@rperrett recently retweeted a link to an article from a website called Lifehacker. The article in question was by someone called David Fuhriman who appears to be some sort of Venture Capitalist and Entrepreneur.
You can read through the article if you like but I'll provide a few select paragraphs:
http://lifehacker.com/5834025/if-you-wouldnt-do-your-job-for-free-then-quit
What did I love enough that I would do it for free? I figured that if I was actually willing to do it for free, then that would be a good start. So I explored taking the CFA or CAIA certifications- maybe I would like to do more security analysis. No. I started looking into commodities and opened up a margin account, funded it with some money. But that wasn't it. Did some real estate analysis, properties in the mid-west have attractive cap-rates. No.
I ended up coming back to what I used to do: helping small companies grow. This time I wanted to grow something scalable- with national or international scope. I started attending tech events, reading everything online, buying books, and discovered something I love doing for free- and what I do really well. I am very good at working in the space between Technology and Business. I ended up quitting my job to work on these things full-time. I discovered there are two reasons to only work in a job that you would do for free.
Curiously of the 14 replies posted on the website and the 8 replies via Twitter, only 2 seem to be in agreement where as the other 20 are downright antagonistic. This is a selection:
- So forgive me if I'm not super-on-the-train with mr. startup-venture-capitalist, because I seriously doubt he's ever had to worry about making rent a day in the past twenty years of his life.
- That's not sound advice, it's airy-fairy bull****!
- If you don't have a family to support, or like to eat occasionally, perhaps.
- That's the worst advice I've ever heard if you've got a family to feed and aren't an independently wealthy entrepreneur.
- Haha, I can only imagine what small % that would be of people
- Is David Fuhriman going to pay my mortgage for me?
Do we see a trend emerging here?
Although I can understand the rationale for suggesting that people seek a job which they're ultimately going to find satisfying, there is a distinct difference between intangible ideals and very very tangible real life.
Firstly the article starts with the premise of a lie: "What did I love enough that I would do it for free?". Does this chap then back up those words by volunteering for anything? Of course not; not a bar of it. It's obvious that people like to receive rewards for the work they do (usually monetary). Not only do people like to receive rewards for the work they do but the vast majority of workers rely on the monetary rewards for the work they do.
Suppose that I was actually to carry through on this quite frankly irrational advice. Is my Landlord also likely to provide my housing for free? What about the electricity company, the phone company or even the grocery store? A chap still has to eat.
Secondly there is something altogether terse in the attitude "if you don't like it, quit". This is just a suggestion but maybe if employers started creating an agreeable and harmonious environment in the workplace, so that people didn't hate their job, maybe they wouldn't? This "if you don't like it, quit" attitude does little more than inspire mistrust and dare I say it hatred in employees for their employers.
By way of background I note that Mr Fuhriman happens to live in San Diego.This might be a gross generalisation but there is a great sense of free enterprise in the United States and a nebulous thing called the "American Dream", which is basically the ethos of success and prosperity. It's all very well to suggest that people simply quit but does this make any sense at all in the real world?
Maybe Mr Fuhriman hasn't read the San Diego Union-Tribune lately but last time I checked, the unemployment rate in the United States was 9.2%; meaning that some 14.1 million Americans are out of work. I would suggest that the vast bulk of them would jump at the chance to do even a lowly job if it meant that the bill-collectors were kept at bay. Clearly Mr Fuhriman has either never known hardship or poverty; for him to speak with such tones speaks volumes of his insincerity and callousness.
I also note that as an "Entrepreneur" and/or Venture Capitalist, it is in fact in Mr Fuhriman's interest that people quit their jobs and employ him during the initial start-up phase. Maybe it's willful blindness on his part but the fact remains that about 80% of all businesses fail in the first three years; I can say with almost 100% certainty that he would still collect his fees even if those businesses which he works with fail. So much for doing it for free.
Maybe it's his overriding belief in the American Dream which is what is driving him. There has to be a point though where you stop dreaming and wake up.
Probably the vast majority of people wouldn't just quit their jobs unless there was another better offer on the table, or the conditions in their existing job were so terrible that they felt that they were forced to. Given a very tight employment market, simply quitting your job, is not only irresponsible but downright idiotic and I think that the wave of invective which has followed is totally justified.
August 30, 2011
August 25, 2011
Horse 1222 - Kia K9 - Woof Woof
Currently known by its prototype number, the Kia K9 I think probably represents the car which Kia are likely to enter in the V8 Supercar Championship come 2013.
It replaces the Kia Opirus and compliments the Kia Cadenza (K7 in Korea) and would likely be marketed with the 3L Theta V6 or the 3.5L Lambda V6 which both come from parent company Hyundai.
What I find curious is that Hyundai also have a 5L V8 called Tau which currently sits in the Hyundai Genesis.
It's worth noting that Hyundai saw as its direct competitors for the Genesis (and by inference the K9) in the United States are/were the Ford Taurus and the Pontiac G8. The Ford Taurus will more than likely replace the Ford Falcon come 2016 and the Pontiac G8 was the Holden Commodore. See any coincidences yet?
If this week's Auto Action magazine (24Aug-31Aug issue) rumours are anything to go by, then if Kia is "considering" entering the V8 Supercars Championship then the K9 with the Tau V8 just might be the final few pieces to fall into the jigsaw. Certainly Kia would be looking to market their new car and the V8 Supercars Championship would be a very good platform to do that in.
Kia already run a Pro Cee'd in the Belgian Touring Car Championship and a Forte (Cerato) in the Chinese Touring Car Championship. Let me say that I think that the Kia Pro Cee'd looks very cool indeed.
Holden, Ford & Kia? Bring it on.
Heck I'll even drive for Kia, I've got no reputation that can be damaged. Send your mail to:
Give Andrew Rollason a V8 Supercars Drive
Kia Motors Australia
PO Box 7506
Silverwater NSW 2128
If they contact me, i'll be very surprised indeed.
August 23, 2011
Horse 1221a - Mr Abbott Will Accept The Results of The Plebiscite Now?
http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=652975&vId=
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has told parliament he'll abide by any plebiscite on a carbon tax.
He's put forward a private member's bill for a non-binding poll on Labor's planned tax to be conducted no later than the last Saturday in November.
Given that the official stance as posted on the Liberal Party website was that if the result didn't go the way Mr Abbott wanted, then it would be ignored, does this mean to say that Mr Abbott's promise is now binding even though a plebiscite is a non-binding poll?
I should point out at this point that Mr Abbott should remember during his time as both the Minister for Employment under it various guises and also the Manager of Government Business in the House of Representatives that when the Labour Party opposed Work Choices (which by the way the Liberal Party also lied about prior to the 2004 election: much the same way as he now accuses the Gillard Government of doing over the Carbon Tax), they didn't go to a plebiscite but fought the 2007 election, won Government and subsequently repealed it.
That's the way things can and should be done in a Westminster Parlianment. Legislation is tabled before the House, not wheeled before the people who's input could be ignored anyway.
Before we do have a plebiscite, I think we should have a plebiscite to decide if the people want a plebiscite; it would be non-binding of course.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has told parliament he'll abide by any plebiscite on a carbon tax.
He's put forward a private member's bill for a non-binding poll on Labor's planned tax to be conducted no later than the last Saturday in November.
Given that the official stance as posted on the Liberal Party website was that if the result didn't go the way Mr Abbott wanted, then it would be ignored, does this mean to say that Mr Abbott's promise is now binding even though a plebiscite is a non-binding poll?
I should point out at this point that Mr Abbott should remember during his time as both the Minister for Employment under it various guises and also the Manager of Government Business in the House of Representatives that when the Labour Party opposed Work Choices (which by the way the Liberal Party also lied about prior to the 2004 election: much the same way as he now accuses the Gillard Government of doing over the Carbon Tax), they didn't go to a plebiscite but fought the 2007 election, won Government and subsequently repealed it.
That's the way things can and should be done in a Westminster Parlianment. Legislation is tabled before the House, not wheeled before the people who's input could be ignored anyway.
Before we do have a plebiscite, I think we should have a plebiscite to decide if the people want a plebiscite; it would be non-binding of course.
August 22, 2011
Horse 1221 - Why The Plebiscite is a Waste of Time and Money
Tony Abbott has put before the parliament a bill calling plebiscite on whether Australia should have a carbon tax; by his own admission, it will be a waste of time and money and it will be HIS fault.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/convoy-protest-begins/2265581.aspx
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has introduced a bill calling for a plebiscite on whether Australia should have a carbon tax.
He said the vote should be held by November.
“I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to redeem herself. I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to make an honest woman of herself … to overcome the honesty deficit that she currently displays,’’ he said.
This would mean there could be a vote on the carbon tax without an election.
“We can have a vote on the carbon tax without necessarily a change of government. I am making it easier with this bill to have this matter put to the people. By proposing a plebiscite I am allowing this matter to go to the public for a vote, as it should … wI am giving the Government and other members of this Parliament an opportunity to restore faith with fewer adverse consequences for themselves than would otherwise be the case.’’
- Canberra Times, 20 Aug 2011
Why is Tony Abbott even bothering to get the parliament to force a plebiscite?
The truth of the matter is that on June 20 on Melbourne's 3AW, that if he was successful in forcing a plebiscite and the result found that the Australian public were actually in favour of a Carbon Tax, that he would rescind the legislation if he became Prime Minister.
Where do you find such information? Published on the Liberal Party's website for crying out loud.
http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/06/20/Tony-Abbott-interview-with-Smith-and-McCallum.aspx
Oh yes, absolutely. I mean, my position on a carbon tax is that I am against it in opposition and I will rescind it in government.
Here we have a man who continually attacks the Prime Minister for "lying" about not introducing a Carbon Tax, yet actually promises to violate the wishes of the Australian people should he become Prime Minister.
Perhaps a reminder of Section 51 of the Constitution is in order; specifically:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth...
I often wonder about those words "good government". Can "good government" include a promise to deliberately act in bad faith? Admittedly actually holding a plebiscite doesn't bind the parliament but acting in good faith which is arguably the basis of "good government" at very least should demonstrate a commitment to the compliance of the will of the people, no?
Again, why bother to force a plebiscite if you have not an iota of intent to listen to it if you disagree with it? What is the point?
Or to put it another way, Mr Abbott has promised to willfully waste taxpayers money on a stupid non-binding question which he'll ignore anyway.
I LIKE PAYING TAX FOR NOTHING!!!
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/convoy-protest-begins/2265581.aspx
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has introduced a bill calling for a plebiscite on whether Australia should have a carbon tax.
He said the vote should be held by November.
“I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to redeem herself. I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to make an honest woman of herself … to overcome the honesty deficit that she currently displays,’’ he said.
This would mean there could be a vote on the carbon tax without an election.
“We can have a vote on the carbon tax without necessarily a change of government. I am making it easier with this bill to have this matter put to the people. By proposing a plebiscite I am allowing this matter to go to the public for a vote, as it should … wI am giving the Government and other members of this Parliament an opportunity to restore faith with fewer adverse consequences for themselves than would otherwise be the case.’’
- Canberra Times, 20 Aug 2011
Why is Tony Abbott even bothering to get the parliament to force a plebiscite?
The truth of the matter is that on June 20 on Melbourne's 3AW, that if he was successful in forcing a plebiscite and the result found that the Australian public were actually in favour of a Carbon Tax, that he would rescind the legislation if he became Prime Minister.
Where do you find such information? Published on the Liberal Party's website for crying out loud.
http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/06/20/Tony-Abbott-interview-with-Smith-and-McCallum.aspx
Oh yes, absolutely. I mean, my position on a carbon tax is that I am against it in opposition and I will rescind it in government.
Here we have a man who continually attacks the Prime Minister for "lying" about not introducing a Carbon Tax, yet actually promises to violate the wishes of the Australian people should he become Prime Minister.
Perhaps a reminder of Section 51 of the Constitution is in order; specifically:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth...
I often wonder about those words "good government". Can "good government" include a promise to deliberately act in bad faith? Admittedly actually holding a plebiscite doesn't bind the parliament but acting in good faith which is arguably the basis of "good government" at very least should demonstrate a commitment to the compliance of the will of the people, no?
Again, why bother to force a plebiscite if you have not an iota of intent to listen to it if you disagree with it? What is the point?
Or to put it another way, Mr Abbott has promised to willfully waste taxpayers money on a stupid non-binding question which he'll ignore anyway.
I LIKE PAYING TAX FOR NOTHING!!!
Horse 1220 - Is Cricket Really Going Through A Bad Patch?
Going into Day 5 of the Fourth Test against India, England have a commanding lead having declared at 591 for 6, with India bowled out for 300 and now being "invited" to follow-on are 129 for 3; still requiring 162 to make England bat again.
On ABC Local Radio this morning, a discussion was had which basically suggested that the only reason that England were on top at the moment was because that cricket generally is going through a bad patch.
What rot!
Accusations of this nature weren't made when Australia were on top smacking all and sundry, or when India reached the summit of Test Cricket. So why is it that when England gets to the No.1 ranking does it suddenly become a case that cricket is going through a bad patch?
Largely because Britain had an empire and was genuinely horrible to other peoples more than 60 years ago and because Britain has a tradition of being able to laugh at itself, Britain and by inference England has becomes an unwritten case of an Acceptable Target.
England is seen by the cricket world as the Upper Class Twits, the Aristocrats, maybe the Gentry and "Old Money", despite the billions of Dollarpounds now flowing into Indian cricket.
It was the same when England won the Rugby World Cup in 2003.
The England Rugby team in 1998 had suffered the "Tour From Hell" including a 76-0 loss against Australia and then set about changing the structure of the RFU. The fact that England had spent five years rebuilding the team from the ground up was totally overlooked but pundits and commentators when England won the World Cup in 2003; Rugby must have been generally going through a bad patch because the thought that England might have actually through hard work and effort built a world-class team was totally unacceptable.
So it is with the English Cricket team.
England in 2006/7 suffered a five-nil whitewash on the tour of Australia; then had a disastrous ODI World Cup in the West Indies in 2007. The coach Duncan Fletcher resigned, and have steadily rebuilt the squad into what it is today.
Can it really be the case that England is the best in the world because they actually are the best in the world finally? Maybe it's because we're used to seeing season after season of poor performances that there is just some sort of emotional discord that makes it impossible to believe.
England No.1? Yeah right, cricket must be going through a bad patch.
On ABC Local Radio this morning, a discussion was had which basically suggested that the only reason that England were on top at the moment was because that cricket generally is going through a bad patch.
What rot!
Accusations of this nature weren't made when Australia were on top smacking all and sundry, or when India reached the summit of Test Cricket. So why is it that when England gets to the No.1 ranking does it suddenly become a case that cricket is going through a bad patch?
Largely because Britain had an empire and was genuinely horrible to other peoples more than 60 years ago and because Britain has a tradition of being able to laugh at itself, Britain and by inference England has becomes an unwritten case of an Acceptable Target.
England is seen by the cricket world as the Upper Class Twits, the Aristocrats, maybe the Gentry and "Old Money", despite the billions of Dollarpounds now flowing into Indian cricket.
It was the same when England won the Rugby World Cup in 2003.
The England Rugby team in 1998 had suffered the "Tour From Hell" including a 76-0 loss against Australia and then set about changing the structure of the RFU. The fact that England had spent five years rebuilding the team from the ground up was totally overlooked but pundits and commentators when England won the World Cup in 2003; Rugby must have been generally going through a bad patch because the thought that England might have actually through hard work and effort built a world-class team was totally unacceptable.
So it is with the English Cricket team.
England in 2006/7 suffered a five-nil whitewash on the tour of Australia; then had a disastrous ODI World Cup in the West Indies in 2007. The coach Duncan Fletcher resigned, and have steadily rebuilt the squad into what it is today.
Can it really be the case that England is the best in the world because they actually are the best in the world finally? Maybe it's because we're used to seeing season after season of poor performances that there is just some sort of emotional discord that makes it impossible to believe.
England No.1? Yeah right, cricket must be going through a bad patch.
August 19, 2011
Wheels Magazine - Scoop - 11 Months Late!
The September 2011 edition of Wheels Magazine, boldly has the Ford Taurus splashed all over it's cover, citing it as the replacement for the Ford Falcon when that comes to the end of its model cycle.
Hang on, I could have told you that! In fact, I DID in Horse 1110 and Horse 1175.
If I'm a hack and only have sources which are pretty well much accessible to everyone already, then why did take Wheels Magazine 11 months to report on this? Does this mean to say that I as an unpaid hack, am a better journalist than the paid monkeys at Wheels Magazine? I think so.
Hang on, I could have told you that! In fact, I DID in Horse 1110 and Horse 1175.
If I'm a hack and only have sources which are pretty well much accessible to everyone already, then why did take Wheels Magazine 11 months to report on this? Does this mean to say that I as an unpaid hack, am a better journalist than the paid monkeys at Wheels Magazine? I think so.
August 16, 2011
Awesome Anagram
It is very rarely that I will use the word "awesome". Awesome means to inspire "awe". Awe itself is an very deep feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like.
The following anagram won the award for the best anagram of 1999 at http://www.anagrammy.com/ I think that it's probably the single best anagram I have ever seen. Maybe it's because of my nerdulence but upon seeing this I was in a state of very deep admiration; I think this is surely the greatest anagram ever developed.
Firstly it takes the names of thirty chemical elements:
hydrogen + zirconium + tin + oxygen + rhenium + platinum + tellurium + terbium + nobelium + chromium + iron + cobalt + carbon + aluminum + ruthenium + silicon + ytterbium + hafnium + sodium + selenium + cerium + manganese + osmium + uranium + nickel + praseodymium + erbium + vanadium + thallium + plutonium
=
nitrogen + zinc + rhodium + helium + argon + neptunium + beryllium + bromine + lutetium + boron + calcium + thorium + niobium + lanthanum + mercury + fluorine + bismuth + actinium + silver + cesium + neodymium + magnesium + xenon + samarium + scandium + europium + berkelium + palladium + antimony + thulium
But there's more: if we replace each element by its atomic number (position in the Periodic Table), there is still equality:
1 + 40 + 50 + 8 + 75 + 78 + 52 + 65 +102 + 24 + 26 + 27 + 6 + 13 + 44 + 14 + 70 + 72 + 11 + 34 + 58 + 25 + 76 + 92 + 28 + 59 + 68 + 23 + 81 + 94
=
7 + 30 + 45 + 2 + 18 + 93 + 4 + 35 + 71 + 5 + 20 + 90 + 41 + 57 + 80 + 9 + 83 + 89 +47 + 55 + 60 + 12 + 54 + 62 + 21 + 63 + 97 + 46 + 51 + 69
=
1416
Whoa. That's some freaky stuff, that is.
The following anagram won the award for the best anagram of 1999 at http://www.anagrammy.com/ I think that it's probably the single best anagram I have ever seen. Maybe it's because of my nerdulence but upon seeing this I was in a state of very deep admiration; I think this is surely the greatest anagram ever developed.
Firstly it takes the names of thirty chemical elements:
hydrogen + zirconium + tin + oxygen + rhenium + platinum + tellurium + terbium + nobelium + chromium + iron + cobalt + carbon + aluminum + ruthenium + silicon + ytterbium + hafnium + sodium + selenium + cerium + manganese + osmium + uranium + nickel + praseodymium + erbium + vanadium + thallium + plutonium
=
nitrogen + zinc + rhodium + helium + argon + neptunium + beryllium + bromine + lutetium + boron + calcium + thorium + niobium + lanthanum + mercury + fluorine + bismuth + actinium + silver + cesium + neodymium + magnesium + xenon + samarium + scandium + europium + berkelium + palladium + antimony + thulium
But there's more: if we replace each element by its atomic number (position in the Periodic Table), there is still equality:
1 + 40 + 50 + 8 + 75 + 78 + 52 + 65 +102 + 24 + 26 + 27 + 6 + 13 + 44 + 14 + 70 + 72 + 11 + 34 + 58 + 25 + 76 + 92 + 28 + 59 + 68 + 23 + 81 + 94
=
7 + 30 + 45 + 2 + 18 + 93 + 4 + 35 + 71 + 5 + 20 + 90 + 41 + 57 + 80 + 9 + 83 + 89 +47 + 55 + 60 + 12 + 54 + 62 + 21 + 63 + 97 + 46 + 51 + 69
=
1416
Whoa. That's some freaky stuff, that is.
August 12, 2011
Horse 1219 - Everyone Has Religion... Everyone
On Census night (9th August) we had the opportunity to give the Government and future generations a chance to take a statistical snapshot of the nation.
In particular there was a question to do with what religion someone is. Rather than giving people the opportunity to make a postive statement that they were Atheist or Agnostic, the option given was "No Religion". I happen to think that this is a logical impossibility.
Further research confirms my suspicion that it is a logical impossibility.
In Horse 1128 I gave what I thought was a pretty solid sort of definition for Religion:
"Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it."
As far as I'm concerned it is a case perfect definition, since this describes all people in all circumstances.
I then thought I'd look in a Etymological Latin dictionary to find where the word came from.
religio - Latin, accusitive singular - noun: conscientiousness, scrupulousness
As far as I can make out the word itself was coined by Cicero in his work De Officiis (On Obligations) in 44BC. Most likely the word comes from two roots: re - to go over, and lego - read. Taken together re-lego probably should mean something like "consider carefully", which fits in nicely with the Latin dictionary defnition that I've found.
The problem is that it doesn't really describe anything useful in relation to what people believe.
Then I thought that I'd go to be Bible to find instances of related words. As far as I can tell, the word only appears in two distinct places in the Bible. If so, then this is worth investigating to find out how the word is used in context.
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said:
“People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."
- Acts 17:22-23 NIV
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said,
"Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. "
- Acts 17:22-23 KJV
Where the NIV uses the word "religious" the KJV uses the word "superstitious". So what's going on here?
The Greek word in question is the monster "deisidaimonesterous"; it means something like "more afraid of demons" or "sprits". Given that according to verse 16 "the city was full of idols", the people of Athens obviously did something about what they feared.
Does my definition still hold that Religion is "is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith"? I think so.
The only other place where the word Religion appears is in James' letter:
Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
- James 1: 26-27 NIV
The word which is used here is either "threskeia" or "threskos", they are derivatives and mean a "ritual". Since a ritual is something you do because you believe in something, does my definition again still hold that Religion is "is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith"? I still think so.
I will admit at this point that I actually cheated before coming up with this. There already is a storehouse of words, and that is the Oxford English Dictionary. It says:
religion: n.
2 - a particular system of faith and or practices (OED3)
In the broadest possible sense, everything that people do is based on what they believe. If I go to the train station and buy my weekly ticket for $48, I have faith that my $48 will be accepted as a form of exchange and so does the ticket seller (look up the word "fiduciary" and tell me that it's got nothing to do with faith), since religion is what you do, then by doing something based on what I believe, I prove my faith.
The Atheist Foundation of Australia which ran a "No religion" Campaign during the run up to the 2011 Census, did so because they believe that there is no God. By the fact that they're running the campaign in the first place, they were in fact doing something based on their faith (in this case that there is/are/were no God/god/s).
Again I ask the question, do the Atheist Foundation of Australia by their actions show that they are exercising their religion, considering that is a "set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith"? Yet again I think that the answer is "Yes".
Even someone who chooses to disagree with me and/or write a comment, does so because they believe something to be true.
I think that for anyone to have absolutely no religion at all is a logical impossibility by virtue of the fact that everyone does something. It might not be organised, or formally recognised but it's still something.
In particular there was a question to do with what religion someone is. Rather than giving people the opportunity to make a postive statement that they were Atheist or Agnostic, the option given was "No Religion". I happen to think that this is a logical impossibility.
Further research confirms my suspicion that it is a logical impossibility.
In Horse 1128 I gave what I thought was a pretty solid sort of definition for Religion:
"Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it."
As far as I'm concerned it is a case perfect definition, since this describes all people in all circumstances.
I then thought I'd look in a Etymological Latin dictionary to find where the word came from.
religio - Latin, accusitive singular - noun: conscientiousness, scrupulousness
As far as I can make out the word itself was coined by Cicero in his work De Officiis (On Obligations) in 44BC. Most likely the word comes from two roots: re - to go over, and lego - read. Taken together re-lego probably should mean something like "consider carefully", which fits in nicely with the Latin dictionary defnition that I've found.
The problem is that it doesn't really describe anything useful in relation to what people believe.
Then I thought that I'd go to be Bible to find instances of related words. As far as I can tell, the word only appears in two distinct places in the Bible. If so, then this is worth investigating to find out how the word is used in context.
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said:
“People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."
- Acts 17:22-23 NIV
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said,
"Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. "
- Acts 17:22-23 KJV
Where the NIV uses the word "religious" the KJV uses the word "superstitious". So what's going on here?
The Greek word in question is the monster "deisidaimonesterous"; it means something like "more afraid of demons" or "sprits". Given that according to verse 16 "the city was full of idols", the people of Athens obviously did something about what they feared.
Does my definition still hold that Religion is "is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith"? I think so.
The only other place where the word Religion appears is in James' letter:
Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
- James 1: 26-27 NIV
The word which is used here is either "threskeia" or "threskos", they are derivatives and mean a "ritual". Since a ritual is something you do because you believe in something, does my definition again still hold that Religion is "is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith"? I still think so.
I will admit at this point that I actually cheated before coming up with this. There already is a storehouse of words, and that is the Oxford English Dictionary. It says:
religion: n.
2 - a particular system of faith and or practices (OED3)
In the broadest possible sense, everything that people do is based on what they believe. If I go to the train station and buy my weekly ticket for $48, I have faith that my $48 will be accepted as a form of exchange and so does the ticket seller (look up the word "fiduciary" and tell me that it's got nothing to do with faith), since religion is what you do, then by doing something based on what I believe, I prove my faith.
The Atheist Foundation of Australia which ran a "No religion" Campaign during the run up to the 2011 Census, did so because they believe that there is no God. By the fact that they're running the campaign in the first place, they were in fact doing something based on their faith (in this case that there is/are/were no God/god/s).
Again I ask the question, do the Atheist Foundation of Australia by their actions show that they are exercising their religion, considering that is a "set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith"? Yet again I think that the answer is "Yes".
Even someone who chooses to disagree with me and/or write a comment, does so because they believe something to be true.
I think that for anyone to have absolutely no religion at all is a logical impossibility by virtue of the fact that everyone does something. It might not be organised, or formally recognised but it's still something.
August 08, 2011
Horse 1218 - In Defence of Progressive Taxation
I apologise in advance because this is primarily written for an American audience.
One of the questions which has been raging as a result of the US Debt Crisis is the underlying problem that collectively the American people do not pay enough in tax.
As I mentioned in Horse 1215 the US Govt collects about $2,300bn a year in taxation receipts; spends $225bn just on interest of previous debt, $2,108bn on "Mandatory" spending and a further $1397bn on "Discretionary" Spending. Even in the US Federal Government cut all "Discretionary" Spending to ZERO, there'd still be a shortfall of about $333bn.
There are several major problems with raising additional taxation:
- How do you design a system which is fair?
- How do you design a system which is efficient?
- Who should the burden of taxation fall on?
Quite a lot of people are in favour of switching to an entirely Consumption Tax based system. The problem with this is that the burden of payment of a Consumption Tax mainly falls on poorer people by virtue of the fact that they spend a higher proportion of their income.
I have also heard it suggested that a "Flat Tax" is the fairest system. Although this sounds reasonable at first, upon closer inspection, it doesn't really seem all that fair at all.
These then are the main reasons why I think a Progressive Taxation is "fairer".
1. Due to economies of scale, the larger an investment is the higher the likely return on that investment. Since governmental policy is largely shaped by either trying to attract investment or through forces to do with political donations, it follows that the wealthiest people in society also have the greatest degree in shaping governmental policy.
"Inequality impacts politics. Economic power tends to beget political power even in democratic and pluralistic societies. In the United States, this tends to work through campaign contributions and access to politicians that wealth and money tend to buy. This political channel implies another, potentially more powerful and distortionary link between inequality and a non-level playing field. It may also create pathways from inequality to instability, because both the economic and political implications of inequality can create various backlashes."
- Daron Acemoglu, The Economist 23rd Jan 2011
http://www.economist.com/economics/by-invitation/guest-contributions/economic_power_begets_political_power
2. People on lower incomes have a higher marginal propensity to consume. Their incomes are already more likely to be directed to private firms through retail spending. By giving people on lower incomes a concession, the economy is effectively permanently stimulated.
3. As incomes increase, the marginal utility of money decreases along with the marginal propensity to consume. Because the marginal utility of money decreases the actual burden of taxation is less as incomes increase.
To illustrate this, assume a Flat Tax of 10%.
Someone on Ÿ10,000 a year is always going to miss that next dollar than someone on Ÿ100,000 a year. Although the tax on Ÿ10,000 is only Ÿ1000, for the person on Ÿ10,000 that Ÿ1000 take is very much likely to eat into their quality of life, whereas for someone on Ÿ100,000 the take of Ÿ10,000 doesn't have anything like the same impact. Needless to say that someone on Ÿ1,000,000 if they have Ÿ100,000 taken out in tax they still won't feel it as much as either the persons on either Ÿ10,000 or Ÿ100,000 a year.
(Income in Economics equations is almost always shown as a Y to avoid confusion with I for Interest or the number 1. Ÿ is a good symbol for Income Monies).
As I said in Horse 1024:
"But we'd also have to assume that as people's income increases, then obviously they can spend more right? Well almost, but not quite. For as people's income does go up, although they might buy nicer things, their absolute capability of buying stuff stops at some point. No-one for instance can fill the car with petrol anymore than full. No-one can buy more groceries than they can fit in their house."
- Me, 13 Aug 2009 (Is it plagiarism if you quote yourself?)
4. If things like the Department of Defence are seen as a collective insurance system, then the stability of the economy should also be seen as a collective insurance system. People who benefit the most from the economy's stability, should therefore be liable for the greatest proportion of premium because they derive the greatest benefit from the stability of the economy.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
A Gini Co-Efficient of 45 would indicate that in the United States, has a very high degree of income inequality.
Although the calculation to work out what percentage of the population derives what proportion of incomes, it can be taken that:
- The top 20% earn 49.98% of all income
- The top 8% earn 28.50% of all income
- The top 3% earn 17.50% of all income
Also:
- The bottom 80% earn 50.02% of all income
To design a "fair" taxation system would logically require that the top 20% would pay 49.98% of all income taxes and that the bottom 80% would pay 50.02% of all income taxes, no? However, if you look though the actual statistics from the IRS, the top 20% only paid 25.80% percent of income taxes because of tax concessions for the rich whilst, the bottom 80% actually paid 74.20% percent of income taxes despite only earning 50.02% of income. How is that fair?
To address the three questions of fairness, efficiency and who the burden should actually fall on, since there is only one set of taxation codes rather than individual taxation codes for each individual (which would be undoubtedly more fair and make the burden fall where it should, but be less efficient), then that set of taxation codes needs to be more generalised.
To that end a Progressive Taxation system at least makes an attempt to address the above issues whereas a system based on either a Flat Tax or an entirely Consumption Tax based system do not.
One of the questions which has been raging as a result of the US Debt Crisis is the underlying problem that collectively the American people do not pay enough in tax.
As I mentioned in Horse 1215 the US Govt collects about $2,300bn a year in taxation receipts; spends $225bn just on interest of previous debt, $2,108bn on "Mandatory" spending and a further $1397bn on "Discretionary" Spending. Even in the US Federal Government cut all "Discretionary" Spending to ZERO, there'd still be a shortfall of about $333bn.
There are several major problems with raising additional taxation:
- How do you design a system which is fair?
- How do you design a system which is efficient?
- Who should the burden of taxation fall on?
Quite a lot of people are in favour of switching to an entirely Consumption Tax based system. The problem with this is that the burden of payment of a Consumption Tax mainly falls on poorer people by virtue of the fact that they spend a higher proportion of their income.
I have also heard it suggested that a "Flat Tax" is the fairest system. Although this sounds reasonable at first, upon closer inspection, it doesn't really seem all that fair at all.
These then are the main reasons why I think a Progressive Taxation is "fairer".
1. Due to economies of scale, the larger an investment is the higher the likely return on that investment. Since governmental policy is largely shaped by either trying to attract investment or through forces to do with political donations, it follows that the wealthiest people in society also have the greatest degree in shaping governmental policy.
"Inequality impacts politics. Economic power tends to beget political power even in democratic and pluralistic societies. In the United States, this tends to work through campaign contributions and access to politicians that wealth and money tend to buy. This political channel implies another, potentially more powerful and distortionary link between inequality and a non-level playing field. It may also create pathways from inequality to instability, because both the economic and political implications of inequality can create various backlashes."
- Daron Acemoglu, The Economist 23rd Jan 2011
http://www.economist.com/economics/by-invitation/guest-contributions/economic_power_begets_political_power
2. People on lower incomes have a higher marginal propensity to consume. Their incomes are already more likely to be directed to private firms through retail spending. By giving people on lower incomes a concession, the economy is effectively permanently stimulated.
3. As incomes increase, the marginal utility of money decreases along with the marginal propensity to consume. Because the marginal utility of money decreases the actual burden of taxation is less as incomes increase.
To illustrate this, assume a Flat Tax of 10%.
Someone on Ÿ10,000 a year is always going to miss that next dollar than someone on Ÿ100,000 a year. Although the tax on Ÿ10,000 is only Ÿ1000, for the person on Ÿ10,000 that Ÿ1000 take is very much likely to eat into their quality of life, whereas for someone on Ÿ100,000 the take of Ÿ10,000 doesn't have anything like the same impact. Needless to say that someone on Ÿ1,000,000 if they have Ÿ100,000 taken out in tax they still won't feel it as much as either the persons on either Ÿ10,000 or Ÿ100,000 a year.
(Income in Economics equations is almost always shown as a Y to avoid confusion with I for Interest or the number 1. Ÿ is a good symbol for Income Monies).
As I said in Horse 1024:
"But we'd also have to assume that as people's income increases, then obviously they can spend more right? Well almost, but not quite. For as people's income does go up, although they might buy nicer things, their absolute capability of buying stuff stops at some point. No-one for instance can fill the car with petrol anymore than full. No-one can buy more groceries than they can fit in their house."
- Me, 13 Aug 2009 (Is it plagiarism if you quote yourself?)
4. If things like the Department of Defence are seen as a collective insurance system, then the stability of the economy should also be seen as a collective insurance system. People who benefit the most from the economy's stability, should therefore be liable for the greatest proportion of premium because they derive the greatest benefit from the stability of the economy.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
A Gini Co-Efficient of 45 would indicate that in the United States, has a very high degree of income inequality.
Although the calculation to work out what percentage of the population derives what proportion of incomes, it can be taken that:
- The top 20% earn 49.98% of all income
- The top 8% earn 28.50% of all income
- The top 3% earn 17.50% of all income
Also:
- The bottom 80% earn 50.02% of all income
To design a "fair" taxation system would logically require that the top 20% would pay 49.98% of all income taxes and that the bottom 80% would pay 50.02% of all income taxes, no? However, if you look though the actual statistics from the IRS, the top 20% only paid 25.80% percent of income taxes because of tax concessions for the rich whilst, the bottom 80% actually paid 74.20% percent of income taxes despite only earning 50.02% of income. How is that fair?
To address the three questions of fairness, efficiency and who the burden should actually fall on, since there is only one set of taxation codes rather than individual taxation codes for each individual (which would be undoubtedly more fair and make the burden fall where it should, but be less efficient), then that set of taxation codes needs to be more generalised.
To that end a Progressive Taxation system at least makes an attempt to address the above issues whereas a system based on either a Flat Tax or an entirely Consumption Tax based system do not.
August 02, 2011
Horse 1217 - 2013 Chevrolet Malibu... Next Holden Commodore?
I think that you're probably looking either at the next model of the Holden Commodore, or else it's replacement. Wonder why? Well I think it's because of something to do with flagging sales and the initial development costs of the Commodore's replacement.
The following is a short sales review:
2002 - 88,478 - VY
2003 - 86,553 - VY
2004 - 79,170 - VY-VZ
2005 - 66,794 - VZ
2006 - 56,531 - VZ-VE
2007 - 57,307 - VE
2008 - 51,093 - VE
2009 - 44,387 - VE
2010 - 45,956 - VE-VEii
Sales for the Commodore peaked back in 2002 with the previous Third Generation model VY and they've been on the slide since then. The Commodore which has a derivative of GM's LY7 V6 engine seems to be a little too large in size for the market these days.
The Eighth Gen Malibu sits on the same platform as the Opel Insignia which won European Car Of The Year for 2009 and the ill-fated Holden Epica which is horribly unloved by the marketplace.
Currently the Epica gets a 2.5L in-line 6 which puts out a paltry 115kW. The thing is though, that we know that the platform can take a 2.8L Supercharged V6 like it does in the Insignia, or a 3.9L V6 as it does with the American Chevrolet Malibu. Holden if they're smart or indeed forced to would shut down their Australian manufacturing operations and simply purchase American spec-engines.
Since the Malibu/Epica is a slightly smaller car than the current model Commodore, it would make sense to use that as the next model. Holden has already lowered the engine capacity of the Commodore twice from 3.8L to 3.6L and then 3.0L which means to say that even they think that the car is too large.
The Commodore itself has grown twice since the nameplate was first used. From VB-VL (1978-1988) it grew to a bigger platform for VN-VZ (1988-2006) and again with VE in 2006. The current Malibu/Epica is actually a bigger car physically than the VB-VL Commodore and even the HQ-HJ-HX-HZ range of Kingswoods from 1971-1980.
On a slightly related topic, this is the reason I suspect why the V8 Supercars are travelling to Austin, Texas in 2013. Think about it, there is already talk about rebranding Holden's as Chevrolet's whilst over there; I wonder if it might not be permanent.
Holden already sell the Chevrolet Spark, the Chevrolet Aveo, Chevrolet Cruze and the Chevrolet Captiva under its label. Holden already is almost a Chevrolet shelf company and whence the Commodore comes to the end of its model cycle circa 2014-15, are they going to want to spend another $1bn in development like they did with VE?
Holden already appears to be something of a backwater with it's previous two attempts to sell into the US market being totally thwarted. The Monaro was sold as the Pontiac GTO before the whole line was pulled, and the Commodore was sold under the Pontiac G8 badge before the whole Pontiac badge was shut down admist the GFC.
If it comes down to a street fight between Detroit and Elizabeth, I think I know who'd win.
July 29, 2011
Horse 1216 - T20TwentyTwontyTwoonty, Who Cares?
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!
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)