Horse 1114 - The Referee IS Always Right

- Shane Perkins: being an idiot.

http://www.news.com.au/anna-meares-and-shane-perkins-go-for-gold-at-delhi-velodrome/story-fn65k7vp-1225935055754
- Photo stolen by me from News Corp.


Two names at the Commonwealth Games stand out more than any others this morning; not because they've covered themselves in glory, but because they've covered themselves in disgrace and stupidity.

Shane Perkins gave a two-fingered salute to officials at the Velodrome after he was sent back to the 7th-12th Keirin cycling event after he was pinged for dangerous riding in the semi final.
Hassene Fkiri was stripped of his silver medal in the wrestling after refusing to shake hands with the new champion Anil Kumar, and then giving the officials a middle-finger salute.

Good. You both get what you deserved... nothing.

As competitors from backyard sports all the way up to national, Olympic and world class events, it should be drummed into everyone that the referee's decision is final and you never have the right to argue with them.

Of the two sports which I play (football and cricket) the laws are quite explicit as to the powers of the official.

Law 5 of the Laws of Football states:

Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match to which he has been appointed.

Take note of those two important words "full authority". That means that you Shane Shoutymouth have no right to complain, because if the referee's authority is "full", then their decisions and opinions are the only ones which matter.

Curiously one of the sub-clauses says that the refere "acts as timekeeper and keeps a record of the match". This replaced previous clause that the referee was the "sole arbiter of time" as far as the match was concerned. In theory because the referee had "full authority" then they actually had license under Law 5 to break all other nominal rules of time, which leads to the odd postulation that maybe referees had access to time travel... er...

Of course I am running away with myself here but Law 5 goes on to state that:

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final.

The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee, provided that he has not restarted play.

So not only does the referee effective have the "rule of God" on the pitch, but he isn't allowed to change his decision if the players whinge or have a big sulk.

What's the lesson? Don't talk back to the referee... EVER.

The Laws of Cricket are altogether longer and complicated but equally no softer on their stance. Law 3 deals with the umpires and it has this to say:

3.7 - Fair and unfair play: The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play.

3.12 - Consultation between umpires: All disputes shall be determined by the umpires. The umpires shall consult with each other whenever necessary.

If umpires are the "sole judges" of play and "shall consult with each other whenever necessary" it again means that you Shane Shoutymouth have no right to complain.

This principle exists in virtually every sport I can think of. The rules of field hockey state:

11.1 Two umpires control the match, apply the Rules and are the judges of fair play.

11.2 Each umpire has primary responsibility for decisions in one half of the field for the duration of the match.

Motor Racing:

1. The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, hereafter termed the FIA, shall be the sole international sporting authority entitled to make and enforce regulations for the encouragement and control of automobile competitions and records,

What about cycling?

Chief Commissaire

1. Has full control of all championship and other events, officials, competitors and accredited team personnel from one hour prior to the commencement of the event or Manager's Meeting until one hour after the completion of the last victory ceremony.

To be fair I can't find the regulations which relate to wrestling but I can't see why the principle should be any different.
That general principle is that if you are a competitor then don't talk back to the referee because they've been appointed as the authority for the competition. If you do decide to talk back, although no-one remembers the name of the referee, your name will go down in history as being a whingey little imp.
Likewise Shane Perkins and Hassene Fkiri will be remembered not because of how many medals they won at these Commonwealth Games but for the fact that they couldn't keep their fool mouth shut.

Horse 1113 - Capitalist Negligence?

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay. The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond. Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

This is stupid. This is dangerously stupid.

Fortunately we don't live in the dangerously stupid country of the United States. If this was anywhere in the Commonwealth in any Commonwealth country, there is duty of care with regards reasonableness as spelled out in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856).
It is reasonable to expect that the fire brigade will make an effort to put out a fire. Under Common Law, a reasonable person failing to act falls under the grounds of negligence.

Negligence as stated by judge Baron Edward Hall Alderson is "the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done."

Equity in English Law and as a result the law in Australia, is distinct from Common Law and Case Law in that the law of equity provides in theory what is just, ethical and... equitable. It might be perfectly legal that if someone hasn't paid the fee for fire insurance but to simply let their house burn to the ground when something could have been done, is disgusting. The mere fact that you can opt out is quite frankly pathetic.

Why stop at fire fighting? If a person didn't pay for the ambulance service should they simply be allowed to die on the side of the road? Is that reasonable, ethical or equitable?
Morally, I question the type of society American is becoming where money is placed in front of life and assistance. By inference, if Australia follows behind America by about 10 years, is this where we're going to end up?

In the fiercely capitalist days of Victorian England, this very issue about fire service came to a blazing conclusion. Following the Great Fire of London in 1666, various fire insurance companies started to spring up, operating their own fire brigades. Affixed to many buildings throughout England (and in North America), small plaques began to appear which denoted not only that the building had fire insurance, but which company they were insured with.

The problem was that fire is not discriminating, and a fire which started in one building could spread to another. If the building next door was with a different insurance company or even had no insurance at all, then it was common practice for fire brigades to let buildings burn to the ground, just like as Mr Cranick found out.

The Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act was passed in 1865 and the responsibility of firefighting away from the insurance companies precisely because they refused to put out fires they didn't have a direct interest in.

Their negligence firstly caused more than 35 buildings to burn down on the north bank of the Thames in 1834 including the Palace of Westminster (aka the Houses of Parliament) and when the Tooley Street fire happened on the south bank in 1861, it lasted 14 days.

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/TheTooleyStreetFire.asp

Actual history proves that letting the private sector manage the fire departments is not only foolhardly but if things go wrong, it causes a hideous market failure.
All I can say is that personal liberty matters precisely jack squat if you're dead.

Horse 1112 - Are AFL players really "soft"?

The thing I find really incredible in the newspapers this week with regards to the replay of the AFL Grand Final, isn't the fact that there is going to be a replay, but that Rules players are somehow "soft" for not playing extra time. Just quietly me thinks that people who hold this opinion are on the whole, part of the increasingly obese and sedentary portion of society and have never done a day of sport since they left high school.

These are the facts.

Rugby League is played for 40 minutes a half. The current format for deciding extra time is the "golden point" rule. In the Roosters - Tigers match last weekend, the match was finally ended in the 101st minute.
Football is played for 45 minutes a half. Extra time if it is to be played then goes on for two periods of 15 minutes.
Australian Rules Football is played for 25 minutes a quarter with time added on for stoppages which typically add on about 7 minutes a quarter.

Now if you follow through the maths and work out the longest typical match for the three codes, you get:
Rugby League = 40mins + 40mins + golden point = 101mins (longest to date)
Football = 45mins + 45mins + 15mins ET + 15mins ET = 120mins
Australian Rules = 32mins + 32mins + 32mins + 32mins = 128mins (typical).

For a regular match, the players are already on the field for longer than a match played to extra time in either Football or Rugby League. In fact the Roosters - Tigers match last weekend which ended in the 101st minute would probably be only just into the fourth quarter of a normal Australian Rules football match.
Accusations which have appeared in the letters column to the Daily Toiletpaper and the Sydney Moaning Herald, are entirely unfounded.

At the end of 131 minutes between the Pies and the Saints at the MCG last weekend (I checked the actual timekeeping), we saw a lot of players who were quite frankly exhausted and within good reason. They'd played their guts out in one of the most exciting finals we've seen in 30 years, and were understandably both physically and mentally drained.
Do you honestly expect them to fight out another period of extra time? Would that mean a match which would last yet another 32 minutes, bringing us up to a neat 160?

Meanwhile I bet that for the vast majority of people complaining, their biggest amount of physical exertion consisted of extending their thumbs to operate the remote, maybe making a run to to kitchen to get more beer and chips, and moving their corpulent posteriors around the couch.
Obviously with such experience, they're in the perfect position to tell Australian Rules players that they're "soft"; especially since the only grab they may have done all afternoon was a flame-grilled Whopper for some unknown reason.

Horse 1111 - When we have to say Goodbye

It is always hard to say goodbye to a loved one, even if that loved one happens to be 12 feet long and weighs 1800lbs.

The weekend just been saw me take the dreaded last drive to take my little Ford Ka to the great big highway in the sky (well actually the local wreckers yard), and although it isn't sensible or logical that a grown man should cry over the loss of what is essentially nothing more than an four wheel econobox, it does raise the question "why do we love our cars so much?"

I bought my little red Ka in 2001, which means that I've spent nine years with her. We've been over many many dirt roads and on tracks which are supposedly impassable to anything but big SUVs. Secretly we laughed at drivers of faux-wheel-drives like the BMW X5 and the Volvo XC90, who gag at the thought of getting dirt on their precious paintwork. Believe me, one of the most satisfying things you can to do is to overtake an SUV on a dirt road and flash past at 130km/h whilst they struggle to cope with dust getting in through the windows. For goodness sake people it's the "great outdoors", by definition you need to be outdoors to be in the "great outdoors".

When you think about it, nine years is a long time; it's even longer than I've had some cats and dogs for. When you punt a car through peak hour traffic for two hours every day, five days a week, and probably the same amount of time at weekends for fun, it means that you've probably spent more time with your car, than even your drinking partners down at the local pub; just like being at the local pub, you still need to be aware of the troublemakers, the people singing too loudly and people who barge their way in front of you.
Most of us tend to dislike sitting in traffic for extended periods of time, but since I've been forced to take public transport again, I've again come to realise what an understated joy sitting in traffic actually is. On the train or the bus, there are people with their pod-machines playing their repetitive music far too loudly, other people who smell like they haven't had a wash since 1963, and worst of all there are those people who spill out of the seat they happen to be sitting on and into yours, which squeezes you towards the windows and ever closer to the inevitable smear of grubby head funk that some other weary traveller has left behind.
In your own private commuting space, you can play your own music, make your own smells, eat and drink anything you want to and throw the wrappers on the floor, all without some transit inspector telling you off. If it gets too hot you can either put on your own private AC or perhaps wind the windows down.

Owning a car for any length of time is rather like owning a pair of boots; especially if you bought it new. Every driver leaves their unique imprint in the clutch in rather the same way as your feet over time shape the very insides of the boots. Just like an old pair of boots feels snug and comfy to wear in a way that no new pair can, the longer you own a car, the more comfortable it becomes.
It is true to say that the longer you own any car for, the more familiar you are with its little idiosyncrasies. Moreover you also become aware of when the car feels "wrong" and you instinctively know when things need to be repaired. For the true car nuts out there this may spill over into the realms of obsession and there even are a few strange people to actually like to make repairs on their cars for fun.

Also, because of the fact that your car is the face you present to other road users, it becomes part of your identity. People actually get to know your comings and goings because of the car you drive. I think that it's not only fair to say that the kind of car the someone would choose for themselves is a reflection of their ego but that on the road it actually becomes an extension of one's ego.
From the music you have blaring from the stereo, to the way you drive through traffic be it aggressive, passive or whatever, your little metal ego-bubble is the only thing which other road users see. They do not refer to you by name or even by licence plate, but "that silver Golf" or "the idiot in that yellow sports car". If you were drive like a maniac down a stretch of road and then get out of one car and jump into an entirely different one, other road users aren't instantly going to be nasty to you because they will simply be unaware that you are in fact the same maniac as before. They only see the cars we drive and it is those masks which become our dramatis personæ.

Ultimately a car starts out as a blank canvass. Over time they might be personalised, dressed up with wings, bumper stickers, modifications, or even none of these. What is true about every car is that we paint our memories onto this canvas and our cars being the impartial observers to our lives that they are, take on all of it and not once complain about it.

Especially because of this last point, when you finally have to drive that long last mile, it really is like saying goodbye to part of yourself; so perhaps it is appropriate to shed a tear.
So thanks for the memories little red Ka, even though no-one else though a lot of you, you were all mine, and that is enough.

In Memorandum:

Rossalini (2001-2010)

Ford Ka Mk1 - Colorado Red

Rust in Peace

Horse 1110 - Ford Taurus - A Load of Bull

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-27/ford-plans-to-cut-product-lineup-to-as-few-as-20-models-ceo-mulally-says.html

Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally said the second-biggest U.S. carmaker may reduce its product lineup to as few as 20 models.

“There will be less than 30, on our way to 20 to 25,” Mulally said in response to questions on the future lineup of “nameplates” or models after addressing the Confederation of British Industry in London today. “Fewer brands means you can put more focus into improving the quality of engineering.”

Ford intends to axe the Falcon at the end of 2011. Australia will be getting the Taurus instead.

Dear Ford, you suck.

Why should we in Australia have to put up with the Ford Taurus, when the current Falcon is a better car? Moreover, how does it make any sense to replace a decent car with a worse and more expensive one? Wouldn't it make more sense to replace the Taurus with the Aussie Falcon, since the Falcon already employs world's best practice, is 5-star safety rated and is RWD?

I have been to the USA on several occasions and what I find disappointing, is the fact that American built cars although seemingly "identical" are of a lesser quality than their European counterparts.
Having seen the equivalents on US roads themselves - the Cobalt to the Astra, the Malibu to the Vectra, the Focus vs the European Focus, and the US Camry compared to an Australian or Japanese Camry, in every case the US is siginificantly built to a cheaper standard and it shows.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/taurus/

The Taurus (D258 built on Ford's D3 platform) is currently built in Chicago and retails in the US starting at US$25,170 or AU$26,031. Now that's fine whilst the Australian Dollar buys 90 odd US Cents, but if the little Aussie battler were to fall to levels of 60 cents US which it has done in the past, then suddenly the conversion price blows out to more than AU$40,000. This might make sense for the US Parent company but for Ford Australia, it's commercial suicide.

Fair play to Ford we do already get the Mondeo, but the Taurus which is smaller than the Falcon might not be seen as sufficiently different to it. Toyota have have also played this game in Australia by offering the Avalon and the Camry at the same time and that worked tremendously well for them didn't it?

I suppose that the real reason for my disdain is more to do with the fact that once again, yet another manufacturing concern heads off overseas because of the tribute that must be paid to the Holy God Dollar (Amen). It's not just Ford who loses out, but all of the associated parts suppliers, and other related industries also suffer because of decisions taken in board rooms in lands far away.

In principle I don't see how this is any different to the sentiment thrown at Pig Iron Bob in 1938. Back then waterside workers refused to load scrap iron onto ships bound for Japan, which would later be sent back to us in the form of bombs. Nowadays, BHP, Rio Tinto and other mining companies will be selling mining goods, which after being changed will also come back to us in the form of bombs of a different kind.

Thanks Ford. I've driven a Taurus in the US and to be honest, it's crap. Thanks for telling the Australian public what you think of them. I'm sure they'll repay the favour with their wallets.

Horse 785 (1109) - Hey Little Twelve Toes

Before we begin this blog post, I'd like to show a video for your education and amusement:

Before we proceed any further, I warn readers that this post contains that most dreaded of subjects... maths.

Consider this:

Now if man had been born with 6 fingers on each hand, he'd probably count: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, dec, el, do. "Dec" and "El" being two entirely new signs meaning ten and eleven. Single digits! And his twelve, "do", would be written 1-0. Get it? That'd be swell, for multiplying by 12.

The base-10 system has been used by just about every modern civilisation as well as the Ancient Chinese, Roman and Greeks. Even the Babylonians who used base-60, still used the number 10 as a sub-base of their numerical system. The choice of 10 whilst perhaps obvious because we have ten digits, isn't perhaps the best system.

In thinking about the idea proposed by the video above it struck me that base-12 is intrinsically a better system on the basis that 10 is only divisible by 10, 5, 2 and 1, whereas as 12 is a more complex number and is divisible by 12, 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1.

By having a base with more factors, it doesn't necessarily become easier to perform mathematical operations but it does mean there are more repeating cycles within the system.

All of the multiples of 2, 3, 4 and 6 resolve themselves into repeating patterns, even multiples of 8 and 10 do (and obviously 12):

2 - 2, 4, 6, 8, X, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 1X, 20

3 - 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, 29, 30

4 - 4, 8, 10, 14, 18, 20, 24, 28, 30, 34, 38, 40

6 - 6, 10, 16, 20, 26, 30, 36, 40, 46, 50, 56, 60

8 - 8, 14, 20, 28, 34, 40, 48, 54, 60, 68, 74, 80

X - X, 18, 26, 34, 42, 50, 5X, 68, 76, 84, 92, X0

10 - 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, X0, E0, 100

Of course it does provide some unexpected results, like 7x5=2E and ExE=X1 which looks totally unfamiliar to us in our base-10 world.

But the idea isn't silly. The British Empire survived quite happiliy using the Pounds, Shillings, Pence system which had 12 pence to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound; this produced a pound which equalled 240 pence. 240 is divisible by a whole slew of factors and a price of £5/14/11 suddenly doesn't look quite so strange anymore.

If you are prepared do look into this further and develop your own set of multiplication tables then there are even odder results. Apart from 3, there are no numbers ending in 3 which are prime. There are no at all numbers ending in 9 which are prime, and as with base-10 because base-12 has an even base, there are no even primes apart from 2.

All this is theory though.

If we were to apply this to the real world, then people would retire at 55 and the average life expectancy would be 70 in Australia. I would be 28 years old and would have been born in the year 1189, the date today would be 20-9-11E6 and the new millenium would still be X05 years away.
There would only be 50 minutes in an hour, midday would be 10pm and 5pm would be 1500 in 20 hour time. Trains would probably still run 13 minutes late, and the current price of a Big Mac at $4.50 assuming that cents remained the same would be $3.16, however I'd expect that they'd still find someway of ripping us off.

This does mean of course that the romance of Spinal Tap's amps going up all the way to E is somewhat removed though... but if our amps went all the way up to 11, that's two more than E... er eleven.

Horse 1108 - Am I Really Not Thinking This Out Far Enough Mr Smith?

Opening

In response to Horse 1107, I received a comment from someone called Damian Smith (website found here: http://dsus2.wordpress.com/) and it appears that Damian has a distinct problem with my viewpoint. Although specifically he didn't address why he has the problem, he raises this comment:

I thought Cannold was a brilliant guest and showed why it's unwise to argue with an ethicist. Chances are they've thought it out better than you have - and I think that includes this blog post.

Horse 1107 in essence mainly deals with the logical fallacy of arguing against a standpoint whilst denying that you in fact rely on that standpoint to argue from. The point is though that I have been accused of not thinking this out far enough, rather than the actual material of the post itself, which is rather what I expect that Mr Smith has the problem with.
In the light of this, there are three distinct issues which are touched upon, which I shall now endeavour to unpack. Before I embark on this though, I need to spell out my standpoint because like everyone else, my standpoint is informed by my values.

Firstly I am a Christian (which is fair enough I suppose). Secondly I hold the principle of the sanctity of life. I personally do not see that a so called "Right to Die" exists, nor do I concede that a right to take anyone else's life exists.

Horse 1108a - Abortion.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children/index.html
Australia as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises "that children as well as adults have basic human rights. Children also have the right to special protection because of their vulnerability to exploitation and abuse." It is worth taking particular note of the preamble of the Convention which curiously has this to say:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
"the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,"
The UN recognises that "childhood is entitled to special care and assistance". Also Article 6.1 states that "States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life."

It is also worth noting that the non-binding Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) stated that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,"

This of course raises a specific question; namely the argument put forward in just about every abortion debate "It's my body, I can do what I want"... Is it really? This quite selfishly states that a mother has an overriding set of rights which are over and above someone who should be "entitled to special care and assistance," also has "the inherent right to life" and according to the UN should have "appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". Notwithstanding the fact that the Crimes Act 1900 (sections 82,83 & 84) makes it illegal to procure, administer any drug or noxious thing, with the intent of causing an abortion, what possible ethical standpoint can you take here?
If something is illegal and morally repulsive to the point where there are international conventions on it, then this should send a very strong message shouldn't it?

In case you still haven't got it, abortion is repulsive and I think very wrong. If the UN, HREOC and the Crimes Act agree with me, then at what point can it be said that an ethicist has thought it out better than I have?

Horse 1108b - Euthanasia

In New South Wales at least, murder is defined by section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900, and although suicide as a crime has been abrogated at law under section 31A of the Crimes Act 1900, it does not necessarily imply a right.
A right is either a legal, social or ethical principle of freedom and or entitlement. This definition stems from the discussion papers which were drawn up prior to the Bill of Rights Act 1689.

The biggest problem that I have with the so called "Right to Die" is that once someone has carried through with their decision to commit suicide, then that decision is final. The argument "It's my body, I can do what I want" poses the same question as the abortion issue... Is it really?

If my body is my own, then this implies that my body is my property. In other words, ownership of my body belongs to me. However, since owning property itself is a rights concept, then this implies that there is a distinct difference between subject and an owner but it should be obvious to every sane person that there simple isn't is a distinct difference in reality. This is a circular logical fallacy, since if there actually is a difference between the subject and owner, then my body ceases to be my property.

There is always the problem of consent. As far as the idea of legal rationalism goes, the concept of an individual being compos mentis refer to someone being of sound mind. Can someone who wishes to commit suicide even be said to be of sound mind? Is it even therefore possible for an individual to give consent to their own suicide? And if someone else is involved, even though they might be performing actions on compassionate grounds, does that amount to willful taking of life and therefore a complicitous act of murder? In the case of involuntary euthanasia, where does the line get drawn in the case of murder?

Since society generally has decided to abandon the church as its moral guardians, then leaving an issue like this up to mere politicians who would be invariably asked for a conscience vote is a tenuous proposition. It's much better to err of the side of caution when it comes to matters of deciding law than to pass law with ambiguous consequences. It should be also of no surprise to any sane person that when a law has undefined and ambiguous consequences it also leads to unintended consequences.

Horse 1108c - The Death Penalty

I completely understand the need for a society to demonstrate justice, and the need for punishment for severe and violent crimes. However the possibility of making a mistake, and passing judgment to end someone's life when they were in fact not guilty, forms the underlying basis why Australia abandoned the death penalty in the first place. Moreover the public outrage which followed as a result of Ronald Ryan being hanged in 1967 was also based on the possibility that the verdict could have been wrong; this in part led to the Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973.

It is interesting to look at the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights with regards the death penalty. Whilst it is in fact "silent" on the issue, many groups including Amnesty International argue that Article 3, which states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" can be interpreted along with Article 5 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" to suggest that the right to life and not to suffer degrading treatment or punishment is universal and that the death penalty violates these rights.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

Also of note is that United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolutions 62/149 and 63/168, calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Since then, other regional bodies or civil society coalitions adopted resolutions and declarations advocating for a moratorium on executions as a step towards global abolition of the death penalty.

Most notably, the EU in its Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, outright abolished the death penalty and because it is binding on all EU member states, then likewise the death penalty ceased to exist (if it did) in those nations with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. The EU's position is pretty well much an extension of the position of the UN.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
Article 2 - Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
The nation of Australia itself except for Aboriginal peoples, started out as a penal colony. Any way that you to care to look at it, being transported to a foreign land is still a more humane punishment than the death penalty.

Closing Remarks

Law exists for a number of functions. It acts as a standard which defines what is an isn't acceptable. It acts as a regulator so that society doesn't descend into chaos. It sometimes acts as referee, so that when someone has broken the standards or regulations, it finds appropriate remedies and/or punishments.

Call me an idealist, but I think that law generally should be written to either reflect or uphold the best possible standards. People generally as proven in everyday life, with something even as simple as doing 113km/h on the motorway, will nudge and break those standards on a consistent basis; therefore you can not reasonably expect that people will act according to those best possible standards. Is it then wise to abandon standards simply on the basis of freedom and choice?

I would argue that an "ethicist" hasn't "thought it out better than I have". In this case the ethicist merely has a different viewpoint; and me being well within my right to free speech, and my right to express myself, I also am perfectly capable of saying that the line of argument put forward by Dr Cannold is unacceptable. Furthermore, can it reasonably be said that the "Chances are they've thought it out better than you have" is true, especially considering that I've taken 1500+ words to express that opinion and have the weight of several international organisations behind me?

Perhaps it is worth looking at the preamble to the  UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights once more:
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, 

To put it bluntly, Dr Cannold outraged my conscience and if her viewpoint is allowed to continue to fester into the common conscienceness of society generally, in my opinion it will result in barbarous acts in stark contrast to  the highest aspiration of the common people.

Horse 1107 - Everyone Has Religion... Including Despicable People

I was watching Q and A last night, and one of the panelists was a Dr Leslie Cannold. Dr Cannold according to the blurb posted on the ABC website is an author, commentator, ethicist and activist. It also goes onto mention that:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3010595.htm
Her books include the award-winning "The Abortion Myth and What, No Baby"? which made the Australian Financial Review's top 101 books list for 2005.
Leslie regularly discusses ethics on ABC Sydney 702, Brisbane radio 4BC and on the 7PM Project on Network Ten. She is also a regular contributor to Sydney's Sun-Herald where she writes her "Moral Maze" column.
She is President of Reproductive Choice Australia, a national coalition of pro-choice organisations that played a key role in removing the ban on the abortion drug RU486 in 2006 and Pro Choice Victoria which was instrumental in the decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria in 2008.

Already and just from her blurb, she appears to have got my Feckles, Heckles, Hackles, Schmeckles up, but I find this particular comment from Q and A not only to be hypocritical but also highly distasteful.

But I also would very fiercely resist any attempt for someone to tell me that their religious values should dictate what I do.
- Dr Leslie Cannold, Q and A, ABC1 20-09-10.

Really?

If I look through the OED to find a definition of religion, I should logically ignore the first definition which involves the belief and worship of an otherwise controlling and/or supernatural being which may involve one, many or no gods.

Therefore, skipping to the second and third defnitions, we read that Religion according to the OED is:
2. "a particular system of faith and/or worship",
3. "a controlling influence on a person's life"

My great conjecture is that in broad terms, faith is what a person believes or trusts in, and that religion is a set of practices which stem from this; nothing more and nothing less. Equally the term religion could be applied to what Richard Dawkins does as some sort of evangelistic atheism but that opens up another discussion well beyond the scope of this blog post.
If Dr Cannold intends to use "religion" at all as an argument, then everything she puts forward must Vis-à-vis must instantly be refuted by her very own arguments. Dr Cannold can not deny that she believes in something because everyone in the world, has their own unique worldview, which is based on what they personally hold to be true, ie what they believe. If this is the case, then she's arguing against religion from the viewpoint of her religion.
I of course refer you to the very famous legal case of Pot vs Kettle.

The questioner correctly put the argument about the separation of church and state, however, you can't separate an individual's religion and their conscience and nor should you ever try and I agree with Christopher Pyne here that if somebody is informed by their religious views in reaching a conclusion on a matter of conscience, that is perfectly their right, in my view, as a member of parliament. They cannot - you cannot simply ask somebody to separate what informs their values.
- Chris Bowen, Q and A, ABC1 20-09-10.

Of course you can't because everybody believes something (even if you believe there is no god, which is still belief of something), ergo everybody has their own unique religion of sorts. Whether or not it is codified is entirely another matter, but since religion is a set of practices, and everybody acts (I can't think of the most general verb, but no-one is totally inanimate), then it is not a logical leap to suggest that everyone has a religion.

If all of this is logical, then even I must concede that religion breeds intolerance and ignorance, because: "everyone from the lowliest peasant, to kings and princes are motivated by self-interest"
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1.

The thug who robs a 7-Eleven, a lazy plumber who takes too long to do a job, the bankers on Wall St, even the priesthood who do "naughty things", are all "motivated by self-interest"; because of this, the religion that has caused more "mistreatment and unhappiness" than any other is surely the religion of self-interest? I'd say that it's caused both far more bad and good than any organised church, or codified religion ever has.

In the case of Dr Leslie Cannold, we already know that she is pro-abortion, and pro-euthenasia, which may as well be saying that she is in fact pro-death. Australia does not use the death penalty on the basis that it is possible to make a mistake and get it wrong. Once someone has died, they do not generally come back to life in my experience. Yet for some reason, even though we apply this to criminals, we're not applying the same principles to the most vulnerable members of society?

I think the states that have the death penalty are wrong to do so and I think it does indicate a lack of respect for human life and I think they should change their position.
- Christopher Pyne, Q and A, ABC1 20-09-10.

I think that this more than anything else, sums up just why Dr Cannold is so incredibly wrong. How on one hand can you suggest that you advocate "choice" which supposedly increases human dignity, yet through precisely the same act, actively show a lack of respect for human life itself.

Sorry Dr Cannold, but as Martin Luther King, Jr. said people should "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Taking this into account and judging you on the content of your character, you are despicable.

Horse 1106 - Barbara Lives In "Bankworld", Long Live Barbara

I've just seen the "Barbara lives in Bank World" whilst waiting in the queue at an ANZ bank. The funny think is that although Barbara has a gruff exterior, I actually think that I would prefer to do my banking business at A Bank, than the ANZ.

A Bank in these ads os portrayed as an unfriendly institution, however we don't ask our banks to be friendly institutions. What we expect from banks is that they'll either give us ample returns for investing our money them and/or won't charge us high fees for the so called privilege for leaving our money with them (which as I see it is basically the same as rent).

In fact in the past, bank themselves would erect massive facades on the branches of their rural branches to show that they were solid and dependable. If anything, the series of ads with Barbara working for A Bank, shows that A Bank is a serious banking firm. As a prospective investor, I might like to consider placing my funds with A Bank.

Thinking about this further, the same sort of image is projected in the Disney CG movie, Cars. One of the characters, Chick Hicks, is sponsored by a ficitious banking firm called Hostile Takeover Bank or HTB for short.

The thing is that I would also consider putting my funds with Hostile Takeover Bank for the simple reason that if they're the ones going around making all of these hostile takeovers then at least in the short run, they sound like a highly profitable firm.

Equally back in 2001 and 2002, the online bank Egg (website http://www.egg.co.uk) was the main sponsor of the Egg Sport Astra team in the British Touring Car Championship. Back then as now I still think that those Egg Astras had some of the coolest liveries ever to appear on a race car.

So what does all of this have to do with Barbara who according to the ANZ lives in "Bankworld" and not ours? Logically if Barbara does live in "Bankworld" then more than likely, she's probably a specialist who knows what they are doing, and can do an efficient and worthy job. Ironically whilst I was waiting in the queue in the ANZ, the branch I was in was understaffed, and the staff who were there seemed to go away and ask their supervisors, lords and masters, about what they should do. The thing is that I don't think that Barbara who lives in "Bankworld" would need to - she'd already know what to do.

Horse 1105 - Why Bother With a Blog?

From the Cat and Girl webcomic:
http://catandgirl.com/?p=2596

Or some friendly advice from Wired.com:

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/magazine/16-11/st_essay

Thinking about launching your own blog? Here's some friendly advice: Don't. And if you've already got one, pull the plug.

Writing a weblog today isn't the bright idea it was four years ago. The blogosphere, once a freshwater oasis of folksy self-expression and clever thought, has been flooded by a tsunami of paid bilge. Cut-rate journalists and underground marketing campaigns now drown out the authentic voices of amateur wordsmiths. It's almost impossible to get noticed, except by hecklers. And why bother? The time it takes to craft sharp, witty blog prose is better spent expressing yourself on Flickr, Facebook, or Twitter.

I find the idea that the blog is dead to be an interesting yet strangely familiar proposal. Even if I look around my own little corner of the blogosphere of things that I regularly read, I find that the average time between posts for 2009-10 has now run out to 36.84 days and that the average word count is a paltry 163 words, or a little over three paragraphs.

Of course this was always to be expected anyway. We live in both a post-modern and post-literate society (though I think that it's tending more towards outright illiteracy). People for the most part are suspicious of the concepts of objective truth, and the idea of postliteracy is one where pictures, video and audio replaces the written word for the most part.

Of course we can see actual evidence of this all around us. The Sydney Morning Herald is suffering from falling revenues as readers move online, but coupled with this is that the physical newspaper itself is shrinking. What used to be a hefty daily document, has now more or less become a slimline three section thing, with only the Saturday edition retaining its former chunkiness.

Ray Bradbury's book Fahrenheit 451 published all the way back in 1953, seems to predict the trend towards post-literacy. It's not too big a jump to conceive that "the bees in people's ears, swept away the silence no leaving any time to think or question" could be speaking about people's iPods or that the giant screens installed in people's living rooms (parlors) are the equivalent of today's flat-screen, plasman, LCD, Jumbotrons.

"The public itself stopped reading of its own accord. You firemen provide a circus now and then at which buildings are set off and crowds gather for the pretty blaze, but it's a small sideshow indeed, and hardly necessary to keep things in line. So few want to be rebels any more. And out of those few, most, like myself, scare easily. Can you dance faster than the White Clown, shout louder than 'Mr. Gimmick' and the parlor 'families'? If you can, you'll win your way, Montag. In any event, you're a fool. People are having fun."

That's just it isn't it. People are having fun. People for the most part can't be bothered to read any more than a couple of lines of their own accord. Short of the odd person who still happens to read a novel for fun, the vast bulk of people simply choose not to read. Twitter and Facebook are immensely successful, because can't be bothered to read.

Of course the obvious question which arises from Wired's article is why bother to continue writing a blog if no-one is going to read it? Why bother yelling into the darkness if you know you won't be heard?

Because I can... but am I having fun?

Horse 1104 - The Herald Got It Blazingly Wrong

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/bob-loves-bananas--as-long-as-theyre-straight-20100907-14ye3.html

Katter may not be mad. Perhaps he is not a bigot, either. The hat makes it hard to tell. He is one of those country men who is confident with misinformation. Who is used to being right even when he is not. Who trained his voice, one imagines, reciting Clancy of the Overflow at public functions. Who always speaks loudly.

Oh dear... just oh dear.

I'm afraid that the Sydney Morning Herald has just made it blatantly obvious that it doesn't just have a speck or a plank its eye but a whole sawmill.

Bob Katter said a great deal of things on the ABC's Q and A last night, including that he doesn't much like homosexuals and then was chided for his views. I think that the chiding is ridiculous. Mr Katter is not only perfectly entitled to express his views, but has the right to do so. Furthermore because of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 of which Australia was a signatory (and helped write), the right is enshrined by law.

Article 19 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Also because of the Bill of Rights Act 1689, the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

Think about that SMH.

Perhaps it didn't occur to the Sydney Morning Herald that the vast bulk of what Mr Katter had to say, was not directed at social law anyway. Most of what Mr Katter wants to achieve is to do with the steady erosion of Australia's manufacturing base and the utterly despicable state that we will soon be a net importer of food.

In 1987, 86 per cent of the passenger motor vehicles in Australia were made in Australia. Eighty-six per cent, Nick. As a result of Mr Keating's and your policies, now only 21 per cent are made in Australia and is there a single person here that believes we'll have a car industry in 20 years in Australia? A single person?
...
Four years ago we became a net importer of fruit and vegetables. Last year we became a net importer of seafood and I don't care what set of statistics you want to look at. Within 14 years we will be a net importer of food.

- Bob Katter, ABC1 Q and A, 6th Sep 2010

Think about that as well dear SMH.

Bob Katter has every right to have his own opinion, like it or not. He has the right to choose to represent the issues he holds dear to his heart in whatever order of priority he chooses, like it or not. He also has the right to represent the interests of whatever make of his constituents he chooses, like it or not. Coupled with all of this is that he is charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of the people in his electorate... and no-one else.

It is an act of political hijack to people to suggest or imply he should represent the interests of all. There are other candidates to cater for the interests of other views. Bob Katter does not have to agree with the moral or immoral majority nor every man woman or child in this nation.

As he himself said, which the SMH quotes in the very article:

“You probably don't consider it to be a small problem [but] in the bigger picture of things it's just not something that occupies my consciousness.”

Why should the issue occupy his consciousness? The people in his electorate are worried about the very existance of their livelihoods. It might be very well to talk about issues of social consciousness, but even more fundamental to that is the ability for people to put food on the table.

But of course the SMH from its little offices in Sussex Street wouldn't know a thing about what its like in rural and regional Australia. Their editors don't really care where their food actually comes from and probably would be content to drive around in European built luxury cars whilst the people who would have had jobs building cars in Australia have to look elsewhere for work.

Remove the planks from your eyes and start banging them over the back of your stupid pathetic heads dear SMH, it might knock some sense into you. Instead of chastising someone who is passionate and prepared to state the glaringly obvious, and what should have been fixed or even talked about for the last twenty years, you berate the man.

Dear SMH, today you have made me sick. I bite my thumb at you.

FOR SHAME.

Horse 1103 - The $37 Million Exercise in Cynicism

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/david-jones-37-million-sex-case-starts-monday/story-e6freuzr-1225911089882

The retail giant's former junior publicist Kristy Fraser-Kirk's record $37 million sexual misconduct claim officially starts in the Federal Court when the retail giant and it's former CEO will be given a deadline to lodge their defences to her allegations.

Personally I hope that this case dies quietly. Not because I think that it is a carriage of justice, because without delving into the facts, it is probably likely that there is quite a strong degree of claim to the case*, but rather that the amount of the claim itself and whom the claim is directed is in my opinion a combination of pure vexatiousness, cynicism and bile.
I have two basic problems with the case in principle, and they are outlined below.

Usually in a punitive damages case, the applicant is hoping to collect damage as a direct result of the damage suffered of the offence in question. That amount is determined by either a calculated loss of income and wages question, and or some degree of emotional suffering.
The point to make here, is that if Ms Fraser-Kirk is making a claim based on her, degree of emotional suffering, is that worth $37 million? Because that $37 million certainly isn't reflective of her lost wages and potential earnings power.
If you work through the logic and assume that Ms Fraser-Kirk was on a wage of $80,000 a year (which from what I can determine is ridiculously overstated), then an average career loss would probably be up to five years maximum. That would equate to a loss in potential wages of $400,000 or just a shade over 1% of what she is claiming. Is the amount that she has suffered worth $36.6 million? I seriously doubt it.

The second issue I have with this case, is that David Jones Ltd is being held liable for the actions of an individual.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/upbeat-mcinnes-flies-back-to-face-the-music-20100815-12574.html

"I did so with great sadness as it was a career and a company I loved, that I had helped rebuild.

However, the reason is simple. It was my responsibility, not David Jones's."

- Mark McInnes, August 16, 2010.

It can be very easily argued that David Jones as an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe workplace, and that includes a workplace which is harassment free. However, the company David Jones Ltd itself is a secondary party in this. I hardly think that its fair, just or logical if as a result of David Jones Ltd losing the case, being forced to pay $37 million in damages, that someone in say a store in the Rundle Mall in Adelaide should lose their jobs due to cutbacks.

I have heard it argued that the reason for claiming an amount as outlandish as $37 million is to "make the company hurt". I find that to be somewhat spiurious, because if it was truly about making someone hurt, wouldn't it be more just to make the actual person who caused the hurt in the first place suffer?

To what extent is David Jones Ltd. implicated anyway? Is it an equal basis? If so then how come Mark McInnes isn't also being chased for $37 million? If it truly is about causing "hurt", then isn't it logical for Mark McInnes to lose his house and go and live in the gutter? The thing is that no-one would conceed that that is a carriage of justice at all, yet somehow it's okay for a company to be pinged for the money? And if it isn't about the money, then why go after the company rather than the individual?

Ms Fraser-Kirk has incidentally promised to give most of the money to charity anyway. So what? If I owe you some money, I can't decide to pay a charity instead of you, because my debt is directly with you, not the charity.
Likewise, the fact that Ms Fraser-Kirk has promised to give most of the money to charity is entirely irrelevant to the case. That is entirely her own business, and the fact that she's been trumpeting this in the media is little more than sensationalism.
Besides which, if she honestly and truly feels that she is in fact entitled to the $37 million, then what is her motive for giving most of it to charity? I would contend that deep down she knows herself that the claim is vexatious and is doing to in order to whitewash over her own guilty conscience.

Whilsy all of this might sound harsh, I should point out that as consumers and taxpayers, we all suffer when repeated vexatious legal damages pass through the courts. It is us who pay through higher prices for goods and services, as well as through higher taxes as a result of courts time and the legal profession's time being employed.
That last point is in my not very well paid opinion the reason why this massive figure was chosen seemingly at random in the first place. No doubt that the legal firm Maurice Blackburn who is representing Ms Fraser-Kirk will be paid on a percentage basis. Obviously it is in their best interests to rip for as much money as they can possibly get.


*I don't condone sexual harassment either in the workplace or otherwise. It should go without saying that harassment of any kind is evil, and it should not be tolerated.

Horse 1102 - We're Going To The Polls Again, Or Not... Or Maybe... Who Knows Any More?

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!

Horse 1101 - Micra Loves Cities... Hopefully Cities Might Like it Back

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.

Horse 1100 - As Bonkers as Bob Katter

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.

Horse 1099 - A House Divided

"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.

Horse 1098 - You've Got to Dream, You've Got to Hold Onto the Dream

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.

Horse 1097 - There Is No "Right to Marry" In The First Place

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.

Horse 1096 - Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned - Democracy is a Sham

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.