Please follow the link to possibly the best post ever made about the global financial crisis.
This is an insightful critique of modern capitalism and the ironies inherent in a system that assigns value arbitrarily.
Actually it's not really, it's just piss funny.
Dr Harry
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Unit
Just turned on the TV to discover a new episode of "The Unit". This show never got much of a run in Australia, it quickly got shunted back to a timeslot roughtly around midnight, which obviously wasn't too good for it's ratings.
I really like what I saw and ended up watching all three seasons (downloaded off the net). The third season got a bit wierd and moved away from it's core business, but it looks like there's a new series now out. Fingers crossed it'll be good!
If you like action, well developed characters, great locations, good stories and lots of shooting then check out "The Unit", it's the biz.
cheers
Dr Harry
I really like what I saw and ended up watching all three seasons (downloaded off the net). The third season got a bit wierd and moved away from it's core business, but it looks like there's a new series now out. Fingers crossed it'll be good!
If you like action, well developed characters, great locations, good stories and lots of shooting then check out "The Unit", it's the biz.
cheers
Dr Harry
Now the drugs don't work.....
One of my favourite commentators, the American writer P.J. O'Rourke, has inspired me to this post. PJ is one of the most conservative writers you might find today (in the modern sense of the word, not as someone who wants to keep things exactly the same forever, which is a much more realistic definition), being all for small government, low taxes, relaxed gun laws and minimal interference in the free market.
These are basically libertarian ideals, which holds that an individual needs to be responsible for themselves and their families where possible and that government should have as small a role as possible, because of the crippling impact on a person's psyche of having a big government controlling all our actions (the nanny state). Ironically, my little brother at times fancies anarchism and libertarianism as well, but he fancies it more from a big government, high taxes, free health care kind of view, which really doesn't make any sense, except from a specifically selfish point of view (he doesn't actually pay any taxes!).
Anyway, amongst all these views, Mr O'Rourke has clearly stated that we should legalise all drugs and let the whole shebang play out on its own, a view that I strongly agree with.
Now there are certainly lots of pros and cons for this position, but right from the start, I'm going to say that i think society would be better and safer if all drugs were decriminalised.
We'll start with the pros first. The biggest fan of criminalisation are the criminals, more specifically those criminals who control access to those substances that are now contraband. If something is illegal access to it is automatically heavily restricted which means that the price will automatically go up. This means much more money for the criminals.
To protect their new source of wealth they will then revert to violence, intimidation and stand over tactics to protect their turf and acquire new markets (re. "The Wire"). Moreover, they will bribe public officials to allow importation and distribution, a system that weakens the integrity of our criminal justice system. The police themselves become ever more focussed on fighting the drug trade and lose sight of the real criminals, or are kept busy locking up low level dealers while the higher echelons take their profits and stay out of the game (again, see "The Wire"). Lastly, drug dealers will cut their products will all kinds of things (battery acid, powdered glass, soap etc) to make it go further, posing an obvious and serious health risk to the end user.
By legalising drugs we can remove all of these problems.
The drugs themselves generally come from overseas and more often than not are used to prop up illegitimate or illegal regimes, or organisations that are dedicated to the overthrow of governments. The reason the Syrians kept their Army in Lebanon for so long was to control the Heroin trade of the Beqaa Valley. The Taliban in Afghanistan were and continue to be supported from the sale of heroin. The FARC in Colombia have been trying to overthrow the government there for many years, aided and abetted by the sale of cocaine. In Panama, Manuel Noriega provided a safe haven and easy transport for drug traffickers from South America. I'm sure I could find many more examples, these are all off the top of my head.
By removing the profits for these drugs from these countries and organisations, people who are our explicitly our enemies, whether we are in combat with them now or not, will find a massive hole in their funding, without the flow of monies overseas to pay for their drugs.
Now the cons.
For me, the biggest con is the moral issue. If substances such as crack cocaine or crystal meth are so incredibly harmful (which it appears they are), then how can the government (the representative of the people) be associated with it in any way? If we tax a legalised crack trade are we not complicit in the damage such a drug causes? Even if we decriminalise and look the other way, the moral issue remains.
Furthermore, by removing criminal sanctions, do we risk seeing a vast increase in the usage of such drugs, drugs that we KNOW are harmful?
We also have problems with public health, access to health services and impacts on our community if a vast army of junkies arises from the ashes of our drug laws to inhabit our streets, feeding their addiction by begging for change, washing windows and breaking into houses to steal TVs.
So how could we implement such changes to the drug laws? While we continue to have problems with drugs such as ice, crack, heroin and ectstacy, the reality is that in Australia right now the most addictive substances with the highest usage rates, biggest health problems and the most fatalities are tobacco and alcohol.
I suggest that initially such substances become decriminalised. Such a process will immediately see a massive drop in prices and a massive associated decrease in organised crime, due to the lack of money from drugs. The criminals maybe able to hold onto some market share, but removing criminal sanctions for importing or dealing would immediately see much more competition in the market place.
After finding our feet on this, I would then move to full legalisation, with associated taxation and regulation. Wouldn't you rather smoke some crystal meth that was made in a factory rather than some that was made in the kitchen of a bikie with HIV, a sink full of battery acid and a problem with personal hygiene?
Now, such moves would seem to guarantee increased usage, as availability increases and consequences for use decrease.
To combat this I have two suggestions. Firstly, I would ban public intoxication, of any kind. If you're drunk, stone, high, wasted etc in public (especially during daylight hours) the police should grab you and chuck you in the tank until you're dry. If you're on crack and you get the DT's while you're in there, that's all for the best. After all, what doesn't kill you will make you stronger (read point number 7) and it's a lot better than what might have happened to you before. This public intoxication includes alcohol. We shouldn't as a society accept someone walking around or lying around during the day who's drunk. Living in a place where such a sight is commonplace, I would suggest that while this may seemingly infringe on the individual's human rights, the community as a whole will be a much better place.
Secondly, i give you a quote from the inimitable PJ O'Rourke (paraphrased I'm afraid). When talking about drug laws, he asked, "Why isn't crack cocaine an issue anymore? Because all those kids who grew up with it around saw the consequences and stayed the hell away. And all those users either cleaned up or else they're now dead"
We live in a world without danger, without risk, withou consequences for our stupid actions. How can we clean out the gene pool and when all the retards and troglodytes continue to breed? Drugs can be the answer! Those people who fail to realise how dumb it is to take a substance that permanently affects your brain chemistry are probably good candidates for a little bit of evolutionary pressure. Those junkies are just doing their bit for the survival of the species :)
So, lets legalise drugs, get the criminals out of the way and then deal with the consequences. We need to tighten up on alcohol anyway, lets treat all drugs the same and try and make society a better place.
cheers
Dr Harry
Monday, November 24, 2008
"The Wire" revisited...
For all those of you who haven't heard about potentially the best TV show ever made, here's even more reason to go and have a look.
The following article links to the website of prolific writer and expat Clive James, with a brief blurb about "The Wire" and a link to this article by David Hepworth on the same topic.
All I can say is that I agree. This is a show all about the people. There's no easy answers, the heroes don't make everything right, the bad guys get away (and even more frustratingly, the REALLY bad guys, the ones running things, get away).
And of course there's always The Onion and Stuff That White People Like
CheersHarry
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Dexter Season Two
Managed to watch 10 episodes of Dexter in a weekend, it's bloody good! Only two to go, but I couldn't keep going otherwise I'd be a zombie at work tomorrow. It's definitely got me hooked though, I really want to know what happens. How will Dexter escape the labyrinth he's got himself locked into?
Harry
Harry
hate the game not the playa.....
Why are there so many playa haters out there?
Why do george and john cop it so bad? This is a really interesting article about George Bush, says a lot of the things I've been saying for a while now. Even if you don't like him you should give it a read.
To get started on the hating, I'll say right now that a few of the things that George has done in the spirit of compromise and moderation have been flawed. Fundamentally flawed. And, he has received no recognition for his compromise, his opponents seeming to believe that it's their way or the highway, with no room for middle group between two opposing viewpoints.
Now I dislike lots of people, for lots of different reasons. Their personality, their lack of ability, their weight, their smell, their annoying holier than thou attitude, their sheer, unbelievable, incomprehensible stupidity! However, i don't spew vitriol and bile like lots of people seem to do whenever certain topics are brought up.
Take a test, find your average uni student or teacher or wanna be intellectual and mention how much you hate George Bush. Watch them foaming at the mouth, agreeing with you and coming up with irrelevant or incorrect examples to back up why they hate him so much (plastic turkey anyone?).
It also works for John Howard, try it and see.
Now I'm all for a bit of dislike or personal attack, that's fine by me. But I just don't get the amount of time and energy taken in attacking someone the way these two get attacked. It seems to be a part of a real culture of personal attack that has grown up recently, especially on the left.
I thought it was quite funny that Obama aides were saying after the election that it's time for differences to be put aside and both sides to work together to solve the problems of the world. They know just how petty, mean spirited, obtuse, vicious and vacuous the Democrats have been in Congress and the Senate recently and they're hoping it's not going to come back to bite them in the arse. I think the people saying that without saying what they really mean are turds personally, however, I think they're right that we need to move beyond the bitterness, vitriol and inability to compromise on anything that has characterised the recent years of the Democrat congress.
Now, if you dislike someone (I'll put my hand up of disliking Kevin, so dibs) than that's fine. That's a wonderful part of our glorious political process. But instead of making wierd, obsessive, personal attacks that have little meaning and don't reflect the real world, why don't you try talking about actions and policy? And try using real data instead of made up stuff from John Pilger?
Remember, hate the game, not the playa!
cheers
Harry
Why do george and john cop it so bad? This is a really interesting article about George Bush, says a lot of the things I've been saying for a while now. Even if you don't like him you should give it a read.
To get started on the hating, I'll say right now that a few of the things that George has done in the spirit of compromise and moderation have been flawed. Fundamentally flawed. And, he has received no recognition for his compromise, his opponents seeming to believe that it's their way or the highway, with no room for middle group between two opposing viewpoints.
Now I dislike lots of people, for lots of different reasons. Their personality, their lack of ability, their weight, their smell, their annoying holier than thou attitude, their sheer, unbelievable, incomprehensible stupidity! However, i don't spew vitriol and bile like lots of people seem to do whenever certain topics are brought up.
Take a test, find your average uni student or teacher or wanna be intellectual and mention how much you hate George Bush. Watch them foaming at the mouth, agreeing with you and coming up with irrelevant or incorrect examples to back up why they hate him so much (plastic turkey anyone?).
It also works for John Howard, try it and see.
Now I'm all for a bit of dislike or personal attack, that's fine by me. But I just don't get the amount of time and energy taken in attacking someone the way these two get attacked. It seems to be a part of a real culture of personal attack that has grown up recently, especially on the left.
I thought it was quite funny that Obama aides were saying after the election that it's time for differences to be put aside and both sides to work together to solve the problems of the world. They know just how petty, mean spirited, obtuse, vicious and vacuous the Democrats have been in Congress and the Senate recently and they're hoping it's not going to come back to bite them in the arse. I think the people saying that without saying what they really mean are turds personally, however, I think they're right that we need to move beyond the bitterness, vitriol and inability to compromise on anything that has characterised the recent years of the Democrat congress.
Now, if you dislike someone (I'll put my hand up of disliking Kevin, so dibs) than that's fine. That's a wonderful part of our glorious political process. But instead of making wierd, obsessive, personal attacks that have little meaning and don't reflect the real world, why don't you try talking about actions and policy? And try using real data instead of made up stuff from John Pilger?
Remember, hate the game, not the playa!
cheers
Harry
A slight difference of opinion
Following up from Angus's post on the "bitchslutwhoreskank" I just thought I'd share a little article that I came across a couple of days ago. Complete coincidence incidentally.
Lara Bingle Fan Club
Thought I'd share my thoughts and maybe include some more photos to allow a proper analysis.
Why is it that the girl always receives the blame when cheating or adultery goes on? Are we back in the dark ages? Are we in 2008 and living under Islamic law?
Of course not, yet the woman nearly always gets the blame. Now yes, I know the woman controls the source of all that men seek out in life (vagina) and that men are prone to do silly things to achieve said goal. But despite jokes about big head and little head, it still comes down to the fact that we all have free will. While I certainly wouldn't complain if Lara tried to have her way with me, I think it's very dubious that she managed to rape a big unit like the Fev.
He entered into a relationship with her in the full knowledge that he was married, and possibly even lied about his marriage to Lara to enable the relationship to occur.
So instead of going hammer and tongs for Lara, why don't you spread a bit of abuse the Fev's way?
Just because the woman controls the vagina doesn't mean that your brain automatically turns to mush. Apparently for some men it means that their moral compass goes all heywire, but that isn't an excuse or a justification. And trying to use it as such is simply weak.
So just remember, if you're in a relationship, keep it in your pants! And if you do stuff up, don't go around blaming other people, deal with it yourself.
And girls, try blaming the guy for a change, rather than the girl who quite possibly had no idea that he was married!
Harry
Lara Bingle Fan Club
Thought I'd share my thoughts and maybe include some more photos to allow a proper analysis.
Why is it that the girl always receives the blame when cheating or adultery goes on? Are we back in the dark ages? Are we in 2008 and living under Islamic law?Of course not, yet the woman nearly always gets the blame. Now yes, I know the woman controls the source of all that men seek out in life (vagina) and that men are prone to do silly things to achieve said goal. But despite jokes about big head and little head, it still comes down to the fact that we all have free will. While I certainly wouldn't complain if Lara tried to have her way with me, I think it's very dubious that she managed to rape a big unit like the Fev.
He entered into a relationship with her in the full knowledge that he was married, and possibly even lied about his marriage to Lara to enable the relationship to occur.
So instead of going hammer and tongs for Lara, why don't you spread a bit of abuse the Fev's way?
Just because the woman controls the vagina doesn't mean that your brain automatically turns to mush. Apparently for some men it means that their moral compass goes all heywire, but that isn't an excuse or a justification. And trying to use it as such is simply weak.
So just remember, if you're in a relationship, keep it in your pants! And if you do stuff up, don't go around blaming other people, deal with it yourself.
And girls, try blaming the guy for a change, rather than the girl who quite possibly had no idea that he was married!
Harry
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Test Cricket
For those who may not be aware, Australia is currently playing New Zealand in the first test in Brisbane.
There's been a lot written by the commentariat recently about test cricket and the failings of the Australian test team and it's captain. A lot of this bloviating has focussed on the lack of 'entertainment' provided by the team whilst in India. A lot of the complaints seem to be specifically targetted at the fact that a) we didn't win and b) we didn't hit enough boundaries, this seemingly being the only worthwhile measure of value left in international cricket.
Who knows what they're going to say about the current test. Australia just a minute ago lost its last wicket in its second innings. The top scorer was Simon Katich, not out on 131, while the second top score was from Johnson, who scored 31 batting at number 10 (I think it is quite safe to say that Mitchell Johnson is not a recognised batsman). All the other batsmen failed dismally in their efforts to make the slightest impression on the bowling or the scoreboard.
Yet even though the previous two days have featured similar scenarios, when the two Australians walked off it was quite obvious to see that there were lots of people there to watch. Not the 10 on the boundary that never get seen except in close up so we can't tell there are 15000 empty seats behind them, I saw packed stands and people standing and cheering for the Australians.
What does this tell you? It tells me that test cricket is a game of ebb and flow, a game of mental strength and toughness, a game that is often lost, rather than won. And it tells me that people are interested in seeing that. Who cares if you can hit 20 boundaries in 50 balls on a pitch that completely favours the batsman with a boundary rope 10 metres in from the fence?
Test cricket needs to recognise that pitches should favour the bowlers, not the batsmen. Does anyone really care that Matthew Hayden has the highest score ever recorded in a test? I know I don't. A pitch that suits batsman against a side like Bangladesh is not the record that stirs the hearts of men.
What really gets people excited is bowlers doing their best to get wickets, trying their hardest to limits runs, straining their utmost to provoke a mistake that will open up an opportunity and lead to victory. And do you think Australian fans are going to look at the current innings and complain that there weren't enough boundaries? They're going to recognise the determination and mental toughness of Katich and his 171, a score immeasurably more valuable because it stands next to the failure of the other batsmen.
We live in a new era, with no Gilchrist, no Warne, no McGrath. Off course Australia is going to struggle to win. But we have to play TEST cricket if we want to win TEST matches. Cricket Australia needs to wake up, smell the boredom and accept the fact that test cricket needs wickets that suit bowlers, not batsmen.
When the spectacle that is 20/20 is played, let them favour the batsmen, but lets not get confused between the two.
cheers
Harry
(and BTW, I personally think we should get rid of the abomination that is the boundary ropes. If you want a 6, you should hit it over the fence, if you want a 4 it should have to carry those extra few metres)
There's been a lot written by the commentariat recently about test cricket and the failings of the Australian test team and it's captain. A lot of this bloviating has focussed on the lack of 'entertainment' provided by the team whilst in India. A lot of the complaints seem to be specifically targetted at the fact that a) we didn't win and b) we didn't hit enough boundaries, this seemingly being the only worthwhile measure of value left in international cricket.
Who knows what they're going to say about the current test. Australia just a minute ago lost its last wicket in its second innings. The top scorer was Simon Katich, not out on 131, while the second top score was from Johnson, who scored 31 batting at number 10 (I think it is quite safe to say that Mitchell Johnson is not a recognised batsman). All the other batsmen failed dismally in their efforts to make the slightest impression on the bowling or the scoreboard.
Yet even though the previous two days have featured similar scenarios, when the two Australians walked off it was quite obvious to see that there were lots of people there to watch. Not the 10 on the boundary that never get seen except in close up so we can't tell there are 15000 empty seats behind them, I saw packed stands and people standing and cheering for the Australians.
What does this tell you? It tells me that test cricket is a game of ebb and flow, a game of mental strength and toughness, a game that is often lost, rather than won. And it tells me that people are interested in seeing that. Who cares if you can hit 20 boundaries in 50 balls on a pitch that completely favours the batsman with a boundary rope 10 metres in from the fence?
Test cricket needs to recognise that pitches should favour the bowlers, not the batsmen. Does anyone really care that Matthew Hayden has the highest score ever recorded in a test? I know I don't. A pitch that suits batsman against a side like Bangladesh is not the record that stirs the hearts of men.
What really gets people excited is bowlers doing their best to get wickets, trying their hardest to limits runs, straining their utmost to provoke a mistake that will open up an opportunity and lead to victory. And do you think Australian fans are going to look at the current innings and complain that there weren't enough boundaries? They're going to recognise the determination and mental toughness of Katich and his 171, a score immeasurably more valuable because it stands next to the failure of the other batsmen.
We live in a new era, with no Gilchrist, no Warne, no McGrath. Off course Australia is going to struggle to win. But we have to play TEST cricket if we want to win TEST matches. Cricket Australia needs to wake up, smell the boredom and accept the fact that test cricket needs wickets that suit bowlers, not batsmen.
When the spectacle that is 20/20 is played, let them favour the batsmen, but lets not get confused between the two.
cheers
Harry
(and BTW, I personally think we should get rid of the abomination that is the boundary ropes. If you want a 6, you should hit it over the fence, if you want a 4 it should have to carry those extra few metres)
Australia redux
So our school got some free tickets to go see "Australia" on Wednesday night, the night after the proper premiere.
As already posted, it was a good movie, I enjoyed it. However, there were a few issues with it that did grate somewhat and a few things that were just silly. I'll try and see what I can remember :)
Firstly, Baz is riding around on his high horse trying to make everyone feel guilty about the stolen generations, including extremely prominent placement in the beginning and ending credits. It is a also a constant theme throughout the film. Baz has never actually done anything to help aboriginal people, but he's assuaging his own guilt and bagging out John Howard at the same time (a combo move of max awesomeness for some people) in his film so it doesn't matter. Of course the way in which he portrays the stolen generations occurring is extremely dubious.
I've never heard of any case of a child being taken from his mother while she was in gainful employment and living on a station. Maybe if his mother was a drunk, or lived in a humpy out in the scrub where the rest of the community was threatening to kill the kid because of his mixed blood. Anyway he does manage to use the kid to tie the movie together nicely, but his hobby horse approach to the issue did annoy me. Incidentally, the kid annoyed me a bit as well, but that's a different matter altogether. The scene where the official talks about breeding the aboriginal out of them is also taking a licence, as there was never any policy anywhere in Australia along these lines (to the best of my knowledge).
And the Brothers in charge of the mission also manage to contradict Baz's narrative, on the one hand, refusing to listen and dragging the kid away (but obviously believing that there were doing it with the best of intentions), and then on the other risking life and limb to rescue the children and expressing joy that they were still alive. Even if Baz's version of events is true (which I don't believe) he still portrays a deeper truth, that they honestly believed that they were doing the right thing.
Something in the film that was stupid (but quite funny) were the couple of aboriginal people chatting to Hugh while running along next to the truck he was driving. This only occurred right at the start, than the movie started to get much less tongue in cheek, I think some of that humour from the earlier scenes could have been retained throughout the movie. A couple of them are very funny.
The scenes in the Bungle Bungles also annoyed me, if I was to guess I would suggest that they were all computer generated. That particular part of the movie was quite annoying in fact, with the fake landscape and the slighty dodgy plot twist.
It would have also been good to show more of the waves of planes attacking Darwin, rather than focussing on the smaller detail, however this isn't vital for the plot.
I thought that Nicole did quite well, especially in the earlier parts of the movie where the ice queen persona fitted the character to a T. And of course Hugh Jackman managed tough and laconic rather well, although he's pretty much the most buff stockman in history, I think all that time riding a horse and eating crap food would have you looking a little more lean. As soon as they were together the chemistry definitely worked, in fact the hostility between the two was quite fun and was abandoned a bit too soon, it would have been good to see this continue.
However, Hugh is, lets face it, rather wooden when it comes to acting. I mean he sucked in "Swordfish" and the wooden persona works for the Wolverine, but range of emotions? I think I'm being rather harsh here, in general he suited the movie well, particularly the earlier scenes where he's got no time for Nicole.
The real revelation here is the supporting cast, all these amazing Australian actors you might have forgotten about. David Wenham is excellent, apart from a little bit of overacting right in the final scene, but he is top notch. Bryan Brown absolutely dominates the screen when he's on it, he fits the character perfectly. Jack Thompson is outstanding and quite funny, his death doesn't really have a lot of point to it in terms of the immediate narrative and the mouth organ part of it could have easily be done another way. I think he only died to make the Bungles scene more interesting, as I said, possibly the weakest part of the movie.
Essie Davis, playing Bryan Brown's daughter is very very good in the small amount of screen time she has. Tony Barry, the cop, is very good, portraying his character as sympathetic but also a little bit of a bastard. His black tracker is also very good, giving a real sense of menace on the screen. Ben Mendehlson's character of the Captain is probably the worst performance, in my opinion. It seems overacted and pompous, it just didn't gel with me. David Gulpill is the Grandfather and he is quite good. Once again, all the "black fella" magic was a bit ridiculous, but he gave real gravitas to his closeups, even without speaking he was a very sympathetic character. This contrasted with the kid, played by Brandon Walters, who was just annoying. He wasn't believable, he wasn't endearing and he wasn't lovable, although he was somewhat sympathetic in terms of his background. "Bah Humbug Scrooge McDuck!" is no doubt what you're all saying, but get stuffed, it's my blog!
I actually think that one of the best actors in the movie was Hugh Jackman's aborignal stockman mate, David Ngoombujarra. He didn't have a huge amount of lines, but he delivered them with authority and believability. He seemed one of the most authentic characters in the movie. And the scene near the beginning with Hugh and the bucket was very funny!
In general, the landscapes used in the film worked really well (apart from the Bungles). It was really cool to see lots of the places around here and mostly they conveyed the surroundings effectively. I don't know how, but they could have conveyed the heat a bit better, as you got the impression that the temperature was quite balmy most of the time, not blistering hot and ridiculously humid as it would have been at that time of year. As already said, I think the landscapes could have been done even better, but still that part worked really well.
The story itself also worked really well. It was very long, and almost had the feeling of 2 separate parts joined together somewhat artificially, but it was enjoyable. As mentioned, the feel of the movie towards the start was particularly entertaining but it kept on entertaining, and that's why we see movies after all. It definitely had that epic movie feel, similar to Indiana Jones or older style westerns. And it definitely stacks up very well. I wouldn't be saying it's Oscar bait, but it's got nothing (much) to be ashamed about, hell all the Indiana Jones movies are full of gaping plot flaws and ridiculous juxtapositions.
Oh, one more thing. Lots of reviews I've seen have concentrated on the use of the word "crikey". I was listening out for it and I think I only heard it about 4 times. And it was quite appropriate each time, I think it was meant to be a running joke (not a particularly funny one, but I liked it). I was just disappointed with the lack of other Australianisms. No-one said "I'm dry as a dead donkey's donger!", there wasn't a mention of "stone the crows!" and I didn't hear " Howyagoinmateorright?" once.
Anyway, go and check it out.
Harry
As already posted, it was a good movie, I enjoyed it. However, there were a few issues with it that did grate somewhat and a few things that were just silly. I'll try and see what I can remember :)
Firstly, Baz is riding around on his high horse trying to make everyone feel guilty about the stolen generations, including extremely prominent placement in the beginning and ending credits. It is a also a constant theme throughout the film. Baz has never actually done anything to help aboriginal people, but he's assuaging his own guilt and bagging out John Howard at the same time (a combo move of max awesomeness for some people) in his film so it doesn't matter. Of course the way in which he portrays the stolen generations occurring is extremely dubious.
I've never heard of any case of a child being taken from his mother while she was in gainful employment and living on a station. Maybe if his mother was a drunk, or lived in a humpy out in the scrub where the rest of the community was threatening to kill the kid because of his mixed blood. Anyway he does manage to use the kid to tie the movie together nicely, but his hobby horse approach to the issue did annoy me. Incidentally, the kid annoyed me a bit as well, but that's a different matter altogether. The scene where the official talks about breeding the aboriginal out of them is also taking a licence, as there was never any policy anywhere in Australia along these lines (to the best of my knowledge).
And the Brothers in charge of the mission also manage to contradict Baz's narrative, on the one hand, refusing to listen and dragging the kid away (but obviously believing that there were doing it with the best of intentions), and then on the other risking life and limb to rescue the children and expressing joy that they were still alive. Even if Baz's version of events is true (which I don't believe) he still portrays a deeper truth, that they honestly believed that they were doing the right thing.
Something in the film that was stupid (but quite funny) were the couple of aboriginal people chatting to Hugh while running along next to the truck he was driving. This only occurred right at the start, than the movie started to get much less tongue in cheek, I think some of that humour from the earlier scenes could have been retained throughout the movie. A couple of them are very funny.
The scenes in the Bungle Bungles also annoyed me, if I was to guess I would suggest that they were all computer generated. That particular part of the movie was quite annoying in fact, with the fake landscape and the slighty dodgy plot twist.
- Also of annoyance, the fact that apparently the entire northern Australian cattle industry was controlled by one man, with the exception of one little station, and that the sale of 1500 head would somehow break that monopoly. Considering that the Kimberley itself had 700,000 head in 1917 (with many more in the Northern Territory), it seems likely that putting 1500 head on a boat would have as much impact as an open bar at a Mormon wake.
- Also, since they were puttting them on a boat, not slaughtering them at Darwin, why couldn't they just get them from down south?
- And why is a Captain the highest ranking officer to be seen throughout the movie, even during the wartime bits when supposedly there are ships of war and combat units stationed in town?
- And why is the same policeman the first point of call in Darwin and way to buggery out on the Western Australian border?
- And why was Hugh carrying so much shit on his truck when he first drives Nicole to the station? I think the story is meant to be that it's all her clothes, but if so it wasn't done very well, it just looked a little farcical, more Beverley Hillbillies than realistic way to travel through the scrub.
- How does a small Aboriginal boy get on top of a bloody big stallion and ride in the saddle like he was born to it, but he can't tread water for a few minutes? In a place where he would swim regularly and he even talks about being a good swimmer later on?
- The big thing that really grated though, was the "black fella" magic. They kept on putting it out there and it fitted into the story, but it was of course complete bullshit, you'll know what I mean when you see it.
It would have also been good to show more of the waves of planes attacking Darwin, rather than focussing on the smaller detail, however this isn't vital for the plot.
I thought that Nicole did quite well, especially in the earlier parts of the movie where the ice queen persona fitted the character to a T. And of course Hugh Jackman managed tough and laconic rather well, although he's pretty much the most buff stockman in history, I think all that time riding a horse and eating crap food would have you looking a little more lean. As soon as they were together the chemistry definitely worked, in fact the hostility between the two was quite fun and was abandoned a bit too soon, it would have been good to see this continue.
However, Hugh is, lets face it, rather wooden when it comes to acting. I mean he sucked in "Swordfish" and the wooden persona works for the Wolverine, but range of emotions? I think I'm being rather harsh here, in general he suited the movie well, particularly the earlier scenes where he's got no time for Nicole.
The real revelation here is the supporting cast, all these amazing Australian actors you might have forgotten about. David Wenham is excellent, apart from a little bit of overacting right in the final scene, but he is top notch. Bryan Brown absolutely dominates the screen when he's on it, he fits the character perfectly. Jack Thompson is outstanding and quite funny, his death doesn't really have a lot of point to it in terms of the immediate narrative and the mouth organ part of it could have easily be done another way. I think he only died to make the Bungles scene more interesting, as I said, possibly the weakest part of the movie.
Essie Davis, playing Bryan Brown's daughter is very very good in the small amount of screen time she has. Tony Barry, the cop, is very good, portraying his character as sympathetic but also a little bit of a bastard. His black tracker is also very good, giving a real sense of menace on the screen. Ben Mendehlson's character of the Captain is probably the worst performance, in my opinion. It seems overacted and pompous, it just didn't gel with me. David Gulpill is the Grandfather and he is quite good. Once again, all the "black fella" magic was a bit ridiculous, but he gave real gravitas to his closeups, even without speaking he was a very sympathetic character. This contrasted with the kid, played by Brandon Walters, who was just annoying. He wasn't believable, he wasn't endearing and he wasn't lovable, although he was somewhat sympathetic in terms of his background. "Bah Humbug Scrooge McDuck!" is no doubt what you're all saying, but get stuffed, it's my blog!
I actually think that one of the best actors in the movie was Hugh Jackman's aborignal stockman mate, David Ngoombujarra. He didn't have a huge amount of lines, but he delivered them with authority and believability. He seemed one of the most authentic characters in the movie. And the scene near the beginning with Hugh and the bucket was very funny!
In general, the landscapes used in the film worked really well (apart from the Bungles). It was really cool to see lots of the places around here and mostly they conveyed the surroundings effectively. I don't know how, but they could have conveyed the heat a bit better, as you got the impression that the temperature was quite balmy most of the time, not blistering hot and ridiculously humid as it would have been at that time of year. As already said, I think the landscapes could have been done even better, but still that part worked really well.
The story itself also worked really well. It was very long, and almost had the feeling of 2 separate parts joined together somewhat artificially, but it was enjoyable. As mentioned, the feel of the movie towards the start was particularly entertaining but it kept on entertaining, and that's why we see movies after all. It definitely had that epic movie feel, similar to Indiana Jones or older style westerns. And it definitely stacks up very well. I wouldn't be saying it's Oscar bait, but it's got nothing (much) to be ashamed about, hell all the Indiana Jones movies are full of gaping plot flaws and ridiculous juxtapositions.
Oh, one more thing. Lots of reviews I've seen have concentrated on the use of the word "crikey". I was listening out for it and I think I only heard it about 4 times. And it was quite appropriate each time, I think it was meant to be a running joke (not a particularly funny one, but I liked it). I was just disappointed with the lack of other Australianisms. No-one said "I'm dry as a dead donkey's donger!", there wasn't a mention of "stone the crows!" and I didn't hear " Howyagoinmateorright?" once.
Anyway, go and check it out.
Harry
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wyndham Airport
According to the Bureau of Meteorology, it was 43 degrees celsius at Wyndham airport today. I would suggest it might have been even hotter, as it's been 40+ for weeks now and it definitely felt extra hot today especially in the shade.
Wyndham, beautiful one day, friggin' hot the next!
Wyndham, beautiful one day, friggin' hot the next!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Australia
Saw the movie premiere of "Australia" last night. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised.
There were lots of niggling issues, but not necessarily the ones pointed out by critics and overall it was an entertaining movie. For me the word "crikey" wasn't an issue at all, it was used appropriately throughout as a kind of running gag and was possibly only slightly out of place just the once.
Probably the biggest issues I had was with Baz's constant effort to shoe horn a political issue into the movie in a way that really didn't fit, I'm talking here about the so called 'Stolen Generations'. For me parts of that detracted from the movie, although in the end he was able to use that angle to wrap everything up nicely.
There were also lots of other small niggling issues, but it had humour, excitement, human drama, characters you cared about and some pretty speccie scenery.
Overall, I think you should go see it, it's a big epic movie on an Indiana Jones scale, and I'd almost suggest it's better than any of the Indiana Jones movies (sacrilege to some I know).
Will post at length about some other aspects later.
cheers
Harry
There were lots of niggling issues, but not necessarily the ones pointed out by critics and overall it was an entertaining movie. For me the word "crikey" wasn't an issue at all, it was used appropriately throughout as a kind of running gag and was possibly only slightly out of place just the once.
Probably the biggest issues I had was with Baz's constant effort to shoe horn a political issue into the movie in a way that really didn't fit, I'm talking here about the so called 'Stolen Generations'. For me parts of that detracted from the movie, although in the end he was able to use that angle to wrap everything up nicely.
There were also lots of other small niggling issues, but it had humour, excitement, human drama, characters you cared about and some pretty speccie scenery.
Overall, I think you should go see it, it's a big epic movie on an Indiana Jones scale, and I'd almost suggest it's better than any of the Indiana Jones movies (sacrilege to some I know).
Will post at length about some other aspects later.
cheers
Harry
Monday, November 17, 2008
Props to Angus
Thanks to Angus I now know what to put in a blog post, so here goes.
First off, we need something funny, and this is DAMN funny!
Next, we need something pretty, and she is DAMN pretty!
Lastly, we need something awesome and it doesn't get much more awesome than this photo, at least in my humble opinion.
So there you go, the perfect blog post!
enjoy
Harry
First off, we need something funny, and this is DAMN funny!
Next, we need something pretty, and she is DAMN pretty!
Lastly, we need something awesome and it doesn't get much more awesome than this photo, at least in my humble opinion.
So there you go, the perfect blog post!
enjoy
Harry
Now it all makes sense....
My eyes are open to the truth now! Or at least they will be when I give Suzanne some money. Can't wait to hear what she's going to tell me about the disgusting truth.
(copy and pasted this from the spam folder of my email)Harry
This is why you're fat
Spam
X
Reply to allForwardReply by chat
Filter messages like this
Print
Add to Contacts list
Delete this message
Report phishing
Report not phishing
Show original
Show in fixed width font
Show in variable width font
Message text garbled?
Why is this spam/nonspam?
| show details 10:36 AM (9 hours ago) |
|
My name is Suzanne, and I'm a real doctor that would like to show you why you may be "fat" and why you're unable to lose weight no matter how hard you try.
First off, please always know that it's not your fault...I would like to show you the disgusting truth right now as to what is keeping you fat!
Press here to see the disgusting truth that is keeping you from losing fat:
http://stateez.com/tr.php?
After you see what the problem is, I will then show you how easy it is to finally lose the fat that you want to lose.
Thank you!
Dr. Suzanne
-----
To not receive future offers/promotions from "Dr. Suzy" please press on the below
link and scroll to the bottom of the page:
http://stateez.com/tr.php?
Or send us a letter at:
6965 El Camino Real
Suite 105 - 698
La Costa, CA 92009
You will not get anymore of our emails if you go here:
http://stateez.com/unsub.php?
and enter your email address (
or write to:
Software Innovations Inc.
160 W. Foothill Pkwy, Suite 105-20
Corona, CA 92882
TRCK:software_innovations4;
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Great Debaters
Just finished watching a Denzel Washington movie called The Great Debaters. I'd never heard of it either, but I bought it for a buck fifty in Thailand, so it would have had to be pretty poor not to be worth that much!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427309/
Turns out it was actually a pretty interesting movie, about a debate team from a negro university in Texas in the thirties and their experiences.
In the final debate, one of the team pulls out a quote from Thomas Aquinas, about an "unjust law being no law at all".
My opponent says nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral. But there is no rule of law in the Jim Crow south. Not when Negroes are denied housing. Turned away from schools, hospitals. And not when we are lynched. St Augustine said, "An unjust law in no law at all.' Which means I have a right, even a duty to resist. With violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.
This is similar to the Martin Luther King quote, which was also based on Aquinas, that there are "just laws, and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws, but conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
We seem to get a lot of people in our modern world who are very unhappy about things, although they maybe haven't thought the finer details through of what makes an unjust law. I'm thinking the kinds of anarchists, anti-globalisationists, protectionists, etc who violently protest at any event that features international leaders.
That's all well and good, if you believe that something is unjust than you should stand up and try and change things. However, if you do that you should be prepared to accept the consequences, because that is how civil disobedience works. The reason that nobody takes the anti-globalisation protestors and their ilk seriously is that don't have the courage of their convictions, they hide behind anonymity, they run away from their battles, they try to avoid the consequences of their actions.
That's my thought for the day.
Harry
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427309/
Turns out it was actually a pretty interesting movie, about a debate team from a negro university in Texas in the thirties and their experiences.
In the final debate, one of the team pulls out a quote from Thomas Aquinas, about an "unjust law being no law at all".
My opponent says nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral. But there is no rule of law in the Jim Crow south. Not when Negroes are denied housing. Turned away from schools, hospitals. And not when we are lynched. St Augustine said, "An unjust law in no law at all.' Which means I have a right, even a duty to resist. With violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.
This is similar to the Martin Luther King quote, which was also based on Aquinas, that there are "just laws, and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws, but conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
We seem to get a lot of people in our modern world who are very unhappy about things, although they maybe haven't thought the finer details through of what makes an unjust law. I'm thinking the kinds of anarchists, anti-globalisationists, protectionists, etc who violently protest at any event that features international leaders.
That's all well and good, if you believe that something is unjust than you should stand up and try and change things. However, if you do that you should be prepared to accept the consequences, because that is how civil disobedience works. The reason that nobody takes the anti-globalisation protestors and their ilk seriously is that don't have the courage of their convictions, they hide behind anonymity, they run away from their battles, they try to avoid the consequences of their actions.
That's my thought for the day.
Harry
Women's soccer
I'm a fan of sports. I like watching sports, I like reading about sports. Some sports I'd rather read about than watch!
Anything to do with whitewater kayaking is always fun, whether it's slalom or freestyle or extreme racing. Australian rules football is the greatest, fastest, most exciting ball sport you can watch. Basketball is always fun, although sometimes it can get a little repetitive. I always like to see a good game of Union and that's a sport that's always interesting to read about, due to the sheer complexity of the sport. Tennis is nice for something different to do, more than happy to sit down and watch a bit of Wimbledon, same with cycling and the Tour (the greatest individual sporting event on earth). I can even watch cricket for a while, although I prefer test cricket to the pap that is 20/20, and I like reading about cricket, because lets face it, who can be bothered watching 5 days of it?
But I can't stand golf. Not a fan of Rugby League. The Olympics generally leaves me pretty cold. And I have never liked soccer. Never. I've paid attention to it, especially when Australia has featured on a world stage, and watching the Australian team play is a bit more interesting than your run of the mill soccer game, in which I always fail to get even a little bit interested.
But lately, the ABC has been running women's soccer occasionally and I've seen a couple of games. It's really entertaining stuff, far superior to the men's version. The girls go hard, they attack the ball and they hammer each other. I haven't seen any diving (the biggest bane of the stupid sport), just lots of tough tackles and attacking playing. Occasionally they'll be on a break away and then pass the ball backwards as a safe option (another bane of the sport), rather than going for the goal on a fast break. Possibly they don't play at the same level because the skill levels aren't quite as good, but when the product is much more entertaining, who gives a toss?
This is entertaining sport, it's fun to watch and you get to see pretty girls. Why not give it a look?
Schedule
Harry
Anything to do with whitewater kayaking is always fun, whether it's slalom or freestyle or extreme racing. Australian rules football is the greatest, fastest, most exciting ball sport you can watch. Basketball is always fun, although sometimes it can get a little repetitive. I always like to see a good game of Union and that's a sport that's always interesting to read about, due to the sheer complexity of the sport. Tennis is nice for something different to do, more than happy to sit down and watch a bit of Wimbledon, same with cycling and the Tour (the greatest individual sporting event on earth). I can even watch cricket for a while, although I prefer test cricket to the pap that is 20/20, and I like reading about cricket, because lets face it, who can be bothered watching 5 days of it?But I can't stand golf. Not a fan of Rugby League. The Olympics generally leaves me pretty cold. And I have never liked soccer. Never. I've paid attention to it, especially when Australia has featured on a world stage, and watching the Australian team play is a bit more interesting than your run of the mill soccer game, in which I always fail to get even a little bit interested.
But lately, the ABC has been running women's soccer occasionally and I've seen a couple of games. It's really entertaining stuff, far superior to the men's version. The girls go hard, they attack the ball and they hammer each other. I haven't seen any diving (the biggest bane of the stupid sport), just lots of tough tackles and attacking playing. Occasionally they'll be on a break away and then pass the ball backwards as a safe option (another bane of the sport), rather than going for the goal on a fast break. Possibly they don't play at the same level because the skill levels aren't quite as good, but when the product is much more entertaining, who gives a toss?
This is entertaining sport, it's fun to watch and you get to see pretty girls. Why not give it a look?
Schedule
Harry
Labor, Kevin, George and Obama
While watching Insiders on ABC this morning (the BEST show on politics in Australia and one of the best of TV full stop) Lindsay Tanner made a very interesting statement.
He was being interviewed regarding our man Kevin and his experiences in Washington. I'll give you the background first and then get back to Lindsay.
A little while ago, the editor of the Australian (the best paper in Australia) was having a dinner with Kevin Rudd and some other people. The Australian later published an article regarding a Kevin Rudd phone discussion with George W Bush. The most important part of the piece was this: apparently while talking about the global financial crisis Bush asked Rudd "what's the G20?" The article then went onto explain how Rudd was shocked at how stupid George W was. The big problem is this; George isn't an idiot and he was publically talking about the G20 only days before.
So somehow, details of a private phone conversation found their way into a newspaper article that made Kevin look really good and George look really stupid. Of course, the Whitehouse quickly denied this and ever since Kevin has been obfuscating, denying that George ever said a thing, while (very importantly) refusing to deny that the basis of the article was given to the Australian by him. The Australian have been keeping mum about this whole situation, because they know perfectly well where the blame lies, but aren't going to reveal their sources and they continue to back their article, saying that is was based upon impeccable sources (in this case, the Prime Minister of Australia!).
So anyway, after being ignored by most media outlets in Australia for a while, this has finally come to the forefront after Rudd was given the most perfunctory of hand shakes by George while in Washington for the G20. So the rest of the media has finally woken up and Labor is finally being asked.
Now, Lindsay Tanner was being interviewed on Insiders and asked about the article and he made the usual denials, saying that Kevin had denied everything already. Then, he suggested that a far greater gaffe was Julie Bishop, in Parliament, refusing to criticise John Howard for his assertion several years ago that if Barack Obama were elected than he would be the preferred President for Al Qaeda. He then suggested that this was a far greater insult in dealing with the United States.
But the problem is that Al Qaeda have already come out and said that the election of Barack is a good thing!
And of course, John Howard didn't make the point about Obama just because he thought all these radicals hiding in caves hated George Bush. He made the point because Obama at the time was advocating disengagement in Iraq, more importantly he was advocating running away from a conflict that had already been won (ongoing problems notwithstanding). Such following on of the US tradition of running away from everywhere with a hint of casualties for the last 25 years (think Lebanon and Somalia) such an disengagement would have given an enormous boost to Al Qaeda and their associates and once again portray the United States as nation unable to stay the course or follow through with it's own actions.
Say what you will about George (and lots of people say lots of not very nice things) he has turned around the perception of the US, particularly within the Middle East. It wouldn't take much to turn things around again, but right now, if George says he's going to do something, you know it's going to happen and you won't scare him away.
Obama has been very reticent about Iraq recently (because he knows that it's won) and the issue barely featured in the recent campaign, so we'll have to see what he chooses to do. Apparently, the cost of being in Iraq currently is very similar to the cost of stationing troops overseas anywhere else, as combat has dipped so dramatically!
So, if he drops the bundle and does something that encourage the groups who feed on US weaknesses, than it will turn out that John Howard was right. And just because Barack Obama is now the President of the United States still doesn't mean that John Howard was wrong. Of course it might be cause for some uncomfortable moments, but in the end Howard put forward opinion and he hasn't been proven wrong.
Sorry if this post was a bit convoluted!
Harry
He was being interviewed regarding our man Kevin and his experiences in Washington. I'll give you the background first and then get back to Lindsay.
A little while ago, the editor of the Australian (the best paper in Australia) was having a dinner with Kevin Rudd and some other people. The Australian later published an article regarding a Kevin Rudd phone discussion with George W Bush. The most important part of the piece was this: apparently while talking about the global financial crisis Bush asked Rudd "what's the G20?" The article then went onto explain how Rudd was shocked at how stupid George W was. The big problem is this; George isn't an idiot and he was publically talking about the G20 only days before.
So somehow, details of a private phone conversation found their way into a newspaper article that made Kevin look really good and George look really stupid. Of course, the Whitehouse quickly denied this and ever since Kevin has been obfuscating, denying that George ever said a thing, while (very importantly) refusing to deny that the basis of the article was given to the Australian by him. The Australian have been keeping mum about this whole situation, because they know perfectly well where the blame lies, but aren't going to reveal their sources and they continue to back their article, saying that is was based upon impeccable sources (in this case, the Prime Minister of Australia!).
So anyway, after being ignored by most media outlets in Australia for a while, this has finally come to the forefront after Rudd was given the most perfunctory of hand shakes by George while in Washington for the G20. So the rest of the media has finally woken up and Labor is finally being asked.
Now, Lindsay Tanner was being interviewed on Insiders and asked about the article and he made the usual denials, saying that Kevin had denied everything already. Then, he suggested that a far greater gaffe was Julie Bishop, in Parliament, refusing to criticise John Howard for his assertion several years ago that if Barack Obama were elected than he would be the preferred President for Al Qaeda. He then suggested that this was a far greater insult in dealing with the United States.
But the problem is that Al Qaeda have already come out and said that the election of Barack is a good thing!
And of course, John Howard didn't make the point about Obama just because he thought all these radicals hiding in caves hated George Bush. He made the point because Obama at the time was advocating disengagement in Iraq, more importantly he was advocating running away from a conflict that had already been won (ongoing problems notwithstanding). Such following on of the US tradition of running away from everywhere with a hint of casualties for the last 25 years (think Lebanon and Somalia) such an disengagement would have given an enormous boost to Al Qaeda and their associates and once again portray the United States as nation unable to stay the course or follow through with it's own actions.
Say what you will about George (and lots of people say lots of not very nice things) he has turned around the perception of the US, particularly within the Middle East. It wouldn't take much to turn things around again, but right now, if George says he's going to do something, you know it's going to happen and you won't scare him away.
Obama has been very reticent about Iraq recently (because he knows that it's won) and the issue barely featured in the recent campaign, so we'll have to see what he chooses to do. Apparently, the cost of being in Iraq currently is very similar to the cost of stationing troops overseas anywhere else, as combat has dipped so dramatically!
So, if he drops the bundle and does something that encourage the groups who feed on US weaknesses, than it will turn out that John Howard was right. And just because Barack Obama is now the President of the United States still doesn't mean that John Howard was wrong. Of course it might be cause for some uncomfortable moments, but in the end Howard put forward opinion and he hasn't been proven wrong.
Sorry if this post was a bit convoluted!
Harry
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Pregnant man
Apparently the "pregnant man" is expecting another child.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2420498.htm
Personally, I feel that this headline is not strictly accurate. Why can't it be "Bearded lady is pregnant again"? Or "Child with lifetime of psychological issues ahead of him to get a sibling"? Or "mentally unstable woman seeks global affirmation and 15minutes of fame"?
Apparently Thomas is legally a male, however, he still has his female reproductive organs (which seems pretty obvious, otherwise he wouldn't be pregnant). But since he still has female reproductive organs, I think we should be referring to him as a "she" instead.
I don't have a huge problem with transgendered people, it's their choice, just don't go wasting government money to make your changes. But part of being transgendered surely is to change your gender? That's why guys get their bits cut off and fake vaginas fashioned, while girls have their breasts removed and fake penises constructed.
So why are so many people just accepting things without questioning or clarifying status? If we can be whoever we want to be just by saying that, than I'm a millionaire and I'll be going down to the bank on Monday to find out where my money is.
Harry
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2420498.htm
Personally, I feel that this headline is not strictly accurate. Why can't it be "Bearded lady is pregnant again"? Or "Child with lifetime of psychological issues ahead of him to get a sibling"? Or "mentally unstable woman seeks global affirmation and 15minutes of fame"?
Apparently Thomas is legally a male, however, he still has his female reproductive organs (which seems pretty obvious, otherwise he wouldn't be pregnant). But since he still has female reproductive organs, I think we should be referring to him as a "she" instead.
I don't have a huge problem with transgendered people, it's their choice, just don't go wasting government money to make your changes. But part of being transgendered surely is to change your gender? That's why guys get their bits cut off and fake vaginas fashioned, while girls have their breasts removed and fake penises constructed.
So why are so many people just accepting things without questioning or clarifying status? If we can be whoever we want to be just by saying that, than I'm a millionaire and I'll be going down to the bank on Monday to find out where my money is.
Harry
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Australian car industry
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24640157-2703,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24639217-601,00.html
Big news this week that along with a global financial crisis we apparently have a global automotive manufacturing crisis, or at least an Australian and US crisis. The big three in the US (GM, Ford and Chrysler) are all bleeding money hand of fist and will run out of reserves by early next year. Not only that, they can't get finance to pay ongoing costs and are crippled by long term problems with unions, pensions and dropping market share.
GM is apparently valued at $2.7 billion US right now, for a company with a global market share similar to Toyota!
In Australia K Rudd has put up $6 billion over several years to continue to "assist" the Australian car industry to remain competitive. Apparently the Australian manufacturers already receive the equivalent of $4000 assistance for every car they produce, including the ones that are exported. See a problem here?
I read an article yesterday, which I have been unable to find, which suggested that the Government should purchase either Holden or Ford from their US owner and then sell it back to the people, a la the sale of Telstra. The suggestion was that such a move would give people a stronger reason to purchase from that company (true Australian ownership) and that all those rev-heads out there would love to own a part of their favourite car company.
Following on from that proposal, I would like to suggest how such a plan might unfold into the future. I quite like the idea, especially since it removes the taint of government control that inevitably destroys anything it touches due to politicians not being able to keep their greedy hands in their pockets.
Holden and Ford in Australia are particularly good at producing large sized rear driving, motor cars that combine size, comfort, performance and economy in a package that is much cheaper than the equivalents to be found in Europe (and there's hardly any rear drivers made in the US anymore). Think your HSVs and XR8's and all those other similar vehicles, cars that go fast, are fun to drive, comfortable, will carry the whole family and don't use too much fuel (as long as you drive conservatively).
Unfortunately, the export options for these vehicles are very limited. They can't be exported to the US because the unions which dominate the Big three over there cry foul and cause problems. They can't be exported to Europe because there are GM and Ford subsidiaries there that already have their own equivalents, roughly speaking, and don't want the competition. They can't be exported to Asia because there are already GM and Ford subsidiaries there and the priority is given to them, not to the Aussies. Basically, our exports go to the Middle East and a few other small markets around the place such as South Africa.
An independent Ford or Holden would change this equation completely. Don't you think the US market would love the Territory, or a 400kw Monaro, or the new Holden station wagon, or even the very nice looking Ford ute (the US is the home of the truck after all). An aggressive, viral marketing campaign, combined with proper after market service and realistically priced vehicle financing (a major problem in the US right now) could see the brand grow slowly but surely, especially if aimed at specific markets.
Similarly, putting the top of the line sports sedan up against Mercedes and BMW is sure to catch both marques out, Holden have tried in the UK but it's been on such a small scale that it hasn't really worked. In Asia, bigger is better, so something long and sleek and covered in chrome is sure to sell well. And of course, unfettered access to the Middle East would see sales increase, with no problems about taking too much away from the home company.
But the best thing is this. Both Holden and Ford in Australia have demonstrated that they can develop and produced a completely new car that is globally competitive, on a unique platform that is basically dependent on domestic sales in Australia to recover costs. You don't need to sell many units to suddenly be selling more cars overseas than you do in Australia. What if they could sell 100,000 vehicles in the US per year?
Of course, this is all pie in the sky, because who ever heard of politicians doing anything like this? Especially not our man Kevin, the megalomaniac with his finger on every button, because doing so would relinquish control and he's shown that that's not something that he's especially fond of.
Coming up next; what new vehicles could this newly independent manufacturer produce?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24639217-601,00.html
Big news this week that along with a global financial crisis we apparently have a global automotive manufacturing crisis, or at least an Australian and US crisis. The big three in the US (GM, Ford and Chrysler) are all bleeding money hand of fist and will run out of reserves by early next year. Not only that, they can't get finance to pay ongoing costs and are crippled by long term problems with unions, pensions and dropping market share.
GM is apparently valued at $2.7 billion US right now, for a company with a global market share similar to Toyota!
In Australia K Rudd has put up $6 billion over several years to continue to "assist" the Australian car industry to remain competitive. Apparently the Australian manufacturers already receive the equivalent of $4000 assistance for every car they produce, including the ones that are exported. See a problem here?
I read an article yesterday, which I have been unable to find, which suggested that the Government should purchase either Holden or Ford from their US owner and then sell it back to the people, a la the sale of Telstra. The suggestion was that such a move would give people a stronger reason to purchase from that company (true Australian ownership) and that all those rev-heads out there would love to own a part of their favourite car company.
Following on from that proposal, I would like to suggest how such a plan might unfold into the future. I quite like the idea, especially since it removes the taint of government control that inevitably destroys anything it touches due to politicians not being able to keep their greedy hands in their pockets.
Holden and Ford in Australia are particularly good at producing large sized rear driving, motor cars that combine size, comfort, performance and economy in a package that is much cheaper than the equivalents to be found in Europe (and there's hardly any rear drivers made in the US anymore). Think your HSVs and XR8's and all those other similar vehicles, cars that go fast, are fun to drive, comfortable, will carry the whole family and don't use too much fuel (as long as you drive conservatively).
Unfortunately, the export options for these vehicles are very limited. They can't be exported to the US because the unions which dominate the Big three over there cry foul and cause problems. They can't be exported to Europe because there are GM and Ford subsidiaries there that already have their own equivalents, roughly speaking, and don't want the competition. They can't be exported to Asia because there are already GM and Ford subsidiaries there and the priority is given to them, not to the Aussies. Basically, our exports go to the Middle East and a few other small markets around the place such as South Africa.
An independent Ford or Holden would change this equation completely. Don't you think the US market would love the Territory, or a 400kw Monaro, or the new Holden station wagon, or even the very nice looking Ford ute (the US is the home of the truck after all). An aggressive, viral marketing campaign, combined with proper after market service and realistically priced vehicle financing (a major problem in the US right now) could see the brand grow slowly but surely, especially if aimed at specific markets.
Similarly, putting the top of the line sports sedan up against Mercedes and BMW is sure to catch both marques out, Holden have tried in the UK but it's been on such a small scale that it hasn't really worked. In Asia, bigger is better, so something long and sleek and covered in chrome is sure to sell well. And of course, unfettered access to the Middle East would see sales increase, with no problems about taking too much away from the home company.
But the best thing is this. Both Holden and Ford in Australia have demonstrated that they can develop and produced a completely new car that is globally competitive, on a unique platform that is basically dependent on domestic sales in Australia to recover costs. You don't need to sell many units to suddenly be selling more cars overseas than you do in Australia. What if they could sell 100,000 vehicles in the US per year?
Of course, this is all pie in the sky, because who ever heard of politicians doing anything like this? Especially not our man Kevin, the megalomaniac with his finger on every button, because doing so would relinquish control and he's shown that that's not something that he's especially fond of.
Coming up next; what new vehicles could this newly independent manufacturer produce?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
and a follow up to the last post
There was a really great article in The Australian, by, I believe, Greg Sheridan, about the election, in which he said for all the mud that was supposedly slung, the whole affair was a bit wishy washy, with no serious analysis of policies or voting records by either side, and that in general Australian politics are much more robust.
I'd generally agree with that, I'll see if I can find the link.
I'd generally agree with that, I'll see if I can find the link.
Obamania
Check out this link
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/hope-floats-in-watery-ring-of-democracy/2008/11/11/1226318649667.html
At this moment I wish that I was teaching in a mainstream school with an upper secondary English class so that we could analyse this piece in class. Then, after we've analysed it, I'd do comparisons to some other works by other journalists written over the last few months.
Don't know what I'm talking about? Read the article, but it's a theme I may return to, because my big issue with the election of Barack Obama is not Barack Obama (not that I'm particularly enamoured of the big fella') but the free pass that was given him by media from all over the world. Why does some guy who asks a legitimate question (aka Joe the Plumber) get excoriated by the mob, while the Big O just sails on by, blithely mouthing platitudes. Why does an English paper manage to scoop every single paper in the US (Obama's Aunty living as an illegal after being given a deportation notice) on their own turf? Why does Sarah Palin get criticized for having the courage of her convictions (giving birth to a handicapped child when she opposes abortion) but Barack can present himself as a low taxing, religion supporting, war monger after having the most left wing voting record in the senate?
Like I said, all power to Obama for being elected. He speaks well, he gives lots of people the warm and fuzzies, and lets face it after George Bush people are sick of having a consensus seeking moderate such as John McCain and would probably rather someone out to one side of the political spectrum.
But he should be the President after being thoroughly checked out by the media in their role as independent arbiter, not their role as horny groupy, going back stage to lose their virginity (or in this case their ethics) to the big shot celebrity with the smile and the smooth talking (can we whore ourselves out while pretending to still be independent and impartial? YES WE CAN!)
What they should be worried about is this. Is he really going to respect them in the morning?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/hope-floats-in-watery-ring-of-democracy/2008/11/11/1226318649667.html
At this moment I wish that I was teaching in a mainstream school with an upper secondary English class so that we could analyse this piece in class. Then, after we've analysed it, I'd do comparisons to some other works by other journalists written over the last few months.
Don't know what I'm talking about? Read the article, but it's a theme I may return to, because my big issue with the election of Barack Obama is not Barack Obama (not that I'm particularly enamoured of the big fella') but the free pass that was given him by media from all over the world. Why does some guy who asks a legitimate question (aka Joe the Plumber) get excoriated by the mob, while the Big O just sails on by, blithely mouthing platitudes. Why does an English paper manage to scoop every single paper in the US (Obama's Aunty living as an illegal after being given a deportation notice) on their own turf? Why does Sarah Palin get criticized for having the courage of her convictions (giving birth to a handicapped child when she opposes abortion) but Barack can present himself as a low taxing, religion supporting, war monger after having the most left wing voting record in the senate?
Like I said, all power to Obama for being elected. He speaks well, he gives lots of people the warm and fuzzies, and lets face it after George Bush people are sick of having a consensus seeking moderate such as John McCain and would probably rather someone out to one side of the political spectrum.
But he should be the President after being thoroughly checked out by the media in their role as independent arbiter, not their role as horny groupy, going back stage to lose their virginity (or in this case their ethics) to the big shot celebrity with the smile and the smooth talking (can we whore ourselves out while pretending to still be independent and impartial? YES WE CAN!)
What they should be worried about is this. Is he really going to respect them in the morning?
Dexter
I've just finished watching the first season of Dexter, which is, let me just say, legen.......wait for it........dairy!
For those who haven't heard, Dexter is a bloke who is dead inside (emotionally speaking) and has this gripping and unavoidable urge to kill. Basically your average psychopathic serial killer. However, Dexter's foster father taught him to control his urges and use them for good not evil, so that he sates his blood lust by murdering murderers and other evildoers.
Dexter himself isn't always capable of making fine distinctions, so instead he lives by a code and never lets anyone in to see the real him.
This show is great for a number of reasons. The characters are enjoyable and watchable and relateable, you care about them and most important, they're believable. The script is tight and very entertaining. More to the point, it sucks you in. You really care about what happens and you especially care about Dexter, especially because of his flaws and the difficulties he finds living in a world where people experience emotion easily. The music is tight, but subtle, with the feel-good music really doing that, while the scary music builds the tension effortlessly. And the tension isn't from Dexter hunting down and hacking someone to death, it's from him dealing with the aftermath and more importantly, the rest of the world. The flashbacks work perfectly and are completely believable and help the story to unfold, so that the whole season fits together seamlessly and tiny details from one part relate directly to another part (ala "The Wire"). Characters speak in Spanish to each other (the series being set in Miami, with lots of Latino characters) routinely, but there's never a subtitle in sight, sometimes no translation at all.
In the last episode, the tension was incredible and Dexter was faced with this unbelievable choice. I was pretty confident that things would all work out, since they made another 2 series, but even so, I was on the edge of my seat. I totally related to the sitatuation and the character and knew what I wanted him to do, what he should do, but........ I wasn't confident that he was able to do it, he is after all a psychopathic monster masquerading as a human being.
Do yourself a favour, have a look at this show, it's tops!
For those who haven't heard, Dexter is a bloke who is dead inside (emotionally speaking) and has this gripping and unavoidable urge to kill. Basically your average psychopathic serial killer. However, Dexter's foster father taught him to control his urges and use them for good not evil, so that he sates his blood lust by murdering murderers and other evildoers.
Dexter himself isn't always capable of making fine distinctions, so instead he lives by a code and never lets anyone in to see the real him.
This show is great for a number of reasons. The characters are enjoyable and watchable and relateable, you care about them and most important, they're believable. The script is tight and very entertaining. More to the point, it sucks you in. You really care about what happens and you especially care about Dexter, especially because of his flaws and the difficulties he finds living in a world where people experience emotion easily. The music is tight, but subtle, with the feel-good music really doing that, while the scary music builds the tension effortlessly. And the tension isn't from Dexter hunting down and hacking someone to death, it's from him dealing with the aftermath and more importantly, the rest of the world. The flashbacks work perfectly and are completely believable and help the story to unfold, so that the whole season fits together seamlessly and tiny details from one part relate directly to another part (ala "The Wire"). Characters speak in Spanish to each other (the series being set in Miami, with lots of Latino characters) routinely, but there's never a subtitle in sight, sometimes no translation at all.
In the last episode, the tension was incredible and Dexter was faced with this unbelievable choice. I was pretty confident that things would all work out, since they made another 2 series, but even so, I was on the edge of my seat. I totally related to the sitatuation and the character and knew what I wanted him to do, what he should do, but........ I wasn't confident that he was able to do it, he is after all a psychopathic monster masquerading as a human being.
Do yourself a favour, have a look at this show, it's tops!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
