How ridiculous is this photo? This guy did this deliberately as well!
Check out the original post here.
cheers
Harry
Thursday, January 22, 2009
epic awesomeness
How ridiculous is this photo? This guy did this deliberately as well!
Check out the original post here.
cheers
Harry
Who is this person?
I saw this and I had to post it, since I'm sure Ngus will like it!
check the original link here
Harry out
check the original link here
Harry out
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
I am the grinch...
It's kind of funny. There's all this fanfare and intense interest in the inauguration of the new US President. Millions go along to participate. All those interviewed gush about how historic and wonderful and amazing it is.
And me? I am profoundly underwhelmed. In fact that is almost rating my interest too highly. I feel ambivalence, even apathy.
Yes, Obama talks purty, he gives a good speech and he's articulate. But he has done nothing in his life on which we can judge him. Therefore for me, all this hullabaloo means less than nothing, because it recognises nothing.
Once he has achieved something and I hope that he does, than I'll be happy to recognise his achievements.
For all those who gush about how unbelievable this is, I just don't see it. 12 and 8 years ago Colin Powell was a serious consideration for President and chose not to run for personal reasons. For me, the election of Barak Obama is not change, but simply recognition of change that has already occurred (I've stolen that from someone, I'm not sure who).
I think it would be much more impressive (and vastly more unlikely) for France, or Sweden or Germany to elect a President of colour. All of those countries have signicant populations of immigrants but that never seems to come up when people fawn over how wonderful the EU is.
Anyway, I'm going back to being hopeful but underwhelmed.
Harry out
And me? I am profoundly underwhelmed. In fact that is almost rating my interest too highly. I feel ambivalence, even apathy.
Yes, Obama talks purty, he gives a good speech and he's articulate. But he has done nothing in his life on which we can judge him. Therefore for me, all this hullabaloo means less than nothing, because it recognises nothing.
Once he has achieved something and I hope that he does, than I'll be happy to recognise his achievements.
For all those who gush about how unbelievable this is, I just don't see it. 12 and 8 years ago Colin Powell was a serious consideration for President and chose not to run for personal reasons. For me, the election of Barak Obama is not change, but simply recognition of change that has already occurred (I've stolen that from someone, I'm not sure who).
I think it would be much more impressive (and vastly more unlikely) for France, or Sweden or Germany to elect a President of colour. All of those countries have signicant populations of immigrants but that never seems to come up when people fawn over how wonderful the EU is.
Anyway, I'm going back to being hopeful but underwhelmed.
Harry out
Sunday, January 18, 2009
more taking responsibility
In my last post I spoke about the need to take responsibility for your actions, especially when it comes to changing the law.
You could also look at this from a political viewpoint as well.
Suppose the citizens of Clarendonvale elected to government a party that had as it's stated aims the complete destruction of the city of Hobart, including the death of all it's residents and the assimilation of it's land area into a state that incorporated bogans and housing commission residents from all over Tasmania, no matter where they lived. This would include areas that the bogans had resided in years before but hadn't called home for a long time, potentially even two or three generations.
Suppose the new government of Clarendonvale (let us call the party Bacon-us) than started attacking the people of Hobart. They might start with suicide drivers, VK commodores with one door the wrong colour, with 10 passengers and a drunk driver travelling the streets at high speed, doing burnouts and looking for a way to cause the most mayhem.
Than, once Bacon-us got more sophisticated they might start erecting giant catapaults and firing them into the city, using the trash accreted on the front yards of their resident's houses as ammunition.
Do you imagine after a little bit of this the people of Hobart might be a bit over it? Do you imagine that the police might come round and arrest a few people, bust a few heads and break a few catapaults? And than, because this always happens, the people of Clarendonvale would complain about how they're being victimised by police and it's not their fault they have no money and there's nothing for their kids to do because there's no jobs and they don't have a skate park.
The people of Gaza voted for a political party than has as it's principle aim the destruction of the state of Israel, the death of all the world's Jews and the consolidation of Israel's territory into a greater Islamic entity, a new Caliphate.
They backed this up by launching attacks designed to kill Jews and weaken the state of Israel.
Now they're not happy because the party they voted for is doing what they said they would and Israel has responded? Admittedly, Hamas did get elected on a platform of getting rid of corruption and improving welfare, but always with the over-riding policy of killing Jews, wherever they might be found.
Take responsibility for your actions. You voted for the Jew killing, now that the Jews are coming around trying to stop it get out there and fight them instead of running away like a little bitch.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that this was going to happen eventually.
It's very easy to have the courage to vote for the Jew killing, but when it comes down to it, unless you're going to back up your words with actions than your opinion has less validity.
And when it comes to that, you have to respect Hamas. They might be a bunch of murderous fanatics, but at least they say what they think. They're not saying one thing and doing another, or saying one thing in Arabic and another in English, like most of the Arab states. They know what they want and they say it loud and proud.
Like them? No. Agree with them? Never. Respect them? Yes, I respect them, albeit grudgingly.
cheers
Harry
You could also look at this from a political viewpoint as well.
Suppose the citizens of Clarendonvale elected to government a party that had as it's stated aims the complete destruction of the city of Hobart, including the death of all it's residents and the assimilation of it's land area into a state that incorporated bogans and housing commission residents from all over Tasmania, no matter where they lived. This would include areas that the bogans had resided in years before but hadn't called home for a long time, potentially even two or three generations.
Suppose the new government of Clarendonvale (let us call the party Bacon-us) than started attacking the people of Hobart. They might start with suicide drivers, VK commodores with one door the wrong colour, with 10 passengers and a drunk driver travelling the streets at high speed, doing burnouts and looking for a way to cause the most mayhem.
Than, once Bacon-us got more sophisticated they might start erecting giant catapaults and firing them into the city, using the trash accreted on the front yards of their resident's houses as ammunition.
Do you imagine after a little bit of this the people of Hobart might be a bit over it? Do you imagine that the police might come round and arrest a few people, bust a few heads and break a few catapaults? And than, because this always happens, the people of Clarendonvale would complain about how they're being victimised by police and it's not their fault they have no money and there's nothing for their kids to do because there's no jobs and they don't have a skate park.
The people of Gaza voted for a political party than has as it's principle aim the destruction of the state of Israel, the death of all the world's Jews and the consolidation of Israel's territory into a greater Islamic entity, a new Caliphate.
They backed this up by launching attacks designed to kill Jews and weaken the state of Israel.
Now they're not happy because the party they voted for is doing what they said they would and Israel has responded? Admittedly, Hamas did get elected on a platform of getting rid of corruption and improving welfare, but always with the over-riding policy of killing Jews, wherever they might be found.
Take responsibility for your actions. You voted for the Jew killing, now that the Jews are coming around trying to stop it get out there and fight them instead of running away like a little bitch.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that this was going to happen eventually.
It's very easy to have the courage to vote for the Jew killing, but when it comes down to it, unless you're going to back up your words with actions than your opinion has less validity.
And when it comes to that, you have to respect Hamas. They might be a bunch of murderous fanatics, but at least they say what they think. They're not saying one thing and doing another, or saying one thing in Arabic and another in English, like most of the Arab states. They know what they want and they say it loud and proud.
Like them? No. Agree with them? Never. Respect them? Yes, I respect them, albeit grudgingly.
cheers
Harry
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Taking responsibility
I don't know the origins of this, although I did at one time, no doubt it has slipped my mind.
What I'm going to talk about is the concept of just and unjust laws and, more importantly, taking consequences for your actions.
As an Australian, I am obliged to follow the laws of Australia. I am also obliged to follow the laws of whichever country I might be travelling through, but that is not so important for this post.
If, as an Australian, I believe that a law is unjust, than I have two main choices. I can either obey the law and whinge and complain about it. This is not a moral choice, as it does nothing to improve the strength of our community or make things better.
Alternatively, I can disobey the unjust law, but, most importantly, I need to accept the consequences for my actions. I am breaking the law, which I believe to be unjust, and will receive the unjust punishment to show that I am a law abiding citizen.
This is basically the same as the principles espoused by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, evoking change through civil disobedience.
Now this doesn't really work in an environment where violence and murder are routinely used as parts of the political process. How has it worked so far for the Falun Gong in China or for the opposition in Zimbabwe? But as a way to achieve change it certainly is effective, as long as the laws that are being protested are sufficiently unpopular.
Currently in Tasmania we have protestors trying to stop the construction of a new road in the Upper Florentine valley, with many police out there trying to get them out of the way to enable the loggers and the road builders through. There's been a great deal of vitriol expended in the media and other places about these greenies and their attempts to "destroy working people's livelihoods".
I see it like this. As long as those protestors take their punishment than I have no problem with them continuing to act to try and prevent something that they believe is wrong. If they get sent to gaol than when they get out they should go straight back to the protest and continue to put themselves on the line.
If they're arrested and than bleat about the unfairness of it than I am not going to be sympathetic. They know that they're breaking the law. If they don't get involved and bleat about Forestry and the police than I don't care much either, they don't have the courage of their convictions.
But I can respect someone who cares enough about a situation to risk arrest and imprisonment to try and effect change, no matter what it is they're trying to achieve.
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can't respect them.
cheers
Harry
What I'm going to talk about is the concept of just and unjust laws and, more importantly, taking consequences for your actions.
As an Australian, I am obliged to follow the laws of Australia. I am also obliged to follow the laws of whichever country I might be travelling through, but that is not so important for this post.
If, as an Australian, I believe that a law is unjust, than I have two main choices. I can either obey the law and whinge and complain about it. This is not a moral choice, as it does nothing to improve the strength of our community or make things better.
Alternatively, I can disobey the unjust law, but, most importantly, I need to accept the consequences for my actions. I am breaking the law, which I believe to be unjust, and will receive the unjust punishment to show that I am a law abiding citizen.
This is basically the same as the principles espoused by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, evoking change through civil disobedience.
Now this doesn't really work in an environment where violence and murder are routinely used as parts of the political process. How has it worked so far for the Falun Gong in China or for the opposition in Zimbabwe? But as a way to achieve change it certainly is effective, as long as the laws that are being protested are sufficiently unpopular.
Currently in Tasmania we have protestors trying to stop the construction of a new road in the Upper Florentine valley, with many police out there trying to get them out of the way to enable the loggers and the road builders through. There's been a great deal of vitriol expended in the media and other places about these greenies and their attempts to "destroy working people's livelihoods".
I see it like this. As long as those protestors take their punishment than I have no problem with them continuing to act to try and prevent something that they believe is wrong. If they get sent to gaol than when they get out they should go straight back to the protest and continue to put themselves on the line.
If they're arrested and than bleat about the unfairness of it than I am not going to be sympathetic. They know that they're breaking the law. If they don't get involved and bleat about Forestry and the police than I don't care much either, they don't have the courage of their convictions.
But I can respect someone who cares enough about a situation to risk arrest and imprisonment to try and effect change, no matter what it is they're trying to achieve.
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can't respect them.
cheers
Harry
While we have seen what was thought to be impossible - a black President elected in the US - why do the Bush bashers want to deny Iraqis freedom? Why can't Iraqis also have the audacity of hope?
In today's Weekend Australia there is a letter to the editor from an A.Khat, of Ryde, NSW, an Iraqi living in Australia. I've copied the last paragraph of his letter for your benefit above.
I personally think that that is absolutely spot on. Instead of carrying on about one of the least violent wars in history shouldn't we be encouraging a little bit of military action in Zimbabwe, Sudan, et al? Why shouldn't other people have the opportunities that we have? And I mean opportunities, not lots of aid that goes into the pockets of bureacrats and despots and helps to keep a population marginalised, but the opportunity to have a say in their government, live a life free from violence and attempt to make something better of themselves?
Harry
In today's Weekend Australia there is a letter to the editor from an A.Khat, of Ryde, NSW, an Iraqi living in Australia. I've copied the last paragraph of his letter for your benefit above.
I personally think that that is absolutely spot on. Instead of carrying on about one of the least violent wars in history shouldn't we be encouraging a little bit of military action in Zimbabwe, Sudan, et al? Why shouldn't other people have the opportunities that we have? And I mean opportunities, not lots of aid that goes into the pockets of bureacrats and despots and helps to keep a population marginalised, but the opportunity to have a say in their government, live a life free from violence and attempt to make something better of themselves?
Harry
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
will smif, WILL SMIFFFFF!!!!
I went and saw the new movie Seven Pounds on Monday, produced by and starring the Fresh Prince himself. All I can say is that it was awesome.
Jeff Furnell (I think that's his name), the movie guy on Triple J criticised it for laying the emotion on too thickly, but he's a massive tool and likes his movies with a high proportion of wank, so I say just ignore him and listen to me instead.
By about halfway through this movie you work out what's going on and have a good idea of what might happen, although there is no certainty. But when it plays out it has the most emotional, gripping ending you can imagine.
Without telling you what happens, this movie is about remorse, redemption, guilt, compassion, generosity, love, loss, heartbreak, nobility, anguish, grief and most importantly love (I know I already said that one).
It has a flawless screen play, Rosario Dawson is outstanding, Will Smiff is excellent, the direction is brilliant and every single actor is a strong and believable contributor. This picture deserves an Oscar for best screenplay, and potentially best female actor, best director, best picture and maybe even best male actor (I wouldn't say he was THAT good, but I've seen other winners give much worse performances).
There's not really any action, no guns, not nudity, no car chases, in fact on many levels you might say it's a pretty boring movie. But, it's gripping, emotional and most importantly, real.
I cried. Go see it, you'll probably cry too. If you don't cry maybe you should see a counsellor. You are potentially a sociopath.
Harry
btw Did anyone know that Woody Harrelson could act? Me either, I guess you learn something every day.
ps this review is very, very critical. Don't read it if you want to know the plot, it gives away everything. I still think I'm right
Gaza redux
Today I heard on the radio that the UN were complaining that Israel were killing too many women and kids in their attacks on Gaza and that Israel was totally to blame for this situation. No mention was made of Hamas, except to say that they were continuing to fire rockets into Israel.
Now the laws of war are pretty clear on this matter (such laws codified in various international conventions throughout the years, the most famous being the Geneva Convention). A military force has to do it's best to prevent civilian casualties, however, the safety and well being of it's own forces are ALWAYS paramount.
They are more important than civilian lives, important cultural buildings or vital infrastructure. There are very obvious and simple reasons for this.
Firstly, it's going to happen anyway. No soldier is going to let himself or his comrades be killed because they are being fired upon from a position that they cannot return fire to.
Secondly, if it wasn't codified like that, it would in fact encourage combatants to use human shields as a part of their military options.
Possibly the most famous example of this in action is the case of Monte Cassino. In Italy, during WW2, the allies were confronted with the difficult task of capturing the town of Monte Cassino, including the very famous and very ancient monastary, which dominated the surrounding landscape and provided an excellent view of the western lines. Despite the irreplaceable nature of the monastary and it's artistic contents the allies chose to level it to the ground, to ensure that it couldn't be used for military purposes. Ironically, the rubble they created provided an excellent base for the Germans who then occupied it and fought stubbornly to hold it.
However, the principle is very clear. The military objective is paramount.
Now the Israeli army is a modern, westernised, military force, with respect for the rules of law and codified rules of engagement. Hamas are a bunch of gangsters with no such things and only one objective, the complete destruction of the state of Israel.
Hamas are actively utilising schools, hospitals and civilian housing as places from which to launch rockets and fire on the Israelis. One prominent Hamas leader who was recently killed was actually keeping his extended family close to him, on the assumption that the Israelis would never accept that many civilian casualties to take him out (he was wrong and his family joined him when he went to receive his 64 virgins). The Israeli forces have to combat Hamas and they have to do that wherever Hamas presents itself.
Therefore, the only people who can be criticised for these women and children dying are those members of Hamas itself.
By the UN and the international media blaming Israel and pouring forth condemnation on it's head, they are effectively encouraging Hamas and other similar groups to utilise human shields as a valid weapon in their fight against the west.
The only other option is for Israel to accept the ongoing launching of rockets into it's territory, rockets that continue to improve in payload, range and accuracy.
If you think that that's the best option let me know. I'll come around to your house once a day and punch you in the face. Sometimes I might miss, sometimes I might knock you out. One day I might bring a baseball bat. But still, you shouldn't have a problem with that. It's not like I'm going to do any real damage, is it?
Harry
Now the laws of war are pretty clear on this matter (such laws codified in various international conventions throughout the years, the most famous being the Geneva Convention). A military force has to do it's best to prevent civilian casualties, however, the safety and well being of it's own forces are ALWAYS paramount.
They are more important than civilian lives, important cultural buildings or vital infrastructure. There are very obvious and simple reasons for this.
Firstly, it's going to happen anyway. No soldier is going to let himself or his comrades be killed because they are being fired upon from a position that they cannot return fire to.
Secondly, if it wasn't codified like that, it would in fact encourage combatants to use human shields as a part of their military options.
Possibly the most famous example of this in action is the case of Monte Cassino. In Italy, during WW2, the allies were confronted with the difficult task of capturing the town of Monte Cassino, including the very famous and very ancient monastary, which dominated the surrounding landscape and provided an excellent view of the western lines. Despite the irreplaceable nature of the monastary and it's artistic contents the allies chose to level it to the ground, to ensure that it couldn't be used for military purposes. Ironically, the rubble they created provided an excellent base for the Germans who then occupied it and fought stubbornly to hold it.
However, the principle is very clear. The military objective is paramount.
Now the Israeli army is a modern, westernised, military force, with respect for the rules of law and codified rules of engagement. Hamas are a bunch of gangsters with no such things and only one objective, the complete destruction of the state of Israel.
Hamas are actively utilising schools, hospitals and civilian housing as places from which to launch rockets and fire on the Israelis. One prominent Hamas leader who was recently killed was actually keeping his extended family close to him, on the assumption that the Israelis would never accept that many civilian casualties to take him out (he was wrong and his family joined him when he went to receive his 64 virgins). The Israeli forces have to combat Hamas and they have to do that wherever Hamas presents itself.
Therefore, the only people who can be criticised for these women and children dying are those members of Hamas itself.
By the UN and the international media blaming Israel and pouring forth condemnation on it's head, they are effectively encouraging Hamas and other similar groups to utilise human shields as a valid weapon in their fight against the west.
The only other option is for Israel to accept the ongoing launching of rockets into it's territory, rockets that continue to improve in payload, range and accuracy.
If you think that that's the best option let me know. I'll come around to your house once a day and punch you in the face. Sometimes I might miss, sometimes I might knock you out. One day I might bring a baseball bat. But still, you shouldn't have a problem with that. It's not like I'm going to do any real damage, is it?
Harry
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Gaza
As everyone knows, Angus (the A is for Awesome, his name is actually Ngus) blogs a damn good read, when he manages to stop droning on about gangsta rappers and cheesy pop.
Anyway, I highly recommend his site and I highly recommend this post here about the situation in Gaza right now.
I completely agree so I really don't have much to say on the matter, however I will say this. Gaza was once Egyptian territory. Gaza shares a land boundary with Egypt. The people of Gaza didn't vote for an administration that has as it's principal policy aim the destruction of the state of Egypt and the death of all Egyptians, preferably by "driving them into the sea".
We all know that Gaza shares a land barrier with Egypt because we regularly get told about how bad Israel is for attacking the tunnels that have been built to enable arms smuggling from Egypt through to the Gaza strip.
So tell me this. Why is Israel internationally vilified for imposing a blockade on Gaza when Egypt is in a position to provide everything that Israel currently doesn't? Egypt also provides a blockade but nobody says anything about that.
Israel doesn't occupy the Gaza strip any longer, therefore they have no responsibilities towards it. If they want to close off their border than that is their business. Lets spread the vituperation around folks, Israel is the good guy, deal with it.
cheers
Harry
Anyway, I highly recommend his site and I highly recommend this post here about the situation in Gaza right now.
I completely agree so I really don't have much to say on the matter, however I will say this. Gaza was once Egyptian territory. Gaza shares a land boundary with Egypt. The people of Gaza didn't vote for an administration that has as it's principal policy aim the destruction of the state of Egypt and the death of all Egyptians, preferably by "driving them into the sea".
We all know that Gaza shares a land barrier with Egypt because we regularly get told about how bad Israel is for attacking the tunnels that have been built to enable arms smuggling from Egypt through to the Gaza strip.
So tell me this. Why is Israel internationally vilified for imposing a blockade on Gaza when Egypt is in a position to provide everything that Israel currently doesn't? Egypt also provides a blockade but nobody says anything about that.
Israel doesn't occupy the Gaza strip any longer, therefore they have no responsibilities towards it. If they want to close off their border than that is their business. Lets spread the vituperation around folks, Israel is the good guy, deal with it.
cheers
Harry
Tasmania
A little while ago I put up a brief post about Tasmania being the prettiest state. Well I'm back in Tassie now, I got back just before Christmas, to a state that's had a pretty wet and cold December. What does that mean? Well it means that everything is green and lush and beautiful and driving around you just can't help but be impressed by all the sheer beauty that surrounds you.
So yes, Tassie is the prettiest state. If you're coming to the Northwest coast, I recommend coming in December if you want scenery. Everything is still green, the weather is warming up, there's lots of things happening and it's just a fantastic time to be alive.
That's all I have to say on that.
Harry
So yes, Tassie is the prettiest state. If you're coming to the Northwest coast, I recommend coming in December if you want scenery. Everything is still green, the weather is warming up, there's lots of things happening and it's just a fantastic time to be alive.
That's all I have to say on that.
Harry
Number 7
Gordon Gorge
This is a river that’s very hard to get to, but the flow isn’t a problem. Generally it gets run once a year, in the springtime, when a big crew can be organised. The reason it doesn’t get run often is basically remoteness. There is a ridiculously long shuffle (you definitely need a driver), there is an occasionally locked gate, there’s an hour long (or more) walk in with your boat and there’s a long stretch of flatwater at the beginning before you hit the gorge and at the end when you hit the lake.
No photos sorry.
cheers
Harry
This is a river that’s very hard to get to, but the flow isn’t a problem. Generally it gets run once a year, in the springtime, when a big crew can be organised. The reason it doesn’t get run often is basically remoteness. There is a ridiculously long shuffle (you definitely need a driver), there is an occasionally locked gate, there’s an hour long (or more) walk in with your boat and there’s a long stretch of flatwater at the beginning before you hit the gorge and at the end when you hit the lake.
No photos sorry.
cheers
Harry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
