that sounds excessive, bear in mind that the Aussie Dollar currently buys 6.43 Rand. 115,950 Rs = A$18,005, which for a 1.6L ute isn't too bad. The only logical competitor in Australia currently would be the Proton Jumbuck.
The whole idea of a little ute in Australia isn't a new thing at all. The Morris Minor 1000 ute, used to be a common sight on Australian roads; even the NRMA used them. Datsun's 1200 ute became the stuff of folk lore and has invariably turned into something of a tuner's martket icon. So perhaps the Fiesta as a ute (would they call it a Bantam here?) might have a market. Certainly I'd consider buying one... and if Ford brought out an XR4 Turbo ute, well... consider it sold. If it's good enough for South Africa, surely it's good enough for Oz?
posted by Rollo at 10:46
0 comments
September 11, 2009
Horse 1035 - Is the RTA on the take?
This morning, I actually saw the speed camera on Fitzwilliam Rd go off and nab a motorist. Now my problem isn't necessarily with the obvious fact that excessive speed in inappropriate conditions is a bad thing, but that the whole campaign is basically a cover for a giant revenue take.
Nobody for a second doubts that when small children are about, that they often do not check for traffic and will simply dart across the road. And in that respect, 40km/h in a school zone during prime school hours is perfectly acceptable, but the rest of the time, because the speed camera is there, it turns into a giant game of watching the speedo which is a distraction and does not promote safe driving at all.
On Victoria Rd, there is a camera outside of Holy Cross College in Ryde. Now during school times when children are about it's fair enough but that same camera in peak periods, causes drivers in both directions to take their eyes off the road and all simultaneously look down at their speedos. The result is ironically more nose-to-tail accidents than if the camera hadn't been there in the first place.
I should also point out that speed by itself doesn't kill you. There was an advert a few years ago that showed a couple of kids being wiped out in a Ford Laser with the caption:
72 in a 60 zone. Safe speeding, there's no such thing.
Firstly, that 60km/h limit is a function of the authority who decided to put the limit there. If that same stretch of road was labeled as either 70 or 80, would the road be any more or less inherently safe? Ok, so the question is daft, but that's precisely the mechanics of the Pacific Highway between North Sydney and Hornsby, there are heaps of speed limit changes without any inherent change in the actual physicality of the road, but it's posted as 60, 70 & 80 depending on where you are.There are of course several separate issues at play here. Namely, what speed limits are actually appropriate and at what point are they put in there simply on the basis of collecting revenue?
Take Brians Road between Windsor Rd and Old Windsor Rd. That was originally upgraded as part of a Sydney Ring Roads Project. The road itself has a set of design tolerances such that it is a safe road to be driven on at 90km/h. Yet when the M7 went in, as if by magic, that section of road instantly dropped its limit from 80 to 70. No single other factor changed about the road, except for the change in speed limits. If our friends in the Laser according to the commercial who would have been "safe" doing 72 in that 80 zone, are they now "unsafe" doing 72 in a 70 zone; considering that the road itself had been designed for 90?
I suppose my question about the speed camera on Fitzwilliam Rd is coloured by the fact that at 06:30am and against the flow of traffic, our friend would have been perfectly within a case of reasonableness doing 64km/h on that stretch of road. Yet because somebody decided to put a camera there, the RTA gets to push the buttons on its cash registers.
posted by Rollo at 09:11
3 comments
September 09, 2009
Horse 1034 - I'm Beached Az
"I only eet plenkton"
What began as a cartoon lasting a mere 1'38" long has now launched its own series on ABC2.
What I find somewhat odd about this, is that New Zealand seems to be able to find money from nothing to be able to create a cottage animation industry, what with Bro'town and the like hitting our television screens.
No-one as yet in Australia seems to want to tell stories that relate to an Australian audience. You could look at the success of say the Simpsons with its massive budgets and ask why the best that we can do appear to be twee and cliched series like "The Adventures of Blinky Bill", "Skippy: Adventures in Bushtown" or "Lil' Elvis and the Truckstoppers"
Would anyone for instance like to make a show about our own sordid past? Perhaps the life of Ned Kelly, Roy Cazaly, or even the perennial long-runner Ginger Meggs? Why is it that we don't have the capability of doing anything for ourselves?
Admittedly the same question can be asked about comedy, drama and other assorted programs on telly. Really about the only thing which Australian television does which is the envy of the world is OB productions of sport. Maybe that does say something about this country, I don't know.
posted by Rollo at 12:03
0 comments
Previous Posts
- At the moment if you could kidnap the top 6 in t...
- Horse 1052 - 2012 is Bunk
- Horse 1050a - additional
- Horse 1051 - Stupid News for Stupid People
- Horse 1050 - Erin's Amazing Grant Checks
- Horse 1049 - Silver Arrows
- Horse 1048 - When the Wall Came Down
- Horse 1047 - Scab Day (Halloween)
- Horse 1046 - Hazem El Masri MP
- Horse 1045 - Koup de Grace
Archives
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
