I previously stated that Craig Thomson is "guilty as sin". I speculated that his statement to the Parliament was a stalling tactic to allow a rat to be groomed to bolster the ALP's numbers in the House. If there is a rat I don't suppose they'll show themselves until they have to. As to the statement, it was the first time he's actually lied to the House In the course of doing so he has used parliamentary privilege to defame various people and made himself fair game for the privileges committee.
This may be the only thing of which he is ever convicted. When I wrote "guilty as sin" I meant that he had done the deeds of which he is accused. This is a matter of fact; I can't believe his increasingly shambolic denials any more than most other Australians can. The catch here is that his actions may not have been statutorily or tortiously unlawful.
The laws governing the administration of industrial organisations in Federal and State jurisdictions may not have been breached by the unethical use of funds for Thomson's own purposes. Even the famous "escort services" might turn into allowable travel expenses for entertainment. If Thomson's contract of employment essentially says, "Thou mayest squander the union's money as thou pleasest", and this did not contravene the union's rules or the law of the land, he's scot-free.
The laws in this matter have been patchy for a long time. The most important issue here (which the media won't notice as long as there's a sex-scandal in the field of view) is why the law controlling governance of unions now needs to be tightened. It's easy to see why the Labor Party, a beneficiary of union funding, isn't eager to tighten the purse-strings in unions, but what is the Coalition's motive? Malcolm Fraser, who was hardly a syndicalist, was in control of both chambers of the parliament from the final declaration of the 1975 double dissolution poll in early 1976 to June, 1981. John Howard, a renowned union-basher, took control of the Senate from 1 July, 2005 and could ram through all sorts of anti-labour laws until his defeat in November, 2007.
The Federal/State jurisdictional obstacles could have been legislated away as part of the revised laws; so what stopped them? I can only conclude that, if the idea ever occurred to them, some clever strategist would point out that reforming the labour movement would have the effect of making unions shiny clean and impeccably prudential...and thus more attractive to members. The Coalition certainly isn't interested in making unions more attractive to prospective members. Thus, despite the crocodile tears of Tony Abbott for the poor HSU folk, I expect he will show some reluctance and find quibbles to put against whatever the Labor party proposes to reform union governance. If ever elected to government, I expect he will show no enthusiasm for buffing the image of unions either. Having the officials squander the members' funds on self-indulgence is perfectly to his purpose. That is the withering away of the organised labour movement.
Friday, 25 May 2012
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Post#193 Flight Centre Boobed (Workplace Bullying, Boob Apron)
Here is a story from the Herald-Sun of Melbourne, dated 14 May, 2012:
"A WHISTLEBLOWER who lost his career after standing up for a bullied co-worker at one of Australia's biggest travel agencies has filed Federal Court action.
Richard Barnes was a high-performing assistant manager at Flight Centre company Student Flights when he became concerned another employee was being severely bullied by store manager Kelly Gallasch.
She allegedly told her "no wonder your husband left you" and told other workers the worker was "useless" and "stinks".
Mr Barnes made several complaints about Ms Gallasch's behaviour at the Frankston store but alleges Flight Centre failed to take action.
He is also claiming Ms Gallasch then targeted him as a result of his complaints about her.
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on Monday filed the action in the Federal Court in Melbourne on Mr Barnes' behalf.
The firm's employment law principal Josh Bornstein said the company's response was unacceptable.
"Our client blew the whistle on extreme bullying behaviour at Flight Centre and as a result, was victimised, demoted and ultimately lost his career with the company," he said.
"The fact that a company which has won awards for being an excellent employer has tried to sweep this under the rug, ignoring obscene and belittling bullying in its own ranks and then turning on those that try to expose it, reflects an unacceptable work attitude."
Flight Centre Limited (FCL) says it will "vigorously defend" the case.
"The company considers it acted appropriately and denies various allegations that have been made against it," it said in a statement.
FCL said it investigated and acted against several people when the complaint was received last year, including complaints made against Mr Barnes.
It said it takes such allegations seriously, has measures in place to prevent and discipline such behaviour, and has a whistleblower's facility staff can use to report alleged wrongdoing.
The case was lodged in January at Fair Work Australia but the parties were unable to reach resolution.
The latest action was filed under the Fair Work Act's adverse action provisions, which protect whistleblowers from victimisation and retribution.
Mr Bornstein said national workplace bullying laws are needed because no law directly addresses workplace bullying and makes it illegal."
This is one version of the story; others say the employee was "asked to wear the apron" and refused.
Here is a cut-and-paste of the staff details for the Frankston office of Student Flights which are still on the Internet:
"Store Team Members
Kelly Gallasch - Manager
My passion in life is travel! I have been in the travel industry for 6 years and have loved every minute of it. I have backpacked through Europe, cruised down the Mexican Riviera, visited Mickey Mouse in the USA and ridden a camel past the pyramids in Egypt. I have been to Bali numerous times and ridden motorbikes throughout Vietnam. My last trip; I braved the 45 degree heat in India, experiencing a fascinating country with all its culture, amazing people and food!
Spoken Languages:
English
Richard Barnes - Assistant manager
I've had weird, wonderful & bizarre experiences on my travels-backpacking in Europe ,driving thru USA & travelling thru Sth America.I've climbed through an ice-cave in Austria, played bongo drums with a Colombian bongo band, taken a 4a.m. swim (wearing devil horns) during Rio's Carnival, been scuba diving in Fiji, to Red Square in Moscow & slept in a capsule in Tokyo.
Spoken Languages:
English"
All good mates together. Just goes to show what lies (lies!) behind those cheerful public relations puff-pieces.
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
Post#192 Day Trip to Bangor - Fiddler's Dram
Here's something sweet and harmless to wash away the taste of all this recent politicking:
Didn't we have a lovely time
the day we went to Bangor
A beautiful day, we had lunch on the way
and all for under a pound you know
But on the way back I cuddled with Jack
and we opened a bottle of cider
Singing a few of our favourite songs
as the wheels went around
Do you recall the thrill of it all
as we walked along the sea front
Then on the sand we heard a brass band
that played the Diddlely-Bump-Ta-ra-ra-ra
Elsie and me had one cup of tea
then we took a Paddler boat out
Splashing away as we sat on the bay
and the wheels went 'round
Didn't we have a lovely time
the day we went to Bangor
A beautiful day, we had lunch on the way
and all for under a pound you know
But on the way back I cuddled with Jack
and we opened a bottle of cider
Singing a few of our favourite songs
as the wheels went around
Wasn't it nice, eating chocolate ice
as we strolled around the fun-fair
Then we ate eels in big ferris wheels
as we sailed around the ground but then
We had to be quick 'cause Elsie felt sick
and we had to find somewhere to take her
I said to her lad, what made her feel bad
was it the wheel going 'round
Didn't we have a lovely time
the day we went to Bangor
A beautiful day, we had lunch on the way
and all for under a pound you know
But on the way back I cuddled with Jack
and we opened a bottle of cider
Singing a few of our favourite songs
as the wheels went around
Elsie and me, we finished our tea
and said goodbye to the seaside
And on the bus, Flo said to us,
Oh isn't it a shame to go
Wouldn't it be grand to have cash on demand
and to live like this for always
Oh it makes me feel ill, when I think of the mill
and the wheels goin' 'round
Didn't we have a lovely time
the day we went to Bangor
A beautiful day, we had lunch on the way
and all for under a pound you know
But on the way back I cuddled with Jack
and we opened a bottle of cider
Singing a few of our favourite songs
as the wheels went around
La la la la ...
The lady singing is Cathy LeSpurl. When I first heard this I thought it was a rework of a music-hall song of the first decade of the 20th Century. Not so; it was composed by Debbie Cook in 1979.
Friday, 11 May 2012
Post#191 Craig Thomson - A Conspiratorial Speculation
When I heard that Craig Thomson was going to make a statement to the Commonwealth Parliament in response to the allegations against him I thought, "What can he possibly say? After all, he's guilty as sin, so he can't refute the allegations." Then I realised I wasn't being remotely cynical enough, so I tried a thought experiment:
Step One: Assume that the statement itself is insignificant.
Step Two: Note the timing. It is scheduled for Monday, 21st May 2012. A week is a long time in politics and ten days is a very long time. There was one sitting day left in which the independent members might have been persuaded to vote to suspend Thomson and deprive Labor of his vote. The week between now and the 21st is a non-sitting week.
Step Three: Find a(nother) rat in the Coalition ranks to stave off Labor's doom.
So there's my conspiracy for the week: Thomson's move is to stall the independents until the ALP has completed the grooming of the new rat.
Step One: Assume that the statement itself is insignificant.
Step Two: Note the timing. It is scheduled for Monday, 21st May 2012. A week is a long time in politics and ten days is a very long time. There was one sitting day left in which the independent members might have been persuaded to vote to suspend Thomson and deprive Labor of his vote. The week between now and the 21st is a non-sitting week.
Step Three: Find a(nother) rat in the Coalition ranks to stave off Labor's doom.
So there's my conspiracy for the week: Thomson's move is to stall the independents until the ALP has completed the grooming of the new rat.
Monday, 7 May 2012
Post#190 The (Script) Page Turns for Craig Thomson
Today, the Fairly Worthless of Australia have published their report on the three-year investigation of the Health Services Union. To the great amazement of none, the report contends that Craig Thomson used his position of trust in the HSU to bilk them of thousands of dollars to pay for his sexual indulgences and self-serving electoral campaigning.
Hitherto, Thomson has insisted that he is so innocent that no-one could ever make a finding against him and that every irrelevant comment by any public figure constitutes vindication for him. The epitome of this was his assertion that the inability of the Director of Public Prosecutions to use a rambling report from FWA as a brief for prosecution meant that he had been declared innocent.
The next trench line in his layered defences is to turn the page of the script called, "I Didn't Do It - It Wasn't Me!!" to the scene where the allegations "will be vigorously defended against".
I surely wish that I could skip to the part where the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia says, "The applicant's appeal is denied." Of course that will be many a weary year from now.
In the meantime there will be further scenes of a government using this wretch as the piton with which they cling to the cliff-face of power. I wish they'd show a departure from usual practice and accept that he's had it and grant a pair to the Coalition with respect to his vote. This, of course, should be in reciprocation of the Coalition granting a pair for him also...just in case he decides to say "thanks" to the comrades by voting no-confidence in them !
 |
| Craig Thomson (from The Canberra Times) |
Today, the Fairly Worthless of Australia have published their report on the three-year investigation of the Health Services Union. To the great amazement of none, the report contends that Craig Thomson used his position of trust in the HSU to bilk them of thousands of dollars to pay for his sexual indulgences and self-serving electoral campaigning.
Hitherto, Thomson has insisted that he is so innocent that no-one could ever make a finding against him and that every irrelevant comment by any public figure constitutes vindication for him. The epitome of this was his assertion that the inability of the Director of Public Prosecutions to use a rambling report from FWA as a brief for prosecution meant that he had been declared innocent.
The next trench line in his layered defences is to turn the page of the script called, "I Didn't Do It - It Wasn't Me!!" to the scene where the allegations "will be vigorously defended against".
I surely wish that I could skip to the part where the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia says, "The applicant's appeal is denied." Of course that will be many a weary year from now.
In the meantime there will be further scenes of a government using this wretch as the piton with which they cling to the cliff-face of power. I wish they'd show a departure from usual practice and accept that he's had it and grant a pair to the Coalition with respect to his vote. This, of course, should be in reciprocation of the Coalition granting a pair for him also...just in case he decides to say "thanks" to the comrades by voting no-confidence in them !
Saturday, 5 May 2012
Post#189 Is There Hope? How to Reform Australian Politics (Peter Slipper, Craig Thomson and Cincinnatus)
I've been very disgusted and downcast contemplating the contents of the sewer that has cracked open in Canberra in the past year. I'll put it bluntly: The Gillard government is being propped up by a grubby, shameless little thief and a heinously hypocritical, drunken, dirty old man. I think of the alternative offered by the Opposition and see no prospect of a torrent of integrity from that direction.
When did Australian politics start on this trend to the nether regions? Was it rotten from the outset? Can we look to the Rum Rebellion as the archetype of public affairs conduct in these islands? I don't think so. Then there was a man named Lachlan Macquarie. He isn't coming to rescue us now. No-one is coming to rescue us.
We're going to have to dig ourselves out of this, vote by vote. But where shall we find the candidates to vote for? What decent or intelligent person wants to leap into the mess that is contemporary political life? There's a simple truth in this: The quality of the candidates is led by the motives which can be attributed to them. Our parliaments have been colonised by a parasitical political class whose objective is to make a career of being an MP. Parliaments exist for many reasons. Providing sinecures is a purpose to which they are being put, not the one for which they were intended.
Here is the model we need to follow:
Portrayed in this statue in the American city named for him, is Cincinnatus, hero of Rome. He is shown in the act of returning the fasces, symbol of power, and returning to his plough.
So it should be with our parliaments. The electoral laws should permit only one full term of service in any parliament. By that I mean that a term as a State MP would be a disqualification from candidacy for the Commonwealth Parliament and vice versa. That's right: one term in one parliament and that's your lot for life.
The objectors to this proposal would make the predictable argument that Ministers would not have an opportunity to develop skills and that we would lose the services of the good ones after only one term. This would be a significant objection to anyone who wasn't acquainted with the quality of the Ministers we already have (and have suffered already).
A nation whose parliaments were comprised entirely of oncers would be an interesting place. To make it more interesting we can abolish ticket voting for the Senate and State legislative councils. This would increase informal voting but I believe that anyone who can't fill in the ballot paper isn't depriving us of much. I don't mean by this people with physical disabilities who require assistance in voting. Nor do I wish to disparage those whose faculties are failing through illness. I mean knuckleheads, pure and simple.
Also, by whatever means it takes, the people of Queensland should have restored to them a house of review so that they don't have to elect a dictatorship if they don't want to.
Now I have lit a candle and may return to cursing the darkness with an unafflicted conscience.
When did Australian politics start on this trend to the nether regions? Was it rotten from the outset? Can we look to the Rum Rebellion as the archetype of public affairs conduct in these islands? I don't think so. Then there was a man named Lachlan Macquarie. He isn't coming to rescue us now. No-one is coming to rescue us.
We're going to have to dig ourselves out of this, vote by vote. But where shall we find the candidates to vote for? What decent or intelligent person wants to leap into the mess that is contemporary political life? There's a simple truth in this: The quality of the candidates is led by the motives which can be attributed to them. Our parliaments have been colonised by a parasitical political class whose objective is to make a career of being an MP. Parliaments exist for many reasons. Providing sinecures is a purpose to which they are being put, not the one for which they were intended.
Here is the model we need to follow:
Portrayed in this statue in the American city named for him, is Cincinnatus, hero of Rome. He is shown in the act of returning the fasces, symbol of power, and returning to his plough.
So it should be with our parliaments. The electoral laws should permit only one full term of service in any parliament. By that I mean that a term as a State MP would be a disqualification from candidacy for the Commonwealth Parliament and vice versa. That's right: one term in one parliament and that's your lot for life.
The objectors to this proposal would make the predictable argument that Ministers would not have an opportunity to develop skills and that we would lose the services of the good ones after only one term. This would be a significant objection to anyone who wasn't acquainted with the quality of the Ministers we already have (and have suffered already).
A nation whose parliaments were comprised entirely of oncers would be an interesting place. To make it more interesting we can abolish ticket voting for the Senate and State legislative councils. This would increase informal voting but I believe that anyone who can't fill in the ballot paper isn't depriving us of much. I don't mean by this people with physical disabilities who require assistance in voting. Nor do I wish to disparage those whose faculties are failing through illness. I mean knuckleheads, pure and simple.
Also, by whatever means it takes, the people of Queensland should have restored to them a house of review so that they don't have to elect a dictatorship if they don't want to.
Now I have lit a candle and may return to cursing the darkness with an unafflicted conscience.
Monday, 23 April 2012
Post# 188 419 Hell - The Meeting in St Louis (Scammers, Scambaiters)
The best scam-bait of all, from 419 Hell:
Captain Jean-Luc Picard, for you barbarians who don't know, is the character played by Patrick Stewart in Star Trek: The Next Generation. The Ferengi are a species of ruthlessly mercantile aliens.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard, for you barbarians who don't know, is the character played by Patrick Stewart in Star Trek: The Next Generation. The Ferengi are a species of ruthlessly mercantile aliens.
Saturday, 24 March 2012
Post#187 Still Scamming After All These Years (419 Scammer from Senegal)
At Post#137 I told of the email scammer who was filling my message box at Spicypage.com with persistent and insolent invitations to be ripped off. I responded by wasting some of his time with a discourse from my alter ego, Bogus Maximus. He or others from the same crew (going by the style) are still at it. Spicypage appears now to be moribund and the most recent of the following messages was from last year. Read, enjoy, send them nasty messages, waste their time with false enquiries. Whatever you do, DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGES. The person sending them is male, for starters.
1.
favourmabou86@yahoo.com
Hi dear,am miss favour I am attracted to your
profil. I am very romantic, caring, passionately and lovely. I have a bright future and also very hard working. I believe that you are the man that I wiil share my dreams, and my future without disapointment. One thing I am promising you is that you will never regret of knowing or having me in your life.so i will like to know more about
you and to get along with you soon so write to me directly to my email here;
(favourmabou86@yahoo.com)and also i will like you to send me your pictures when
you will reply me back.so that i will send you my pictures throug your email address you will send to me thank you my dear lovely one.I will be hoping to hear
from u soon .
favour
2.
Hello Dear,
Permit me to inform you of my desire of going into business relationship with you.
It is due to the political crisis in my country.
introducing myself, I am Bella Duncan Gavin, the Only Daughter of the late Duncan Gavin, my father was a gold and cocoa mercahnt based in accra, Ghana and Abidjan (Ivory Coast), he was poisoned to death by his business associates on one of their business trips recetly.
Before his death, He called me on his bedside and told me that he has a sum of $7.500,000USD deposited in one of the prime bank here in abidjan ivory coast, that he used my name for the next of kin in depositing of the fund.
Moreover, I am willing to offer you 15% o the total sum as compensation for your effort/input after the successful transfer of this fund to your nominated account overseas.
For more details.
Reply to my private e-mail box below: ( bella4you11@yahoo.com )
Awaiting your urgent reply.
Please reply to my e-mai:( bella4you11@yahoo.com )
Regards,
Bella Duncan.
3.
Hello Dear,
Hope you are doing just fine over there.My name is Tina. I am here on this dating site to look for my soulmate and also real and true love Friendly, funloving, gentleminded, romantic, erotic natural lady seeking for someone special.I am hoping to meet an exciting enthusiastic male . I just want to let you know that after going through your profile l found you intresting, hope you don't mind. Hopefully you would reply - let's explore !! I want to hear from only genuine and sincere man like you, who wants the same as myself.
I need a serious commited relationship. I am an honest person at all times and detest lies thats the truth quite compassionate and loving like kissing and cuddling. also would like someone to love me for
I appreciate with enthusiasm, sincerity and real needs for sharing intimate fun / friendship and wanting a great relationship. I also love submissive personality, which I like to Love and be submisive to. I have been put through the mail a bit but not given up on hopes of something special and a brighter tomorrow. If you are intrested in knowing more about me and for me to send you my picture then feel free to contact me at my private mail addresse( (tinafaithful@yahoo.com)).
Have a lovely day and stay blessed.
Tina.
4.
Hello,
I wish you best Compliment of the season
My name is sofia, a good looking girl.
Well, i am sorry that i did not say much about myself because our profile cannot say everything about us.
I have a special reason of contacting you so i would like you to respond to my email address (musondasofia@yahoo.com) there i can tell you everything about myself, and the reason i am contacting you and also send my pictures to you.
sofia.
5.
my name is Mary,to be honest with you after i carefully read your profile on this site i decided to develope a good relationship with you,please i will like you to contact me here (dmary4yy@yahoo.com) i have a guest for you and then tell you more about me and my pics.
6
HI dear
i hope that all is well, as is my pleasure to contact you after viewing your profile in this beautiful
site which really interest me in having communication with you if you will have the desire with me,
here is my email box (prisca_zinga@yahoo.in) as i will be waiting to hear from yod soon also my picture will be in next mail
yours new friend
prisca
For the record, the profile which provoked all this intense adoration is nothing but a user name. Nowt else.
1.
favourmabou86@yahoo.com
Hi dear,am miss favour I am attracted to your
profil. I am very romantic, caring, passionately and lovely. I have a bright future and also very hard working. I believe that you are the man that I wiil share my dreams, and my future without disapointment. One thing I am promising you is that you will never regret of knowing or having me in your life.so i will like to know more about
you and to get along with you soon so write to me directly to my email here;
(favourmabou86@yahoo.com)and also i will like you to send me your pictures when
you will reply me back.so that i will send you my pictures throug your email address you will send to me thank you my dear lovely one.I will be hoping to hear
from u soon .
favour
2.
Hello Dear,
Permit me to inform you of my desire of going into business relationship with you.
It is due to the political crisis in my country.
introducing myself, I am Bella Duncan Gavin, the Only Daughter of the late Duncan Gavin, my father was a gold and cocoa mercahnt based in accra, Ghana and Abidjan (Ivory Coast), he was poisoned to death by his business associates on one of their business trips recetly.
Before his death, He called me on his bedside and told me that he has a sum of $7.500,000USD deposited in one of the prime bank here in abidjan ivory coast, that he used my name for the next of kin in depositing of the fund.
Moreover, I am willing to offer you 15% o the total sum as compensation for your effort/input after the successful transfer of this fund to your nominated account overseas.
For more details.
Reply to my private e-mail box below: ( bella4you11@yahoo.com )
Awaiting your urgent reply.
Please reply to my e-mai:( bella4you11@yahoo.com )
Regards,
Bella Duncan.
3.
Hello Dear,
Hope you are doing just fine over there.My name is Tina. I am here on this dating site to look for my soulmate and also real and true love Friendly, funloving, gentleminded, romantic, erotic natural lady seeking for someone special.I am hoping to meet an exciting enthusiastic male . I just want to let you know that after going through your profile l found you intresting, hope you don't mind. Hopefully you would reply - let's explore !! I want to hear from only genuine and sincere man like you, who wants the same as myself.
I need a serious commited relationship. I am an honest person at all times and detest lies thats the truth quite compassionate and loving like kissing and cuddling. also would like someone to love me for
I appreciate with enthusiasm, sincerity and real needs for sharing intimate fun / friendship and wanting a great relationship. I also love submissive personality, which I like to Love and be submisive to. I have been put through the mail a bit but not given up on hopes of something special and a brighter tomorrow. If you are intrested in knowing more about me and for me to send you my picture then feel free to contact me at my private mail addresse( (tinafaithful@yahoo.com)).
Have a lovely day and stay blessed.
Tina.
4.
Hello,
I wish you best Compliment of the season
My name is sofia, a good looking girl.
Well, i am sorry that i did not say much about myself because our profile cannot say everything about us.
I have a special reason of contacting you so i would like you to respond to my email address (musondasofia@yahoo.com) there i can tell you everything about myself, and the reason i am contacting you and also send my pictures to you.
sofia.
5.
my name is Mary,to be honest with you after i carefully read your profile on this site i decided to develope a good relationship with you,please i will like you to contact me here (dmary4yy@yahoo.com) i have a guest for you and then tell you more about me and my pics.
6
HI dear
i hope that all is well, as is my pleasure to contact you after viewing your profile in this beautiful
site which really interest me in having communication with you if you will have the desire with me,
here is my email box (prisca_zinga@yahoo.in) as i will be waiting to hear from yod soon also my picture will be in next mail
yours new friend
prisca
For the record, the profile which provoked all this intense adoration is nothing but a user name. Nowt else.
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Post#186 Hot Pants and What They're Not Pants
In Post#185 I referred to "hot pants" and discovered that a belief exists among some folks that any women's shorts from the 1970's qualify for the title.
This sketch from the cover of Simplicity 9597 sewing pattern's packet shows the model for the true hot pants design. The full figure wearing the brown shorts with straps is the only one in hot pants. The others are just shorts.
Both the designs shown above are hot pants. The essential characteristic of hot pants is the presence of braces/suspenders, sometimes with a bib section. The inspiration for this female garment is...
Jawohl! Lederhosen! These German workmen's garments, originally made of heavy leather and designed to fit over other work clothes were meant to be robust protective clothing for doing work involving sharp objects, hot metal or abrasive surfaces. They were both in the familiar short-breech form and in a long-leg form called Bundhosen. In the late 1960's, early 1970's the lederhosen design was adapted to make a type of "active" women's costume. This was a response to the change in societal attitudes which was allowing women to wear leisure wear which was of simple design and exposed their legs and arms to a degree which had previously been proscribed. Patterns were also offered for designs called "playsuits" and "jumper suits" which were single-piece and usually had short leg and sleeve sections.
As with most notorious fashion trends, in practice hardly anyone wore them in real life. Models posed in them, patterns were published, performers wore them on stage and the vast majority of women never even considered wearing them. Here is a very scratchy and fragmented clip from the 1970's TV series "The Partridge Family" in which Shirley Jones shows off the real thing...and some hot pants. To the discerning male eye it looks like they're side-seamed (discovered from the rear view) and made from a light velour fabric. As Susan Dey points out, they "won't wear them in public - only to perform."
The contrived bemusement of the visitors reflects the attitude of the times that they were hot indeed. (The gist of the scene is that they wrongly believe Shirley is making a play for their teenage son and have come to have it out with her).
This photo below, I borrowed from The blog "Life is Dynamite".
This is a jumpsuit, not hotpants. The author comments: "The reason she had to pose on the back porch (I can't believe my dad left the mop in the photo) was because it was 1972 and we lived in Tripoli, Libya. She would have caused a riot if she had stepped out on the street in this little pink jumpsuit." (Well, they've had more to worry about since then...)
The contraption shown below is what is being passed off as "hot pants" today. This is a perfect image to demonstrate what hot pants weren't and aren't: Vulgar, overdone erotica. This is from Agent Provocateur. Well named. If a little more suaveness was evident, e.g. some fabric, it still wouldn't qualify. To be hot pants a garment must have integrated shoulder supports. Suspenders attached by clips, studs, buttons or any other non-permanent connection don't meet the test.
The essence of hot pants was 1970's sexuality; "naughty and nice". The reason for the plethora of micro shorts and simple boyleg shorts that appear if a Google Images search is done for hot pants is good ole GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out), the computer programmer's maxim which reminds us that electronic circuits only reflect the quality of what is put into them. Those photos have been labelled by people who just don't know what hot pants really were.
This sketch from the cover of Simplicity 9597 sewing pattern's packet shows the model for the true hot pants design. The full figure wearing the brown shorts with straps is the only one in hot pants. The others are just shorts.
Both the designs shown above are hot pants. The essential characteristic of hot pants is the presence of braces/suspenders, sometimes with a bib section. The inspiration for this female garment is...
Jawohl! Lederhosen! These German workmen's garments, originally made of heavy leather and designed to fit over other work clothes were meant to be robust protective clothing for doing work involving sharp objects, hot metal or abrasive surfaces. They were both in the familiar short-breech form and in a long-leg form called Bundhosen. In the late 1960's, early 1970's the lederhosen design was adapted to make a type of "active" women's costume. This was a response to the change in societal attitudes which was allowing women to wear leisure wear which was of simple design and exposed their legs and arms to a degree which had previously been proscribed. Patterns were also offered for designs called "playsuits" and "jumper suits" which were single-piece and usually had short leg and sleeve sections.
As with most notorious fashion trends, in practice hardly anyone wore them in real life. Models posed in them, patterns were published, performers wore them on stage and the vast majority of women never even considered wearing them. Here is a very scratchy and fragmented clip from the 1970's TV series "The Partridge Family" in which Shirley Jones shows off the real thing...and some hot pants. To the discerning male eye it looks like they're side-seamed (discovered from the rear view) and made from a light velour fabric. As Susan Dey points out, they "won't wear them in public - only to perform."
The contrived bemusement of the visitors reflects the attitude of the times that they were hot indeed. (The gist of the scene is that they wrongly believe Shirley is making a play for their teenage son and have come to have it out with her).
This photo below, I borrowed from The blog "Life is Dynamite".
This is a jumpsuit, not hotpants. The author comments: "The reason she had to pose on the back porch (I can't believe my dad left the mop in the photo) was because it was 1972 and we lived in Tripoli, Libya. She would have caused a riot if she had stepped out on the street in this little pink jumpsuit." (Well, they've had more to worry about since then...)
The contraption shown below is what is being passed off as "hot pants" today. This is a perfect image to demonstrate what hot pants weren't and aren't: Vulgar, overdone erotica. This is from Agent Provocateur. Well named. If a little more suaveness was evident, e.g. some fabric, it still wouldn't qualify. To be hot pants a garment must have integrated shoulder supports. Suspenders attached by clips, studs, buttons or any other non-permanent connection don't meet the test.
The essence of hot pants was 1970's sexuality; "naughty and nice". The reason for the plethora of micro shorts and simple boyleg shorts that appear if a Google Images search is done for hot pants is good ole GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out), the computer programmer's maxim which reminds us that electronic circuits only reflect the quality of what is put into them. Those photos have been labelled by people who just don't know what hot pants really were.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Post#185 I Lost My Heart to a Starship Trooper - Sarah Brightman and Hot Gossip - 1970's Disco
Enough with the politics! Here's some much juicier gossip: Hot Gossip! Sarah Brightman and the crew perform their only hit song; but what a hit. What moves! Quel maquillage!! Quelles femmes!!! (French? I have no idea why. But why not? It's the extravagance of the 1970's. The eclecticism of crocheted hot pants and leg warmers. This is a strange video. I can laugh right through it, but I love it. It sends thrills up my spine. It speaks to me of the hope of that time...that things really can change and life can be fun and...hand in hand we could conquer space.
Here's another spin on it; overlaying the song over Star Trek clips:
Hand in hand we'll conquer space.
Sarah Brightman - I lost my heart to a starship trooper
- Speaker 1:
- Arcadia
X-ray X-ray delta niner niner zero
This is Starfleet Control
You are clear to go hyper space
Acknowledge - Speaker 2:
- Affirmative, Star Comm
We have situation gold - Speaker 1:
- Niner niner zero, roger
You're looking good for trans-light - Sarah singing:
- I lost my heart to a starship trooper
I lost my heart to a starship trooper
Oh... - Hey, Captain Strange, won't you be my lover
You're the best thing that I've ever discovered
Flash Gordon's left me, he's gone to the stars
An evil Darth Vader, he's been banished to Mars - Tell me, Captain Strange, do you feel my devotion
Or are you like a droid, devoid of emotion
Encounters one and two are not enough for me
What my body needs is close encounter three - I lost my heart to a starship trooper
Flashing lights in hyper space
Fighting for the Federation
Hand in hand we'll conquer space - Listen, Captain Strange, what's our destination
The scanners seem to indicate a small deviation
Static on the comm - it's Starfleet Command
Requesting your position, it's their final demand - You're intentions are known, they've found out at last
So if you're gonna take me, please make it fast
Touch me, feel me, do what you will
I want to feel that galactic thrill - I lost my heart to a starship trooper
Flashing lights in hyper space
Fighting for the Federation
Hand in hand we'll conquer space - Speaker 1:
- Niner niner zero
This is Star Comm
We got a problem
On your vector
Request status check
Over - Sarah singing:
- Oh, baby...
- Speaker 3:
- Arcadia
This is Strategy Control
You have course deviation
At five mark six
Acknowledge - Sarah singing:
- I love you...
- Speaker 1:
- Arcadia
We show condition red
Confirm - Sarah singing:
- Love me...
- Speaker 3:
- What's going on out there
- Sarah singing:
- Oh...
I lost my heart to a starship trooper
Flashing lights in hyper space
Fighting for the Federation
Hand in hand we'll conquer space
I lost my heart to a starship trooper
Oh... - Space suit is lying on control room floor
Pulse rate increasing as the heat factor soars
Take me, make me feel the force
Ignore the computers, we're locked on course - I lost my heart to a starship trooper
Flashing lights in hyper space
Fighting for the Federation
Hand in hand we'll conquer space - I lost my heart to a starship trooper
Flashing lights in hyper space
Fighting for the Federation
Hand in hand we'll conquer space - Speaker 1, while Sarah sings
the previous lines repeatedly: - Niner niner zero
This is Star Comm
Be advised
You have serious vector deviation
I repeat: serious vector deviation - Arcadia
Niner niner zero
Do you copy - This is Starfleet Control
To all ships in sector five
Be advised
Arcadia
Niner niner zero
Is off course
All ships squawk ident - Starship Arcadia
This is Starfleet Control
Squawk ident
I repeat: squawk ident
Here's another spin on it; overlaying the song over Star Trek clips:
Hand in hand we'll conquer space.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Post#184 Lies, Damned Lies and Political Promises -Keating/Hawke is to Rudd/Gillard as...
In 1988, Paul Keating, then Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, went to see his good mate, Bob Hawke, then Pime Minister of the same venerable Commonwealth. Paul wanted to remind Bob of the deal they'd made bfore the 1983 election to transfer the leadership of the ALP and the Prime Ministership from Bob to Paul. Bob told Paul he must have imagined it all. Deal? Never heard of it. Paul and Bob had a full and frank. Plenty of the latter. It came down to a simple choice for Bob: make a deal for real or face an immediate challenge from Paul. Bob agreed to a witnessed meeting at which they would agree the terms of the arrangement.
The meeting took place at the Prime Minister's official residence in Sydney, Kirribilli House. The two seconds chosen by the contestants were: in the Keating corner, Bill Kelty, union official; in the Hawke corner, Sir Peter Abeles, prominent businessman. Those choices, alone, say quite a bit about the two men. Kelty and Abeles sipped coffee and chatted in a corner of the lounge while the two politicos thrashed it out. When the terms were agreed they witnessed the final form of what would become known as "The Kirribilli Conspiracy". Bob was to hand over to Paul in mid-1991. Of course, came June 1991 and ol' Bob found that, in the best interest of the Party and the People he couldn't keep the deal. At that point Paul did challenge, lost and went to the back bench. In the spirit of scrupulous honesty exemplified by Bob he said, "I had only one shot in the locker." He then started ruthlessly planning the next attack. In the week before Christmas he gave Bob the arse for a present, winning the second challenge by a few votes. Bob went to the back bench, promising to serve out his term to 1993 as a good constituency MP. A few months later he quit Parliament, blessing the ALP with a by-election which was won by an independent.
This is a story which contains the template for leadership challenges. The recent vicious struggle between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard has been fashioned by Kevin on the same strategy (if it works why change it?). The second phase is now in play; the long stew on the back bench while garnering the votes to make the grade in six months. I listened to the concession speech which Kevin gave yesterday and recognised it for the fine of piece of work it was; lovingly crafted over many months and delivered with the best of Kevin's efforts in method acting. It opened with a display of masterfully confected adultness and reasonableness to show that he's not a bitter obsessive seeking revenge. Throwing himself into the part he covered the bases with glory: profusely praising the Foreign Affairs officials to show that he's not a bastard of a boss; thanking everyone in sight and out of it. This is to show that he's not a miserable ingrate. I gave up at that point. He may have gone on to thank the ants and earthworms in the grounds of Parliament House for their efforts but I turned off with the salutation, "You lying bastard."
Anyone who believes this is really over is off with the fairies. He's not going to just sit on the back bench and work for the reelection of the government. The only question is how long he will take to show his hand.
The meeting took place at the Prime Minister's official residence in Sydney, Kirribilli House. The two seconds chosen by the contestants were: in the Keating corner, Bill Kelty, union official; in the Hawke corner, Sir Peter Abeles, prominent businessman. Those choices, alone, say quite a bit about the two men. Kelty and Abeles sipped coffee and chatted in a corner of the lounge while the two politicos thrashed it out. When the terms were agreed they witnessed the final form of what would become known as "The Kirribilli Conspiracy". Bob was to hand over to Paul in mid-1991. Of course, came June 1991 and ol' Bob found that, in the best interest of the Party and the People he couldn't keep the deal. At that point Paul did challenge, lost and went to the back bench. In the spirit of scrupulous honesty exemplified by Bob he said, "I had only one shot in the locker." He then started ruthlessly planning the next attack. In the week before Christmas he gave Bob the arse for a present, winning the second challenge by a few votes. Bob went to the back bench, promising to serve out his term to 1993 as a good constituency MP. A few months later he quit Parliament, blessing the ALP with a by-election which was won by an independent.
This is a story which contains the template for leadership challenges. The recent vicious struggle between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard has been fashioned by Kevin on the same strategy (if it works why change it?). The second phase is now in play; the long stew on the back bench while garnering the votes to make the grade in six months. I listened to the concession speech which Kevin gave yesterday and recognised it for the fine of piece of work it was; lovingly crafted over many months and delivered with the best of Kevin's efforts in method acting. It opened with a display of masterfully confected adultness and reasonableness to show that he's not a bitter obsessive seeking revenge. Throwing himself into the part he covered the bases with glory: profusely praising the Foreign Affairs officials to show that he's not a bastard of a boss; thanking everyone in sight and out of it. This is to show that he's not a miserable ingrate. I gave up at that point. He may have gone on to thank the ants and earthworms in the grounds of Parliament House for their efforts but I turned off with the salutation, "You lying bastard."
Anyone who believes this is really over is off with the fairies. He's not going to just sit on the back bench and work for the reelection of the government. The only question is how long he will take to show his hand.
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Post#183 Nazis, Burqas and Reason's Shirkers
I recently discovered that some teenage girls in Japan like to dress in facsimile SS uniforms. This is part of the same practice of costume play which sees others dressing as bobby-soxers, French maids or superheroes. The gist of it seems to be competing to come up with the cutest, most extravagant outfits within the chosen genre.
Anastasia has also recently written about the phoney furore over some people with political connections burlesqueing the Nazi gear at various events.
There seems to have been a lot of vexation about the symbolism of clothing lately. I've come to believe that this is a futile preoccupation and that the world would be better off if people could leave the overwrought arguments out of it. Particularly, they should refrain from demanding that governments do something about it. The French government has banned Muslim face-covering garments for being an affront to French cultural values and has thereby made an issue of a piece of cloth which, in itself, does no harm to society. The two objections seem to be that some women are coerced to wear them and that the idea of face-covering is an assault upon egalitarianism and social inclusiveness. It seemed to me more like muslim-bashing to buy votes and to show a gross lack of cultural memory and respect for individualism. Women who are genuinely oppressed aren't going to be allowed to take advantage of the relief that the law is supposed to provide. They'll simply be forced to wear clothing in violation of the law and suffer the penalties or will be confined to their homes and thereby deprived of a measure of liberty. Those who wish to dress in the prohibited costume are being imposed upon by the state from the other direction. And what is all this stuff about the alien culture of Islam and its weird costumiery? Don't any of these meddlers ever look into any picture-books showing antique European costume? There they will find robes and cloaks and hoods and masks worn by men and women. And the masks were not solely worn for entertainments; people at various times in various places did wear them for anonymity and in the eras when paleness of complexion was a sign of social status and female beauty (contrary to the modern fixation on tanning), aristocratic women wore them for cosmetic reasons.
The obsession with Nazi regalia also has a flaw of unselfconsciousness at its heart. No-one would make a major scandal of it if Prince Harry appeared at a party dressed as a Roman legionary or a Mongol or Hun warrior. All of these costumes are associated, indisputably, with robbery, rape, torture and mass murder. If Julius Caesar was to be available today, or Marcus Crassus (vanquisher of the Spartacist rebellion), both would be prime targets for the International Criminal Court. As for Genghis Khan or Attila...'nuff said, guv.
So why isn't there an outrage when people hire such get-ups for party-wear? Simply the caprice of human nature. The further the deeds of the past recede, the fewer can be bothered being passionate about them. This is the inevitable and necessary process of forgetting the fine detail. We couldn't remain aware of and enraged by every turn of history's pages and have time to live our own lives.
Exasperating and offensive as it is to see the emblems of evil made into toys and party-favours, we cannot prevent it and the centuries to come shall not be commanded to maintain our rage.
Anastasia has also recently written about the phoney furore over some people with political connections burlesqueing the Nazi gear at various events.
There seems to have been a lot of vexation about the symbolism of clothing lately. I've come to believe that this is a futile preoccupation and that the world would be better off if people could leave the overwrought arguments out of it. Particularly, they should refrain from demanding that governments do something about it. The French government has banned Muslim face-covering garments for being an affront to French cultural values and has thereby made an issue of a piece of cloth which, in itself, does no harm to society. The two objections seem to be that some women are coerced to wear them and that the idea of face-covering is an assault upon egalitarianism and social inclusiveness. It seemed to me more like muslim-bashing to buy votes and to show a gross lack of cultural memory and respect for individualism. Women who are genuinely oppressed aren't going to be allowed to take advantage of the relief that the law is supposed to provide. They'll simply be forced to wear clothing in violation of the law and suffer the penalties or will be confined to their homes and thereby deprived of a measure of liberty. Those who wish to dress in the prohibited costume are being imposed upon by the state from the other direction. And what is all this stuff about the alien culture of Islam and its weird costumiery? Don't any of these meddlers ever look into any picture-books showing antique European costume? There they will find robes and cloaks and hoods and masks worn by men and women. And the masks were not solely worn for entertainments; people at various times in various places did wear them for anonymity and in the eras when paleness of complexion was a sign of social status and female beauty (contrary to the modern fixation on tanning), aristocratic women wore them for cosmetic reasons.
The obsession with Nazi regalia also has a flaw of unselfconsciousness at its heart. No-one would make a major scandal of it if Prince Harry appeared at a party dressed as a Roman legionary or a Mongol or Hun warrior. All of these costumes are associated, indisputably, with robbery, rape, torture and mass murder. If Julius Caesar was to be available today, or Marcus Crassus (vanquisher of the Spartacist rebellion), both would be prime targets for the International Criminal Court. As for Genghis Khan or Attila...'nuff said, guv.
So why isn't there an outrage when people hire such get-ups for party-wear? Simply the caprice of human nature. The further the deeds of the past recede, the fewer can be bothered being passionate about them. This is the inevitable and necessary process of forgetting the fine detail. We couldn't remain aware of and enraged by every turn of history's pages and have time to live our own lives.
Exasperating and offensive as it is to see the emblems of evil made into toys and party-favours, we cannot prevent it and the centuries to come shall not be commanded to maintain our rage.
Sunday, 15 January 2012
Post#182 Why Australia Must Get Out of Afghanistan Pronto
 |
| Victoria Cross for Australia from http://www.defence.gov.au/ |
Ben Roberts-Smith, recipient of the Victoria Cross for his work in Afghanistan, has been reported recently as saying that the troops in the Ghan are becoming irritated by their compatriots who are discouraged by the progress of the war and calling for withdrawal.
I'm reluctant to dispute any recipient of the VC but I can't share Ben's faith in the cause. Ben is very good at killing the Queen's enemies but he doesn't have a realistic historical appreciation of the situation. In particular, the reports of progress in the training of the Afghan National Army and the police are irritating me. Anyone who can remember Vietnam must find the booster stories about the great advances being made by our proteges utterly fatuous.
This is the same drivel that was cranked out by the Free World Forces command as the doomed process of "Vietnamisation" took place. That was the programme whereby the indigenous lovers of democracy were mentored into being able to hold their own against the communist enemy. The phrases are being borrowed by the wagon-load for the Afghan scenario: "The province is secured"; "The enemy are demoralised"; "The quality of the local forces is greatly improved"; etcetera.
In Vietnam, although the commies gave the foreign forces of the USA, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand a few severe canings they never triumphed on the battlefield. It's only predictable; where the opposing forces on the ground are not the main forces of a superpower such as the USSR or the People's Republic of China, they can't hope to win major land battles and are restricted to guerilla operations and probing attacks. Of course, once the forces propping up the South Vietnamese government were removed the house of cards fell within two years. Likewise, in Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are hardly up to beating what is essentially the main force of NATO and ANZUS combined. There is no reason to believe that the Taliban will lose heart between now and the projected US withdrawal in 2014. The question is whether the Afghan forces can hold or defeat them. Once the foreign cat goes away, the Taliban meeces will play.
I suspect that most of the Afghan forces under foreign tuition are signing up to receive regular meals, clothing, boots and shelter. The little that I've seen of them indicates a great degree of slovenliness and timidity that makes a mockery of the propaganda stories. This is very similar to the experience of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam (aka The Men Who Persevered). They were on site from 1964 to 1973 and were still trying to inculcate the basics when they were withdrawn. The capacity of the majority of the trainees to absorb and apply was pitiful. A major reason for this is the unwillingness of foreign trainers to apply the sort of disciplinary pressure that is needed to make the training stick. In Afghanistan, where the recruits are making an increasing habit of shooting the trainers, there is good reason to be cautious.
The problem with the analysis by Ben Roberts-Smith is that he and his colleagues are looking at the quantitative progress under foreign guidance. The qualitative durability is another matter. It's not a question of how many schools are built or how many villages receive electricity; these are not military achievements. Even the killing of footsoldiers doesn't win the war if there is a relentless supply of fanatics to replace them.
To clarify with a metaphor. Consider a sandcastle built below the tide-line on a beach. It matters not whether it's a child's effort made with a few upturned buckets of sand,
or the product of a professional sand artist.
When the tide comes in, the sandcastle washes away.
Infrastructure in Afghanistan is like that. Improving it will simply provide more targets for the enemy when they resurge. We can't civilise Afghanistan and we can't guarantee that Al Qaeda will not return to the place, any more than we can guarantee to eliminate terrorist operations anywhere else on earth.
I now believe that the place isn't worth the wastage of any more life or limb. No amount of effort can make the impossible possible and there comes a time to walk away from a futile task.
In particular, I am repulsed by the injuries being suffered by our soldiers. Defence Department press releases don't contain words like maimed, blinded, deafened, brain-damaged, paralysed, amputated, horribly burned and so forth. If they did, people wouldn't react with relief at hearing that someone has "only" been wounded. I don't think that it's an accident that they don't specify detail. It wouldn't help recruiting; particularly when people come to know how shabbily the Australian Government treats wounded veterans.
Ben may not like to hear that he and his comrades are on a fool's errand, but that's the truth. Any decent citizen won't want to see it proven by repeating history.
Saturday, 5 November 2011
Post#181 Why Hurley Can't Improve Star Wars
Hugo (Hurley) Reyes tries to put time travel to a useful purpose in the later part of the LOST saga by...if you don't already know could you guess?
Hugo is caught scribbling in a notebook while asking off-beat questions like, "How do you spell 'bounty hunter' ?" His exasperated companion grabs the book and begins reading a synopsis of the plotline of Star Wars. Hugo explains that he is going to take advantage of his journey back to the 1970's by sending George Lucas suggestions on improving the plot. This, if I remember rightly, provokes a response of the style "Are you crazy??" This is what makes Hugo such a loveable guy; he's not interested in acquiring power; he just wants to improve Star Wars. This is unfortunate because his altruism is doomed. There are two flaws in trying to improve Lucas' work:
1. If it happened, a separate timeline would split off and Hugo wouldn't know about it because his history and memory of it would be stuck in his timeline. Otherwise, he couldn't remember Star Wars with the deficiencies.
2. Star Wars is beyond saving.
It is the most heinous piece of trite, plagiarised space in this galaxy or any other. The special effects were enough to boost it in 1977 when the series first appeared. That was then. Once the novelty wore off it was obviously a fraud upon the science-fiction fan base. I have suspected for a long time that Lucas actually despises the SF community and is deliberately offering dross in the same manner as a couple of mythical tailors once made a king clothes from moonbeams.
Hugo is caught scribbling in a notebook while asking off-beat questions like, "How do you spell 'bounty hunter' ?" His exasperated companion grabs the book and begins reading a synopsis of the plotline of Star Wars. Hugo explains that he is going to take advantage of his journey back to the 1970's by sending George Lucas suggestions on improving the plot. This, if I remember rightly, provokes a response of the style "Are you crazy??" This is what makes Hugo such a loveable guy; he's not interested in acquiring power; he just wants to improve Star Wars. This is unfortunate because his altruism is doomed. There are two flaws in trying to improve Lucas' work:
1. If it happened, a separate timeline would split off and Hugo wouldn't know about it because his history and memory of it would be stuck in his timeline. Otherwise, he couldn't remember Star Wars with the deficiencies.
2. Star Wars is beyond saving.
It is the most heinous piece of trite, plagiarised space in this galaxy or any other. The special effects were enough to boost it in 1977 when the series first appeared. That was then. Once the novelty wore off it was obviously a fraud upon the science-fiction fan base. I have suspected for a long time that Lucas actually despises the SF community and is deliberately offering dross in the same manner as a couple of mythical tailors once made a king clothes from moonbeams.
Monday, 17 October 2011
Post#180 Stephen Smith Isn't The Messiah, Either.
The latest rumour from the insiders is that the seekers after a leader for the Labor Party are looking to advance Steve Smith as a foil to Kevin Rudd. I've been casting my vote for Steve in federal elections since 1993 and, although I haven't always given him first preference I have never seriously considered putting him last.
That's not going to be the pattern forever and it will change around about the time of the next election. Two things have led to this; exasperation with the Greens and a recognition that Steve and I have developed some irreconcilable differences.
The Greens have proven, to my disgust, that the Coalition had them correctly pegged as ill-judged wreckers. Bob Brown has shown that, when given real power, he can't deal with the tough questions and obligations that come with it. His attacks on News Ltd are perfect proof of this. He has ample opportunity to expose flaws in their arguments, if there are flaws. Resorting to polemical slogans is not proving anything. Failing to answer practical questions from journalists who are prepared to give him a fair hearing is a final proof that he's out of his depth. One example: Why can't he explain his position on the coal industry? Efforts to obtain an explanation as to how the industry is to be wound down without catastrophe to the Australian economy meet with relentless evasion. Bob seems to be taking refuge in Micawberism, believing that something will turn up, even if he can't remotely guess what it might be. That doesn't give cause for faith in the Greens' pet project, the carbon tax. I never have believed in it and nothing coming from Bob's crew is likely to change that. Green preferences got Steve Smith over the line in the last election and they'll be the second-last on my list of preferences. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Steve. More importantly, a vote for Steve (or any Labor candidate) is a vote for the Greens.
Steve hasn't lost my support by personally doing anything too unconventional. In fact it's his adherence to the conventional that has done it; loyalty to Cabinet decisions (no matter how foolish), keeping up the tradition of sycophancy to Israel, persisting with the folly of Australian-built submarines when it's obvious that we can't design or build them worth a damn. His defence of Carmen Lawrence doesn't recommend him to me either. I think he's had a very fair go - eighteen years worth. He hasn't demonstrated any great initiative, courage or insight in that time and is definitely a follower, not a leader. He probably won't mind losing my vote and I wouldn't enjoy seeing a Liberal take his place, but enough is enough.
That's not going to be the pattern forever and it will change around about the time of the next election. Two things have led to this; exasperation with the Greens and a recognition that Steve and I have developed some irreconcilable differences.
The Greens have proven, to my disgust, that the Coalition had them correctly pegged as ill-judged wreckers. Bob Brown has shown that, when given real power, he can't deal with the tough questions and obligations that come with it. His attacks on News Ltd are perfect proof of this. He has ample opportunity to expose flaws in their arguments, if there are flaws. Resorting to polemical slogans is not proving anything. Failing to answer practical questions from journalists who are prepared to give him a fair hearing is a final proof that he's out of his depth. One example: Why can't he explain his position on the coal industry? Efforts to obtain an explanation as to how the industry is to be wound down without catastrophe to the Australian economy meet with relentless evasion. Bob seems to be taking refuge in Micawberism, believing that something will turn up, even if he can't remotely guess what it might be. That doesn't give cause for faith in the Greens' pet project, the carbon tax. I never have believed in it and nothing coming from Bob's crew is likely to change that. Green preferences got Steve Smith over the line in the last election and they'll be the second-last on my list of preferences. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Steve. More importantly, a vote for Steve (or any Labor candidate) is a vote for the Greens.
Steve hasn't lost my support by personally doing anything too unconventional. In fact it's his adherence to the conventional that has done it; loyalty to Cabinet decisions (no matter how foolish), keeping up the tradition of sycophancy to Israel, persisting with the folly of Australian-built submarines when it's obvious that we can't design or build them worth a damn. His defence of Carmen Lawrence doesn't recommend him to me either. I think he's had a very fair go - eighteen years worth. He hasn't demonstrated any great initiative, courage or insight in that time and is definitely a follower, not a leader. He probably won't mind losing my vote and I wouldn't enjoy seeing a Liberal take his place, but enough is enough.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Post#179 Malaysia's No Solution
PRESS RELEASE: IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION: 25/09/2011
ANNOUNCEMENT ON ASYLUM SEEKER ARRANGEMENTS
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL AUSTRALIAN NEGOTIATOR FOR MIGRATION
I'm pleased to announce that I have developed a solution to the asylum seeker challenge facing the Commonwealth of Australia: The Government of the Pacific Kingdom of Kamaria has agreed to receive as many asylum seekers* as Australia can send them, to cover all costs involved and to indemnify Australia with respect to all obligations under international law. The agreement is to persist in perpetuity. I shall be visiting Kamaria on Tuesday, 27 September 2011, to sign the agreement as Australia's special ambassador plenipotentiary for migration matters. The agreement will take immediate effect upon signing.
(* Clarification: This should not be understood to mean Australians seeking asylum.)
This marks a new phase in Australia's relations with Kamaria and both governments have expressed the hope that this generous act by Kamaria will lead to a permanent supersedence of the occasional hostilities which have characterised past dealings between the nations. The -
What's your objection? "Kamaria's a fictional place" ? ... Okay, it is... Alright, smart-alec; there's no agreement either. Obviously.
However, I offer the following apologia: The foregoing non-solution is no less effective than any policy pursued to date by the current government of Australia. In fact, it's superior to the East Timor non-solution, the Papua-New Guinea non-solution and the Malaysia non-solution in that the announcement above won't offend the government of any real nation through being presumptive upon their sovereignty. So there.
Why do I list Malaysia among the sites of non-solutions? It's nothing to do with the most obvious flaws, such as the limited number involved or the spanner put in the works by the High Court. The text of the Malaysia Agreement is recommended reading for the purposes of this post. It's quite brief and clear as inter-governmental agreements go. If you can't be bothered, you can take my word for the following: The essence of the agreement is that the Malaysian government has agreed to receive 800 asylum seekers over four years from Australia in return for sending four thousand to Australia from their ample reservoir. Here's the catch which I've spotted and which Julia and Co. haven't: Once. The Malaysians have agreed to receive them once. Not twice, thrice, fource, fivece or any other 'ce. Just lonely little once. I don't mean that the agreement is a one-off limited to 800. That could be supplemented by further agreements to take more. I mean that each person transferred to Malaysia is being offered certain protections, by Malaysia, once. Malaysia agrees to not coercively deport them to a place where they will be in danger and to consult Australia about the disposition of any person subject to the agreement who becomes intolerable to Malaysia for reasons such as security threat or criminality. What is missing from the agreement is a permit to Australia to treat them as repatriatable deportees with respect to Malaysia.
This isn't a peripheral quibble. The 4000 coming Australia's way are not remotely likely to attempt to abscond to Malaysia. They can be assumed to want to be transferred. By Julia's own definition, the 800 going the other way are being used for aversion therapy. They are being sent where they don't want to go. This is meant to deter others from following in their wake to Christmas Island. Malaysia doesn't want them to go to Malaysia either. They are only taking them in order to rid themselves of the 4000. It is a major omission in logic to not consider what the Forbidden 800 will do in Malaysia. It is highly probable that they won't abandon their desire to travel to Australia and, although Malaysia may have agreed to not deport them, they haven't agreed to detain them against their will either. It should be a lot cheaper to arrange a voyage to Australia from Malaysia, via Indonesia, than to travel from Arabia, Central Asia or even Sri Lanka. As they will be legally residing in Malaysia they will be able to openly transact business, such as receiving funds by wire from associates in Australia or elsewhere. If permitted to work they will have another way of funding the journey.
If they succeed in scraping together the money and return to Australian waters, they will probably be identifiable by fingerprints or some other means as members of the transferred group. Then the Australian government will say: "You are part of the Forbidden 800! Back to Malaysia you go!" The wheels will fall off this idea when the Malaysian government interjects, "Oh, if they don't wish to accept the hospitality of the Malaysian people, we can't force it upon them. That would be an abuse of their human rights." The Australian stipulation, "You agreed to take them" will, naturally, provoke the response, "We agreed and we did take them. We didn't agree to imprison them. In fact you insisted that we should treat them leniently. We'll be reasonable. We'll take back any of them that wish to return." Ha, ha, ha.
I was very impressed by a letter to The Australian in which the author recounted being told by a Malaysian businessman, "I love to do business with Australians!" When asked why, he explained, "Because they are so gullible."
ANNOUNCEMENT ON ASYLUM SEEKER ARRANGEMENTS
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL AUSTRALIAN NEGOTIATOR FOR MIGRATION
I'm pleased to announce that I have developed a solution to the asylum seeker challenge facing the Commonwealth of Australia: The Government of the Pacific Kingdom of Kamaria has agreed to receive as many asylum seekers* as Australia can send them, to cover all costs involved and to indemnify Australia with respect to all obligations under international law. The agreement is to persist in perpetuity. I shall be visiting Kamaria on Tuesday, 27 September 2011, to sign the agreement as Australia's special ambassador plenipotentiary for migration matters. The agreement will take immediate effect upon signing.
(* Clarification: This should not be understood to mean Australians seeking asylum.)
This marks a new phase in Australia's relations with Kamaria and both governments have expressed the hope that this generous act by Kamaria will lead to a permanent supersedence of the occasional hostilities which have characterised past dealings between the nations. The -
What's your objection? "Kamaria's a fictional place" ? ... Okay, it is... Alright, smart-alec; there's no agreement either. Obviously.
However, I offer the following apologia: The foregoing non-solution is no less effective than any policy pursued to date by the current government of Australia. In fact, it's superior to the East Timor non-solution, the Papua-New Guinea non-solution and the Malaysia non-solution in that the announcement above won't offend the government of any real nation through being presumptive upon their sovereignty. So there.
Why do I list Malaysia among the sites of non-solutions? It's nothing to do with the most obvious flaws, such as the limited number involved or the spanner put in the works by the High Court. The text of the Malaysia Agreement is recommended reading for the purposes of this post. It's quite brief and clear as inter-governmental agreements go. If you can't be bothered, you can take my word for the following: The essence of the agreement is that the Malaysian government has agreed to receive 800 asylum seekers over four years from Australia in return for sending four thousand to Australia from their ample reservoir. Here's the catch which I've spotted and which Julia and Co. haven't: Once. The Malaysians have agreed to receive them once. Not twice, thrice, fource, fivece or any other 'ce. Just lonely little once. I don't mean that the agreement is a one-off limited to 800. That could be supplemented by further agreements to take more. I mean that each person transferred to Malaysia is being offered certain protections, by Malaysia, once. Malaysia agrees to not coercively deport them to a place where they will be in danger and to consult Australia about the disposition of any person subject to the agreement who becomes intolerable to Malaysia for reasons such as security threat or criminality. What is missing from the agreement is a permit to Australia to treat them as repatriatable deportees with respect to Malaysia.
This isn't a peripheral quibble. The 4000 coming Australia's way are not remotely likely to attempt to abscond to Malaysia. They can be assumed to want to be transferred. By Julia's own definition, the 800 going the other way are being used for aversion therapy. They are being sent where they don't want to go. This is meant to deter others from following in their wake to Christmas Island. Malaysia doesn't want them to go to Malaysia either. They are only taking them in order to rid themselves of the 4000. It is a major omission in logic to not consider what the Forbidden 800 will do in Malaysia. It is highly probable that they won't abandon their desire to travel to Australia and, although Malaysia may have agreed to not deport them, they haven't agreed to detain them against their will either. It should be a lot cheaper to arrange a voyage to Australia from Malaysia, via Indonesia, than to travel from Arabia, Central Asia or even Sri Lanka. As they will be legally residing in Malaysia they will be able to openly transact business, such as receiving funds by wire from associates in Australia or elsewhere. If permitted to work they will have another way of funding the journey.
If they succeed in scraping together the money and return to Australian waters, they will probably be identifiable by fingerprints or some other means as members of the transferred group. Then the Australian government will say: "You are part of the Forbidden 800! Back to Malaysia you go!" The wheels will fall off this idea when the Malaysian government interjects, "Oh, if they don't wish to accept the hospitality of the Malaysian people, we can't force it upon them. That would be an abuse of their human rights." The Australian stipulation, "You agreed to take them" will, naturally, provoke the response, "We agreed and we did take them. We didn't agree to imprison them. In fact you insisted that we should treat them leniently. We'll be reasonable. We'll take back any of them that wish to return." Ha, ha, ha.
I was very impressed by a letter to The Australian in which the author recounted being told by a Malaysian businessman, "I love to do business with Australians!" When asked why, he explained, "Because they are so gullible."
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Post#178 Vive le Carbone!!! And Death to the Carbon Tax!!!
The craic is that the Australian Labor Party is gone for all money at the next Australian Federal Election. The carbon tax is the main drag anchor on the ALP's chances and is the most obvious of the self-inflicted wounds they're carrying. The decision to call an early election in 2010 and the various follies of their first term had already reduced the ALP to reliance upon a trio of independent members. Messrs Oakeshott, Wilkie and Windsor have been able to wring some results from the ALP for their personal causes but it seems implausible that any of them would die in a ditch for the carbon tax. Like the Greens, they really have nowhere else to go. Their bridges are all now thoroughly burnt with the Coalition. That's what puzzles me most about the course of this government. It's obvious that the kudos of global warming as a matter of public importance has slipped. Whatever the truth of the matter, it's blown out as a political motivator.
Any community has a limited capacity to stay fired up about anything and the height of public hysteria about an issue is the immediate prelude to a cooling-off. This would probably differ if the issue was an enormous asteroid on a course to imminent collision with the Earth, but when it's a slow-burner in the background, people adjust to live with it. The importance of an issue is not in contention, it's simply that anything other than an adrenalin-provoking terror loses its force. AIDS is a good example of this. It's just as lethal as it always was but has faded into the background. You could scan quite a lot of media without ever noticing its existence. Global warming is now also a mature crisis and has had its glory days. Anyone attempting to persuade people to take pain to deal with it is going to have to make a damn good case. The ALP has done nothing of the kind. The decision to adopt the carbon tax has been made without the legwork necessary to demonstrate any merit.
There's a simple test for this policy which I've proposed before:
First: Demonstrate that it's possible to disconnect ourselves from the carbon fuels that we rely upon and how.
Second: Work out a fair time to allow for conversion to the new energy source/s.
Finally, ask why we need a tax to achieve it. The answer will always be that if the first two can be done, the answer to this question is that we don't.
If the answer to the first question is that it isn't technologically feasible, no amount of taxing will make it happen.
I recently wrote "Return to Sender" on the government's carbon tax propaganda pamphlet and posted it back to them. Apparently many others are doing the same. Someone else applied a traditional recycling technique as shown in the photograph below:
The ALP deserves the odium they've incurred. They'll deserve the kick when they get it.
Any community has a limited capacity to stay fired up about anything and the height of public hysteria about an issue is the immediate prelude to a cooling-off. This would probably differ if the issue was an enormous asteroid on a course to imminent collision with the Earth, but when it's a slow-burner in the background, people adjust to live with it. The importance of an issue is not in contention, it's simply that anything other than an adrenalin-provoking terror loses its force. AIDS is a good example of this. It's just as lethal as it always was but has faded into the background. You could scan quite a lot of media without ever noticing its existence. Global warming is now also a mature crisis and has had its glory days. Anyone attempting to persuade people to take pain to deal with it is going to have to make a damn good case. The ALP has done nothing of the kind. The decision to adopt the carbon tax has been made without the legwork necessary to demonstrate any merit.
There's a simple test for this policy which I've proposed before:
First: Demonstrate that it's possible to disconnect ourselves from the carbon fuels that we rely upon and how.
Second: Work out a fair time to allow for conversion to the new energy source/s.
Finally, ask why we need a tax to achieve it. The answer will always be that if the first two can be done, the answer to this question is that we don't.
If the answer to the first question is that it isn't technologically feasible, no amount of taxing will make it happen.
I recently wrote "Return to Sender" on the government's carbon tax propaganda pamphlet and posted it back to them. Apparently many others are doing the same. Someone else applied a traditional recycling technique as shown in the photograph below:
 |
| From http://saynocarbontaxaustralia.blogspot.com/ |
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Post#176 Excerpt from "Nattitude!" a blog I follow, by Natalie Black: "Today I wish"
Here's an excerpt from Nattitude a blog I follow, by Natalie Black. It's a real delight. (Except Nat didn't pass the written exam for the US Foreign Service.)
Today I wish
I wish I would hurry and hear back from the foreign service about whether or not I'm invited to take the oral assessment
I wish I could go to lunch with my old work friends Mark and Jake
I wish I could love my job
I wish my job was to read books for pleasure
I wish Mao Zedong had never been born
I wish I could go to an island somewhere for six months and do nothing but drink virgin pina coladas and blog (okay, as long as I'm wishing...do they have to be virgin?)
I wish I had no debt, a nice car, central air, new furniture and a remodeled kitchen
I wish my boss had approved my expense reports two weeks ago so I'd have more than one dollar left in my bank account
I wish it wasn't so hard to do the little things, for example my before-bed routine like floss my teeth and say my prayers
I wish the lady at the nail salon hadn't butchered my nails back in February, and I wish they'd grow out faster
I wish this damn wart on my middle finger would go away, I wish liquid nitrogen didn't burn so bad, I wish once was enough
I wish I could be skinny and still eat as much sugar and caffeine as I wanted
I wish I didn't have to buy three new pairs of size-12 pants when I have about 15 pairs of size-8 pants sitting in my closet gathering dust
I wish Marie was coming this weekend instead of next
I wish it would be warm and sunny every day
I wish there was no such thing as a slumdog, or I wish they could all win "Who Wants to Be a Mill-un-aire" and live happily ever after in love
I wish I didn't still wish...
I wish I could go to lunch with my old work friends Mark and Jake
I wish I could love my job
I wish my job was to read books for pleasure
I wish Mao Zedong had never been born
I wish I could go to an island somewhere for six months and do nothing but drink virgin pina coladas and blog (okay, as long as I'm wishing...do they have to be virgin?)
I wish I had no debt, a nice car, central air, new furniture and a remodeled kitchen
I wish my boss had approved my expense reports two weeks ago so I'd have more than one dollar left in my bank account
I wish it wasn't so hard to do the little things, for example my before-bed routine like floss my teeth and say my prayers
I wish the lady at the nail salon hadn't butchered my nails back in February, and I wish they'd grow out faster
I wish this damn wart on my middle finger would go away, I wish liquid nitrogen didn't burn so bad, I wish once was enough
I wish I could be skinny and still eat as much sugar and caffeine as I wanted
I wish I didn't have to buy three new pairs of size-12 pants when I have about 15 pairs of size-8 pants sitting in my closet gathering dust
I wish Marie was coming this weekend instead of next
I wish it would be warm and sunny every day
I wish there was no such thing as a slumdog, or I wish they could all win "Who Wants to Be a Mill-un-aire" and live happily ever after in love
I wish I didn't still wish...
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Post#175 Uncivil Obedience - The Sycophant in the Ointment
Sycophant:
A person who behaves obsequiously in order to gain advantage.
Derivation: Mid 16th century (denoting an informer): from French sycophante, or via Latin from Greek sukophantēs 'informer', from sukon 'fig' + phainein 'to show', perhaps with reference to making the insulting gesture of the ‘fig’ (sticking the thumb between two fingers) to informers.
There's a trend I see in every part of life where groups are organised: It's the growth of a system of patronage and the fawning that goes with it. Destructive obsequiousness is lurking in every moment and every place. Here's one example: A while back the West Australian published in its Inside Cover section the story of a missing EPIRB from an Australian naval vessel. It had fallen from a ship's boat and provoked a major search in the waters off Perth. Although the search was high-profile, the revelation that it was all a false alarm due to some negligence by a naval rating was suppressed until a civilian who'd heard about it on marine radio asked Inside Cover why the outcome hadn't been published. IS published the "secret" without revealing the source. This provoked a witch-hunt in the Navy and Defence Department as various catchfarts tried frantically to appease their bosses by finding what they believed was a leaker. More and more time and effort was wasted until a real whistleblower called IS and begged them to take the heat off. IS published the obvious fact that the operation and its outcome had been broadcast on open frequency at the time and no leaking was necessary. They also asked why, if the public was allowed to know of the search, they weren't allowed to know the true cause. This is indicative of a typical quality of the crawler: stupidity.
It's not as though power hasn't done everything it can to discourage those who want to tell it the truth. The story of the sailor hanged for warning the Admiral of impending doom may be apocryphal, but the pattern is present in history. Not for nothing was the phrase "killing the messenger" added to the list of classic cliches. In the Soviet Union of blessed memory the intelligence agencies were obliged to provide Brezhnev with reports which conformed to his expectation of Western conspiracies. Failing to do so would have been seen as suspect. The realistic assessor would risk condemnation as an appeaser or traitor.
Here's a couple of anecdotes from my own observation and experience:
Once, in an organisation where I was conducting an audit, I discovered a serious misprint in a contract form which, through a simple transposition of words nullified the effect of the document as a protection of the organisation's interests. I was finally able to convince the person in charge of publications of the obvious, but met a final obstacle. Although convinced of the error, this character wouldn't alter the printing template, insisting that an instruction had to come from the responsible area. I responded by asking whether the proper authorisation to make a cock-up had been received. When I was finally able to nail that point home I asked the simple question: If you made the mistake without permission, why do you need permission to fix it? To no avail; the habit of refraining from use of common sense or guts was too deeply ingrained. I gave up in disgust and left the fools to their devices. I didn't have the energy to pursue it with some mug who would have simply referred the matter endlessly upwards until the CEO referred me back to publications. Another characteristic of the crawler: they prevent the correction of mistakes.
A person of my acqaintance who had been employed as an administrative assistant in a local government district was instructed by the supervisor in the manners of the office. One of the rules was to not make eye contact with the councillors if they happened to be wandering the building and walked past. This was to avoid the disrepect involved in engaging them in acknowledging the staff with a nod or a "G'day". The crawler creates neurosis and paranoia.
In a Federal law enforcement agency, I once had to organise the taking of minutes of a meeting where some senior managers were in attendance. A major obstacle arose when the minute-takers couldn't figure how many "r's" were in one man's surname. I resolved the protracted argument by approaching the guy and asking him. This was considered highly unconventional and bold and added to my mana as a lateral thinker. This sort of reckless use of common sense led to my horrifying another gang of fleas by asking a senior manager at another meeting for his name for the minutes. On this occasion I was visiting another city and the fleas nearly fell off their chairs at my temerity. I asked them why they would expect a person from out of town to guess the name of a complete stranger. Utter bafflement. Apparently some enormously obscure operation carried out by subterfuge was the proper practice to find out such things. The crawler wastes everybody else's time and effort.
The crawler prospers because those who should know better and should resist the corrosion of their domain by fawners encourage them. The love of obedience and deference by the "leaders" is at least as much to blame as the inclinations to servility by their followers. The essence of it is that the sycophant is no-one's friend. Their sole focus is on their own interest. That's hard for the powerful to remember, but it's vital; the person who relentlessly agrees is not loyal to you or your cause. They're willing to let you run on the rocks rather than risk the cost of correcting your course.
A person who behaves obsequiously in order to gain advantage.
Derivation: Mid 16th century (denoting an informer): from French sycophante, or via Latin from Greek sukophantēs 'informer', from sukon 'fig' + phainein 'to show', perhaps with reference to making the insulting gesture of the ‘fig’ (sticking the thumb between two fingers) to informers.
There's a trend I see in every part of life where groups are organised: It's the growth of a system of patronage and the fawning that goes with it. Destructive obsequiousness is lurking in every moment and every place. Here's one example: A while back the West Australian published in its Inside Cover section the story of a missing EPIRB from an Australian naval vessel. It had fallen from a ship's boat and provoked a major search in the waters off Perth. Although the search was high-profile, the revelation that it was all a false alarm due to some negligence by a naval rating was suppressed until a civilian who'd heard about it on marine radio asked Inside Cover why the outcome hadn't been published. IS published the "secret" without revealing the source. This provoked a witch-hunt in the Navy and Defence Department as various catchfarts tried frantically to appease their bosses by finding what they believed was a leaker. More and more time and effort was wasted until a real whistleblower called IS and begged them to take the heat off. IS published the obvious fact that the operation and its outcome had been broadcast on open frequency at the time and no leaking was necessary. They also asked why, if the public was allowed to know of the search, they weren't allowed to know the true cause. This is indicative of a typical quality of the crawler: stupidity.
It's not as though power hasn't done everything it can to discourage those who want to tell it the truth. The story of the sailor hanged for warning the Admiral of impending doom may be apocryphal, but the pattern is present in history. Not for nothing was the phrase "killing the messenger" added to the list of classic cliches. In the Soviet Union of blessed memory the intelligence agencies were obliged to provide Brezhnev with reports which conformed to his expectation of Western conspiracies. Failing to do so would have been seen as suspect. The realistic assessor would risk condemnation as an appeaser or traitor.
Here's a couple of anecdotes from my own observation and experience:
Once, in an organisation where I was conducting an audit, I discovered a serious misprint in a contract form which, through a simple transposition of words nullified the effect of the document as a protection of the organisation's interests. I was finally able to convince the person in charge of publications of the obvious, but met a final obstacle. Although convinced of the error, this character wouldn't alter the printing template, insisting that an instruction had to come from the responsible area. I responded by asking whether the proper authorisation to make a cock-up had been received. When I was finally able to nail that point home I asked the simple question: If you made the mistake without permission, why do you need permission to fix it? To no avail; the habit of refraining from use of common sense or guts was too deeply ingrained. I gave up in disgust and left the fools to their devices. I didn't have the energy to pursue it with some mug who would have simply referred the matter endlessly upwards until the CEO referred me back to publications. Another characteristic of the crawler: they prevent the correction of mistakes.
A person of my acqaintance who had been employed as an administrative assistant in a local government district was instructed by the supervisor in the manners of the office. One of the rules was to not make eye contact with the councillors if they happened to be wandering the building and walked past. This was to avoid the disrepect involved in engaging them in acknowledging the staff with a nod or a "G'day". The crawler creates neurosis and paranoia.
In a Federal law enforcement agency, I once had to organise the taking of minutes of a meeting where some senior managers were in attendance. A major obstacle arose when the minute-takers couldn't figure how many "r's" were in one man's surname. I resolved the protracted argument by approaching the guy and asking him. This was considered highly unconventional and bold and added to my mana as a lateral thinker. This sort of reckless use of common sense led to my horrifying another gang of fleas by asking a senior manager at another meeting for his name for the minutes. On this occasion I was visiting another city and the fleas nearly fell off their chairs at my temerity. I asked them why they would expect a person from out of town to guess the name of a complete stranger. Utter bafflement. Apparently some enormously obscure operation carried out by subterfuge was the proper practice to find out such things. The crawler wastes everybody else's time and effort.
The crawler prospers because those who should know better and should resist the corrosion of their domain by fawners encourage them. The love of obedience and deference by the "leaders" is at least as much to blame as the inclinations to servility by their followers. The essence of it is that the sycophant is no-one's friend. Their sole focus is on their own interest. That's hard for the powerful to remember, but it's vital; the person who relentlessly agrees is not loyal to you or your cause. They're willing to let you run on the rocks rather than risk the cost of correcting your course.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Post#174 Vandalia Dianella - Land of the Wreckers
At the Dianella Plaza bus stop on Alexander Drive there has been an epic struggle fought between the diligent destroyers of public amenities and the agents and servants of the Stirling City Council and SignAds. It may be concluded that the vandals have won a partial victory. The Council have replaced the multiply-smashed glass panels along the length of the bus shelter with a metal grill with small apertures. This can be understood as a process of natural selection whereby the stimulating entities (vandals) have persuaded the authorities to evolve their amenity in the direction of higher durability. The glass-encased illuminated advertising at one end of the shelter and the plain glass panel at the opposite end remain. The advertising panel currently bears the display shown in the photographs below:
I took them from various angles to get a good view of the whole image. I reckon the chance of this sign making any difference to the behaviour of the wreckers is nil. It does have some merit as an artistic concept. It now only remains to see whether the vandals will smash the glass covering it to make a piece of the combination performance/installation type.
I took them from various angles to get a good view of the whole image. I reckon the chance of this sign making any difference to the behaviour of the wreckers is nil. It does have some merit as an artistic concept. It now only remains to see whether the vandals will smash the glass covering it to make a piece of the combination performance/installation type.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Post#173 The Death of bin Laden
 |
| Osama bin Laden |
In his World War II alternate history series, The Axis of Time, John Birmingham refers to a fictional work of art hanging on the bulkhead wall in a naval vessel of the future which has travelled in time to the 1940's. It is called 'The Death of bin Laden'. Now that work is capable of being realised. Life has imitated art in a manner most pleasing to those of us in what, inexplicably is called 'The West'.
George Bush and John Howard have been dusted off and invited to crow over the carcass and, such was my good humour, I couldn't cavil at a word that either of them said.
Here is the (revised) list:
1.
2. Zawahiri
3. Mullah Omar
We're getting there. May he lick his left hand in hell forever.
Post#172 Wolf Hall - The Time-Travelling Imagination
Today I read the last page of Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel and thought, "It certainly improved as it proceeded" and "That finale only works if it's used in a case where one has to think about it." In the last sentence of the book, Thomas Cromwell schedules a visit for Henry VIII to the seat of the Seymour family, Wolf Hall, which will be the beginning of his own undoing. First will come the King's love affair with Jane Seymour, then the execution of Anne Boleyn and, following the death of Jane, the failed marriage to Anne of Cleves and Cromwell's death. It's a crafty conceit in the context of the somewhat unfamiliar, but it would be pretty lame if you tried it with a story ending: "All is proceeding well; our troubles seem behind us now. Tomorrow we shall sail for New York. We have been fortunate enough to secure berths on the new vessel, RMS Titanic."
Apart from that quibble, Wolf Hall is a very engaging yarn. The best type of historical fiction is that in which one begins to lose track of the fact that it is told in a voice which, although it may be buttressed by diligent research, is a figment. Critics have said that Mantel has provided a more sympathetic view of Cromwell than the familiar histories. I think this is because the part of his life which is treated of is not as difficult to come to terms with as that which follows. The persecutions and executions ramp up after the Boleyn marriage.
There is a scope in the further reaches of the past to mould the personality of the imagined historical figure into a form pleasing to the author. Is there a harm in this? Yes, if evildoers are presented as virtuous and the virtuous as evil. But we'll never know will we?
Apart from that quibble, Wolf Hall is a very engaging yarn. The best type of historical fiction is that in which one begins to lose track of the fact that it is told in a voice which, although it may be buttressed by diligent research, is a figment. Critics have said that Mantel has provided a more sympathetic view of Cromwell than the familiar histories. I think this is because the part of his life which is treated of is not as difficult to come to terms with as that which follows. The persecutions and executions ramp up after the Boleyn marriage.
There is a scope in the further reaches of the past to mould the personality of the imagined historical figure into a form pleasing to the author. Is there a harm in this? Yes, if evildoers are presented as virtuous and the virtuous as evil. But we'll never know will we?
Monday, 18 April 2011
Post#171 Women Astronauts
Now, imagine this:
July 20, 1969
The Lunar Excursion Module Eagle is approaching the intended first landing site in the Sea of Tranquility.
The lander is off course due to a computer guidance error. Unless the pilot can manually correct course they'll hit a large boulder in a crater near the intended landing site.
At the controls of the LEM are, of course, two astronauts. But wait! These aren't Neil and Buzz! This is amazing!! Two women are crewing the lander. Will they succeed in averting disaster or dissolve into wreckage on the lunar surface?
This was the real problem facing Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin. The seasoned test-pilot, Armstrong, met the challenge and landed the LEM safely about six and a half kilometres from the crater. Could a female team have succeeded? This was the crucial question in the debate about admitting women to the astronaut training programme. NASA insisted that its first crews must be qualified as test-pilots and possess the sort of credentials in the field which could only be obtained through the military. There were, of course, no female military test-pilots in the late 1950s when the US space programme began. The debate itself was provoked by an accidental circumstance that had no official intention behind it. Dr William Randolph Lovelace II was the director of the clinic which had provided medical testing services to NASA and had supervised the assessment of the Mercury astronauts. His scientific curiosity led him to investigate the performance of women in the same testing regime.
This prompted a few of them to believe that there was a serious chance of them joining the programme. Geraldyn ("Jerrie") Cobb was the most active and engaged in a public campaign to press NASA to accept her and others of the group for training. This led to a sad and futile struggle as NASA and the USAF disowned the idea. A Congressional hearing affirmed NASA's policy but Cobb never gave up the idea, even into old age. This article gives the essence of the story.
The myth persists that a team of female atronauts had been "good to go" and were shafted by the androcracy. This pops up in various conspiracy-theory communities and among less-informed feminist commentators. There are some very detailed texts available on the subject and I recommend:
The MERCURY 13
by Martha Ackmann
Published by Random House
2004
Here's a comment by a son of one of the test subjects from the Wired Science site:
Sally Ride and the other US women astronauts who followed her may have benefited from the stirring of the pot which the Mercury 13 agitators produced. Their challenge to what John Glenn described as the "social order" may have broken the sled runners free of the ice. One of the byproducts of the situation was the inspiration of Jane Hart and others to become active in feminist politics and to contribute to the founding of the National Organisation for Women.
And, when the struggle was won...
The first woman to command a US spacecraft, Eileen Collins, said that a spaceflight was a wonderful experience but that she wouldn't want anyone to despair for lack of it.
 |
| Crater 308 viewed from orbit |
July 20, 1969
The Lunar Excursion Module Eagle is approaching the intended first landing site in the Sea of Tranquility.
The lander is off course due to a computer guidance error. Unless the pilot can manually correct course they'll hit a large boulder in a crater near the intended landing site.
At the controls of the LEM are, of course, two astronauts. But wait! These aren't Neil and Buzz! This is amazing!! Two women are crewing the lander. Will they succeed in averting disaster or dissolve into wreckage on the lunar surface?
This was the real problem facing Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin. The seasoned test-pilot, Armstrong, met the challenge and landed the LEM safely about six and a half kilometres from the crater. Could a female team have succeeded? This was the crucial question in the debate about admitting women to the astronaut training programme. NASA insisted that its first crews must be qualified as test-pilots and possess the sort of credentials in the field which could only be obtained through the military. There were, of course, no female military test-pilots in the late 1950s when the US space programme began. The debate itself was provoked by an accidental circumstance that had no official intention behind it. Dr William Randolph Lovelace II was the director of the clinic which had provided medical testing services to NASA and had supervised the assessment of the Mercury astronauts. His scientific curiosity led him to investigate the performance of women in the same testing regime.
This prompted a few of them to believe that there was a serious chance of them joining the programme. Geraldyn ("Jerrie") Cobb was the most active and engaged in a public campaign to press NASA to accept her and others of the group for training. This led to a sad and futile struggle as NASA and the USAF disowned the idea. A Congressional hearing affirmed NASA's policy but Cobb never gave up the idea, even into old age. This article gives the essence of the story.
The myth persists that a team of female atronauts had been "good to go" and were shafted by the androcracy. This pops up in various conspiracy-theory communities and among less-informed feminist commentators. There are some very detailed texts available on the subject and I recommend:
 Promised the Moon: The Untold Story of the First Women in the Space Race by Stephanie Nolen Published by Penguin 2002 |
The MERCURY 13
by Martha Ackmann
Published by Random House
2004
Here's a comment by a son of one of the test subjects from the Wired Science site:
My Mom, Gene Nora Jessen (nee Stumbough) is probably delighted that this meme won’t die, but yes, this story has become encrusted with a lot of myth. When people send her fan letters in Idaho extolling her for taking part in a “secret astronaut training program” she writes back to correct them, nicely but firmly, and signs her letter “Yours for accurate history”.The impetus to believe in the stymied project is, I believe, a product of a kind of sexual romanticism. It can be found in the fictional realm in the person of characters such as Lara Croft, Brenda Starr, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and other such figures of fancy. At least, that's what appeals to the male imagination. The attraction for women who desire to see female pioneering is a natural-enough desire to wipe away the remnants of the suffocating and often idiotic restraints to which women were subjected in the past.
Yes, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and she quit her job as a flight instructor to go take the tests (they wouldn’t let her take time off!), but she never had any illusions about what she was getting into. This was just a research program, not a ticket into space. The whole group by no means agrees on this point. Ask a different woman and you’ll get a different answer.
Incidentally the sobriquet “Mercury 13” was created by a documentarian named James Cross, a goofy guy with a feminist bent and an abiding interest in aeronautics who dug up this story in the 1990s and called Mom out of the blue to see if it was really her. Yes, the phrase “Mercury 13” is your basic Hollywood Lie, but it’s catchy and we have Jim to thank for resuscitating this story and giving it a catchy name. When he arranged for all the surviving members to meet at the 99s [international women pilots org] museum in Oklahoma City in Spring 1994 to sit for interviews, it was the first time they’d all met each other. When they originally took the tests in the 1960s, Lovelace sequestered them in pairs in a local motel – which didn’t encourage them to form much of a group identity, but did at least give them all someone sympathetic to talk to at the end of a hard day of getting yet another goddamn enema.
If anyone wants to contact Gene Nora (which by the way is pronounced as one word with the accent in the middle: jaNOra), I’m sure she’d be happy to hear from you. I won’t include her email here - if you’re motivated you can probably Google it in under a minute. But before you make contact, it’d be best to do your homework. At least four books have been written on the subject (Right Stuff Wrong Sex by Weitekamp, The Mercury 13 by Ackmann/Sherr, Promised the Moon by Nolen, and Amelia Earhart’s Daughters by Haynsworth/Toomey) and they’re all generally pretty sober and comprehensive affairs, which is handy, because this story really is insanely stupidly gobsmackingly complicated.
Taylor Jessen
Burbank
Sally Ride and the other US women astronauts who followed her may have benefited from the stirring of the pot which the Mercury 13 agitators produced. Their challenge to what John Glenn described as the "social order" may have broken the sled runners free of the ice. One of the byproducts of the situation was the inspiration of Jane Hart and others to become active in feminist politics and to contribute to the founding of the National Organisation for Women.
 |
| Eileen Collins - First woman to command a US spacecraft |
And, when the struggle was won...
The first woman to command a US spacecraft, Eileen Collins, said that a spaceflight was a wonderful experience but that she wouldn't want anyone to despair for lack of it.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Post#170 Advance Australia Fair
I read an interview recently with Thomas Keneally in one of my history periodicals. The author of the Booker Prize-winning Schindler’s Ark, the basis for Stephen Spielberg’s movie Schindler’s List, last year he published Australians: Origins to Eureka, volume one of a history of his native land. I’ve not read this –yet – so I can’t comment, though I was beguiled and intrigued by some of the points he made in the discussion.
A lot of people in England have silly preconceptions about Australia and its history. If they think of it at all it’s really just as a dumping ground for convicts, undesirables of all sorts! But as Keneally quite rightly says, many of those sentenced to transportation were condemned simply for embracing radical causes, not welcomed in an England dominated by a reactionary aristocratic clique. It was their sense of social justice, their sense of determination that allowed Australia, conceived as a penal colony, to become something much greater;
One of the reasons why Australia survives was that there were many social protestors among the convicts. These were people who did not consider themselves criminals. They were people like poachers who acted in protest against the enclosure of estates. Then there were the Luddites, Swing rioters, Irish Ribbonmen and Jacobite martyrs. You had these fairly robust, stroppy people alongside the professional thieves and prostitutes.
These people were later joined by others simply looking for a better life, those who, for one reason or another, were unable to establish themselves in the Old Country. Here for me Charles Dickens’ Wilkins Micawber springs to mind, the genial and impecunious rogue in David Copperfield, always waiting for something to turn up. Well, it did – Australia turned up! It was there that he finally made a go of things after a lifetime of failure. What I did not know is that Dickens actually sent two of his sons there, despairing of their prospects at home. Anthony Trollope sent a son there as well.
So, the land was settled by people with a sense of grievance, people for whom England offered little or nothing. This seems to me, perhaps looking at things through rosy spectacles, to account for a quality I’ve always admired in Australians – a mood of egalitarianism and an almost complete lack of the finer forms of English snobbery.
All of the elements of a new consciousness were there; it only needed one spark to allow them to coalesce. This came in 1854 with the rising at the Eureka goldfield at Ballerat by a group of miners disgruntled by prohibitive fees levied by the authorities. In itself it was nothing, a revolution quickly squashed, an episode of seemingly transitory importance. But, as Keneally argues, it had an extraordinary impact in the long-term, beginning a process that helped turn an old penal colony into a modern democracy, the final harvesting of the progressive tradition.
So far a very positive story, but the writer finishes on a note of caution;
As a settler society Australia 1788-1860 was prodigiously successful. I don’t say this with a jingoistic glow in my cheeks because I don’t think I can say the same about the past 50 years, and ultimately I’m going to have to write about that period as well.
Alas, nowhere is perfect; not even Australia. :-)
Monday, 7 February 2011
Post#169 Faggots
On September 8th, 2010, this was broadcast on Channel 10 television, Australia:
The background to this was that Stephanie Rice had Tweeted the message: "Suck on that you faggots!" (directed to the South African rugby team after an Australian victory). She was leaped upon with ferocity by the PC Brigade and a sponsorship by Jaguar Motors was withdrawn.
A couple of days ago I read of the attack by Ruby Thomas and two companions on a 62-year old man in Trafalgar square.
Here's a quote from the article at the Guardian site:
"Thomas had been acting in a "lairy, mouthy way" and flirting with passersby before she turned on Baynham and his friend Philip Brown and screamed "fucking faggots" at them as they crossed the square.
She also smiled as she "put the boot into" an unconscious Baynham after Alexander [male co-offender] had knocked him to the ground and caused a severe brain injury.
Baynham died 18 days later at the Royal London hospital without recovering consciousness. Police found his blood on Thomas's handbag and the ballet pumps she had been wearing."
She was penalised with seven years in prison.
This incident occurred in september of 2009 and predates Rice's Tweet by a year. I thought the response to Rice was cretinous and typical of the manufactured scandals that attend and imperil celebrity. After reading about the use of the term in the context of kicking a man to death I revised my opinion somewhat. I'm sure Stephanie spoke without true malice, but if this word is taken by some as encouragement to commit murder by endorsing bigotry, I can live without it.
The background to this was that Stephanie Rice had Tweeted the message: "Suck on that you faggots!" (directed to the South African rugby team after an Australian victory). She was leaped upon with ferocity by the PC Brigade and a sponsorship by Jaguar Motors was withdrawn.
A couple of days ago I read of the attack by Ruby Thomas and two companions on a 62-year old man in Trafalgar square.
 |
| Ruby Thomas (Image from http://www.expressandstar.com/) |
"Thomas had been acting in a "lairy, mouthy way" and flirting with passersby before she turned on Baynham and his friend Philip Brown and screamed "fucking faggots" at them as they crossed the square.
She also smiled as she "put the boot into" an unconscious Baynham after Alexander [male co-offender] had knocked him to the ground and caused a severe brain injury.
Baynham died 18 days later at the Royal London hospital without recovering consciousness. Police found his blood on Thomas's handbag and the ballet pumps she had been wearing."
She was penalised with seven years in prison.
This incident occurred in september of 2009 and predates Rice's Tweet by a year. I thought the response to Rice was cretinous and typical of the manufactured scandals that attend and imperil celebrity. After reading about the use of the term in the context of kicking a man to death I revised my opinion somewhat. I'm sure Stephanie spoke without true malice, but if this word is taken by some as encouragement to commit murder by endorsing bigotry, I can live without it.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Post#168 Death to Television
Here are some comments from a post by Anastasia on Ana the Imp about censorship. I was prompted to suggest that the entire concept of broadcast television should have been deleted:
/// Retarius said...
/// Retarius said...
...how bad does something have to be before it's a genuine threat? And how relentlessly insightful do you need to be to recognise it?
In the 1950's there was actually a debate in Australia about whether television broadcasting should be allowed. I think, on balance, that we'd be better off if the opposers had won. That's something I wouldn't have expected to write in earnest 30 years ago. Now it seems the most natural and sensible conclusion to come to.
15 December 20:10 01:15
Anastasia Fitzgerald-Beaumont said...
Retarius, all television? That seems a bit drastic. Mind you the idea of being spared Simon Cowal and Gordon Ramsay has a certain appeal. :-)
15 december 2010 15:24
Retarius said...
Yes, all. An interesting indicator of the state of affairs in a home is to locate the television/s and see how the rest of the furniture is arranged with respect to it/them. There's something pathetic in a room where the TV is the focus of the seating, like an altar in a temple.
I drove the false god out of my home about twelve years ago by deciding to not replace the last of its avatars which had infested my space. I still see some of it occasionally in other places but I've never regretted being rid of it. It has two serious evils; it is non-interactive and acts as an anchor to the viewer who is trapped by it.
16 December 2010 03:28 ///
Television means "far-seeing", a compound of Greek and Latin which provoked some controversy among philologists when first coined, because of its mixed lineage. This academic quibble is the least cause to complain of it. Here's something I wrote way back in Post#8 to this blog:
I once read an article about television in a very old bound volume of Meanjin, a venerable magazine which many Australians will know of. The edition was from the early 1950's and the article dealt with the issue of whether television should be allowed to be established as a service in Australia. I was amazed at the time of reading that anybody could have thought of stopping it. I now wonder what would have happened if a transmission of the typical fare of today could have been sent back to 1950 for the edification of the citizens. The cynical, unashamed stuff that really is broadcast. Not the placatory promises about the cultural and educational benefits of the service which accompanied its introduction; the real everynight thing. I am sure they would have been utterly repulsed and would have damned the thing to Hell. Even though I still watch some of it, I wouldn't mind if it didn't exist. The cost/benefit analysis is in. Television is a net loss.
I wouldn't change a letter of that. The television device itself is not the menace. The video screen component is adapted for use in surveillance, computer displays and video players. The essential difference is that these are devices used at the discretion of the viewer. The free-to-air broadcast which was the original and worst use of television is not free in the least. It imposes a loss of choice; requiring that the viewer make themselves available at the convenience of the broadcaster. It also contains potential for obnoxious ambushes in which something one wouldn't choose to see is snuck in during a commercial break or in the course of a programme which, while initially tolerable may take a nasty turn. If there's a child in the room these incidents can really annoy a would-be responsible adult. Yes, the home video recorder can spare this, if you're willing to engage in the manouvres required to make it work and to cope with the unreliable schedules of the networks.
The most vile effect of the contraption is the brainwashing of children into Pavlovian consumerism. In the hey-day of the Mutant Ninja Turtles in the mid-1990's I saw a woman pushing a trolley through a supermarket with a child of three or four years riding in it. He caught sight of a pizza box in a freezer with one of the critters pictured on the cover and began frantically screaming, "I want the turtle! I WANT THE TURTLE!!"
She pushed him away into the distance with his screams echoing and a dispirited expression on her face. The proper response to this was to take a sledgehammer to the television, but I imagine it didn't occur to her.
An American commentator said it in one line: "The television is the open end of a sewer which deposits its contents in your living-room."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)