Horse 1442 - On The Right To Privacy

http://www.deakin.edu.au/news/2013/06022013Mirkoprivacy.php
“The right to privacy has blossomed in recent decades, to the point where it has developed into an enforceable legal right in many countries. The existence of a right to privacy has been assumed, but not proven and no one has rigorously analysed whether privacy is desirable, until now.”
“The current legal focus and level of discussion concerning the right to privacy is an illustration of the human propensity to lose perspective,” 
- Professor Mirko Bagaric, 6th Feb, 2013

Professor Mirko Bagaric, dean and head of the faculty of law at Deakin University has argued in an essay published in "Future Proofing Australia: The Right Answers For Our Future" that in an age of increased social media, that the right to privacy is either becoming so irrelevant as not to exist or that it never truly existed in the first place.
It is an interesting concept to be sure and I can sort of understand that given that people are prone to publish so many details about themselves, which is the distinct opposite of anonymity, why the Professor would draw such conclusions.
Is it a worthwhile suggestion to make though? By inference, would he be prepared to perform the experiment with his own personal details and effects? I wonder how quickly Mr Bagaric would be to claim his own right to privacy once his itself had been violated. How would he feel if where he lived, his date of birth, tax file number and/or medical records were published for all and sundry to see without his permission? Would he then claim a right which he currently argues does not exist?

One of the most obvious things for me when it comes to the use of social media, is the question of whether or not something has been proffered for publication or not. The internet generally sort of acts like a giant newsstand on the street corner, except that the barriers which used to exist when it came to publication (printing costs, access to space on the newsstand etc) are vastly reduced to the point of almost zero. Although the very point and aim of the internet was the fast dissemination of information, the very act of publishing something still implies that consent has been given to publish that thing which has been published.

Mr Bagaric has this to say:
“Facebook has more than 800 million users of which more than 50 Per cent log on every day. Users select the amount and type of data they upload and commonly it includes photographs, often of a revealing nature, relationship status, work and study activity, likes and dislikes and intimate personal details.
Nothing it seems is out of bounds in terms of the information people share about themselves.”

Whilst I agree that nothing is necessarily out of bounds in terms of what people publish, which also sort of goes hand in hand with the right to free speech, it still nevertheless requires a willful act to publish something.
For instance, when I write a blog post, i am in fact required to press a button marked publish before it appears for general consumption. My permission is granted at that point if you will, by the willful act of pressing the button and consenting to publish. That is quite different to an invasion of privacy which is the publication of something without any consent to publication being granted.
Perhaps Twitter and Facebook are far more ethereal. In some respects they're like speaking in that whatever is communicated is done so more or less instantly but unlike the mere act of speaking, those words and pictures form a record which can be traced. Even then though, they still require someone at some point to consent to the thing to be published.
Some dispute though exists when Facebook in particular claims that everything posted and every detail which is offered to it, is its property. Facebook tries to claim in its Terms Of Service that because it offers a voluntary service that it has the right to on sell details given to it. I suppose that that's fair enough provided that that is what people signed up to but when a major corporation unilaterally decides to change how it deals with the public and by inference steal information from them which they thought they offered under different terms, no wonder they're not happy.

As with so many things there is a material test of intent which can be applied. If in surrendering details about one's self, what does the individual expect that the person to whom those details have been surrendered, will do with them? If you give details such as your address when you fill in a form to win some competition, they will generally tell you up front that they will then use those details to send you advert material. If though, you give details to someone in which there is a degree of professional trust, like a doctor or your child's school, you would hope that they would keep them confidential.
The most obvious reason for wanting personal details kept private is that of theft; theft of physical property, direct theft of money if banking details are obtained and perhaps the theft and violation of one's reputation and good character. I have heard of instances of prospective employers trawling Facebook and not hiring someone because they'd been prejudiced against them because of photographs which had been published; sometimes not even by them but by other people who had tagged them as being in photographs.

“Modern technology underlines the irrelevance of arguments for the need for more privacy. People are more likely to seek attention rather than anonymity.”

I would argue that technological advancements do no such thing. The invention of the telephone for instance did not instantly remove any right to privacy that people have when having a discussion. The Surveillance Device Act 2007 at least implies through the "prohibition on use, communication or publication of protected information" in Section 40 that a right in theory must exist, or else there wouldn't have been the need for legislative protection.
Modern technology does not underline the irrelevance of arguments for the need for more privacy at all; far from it and quite the opposite. Information can now be shared so quickly and easily that even something which consent was never given for can escape into the world with alarming speed and swiftness. If anything modern technology underlines the urgency of arguments for the need for more privacy. 

Presumably as head of the faculty of law at Deakin University, Mr Bagaric must have come across the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights at some point. The point is moot whether or not the rights contained in the document already existed or whether member states have decided to voluntarily embrace them but it seems somewhat strange to me that the brightest minds of a generation who had at the time recently witnessed some of the most gruesome horrors that the world has ever produced, would be wrong in including as Article 12.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Does Mr Bagaric mean to suggest that either the inclusion of this in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is wrong, or that the codifying of any human rights is wrong, or that the very concept that people as a result of their inherent dignity do not possess any human rights at all? It is a very slippery slope indeed.
It appears that Mr Bagaric seems to think so, judging from other things he has written:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/A-case-for-torture/2005/05/16/1116095904947.html
First, no right or interest is absolute. Secondly, rights must always yield to consequences, which are the ultimate criteria upon which the soundness of a decision is gauged. Lost lives hurt a lot more than bent principles.
- Mirko Bagaric, from The Age 16th Dec 2005

No right or interest is absolute? Again I'd like to quote the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Not good enough? Perhaps we should quote "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Actually I'd like to hear from Professor Bagaric. It would be interesting to find out on what basis he thinks that his opinion is stronger, than the weight of thought and ideas which grew out of some of the bloodiest conflicts the world has ever seen.

Horse 1441 - The Most Un-Australia Day of all is Australia Day

http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/act-recognition-passes

Australia has moved closer towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with the Act of Recognition passing the House of Representatives today.
The Prime Minister was joined in the House by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and community leaders to mark this significant step towards a referendum.
The Bill recognises the unique and special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
This reflects wording suggested by the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, whose significant report has put in place the foundations to enable us to progress constitutional recognition.
Today also marks the fifth anniversary of the National Apology.
On 13 February 2008, we said sorry to Indigenous Australians, in particular the Stolen Generations, for past wrongs. We apologised for the pain and suffering and hurt that successive policies had inflicted on Indigenous Australians for more than two centuries.
This was the first step in building a reconciled Australia with relationships based on mutual respect and understanding.
- except from the Media Release, Prime Minister's Office, 13th February 2013.

When Kevin Rudd formally said 'sorry' to the Stolen Generation, it should have been the first of many steps towards proper reconciliation with the Indigenous peoples of this nation. The event of February 13, 2008 is one of many symbolic steps that can and should be taken. February 13 is also an excellent date because it has the potential to become so much more and I think that we can learn some valuable lessons from our cousins, our best enemies and closest of mates on the world stage, New Zealand.


February 6 in New Zealand marks Waitangi Day. Unlike January 26 in Australia where Australia Day pretty well marks the date of formal invasion of Australia, Waitangi Day marks the date when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, which marked peace between the British and Maori peoples.
When you go to Wellington and Parliament in New Zealand, the first thing that strikes you is the direct representation of Maoris in the chamber. There are a certain number of seats allocated in parliament, which can only be taken by and also, only voted for, by Maoris.

The other peculiarity is that on key issues, the question is raised about legislation is keeping with the spirit of Waitangi. New Zealand has no formal constitution, rather like the British parliament in Westminster and although like Australia and Britain, debate in the chamber can get outright rude and sometimes degenerate into a slanging match, the question of outcomes for New Zealand's indigenous people isn't argued in the abstract but rather, because there are representatives in the room, direct responses are given. You would have trouble even finding an Aboriginal member of parliament in Australia and when they are appointed, debate isn't nearly as thoughtful as in New Zealand.

If I could wave a magic wand and change the constitution tomorrow, I'd place at least one Aboriginal representative from every state in the Senate, to be voted there by Aboriginal people only.
Although the idea of recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution sounds like a nice gesture, to me that's got less meat on it than a chicken nugget. Real change and real representation comes about by putting real voices on the floors of chambers. People generally have better outcomes when they speak for themselves and to be perfectly honest Australia as a nation has been pretty shameful in this regard. It took until 1967, or 66 years after federation for Aboriginals to get the vote and that's not even including the 113 years before that since the land was stolen after being wrongly declared 'Terra Nullius'. People prefer to speak for themselves than being spoken to and that is precisely what this country has done to entire groups of people for 225 years. It's a disgrace.

The other thing we can learn from New Zealand is the day that is celebrated as the national day. Waitangi Day is as close to a national day as New Zealand has. Australia Day neither commemorates the day that Australia became a separate nation (January 1, 1901), it doesn't celebrate the day that Cook sighted the Australian coast, nor does it celebrate the day that the First Fleet landed. They arrived 8 days earlier at Botany Bay but Governor Phillip decided to go round the corner and look for somewhere nicer. January 26 marks the day when Britain stole the Australian continent through the cunning use of flags. Sail round the world, stick a flag in, ignore the people who were already living there. No wonder January 26 (in my opinion quite rightly) is called Invasion Day by some people. I think Australia Day itself is un-Australian.

In the spirit of true reconciliation, along with the changes to the Senate, the public holiday and celebration of January 26 would be done away with.
Perhaps to add a touch of symbolism, the date of February 13 should be chosen as both the day that a proper treaty is signed with Indigenous Australians, the date when those new Senators would enter the chamber, and the date of the new public holiday while the old one is quietly forgotten forever.

Horse 1440 - Divine Dynamite Drug Debate

As the drugs and doping crisis engulfing Australia threatens to name and shame clubs, players, trainers, officials and coaches, one name that hasn't been mentioned in all of this is conspicuous by its absence and perhaps a little suspicious due to the timing of his resignation... that being Pope Benedict XVI.

Although as a 14 year old he was forcibly conscripted into the Hitler Youth, he was unenthusiastic and refused to attend many meetings. He saw out the Second World War in an Internment Camp after being taken prisoner as a POW. After the war he moved back to Munich, which is where the trouble really started.
Of course living in Munich, he would have seen the inception of the Bundesliga in 1963 and the rise of Bayern Munich who has subsequently gone on to win 22 national titles and 15 cups including the then  European Cup three times in a row from 1974-1976.

In the mid 00s after being elected to the position of Pope in 2005, Italy mysteriously won the 2006 FIFA World Cup after a penalty shoot-out against France in the final. Fabio Grosso at the time remarked that "divine intervention helped us to play above ourselves". Maybe this should have been seen as a confession that something was amiss.
It should have been obvious in 2007 when Pope Benedict XVI was bought for 770 lakhs rupees (A$1.38m) by the Chennai Super Kings in the Indian Premier League but politely declined. There were unconfirmed rumours that he was seen hanging around the clubhouse of the Melbourne Storm last year and we are pretty well much certain that he has enjoyed hooning it up in Lygon Street in the past.

Of course these sorts of scandals take years, sometimes decades to finally come out in the wash. During the 1986 World Cup, Diego Maradona famously in the post-game conference after the Quarter-final against England that his now famous goal was scored "a little with the head of Maradona and a little with the hand of God".  It took him until his 2005 autobiography to finally admit that he had cheated.

Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI won't admit immediately to being linked to the 'drugs in sport' crisis but it is curious that he is citing ill-health as the reason for his resignation. It is worth noting though that between 1987-1990, 18 Dutch and Belgian cyclists died suddenly and it was later found that they'd been using EPO. I'm not immediately suggesting that that is what's going on but the timing of Benedict's resignation is curious to say the least.

Horse 1439 - VF Commodore Breaks Cover

Top photo from: http://v8supercars.com.au/ Bottom photo from: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/

In Horse 1436 I posted photos of renderings of what the Chevrolet SS might look like and what the Chevrolet SS NASCAR finally does look like. The official launch over the weekend is of the Calais variant of the car is different to the front headlight and grille treatment that the V8 Supercars will be getting. The rear light clusters look the same, but the front of both the BOC and Garry Rogers Motorsport cars, looks more like the Chevrolet SS renderings.
What then are the V8 Supercars based on? Are they based on an upcoming SS version of the Commodore or perhaps they're of the base model Executive. HSV which likes to violently beat cars with the ugly stick, probably won't debut their variants of the VF until the Melbourne Motor Show in July.

The entire of the VF between the A and C pillars is identical to the VE. Holden have announced though that there is a complete difference in the trim and appointments but under the bonnet, the same engines carry over from VE. As expected the gills behind front wheel arches are there and the shape of the chin lamp holes is pretty well much as expected.
To be perfectly honest though, it's just not very awe inspiring; it's not offensive either. The VF will fit into traffic and just sort of blend in.

The very fact that this car follows the design trends laid down by both the Cruze (in the front and rear lights) and the Captiva (addition of gills), doesn't instill me with confidence despite the noises coming from Holden. Mike Devereux announced that the VF will be sold in South Africa, the Middle-East and the US (so it being the Chevrolet SS is more or less confirmed) but the fact that it won't be sold in Brazil where it currently is, is ominous by its silence. Even Devereux himself conceded that the Australian Dollar is working against the export opportunities of the Commodore, which again makes me think that the Commodore's days are numbered.

Maybe that's what the Holden Malibu is for: "a strong example of the exciting new generation of products coming from General Motors". It could be that the Commodore just isn't one of those new generation of products.

Horse 1438 - Drugs In Sport Crisis Deepens

Every so often I go off to play  Contract Bridge at the local Bridge Club, mainly with old ladies who have been playing the game longer than I have been alive. Bridge is very well known for the conventions and tells which build up inside the game and the sometimes dirty tactics which play out over the course of a tournament.
So then, with the current crisis rocking Australian sport, what could it possibly have to old ladies and cards? To put it simply, match fixing is rife in Bridge; cheating is rife in Bridge; drugs are rife in Bridge.

Drugs - Old ladies especially, love to tell you how old they are. They also love to openly tell you how many drugs they are taking. Liver pills, blood pressure pills, pills for their heart, or to regulate some hormone or iron, the list goes on, on and ever on. Hearing old people go on about the number of drugs they do is kind of like standing outside a nightclub on a Saturday night, when young people will tell you about go-ey, ecky or wacky.
The real drug of choice by card players though is caffeine. Endless cups of tea and coffee flow through the internal plumbing of old people. Caffeine has been known for ages to improve alertness and was probably the single leading cause of the "enlightenment" in the early eighteenth century when people switched from drinking gin to coffee in the UK. Playing at cards at coffee have gone together now for more than 300 years.

Cheating -  Contract Bridge at its highest levels is so subject to players cheating, that in international tournaments talking is outright banned and sometimes they use bidding cards, boxes and screens so that partners can't see each other. Even with silence and bidding cards, players still found ways of telling their partner what they had by even more subtle cues like the number of fingers placed on bidding cards etc.
We uncovered a cheating system where the ladies appeared to be telling rambling stories about their families but the names they were using, were covers and placeholders for distinct cards. "Phillip went down to see Julie at number 6 the other day" is an elaborate cover for "I have the King and Five Of Clubs with six clubs all up." They'd actually named each of the 52 cards in the pack and could tell no end of stories which on the face of it, were boring and went on with no purpose than gossip.

Match Fixing - Yes, match fixing happens in  Contract Bridge all the time. At a local level, people will deliberately lose rubbers to let their friends advance and/or so they they'll meet a particular group in the next round of the tournament. Officially it doesn't happen but because we're talking about old people, no-one dare police it for fear of everyone being caught out.

Match Fixing, Cheating and the use of Drugs in sport, probably extends to every sport there is and has probably been around as long as there's been sport. The great former manager of Liverpool FC, Bill Shankly once said that "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain advantage, then he should be." In context, that would have applied to football but if not even Contract Bridge is exempt from cheating, then what hope is there for s

Horse 1437 - 9% to 12% ? Super.

There has been suggestion in some media outlets that increasing the superannuation rate from 9% to 12% is going to hurt job growth. I however prefer to maintain that it won't make even the slightest difference at all and that the reason that it was suggested was because the financial sector would like to fleece more management fees off the top.

To wit:

It is 20X1.
Assume for instance that a wage earner is paid $80,000 a year. The total wage bill to the employer is $87,200 which is that amount plus 9%. From the employer's perspective, it really makes no difference at all if that $87,200 is made up of 9% super, or 22% super or even 0% super. The bottom line is that however it is made up, it is still a total expense of $87,200.

Take a trip to 20X2.
Our economy grows at roughly 4% and total wage packages are indexed at this.
$87,200 plus inflation is $90,688. If this is made of super at 9%, then the paid wage is $83,200. If however it was to be made up of super at 12% then the wages for 20X2 will be $80,971 and the super paid will be $9,717. The net result is still $90,688 so as far as the employer is concerned it is no difference at all. The employee will still be getting a monetary increase to their wage of $971 so as far as they're concerned, they still have to live with whatever the rules are.

The real difference is that under a 9% super system, the total collected by the super fund will be $7,488 as opposed to $9,717 under the 12% system. The difference to the super fund is $2,229 which they have to invest or about $44 in management fees for doing precisely nothing.
$44 by itself doesn't really seem like a lot but if you were to multiply that by the millions of wage earners paying into the superannuation system, that starts to add up to an awful lot of basically free money for doing diddly squat.

After doing tax returns for many self-managed super funds, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that people who managed their own money, even if they did worse overall than the retail funds, were still better off because they weren't paying management fees. In principle I understand why future governments don't like paying pensions and therefore why they'd like the responsibility to fall on people to pay for their own retirement, however management fees collected on the way through do nothing more than impose a tax by stealth on the poor and or stupid.
If you do have anymore than about half a million in super, then common sense suggests that you should set up your own Self Managed Super Fund. If you don't, then although you're still subject to the same law, you'll be paying tribute for no good reason at all.

As far as employers are concerned they'll still continue to look at the total cost of employing someone irrespective of how the component costs are made up. Total wage growth and employment costs will continue to follow the Golden Rule:
"Whoever has the gold, makes the rule"
Employees will just be fleeced a little more, it's just that some of us won't get the wool pulled over our eyes.
And Retail Super Funds? They're like Jason and the Argonauts chasing the golden fleece.

Horse 1436 - VF Commodore... The Final Curtain Call?

Holden ‏@holdennews
#VFCommodore is revealed Sunday but we'll be piecing it together online this week. Get involved! https://buildthecommodore.com.au/ 
- Holden, via Twitter, 4th Feb 2013

It is probably quite odd that I should get excited about the VF Commodore, considering that I'll never own one and more than likely never drive one but I suspect that it will be Holden's last hurrah. After final production of the Commodore, the General will want to build the Chevrolet SS in America and Commodores in their new $450m plant in Argentina. See Horse 1390
After the end of Commodore production, Holden's very reason for existence is brought into question and considering that the entire of the lineup except the Cruze hatchback would be built by Daewoo and sold everywhere else in the world as a Chevrolet, it makes sense to just ditch the brand altogether.

So then, the reason why I'm interested in the VF Commodore if it has nothing to do with driving it, is entirely different. I want to see just how close the Chevrolet SS which has already been spied testing in NASCAR will be to the Commodore in terms of styling.
NASCAR abandoned any resemblance to road going cars a long time ago but the stickers both front and rear are supposed to give a passing glance to what's on the road; the V8Supercars have also reached the point where the only common componentry between the race and road cars are the badges fore and aft, so really the VF itself is sort of an exercise in trying to pick what future Chevrolets (which will replace Holdens) will look like.

Will they be twins separated at birth?

There isn't a whole heap that can be done different in principle with the VF compared with the VE.
Maybe the 3L V6 will be standard and I suppose that there might be a difference with the 6.2L V8 but other than that, the rest of the differences will be subtle. Maybe Holden will fit progressive cylinder shut-down technology, which already exists on some Cadillacs or maybe Holden will finally introduce a diesel to the range. A diesel would increase the longetivity of the ute at least.
Things like ABS and IRS were standard a long time ago, so really apart from ESP there aren't a lot of completely new sweeping changes which even can be made. This means that VF will probably be more evolution than revolution.
The most boring things from a marketing perspective are perhaps the most critical to the wallets of owners over the life if the vehicle; that is the eternal race for increased fuel economy at the same time as increased power.

I sort of expected five years ago that Opel/Vauxhall and Holden/Chevrolet would have shared common cars by now but the  GFC which saw GM in America bailed out by the US Government and the semi sort of spin off of GM Europe put paid to that.
It's weird but you now have a situation where Opel dealers will try and sell you a Polish built Astra and claim that its better quality than an Australian built Cruze despite both of them sharing the same platform and engines which come out of the same factory in Elizabeth.
Actually the fact that Holden builds the Cruze at all sort of betrays the fact that the market moved on from large cars a long time ago. The highest selling cars on a month by month basis over the past few years have been the Mazda 3 and the Toyota Corolla. Occasionally the Cruze breaks into the top two but I don't think that it has claimed the top peg yet.
Australians are actually more likely to buy cars which are eligible for the British Touring Car Championship than they are for cars raced in V8Supercars. I read somewhere that the average age of a Commodore buyer was well over the age of fifty; that sort of suggests that the current average demographic are the same customers who were buying HT Kingswoods 35 years ago.

Holden might be allowed to live on a little longer if the American public see that the Australian built car is really quite good by world standards and if Holden is able to convince Detroit that the ute is a thing worth bringing back under the El Camino badge then it might be given another lifeline.
Unless the VF Commodore is absolutely and utterly exceptional, then I sort of think that this is the end of the road.  I know that Australians build cars which can be the best in the world but it's a real pity and crying shame that GM in Detroit doesn't see that too.
I wait expectantly for the launch of the VF Commodore on Sunday because sadly I suspect it will be the last to be built in Australia and probably also the last ever.

Additional:
Holden's Motorsport division via Twitter on @HoldenMsport may have inadvertently spilled the beans on what the front of the VF will look like by showing spy shots of the Chevrolet SS undergoing testing before the 2013 NASCAR season:

Horse 1435 - Telstra's Bigpond Internot Disservices

Having recently moved, I've also had the fun fun task of letting all the utility companies know that I've moved. Electric, Gas, Telephone, Internet... Internet... Internet?!
Although Telstra or rather their cable broadband service Bigpond knows that I've moved, it's just that they're not exactly sure what to do about it.

After sending a chap round three days late to install the internet cable, another chap came the following day and was bemused and amused at why he was there at all. As a private contractor he admitted that Telstra weren't very good at communicating with either their internal staff or subcontractors as to the jobs that they are supposed to do.
When I try to connect to the internet, I end up at a capture window which asks for my user name and password, then congratulates me for doing so and promises that it has been registered and will be ready in an hour but never is.
So in the meantime, I've rung Technical Support, the Moving Team and the curiously named Activation Team. I remember from primary school English that Activation is a verb, which means it's a 'doing' word, but so far I've not really come across any real doing and the network is still a notwork.

When you call Telstra, you go via an automated phone system which I think is designed to deliberately send you to the wrong department because they know that most people will be ringing on mobile phones which have a higher charge rate.
Invariably you'll be sent to a call centre in either Malaysia or the Phillipines and speak to some staff who are under resourced to deal with your actual problem. The term 'escalate' will be bandied about as though that's supposed to mean something but in my recent experience, I've been escalated so many times, I've probably ended up on the roof's helipad.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't blame the staff at the call centre. I think we both know that they're probably only on a fraction of the wage that people in Australia are and so getting mad would seem to them like the act of a boorish westerner which would only add to the negative stereotype that they'd have of us. We also both know that by under resourcing both the technical staff and customer support staff, it reduces costs for the corporation so that managers in offices can go on nice holidays to the Bahamas.
So almost three weeks after lodging the initial phone call, my internet connection still asks for my user name and password, then congratulates me for doing so and promises that it has been registered and will be ready in an hour; so far after more than four hundred and thirty-two hours it still is not ready.

I suppose that it is my own fault really. I should have expected that Telstra isn't capable of delivering services in a timely fashion or even with any real sort of indication of when the problems will be sorted out. I should have realised this during the final sell-off of Telstra:


"We will see rising prices, we will see falling levels of service. That's the reality of today's bill, that's the reality that many hundreds of thousand of Australians will now face."
 -Stephen Conroy, 15 Sep 2005



"I feel about 65 per cent happy. You know you do the very best deal you can knowing the alternative to that is you get nothing. The real judgement will be in 18 months time. You've always got, you know, a feeling in the back of your head there could be problems in the future. On the balance of the information I've got and what I've got to lose, I think we're making the right decision and that's about it."
- Barnaby Joyce, 15 Sep 2005



"Government and regulators should give Telstra a fair go to invest in high-speed broadband, rather than subsidising foreign companies that send their profits and valuable jobs offshore"
- Telstra's Broadband Australia Campaign, 2007


Sending valuable jobs offshore? Hmm, looking back 6 years later it seems highly hypocritical that Telstra accused the government of wanting to send jobs offshore when its own practices have done precisely that. If Telstra hadn't been sold off at all, then more than likely I would have been speaking to an operator in Australia who would have spoken directly to a technical member of staff who would have sorted out the problem by now. I remember those hazy crazy days when you could phone Telstra at 9am and there'd be someone round that afternoon to have a look. Perhaps it is too much to ask of a corporation concerned with profits rather than delivering telephonic and communication services which it used to under its former government remit.

All of this makes me think about the National Broadband Network (NBN). If the Liberal-National coalition wins the September election, they've promised to sell it off.
Now the reason why I'm having to ring call centres in Malaysia and the Phillipines in the first place is precisely because of an election promise and policy which was made and carried out 16 years ago.
Mr Howard sold off Telstra and with it, any chance that a functional NBN would be complete and if Mr Abbott repeats this you can pretty well much guarantee that it will happen again.
The 1996 Annual Report for Telstra (whilst it was still 100% government owned and still sensible) made mention of an Optic Fibre Network to be installed by 2002 which would carry future capacity to transmit video and audio to be built out of future profits at a cost of $8bn. ($14.8bn). We would have, nay should have had a fully built, fully costed NBN 11 years ago.
Now whilst Mr Turnbull speaks of other methods of delivery and that other technologies will be cheaper, it should be noted that selling off the NBN will result in exactly the same conditions as the privatisation of Telstra, that is complete market failure and a set of services which are incomplete.
It should also be noted that Mr Abbott was part of that government 16 years ago which voted for the privatisation of Telstra, which means that he personally is in part directly responsible for that market failure and selling the people of this country so very very short. It is a case of hyperbolic discounting on a massive scale and eleven years later the proof is $147bn in lost dividend profits that could have easily gone onto fund and upgrade the network.

As I sit on the phone to Telstra Bigpond I am more than aware that I'm still not going to be connected to a network which should have been finished and completed 11 years ago. I probably more than likely wouldn't be speaking to an under resourced and overworked call centre operator overseas either.

Horse 1434 - Any Questions?

If a Liberal-National coalition is elected with Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, he has promised substantial reforms to the way that Question Time is conducted. The way that I heard this being described on ABC Local Radio this morning is a specific allowance for backbenchers to "grill" the Prime Minister of the day with unscripted questions. I think that everyone knows that even if the wallpaper is changed, most of the operation of Question Time would remain identical.

Provisions currently exist for "questions without notice", that is, questions on the floor of the house which either haven't been placed on an official agenda or run sheet for that particular session.
The thing is though, any change affecting the operations on the floor of the house, can not extend beyond even the doors of that same house. Rules which affect the goings in inside, have no bearing at all outside and what goes on outside is completely unregulated.

If I was a strategist for any political party, I'd have a planning meeting before every single sitting of parliament. In this meeting, even if questions were supposed to be without notice and without prompting, I'd still have all of the questions written in advance and if the local rules suggested that a greater proportion of questions come from backbenchers, I'd have the required number of backbenchers primed beforehand to ask the questions.
The only real difference would be that in government, the relevant Ministers and the Prime Minister would be primed beforehand and those questions would still be known in advance but questions coming from the Opposition would not be known in advance; so presumably the strategists in the Government would also try to guess those questions and perhaps prepare possible answers.
Really the only difference that I can see is that questions are taken off the official agendas and distributed privately by party runners and party whips, outside the doors of the floor of the parliament.

Since the narrative of politics is reasonably predictable in a week, party strategists would gradually learn the skills necessary to preemptively answer questions. You'd assume that most of the questions would revolve around the immediate pieces of legislation and policies already in debate before the parliament, since that is what the business of the parliament is about.
So whilst Mr Abbott's idea is both an excellent one and probably would be in the best interests of the nation, the existing party machines are such that it simply wouldn't work out as intended.

The bottom line is that politics shares a lot in common with a very competitive sport like Formula One racing. You still have engineers and strategists who'd look at whatever rules were in play and then try to design an outcome within those rules which best leads to victory (though unlike Formula One where victory is obvious, in politics it amounts to no more than political point-scoring most of the time) . If the rules do not specifically mention something, then you can assume it's allowable and unless they expressly forbid something you can rest assured that people looking at the rules will examine them for any advantage possible.
Questions without notice would not be like changing the mechanics which make the thing move but changing the electronic management with drives them and then placing the whole thing under a shiny new slick cover.
Even Mr Abbott would concede that his own party would be complicit to such a thing. Maybe that's why he's even suggested it, to give the veneer of democratic process whilst applying more grease to the machinery undernearth.

The other major problem these days is that politicians are trained in and are highly skilled in the art of saying nothing. Even if a completely unknowable question somehow made its way through the doors and onto the floor of the parliament, there is still precisely zero guarantee that it would be answered as the questioner intended. Quite apart from the fact that most questions are either nothing more than prompts in order for the relevant minister to spruik policy, or snidey barbs designed to make the answerer look foolish, I just don't think that any difficult to answer question would be properly dealt with.
The chance for genuine curiosity about legislation or open questions to do with (forbid it) improving the course of review of legislation, would be stifled under the weight of spin.

Perhaps the all-time master of Question Time in a Westminster parliament was Nigel Lawson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer under Ms Thatcher. He often answered questions without notice with: "that's an interesting question but the real question is" before answering his own question. He probably helped to inspire the character of Jim Hacker and in a strange way life imitates art more often than is quite frankly necessary.
I can see a lot of this kind of thing going on under the proposed rule changes to Question Time as MPs struggle to stay "on message". In this age of pocket computers and instant fact checking, the old art of waffle, parliamentary theatre and outright admission that you don't know the answer simply doesn't fly in the 21st century.
It's a pity really. I'd like to see more admission that MPs don't immediately know the answer and that they'd be prepared to go out, do some research and then come back with their findings. That would mean that questions might actually be answered properly and real information might be conveyed on the floor of the parliament. What crazy; halcyon days those would be.

Horse 1433 - One Day in September

They say "politics is a funny ol' game",
Why isn't Tony Windsor laughing?
Wake me up, when September ends.
- apologies to Green Day.

The date of September 14 has been picked for a time so deliciously strange, it immediately makes me think that some real statisticians were consulted.
With a variable term parliament, one if the distinct advantages that the government of the day has us that they can call the dates that elections are to be set. Sitting governments can call elections early if they think that the tide of public opinion is such that they'd be returned to power and they can also delay the date if they think that the public is against them.
This particular advantage of government and the converse disadvantage of the opposition, means that there is a natural tendency for governments to have more stable leadership and for oppositions to change their leaders more often.

The average life expectancy for an Opposition Leader in Australia is 11 months. Parties in opposition are more subject to leadership coups and takeovers than parties in government. I also did some checking and found that since federation, the ideal length of time that an opposition leader to be appointed before an election so that they lead the party to government is only 5 months; this usually causes a wave of popularity and the hope of genuine change, before the public wakes from their collective amnesia and realises that they're still just another politician.
Usually elections are pushed right back as far as they'll go in the window, they're also usually announced 12 weeks before the election day which is just short of the ideal time frame for a party leader in opposition to lead the party to government.
This time around, Tony Abbott has been the Opposition Leader for 38 months which means that he's been there rather a long time indeed, although on an ideal statistical basis, he'd need to be and replaced in mid April; since the party probably wouldn't pick Hockey who'd be more palatable as a leader of the nation, or Turnbull who quite frankly is the most skilled politician of this generation, the Opposition is stuck with a leader who even failed to swing five MPs to his cause. Come September I don't think that that set of circumstances will present itself a second time. Either Labor stinks so much that they'll be turfed out on their ear, or the Liberal-National coalition will win through with a statistically unfavourable leader.

I could be wrong about this but I think that such a vast lead time before an election in variable term parliaments in Australia is unprecedented. The longest previous distance that I could find that an election was called in advance, was a Menzies Government which called an election 6 months in advance in 1958 and won it handsomely.
In that respect, I just don't know why this Gillard Government has called the election 7.5 months in advance. Are the terms of the Independents and Green too burdensome? Is this deliberately designed to cause "election fatigue" in the electorate so that they'll return the incumbent government to power? Maybe this has something to do with the International Day Of Democracy which follows on September 15? Maybe it has more to do with the final few sitting weeks in parliament and ensuring that MPs get a decent holiday. Even if there is complete and utter gridlock of legislation on the floor of the house in December, they'd be able to go on holidays quite easily because no supply bills would need to be presented until May of 2014 (assuming of course that the 2013 budget was settled, which would be more than likely well before a September election).
Ms Gillard said that it fixes a date so that it is fair for both sides. This might sound noble but fairness doesn't immediately spring to mind when you're fishing in the mucky waters of politics.

I do wonder though about all the dark horses which might start running. Announcing an election this far in advance gives everyone ample opportunity to register new parties, to develop campaigns and for the minor and micro parties to make their voices heard.
I personally think that this election will see a majority for one of the majors to form government without the help of independents and minors but if the public is sufficiently disappointed with the two majors, we may see more than a mere half dozen independents on the post September floor.
A week is a long time in politics, nine months is enough time to have a baby in. Whatever the outcome in September, you can bet that the new parliament that will be born will come kicking and screaming.

The weather here is as nice as it could be,
Although it really doesn't matter much to me,
With pollies hawking, every day's a rainy day,
So it might as well rain until September.
- apologies to Carol King.

Horse 1432 - 86 Isn't Smart

The Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ has been named car of the year by a number of motoring magazines and newspapers but I'm just not sure about it. Most motoring writers get to drive a vast array of cars over the course of a yea; I only get to drive something if I ask someone who has one and even then, only if I ask nicely.
I didn't have far to go with the 86 but I suspect I took it on a test that doesn't occur to the professional writers: I drove from East Sydney to Mosman in peak hour traffic.

The first shortcoming of the vehicle made itself known before I even stepped in. We had to move archive boxes from the client's address to our premises. I guess that a cramped and awkward boot space is typical for a sports car but I've made similar journeys with documents in Ferraris; although the memory does blur, I still don't recall even a Ferrari being so difficult to get boxes into.
The other immediate thing you notice when you sit in the driver's seat is that the view of the front of the car disappears beyond roughly where the front wheels are. It is nowhere near as terrible as the VT-VZ in Commodore which you could only ever see the window line but the bonnet stretches out in front of you like some vast plutonian shore.

There is a nice sort of kick in the bum when you extend your right foot, as all four wheels bite the pavement all at once but it isn't as nice or as savage as a WRX which because it is balanced front-rear, doesn't want to wobble like a pendulum the way that the 86 does.

Then the is the bone-shaking stiffness of it all. I usually like a car with a harsh ride and I don't know if this particular example was set up for track days, or if it's just because this particular car is still too new, or if it's a thing common to all 86s but going over the cracks on the Sydney Harbour Bridge wasn't pleasant; the run down Military Road with its big cats' eye tidal-flow things wasn't pleasant either.
Sitting so low in the car does give you a feeling of speed though, even when doing 35km/h through a school zone. I also confess to feeling a wee bit claustrophobic and small as a Volvo B12R bendy-bus went past in the left lane too.

In short, I don't think I'd buy an 86 despite the motoring reviews. A hatchback or a ute with too much power is more my thing because the practicalities of such a car would make them both more useful. An 86 is more for those people who like to think that they look cool. I have never been cool. Give me an RS Fiesta hiding under the panels of a base model CL any day, or just give me a CL Fiesta, it'd be more fun to live with than an 86.
Just like Maxwell Smart who was Agent 86, the Toyota 86... missed it by that much.

Horse 1431 - Dawkins and the July Turkey

One of the philosophers I happen to like is Karl Popper. A lot of what he wrote concerns that which can properly be known and which can not for absolute certainty be known, a sort philosophical empiricism if you will. Among many of his ideas, Popper theorised that science since about 1800 had gone from a state of being open to ideas and then fitting them into new theories which were malleable and replaceable, to a place where because the results led to financial implications theories were put forward as being correct until proven false.
If this is indeed the case, then this has two very large implications. But before we arrive at either of them, I have two illustrations.

Imagine you are a turkey. Every morning you stick your head out of the turkey house and the farmer gives you some lovely corn to eat. There is of course nothing in the world of a turkey to suggest any impending doom whatsoever but those of us who aren't turkeys know that come December, the world of the turkey will be radically different. Some turkeys have a particular date with destiny which is life-changing.
A turkey has no knowledge in its world in July which would lead it to believe anything other than when it sticks its head out of the turkey house in the morning, it will get fed. The one vital piece of knowledge which might change its behaviour, is not only unknown but completely unknowable. The implication that what you don't know and also what you have no way of even knowing or deducing, might have serious implications on your well being, happiness and even life itself, is scary.

Likewise, even if every raven you have ever seen in your life is black, even though you have no reason at all to suspect that there is such a thing as a white raven, to categorically deny the existence of a white raven with certainty, requires you to have met and catalogued every raven that ever existed. If this sounds silly, then think of white swans. The absolute unthinkable happened in Western Australia when lo and behold, black swans were found in abundance.
For a thing to be categorically classified as non-existing, requires that it be proven for all cases not to exist. It is easier in the world of mathematics to prove such a statement but as soon as you move to a subject with more parameters and far more variables where black and white do not hold, then a hard position is futile.

The reason why I even make mention of this is that SBS1 is running a series by evangelistic atheist Richard Dawkins which has been billed as being about Sex, Life, Death and The Meaning of Life. I tuned in to have a look but the truth is that I found both his arguments and his logic, incomplete and almost deliberately so. In consequence he sounds forceful, which means that many people never worry about thinking for themselves.
Dawkins likes to wantonly ignore the possibility of religion because he thinks that the idea of a God/gods/force/karmic system (whatever) is silly. By taking a hard position and hoping that others do likewise, he is very much inviting people to enter and live the way of the July Turkey.

I am of course reminded of Pascal's Wager. If God exists, then belief in Him is a rational construct, if He does not, then although that belief is futile, to have lived a virtuous life in the light that everyone's life was also futile, is at very least an apt consolation.
Either God is, or He is not.
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
The difference being that Mr Dawkins still requires a very strong position of faith to stand where he does and to never admit that is again dishonest. Science itself can not account for more than 95% of the universe, it still has no proper or probable definition of where conscience resides and I happen to find it curious that there has never at least to the best of my knowledge, been discovered any atheist tribe on the face of the earth. I don't know if that indicates something innate but it is curious.

Naturally, Dawkins dismissed the idea of the existence of the human soul but he kind of inadvertently provided a possible proof that he could be wrong about this.
Every cell in the human body is replaced roughly every 7-10 years; thusly the five year old Richard Dawkins in his words "is dead" according to him. Yet without clarifying how the 71 year old Richard Dawkins can possibly be the same person as the five year old Richard Dawkins, despite every single component part being replaced, he moved on to speak about DNA, genes and chromosomes, without even so much as touching on the subject ever at all. Again there's probably something to be said about the residence of conscience but the how, why and what of this was never explored.
It is all very well to dismiss the existence of the soul but without proof, at some point you're back to standing on that same murky concept of faith. The difference between Karl Popper and Richard Dawkins though was that Popper knew where the edge of his reasoning lay, whereas Dawkins is incredibly condescending and openly admits to feeling "sorry" for anyone who displays an air of faith in that which can not be seen.

Popper's position that:
"I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right" and that "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly" is a more apt, noble and honest position for someone to take. Fair enough, Dawkins firmly believes that there is no God but for a scientist to hold it out with such conviction, is like the July Turkey who thinks that it will always get fed, or the Black Swan fallacy.

Horse 1430 - Del Piero, Le Mans And I hope Holden

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/motorsport/del-piero-plans-le-mans-tilt-as-team-owner-20130122-2d49r.html
Sydney superstar Alessandro Del Piero might be one of the world's best known footballers, but the veteran playmaker also, it seems, has a real need for speed.
So much so that he is joining forces with Hollywood actor Patrick Dempsey to set up a motor racing team that will try to win one of the world's most famous car races, the Le Mans 24 hour, later this year.
-
The squad have informed Le Mans organisers , the Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO), that it plans to compete in the 2013 24 Hours of Le Mans and also field a minimum two-car effort in the 2013 American Le Mans Series.
- Sydney Morning Herald, 23rd Jan 2013

The above article in the Sydney Morning Herald which suggests that Alessandro Del Piero would like to compete in the Le Mans 24 Hour sports car race. If I were the Grand High Poohbah and Lord High Everything Else at Holden, I'd be doing my utmost to make this a reality.

The Bathurst 12 Hour race has been held semi-sporadically now since 1991 and in various incarnations. For two years though in 2003 and 2004, the race was extended to 24 hours. This sadly was an exercise in cynicism by Holden who somehow convinced the organisers of the category to allow a car with a total production of 3 into an event against other production and GT cars (the cars were built by Garry Rogers Motorsport). Naturally the 427 Monaro won both 24 hour races, which in part probably led to a souring from other competitors and the 24 hour race was never held again.
Despite this, it did prove people in Australia were certainly capable of building a race car to go 24 hours and the next logical step even in 2005 should have been an assault at the Le Mans 24 Hours itself. Sadly, this never happened.

Won the Bathurst 24 Hours twice; never fully reached its potential

If Del Piero would like to race in Le Mans, then I think that it would be brilliant if someone could prep a slightly modified V8Supercar with taller gearing, bigger brakes, bigger differential etc.
The car would already be FIA certified and although even expecting a Commodore V8Supercar to win against a purpose built Audi Audi R18 E-tron Quattro Le Mans Prototype would be like waiting for a cat to lick its own ear, it might do surprisingly well in a lower class against GT3 Porsches, Corvette C6s and BMW M3s. Instead of Holden being the biggest fish in a very small pond, it would be a fish competing against salmon against the current.
Mal Rose has competed in the Nürburgring 24 Hour and Spa 12 Hour races, running privately run Commodores now since 2005, so it's not like the sounds of an Aussie V8 Commodore are completely unknown in Europe.
There are any number of outfit like the HRT, Triple 8, Perkins Engineering etc. who I'm sure that provided Holden threw their hat into the ring could easily prep and run the car and more importantly make it go 24 hours.

Apart from Formula One, the 24 Hours of Le Mans is easily the biggest and most impressive single event on the motor racing calendar. I think it'd be great if Holden stepped up and competed on the world's biggest stage; Alessandro Del Piero might be a big enough name to finally send them there.

Horse 1429 - 200 Years Hence

It is with much understatement that I say that the world will be very different in 2213. The world of 200 years hence will more than likely be a nastier, more unpleasant and more uncomfortable place to live, save for the upper 14% of the richest population of the world. Yet it is frightfully easy to suggest the overall trend and reason as to how and why it will get there, even if it is impossible to say what the world of 2213 is physically going to look like.

One of the biggest trends of the past 500 years has been the elimination of costs associated with labour. How can we either make things more efficiently per unit and not pay wages, or how can we find new sources of outright cheaper labour? This more or less single handedly explains the rise of Holland and the windmill, steam power in the industrial revolution, the dawning of the electric age in the late 1800s, the rise and eventual fall of the slave trade, and more recently the rise of China in particular and South East Asia as a manufacturing powerhouse in the late 1900s to date.
With this in mind, the 2000s and 2100s are pretty easy to work out.

On the labour front, as incomes rise across South East Asia, labour will become comparatively less competitive. At the same time, as happened in Europe during the 1800s and 1900s, rents will begin to rise, thus driving labour to demand higher wages simply in order to keep a roof over their heads.
Manufacturers will begin to look to Africa and South America as the newest and cheapest source of labour.
I think I'm pretty safe when I suggest that from 2050, Africa will begin to emerge as the new economic powerhouse, whilst wages across North America, Europe and Asia (Australia included) are eroded. I think we can expect to see a new wave of slums appearing in urban areas across the old world but this time around, without any religious fervour to see people's lives improved, the monied classes will turn inwards and ignore the great poor mass. I think that we will also see a return to the attitude that poor people deserve to be in a pitiful state. I'm pretty sure that this process is already underway.
The late 2000s and most of the 2100s will see the process repeated across Africa and South America as labour is first employed then discarded.

2213 then will be a place where labour across the world has probably reached the state of maximum interchangeability and thus the rather appropriately named concept of "commodity hell". At the same time, another 200 years of unbridled industry, environmental destruction and exceptionally scarce resources will mean that the planet itself will be beyond a nice, comfortable state to live in.
I can imagine mass epidemics of flu taking out large numbers of people and unscrupulous knaves releasing things like polio back into society.
It is fitting that 1969 will remain mankind's year of greatest achievement, with Concorde, the Jumbo and a bloke kicking the moon but I seriously don't think that anyone will ever go back, a Mars trip will never happen and in 2213, even air travel itself will be more than likely a thing of the past.

I still don't think that God will have called "time" by 2213. I would wager that the world needs to get considerably more uncomfortable for that to happen.
Even if you don't believe in the existence of God, you and I and everyone you know will have long since shuffled off this mortal coil but the people of 2213 will not look on us favourably. The rich will be too concerned about eking out their own happiness on the degraded planet and the vast numbers of poor people which will exist will be too sick, stupid and illiterate to know that we even ever existed.

Horse 1428 - The Queen And The Power to Veto

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.
- The Guardian, 15th Jan 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills?CMP=twt_gu

In response to an article in the Guardian, Mark Colvin asked the question about veto powers that the Queen has with regard Australian legislation. The answer in black and white is yes, she has explicit powers under s.59 of the Constitution of Australia Act 1900 to refuse assent to bills within one year of them passing the parliament. The much broader question of whether she would though is entirely another matter.

Section 59 - Disallowance by the Queen

The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor‑General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor‑General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s59.html

In all Westminster Parliaments that I know of, which includes national, state and provincial parliaments across the Commonwealth, the relevant Governors or Governors-General will meet with their respective Premiers or Prime Ministers weekly to discuss the business of the parliament. The thing is that although relevant Governors always seem to carry certain reserve powers, they only really seem to act, if at all, on the advice of their Ministers.
This is important to note in the first instance as it frames the entirety of any discussion that might be had when it comes to what the Queen or her representatives are even likely to veto.

Try as I might, to even find any instances of veto or reserve powers by the Monarch or their representatives is a difficult thing to pinpoint.
The only real pinch points which seem to cause "constitutional crises" are either when parliaments are unable to secure monetary supply (ie failure to pass budgets) or when the power or person of the monarch themselves are called into question. The King-Byng Affair of 1926 in Canada is of particular note because it involved a refusal by The Governor-General, Viscount Byng of Vimy, to dissolve parliament following a loss of confidence in the Canadian House of Commons.

The 1999 veto which this Guardian article speaks of, happens to relate to the removal of reserve powers from the Queen and placing them into the hands of the parliament. Given the fact that within five years, Britain still went to war in Iraq despite the United Nations ruling it illegal, it suddenly made the Queen's refusal to give Royal Assent to the bill look incredibly sensible.
Also when you take into consideration, the MP expenses scandal followed by the Leveson Enquiry into the ethics of the media and the role that politicians played in that, I start to think that the Monarch stands in the role of the one sane person in the system.

The article also deliberately blurs the line as to what a veto actually entails. The Queen in an official capacity has the power to refuse Royal Assent legislation. The truth is that bills which either never escape the parliament, or were withdrawn from the process, aren't really vetoed in any real sense. If a bill is pulled before it passes through the House of Lords, then if there was good enough reason for it to be abandoned, the chances are that it will have already been discussed in the normal course of business between the Queen and her Ministers. It is also worth pointing out that the Queen by virtue of being monarch, actually owns the parliament. They are called Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I wonder if maybe The Guardian has a hidden agenda and in this case is letting republican undertones fester, or trying to ensure they do.

The question of whether or not the Queen would even veto Australian legislation is almost so irrelevant as to be an exercise in futility to even ask it.
Unlike the UK, the Queen's representative in the person of the Governor-General consults with the parliament. She has enough to be going on with, with the running of that country. It would require the Queen to take an active interest in the rumblings of the Parliament of Australia and considering that it is beyond a lot of people in this country to even name who say the Finance Minister is, to expect that of someone 10,000 miles away is absurd. There is also the matter of Canada, New Zealand, the other Commonwealth countries and all the states and provinces with Westminster parliaments which would also vie for attention if such a proposal were to crystallise.

Really the only possible things that I can conceivably think of that the Queen herself would refuse Royal Assent to that came out of the Australian Parliament would be some bill which would affect the reserve powers of the Governor-General, or perhaps something to do with her capacity as head of the Church of England. I don't think that even an act for Australia to become a republic would be refused Royal Assent; it is possible that maybe that might have been the case in 1911 but even when Edward VIII abdicated, I still doubt that George VI who followed him would have refused it; Certainly Elizabeth II would not.

So then:
Can the Queen exercise veto power? Yes and explicity so.
Would she, or indeed any future monarch? Most likely not.

Horse 1427 - Sydney FC and The Finals Series (there is still hope)

Even I'm aware that 9 rounds until the end of the season is a long way to go but that is precisely the reason why Sydney's season is far from over.
As the table stands, Sydney is second last but on 17 points. In contrast, Newcastle is sitting in 5th but only 3 points ahead. This means to suggest that the entire of the league from 5th to last, swings on just two fixtures.

In terms of goals scored, all of the clubs from 5th to 10th are sitting within 3 goals of each other.
Everyone from 4th downwards has managed to score about 20 goals this season; including Sydney. This means to suggest that scoring isn't necessarily an issue. Even at the very top of the table, we're still only looking at less than 30 thus far which is the equivalent of half a goal a game.

Sydney's chronic problem this season is betrayed with one single figure - goals against. At 33 which is five more than Newcastle who are four places ahead, that's where the real story lies.

On the face of it, Sydney play a 4-4-2 like most clubs in the A-League. It seems to work most of the times; for most clubs. Sydney though has a distinct problem with playing this formation. A great many goals have come because, playing a flat back four, they've parted in the middle and have let lone strikers through on the keeper. Otherwise they've been driven defensively deep into their own corners and midfielders haven't fallen back enough to cover the attacking push.
On the occasions where Sydney has had a striker short, they've played 5-4-1 and whilst they don't score as many goals, they don't concede as many either.
The solution to the problem then, is to probably play a 4-5-1 with the central midfielder playing defensive to plug the hole in the centre. They could play a diamond set of backs but that tactic tends to leave wings exposed, which is already a cause of Sydney's leakiness.

Whatever tactical decision is finally settled on, at this stage; with only 3 points to 5th spot, the season is far from over.
The way the finals system is set up, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th with 1st and 2nd playing the semi-finals against the winners and the final the week later, a side only really needs to shoot for 6th in the table and then play three blinders of matches after that.
Since coming sixth is a relatively easy task from this point, it's still way too early to discount any finals' hope for anyone as yet, and if there's one thing that's true with any club, if there's still hope, sides play better.

Horse 1426 - 15 Items or FEWER

I don't really mind if people verb a noun or noun a verb. I don't even mind if people adjectivise nouns or verbs. People have been tabling meetings, hammering nails and going for a walk for quite some time now; I have no problems for instance if something is described as chocolatey, but the thing that really sticks in my craw, gets my hackles up and my blood curdling, is when people and companies who should know better, do not, or if they do, perpetuate wrongness.
Of course you and I and everyone knows exactly what is meant by "15 items or less" but because this is a matter of pedantics and because I have a vested interest in this sort of thing, having bothered to learn grammar and thus have time and effort invested in the subject, then it makes the perfect subject for one of these little discourses.

"Less" and "lesser" should be properly applied to uncountable things. You can talk about less noise, less salt, less fuel etc. because although these things can be measured in discrete units, like decibels, grams and litres, it makes little to talk of them as countable things. As soon as you talk about 'some' noises, you immediately imply that there are different noises, but if it is just 'some noise' (in the singular, ie as an uncountable concept), there can be more or less of the generic thing we call noise going on.
I should also point out that when we say that 14 is less than 15, we refer to the uncountable concept of number, even though we do count it off; usually in discrete units of integers*.

"Fewer" on the other hand, refers to things which are countable - There are 9 boxes, 23 children, 6 pies. Each unit whilst they might be unique, have been counted as individual items which are assumed to be of the same class of thing; in this case, boxes, children and pies.
Most properly there are 5 fewer pies than there were yesterday, not 5 less. There were 4 fewer children in class today. There were 3 fewer boxes last week. These things are countable and counted.

So when I see a "15 items or less" in the supermarket, I cringe just a little. I know that all items for sale in the supermarket are countable because things are packaged as discrete items. Even when you order more or less luncheon meat from the deli, they still give it to you wrapped up as a single item to take it through the checkout counter, which immediately turns some luncheon meat into a single item which is countable. Unless of course you happen to be in an older sort of general store, in which case more or less flour might be perfectly acceptable but not discretely countable.

*Bonus Section - Warning Maths Ahead

I'm even wondering about whether the concept of more or less or lesser or greater even makes any sense in the realm of imaginary numbers. Is a complex number like 5i + 8 greater or lesser than 8i + 5? Is 5i less imaginary than 8i? Is -1 more imaginary than i because i² is defined as -1?

Horse 1425 - Retro Soft Drink

Coca-Cola have decided on a "new" marketing trend with retro labelling on Sprite, Fanta and rebranding Lift as Mello Yello for the summer. I think that this is a brilliant idea but with the proviso that they never ever go back to their "modern" designs.
With a product as interchangeable as fizzy sugared water, the only major difference between this and something that PepsiCo, Schweppes or a store own brand is precisely that, the branding on the outside of the package. Coca-Cola of all companies who built their reputation during WW2 by being everywhere, especially should have realised that having a strong brand is what wins sales in this business.
The Coca-Cola logo which appears in Spencerian Script remains practically unchanged since John Pemberton's bookkeeper, Frank Robinson, came up with it in 1885. Other companies which use a script type logo include Ford Motor Company who registered their script logo in 1909 and finally placed it in the blue oval in 1927, General Electric's swirly GE logo dates in its current form from about 1900.

If you keep a logo around for long enough, it becomes part of the furniture, part of the landscape and part of people's embedded unconsciousness. Sprite's logo on the left is a reimagining of the logo used from 1961-1970 and the Fanta logo dates nominally from 1970-1995. The point being that because they'd been around for so long, they build up a resonance with the public; hence why they still speak to consumers.
Logos like BP's shield, Pan-Am's blue globe, the Bell Telephone signs, the BOAC Speedbird and even British Leyland's swirly thing, continue to live in the memory well after those companies have passed on.

I have made the point before in Horse 1375 that to sell any given product or service in question, the graphics have to communicate a message effectively and more importantly, simply. These retro logos used on Sprite and Fanta also tap into something else, memory.
Behavioural psychologist BF Skinner wrote about the concept of positive reinforcement when it came to altering behaviour as early as 1961. Since the entire of advertising is about changing the behaviour of consumers so that they will purchase and continue to purchase your goods and services, positive brand reinforcement and especially through the process of familiarity is one reason why a retro package like these two pictured, works. It also explains why the Coca-Cola logo itself is still pretty much basically unchanged since 1885.
It is curious that the best argument that Coca-Cola should go back to using these retro designs forever comes from Coca-Cola. Let's hope they heed their own message.

Horse 1424 - The Radio, The Post and An Unexpected Story

Our story begins on the 6th of December last year:

The comedian Mark Steel has a show on BBC Radio 4 in which he visits towns and suburbs up and down the United Kingdom and then presents a sort of lecture about the town. Called "Mark Steel's in Town", each comedy lecture attempts to describe the town and perhaps explode myths, unearth interesting morsels of info and show off the colours and people of the town.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p424k
Episode two of the current series, saw him on the island of Mull in the Inner Hebrides and the small town of Tobermory, which probably lent its name to a Womble.
The town of Tobermory is so small that Mark suggested that you could write a very very vague address and because the local post office knows everyone, they would probably deliver it.
In this spirit I sent the following letter in which I explained the frivolous nature of the experiment and wondered if it a) would be delivered and b) be replied to:

As you can see, there is no postcode, no proper address and only a sort of very very vague description as to who this was to be sent to.
To my surprise, after I returned to work following the Christmas holidays, I received the following email:


Hi Andrew

Thank you far your letter regarding Mark Steel's comments in his Radio 4 programme! Your letter was delivered to me today, which says a lot for our Royal Mail delivery service!
In fact I have also received a Christmas Card from Sheffield, England, addressed in the same way!
It was good to hear from Sydney: one of our sons lives in Annandale, and we have friends who used to live in Mosman, so I know the area fairly well. We visit every 2 or 3 years -last time was just a year ago, when I sang at a Ceilidh (in Gaelic, of course).
Nollaig Chridheil agus Bliadhna Mhath Ur (which means "All the best for Christmas and New Year")

Janet


This is where even I concede that the world is an amazing place.
Firstly, all thanks and best wishes to Janet who was an unwitting participant in this. I bet that no-one would actually expect to receive mail from the other side of the world, in a country that doesn't even broadcast the show. I'd like to thank Janet especially for her good humour in all of this.
Secondly, I find it a little daft that a letter as poorly addressed as this would pass through the hands of both Australia Post and the Royal Mail in the UK and yet still arrive in a small town on an island. This ill addressed letter has traveled half way round the world and yet still ended up where it was supposed to go.

Things like this make the world seem a little kinder. The daftest things in life usually are the best.

Horse 1423 - The Other Timelord

Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its continuing mission - to seek out new life, to discover new worlds and civilisations; to boldly go where no-one has gone before... or so says Jean Luc Picard.
Picard is at least the third regeneration of this particular Timelord.

The Doctor had always presumed that following the Time War which Nine tells us about, that there must have been other Timelords who had escaped. We know for instance that the Master certainly did but have I inadvertently found another?

Jean Luc Picard must have risen through the ranks to become captain of the Enterprise. Daddy Warbucks tells us in the musical Annie, that he started as a cabin boy from Liverpool before going to America and building an empire selling armaments in the 1930s. King Mongkut modernised Siam in the 1850s and 1860s so that it became one of the most revered nations of the age.
Clearly the modus operandii is the same. Slowly build an empire or work through the system so that you eventually control some important portion of it. It seems to me then that Picard, Warbucks and Mongkut are very highly likely candidates to have been the same Timelord. To find one person who is this bald and with this kind of flary eyebrows is not of itself anything noteworthy but to find three and you start to get suspicious. Who'd of their own accord or choosing, voluntarily choose to look like this? OK, granted that King Mongkut was a real person, but the in musical version they obviously took liberties in much the same way that FDR is a real person in the musical Annie.

King Mongkut died in 1868 whereas if you assume that the first Little Orphan Annie strip in 1924 had Oliver Warbucks as age 52, then he was born in 1872. This isn't linear. Jean Luc Picard was born on July 13, 2305 and this also is not linear. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that they are regenerations of the same person; hence, a Timelord.

The Doctor's main concerns appear to be fighting off monsters and rouges who threaten the universe and in particular a little blue-green dot circling a rather boring yellow star. This baldy Timelord though does not share this drive, he would rather exact power for a particular purpose's sake. It is almost as though he is a contracted employee, sent to do a long term job.

When I saw this particular comic cover in the shop the other day, I finally realised what this is a cover of:

This is not a comic cover showing just The Doctor and Picard, this is a comic cover showing us two Timelords... and yes, Oliver Warbucks does prove that bowties are cool.