We’ll start this week’s Sunday Bits on a sombre note. As you probably heard yesterday, rugby league commentator Ray “Rabbits” Warren has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. He will undergo surgery after he calls the upcoming State Of Origin match. Here’s hoping for a successful surgery and a swift recovery. Ray’s commentary is not my cup of tea, however there can be no denying that he is the voice of rugby league, and any time he is absent from the airwaves, the sport is poorer for it.
(As an aside, I wonder if the Bacco|007 who wrote the linked article is the Bacco007 who left a few comments on this blog a few years ago?)
***
In other sport related matters, sporting bodies want control over what products betting agencies can sell.
Australia’s major sporting organisations are set to crack down further on spot betting within their sports with a veto on those types of bets to be written into their agreements with sports betting agencies.
The issue of spot or micro betting has been brought to the fore by the NRL betting scandal which has seen former Bulldogs prop Ryan Tandy charged over his alleged involvement in a betting scandal surrounding the first scoring play in an NRL match between the Bulldogs and the Cowboys late last season.
[..]
The Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS), chaired by Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland, has completed a working paper which will see Australia’s seven major professional sports take co-ordinated action against possible corruption.
The adoption of a ‘right of veto’ in all agreements between individual sports and betting agencies was one of three recommendations submitted to federal sports minister Senator Mark Arbib when COMPSS met with him in Melbourne on Wednesday.
[..]
“The institution of nationally-consistent criminal legislation in relation to sports-betting-related cheating will ensure that illegal betting activities are uniformly punishable nationwide, creating a strong deterrent for such actions.” [James Sutherland said]
(h/t Bren O’Brien, Sportal.com.au)
Now this is something which I wholeheartedly disagree with. This whole thing is a way for sporting bodies to wash their hands of their responsibility to control the actions of their players by heaping the responsibility on to betting agencies, therefore limiting the ability of betting agencies to run their operations as they see fit, and punishing the sport fans by reducing their ability to test their expertise of the game by having a flutter on all manner of aspects of the sports. I’d go as far as to call this anti-competitive, and I’d definitely call the Victorian legislation anti-competitive.
The Victorian legislation, as it stands, requires betting agencies to reach an agreement with a sport before they can offer gambling products based on that sport. This is nuts. The two should have nothing to do with each other. If a betting agency wanted to run a market on how many words I would write on this blog on a given day, they should be free to do it without needing my permission. Betting agencies should be free to run markets on whatever they like, with obvious caveats in their rules preventing people involved in the activity from betting on the activity.
The sporting bodies should have nothing to do with the betting agencies, and should concentrate on running their sports, and controlling the actions of the people involved in the sport. Just as the betting agencies should have rules preventing people involved in the activity from betting on the activity, the sporting bodies should have rules in place which prevent people involved in the sport from betting on the sport under penalty of severance from the sport if the rule is broken.
There is no need for anti-competitive legislation and written agreements between the sports and betting agencies in order for this to happen.
It’s obvious why the sports want this legislation though. They know that without the legislation, the betting agencies would never agree to onerous restrictions on their trade and would simply not bother signing agreements and just continue with their business…and then the sporting bodies might have to take some responsibility for their employees.
***
The bizarre story of the week comes to us courtesy of Casey Hendrickson who points us to an article on MSNBC’s website (I’ll make an exception to the rule and allow the MSNBC link this time) about a man who was cited for disorderly conduct because he paid a bill.
A Utah man has been cited on a charge of disorderly conduct after paying for a disputed medical bill with 2,500 pennies.
The Deseret News of Salt Lake City reports Jason West went to Basin Clinic in Vernal on May 27 prepared to dispute an outstanding $25 bill.
Assistant Vernal Police Chief Keith Campbell says that after asking staff members whether they accepted cash, West dumped 2,500 pennies on the counter and demanded that staff count them.
Campbell says the incident upset staff because pennies were strewn about the counter and floor, and West’s action served “no legitimate purpose.”
Police later issued the 38-year-old West a citation for disorderly conduct. That carries a fine of as much as $140. Or 14,000 pennies.
(h/t Associated Press via MSNBC…that’s why the MSNBC link was allowed through; they didn’t write the article)
If I was in his shoes, I’d contest the citation as it is ridiculous to be fined for paying a bill with legal tender, and just as bizarre for a few coins falling on the floor to be considered “disorderly conduct”. I wonder if the staff at the medical centre have everyone charged with disorderly conduct for dropping coins on the floor? And if they don’t want to count the coins, perhaps they should use one of those wonderful machines which counts coins for them.
***
Speaking of Casey Hendrickson, the word on the street is that he will return to the airwaves in the not-too-distant future. I’ll keep you posted.
***
Completely changing the subject, and the man who has been at the centre of Washington controversy for well over a week for sending pictures of his personal namesake to minors, Anthony Weiner, is now being asked to resign by his Democratic colleagues, which is quite a turnaround considering that up until a day or so back they didn’t seem to see any need for him to step down, which probably says a bit about their own lack of ethics. Weiner, though, isn’t resigning, he’s just taking a leave of absence.
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very rare sane moment, declared that “The behavior he [Weiner] has exhibited is indefensible and Representative Weiner’s continued service in Congress is untenable”. Here’s hoping that he does resign, and somebody decent takes his place.
***
It was quite amusing a bit over a month ago, before Andrew Bolt‘s Sunday political television show “The Bolt Report” started airing, to see people predominantly of the left declaring that Bolt’s show was a failure, that it was doomed, and that nobody is interested in the rantings of a right-wing extremist, especially one who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming and the “need” for a carbon dioxide tax. A number of the comparisons I saw at the time were with Glenn Beck‘s show on the FOX News Channel which had coincidentally had its end announced around that time. The claims were along the lines of “see, it’s been tried, the ratings didn’t support it, nobody was interested, and Beck was fired…therefore the Bolt show is doomed”.
This, of course, flied in the face of the facts that:
1) Glenn Beck was not fired, but decided to leave FOX and take his show online, something which will undoubtedly cost him a truckload of cash in the short term, but something which he obviously thinks will make him a lot more money in the long term than he would have otherwise made at FOX. Beck has a good track record of making money out of media endeavours, so this will probably go well for him as well.
2) Beck remains a FOX News contributor and will continue to produce occasional programs for them. FOX would not be doing this if he didn’t rate.
3) Beck was outrating the rest of the cable news channels in the 5pm timeslot by a long way.
4) Despite a concerted effort by left-wing criminal front group (they are, their legal tax status prevents them from being partisan, but they are unashamedly left-wing) Media Matters For America to make advertisers boycott Glenn Beck’s show, he still managed to attract many advertisers. It was funny to see people try this tactic after the first week of Bolt’s show.
So, a month or so down the line, we should probably check how all of this has turned out. Were the cries of “Bolt’s show is doomed because nobody will want to watch it” correct? Ummm, no, in fact they couldn’t have been more wrong. The Bolt Report is outrating both of the other free-to-air Sunday political shows (Insiders and Meet The Press), coming pretty close to outrating them combined on a couple occasions.
(h/t Australian Conservative and Oztam ratings)
Congratulations Andrew. Now if only we could get Southern Cross Ten to move (or drop, I don’t really care which) their music programming out of the way for the 10am edition of your show so that I can watch it live and don’t have to tape the 4:30pm replay and watch it after the football.
***
Speaking of Andrew Bolt, he’ll be the keynote speaker at the Institute of Public Affairs’ Freedom of Speech in Australia event on the 20th of June in Melbourne. The evening includes a video message from the great Mark Steyn and a few other speakers.
I’m flying down to Melbourne for the event and will be coming back the next day. Registrations for the night appear to still be open if you want to book your place (they’ll all be gone soon though). If you’re going to be there, feel free to say hello.
***
The IPA has also announced the dates for Chezch Republic President Vaclav Klaus’ speeches. Perth on the 22nd of July, Sydney on the 25th of July, Melbourne on the 28th of July, and Brisbane on the 1st of August.
I’m hoping to get to one of these (preferably Sydney) but I can’t be sure of my availability just yet.
***
And finally for today, something related to both Andrew Bolt and the topic about which Mr. Klaus will be speaking, the nonsense of man-made global warming. In case you missed it the other week, Andrew’s excellent interview with Professor Bob Carter about this dangerous nonsense.
And that’s all of the bits for this Sunday. Have a great day and a wonderful Queen’s Birthday tomorrow.
A few years ago there was an internet fad of changing the lyrics of songs to reflect what was going on in the song’s seemingly unrelated video clip. I missed this when it happened, but came across it a few months ago.
Some of them are better than others, but of all of them, this is my favourite. David A. Scott’s reworking of Bonnie Tyler’s Total Eclipse Of The Heart.
Between 11am and midday Canberra time (9pm-10pm US eastern time/6pm-7pm US pacific time), my friend Alan Stock from Newsradio KXNT in Las Vegas will be on ‘Hannity’ as a panellist on Sean Hannity’s ‘Great American Panel’.
Alan is currently in New York City for the annual Talk Radio Day at The United Nations where he is probably wearing the brightest Hawaiian shirt known to man. He’ll probably take it to Hannity’s show as well.
I’ll be watching, and I invite you to watch as well. FOX don’t usually upload this segment to their website afterwards, so if you want to watch but miss it, the show is replayed again at 2pm Canberra time (Midnight US eastern/9pm US pacific).
Remember that story, was it last week, about the “anthropogenic global warming is real” climate scientists at the Australian National University who were receiving death threats because of their beliefs? Did the timing seem as odd to you as it did to me?
It certainly seemed odd to Andrew Carswell from The Daily Telegraph who did some digging and discovered that these death threats which supposedly had the ANU put these scientists in lockdown very recently, actually occurred up to five years ago.
CLAIMS prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago.
Only two of ANU’s climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago.
Neither was officially reported to ACT Police or Australian Federal Police, despite such crimes carrying a 10-year prison sentence.
The outdated threats raised question marks over the timing of their release to the public, with claims they were aired last week to draw sympathy to scientists and their climate change cause.
The university denied it was creating a ruse, maintaining the initial report, in the Fairfax-owned Canberra Times last week, failed to indicate when the threats were made.Reports also suggested the threats had forced the ANU to lock away its climate change scientists and policy advisers in a high-security complex. The Daily Telegraph has discovered the nine scientists and staff in question were merely given keyless swipe cards – routine security measures taken last year.
(The article goes in to much more detail, read more here.)
A few points about this:
One. When you receive a death threat or similar, the advice from police is to not talk about it, lest it encourage more threats…but of course these threats were never reported to police, which makes one wonder who seriously the threats were taken in the first place.
Two. If it happened so long ago, why bring it up now (and tell the left-leaning, global-warming-is-going-to-doom-us-all Canberra Times) unless you’re fishing for sympathy and trying to paint a negative image of people who believe the science from the other side of the debate?
Three. Why lie about the lockdown?
Now, don’t get me wrong, death threats are wrong, threats of harm are wrong. I’ve witnessed the effects first-hand and know how awful it can be to be on the end of such threats. The people who make these threats should be punished to the full extent of the law. But to the same extent, lying about receiving threats is also wrong, and strikes me as a sign of someone who is either unstable or seeking undue attention.
Now, can we please get back to the actual debate about climate change rather than the debate about which side of the debate is insane?
I first spotted this story this morning on The Drudge Report. Most of the stuff I spot on Drudge turns out to be correct, but this story was just so out there that even I wasn’t sure. Drudge was linking to a Financial Times article, this made me wary as the Financial Times, while filled with interesting stories, is a British newspaper…could this be our royal overlords having fun at our expense I wondered?
Then I noticed that the story is in The Australian this morning, which increased the story’s credibility even though The Oz credits the Financial Times for some of the story, and was noted by Reuters last week. My fears about the story being a hoax were quashed, but my fears about the Australian Government being insane were confirmed.
Details from The Australian’s Graham Lloyd:
A consultation paper issued by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency gives the first insight into how the federal government will decide what will qualify for carbon permits and what will not. Feral pests are firmly in the sights.
A proposal by Northwest Carbon to cull the estimated one million feral camels roaming the outback has made the list. The company’s plan, first revealed in London’s Financial Times newspaper, was based on an agreement with the West Australian Department of Agriculture and Food to develop a market solution to control feral camels.
Large areas of Western Australia are overrun with the camels, which do enormous damage to vegetation and have been known to terrorise townships in their search for water.
In its written proposal to government, Northwest says it would shoot the animals from helicopters or four-wheel-drives, muster them and send them to an abattoir or process them for pet food in the field.
The company has promised to use marksmen trained and accredited in animal welfare.
One camel is estimated to emit about a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, measured as 45kg of methane, and they each eat about a tonne of vegetation.
Camels are bad. We get it. So just go and shoot them and make pet food out of them. Don’t start insisting that you need carbon credits for it, especially when you’re flying around in carbon dioxide emitting helicopters to do it, because once we go down this road of saying that killing animals warrants carbon credits, there is no turning back and the ramifications are massive.
If killing a camel warrants a carbon credit, then it won’t be long before killing cows warrants carbon credits (and more of them than the other plan in the government report of giving cows some sort of medication which makes them belch less), and given the current ruminations about compensating farmers whose cattle isn’t going anywhere, I can see killing off their herds and giving them resettlement funds while the farms get turned in to government-run solar power plants as an option which the government will consider.
Or even worse (if there is such a thing as worse than destroying our agricultural sector), domestic pets. If the government sees camels as polluters (not that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, but you get my point), what about the domestic pets which also emit carbon dioxide? Will the government issue carbon credits for killing these animals…or even humans?
If people want to turn feral animals in to pet food, then good, go for it, make money by doing it like you would have done before the term “carbon credit” existed, but don’t expect the government to reward you for it with a set of carbon credits…the ramifications of such a scheme are alarming at best. The really worrying thing though is that the government is considering it and taking it seriously.
Mark my words. If this gets beyond the “consultation” stage and becomes policy, this country will not be worth living in. Obamacare’s death panels will be quite tame compared to this.
There are plenty of good people who could seek the Republican Presidential nomination, some of them are already in the race, some are not, but of all of them there is one person who, if she were to run, would have my full support and would be my preferred choice above all others. It should come as no surprise to most of you reading this that the person of which I speak is Sarah Palin.
Sarah presented herself very well over the weekend on Fox News Sunday:
I will have to respectfully disagree with Sarah on Mitt Romney. Mitt’s legislative history makes me very nervous about what he would do as President, my biggest concern being that I don’t think he would repeal Obamacare. That said, I can understand why Sarah is not making a big deal of this. Sarah knows that any pot shots she takes at Mitt Romney will be the only thing in the news cycle for days, and will be twisted against her many times. I suppose it’s a good thing in many ways that Sarah has learnt the valuable lesson of when not to say things which can easily be used against her.
As for the rest of the field, there are a few people who interest me, but that list is still a work-in-progress so I’m not ready to go through it publicly just yet.
One thing which has amused me about Obama’s war in Libya is the lack of the usual suspects jumping up and down complaining about the war being illegal. Sure, there’s a couple of them, but the vast majority of people who complained endlessly about George W. Bush taking us in to Iraq, claiming that it was an illegal war among other things, seem to be silent about Barrack Obama taking us in to Libya. This is quite odd considering that the US action in Libya is illegal, and one would expect these people to be upset if they really cared about illegal wars.
While I’m sure that there are some genuine anti-war protestors (they’d be the ones who protested against the Iraq war and are also protesting about this war…not many people, but they’re out there), it’s clear that the motive for most of the people who protested against the Iraq war was not anger with the war, but anger with Bush. This is even clearer when you consider that the claims about the Iraq war being illegal are in fact false.
UN Resolution 678 authorized force to be used against Iraq for not complying with the Gulf War cease fire. This was never altered, repealed, or replaced by subsequent resolutions. In fact, it was upheld by each.
UN Resolution 1441 upheld the provisions of Resolution 678, and offered Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” Iraq failed to do so. As a result, a US led coalition (larger than the first Gulf War) launched an invasion after Saddam refused to step down. The invasion started in March 2003.
In October of 2002 (5 months prior to the invasion) the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
To recap, President Bush had international authorization to use force (even though it was unnecessary), and he had full approval from Congress. Congress also continued to approve US efforts in Iraq on an annual basis in spite of rhetoric from Democrats.
Libya:
UN Resolution 1973 authorizes the use of force by member nations. Just as UN Resolution 678 did with Iraq.
Unlike Iraq, however, Obama never sought the approval of Congress to attack Libya. This is a violation of his own political rhetoric, but it is NOT illegal.
That is, until May 20, 2011.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President of the United States to use military force abroad for 60 days without seeking the approval of Congress. Obama missed that deadline. As a result, he is factually in violation of US law.
Earlier I mentioned that UN approval to use force against Iraq was unnecessary, and it was. As it would be for the US to act against Libya, so long as Congress approved. Moving against the will of the United Nations is not a violation of international law, it is a violation of an international agreement. US law is the higher authority in our legal system, and that has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Neither President Bush or Obama have violated any international treaty.
President Obama is now in violation of US law. President Bush was never in violation of US law. President Clinton was not in violation of US law, or international treaty when he authorized Operation Desert Fox.
Had Obama gone to Congress and asked for their approval to engage in military operations against Libya, and they approved, everything would be legal with regard to Libya. You may disapprove of it for some moral reason, but it would still be legal. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Obama is, in fact, breaking the law by continuing to use the US military against Libya. His supporters are continuing to show their hypocrisy by supporting him instead of protesting him as they did Bush. And yes, this is a justifiable impeachable offense.
It really doesn’t get much clearer than that. Bush, and Clinton for that matter, went about running their wars in a legal manner, whereas Obama is breaking the law. The sooner he is held to account for it, the better.
PARLIAMENTARIANS from Julia Gillard down appear ready to give the cold shoulder to Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an outspoken climate change sceptic, when he visits Australia next month.
Mr Klaus, a critic of the theory of human-caused global warming, will attend a series of seminars organised by the Institute of Public Affairs think tank.
[..]
Tour organisers have contacted a range of political leaders offering to arrange meetings with Mr Klaus while he is in Australia. A spokesman for Ms Gillard said yesterday: “The Prime Minister’s diary has not been finalised.”
But the organisers said her office had already declined an invitation to meet Mr Klaus, as had Victoria’s Liberal Premier Ted Baillieu and his Western Australian counterpart Colin Barnett.
They are yet to hear from Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and NSW’s Barry O’Farrell.
“It’s extraordinary that Australia’s political leaders are willing to risk our relationship with one of Europe’s most dynamic and open economies simply because their representative is a climate sceptic,” IPA executive director John Roskam said.
(h/t Christian Kerr, The Australian)
Julia is the Prime Minister, and as such has a duty to at least say hello to a visiting leader of another country, unless she really is busy with an important task, in which case I’d accept that the Deputy Prime Minister could meet the visiting leader in her place…although if I was a foreign visitor to this land, I’d much rather meet Julia than Wayne. The Foreign Minister doesn’t cut it as far as I’m concerned. It might be appropriate for the Foreign Minister to be present at a meeting, but not for them to be the person actually meeting the foreign dignitary.
The Premiers I’m not so fussed about. They aren’t the leader of the country, so if they can make it, that’s nice, but I wouldn’t hold them to it.
Personally, I’m waiting for the Institute of Public Affairs to announce a date for Mr. Klaus to visit Canberra. Hopefully I will be able to get to that event. Sydney and Perth dates have already been announced.
Prior to the construction of the Federal Highway between Canberra and Goulburn from 1932-1934, to get to Canberra from Goulburn you had to travel via Tarago, Bungendore and Queanbeyan, a scenic trip which can still be done today.
GORDON Stammers says his 14-year-old dog Wally is lucky to be alive after an enraged man kicked the old pooch nearly two metres in the air at Jan Juc.
The timid fox terrier-jack russell cross is still struggling to walk after Saturday’s vicious encounter with the muscle-bound man on a path between the Bird Rock lookout and Steps carpark.
Police have confirmed they are looking for the man and local laws officers have also been notified over fears he could seriously hurt other animals or their owners.
Mr Stammers said his dog was off its lead when he was walking along the path about 10am and he heard someone approaching from behind.
He said when Wally growled at the man’s long-haired german shepherd, its owner erupted.
“He got right up in my face and yelled, ‘why haven’t you got your bloody dog on a lead? You’re supposed to have it on a lead,’ and he was very aggressive towards me,” Mr Stammers said.
Related Coverage
Mr Stammers, who has lived in Jan Juc for 25 years and walks Wally in the area every day, said he didn’t realise it was an on-leash area and he asked the man where he lived.
“With that, he went back with his leg and kicked my dog so hard that he lifted him six feet in the air and on to the other side of the path. By that stage he’s walked off and my dog was screaming literally in absolute agony, he couldn’t walk and he was on his side.”
Mr Stammers, 57, shouted out to the man to come back but he continued walking. “I’ve never seen anybody so violently explode. He was very big, he obviously works out in the gym every day, he was like Mike Tyson, that’s how big he was,” he said.
He described the man as at least 180 centimetres tall, with short blond hair, wearing a red T-shirt and shorts.
Senior Constable Justine Woods urged anyone with information to contact Torquay police.
Poor little Wally. I can almost understand the large man being in an already enraged mood and Wally growling at his dog tipping him over the edge, but I can’t understand kicking the poor little dog so hard that he ended up six metres in the air, or even worse, the complete lack of instant remorse for the awful act. If I was in as bad a mood as that, I might kick a wall or a bin or some other inanimate object, but kicking a dog isn’t something I would ever do unless I was being attacked by the dog.
This is the work of a very sick person, and I can only hope that, one day, he makes a similar move towards his German Sheppard, and the German Sheppard defends itself by biting a large hole in the man’s leg. Of course I would also like to see the justice system give the man a criminal record for this despicable act, but the job of punishing him won’t be complete until the animals get their comeuppance.
And for poor little Wally, I can’t imagine how traumatising this must have been. It gives me shivers up my spine when Nattie hurts herself on something (usually involving static electricity or a nail clinging to a flooring surface) and lets out one of those awful doggy squeals…her’s have always been for minor things, so I just can’t imagine how much worse this must have been for Wally and Mr. Stammers.
I do hope that Wally makes a full recovery. I’m sure that Mr. Stammers will look after his mate Wally as best he can, and that this will help Wally to feel safe and secure in the world again.
Ah, the things one finds on the internet. I don’t really even remember what prompted my session of googling myself other than the fact that I was going to go to sleep and got sidetracked. Anyway, after skimming a dozen or so pages of results which were largely filled with automated MP3 indexing websites which have latched on to one or more of my MP3 files, and finding that I was wished a happy birthday the other day on a decent number of McPherson Media (publisher of the Deniliquin Pastoral Times and a heap of other local papers) newspaper websites, I stumbled upon Google’s “Realtime Search” which seems to scour Twitter and other social media services. It produced this interesting result:
The Twitter account which published that either no longer exists or has changed name since then (I’d suggest the former seeing as a search of Twitter for my name doesn’t yield this result), however I’m pretty sure that I know who wrote that.
So, to that person, yes, you do, but that’s partially my fault for not informing you on the one occasion that I was in your town (assuming that you’re still in that town), although I wouldn’t have had time on that occasion anyway as I was there on business.
If you still want to meet for coffee, I’ll be in your town on the 20th and 21st of this month, albeit with a limited amount of free time. If this interests you, email me.
Regardless, it’s nice to see that you’re still around. I hope things are going well for you. And don’t worry, it’s not that much of a shift to be understanding me more, because my perspective has changed a bit over time as well.
If the rest of you are still reading at this point, take this as a lesson in data retention on the internet. Stuff sticks around long after you think you’ve removed it.
There’s a reason for this one. After the peculiar sideshows in the Federal and New South Wales parliaments this week (see this week’s Sunday Bits if you don’t know what I’m on about), I was reminded of this song. So I’m dedicating it to our politicians in the hope that they’ll take the hint and do something productive rather than wasting time on the same old nonsense day-after-day, week-after-week.
So, without further ado, this week’s award goes to Madonna, and the feature song is “Sorry”. And a heads up, the video is definitely worthy of a PG rating. If you’re offended by a bit of skin, don’t watch it, and don’t complain to me.
Je suis désolé (“I am sorry” in French)
Lo siento (“I am sorry” in Spanish)
Ik ben droevig (“I am sad” in Dutch)
Sono spiacente (“I am sorry” in Italian)
Perdóname (“forgive me” in Spanish)
I’ve heard it all before
I’ve heard it all before
I’ve heard it all before
I’ve heard it all before
[repeated]
I don’t wanna hear, I don’t wanna know
Please don’t say you’re sorry
I’ve heard it all before
And I can take care of myself
I don’t wanna hear, I don’t wanna know
Please don’t say ‘forgive me’
I’ve seen it all before
And I can’t take it anymore
You’re not half the man you think you are
Save your words because you’ve gone too far
I’ve listened to your lies and all your stories (listened to your stories)
You’re not half the man you’d like to be
I don’t wanna hear, I don’t wanna know
Please don’t say you’re sorry
I’ve heard it all before
And I can take care of myself
I don’t wanna hear, I don’t wanna know
Please don’t say ‘forgive me’
I’ve seen it all before
And I can’t take it anymore
Don’t explain yourself ’cause talk is cheap
There’s more important things than hearing you speak
You stayed because I made it so convenient (so convenient)
Don’t explain yourself, you’ll never see
(Sorry, sorry, sorry) (repeated)
Gomenasai (“Forgive me”/”sorry” in japanese)
Mujhe maaf kardo (“Please forgive me” in Hindi)
Przepraszam (“I’m sorry” in Polish)
Sli’kha (“I am sorry” in Hebrew)
Forgive me…
(Sorry, sorry, sorry) [repeated]
I’ve heard it all before
I’ve heard it all before
I’ve heard it all before
[repeated]
I don’t wanna hear, I don’t wanna know
Please don’t say you’re sorry
I’ve heard it all before
And I can take care of myself
I don’t wanna hear, I don’t wanna know
Please don’t say ‘forgive me’
I’ve seen it all before
And I can’t take it anymore
I don’t wanna hear, I don’t wanna know
Please don’t say you’re sorry
(Don’t explain yourself cause talk is cheap)
I’ve heard it all before, And I can take care of myself
(There’s more important things than hearing you speak)
I don’t wanna hear, I don’t wanna know
Please don’t say ‘forgive me’
Good Sunday Morning. Plenty to get through this morning, so we’ll dive straight in.
A little while after I posted many details on the fact that the US economy is in serious trouble, more evidence of this came to light.
The US government’s jobs report showed hiring by US companies slowed markedly in May, while the unemployment rate kept rising.
Non-farm payrolls rose by 54,000 last month as the private sector posted the smallest job gain in nearly a year, according to the Labour Department. The jobless rate, which is obtained from a separate household survey, unexpectedly rose to 9.1 per cent in May.
[..]
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 97.29 points, or 0.8 per cent, to 12151.26, led lower by Alcoa, which dropped US28 cents (1.7 per cent) to $US15.92. The blue-chip index has dropped 5.1 per cent during its five-week losing skid and closed today at its lowest level since March 23.
(h/t Steven Russolillo, Dow Jones Newswires, via The Australian)
The fact is, the US economy was never in recovery despite what the Obama administration would have you believe. It had a decent period of stability on the back of over-the-top government spending, but it never entered a recovery, and as was always going to happen, the government’s crippling debt is now an even bigger problem than the original economic woes were. If there ever was any doubt (I’d say that there wasn’t, but it’s an arguable point), it’s gone now, Obama owns this recession and seemingly has very little idea of how to fix it.
THE World Bank has revealed the global market for trading in carbon permits has stalled, just weeks out from the federal government’s release of its detailed plans to shift to an emissions trading scheme.
[..]
The value of the primary Clean Development Mechanism market fell by double digits for the third year in a row, ending lower than it was in 2005.
(h/t Graham Lloyd and Siobhain Ryan from The Australian)
Even the bankers can’t work out how to make a quid out of this crazy scheme. It seems that trading in fresh air just isn’t lucrative, so what makes Ms. Gillard and friends think that taxing the air will be any more successful?
CHILDREN as young as 12 would be allowed to drive under a radical road-safety training proposal to be put to the State Government this week.
That opening line sounds crazy, but if we dig a little deeper, we find that it’s misleading.
Under the CAMS plan, schoolchildren would be given up to four practical lessons each year from age 12. CAMS will explore the idea of using dirt tracks or paddocks for lessons, which would include driving along a skid pan.
CAMS president Andrew Papadopoulos – who taught his own children to drive at age 12 – said the existing school driving courses needed to include a much greater practical component.
He said waiting until students were 17 or 18 to teach them driving skills was too late, because many young people had already developed attitudes towards driving by that age.
“This is about instilling the right attitude to driving in kids early,” he said.
(h/t Linda Silmalis, The Sunday Telegraph)
If, as the opening line suggest, this idea was about letting twelve-year-olds loose on the roads, then I’d agree that it’s “radical” and alarming, but the actual idea is an incredibly good idea. Our current system puts kids (they’re under 18, they’re kids, even if the ACT government disagrees and thinks 12-17 is “young person” and not “child”) in a position where driving is a novelty to them, and generally a fun thing rather than a serious thing. The problems tend to be attitudinal ones more than capability ones.
This idea would change the attitudes of kids before they are old enough to drive on the open road by taking them through practical sessions which would imprint the fact that driving is a serious activity.
If it were up to me, I’d be implementing this idea immediately. I also have ideas to overhaul the driver’s licence system in a way which would make the process of getting a licence similar to the current arrangements for motorbike licences, with an emphasis on solo learning under limited demerit points. People who could successfully graduate from such a system would then go straight on to a full licence, while people who fail either by racking up too many demerit points or by failing assessments would be forced through a logbook system for basic skills before they could graduate back to the solo-learning system.
I believe that one of the great flaws of our current system is that it teaches reliance on a passenger rather than on one’s own judgement, and considering that the vast majority of driving is done on one’s own, it is important for people to learn on their own…and people who are incapable of that simply shouldn’t be on the road. Of course another thing I would do is get rid of the crazy system which is in place in New South Wales where artificial speed limits are imposed on L and P platers which prevent people from learning to overtake, prevent them from learning to handle a vehicle at highway speeds, and provide a slow-moving hazard for the rest of us.
Anyway, my plan could probably be legitimately considered “radical”. The plan from CAMS on the other hand should not be considered radical, and should be implemented immediately, and it’s good to see the O’Farrell government taking it seriously.
***
Also in New South Wales, and the sideshow this week has been centred around filibusters, not that I can work out why this has caused so much excitement.
The basic story is that the O’Farrell government introduced a bill which would give the Premier the ability to set wages for public servants, something which sounds like a sensible idea for a boss to be able to do. The Greens and Labor, predictably, didn’t like the idea and so tried to block it with a filibuster and a deluge of amendments. Nothing out of the ordinary here, this is a regular tactic in politics and is permitted under the rules of parliament, even if it’s not a regular occurrence in Australian governments. Then, after a few days of this, the Liberal/National coalition used their majority to, as is allowed under the rules of parliament, break the filibuster and restrict debate on the deluge of amendments.
The bill passed the lower house yesterday, and will pass the upper house soon.
Yet, incredibly, this has all sparked outrage from both sides of politics. On the right, there was outrage about the Greens babbling on and on for hours and hours and hours, with individual members setting new records for the amount of time a person has spoken in the New South Wales parliament, and now on the left there is outrage over the government using their massive majority to break the filibuster and pass the bill. Both sets of outrage are ill-considered. It could just be that, due to the rarity of these events in Australian parliaments, people think there is something wrong with the events, but it’s more likely that people are just using the opportunity to make their points on the bill rather than the actual events which have occurred in the parliament.
Either way, I think the simple solution here is to say “move along, nothing to see here” as the political machine just moves through its regular processes.
***
Of course there was also a sideshow in federal politics this week involving cat noises. While it was dumb of Senator David Bushby to meow at Senator Penny Wong, at least he had the grace to apologise for it afterwards. We’re still waiting for the apologies from Ms. Wong’s colleagues for the similarly sexist comments which are shouted at Julie Bishop during every session of parliament.
FOUR overstretched and stressed-out State MPs will quit their second jobs as mayors, declaring they can’t cope with the workload of both positions.
But the most prominent double-dipping MP – Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore – refuses to concede there is a problem despite missing every day of parliament last week while on a mayoral junket to Brazil and New York City.
In fact, while parliament was open for business yesterday continuing its marathon session about public sector pay, Ms Moore was tweeting from New York City, where she was checking out bike lanes.
Ms Moore, who has missed 25 per cent of parliamentary sittings since Barry O’Farrell took office, is tightly holding her grip as the Lord Mayor and the MP for Sydney despite politician mayors from all sides of politics admitting it can’t be done.
[..]
Ms Moore, who pulls two six-figure salaries, has three offices and two distinct sets of advisers and staff for each position despite insisting there is overlap in the positions.
(h/t Linda Silmalis, The Sunday Telegraph)
It should be illegal to hold political office in multiple governments. It’s illegal to be a public servant and hold a political office, and the conflicts of interest there are similar to the conflicts of interest in holding multiple political offices.
In Clover’s case, it’s beyond me why she needs to inspect bicycle lanes in New York City when she has already plastered the darn things all over Sydney. And the climate change summit in Brazil…catch a plane to that one did we Clover? Wouldn’t a teleconference have been less carbon dioxide intensive? And how exactly are you being an effective member of the New South Wales Parliament if you’re absent a quarter of the time?
Beyond Clover, we’ve seen similar issues with politicians missing votes in the federal parliament. Here’s a thought, perhaps the rule should be that in order to get paid, the politicians have to turn up to the parliament. If you don’t turn up, your pay is docked…just like it would be in the private sector.
***
In business news, AAMI Insurance is set to close all of its branches, moving all of its customer service to the phone and online.
Spokesman Reuben Aitchison says the branches these days contribute just two per cent to the business and transactions of the Suncorp-owned company, while there has been a significant growth in business through the Internet.
He says the insurer will now concentrate on providing telephone and online services, and hopes to employ half of about 100 affected staff in call centres.
(h/t Australian Associated Press via The Herald Sun)
Personally, I don’t have a problem with this. If the branches, which are retail outlets anyway and not really able to manage insurance claims, are costing more to run than they are bringing in, then effectively my premiums are subsidising the branches, and I would much rather see AAMI’s running costs reduced than to see my premiums go up. I have no problem with their telephone and online customer service, in fact I have nothing but praise for it. If people really want to sit across a desk from an employee of their insurer, then they can go and pay some other insurance agency the extra money to make it happen.
(Image: AAMI’s Fyshwick building at a tad after 5am yesterday morning).
***
As a general rule, I find that most reasonable people like to help other people. A decent proportion of people are nice enough to want to go out of their way to help people that they don’t know, and are often willing to pay more for a product if they think it will provide a better deal for the person who produced the product. Unfortunately, as a result, these people tend to open themselves up to charlatans who have no qualms with pretending that an expensive product is helping someone, when in fact it isn’t.
For a very long time I have suspected that the “Fair Trade Coffee” market was a scam which was, at best, not helping farmers, and at worst, making their lives worse. Until recently, this was just a suspicion which lacked proof. Now though, proof exists.
That fair-trade cup of coffee we savour may not only fail to ease the lot of poor farmers, it may actually help to impoverish them, according to a study out recently from Germany’s University of Hohenheim.
The study, which followed hundreds of Nicaraguan coffee farmers over a decade, concluded that farmers producing for the fair-trade market “are more often found below the absolute poverty line than conventional producers.
“Over a period of 10 years, our analysis shows that organic and organic-fair trade farmers have become poorer relative to conventional producers.”
(h/t Lawrence Solomon, National Post, and additional h/t to Casey Hendrickson who alerted me to the story some time back)
Have a read of the article. Lawrence, its author, is very well versed in the coffee trade and goes in to some detail about how much of a scam the whole fair trade coffee thing is, and how it discriminates against the poorest of farmers. The highlight of which, for me at least, is:
It discriminates against the very poorest of the world’s coffee farmers, most of whom are African, by requiring them to pay high certification fees. These fees -one of the factors that the German study cites as contributing to the farmers’ impoverishment -are especially perverse, given that the majority of Third World farmers are not only too poor to pay the certification fees, they’re also too poor to pay for the fertilizers and the pesticides that would disqualify coffee as certified organic.
Their coffee is organic by default, but because the farmers can’t provide the fees that certification agencies demand to fly down and check on their operations, the farmers lose out on the premium prices that can be fetched by certified coffee.
To add to the perversity, it’s an open secret that the certification process is lax and almost impossible to police, making it little more than a high-priced honour system. Although the certification associations have done their best to tighten flaws in the system, farmers and middlemen who want to get around the system inevitably do, bagging unearned profits. Those who remain scrupulous and follow the onerous and costly regulations -another source of inefficiency the German study notes in its analysis -lose out.
I won’t repeat the whole thing here, although I do implore you to read it. Lawrence Solomon’s work here is exemplary.
***
In domestic media news, Derryn Hinch continues to fight his decades-long battle for the right to name sex offenders who prey on children, despite the fact that it could very easily see him spend his final days in a jail cell.
3AW drive time host Derryn Hinch has been found guilty this afternoon of breaching suppression orders relating to the naming of two sex offenders.
AAP reports that the journalist is facing the possibility of up to five years in prison, after Magistrate Charles Rozencwajg ruled he had breached suppression orders four times on his website and at a public rally. A fifth charge was dismissed.
[..]
Hinch remains defiant over his decision to name those guilty of sexual offences towards children.
“I still feel the same way I always have… people have a right to know,” he said outside the court.
“I know what I have done. I am not sorry for what I have done. It is a good cause and the law is a bad law.
“I don’t like getting convictions. There are always risks in doing the sort of work that I do and you pay for it.”
(h/t “Big Dan”, Mediaspy)
I happen to agree with Derryn on this one. I am of the belief that people who commit sexual offences against children are sick, vile people who are beyond help. I think they should rot in jail for life or face the death penalty, however in lieu of such laws, we should have the right to know exactly who these people are. The existing laws are wrong.
I hope that Derryn doesn’t have to spend his final days in prison, although if he does, then I have to admire his courage and his convictions (moral, that is, not legal).
***
To sport, and you may have noticed that I gave up on the footy tipping again. Truth is, I’m pretty hopeless at it, and I’ll gladly accept it and move on. I just can’t see the point in continually tipping with less than 50% accuracy.
That said, I am still a fervent fan of the Bulldogs in both the NRL and AFL. Alas that means this weekend has been a pretty poor one.
Watching David Smorgon’s (AFL Bulldogs’ President) body language yesterday, I got the distinct impression that he had a heavy heart from a difficult decision, and as such, I believe that Rodney Eade’s days as coach are very limited and he will not see out the season. This is a shame, because I think Rodney is doing a good job, and it’s the players which are letting him down. Just watching Rodney’s pure frustration in the box each week makes that obvious to me.
As far as I can see, the Dogs had a great chance at winning the Grand Final last year with a team which could not physically last beyond the year. The chance was squandered by the powers that be when they sacked Jason Akermanis. Jason provided the team with the extra option on the field that they needed, and were never able to fill once he left. Rodney Eade tried to work around the loss, but it simply wasn’t possible.
This year, be it through injury or an aging lineup, the situation is worse.
I strongly believe that Rodney could build up a great team within a few years if given the chance with some new talent in the side, and that this is our best shot at a flag in the coming years. A rebuilding phase is needed, but sacking Rodney is a bad idea at this time. I do hope that I misread David Smorgon yesterday.
In the rugby league’s version of the Bulldogs, it is reported today that coach Kevin Moore has lost the support of the board. I can’t say that I’m surprised. I’ve never been a big fan of Kevin Moore as a coach, and I don’t credit him with much of the success the club had in 2009 as I see a lot of that as being the result of board decisions and good players rather the coaching decisions. Kevin is one coach who I won’t miss should he happen to leave.
***
Some audio for you this morning which will touch the hearts of animal lovers everywhere.
Mark Levin, a great radio host and constitutional lawyer in America (we’ve discussed his work here previously), is a dog lover. Sadly his best friend, the lovely dog Pepsi passed away a couple weeks ago. Mark took a week off to mourn the loss and spend the time with his devastated family. I was very saddened when I heard about the loss (Mark mentioned it on Facebook before disappearing for a week) and sent a card to Mark which apparently arrived on Friday. Many thanks to the nice people in Landmark Legal Foundation’s Virginia office for passing the card on to Mark.
When Mark returned to work on Tuesday, he devoted some of his show to explaining what had happened, and just how much Pepsi meant to him. I cried when I heard it, and I gave Nattie a really big hug when I got home. The audio moved me so much that I have to share it with you, with thanks to Citadel Radio for the audio.
[audio:https://samuelgordonstewart.com/wp-content/MarkLevinPepsi20110531.mp3] Download MP3
Mark, whose two other dogs Sprite and Griffen were shelter dogs whom he and his family rescued, is very passionate about rescuing dogs which have been abandoned. To that end, he and his family have set up a special fund, “Pepsi, Griffen & Sprite’s Legacy Gift” to help dogs who have been abandoned for one reason or another. All proceeds of the fund go to the Lost Dog & Cat Rescue Foundation who provide dental services, surgery, heartworm treatments, diagnostic testing and more for dogs who would otherwise be overlooked in crowded shelters. I know that Mark contributes greatly to the fund, so I simply ask that if you are at all interested in helping out and can spare a few dollars, please consider donating. I know that you will make a dog somewhere very happy if you do.
***
And that’s it for this week’s rather large Sunday Bits (3,500 words or thereabouts). I visited the Captains Flat weather radar during the week, so you can look forward to some photos from that trip soon.
You had a correspondent a little while ago who was a bit concerned about those ads about the live export of animals being quite graphic, and was concerned that they might air at times when children are likely to be watching. I’d like to allay those fears to an extent for you.
The ads have been rated “M” which means that they can only be broadcast at certain times of the day. To quote from the Television Industry Code Of Practice, M rated ads:
“May be broadcast during the following hours, except during P and C programs or adjacent to P or C periods:
• Weekdays (schooldays):
• 8.30pm–5.00am (see Note 1)
• 12 noon–3.00pm (see Note 2)
• Weekdays (school holidays) & Weekends:
• 8.30pm–5.00am (see Note 1)
Note 1: not in G or PG programs or sport starting at or continuing past 8.30pm. If the program continues past 10.30pm, this restriction ceases to apply.
Note 2: see Clause 2.10.3 of the Code of Practice for time zone difference adjustment.”
So the absolute earliest time that these ads can be shown is 8:30pm, except on school days where they might be shown between midday and 3pm as well.
And in regards to the call you had about global warming from the guy who just droned on and on, I think he came up with the analogy of the week. 0.05% of carbon dioxide is a very dangerous thing because, in this country at least, that’s the cutoff point to be chanrged with drink-driving. Based on his logic, I should ensure that I don’t fill more than 0.05% of my mug with milk when I make coffee, lest the cows explode.
Fair dinkum! I’m just going to assume that he was sleep talking, which is why he was rambling incoherently. Regardless, I got a really good chuckle out of the way you handled him.
