https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12215068
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has just revealed the changes in a press conference.
"On March 15 our history changed forever. Now, our laws will too. We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place," Ardern said.
"Cabinet agreed to overhaul the law when it met on Monday, 72 hours after the horrific terrorism act in Christchurch. Now, six days after this attack, we are announcing a ban on all military-style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles in New Zealand."
- NZ Herald, 21st Mar 2019
Less than a week after the white supremacist terrorist monster who shall not be dignified with a name by the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, the Beehive has moved with swift action and passed legislation that bans automatic and semi-automatic weapons as well as other kinds of assualt rifle.
Unlike the United States where even trying to suggest the barest of background checks is likely to have you targeted online by all kinds of vile wingnuts, the New Zealand Parliament moved with relative ease on the issue and it was met with bipartisan support.
The right to bear arms has of course existed, and been world famous in New Zealand since ages ago. One of the things that came out of Waitangi was that the Maori were more or less given the same rights as Pakeha. The law of the Pakeha already included the Bill of Rights Act 1688, which conferred the right to bear arms among other things.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/bor16881wams2c2306/s7.html
That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
- Section 7, Bill Of Rights Act 1688
Note those two caveats. The Bill of Rights Act 1688 already contains the admission that the ramifications of the law could very well be different for different people with the words "suitable to their conditions". It can be argued with a fair amount of reasonableness that a farmer might need guns for the purposes of destroying pests which might kill their livestock. Likewise it can be argued that killing rabbits is a reasonable justification for owning a weapon as they might damage both crops and the land itself. If you live on the land, then eliminating the threats to your livelihood, is both reasonable and suitable to their conditions. I think that this also passes the reasonableness test of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.
I think that it is also reasonable to arrive at the conclusion that an assault rifle or a semi automatic weapon, where the intended purpose is the hunting of people, that these things are not suitable to anyone's conditions.
This brings us to the next few words in that section "and as allowed by law". The New Zealand Parliament, when confronted with an incident of terrorism, which should not be acceptable or excusable, has with due reasonableness passed legislation. It has been presented with the evidence which carries a lot of gravitas and has deemed that certain kinds of weapons are not suitable to anyone's conditions and therefore should not be allowed by law.
This is what should like at the heart of deliberative democracy. In a rare occasion where the perpetual football game of politics has been set aside, elected members of a 'thing' in the old Nordic sense of the word, have come together and listened to the hue and cry which has arisen as the result of a deeply troubling national injury and have made a decision to change the law. Now whether or not laws should be passed after the fact or passed before an event happens as part of norm forming policy is kind of irrelevant here because the offence is so deep that it has warranted immediate action.
The response from the New Zealand Parliament has been one of swift action where the intent is to protect the lives and liberties of New Zealanders and I think that it stands as a shining example of what proper leadership looks like. Right from the very top, from the Prime Minister's office, the actions of the New Zealand Government have been about trying to help heal the injury. Granted that no government action can ever hope to make amends for the shocking atrocity but offering to pay for the funeral expenses for the fifty-one victims is a practical start and the actions of practical love which includes the provision of meals for the families of the victims and the public displays of the haka by various community groups has at least part way said that the mosques are part of the collective 'us' of New Zealand. That's Kiwi as.
Aside 1:
The response from the Australian media and particularly from News Corp newspapers has been kind of schizophrenic. On one hand they have tried to condemn the murderer, while at the same time been trying to make statements about immigrants and refugees who do not integrate into society. News Corp papers in particular, along with Sky News and Seven West Media to a lesser degree have tried to almost wash their hands of anything that they may have done, to outright attacking people likeTim Soutphommasane for not speaking up sooner despite the fact that he very clearly did.
This white supremacist terrorist attack has happened in the midst of two election campaigns (though officially the Federal Election campaign remains undeclared) and I have now seen no fewer than fourteen articles blaming immigration policy on the Labor Party.
Aside 2:
The white supremacist terrorist monster said in his manifesto that among the reasons for doing this was to not only highlight that terror can strike anywhere but to stir up racial. cultural and religious tensions in the United States and specifically spark more debate about the Second Amendment. The problem there is that that is settled law.
America is completely fine with sacrificing its children and vulnerable on the altar of its modern Molech. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of children and innocent lives. It is its natural manure.
The Supreme Court has effectively reduced the words of the Second Amendment to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and nothing else. Heller v DC 2008 struck off any hopes of the words "well regulated"; which means that whatever the intent of the framers had, is long irrelevant. It also completely destroys the terms "suitable to their conditions" and "as allowed by law" from the 1688 Bill of Rights.
March 20, 2019
Horse 2520 - Put Your Sword Back In Its Place, Fraser Anning.
These are not the words of the white supremacist terrorist monster who shot and murdered fifty people at two mosques in Christchurch last week but the words of the democratically elected Senator from Queensland, Fraser Anning. These words are from the same Senator who in his maiden speech to parliament, deliberately chose to invoke the words 'final solution', which came from the translation of the name for the policy of Nazi Germany with respect to the systemic and efficient extermination of the Jews.
I put forward that the murders of fifty people are not the actions of a madman because that would either imply a temporary loss of sensibility or a mental disability of some capacity, but rather these are the actions of a calculated and completely sane cancer of a man. Likewise, Fraser Anning's words are not a mistake or misstep and neither have we taken them out of context. Fraser Anning is an elected representative who is an apologist for terrorism.
If we do want to talk about words taken out of context, then the closing paragraph of Senator Fraser Anning's address is an example in point:
"As we read in Matthew 26:52 'all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword' and those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us, cannot be too surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind"
- Fraser Anning, 15th Mar 2019
If we do actually want to bother to interrogate the context in which those words appear, then a broader scope of that passage in Matthew's gospel is essential.
While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.
Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.
- Matthew 26:27-56
What Fraser Anning has done, is lifted two clauses from a sentence and made it say exactly the opposite of what is intended. This would be like telling a nine year old boy that "You are not allowed to have ice cream for dinner" and the boy then going off and chowing down on a bunch of ice cream claiming that the instruction was "allowed to have ice cream for dinner".
If you were to read just that verse by itself, then you find that in most translations, the verse actually begins with the statement "Then Jesus said: 'Put your sword away'" and what we actually have is a rebuke from Jesus to Peter for being a violent knave. Jesus' next action is to heal the high priest who had his ear cut off; thus absolutely repudiating Peter's violent actions. It absolutely does not condone or apologise for the actions which caused harm to someone and in the broader context of Jesus' ministry, in no way allows for the direct actions of harming someone, much less killing them.
In the broader context of what this white supremacist terrorist monster wanted, in his manifesto which laid out why he was going to be a terrorist murderer, he said that he wanted to cause disharmony along racial, cultural and religious lines in the United States and carried this out in New Zealand for maximum shock value.
The United States in particular has managed to create the conditions for a more violent society over many years and has cultivated the narrative nicely. In doing so, the Christian right has often been co-opted in this perpetual war on my itself and you will often find the following passage in Luke's gospel quoted as the justification for why Christians should have weapons:
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
- Luke 22:36-38
I consistently find this justification for Christians having weapons completely fraudulent.
Even in context this doesn't look like a generic command to Jesus' followers and it certainly doesn't look like a set of standing orders for peaceful living. If we want to take the Sermon on the Mountain from Matthew 5 and onwards as Jesus' manifesto, then we find that is the poor in spirit who own the kingdom of heaven, those who mourn who will be comforted, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness who will be filled and the peacemakers who will be called children of God.
In the that light, then the only standing command is one which is repeated and reinforced throughout the New Testament:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
- Matthew 22:36-40
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
- John 13:34-35
And now I urge you, dear lady--not as a new commandment to you, but one we have had from the beginning--that we love one another.
- 2 John 1:5
Not only is Peter rebuked outright for his actions but Christ heals the high priest's ear. In no possible world does The logic follow that having a sword is a general command from Christ to his followers; and even if you were to make that morally bankrupt leap of logic, the new standing command which follows right through the entire of the New Testament excludes the action of harming someone anyway.
How is it possible to love someone in any sense of the word if you have pointed a gun at them, much less kill them? Also, how does it show any love at all to the victims' families who have been left behind?
Moreover, it should go without saying that it is obvious that other people are going to have differing beliefs about how the world works, as well as differing religious beliefs and differing faiths. If we live in a society with not only do differing faiths (where you have Christians of varying flavours, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sihks, Shintoists, Animists, as well as people who have arrived at the positions of agnosticism and atheism, and have all done so independently because one's faith and belief set is deeply personal), then if you actually were to eliminate everyone who had different faiths and beliefs to you, then if you were actually being internally logically consistent, you would have to murder every single person on the planet without exception.
The fact that this monster has gone into a mosque and shot up a bunch of people, means that he has made a very deliberate choice to be specifically exclusionary and discriminatory and deliberately chosen to ignore the standing command to love people.
In that respect, then what we have seen in New Zealand over the last few days is a better example of carrying out those orders of loving people in the face of the evil actions of a white supremacist terrorist monster.
We saw Christchurch High School perform the haka as a show of sympathy and compassion and welcome to country; there have been floral tributes to the victims; there have been businesses offering free goods and services and free meals to grieving people; and the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has not brought meaningless platitudes of 'thoughts and prayers' but a call to action for a change in legislation as well as hugs and tears. If you want to know more what strong leadership in the face of a national crisis looks like, Jacinda Ardern is it.
Fraser Anning appears to have memorised one line of scripture and has deliberately chosen to take it out of context. That isn't very clever.
Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
- Antonio, The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 3
If we want to put that line of scripture which Fraser Anning has quoted back into context then:
Love one another...
Love your enemies..
That's it.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
- Matthew 5:43-44
The thing is though, that the people who were in the mosque at the time, were just peaceably going about their business. That's like the weirdest enemies in the world. Sure, they might have different beliefs to you and you might disagree with those beliefs but the simple fact of the matter is that lots of people have different beliefs to you and everyone just wants to peaceably go about their business.
Maybe what Fraser Anning really needs to hear and indeed everyone who wants to stoke the fires of ugly racism, nativism and knavery are the words of Jesus which he didn't quote: Put your sword back in its place.
Put your sword back in its place, forever. Then we will be surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kindness.
March 18, 2019
Horse 2519 - The Media Can't Find Any Reasons Why 50 People Were Killed In Christchurch
I would like to say that the media is struggling to find answers as to why a terrorist murderer shot 50 people in two mosques last Friday but sadly, they aren't. The media doesn't seem to be genuinely interested in doing investigative journalism and the reason that I suspect that it will not do any, is because you only have to scratch the surface just a little bit to see that they helped to create the environment which bred this monster. No story is told in a vacuum.
I shan't dignify this monster's name but it appears that the attack on two Christchurch mosques has been deliberately calculated, to cause as much media coverage as possible, the use of firearms has been specifically designed to cause political disharmony in the United States, and that it has been deliberately designed to stir up as much trouble as possible in western countries down "cultural, religious and racial lines".
A person like this doesn't exist in a vacuum but is cultivated over many many years. I have accumulated many many sources in the research for this post, however these I think are the most poignant. This article is from 2018.
https://newmatilda.com/2018/03/03/2891-murdoch-stories-trashing-islam-single-year-study-reveals/
It should also be noted – there is an implicit slippage, in the sense that a negative story about Muslims isn’t necessarily a story about Islam. Thus, I would argue that the definition may be overbroad.
With that proviso, it’s not much of a secret that the Murdoch press constantly attacks Islam and Muslims. So, given this definition, how frequent were stories featuring Muslims or Islam in a negative sense?
There were 2,891 of them. That’s almost 3,000 negative stories relating to Islam in one year. Which is an incredible amount. That’s almost eight stories a day, every day, for the whole year, somehow relating Muslims to terrorism or violence or whatever.
- Michael Brull, New Matilda, 3rd March 2018
If you tell a story once; it is a nice story. If you tell it twice, it might become a bit boring. If you tel the story 3000 times a year, then it's very likely to be believed.
If you take a broader and wider scope than just the newspapers (though the pages of News Corp newspapers especially peddle their own kind of hatred), then over the 6 years since the last change of government, we have seen an active change of direction from Prime Ministers Abbott and Morrison and to a lesser degree Turnbull, and from Immigration Ministers Morrison and Dutton. We have seen an active othering of people seeking asylum and an active outpouring of direct hate speech in the parliament from Morrison, Dutton, and right wing nut jobs Fraser Anning and Pauline Hanson.
From the floor of the parliament and ably back by the media in this country, we have seen speech deliberately designed to make Australians fearful of Muslims and people who have come to this country who are not white (especially African migrants).
We have also seen the terminology change from "asylum seekers" or "refugees" in cases where through the help of this country's military actions we may have caused people to leave their homes, to calling them "illegal immigrants" despite the fact that it is not only not illegal to seek asylum but thanks to the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951, asylum seekers are actually exempt from prosecution. Nevertheless, we have found ways to actively imprison and gaol people in horrible conditions; and shirk our responsibilities of human decency.
But that is actually fine; the system is working as intended...
Because in this past month, Abbott, Morrison, Dutton, Anning and Hanson have all gone on record on TV and radio as saying that asylum seekers are:
- illegal immigrants (even if they have never actually made it to Australia)
- queue jumpers who will kick you out of emergency medical care in our hospitals
- terrorists
- pedophiles
- people who will get citizenship through the back door
This continual repeating and staying "on point" as is often said in the media, has to have an effect at some point; however, the people who generate this kind of thing are equally as quick to absolve themselves of any obligation or guilt; often hiding behind the cloak of free speech.
The monster who murdered 50 people in New Zealand this past weekend was described by the Daily Telegraph as an "angelic boy", by the Courier-Mail as a "working class madman". The West Australian, Courier-Mail, Adelaide Advertiser, Herald-Sun, and Daily Telegraph have all run pieces blaming social media for this incident, in an effort to wash their hands of anything they may have done.
https://thewest.com.au/opinion/christchurch-mosque-shootings-social-media-platforms-failed-christchurch-victims-ng-b881136958z
The lunatics are running the asylum. That asylum is social media and the mad men — like the Christchurch attacker — are the lunatics.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have consistently said they are in control of their platforms but they are failing.
- Jenna Clarke, The West Australian, 16th Mar 2019
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-daily-telegraph-editorial-social-media-platforms-for-poisoned-minds/news-story/5ca92e9bd4d42b47d202daffd9586836
The Daily Telegraph's piece (which sickened me and hence the reason why I didn't quote it) appears opposite another apology piece from convicted racist and pedophile apologist Andrew Bolt.
This is not anything other than deliberate. The continual barrage by media is not a case of semantics either.
It is about saying that people who look different do not belong here. It is about instilling a sense of fear and making you think that foriegn looking people are dangerous. It is about propagandising and convincing you to fear the other. It is about making you sufficiently scared enough that you will believe the narrative and then getting your support to do previously unthinkable cruelty in the name of protecting "us”. In short, it is about deliberately dehumanising people, and then after they have been dehumanised, ceasing to show any care, or familial love, or common human decency to people.
What really really irks me is the statement from Queensland Senator Fraser Anning shortly after the massacre. In it, he blamed the shootings on Muslim immigration to New Zealand and quoted a phrase out of context from the gospel of Matthew:
https://breakthematrix.com/blog/australian-senator-frasier-annings-statement-live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword/
"As we read in Matthew 26:52 'all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword' and those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us, cannot be too surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind"
- Fraser Anning, 15th Mar 2019.
This is of course the same parliamentarian in his maiden speech, deliberately spoke of a "final solution to the immigration problem", invoking of course the "Endlösung" or "the Final Solution to the Jewish Question" which was the official code name for the mass murder and extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany.
It seems to me that it is not Islam which is a violent religion that calls on people to commit murder but people like Fraser Anning, who cannot be too surprised when someone takes his at his word and has responded in kind.
Mind you, the current resident of the Lodge, Mr Morrison , in an effort to flounder and flap about the place, has tried his best to try to look like a leader:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-warns-hate-blame-and-contempt-are-the-staples-of-tribalism-following-christchurch-attack-20190318-p51561.html
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has warned against a growing culture of “tribalism” in Australian life that could help extremism take hold in the wake of the terrorist attack in Christchurch.
Mr Morrison called for a calmer approach to public debate to counter the “shouting from the fringes” on issues including multiculturalism and migration.
He said the “us and them” debate meant individuals would no longer be defined by their unique worth and contribution but by the “tribe” they belonged to, undermining the “happy coexistence” that made diversity work.
- Sydney Morning Herald, 18th Mar 2019.
However, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the monster who shot 50 people in Christchurch, is the logical endpoint of a deliberate engineering program which was first proposed back in 2011:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/morrison-sees-votes-in-anti-muslim-strategy-20110216-1awmo.html
THE opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, urged the shadow cabinet to capitalise on the electorate's growing concerns about "Muslim immigration", "Muslims in Australia" and the "inability" of Muslim migrants to integrate.
Mr Morrison's suggestion was made at a meeting in December at which shadow ministers were asked to bring three ideas for issues on which the Coalition should concentrate its political attack during this parliamentary term.
- Sydney Morning Herald, 17th Feb 2011.
Maybe Prime Minister Scott Morrison would like to speak to former opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, various parliamentarians and look at the possibly 20,000 newspaper articles on television, radio and in print since the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison goverment came to power and maybe he can work out why a terrorist murderer has killed 50 people in two mosques, because even with all of this by way of background, I still can't work out why.
I shan't dignify this monster's name but it appears that the attack on two Christchurch mosques has been deliberately calculated, to cause as much media coverage as possible, the use of firearms has been specifically designed to cause political disharmony in the United States, and that it has been deliberately designed to stir up as much trouble as possible in western countries down "cultural, religious and racial lines".
A person like this doesn't exist in a vacuum but is cultivated over many many years. I have accumulated many many sources in the research for this post, however these I think are the most poignant. This article is from 2018.
https://newmatilda.com/2018/03/03/2891-murdoch-stories-trashing-islam-single-year-study-reveals/
It should also be noted – there is an implicit slippage, in the sense that a negative story about Muslims isn’t necessarily a story about Islam. Thus, I would argue that the definition may be overbroad.
With that proviso, it’s not much of a secret that the Murdoch press constantly attacks Islam and Muslims. So, given this definition, how frequent were stories featuring Muslims or Islam in a negative sense?
There were 2,891 of them. That’s almost 3,000 negative stories relating to Islam in one year. Which is an incredible amount. That’s almost eight stories a day, every day, for the whole year, somehow relating Muslims to terrorism or violence or whatever.
- Michael Brull, New Matilda, 3rd March 2018
If you tell a story once; it is a nice story. If you tell it twice, it might become a bit boring. If you tel the story 3000 times a year, then it's very likely to be believed.
If you take a broader and wider scope than just the newspapers (though the pages of News Corp newspapers especially peddle their own kind of hatred), then over the 6 years since the last change of government, we have seen an active change of direction from Prime Ministers Abbott and Morrison and to a lesser degree Turnbull, and from Immigration Ministers Morrison and Dutton. We have seen an active othering of people seeking asylum and an active outpouring of direct hate speech in the parliament from Morrison, Dutton, and right wing nut jobs Fraser Anning and Pauline Hanson.
From the floor of the parliament and ably back by the media in this country, we have seen speech deliberately designed to make Australians fearful of Muslims and people who have come to this country who are not white (especially African migrants).
We have also seen the terminology change from "asylum seekers" or "refugees" in cases where through the help of this country's military actions we may have caused people to leave their homes, to calling them "illegal immigrants" despite the fact that it is not only not illegal to seek asylum but thanks to the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951, asylum seekers are actually exempt from prosecution. Nevertheless, we have found ways to actively imprison and gaol people in horrible conditions; and shirk our responsibilities of human decency.
But that is actually fine; the system is working as intended...
Because in this past month, Abbott, Morrison, Dutton, Anning and Hanson have all gone on record on TV and radio as saying that asylum seekers are:
- illegal immigrants (even if they have never actually made it to Australia)
- queue jumpers who will kick you out of emergency medical care in our hospitals
- terrorists
- pedophiles
- rapists who throw away their passports
- free loaders who will take your public housing- people who will get citizenship through the back door
This continual repeating and staying "on point" as is often said in the media, has to have an effect at some point; however, the people who generate this kind of thing are equally as quick to absolve themselves of any obligation or guilt; often hiding behind the cloak of free speech.
The monster who murdered 50 people in New Zealand this past weekend was described by the Daily Telegraph as an "angelic boy", by the Courier-Mail as a "working class madman". The West Australian, Courier-Mail, Adelaide Advertiser, Herald-Sun, and Daily Telegraph have all run pieces blaming social media for this incident, in an effort to wash their hands of anything they may have done.
https://thewest.com.au/opinion/christchurch-mosque-shootings-social-media-platforms-failed-christchurch-victims-ng-b881136958z
The lunatics are running the asylum. That asylum is social media and the mad men — like the Christchurch attacker — are the lunatics.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have consistently said they are in control of their platforms but they are failing.
- Jenna Clarke, The West Australian, 16th Mar 2019
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-daily-telegraph-editorial-social-media-platforms-for-poisoned-minds/news-story/5ca92e9bd4d42b47d202daffd9586836
The Daily Telegraph's piece (which sickened me and hence the reason why I didn't quote it) appears opposite another apology piece from convicted racist and pedophile apologist Andrew Bolt.
This is not anything other than deliberate. The continual barrage by media is not a case of semantics either.
It is about saying that people who look different do not belong here. It is about instilling a sense of fear and making you think that foriegn looking people are dangerous. It is about propagandising and convincing you to fear the other. It is about making you sufficiently scared enough that you will believe the narrative and then getting your support to do previously unthinkable cruelty in the name of protecting "us”. In short, it is about deliberately dehumanising people, and then after they have been dehumanised, ceasing to show any care, or familial love, or common human decency to people.
What really really irks me is the statement from Queensland Senator Fraser Anning shortly after the massacre. In it, he blamed the shootings on Muslim immigration to New Zealand and quoted a phrase out of context from the gospel of Matthew:
https://breakthematrix.com/blog/australian-senator-frasier-annings-statement-live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword/
"As we read in Matthew 26:52 'all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword' and those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us, cannot be too surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind"
- Fraser Anning, 15th Mar 2019.
This is of course the same parliamentarian in his maiden speech, deliberately spoke of a "final solution to the immigration problem", invoking of course the "Endlösung" or "the Final Solution to the Jewish Question" which was the official code name for the mass murder and extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany.
It seems to me that it is not Islam which is a violent religion that calls on people to commit murder but people like Fraser Anning, who cannot be too surprised when someone takes his at his word and has responded in kind.
Mind you, the current resident of the Lodge, Mr Morrison , in an effort to flounder and flap about the place, has tried his best to try to look like a leader:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-warns-hate-blame-and-contempt-are-the-staples-of-tribalism-following-christchurch-attack-20190318-p51561.html
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has warned against a growing culture of “tribalism” in Australian life that could help extremism take hold in the wake of the terrorist attack in Christchurch.
Mr Morrison called for a calmer approach to public debate to counter the “shouting from the fringes” on issues including multiculturalism and migration.
He said the “us and them” debate meant individuals would no longer be defined by their unique worth and contribution but by the “tribe” they belonged to, undermining the “happy coexistence” that made diversity work.
- Sydney Morning Herald, 18th Mar 2019.
However, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the monster who shot 50 people in Christchurch, is the logical endpoint of a deliberate engineering program which was first proposed back in 2011:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/morrison-sees-votes-in-anti-muslim-strategy-20110216-1awmo.html
THE opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, urged the shadow cabinet to capitalise on the electorate's growing concerns about "Muslim immigration", "Muslims in Australia" and the "inability" of Muslim migrants to integrate.
Mr Morrison's suggestion was made at a meeting in December at which shadow ministers were asked to bring three ideas for issues on which the Coalition should concentrate its political attack during this parliamentary term.
- Sydney Morning Herald, 17th Feb 2011.
Maybe Prime Minister Scott Morrison would like to speak to former opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, various parliamentarians and look at the possibly 20,000 newspaper articles on television, radio and in print since the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison goverment came to power and maybe he can work out why a terrorist murderer has killed 50 people in two mosques, because even with all of this by way of background, I still can't work out why.
March 17, 2019
Horse 2518 - The All New Electric Bicycle Littering Service
I have noticed recently that where once there were red, yellow and blue bicycles which used to be littered around the city, they have now been replaced by green and orange bicycles in a brand new range of electric bicycle littering services.
I would not be surprised if they were owned by the same companies; who also happen to own the private sanitation and rubbish removal businesses like Cleanaway; which I suppose would mean that they derive the bulk of their income from local councils paying them to clean up their damaged bicycles rather than actually renting them. My suspicions are further piqued in my private conspiracy theory by my ongoing observations that the number of actual meat bag humans that I have seen using these bicycles ever, is nil.
Apart from the fact that I think that Sydneysiders are just awful people (the reason why you are not allowed to have late night alcohol trading is because you keep on king hitting and glassing each other) and will throw bicycles into the harbour and put them up trees and bend the wheels, I think that the people who own the bicycles obviously do not live in Sydney and know nothing of the topology of the city.
Anyone who has in Sydney for any particular length of time will attest to the unavoidable fact that Sydney is very hilly. Unlike Beijing which is relatively flat, or London which is both flat and small, Sydney is a rollercoaster of land with changes in elevation everywhere and in the greater environs of the city this is reflected in the arterial roads, none of which are straight.
Even just a little walk from Wynyard to Town Hall Stations or from Town Hall to Central Station will very quickly reveal to traveller that the change in elevation is surprisingly immense; almost unduly so for a city in which you'd want to ride a bicycle, so not many people do.
This is indeed the problem then. The bicycles in a public space which although are branded as belonging to someone, may as well be owned by nobody at all because their owners are absent and no attempt whatsoever is made to secure their property. If these bicycles were stored in racks which were only unlockable by the app, I am sure that they would be treated with far greater respect than they are currently. I completely expect that they'd still be vandalised though, because the underlying cause that Sydneysiders are awful people would still remain.
I think that these bicycle littering services are hoping that by adding battery power that people will be more inclined to use them and that through that use that the sight of them will be normalised. Again, that's valid in a city where bicycles are already prevalent and where the people are more communal in nature but this is Sydney and where if bicycle use had been practical it would have already been normalised and we're all just a bit too nasty to want to share anything.
I don't know how many of these new battery powered bicycles there are but I do know that a non zero number of them will end up in Sydney Harbour. Perhaps Sydney Harbour is already so polluted that this is not a concern but if you were to propose to Sydney City Council that your business model involved throwing a thousand batteries into the harbour and leave the problem of clean up to someone else, I am sure that such a plan would be looked at with a very hard stare.
Yet this is pretty much exactly what has happened here. The first wave of bicycles just appeared out of nowhere and then slowly found their way into the urban environment as large pieces of rubbish and this second wave will come to exactly the same outcome except this time, the urban environment will now be littered with batteries; including batteries in the harbour.
If Sydney wasn't Sydney and was a flat place like Amsterdam, or a place in which the people were more community minded, and the bicycle littering services installed racks so that there was more of a proper sense of proprietorship over the bicycles, then these companies would be successful and there wouldn't be as many bicycles ending up in trees, draped over street signs and hurled into the harbour.
I would not be surprised if they were owned by the same companies; who also happen to own the private sanitation and rubbish removal businesses like Cleanaway; which I suppose would mean that they derive the bulk of their income from local councils paying them to clean up their damaged bicycles rather than actually renting them. My suspicions are further piqued in my private conspiracy theory by my ongoing observations that the number of actual meat bag humans that I have seen using these bicycles ever, is nil.
Apart from the fact that I think that Sydneysiders are just awful people (the reason why you are not allowed to have late night alcohol trading is because you keep on king hitting and glassing each other) and will throw bicycles into the harbour and put them up trees and bend the wheels, I think that the people who own the bicycles obviously do not live in Sydney and know nothing of the topology of the city.
Anyone who has in Sydney for any particular length of time will attest to the unavoidable fact that Sydney is very hilly. Unlike Beijing which is relatively flat, or London which is both flat and small, Sydney is a rollercoaster of land with changes in elevation everywhere and in the greater environs of the city this is reflected in the arterial roads, none of which are straight.
Even just a little walk from Wynyard to Town Hall Stations or from Town Hall to Central Station will very quickly reveal to traveller that the change in elevation is surprisingly immense; almost unduly so for a city in which you'd want to ride a bicycle, so not many people do.
This is indeed the problem then. The bicycles in a public space which although are branded as belonging to someone, may as well be owned by nobody at all because their owners are absent and no attempt whatsoever is made to secure their property. If these bicycles were stored in racks which were only unlockable by the app, I am sure that they would be treated with far greater respect than they are currently. I completely expect that they'd still be vandalised though, because the underlying cause that Sydneysiders are awful people would still remain.
I think that these bicycle littering services are hoping that by adding battery power that people will be more inclined to use them and that through that use that the sight of them will be normalised. Again, that's valid in a city where bicycles are already prevalent and where the people are more communal in nature but this is Sydney and where if bicycle use had been practical it would have already been normalised and we're all just a bit too nasty to want to share anything.
I don't know how many of these new battery powered bicycles there are but I do know that a non zero number of them will end up in Sydney Harbour. Perhaps Sydney Harbour is already so polluted that this is not a concern but if you were to propose to Sydney City Council that your business model involved throwing a thousand batteries into the harbour and leave the problem of clean up to someone else, I am sure that such a plan would be looked at with a very hard stare.
Yet this is pretty much exactly what has happened here. The first wave of bicycles just appeared out of nowhere and then slowly found their way into the urban environment as large pieces of rubbish and this second wave will come to exactly the same outcome except this time, the urban environment will now be littered with batteries; including batteries in the harbour.
If Sydney wasn't Sydney and was a flat place like Amsterdam, or a place in which the people were more community minded, and the bicycle littering services installed racks so that there was more of a proper sense of proprietorship over the bicycles, then these companies would be successful and there wouldn't be as many bicycles ending up in trees, draped over street signs and hurled into the harbour.
March 11, 2019
Horse 2517 - The All New Mazda Not Deathwagon
Like all decent stories made from epoxy, this comes in two parts:
Part 1:
As alluded to in Horse 2516, the new Mazda CX-30 has been unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show.
For those people not obsessed with motor cars as I am, here is a quick run down of what it is: Thingy thingy thingy, bla de bla de bla, 2.0L petrol engine, a 1.8L turbo-diesel, horsepowers, torques, SkyActive, i-Activ all-wheel drive, G-Vectoring Control system, other technical words, numbers, numbers, numbers, business, business. If you want to read those things, find a real motoring journalist and buy a magazine.
The reason why a jacked up hatchback/CUV/SUV piqued my attention is not because I like it (I really don't) but because it is named wrong. The car which is 120mm longer and 30mm wider than the current CX-3, is supposed to fit in the lineup between the Mazda CX-3 and CX-5. The logical name for it should be the Mazda CX-4 however, the number 4 in Mandarin supposedly sounds like the word for "death" and Mazda don't want to have a car which might be mistaken for a car called the Mazda Death.
Why can't I have a Mazda Death? That sounds cool. There's already a Dodge Hellcat, Ford Scorpio, Dodge Viper, Ford Mustang, that all have vicious animal names; Holden sold cars called Thunder and Storm, so why not?
Naming a car is traditionally difficult. There have been some truly horrendous cases where a name has unfortunate consequences when translated into another language such as the Mitsubishi Pajero, Chevrolet Nova and Toyota MR2, and likewise there have been some hilarious names like the Kia Bongo Friendee. The Germans have more or less given up with luxury car makers using alphanumeric names.
Nevertheless, a name like the Chevrolet Black Widow is still cool, some six decades later.
For the Japanese domestic market, Mazda already call their 2, 3 and 6, the Demio, Familia and Axela, respectively; so it's not as if the motor company is above naming their stuff. I don't see why they can't name their car CX-4 for the rest of the world and the CX-30 for China only.
Better yet, why not double down on the name and just call the thing the Mazda 'Death 13'? It wouldn't be enough for me to want to buy a jacked up hatchback but at least it would be logical. The truth of the matter is that we've all got used to cars with names after animals, places, vague call concepts and downright gibberish (I'm looking at you Mitsubishi Delica Highway Star Space Gear), so I think that the Mazda Death 13 sounds almost sensible. The Mazda CX-4 is a wee bit dull.
Or at least that's the story which Mazda wants you to believe...
Part 2:
http://cx-4.faw-mazda.com/
There it is, as large as life. The Mazda CX-4 which is a China only model.
The word sei ĺ›› (four), sounds identical to the word sei ć» (death), in all the Han languages. Not only in every single written piece of text does the characters CX-4 appear but it even has its own website.
If the story wasn't confusing enough, Mazda have had to backpedal; claiming that the reason for the odd nomenclature is that this is to avoid confusion between two cars sold under the same nameplate in different markets. That in itself is nonsensical.
For a very long time, the Ford Escort in Europe was a totally different car to the North American Ford Escort which was a Mazda 323/Familia cousin. Holden has had the nameplate of Astra sitting on a rebadged Nissan Pulsar before switching to the Opel Astra and quite recently, the Astra name plate has been sitting on both the Opel Astra and the Chevrolet Cruze in the same caryard in Australia. Honda used build one version of the Civic and Accord for Europe and separate ones for America.
Both the CX-30 and the Chinese only CX-4 are so ridiculously close in dimensions that it boggles my mind why there would even need to be two cars. I don't know why there needs to be two different cars, and I don't know why the official unveiling had a story which made no sense. If someone wants to give me a Mazda Death 13 though, I won't turn the offer down.
Part 1:
As alluded to in Horse 2516, the new Mazda CX-30 has been unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show.
For those people not obsessed with motor cars as I am, here is a quick run down of what it is: Thingy thingy thingy, bla de bla de bla, 2.0L petrol engine, a 1.8L turbo-diesel, horsepowers, torques, SkyActive, i-Activ all-wheel drive, G-Vectoring Control system, other technical words, numbers, numbers, numbers, business, business. If you want to read those things, find a real motoring journalist and buy a magazine.
The reason why a jacked up hatchback/CUV/SUV piqued my attention is not because I like it (I really don't) but because it is named wrong. The car which is 120mm longer and 30mm wider than the current CX-3, is supposed to fit in the lineup between the Mazda CX-3 and CX-5. The logical name for it should be the Mazda CX-4 however, the number 4 in Mandarin supposedly sounds like the word for "death" and Mazda don't want to have a car which might be mistaken for a car called the Mazda Death.
Why can't I have a Mazda Death? That sounds cool. There's already a Dodge Hellcat, Ford Scorpio, Dodge Viper, Ford Mustang, that all have vicious animal names; Holden sold cars called Thunder and Storm, so why not?
Naming a car is traditionally difficult. There have been some truly horrendous cases where a name has unfortunate consequences when translated into another language such as the Mitsubishi Pajero, Chevrolet Nova and Toyota MR2, and likewise there have been some hilarious names like the Kia Bongo Friendee. The Germans have more or less given up with luxury car makers using alphanumeric names.
Nevertheless, a name like the Chevrolet Black Widow is still cool, some six decades later.
For the Japanese domestic market, Mazda already call their 2, 3 and 6, the Demio, Familia and Axela, respectively; so it's not as if the motor company is above naming their stuff. I don't see why they can't name their car CX-4 for the rest of the world and the CX-30 for China only.
Better yet, why not double down on the name and just call the thing the Mazda 'Death 13'? It wouldn't be enough for me to want to buy a jacked up hatchback but at least it would be logical. The truth of the matter is that we've all got used to cars with names after animals, places, vague call concepts and downright gibberish (I'm looking at you Mitsubishi Delica Highway Star Space Gear), so I think that the Mazda Death 13 sounds almost sensible. The Mazda CX-4 is a wee bit dull.
Or at least that's the story which Mazda wants you to believe...
Part 2:
http://cx-4.faw-mazda.com/
There it is, as large as life. The Mazda CX-4 which is a China only model.
The word sei ĺ›› (four), sounds identical to the word sei ć» (death), in all the Han languages. Not only in every single written piece of text does the characters CX-4 appear but it even has its own website.
If the story wasn't confusing enough, Mazda have had to backpedal; claiming that the reason for the odd nomenclature is that this is to avoid confusion between two cars sold under the same nameplate in different markets. That in itself is nonsensical.
For a very long time, the Ford Escort in Europe was a totally different car to the North American Ford Escort which was a Mazda 323/Familia cousin. Holden has had the nameplate of Astra sitting on a rebadged Nissan Pulsar before switching to the Opel Astra and quite recently, the Astra name plate has been sitting on both the Opel Astra and the Chevrolet Cruze in the same caryard in Australia. Honda used build one version of the Civic and Accord for Europe and separate ones for America.
Both the CX-30 and the Chinese only CX-4 are so ridiculously close in dimensions that it boggles my mind why there would even need to be two cars. I don't know why there needs to be two different cars, and I don't know why the official unveiling had a story which made no sense. If someone wants to give me a Mazda Death 13 though, I won't turn the offer down.
March 08, 2019
Horse 2516 - It Is Not Quite Superstitious Nonsense, That Buildings Don't Have A Floor 13 or 14
That sounds entirely believable to me because humans are pattern recognition machines who sometimes have religious leanings and beliefs. This also helps to explain why the car which Mazda are slotting in between the CX-3 and CX-5 will be called the CX-30 instead of the CX-4.
However and more importantly, the biggest reason why there is not usually a level 13 or 14 in a building is far more practical than mere superstition.
When you suspend a column of water in a pipe, there is a point at which the weight of the water pushing down on the column exerts enough pressure downwards to overcome the pressure of the water that is normally held within a pipe. For the most part, water is a non compressible fluid and so that creates supply problems for very tall buildings. In the olden days when there were no elevators, that posed less of a problem because supplying water for the building could be done with the normal pressure that municipal water corporations provide but that is not possible, once you reach a certain height.
It probably wouldn't necessarily be a problem except for the fact that humans like to do things with water; namely using it for drinking, cooking things in, washing things and themselves, and more importantly for the owners of the building, using it to put out fires.
There is a distinct advantage to putting out fires because it means that people's stuff doesn't get burned and people themselves don't generally like being on fire or dying as a result of being on fire either. From the somewhat limited scope of written material on the subject, humans that have either been on fire or been in a place that has been on fire, taste like pork chops when eaten though the market for this kind of meat appears to be insanely small.
The Home Insurance Building in Chicago, the world's first skyscraper, had neither pumps and risers, but being only 10 storeys tall and being completed in 1885 which was before the advent of modern fire fighting systems, it never had them. The automatic glass disc wet bulb sprinkler wasn't invented until 1890 and two years later its inventor Frederick Grinnell, started the General Fire Extinguisher Company.
In order to supply water to height of more than 50 metres, pumps and risers need to be installed because the water corporation will not guarantee pipe head pressure at anything higher than that. Since the usual conversion rate between metres and storeys in a building is typically 0.30303 then pipe head pressure limits buildings to 15 storeys and even then, the 15th floor would have dubious pipe head pressure if it was running a wet bulb water sprinkler system to prevent fires. In Australian the Australian Building Codes and AS2419.1-2005 specify where pump houses and risers have to be; including access to those things.
In a typical high rise building, there will be pumps and risers on the 13th and 14th floor, not for reasons of mere superstition but to give humans ample supply of water and to prevent their stuff and their person from being on fire; which is generally considered advantageous. From a personal standpoint, I have never been on fire and I intend that to be the case for as long as possible.
Probably superstition has something to do with it, and for the record I have been in a building which had levels of: G, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 88, 888, and 8888. However, if pipe head pressure isn't guaranteed beyond the 15th floor of a building, then a little bit of superstitious nonsense is a good cover for insurance and prudence.
March 06, 2019
Horse 2515 - Tony Abbott Complains About Branch Stacking And Runs A Possibly Illegal Internship Program
Although I live in the bogan western suburbs of Sydney, I work in the Insanic Kingdom of Mosman. Mosman is possibly the blue riband seat of the Liberal Party and we have found this week that even the thought that someone might challenge the sitting member Tony Abbot in the as yet uncalled May election (May 18, mark my words) is enough for both the Mosman Daily and the Manly Daily to lose their minds.
"The story here, I think is not that one or two short-term Liberals were ostentatiously resigning. The story was that GetUp was sufficiently sophisticated to plant people."
Mr Abbott said there was "absolutely no doubt" that branch stacking attempts were being made in Mosman branches of the Liberal Party is a bid to destabilise his support base.
"This group, the North Shore Environmental Stewards (founded by one of the former Liberals, Rob Grant) was created for the purpose of trying to get people, climate activists into the Liberal Party for the purposes of making trouble for me," he said.
- Manly Daily, 6th Mar 2019
In passing I will comment that both the Manly Daily and the Mosman Daily, having both lost their editorial independence, now both carry puff pieces masquerading as news. Their letters sections mirrors their mothership newspaper the Daily Telegraph and also chime in with their blatant partisanship.
The Mosman Daily exists almost entirely to sell properties to other people living in Mosman, while the Manly Daily exists as the propaganda wing for the IPA/News Corp/Liberal Party triumvirate/cabal.
I will also point out that the Manly Daily, doesn't really have a proper staff of journalists and cadged the front page's article off of Tony Abbott's twitter feed:
“Zali’s Liberal Army” (today’s Manly Daily headline) has just two members. Julie Giannesini who hasn’t been a member since 2007 and when she tried to rejoin late last year was rejected by the Mosman branch because she was so obviously a plant.
- Tony Abbott MP, via Twitter, 2nd Mar 2019 (7:56pm)
And Rob Grant who joined a branch just 12 months ago as part of a left wing stack. These aren’t Liberals, just left wing entryists who joined so they could ostentatiously resign. The MD was told this but still chose to peddle fake news
- Tony Abbott MP, via Twitter, 2nd Mar 2019 (7:56pm)
I find it somewhat ironic that a democratically elected member of parliament should complain about attempts to undermine democracy by acting in ways that are actually entirely democratic in nature. I find it especially ironic considering that once in parliament, Tony Abbott has been very influential in playing factional politics; which was in fact the reason why he became party leader in the first place and subsequently Prime Minister, and then further playing factional politics, which is the reason why Peter Dutton had a tilt at the top job at all. This is further built on the irony that Tony himself has the position in that seat, because of the career that he had.
After being president of the National Union of Students, and surviving a charge for indecent assault after he lawyered up and basically out stared the lady who took him to court, he became a youth pastor of sorts at Emu Plains and quit that job because it was too hard.
For a time he worked as a plant manager for Pioneer Concrete (probably at Pendle Hill) before becoming press secretary to Liberal Leader John Hewson from 1990 to 1993, helping to develop the "Fightback!" (exclamation mark included) policy; after which he was parachuted into the extreme safe seat of Warringah, which has always been held by the Liberal Party of Australia or its predecessors since its inception in 1922.
Tony's political career itself is purely because of the directives of the Liberal Party and the crushing of the local party branches.
I would think that the very practice of signing up members for a local branch of a political party with the express purpose of changing policy within the party, is in fact one of the highest and best expressions of democracy. Actually getting people to have say about the preselections of candidates as opposed to doing it through the ballot box, is by definition, a way of enacting change from the inside.
It is somewhat bewildering to me that the Manly Daily article, suggests that just 12 people are enough to destabilise his support base, and by inference, the people of Warringah should be very very worried.
There is a second and somewhat troubling chapter to this story though:
Former prime minister Tony Abbott will hire up to 20 unpaid interns to work on his re-election campaign in Warringah in a clear sign of the enormous electoral pressure facing the 25-year political veteran.
An advertisement posted on Mr Abbott's Battlelines website announces a snap four-day search for "dedicated and energetic people" to assist on the campaign over the next eight weeks.
- Michael Koziol, Sydney Morning Herald, 5th Mar 2019
The text of that website is thus:
Politics is a noble calling that is all about improving people’s lives.
And running smart, effective political campaigns is absolutely essential in achieving those lofty aims.
There has never been a more important time to invest in the future of bright, young, upcoming talent – which is why I’m launching the Battlelines Bootcamp.
Battlelines Bootcamp will introduce recruits to best-practice campaign techniques and provide on-the-ground practical campaign training.
So here’s everything you need to know:
8-week internship based in the Warringah campaign
Up to 20 internships are available for dedicated and energetic people eager to learn the art of political campaigning
Learn best-practice campaign techniques with on the ground practical training
We’re looking for people with advanced IT skills who have a demonstrated commitment to the values of the Liberal Party.
Please send applications to info@battlelines.com.au with at least 2 current references.
Applications open Tuesday 5 March and close Friday 8 March 2019.
- Battlelines Bootcamp as at 6th Mar 2019
There is a distinct problem with this. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports and as I have subsequently confirmed independently by emailing them, those 20 interns are unpaid.
As Fair Work Australia has said on their website:
Unpaid work experience, job placements and internships that are not vocational placements will be unlawful if the person is in an employment relationship with the business or organisation they are doing the work for. People in employment relationships are employees of a business and entitled to:
- a minimum wage
- the National Employment Standards
- the terms of any applicable award or registered agreement.
These "internships" are not vocational placements and are explicitly about running a political campaign. On the face of it this appears to violate the Fair Work Act 2009.
To summarise:
We have an MP complaining about supposed branch stacking in his own party while at the same time conducting unpaid internships which appear to be on the face of it illegal.
And he wants to remain as the Member for Warringah?
February 21, 2019
Horse 2514 - Despite Massive Corruption And Scandal, This Government Will Likely Be Reelected - Australia: You Are A Pack Of Stupids
There are at least six corruption scandals currently taking place in this government, seven things that are horrifying:
1.
Agriculture Minister David Littleproud said Australians should stop shopping at Aldi or Coles if they wanted a sustainable dairy industry.
Agriculture Minister David Littleproud - and whose chief of staff is former government relations manager for Woolworths - calls for boycott of Woolworths' competitors.
2.
The Australian Financial Review has reported that Paladin Group’s $420m of contracts to provide security to refugees on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea was extended by the home affairs department in January after a closed tender process.
The "curriculum officer" at Paladin Solutions PNG is named Karen Dutton - A relative to Peter Dutton? The Home Affairs Minister?
3.
Mathias Cormann admitted under questioning at Senate estimates that on three occasions in the last three years he called Helloworld Travel chief executive Andrew Burnes to arrange his trips.
The revelation came when Senator Cormann faced questions about why he hadn't been charged more than $2,700 for flights to Singapore.
4.
Federal Small Business Minister Michaelia Cash insists she has provided a witness statement to police about raids on union offices — despite the Australian Federal Police (AFP) saying she did not.
A member of her staff tipped off the media that police were raiding the Melbourne offices of the Australian Workers' Union back in 2017; which is now part of a civil court case.
5.
Mr Wilson led town-hall style meetings across the country seeking feedback on Labor's plan to scrap franking credits, which form part of SMSF funds income.
Mr Wilson has confirmed he sought a testimony from a high-profile fund manager and a distant relative, Geoff Wilson, who manages his investments.
Geoff Wilson is the founder and manager of Wilson Asset Management, which manages some of Tim Wilson's investments.
Tim Wilson is the chair of the House Economics Committee; who just happnes to have a conflict of interest as he's a shareholder in Wilson Asset Management.
6.
Peter Dutton reportedly has a business interest in childcare centres, which two constitutional law experts have suggested could amount to an “indirect pecuniary interest” in an agreement with the commonwealth and disqualify him from parliament.
According to Dutton’s register of interests he, his spouse and children are beneficiaries of the RHT Family Trust.
This would disqualify him from sitting in parliament under Section 44(v) of the Constitution.
The government has refused to refer him to the High Court.
And 7:
Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Renée Leon, explained to Senate Estimates that because suicide victims are no longer alive, there can not be a proven causal link between their suicides and the Robodebt scandal following overpayment and demand notices from Centrelink. 2030 people have died. 1778 (87%) were under the age of 65.
The kicker:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/ipsos-poll-support-for-labor-falls-after-clash-over-refugees-and-border-security-20190217-p50ycu.html
Labor has suffered a sharp fall in popular support after a week of incendiary political claims over border protection, with the party leading the Coalition by 51 to 49 per cent in its narrowest result in more than six months.
Voters have shifted against Labor in significant numbers amid the escalating row over the refugee medical transfer law passed by Parliament last week, cutting the party’s lead over the Coalition from the previous result of 54 to 46 per cent last December.
- Sydney Morning Herald, 17th Feb 2019
What is wrong with you Australia? Are 49 percent of you just criminally stupid or deliberately belligerent?
Of course we have also passed legislation which moves sick asylum seekers on medical grounds from one tropical gulag, to another tropical gulag with such inadequate medical facilities that no babies have been born on Christmas Island in two decades (including an asylum seeker from Iran who miscarried in 2013).
This is the government you elected Australia and will likely return to power in May.
1.
Agriculture Minister David Littleproud said Australians should stop shopping at Aldi or Coles if they wanted a sustainable dairy industry.
Agriculture Minister David Littleproud - and whose chief of staff is former government relations manager for Woolworths - calls for boycott of Woolworths' competitors.
2.
The Australian Financial Review has reported that Paladin Group’s $420m of contracts to provide security to refugees on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea was extended by the home affairs department in January after a closed tender process.
The "curriculum officer" at Paladin Solutions PNG is named Karen Dutton - A relative to Peter Dutton? The Home Affairs Minister?
3.
Mathias Cormann admitted under questioning at Senate estimates that on three occasions in the last three years he called Helloworld Travel chief executive Andrew Burnes to arrange his trips.
The revelation came when Senator Cormann faced questions about why he hadn't been charged more than $2,700 for flights to Singapore.
4.
Federal Small Business Minister Michaelia Cash insists she has provided a witness statement to police about raids on union offices — despite the Australian Federal Police (AFP) saying she did not.
A member of her staff tipped off the media that police were raiding the Melbourne offices of the Australian Workers' Union back in 2017; which is now part of a civil court case.
5.
Mr Wilson led town-hall style meetings across the country seeking feedback on Labor's plan to scrap franking credits, which form part of SMSF funds income.
Mr Wilson has confirmed he sought a testimony from a high-profile fund manager and a distant relative, Geoff Wilson, who manages his investments.
Geoff Wilson is the founder and manager of Wilson Asset Management, which manages some of Tim Wilson's investments.
Tim Wilson is the chair of the House Economics Committee; who just happnes to have a conflict of interest as he's a shareholder in Wilson Asset Management.
6.
Peter Dutton reportedly has a business interest in childcare centres, which two constitutional law experts have suggested could amount to an “indirect pecuniary interest” in an agreement with the commonwealth and disqualify him from parliament.
According to Dutton’s register of interests he, his spouse and children are beneficiaries of the RHT Family Trust.
This would disqualify him from sitting in parliament under Section 44(v) of the Constitution.
The government has refused to refer him to the High Court.
And 7:
Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Renée Leon, explained to Senate Estimates that because suicide victims are no longer alive, there can not be a proven causal link between their suicides and the Robodebt scandal following overpayment and demand notices from Centrelink. 2030 people have died. 1778 (87%) were under the age of 65.
The kicker:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/ipsos-poll-support-for-labor-falls-after-clash-over-refugees-and-border-security-20190217-p50ycu.html
Labor has suffered a sharp fall in popular support after a week of incendiary political claims over border protection, with the party leading the Coalition by 51 to 49 per cent in its narrowest result in more than six months.
Voters have shifted against Labor in significant numbers amid the escalating row over the refugee medical transfer law passed by Parliament last week, cutting the party’s lead over the Coalition from the previous result of 54 to 46 per cent last December.
- Sydney Morning Herald, 17th Feb 2019
What is wrong with you Australia? Are 49 percent of you just criminally stupid or deliberately belligerent?
Of course we have also passed legislation which moves sick asylum seekers on medical grounds from one tropical gulag, to another tropical gulag with such inadequate medical facilities that no babies have been born on Christmas Island in two decades (including an asylum seeker from Iran who miscarried in 2013).
This is the government you elected Australia and will likely return to power in May.
February 20, 2019
Horse 2513 - My Electricity Problem, The Bigger Electricity Problem, And Why Privatisation Is Stupid
The Problem:
At about 8am yesterday morning, Mrs Rollo was disturbed not by the usual onslaught of feline hostilities which rage from time to time but by a white car and a man with a BA in Clipboardology. He came to the house, shut the power off at the power box, put a tape over the switches which are a criminal offence to remove and drove away.
I had recently arrived at work and had made a cup of coffee (of everyone’s favourite zero star coffee International Roast) and was about to settle in for the morning to do a spot of grunt work when I was told that there was no electricity.
The poles and wires in our part of the world are owned by Endeavour Energy. It was they who sent around their man in the car to switch off the power. However, I wasn’t to know that as in the first instance, I had to ring our retail electricity provider, which was Origin Energy.
Except it wasn’t.
The last bill that we had from Origin Energy was back in November last year. The account was showing $0.00 outstanding and so it was nonsensical to the person who I rang at Origin, why the elecrity was cut off.
I was sent to Endeavour Energy.
Endeavour Energy asked me if I’d run my retail electricity provider. I told them I had. They told me that I needed to track down an order for cut off, so that it could be reversed.
So back to Origin Energy I went.
Origin Energy told me that they had sent no such order to Endeavour Energy and that I should ring Endeavour Energy to see where the order for cut off had come from.
So back to Endeavour Energy I went.
After speaking to someone at Endeavour Energy and having to reexplain the situation, I was then sent on a series of numbers until I found someone who could tell me where they order had come from. It had not come from Origin Energy as I had thought, and who I had been paying our electricity bills with but from AGL.
So I rang AGL.
AGL were incredibly confused. Not only could AGL not identify me as a customer at this address but they had details of me living at a house that I had moved out of more than five years ago. They sent me back to Endeavour Energy to see which National Meter Identifier (NMI) had been cut off.
So I went back to Endeavour Energy.
Endeavour Energy were able to tell me what the NMI for this property was, sort of. There is also a granny flat out the back, and they couldn’t determine which one it was and as they do no have accounts linked to NMIs because they are not the retail electricity provider, they sent me back to Origin Energy to get the NMI.
Which I did.
I then took that NMI to AGL, wherein I had to set up a new account because apparently (and this is the kicker) our property was an AGL owned account but unattached to any customer. This means that AGL have been supplying electricity to us, without us even knowing about it and because the account was unattached to any customer and nobody paid the bill, this is what triggered the cut off order.
So I had to create a new account with AGL, who then sent an immediate order to resupply electricity and the same man in the white car who had been around at 8am, came around at 2:25pm to turn the power back on.
Between three companies, nobody had a clue as to why we’d been transferred from Origin to AGL without our knowledge, or even how it had happened.
The Bigger Problem:
Electricity supply as far as the customer is concerned, something of a natural monopoly. The customer shouldn’t have to care about comparing a godzillion number of plans and rates, in a giant confuseopoly because in the end, electricity is exactly fungible. 240 volts at 10 amps should be exactly the same if it comes from Kalgoorlie to Karratha or from Katoomba to Kiama. I give zero hoots about where it comes from. Broadly speaking, I’d like it to come from less fossil fuel burning, but that should be government policy and not incumbent on the poor consumer who is stuck in the middle of a retail price maelstrom to decide.
Because Electricity supply is both a natural monopoly, and a piece of national infrastructure, then history consistently proves that privatisation is rubbish. I’m not trying to make some grand statement about socialism here but if it takes the best part of six and a half hours and three companies to resolve an issue which could have been solved in less than four minutes, then you can stick whatever comments you have to make about free markets into the sun.
Private companies who have multiple administrations, which are basically duplicates of each other, who are all being funded at the lowest possible rates in the name of spinning a profit, are terrible for the consumer. Had it been back in the days of Prospect County Council which was a state-owned corporation owned by the Government of New South Wales, you would have had a guy called Geoff walk down the corridor to another guy called Steve and ask “Why’d you cut the power off at 33 Banana St?” and there would have been an answer immediately.
Privatisation has not brought prices down for consumers and to be perfectly blunt, it more than anything else was probably the root cause of the 2016 South Australian blackout, when almost the entire state losing its electricity supply due to busted interconnecters and physical destruction of wires due to storms.
The then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that state governments had paid "little or no attention to energy security", and prize knave Queensland One Nation senator, Malcolm Roberts, blamed the incident on relying on renwable energy sources.
The truth is that without wires, electrity doesnn't flow and the real culprit for not doing proper maintenace was ElectraNet who are 46% owned by the State Grid Corporation of China, 33% owned by a Malaysian company called YTL, and something called Australian Utilities Pty Ltd.
The fact that the electricity isn't owned by the South Australian state government is stupid and all who sold off need to be put into a room with no electricity so they can think about what they've done.
The same goes for the state governments of New South Wales. Whoever thought that this was a good idea and everyone who voted for it, is criminally stupid.
More recently Mike Baird campaigned to lease 49% of NSW's state-owned electricity distribution network and as soon as he got a better job with the NAB, he jumped ship citing "family reasons" (I think that we know exactly what those "family reasons" were). It is decisions like this that stretch back to the 1980s, which explain why it takes three companies to shut off my electricity for no good reason at all.
Conclusion:
More than six hours after the power went off and after I’d been on the phone almost continuously, doing the equivalent of their administration for them, the power came back on again.
I had a phone call later that afternoon from AGL, asking me if I’d enjoyed the customer experience and if I would recommend them in the future.
Seriously?
At about 8am yesterday morning, Mrs Rollo was disturbed not by the usual onslaught of feline hostilities which rage from time to time but by a white car and a man with a BA in Clipboardology. He came to the house, shut the power off at the power box, put a tape over the switches which are a criminal offence to remove and drove away.
I had recently arrived at work and had made a cup of coffee (of everyone’s favourite zero star coffee International Roast) and was about to settle in for the morning to do a spot of grunt work when I was told that there was no electricity.
The poles and wires in our part of the world are owned by Endeavour Energy. It was they who sent around their man in the car to switch off the power. However, I wasn’t to know that as in the first instance, I had to ring our retail electricity provider, which was Origin Energy.
Except it wasn’t.
The last bill that we had from Origin Energy was back in November last year. The account was showing $0.00 outstanding and so it was nonsensical to the person who I rang at Origin, why the elecrity was cut off.
I was sent to Endeavour Energy.
Endeavour Energy asked me if I’d run my retail electricity provider. I told them I had. They told me that I needed to track down an order for cut off, so that it could be reversed.
So back to Origin Energy I went.
Origin Energy told me that they had sent no such order to Endeavour Energy and that I should ring Endeavour Energy to see where the order for cut off had come from.
So back to Endeavour Energy I went.
After speaking to someone at Endeavour Energy and having to reexplain the situation, I was then sent on a series of numbers until I found someone who could tell me where they order had come from. It had not come from Origin Energy as I had thought, and who I had been paying our electricity bills with but from AGL.
So I rang AGL.
AGL were incredibly confused. Not only could AGL not identify me as a customer at this address but they had details of me living at a house that I had moved out of more than five years ago. They sent me back to Endeavour Energy to see which National Meter Identifier (NMI) had been cut off.
So I went back to Endeavour Energy.
Endeavour Energy were able to tell me what the NMI for this property was, sort of. There is also a granny flat out the back, and they couldn’t determine which one it was and as they do no have accounts linked to NMIs because they are not the retail electricity provider, they sent me back to Origin Energy to get the NMI.
Which I did.
I then took that NMI to AGL, wherein I had to set up a new account because apparently (and this is the kicker) our property was an AGL owned account but unattached to any customer. This means that AGL have been supplying electricity to us, without us even knowing about it and because the account was unattached to any customer and nobody paid the bill, this is what triggered the cut off order.
So I had to create a new account with AGL, who then sent an immediate order to resupply electricity and the same man in the white car who had been around at 8am, came around at 2:25pm to turn the power back on.
Between three companies, nobody had a clue as to why we’d been transferred from Origin to AGL without our knowledge, or even how it had happened.
The Bigger Problem:
Electricity supply as far as the customer is concerned, something of a natural monopoly. The customer shouldn’t have to care about comparing a godzillion number of plans and rates, in a giant confuseopoly because in the end, electricity is exactly fungible. 240 volts at 10 amps should be exactly the same if it comes from Kalgoorlie to Karratha or from Katoomba to Kiama. I give zero hoots about where it comes from. Broadly speaking, I’d like it to come from less fossil fuel burning, but that should be government policy and not incumbent on the poor consumer who is stuck in the middle of a retail price maelstrom to decide.
Because Electricity supply is both a natural monopoly, and a piece of national infrastructure, then history consistently proves that privatisation is rubbish. I’m not trying to make some grand statement about socialism here but if it takes the best part of six and a half hours and three companies to resolve an issue which could have been solved in less than four minutes, then you can stick whatever comments you have to make about free markets into the sun.
Private companies who have multiple administrations, which are basically duplicates of each other, who are all being funded at the lowest possible rates in the name of spinning a profit, are terrible for the consumer. Had it been back in the days of Prospect County Council which was a state-owned corporation owned by the Government of New South Wales, you would have had a guy called Geoff walk down the corridor to another guy called Steve and ask “Why’d you cut the power off at 33 Banana St?” and there would have been an answer immediately.
Privatisation has not brought prices down for consumers and to be perfectly blunt, it more than anything else was probably the root cause of the 2016 South Australian blackout, when almost the entire state losing its electricity supply due to busted interconnecters and physical destruction of wires due to storms.
The then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that state governments had paid "little or no attention to energy security", and prize knave Queensland One Nation senator, Malcolm Roberts, blamed the incident on relying on renwable energy sources.
The truth is that without wires, electrity doesnn't flow and the real culprit for not doing proper maintenace was ElectraNet who are 46% owned by the State Grid Corporation of China, 33% owned by a Malaysian company called YTL, and something called Australian Utilities Pty Ltd.
The fact that the electricity isn't owned by the South Australian state government is stupid and all who sold off need to be put into a room with no electricity so they can think about what they've done.
The same goes for the state governments of New South Wales. Whoever thought that this was a good idea and everyone who voted for it, is criminally stupid.
More recently Mike Baird campaigned to lease 49% of NSW's state-owned electricity distribution network and as soon as he got a better job with the NAB, he jumped ship citing "family reasons" (I think that we know exactly what those "family reasons" were). It is decisions like this that stretch back to the 1980s, which explain why it takes three companies to shut off my electricity for no good reason at all.
Conclusion:
More than six hours after the power went off and after I’d been on the phone almost continuously, doing the equivalent of their administration for them, the power came back on again.
I had a phone call later that afternoon from AGL, asking me if I’d enjoyed the customer experience and if I would recommend them in the future.
Seriously?
February 15, 2019
Horse 2512 - A Company Pays A Living Wage - Oh Der!
One of the things that happens a fair bit on Facebook, is that when people post links to things, they will often tag their friends and family in posts; in what I can only imagine is an attempt to get a huge internet pile-on of likes. As someone who uses Facebook primarily through browsers and almost never on the app, I imagine that my user experience of the platform is significantly different to most people. I imagine that most people get their likes and hearts and then move on; whereas I on the other hand will tend to stew on something for far longer, and want to pick apart the things posted.
Ah yes, Facebook, that bastion of news outlets, that is always at the cutting edge with the greatest and latest news, except when it is not; which is most of the time.
In my Facebook feed this week, a tangential article about the fast food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A, was praised as though it were doing something noteworthy:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chick-fil-a-store-owner-raises-wages-to-17-or-18-an-hour-minimum-wage-living-wage/?fbclid=IwAR3gxKI9j9n90HSxGt_9isjw_o0JdrlD_iFi0vu2mA6x3eQdtFqNl6n0OP4
The owner of a Chick-fil-A location in Sacramento, California, calls it a "living wage." In Eric Mason's view, that would be $17 or $18 an hour, which is what he vows he'll be paying his workers, starting Monday, June 4. The rate represents a sizable increase for employees now making $12 to $13 an hour.
"As the owner, I'm looking at it big-picture and long-term," Mason told a local news station. "What that does for the business is provide consistency, someone that has relationships with our guests, and it's going to be building a long-term culture."
The idea, Mason said, is to hire workers -- he prefers "hospitality professionals" -- who will stick around, a worthwhile goal for a brand known for its customer service that's in an industry that had a 73 percent turnover rate in 2016, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- Kate Gibson, CBS News, 1st June 2018
The idea that an employer would pay their employees more, in an effort to reduce turnover is hardly a new one. Reknowned anti-Semite and industrialist Henry Ford famous paid his workers $5 a day in 1914, not because if the alturistic notion that his employees would be able to afford one of his flivvers but rather, Henry started paying a more livable wage because of simple economics. High employeer turnover kills productivity. The obvious solution is that if you pay the workers more, they won’t quit. It is an entirely rational and logical decision; made with cool brute logic.
I have no doubt that Eric Mason probably looked through his accounts and came to that same conclusion. Pay them more and they won’t quit. Incidentally, at 4% inflation (which has been the historial average since the beginning of the Roman Empire), Henry Ford's $5/day or 62.5c/hour, works out to $38.40/hr now.
The truth is that workers who supply their labour, do so for a pretty pragmatic reason - they need to eat and sleep somewhere. Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation", proposed a theory called the "hierarchy of needs"; which is mostly so obvious, you wonder why anyone needed to write a paper on it at all.
It's like the concept of physiological needs is one of the Great Ders of History and the fact that it needs repeating, makes me want to cry "Oh Der" repeatedly.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/ask-the-headhunter/column-if-your-business-cant-pay-a-living-wage-it-shouldnt-exist
But when it comes to how individual businesses should decide what to pay, my economic logic is simple. You — and many employers — have already discovered it, even if you all pretend otherwise: Nobody’s going to work for you because it costs more to live than the peanuts you’re paying.
You cannot — or you refuse to — pay fair-market compensation. That’s why you can’t hire the workers you need, no matter what your rationalization is. As I explained last week, the “talent shortage” is a creation of employers’ own making.
Fair-market compensation is an amount people need for shelter, food, transportation and other basics of life. That’s more than $70 a day where most people live.
- Nick Corcodilos, 12th Feb 2019
Oh Der!
The problem is that throughout history, people need to repeatedly yell "Oh Der" because it's almost as if everyone who becomes an employer and would like to pay their employees absolutely nothing if they could get away with it (that's why we have unpaid internships in the 21st Century), instantly forget that people need to eat and sleep somewhere. Oh Der!
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
...
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt, proposed Second Bill of Rights, State of the Union Address (1944).
Oh Der!
Bear in mind that FDR is speaking from the midst of a war here. One of the things about wars is that it suddenly dawns on the people who have power and control, that the people who are out on the battlefield actually have value. You do not win wars unless the people who do the fighting, believe that there is a thing worth fighting for. FDR also realised that wars do not last forever and unless the country recognised the value of its citizenry, then winning a war was pointless if you then do not win the peace.
FDR's proposal for the Second Bill of Rights never materialised because ultimately, it has been consistently proven that the people who own capital and by extension who own the systems which run democracies, do consider the general public as expendable. America has ultimately decided that people really only have value when they are actually fighting wars, because as soon as veterans get home, they are all too frequently discarded by the nation; as a practical demonstration of the value that they no longer have.
In principle, America thinks so little of the value of its people that not only did it not accept the Second Bill of Rights but it also refuses to be a signatory to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights as well as other statements and commitments to the value of people, such as the 1967 Protocol to the Refugee Convention. Speaking of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, it contains the following article:
"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and for his family an existence worthy of human dignity."
- Article 23, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
Oh Der!
This sentiment echoes on and on throughout the centuries.
Adam Smith, the father of economics, had this to say in his 1776 work "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations":
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations (1776).
Oh Der!
Paul had to write to Timothy in the early days of the church:
"Elders who lead effectively are worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker is worthy of his wages.”
- 1 Timothy 5:17-18
Oh Der!
And just to prove this sentiment is as old as dirt, we find it repeated again and again in the old testament:
"Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.
Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight."
- Leviticus 19:13
Oh Der!
"Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin."
- Deuteronomy 24:15
Oh Der!
Time and time again, it seems that people need to be told again that you really do need to pay people a proper wage because they need it to be able to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. How hard is that to understand? Seriously?
Okay, the owner of one Chick-fil-A restaurant realised that people need a proper wage in order to have a decent life; but what about everyone else? The multi-billion and possibly trillion dollar company Wal-mart pays its workers so very very little that it estimated that it costs U.S. taxpayers $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing. How 80% of the employees of a company with turnover of more than $125bn can not still manage to pay a living wage is beyond me.
This is not the sort of thing which should be praiseworthy. You shouldn't be praised for doing a thing which everyone should already be doing. It really just makes me want to yell "Oh Der!" again; which as shown has to be yelled again and again and again.
Oh Der!
Ah yes, Facebook, that bastion of news outlets, that is always at the cutting edge with the greatest and latest news, except when it is not; which is most of the time.
In my Facebook feed this week, a tangential article about the fast food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A, was praised as though it were doing something noteworthy:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chick-fil-a-store-owner-raises-wages-to-17-or-18-an-hour-minimum-wage-living-wage/?fbclid=IwAR3gxKI9j9n90HSxGt_9isjw_o0JdrlD_iFi0vu2mA6x3eQdtFqNl6n0OP4
The owner of a Chick-fil-A location in Sacramento, California, calls it a "living wage." In Eric Mason's view, that would be $17 or $18 an hour, which is what he vows he'll be paying his workers, starting Monday, June 4. The rate represents a sizable increase for employees now making $12 to $13 an hour.
"As the owner, I'm looking at it big-picture and long-term," Mason told a local news station. "What that does for the business is provide consistency, someone that has relationships with our guests, and it's going to be building a long-term culture."
The idea, Mason said, is to hire workers -- he prefers "hospitality professionals" -- who will stick around, a worthwhile goal for a brand known for its customer service that's in an industry that had a 73 percent turnover rate in 2016, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- Kate Gibson, CBS News, 1st June 2018
The idea that an employer would pay their employees more, in an effort to reduce turnover is hardly a new one. Reknowned anti-Semite and industrialist Henry Ford famous paid his workers $5 a day in 1914, not because if the alturistic notion that his employees would be able to afford one of his flivvers but rather, Henry started paying a more livable wage because of simple economics. High employeer turnover kills productivity. The obvious solution is that if you pay the workers more, they won’t quit. It is an entirely rational and logical decision; made with cool brute logic.
I have no doubt that Eric Mason probably looked through his accounts and came to that same conclusion. Pay them more and they won’t quit. Incidentally, at 4% inflation (which has been the historial average since the beginning of the Roman Empire), Henry Ford's $5/day or 62.5c/hour, works out to $38.40/hr now.
The truth is that workers who supply their labour, do so for a pretty pragmatic reason - they need to eat and sleep somewhere. Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation", proposed a theory called the "hierarchy of needs"; which is mostly so obvious, you wonder why anyone needed to write a paper on it at all.
It's like the concept of physiological needs is one of the Great Ders of History and the fact that it needs repeating, makes me want to cry "Oh Der" repeatedly.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/ask-the-headhunter/column-if-your-business-cant-pay-a-living-wage-it-shouldnt-exist
But when it comes to how individual businesses should decide what to pay, my economic logic is simple. You — and many employers — have already discovered it, even if you all pretend otherwise: Nobody’s going to work for you because it costs more to live than the peanuts you’re paying.
You cannot — or you refuse to — pay fair-market compensation. That’s why you can’t hire the workers you need, no matter what your rationalization is. As I explained last week, the “talent shortage” is a creation of employers’ own making.
Fair-market compensation is an amount people need for shelter, food, transportation and other basics of life. That’s more than $70 a day where most people live.
- Nick Corcodilos, 12th Feb 2019
Oh Der!
The problem is that throughout history, people need to repeatedly yell "Oh Der" because it's almost as if everyone who becomes an employer and would like to pay their employees absolutely nothing if they could get away with it (that's why we have unpaid internships in the 21st Century), instantly forget that people need to eat and sleep somewhere. Oh Der!
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
...
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt, proposed Second Bill of Rights, State of the Union Address (1944).
Oh Der!
Bear in mind that FDR is speaking from the midst of a war here. One of the things about wars is that it suddenly dawns on the people who have power and control, that the people who are out on the battlefield actually have value. You do not win wars unless the people who do the fighting, believe that there is a thing worth fighting for. FDR also realised that wars do not last forever and unless the country recognised the value of its citizenry, then winning a war was pointless if you then do not win the peace.
FDR's proposal for the Second Bill of Rights never materialised because ultimately, it has been consistently proven that the people who own capital and by extension who own the systems which run democracies, do consider the general public as expendable. America has ultimately decided that people really only have value when they are actually fighting wars, because as soon as veterans get home, they are all too frequently discarded by the nation; as a practical demonstration of the value that they no longer have.
In principle, America thinks so little of the value of its people that not only did it not accept the Second Bill of Rights but it also refuses to be a signatory to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights as well as other statements and commitments to the value of people, such as the 1967 Protocol to the Refugee Convention. Speaking of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, it contains the following article:
"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and for his family an existence worthy of human dignity."
- Article 23, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
Oh Der!
This sentiment echoes on and on throughout the centuries.
Adam Smith, the father of economics, had this to say in his 1776 work "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations":
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations (1776).
Oh Der!
Paul had to write to Timothy in the early days of the church:
"Elders who lead effectively are worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker is worthy of his wages.”
- 1 Timothy 5:17-18
Oh Der!
And just to prove this sentiment is as old as dirt, we find it repeated again and again in the old testament:
"Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.
Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight."
- Leviticus 19:13
Oh Der!
"Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin."
- Deuteronomy 24:15
Oh Der!
Time and time again, it seems that people need to be told again that you really do need to pay people a proper wage because they need it to be able to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. How hard is that to understand? Seriously?
Okay, the owner of one Chick-fil-A restaurant realised that people need a proper wage in order to have a decent life; but what about everyone else? The multi-billion and possibly trillion dollar company Wal-mart pays its workers so very very little that it estimated that it costs U.S. taxpayers $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing. How 80% of the employees of a company with turnover of more than $125bn can not still manage to pay a living wage is beyond me.
This is not the sort of thing which should be praiseworthy. You shouldn't be praised for doing a thing which everyone should already be doing. It really just makes me want to yell "Oh Der!" again; which as shown has to be yelled again and again and again.
Oh Der!
February 12, 2019
Horse 2511 - Why Should Warringah Send Tony Back To Canberra?
...In which I respond to Tony Abbott's column in the Sydney Morning Herald.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-warringah-should-send-me-back-to-canberra-20190208-p50whv.html
In the past two years, I’ve had meet-the-member public meetings all around Warringah for voters to tell me their concerns. Almost to a person, they’re sick of overdevelopment and the traffic jams that make the best suburbs in the world a misery as soon as you want to go anywhere else.
As someone who has been working in the electorate of Warringah, I have personally met Tony Abbott only twice in not quite sixteen years. Admittedly I am only here during office hours but I would hope that Mr Abbott actually speaks to the people of his electorate more often, than merely when it is time to stand upon the stump to pony up for votes.
I’m running again so the Northern Beaches tunnel finally gets built. Yes, it’s the Liberal state government that’s going to do the work but the money is only there because of the Liberal federal government and its funding partnerships. Even though the tunnel is now finally close starting it still needs a champion to get it across the line.
Local people need the tunnel if we’re to get our lives back from spending hours in traffic gridlock. It’s the only local issue that can improve every local person’s life forever and I’m the only local federal candidate who’s 120 per cent for it.
On that note, as someone who lives in the western suburbs and therefore not a constituent of the electorate of Warringah, my opinion counts for very little. Although as a commuter and having to live with the problem of congestion, the reason why there is such terrible traffic in the Northern Beaches, is that by reason of geography, there are only a few select arterial roads which run across the ridge tops.
The best option to remove cars from the road would be to build a heavy rail tunnel. One eight car train removes 2000 cars an hour from the roads. The problem with that, is that the carrying costs are borne by the NSW State Government, and given that the previous Member of the New South Wales Parliament for Manly and the 44th Premier of New South Wales left parliament citing "personal reasons" only to be parachuted into a cushy job at the National Australia Bank, that can not be allowed to happen. The Premier of NSW simply has to build a toll-road, and give the profits to their banker friends.
I’m also running to keep a good government in Canberra that knows how to keep our country safe and our economy strong. In a seat like Warringah, voting for anyone other than the endorsed Liberal candidate would just bring a Labor government closer. And that would mean that 10,000 local retirees would lose thousands of dollars a year in franking credits as well as a much weaker economy due to all the extra taxes and union control that Labor would bring.
I work in an accountant's office in Mosman and I can tell you that running an SMSF makes zero sense unless you have at least $500,000 in the fund because you need to pay audit fees. If you're single and a Non-homeowner then the value of assets that you are allowed to have before the full age pension¹ is reduced is $465,500.
I would like to point out here that currently, investment income a SMSF receives from its assets is tax exempt to the extent that those assets are supporting retirement phase income streams. This income is called exempt current pension income (ECPI).
I want to know how exactly it is just, that someone who derives income from the work of other people, should be assessed at 0% tax, when I who actually does real work for a living, is assessed at effective tax rate which is more than the ASX200.
Thanks to the people of Warringah, I’ve had the chance to lead the Liberal Party out of opposition and into government; where we stopped the boats, repealed the carbon and mining taxes, unleashed the biggest infrastructure program in our country’s history, and finalised the three big FTAs. Sure, my 2014 budget struggled in the Senate but thanks to consistent good management the budget is now finally coming back into surplus and more tax cuts are in the offing.
I don't know if the Liberal Government actually did stop the boats. They have stopped reporting on boat arrivals; which isn't exactly the same thing.
Repealing the "Carbon Tax" was politically expedient. Well done. I'm sure that the people of 2119 will thank you.
Repealing rent resources levies more than likely damaged the structural integrity of budgets; as did successive waves of tax cuts during the mining boom which we completely squandered.
Before that, I was a frontbencher throughout the time of the Howard government and, for much of it, the Prime Minister’s one man Praetorian Guard. I was largely responsible for stopping the Keating government’s proposed sale for development of defence land around Sydney Harbour and for the Howard government’s preservation of it forever in the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.
Fair enough.
I haven’t just served the people of Warringah in the Parliament but in a host of practical and personal ways too: on patrol on the beach at Queenscliff and on the truck as part of the Davidson Rural Fire Brigade. Then there’s the annual Pollie Pedal charity bike ride that’s so far raised about $7 million, including for local causes such as the Pioneer Clubhouse, the Royal Far West, Bear Cottage, and the Manly Women’s Shelter. Margie and I have always encouraged our girls to take community service seriously but you can’t really preach it unless you live it.
Also, Fair enough.
As is well known, I didn’t support same sex marriage but I gave change a chance with the plebiscite and accept that it’s now the law of the land.
Also, Fair enough.
Climate change is real, mankind makes a contribution and we should take sensible action to deal with it but, with Australia responsible for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions, there’s no point damaging our economy in futile green gestures. And if we’re fair dinkum about drastically cutting emissions, we should at least end the legal prohibition on nuclear that is currently the only feasible form of emissions-free baseload power for Australia.
Hang on a second, if "Climate change is real, mankind makes a contribution and we should take sensible action to deal with it" them why did you openly crow only a few paragraphs before about repealing the carbon tax?
Changing behaviour is often achieved through economic incentive and disincentive. If we accept the premise that " there’s no point damaging our economy in futile green gestures" then if everyone in the world collectively does nothing, then we don't just damaging our economy but potentially the sustained ability of the planet to support life.
The idea that our Parliament should lose people with a proven record of achievement and the insights that only experience brings just because they’ve already been prime minister is absurd, especially if they’re as fit as most people 20 years younger. Likewise, the idea that backbench MPs should refrain from speaking and writing or somehow dilute their ideas lest they be accused of “wrecking” doesn’t bear scrutiny.
I agree with this entirely; however, every single MP is only at the employ of their constituents and while Section 9 of the Bill of Rights Act 1689² does agree with you that "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament", the ideas that are contained within that same free speech ought to be judges and evaluated. The idea that someone who has previously been prime minister ought to be exempt from that scrutiny is also absurd.
As for the remark that someone is "as fit as most people 20 years younger", I fail to see how that is relevant. If this is a question of physical fitness, then that is not a disqualifier of ability and as for the mental fitness of someone even into their 80s, 90s and beyond, provided someone is sufficiently annoyed and excitable mentally, they are fit for task.
I’d be proud and honoured to serve another term as the Member for Warringah and to devote all the clout that a former prime minister has to the service of my area. And when you think about it, only a dyed-in-the-wool Labor voter would want to deprive the parliamentary Liberal Party of a most effective political warrior.
When it boils down it, in the 40 years that I have been alive, I have been fundamentally betrayed by both of the two political football teams in this country. You've both sold off the family silverware, recently you've both proven that you're cruel and heartless when it comes to the issue of vulnerable people both within and without this country.
To me, so many issues in the political life of the Commonwealth of Australia, are treated as though we are at a Wanderers v Sydney FC game. Hooray. Boo. Hooray. Boo. The difference there is that the songs are wittier at an actual football match, they are more focused in achieving goals, and after 90 minutes the two ends of supporters stop yelling at each other and they go home.
Tony Abbott is the member for Warringah and a former Australian prime minister.
Rollo is a citizen of the Commonwealth Of Australia and who would like to be a paid member of the commentariat, instead of just a hack who has to put up with terrible journalism.
¹https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/assets/30621
²http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/bor16881wams2c2306/s9.html
https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-warringah-should-send-me-back-to-canberra-20190208-p50whv.html
In the past two years, I’ve had meet-the-member public meetings all around Warringah for voters to tell me their concerns. Almost to a person, they’re sick of overdevelopment and the traffic jams that make the best suburbs in the world a misery as soon as you want to go anywhere else.
As someone who has been working in the electorate of Warringah, I have personally met Tony Abbott only twice in not quite sixteen years. Admittedly I am only here during office hours but I would hope that Mr Abbott actually speaks to the people of his electorate more often, than merely when it is time to stand upon the stump to pony up for votes.
I’m running again so the Northern Beaches tunnel finally gets built. Yes, it’s the Liberal state government that’s going to do the work but the money is only there because of the Liberal federal government and its funding partnerships. Even though the tunnel is now finally close starting it still needs a champion to get it across the line.
Local people need the tunnel if we’re to get our lives back from spending hours in traffic gridlock. It’s the only local issue that can improve every local person’s life forever and I’m the only local federal candidate who’s 120 per cent for it.
On that note, as someone who lives in the western suburbs and therefore not a constituent of the electorate of Warringah, my opinion counts for very little. Although as a commuter and having to live with the problem of congestion, the reason why there is such terrible traffic in the Northern Beaches, is that by reason of geography, there are only a few select arterial roads which run across the ridge tops.
The best option to remove cars from the road would be to build a heavy rail tunnel. One eight car train removes 2000 cars an hour from the roads. The problem with that, is that the carrying costs are borne by the NSW State Government, and given that the previous Member of the New South Wales Parliament for Manly and the 44th Premier of New South Wales left parliament citing "personal reasons" only to be parachuted into a cushy job at the National Australia Bank, that can not be allowed to happen. The Premier of NSW simply has to build a toll-road, and give the profits to their banker friends.
I’m also running to keep a good government in Canberra that knows how to keep our country safe and our economy strong. In a seat like Warringah, voting for anyone other than the endorsed Liberal candidate would just bring a Labor government closer. And that would mean that 10,000 local retirees would lose thousands of dollars a year in franking credits as well as a much weaker economy due to all the extra taxes and union control that Labor would bring.
I work in an accountant's office in Mosman and I can tell you that running an SMSF makes zero sense unless you have at least $500,000 in the fund because you need to pay audit fees. If you're single and a Non-homeowner then the value of assets that you are allowed to have before the full age pension¹ is reduced is $465,500.
I would like to point out here that currently, investment income a SMSF receives from its assets is tax exempt to the extent that those assets are supporting retirement phase income streams. This income is called exempt current pension income (ECPI).
I want to know how exactly it is just, that someone who derives income from the work of other people, should be assessed at 0% tax, when I who actually does real work for a living, is assessed at effective tax rate which is more than the ASX200.
Thanks to the people of Warringah, I’ve had the chance to lead the Liberal Party out of opposition and into government; where we stopped the boats, repealed the carbon and mining taxes, unleashed the biggest infrastructure program in our country’s history, and finalised the three big FTAs. Sure, my 2014 budget struggled in the Senate but thanks to consistent good management the budget is now finally coming back into surplus and more tax cuts are in the offing.
I don't know if the Liberal Government actually did stop the boats. They have stopped reporting on boat arrivals; which isn't exactly the same thing.
Repealing the "Carbon Tax" was politically expedient. Well done. I'm sure that the people of 2119 will thank you.
Repealing rent resources levies more than likely damaged the structural integrity of budgets; as did successive waves of tax cuts during the mining boom which we completely squandered.
Before that, I was a frontbencher throughout the time of the Howard government and, for much of it, the Prime Minister’s one man Praetorian Guard. I was largely responsible for stopping the Keating government’s proposed sale for development of defence land around Sydney Harbour and for the Howard government’s preservation of it forever in the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.
Fair enough.
I haven’t just served the people of Warringah in the Parliament but in a host of practical and personal ways too: on patrol on the beach at Queenscliff and on the truck as part of the Davidson Rural Fire Brigade. Then there’s the annual Pollie Pedal charity bike ride that’s so far raised about $7 million, including for local causes such as the Pioneer Clubhouse, the Royal Far West, Bear Cottage, and the Manly Women’s Shelter. Margie and I have always encouraged our girls to take community service seriously but you can’t really preach it unless you live it.
Also, Fair enough.
As is well known, I didn’t support same sex marriage but I gave change a chance with the plebiscite and accept that it’s now the law of the land.
Also, Fair enough.
Climate change is real, mankind makes a contribution and we should take sensible action to deal with it but, with Australia responsible for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions, there’s no point damaging our economy in futile green gestures. And if we’re fair dinkum about drastically cutting emissions, we should at least end the legal prohibition on nuclear that is currently the only feasible form of emissions-free baseload power for Australia.
Hang on a second, if "Climate change is real, mankind makes a contribution and we should take sensible action to deal with it" them why did you openly crow only a few paragraphs before about repealing the carbon tax?
Changing behaviour is often achieved through economic incentive and disincentive. If we accept the premise that " there’s no point damaging our economy in futile green gestures" then if everyone in the world collectively does nothing, then we don't just damaging our economy but potentially the sustained ability of the planet to support life.
The idea that our Parliament should lose people with a proven record of achievement and the insights that only experience brings just because they’ve already been prime minister is absurd, especially if they’re as fit as most people 20 years younger. Likewise, the idea that backbench MPs should refrain from speaking and writing or somehow dilute their ideas lest they be accused of “wrecking” doesn’t bear scrutiny.
I agree with this entirely; however, every single MP is only at the employ of their constituents and while Section 9 of the Bill of Rights Act 1689² does agree with you that "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament", the ideas that are contained within that same free speech ought to be judges and evaluated. The idea that someone who has previously been prime minister ought to be exempt from that scrutiny is also absurd.
As for the remark that someone is "as fit as most people 20 years younger", I fail to see how that is relevant. If this is a question of physical fitness, then that is not a disqualifier of ability and as for the mental fitness of someone even into their 80s, 90s and beyond, provided someone is sufficiently annoyed and excitable mentally, they are fit for task.
I’d be proud and honoured to serve another term as the Member for Warringah and to devote all the clout that a former prime minister has to the service of my area. And when you think about it, only a dyed-in-the-wool Labor voter would want to deprive the parliamentary Liberal Party of a most effective political warrior.
When it boils down it, in the 40 years that I have been alive, I have been fundamentally betrayed by both of the two political football teams in this country. You've both sold off the family silverware, recently you've both proven that you're cruel and heartless when it comes to the issue of vulnerable people both within and without this country.
To me, so many issues in the political life of the Commonwealth of Australia, are treated as though we are at a Wanderers v Sydney FC game. Hooray. Boo. Hooray. Boo. The difference there is that the songs are wittier at an actual football match, they are more focused in achieving goals, and after 90 minutes the two ends of supporters stop yelling at each other and they go home.
Tony Abbott is the member for Warringah and a former Australian prime minister.
Rollo is a citizen of the Commonwealth Of Australia and who would like to be a paid member of the commentariat, instead of just a hack who has to put up with terrible journalism.
¹https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/assets/30621
²http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/bor16881wams2c2306/s9.html
February 11, 2019
Horse 2510 - The Simpsons Should Be Rebooted
I have no idea what prompted Mrs Rollo to ask me when the characters of The Simpsons were born, or even to try to explain the sheer insanity of how time works in that show, but it sent my brain into a series of spirals; gaming out all kinds of conclusions until this conclusion was reached.
There should be a hard reboot.
For the purposes of this hard reboot, I am imagining that the series would begin with a rest date of 2020.
The Simpsons which kind of started in 1987/8 is both the longest-running American sitcom, and the longest-running American scripted primetime television series. The truth is that any TV show which is that long in the tooth, has a tendency to get stale, and it is generally considered that the so called "golden years" of the show were probably between seasons 4 and 10; which was last century. Since then, it appears that even fans of the show think that it is dribbling out towards inevitable irrelevance.
Unlike a soap opera with a rolling cast, or a show like Doctor Who which can recast everyone, The Simpsons appears to be suffering from the fact that there is basically a fixed cast. Every possible story that can be told and arguably should have been told, has already been told by now; to the point where there is even self-parody.
A hard reboot would solve this problem nicely; while retaining continuity.
Before I move on though, here is a review of the in-universe dates of birth of the eponymous nuclear family:
Homer - 12/5/56, age 64
Marge - 1/10/56, age 63
Bart - 1/4/80, age 40
Lisa - 9/5/82, age 38
Maggie - 12/1/89, age 31
What we have here is Homer and Marge, who were both born bang in the middle of the post-war Baby Boom. Bart, Lisa and Maggie who are about the same age as Homer and Marge are/were when the series kind of sets its markers, are all members of Generation Y. All three of them will have grown up in an analogue childhood but due to the coming of the internet, have more or less lived their adult lives in the modern digital world. Probably they will have their own children by now; and they occupy a space which their parents have done in the current series.
This would open up an entirely new range of story lines, and given that Bart, Lisa and Maggie would now have a degree of agency of their own, instead of merely being under the rule of their parents, I think that this would be far more interesting. It also opens the distinct possibility for intergenerational conflict, when you consider real world implications; namely that Bart, Lisa and Maggie will have found navigating the world of work far more difficult.
Probably Homer and Marge are still in the workforce but there is a very real possibility that their children's working careers will have been far more transient. More than likely, Homer will have paid off the mortgage on a single income but their children might not even have ever been paid enough to qualify for a mortgage at all.
There is of course a precedent for this kind of reboot. It has been hinted that the current Dennis the Menace in The Beano, is not the previous one; because his dad is significantly different. This would imply that the current Dennis the Menace is the son of the previous Dennis the Menace.
Star Trek: The Next Generation appears to be explicity set 100 years after the first TV series ended; taking place in 2369 as opposed to 2269 (which itself was 300 years in the future).
There are of course other issues which could be explored. As the comedian Hari Kondabolu quite rightly pointed out in the documentary The Problem with Apu, Apu is something of a very blunt racial stereotype. For comedic effect, Apu was blessed with a set of octuplets; which if they were born on 23rd Nov 1999, would be 19 years old. I would imagine that all eight Nahasapeemapetilon children, would have that quality that practically every second generation person has, in that they are even more of the nationality of their country than other generations. I think that it's true that for people who migrate to Britain, that their children are the most British of all, that the children of immigrants to Australia are the most Australian of all, and that the Nahasapeemapetilon children would be the most exact representation of what 2020 American would be.
I expect that in the 2020 reboot, that the town of Springfield, which seems almost exlusively yellow in 1987/8 would be far more diverse. There would almost certainly be space for an entire slew of cast members who we have never seen before; since the Simpsons itself is a show which has an ensemble cast of probably more than a thousand by now.
We would learn that someone like Kent Brockman in 2020 who would now be aged 80, would be an absolute titan of the world of journalism; of the kind of ilk of say, Mark Shields; that the squeaky voiced teen Jeremy Freedman would be 46 and still squeaky voiced; and that Bart and Lisa's friends will have basically amounted to where their destinies will have taken them. Of course this has the effect that Abe Simpson born 1907, and Charles Montgomery Burns born 1886, are both dead.
But of course, 'should' does not necessarily mean 'will'. The Simpsons' home in the United States is on Fox. As a commercial broadcaster, they aren't exactly inclined to want to fiddle with the show that turned them from "the little network that could" into "the little network that could not be ignored."
The show should almost absolutely and obviously be rebooted but I just don't think that that's likely.
There should be a hard reboot.
For the purposes of this hard reboot, I am imagining that the series would begin with a rest date of 2020.
The Simpsons which kind of started in 1987/8 is both the longest-running American sitcom, and the longest-running American scripted primetime television series. The truth is that any TV show which is that long in the tooth, has a tendency to get stale, and it is generally considered that the so called "golden years" of the show were probably between seasons 4 and 10; which was last century. Since then, it appears that even fans of the show think that it is dribbling out towards inevitable irrelevance.
Unlike a soap opera with a rolling cast, or a show like Doctor Who which can recast everyone, The Simpsons appears to be suffering from the fact that there is basically a fixed cast. Every possible story that can be told and arguably should have been told, has already been told by now; to the point where there is even self-parody.
A hard reboot would solve this problem nicely; while retaining continuity.
Before I move on though, here is a review of the in-universe dates of birth of the eponymous nuclear family:
Homer - 12/5/56, age 64
Marge - 1/10/56, age 63
Bart - 1/4/80, age 40
Lisa - 9/5/82, age 38
Maggie - 12/1/89, age 31
What we have here is Homer and Marge, who were both born bang in the middle of the post-war Baby Boom. Bart, Lisa and Maggie who are about the same age as Homer and Marge are/were when the series kind of sets its markers, are all members of Generation Y. All three of them will have grown up in an analogue childhood but due to the coming of the internet, have more or less lived their adult lives in the modern digital world. Probably they will have their own children by now; and they occupy a space which their parents have done in the current series.
This would open up an entirely new range of story lines, and given that Bart, Lisa and Maggie would now have a degree of agency of their own, instead of merely being under the rule of their parents, I think that this would be far more interesting. It also opens the distinct possibility for intergenerational conflict, when you consider real world implications; namely that Bart, Lisa and Maggie will have found navigating the world of work far more difficult.
Probably Homer and Marge are still in the workforce but there is a very real possibility that their children's working careers will have been far more transient. More than likely, Homer will have paid off the mortgage on a single income but their children might not even have ever been paid enough to qualify for a mortgage at all.
There is of course a precedent for this kind of reboot. It has been hinted that the current Dennis the Menace in The Beano, is not the previous one; because his dad is significantly different. This would imply that the current Dennis the Menace is the son of the previous Dennis the Menace.
Star Trek: The Next Generation appears to be explicity set 100 years after the first TV series ended; taking place in 2369 as opposed to 2269 (which itself was 300 years in the future).
There are of course other issues which could be explored. As the comedian Hari Kondabolu quite rightly pointed out in the documentary The Problem with Apu, Apu is something of a very blunt racial stereotype. For comedic effect, Apu was blessed with a set of octuplets; which if they were born on 23rd Nov 1999, would be 19 years old. I would imagine that all eight Nahasapeemapetilon children, would have that quality that practically every second generation person has, in that they are even more of the nationality of their country than other generations. I think that it's true that for people who migrate to Britain, that their children are the most British of all, that the children of immigrants to Australia are the most Australian of all, and that the Nahasapeemapetilon children would be the most exact representation of what 2020 American would be.
I expect that in the 2020 reboot, that the town of Springfield, which seems almost exlusively yellow in 1987/8 would be far more diverse. There would almost certainly be space for an entire slew of cast members who we have never seen before; since the Simpsons itself is a show which has an ensemble cast of probably more than a thousand by now.
We would learn that someone like Kent Brockman in 2020 who would now be aged 80, would be an absolute titan of the world of journalism; of the kind of ilk of say, Mark Shields; that the squeaky voiced teen Jeremy Freedman would be 46 and still squeaky voiced; and that Bart and Lisa's friends will have basically amounted to where their destinies will have taken them. Of course this has the effect that Abe Simpson born 1907, and Charles Montgomery Burns born 1886, are both dead.
But of course, 'should' does not necessarily mean 'will'. The Simpsons' home in the United States is on Fox. As a commercial broadcaster, they aren't exactly inclined to want to fiddle with the show that turned them from "the little network that could" into "the little network that could not be ignored."
The show should almost absolutely and obviously be rebooted but I just don't think that that's likely.
February 05, 2019
Horse 2509 - PAW Patrol! yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba
I do not have children and so I am not particularly inclined to want to watch ABC 3 of my own volition. Having said that, I think that having a dedicated television station for children on free-to-air is a brilliant idea as I can not imagine that any small child would be particularly interested in the continuing adventures of ScoMo the Scotty Dog and his mate Spud Dutton and they face the evil Blue Shovel in the green room of death.
My only contact with ABC 3, is standing in the queue at the bank, which thanks to the big banks policies of cutting front line staff, makes you wish that you were actually dead; which is no longer a barrier to them charging you fees for advice.
I am quite familiar with the Magic Roundabout which in the 1970s was something of a malarial dream, the Teletubbies which in the 1990s was something of a malarial dream, In The Night Garden which in the 2000s was something of a malarial valium dream, but the show which I have kept on running into lately and have seen more episodes than I care to imagine is the Paw Patrol. which is not so much a malarial dream as a 22 minute advert for merchandise.
The show is produced by TV Ontario, which I remember as producing shows like Eureka!, Today's Special and Zardip's Search for Healthy Wellness when I was a kid.
PAW Patrol!
PAW Patrol!
yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba
PAW Patrol!
PAW Patrol!
yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba
I have no idea what the theme song to Paw Patrol actually says and to be honest, I don't think that I particularly care. I have now seen probably about a dozen full episodes of Paw Patrol while standing in the queue at the bank, and not even once has the audio been clear enough for me to hear the dialogue properly. Being from TV Ontario, everyone is probably speaking English but they may as well be speaking French for all I care.
Let me try to explain this show, if that were at all possible.
There is some kind of giant tower thing, in which a boy lives with an undisclosed number of puppies. For some unknown reason, the town lacks any sort of municipal services, save for this one boy and the PAW Patrol, PAW Patrol, yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba.
There is a lady who I am not sure what kind of position she holds, which invariably will cause some kind of civic disaster while chasing around her pet chicken, and due to her ineptitude, the only person who seems able to do anything about if it is this one boy and the PAW Patrol, PAW Patrol, yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba.
The puppies themselves appear to be some kind of parody of the Village People, with a fire fighter, a builder, a policeman etc. who then go out and fix whatever disaster happens to be the plot device for the episode, wherein they are rewarded with a treat and presumably the boy if financially recompensed because I can think of no other reason why a boy has a giant hamburder tower thing in a town. This is very much like looking upon Barad-dûr, Fortress of Sauron, because when I gaze upon it, all hope leaves me.
I don't know what lessons if any that PAW Patrol, PAW Patrol, yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba is supposed to teach me but the only thing that I take away is that it is a cautionary tale against the gig economy. The town appears to be clean but there are only about 10 or so people who live in it and the town's services are handled by the boy who contacts the puppies by some sort of shock collar thing.
It seems obvious to me that the boy has the eventual aim of replacing the puppies with robots, as he has already built a robotic dog, who I can only assume will in time take their jobs as well.
Maybe the lesson that I am supposed to take away is that if you let a kid get away without any parental control (seriously, why is a boy even allowed to have a puppy army?), then they turn into a tyrant.
Also, if you are an adult who can not control a pet chicken, maybe you should consider getting a coop.
My only contact with ABC 3, is standing in the queue at the bank, which thanks to the big banks policies of cutting front line staff, makes you wish that you were actually dead; which is no longer a barrier to them charging you fees for advice.
I am quite familiar with the Magic Roundabout which in the 1970s was something of a malarial dream, the Teletubbies which in the 1990s was something of a malarial dream, In The Night Garden which in the 2000s was something of a malarial valium dream, but the show which I have kept on running into lately and have seen more episodes than I care to imagine is the Paw Patrol. which is not so much a malarial dream as a 22 minute advert for merchandise.
The show is produced by TV Ontario, which I remember as producing shows like Eureka!, Today's Special and Zardip's Search for Healthy Wellness when I was a kid.
PAW Patrol!
PAW Patrol!
yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba
PAW Patrol!
PAW Patrol!
yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba
I have no idea what the theme song to Paw Patrol actually says and to be honest, I don't think that I particularly care. I have now seen probably about a dozen full episodes of Paw Patrol while standing in the queue at the bank, and not even once has the audio been clear enough for me to hear the dialogue properly. Being from TV Ontario, everyone is probably speaking English but they may as well be speaking French for all I care.
Let me try to explain this show, if that were at all possible.
There is some kind of giant tower thing, in which a boy lives with an undisclosed number of puppies. For some unknown reason, the town lacks any sort of municipal services, save for this one boy and the PAW Patrol, PAW Patrol, yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba.
There is a lady who I am not sure what kind of position she holds, which invariably will cause some kind of civic disaster while chasing around her pet chicken, and due to her ineptitude, the only person who seems able to do anything about if it is this one boy and the PAW Patrol, PAW Patrol, yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba.
The puppies themselves appear to be some kind of parody of the Village People, with a fire fighter, a builder, a policeman etc. who then go out and fix whatever disaster happens to be the plot device for the episode, wherein they are rewarded with a treat and presumably the boy if financially recompensed because I can think of no other reason why a boy has a giant hamburder tower thing in a town. This is very much like looking upon Barad-dûr, Fortress of Sauron, because when I gaze upon it, all hope leaves me.
I don't know what lessons if any that PAW Patrol, PAW Patrol, yaba-da-daba yaba-da-daba is supposed to teach me but the only thing that I take away is that it is a cautionary tale against the gig economy. The town appears to be clean but there are only about 10 or so people who live in it and the town's services are handled by the boy who contacts the puppies by some sort of shock collar thing.
It seems obvious to me that the boy has the eventual aim of replacing the puppies with robots, as he has already built a robotic dog, who I can only assume will in time take their jobs as well.
Maybe the lesson that I am supposed to take away is that if you let a kid get away without any parental control (seriously, why is a boy even allowed to have a puppy army?), then they turn into a tyrant.
Also, if you are an adult who can not control a pet chicken, maybe you should consider getting a coop.
February 04, 2019
Horse 2508 - Deliberately Hamstringing The Horses #B12Hr
https://www.supercars.com/news/bathurst12hour/de-pasquale-explains-illegally-fast-bathurst-laps/?sf207114923=1
Anton De Pasquale has had his two quickest times in Bathurst 12 Hour qualifying deleted, having gone below the permissible benchmark time for his MARC II V8 entry.
As part of their eligibility for the Invitational Class at the event, the purpose-built, Australian-made cars are allowed to lap no quicker than 2:05s during any session.
Erebus Supercars driver De Pasquale clocked a 2:04.7910s and 2:04.2585s on consecutive laps in qualifying, before finishing his run with a 2:05.3653s.
- Supercars.com.au, 3rd Feb 2019
I want to take nothing away from the Earl Bamber Motorsport team, who with their three drivers Matt Campbell, Dennis Olsen and Dirk Werner, took their Porsche 911 GT3 R to victory in the Bathurst 12 Hour yesterday. Endurance racing is in my opinion, the pinnacle of team motorsport and anything over 500km is a test of machinery. To even survive 12 hours is a feat unto itself.
But something deeply bothers me about the regulations of the Bathurst 12 Hour. It is mostly a mix of GT3 and GT4 cars, both of which are run to a set of international regulations, and then there is an invitational class which as the above article indicates, are deliberately hamstrung so that they have no chance of winning anything.
That's stupid.
Although in race trim, the fastest race lap was only 2:03.53 by Josh Burdon in the Nissan GT-R GT3 on lap 300, the fastest qualifying time was 2:02.93 by Raffaele Marciello in the Mercedes-AMG GT3. That means that the MARC II Mustang V8 would have qualified a lowly 25th had it been allowed to; that still isn't really fast enough to bother the faster cars, let alone even challenge for a race win. I just think that arbitrarily imposing a limit of 2:05 is really really churlish.
It also speaks to a far far deeper problem that we have in Australian motorsport generally.
Since 2017, when the last VF Commodore rolled off the Elizabeth production line, there have been no cars manufactured in Australia. Well, I say none but I don't actually know because there could have been cars made by garagistas somewhere but the point remains that we do not have a motor industry any more.
Because we no longer have a motor industry any more, the capacity to produce race cars, which itself is only a very minor secondary market in the grand scheme of things, has been severely reduced. It is no longer possible as was the case with a Commodore, Falcon, or Camry, to get a shell before it went through the rest of the production process. Impressive race cars are almost always purpose-built anyway, but this just makes the job that much harder.
It also doesn't help that if we want to run a race and have the rest of the world turn up, we need to run to a set of international regulations. The result of that is that virtually every single race car which competes in a race like the Bathurst 12 Hour, is imported as a complete car, which is fine I suppose, except then you end up with this sort of thing happening.
In 2010, the GT300 category in Japan's Super GT series, found that an increasing number of teams chose to buy European GT3 cars instead of locally produced cars. In response, Super GT introduced the JAF-GT class and even went to the effort of making a "Mother Chassis" available; as well as an unbranded engine which was a Nissan VK45DE V8 in everything but name. As a result, we have ended up with some truly wonderful cars in the class over the years including the bespoke Mooncraft Shiden, a Toyota Corolla AE86 which had a V8 in it (the chassis was 20 years old), and even a Toyota Prius running the 3.6L V8 from the GT-One Le Mans car which was then mated to the Prius Hybrid system. It is gloriously delightful and proves that if you design a set of rules properly, then loveliness can happen.
Super GT openly admits that it runs a racing series and that it deliberately hamstrings cars as a disincentive for teams to win the series by throwing money at it. Super GT runs quite a very strict Balance of Performance regime.
But we refuse to do that in Australia. Nope. We hate it.
The FIA already runs a set of Balance of Performance regulations which fiddles with power and weight, as well as aerodynamics and things like fuel restriction, which like Super GT are designed to stop a manufacturer from running away with it. That's fine but the problem in Australia is that we have no domestic manufacturers anymore; so all work to homologate a car to be competitive in a GT3 race, has to be done independently, which is functionally impossible.
Mosler Automotive which ran the MT900 tried to get a GT3 version of the car homologated by the FIA but were told that because there were no road going production versions, they would not be allowed to. A Mosler was allowed to run in the invitational class in the 2011 Bathurst 12 Hour but it only lasted half an hour. It never returned. Therein lies a problem.
Instead of letting the MARC cars actually race, CAMS uses the bluntest of blunt instruments and has simply decided to penalise the MARC cars if they are even close to being remotely competitive in the series. During the rest of the year, it neither knows how to rate them, not cares to do so, and puts them into the Sports Sedan category. Meanwhile, the Australian GT Championship which is open to to FIA GT3 cars, runs almost exclusively second hand machinery from overseas and because there is no longer any domestic automotive manufacturing, that's really all it can ever hope to be.
If I was Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else, then I'd have CAMS and the Bathurst 12 Hour adopt a set of regulations which actually encouraged garagistas to build equivalent machinery to GT3, in the same way that the JAF does in Japan. I would love if a standard Mother Chassis was developed and although we probably wouldn't use the debranded Nissan VK45DE V8, we probably would allow racing crate motors provided that they came from the same manufacturers as the cars. If I had unlimited dollarpounds then I can imagine running the 2.5L SKYACTIV-G Turbo in-line 4 from the Mazda CX-9 in a Mazda 6. Most of the aerodynamics are standard anyway and if need be, a Mother Chassis underneath would be cool.
I would also have CAMS get off their high horse and actually let MARC unleash their horsies. Provided their Mustang/Focus/Mazda 3 were GT3 or JAF equivalent, then why shouldn't they be allowed to race. I would want to encourage this sort of initiative. I mean have you heard a V8 Mazda 3 go around? It's genuinely lovely.
I want to see how an Australian engineered car would go against the rest of the world. It is bad enough that Detroit decided that they didn't like employing Australians anymore, it adds insult to injury that our own confederation of motorsport is too stupid to let Australians play in their own backyard because they can't work out how to do it; despite the fact that the problem has already been solved overseas.
Anton De Pasquale has had his two quickest times in Bathurst 12 Hour qualifying deleted, having gone below the permissible benchmark time for his MARC II V8 entry.
As part of their eligibility for the Invitational Class at the event, the purpose-built, Australian-made cars are allowed to lap no quicker than 2:05s during any session.
Erebus Supercars driver De Pasquale clocked a 2:04.7910s and 2:04.2585s on consecutive laps in qualifying, before finishing his run with a 2:05.3653s.
- Supercars.com.au, 3rd Feb 2019
I want to take nothing away from the Earl Bamber Motorsport team, who with their three drivers Matt Campbell, Dennis Olsen and Dirk Werner, took their Porsche 911 GT3 R to victory in the Bathurst 12 Hour yesterday. Endurance racing is in my opinion, the pinnacle of team motorsport and anything over 500km is a test of machinery. To even survive 12 hours is a feat unto itself.
But something deeply bothers me about the regulations of the Bathurst 12 Hour. It is mostly a mix of GT3 and GT4 cars, both of which are run to a set of international regulations, and then there is an invitational class which as the above article indicates, are deliberately hamstrung so that they have no chance of winning anything.
That's stupid.
Although in race trim, the fastest race lap was only 2:03.53 by Josh Burdon in the Nissan GT-R GT3 on lap 300, the fastest qualifying time was 2:02.93 by Raffaele Marciello in the Mercedes-AMG GT3. That means that the MARC II Mustang V8 would have qualified a lowly 25th had it been allowed to; that still isn't really fast enough to bother the faster cars, let alone even challenge for a race win. I just think that arbitrarily imposing a limit of 2:05 is really really churlish.
It also speaks to a far far deeper problem that we have in Australian motorsport generally.
Since 2017, when the last VF Commodore rolled off the Elizabeth production line, there have been no cars manufactured in Australia. Well, I say none but I don't actually know because there could have been cars made by garagistas somewhere but the point remains that we do not have a motor industry any more.
Because we no longer have a motor industry any more, the capacity to produce race cars, which itself is only a very minor secondary market in the grand scheme of things, has been severely reduced. It is no longer possible as was the case with a Commodore, Falcon, or Camry, to get a shell before it went through the rest of the production process. Impressive race cars are almost always purpose-built anyway, but this just makes the job that much harder.
It also doesn't help that if we want to run a race and have the rest of the world turn up, we need to run to a set of international regulations. The result of that is that virtually every single race car which competes in a race like the Bathurst 12 Hour, is imported as a complete car, which is fine I suppose, except then you end up with this sort of thing happening.
In 2010, the GT300 category in Japan's Super GT series, found that an increasing number of teams chose to buy European GT3 cars instead of locally produced cars. In response, Super GT introduced the JAF-GT class and even went to the effort of making a "Mother Chassis" available; as well as an unbranded engine which was a Nissan VK45DE V8 in everything but name. As a result, we have ended up with some truly wonderful cars in the class over the years including the bespoke Mooncraft Shiden, a Toyota Corolla AE86 which had a V8 in it (the chassis was 20 years old), and even a Toyota Prius running the 3.6L V8 from the GT-One Le Mans car which was then mated to the Prius Hybrid system. It is gloriously delightful and proves that if you design a set of rules properly, then loveliness can happen.
Super GT openly admits that it runs a racing series and that it deliberately hamstrings cars as a disincentive for teams to win the series by throwing money at it. Super GT runs quite a very strict Balance of Performance regime.
But we refuse to do that in Australia. Nope. We hate it.
The FIA already runs a set of Balance of Performance regulations which fiddles with power and weight, as well as aerodynamics and things like fuel restriction, which like Super GT are designed to stop a manufacturer from running away with it. That's fine but the problem in Australia is that we have no domestic manufacturers anymore; so all work to homologate a car to be competitive in a GT3 race, has to be done independently, which is functionally impossible.
Mosler Automotive which ran the MT900 tried to get a GT3 version of the car homologated by the FIA but were told that because there were no road going production versions, they would not be allowed to. A Mosler was allowed to run in the invitational class in the 2011 Bathurst 12 Hour but it only lasted half an hour. It never returned. Therein lies a problem.
Instead of letting the MARC cars actually race, CAMS uses the bluntest of blunt instruments and has simply decided to penalise the MARC cars if they are even close to being remotely competitive in the series. During the rest of the year, it neither knows how to rate them, not cares to do so, and puts them into the Sports Sedan category. Meanwhile, the Australian GT Championship which is open to to FIA GT3 cars, runs almost exclusively second hand machinery from overseas and because there is no longer any domestic automotive manufacturing, that's really all it can ever hope to be.
If I was Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else, then I'd have CAMS and the Bathurst 12 Hour adopt a set of regulations which actually encouraged garagistas to build equivalent machinery to GT3, in the same way that the JAF does in Japan. I would love if a standard Mother Chassis was developed and although we probably wouldn't use the debranded Nissan VK45DE V8, we probably would allow racing crate motors provided that they came from the same manufacturers as the cars. If I had unlimited dollarpounds then I can imagine running the 2.5L SKYACTIV-G Turbo in-line 4 from the Mazda CX-9 in a Mazda 6. Most of the aerodynamics are standard anyway and if need be, a Mother Chassis underneath would be cool.
I would also have CAMS get off their high horse and actually let MARC unleash their horsies. Provided their Mustang/Focus/Mazda 3 were GT3 or JAF equivalent, then why shouldn't they be allowed to race. I would want to encourage this sort of initiative. I mean have you heard a V8 Mazda 3 go around? It's genuinely lovely.
I want to see how an Australian engineered car would go against the rest of the world. It is bad enough that Detroit decided that they didn't like employing Australians anymore, it adds insult to injury that our own confederation of motorsport is too stupid to let Australians play in their own backyard because they can't work out how to do it; despite the fact that the problem has already been solved overseas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)