http://www.themotorreport.com.au/46057/ford-falcon-wagon-facing-the-axe-mondeo-wagon-and-territory-to-carry-the-load#comment_37927
FORD AUSTRALIA HAS announced today that it will discontinue the Falcon wagon this year, with the last wagon to roll off the line in June.
The news follows reports last year that Ford was considering the wagon's future, Ford Australia CEO Marin Burela confirming that a decision would be made by this past January.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
- Winston Churchill.
This is not the end of the beginning. But it is the beginning of the end.
- Rollo
Ford have already previous announced that there probably wouldn't be a replacement for the Falcon at the end of the current model cycle. With sales flagging and having fallen from top spot to number 7 in the latest VFACTS survey, how long is it before the Falcon is axed entirely? Will this mean the final end for a car which as its origins back in 1963?
Of course my only interest in the Falcon has to do with V8 Supercars. There has been rumblings (and most of them proving to be false) that there were other players interested in submitting new cars to the formula in 2012. I would suggest that if anyone wanted to, that their submission plans have just been given a little extra boost.
I mean what exactly is V8 Supercars to do when there is only one make of car to choose from? With the Falcon slowly fading out of existence, what sort of series is viable with only one make of car? If the Commodore has no competition, would anyone even bother?
V8SA is due to make an announcement next Monday the 29th, to do with the so-called "Car of the Future". It could well prove to be either the single most significant document in the sport's future, or perhaps even the very instrument which signs its death warrant.
We shall see.
March 25, 2010
March 24, 2010
Horse 1079 - mX: The Stupid Newspaper for Stupid People
For those expecting a tirade against News Corporation, then you will not be disappointed, only this time, you might wish to turn the volume up a bit because I am seething.
I have been on the train for about the past month and a half whilst my Ka has been off the road due to being bashed in the rear end by an incompetent in a Toyota Echo (perhaps they should do a recall on the drivers as well), and as a result, I've noticed the free newspaper mX which is either given out at city train stations, or can be collected for free from special racks.
The Panorama National Survey puts the average circulation at about 100,000 copies a day (Mon-Fri), and I've also noticed on the western line, that train stations have now started putting recycle bins on their stations, presumably to alleviate the mess caused by people either leaving discarded copies on the train (of which there can be as many as two dozen per carriage) or overflowing from rubbish bins outside the station - on that note, it's kind of sad to see someone having to clean up someone else's mess; this case it's actually caused by News Corp.
Now for the ugly part:
I usually didn't bother picking up mX on the basis that I had something else interesting to read (I've just finished reading John Maynard Keynes' magnum opus, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money), but on this occasion I wanted to find out what had been going on in the world.
Namely that the US Congress had passed the Health Care Reform Bill and that there was a significant speech made by President Obama which I thought would be interesting.
But what was mX reporting?
The death of the smallest man in the world, and pictures of footballers girlfriends. Is this what passes for news? I mean seriously. I have blown my nose and opened the contents of a tissue to find more interesting things. When I opened mX yesterday, I find pretty well much the same sort of content.
Just what the heck sort of newspaper is this?
If you do a wikipedia search on the subject you read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MX_%28newspaper%29
Central themes of most articles include US celebrity gossip, new product lines, controversial events, rumours, celebrity trivia, and readers' gripes, amongst other attention-grabbing stories. Large photographs often appear without any related story, only a caption describing their contents; conversely news stories are rarely accompanied by photographs. Small, large and full page advertisements are also a major contributor to the paper's overall make-up.
Even more intriguing is the links at the bottom of the page; one of which is for "Junk Food News":
Junk food news is a sardonic term for news stories that deliver "sensationalized, personalized, and homogenized inconsequential trivia", especially when such stories appear at the expense of serious investigative journalism. It implies a criticism of the mass media for disseminating news that, while not very nourishing, is "cheap to produce and profitable for media proprietors."
I'd say that this is bang on the money for mX. It's a newspaper (of sorts) which actually panders to the lowest common denominator; and when I later found out that it's owned by News Corporation, it pretty well much explains everything.
News Corporation - a worldwide scum company which exists by producing toxicly crap media.
This is the same company which owns Britain's Sun newspaper, who in 1989 ran a campaign blaming Liverpool fans of atrocities following the wake of the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#The_Sun_newspaper_controversy
... and which, since 1970 has put a topless model on page 3 of the newspaper, just to reinforce what the corporation thinks of its readership.
This is the same company who by virtue of owning the rights to the English Premier League and the A-League, denies me the right because I don't have Pay TV, of watching football. This is the same company who in 1997 nearly destroyed Rubgy League in Australia. This is the same company who via the Fox News network, has managed to convince many Americans that the idea of "socialised medicine" is evil.
It seems to me that mX falls exactly into line and character as a News Corporation publication. It is of little substance but there is one thing about it that is absolutely correct - the price. mX is free. I suppose that is their concession that the content isn't worth purchasing and quite literally they have to give it away.
However, with a circulation of half a million copies a week, it makes me wonder what it's actually doing to public opinion. What I can't tell is if it's read by people who wouldn't usually buy the newspaper anyway, or what percentage of people read it in addition to their primary news source, or even worse, for what percentage of people it actually IS their primary news source.
I can't decide if mX is a reflection of, or a contributor to the erosion of public morals and the increase of the stupidity of society. I concede that there is both a right to free speech and freedom of the press, but does it have to be so remorselessly puerile?
I also admit at this point, that because this rant has more than twelve words in it, most mX readers will have given up well before this... good. Society is better off without you and without mX.
I have been on the train for about the past month and a half whilst my Ka has been off the road due to being bashed in the rear end by an incompetent in a Toyota Echo (perhaps they should do a recall on the drivers as well), and as a result, I've noticed the free newspaper mX which is either given out at city train stations, or can be collected for free from special racks.
The Panorama National Survey puts the average circulation at about 100,000 copies a day (Mon-Fri), and I've also noticed on the western line, that train stations have now started putting recycle bins on their stations, presumably to alleviate the mess caused by people either leaving discarded copies on the train (of which there can be as many as two dozen per carriage) or overflowing from rubbish bins outside the station - on that note, it's kind of sad to see someone having to clean up someone else's mess; this case it's actually caused by News Corp.
Now for the ugly part:
I usually didn't bother picking up mX on the basis that I had something else interesting to read (I've just finished reading John Maynard Keynes' magnum opus, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money), but on this occasion I wanted to find out what had been going on in the world.
Namely that the US Congress had passed the Health Care Reform Bill and that there was a significant speech made by President Obama which I thought would be interesting.
But what was mX reporting?
The death of the smallest man in the world, and pictures of footballers girlfriends. Is this what passes for news? I mean seriously. I have blown my nose and opened the contents of a tissue to find more interesting things. When I opened mX yesterday, I find pretty well much the same sort of content.
Just what the heck sort of newspaper is this?
If you do a wikipedia search on the subject you read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MX_%28newspaper%29
Central themes of most articles include US celebrity gossip, new product lines, controversial events, rumours, celebrity trivia, and readers' gripes, amongst other attention-grabbing stories. Large photographs often appear without any related story, only a caption describing their contents; conversely news stories are rarely accompanied by photographs. Small, large and full page advertisements are also a major contributor to the paper's overall make-up.
Even more intriguing is the links at the bottom of the page; one of which is for "Junk Food News":
Junk food news is a sardonic term for news stories that deliver "sensationalized, personalized, and homogenized inconsequential trivia", especially when such stories appear at the expense of serious investigative journalism. It implies a criticism of the mass media for disseminating news that, while not very nourishing, is "cheap to produce and profitable for media proprietors."
I'd say that this is bang on the money for mX. It's a newspaper (of sorts) which actually panders to the lowest common denominator; and when I later found out that it's owned by News Corporation, it pretty well much explains everything.
News Corporation - a worldwide scum company which exists by producing toxicly crap media.
This is the same company which owns Britain's Sun newspaper, who in 1989 ran a campaign blaming Liverpool fans of atrocities following the wake of the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#The_Sun_newspaper_controversy
... and which, since 1970 has put a topless model on page 3 of the newspaper, just to reinforce what the corporation thinks of its readership.
This is the same company who by virtue of owning the rights to the English Premier League and the A-League, denies me the right because I don't have Pay TV, of watching football. This is the same company who in 1997 nearly destroyed Rubgy League in Australia. This is the same company who via the Fox News network, has managed to convince many Americans that the idea of "socialised medicine" is evil.
It seems to me that mX falls exactly into line and character as a News Corporation publication. It is of little substance but there is one thing about it that is absolutely correct - the price. mX is free. I suppose that is their concession that the content isn't worth purchasing and quite literally they have to give it away.
However, with a circulation of half a million copies a week, it makes me wonder what it's actually doing to public opinion. What I can't tell is if it's read by people who wouldn't usually buy the newspaper anyway, or what percentage of people read it in addition to their primary news source, or even worse, for what percentage of people it actually IS their primary news source.
I can't decide if mX is a reflection of, or a contributor to the erosion of public morals and the increase of the stupidity of society. I concede that there is both a right to free speech and freedom of the press, but does it have to be so remorselessly puerile?
I also admit at this point, that because this rant has more than twelve words in it, most mX readers will have given up well before this... good. Society is better off without you and without mX.
March 23, 2010
Horse 1078 - Give Penalty Shoot-Outs A Red Card
Sydney FC and Melbourne Victory at the weekend played out a tension filled A-League Grand Final, ending up 1-1 at full time. The final should be regarded as a classic in years to come, but the final result is a travesty of justice.
One one hand, I am quite pleased that Sydney did win the title, but on the other hand, to win because of a penalty shoot-out is a hollow way to win anything. Both sides on the park have just played their guts out for 120 minutes, and the best they can come up with is a system akin to a lottery.
My opinion is shared at least by one other prominent person in the world of football:
"When it comes to the World Cup final it is passion, and when it goes to extra time it is a drama,but when it comes to penalty kicks it is a tragedy."
- Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA
How then can such a thing be allowed to continue? Penalty kicks as a way to end a match really are quite a horrid thing.
Before the World Cup in 1970 in Mexico, matches that had been drawn at the end of regulation time were either replayed, or extra time was played, or as in the case of the Euro '68 Semi Final between the USSR and Italy, decided by coin toss.
Now I'm not saying that a coin toss is fairer than a penalty shoot-out, in fact a coin toss is just as abhorrent. Surely there has to be a better method though.
In the "bad old days" when television didn't decide when fixtures were to be played, the most common method of deciding who would progress to the next stage of a knockout tournament was a full replay. Now I admit that for international fixtures, this poses a problem, but for a domestic competition it provides another potential chance for extra ticket sales.
The most protracted FA Cup tie of all time happened in 1955 between Stoke City and Bury, which wasn't decided until four replays later, being 1-1, 1-1, 3-3, 2-2 and finally Bury 2 Stoke City 3. The last FA Cup Final to be decided by replay was the 1993 final in which after 4 hours, Arsenal beat Sheffield Wednesday 1-1, then 2-1.
Admittedly the situation is a little bit different in Australia considering that we don't actually have a Cup, so they tack a cup competition onto the end of the league. Now I would have thought that the obvious thing to do would either be ditch the finals series and playout the rest of the league (since for some odd reason, everyone plays everyone else thrice), or in the event of a draw in finals series, simply force another replay at a neutral venue.
Or perhaps if that wasn't to everyone's liking, then why not simply award joint winners of the title. If two teams in a final have both played well (or even badly) and both of them deserve their name in the record books, then is there anything wrong with that?
If prize money is an issue, and if that truly is the driving the cause, then it stands to reason that neither side maximised a win, and therefore the total money on offer for the fixture should be split.
If you absolutely must decide a winner, then look at corners conceded and goal kicks forced. At least then you'd have an idea of who was attacking. For a supposed team sport to end as a battle of individuals in my opinion is stupid; it detracts from the game of football. For this reason above any other, the idea of penalty shoot-outs is wrong.
One one hand, I am quite pleased that Sydney did win the title, but on the other hand, to win because of a penalty shoot-out is a hollow way to win anything. Both sides on the park have just played their guts out for 120 minutes, and the best they can come up with is a system akin to a lottery.
My opinion is shared at least by one other prominent person in the world of football:
"When it comes to the World Cup final it is passion, and when it goes to extra time it is a drama,but when it comes to penalty kicks it is a tragedy."
- Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA
How then can such a thing be allowed to continue? Penalty kicks as a way to end a match really are quite a horrid thing.
Before the World Cup in 1970 in Mexico, matches that had been drawn at the end of regulation time were either replayed, or extra time was played, or as in the case of the Euro '68 Semi Final between the USSR and Italy, decided by coin toss.
Now I'm not saying that a coin toss is fairer than a penalty shoot-out, in fact a coin toss is just as abhorrent. Surely there has to be a better method though.
In the "bad old days" when television didn't decide when fixtures were to be played, the most common method of deciding who would progress to the next stage of a knockout tournament was a full replay. Now I admit that for international fixtures, this poses a problem, but for a domestic competition it provides another potential chance for extra ticket sales.
The most protracted FA Cup tie of all time happened in 1955 between Stoke City and Bury, which wasn't decided until four replays later, being 1-1, 1-1, 3-3, 2-2 and finally Bury 2 Stoke City 3. The last FA Cup Final to be decided by replay was the 1993 final in which after 4 hours, Arsenal beat Sheffield Wednesday 1-1, then 2-1.
Admittedly the situation is a little bit different in Australia considering that we don't actually have a Cup, so they tack a cup competition onto the end of the league. Now I would have thought that the obvious thing to do would either be ditch the finals series and playout the rest of the league (since for some odd reason, everyone plays everyone else thrice), or in the event of a draw in finals series, simply force another replay at a neutral venue.
Or perhaps if that wasn't to everyone's liking, then why not simply award joint winners of the title. If two teams in a final have both played well (or even badly) and both of them deserve their name in the record books, then is there anything wrong with that?
If prize money is an issue, and if that truly is the driving the cause, then it stands to reason that neither side maximised a win, and therefore the total money on offer for the fixture should be split.
If you absolutely must decide a winner, then look at corners conceded and goal kicks forced. At least then you'd have an idea of who was attacking. For a supposed team sport to end as a battle of individuals in my opinion is stupid; it detracts from the game of football. For this reason above any other, the idea of penalty shoot-outs is wrong.
March 19, 2010
Horse 1077 - Driven: BMW 318i E90 - Smooth
Every so often, I get the chance to drive a new car. This happened this morning when I had to go to Trivett in Rydalmere to collect a pair of BMW kidney grilles for my boss' BMW 318i E90.
Firstly the name 318i is actually a misnomer. Underneath the bonnet is not a 1.8L engine as you'd expect but a 2.0L in-line 4 (N43B20 for all the nerds out there). The engine produces 105kW or 141bhp and is therefore almost spot on with the outgoing Holden Astra in terms of power.
The 318i aims quite squarely at its target market and is obviously a corporate-rep-box. It is appointed with leather seats, climate control, a decent stereo system with tweeters in the A-Pillars, electric everything, iPod connectivity etc etc etc. and therefore you'd expect it to be very easy to drive for extended periods.
The steering doesn't feel overly light nor stiff, in fact it's rather neutral in its posture. The handling of the car doesn't feel either heavy or lithe, and the engine and power delivery is very smooth. In fact that is the best way to describe this car, very smooth indeed. For the engine is whisper quiet, and apart from the rev counter going into fits and starts it seems unfussed pulling away from the lights or cruising down the motorway at 110km/h.
Yet this is precisely why I felt entirely uninspired by this car. BMW's corporate slogan is "sheer driving pleasure", and no matter where I looked, I simply couldn't find any.
Don't think by any means that this was a bad car, it wasn't bad in any respect. It's just that everything felt so polished, so smooth, so... bland and boring, that any character traits that the car may have had, have all been engineered out of it.
This car is the white bread of motor cars, the boiled white rice, the plain copy paper, the Staedtler 430M stick of the car world. It does everything properly and efficiently but there's no driving pleasure to speak of.
Driving this car has given me a new perspective on BMW drivers. There is one word which keeps on cropping up when you talk about BMW drivers; I have learnt that it's not the fault of the car, the car itself is very neutral. Therefore what they say about BMW drivers... exclusively applies to them.
March 15, 2010
Richard Dawkins ask the Questions... You Decide.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm
Thanks to the ABC's Q&A
RICHARD DAWKINS: The New Testament - you believe, if you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way to forgive humanity's sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?
RICHARD DAWKINS: But the extreme is in the New Testament. I simply told you what is New Testament doctrine. That is St Paul's view, which is accepted by Christianity. That's why Christ came to earth, in order to atone for humanity's sins. If it's extreme, it's not me that's being extreme, it's the new testament that's being extreme.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Do you think it's admirable? You think it's admirable that God actually had himself tortured for the sins of humanity?
Is it admirable? I ask you.
Let's for a second run with Dawkin's own logic shall we?
If we accept that the problem of sin exists, then logically what chance does humanity have of ridding itself of it? If you have an organism, which is suffering because of a parasite or a cancer, you can either remove the parasite of cancer, or in the event that it can not be removed, the only sure fire method is to kill the host.
Suppose further that if you could find a second host organism that would act like either a sacrificial anode, and transfer the parasites or cancer to, wouldn't you consider that second host as admirable, or even noble?
The problem with this logic is that although you might cure the first organism, the second host, the sacrificial host would invariably die because it was carrying the parasite or cancer.
Suppose further that if the second host could regenerate itself after it had died, then it could in theory, keep on saving multiple target hosts that were in danger with this parasite or cancer. Wouldn't that second host because it could effectively solve the problem, be incredibly useful? What would happen if it could bear the parasites and cancers of many millions of diseased hosts at once?
Let's ask Dawkins' question again?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Do you think it's admirable? You think it's admirable that God actually had himself tortured for the sins of humanity?
I think...
YES!
Horse 1076 - How Much Non-News Do We Need?
On Saturday night I was about to watch the 6 o'clock news when Channel 9 had a "breaking" story that Michael Clarke and Lara Bingle had ended their relationship. Wanting to escape this and find some actual news I switched Channel 7 to find that they too were covering precisely the same "story"; then on SBS at half past 6, they too were leading with the same thing.
We were also bombarded with a story about an elephant called "Mr Shuffles", and with something about some fashion show in Paris. My reaction to all of this was to use that most magical of devices, the remote control... only to re bombarded elsewhere.
Now I hope that I've come to the wrong conclusion here but either there literally was nothing newsworthy over the weekend, or if the media are merely selling to and are therefore a relfection of society, then I am quite disappointed.
I bet that the only reason that the media cares about this is because they can sell more media and advert space (that is of course their whole raison d'être) and the best way to sell media is to publish something depraved if they can get away with it.
The thing is that, if the media is trying to sell us something, then there must be a ready market for it if it keeps on trying to push it.
From where I stand, I don't care, I don't want to care, I don't want to see, I don't want to know and I'm jolly well sick of it all.
The real news, because you couldn't find it is that:
- The Israeli plans to build settlements in the West Bank has finally been derided by the USA as hurting the peace process.
- Greece is looking for a €300bn bailout bond from the EU, possibly faces the chance of being expelled and that there is potentially a bigger problem lurking in Spain.
- Two Frenchmen taken hostage on Nov 22 last year have finally been freed in Dafur.
- The US Federal Reserve is expected to be given greater prudential regulation to help ward off the conditions which led to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis
- Kristina Keneally has wasted a stack of money in producing a pamphlet broadcasting that the NSW State Government has achieved in her first 100 days in office
- We are probably going to a Federal Election on the 14th of August this year.
It's utterly amazing and hopelessly disappointing that actual important news that has real effects on the world, doesn't even make the 6 o'clock news, because fashion, models and elephants are more "important".
If the world stops spinning tomorrow, I'm jumping off.
We were also bombarded with a story about an elephant called "Mr Shuffles", and with something about some fashion show in Paris. My reaction to all of this was to use that most magical of devices, the remote control... only to re bombarded elsewhere.
Now I hope that I've come to the wrong conclusion here but either there literally was nothing newsworthy over the weekend, or if the media are merely selling to and are therefore a relfection of society, then I am quite disappointed.
I bet that the only reason that the media cares about this is because they can sell more media and advert space (that is of course their whole raison d'être) and the best way to sell media is to publish something depraved if they can get away with it.
The thing is that, if the media is trying to sell us something, then there must be a ready market for it if it keeps on trying to push it.
From where I stand, I don't care, I don't want to care, I don't want to see, I don't want to know and I'm jolly well sick of it all.
The real news, because you couldn't find it is that:
- The Israeli plans to build settlements in the West Bank has finally been derided by the USA as hurting the peace process.
- Greece is looking for a €300bn bailout bond from the EU, possibly faces the chance of being expelled and that there is potentially a bigger problem lurking in Spain.
- Two Frenchmen taken hostage on Nov 22 last year have finally been freed in Dafur.
- The US Federal Reserve is expected to be given greater prudential regulation to help ward off the conditions which led to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis
- Kristina Keneally has wasted a stack of money in producing a pamphlet broadcasting that the NSW State Government has achieved in her first 100 days in office
- We are probably going to a Federal Election on the 14th of August this year.
It's utterly amazing and hopelessly disappointing that actual important news that has real effects on the world, doesn't even make the 6 o'clock news, because fashion, models and elephants are more "important".
If the world stops spinning tomorrow, I'm jumping off.
March 11, 2010
Horse 1075 - Camaro... Can I Smell Poo?
Today I turn your attention to the car which goes on sale next week, the Chevrolet Camaro. Now admittedly I haven't done a road test; I can't do a road test without getting my hands on the car, but by the same token I know that I'm fully qualified to give an opinion without doing one. Why? Because in all fairness, I don't even need to. I already know it's crap.
Now I don't say this to be jingoistic (though given that GM did kill what is essentially the same car in the Monaro), but rather on basic economic fact.
The Camaro was developed by none other than our own Holden, right here in Australia. It sits atop GM's Zeta platform, which was developed by Holden. It shares the same 3.6L V6 and 6.2L V8 engines along with the Commodore (and related HSV cars). It shares the same drivetrain and gearbox as the Commodore. In fact, the only real difference technically is a different set of springs and shocks, and a different set of engine management chips.
The Camaro for all intents and purposes is basically a two door Commodore; fulfils precisely the same function as the Monaro.
The biggest difference and in fact the main reason why I think that it is so incredibly crap is... the pricetag.
The starting price is A$134,990 as opposed to the top of the line HSV product at $87,690*. What that says to me is that GM think that it's worthwhile to give consumers the same car wrapped in a different skin, and charge them 40 odd grand more for the privilege of doing so.
Also I suspect after visiting America, that because the Camaro was built in America for Americans, it will be built to lower production standards. This was evident when comparing like for like - Cobalt and Astra, Malibu and Vectra.
All I can say is "Well Done" to GM for killing the Monaro and then selling a worse built car for 40 odd grand more. If the car had been built in Australia then it would have been done better, but then again Holden already inadvertantly admit this with their own advert tag: Holden. Go Better.
Well they would do, if they were allowed to.
*Actually the HSV W427 chimed in at A$155,500 but that's got a thumping 7L V8 in it, but they only built 138 of them and on special order only.
Now I don't say this to be jingoistic (though given that GM did kill what is essentially the same car in the Monaro), but rather on basic economic fact.
The Camaro was developed by none other than our own Holden, right here in Australia. It sits atop GM's Zeta platform, which was developed by Holden. It shares the same 3.6L V6 and 6.2L V8 engines along with the Commodore (and related HSV cars). It shares the same drivetrain and gearbox as the Commodore. In fact, the only real difference technically is a different set of springs and shocks, and a different set of engine management chips.
The Camaro for all intents and purposes is basically a two door Commodore; fulfils precisely the same function as the Monaro.
The biggest difference and in fact the main reason why I think that it is so incredibly crap is... the pricetag.
The starting price is A$134,990 as opposed to the top of the line HSV product at $87,690*. What that says to me is that GM think that it's worthwhile to give consumers the same car wrapped in a different skin, and charge them 40 odd grand more for the privilege of doing so.
Also I suspect after visiting America, that because the Camaro was built in America for Americans, it will be built to lower production standards. This was evident when comparing like for like - Cobalt and Astra, Malibu and Vectra.
All I can say is "Well Done" to GM for killing the Monaro and then selling a worse built car for 40 odd grand more. If the car had been built in Australia then it would have been done better, but then again Holden already inadvertantly admit this with their own advert tag: Holden. Go Better.
Well they would do, if they were allowed to.
*Actually the HSV W427 chimed in at A$155,500 but that's got a thumping 7L V8 in it, but they only built 138 of them and on special order only.
March 09, 2010
Horse 1074 - 3 Numb3rs
Back in Horse 928, I had a look at the more ridiculous numbers that have appeared on football kits over the years. Now I admit that I am perfectly used to seeing really high numbers on cricket shirts like Brad Haddin and 57, or Andrew Symonds 63, and I even remember New Zealander Roger Twose sporting the "devil's number" for Australian cricketers 87, on a few occasions.
It was therefore with a bit of surprise that I saw Tommy Oar who made his debut for Australia against Indonesia at Lang Park, in Brisbane (1-0 Australia, and qualification to the Asian Cup in 2011 thank you very much), sporting the kit number 121.
Is Australian sport now ready for such a thing? Should we now throw open the door and let everyone play in whatever kit number they want to?
In my opinion... Yes.
To be totally fair, it doesn't really matter what number someone plays in. As far as their ability to do the job, the simple affixation of a number means very little. Conversely the kit number itself connects quite well with the identity of a player. Think of Peter Brock and 05, Dick Johnson and 17, John Terry 26, Wayne Gretzki 99, Ferrari 27, and of course Michael Jordan 23.
Why not even take it a step further and allow other numbers? Should be go as far as 7/8 like Leela on Futurama? I don't know really.
I wouldn't even be surprised if at some point someone who is personally sponsored by 3 Mobile, puts their 3 on their kit. Now that 3 really would be a magic number.
It was therefore with a bit of surprise that I saw Tommy Oar who made his debut for Australia against Indonesia at Lang Park, in Brisbane (1-0 Australia, and qualification to the Asian Cup in 2011 thank you very much), sporting the kit number 121.
Is Australian sport now ready for such a thing? Should we now throw open the door and let everyone play in whatever kit number they want to?
In my opinion... Yes.
To be totally fair, it doesn't really matter what number someone plays in. As far as their ability to do the job, the simple affixation of a number means very little. Conversely the kit number itself connects quite well with the identity of a player. Think of Peter Brock and 05, Dick Johnson and 17, John Terry 26, Wayne Gretzki 99, Ferrari 27, and of course Michael Jordan 23.
Why not even take it a step further and allow other numbers? Should be go as far as 7/8 like Leela on Futurama? I don't know really.
I wouldn't even be surprised if at some point someone who is personally sponsored by 3 Mobile, puts their 3 on their kit. Now that 3 really would be a magic number.
March 08, 2010
Horse 1073 - Alternative Alternatives?
Thank you for calling the Australian Taxation Office's Personal Tax Inquiries Helpline on 132861. Unfortunately this service is not available at this current time. Please call our alternative phone number 132861. Thank you.
I thought I'd do a quick check of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) to have a look what the word "alternative" actually means. Perhaps not surprising was the first definition which states that an alternative is something "available in place of something else". Materially if the alternative phone number of 132861 is in place of 132861, does that constitute something else?
Alternative music or culture can also be said to stand in place of something else. That something else being whatever the mainstream culture happens to be, be it music, film, magazine, lifestyle or whatever; again, the thing standing in place of the other thing, can not by definition be the first thing.
We find alternatives in the world of economics. If the price of something like the price of butter goes down, then more people will buy butter meaning quantity demanded increases. Butter and margarine are substitutes because either one of them can be used instead of the other. Since the price of butter decreased, more people will buy butter over margarine, and the demand curve of margarine will shift in. In other words, if you can find a substitute for a good, then those two goods have to be compared as alternatives.
All of this makes me wonder whether or not the ATO have actually grasped the concept of an alternative. By offering the same thing as a stand in or substitute for itself, is it really an alternative? I mean its not like they've directed me anywhere else is it?
I thought I'd do a quick check of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) to have a look what the word "alternative" actually means. Perhaps not surprising was the first definition which states that an alternative is something "available in place of something else". Materially if the alternative phone number of 132861 is in place of 132861, does that constitute something else?
Alternative music or culture can also be said to stand in place of something else. That something else being whatever the mainstream culture happens to be, be it music, film, magazine, lifestyle or whatever; again, the thing standing in place of the other thing, can not by definition be the first thing.
We find alternatives in the world of economics. If the price of something like the price of butter goes down, then more people will buy butter meaning quantity demanded increases. Butter and margarine are substitutes because either one of them can be used instead of the other. Since the price of butter decreased, more people will buy butter over margarine, and the demand curve of margarine will shift in. In other words, if you can find a substitute for a good, then those two goods have to be compared as alternatives.
All of this makes me wonder whether or not the ATO have actually grasped the concept of an alternative. By offering the same thing as a stand in or substitute for itself, is it really an alternative? I mean its not like they've directed me anywhere else is it?
February 24, 2010
Horse 1072 - We Make the News...
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/rose-bay-traffic-sign-stops-traffic-to-declare-kevin-rudd-sucks/story-e6freuzi-1225833264067
POLICE are baffled how they did it but the Prime Minister definitely has a problem in Rose Bay - with a large illuminated traffic sign sending the message: "Kevin Rudd sucks".
The sign, which dramatically appeared overnight on New South Head Road, has proven a traffic stopper.
I saw this article in that brilliant piece of raggy trash Mx; I imagine that it also most probably appeared in that great bastion of reliable journalism, the Daily Telegraph.
It is no secret that News Corporation which is a Murdoch newspaper, would prefer to have right-wing laissez-faire government in charge and as such, piggys-up-the-do with the Republican Party in the USA, the Tories in the UK and the Liberal Party in Australia. Is it little wonder that this would appear in the Murdoch press? Would they dare to stoop so low as to rubbish opponent?
I'm not saying that it isn't funny (however I heard funnier jokes from an average 2nd grader), but what I do ask is somewhat pointed... Just how did the "reporters" at the Daily Telegraph find out about this otherwise unimportant roadsign? The photograph isn't otherwise doctored, so I too wonder like the editorial staff at the DailyToiletpaper no Telegraph (actually I was right the first time) Toiletpaper:
Do you know who is the daring culprit? Phone us on 02 9288 3413, email us at online@dailytelegraph.com.au
Please... please, anything... I'll give you apple... I'll give you banana...
Is it Joe Hildebrand or David Barrett? Perhaps it was photographer Brendon Cocks or John Grainger? Would it be really past the people at the DailyToiletpaper Telegraph to generate their own news? I wonder... Hmmm.
POLICE are baffled how they did it but the Prime Minister definitely has a problem in Rose Bay - with a large illuminated traffic sign sending the message: "Kevin Rudd sucks".
The sign, which dramatically appeared overnight on New South Head Road, has proven a traffic stopper.
I saw this article in that brilliant piece of raggy trash Mx; I imagine that it also most probably appeared in that great bastion of reliable journalism, the Daily Telegraph.
It is no secret that News Corporation which is a Murdoch newspaper, would prefer to have right-wing laissez-faire government in charge and as such, piggys-up-the-do with the Republican Party in the USA, the Tories in the UK and the Liberal Party in Australia. Is it little wonder that this would appear in the Murdoch press? Would they dare to stoop so low as to rubbish opponent?
I'm not saying that it isn't funny (however I heard funnier jokes from an average 2nd grader), but what I do ask is somewhat pointed... Just how did the "reporters" at the Daily Telegraph find out about this otherwise unimportant roadsign? The photograph isn't otherwise doctored, so I too wonder like the editorial staff at the Daily
Do you know who is the daring culprit? Phone us on 02 9288 3413, email us at online@dailytelegraph.com.au
Please... please, anything... I'll give you apple... I'll give you banana...
Is it Joe Hildebrand or David Barrett? Perhaps it was photographer Brendon Cocks or John Grainger? Would it be really past the people at the Daily
February 19, 2010
Horse 1071 - Rewrite of Famous Crimethink Document
In crimethink book "1984", George Orwell pastwrite in Oldspeak :
Take for example the well-known passage from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government. . ."
It would have been quite impossible to render this into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the single word crimethink. A full translation could only be an ideological translation, whereby Jefferson's words would be changed into a panegyric on absolute government.
Is this in Oldspeak truly "impossible"? Is this in Newspeak ununpastmakeable?
I pasthave a try to rewrite Oldspeak part of "Declaration of Independence", edit crimethink into Newspeak Oceania Crimethink Document 4th Jul 1776. I bellyfeel that is doubleplus good. I maketruehave that you bellyfeel that is doubleplus good too.
Is you feel my Newspeak rewrite true or untrue of Oceania Crimethink Document 4th Jul 1776?
In Oldspeak - excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
In Newspeak:
We hold true as true that all persons are pastmake same, that they are pastgived by their pastmaker true untaked things, that plus live, bellyfeel and doublepluswalk bellyfeel. That to plushold bellyfeel, Party are maketrue in persons, out their true power from maketrue of persons, that pastplusunpast any form Party maketrue unmakes of ends, it is the bellyfeel of persons to maketrue Party, maketrue on true and order power in form, as to plusmake unpast pax and bellyfeel. Ration true are that Party past unpast unmaked for light and makeunmake effect, fortrue all past truetrue that persons are unbellyfeel while doubleplusungood are bellyfeel than to bellyfeel selfs by unmaking things. When long train of ungood, doublepluswalk same object, and unpastplus ration Minipax for unpast pax.
- Oceania Crimethink Document 4th Jul 1776
Is this plusgood? Is you bellyfeel this plustrue?
Or
Is you make saychange for maketrue?
Take for example the well-known passage from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government. . ."
It would have been quite impossible to render this into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the single word crimethink. A full translation could only be an ideological translation, whereby Jefferson's words would be changed into a panegyric on absolute government.
Is this in Oldspeak truly "impossible"? Is this in Newspeak ununpastmakeable?
I pasthave a try to rewrite Oldspeak part of "Declaration of Independence", edit crimethink into Newspeak Oceania Crimethink Document 4th Jul 1776. I bellyfeel that is doubleplus good. I maketruehave that you bellyfeel that is doubleplus good too.
Is you feel my Newspeak rewrite true or untrue of Oceania Crimethink Document 4th Jul 1776?
In Oldspeak - excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
In Newspeak:
We hold true as true that all persons are pastmake same, that they are pastgived by their pastmaker true untaked things, that plus live, bellyfeel and doublepluswalk bellyfeel. That to plushold bellyfeel, Party are maketrue in persons, out their true power from maketrue of persons, that pastplusunpast any form Party maketrue unmakes of ends, it is the bellyfeel of persons to maketrue Party, maketrue on true and order power in form, as to plusmake unpast pax and bellyfeel. Ration true are that Party past unpast unmaked for light and makeunmake effect, fortrue all past truetrue that persons are unbellyfeel while doubleplusungood are bellyfeel than to bellyfeel selfs by unmaking things. When long train of ungood, doublepluswalk same object, and unpastplus ration Minipax for unpast pax.
- Oceania Crimethink Document 4th Jul 1776
Is this plusgood? Is you bellyfeel this plustrue?
Or
Is you make saychange for maketrue?
February 17, 2010
Horse 1070 - Heart Failure
On the back of the news that Clint Bolton has signed for the A-League's newest club, Melbourne Heart FC, I thought I'd do some research on who the heck Melbourne Heart FC actually is; on reflection I can't be bothered.
Consider their logo:
I think that we have a winner for what is possibly the worst logo for a football club ever invented. According to the official blurb it it supposed to an "M intertwined with an H in the shape of a stylised heart", so in other words it's exactly what it says on the tin. The problem is that I thought that it kind of looked like a pair of Y-Fronts. The only other thought which sprung to mind was that it kind of looks like a logo for a brand new Health Insurance company; still not what you'd expect for a football club.
What sort of name is Melbourne Heart anyway? If anything it reminds me of Captain Planet, and Ma-Ti's Power of Heart, which when it came to it, was pretty well useless.
In fact there is another football club with "Heart" in their name, but it has a far better logo and a proper historical reason for the name as well.
Heart of Midlothian FC is one of two clubs in the Scottish capital of Edinburgh. It derives its name from this mosaic pattern set into the cobblestones as part of Edinburgh's Royal Mile. Legend has it that if you spit into the heart then you will at some point in your life, return to Edinburgh.
This heart set into the street cobbles on Parliament Square marks the site of the entrance to the Old Tollbooth Prison which was built in 1561 originally as a Custom House for merchants.
It then became the Town Hall where the Privy Council, College of Justice and the Scottish Parliament met, but by the mid 17th century it had become a prison and the place of execution.
In other words, Heart of Midlothian or Hearts for short, has a proper reason for having a heart as a logo. Melbourne Heart FC is a stupid name with no underlying tradition to it.
Also, to add further fuel to the fire, the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation of Melbourne has said that it intends to pursue a legal trademark rights case because Melbourne Heart FC is too similar to the annual homeless appeal Heart of Melbourne.
For some reason in Australia, the national "franchises" for the various sporting codes have gone for more elemental names over the past few years. We now have teams called Power, Fury, Glory, Storm, Tactix, Pulse and now Heart. Wouldn't it be easier to name teams simply on where they are based? Would you for instance be able to tell where Sydney FC or Gold Coast Football Club came from? Of course you would; it's as obvious as the nose on your face.
It all highlights how ridiculous the name Melbourne Heart FC actually is. It's as if they asked a bunch of high school students to come up with a team name. Actually one of my more enduring memories from high school was when we came up with "The Alexander Graham Bell Memorial Team" as team name. It has more heart than certain other names.
Consider their logo:
I think that we have a winner for what is possibly the worst logo for a football club ever invented. According to the official blurb it it supposed to an "M intertwined with an H in the shape of a stylised heart", so in other words it's exactly what it says on the tin. The problem is that I thought that it kind of looked like a pair of Y-Fronts. The only other thought which sprung to mind was that it kind of looks like a logo for a brand new Health Insurance company; still not what you'd expect for a football club.
What sort of name is Melbourne Heart anyway? If anything it reminds me of Captain Planet, and Ma-Ti's Power of Heart, which when it came to it, was pretty well useless.
In fact there is another football club with "Heart" in their name, but it has a far better logo and a proper historical reason for the name as well.
Heart of Midlothian FC is one of two clubs in the Scottish capital of Edinburgh. It derives its name from this mosaic pattern set into the cobblestones as part of Edinburgh's Royal Mile. Legend has it that if you spit into the heart then you will at some point in your life, return to Edinburgh.
This heart set into the street cobbles on Parliament Square marks the site of the entrance to the Old Tollbooth Prison which was built in 1561 originally as a Custom House for merchants.
It then became the Town Hall where the Privy Council, College of Justice and the Scottish Parliament met, but by the mid 17th century it had become a prison and the place of execution.
In other words, Heart of Midlothian or Hearts for short, has a proper reason for having a heart as a logo. Melbourne Heart FC is a stupid name with no underlying tradition to it.
Also, to add further fuel to the fire, the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation of Melbourne has said that it intends to pursue a legal trademark rights case because Melbourne Heart FC is too similar to the annual homeless appeal Heart of Melbourne.
For some reason in Australia, the national "franchises" for the various sporting codes have gone for more elemental names over the past few years. We now have teams called Power, Fury, Glory, Storm, Tactix, Pulse and now Heart. Wouldn't it be easier to name teams simply on where they are based? Would you for instance be able to tell where Sydney FC or Gold Coast Football Club came from? Of course you would; it's as obvious as the nose on your face.
It all highlights how ridiculous the name Melbourne Heart FC actually is. It's as if they asked a bunch of high school students to come up with a team name. Actually one of my more enduring memories from high school was when we came up with "The Alexander Graham Bell Memorial Team" as team name. It has more heart than certain other names.
February 15, 2010
Horse 1069 - It is Better to Give Than to Receive
"Our real blessings often appear to us in the shape of pains, losses and disappointments; but let us have patience and we soon shall see them in their proper figures."
- Joseph Addison, 1703
I lament the fact that my Ka will probably in all likelihood be written off. Mainly because with the amount of money that insurance company is going to give me back, the cars on offer are all quite frankly crap. Prudence suggests that I should use the money to repay a loan which still exists from the honeymoon, and the expenses of setting up a home.
Being told that all things will pass and that this world scarcely compares with what is to come, might very well be true, but to be on the receiving end of such a statement sounds to me like I have just been fobbed off with a thought-terminating cliché, or yet another meaningless and trite platitude. passed off though it was significant and original.
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of people telling me that things happen for a reason, but mainly because it doesn't actually solve anything.
I wonder how many people actually know the sting of not knowing if at the end of the fortnight, whether or not you're going to have a dollar in the bank to show for it? Or thinking about just how far you can stretch the budget if you don't have lunch for the week. How about knowing that you can save 50c by buying a loaf of White Bread as opposed to Wholemeal? Or that Franklins White Bread is 17c cheaper than Woolworths?
Do other people know what it's like to see that bored expression in people's face when you tell them that you yet again can't go out on Saturday night because you don't have the money? Or the tremendous boredom that follows when they stop asking you because you couldn't afford to in the first place?
Do they know what it's like to walk home in the rain, after standing on the train for an hour an a half? How about walking home in shoes with holes in them where the water leaks in? How about not going to the dentist, or the doctors and the price that putting up with the pain is cheaper because it isn't covered by Medicare?
It's amazing how much wisdom there is in people who can not, or more to the point will not empathise with you, when they themselves have never been through similar circumstances. If anything I have been taught that richer people actually are a better class of people, and will go to extraordinary lengths to prove it. It's almost as though the Matthew Effect is running rampant:
For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what little they have will be taken away.
— Matthew 25:29
If there is a reason for all of this, I certainly don't see it; I don't much enjoy being on the receiving end of it either. And I certainly don't like being told that things could be worse, because although that is also true, it's only an oh so fragile step to going there as well.
- Joseph Addison, 1703
I lament the fact that my Ka will probably in all likelihood be written off. Mainly because with the amount of money that insurance company is going to give me back, the cars on offer are all quite frankly crap. Prudence suggests that I should use the money to repay a loan which still exists from the honeymoon, and the expenses of setting up a home.
Being told that all things will pass and that this world scarcely compares with what is to come, might very well be true, but to be on the receiving end of such a statement sounds to me like I have just been fobbed off with a thought-terminating cliché, or yet another meaningless and trite platitude. passed off though it was significant and original.
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of people telling me that things happen for a reason, but mainly because it doesn't actually solve anything.
I wonder how many people actually know the sting of not knowing if at the end of the fortnight, whether or not you're going to have a dollar in the bank to show for it? Or thinking about just how far you can stretch the budget if you don't have lunch for the week. How about knowing that you can save 50c by buying a loaf of White Bread as opposed to Wholemeal? Or that Franklins White Bread is 17c cheaper than Woolworths?
Do other people know what it's like to see that bored expression in people's face when you tell them that you yet again can't go out on Saturday night because you don't have the money? Or the tremendous boredom that follows when they stop asking you because you couldn't afford to in the first place?
Do they know what it's like to walk home in the rain, after standing on the train for an hour an a half? How about walking home in shoes with holes in them where the water leaks in? How about not going to the dentist, or the doctors and the price that putting up with the pain is cheaper because it isn't covered by Medicare?
It's amazing how much wisdom there is in people who can not, or more to the point will not empathise with you, when they themselves have never been through similar circumstances. If anything I have been taught that richer people actually are a better class of people, and will go to extraordinary lengths to prove it. It's almost as though the Matthew Effect is running rampant:
For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what little they have will be taken away.
— Matthew 25:29
If there is a reason for all of this, I certainly don't see it; I don't much enjoy being on the receiving end of it either. And I certainly don't like being told that things could be worse, because although that is also true, it's only an oh so fragile step to going there as well.
February 10, 2010
Horse 1068 - By any other name...
In my job as an accountant, I get to see a great number of interesting names. The great kaleidoscope of people's names, reflects the great diversity of culture and influences which our society has. Even so, I think that there is a point when parents who are endowed with the task of giving a newborn child a name, exceed the boundaries of sanity.
A person's name is I think, pretty fundamental to their identity. People carry their name around their entire life, and other people (in a lot of case quite wrongly) bring outside impressions and prejudices to that name. No sane person for instance would call their son either Adolf, Judas, or Jesus. The first two because we wouldn't wish the associated prejudice which would follow on anyone, and the latter because the weight of that name is also far too great.
Yet there is a growing trend I've noticed for people to give their children "unique" names (by unique, I mean euphemistically "stupid"); I think that it's hideously unfair on the poor unfortunate child who must live with it.
Just in the past month I've seen the following names of children of our clients:
Makynli:
I think that this supposed to a respelling of MacKinlay. If it is, then why does a girl get this name? Secondly, what sort of embarrassment and annoyance will this poor child suffer because she has to spell her name over the telephone, and over the counter to banks, and other institutions?
Mychal:
Why couldn't these people just have picked Michael for? Michael is a good honest name. Mychal sounds more than a little bit camp, or if you are of a literary persuasion, like the lumbering lazy brother of Sherlock Holmes (who was called Mycroft - an equally silly name).
Jaron:
I now know of four Jarons. Admittedly it means "the sound of Israel rejoicing", but it sounds like a corruption of Aaron and Jack or something.
Nevaeh:
I am totally at a loss at how to pronounce this name. Is it like the Croatian name Neve, or is it like the word Never?
Madisyns:
I assume that this name is a respelling of Madison (which is a name I already dislike) with an s on the end. What makes this utterly atrocious is that Madisyns is a little boy. Giving boy's names to a girl is one thing, but when this boy is 10 or 11 years old, I bet that he's going to find himself bashed up after school.
The award for the most truly horrible names I've ever heard are for a couple of twin girls whose names are Kofisha which admittedly sounds perfectly fine with the Batswan surname name Moputu (Kofisha Moputu works reasonably well), and her sister Eee, which means "the exalted princess".
The problem is that these two parents although they were living in Botswana where there might be plenty of Eees and Kofishas, but they've moved back to Sydney and their surname is... Thompson*. By the way what sort of name is Eee anyway? You can just imagine the phone call with the bank:
Can I have your first name please?
Eee.
What?
Eee.
Did you say E?
Yes.
No, I want your first name, not just the initial.
That is my first name.
What? E?
Yes, Eee.
Could you spell that please?
E e e.
Eeee?
No, three Es.
E e e?
Yes.
That's unusual...
I feel sorry for poor Eee... and Kofisha, and Madisyns, Nevaeh, Jaron, Mychal, Makynli and every other Tyrone, Cheyenne, Acedia, Thecla, Dusk and Kelsea. Your parents are clearly all bonkers, and you're paying for it, forever.
*Well actually not really. I changed it for privacy reasons, but it is that common.
A person's name is I think, pretty fundamental to their identity. People carry their name around their entire life, and other people (in a lot of case quite wrongly) bring outside impressions and prejudices to that name. No sane person for instance would call their son either Adolf, Judas, or Jesus. The first two because we wouldn't wish the associated prejudice which would follow on anyone, and the latter because the weight of that name is also far too great.
Yet there is a growing trend I've noticed for people to give their children "unique" names (by unique, I mean euphemistically "stupid"); I think that it's hideously unfair on the poor unfortunate child who must live with it.
Just in the past month I've seen the following names of children of our clients:
Makynli:
I think that this supposed to a respelling of MacKinlay. If it is, then why does a girl get this name? Secondly, what sort of embarrassment and annoyance will this poor child suffer because she has to spell her name over the telephone, and over the counter to banks, and other institutions?
Mychal:
Why couldn't these people just have picked Michael for? Michael is a good honest name. Mychal sounds more than a little bit camp, or if you are of a literary persuasion, like the lumbering lazy brother of Sherlock Holmes (who was called Mycroft - an equally silly name).
Jaron:
I now know of four Jarons. Admittedly it means "the sound of Israel rejoicing", but it sounds like a corruption of Aaron and Jack or something.
Nevaeh:
I am totally at a loss at how to pronounce this name. Is it like the Croatian name Neve, or is it like the word Never?
Madisyns:
I assume that this name is a respelling of Madison (which is a name I already dislike) with an s on the end. What makes this utterly atrocious is that Madisyns is a little boy. Giving boy's names to a girl is one thing, but when this boy is 10 or 11 years old, I bet that he's going to find himself bashed up after school.
The award for the most truly horrible names I've ever heard are for a couple of twin girls whose names are Kofisha which admittedly sounds perfectly fine with the Batswan surname name Moputu (Kofisha Moputu works reasonably well), and her sister Eee, which means "the exalted princess".
The problem is that these two parents although they were living in Botswana where there might be plenty of Eees and Kofishas, but they've moved back to Sydney and their surname is... Thompson*. By the way what sort of name is Eee anyway? You can just imagine the phone call with the bank:
Can I have your first name please?
Eee.
What?
Eee.
Did you say E?
Yes.
No, I want your first name, not just the initial.
That is my first name.
What? E?
Yes, Eee.
Could you spell that please?
E e e.
Eeee?
No, three Es.
E e e?
Yes.
That's unusual...
I feel sorry for poor Eee... and Kofisha, and Madisyns, Nevaeh, Jaron, Mychal, Makynli and every other Tyrone, Cheyenne, Acedia, Thecla, Dusk and Kelsea. Your parents are clearly all bonkers, and you're paying for it, forever.
*Well actually not really. I changed it for privacy reasons, but it is that common.
February 09, 2010
Horse 1067 - Should we Raise the Drinking Age?
PM Kevin Rudd was answering questions on ABC1's "Q and A" programme in the Old Parliament House last night, and one of the questions put to him was whether or not he personally was in favour of raising the legal drinking age to 21, as is the case with a number of American States.
Mr Rudd who is a declared Christian* (and who also regularly attends an Anglican Church), stated that his personal opinion was that he would like to see the age raised to 21 but that it would be policy which should in due course be subject to a proper debate.
"But I believe in something called evidence-based policy, which is if the evidence is there and it's capable of being proven and it works, then we look at these things and make a decision. But you're asking me for a personal impression, and you don't run policy that way."
- Kevin Rudd, ABC Q and A
This of course raises an interesting question. How do we respond to this? If it was personally up to me, I would leave it at 18.
Age of Majority Act 1919
s3. Subject to this section for all the purposes of the laws of the Commonwealth-
(a) a person who, on or after the day of commencement of this Act attains the age of eighteen years, attains full age and full capacity on attaining that age.
The legalese of this Act basically states that at law, the everyone who is aged 18 and over is legally held responsible for their own actions. This single piece of legislation, in one fell swoop defines when someone can vote, when they are allowed to purchase cigarettes and alcohol, when they can be conscripted for military service and when they can face a court for their own actions if they break the law.
The reason for this lies in conditions which helped to forge the legend of this nation itself. In WW1 or what was then called "The Great War", it was possible for 18, 19, and 20 year olds to die in the service of their country on some far flung field, and still not have any say about the government which directed them there.
Having said this, I think that it is obvious that some people will knowingly behave stupidly irrespective of the law. If all the government does is change the law, and the underlying attitudes which create a problem in the first place do not change, then all that happens is the criminalisation of something for which people are held responsible.
Unless you changed the minimum drinking age to something like 40, you're still going to get youthful exuberance leading to a significant proportion of alcohol abusers. From what I can tell (although admittedly I am no expert and haven't researched the issue in depth, so I'm willing to be proved wrong) there isn't a significantly reduced incidence of alcohol-related problems in somewhere like America, where the drinking age is 21, as compared to Australia.
The problem with drinking in Australia isn't age, it's the culture/attitudes of both young people and adults who encourage drinking to the point where they cannot image any event or occasion without it, or create occasions just for getting completely wasted. Raising the age will not fix this; what needs to be addressed is why people (of all ages) are drinking so much so regularly. In Italy and France where the drinking age is as low as 14, the culture for some reason doesn't seem to lead to mass cases of drunkenness and violence.
The obvious question is what purpose does the law itself serve. If the law can be shown to shape and modify society for the better, then there is a strong case to be made for changing it, but if it can not, then questions need to be asked.
Laws exist in principle either as a guideline, a boundary, an instruction or a standard. The question which I ask runs concurrently with that standard, namely is it right to assume that someone has full legal responsible for their own actions, whilst at the same time denying them reciprocal privileges under the law?
That is a little bit more difficult to answer. Personally, I think that if you do hold someone fully legally responsible for their own actions, then those reciprocal privileges should follow; thus the age of 18 should remain...
... or perhaps we should just raise the Age of Majority to 21 and be done with it.
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1362997.htm
- This makes for some interesting reading.
Mr Rudd who is a declared Christian* (and who also regularly attends an Anglican Church), stated that his personal opinion was that he would like to see the age raised to 21 but that it would be policy which should in due course be subject to a proper debate.
"But I believe in something called evidence-based policy, which is if the evidence is there and it's capable of being proven and it works, then we look at these things and make a decision. But you're asking me for a personal impression, and you don't run policy that way."
- Kevin Rudd, ABC Q and A
This of course raises an interesting question. How do we respond to this? If it was personally up to me, I would leave it at 18.
Age of Majority Act 1919
s3. Subject to this section for all the purposes of the laws of the Commonwealth-
(a) a person who, on or after the day of commencement of this Act attains the age of eighteen years, attains full age and full capacity on attaining that age.
The legalese of this Act basically states that at law, the everyone who is aged 18 and over is legally held responsible for their own actions. This single piece of legislation, in one fell swoop defines when someone can vote, when they are allowed to purchase cigarettes and alcohol, when they can be conscripted for military service and when they can face a court for their own actions if they break the law.
The reason for this lies in conditions which helped to forge the legend of this nation itself. In WW1 or what was then called "The Great War", it was possible for 18, 19, and 20 year olds to die in the service of their country on some far flung field, and still not have any say about the government which directed them there.
Having said this, I think that it is obvious that some people will knowingly behave stupidly irrespective of the law. If all the government does is change the law, and the underlying attitudes which create a problem in the first place do not change, then all that happens is the criminalisation of something for which people are held responsible.
Unless you changed the minimum drinking age to something like 40, you're still going to get youthful exuberance leading to a significant proportion of alcohol abusers. From what I can tell (although admittedly I am no expert and haven't researched the issue in depth, so I'm willing to be proved wrong) there isn't a significantly reduced incidence of alcohol-related problems in somewhere like America, where the drinking age is 21, as compared to Australia.
The problem with drinking in Australia isn't age, it's the culture/attitudes of both young people and adults who encourage drinking to the point where they cannot image any event or occasion without it, or create occasions just for getting completely wasted. Raising the age will not fix this; what needs to be addressed is why people (of all ages) are drinking so much so regularly. In Italy and France where the drinking age is as low as 14, the culture for some reason doesn't seem to lead to mass cases of drunkenness and violence.
The obvious question is what purpose does the law itself serve. If the law can be shown to shape and modify society for the better, then there is a strong case to be made for changing it, but if it can not, then questions need to be asked.
Laws exist in principle either as a guideline, a boundary, an instruction or a standard. The question which I ask runs concurrently with that standard, namely is it right to assume that someone has full legal responsible for their own actions, whilst at the same time denying them reciprocal privileges under the law?
That is a little bit more difficult to answer. Personally, I think that if you do hold someone fully legally responsible for their own actions, then those reciprocal privileges should follow; thus the age of 18 should remain...
... or perhaps we should just raise the Age of Majority to 21 and be done with it.
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1362997.htm
- This makes for some interesting reading.
February 02, 2010
Horse 1066 - Barriers, Fences and All That
The Sydney Morning Herald today reports that Pakistan's ports Minister Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani has called for tighter security after the incident involving Khalid Latif on Sunday night, and whilst I agree that something should be done I'm not sure if the examples shown by the SMH are actually sensible.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/it-is-no-good-waiting-for-someone-to-die-before-making-decisions-20100201-n8ym.html
PAKISTAN'S Sports Minister Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani has urged Cricket Australia to set up barriers at grounds and ban alcohol following the tackle by a spectator on Khalid Latif in Perth on Sunday night.
"The thing that really worried me, what if that person had a knife on him, he got there and could have done anything he wanted," Jakhrani told the Herald. "They should ban alcohol at grounds. There should be some kind of barrier or restriction to stop people entering the ground. This is the right time to think about these things. It is no good waiting for someone to die before making decisions."
Grounds in the subcontinent have barbed-wire fences dividing players from spectators, which has prevented the ground invasions that are frustratingly common during the Australian summer.
Mr Jakhrani who is of course acting in the interests of safety for his players, I think has entirely the right spirit. There should be a stronger deterrent to stop people from entering the field of play. However, the suggestion to erect barriers is in my opinion quite dangerous.
21 years ago when Liverpool played Nottingham Forest in an FA Cup Semi Final, 96 people were killed in a crowd crush in the now world infamous Hillsborough Stadium Tragedy. The subsequent Taylor Report which was commissioned into the disaster actually pointed to the crowd barriers among other things* as a root cause of the disaster in the first place. If there was a crowd crush in a stadium with "barbed-wire fences dividing players from spectators" as perhaps the Herald as implied, then I for one would not wish to be within 25 meters of said fence.
Apart from the 96 people who died, another 766 people were injured and around 300 people were hospitalised. One shudders to think what would happen under such circumstances if you then introduce barbed-wire into the mix.
Certainly I agree with the sentiment that crowd security and player safety should be looked into because this is quite a prudent thing to do, but introducing measures which in other circumstances which have proved to be fatal, might well be a price which is simply unbearable.
Having said this, the recommendations which came out of the Taylor Report are worth revisiting, for the administrators of any sporting code where they expect large numbers of people to be seated in a relatively small area, but I would have expected this as part of the normal review process.
There is of course the other question about banning alcohol at cricket matches. One thing to bear in mind is that Mr Jakhrani represents the interests of an Islamic nation, and as such the consumption of alcoholic beverages by Muslims is officially illegal in Pakistan, so I don't quite know if this is a backhanded method of enforcing Islamic values on the West.
Most major sporting venues in Australia either prohibit the bringing of alcohol into the venue, and also have as part of their licencing agreements and regulations, both the responsible service of and a prohibition of removal of alcohol.
At any rate, the 37-year-old man who tackled Khalid Latif to the ground has not actually been charged with drunkenness, but with the more serious charges of assault and trespass and has also won himself a life ban from the WACA Ground.
Perhaps the best thing in this case would be a punitive fine of $10,000 for invading the pitch: this seems to work quite effectively in both Sydney and Melbourne. But the idea of erecting a potentially lethal barrier around the pitch itself, I think should be killed here and now.
*The recommendations of the Taylor Report included points on items such as the sale of alcohol within stadia, crush barriers, fences, turnstiles, ticket prices and other stadium items.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/it-is-no-good-waiting-for-someone-to-die-before-making-decisions-20100201-n8ym.html
PAKISTAN'S Sports Minister Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani has urged Cricket Australia to set up barriers at grounds and ban alcohol following the tackle by a spectator on Khalid Latif in Perth on Sunday night.
"The thing that really worried me, what if that person had a knife on him, he got there and could have done anything he wanted," Jakhrani told the Herald. "They should ban alcohol at grounds. There should be some kind of barrier or restriction to stop people entering the ground. This is the right time to think about these things. It is no good waiting for someone to die before making decisions."
Grounds in the subcontinent have barbed-wire fences dividing players from spectators, which has prevented the ground invasions that are frustratingly common during the Australian summer.
Mr Jakhrani who is of course acting in the interests of safety for his players, I think has entirely the right spirit. There should be a stronger deterrent to stop people from entering the field of play. However, the suggestion to erect barriers is in my opinion quite dangerous.
21 years ago when Liverpool played Nottingham Forest in an FA Cup Semi Final, 96 people were killed in a crowd crush in the now world infamous Hillsborough Stadium Tragedy. The subsequent Taylor Report which was commissioned into the disaster actually pointed to the crowd barriers among other things* as a root cause of the disaster in the first place. If there was a crowd crush in a stadium with "barbed-wire fences dividing players from spectators" as perhaps the Herald as implied, then I for one would not wish to be within 25 meters of said fence.
Apart from the 96 people who died, another 766 people were injured and around 300 people were hospitalised. One shudders to think what would happen under such circumstances if you then introduce barbed-wire into the mix.
Certainly I agree with the sentiment that crowd security and player safety should be looked into because this is quite a prudent thing to do, but introducing measures which in other circumstances which have proved to be fatal, might well be a price which is simply unbearable.
Having said this, the recommendations which came out of the Taylor Report are worth revisiting, for the administrators of any sporting code where they expect large numbers of people to be seated in a relatively small area, but I would have expected this as part of the normal review process.
There is of course the other question about banning alcohol at cricket matches. One thing to bear in mind is that Mr Jakhrani represents the interests of an Islamic nation, and as such the consumption of alcoholic beverages by Muslims is officially illegal in Pakistan, so I don't quite know if this is a backhanded method of enforcing Islamic values on the West.
Most major sporting venues in Australia either prohibit the bringing of alcohol into the venue, and also have as part of their licencing agreements and regulations, both the responsible service of and a prohibition of removal of alcohol.
At any rate, the 37-year-old man who tackled Khalid Latif to the ground has not actually been charged with drunkenness, but with the more serious charges of assault and trespass and has also won himself a life ban from the WACA Ground.
Perhaps the best thing in this case would be a punitive fine of $10,000 for invading the pitch: this seems to work quite effectively in both Sydney and Melbourne. But the idea of erecting a potentially lethal barrier around the pitch itself, I think should be killed here and now.
*The recommendations of the Taylor Report included points on items such as the sale of alcohol within stadia, crush barriers, fences, turnstiles, ticket prices and other stadium items.
February 01, 2010
Horse 1065 - Making The Difference
At lunchtime this afternoon, I was on my way to the Post Office to pay several bills when a white Toyota Tarago van drove past and on the side was an advert for a company called Master Coaching.
Now the only reason that I even think that this is worth mentioning is because of their logo, which looks like this:
from: http://www.mastercoaching.com.au
Now I don't know about you but a company which self-styles itself in promoting "Advanced Learning Techniques" should have realised that their logo has a fraction on it; moreover the value of that fraction is... 0.
0 - zero, nil, nada, null, naught, zip and zilch.
Any fraction with 0 as the numerator (expect where the results are undefined) has a value of 0. Of course if it is supposed to be a heraldic device where the field is a party per bend sinister, then the party in the "upper" field is the dominant party; therefore the dominant is... 0.
0 - zero, nil, nada, null, naught, zip and zilch.
What are they trying to say here? That if you use their services then the extent to which they actually are "making the difference" is zero?
Now the only reason that I even think that this is worth mentioning is because of their logo, which looks like this:
from: http://www.mastercoaching.com.au
Now I don't know about you but a company which self-styles itself in promoting "Advanced Learning Techniques" should have realised that their logo has a fraction on it; moreover the value of that fraction is... 0.
0 - zero, nil, nada, null, naught, zip and zilch.
Any fraction with 0 as the numerator (expect where the results are undefined) has a value of 0. Of course if it is supposed to be a heraldic device where the field is a party per bend sinister, then the party in the "upper" field is the dominant party; therefore the dominant is... 0.
0 - zero, nil, nada, null, naught, zip and zilch.
What are they trying to say here? That if you use their services then the extent to which they actually are "making the difference" is zero?
January 28, 2010
Horse 1064 - Advance Australia Where?
As I walk out into the world today in the post-exuberance of Australia Day (thought ot be fair yesterday was in all actuality quite normal), I do not look out into a sea of green and gold, but a very different colour, yes, woad. Or rather Pantone colour 280, Navy Blue, #000080, RGB (0,0,128). The very same navy blue that forms the background colour of the Australian Flag.
The point being that every January 26th, someone always invariably starts a debate in the newspapers about whether or not Australia should change its flag and/or become a republic. The usual reasons are that it is not representative of our history, or that people find it offensive to have "the flag of another country" pasted on ours. "Bosh" I say top all of that! Pooh to you with highly polished brass knobs on. If the Australian Flag was so offensive then why is it plastered everywhere? This is of course just an aside to the main thrust of this post, which is:
What is the point of an Australian Republic?
It must be said that in Australia, we have enjoyed 110 years of political stability, and in the case of the states which operate under the same model, parliaments which extend all the way back to 1855; in fact the NSW State Parliament is the longest continuously operating parliament in the world.
This is not merely a case of "if it aint broke, don't fix it" because the stakes are far higher than just changing a figurehead. The way I figure, if Australia was to become a republic, the obvious question would be what form it would take.
Assuming Australia was to adopt a republican model, then presumably the head of state who would probably be called a President. If there is a President, then what is his relation to the Prime Minister?
If the President replaces the Governor-General, then is the President to be elected by the parliament or by the people? If the President is to be elected by the people, then what sorts of powers do they have? Are they to be defined or a loose sort of nebulous arrangement like the current Governor-General? And if the President is to be elected by the people, does that infer that the President would have a mandate to exercise those as yet undefined powers?
The Constitution of Australia provides that in order to change the constitution, that a referendum be held and that it be carried by a majority of voters in a majority of states. This all sounds fine and dandy, but in order to frame a change to the constitution it would either require putting forward a model to be voted either "Yes" or "No" on, or if in the event that the government of the day wanted to gauge what public opinion actually was, it would have to hold a series of non-binding plebiscites to determine the will of the people. The latter option is more likely to result in a negative outcome for those who would want to change to a republican model.
Personally I would prefer that Australia remains within the British Commonwealth, but I suspect that the will of the vocal would rather drown out my voice with a cacophonous din. Then again, I wonder if they've thought through all of the implications.
The point being that every January 26th, someone always invariably starts a debate in the newspapers about whether or not Australia should change its flag and/or become a republic. The usual reasons are that it is not representative of our history, or that people find it offensive to have "the flag of another country" pasted on ours. "Bosh" I say top all of that! Pooh to you with highly polished brass knobs on. If the Australian Flag was so offensive then why is it plastered everywhere? This is of course just an aside to the main thrust of this post, which is:
What is the point of an Australian Republic?
It must be said that in Australia, we have enjoyed 110 years of political stability, and in the case of the states which operate under the same model, parliaments which extend all the way back to 1855; in fact the NSW State Parliament is the longest continuously operating parliament in the world.
This is not merely a case of "if it aint broke, don't fix it" because the stakes are far higher than just changing a figurehead. The way I figure, if Australia was to become a republic, the obvious question would be what form it would take.
Assuming Australia was to adopt a republican model, then presumably the head of state who would probably be called a President. If there is a President, then what is his relation to the Prime Minister?
If the President replaces the Governor-General, then is the President to be elected by the parliament or by the people? If the President is to be elected by the people, then what sorts of powers do they have? Are they to be defined or a loose sort of nebulous arrangement like the current Governor-General? And if the President is to be elected by the people, does that infer that the President would have a mandate to exercise those as yet undefined powers?
The Constitution of Australia provides that in order to change the constitution, that a referendum be held and that it be carried by a majority of voters in a majority of states. This all sounds fine and dandy, but in order to frame a change to the constitution it would either require putting forward a model to be voted either "Yes" or "No" on, or if in the event that the government of the day wanted to gauge what public opinion actually was, it would have to hold a series of non-binding plebiscites to determine the will of the people. The latter option is more likely to result in a negative outcome for those who would want to change to a republican model.
Personally I would prefer that Australia remains within the British Commonwealth, but I suspect that the will of the vocal would rather drown out my voice with a cacophonous din. Then again, I wonder if they've thought through all of the implications.
January 13, 2010
Horse 1063 - Personal Whingers
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/fat-fees-threaten-to-push-personal-trainers-past-their-limits-20100112-m4u5.html
Personal trainers who are feeling the burn as more Sydney councils charge a fee for the use of parks, sporting fields and beaches have warned they will have to pass the cost on to their clients.
The gist of this article is essentially an emotive argument perhaps trying to convince readers to somehow feel sorry for Personal Trainers having to pay usage fees for public parks. The obvious claim is that with increased park use fees, then those additional costs will be passed onto their clients and thus tend to make them unviable.
I would ask Fitness Australia to take a good hard look at itself and stop whinging!
What do they think of not-for-profit organisations having to pay councils far more than a mere $550 a year? Plenty of local sporting teams such as cricket, netball, football, field hockey are already paying upwards of $5000 a year for the use of sporting fields, and you don't hear them bleating to the Sydney Morning Herald about paying fees to local councils.
And just who are the sorts of people who are likely to be engaged in hiring a personal trainer in the first place? If you were to take a look at the economic demographics, then I'd wager that in 99% of all cases, it is people in the highest wage brackets; hence the reason why the particular councils being questioned are Waverley, Randwick, City of Sydney , North Sydney and Mosman councils. These aren't exactly the poorest of areas now are they?*
It is exactly the sort of people who can most afford to pay, who engage these sorts of services and who live in these areas in the first place.
Don't expect me to feel sorry for these people. By council area they are exactly the same people who by default condone charging de facto "usage fees" though exorbitant parking charges at Sydney's popular beaches.
Boo Hoo Hoo - my heart bleeds for you.
*According to the ABS Book of the Year for 2008, all of the top 25 "richest" suburbs in NSW are contained within these 5 councils.
Personal trainers who are feeling the burn as more Sydney councils charge a fee for the use of parks, sporting fields and beaches have warned they will have to pass the cost on to their clients.
The gist of this article is essentially an emotive argument perhaps trying to convince readers to somehow feel sorry for Personal Trainers having to pay usage fees for public parks. The obvious claim is that with increased park use fees, then those additional costs will be passed onto their clients and thus tend to make them unviable.
Stiff Cheddar!
I would ask Fitness Australia to take a good hard look at itself and stop whinging!
What do they think of not-for-profit organisations having to pay councils far more than a mere $550 a year? Plenty of local sporting teams such as cricket, netball, football, field hockey are already paying upwards of $5000 a year for the use of sporting fields, and you don't hear them bleating to the Sydney Morning Herald about paying fees to local councils.
And just who are the sorts of people who are likely to be engaged in hiring a personal trainer in the first place? If you were to take a look at the economic demographics, then I'd wager that in 99% of all cases, it is people in the highest wage brackets; hence the reason why the particular councils being questioned are Waverley, Randwick, City of Sydney , North Sydney and Mosman councils. These aren't exactly the poorest of areas now are they?*
It is exactly the sort of people who can most afford to pay, who engage these sorts of services and who live in these areas in the first place.
Don't expect me to feel sorry for these people. By council area they are exactly the same people who by default condone charging de facto "usage fees" though exorbitant parking charges at Sydney's popular beaches.
Boo Hoo Hoo - my heart bleeds for you.
*According to the ABS Book of the Year for 2008, all of the top 25 "richest" suburbs in NSW are contained within these 5 councils.
January 12, 2010
Horse 1062 - Ford Focus in Focus
http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1041466_2010-detroit-auto-show-2012-ford-focus
Photos have gone around the world over the past few hours of the 2011 Ford Focus, that is to say the Ford Focus Mk3.
The car again shares the Ford C1 platform which the Focus Mk2 sat one as does the Mazda 3 and the Volvo S40 and C30. The engine choices from what I can gather will be more or less the same but with more of a drive towards Ford's Econetic program. This would logically include the current range from 1.4L to 2.0L in petrol and diesel and the 2.5L RS variants.
As far as styling goes, the car shares the same styling trend as the current Fiesta Mk6 though that bar across the centre appears to be in deference to the North American range of cars such as the Ford Taurus, Ford Fusion and the rather odd looking Ford Flex.
What I find most disappointing about this car isn't that it looks like the Fiesta (which I quite like) but that it looks like everyone else. That pinched D-Pillar may as well be on the Opel/Vauxhall Astra¹ , Hyundai's i30, the Mazda 3, Seat Leon, etc etc etc. To be honest I was hoping for something a little more cutting edge from Ford, perhaps I shouldn't have bothered.
Remember, that this is the car for which Ford Australia were given $149m to be a part of after they announced that it would be built at Broadmeadows in 2011², and then pulled the project during the Global Financial Ripoff³.
What the car will do, is finally a) merge the North American Focus with the rest of the world and b) hopefully remove the Detroit's design houses insistence to barry up the American version.
I mean really... Yeuch!
¹which we in Australia never got because Holden think that the great Australian public are incredibly stupid, so fob us off with Daewoos.
²http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=41903
³http://www.themotorreport.com.au/38133/ford-abandons-local-focus-in-favour-of-ecoboost-four-cylinder-falcon-and-diesel-territory/
- Wow. Three sidenotes! What a truly bonkers day.
Photos have gone around the world over the past few hours of the 2011 Ford Focus, that is to say the Ford Focus Mk3.
The car again shares the Ford C1 platform which the Focus Mk2 sat one as does the Mazda 3 and the Volvo S40 and C30. The engine choices from what I can gather will be more or less the same but with more of a drive towards Ford's Econetic program. This would logically include the current range from 1.4L to 2.0L in petrol and diesel and the 2.5L RS variants.
As far as styling goes, the car shares the same styling trend as the current Fiesta Mk6 though that bar across the centre appears to be in deference to the North American range of cars such as the Ford Taurus, Ford Fusion and the rather odd looking Ford Flex.
What I find most disappointing about this car isn't that it looks like the Fiesta (which I quite like) but that it looks like everyone else. That pinched D-Pillar may as well be on the Opel/Vauxhall Astra¹ , Hyundai's i30, the Mazda 3, Seat Leon, etc etc etc. To be honest I was hoping for something a little more cutting edge from Ford, perhaps I shouldn't have bothered.
Remember, that this is the car for which Ford Australia were given $149m to be a part of after they announced that it would be built at Broadmeadows in 2011², and then pulled the project during the Global Financial Ripoff³.
What the car will do, is finally a) merge the North American Focus with the rest of the world and b) hopefully remove the Detroit's design houses insistence to barry up the American version.
I mean really... Yeuch!
¹which we in Australia never got because Holden think that the great Australian public are incredibly stupid, so fob us off with Daewoos.
²http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=41903
³http://www.themotorreport.com.au/38133/ford-abandons-local-focus-in-favour-of-ecoboost-four-cylinder-falcon-and-diesel-territory/
- Wow. Three sidenotes! What a truly bonkers day.
December 21, 2009
Horse 1061 - St Mary McKillop... why?
News this weekend broke that Mary McKillop has fulfilled the relevant criteria for canonisation as a saint. This post is broken into two parts:
Part A - The Serious Bit.
Not being a Catholic myself, I find the whole question of sainthood somewhat perplexing. Was this the Catholic Church trying to wedge itself into the pantheon of existing Roman life? The theory goes that you can pray to whatever saint for this or that and they will intercede on your behalf, notwithstanding the fact that dead people are dead and can not do anything, and thanks to Christ himself, the curtain was opened and Christians come to the Father through him - I am The Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except by Me.
Doctrinally it simply makes no sense.
There is of course the blatantly obvious question of just what is a saint in the first place. The usual Greek word for "saints" in the New Testament is the word Hagion, which roughly translated simply means "the Holy Ones". Ephesians 6:18 is an exhortation to keep on praying for all the saints, which if you were to believe the Catholic Church's limited rendering of the word would imply that we are to pray for those people who have been canonised as a saint.
This also doctrinally makes no sense.
Even the word "saint" itself is derived from the Latin "sanctus", from which we get the word sanctify and all related words. Sanctification by definition is being set apart for some special use. The letter to the Hebrews (10:10) again implies that this setting apart is common of all Christians and not just those selected by some internal church process. "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
It seems to me that this whole business of canonisation is a bit silly. On the other hand the idea of having heroes and people to look up to probably is a good idea. Society generally has heroes like Don Bradman, George Washington, Winston Churchill, David Beckham, Ludwig Van Beethoven etc and whatever, but the idea that you can pray to them and expect some sort of result is preposterous.
Part B - The Not Serious Bit.
Admittedly the whole idea of "Sainthood" and that you can pray to them is ridiculous, biblically flawed and utterly stupid, but if we absolutely must must must make Mary McKillop a saint, it stand to reason that she should be the patron saint of something.
St Honorius is the patron saint of bakers and confectioners. St James is the patron saint of judges... and David Jones city stores... and Newcastle United Football Club. St Martin is the patron saint of drunkards (how appropriate that the Commonwealth Law Courts in Sydney be between St James Station and Martin Place). St Christopher is the patron saint of travelling. St Andrew is the patron saint of old maids. St Erasmus is the patron saint of seasickness... etc etc etc.
It follows that St Mary McKillop should be the patron saint of something uniquely Australian, like the Barbecue, so that your snags could be done properly instead of burnt on the outside and raw in the middle. Perhaps she could be patron saint of the Hills Hoist, to make sure that it doesn't rain on your washing, or birds don't do their business on it.
No, on reflection there is only one thing that St Mary McKillop should be the patron saint of and that is football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars. Let's face it we already have the hymn to go with it. And let's make it a public holiday, because that would be traditionally Australian, having a public holiday for things no-one cares about... like Labour Day, or Queen's Birthday... or Christmas... er... hmm.
Part A - The Serious Bit.
Not being a Catholic myself, I find the whole question of sainthood somewhat perplexing. Was this the Catholic Church trying to wedge itself into the pantheon of existing Roman life? The theory goes that you can pray to whatever saint for this or that and they will intercede on your behalf, notwithstanding the fact that dead people are dead and can not do anything, and thanks to Christ himself, the curtain was opened and Christians come to the Father through him - I am The Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except by Me.
Doctrinally it simply makes no sense.
There is of course the blatantly obvious question of just what is a saint in the first place. The usual Greek word for "saints" in the New Testament is the word Hagion, which roughly translated simply means "the Holy Ones". Ephesians 6:18 is an exhortation to keep on praying for all the saints, which if you were to believe the Catholic Church's limited rendering of the word would imply that we are to pray for those people who have been canonised as a saint.
This also doctrinally makes no sense.
Even the word "saint" itself is derived from the Latin "sanctus", from which we get the word sanctify and all related words. Sanctification by definition is being set apart for some special use. The letter to the Hebrews (10:10) again implies that this setting apart is common of all Christians and not just those selected by some internal church process. "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
It seems to me that this whole business of canonisation is a bit silly. On the other hand the idea of having heroes and people to look up to probably is a good idea. Society generally has heroes like Don Bradman, George Washington, Winston Churchill, David Beckham, Ludwig Van Beethoven etc and whatever, but the idea that you can pray to them and expect some sort of result is preposterous.
Part B - The Not Serious Bit.
Admittedly the whole idea of "Sainthood" and that you can pray to them is ridiculous, biblically flawed and utterly stupid, but if we absolutely must must must make Mary McKillop a saint, it stand to reason that she should be the patron saint of something.
St Honorius is the patron saint of bakers and confectioners. St James is the patron saint of judges... and David Jones city stores... and Newcastle United Football Club. St Martin is the patron saint of drunkards (how appropriate that the Commonwealth Law Courts in Sydney be between St James Station and Martin Place). St Christopher is the patron saint of travelling. St Andrew is the patron saint of old maids. St Erasmus is the patron saint of seasickness... etc etc etc.
It follows that St Mary McKillop should be the patron saint of something uniquely Australian, like the Barbecue, so that your snags could be done properly instead of burnt on the outside and raw in the middle. Perhaps she could be patron saint of the Hills Hoist, to make sure that it doesn't rain on your washing, or birds don't do their business on it.
No, on reflection there is only one thing that St Mary McKillop should be the patron saint of and that is football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars. Let's face it we already have the hymn to go with it. And let's make it a public holiday, because that would be traditionally Australian, having a public holiday for things no-one cares about... like Labour Day, or Queen's Birthday... or Christmas... er... hmm.
December 15, 2009
Horse 1060 - Hamas' 22nd Birthday
December 14 is a day which to be totally fair should hang in infamy, for December 14 is the anniversary of the formation of Hamas, a is a "Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement" (their words) or what I would call a very well organised socio-political terrorist organization.
We find that that prize goof Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has come out in support of Hamas, followed by an official meeting in Tehran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1134902.html
Meanwhile, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal met in Tehran with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday. The Iranian president stressed his support for Hamas, saying, "The Iranian government and the Iranian people will always stand by the Palestinians and the Palestinian resistance.
Today Palestine is a symbol of the world-wide front of those who seek liberty from the militants," he said. Ahmadinejad said Iran doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and supports Hamas and Hezbollah.
Lets just look at that again... Ahmadinejad said Iran doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and supports Hamas and Hezbollah. What?
Hamas has in as many words as one of its objectives, the destruction of Israel.
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)
This is the part where usually I'd quote the bible and show that because of a promise to Abraham, that the land belongs to Israel, however on this occasion I'm not going to do this. I shall choose a source which in theory an Islamic Resitance Movement should follow; this would be none other that the Qu'ran itself.
Sura 5:20-21
Recall that Moses said to his people (the Jews), “O my people, remember GOD’s blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people.
“O my people, enter the holy land (Israel) that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers.”
Sura 17:104
And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.
According to even the Qu'ran itself the land belongs to Israel because of the promise to Moses, then Abraham and then Issac. What I would really like is for an Islamic scholar to try to prove otherwise. If they try to invoke the principle that Israel vacated the land and were conquered, then by rights the land should belong to Great Britain, because they re-conquered it and won it as a spoil of victory by General Allenby, with the British Mandate and occupation taking place from 1917 onwards. If to the victor goes the spoils then its their decision as to what to do with those spoils.
This rubbish about returning the country to so-called pre-1967 borders is to be honest a load of highly refined bull twaddle. The truth is (and Hamas never admits this) is that the proposed 1919 borders which were totally enclosed by the British Mandate included the Negev, both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, a zone to the east of the Jordan and extending into the Lebanon and the Golan heights.
So Hamas, on this your anniversary, I don't support you, the Qu'ran doesn't support you and even history doesn't support you. The only people who do... are madmen.
We find that that prize goof Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has come out in support of Hamas, followed by an official meeting in Tehran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1134902.html
Meanwhile, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal met in Tehran with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday. The Iranian president stressed his support for Hamas, saying, "The Iranian government and the Iranian people will always stand by the Palestinians and the Palestinian resistance.
Today Palestine is a symbol of the world-wide front of those who seek liberty from the militants," he said. Ahmadinejad said Iran doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and supports Hamas and Hezbollah.
Lets just look at that again... Ahmadinejad said Iran doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and supports Hamas and Hezbollah. What?
Hamas has in as many words as one of its objectives, the destruction of Israel.
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)
This is the part where usually I'd quote the bible and show that because of a promise to Abraham, that the land belongs to Israel, however on this occasion I'm not going to do this. I shall choose a source which in theory an Islamic Resitance Movement should follow; this would be none other that the Qu'ran itself.
Sura 5:20-21
Recall that Moses said to his people (the Jews), “O my people, remember GOD’s blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people.
“O my people, enter the holy land (Israel) that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers.”
Sura 17:104
And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.
According to even the Qu'ran itself the land belongs to Israel because of the promise to Moses, then Abraham and then Issac. What I would really like is for an Islamic scholar to try to prove otherwise. If they try to invoke the principle that Israel vacated the land and were conquered, then by rights the land should belong to Great Britain, because they re-conquered it and won it as a spoil of victory by General Allenby, with the British Mandate and occupation taking place from 1917 onwards. If to the victor goes the spoils then its their decision as to what to do with those spoils.
This rubbish about returning the country to so-called pre-1967 borders is to be honest a load of highly refined bull twaddle. The truth is (and Hamas never admits this) is that the proposed 1919 borders which were totally enclosed by the British Mandate included the Negev, both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, a zone to the east of the Jordan and extending into the Lebanon and the Golan heights.
So Hamas, on this your anniversary, I don't support you, the Qu'ran doesn't support you and even history doesn't support you. The only people who do... are madmen.
December 14, 2009
Horse 1059 - Merry Christmas to You... Whoever You Are...
Walking around Westfield on Saturday, I noticed three things. The first was that people seem to be in some sort of race to either be as lardy as possible and dress as tackily as possible (I'm sorry but the OED has no variation listed for this) and the other two things were to do with Christmas.
I'm guessing that the Italian chocolatier Ferrero SpA (the same people who make Nutella and Tic Tac) must be going out of business or have a massive stock surplus, for sitting out the front of both Big W and Target were pallet sized arrangements of the not very nice chocolate Ferrero Rocher.
Someone at the company must've have a field day, because now instead of just three in a packet, I've seen plastic boxes of 27 and even a pyramid of 56 of the damn things. They're obviously intended as what former PM John Howard would have called an "aspirational" product, but fail to deliver on that aspiration.
The other virtually ubiquitous item at this time of year is the Gift Card. There are Gift Cards for a range of department stores, supermarkets, music stores, hardware, bookshops, even stationery shops and worst of all, Westfield itself!
Admittedly if you were 10 years old, getting money for Christmas is like winning the lottery and perhaps getting a gift card is better than giving a gift to someone that they really don't want, but really a gift card should be used only and only as a last resort if you still haven’t found something for someone, because nothing says “I know nothing about you” like a gift card, or a box of Ferrero Rocher.
I'm guessing that the Italian chocolatier Ferrero SpA (the same people who make Nutella and Tic Tac) must be going out of business or have a massive stock surplus, for sitting out the front of both Big W and Target were pallet sized arrangements of the not very nice chocolate Ferrero Rocher.
Someone at the company must've have a field day, because now instead of just three in a packet, I've seen plastic boxes of 27 and even a pyramid of 56 of the damn things. They're obviously intended as what former PM John Howard would have called an "aspirational" product, but fail to deliver on that aspiration.
The other virtually ubiquitous item at this time of year is the Gift Card. There are Gift Cards for a range of department stores, supermarkets, music stores, hardware, bookshops, even stationery shops and worst of all, Westfield itself!
Admittedly if you were 10 years old, getting money for Christmas is like winning the lottery and perhaps getting a gift card is better than giving a gift to someone that they really don't want, but really a gift card should be used only and only as a last resort if you still haven’t found something for someone, because nothing says “I know nothing about you” like a gift card, or a box of Ferrero Rocher.
December 10, 2009
Brilliance in Utter Madness
This is where utter madness lives. Forget the V8 Supercars and their attempts for the rather placid "Car of the Future", the Group B Rally Cars had in some cases over 700bhp coming out of just 1.6L. They were turbocharged to the eyeballs and threatened to explode at any given moment.
This is Crazy-Go-Nuts stuff... common-sense was left behind when they made these cars.
December 09, 2009
Horse 1058 - The Metro "We Don't Want"... apparently.
The train on plaftform number 5 is for all stations to Rogans Hill. First stop Mons Road, then Northmead, Moxham Road, Model Farms Road, Junction Road, Baulkham Hills, Cross Street, Southleigh, Parsonage Lane, Castle Hill, and Rogans Hill.
I personally have never heard this announcement. In fact I would struggle to find anyone who remembers hearing this announcement. The reason for this, is that the last time anyone would have heard this come over the loudspeakers, would have been on the last day of operation of the Rogans Hill Line on 31 January 1932.
As a result and more than 77 years later, the residents of Castle Hill now sit in traffic on the M2 for several hours trying to get work.
The day after Kristina Keneally became the new Premier of NSW, the Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell, again made it clear that he would oppose all new plans for any Metro Line, and urged her to scrap plans for the proposed CBD Metro in whatever form that takes.
"She needs to scrap the metro that no one wants. It's simply incredible, even within her first day, the former planning minister doesn't seem to have a view as to whether this metro is to proceed or not. It raises real concerns about who's making the decisions." - Barry O'Farrell, 4th Dec 2009 (from ABC Radio).
I really wonder whether or not Mr O'Farrell has actually been anywhere Castle Hill. As the member for Kuring-Gai his electorate enjoys the benfits of a free expressway and two railway lines. In fact to tie this story into the absurd, in 1932 just seven weeks after Castle Hill was cut off from the rail network, the electorate of Kuring-Gai was better connected to it by the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Let's think for a minute about the roadway across that grand bridge. The name of that road is the Bradfield Highway, named after the visionary John Bradfield. Bradfield's original plans for an underground railway included a city loop and a line out to the eastern suburbs as well as several other proposals which were never acted upon. Actually when it comes to those 1915 plans, it only took 41 years to see the city loop built and 64 years for the Eastern Suburbs Line to be half built so perhaps there's hope yet.
(Just check out Woolahra Station... they might build it in my lifetime... maybe)
New South Wales has had many plans over the years for railway lines to be built. So far during this century, we've had 8 of them, so sooner or later one of them is bound to come to fruition. It's just not while or if Barry O'Farrell comes to power, and probably not for the rest of the life of the current Labour Government.
All those people in their cars stuck in traffic on the M2 don't really want a new metro scheme... they just want someone to fix the mistakes that every single government since 1932 has made and put back their old train lines.
I personally have never heard this announcement. In fact I would struggle to find anyone who remembers hearing this announcement. The reason for this, is that the last time anyone would have heard this come over the loudspeakers, would have been on the last day of operation of the Rogans Hill Line on 31 January 1932.
As a result and more than 77 years later, the residents of Castle Hill now sit in traffic on the M2 for several hours trying to get work.
The day after Kristina Keneally became the new Premier of NSW, the Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell, again made it clear that he would oppose all new plans for any Metro Line, and urged her to scrap plans for the proposed CBD Metro in whatever form that takes.
"She needs to scrap the metro that no one wants. It's simply incredible, even within her first day, the former planning minister doesn't seem to have a view as to whether this metro is to proceed or not. It raises real concerns about who's making the decisions." - Barry O'Farrell, 4th Dec 2009 (from ABC Radio).
I really wonder whether or not Mr O'Farrell has actually been anywhere Castle Hill. As the member for Kuring-Gai his electorate enjoys the benfits of a free expressway and two railway lines. In fact to tie this story into the absurd, in 1932 just seven weeks after Castle Hill was cut off from the rail network, the electorate of Kuring-Gai was better connected to it by the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Let's think for a minute about the roadway across that grand bridge. The name of that road is the Bradfield Highway, named after the visionary John Bradfield. Bradfield's original plans for an underground railway included a city loop and a line out to the eastern suburbs as well as several other proposals which were never acted upon. Actually when it comes to those 1915 plans, it only took 41 years to see the city loop built and 64 years for the Eastern Suburbs Line to be half built so perhaps there's hope yet.
(Just check out Woolahra Station... they might build it in my lifetime... maybe)
New South Wales has had many plans over the years for railway lines to be built. So far during this century, we've had 8 of them, so sooner or later one of them is bound to come to fruition. It's just not while or if Barry O'Farrell comes to power, and probably not for the rest of the life of the current Labour Government.
All those people in their cars stuck in traffic on the M2 don't really want a new metro scheme... they just want someone to fix the mistakes that every single government since 1932 has made and put back their old train lines.
December 07, 2009
Horse 1057 - Winning Through Playing Actual Football. Who'da Thunk It?
The World Cup draw was released on Saturday Morning our time and already the daily newspapers are crying blue murder about the fact the somehow Australia has got either a "horror" or "shock" draw. This simply isn't true.
It was always going to be the case by virtue of how the process is drawn that every group is going to have a seeded team in it. Apart from South Africa which was always going to be in Group A as A1, every other group would have one of the seven teams from Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Argentina and England (and of those, five are previous World Cup winners).
The challenge for Australia this time around, does not really lie in who is in our group, but rather the order of the game which they are played in.
If you cast your mind back to 2006, Australia played Japan first up. It was those tremendous six minutes at the end which determined how the game against Brazil was going to be played. To be honest Australia was never going to beat Brazil but if it had lost against Japan, then it would have been fighting far harder for the remaining matches, rather than playing a simple containment strategy against Brazil.
Because Germany is first up, Australia will need to open the campaign from the outset with a set of measured tactics. Merely being the "underdog" and hoping to play on the strength of that is not enough, because to be perfectly fair Germany are always playing against "underdogs" and will be looking for a kill first up.
If Australia loses against Germany, then the matches against firstly Ghana and then Serbia will be played chasing their tail.
One of the advantages that Australia had in Germany 06 was that most nations went prepared for the heat, and Guus Hiddink had deliberately trained for this; it showed when during the last 20 minutes whilst other side would wilt, Australia did not.
This time around however, every side will not only be training for the heat but also for the change in altitude at some venues. Whereas Australia tends to play a more physical game, Ghana and Serbia aren't really known for their technical prowess, and so this time around this also isn't an advantage.
No, Australia's World Cup campaign in South Africa 2010 will not be characterised by the underdog spirit. I'm afraid that Pim Verbeek will need to instill on his Australian side an "overdog" mindset (is that even a real word?) and impress upon whomever dons the Australian golden kit in 2010 that the only way to win matches is by going out and actually playing proper football.
Now there's a strange thought, winning by playing good football. Have we ever done that before?
It was always going to be the case by virtue of how the process is drawn that every group is going to have a seeded team in it. Apart from South Africa which was always going to be in Group A as A1, every other group would have one of the seven teams from Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Argentina and England (and of those, five are previous World Cup winners).
The challenge for Australia this time around, does not really lie in who is in our group, but rather the order of the game which they are played in.
If you cast your mind back to 2006, Australia played Japan first up. It was those tremendous six minutes at the end which determined how the game against Brazil was going to be played. To be honest Australia was never going to beat Brazil but if it had lost against Japan, then it would have been fighting far harder for the remaining matches, rather than playing a simple containment strategy against Brazil.
Because Germany is first up, Australia will need to open the campaign from the outset with a set of measured tactics. Merely being the "underdog" and hoping to play on the strength of that is not enough, because to be perfectly fair Germany are always playing against "underdogs" and will be looking for a kill first up.
If Australia loses against Germany, then the matches against firstly Ghana and then Serbia will be played chasing their tail.
One of the advantages that Australia had in Germany 06 was that most nations went prepared for the heat, and Guus Hiddink had deliberately trained for this; it showed when during the last 20 minutes whilst other side would wilt, Australia did not.
This time around however, every side will not only be training for the heat but also for the change in altitude at some venues. Whereas Australia tends to play a more physical game, Ghana and Serbia aren't really known for their technical prowess, and so this time around this also isn't an advantage.
No, Australia's World Cup campaign in South Africa 2010 will not be characterised by the underdog spirit. I'm afraid that Pim Verbeek will need to instill on his Australian side an "overdog" mindset (is that even a real word?) and impress upon whomever dons the Australian golden kit in 2010 that the only way to win matches is by going out and actually playing proper football.
Now there's a strange thought, winning by playing good football. Have we ever done that before?
December 04, 2009
Horse 1056 - The World's Fastest Car
Seeing as today is the first day of proceedings at the Sydney 500, I thought I'd ask the question:
"What is the fastest car you can buy in Australia?"
Is it the Bugatti Veyron? Maybe the Gumpert Apollo? Perhaps it's McLaren's gorgeous new MP4-12C?
Well, it's none of those.
What is it then?
...
...
...
...
Excited yet? Because I have a photo.
...
...
...
...
This:
An ordinary Toyota Hiace.
What?!
Forget the Veyron, forget anything Italian, or even anything speedily efficient and German. The fastest car in Australia without a doubt is the Toyota Hiace.
Whislt the Veyron can do 407km/h, and even Shelby's SSC Ultimate Aero TT claims to do 413km/h, this is absolutely nothing compared with the speeds attained by Hiaces driven through Sydney traffic on a Wednesday afternoon. Ok I admit that I don't have documented evidence, but from what I've seen the speeds that some of the cowboys who drive these things can get them up to, are only otherwise found inside the Large Hadron Collider. They must be approaching 3/4 of the speed of light.
Greg Murphy's VY Commodore may have been able to go around Bathurst in 2.06.8594 (a figure which I've committed to memory) but how fast would have he been able to do in a Hiace? 2.03? 2.02? 2.01? 1.33 even? The V8 Supercars may be discussing the Car of the Future but I bet they'd all be running scared if someone showed up with a Hiace.
Of course this may be taking it too far. There are rivals such as the Ford Transit, VW Transporter, Mitsubishi Express, the Renault Traffic, Fiat Ducato and the Mercedes-Benz Vito, which could all equally warp time and space as they slice through traffic. So I suppose that the only real requirement is that the van be white.
So then "What is the fastest car you can buy in Australia?" A white van, obviously.
"What is the fastest car you can buy in Australia?"
Is it the Bugatti Veyron? Maybe the Gumpert Apollo? Perhaps it's McLaren's gorgeous new MP4-12C?
Well, it's none of those.
What is it then?
...
...
...
...
Excited yet? Because I have a photo.
...
...
...
...
This:
An ordinary Toyota Hiace.
What?!
Forget the Veyron, forget anything Italian, or even anything speedily efficient and German. The fastest car in Australia without a doubt is the Toyota Hiace.
Whislt the Veyron can do 407km/h, and even Shelby's SSC Ultimate Aero TT claims to do 413km/h, this is absolutely nothing compared with the speeds attained by Hiaces driven through Sydney traffic on a Wednesday afternoon. Ok I admit that I don't have documented evidence, but from what I've seen the speeds that some of the cowboys who drive these things can get them up to, are only otherwise found inside the Large Hadron Collider. They must be approaching 3/4 of the speed of light.
Greg Murphy's VY Commodore may have been able to go around Bathurst in 2.06.8594 (a figure which I've committed to memory) but how fast would have he been able to do in a Hiace? 2.03? 2.02? 2.01? 1.33 even? The V8 Supercars may be discussing the Car of the Future but I bet they'd all be running scared if someone showed up with a Hiace.
Of course this may be taking it too far. There are rivals such as the Ford Transit, VW Transporter, Mitsubishi Express, the Renault Traffic, Fiat Ducato and the Mercedes-Benz Vito, which could all equally warp time and space as they slice through traffic. So I suppose that the only real requirement is that the van be white.
So then "What is the fastest car you can buy in Australia?" A white van, obviously.
December 03, 2009
Horse 1055 - The Car of the Future Must Look Cool
http://www.v8supercars.com.au/content/hero_news/november_2009/its_evolution_not_revolution/
Actual designs are still some way off but V8 Supercars Australia (V8SA) has stated many times that the CotF will still look like Commodores and Falcons with working headlights and swinging panels.
“The Car of the Future is about evolution not revolution and hopefully now the teams have got some ideas on the direction of where we’re heading.I suspect we’ll start seeing something more concrete in the next few months.”
Ford Performance Racing principle, Tim Edwards said it was imperative that the CotF was implemented correctly rather than as quickly as possible.
“We have got to make sure we’ve got authentic looking cars, which is one of our key principles (compared to other motorsport categories),”
This is a story which I have been following for several months now, and to be honest it kind of ties in with my post yesterday. The Car of the Future (CoF) is presumably in the early stages of conceptualisation and will eventually show up in 2012. This post isn't about what is taking place but rather what I would like to see happen.
Currently the V8 Supercars have these tacky little numbers in the rear window. Now I ask you, is this even remotely helpful?
This photograph of Jamie Whincup shows clearly why the tacky little numbers in the rear window is a pointless idea. At speed how are you honestly expected to work out who it is? Second to that, the number itself is kind of like a brand. When you think of the most famous number in Australian motorsport, what springs to mind? If you said anything other than 05 then you need your head examined.
Peter Brock's 05 Torana is probably the single most iconic touring car in Australian motorsport history; why? Because:
a) you instantly know who it is
b) the car looks so brutal with its flared guards, drop tank, duck rear wing and reverse bonnet bulge
c) the paint scheme is elegantly simple and bold
To that end, I'd tell the V8 Supercars organisation to ditch all of the wings and aero devices on the current crop of cars and go back to something simpler and cooler; maybe take a leaf out of the old HDT's book?
Who wouldn't want to see this as the Car of the Future? It's got cool dripping off of it.
Actual designs are still some way off but V8 Supercars Australia (V8SA) has stated many times that the CotF will still look like Commodores and Falcons with working headlights and swinging panels.
“The Car of the Future is about evolution not revolution and hopefully now the teams have got some ideas on the direction of where we’re heading.I suspect we’ll start seeing something more concrete in the next few months.”
Ford Performance Racing principle, Tim Edwards said it was imperative that the CotF was implemented correctly rather than as quickly as possible.
“We have got to make sure we’ve got authentic looking cars, which is one of our key principles (compared to other motorsport categories),”
This is a story which I have been following for several months now, and to be honest it kind of ties in with my post yesterday. The Car of the Future (CoF) is presumably in the early stages of conceptualisation and will eventually show up in 2012. This post isn't about what is taking place but rather what I would like to see happen.
Currently the V8 Supercars have these tacky little numbers in the rear window. Now I ask you, is this even remotely helpful?
This photograph of Jamie Whincup shows clearly why the tacky little numbers in the rear window is a pointless idea. At speed how are you honestly expected to work out who it is? Second to that, the number itself is kind of like a brand. When you think of the most famous number in Australian motorsport, what springs to mind? If you said anything other than 05 then you need your head examined.
Peter Brock's 05 Torana is probably the single most iconic touring car in Australian motorsport history; why? Because:
a) you instantly know who it is
b) the car looks so brutal with its flared guards, drop tank, duck rear wing and reverse bonnet bulge
c) the paint scheme is elegantly simple and bold
To that end, I'd tell the V8 Supercars organisation to ditch all of the wings and aero devices on the current crop of cars and go back to something simpler and cooler; maybe take a leaf out of the old HDT's book?
Who wouldn't want to see this as the Car of the Future? It's got cool dripping off of it.
December 02, 2009
Horse 1054 - Ford vs Holden vs WhoCares
This came from the V8 Supercars race in Bahrain in 2007 and it illustrates a very interesting point. Although V8 Supercars has marketed itself as the "Ford vs Holden" battle, do the punters really care anymore?
There may have been blue murder dried when Craig Lowndes "defected" to Ford in 2000, but now in 2009 no-one even seems to bat an eyelid that 888 Engineering are taking their whole team across the divide to Holden. Perhaps also, the fans are ignorant that whilst in Australia 888 are switching to Holden, 888 in the UK have been dumped by another GM brand Vauxhall, and it is questionable whether they will even appear in the 2010 BTCC.
NASCAR has had three "all-American" manufacturers in the past and even they ran several brands with Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, Ford and Dodge all throwing their hat into the ring, but the introduction of Toyota hasn't really been met with the opposition that was predicted at all. In fact it came without much of a ripple at all.
Even in Australia when you ask people about what their favourite tin-top car of all time are, invariably the Holden A9X will come out on top because it looked so wild, or even Ford's big XC Falcon coupes that Moffat and Bond took to a 1-2 in 1977, but immediately after that you start getting answers like the Nissan GTR, the Dodge Charger, the Mazda RX-7 and even Kevin Bartlett's Channel 9 Camaro.
Would the fans' noses be put that far out of joint if there was a V8 Supercar BMW, or Mercedes-Benz? How about a Ferrari or a Jaguar? Or a Hyundai, Toyota, Kia or Subaru? To be honest, I don't think we'd notice much.
December 01, 2009
Horse 1053 - Kevin 11
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/01/2758221.htm
Tony Abbott is the new leader of the Liberal Party after ousting Malcolm Turnbull by just one vote in a leadership vote today.
Mr Abbott won the final vote against Malcolm Turnbull by 42 votes to 41 after challenger Joe Hockey was knocked out in an earlier vote between all three candidates.
I am utterly astonished by this.
How would they intend to sort out their front bench now? There isn't one person who isn't the enemy of anyone else now, except for Julie Bishop who wasn't even nominated for the leadership because she either doesn't represent a serious threat to anyone or the only reason she's there is to sit opposite Julia Gillard.
Who honestly thinks that Abbott is PM material? They might just as well have given Kev a free ticket to the next election - KEVIN 11 is looking more likely. To be honest all that this suggests is that the Liberal Party is still in search of a leader, because I don't think that Abbott represents the sort of person who can pull the party together, let alone lead the country.
I assume that from here on, Turnbull will just be put on the backbench with the same for Joe Hockey. For Abbott it will be case of: "This is my new shadow cabinet. Meet Fred."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)