It would appear that the organisers of the KFC T20 Big Bash League have started up using precisely the same formula as the A-League did for its first season.
Let me put this in perspective for you. Unlike the A-League which became the highest level of club football in Australia at its inception, the new T20 Big Bash League will become one of three cricket competitions at domestic level in Australia.
Apart from the national side, the Sheffield Shield competition which is the Four-Day game and the 50 Over competition struggle to gain crowds. The old T20 competition although it fared a little better, still struggled to capture the public's imagination.
Of course the obvious question is then, why does the KFC T20 Big Bash League exist in the first place? Presumably it won't gain a lot of crowd support, and at least a few players including Brad Hodge of Victoria have suggested that the competition will blur the lines and weaken the existing State based competitions.
I imagine then that the domestic T20 competition in Australia is nothing more than a monetary hedge. I honestly think that the reason that it does exist, is to sell TV rights into India. If this is the case, then I start to wonder, why Australia needs to bother with it at all. Wouldn't it just have made more sense to push for more teams in the IPL and get them all to play in a proper home and away league rather like the English Premier League?
Better yet, how about about just abandoning the domestic T20 league althogether in Australia and just let the players play in the IPL if they want to. Let's just admit that it's money which runs the game, so why not open the doors to the cash, the same way that the English Premier League did back in 1992-3?
Since I think that Test Cricket is still the highest form of the game and that Test Cricket in particular will carry on as it always has done and into eternity (amen), why not let the kids coming up into the game decide where they want to specialise and be done with it?
Don't make some hoo-haa about a manufactured competition which no-one will care about anyway... full of sound and fury signifying... nothing!
July 29, 2011
July 28, 2011
Horse 1215 - Dancing On The Ceiling
For your entertainment, I now provide this handy little cartoon:
Bear in mind that was back in 1996, and so the numbers might be different. The same monster still lives there though.
The thing to remember about the Debt Ceiling is that the only reason it exists is because of the operation of legislation. The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 and the 1939 and 1941 Public Debt Acts are the instruments which determine the aggregate limit on the total value of US Government bonds that can be issued.
The Debt Ceiling is established by the Congress and is actually quite independent from the US Federal Budget. The US Federal Budget is produced by the Executive Branch and specifically the Department of the Treasury. It's almost as though the Treasury develops the budget without working out how to pay for it.
The Debt Ceiling it should be noted has been raised 74 times since the last time it was actually lowered back in 1962. This so-called "crisis" is dubious at best and is little more than a political smokescreen to hide the far worse underlying issue - a huge debt hole.
As of now the US Govt rakes in about $2,300bn a year. The Interest bill on previous debt comes in at about $225bn and "Mandatory" spending is worth about $2,108bn a year. Right away even in the US Federal Government cut all "Discretionary" Spending to ZERO, there'd still be a shortfall of about $333bn.
In fact the last time a genuine surplus was achieved, that is when Taxation Receipts exceed Government spending was back in 1958.
If you are looking for someone to blame then blame Presidents
Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, everyone who's sat in the Congress since 1958 and every single American Citizen who has been alive since 1958 for not holding 11 successive administrations and the Congress to proper account.
As for government debt issues, even if the United States were to cut all government spending to ZERO, which includes all "Mandatory" spending, you'd still need to collect enough in taxes to fund existing debt and interest responsibilities.
At less than 15% of GDP, tax receipts for the US Federal Govt were the lowest they'd been as a percentage since 1962.
Assuming the 2008 level of taxation before the GFC and Government Spending of ZERO it would still take until 2018 to eliminate Government debt.
Faced with such a flood of fearful, formidable, frightful and furious foulness, could such a "crisis" happen here in Australia? The answer simply is... No.
1. Because the Executive and the Legislative Branches co-exist in parliament, they wouldn't disagree with themselves.
2. Budgets in Australia aren't really any different to any other Bill placed before the Houses. If a Budget Bill was rejected three times, Parliament would shut down, we'd have an election and the first action of the new Government would be to pass a new Budget.
3. Australia has no Debt Ceiling in the first place.
Really the only thing that will happen with this artificial crisis, is that the Republicans and Democrats will yell at each other like a couple of Rangers and Celtic fans for 90 minutes and then go home. Nothing will have been solved and the underlying debt problems will persist. Oh well.
Bear in mind that was back in 1996, and so the numbers might be different. The same monster still lives there though.
The thing to remember about the Debt Ceiling is that the only reason it exists is because of the operation of legislation. The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 and the 1939 and 1941 Public Debt Acts are the instruments which determine the aggregate limit on the total value of US Government bonds that can be issued.
The Debt Ceiling is established by the Congress and is actually quite independent from the US Federal Budget. The US Federal Budget is produced by the Executive Branch and specifically the Department of the Treasury. It's almost as though the Treasury develops the budget without working out how to pay for it.
The Debt Ceiling it should be noted has been raised 74 times since the last time it was actually lowered back in 1962. This so-called "crisis" is dubious at best and is little more than a political smokescreen to hide the far worse underlying issue - a huge debt hole.
As of now the US Govt rakes in about $2,300bn a year. The Interest bill on previous debt comes in at about $225bn and "Mandatory" spending is worth about $2,108bn a year. Right away even in the US Federal Government cut all "Discretionary" Spending to ZERO, there'd still be a shortfall of about $333bn.
In fact the last time a genuine surplus was achieved, that is when Taxation Receipts exceed Government spending was back in 1958.
If you are looking for someone to blame then blame Presidents
Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, everyone who's sat in the Congress since 1958 and every single American Citizen who has been alive since 1958 for not holding 11 successive administrations and the Congress to proper account.
As for government debt issues, even if the United States were to cut all government spending to ZERO, which includes all "Mandatory" spending, you'd still need to collect enough in taxes to fund existing debt and interest responsibilities.
At less than 15% of GDP, tax receipts for the US Federal Govt were the lowest they'd been as a percentage since 1962.
Assuming the 2008 level of taxation before the GFC and Government Spending of ZERO it would still take until 2018 to eliminate Government debt.
Faced with such a flood of fearful, formidable, frightful and furious foulness, could such a "crisis" happen here in Australia? The answer simply is... No.
1. Because the Executive and the Legislative Branches co-exist in parliament, they wouldn't disagree with themselves.
2. Budgets in Australia aren't really any different to any other Bill placed before the Houses. If a Budget Bill was rejected three times, Parliament would shut down, we'd have an election and the first action of the new Government would be to pass a new Budget.
3. Australia has no Debt Ceiling in the first place.
Really the only thing that will happen with this artificial crisis, is that the Republicans and Democrats will yell at each other like a couple of Rangers and Celtic fans for 90 minutes and then go home. Nothing will have been solved and the underlying debt problems will persist. Oh well.
July 27, 2011
Horse 1214 - The Right To Privacy
Last night's episode of Media Watch on ABC1 raises the question over whether or not a Right To Privacy should be enshrined in law, following the wake of the News Of The World phone hacking scandal.
According the the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, although Australia has ratified and adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, "The Universal Declaration is not a treaty, so it does not directly create legal obligations for countries."¹
Obviously then question then is, if not, why not?
Framers of the Australian Constitution were careful not to include a Bill of Rights in the document for fear of limiting the rights that citizens have to the bullet points within the document. Notwithstanding the fact that there was already a Bill of Rights Act (1689) which is legally binding because it existed as statute law before 1901 has hasn't been formally repealed.
So then, we reach a tricky situation where there is a Right to Privacy according to the UN but there isn't actually a legal standing for that right. The right is explained in Article 12:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."²
Maybe the right itself doesn't need to be spelled out in as many words, though there is certainly a case to be made to enshrine into legislation, then ethical standards for parties who wish to infringe on people's privacy.
I don't think that the Right as contained in the UDHR only just applies to government's infringements. By the word "universal".
The legal trick is to conflate the various digital concerns into a new form of property right: a general tort against invasion of personal privacy akin to someone breaking into your property or a home invasion. Conventional private property rights are a foundation of a democratic market economy. But a property right over individual privacy necessarily intrudes into a more basic foundation of an open society: free speech.
- Michael Stutchbury, Economics Editor , The Australian, 26th July 2011.³
I find it really curious that in yesterday's The Australian (26th Jul, 2011) the front page led with an article by Peter Van Onselen the Contributing Editor, asking the question of what poltical parties do with personal data and with a small graphic bump "Protecting Your Privacy" yet the editorial on page 13 by Michael Stutchbury, Economics Editor suggests that the tort of an invasion of privacy somehow negates the Right to Free Speech.
Seeing as both the Right to Privacy and the Right to Free Speech both exist in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as Articles 12 and 19 respectively, I would like to know if The Australian as an entity thinks itself of having a higher and nobler purpose than the astute diplomats and statesmen who founded the document in 1948 after having passed through the bloodiest conflict the world has ever seen, with the intent of making the world a safer and better place than they left it.
The way I see it, the issues of Privacy and Free Speech are separate. I think that what constitutes the line around which the issue of Privacy is drawn is pretty obvious. If someone has written something, or posted photographs to MySpace, Facebook, Twitter or elsewhere on the internet then those items have been published voluntarily. An invasion of privacy is where information which includes photographs taken in an invasive process or without permission implies that that information was not published voluntarily. An invasion of privacy is tantamount to theft.
I think that the Right to Privacy is an extension of someone's basic Right to Human Dignity. Whether you believe that that is a result of having it endowed by your creator (as I do), or as a result of the commonality of Human existence is moot but the point remains that all Human Rights are an extension of someone's basic Right to Human Dignity.
I think what we've seen particularly in the wake of the News Of The World phone hacking scandal and the reason why people are so offended is precisely because that Human Dignity has been violated.
I also reject outright this claim by Michael Stutchbury.
"The new digital technology also reduces the gatekeeper role of the traditional media: anything seems to go in social media."
Well, no it doesn't. Most journalists belong to the Australian Journalists Association; members are required to follow a code of ethics.
Guess what? Ethics also extend from the basic Right to Human Dignity. Please don't forget this.
¹ - Link: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/UDHR/what_is_UDHR.html
² - Link: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12
³ - Link: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/lawsuits-no-way-to-defend-privacy-or-free-speech/story-e6frgd0x-1226101597493
July 21, 2011
Horse 1213 - David Hicks Sells Books, The DPP Wants Money
From Sky News - http://www.skynews.com.au/local/article.aspx?id=640649&vId=
David Hicks could be deprived of tens of thousands of dollars reaped from his Guantanamo, My Journey book, after the DPP served him with a notice.
Hicks's book, Guantanamo, My Journey, was published last year by Random House, and is based on his time as an inmate in the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from 2001 until 2007.
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, he is legally unable to profit from his Guantanamo ordeal, which has resulted in 30,000 book sales, The Australian reported on Thursday.
A restraining order he was issued with by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions on Wednesday will be followed by an application to seize profits made from the book under the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act, the paper said.
An Australian Federal Police spokeswoman said the matter would be heard by the NSW Supreme Court on August 3.
Whilst I acknowledge that it's probably safe to assume that David Hicks was in fact training to be a terrorist. I also acknowledge that he confessed to doing as much.
However, for the Director of Public Prosecutions decides to prosecute under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, I think this sets a disgusting precedent.
Firstly Hicks was never tried in a recognised court. Let's be perfectly frank here, it was a kangaroo court organised specifically designed because it was in a legal grey area. For an Australian Court to recognise the findings of that so-called court, is to undermine the legal framework of this country.
Even the US Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006 declared that this pathetic excuse for a court was unconstitutional. Why then if the United States legal system doesn't the court, should an Australian court recognise its decisions?
What point does it stop? If the courts recognise the decisions of a court which was legally and morally vague and certainly without due jurisdiction, then does this mean that the NSW Supreme Court by inference actually endorses those decisions? I hope not.
Secondly, if the DPP appeal is upheld, then in effect the NSW Supreme Court will uphold a confession obtained under torture. Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which I should point out that the United States ISN'T), of which Article 5 states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Are we to suggest therefore that in upholding a decision we should negate existing law?
I would hope that the laws on this country are at very least based on or recognise Human Rights law and upon failing that human dignity. If not, then what is the point of law itself?
Thirdly, technically the proceeds which result from book sales aren't the proceeds of crime but the proceeds of book sales. Book Sales aren't the direct proceeds of crime under the s.124 definition contained within the Act.
Admittedly the DPP probably have lawyers who are prepared to argue all sorts of defnitions at law and my knowledge of the actual operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is not as robust as the legal profession, but it still doesn't change the fact that law can and should be read at face value.
If the NSW Supreme Court does uphold the DPP's request, then I think it will be a failure in the legal process. Whilst I don't like the fact that Hicks was bascially training to kill people en masse, I don't think that the rule of law should be bent because we happen to be morally offended. The thing is that because out legal system is in part based on the principle of precedents, if the law is bent, then the precedent is set to do so in the future.
As an aside, I would have thought that the best way for this to go away and thereby negate any media capital which Hicks could have generated, would be simply to let the book go on sale, and sale very few copies. Does the DPP, by going to court actually generate more media hype to surround Hicks in the first place and thus defeat their own cause?
David Hicks could be deprived of tens of thousands of dollars reaped from his Guantanamo, My Journey book, after the DPP served him with a notice.
Hicks's book, Guantanamo, My Journey, was published last year by Random House, and is based on his time as an inmate in the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from 2001 until 2007.
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, he is legally unable to profit from his Guantanamo ordeal, which has resulted in 30,000 book sales, The Australian reported on Thursday.
A restraining order he was issued with by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions on Wednesday will be followed by an application to seize profits made from the book under the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act, the paper said.
An Australian Federal Police spokeswoman said the matter would be heard by the NSW Supreme Court on August 3.
Whilst I acknowledge that it's probably safe to assume that David Hicks was in fact training to be a terrorist. I also acknowledge that he confessed to doing as much.
However, for the Director of Public Prosecutions decides to prosecute under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, I think this sets a disgusting precedent.
Firstly Hicks was never tried in a recognised court. Let's be perfectly frank here, it was a kangaroo court organised specifically designed because it was in a legal grey area. For an Australian Court to recognise the findings of that so-called court, is to undermine the legal framework of this country.
Even the US Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006 declared that this pathetic excuse for a court was unconstitutional. Why then if the United States legal system doesn't the court, should an Australian court recognise its decisions?
What point does it stop? If the courts recognise the decisions of a court which was legally and morally vague and certainly without due jurisdiction, then does this mean that the NSW Supreme Court by inference actually endorses those decisions? I hope not.
Secondly, if the DPP appeal is upheld, then in effect the NSW Supreme Court will uphold a confession obtained under torture. Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which I should point out that the United States ISN'T), of which Article 5 states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Are we to suggest therefore that in upholding a decision we should negate existing law?
I would hope that the laws on this country are at very least based on or recognise Human Rights law and upon failing that human dignity. If not, then what is the point of law itself?
Thirdly, technically the proceeds which result from book sales aren't the proceeds of crime but the proceeds of book sales. Book Sales aren't the direct proceeds of crime under the s.124 definition contained within the Act.
Admittedly the DPP probably have lawyers who are prepared to argue all sorts of defnitions at law and my knowledge of the actual operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is not as robust as the legal profession, but it still doesn't change the fact that law can and should be read at face value.
If the NSW Supreme Court does uphold the DPP's request, then I think it will be a failure in the legal process. Whilst I don't like the fact that Hicks was bascially training to kill people en masse, I don't think that the rule of law should be bent because we happen to be morally offended. The thing is that because out legal system is in part based on the principle of precedents, if the law is bent, then the precedent is set to do so in the future.
As an aside, I would have thought that the best way for this to go away and thereby negate any media capital which Hicks could have generated, would be simply to let the book go on sale, and sale very few copies. Does the DPP, by going to court actually generate more media hype to surround Hicks in the first place and thus defeat their own cause?
July 20, 2011
Horse 1212 - The Mining Tax Is Just and Noble
Thomas Paine whose most famous work "Common Sense" of which it can be said helped to spark the American Revolution, also went on to write "Rights of Man" in 1791 and suggested that when a government does not safeguard its people or their rights, that they are then permissible to incite a revolution. This was probably inspired from his own experiences in America as well as the then recent goings on in France which resulted in the opening of the French Revolution.
It is Paine's 1797 work "Agrarian Justice" which I now draw something from. "Agrarian Justice" was written as a treatise to discuss how to fund the fledgling American republic, but there are some things contained within it still worth considering even today, some 214 years later.
"It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to he, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with the rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal.
But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.
Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue."
- Thomas Paine, "Agrarian Justice" 1797
I don't think that it is a difficult leap to suggest that not only "vegetable and animal" but indeed mineral produce should be included in all of the earth's "natural productions".
Paine viewed private property as necessary and that production which originally came from the earth should by rights belong as common property to the people. In effect if people took profit from this common property, it is akin to having stolen it from the general public who have been otherwise deprived of it.
If the general public does in fact have a claim to the produce of the earth as Paine suggests, then it makes sense that the Mineral Resource Rent Tax as proposed by the Gillard Government like the previous Resource Super Profit Tax proposed by the then Rudd Government is a noble tax because it attempts to return some of the benefits of the produce of the earth to the general public who should be rightly entitled to it.
If a mining company takes something out of the ground that otherwise should by rights belong to the people of Australia and do not return a portion of the profits back to the people of Australia, the logic of Thomas Paine suggests that the mining companies are in effect stealing from YOU.
The following is also worth considering:
BHP Billiton as a percentage of profit paid only 13% tax for 2009/10.
Rio Tinto as a percentage of profit paid only 13% tax for 2009/10.
Newcrest Mining as a percentage of profit paid only 17% tax for 2009/10.
Last time I checked, the corporate tax rate on profit was 30%.
What I find particularly insulting is the series of adverts on telly at the moment, which are trying to curry favour with the Australian people; saying that they're "part of the community".
Well if the mining companies are part of the community, hadn't they better start paying the same rate of tax as the rest of us?
Stealing from us once because we should be rightly due a share of the produce of the country is bad enough; stealing from us twice because they aren't paying even the proper base rate of tax is reprobate. Further to this, suggestions by West Australian Mines Minister Norman Moore that WA should secede and rely on China for its defence needs, is bordering on treasonous.
Let him that stole steal no more? Maybe.
It is Paine's 1797 work "Agrarian Justice" which I now draw something from. "Agrarian Justice" was written as a treatise to discuss how to fund the fledgling American republic, but there are some things contained within it still worth considering even today, some 214 years later.
"It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to he, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with the rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal.
But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.
Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue."
- Thomas Paine, "Agrarian Justice" 1797
I don't think that it is a difficult leap to suggest that not only "vegetable and animal" but indeed mineral produce should be included in all of the earth's "natural productions".
Paine viewed private property as necessary and that production which originally came from the earth should by rights belong as common property to the people. In effect if people took profit from this common property, it is akin to having stolen it from the general public who have been otherwise deprived of it.
If the general public does in fact have a claim to the produce of the earth as Paine suggests, then it makes sense that the Mineral Resource Rent Tax as proposed by the Gillard Government like the previous Resource Super Profit Tax proposed by the then Rudd Government is a noble tax because it attempts to return some of the benefits of the produce of the earth to the general public who should be rightly entitled to it.
If a mining company takes something out of the ground that otherwise should by rights belong to the people of Australia and do not return a portion of the profits back to the people of Australia, the logic of Thomas Paine suggests that the mining companies are in effect stealing from YOU.
The following is also worth considering:
BHP Billiton as a percentage of profit paid only 13% tax for 2009/10.
Rio Tinto as a percentage of profit paid only 13% tax for 2009/10.
Newcrest Mining as a percentage of profit paid only 17% tax for 2009/10.
Last time I checked, the corporate tax rate on profit was 30%.
THEFT!!
What I find particularly insulting is the series of adverts on telly at the moment, which are trying to curry favour with the Australian people; saying that they're "part of the community".
Well if the mining companies are part of the community, hadn't they better start paying the same rate of tax as the rest of us?
Stealing from us once because we should be rightly due a share of the produce of the country is bad enough; stealing from us twice because they aren't paying even the proper base rate of tax is reprobate. Further to this, suggestions by West Australian Mines Minister Norman Moore that WA should secede and rely on China for its defence needs, is bordering on treasonous.
Let him that stole steal no more? Maybe.
July 14, 2011
Horse 1211 - John 10:30 - ΕΓΩ ΚΑΙ Ο ΠΑΤΙΡ ΕΝ ΕΣΜΕΝ
This morning I was on the train reading through the Gospel of John when someone got on and sat next to me at Strathfield; this particular chap dressed in a grey suit and tie said that he was a Jehovah's Witness and that he was curious as to what I was reading.
I assume that he either wanted to make me doubt the validity of what I was reading or rather unlikely he was questioning his own faith, I don't know exactly.
I find it incredibly curious that I had been reading John 10, which from verses 1-21 likens Jesus' followers to his sheep and that he is the shepherd watching over them; and protecting them. Verses 22-42 deal directly with Jesus claim that he was God.
Contained within John 10 is the direct claim that Jesus is God in Verse 30 and it is the only verse which I know in the original Greek:
ΕΓΩ ΚΑΙ Ο ΠΑΤΙΡ ΕΝ ΕΣΜΕΝ
ego kai ho pater hen esmen
I and the Father one we-are(ing)
- John 10:30
The reason why I find this morning to be curious is that Jehovah's Witnesses not only do not believe in the divinity of Jesus but they also make the claim that he was a created being.
If you assume that this standpoint is correct, then logically the next three verses make no sense:
"Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
- John 10:31-33
If Jesus is not God, then his opponents are in fact correct and Jesus is a liar. If however Jesus' claim that he is God is true, then their claims are unjustified. It's worth noting that the claims of both Jesus' opponents in John 10 and the Jehovah's Witness are identical but I suppose that they do not see that.
The thing which makes John 10:30 so useful, is that not only are all the nouns in the Greek in the nominative case, but the verb "esmen" is a first-person plural. It means that it is impossible to draw any other conclusion from the Greek text at all.
Related is the claim at the beginning of John's Gospel that Jesus or "The Word" is God. If you look elsewhere at John 1:1 the New World Translation which the Jehovah's Witnesses use, sneakily adds an "a".
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
- John 1:1 (NIV)
"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
- John 1:1 (NWT)
The addition of that one word "a" substantially changes the meaning of the sentence. The thing is though, that it's not above the Jehovah's Witnesses to alter the bible where they don't like it. In doing some research for this, I find that they've completely removed or fiddled with 47 verses in the New Testament.*
I suppose that if you really want to attack the divinity of Christ, then the best way to do it would be to attack either the translation or attack the text itself. This does however create a problem in that if Christ is not God and is a created being, then He would have had to have created Himself, which is a logical impossibility.
Also if John 1:1 is to be taken at face value in the NWT then if the Word is only a God and there is only one true God, then Jesus must be some sort of false God, which means to suggest that any faith in the Gospel is based on a lie. This makes me very much wonder what sort of faith Jehovah's Witnesses actually have. If they make out that Jesus is a liar, then what hope do they have in any of the Gospel at all? Why then do they even bother?
I'm hoping that this particular Jehovah's Witness gets around to reading this, because I certainly do not doubt the validity of what I was reading.
*Aside: Maybe we should though. I'm finding that the latest versions of the NIV are also leaving out stuff:
Matthew 18:11
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018&version=NIV
Matthew 18:11 Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.
Matthew 23:14
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites! You devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore you shall receive the greater damnation."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&version=NIV
Matthew 23:14 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.
What is Bible Gateway doing? This appears to be an act of barbarism; and if it's the NIV's fault, then what are they doing? The way I figure it, if it was important enough to go into the original Greek text, then it's important enough to go intoa modern translation of that text. Leaving stuff out is as bad as making stuff up.
I assume that he either wanted to make me doubt the validity of what I was reading or rather unlikely he was questioning his own faith, I don't know exactly.
I find it incredibly curious that I had been reading John 10, which from verses 1-21 likens Jesus' followers to his sheep and that he is the shepherd watching over them; and protecting them. Verses 22-42 deal directly with Jesus claim that he was God.
Contained within John 10 is the direct claim that Jesus is God in Verse 30 and it is the only verse which I know in the original Greek:
ΕΓΩ ΚΑΙ Ο ΠΑΤΙΡ ΕΝ ΕΣΜΕΝ
ego kai ho pater hen esmen
I and the Father one we-are(ing)
- John 10:30
The reason why I find this morning to be curious is that Jehovah's Witnesses not only do not believe in the divinity of Jesus but they also make the claim that he was a created being.
If you assume that this standpoint is correct, then logically the next three verses make no sense:
"Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
- John 10:31-33
If Jesus is not God, then his opponents are in fact correct and Jesus is a liar. If however Jesus' claim that he is God is true, then their claims are unjustified. It's worth noting that the claims of both Jesus' opponents in John 10 and the Jehovah's Witness are identical but I suppose that they do not see that.
The thing which makes John 10:30 so useful, is that not only are all the nouns in the Greek in the nominative case, but the verb "esmen" is a first-person plural. It means that it is impossible to draw any other conclusion from the Greek text at all.
Related is the claim at the beginning of John's Gospel that Jesus or "The Word" is God. If you look elsewhere at John 1:1 the New World Translation which the Jehovah's Witnesses use, sneakily adds an "a".
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
- John 1:1 (NIV)
"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
- John 1:1 (NWT)
The addition of that one word "a" substantially changes the meaning of the sentence. The thing is though, that it's not above the Jehovah's Witnesses to alter the bible where they don't like it. In doing some research for this, I find that they've completely removed or fiddled with 47 verses in the New Testament.*
I suppose that if you really want to attack the divinity of Christ, then the best way to do it would be to attack either the translation or attack the text itself. This does however create a problem in that if Christ is not God and is a created being, then He would have had to have created Himself, which is a logical impossibility.
Also if John 1:1 is to be taken at face value in the NWT then if the Word is only a God and there is only one true God, then Jesus must be some sort of false God, which means to suggest that any faith in the Gospel is based on a lie. This makes me very much wonder what sort of faith Jehovah's Witnesses actually have. If they make out that Jesus is a liar, then what hope do they have in any of the Gospel at all? Why then do they even bother?
I'm hoping that this particular Jehovah's Witness gets around to reading this, because I certainly do not doubt the validity of what I was reading.
*Aside: Maybe we should though. I'm finding that the latest versions of the NIV are also leaving out stuff:
Matthew 18:11
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018&version=NIV
Matthew 18:11 Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.
Matthew 23:14
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites! You devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore you shall receive the greater damnation."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&version=NIV
Matthew 23:14 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.
What is Bible Gateway doing? This appears to be an act of barbarism; and if it's the NIV's fault, then what are they doing? The way I figure it, if it was important enough to go into the original Greek text, then it's important enough to go intoa modern translation of that text. Leaving stuff out is as bad as making stuff up.
July 12, 2011
Horse 1210 - Hyundai V8 Supercar... Can I Have A Go?
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/21/2012-hyundai-genesis-5-0-r-spec-first-drive-review
Hyundai isn't interested in knocking shields with the likes of the BMW M guard, the Audi S line or even the Mercedes-Benz AMG legion with its 2012 Genesis 5.0 R-Spec. Instead, the newest addition to the Genesis line is out to offer buyers an extra helping of power and slightly sharper dynamics without all the motorsports pretense of its haughty German rivals.
Why the heck not?
I for one would love to see Hyundai create some motorsport street cred. Maybe it doesn't need to "knock shields" with the Germans but that doesn't mean it can't have a go against Ford and Holden does it?
I think that a Hyundai Genesis 5.0 R-Spec going against the Holden Racing Team, 888 Vodafone and Ford Performance Racing might look pretty cool if done properly.
The Korean International Circuit just outside of Yeongam in South Korea has already hosted a round of the Formula One Championship, which means that the facility already exceeds any standards which the V8 Supercars might set.
If Hyundai were to run their Genesis against the Commodores and Falcons, it would give them an advertising platform not only in Korea but other markets around the world. When the V8 Supercars travel to Texas in 2013, Hyundai which is already a very big player in America, would find themselves very well placed indeed.
Because of the Car Of The Future which will rollout in 2012, Hyundai wouldn't need to develop a whole suite of racing parts. They could just buy the bits developed for COTF and bolt the shell of the Genesis on top, which is after all the whole point of the program.
If no-one wants to sully their reputation by driving a Hyundai, then I can even find a driver for this hypothetical program... ME. Yep, I'll drive a Genesis in the V8 Supercars if you'd like; I won't even care about my reputation being damaged at all. YEAH!
Hyundai isn't interested in knocking shields with the likes of the BMW M guard, the Audi S line or even the Mercedes-Benz AMG legion with its 2012 Genesis 5.0 R-Spec. Instead, the newest addition to the Genesis line is out to offer buyers an extra helping of power and slightly sharper dynamics without all the motorsports pretense of its haughty German rivals.
Why the heck not?
I for one would love to see Hyundai create some motorsport street cred. Maybe it doesn't need to "knock shields" with the Germans but that doesn't mean it can't have a go against Ford and Holden does it?
I think that a Hyundai Genesis 5.0 R-Spec going against the Holden Racing Team, 888 Vodafone and Ford Performance Racing might look pretty cool if done properly.
The Korean International Circuit just outside of Yeongam in South Korea has already hosted a round of the Formula One Championship, which means that the facility already exceeds any standards which the V8 Supercars might set.
If Hyundai were to run their Genesis against the Commodores and Falcons, it would give them an advertising platform not only in Korea but other markets around the world. When the V8 Supercars travel to Texas in 2013, Hyundai which is already a very big player in America, would find themselves very well placed indeed.
Because of the Car Of The Future which will rollout in 2012, Hyundai wouldn't need to develop a whole suite of racing parts. They could just buy the bits developed for COTF and bolt the shell of the Genesis on top, which is after all the whole point of the program.
If no-one wants to sully their reputation by driving a Hyundai, then I can even find a driver for this hypothetical program... ME. Yep, I'll drive a Genesis in the V8 Supercars if you'd like; I won't even care about my reputation being damaged at all. YEAH!
July 06, 2011
Horse 1209 - King of the United States of America
Legend has it that George Washington was offered the title of King of America in 1783 and thought that the idea was abhorrent, however there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this. We do know that George Washington didn't pass into a third term of the Presidency but that's more because that by that stage he was 65 and probably a very tired man. His retirement only lasted two years and closed with his death just 33 months into his retirement.
But I wonder what would have happened had he been made king.
George married Martha Dandridge Custis in 1759 but because George had fought off a case of smallpox in 1751, they were unable to have any children. Most of George's estate passed to his nephew Bushrod Washington, whom he was very close to.
Admittedly the line of succession appears very muddy but thankfully someone at Ancestry.com has already looked into this and we have a sort of incomplete line:
http://c.ancestry.com/offer/learning-center/king-of-america/koa-kp-tree-large.jpg
House Of Washington
George - 1776 - 1799
William I - 1799 - 1810
Bushrod I - 1810 - 1831
Spotswood I - 1831 - 1865
Bushrod II - 1865 - 1918
James - 1918 - 1924
Spotswood II - 1924 - 1948
William II - 1948 - 1994
Paul - 1997 - date
Presumably the United States would have probably adopted a parliamentary democracy mirroring that of the United Kingdom. Maybe the US House of Lords would have been elected, maybe not, though it's fair to assume that the executive of the nation would have been formed in the US House of Commons and not directly appointed by the head of state as is the case now.
It is a real irony that in spite of a deep-seated fear of kings and of papacy; one only needs to read Thomas Paine's 1776 treatise "Common Sense" (and I think extremely poorly researched) to see this; that the President of the United States in terms of the exercise, has wielded far more actual power than any monarch from George III onwards ever has. The Declaration of Independence itself is a constant attack on the person of George III, even though he probably gave nary a thought to America at all.
In the capacity of Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, the President of the United States has declared war 10 times, been authorised by Congress to make war a further 12 times, been funded by Congress to enable military engagements 7 times and has acted without any express authorization from Congress on at least 125 times. In the United Kingdom, even though the Monarch has the power to declare War, not even once since 1776 have they done so; with it all being done by the parliament or the Prime Minister.
Maybe if the executive of the nation and specifically the power to commit the nation to war had been held by the parliament, then maybe the character of the nation would have been different.
The logical comparison of what the Kingdom of the United States of America would have looked like is either Canada or indeed Australia. Australia elects its Upper House whereas Canada does not and Australia does employ a system whereby the seats try to give an equal say to the states.
Bills of Supply, that is monetary bills and the budget, would still pass through the parliament in the normal fashion, though I suspect that unlike now, the tendency for filibustering would not show itself quite so much.
Obviously where one stands depends on where one sits and the animosity for having a king was bitter following the events of 1775–1783. I can't help but feel though that the United States as a nation would have projected a softer and dare I say it, kinder, shadow into the 19th Century. We shall never know though.
But I wonder what would have happened had he been made king.
George married Martha Dandridge Custis in 1759 but because George had fought off a case of smallpox in 1751, they were unable to have any children. Most of George's estate passed to his nephew Bushrod Washington, whom he was very close to.
Admittedly the line of succession appears very muddy but thankfully someone at Ancestry.com has already looked into this and we have a sort of incomplete line:
http://c.ancestry.com/offer/learning-center/king-of-america/koa-kp-tree-large.jpg
House Of Washington
George - 1776 - 1799
William I - 1799 - 1810
Bushrod I - 1810 - 1831
Spotswood I - 1831 - 1865
Bushrod II - 1865 - 1918
James - 1918 - 1924
Spotswood II - 1924 - 1948
William II - 1948 - 1994
Paul - 1997 - date
Presumably the United States would have probably adopted a parliamentary democracy mirroring that of the United Kingdom. Maybe the US House of Lords would have been elected, maybe not, though it's fair to assume that the executive of the nation would have been formed in the US House of Commons and not directly appointed by the head of state as is the case now.
It is a real irony that in spite of a deep-seated fear of kings and of papacy; one only needs to read Thomas Paine's 1776 treatise "Common Sense" (and I think extremely poorly researched) to see this; that the President of the United States in terms of the exercise, has wielded far more actual power than any monarch from George III onwards ever has. The Declaration of Independence itself is a constant attack on the person of George III, even though he probably gave nary a thought to America at all.
In the capacity of Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, the President of the United States has declared war 10 times, been authorised by Congress to make war a further 12 times, been funded by Congress to enable military engagements 7 times and has acted without any express authorization from Congress on at least 125 times. In the United Kingdom, even though the Monarch has the power to declare War, not even once since 1776 have they done so; with it all being done by the parliament or the Prime Minister.
Maybe if the executive of the nation and specifically the power to commit the nation to war had been held by the parliament, then maybe the character of the nation would have been different.
The logical comparison of what the Kingdom of the United States of America would have looked like is either Canada or indeed Australia. Australia elects its Upper House whereas Canada does not and Australia does employ a system whereby the seats try to give an equal say to the states.
Bills of Supply, that is monetary bills and the budget, would still pass through the parliament in the normal fashion, though I suspect that unlike now, the tendency for filibustering would not show itself quite so much.
Obviously where one stands depends on where one sits and the animosity for having a king was bitter following the events of 1775–1783. I can't help but feel though that the United States as a nation would have projected a softer and dare I say it, kinder, shadow into the 19th Century. We shall never know though.
July 05, 2011
Horse 1208 - Build the NBN... in 1999!
I love the world of pure speculation because it allows me to dream of what might have been and what we should have had.
I keep on hearing with reference to the National Broadband Network ,that Fibre-to-the-X is not "future proof" and as such it is a waste of funds to invest in such technology. Malcolm Turnbull as shadow Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband seems to suggest that the project is best left up to private enterprise, and Andrew Robb told ABC Radio that a "Coalition return to power would see the government's fibre-to-the-home broadband network halted and either sold off or incorporated into its broadband vision where appropriate." How iniquitous!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/telecommunications/opposition-pledges-to-offload-nbn-internet/story-fn4iyzsr-1225902288136
Let's imagine for a second what would have happened if Telstra hadn't been privatised. The accounts for 1996/97 show Telstra making an $8.1bn profit. If Telstra had been allowed to continue as a single government owned entity, then the profits would not have had to have been distributed and they could have been ploughed into reserves.
If Telstra's profits had performed at worse than average inflation and only achieved a progressive 3% per year, then by the end of 2010/11 it would have accumulated $150.6512bn. Finding $40bn to build a FTTX network would have been child's play.
Assuming Telstra had maintained world's best practice and commenced building the network in 1999, then this debate over NBN Co would have never have existed.
Is such a thing possible? Are they comparable projects? Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) did build such a network and although uptake was slow initially, by 2008 FTTX networks eclipsed DSL as the main carrier networks of internet traffic in Japan.
Real world speeds in Japan work out to be about 66 Mbit/s in the country and 78 Mbit/s in the 23 Special "Cities" of Tokyo.
Malcolm Turnbull of all people should have appreciated the benefits of having a national broadband network when he was CEO of OzEmail. Service providers would use the network like private users currently use the road networks. No-one seems to complain in-principle about access fees to using public highways do they? So why is it different for a National Broadband Network? Would he have argued for NBN Co in 1999 as CEO of OzEmail?
The point is that if I can see this via hindsight, then how come this isn't being looked at with the same broad vision looking forwards. I agree with the current Government's standpoint that broadband networks will be like the railways of the 21st Century. A properly executed national plan and infrastructure network is therefore obvious isn't it? And if it's obvious now, why wasn't it obvious back in 1999?
FTTX would have been "future proof" back then for now. Now we're trailing behind in the Digital Dust.
I keep on hearing with reference to the National Broadband Network ,that Fibre-to-the-X is not "future proof" and as such it is a waste of funds to invest in such technology. Malcolm Turnbull as shadow Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband seems to suggest that the project is best left up to private enterprise, and Andrew Robb told ABC Radio that a "Coalition return to power would see the government's fibre-to-the-home broadband network halted and either sold off or incorporated into its broadband vision where appropriate." How iniquitous!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/telecommunications/opposition-pledges-to-offload-nbn-internet/story-fn4iyzsr-1225902288136
Let's imagine for a second what would have happened if Telstra hadn't been privatised. The accounts for 1996/97 show Telstra making an $8.1bn profit. If Telstra had been allowed to continue as a single government owned entity, then the profits would not have had to have been distributed and they could have been ploughed into reserves.
If Telstra's profits had performed at worse than average inflation and only achieved a progressive 3% per year, then by the end of 2010/11 it would have accumulated $150.6512bn. Finding $40bn to build a FTTX network would have been child's play.
Assuming Telstra had maintained world's best practice and commenced building the network in 1999, then this debate over NBN Co would have never have existed.
Is such a thing possible? Are they comparable projects? Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) did build such a network and although uptake was slow initially, by 2008 FTTX networks eclipsed DSL as the main carrier networks of internet traffic in Japan.
Real world speeds in Japan work out to be about 66 Mbit/s in the country and 78 Mbit/s in the 23 Special "Cities" of Tokyo.
Malcolm Turnbull of all people should have appreciated the benefits of having a national broadband network when he was CEO of OzEmail. Service providers would use the network like private users currently use the road networks. No-one seems to complain in-principle about access fees to using public highways do they? So why is it different for a National Broadband Network? Would he have argued for NBN Co in 1999 as CEO of OzEmail?
The point is that if I can see this via hindsight, then how come this isn't being looked at with the same broad vision looking forwards. I agree with the current Government's standpoint that broadband networks will be like the railways of the 21st Century. A properly executed national plan and infrastructure network is therefore obvious isn't it? And if it's obvious now, why wasn't it obvious back in 1999?
FTTX would have been "future proof" back then for now. Now we're trailing behind in the Digital Dust.
June 30, 2011
Horse 1207a - Mr O'Farrell Replies
A Tweet worth mentioning:
I must admit that I was a little surprised by this. I can't say for certain if this was Mr O'Farrell himself, or someone from his office but maybe it illustrates a worthwhile point. We live in a democracy and are free to say whatever we wish, we also have the repsonsibility to hold our leaders to account. If we say nothing though, our voices will never be heard.
barryofarrell Barry O'Farrell
@rollo75 there are no such plans - InfrastructureNSW is about new infra not existing systems
Horse 1207 - Selling The Railways Mr O'Farrell?
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sell-the-trains-more-toll-roads-bring-it-on-says-ofarrells-goto-man-20110629-1gr9u.html
THE man hand-picked by Barry O'Farrell to drive the future of NSW transport and infrastructure is in favour of privatising the state's rail system and supports congestion charges to get drivers off the roads.
Paul Broad, named the first chief executive of Infrastructure NSW this week, is an unabashed fan of Jeff Kennett's reforms to the Victorian transport system and believes NSW would benefit from something similar.
...
Asked if he would support more private involvement in Sydney's rail system, run by the government-owned RailCorp, Mr Broad said: ''I don't want to pre-empt it, but obviously a personal thought about that is that you would. I think that the private sector in Victoria has done extremely well in part of their rail network. So I do think there's opportunity for that.''
I was severely incensed when I heard this on the radio this morning. Just like everything else that governments have sold off in this country never to return to public hands, I fail to see how any proposal to sell off the railways is any way shape or form approaching "good government".
The views expressed by Paul Broad the new chief executive of Infrastructure NSW, I think are at odds with the position to which he has been appointed. The media release from Infrastructure NSW says that:
http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/releases/110628_broad_ceo_final.pdf
“NSW has been crying out for a body like Infrastructure NSW – for the first time this State will have an independent body laying out a strategic direction for infrastructure delivery.
No longer will any area of NSW be taken for granted – or be promised projects as pre-election bribes that are never delivered - as Labor did for 16 years.”
Yet within two days of Paul Broad's appointment, he's already talking about selling off the railways. This would be a joke if it wasn't so pathetically tragic and scandalous.
Fixing the transport network of the state was one of the issues which brought the O'Farrell Government to power in the first place. I suspect that Mr O'Farrell recognised this when he named himself as Minister for Western Sydney. The people of the West and especially the North West have been crying out for decent public transport now for 40 years.
As for Mr Broad's comment that NSW would benefit from something similar to the Victorian experience, did Victoria really benefit from selling the railways and tramways? Not in the slightest.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/12bn-sting-in-the-rail/2006/04/08/1143916767672.html
PRIVATISATION of Melbourne's public transport has cost taxpayers $1.2 billion more than if the system had remained in public hands, according to a analysis by transport experts.
And if Connex and Yarra Trams are given franchise extensions, taxpayers will pay $2.1 billion more by 2010 than if the system were publicly owned.
Clearly not.
Perhaps I read Mr Broad's comments incorrectly. What does he mean exactly?
"I think that the private sector in Victoria has done extremely well in part of their rail network. So I do think there's opportunity for that."
Well, on reflection I would agree with him. The private sector in Victoria has done extremely well. They have gashed open the wallets of Victorians for more than $3 billion since the transport system went into private hands. As for the people of Victoria? Well, they've been left with a slightly worse service and pay more in rail fares.
I guess the people of Victoria don't matter then do they?
"I actually admire what Kennett did. And I think we did a fair bit of that in Nick Greiner's time"
Can I just remind Mr Broad of "what Kennett did" and apparently what he "admires"?
During Kennett's time as Premier of Victoria, 350 public schools were closed, $29 billion of state assets in gas and electricity alone were sold to private enterprise (and as a direct result the price of electricity and gas more than tripled in the four years that followed), 66,000 public servants lost their jobs and after the imposition of a poll tax in 1992, the biggest strike in Australian industrial relations history occurred when 4.5 million people stayed home.
Yet Mr Broad thinks that this is admirable? Even today you can still see the evidence of Mr Kennett's legacy. The town of Kennett River to this day consistently has the name Kennett crossed out with spray paint within hours of a new sign being erected in their town.
Well done... just well done.
Dear Barry, if this is your attitude to the people of NSW then I severely hope you are deposed from office before your term and you never darken the doors of Parliament House again.
One of the biggest symbols of the City of Sydney is the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It was completed during the Great Depression and still to this day shows the vision that governments had almost 90 years ago.
When Francis de Groot upstaged Premier Jack Lang in 1932 when the bridge was opened, he did so "in the name of the decent and respectable people of New South Wales." Policitians would do well to remember this. The decent and respectable people of New South Wales are in effect your employers. We do hold the power to install and remove governments; that is worth thinking about should we wish to retain your services beyond 28 March 2015.
THE man hand-picked by Barry O'Farrell to drive the future of NSW transport and infrastructure is in favour of privatising the state's rail system and supports congestion charges to get drivers off the roads.
Paul Broad, named the first chief executive of Infrastructure NSW this week, is an unabashed fan of Jeff Kennett's reforms to the Victorian transport system and believes NSW would benefit from something similar.
...
Asked if he would support more private involvement in Sydney's rail system, run by the government-owned RailCorp, Mr Broad said: ''I don't want to pre-empt it, but obviously a personal thought about that is that you would. I think that the private sector in Victoria has done extremely well in part of their rail network. So I do think there's opportunity for that.''
I was severely incensed when I heard this on the radio this morning. Just like everything else that governments have sold off in this country never to return to public hands, I fail to see how any proposal to sell off the railways is any way shape or form approaching "good government".
The views expressed by Paul Broad the new chief executive of Infrastructure NSW, I think are at odds with the position to which he has been appointed. The media release from Infrastructure NSW says that:
http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/releases/110628_broad_ceo_final.pdf
“NSW has been crying out for a body like Infrastructure NSW – for the first time this State will have an independent body laying out a strategic direction for infrastructure delivery.
No longer will any area of NSW be taken for granted – or be promised projects as pre-election bribes that are never delivered - as Labor did for 16 years.”
Yet within two days of Paul Broad's appointment, he's already talking about selling off the railways. This would be a joke if it wasn't so pathetically tragic and scandalous.
Fixing the transport network of the state was one of the issues which brought the O'Farrell Government to power in the first place. I suspect that Mr O'Farrell recognised this when he named himself as Minister for Western Sydney. The people of the West and especially the North West have been crying out for decent public transport now for 40 years.
As for Mr Broad's comment that NSW would benefit from something similar to the Victorian experience, did Victoria really benefit from selling the railways and tramways? Not in the slightest.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/12bn-sting-in-the-rail/2006/04/08/1143916767672.html
PRIVATISATION of Melbourne's public transport has cost taxpayers $1.2 billion more than if the system had remained in public hands, according to a analysis by transport experts.
And if Connex and Yarra Trams are given franchise extensions, taxpayers will pay $2.1 billion more by 2010 than if the system were publicly owned.
Clearly not.
Perhaps I read Mr Broad's comments incorrectly. What does he mean exactly?
"I think that the private sector in Victoria has done extremely well in part of their rail network. So I do think there's opportunity for that."
Well, on reflection I would agree with him. The private sector in Victoria has done extremely well. They have gashed open the wallets of Victorians for more than $3 billion since the transport system went into private hands. As for the people of Victoria? Well, they've been left with a slightly worse service and pay more in rail fares.
I guess the people of Victoria don't matter then do they?
"I actually admire what Kennett did. And I think we did a fair bit of that in Nick Greiner's time"
Can I just remind Mr Broad of "what Kennett did" and apparently what he "admires"?
During Kennett's time as Premier of Victoria, 350 public schools were closed, $29 billion of state assets in gas and electricity alone were sold to private enterprise (and as a direct result the price of electricity and gas more than tripled in the four years that followed), 66,000 public servants lost their jobs and after the imposition of a poll tax in 1992, the biggest strike in Australian industrial relations history occurred when 4.5 million people stayed home.
Yet Mr Broad thinks that this is admirable? Even today you can still see the evidence of Mr Kennett's legacy. The town of Kennett River to this day consistently has the name Kennett crossed out with spray paint within hours of a new sign being erected in their town.
Well done... just well done.
Dear Barry, if this is your attitude to the people of NSW then I severely hope you are deposed from office before your term and you never darken the doors of Parliament House again.
One of the biggest symbols of the City of Sydney is the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It was completed during the Great Depression and still to this day shows the vision that governments had almost 90 years ago.
When Francis de Groot upstaged Premier Jack Lang in 1932 when the bridge was opened, he did so "in the name of the decent and respectable people of New South Wales." Policitians would do well to remember this. The decent and respectable people of New South Wales are in effect your employers. We do hold the power to install and remove governments; that is worth thinking about should we wish to retain your services beyond 28 March 2015.
June 27, 2011
Horse 1206 - Philip Morris Threatens to Hold the Australian People to Ransom
Prize cancer and death merchants Philip Morris have threatened to take the Australian Government to court for damages if it suffers a loss of business as a result of the introduction of plain packaging of cigarettes. Now whilst I tend to agree with the argument that they will suffer a loss of business as a result of the loss of brand identification, I personally take umbrage at the fact that they intend to sue the government.
"Failing that, we aim to go ahead with a compensation claim for the loss to our business in Australia that would result from plain packaging,"
- Philip Morris Asia spokeswoman, Anne Edwards
I really don't like it generally when people sue "the government". "The Government" in this sense is usually seen as some sort of nebulous concept, but we need to remember that the government sector takes its revenue from us as taxpayers. To make up the shortfall because some multi-national corporation has got it in its craw and seeks damages will mean that that money has to be taken from somewhere, and the only two options are that the government sector spends less or that we taxpayers pay more in tax.
PM Julia Gillard has said "We're not going to be intimidated by Big Tobacco's tactics, whether they're political tactics, whether they're public affairs kind of tactics out in the community or whether they're legal tactics," ; I wish her all the goodwill I can muster in this issue.
I also object to the utterly stupid adverts being peddled at the moment, decrying the so-called "Nanny State". Take note at the end when they're forced at law to admit that the adverts have been authorised by Imperial Tobacco. Is this honestly how Imperial Tobacco views the public? As a bunch of borderline morons? What do they take us for? Seriously!
I really hope that Philip Morris loses the court case and that they have to pay hideously expensive court costs. As a taxpayer, I object to being taken for a ride by filchers, racketeers and shysters.
To Philip Morris: You are not worth another word, else I'd call you knave!
"Failing that, we aim to go ahead with a compensation claim for the loss to our business in Australia that would result from plain packaging,"
- Philip Morris Asia spokeswoman, Anne Edwards
I really don't like it generally when people sue "the government". "The Government" in this sense is usually seen as some sort of nebulous concept, but we need to remember that the government sector takes its revenue from us as taxpayers. To make up the shortfall because some multi-national corporation has got it in its craw and seeks damages will mean that that money has to be taken from somewhere, and the only two options are that the government sector spends less or that we taxpayers pay more in tax.
PM Julia Gillard has said "We're not going to be intimidated by Big Tobacco's tactics, whether they're political tactics, whether they're public affairs kind of tactics out in the community or whether they're legal tactics," ; I wish her all the goodwill I can muster in this issue.
I also object to the utterly stupid adverts being peddled at the moment, decrying the so-called "Nanny State". Take note at the end when they're forced at law to admit that the adverts have been authorised by Imperial Tobacco. Is this honestly how Imperial Tobacco views the public? As a bunch of borderline morons? What do they take us for? Seriously!
I really hope that Philip Morris loses the court case and that they have to pay hideously expensive court costs. As a taxpayer, I object to being taken for a ride by filchers, racketeers and shysters.
To Philip Morris: You are not worth another word, else I'd call you knave!
Horse 1205 - Aint Worth A Hill Of Beans
Quite recently my boss was on the telephone to a client and remarked that a particular report which someone had submitted "wasn't worth a hill of beans", that is, it was worthless.
I pondered this for far too long to be honest and this post is the result of my question to find out what a Hill of Beans is actually worth.
P.G. Wodehouse in his 1921 novel "Indiscretions of Archie" from 1921 wrote:
“Here have I been kicking because you weren’t a real burglar, when it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans whether you are or not”.
Perhaps the most famous us of the phrase comes from the 1941 film "Casablanca" in which Rick Blaine (played by Humphrey Bogart) says:
"Ilsa, I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world”.
The first question we need to address in finding out what a hill is worth, is to find out what constitutes a hill.
As discussed in the 1995 film "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain", a mountain is a hill which is taller than 1000ft; by inference a hill is less than 1000ft.
Interestingly I can't seem to find a common law definition of what a hill is; not even the Ordnance Survey Act of 1841 defines a hill. The definition of a "top" though appears to be "all elevations with a drop of at least 100 feet (30.48m) on all sides and elevations of sufficient topographical merit"
Certainly if you were to create a pile of beans 100 feet tall, that would probably be "of sufficient topographical merit" and so this is the working definition I've chosen.
This was backed up by a comment which I'd recieved on the topic from a forum board:
"It would depend if you are including hillocks in your definition, in which case pretty much any height you like. Exclude hillocks and I'd suggest you're looking at ~100ft / ~33m.
However, the problem you'd face is getting your beans to form a hill shape without a suitable container. They'd naturally tend to form a lake, rather than a hill. So maybe the movie needs to be remade or at the very least re-dubbed with the phrase "lake of beans".
- Dave Brockman, 22nd Jun 11.
This last point was quite instructive I must say. Obviously it stands to reason that if you were to build a hill of beans, you'd want a self-supporting pile.
Experiments with tinned baked beans led me to believe that beans in tomato sauce do react differently depending on how hot the liquid sauce is. In general, the viscosity of a simple liquid decreases with increasing temperature, so it stands to reason that if you're cooking baked beans on a stovetop, they will have a greater propensity to form a lake. Likewise at colder temperatures, baked bean sauce will tend to coagulate.
Fortuneately, the Commission Internationale du Genie Rural or CIGR, has already conducted studies into the shape of a pile that beans take:
http://www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/download/1700/1397
Of course you tend to ask "why" such a study needs to be made in the first place.
The answer has to do with bulk handling of cargoes. Bulk handlers of foodstuffs and minerals need to be aware of the shape of piles they build with their bulk cargo; it's also important when building things like silos, railway hoppers and conveyor belts.
The shape of of the cone made by a pile is described by something called the "Angle of Repose". This report from the CIGR indicates that the Angle of Repose for coffee is 35° and for Baked Beans in tomato sauce it's 25°. Always wanting to check my figures I emailed H.J. Heinz Company and SPC Ardmona and they both have confirmed the figure of 25°.
The next question is how much it would cost to build a 100ft pile of beans. Again Dave was rather helpful:
If you were intending to use them for construction rather than sustenance I would suggest that you use Tesco Value, which are 28p for 420g, according to mysupermarket.co.uk
28p/420g works out to be A$1.01348/kg
Interestingly I find this to be the cheapest source of baked banes in the world. Franklins No Frills baked beans which cost 77c for 425g comes to A$1.83333/kg and nowhere in the US, NZ or South Africa, came out as cheap.
To find the radius of the cone requires simple trignometry. A cone can be described as solid formed by a rotating right triangle through 360°.
A/sin a° = B / sin b° = C / sin c°
A/sin 65° = 100 / sin 25°
A = 214.4506920 feet.
Volume of a Cone (the hill of beans) : V = 1/3πr²h
V = 1/3 x π x 100ft² x 214.4506920ft
V = 4,815,968 cubic feet
V = 136,373,027.625L
Beans however are not sold by volume but by weight.
If you assume that beans are not compressible, then if follows that they pack into a tin at the same rate as they would into a pile. After measuring several baked bean tins in the supermarket, I find that the standard baked bean tin is 75mm across and 110mmm tall.
Volume of a Cylinder (a bean tin) : V = πr²h
V = π x (75mm)² x 110mm
V = 154,687.5mm³
V = 0.1546875L for 420g
V = 0.368303514L/kg
This means to say that at 0.368303514L/kg in a volume of 136,373,027.625L there are 50,226,666kg of beans.
At the Franklins rate of $1.83333/kg a Hill of beans would cost:
A$92,082,220
If the hill was made of Tesco Value at A$1.01348/kg, the Hill of beans costs:
A$50,903,721
Going back to Rick Blaine's comment in Casablanca that "the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world" then this is probably true.
Gail Kelly the CEO of Westpac is reportedly on a salary of A$9.5m a year. It is estimated that she has a net worth of A$32.9m.
It probably follows that the problems of three "little" people, ie people of low net worth, don't amount to the value of a Hill of Beans. However if you were to take three people like Wayne Rooney, Michael Schumacher and Gail Kelly, then you might be exceeding the value of a hill of beans.
On reflection a hill of beans is actually worth a considerable amount of money. I wouldn't fancy climbing it though as you'd get Tomato Sauce in your socks.
I pondered this for far too long to be honest and this post is the result of my question to find out what a Hill of Beans is actually worth.
P.G. Wodehouse in his 1921 novel "Indiscretions of Archie" from 1921 wrote:
“Here have I been kicking because you weren’t a real burglar, when it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans whether you are or not”.
Perhaps the most famous us of the phrase comes from the 1941 film "Casablanca" in which Rick Blaine (played by Humphrey Bogart) says:
"Ilsa, I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world”.
The first question we need to address in finding out what a hill is worth, is to find out what constitutes a hill.
As discussed in the 1995 film "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain", a mountain is a hill which is taller than 1000ft; by inference a hill is less than 1000ft.
Interestingly I can't seem to find a common law definition of what a hill is; not even the Ordnance Survey Act of 1841 defines a hill. The definition of a "top" though appears to be "all elevations with a drop of at least 100 feet (30.48m) on all sides and elevations of sufficient topographical merit"
Certainly if you were to create a pile of beans 100 feet tall, that would probably be "of sufficient topographical merit" and so this is the working definition I've chosen.
This was backed up by a comment which I'd recieved on the topic from a forum board:
"It would depend if you are including hillocks in your definition, in which case pretty much any height you like. Exclude hillocks and I'd suggest you're looking at ~100ft / ~33m.
However, the problem you'd face is getting your beans to form a hill shape without a suitable container. They'd naturally tend to form a lake, rather than a hill. So maybe the movie needs to be remade or at the very least re-dubbed with the phrase "lake of beans".
- Dave Brockman, 22nd Jun 11.
This last point was quite instructive I must say. Obviously it stands to reason that if you were to build a hill of beans, you'd want a self-supporting pile.
Experiments with tinned baked beans led me to believe that beans in tomato sauce do react differently depending on how hot the liquid sauce is. In general, the viscosity of a simple liquid decreases with increasing temperature, so it stands to reason that if you're cooking baked beans on a stovetop, they will have a greater propensity to form a lake. Likewise at colder temperatures, baked bean sauce will tend to coagulate.
Fortuneately, the Commission Internationale du Genie Rural or CIGR, has already conducted studies into the shape of a pile that beans take:
http://www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/download/1700/1397
Of course you tend to ask "why" such a study needs to be made in the first place.
The answer has to do with bulk handling of cargoes. Bulk handlers of foodstuffs and minerals need to be aware of the shape of piles they build with their bulk cargo; it's also important when building things like silos, railway hoppers and conveyor belts.
The shape of of the cone made by a pile is described by something called the "Angle of Repose". This report from the CIGR indicates that the Angle of Repose for coffee is 35° and for Baked Beans in tomato sauce it's 25°. Always wanting to check my figures I emailed H.J. Heinz Company and SPC Ardmona and they both have confirmed the figure of 25°.
The next question is how much it would cost to build a 100ft pile of beans. Again Dave was rather helpful:
If you were intending to use them for construction rather than sustenance I would suggest that you use Tesco Value, which are 28p for 420g, according to mysupermarket.co.uk
28p/420g works out to be A$1.01348/kg
Interestingly I find this to be the cheapest source of baked banes in the world. Franklins No Frills baked beans which cost 77c for 425g comes to A$1.83333/kg and nowhere in the US, NZ or South Africa, came out as cheap.
WARNING:
The next section involves maths. If you want to skip this bit, then please just scroll down:
To find the radius of the cone requires simple trignometry. A cone can be described as solid formed by a rotating right triangle through 360°.
A/sin a° = B / sin b° = C / sin c°
A/sin 65° = 100 / sin 25°
A = 214.4506920 feet.
Volume of a Cone (the hill of beans) : V = 1/3πr²h
V = 1/3 x π x 100ft² x 214.4506920ft
V = 4,815,968 cubic feet
V = 136,373,027.625L
Beans however are not sold by volume but by weight.
If you assume that beans are not compressible, then if follows that they pack into a tin at the same rate as they would into a pile. After measuring several baked bean tins in the supermarket, I find that the standard baked bean tin is 75mm across and 110mmm tall.
Volume of a Cylinder (a bean tin) : V = πr²h
V = π x (75mm)² x 110mm
V = 154,687.5mm³
V = 0.1546875L for 420g
V = 0.368303514L/kg
This means to say that at 0.368303514L/kg in a volume of 136,373,027.625L there are 50,226,666kg of beans.
At the Franklins rate of $1.83333/kg a Hill of beans would cost:
A$92,082,220
If the hill was made of Tesco Value at A$1.01348/kg, the Hill of beans costs:
A$50,903,721
Going back to Rick Blaine's comment in Casablanca that "the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world" then this is probably true.
Gail Kelly the CEO of Westpac is reportedly on a salary of A$9.5m a year. It is estimated that she has a net worth of A$32.9m.
It probably follows that the problems of three "little" people, ie people of low net worth, don't amount to the value of a Hill of Beans. However if you were to take three people like Wayne Rooney, Michael Schumacher and Gail Kelly, then you might be exceeding the value of a hill of beans.
On reflection a hill of beans is actually worth a considerable amount of money. I wouldn't fancy climbing it though as you'd get Tomato Sauce in your socks.
June 21, 2011
That's a nice Tnetennba
Tnetennba: Noun.
A word whose function is purely to attract traffic to a website; a gratuitously used keyword whose presence is aimed at attracting the search engines attention and improving the website’s placement in search results.
A word whose function is purely to attract traffic to a website; a gratuitously used keyword whose presence is aimed at attracting the search engines attention and improving the website’s placement in search results.
Horse 1204 - Is Facebook Killing English?
This question came from a forum board which I frequent:
Do you think the advent of social networking (Facebook etc) has killed the forum boards or is it a more specific decline based on subject matter? Or is it that people aren't as good as writing as they were?
I don't necessarily see this as a specific problem to do with forums but a symptom of a far-wider ranging miasma of declining rates of functional literacy generally.
I will attribute some of the blame at the feet of Twitter, MySpace and the Book of Faces because where once were pieces of text in which some degree of thought used to be employed, there are now shorter grabs of 140 characters or less in some cases. However I don't think that social media by itself at fault but society as a whole.
This is the distilling of a process which has been going back hundreds if not thousands of years.
The Bible records in both the book of Nehemiah (chapter 13) and the letter to the Hebrews (chapter 9) that "all of the law was read to the people". Now I'm assuming that probably refers to "the law" as contained in the Book of Leviticus, so "all of the law" amounts to 27 chapters which have to be read in a public place.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul rambled on for so long that one poor chap fell asleep and fell out of a window (Acts 20).
If you look at the great age of the novel, books like Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, Austen's Mansfield Park, Charles Dickens' Bleak House or even James Joyce's Ulysses, are all hefty tomes which are vastly more complex than the radio serials which began in the 1930s or television programs which all fit nicely into half-hour blocks.
Whereas once people would be content to stand out in a field and tend livestock, watching as each day told a unique story (I earnestly believe that it was shepherds who invented the game of cricket), people's attention spans which used to last hours now barely last seven minutes, and 140 characters of a twitter post is a logical extension of this whittling away of patience.
I think that because people generally don't have anything like the same amount of patience that people had in the past, coupled with the fact that they simple aren't engaged to anywhere near the same degree as they once were with the written word, that people's language skills have suffered as a result.
I work as a forensic accountant and so deal with legal firms on a semi-regular basis and it staggers me at just how poor so-called "professional" correspondence has become. I see errors in spelling and grammar which should make the average 8th grader cringe (but sadly doesn't) and whilst I will accept that English might not be the first language of some people and concede the fact that the language does evolve, it is still not an excuse for the hideousness which I see quite often in written English from people who should know better and especially from people who's very profession lives in the realm of producing and gleaning information from written English.
A poor standard of English has even infected mainstream media. There has been a noticeable decline in the quality of writing in “newspapers of record” like The Times and The Daily Telegraph etc. and I’m willing to bet that that is consistent across the Anglosphere.
In Australia, our own Sydney Morning Herald has been on the slide in my lifetime but I'm glad to say that Sydney's Daily Telegraph has actually improved in quality since the days that it merged with The Daily Mirror, though I think that that has more to do with the influence of AAP than anything else.
George Orwell decried "ugly and inaccurate" English in his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” and although he was more concerned about media and politicians using language to conceal their intent and advocated the use of Plain English, I take his point to some degree but also disagree with him on other points.
I happen to like using florid language partly because I take joy in "the flower of English". I like the ability to select and mould paragraphs to change the colour and tone of meaning. So in that respect I differ from Orwell quite strongly but I totally agree with him in that if you don't properly craft your pieces of writing, then the language itself suffers a ever so slight devaluation; if you multiply that by the billions of poor pieces of writing being produced, is it little wonder we're floating in a sea of fetid stench?
There is also the fact that we live in an increasingly Post-literate Society in which people no longer read for pleasure as much as they used to. As a result of this, I suggest that people are voluntarily choosing to become more stupid, through laziness and a refusal to learn anything, which includes the ability to use the written word properly. I also note a decline in numeracy to the point where a lot of people find long division difficult. This is encouraged by a distinctly anti-intellectual, commercial and hedonistic media sludge.
So in answer to the original question, I don't think that "the advent of social networking (Facebook etc) has killed the forum boards" but rather that this an expression of a systemic failure of wider society of which forum boards are a very small cross-section... and the real tragedy is that because society is generally more stupid than it used to be, they won't understand what I just said.
Do you think the advent of social networking (Facebook etc) has killed the forum boards or is it a more specific decline based on subject matter? Or is it that people aren't as good as writing as they were?
I don't necessarily see this as a specific problem to do with forums but a symptom of a far-wider ranging miasma of declining rates of functional literacy generally.
I will attribute some of the blame at the feet of Twitter, MySpace and the Book of Faces because where once were pieces of text in which some degree of thought used to be employed, there are now shorter grabs of 140 characters or less in some cases. However I don't think that social media by itself at fault but society as a whole.
This is the distilling of a process which has been going back hundreds if not thousands of years.
The Bible records in both the book of Nehemiah (chapter 13) and the letter to the Hebrews (chapter 9) that "all of the law was read to the people". Now I'm assuming that probably refers to "the law" as contained in the Book of Leviticus, so "all of the law" amounts to 27 chapters which have to be read in a public place.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul rambled on for so long that one poor chap fell asleep and fell out of a window (Acts 20).
If you look at the great age of the novel, books like Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, Austen's Mansfield Park, Charles Dickens' Bleak House or even James Joyce's Ulysses, are all hefty tomes which are vastly more complex than the radio serials which began in the 1930s or television programs which all fit nicely into half-hour blocks.
Whereas once people would be content to stand out in a field and tend livestock, watching as each day told a unique story (I earnestly believe that it was shepherds who invented the game of cricket), people's attention spans which used to last hours now barely last seven minutes, and 140 characters of a twitter post is a logical extension of this whittling away of patience.
I think that because people generally don't have anything like the same amount of patience that people had in the past, coupled with the fact that they simple aren't engaged to anywhere near the same degree as they once were with the written word, that people's language skills have suffered as a result.
I work as a forensic accountant and so deal with legal firms on a semi-regular basis and it staggers me at just how poor so-called "professional" correspondence has become. I see errors in spelling and grammar which should make the average 8th grader cringe (but sadly doesn't) and whilst I will accept that English might not be the first language of some people and concede the fact that the language does evolve, it is still not an excuse for the hideousness which I see quite often in written English from people who should know better and especially from people who's very profession lives in the realm of producing and gleaning information from written English.
A poor standard of English has even infected mainstream media. There has been a noticeable decline in the quality of writing in “newspapers of record” like The Times and The Daily Telegraph etc. and I’m willing to bet that that is consistent across the Anglosphere.
In Australia, our own Sydney Morning Herald has been on the slide in my lifetime but I'm glad to say that Sydney's Daily Telegraph has actually improved in quality since the days that it merged with The Daily Mirror, though I think that that has more to do with the influence of AAP than anything else.
George Orwell decried "ugly and inaccurate" English in his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” and although he was more concerned about media and politicians using language to conceal their intent and advocated the use of Plain English, I take his point to some degree but also disagree with him on other points.
I happen to like using florid language partly because I take joy in "the flower of English". I like the ability to select and mould paragraphs to change the colour and tone of meaning. So in that respect I differ from Orwell quite strongly but I totally agree with him in that if you don't properly craft your pieces of writing, then the language itself suffers a ever so slight devaluation; if you multiply that by the billions of poor pieces of writing being produced, is it little wonder we're floating in a sea of fetid stench?
There is also the fact that we live in an increasingly Post-literate Society in which people no longer read for pleasure as much as they used to. As a result of this, I suggest that people are voluntarily choosing to become more stupid, through laziness and a refusal to learn anything, which includes the ability to use the written word properly. I also note a decline in numeracy to the point where a lot of people find long division difficult. This is encouraged by a distinctly anti-intellectual, commercial and hedonistic media sludge.
So in answer to the original question, I don't think that "the advent of social networking (Facebook etc) has killed the forum boards" but rather that this an expression of a systemic failure of wider society of which forum boards are a very small cross-section... and the real tragedy is that because society is generally more stupid than it used to be, they won't understand what I just said.
June 20, 2011
Horse 1203 - What Does The England Test Side Believe About Itself?
The thing that really bothers me about the current England Test Team is that even after defending The Ashes by beating Australia 3-1 in Australia and outclassing Sri Lanka to the point where Sri Lanka have looked slightly less than apalling, England still seems to lack self-belief and confidence in themselves as a Test side.
The worst innings that England has had in the current series is 335 for 7 declared. Making 335 is a reasonable score in the first place but this isn't even a proper close of innings, this was England declaring early so they could have a fighting chance at winnning a match; even then Ian Bell was scoring at a strike rate of more than 130 when the declaration came.
Jonathan Trott made 203 in the 1st test at Sophia Gardens in Cardiff and took 1/5 in the 1st test at Lord's. There have also been centuries to Cook Bell and Prior in the series, whilst Sri Lanka have only deposed all of England's wickets in an innings once. Chris Tremlett's 6/48 in the 3rd test at The Rose Bowl is the only five wicket haul by bowler in the series but that's because wickets are being spread around rather than faulty bowling.
At least one batsman is performing per innings and the bowling is entirely adequate. Normally this should instill hope into a squad but remember, this is England we're talking about.
This is an England side which is obviously in a state of confusion. England hit the bottom in 2006/7 with a disastrous tour of Australia losing 5-0, and since then they've risen like the phoenix and have turned into a Test side which whilst it might not be full of any real stand-out stars in particular, it is a very good side which I don't think has quite figured that out for itself.
Especially over the last 20 years, England in just about every sport has been rubbish. When England won the Rugby World Cup in 2003, we didn't know what to do about it exactly and now that the England Cricket is looking competent and winning matches with alarming regularity, neither the team itself nor the fans quite know how to react to this.
Just to remind you again, this is England. England isn't supposed to win anything! England is the nation which invents and codifies sports, gives them to the world and then sits and mopes when everyone else in the world practices them and gets better than them. For the England Test Cricket side to start winning matches, cuts against the veyr principles of being English, namely standing about complaining about the weather and going in at teatime to knock off a plate of Jaffa Cakes.
Thankfully the scent of failure is just over the horizon.
I predict that India will start the tour by smashing county sides to pieces on relatively small grounds like Taunton, and that the England Test team will be looking at this and then have the wind taken out of their sails.
Players like Gambhir and Dravid will have scores which are over-inflated (150-190) and when they come to Lord's on 21st July, I'm worried that Finn and Broad will be scared into a state of... being the England Test Team that we've come to know over the last 20 years because of the dark shadows that those scores will cast.
Maybe England will select John Bull himself to play for them in the First Test against India but I think it more likely that when faced against India, England will just collapse like a flan in a cupboard and it will be just like old times again.
The worst innings that England has had in the current series is 335 for 7 declared. Making 335 is a reasonable score in the first place but this isn't even a proper close of innings, this was England declaring early so they could have a fighting chance at winnning a match; even then Ian Bell was scoring at a strike rate of more than 130 when the declaration came.
Jonathan Trott made 203 in the 1st test at Sophia Gardens in Cardiff and took 1/5 in the 1st test at Lord's. There have also been centuries to Cook Bell and Prior in the series, whilst Sri Lanka have only deposed all of England's wickets in an innings once. Chris Tremlett's 6/48 in the 3rd test at The Rose Bowl is the only five wicket haul by bowler in the series but that's because wickets are being spread around rather than faulty bowling.
At least one batsman is performing per innings and the bowling is entirely adequate. Normally this should instill hope into a squad but remember, this is England we're talking about.
This is an England side which is obviously in a state of confusion. England hit the bottom in 2006/7 with a disastrous tour of Australia losing 5-0, and since then they've risen like the phoenix and have turned into a Test side which whilst it might not be full of any real stand-out stars in particular, it is a very good side which I don't think has quite figured that out for itself.
Especially over the last 20 years, England in just about every sport has been rubbish. When England won the Rugby World Cup in 2003, we didn't know what to do about it exactly and now that the England Cricket is looking competent and winning matches with alarming regularity, neither the team itself nor the fans quite know how to react to this.
Just to remind you again, this is England. England isn't supposed to win anything! England is the nation which invents and codifies sports, gives them to the world and then sits and mopes when everyone else in the world practices them and gets better than them. For the England Test Cricket side to start winning matches, cuts against the veyr principles of being English, namely standing about complaining about the weather and going in at teatime to knock off a plate of Jaffa Cakes.
Thankfully the scent of failure is just over the horizon.
I predict that India will start the tour by smashing county sides to pieces on relatively small grounds like Taunton, and that the England Test team will be looking at this and then have the wind taken out of their sails.
Players like Gambhir and Dravid will have scores which are over-inflated (150-190) and when they come to Lord's on 21st July, I'm worried that Finn and Broad will be scared into a state of... being the England Test Team that we've come to know over the last 20 years because of the dark shadows that those scores will cast.
Maybe England will select John Bull himself to play for them in the First Test against India but I think it more likely that when faced against India, England will just collapse like a flan in a cupboard and it will be just like old times again.
Horse 1202 - Pravda
"people should just calm down about some of the media frenzy around this"
- Anthony Albanese, to the ABC, 20th Jun 2011.
How can people calm down if they're constantly being told to worry about it?
Mr Albanese is of course talking about the continuing media stupidity that surrounds Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd and the PM Julia Gillard. Despite repeated attempts to tell the media that there is no leadership spill, no-one seems to be getting it and I think that this is because of a case of bad faith by the people running the newspapers in Australia.
Consider the following:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/party-wont-stand-rudds-mind-games/story-fn59niix-1226078106992
"both Sydney's The Daily Telegraph and Brisbane's The Courier-Mail featured the same piece on the re-made Rudd. "A year in her shadow" was the sting for the magazine piece in the Telegraph, pushed along by Gillard's unhelpful anniversary interview comments where she repeated why she had, in the words of the Telegraph headline, "knifed Rudd"."
This came from this morning's Australian which is a News Corp newspaper; it speaks of a piece which featured in both the The Daily Telegraph and The Courier-Mail (which are also News Corp newspapers) and basically it admits where its story came from. In case you missed it:
"in the words of the Telegraph headline"
Not a piece of investigative journalism, not a leaked memo and not a press statement. News Corp papers in this case have simply made something up where it suited them to do so.
Fairfax newspapers are just as guilty for doing this. The Sydney Morning Herald, Melbourne's "The Age" and the two online Fairfax newspapers the Brisbane Times and WA Today all ran this story with the following headline:
Rudd muses in church over 2010 sacking
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/rudd-muses-in-church-over-2010-sacking-20110619-1g9k9.html
Yet if you read through the article itself we find the following quote from Kevin Rudd himself from the radio station Hope 103.2:
"I was musing in church ... the key thing is not to sit around and mope. The key thing is to get out there and make a difference with the resources that you have at your disposal today.
Whatever your calling and whatever your lot is in life, to take those talents and take those abilities and use them to the utmost. That is what you try and do.
None of us are perfect and we all fall short of the glory of God."
- Kevin Rudd, played on Hope 103.2, 19th Jun 2011.
I was listening to the radio when this came on and this in context had nothing whatsoever to do with a supposed leadership spill. Although Fairfax media may have used an exact quote, they tried to make it say something which it never did.
On one hand you have News Corp openly admitting to just making stuff up and on the other you have Fairfax misusing someone's words. Either way both of the major newspaper companies are engaging in something even older than they are... LYING. We may as well be living in Stalinist Russia because at least everyone knew that Pravda was lying.
Of course it makes you wonder why the media is putting so much effort into trying to destabilise the Labor Party and the Federal Government. What is the real story going on?
The simple thing would be to look at media bias.
Both Fairfax Media and News Corp are roughly right leaning conservative news outlets. Fairfax generally favours the Liberal Party and although News Corp doesn't come out in Australia and directly say it, they do openly support the Republican Party in the US and the Conservatives in the UK, so it follows that they should also do likewise in Australia.
The real issue is what is the biggest concern of right leaning conservatives in Australian poltics at the moment? The answer to that is the Carbon Tax.
To put it mildly, both major newspaper companies have an audience which would oppose any increase in taxation except maybe The Daily Telegraph whose readers have the average IQ of a tin of baked beans.
By openly making stuff up and/or lying about the context of what is going on, the act of destabilising the Government is not only an act of defiance but also embodies another adage which goes back more than two thousand years: Divide et Impera, divide and rule.
Caesar, Napoleon, Sun Tsu, Boccalini and Machiavelli have all written about this law and if it was good enough for them, it is good enough for Fairfax Media and News Corp... but it doesn't serve the people of Australia.
So then, to Fairfax Media and News Corp on this the 20th of June, 2011:
- Anthony Albanese, to the ABC, 20th Jun 2011.
How can people calm down if they're constantly being told to worry about it?
Mr Albanese is of course talking about the continuing media stupidity that surrounds Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd and the PM Julia Gillard. Despite repeated attempts to tell the media that there is no leadership spill, no-one seems to be getting it and I think that this is because of a case of bad faith by the people running the newspapers in Australia.
Consider the following:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/party-wont-stand-rudds-mind-games/story-fn59niix-1226078106992
"both Sydney's The Daily Telegraph and Brisbane's The Courier-Mail featured the same piece on the re-made Rudd. "A year in her shadow" was the sting for the magazine piece in the Telegraph, pushed along by Gillard's unhelpful anniversary interview comments where she repeated why she had, in the words of the Telegraph headline, "knifed Rudd"."
This came from this morning's Australian which is a News Corp newspaper; it speaks of a piece which featured in both the The Daily Telegraph and The Courier-Mail (which are also News Corp newspapers) and basically it admits where its story came from. In case you missed it:
"in the words of the Telegraph headline"
Not a piece of investigative journalism, not a leaked memo and not a press statement. News Corp papers in this case have simply made something up where it suited them to do so.
Fairfax newspapers are just as guilty for doing this. The Sydney Morning Herald, Melbourne's "The Age" and the two online Fairfax newspapers the Brisbane Times and WA Today all ran this story with the following headline:
Rudd muses in church over 2010 sacking
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/rudd-muses-in-church-over-2010-sacking-20110619-1g9k9.html
Yet if you read through the article itself we find the following quote from Kevin Rudd himself from the radio station Hope 103.2:
"I was musing in church ... the key thing is not to sit around and mope. The key thing is to get out there and make a difference with the resources that you have at your disposal today.
Whatever your calling and whatever your lot is in life, to take those talents and take those abilities and use them to the utmost. That is what you try and do.
None of us are perfect and we all fall short of the glory of God."
- Kevin Rudd, played on Hope 103.2, 19th Jun 2011.
I was listening to the radio when this came on and this in context had nothing whatsoever to do with a supposed leadership spill. Although Fairfax media may have used an exact quote, they tried to make it say something which it never did.
On one hand you have News Corp openly admitting to just making stuff up and on the other you have Fairfax misusing someone's words. Either way both of the major newspaper companies are engaging in something even older than they are... LYING. We may as well be living in Stalinist Russia because at least everyone knew that Pravda was lying.
Of course it makes you wonder why the media is putting so much effort into trying to destabilise the Labor Party and the Federal Government. What is the real story going on?
The simple thing would be to look at media bias.
Both Fairfax Media and News Corp are roughly right leaning conservative news outlets. Fairfax generally favours the Liberal Party and although News Corp doesn't come out in Australia and directly say it, they do openly support the Republican Party in the US and the Conservatives in the UK, so it follows that they should also do likewise in Australia.
The real issue is what is the biggest concern of right leaning conservatives in Australian poltics at the moment? The answer to that is the Carbon Tax.
To put it mildly, both major newspaper companies have an audience which would oppose any increase in taxation except maybe The Daily Telegraph whose readers have the average IQ of a tin of baked beans.
By openly making stuff up and/or lying about the context of what is going on, the act of destabilising the Government is not only an act of defiance but also embodies another adage which goes back more than two thousand years: Divide et Impera, divide and rule.
Caesar, Napoleon, Sun Tsu, Boccalini and Machiavelli have all written about this law and if it was good enough for them, it is good enough for Fairfax Media and News Corp... but it doesn't serve the people of Australia.
So then, to Fairfax Media and News Corp on this the 20th of June, 2011:
STOP LYING YOU MISCREANTS!
June 16, 2011
Horse 1201 - LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING
Malcolm Turnbull who appears to be the champion of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" has yet again written an article in the Business Spectator arguing why the Australian Government should collectively do nothing, citing South Korea as an example of why governments should continue to do nothing.
http://bit.ly/iXl599
But the idea that bandwidth supply creates its own demand is a vast oversimplification. It completely ignores the critical role of other factors such as price, quality of service, availability of applications and competition among providers.
And it turns out it is exactly these factors that in Korea are proving more powerful than mere availability of high speeds.
The latest figures from Korea Telecom reveal that after five years of rolling out fibre-to-the-basement (a far less costly version of NBN Co’s fibre-to-the-home architecture), demand for the highest bandwidth plans it enables has gone pear-shaped.
- Malcolm Turnbull, the Business Spectator, 16th Jun 2011
Holding a double degree in arts and law, it's obvious that Turnbull does not understand several important things which are critical to his position as Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband. Namely anything to do with the technical details of the position, nor anything to do with the economic principles which he is arguing against.
Also being a firm member of the Liberal Right, he simply refuses to believe that governments as rule are capable of delivering anything but at the same time doesn't understand the basic concept of market failure.
Market Failure is a concept whereby the allocation of goods and services is not efficient; obviously there is nothing more inefficient than a total failure to provide any goods and services at all.
Telstra by it's own admission stated in a pamphlet in it's "BACK" Campaign in 2006 that it didn't want to invest in high speed broadband because Federal Government rules didn't allow it to. Whilst this was never tested in court, I suspect that this may have been a blatant lie because there wasn't even a hint at a suggestion as to what laws it would be infringing.
At the time the then Executive Phil Burgess, said that:
"Today we have a Minister for Communications who says there's no reason why we should be too concerned about broadband, after all 80 per cent of the people can get eight megabytes. Eight megabytes isn't enough."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/03/01/1860795.htm
The Minister for Communications at the time was Helen Coonan. Right through her tenure as minister from Jul 2004 to Nov 2007, Coonan was attacked and badgered by both Telstra and Optus in the media. Yet somehow through all of this, not a single yard of cable was laid with any capability approaching anything like the sorts of speeds which Telstra had complained about.
This is a perfect example of Public Infrastructure not being provided and illustrates exactly the concept of market failure.
Just this morning the final National Broadband Network agreement with Telstra is being hammered out as this post is being written and will be sent to Telstra's board for approval within the week and to Cabinet next week.
I think this also illustrates the point that for a project of this scope and size, only a government department has the capability of rolling it out; yet Malcolm Turnbull as the Shadow Minister appears to be willfully ignorant of what is going on before his very eyes. "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING"
The truth is that in countries which are more friendly to having governments build things, real progess is being made.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy has promised that 70% of France will get 100Mbps Internet within 10 years. The thing is though, you don't have idiots like Malcolm Turnbull or even prize chump Tony Abbott to oppose the plan. When France says that it will build something on this scale IT GETS DONE.
One only needs to look at SNCF and their TGV trains which speed across France at more than 500km/h on regular services to realise just how stupid the stance by Turnbull actually is.
Even Spain despite its sovereign debt problems is aiming to build a national broadband network from scratch which will deliver a baseline of 1Mbps to all households within 24 months.
Heck even the United States which surely is the stalwart of free enterprise has "The National Broadband Plan" and although they might argue about Universal Health Care, even they recognised the need for Universal Service to broadband.
So important is The National Broadband Plan that the first point of the plan is:
"At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second by the year 2020."
http://www.broadband.gov
To be totally honest the US endeavours on rolling out its National Broadband Plan make our own NBN Co look hideously pathetic and small.
The truth is that Broadband will be the major networks and highways of the 21st Century, and yet somehow Mr Turnbull actively wants to keep Australia behind the rest of the world.
S.51 of the Constitution says:
"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;"
I think that we should hold people like Mr Turnbull to account and ask him precisely WHY he wants to defeat the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth.
I suspect that his answer would only be "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING"
http://bit.ly/iXl599
But the idea that bandwidth supply creates its own demand is a vast oversimplification. It completely ignores the critical role of other factors such as price, quality of service, availability of applications and competition among providers.
And it turns out it is exactly these factors that in Korea are proving more powerful than mere availability of high speeds.
The latest figures from Korea Telecom reveal that after five years of rolling out fibre-to-the-basement (a far less costly version of NBN Co’s fibre-to-the-home architecture), demand for the highest bandwidth plans it enables has gone pear-shaped.
- Malcolm Turnbull, the Business Spectator, 16th Jun 2011
Holding a double degree in arts and law, it's obvious that Turnbull does not understand several important things which are critical to his position as Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband. Namely anything to do with the technical details of the position, nor anything to do with the economic principles which he is arguing against.
Also being a firm member of the Liberal Right, he simply refuses to believe that governments as rule are capable of delivering anything but at the same time doesn't understand the basic concept of market failure.
Market Failure is a concept whereby the allocation of goods and services is not efficient; obviously there is nothing more inefficient than a total failure to provide any goods and services at all.
Telstra by it's own admission stated in a pamphlet in it's "BACK" Campaign in 2006 that it didn't want to invest in high speed broadband because Federal Government rules didn't allow it to. Whilst this was never tested in court, I suspect that this may have been a blatant lie because there wasn't even a hint at a suggestion as to what laws it would be infringing.
At the time the then Executive Phil Burgess, said that:
"Today we have a Minister for Communications who says there's no reason why we should be too concerned about broadband, after all 80 per cent of the people can get eight megabytes. Eight megabytes isn't enough."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/03/01/1860795.htm
The Minister for Communications at the time was Helen Coonan. Right through her tenure as minister from Jul 2004 to Nov 2007, Coonan was attacked and badgered by both Telstra and Optus in the media. Yet somehow through all of this, not a single yard of cable was laid with any capability approaching anything like the sorts of speeds which Telstra had complained about.
This is a perfect example of Public Infrastructure not being provided and illustrates exactly the concept of market failure.
Just this morning the final National Broadband Network agreement with Telstra is being hammered out as this post is being written and will be sent to Telstra's board for approval within the week and to Cabinet next week.
I think this also illustrates the point that for a project of this scope and size, only a government department has the capability of rolling it out; yet Malcolm Turnbull as the Shadow Minister appears to be willfully ignorant of what is going on before his very eyes. "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING"
The truth is that in countries which are more friendly to having governments build things, real progess is being made.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy has promised that 70% of France will get 100Mbps Internet within 10 years. The thing is though, you don't have idiots like Malcolm Turnbull or even prize chump Tony Abbott to oppose the plan. When France says that it will build something on this scale IT GETS DONE.
One only needs to look at SNCF and their TGV trains which speed across France at more than 500km/h on regular services to realise just how stupid the stance by Turnbull actually is.
Even Spain despite its sovereign debt problems is aiming to build a national broadband network from scratch which will deliver a baseline of 1Mbps to all households within 24 months.
Heck even the United States which surely is the stalwart of free enterprise has "The National Broadband Plan" and although they might argue about Universal Health Care, even they recognised the need for Universal Service to broadband.
So important is The National Broadband Plan that the first point of the plan is:
"At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second by the year 2020."
http://www.broadband.gov
To be totally honest the US endeavours on rolling out its National Broadband Plan make our own NBN Co look hideously pathetic and small.
The truth is that Broadband will be the major networks and highways of the 21st Century, and yet somehow Mr Turnbull actively wants to keep Australia behind the rest of the world.
S.51 of the Constitution says:
"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;"
I think that we should hold people like Mr Turnbull to account and ask him precisely WHY he wants to defeat the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth.
I suspect that his answer would only be "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING"
June 14, 2011
Horse 1200 - Please Build a Legend, Holden
I do realise that this is a gratuitous excuse to put a picture of a BMW M3 GTS on this blog because to be perfectly blunt, I do think that it does look quite cool, however this post addresses something a little bit more
If I look back through the mysts of time and try to pick the two coolest touring cars in Australian motor racing history, there are two obvious stand outs: namely the Ford Falcon XC Coupe and the Holden Torana A9X hatchback.
These two cars were both modified versions of cars you could buy from a showroom at any time. If you had the cash spare, you could very easily walk into a Ford or Holden dealership, plonk your money on the counter and drive away with a car that wasn't that far removed from the road car.
With a modern V8 Supercar, the cars are so far removed from the road-going versions that apart from the bodyshell in the case of the Falcon and not at all in the case of the current V8 Supercar Commodore, the cars they race are pretty well much prototypes; hence the reason why I mentioned the BMW M3 GTS in the first place. The M3 GTS is a development of sorts from the regular M3 and vicariously the 3-Series rep-box. Admittedly it's far far far removed from sat a
The M3 GTS has forced the hand of development at BMW. Faced with challenges to make the cars last 24 hours, BMW has over the past few years turned a relatively "fragile" car into a robust racer.
The V8 Supercars have been playing the same basic formula now since 1993, and in principle haven't really undergone anything like the developmental process that the BMW M3 GTR has, and nor are they really "pushing the envelope" that far either.
It seems to me that Holden and Ford in Australia are playing with dinosaur technology. Basically the single-cam pushrod V8 from Holden dates in principle from GM's "small block" V8 of 1968 and the Falcon's Windsor engine dates from 1962.
Why in 2011 are they still playing with engines more than 40 years old?
I think that the Le Mans 24 Hours would provide a proper challenge for Ford and Holden. Holden "tried" with their 427 Monaro to have a go at a 24 Hour Race but it wasn't really a proper test because the rules were bent to allow it to compete... and win. Ford on the other hand haven't really made a proper effort at Le Mans since the GT40 of 1969.
As it is, Craig Lowdnes was racing for Team Joest in an Audi of all things; at Bathurst no less in the 12 Hours this year. The first Ford across the line was an FPV Falcon GT in 13th and the first Holden was an HSV spec Astra. An ASTRA?! What is this? Being beaten in your own backyard is disgraceful.
If an Audi R8 can come to the Bathurst 12 Hour, what's to stop Holden from going over to Le Mans and having a go in the 24 Hours?
I think that there is a case to be made to send three 7L HSV Maloos to Le Mans to try and beat the BMW M3 GTS and the Corvette C6. I think that it would help to rekindle the flame of competition and even if it wasn't all that successful, the coolness factor and the legend which would result from Utes at Le Mans would stretch on for years to come.
Obviously you could draw from the existing componentry of V8 Supercars for the suspension and drivetrain etc. and maybe develop a bit of a long-tail body kit for it to give you the downforce to cope with Mulsanne, but I know that the potential is there just waiting to be unleashed.
If someone is from Holden and you are reading this*, then please do it. Get the HRT or 888 to build them for you. Heck even send Bob Katter as an ambassador with them with his big hat, whatever happens, we'd all win.
*If you are from Ford and you're reading this, then I have less faith in FoMoCo generally to support motor racing. Sorry, but that's the way the cookie bounces... or the ball crumbles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)