Horse 1016 - Permanent War Economy

"Apart from that I believe the same mentality still exists today, I don't want to dwell on something that happened in the past & which I can do nothing about. It's just too depressing." - Warwick Reynolds, 15th Jun 2009
The above comment was made in reference to the utterly hideous amount of money spent by the US Government on its military; it does of course raise the big super ultimate question of... "Why?" The answer I fear, is one of hopelessly entangled, misplaced and dangerous ideology.

I take you back to 1944 and a fellow called Ed Sard, who predicted that after WW2, that the USA would "retain the character of a war economy even in peace time." The idea being that a "permanent war economy" would keep military spending high, and thus keep demand levels sufficiently high enough to avoid a repeat performance of the Depresssion which really had only been stopped by the outbreak of the war.

The reasoning behind this is surprisingly sound. Basic economic theory states that the level of income in the economy is dictated by "all inputs less all outputs" or:

Income = (Consumer Spending + Investment Spending + Government Spending + Receipts on Exports) minus (Savings + Taxation + Payments for Imports)

Income = (C+I+G+X) - (S+T+M)

By increasing the amount of Government Spending, you increase the amount of money being pushed into economy, and therefore incomes over time should increase.

Or to put it another way, in economic lulls or recessions, when C and I fall through consumer and business sentiment becoming pessimistic, G should either rise or stay large enough to keep the economy ticking over.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf
For Financial Year 2009 the estimated cost of base expenses for the Dept of Defense is $697bn which sounds like a huge amount of money but actually only represents about 3%-4% of GDP. This from an historical high of 38% in 1944 and even during the height of the Vietnam War where it still didn't hit 10%.

During the Depression when Consumer Spending shriveled up because people were unemployed, and Investment Spending also withered away, countries like Britain and the US didn't really recover until the outbreak of war when instantly, Government Spending was raised massively to put fighting men and munitions on the front line.

Quite truthfully, if you applied pre-1941 policies to the US budget; including, then four Neutrality Acts and the stated policy from 1918-1939 of "United States Non-Interventionism" then there hasn't been any logical enemies for the US when you consider that apart from the bombing of Pearl Harbour and Guam, there hasn't been a single act of war on US soil*.
Not only does the "same mentality still exist today" but it's actually ingrained policy. The real irony is that the United States which prides itself on being the shining light of capitalism, is in reality by operation of its budget, operating a part command economy, which in effect is subsidised by the Government. How's that for a leftist policy, eh?

As a result of the war, United States Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson (former CEO of General Motors), saw increased productivity during WW2 as the perfect justification for a permanent war economy; even Eisenhower in his farewell address made mention of the "military-industrial complex" which is in effect an Iron Triangle.
Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together. - Dwight D Eisenhower

The real question left totally unanswered by all of this, isn't why spending billions of dollars is a good idea, but why in particular it should be spent on the military. To this I don't have an honest answer. Personally one of the most ridiculous things I found about America was seeing this sticker or stickers like it on people's cars:


For some absurd reason, it has been drilled into Americans through that most highly dubious of notions "patriotism", that somehow it's unpatriotic not to "support the troops" whatever the heck that means, and considering that every single taxpayer has in fact been doing so since 1775.

It therefore makes perfect sense to me in principle why $697bn is spent on the military when 46 million Americans have access to zero healthcare, and 37 million people live below the poverty line. Poor and sick people don't have political power to move government, nor do they have the ear of politicians or the president, whereas people in business and the military do. You could call it institutionalised apathy for the poor and sick, but surely that's common in any oligarchy?
http://news.smh.com.au/world/37-million-americans-live-in-poverty-20080827-437a.html

"What I was even more surprised and disappointed by was how he knew full well that this was a colossal waste of money - that there were things on earth of far greater importance"
- BJD, 15th July, 2009

Sadly, I'm not at all surprised with the colossal waste of money, I've long held the opinion that spending billions of dollars on the instruments to kill people (let's be totally honest about this), is fundamentally wrong and stupid.
The moon program was one component of the space program** which itself employs the very same aerospace companies responsible for building both the aeroplanes which drop bombs on people, and building other aeroplanes to carry people overseas. Those companies don't care where their profits come from.

A far wiser man than me once said: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." It should therefore be fairly obvious where the heart of the US Government actually is. It's either in the perennial subsidy of the war machine, or operating the war machine itself, both of which are consistent with the idea of said "permanent war economy".

*Say what you will about 11 Sep 2001, it was never an act of war. It was a series of terrorist attacks by a non-sovereign entity.

**
Much of the NASA budget is directly military. These programs are usually classified. In addition, much of NASA's work is "dual-use," with military applications closer at hand and more powerfully directing NASA's activities than civilian mission components. For the purposes of this table we assume that 50% of NASA outlays are military.
- US Budgetary Papers, FY 2008, Note 3

Horse 1015 - Beating the Soviets

http://bjd.au.com/index.php?bloggid=2004002157&directlink=true
Ever wondered why the manned space programme took a back seat after the US got to the moon?
Cos the point of going to the moon - was ONLY to beat the Soviets.
Nothing more.
- BJD, July 14, 2009

I say, Thank you Mr Kennedy.

I've read through my esteemed colleague BJD's post and the corresponding comments about the theory that the only reason why America went to the moon was to beat the Soviets; whilst I agree both in principle and fact, I suspect that Kennedy's reasons for placing a man on the moon were bound up ultimately in a much bigger fear - namely the diversion from what could have been a nuclear war.

When the bleeping tin ball Sputnik was launched on October 4, 1957, it was done so using the R-7 launch vehicle which was designed initially to carry nuclear warheads. Did this send waves of fear through the US Defence Dept? You bet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_rocket

"It is of great urgency and importance to our country both from consideration of our prestige as a nation as well as military necessity that this challenge [Sputnik] be met by an energetic program of research and development for the conquest of space.... It is accordingly proposed that the scientific research be the responsibility of a national civilian agency.... NACA is capable, by rapid extension and expansion of its effort, of providing leadership in space technology."
- National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) Director, Hugh Dryden, 14 January 1958.

Personally I think that the only reason why a civilian agency was even mooted was to make the proposal palatable to the US Congress. Suddenly it was possible to land a nuclear warhead on any point on the planet, and so it was very much "spare underpants time" in the Pentagon.

So what does this have to do with putting a man on the moon? Kennedy I think was very much scared about the possibility that the Soviets intended to do nasty things to the USA.

Less than three months after Kennedy assumed the Presidency in April 1961, he ordered the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion in Communist Cuba. US-trained force of Cuban exiles were to invade southern Cuba with support from US government armed forces to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The Cubans themselves were backed by the Soviets.

In September of 1962, Nikita Khrushchev agreed to place nuclear missiles in Cuba; these facilities were discovered by U-2 Spy Planes, and by about October 8 the world probably came very very close to nuclear war. The only reason that the Cuban Missile Crisis came to and end was to do with a no-invasion agreement brokered by the United Nations Secretary-General U Thant, Kennedy and Khrushchev on October 28, 1962.

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."
- John F Kennedy, October 22 1962.

Is it little wonder therefore that Kennedy wanted to engage the USA and the Soviet Union in a race to the moon whatever the cost? "Fantastic expenditures which wreck the budget"? Kennedy himself said that only justification for it was to beat them [The Soviets]. I also think that "beating the Soviets" given the events that immediately preceded the quote of November 21 1962 was inexorably bound up with "defense, the top priority of the United States government"

Money after all is said and done is merely a tool. By committing monies untold and fantastic, I think that Kennedy probably saved maybe 100 million people's lives. If nuclear war actually had broken out, then I shudder to think what would have happened.

Horse 1014 - Their Finest Hour

"...if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour."
- Sir Winston Churchill

One of the many things I constantly find of forums and the like, is the ill-conceived notion that Britain was unable to defend itself in WW2. Or perhaps more succinctly (and usually as an exact quote) "we saved your ass in WW2". I don't doubt the contribution that the US made in turning the tide of the war, but the theory that the USA "saved" Britain from Nazi Germany is materially nonsense when you look at the events in sequence.

The Battle of Britain which began on the 10th of July 1940, was really as a result of a serious of hideous defeats and pullouts by the British. France had surrendered on June 22, and this more or less led to what Hitler had wanted, his "Fortress Europe", however one thing stood in his way... England. As the order from Hitler himself said:

"Since England, despite its militarily hopeless situation, still has not shown any signs of being prepared to negotiate, I have decided to prepare a landing operation against England and, if necessary, carry it out. The objective of this operation is to eliminate the English home country as a base for the continuation of the war against Germany..."
- Adolf Hitler

Now whilst I don't intend to look at the actual air battle itself (which is the subject of making many books to which there is no end, and much study wearies the body) the key dates are worth noting.

The Battle of Britain ran from 10 Jul 1940 to 31 Oct 1940. The United States itself had a series of Neutrality Acts which prevented US troops or citizens from fighting in overseas conflicts.
The counter-claim always invariably put forward is "what about Lend-Lease?", again, what about it? Lend-Lease didn't come into existence until the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, some 5 months after the Battle of Britain. How can a program possibly help or even save anyone's "ass" after the event?

The truth is that when Britain was standing on its own against the German War Machine, it was doing precisely that. This fortress built by nature for herself, against infection and the hand of war, this blessed plot, this realm, this land, this England, stood firm; nobody "saved" it but England herself.

Horse 1013 - The People's Bank

http://business.smh.com.au/business/peoples-bank-to-break-the-big-four-20090707-dbtx.html
THE growing power of the Big Four banks has been targeted by a coalition of six influential economists, who have petitioned the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to set up an inquiry into Australia's financial system.
They have suggested the Government set up a "basic bank" so Australians can deposit money with Australia Post and have it managed by the Future Fund.

The so-called people's bank would be similar to New Zealand's successful Kiwibank, which was set up to break the dominance of the Australian-owned majors.

What a top idea! It's just a pity that it's so fundamentally flawed.

The whole concept of a bank set up by the people is far from a new idea. Virtually every building society, be it St George, IMB, The Rock & Hume were all set up by member; for members.
Bendigo Bank was set up as a series of "Community Banks", wherein the capital to set up the bank came from the initial pledgeholders, who then became shareholders.

The problem therefore is not the concept itself, which of itself is sensible and prudent, but the whole question of trustworthiness of the management of this new bank.

It's blatantly obvious that this new bank requires prudent management. If it is the Federal Government in charge, then there is nothing to stop the Government if it was going through dour times, from selling it. Remember that the Federal Government did once own a bank of its own and thanks to the guttersnipery of the then Keating Government, between 1991 and 1996 it was privatised. To be honest, the Labor and Liberal Parties have both shown that they're about as trustworthy as either Chairman Mao or Fuhrer Hitler.*

There's the rub. If "the people's bank" was to be set up and be managed by the Future Fund, which itself came about because of the sale of supposedly "the people's telecom" Telstra, then in say 2013 when the economy is really in economic kaka, then it too will be sold into private hands - so much for "the people's bank"

Or perhaps are these merely machinations or a governmental leak surrounding RuddBank?
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2600611.htm

*who started the "People's Republic" and the "People's Car"

Horse 1012 - Help, There's An Emergency Going On

I think that as far as I'm concerned, my football season has been ended due to injury.

The incident happened in the second half, after I brought a potential scorer on top of me. I think that I won the ball but with a mass of bodies littered about the six-yard box, who knows? I took out his feet and he came crashing in over the top of me, so it was entirely my fault but did he score? No - mission accomplished.

Now I'm not usually the sort of person to complain about this sort of thing, but it seems to me that human knees probably could have been designed a little better. Basically human knees unlike hips which are a sensible ball and socket affair, are two bits of bone, held together with elastic bands called ligaments, and a patella or "kneecap" acting as a... knee cap. In all seriousness, a ball and socket joint would have been more

The two ligaments I've torn are the Medial Collateral Ligament (MCL) and the Lateral Collateral Ligament (LCL). These two are the lacky bands which control twist in the lower leg. This sort of injury is usually the domain of skiers, tennis players, netballers and Chubby Checker who also twist a lot.

The other major injury I've sustained are the Scaphoid, Capitate, Trapezoid and Trapezium Carpals which may or may not have been smashed. My wrist is currently in a cast as I type this, which is somewhat annoying. The only real upside is that I can sort of look a bit like Dr Zoidberg if I hold my right arm in the air... which aint much of an upside in all honesty.

Still, I can't be accused of not being committed to a tackle. If anything by playing on I showed heart and ticker... and stupidity.

Horse 1011 - I Officially Hate Music

http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2008/07/horse-894-day-music-died.html
I don't know if this is an unintended consequence, but I've found that in the days that followed (including this morning) I can't listen to music of any sort on the radio and any enjoyment I would have got from it has been drained to the point of zero.

1 year ago today in the name of changing what went into my mind, I put a sledgehammer through my iPod and threw out all my CDs and between 80%-90% of my DVDs and comic books. So then one year on what are the results?

I HATE MUSIC.

No seriously, that's it. I actually find myself hating music, in anything, hidden as the background in television programs, in adverts, in shopping centres, and especially on the radio.
In the car, any music is met with a swift "shut up!" on my part before either the station is switched, or the whole radio is given the flick entirely.

At first this was because of a deliberate effort to do so, but now it's more through sheer annoyance, not only at the sounds but at the very concept itself.

There are of course two great points of irony here:

The first of which is that the CD single as from today is no longer on sale in Australia. There are no singles in CD format that can be bought from any outlet in the country... mind you, you'd actually be pushed to find a new music outlet these days.

The second is that I'm involved in the music ministry at church. For this I adopt an entirely different attitude. Behind the VDP or the sound desk, one doesn't actually need to listen to music for enjoyment purposes. My purpose there is for the rest of the congregation. So as far as I'm concerned, if they're getting something out of it, then that's good, but as for my own devices, well... it's not about me is it?

Of course, I don't necessarily mean to rag on musicians who I must admit have more talent and skill than I posess. It's just that with the radio off, and with constantly annoyed by music, I can't appreciate that talent or skill, and already have no desire to listen to their output.

Horse 1010 - We've Finally Crossed the Digital Divide

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/digital/



Today being July 1 is the first official day of digital radio in AUstralia. Never mind the fact that ABC DiG, ABC Classic, SBS Radio 1 and SBS Radio 2 have already been in operation for three years, also we'll conveniently ignore the fact that Britain has already had digital radio for 10 years, and worse XM and Sirius Satellite Radio already meant that you could have been listening to digital radio from another country for 6 years.

In 2003 I was listening to the whole spectrum of radio stations in the UK in a Vauxhall Corsa - a Corsa! That car was sold here as a Barina for goodness sake. GM's cheapest car in its lineup already had had digital radio as standard as early as 6 years ago.

Whilst radio stations are congratulating themselves on how well they've adopted "new technology" bear in mind that the radio stations themselves spent a great deal of time putting in submissions as to why they couldn't adopt it; mainly on the grounds of cost.

Australians always seem to get everything last. Despite what tech-strong companies tell you, they're more content to bicker over standards for a commercial advantage than actually provide the customer with new technology.

Let's see just how bad we've been, shall we?

Radio - 4 years
8MK Detroit - 1920
3AR Melbourne - 1924

TV - 21 years
NWDR Berlin - 1935
GTV 9 Melbourne 1956

FM Radio - 35 years
RCA NYC - 1940
2JJ - 1975

Colour TV - either 21 or 8 years
NBC - 1954 (NTSC)
BBC2 - 1967 (PAL)
ABC - 1975

Internet - 2 years
MCI Mail - 1988 (open to commercial use)
OTC - 1990

3G Mobile - 2 years
NTT DoCoMo - 2001
3 Mobile - 2003

On the face of it, we should be getting quicker with our adoption of new technologies. As the world gets ever more connected, then those technologies should equally pass around the world on a more or less equal timeframe. Why then have we spent the best part of 8 years dithering about the adoption of standards, when the parts of the industrial world are already ahead of us?

Ubu!

Sit Ubu sit.

woof

Good dog!

Horse 1009 - Destroying a Compromise

I think in a roundabout sort of way I may have come a step closer to the problem of the Predestination Emancipation Proclamation, at least in my own mind. I implore you if you disagree to look intently at scripture to form your own conclusion based on the assumption that I'm lying - go on, prove me wrong, I dare you. I'm interested to hear your proof.

I think that the position that I've arrived at is that man's free-will is little more than a logical construct based on a highly limited world view and scope.
Or to put it more succinctly, in an absolute sense, free-will does not exist.

The usual argument against this runs thus:
If God is choosing our path for us, then what choices do we have? Moreover what do our choices matter? God demands that we worship him of our own free will, but if we're predestined to damnation or salvation then how could we possibly have free will at all?

Good question, no? My answer is thus - Is man's free-will more or less important that God's Sovereignty? Is it actually possible to do something, or think something, or enact something that hasn't already been written and crafted by God Himself? I know that this is not the case.

All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Psalm 139:16

Consider these statements:
Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Romans 8:29-30

He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.
Ephesians 1:5

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.
Ephesians 1:11

The word for predestination that appears in the Greek is "proorizo". It's a word that implies a limiting in advance or something that has been determined beforehand.
How can we as limited beings possibly change or somehow influence God's Sovereign plan? What's to say that even if we do or don't do something, God didn't already determine that that was to be?

From a mathematical standpoint, if A is a set and B is another set, and and every element of A is also an element of B, then it follows that A is a subset of B.
In an absolute sense, set B has already included all the elements of A.

My supposition is that whatever man's free-will actually is (set A), it still is entirely included within the plan, design and sovereignty of God (set B).

I've carved this up every which way until Thursday and I still can not get around, or over the basic truth God's will and power is exact and perfect. It seems arrogant to think that our free-will exists outside of that.

LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.
Psalm 139:1-4

Moreover I think that it's impossible to even think a thought which God hasn't already written. I haven't just compromised one statement in this thought, I've totally beaten it into submission.

http://www.bjd.au.com/blogg/show_topic.php?showbloggid=2004000462
And I refuse to compromise on either statement just so they fit into our feeble logical constructs. Or so we can use God's sovereignty as a cop out for not being doing the things that God has clearly called us too - being Holy and telling others about Jesus.

God is Sovereign, His will, His design, His thoughts and His purposes are far bigger, wider, loftier, more complicated and more coherent than anything we might come up with. Our so called "free-will" pales in the light of that; in an absolute sense, I doubt it even exists.

Horse 1008 - Feeling Blue Today?

I usually don't give a rip about the game of handegg (not football) that is Rugby League, but for 3 games a year I am prepared to say...

QUEENSLAND!!!

I think that the NSWRL has a real problem with picking a run-on side for Origin III. Do they go with "youth" or "form", or some old heads, or a mix of all three? It's a dead rubber so should NSW be giving some guys a go who could be selected for the upcoming years?

Maybe they could go with Peter Berner or HG Nelson, Steve Pizatti, Tracy Grimshaw...
I honestly don't think it matters who is in the 17. The fact of the matter is that the Blues played like shash for 40 minutes with a revolving door defence, and then when they got within 4 points, threw that away as well.

I think we saw more ball handling errors in the first 40 mins than the rest of the regular season combined. Anyone who was wearing a Blue shirt last night looked like a nuff-nuff. Did anyone wearing a blue shirt look compotent at all?

Maybe, I might be a little biased but I think Watmough had a great game, pulling off great hits and breaking the line a few times, a shame there was no runners off his breaks.
I also think that the drink and chip seller who fell over at half-time, and that they showed in super slow-motion had an absolute blinder. He showed more heart than the people wearing blue on the field.

Where was Kimmorley? Kimmorley is the in-form half back of the comp so far, and where was he last night? Probably down at the local Ari going "I told you so. You should have picked me. I told you so. You should have picked me."

Rabs declared NSW State of Origin footy dead this morning. Send out the Umina Dragons U13s for all I care. They can't do any worse, can they?

Er...

QUEENSLAND!!!

Horse 1007 - Why the Right is Very Wrong

Frequent readers of this blog will realise that my political views are massively to the left, or far further left than most of the mainstream media. The main reason for this is actually to do mainly with the point of social justice, and because ultimately I believe that the main driving force behind capitalism is pure unadulterated greed and or selfishness.

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman once made the following submission to the New York Times (June 14 1998):
"Socialism is a giant pyramid scheme that ultimately collapses, depending on population growth and services provided, when it becomes impossible to take in enough revenue to cover expenses. No social program has beaten poverty and none will."

Greenspan was at the time trying to speak about how in practice, Socialism ultimately fails the poor because the bureaucracy which runs it will eventually collapse. In broad terms with the rise and fall of empires, I suppose that he is in a roundabout way correct, but I seriously ask "is the alternative better?" I don't really know if he completely thought this through, or whether is ideology allowed him to do so.

Grant that poverty is always going to be difficult to control*, but making an attempt is a far nobler thing than in a pure capitalistic system where there is no attempt at all.
What economic benefit is there in helping the poor? Nil. If a purely capitalistic approach is taken then the fate of people is of zero consequence, because there is no profit taking ability in doing anything about it.

The "market" does not actually determine what is socially prudent, it only determines the level of prices. Goods/services which are inefficient uses of capital are not provided for. This is known as a "market failure".

The classic example of this is the little brass plaques you happen to see around London, that indicated if a building before 1865 was insured against fire.
Left purely to market forces, a building that was not insured by an insurance company was left to burn by that company's fire brigade unless it actually posed a significant threat to their insured interests. It probably helped in part to cause the fire at the Houses of Parliament in 1834 and the spate of fires on the River Thames in 1861.

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/FireMarksAndPayments.asp
Brigades would use the firemarks to identify whether a certain building was insured by them. When a building was on fire, several brigades would attend and if they did not see their specific firemark on the building, they would go away and leave it to burn.
I guess that's capitalism in action for you.

The argument is countered not by "what is efficient" but by "what the people ought to have". A fairly reasonable case can be made for the defence forces, schools, roads, clean water services, sanitation, hospitals and health care, police, fire brigades, because if people don't have access to those things then people die...

... which under a purely capitalistic approach, is of not interest unless there's a measurable economic benefit or detriment:
"If you don’t have the smarts or the money to insure yourself, then you must bear the consequences of not taking personal responsibility."
- Ronald Reagan, AHIP Conference, Jan 8, 1979
And yet this man became President of the United States - "For the people, by the people", ignore the people, stick the people!

I think that more or less proves that ultimately the main driving force behind capitalism is pure unadulterated greed and or selfishness.

*And of course if poverty is defined poverty line by "economic distance" as used in the OECD and the European Union, where a level of income set at 50% of the median household income, then by definition poverty as a statistical measure would always exist, because that line exists.

Horse 1006 - Some Say... that it's a big Hoax.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1194383/Unmasked-But-Top-Gears-Stig-REALLY-F1-ace-Michael-Schumacher.html

Some say that that he knows two facts about ducks... and they're both wrong. Others say that is heart is in upside-down, and that he once gave a microwave oven to a tramp. All we know is that he's still called The Stig.

BBC's Top Gear has created what is probably the biggest stir since Kristin Shepard shot J.R Ewing (Who shot J.R?), but ultimately the announcement that Michael Schumacher is The Stig is fundamentally flawed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1194383/Unmasked-But-Top-Gears-Stig-REALLY-F1-ace-Michael-Schumacher.html
Video Here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8111984.stm

The reason is thus: The original airing dates are wrong for Michael Schumacher to be the Stig.

The Dunsfold Park segments of Top Gear are filmed midweek on either a Tuesday or a Wednesday, then cut and go through editing and post-production suitable for airing between three and five weeks later.

The Black Stig sort of well... disappeared into the ocean in the first episode of Series 3. White Stig appears from Series 3, Episode 2 onwards which was first aired on November 2, 2003.

The problem is that Michael Schumacher can't have been the White Stig from 2003 - 2006 because he was a full-time contracted driver with the Ferrari F1 team.

Series 3 went from 26 October, 2003 - 28 December, 2003. Series 4 went from 9 May, 2004 - 1 August, 2004, Series 6 went from 22 May, 2005 - 7 August, 2005 and Series 8 went from 7 May, 2006 - 30 July, 2006.
All of these would have conflicted very heavily with the Formula One calendar.

Are they seriously trying to tell us that Schumacher flew in some cases half-way around the world several times a week for the filming of Top Gear and then back to whereever the F1 circus was? Sorry, but there just aint enough days in the week; even if you are seven times world champion...

... but is it possible if you are the Stig?

Horse 1005 - Not Funny

Fozzie, the Spirit of Comedy can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing comedy. He sends five telephone rings to five special people:

Adam Sandler, Rove McManaus, Robin Williams, Ben Stiller and Jim Carey...

When your powers combine, I am still NOT FUNNY. Go Not Funny!

The New York Times called it a "snore fest", the Sydney Morning Herald said that "it was the dullest film since Dull The Dull Dullard" and the projectionist at the Wagga Wagga Town Centre Theatre fell asleep before the opening scene.

This is the dullest, most boring and not funny film... ever... coming to cinemas in 2010...

NOT FUNNY.

Actually any film with Adam Sandler, Rove McManaus, Robin Williams, Ben Stiller and Jim Carey would not be funny... but dull.

Horse 1004 - The Ultimate Fantasy Football Team

Since we're in the off season, and this time of year usually doesn't revolve around football, I though I'd ask a semi-related football question.

If you were to pick the "Ultimate Fantasy Football Team" from any period in history, with people who might not necessarily have been football players, then who would you include?

I came up with the following (kit numbers are symbolic):

Goalkeeper:
1 GK - Idi Amin
- nothing gets past him, not even pies. The way I figure it, he'd physically take up a lot of space; have an imposing presence. He'd ruthlessly rule from behind and he was already a boxing champion and a rugby player.

Backs:
39 LB - Joseph Stalin
76 CB - Aelius Hadrian
40 CB - Winston Churchill
13 RB - Sun Tsu
- who all understood what having a good defence meant. Although Stalin's tactics were often questionable, he knew how to stop advances dead. Hadrian would be a good stopper, and in case of penalties could build a wall. Churchill wouldn't ever give up and had experience fighting on the beaches and in the streets. Sun Tsu said that "Invincibility lies in the defence"

Wings:
17 LM - Manfred von Richthofen
27 RM - Charles Lindbergh
- they were both good on the wings. Having Richtofen in the squad would invariably turn this circus into the "Ace of Clubs" and Lindbergh would play with a lot of Spirit.

Midfield:
70 CM - John D Rockerfeller
48 CM - Karl Marx
- who both liked "centralism" but for different reasons. Marx would necessarily play on the left, and Rockerfeller would be on the far right.

Forwards:
26 ST - Ernest Bevin
05 ST - Alfred von Schlieffen
- Ernest Bevin as a Trade Union leader, knew a thing or two about having a good "strike" and Von Schlieffen had a brilliant attack plan and I reckon would have played better if the management had allowed him to.

The question as to why I didn't put Jesus in as Goalkeeper because "Jesus Saves" should be fairly obvious as everyone knows that "Rugby is the game they play in heaven"

Horse 1003 - Israel/Palestine... I Have Two Solutions!

The following are excerpts from Netanyahu's speech with regards two independant nations of Palestine and Israel.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/20096154420444791.html
The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: 'Enough of this conflict. We recognise the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.'
I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.
Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

-----

In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.

-----

I have already stressed the first principle: recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people.
The second principle is: demilitarisation. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarised with ironclad security provisions for Israel.

There is of course one fundamental basic problem that Netanyahu faces, and that is that neither Hamas, Hezbollah nor the Arabic world generally accept the first principle, that Israel has a right to exists, and you can certainly bet that they're not going to accept the second one either.

The main reason for this is based purely on Hamas' own philosophy. If we look at the 1988 Covenant of Hamas we find the following:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
On the Destruction of Israel:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (Preamble)

Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:
"[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility." (Article 13)

So there you have it Mr Netanyahu. Your plan will be rejected in principle because the group whom you are dealing with simply refuses to conceed that you have a right to exist.

I've pretty well much expounded on what I think that the nation of Israel is wrong here:
http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2009/03/horse-971-anti-semitic-semites.html

I've also written at length on what I think of Hamas and the Islamic view of Israel here:
http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2006/02/horse-489-what-i-think-of-hamas.html

So then, if I was appointed grand-high leader of everything and my rule was law, how would I propose to solve the problem? The only solution I can possibly conceive of is this:
Kick everyone out of the "Holy Land" without reserve, and then nuke every last square inch of it so that it is permanently unusable, permanently toxic and harmful, and impossible to enter.
After banishing every living thing from the "Holy Land" and driving everyone out, I'd like to find some cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way back in.

Of course this would require me to actually get my hands on some cherubim and a flaming sword, but as far as I can make out, that would be a far easier prospect than my other plan which I'd enact if appointed grand-high leader of everything; that would be thus:
Everyone should put up, shut up and get along. Rename the land Abram (since both Jews and Arabs consider him to be their father) and call everyone living there Abramic.

This solution would not be accepted either, but when you have both sides of the argument who are fundamentally wrong, and one side whose policy is active destruction of the other, it scarcely matters what solution you propose because it will never be accepted. Therefore the only logical outcome is that...

THERE WILL NEVER BE A SOLUTION

... and that is deathly tragic.

Horse 1002 - The Littler Big Car?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/holdens-big-aussie-six-gets-smaller-20090605-byil.html
A new 3.0-litre V6, expected to arrive in an updated Commodore to go on sale in September, follows a trend to use technically advanced, smaller-capacity engines to cut fuel consumption.

Will it?

I'm wondering where exactly Holden are going to get these new 3.0L V6s from. Remember that they're not exactly in cahoots with Opel after the GM explosion, so the 3.2L V6 in the Opel Insignia is probably not available to them anymore. Does this mean a core job on their existing 3.6L V6 to take it down to 3.0L? Remember that it's already undergone a drop itself from 3.8L when they switched from the VY to VZ models.



Assuming that the do re-core the 3.6L motor down to 3.0L it doesn't really change the basic problem, that the Commodore still will weighs kg. The problem of carting about a big heavy car doesn't go away.
That's the real underlying cause of fuel consumption - the competing forces of weight and horsepower.

Think about basic Newtownian physics (even though they're all obsolete).
W = Fd - Work equals force times displacement (distance)
F = ma - Force equals mass times acceleration
By direct substitution we get:
W = mad - Work equals mass times acceleration times distance
Also:
KE = ½mv² - Kinetic Energy (which is the ability to do work) equals one half of mass times velocity squared.

The basic constant in all of these is... mass. If you have a big engine or a small engine, they both still have to move the same amount of mass. Since the Commodore is not getting any smaller and will remain at about 1690kg for a VF Poverty Pack... or whatever they choose to call the base model VF.
If you ask something smaller to move a big thing, then you either rev it harder which undoes the fuel consumption you've just saved or you need to drop the power output, which is an anathema to the buying public who be paying more money for a worse spec'd car.

Personally I hope that Holden abandon the Zeta Platform altogether and adopt the smaller one they'd developed for the Torana TT36 concept:


Given that when the price of petrol begins to head upwards again after the global financial crisis, then this is probably the best bet if Holden wants to keep its "big car". GM America were given a shakeup, and this I hope is a warning shot to GM Australia... or will that be RuddCar?

Horse 1001 - A Star is Born

I have been following this tale for months now... and I've finally seen the end of the story.
http://www2.opel.de/astra/



Big photos are found here:

Troubled Opel has released the first official images of the new Opel Astra, which will premiere at the Frankfurt Motor Show in September. But rather than going on sale in either Germany or Britain, it's first release will be in Ireland in the first quarter of 2010.

“We’re continuing with the same premium design cues as the Insignia, inside and out of the car. However the main design themes, like the wing-shaped light signatures and the blade, needed an individual execution to avoid ‘cloning’ the model ranges. This is why, for instance, you see twin wings in the rear lights and a reversed blade on its flanks.”
- OpelEurope’s head of design, Mark Adams.

This is the car that us in Australia will never see on our roads, because now that Opel has almost found a way to untangle itself from GM, and Holden will be importing the Korean-built Cruze, there's nowhere for it in the lineup any more.

It makes me wonder though, since both the Cruze and the Astra are built on the GM Detla II platform and because the Cruze is built mainly with the US market in mind, exactly how GM see the buying public in Australia. I mean it stands to reason hat if you offer a cheaper product, then the inputs of that product are also going to be cheaper if you want to maintain the same profit ratios.

The Astra H/C starts at $24,390 whereas the Cruze starts at $20,990. It doesn't take much to realise that an already imported car that's been siting around waiting to be cleared which costs more than a yet to be imported car which might not have even been built yet, with a $3400 more expensive price tag, is probably a better built and better conceived car. So what does this say for Astra I/D which has only just been unwrapped? Better again? Better hope so.

Only we won't know, 'cause we're not getting them... ever.

Horse 1000 - All Non-Natural Post

"high fat, full caffeine, maximum strength"

Bring it on...

Walking around the supermarket today, I'm somewhat surprised at products which say "Made from all Natural Ingredients" as though being natural is somehow better for you than something which is not natural.

Scientists and Food Technologists are clever people, and they're not likely to add something (except to cheapen a product) if comprehensive testing proves that the thing that they're adding is dangerous or somehow harmful.

Saying something is natural doesn't always equate to being good for you. There are many natural things which to be honest are downright deadly. Remember that lead is entirely natural as are arsenic and mercury and yet you wouldn't go sticking that in people's food.

Coca-Cola for instance spent just on $126,000 back in 1902 to find a replacement to replace the estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass with an artificial substitute. Where are the "all-natural" brigade on that?

What about useful chemicals like Esters? Nitroglycerine for instance although was originally invented to blow up mountains, is quite useful for treating angina.

Not-Natural... think again before using it as a price point, OK? I'm not that easily convinced.

Horse 999 - A Tale of Two City's Newspapers

or otherwise titled:
Is that the truth? Or did you read that in the Telegraph?

News Ltd again has shown precisely why reading the Daily Telegraph is quite frankly a waste of time and effort.

In Origin I last night, there was a crucial call which led to a NSW try being disallowed. The referees after much consideration made their decision, but News Limited, apparently wants the arguments to rage om.

If you were in NSW, you would have got the Daily Telegraph which ran this story:
Video ref disallows try to Jarryd Hayne but photo shows he got it wrong
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sport/nrl/story/0,26799,25584944-5006066,00.html

This is said photograph:

a photo with a foot NOT ON the line.

However, if you were in Queensland you would have read this article in the Courier-Mail:
Blues coach Craig Bellamy furious after no-try ruling in State of Origin opener
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/sport/nrl/story/0,26746,25584637-5003409,00.html

They would have showed you this photo:

a photo with a foot ON the line.

Spot a difference? If so... why?

The only logical conclusion that I can come up with yet again that a News Limited paper is worthless. If there is truth to be reported, then why are there two reports being produced for two cities with different opinions? The only answer is that News Limited is writing for their particular market in words that that market wants to hear.

Quite frankly, it's crap; the public deserve better, and in a digital age, it's far easier to catch them out.

Horse 998 - Tank Man

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25582871-2703,00.html

CHINA's Communist Party has mobilised every arm of its massive state apparatus to ensure the 20th anniversary of the bloody crackdown on its citizens in Tiananmen Square passes unnoticed.
Authorities censored a host of online services yesterday, launched armed patrols around the centre of Beijing and placed prominent dissidents under arrest.

----

On the evening of June 3, 1989, China's leadership moved to impose martial law on the centre of Beijing after almost seven weeks of protests begun by students, culminating in the peaceful occupation of Tiananmen Square outside the Forbidden City. Thousands of troops and tanks stormed the city streets and the square, crushing and shooting unarmed citizens.
Since then, the event has been wiped from Chinese history books with most young Chinese having only vague knowledge of the massacre and many happy to dismiss it as history.

Perhaps the most famous photograph of the event was of "Tank Man". Indeed it has become one of the most famous photographs of the 20th Century. I think that if I was someone in that photograph, I should most like to be someone inside one of the tanks.



The fate of "Tank Man" remains unknown. I have read reports that he's still alive, and possibly living in Taiwan, Hong Kong or even Beijing itself but the fact that the Chinese Government has repressed his story along with the fate of an unknown number of thousands of students who died as a result of the massacre, makes me think that he is probably dead.

What is the fate of those students who survived, or were never caught? There must be quite of a lot of them who by now would be in their mid 40s; possibly in responsible positions. Surely the memory of twenty years ago still lives with them?

China did host the 2008 Olympic Games, but there were still questions asked about its human rights issues. As least the protesters in the lead up to the games weren't summarily executed. There are also other great issues such as the repression of information generally; that included the so called "Great Firewall of China" which sits around China's ISP keeping out "unwanted" ideas and information out.

Of course it is very easy just to point the finger of China's lack of awareness of their own history (mind you, if we look in our backyard we find that most students in the west don't know much about history because of ignorance and laziness more than repression), but it still doesn't explain why those people who went through it, haven't done something about changing it - unless of course they're still prevented from doing so.

Aside:
I also find it starkly ironic that 20 years after this event with the collapse of General Motors, one of the symbols of all that was/is American in the brand Hummer has been sold to Chinese investors. I guess that Money is even louder than democracy... even in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

Horse 997 - Upside-Down Calculator Haikus

This post is best viewed by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Down Arrow to rotate the screen for:

Upside-down Calculator Haikus!

Yes, it's that great source of much mirth of 1970s style fun that you'll find in Maths classes. Sadly most high school kids never get past 58008 or 710 77345.
Just remember to unrotate the screen when done... or for added fun, rotate a workmate's screen to really freak them out.


3722145 707

8078 378163771
5345075 '53200 710 5537637
50804 35380 335 1

57714 4614 514 5335 7718
5315515 771 3631538 5318808
4517734 51 321738

My list of words was here:
http://paperlined.org/apps/wikipedia/offsite_content/Calculator_spelling.txt

Horse 996 - Tell me Quango, Quango, Quango

Tell me when will you be mine
Tell me Quango, Quango, Quango
We can share a love divine
Please don't make me wait again
With apologies to Engelbert Humperdinck

General Motors has now passed into the hand of the US Federal Government which in principle makes it the world's biggest Quango. What's a Quango you ask? Well, during the 1980s when all sorts of these things emerged, it was short for Quasi Non Government Organisation.

Now admittedly this sort of thing has existed in Britain quite well for years, with the most obvious example being the BBC, but in America for some bizarre reason, the same sorts of businessmen who run perfectly profitable companies, don't seem to have the nous to be in a Quango.

Think about some of the Quangos which exist in the USA:
Amtrak - There's a joke if ever I saw one.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting - which is a never ending source of re-runs and very very programs bought from the BBC on the cheap.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, American International Group (AIG) - Do we start laughing yet?

And now General Motors? Hmm. Can a Corporation owned by the US Government operate independently it? Is that even possible? Mr Obama seems to think so... well he hopes so.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCan...5513A320090602
"We are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help GM succeed," Obama said. "What I have no interest in doing is running GM."

Perhaps he should look to the BBC, because although it exists within the sphere of government, is most certainly not controlled by them (and is frequently criticised by them, so they must be doing something right). The Beeb has an independent board of directors and certainly does not take orders from HM Government. I'm not sure about GM though, they've already been fiddled with by the Obama administration:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a1BaGmyUoHgA&refer=home
The Obama administration asked Wagoner, 56, to leave the company and he agreed, said an administration official who declined to be identified before the move was announced.

We'll know in about 90 days what all this means... if anything. It could all fall into a GM - Glorious Mess.

Horse 995 - Empty Village, Empty Threats

Kijong-dong, North Korea. One of the most luxurious and best kept villages in the world. There is no hint of rubbish in the streets... or people... even on Google Maps with their satellite view, you soon see that the streets themselves don't actually exist. The whole town is simply a collection of uninhabited buildings within eye-shot of South Korea and placed within the DMZ that separates the two Koreas.

That's the point and essence of Kijong-dong, it exists merely for show. Nothing more; nothing less. This is all an elaborate production, put on for the entertainment of the West.

Whilst the world may yell condemnation at Kim Jong Il and North Korea's launch and testing of missiles and nuclear weapons, we should remember that this is probably a case like so much else of the DPRK, an elaborate show and should be treated as such.

At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union actually had the power to destroy an annihilate the world. The whole point of the Cold War and to an extent the Space Race, was that both sides knew that the best way to avoid total nuclear annihilation, was to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. This was otherwise called: Mutual Assured Destruction or M.A.D. (which in case you weren't wondering, was not the same M.A.D. in Inspector Gadget, that was Mean And Dirty).

The main problem with Kim Jong Il and North Korea, is that Mr Jong Il is a certifiable nutcase. The "Dear Leader" is the centre of something like a personality cult, and it's likely that his power is maintained via that personality cult and de facto the military.

The best response that the West has to North Korea is to let them keep on rattling their nuclear sabres. If the South, Russia or the US actually invaded North Korea, then there'd be a 98% chance that they'd win... but what exactly would you win? A country in a mess? Thousands upon thousands of refugees? They'd spill across the borders into South Korea, China and Russia, and you can guarantee that not an option which Seoul, Beijing or Moscow want at the moment.

Horse 994 - Vapid Vapid People!

The media over the past few days has been thrown into a frenzy over someone who has now been labeled as the "Chk Chk Boom" girl. Most of the controversy is centred around the use of her language and whether or not it's been deemed racist. Can I just say here, that this is a hopeless misdirection of media attention and that what we have witnessed is something far sinister.

Oh, she didn't actually see what had happened and was trying to profiteer from it, but three other people had, and what they saw was in fact a murder.

This is murder mind you - the willful taking of a human life by another individual. Why are we not shocked and or outraged at this? Are we so desensitised that even if someone is killed before our very eyes we still don't care?

One of the three witnesses described the events as "awesome". Awesome? How and even why is it "awesome" that someone's been killed? This person was even able to identify the murder weapon as a Glock 9mm, but again the media is more concerned with racism than the fact that people have witnessed a murder. Are we really that vapid?

This is disgusting reporting by all media outlets involved. I'm personally holding everyone in contempt and especially the Channel 9 network. This makes me sick.

Goat 993 - Free Goat, with purchase.

Seriously?

I read this on the Nine MSN website this afternoon:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/819015/mitsubishi-offers-free-goat-with-ute
Mitsubishi Motors is offering a free goat with every Triton ute sold before August in a novel effort at correcting the economy.
Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand general sales and marketing manager Peter Wilkins said the economy's recovery was in the hands of the rural sector, and goats, like Tritons, were "hardy, versatile units which will integrate directly into existing farm operations".

Er, ok...

Thinking that it was some sort of hoax, I then checked The Motor Report because this sounded so incredibly stupid. But no...

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/32625/mitsubishi-motors-new-zealand-announces-triton-and-free-goat-deal/
IF YOU WERE running a list of news headlines you were expecting to see today – that probably wasn’t one of them.

It’s true: according to Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand General Sales and Marketing Manager Peter Wilkins, goats - like the Triton - are “hardy, versatile units which will integrate directly into existing farm operations,” and that’s why the company is offering a free goat with the 2009 Mitsubishi Triton.

Is this some sort of joke? What happens if we check the Mitsubishi NZ website itself?
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.nz/corporate/news/news_item_0168.asp
“We’ll supply a free goat with every Triton sold before August and do our bit to loosen the grip of the recession”.
“On the off chance that the purchaser already has enough goats or feels that goat herding is better left to those in drier climes, we’ll supply a ‘no goat package’ consisting of a five-year/100,000km extended warranty, five free WOF inspections, 5,000km road user charges, five years of roadside assistance and $500 of genuine or approved Triton accessories,” Mr Wilkins said

So there you have it, straight from the... goat's mouth. Buy a Mitsubishi Triton in New Zealand by August 1 and you'll get a free goat... for real. Seriously.

FREE GOAT!

Horse 992 - The Content of His Character

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/26/2580593.htm?section=business
In February, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd selected just one word to respond to news that Mr Trujillo was leaving Telstra and Australia: Adios.

"I think by definition [it was racism] - there were even columnists who wrote stories that said it was. But my point is that does exist and it's got to change because the world is full of a lot of people and most economies have to take advantage - including Australia - of a diverse set of people.
If there is a belief that only a certain people are acceptable versus others, that is a sad state."
- Sol Trujillo

By definition it was racism? Really? I think that Mr Trujillo needs some education here. Racism as defined by the OED is either:
1. prejudice based on the grounds of race
2. antagonism towards people of other races

For Mr Trujillo's claim to be upheld, then criticism of him must be on the grounds of race, surely? This however isn't the case. Why would a so-called racist society appoint someone to a highly paid position at one of the biggest profitable companies in the first place, if it was racist?

One of my favourite quotes on this subject was that of that great statesman Martin Luther King, Jr.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Take note of that Mr Trujillo. How exactly have you been judged? Think about this objectively.

When you took over Telstra, its share price was $5.68, as at today it's still not recovered and sits at a paltry $3.08. People who have invested their money have seen half of its value wiped off the deck under your fine management. This isn't just play money either, it's real people's wealth that has been destroyed.

Think about the 10,143 people who's full time jobs have been cut since his arrival. Are they likely to cast a favourable review over you? What happens to those people who've had their livelihoods kicked out from under them?

Last year CEPU spokesman Burt Blackburne said that Mr Trujillo would be remembered for short changing workers while accepting a massive salary.
"He's done very well out of the company. He's a person whose current wage increase is something like $13.4 million, a 14 per cent increase over last year, while the workers in Telstra who've made all the profits suffer pay cuts and other sort of difficulties within the company."

Even I myself who have been scathing of him never actually critisied you Mr Trujillo on the grounds of race:
As an economist you should have seen this, it's because you are a farty trumped-up little smeghead who's more concerned with worshiping the great god Dollar than using common-sense that you haven't got.
http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2005/09/horse-397-full-theft-of-telstra-1.html
Invective? Yes. Blunt? Yes. Racist? That might be a little difficult to prove.

Is it actually racism? Or is this merely some piece of invective concocted in your head? I think that you'll find that you haven't been judged on the grounds of your race at all but precisely by the content of your character, and it has found to be very much lacking. A parting shot like this after you've walked away with just over $33m further proves this case.

The criticism Mr Trujillo is not based on your race at all but you personally.

Horse 991 - The One and Only... way is up

English Football take notice: There is a revolution about to start on Tyneside and I suspect that the ramifications could be big.

Alan Shearer who was appointed manager at Newcastle Utd, really had a baptism of fire to management. With only 8 games to turn the club around, he had a massive job ahead of him - he didn't. This leaves Newcastle with a £70m wage bill and a year back in the Championship.
Take not of that last line - a year back in the Championship. I suspect that Shearer by next May will have guided his side back to the Premier League and with teeth.

"I wasn't good enough, Mike Ashley is not good enough, the same with Chris Hughton, Kevin Keegan, Joe Kinnear (who have all managed Newcastle this season), people in the dressing room, all of us.
I was shocked at the state of the club when I came in. I was aware of mistakes that had been made. There are huge problems at the club. They are there for everyone to see. It's not just about today. It has gone on this season, last season, the season before, four seasons ago. It is a culmination of everything.
Players need to go, players need to come in and those guys (in charge) need to decide where the football club is going to go. I'll give my opinion on that and then we'll see where we get."
- Alan Shearer, to BBC Five Live.

This is not a manager feeling the loss over going down. He was already back at work on Monday plotting the next season. Therein lies something which hasn't been seen at Newcastle in a while. Ticker and heart.

Shearer will probably be retained as manager; will be given a season of less difficult opponents. Life in the Championship should be a little less hectic for him, but I have a vague feeling that without the pry of the media every ten seconds, a new steel will be forged on the Tyne. In 46 league games time, Newcastle will be back in the Premier League... Mark these words well.

Horse 990 - Inertia

I find this particular comment from "He the B", and specifically the correct and exact usage of a word either deliberate, or if it wasn't, quite amusing. That word is Inertia:

I have also said I have an infinite capacity for lethargy - it's true - and there too lies a necessity of transformation which my inertia resists.
http://bjd.au.com/index.php?bloggid=2004002134&directlink=true

Inertia comes from the Latin word, "iners", meaning idle, or lazy. More specifically it refers to the concept contained in Sir Issac Newton's First Law of Motion -"A body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force."

I had a think back to my days as a high school student, and more specifically this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by-7kkAu2Pg
The tagline right at the end was this:
Objects are lazy - things like to keep on doing what they're already doing.

I have also said I have an infinite capacity for lethargy - it's true - and there too lies a necessity of transformation which my inertia resists.
Is BJD implying that he must be an object somewhere in the universe; an object which obeys the First Law of Motion? The word Inertia itself implies laziness however there's something else wrapped up in that word - an object in motion will remain in motion. If BJD is working hard, does that imply that he'll continue to work hard under the very same law of inertia?

Footnote: Have I just inadvertently condemned people to watching hours of Eureka! on Youtube? I hope so, maybe they'll learn something.

Horse 989 - The Safety Car is out, we need... The Safety Car

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/31581/safety-car-nage-when-pace-cars-act-out-their-jealousy/

Bang!

Our friend the Cruze, the hope of Holden and current competitor in the WTCC has shown that it truly did earn it's five star safety rating. I have never once heard before of a collision involving the Safety Car before, but follow the link and that's what you get.

On Sunday at Pau (Macau), Tom Boardman's suspension broke and he stopped on tracking causing the safety car to be deployed. The safety car came out onto the track very late, cutting right across Franz Engstler's BMW, leaving him no space to go but right into the back of the safety car.

It makes you wonder what sort of numpty was behind wheel of the Safety Car though, that guy had to be a complete idiot to jump straight onto the racing line. It's little more than a case of outright poor driving, it's almost a blind corner and you don't expect a slow car on the racing line. It's fortunate that this wasn't a worse incident.

Safety Car? What's next? Safety Knife? Safety Handgun? Safety... Safety Car?

Horse 988 - Additional

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/31600/2009-holden-cruze-to-be-priced-from-20990-on-sale-in-june/


Holden’s latest import, the Cruze, is all set to go on sale here next month, with pricing to start at a very competitive $20,990 for the Cruze CD manual.

It’ll slot into Holden’s lineup where the dearly departed Astra used to sit, however it won’t directly replace it. That’s the job of the Australian-built Cruze hatch, which is expected to arrive in 2010.

Ho hum. Holden has replaced the Astra with the Viva *cough* Cruze.

BOO!

Horse 988 - Holden Loses the Astra Now

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=62296

The future of Holden's second-best seller is under review, with currency fluctuations and commodity price increases threatening the future of the European-built Astra.
Holden has put a stop on imports of the Astra while it conducts price negotiations with Opel, the European subsidiary of General Motors that manufactures the vehicles.

"The Astra is being studied at the moment and until we come to an agreement with Opel on pricing, we've placed orders on hold. For competitive reasons, we'd rather not talk about our small-car strategy. Astra's a great car but it has to make business sense for us"

With the loss of most of the Holden Commodore's export markets and the closure of the Family II engine plant, Holden appears to have taken yet another step closer to non-existence by the virtual cancellation of the Astra.

Now admittedly the car has sort of been replaced by inference by the Holden Cruze, but bear in mind that this was originally intended also with export in mind and considering that was before GM was staring down the barrel of bankruptcy, that hope has been destroyed.

In Australia we've already lost the chance to get our hands on the Corsa D, and the Insignia which won the European Car of the Year for 2009. Dropping the Astra now means that we lose it before the next change of model, which is due in September 2009 when the Astra I is released. I should also mention that we're also going to miss out on the upcoming 250bhp Astra VXR as well. Thanks Holden... just thanks.


We'll never get to see this on our roads, thanks to Holden's stupidity.

Basically it means that at around about late 2009 we might see a cosmetic change to the Commodore (if they pursue it that long) but since the cancellation of the GM Zeta Platform, it is a dead end.
http://www.mellor.net/mellor/enews.nsf/edition/48C44C5F20B20EE7CA2574B800148C40/$file/GoAutoNews_449.pdf

Holden should resign itself to the fact that from 2012, they will be just a badge. I guess that Ben Chifley's dream for an "Australian car for Australian Conditions" will slowly fade from view.

Horse 987 - The AFL Knows Nothin' (and is cool about it)

Channel 10's AFL coverage this year is marked by a new funkiness, a new passion and more importantly a new song.

I think that part of the packaging of a television broadcast for any given season should include a song of some sort. It's a trick that's been employed for quite some time. The NSW Rugby League back in 1990 most famously used Tina Turner's "Simply The Best", the UEFA Champions League uses a theme called (oddly enough), the UEFA Champions League Anthem which is based on Handel's "Zadok the Priest". The AFL have themselves in the past used a few themes; most recently "Holy Grail" by Hunters & Collectors to some effect.

Perhaps though they should have properly thought through the song "Never Miss a Beat" by the Kaiser Chiefs for season 2009. If you listen to the chorus which they use, it is a perfectly sensible choice:

Take a look, take a look, take a look
at the kids on the street
No they never miss a beat
No they never miss a beat
Never miss a beat
Never miss a beat, beat, beat, beat
Take a look at the kids on the street
No they never miss a beat
No they never miss a beat
Never miss a beat
Never miss a
Never miss a beat
Never miss a beat

... however (and regular readers will know that whenever you see this word, some scything observation is coming). The other verses of the song, I don't think either convey a message that the AFL want to put out:

What did you learn today?
I learned nothin'
What did you do today?
I did nothin'
What did you learn at school?
I didn't go
Why didn't you go to school?
I don't know

It's cool to know nothin'
It's cool to know nothin'

Is the AFL somehow suggesting by inference that being an AFL player is congruous with being stupid? Is skipping school something that the AFL advises? If you then look at verse two, it's even more damaging:

Television's on the blink
There's nothin' on it
I really want to really big coat
With words on it
What do you want for tea?
I want crisps
Why didn't you join the team?
I just didn't

The message I get from this song is that people shouldn't watch television, and that they shouldn't join any teams. How does that sound Channel 10? The song you have chosen for your coverage actively encourages kids not to watch your broadcasts. Either that's a really "courageous" move, or someone just did no do the research. Maybe that person who decided that is living proof that it really is cool to know nothin'.