Horse - The Blog That Promises Nothing And Delivers Even Less

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/

72 Australian Labor Party
44 Liberal
21 Liberal National Party of Queensland
1 The Greens
7 The Nationals
1 Country Liberals
4 Independent

With 81.52% of the primary vote counted, the Australian Electoral Commission's Website is now no longer listing any seats as doubtful. This means that the above statistics are now as accurate as it gets.

This means that officially, Labor is on 72 seats and the Coalition has won 73. To gain the 76 seats required to form government, Labor would need the support of all four independents whilst the Coalition only requires 3. Having said that it is still possible to end up with a double deadlock if Labor gets 3 and the Coalition gains one with the single Green member standing against the Labor/Indy group.

What is certain is that the Parliament must sit either on or before November 26, which itself is 30 days after the AEC must declare the result of the ballot. If another election is held as the result of a "no confidence motion", then that campaign must run for a minimum of 33 days.
Logically if no "stable government" can be formed, Australia would be going to the polls in early 2011.

Having said this, I'm finding the following comments from Family First Senator Steve Fielding a little curious.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/27/2994988.htm
Family First Senator Steve Fielding says he is considering blocking legislation in the Upper House if Labor forms government.
Now the outspoken Family First senator says he believes voters are "not happy" with Labor and says he could decide to block a Labor government's bills in the Senate.

Basically, Fielding would hold the parliament to ransom if the Labor Party was to form government anyway. What's even more startling about this is that Fielding doesn't lose his own seat until July next year, which means that even if the Labor Party were to form Government, they'd still not be able to pass the 2011 Budget and when the Budget (which is a supply and money bill) fails to pass, this immediately renders the government unable to conduct business and we'd be going to the polls again anyway.

It has been obvious for some time that Steve Fielding is a closet Liberal. During the Howard coalition government, he regularly sided with them and likewise regularly voted against the Rudd Labor government. His position on climate change was very clear, he didn't believe in it, although he vote against Work Choices.

What is looking increasingly likely is that we're probably going to the polls before August 2011, although we might not if Abbott can form his own Coalition government.

Having said that, news follows that Abbott has probably hit that threat back into the gutter:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbott-kills-fieldings-threat-to-block-labor-supply-20100827-13urc.html
A spokesman for the Coalition leader, Tony Abbott, said if the Coalition were in Opposition, it would not block supply.
The Greens Senator, Bob Brown, further ridiculed Senator Fielding's threat. From July 1, the Greens would assume the balance of power in the Senate.
Even if Senator Fielding succeeded in blocking the budget, the Greens would unblock it on July 1, the day the budget came into effect.

Who honestly knows anymore? Yes? No? Whatever? About the only thing that is certain is that:

Nobody's in charge, Australia! Let's eat the condensed milk out of the can!

This is the Nissan Micra... that we don't yet have.

Linky: http://www2.nissan.co.jp/MARCH/exterior.html

I first saw the Nissan March in Japan in 2002. This was strange as it was not yet in Australia at that time. Japanese domestic traffic is unique in having a lot of short run cars that never see the light of day except as grey exports* to other countries, so I expected that the March which I saw in the Nikko Winds Hotel in Narita was for Japan only.
The car was everywhere on my 2003 trip and had already appeared alongside the butt-ugly Nissan Primera in the UK, but it still hadn't showed up in Australia. In fact it wasn't until it had passed side-impact tests in December of 2003, that we saw it show up.

I always thought that the K12 March/Micra looked a little odd with its "Poirot" moustache for a front grill, and that the car practically begged for a different set of front light clusters and front grille. There was such a thing as a Nissan March "Rafeet" which did somewhat fix the error, but it wasn't entirely satisfactory to my tastes, and never sold in Australia anyway.

The new K13 March/Micra drops from 1.6L in Australia, to probably 1.4L and if the 1.2L engine pops out 59kW (77bhp in the old money), then expect the 1.4 to chuck out about 71kW (93bhp).

The base model currently sells for ¥999,600 in Japan which is A$13,383, so I guess once you factor in the bigger engine, shipping costs, and the rising Yen, then when we get it in about October (I imagine it will be at the Sydney Motor Show, if they do in fact decide to hold one), then the sticker price in Oz wil be about $16500 ex-on-road costs**.

I hope that the Micra does well in Australia. Nissan have sort of an image problem, for apart from their GTR and their 370Z, the Tiida and Maxima are entirely uninspiring, and the little Micra looks... like Poirot.

*A grey import/export is of a (usually) second hand car, done "privately" under the radar of the luxury import taxes. Most commonly you'll find 2 year old ex-Japanese Domestic Market cars in New Zealand or in Australia with semi-sports cars.
*The Micra will be one of about six cars which will replace Mrs.Rollo's ageing Nissan Skyline R31; the others being the VW Polo or Golf, Mazda 2, Pug 206 or 207.

Before I go any further I should like to point out that I spent most of last night carefully considering my first words for this edition of Horse because I realised that they had to be quite prolific, so then, here it goes:

Welcome to Horse 1100.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/24/2991520.htm

Independent MP Rob Oakeshott says Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott should consider a ruling coalition which would see former political enemies sitting side by side around the cabinet table. Mr Oakeshott and his fellow independents Tony Windsor and Bob Katter have been touted as the kingmakers if either of the two parties tries to put together a minority government.

My idea for a Unity Government doesn't sound quite so silly anymore if Rob Oakeshott has also proposed the idea. However what is sounding quite silly and invariably a lot more fun is the idea of having a Unity Government with Bob Katter as Prime Minister, as is being suggested by the less serious members of the blogosphere and twittisphere.

Bob Katter has been described as a "maverick" MP, and until 2001 he represented the National Party, but frequently crossed the floor and voted against his own party.
Equally bewildering are his many comments which often mix metaphors to the point of ridiculousness:
"I mean, if you could imagine 20 or 30 crocodiles up there on the roof, and if all that roof was illumination, and saying that we wouldn't see anything in this room because of a few croco-roaches up there,"
- Bob Katter, on climate change.

Even more bonkers is the tide of Bob Katter Facts, which seems to have sprung up over the past 24 hours. This is a small sample from the annals of Twitter.

#bobkatterfacts
Bob Katter's boots are made for walking. And crunching skulls.
Mark Latham is scared of shaking Bob Katter's hand.
Bob Katter will do more than turn back the boats, he'll throw them into the sun.
Bob Katter is so tough he once called Belinda Neal "cutie-pie."
When the north wind blows, Bob Katter nail-guns his hat to his head.
Tony Jones raises his hand before asking Bob a question.
Bob Katter's hat knows more about economics than Joe Hockey.
Bob Katter is poisonous to cane toads.
Bob Katter thinks that The Greens are a side dish to go with his steak and potato.

I even went to the effort of making this little gem:

However and to move away from the flood of fun which is Bob Katter, the best piece of commentary on this state of limbo that I've seen is this:

Nobody's in charge, Australia! Let's eat the condensed milk out of the can!

This is so pert that if you walk into a Borders Bookstore up until a government is formed and quote "nooneisincharge", as a discount code, they'll promise to give you 10% off the purchase price - Now that is as bonkers as Bob Katter.

"It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man in a chaotic period"
- Chinese Proverb
...we however do not live in a chaotic period.

If you were to believe the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph this morning, the so called "failure" of the Australian people to elect meaningful and obvious government is either the death of democracy or the end of the world as we know (and I feel fine).

The truth is that we actually do have a functioning government right now, it's just that we do not see it.

The Government is formed out a majority of members and even then only by convention. Section 61 of the Constitution provides that the actual "executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative". In the normal course of business this revolves around the Ministers of State (provided by in Section 64) who form the Federal Executive Council (provided by in Section 62).
AT NO POINT does the constitution mention that government must be formed from a majority of members and also AT NO POINT does the the constitution mention that in the event of a hung parliament, that government can not be formed.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf

In fact, the government may be formed forcibly by the Governor-General using his reserve powers and him/her appointing anyone he actually feels like from either/any party he wants to as Ministers of State.

As it stands with the Labor Party holding 70 seats and the Coalition nominally holding 72 seats (assuming that the Nationals and the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party hold ranks), no-one is currently in a position to hold a majority in their own right, however through negotiation either side might be able to.

Of course it is assumed that Labor and the Coalition would not join in a 142 seat super-majority, however the reserve powers of the Governor-General are such that he could force it.

The idea isn't all that stupid as you might think. Whilst it hasn't happened in Australia, in the United Kingdom whom we inherited the Westminster System from, there were several in the 20th Century.
A so called "National Government" was declared no less than 5 times, with PMs Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill all running governments quite effectively.

What is wrong with selecting a Cabinet from both sides? If I was the Grand Pooh-Bah, Lord High Everything Else, I would select a "Ministry of All the Talents", and select the strongest possible government and so include most leading politicians from almost all groupings.
Imagine what sort of government would have Joe Hockey as PM, Wayne Swan as Treasurer, Julia Gillard as Deputy PM and Minister for Education, Tony Abbott as Minister for Health and Ageing, and Barnaby Joyce as Minster for... who cares? He's a right hoot anyway. Pick the bets members for the Cabinet posts regardless of political persuasion and colour.

Furthermore the whole idea of actual Party Politics didn't really exist before about 1850 in the UK. Governments would be formed from elected members, who could be very swayed to switch sides if it was in the best interests of their constituents. Possibly Robert Peel the founder of modern policing was the first proper Prime Minister elected on the basis of his party in 1841, though the idea of a leader of the opposition wasn't properly solidified until about 1851 when Benjamin Disraeli assumed the title by himself.

Personally I see this result as a clear statement to both parties, and that is actually reflective of the campaigns which both sides ran. Both Labor and Liberal repeatedly told us that their opponents were not fit to run the country. I think that the Australian people have agreed with them and in an almost perfectly balanced fashion, actually told both side that that they are precisely that - not fit to run the country.

In the wash-up the most likely scenario is Labor 72, Coalition 73, Others 4 and one Green Raca Baka*. Whatever the outcome my learned friend Brendan is quite correct. The world will not blow up if either side is not given or returned to power, and despite protestation we will not have unstable government...

... but if we do have unstable government then I want to see chairs start flying like they do in some parliaments. It would make Question Time far more exciting.

*Raca - is a Hebrew word which could mean either fool, empty one, or even effeminate. All of which are appropriate.
Baka - is a Japanese word which either means fool or idiot. Both of which are also appropriate.

Blackpool 4 - Wigan 0

As the Premier League stands this weekend, Blackpool by virtue of their 4-0 thumping of Wigan, sits second in the table; second would see them in the European Champions League.
Of course the above situation is probably quite ridiculous but it's OK to dream once in a while isn't it?

I have of course waited 20 years for Liverpool to win the league again, and in the meantime, my other team Blackpool whom to be honest I'd never thought would achieve anything have managed to do something quite remarkable. In just 10 seasons they've gone from avoiding relegation from the old League 3, the fourth tier of English football, to being promoted through every division (and in every case via the playoffs), to stare down some 88 places down from where they were - 88 places.

Even last Monday, Marlon Harewood who netted a double in the 38th and 43rd minutes wasn't even at the club. Only a few weeks ago, columnists were saying that Blackpool didn't even deserve to be in the league at all.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11728_6169853,00.html
But that doesn't necessarily mean they deserve a place in the Premier League. For gaining promotion is the easy part - it's what you do with the riches that count, and in no way are Blackpool an elite club.
A team does not prove it deserves a place in the top flight by simply getting there - they must prove they are worthy by convincingly competing next season.

For 124 minutes until Chelsea had beaten West Brom 6-0 in the late game, Blackpool were top of the league and although one sparrow does not a summer make, for at least two hours if Blackpool don't deserve a place in the Premier League, then NOBODY did.

Gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat. How long is this going to last I wonder?... I predict 4 weeks until Blackpool is back in the relegation zone. Poo.

One of the things that I find most disturbing is the deliberate confusion and blurring of the lines, with regards the definitions of things. What I find particularly weird was a tweet that I received in reaction to Horse 1096. The tweet was subsequently deleted I notice, and my reply wasn't duly answered, but it left me with an intriguing question, and that is to do with the so-called "right" of same-sex couples to be married.

The really weird thing is that I wonder if the right to marry, is in fact a right in the first place.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/

If you read through the contents of the Marriage Act 1961, there actually isn't any mention of whether or not a "right to marry" exists, so this is of no help. There is also no mention of the so-called "right" in either the Bill of Rights 1689, or the Scottish Claim of Right 1689. Therefore, the only place where the "right" is mentioned at law with regards Australia, is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the UN in 1948; Article 16 does mention marriage.

Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

As I said in Horse 1096:
I believe that the main reason for the institution of marriage is to do with the formation of families; this includes fairly obviously, the raising of children, though isn't exclusively so.

Not only does the UN agree with me, but in consequence they happen to have stated that the family is also entitled to protection by society and the State. Curiously, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not mention either what the definition of a marriage actually is, nor do they indicate if the state should be forced to recognise something.

Now although I was married in the United States and specifically in the State of California, it could have just as easily been done in Australia. Since it is the state who happens to recognise the validity of a marriage, then this implies that it is the state which is charged with the governance of the laws with regards it.

Marriage itself is governed with the issuing of a Marriage Licence or the notice of an intent to be married and hence application of the state to recognise it. Either way, a licence or and application beforehand does NOT imply a right, but rather a permission granted by the state or a privilege granted by the state, with all the consequences applied therein and after.

Because marriage is governed by the issuing of a licence and a subsequent certificate that it has been authorised by the state, by very definition the state has conferred permission for people to marry, and therefore be recognised by the state.

There lies the answer. It is the state who gives permission whether it will recognise marriage, therefore "the right to marry" does not in fact exist.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop-8-10042010,0,7711145.story
In a long-awaited ruling, Judge Vaughn Walker says the ban on same-sex marriage violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The decision is expected to reach the Supreme Court.
The federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 Wednesday said the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage was based on moral disapproval of gay marriage and ordered the state to stop enforcing the ban.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, in a 136-page ruling, said California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions."
"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote. The ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

I honestly expect to see some rather pointed hate mail as a result of this post, however just because I express an opinion which is radical, doesn't necessarily mean that I shouldn't express it.
There are several issues at play in this.

Firstly, why shouldn't same-sex marriage be allowed?
From a biblical perspective, same-sex marriages are ungodly and sinful. Now although you might disagree with the validity of the Bible in the first place (because I can not possibly know who is reading this), then that opens up an entire other discussion well beyond the scope of this post. The most obvious condemnations are listed below:

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
— 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
— 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

It doesn't really surprise me that the United States would overturn a state ban on same-sex marriage. The US Constitution itself explicitly denies that the country was ever a "Christian" country in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
By definition, the United States is, and always was from its inception an athiest country. If you remove "moral and religious views" from shaping the law, then can you really expect any other outcome?

Secondly, what is a marriage in the first place?

I live in the swirling metropolis we call Sydney, in the Commonwealth of Australia. Thankfully, we don't have the stupidity and evil of the US Supreme Court, but rather we have our own legal framework which is probably subject to as much moral degradation.

Since I live in Australia, this is legal definition of marriage as provided by both the
Marriage Act 1961 and the Marriage Amendment Act 2004.

S.5
"marriage means the union of a man and a woman"

S.88EA Certain unions are not marriages
A union solemnised in a foreign country between:
(a) a man and another man; or
(b) a woman and another woman;
must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

Specifically according to the Marriage Act 1961, the whole definition according to the law in Australia is thus:
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
I think that's fairly straightforward.

Thirdly and more importantly... why?

If the Bible and the law specify something, then it follows that there must be a pretty good reason for it. The most important thing that I can think of is to do with the purpose of marriage the first place; the reason for its existence.

I believe that the main reason for the institution of marriage is to do with the formation of families; this includes fairly obviously, the raising of children, though isn't exclusively so.

The family is essentially the fundamental societal building block. It is the place where children are trained in how to live and function in society. We learn how to relate to each other primarily through how we were taught by out parents. If for some reason a child doesn't have either one or both parents through accident or divorce etc. then the children who grow up as a product of those conditions have a less than perfect model of how to live and function in society.

Laws themselves exist for three fundamental reasons: the regulation, protection and the standards of society. This is true for everything from road rules, building regulations, taxation, corporations legislation, town planning, crime, even things like distances, voltages, etc etc etc.

The definitions in the Marriage Act 1961 are there for precisely the same purpose. Namely the regulation, protection and the standards of society. Fiddle with the definition and society itself changes and usually for the worse.
The standard contained in the Act is in fact the best possible standard. I would just like to find someone to prove otherwise. Go on, I dare you.

The implications of that last paragraph are immense. In 25 February 2010, the Marriage Equality Bill 2009, with the view to change the definition of marriage at law to include same-sex marriage did not pass in the Australian Senate by a vote of 45-5, with only the Greens voting in favour and many senators not in attendance.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/25/2830454.htm?site=news

Furthermore the Greens manifesto for the 2010 Federal Election explicitly states that they intend to have another tilt at changing the definitions under the Marriage Act 1961.
http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/sexuality-and-gender-identity
http://www.theage.com.au/national/senate-rejects-gay-marriage-bill-20100225-p5zv.html

Personally I think that it is the duty of every Christian in the country to put The Greens LAST* on your House of Representative ballot paper and to do likewise in the Senate. If The Greens were to get a substantial say in parliament, then they will do their best to change the law.

Actually it can be argued very easily that once the definition of marriage is changed, that same-sex couples should be given the same entitlements at law is normal married couples. If you then consider that this includes things like adoption and IVF rights, it is still a question of changing the fundamental societal building block, the family. Also, in particular with IVF, if you consider that same-sex couples can not through their own means produce children of their own, it does pose the rather pointed question if that is in fact parasitic in nature.

Lastly and leastly, this proves that no matter what or whom you vote for, democracy truly is a sham. Even if "we the people" want something and decide to make our voice heard through the ballot paper, those who are more vocal and better at manipulating the system are the people who run the show, despite and in spite of what the people voted for.

*Don't vote GREEN.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2935500.htm
Julia Gillard has been elected unopposed to the Labor leadership, seizing power in a bloodless Parliament House coup after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd decided not to contest this morning's leadership ballot.

Wow... just wow.

The Labor right obviously has thought that Rudd wouldn't take Labor through to the next election, so they've dumped him.

I'm not sure if Rudd saw this coming but perhaps the party was beginning to see him as a "lame duck" sort of Prime Minister, after not being able to pass legislation like the ETS and now the Mining Super Profits Tax through the Senate (though given that the Senate is hostile, can he really be blamed for that?)

What does this say about the state of Australian politics? We've have a few State Premiers get the chop whilst in power, the Federal Opposition has changed leaders twice since the last election (thrice if you include Howard being elected out of his seat) and now this.
What sort of confidence can you have in any of the leaders that we have if they're chopping and changing at will? Mind you the reverse is also true, the other extreme is a case like Menzies who was PM for 14 years in his second tilt at the job.

I've also noticed a freaky sort of co-incidence. Margaret Thatcher, Helen Clark and now Julia Gillard all being the first female Prime Ministers of their respective countries are all redheads. What does that say, if anything?

I think that we might expect to hear rather pointed rhetoric over the next few days. Also expect to see caricatures of Gillard as Elizabeth I. As for new politics and a new direction? I don't think that will even move even 1° from the course that it's already heading on.

Photo set:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagefutures/sets/72157607320546485/show

At the Mosman Art Gallery near where I work, there is a display (for want of a better word) of something called Boxworld. A chap called Warren Thomas has spent the last 12 years building a "model city" out of cardboard boxes, bits of rubbish and other sorts of recyclables.

I have seen some elaborate model railways over the years, but the sheer scale of this makes all of them pale into insignificance. As I was walking around the section on display (apparantly the whole thing covers 200m²) I couldn't decide whether this was something which has just got out of hand, or the work of a deranged mind.

Words cannot accurately depict how truly odd this er... thing is.

... Why I No Longer Drive To Work

As at July 1st, normal undiluted 91 Octane petrol will cease to be sold in Australia. Instead, we'll no be forced to buy this E10 rubbish.
Rubbish? Isn't E10 supposedly better? More environmentally friendly? Isn't it supposed to make my car fart flowers?

WARNING: SCIENCE AHEAD

E10 is a blended petrol made from two broad components.
1. Octane - C8H18, and octane like components.
2. Ethyl-alcohol (or Ethanol) - C2O6H.

Unlike the Octane Rating* which is a measure of burn rates, there actually is a chemical difference between C8H18 (octane) and C2O6H (ethyl-alcohol or ethanol). In general pure ethanol contains 34% less energy than pure octane (which isn't sold at the pump anyway).

Therefore an E10 fuel is going to provide 96.6% of the energy of an E0 (0% ethanol fuel) and only going to give you 96.6% of the mileage at best. At the current discount rate of 4c a litre (or even 3c at crappy stations) E10 petrol is only going to work out cheaper in the long run if the petrol is less than 103.51c/L (as that's the breakeven point). At any price more than that, you'll be doing your dosh because by saving 4c/L you'll be undoing it by only having 96.6% of the energy available on tap.

What's even better about this is that my calculations match up in the real world:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/motoring/news/false-economy/2008/12/12/1228585078909.html
A fuel derived from plants might appear to be a cheap and green alternative but exclusive Drive research proves this is not the case. A fuel-efficiency showdown between the three most-popular types of petrol on the market concludes the ethanol blend will cost you more in the long run and may not even help the environment.

City driving exposed E10's efficiency shortcomings more than highway cruising. Around town, using E10 was almost as expensive as using premium unleaded, despite the huge gap in pump prices.

In the 700 kilometres of city driving, our E10 Camry used almost 10 litres more fuel than our premium-fuel car.
The comparative fuel bills for the three cars were: E10, $105; premium, $105.91 (15c/L more expensive); and regular unleaded, $100.33.
Had we used thirstier six-cylinder cars or less-efficient used cars, the equation would probably have strengthened further in favour of unleaded and premium fuel.

In general ethanol petrol isn't cheaper in the long run. I'm not even a scientist and I could work that out.
There was even another factor in my calculations. The new MyZone2 ticket costs $48, or what would work out to be $5.33 cheaper than the new calculated fuel bill to get to work in my Ka.

In short, E10 is a waste of time and ironically was the thing which put me back on public transport.

*For futher reading on Octane Rating:
http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2007/12/horse-837-high-octane-fuel-do-you.html

By now you would have almost certainly heard about the "humanitarian flotilla" en route to the Gaza Strip, and attacked by the Israelli military. As with all of these fracas and conflicts, the first casualty is often the truth.

We opened the week with condemnation from Turkey, which is where the flotilla started from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10199480.stm
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called the incident "murder committed by a state" and said Israel had "lost all legitimacy".

There are of course lots of factors in play here. If in fact the flotilla was purely humanitarian in nature, then this was essentially an act of state terrorism by Israel, if if wasn't then perhaps there's an element of justification for it.

The problem is that the destination of Gaza is controlled by Hamas. 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)

Because of this, you then have to question whether or not this actually was in fact a "humanitarian flotilla". However, that in itself is difficult to determine.
The group which organised it is called the İnsani Yardım Vakfı or in English, The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief. It gets it's short name from its German name Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation, or IHH.

The big problem is of course a question of whether or not the IHH is in fact a legitimate organisation. Even the AP makes mention of this, but only in passing:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4FlVwMgaQcImeSQwTKnGrH2VZUAD9G3CKJO0
The largest flotilla by far, it was dominated not by Free Gaza, which sent only one small passenger boat, but by three ships sent by an Islamic aid group from Turkey, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief. The group, known by its Turkish acronym IHH, was banned by Israel in 2008 because of alleged ties to Hamas.

However, the IHH itself has been identified has either being a para-terrorist organisation, or at very least having links or being tied to them:
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS%20WP%202006-7.web.pdf
Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons from other regional Islamic militant groups.

IHH’s bureau in Istanbul was thoroughly searched, and its local officers were arrested. Security forces uncovered an array of disturbing items, including firearms, explosives, bomb-making instructions, and a “jihad flag.” After analyzing seized IHH documents, Turkish authorities concluded that “detained members of IHH were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya.”

I'd like to preface this with saying that the following is WMG - "Wild Mass Guessing" on my part:

I'm beginning to suspect that this whole debacle is really in effect, a political message designed to justify the "Islamification" of what is otherwise secularist Turkey.

Remember, the current president of Turkey is none other than Abdullah Gul who was elected back in 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6966216.stm
Turkey's military chief warned on Monday that "centres of evil" were trying to undermine the state. Gen Yasar Buyukanit did not name those he said were "trying to corrode the secular nature of the Turkish Republic."
But analysts said the statement was clearly aimed at Mr Gul, a devout Muslim.
Turkey's military and secular establishment suspect he might harbour a secret Islamist agenda.

What better way would there be to justify moves away from secularism, when you can claim victim status in all of this? Plus, it's really easy to demonise Israel when most of the Islamic world already hates them.

Of course the poor people who suffer through all of this are the people of Gaza themselves. I'm sure that a great deal of them are jack of both Israel and Hamas and would rather that everything just stop and they can get on with their lives.

People are after all people. Every single person has been endowed by their creator with dignity and is individually valuable. Whether or not you agree that there is a creator is entirely a separate issue, but the fact remains that throughout all of this, there are real people on the ground who are suffering.
If there is political grandstanding from Turkey, Israel, the world's media, Palestine, Hamas or whoever else has turned this into a farce, it should be stopped. Damn the lot of them!

People are hurting and dying. Put up, shut up, and help them. You are all a cussing disgrace!

Members of the Twitterati will have read that yesterday I was in the offices of the ABC in Ultimo, to discuss something of perhaps future import.
The way I figure it, digital radio has the potential to offer a wider range of programming to listeners because of its extra bandwidth. I also figure that in the Australian radio landscape there have been great gaps and holes left behind.

Radio in the 50s and 60s was probably in its heyday in Australia. Comedy, drama, suspense and all sorts of radio plays could have been heard. Jason and the Argonauts, The Shadow, The Idiot Weekly, Please Sir etc went down in Australian folklore. Yet when the onslaught of television cam upon us, the medium of radio was abandoned.
Locally produced radio in Australia falls roughly into three categories - music, talkback and news and current affairs. True, the ABC does produce such shows as AM, PM, and Gardening programs, but really most of what is on the radio hardly deviates from that. There is very little in the way of new scripted radio content at all.

To be totally fair, I do like the BBC's Radio 4 and Radio 7 and probably listen to them far more intently that I do Australian radio. The obvious argument here is that if I'm already getting this content, then why do I need to complain? The answer to that is obvious - why can't we do it here?
Australia has a veritable glut of live comedy just asking to be put on the radio. The Melbourne Comedy Festival for instance could be broadcast live, with very little outlay. Radio is inherently cheaper to produce than television as well. Gone are the need to provide sets or costumes, and microphone equipment for radio is cheaper than a full kit of cameras and boom mikes.

And to this end I suggested that the ABC as part of its commitment to new content, set up a radio station which would be digital only (which might also encourage the switchover), and be similar in style to BBC Radio 7, but with more of an emphasis on live content.
Specifically, I like to be the host of the Australian version of either "Just a Minute" or "Does the Team Think?", both of which rely heavily on a panel of comedians having to think on their feet.

One of the questions that one of the grey suited penguins asked me, is if my proposed station were to be adopted, then what would I call it? (Always marketing types and their damn names), to which I ironically suggested that it be called ABC Radio Spectrum - "The Colour of Radio" and have various blocks of segments named for the "colour" of their content, rather like the old Penguin paperbacks. To tell the truth, it was BJD who gave me this idea when on many occasions whilst I was still at Tooney Baps, that he said that what the band was playing needed more "purple" or "orange".
Actually it's not all that hard to imagine a block of programming with the station idents going something like "This is ABC Radio Spectrum, you are now entering the Yellow Zone" if it was say live comedy or perhaps "this is the black zone" if it was a horror drama, or maybe "welcome to the green zone" for a block of crime thrillers.

Overall, I'd say that the meeting went well but as always with these things, you never can tell really.
The future is bright, the future is Orange?

In church yesterday, as is the custom in most churches around the world, we were engaged in singing praises to our Lord for a time during the service. One of them happened to be that most ghastly of songs "Above All" (written by Michael W Smith).
Now I pretty well much have hated this song for a while (and by hate, I do wish that it be eliminated) but now I have a fairly well laid out rant against it.

1. It's hard for a congregation to sing:

Most professional musicians have usually had at least a modicum of vocal training at the very least. Most musicians you'd hope also have an ear for music. The problem is that if you take a piece of music which was originally written by a musician as a solo piece, and make a congregation sing it, invariably they do quite badly at it.

This could be said for all sorts of modern worship type songs. In the age of packaged media and digital recording, it is very easy to tweak even the very worst singers via autotune, such that they can sing well. The problem is that congregations don't have that luxury. Untrained singers who are trying to tackle a difficult line of music will usually do quite badly with it.

Exhibit A:
"Above all wealth and treasures of the earth.
There's no way to measure what You're worth"

Whilst it is true that I do not have the language to express what goes on at the end of this line, I can tell you that every congregation will maul it. The note/tone/chord structure is such that it is badly defined. Having untrained people sing a badly defined note results in much much badness.

F#m F#m/E D A/C#

Bm Bm/A C#7

Just don't. Please don't.

2. This metaphor makes me cringe:

The chorus for want of a better word goes like this:
Crucified,
Laid behind a stone
You lived to die,
Rejected and alone
Like a rose,
Trampled on the ground (err, what?)
You took the fall,
And thought of me
Above all

Like a rose, trampled on the ground? What?

I grow roses. I like every other rose grower, grows them because of their inherant beauty. I'm wondering if Michael W Smith actually read through Isaiah 53.

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
- Isaiah 53:2-3 (NIV)

Rejected and alone? Most certainly. Inherent beauty? No, but rather "no beauty" and "nothing in his appearance that we should desire him". Like a rose? I scarcely think not.

3. The whole Hook is wrong - the main cut and thrust of this:

You took the fall,
And thought of me
Above all

Really? I can prove otherwise.

Christ's first purpose, i.e. his reason for being was NOT to save sinners.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
- John 18:36-37

The first purpose of Christ, and indeed the first purpose of God (remember, that Jesus IS God), is to bring glory to Himself. His prime purpose in coming to Earth and being born as a man was to establish His Kingdom.

Now I know that I'm splitting hairs here, and indeed I do so quite deliberately, for even 99% correct is still 1% wrong. I do believe that it was Paul who told us to watch our life and doctrine closely and to persevere in them.

If Jesus is God, and his first purpose is to bring glory to himself, then it follows that his first thought, that is the thought that is "Above All" is NOT us.

If it is right for man to have the glory of God as his goal, can it be wrong for God to have the same goal? If man can have no higher purpose than God’s glory, how can God? If it is wrong for man to seek a lesser end than this, it would be wrong for God, too. The reason it cannot be right for man to live for himself, as if he were God, is because he is not God. Those who insist that God should not seek His glory in all things are really asking that He cease to be God. And there is no greater blasphemy than to will God out of existence.
- JI Packer

When Jesus was in the upper room praying before his execution on the cross, where was his first thought? It wasn't for "me" as the song "Above All" makes out:

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
- John 17:1-5

Jesus' first thought, ie the one he thought of "Above All" was Himself and His Father, God. This is a case of glory being directed to the proper place at the proper time just like it always had done, and always will do.

Now I know that this sounds inherently selfish, but again you have to remember that the Godhead is a) triune (and therefore this becomes a strange matter of semantics), and b) deserves that position by virtue that He is the premier being. God IS selfish, and quite rightly so.

Of course I realise that Mr Smith was trying to express gratitude to God*, and that is an entirely noble end but, hideously flawed. I would even suggest it is bordering on arrogant to think that Christ would think of us over His Father.

* Aside: As a songwriter, you have a certain responsibility to make sure that what you write is correct. If you write songs that congregations are going to sing, you are in effect putting words in their mouths - think about it.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/our-world-cup-fields-of-dreams-will-help-all-codes-20100514-v4f4.html

The Sydney Morning Herald reports this morning that there would be a few new stadia to be built if the Australian FIFA World Cup 2018 or 2022 bid gets up. If in the event that it doesn't succeed, then I hope that common sense wins, and they build the Bogandome anyway.

The Bogandome (the proposed West Sydney stadium, in Doonside), would be flanked by the M7, the main Western Railway line and is easily accessible from the M4 as well. Because it will be built next to the existing ex-Olympic Baseball stadiums, and the venue where the GWS AFL team already train out of, it's perfect for holding training sessions outside of the main venue anyway.

Supposing that they did built the Bogandome, then several of the key problems are already solved. Because the M7 and the M4 are both quite close, traffic should not be that much of a problem.
If they were to think properly about building the stadium, then the car parks could be strategically placed directly underneath the stadium in an arrangement like the already successful Rouse Hill Town Centre shopping complex. It has underground parking underneath the place for 3000 cars. If this was properly executed with a full multi-level situation, then I see no reason why you could fit up to 25,000 spaces in there.
Also, because it would be built next to the main Western Railway line, a fully integrated railway station could be built right into the superstructure of the venue. If this were to happen, then it would be even easier to fill and clear than even Sydney Olympic Park.

The way I see it, the Bogandome already has two clients in the wings. The GWS AFL team and the West Sydney Rovers would be looking for a venue in the Greater West to be playing out of. To be fair, the City of Blacktown already has over 500,000 people and with the surrounding districts of Campelltown, Penrith, Liverpool etc, that probably encompasses another million people at least.
To be utterly honest, both the drive from the West to either the SFS or the SCG is quite frankly a pain in the butt. If you take a train you can expect to take roughly an hour to get there as well. Isn't it about time that someone was forward thinking and actually gave the people of the West their own home for sport?

Even if the FIFA World Cup bid fails, building the Bogandome would create a lot of jobs. Builders, concreters, plumbers, electricians... people running the stadium, caterers etc etc etc.
It would be an investment in the future of Western Sydney, one that's sorely needed.

BUILD THE BOGANDOME NOW!!!

"Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntary lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors."
- Sir Humphrey Appleby - "The Smoke Screen", Yes Minister.

Mr Rudd's proposal to remove all branding from cigarette packaging whilst it sounds like a noble idea, is in the long run quite counterproductive, for you see over the long run, the actual costs to the community of those people who would have ordinarily died of lung cancer and/or associated heart attacks, will instead die of other diseases in old age, which will invariably cost the taxpayer more in health care costs.

Consider the following:
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/tobacco.pdf
A young man who starts smoking can expect to generate as much as $12,700 in excess medical costs over the course of his life. For a young woman,smoking will increase her lifetime medical bills by $14,800.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-03-31-cigarettetax_N.htm
The increases, which raise the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents a pack to $1.01, applies to all tobacco products. It comes as more than two dozen states, desperate for revenue in a sunken economy, consider boosting their own tobacco taxes this year.

Smokers on average live between 7 and 12 years less than non-smokers. Assuming a worst case scenario, on average the life expectancy for the US (I don't have Australian figures) is 78 years. If we assume that someone starts smoking a pack a day from age 20, then the government will collect over their lifetime, $16957.90 in taxes, which is actually about $4000 more than that additional associated medical expenses. In effect smokers actually subsidise everyone else.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'd like to see a peer reviwed paper on the subject:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w4891.pdf
This paper assesses the appropriate cigarette tax needed to address potential market failures. There is no evidence of inadequate risk decisions by smokers regarding their own welfare. Detailed calculations of the financial externalities of smoking indicate that the financial savings from premature mortality in terms of lower nursing home costs and retirement pensions exceed the higher medical care and life insurance costs generated. The costs of environmental tobacco smoke are highly uncertain, but of potentially substantial magnitude. Even with recognition of these costs, current cigarette taxes exceed the magnitude of the estimated net externalities.
Published: Tax Policy and the Economy, vol. 9, ed. James M. Poterba, MIT Press 1995

The awful truth is that the overall death rate is 100%*. Everyone who lives will eventually die. What they happen to die of is the question. Whilst you might point to the increase of the incidence of cancers in the late 20th and 21st Century, it's probably almost exactly the result of people living longer into old age. People's cells replicate themselves making worse copies as time goes by; therefore if you increase the potential to create rogue copies of cells, which are otherwise called cancer by definition, then obviously the rates of cancer will go up.
People who aren't dying of cholera, TB and polio anymore, go on to die of something else... but eventually they will die; that fact is unavoidable.

Really all that these advert on telly; you've seen them, the Everybody Knows adverts, is telling us what we already knew. If "there is no evidence of inadequate risk decisions by smokers regarding their own welfare" then is it really worth the effort to legislate against something which they have decided to do? Basically, can you legislate against stupidity? Or, is it worth the economic expense in the long run?

Though I am for anything that reduces smoking (though for reasons that it smells and I don't much like the litter) there is something that has not been thought about. Only a small percentage will stop smoking because of the price rise. The rest will sacrifice something else to keep the habit such as food, fuel and clothing and sadly the kids will suffer. I know because I grew up in an area with a great deal of social housing, and eveytime the price of cigarettes and alcohol taxes went up, invariably the kids got less food, less school excursions and less new clothes etc.

Addressing peoples behaviour never works. Their worldview must be addressed as values and behaviour stem from people's worldview. The Alcopop Tax showed this, kids still went binge drinking but with beer or spirits instead. Making Alcopops expensive did not change their behaviour. It is their worldview that needs to be changed for changes to behaviour to occur. Just a thought, if pricing discourages people then good, but only insofar as much as their addictive behaviour is not transferred to something else that is cheaper.

The fact is that it is far cheaper to die of lung cancer and/or associated heart attacks than to live into old age and die of something else. In the long run, I will end up paying more in taxes because people are healthier...
... now isn't that ironic, don't ya think?

*Lazarus died twice, whereas Enoch and Elijah were "taken" without dying; even Jesus died once. This perhaps is worth a whole post unto itself.

This is the kit that the Socceroos will be wearing in South Africa. Now admittedly it's not the worst kit that Australia has ever played in, but to be honest, it's not that great either.
The bottom line is that it looks aesthetically wrong.

To be fair, green and yellow (or rather gold) aren't exactly the easiest colours to work with. It must be said though that the Wallabies, the Kangaroos and heck even the Australian Cricket team have all done pretty well with those colours and produced decent kits.
The Wallabies made their mistake several years ago with a flashy strip, and the Kangaroos have basically played in the same green kit with yellow Vs on it since 1910.
The question then is, how hard is it to come up with something?

The bottom line basically when designing a football kit, is that simple is best. I had a look through a brilliant database (?) of English football kits, and found that the team which most resembles Australia is Norwich City:
http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Norwich_City/Norwich_City.htm

Personally I like a halved or quartered look:

Though even something more recent with just a yellow kit with green collars and flashes is also quite reasonable:

See? If I'd been in charge, we'd have had something nice and respectable. Not the weird wierd weerd wiird kit that we have now.

Oh, groovy, funky Channel 27. Big smegging deal.

By now you would had heard the reports that the Melbourne Storm Rugby League Club have been stripped of two premierships and whatnot for breaches of the salary cap. If you were to believe the newspapers and especially the toilet paper that is the Daily Telegraph, then this is a very serious crime.

The question is how serious?

If you were to equate seriousness, or the importance of a news story with the number of newspaper column inches that was written about it, then what sort of results would you end up with?

Is the breach of the salary cap more important than say... rape?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/27/1082831560154.html
The Coffs Harbour woman claimed six players pack raped her at the Pacific Bay Resort after a pre-season match in February.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/police-question-rugby-league-players-over-rape-allegation-20090301-8lf8.html
A number of second grade rugby league players have been interviewed by police over an alleged rape of a woman in Queensland, a rugby league boss says.

Perhaps wikipedia might be instructive. This is a list of of off-field incidents involving rugby league players just for the year 2009.

- Canberra Raiders star Todd Carney went on a rampage in Goulburn, damaging property, jumping on a car bonnet and damaging the entrance to a Fone Zone store. He received a 12 month suspended jail sentence, was ordered to undertake alcohol counselling, and was banned from the local Government area for 12 months.
- Anthony Watmough was accused by a Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles sponsor of punching him and harassing his daughter in a derogatory manner at a season launch party.
- Brett Stewart was charged with sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl in the stairwell of an apartment block after a club function. A magistrate issued an apprehended violence order (AVO) against Stewart.
- Anthony Cherrington sent to anger management counselling after violently assaulting his girlfriend.
- Cronulla Sharks Greg Bird was convicted of recklessly wounding his girlfriend, and was later sentenced to 16 months jail with a minimum of eight months. The verdict was quashed on appeal.
- Leon Pryce and Stuart Reardon were convicted of assault in a UK court and were ordered to do 100 and 200 hours community service respectively.
- Jake Friend was charged with drink driving after being caught by police in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs.
- Trevor Thurling of the Canberra Raiders was charged with drink driving after being involved in a motor vehicle accident in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs on April 9.
- Willie Mason was fined $2,000 by Sydney Roosters after being photographed urinating in a public place.
- Cronulla Sharks player Reni Maitua returned a positive drug sample for clenbuterol.
- Cronulla Sharks captain Paul Gallen was fined $10,000 for using a racial slur against Tongan St George Illawarra forward Mickey Paea. Gallen subsequently apologised and resigned from the club captaincy.
- Melbourne Storm players Brett Finch and Cooper Cronk were each fined $5,000 for urinating in public.
- Brisbane Broncos player Joel Clinton was fined $50,000 for breaking the club's code of conduct and inviting a woman to his hotel room in Sydney.
- Hull Kingston Rovers' Ben Cockayne pleads guilty to assault, along with friend and fellow rugby league reserve player for the Castleford Tigers, Steven Hayward. Cockayne receives a 12 month sentence, whilst Hayward receives a six month sentence, both of which were suspended for two years.
- Sydney Roosters' Jake Friend and Sandor Earl under investigation for allegedly assaulting a woman at a Sydney nightclub.
- Wigan second-row Gareth Hock is suspended pending results of a 'B' sample following results of an 'A' sample confirming the presence of benzoylecgonine, the main metabolite of cocaine.
- Five players belonging to York City Knights were suspended for a breach of club discipline at a function in Leeds, along with the club's director of rugby.
- Cronulla Sharks player Brett Seymour is fired by his club for another alcohol-related incident, his second such sacking following his dismissal by the Brisbane Broncos in 2006.
- Sydney Roosters coach Brad Fittler was reported in the Townsville Bulletin for drunkenly trying to gain access to the wrong hotel room while wearing only shorts. The incident occurred at the Holiday Inn in Townsville at 3am. Fittler consequently fined himself AUD $10,000 and apologised for his behaviour at a televised press conference.
- Sydney Roosters player Nate Myles was suspended for six weeks and dropped from the State of Origin team after defecating in the corridor of a luxury resort hotel whilst drunk. The club was also fined $50,000 for repeated offences.
- Cronulla Sharks player Greg Bird appeared in court charged with five counts of assault after allegedly attacking a woman in a Cronulla night club in January 2008. He was subsequently cleared by the court.
- Melbourne Storm player Greg Inglis was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend.
- In August 2009 six Australian Celtic Crusaders players were ordered to leave the United Kingdom after the UK Border Agency identified breaches to their visa conditions.
- Sydney Roosters' Braith Anasta was king hit without retaliation in a Sydney hotel.
- Sydney Roosters player Setaimata Sa was charged with assault, resisting arrest, criminal damage and failure to leave a licenced premises, after a drunken episode in a Sydney hotel.
- South Sydney Rabbitohs player David Fa'alogo and coach Jason Taylor were both fired after an altercation at an end-of-season function.
- Wests Tigers player Daine Laurie was charged with assaulting his girlfriend.
- Sydney Roosters player Stanley Waqa was charged over a knife-wielding incident in which a young woman was wounded in Sydney's east.
- Huddersfield Giants player Paul Whatuira was arrested and underwent a psychiatric assesment after he allegedly assaulted two men.
- Brisbane Broncos player Tonie Carroll was detained by police on Sunday 28th November following an alleged altercation with a woman, believed to be his partner.
- Cronulla Sharks' Paul Gallen was issued with a criminal infringement notice for urinating in public near the head of a drunken friend.
- Sydney Roosters' Jake Friend was arrested and charged by police following an altercation with a taxi driver.
- Newcastle Knights rugby league star Danny Wicks was charged by police in relation to drug supply offences.
- Canberra Raiders' rugby league star David Shillington was arrested for drink driving after testing more than twice the legal limit.

Sexual assault, property damage, drink-driving, knife-weilding, wounding, assault, cocaine possession, drug supply charges, urinating in public... what?!

Guess what, I bet that this "scandal" involving what basically amounts to an artificial financial breach in a civil case, will probably score more column inches that all of the above combined. When an incident like any of the above happens, it is usually hushed out of the media and we hear of "privacy issues". Bascially what we have here is a case where the media itself if it equates the value of what is newsworthy by what it reports, has suggested that this is more important than criminal activity.

Guess what? Financial problems ARE more important than rape according to the media.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/homeownership-dream-dims-for-gen-y-20100421-ssdp.html
More young Australians see themselves as lifelong renters as the dream of home ownership fades, a new survey has found.
“We have never seen such pessimism amongst prospective first-time buyers throughout the past five indexes,” Vittoria Shortt, chief executive of Bankwest Retail said. “Seventy per cent of respondents were very concerned about the level of debt they will be committed to if they buy a property.”
One in three generation Y respondents, those born between about 1980 and the early 1990s, said they expect to be permanently locked out of the housing market.

I am one of them.

There are some interesting things to be said about this:

1. I honestly expect never to be able to afford a house.
As it currently stands, the bank will lend me $194,000 to buy a house. On that sort of money, it is impossible to buy anything within the Sydney Basin. To this end, I have for about the last 12 months been looking for employment in another state. I figure that I'm more likely to be able to own a house in Adelaide than Sydney.

The scary thing is that I wrote about this six years ago:
Generations Y & E therefore face a really huge challenge. No job security, the prospect of being priced out of home ownership and paying rent forever (to the Baby Boomers), living in debt from age 18 (to be educated) and above all, having to listen to their retired parents say "it wasn't like this is our day". Sadly it means that the most childish and selfish generation in history will never grow up and their kids will be too old to listen to them.
- HORSE 98 - 22/04/04

Also scary was that we were told this by The Age two years ago:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/28/1203788539246.html
THE average Australian family can no longer afford the average home mortgage, according to new figures that paint a devastating picture of how unaffordable housing has become in capital cities like Melbourne.

2. I honestly expect never to see any sympathy.
Why should anyone ever even care about my plight, or even the plight of our generation? As far as Governments are concerned, their largest single chunks of voters are still the Baby Boomers. Generations X, Y and Z (who can't vote yet), aren't numerically large enough to make any difference. Secondly, Generation Y is more than likely to be paying rent to the Baby Boomers, or by virtue of the fact that the Baby Boomers still live in their homes, are locked out from buying them.

3. What's wrong with Pessimism anyway?
I mean what is the point believing that things are going to be OK when their clearly not? As the population increases, the demand for housing is going to get tighter; as the Baby Boomers get older and start to have serious health problems, they are going to want to withdraw their capital from financial markets which is going to drive the costs of money even higher; therefore the criteria under which money is lent in the first place is also going to get tighter.

Also, over the past 10 years especially, there has been a trend from owner/occupier dwellings to institutional investment. Thus, if investors increasingly are coming from even larger pools of money such as superannuation funds and banks outright, this should tend to force out smaller entities. This of course leads to an increase in house prices and thus unaffordability, which is borne out by real world statistics.

So if you decide to tell me that "you had it hard in your day" or that "things will get better" then Nuts to You; what a load of bosh. If you are an older person, you probably had a shot at owning your own home and/or probably do so, but things are certainly not going to get better.
And don't you dare tell me that as a generation that we "had everything given to us" because I most certainly did not.

http://www.kia.co.uk/microsites/venga/

We like to party
We like, we like to party
We like to party
We like, we like to party

The Vengabus is coming
And everybody's jumping
New York to San Fransisco
An intercity disco

- The Vengaboys, "We Like to Party" - annoying 1998 Eurotrash Dance Thing.

Before everyone starts to complain about Kia being cheap and nasty Korean rubbish, you might like to know that the new Kia Venga is made in Slovakia, so this means that the Venga isn't Korean rubbish but is genuine Eurotrash.

The word Venga in Spanish is supposed to mean "Arrive", which I take to mean that this is the car which Kia itself says that they have finally "arrived" as a real car company. I already liked the Magentis and the Cerato Koup, so I suppose that maybe the Venga might be on my list of likes... maybe.

The car scores 4 stars from NCAP's crash test program and given that it's shooting at the lower end of the market, this is actually quite a result. Also the car has taken out the German iF product design award which recognises design quality, as well as a number of other criteria, including workmanship, level of innovation and eco-friendliness; and that's even before the car has gone on sale.

Admittedly I have no idea what or whom the Kia Soul was built for, and Kia does have a horrid past having built such dog droppings of cars like the Rio and Shuma, and let's try not to remember the Kia Carnival in which the engines were so badly thought out that they were dropped out of the vehicle on a lift and replaced with whole new engines as part of a regular service, but the Venga appears to have been built properly. They come with variable valve timing (which is sure to get some sort of VVT, CVVT, VTEC yo type abbreviation) and the diesels have Common Rail fuel injection.

Still, the sorts of people who are most likely to buy this car will be females aged 19-29, and typically they're going to be more interested in either the styling known as the "Tiger Nose", or the name. I warn you, with Kia's previous names of Carnival & Rio and with a retro sort of thing going on at the moment, it's almost a dead cert that you're going to hear The Vengaboys, "We Like to Party" blaring out of every TV and radio for about six months during the adverts when the car is launched.

Be warned: The Vengabus IS coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1X2H5EtiWc

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-to-investigate-the-games-latest-craze/story-e6frfgbo-1225849342777
The NRL has confirmed it will investigate the use of Power Balance wrist bands after Benji Marshall last week exposed one of world sport's best-kept secrets. As he lifted his arm in triumph, Benji Marshall revealed he was wearing the Power Band during his man-of-the-match performance against the Sydney Roosters at the SFS. It is claimed the wonder band can increase an athlete's core strength and power by as much as 500 per cent.
And as The Sunday Telegraph began investigating the mystery band on Marshall's wrist, we discovered he is not the only athlete using it. Parramatta's Timana Tahu and Eric Grothe, St George Illawarra's Matt Cooper and Bulldogs half Brett Kimmorley were also said to be fans of the bracelet.

Whoa!

The power of holograms taped to your wrists is obviously one of the greatest things ever developed. Imagine what a Power Balance Hologram Bracelet could do for you. If it can as claimed "increase an athlete's core strength and power by as much as 500 per cent" then what would happen if you made an athlete wear ten of them? Would their strength and power go up by 5000%?

I just love the blurb in the company's brochure as reported:
"Power Balance holograms are imbedded with frequencies that react positively with your body's natural energy field to improve balance, strength and flexibility".

Ahah, so it's all about frequencies, and your "natural energy field". In theory would if you wanted something which reacted with "frequencies" wouldn't you just buy a radio? Yeah, tape 17 digital radios to various points on your body... that'd be mega-awesome.

Stuff like this has been thought of before. Just think about the power of crystals, and more recently Firepower tablets which you could put in your petrol tank.
Firepower also had amazing powers; most notably the power to bankrupt the Sydney Kings, fiancially choke the Western Force Rugby and South Sydney Rabbitohs teams so that they lost key players, and the power to send certain V8 Supercars teams to the back of the grid...
... but most importantly it didn't have the power to lower your petrol consumption as claimed, and nor did the the company have the firepower to withstand appeals in the High Court of Australia on fraud charges.

There was a rather famous product that employed the use of a "natural energy field" to increase power; that was Peter Brock's Energy Polariser. Of course it also had amazing powers; namely the breakup of the Holden Dealer Team and effectively the end of Peter Brock as a force in the Australian Touring Car Championship.

But the thing that convinces me the most that the Power Balance wrist bands must almost certainly work is the following:

http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/6615459/general/bracelet-claims-test
Dr. Bateman demonstrated the bracelet on one of Today Tonight's sceptical reporters, Jonathan Creek, with amazing results.

Ah yes, Today Tonight. If it's shown on Today Tonight then it obviously must work. More amazing is that it was tested on their reported Jonathan Creek, who unless I am mistaken, is actually the titular character of a BBC television series starring Alan Davies.

I'm sold. Anything which is endorsed by QI's permanent panelist who is renowned for giving "answers which are not only wrong, but pathetically obvious", must by inference work, surely?

Let's see them rig up a few hundred of these Power Balance wrist bands on Tony Abbott, have his power boosted to over 10,000,000% and we'd have Super Opposition Leader, capable of taking on Chuck Norris, Mr T, BRIAN BLESSED, Lord Vader and His Holiness The Stig all at the SAME TIME!!!

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/beckham-joins-socceroos-for-world-cup-campaign-20100401-rfrr.html

Former England captain "David Beckham" announced he was joining the Australian soccer team - the Socceroos - as assistant manager, The Sydney Morning Herald reported - and ABC radio took up the story.

"I'm really thrilled to be part of this group, I just can't wait to meet up with the lads and get the campaign underway," the footballer told ABC radio of his decision to join the team for the 2010 World Cup.

Personally I think that'd be somewhat of a boon for the Socceroos, as even just having a talisman in the room like him is likely embolden them a lot. Beckham has made a great deal of his career from set pieces, and if he could pass on some of those technical skills, then it would be a boost and possibly see them escape the Group stage.

When you think about it, if you only have three group games, a goal from a set piece in any of them might be the difference between escaping the group and not. A win is worth three points, and generally two wins in a group is usually enough to get you out.

Ford Australia have announced that the Falcon wagon has been axed as of mid year 2010. Ford cites economic factors are to blame for the Falcon Wagon’s demise, as well as the market’s shift to SUVs during the last decade, so really this is entirely based on profit motive, which is to be entirely expected from a corporation.

On the radio yesterday, taxi drivers did most of the complaining and lamenting the Falcon Wagon's demise. The simple truth is that a corporation is fully entitled to withdraw from sales anything which doesn't maximise their profit base. Ford isn't after all a charity is it? If people really wanted the Falcon Wagon to stay around then it stands to reason that they would have bought more of the silly things. Honestly, what are you people doing?

Of course me being the charitable sort of person I am, I have graciously provided what should be the obvious solution for you, that is if you happen to be too lazy to think for yourselves. The way I see it, which I might add is quite a nice and lovely way to see the world (full of daises and buttercups and chainsaws). The way I see it, the taxis of the future should have the following characteristics so that what's happened to the Falcon does not happen again. Taxis of the future should be:
- diesel
- reliable
- and iconic.
Fortunately such a thing already exists:

Tah-dah! The LTI TX4... the definitive Taxi.
http://www.lti.co.uk/tx4/

LTI on their website proclaim that the TX4 is "the best and most advanced purpose-built taxi in the world". Well... this is probably in all likelihood a puff piece but somehow I'm inclined to believe it.

Taxis in London have nice big doors so that you can step in and out of them easily; I found this after getting off a crowded tube train and stepping into a Thursday peak period, and believe you me, with 10 million people who call London home plus another 6 or so million invading the city everyday, you need that.
The area inside can fit up to 5 people, and it's easy to fit luggage into them. If I was running a taxicab company, I'd seriously consider importing these things. Actually if a whole bunch of cab companies got together, then collectively they could persuade LTI to import them as a normal line of business. Hint hint hint... HINT HINT HINT... HINT HINT HINT... HINT HINT HINT...

The Falcon Wagon may have done good service over many years, but even Ford knows that when a horse gets old, sometimes you need to take it off the the knackers yard to be made into dog food and glue. Maybe it's time to employ a new steed; I for one would not be displeased if I saw "Black Beauty" out there.

August 27, 2010

August 25, 2010

August 24, 2010

August 23, 2010

August 16, 2010

August 11, 2010

August 06, 2010

June 24, 2010

June 17, 2010

June 10, 2010

June 04, 2010

May 28, 2010

May 24, 2010

May 17, 2010

April 29, 2010

April 28, 2010

April 23, 2010

April 22, 2010

April 20, 2010

April 14, 2010

April 09, 2010

April 08, 2010

April 07, 2010

April 01, 2010

March 26, 2010