Imagine this. Imagine it's back before we understood as much about alcohol; about how a person's reflexes, etc., could be diminished even though they appeared fine.
Someone has drunk too much but the think they're right to drive. Someone else needs to get to the train station to catch a train for some very important purpose. So the first person offers to drive them. Person two makes the train and gets to do their very important thing. Person one has an accident on the way home and wipes out a car full of people.
Is this okay because person one had the best intentions and they didn't know at the time that it was wrong?
Showing posts with label political rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political rants. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Saturday, November 24, 2007
I'm happier now
I come not to praise Howard but to bury him. Never (ever) forget the Tampa, Children Overboard, Workchoices...
Some thoughts...
Kev-o-sev has a great speech writer.
The Australian economy is not Australian society.
Farewell Andrew Bartlett, I hope you keep blogging.
The Senate is a bit of a worry.
[END]
Some thoughts...
Kev-o-sev has a great speech writer.
The Australian economy is not Australian society.
Farewell Andrew Bartlett, I hope you keep blogging.
The Senate is a bit of a worry.
[END]
What's wrong with me?
Why can't I care only about myself? Why can't I be happy if John Howard wins? What do I care if Australia turns into a United States survival-of-the-richest society? After all, we bought our house in 1993 for $145,000 and I'm a gazetted ASO5 in the public service and Boycat's Mum has just won a permanent AO4 - we're pretty much set for life. I don't have to care about people other than my immediate family, so why do I?
Why do I give a crap about people that I don't know who don't have enough money, or education or a good enough job to earn the kind of money that I do? After all, when I run into these people at work they don't like me, so why can't I just say 'Fuck you people, I've got mine'?
[Yes, I've started drinking early. Why doesn't anyone have Don's Party on TV tonight? Did I mention I'm a pessimist? I usually say being a pessimist means you can't be disappointed, but you can be presently surprised. Why do I feel like I'm going to be very disappointed tomorrow?]
[END]
Why do I give a crap about people that I don't know who don't have enough money, or education or a good enough job to earn the kind of money that I do? After all, when I run into these people at work they don't like me, so why can't I just say 'Fuck you people, I've got mine'?
[Yes, I've started drinking early. Why doesn't anyone have Don's Party on TV tonight? Did I mention I'm a pessimist? I usually say being a pessimist means you can't be disappointed, but you can be presently surprised. Why do I feel like I'm going to be very disappointed tomorrow?]
[END]
Friday, August 03, 2007
In the City
I'm listening to "In the City" by the Jam. There's a line in it "In the city, there's a thousand men in uniforms/ and I heard they now have the right to kill a man". This was 1977, or something like that. Ask Jean Charles de Menezes about that.
According to the Guardian, the UK Police now want the right to take DNA samples from litterers.
[END]
According to the Guardian, the UK Police now want the right to take DNA samples from litterers.
[END]
Friday, June 15, 2007
Petrol prices
How stupid can people get - on the news a few weeks ago "Petrol prices leap by seven cents ahead of public holiday!" Well, of course: it was Thursday. Petrol prices always go up on Thursday; and that particular week, they didn't go up as much as they usually do.
Today (Friday - after the weekly rise) the price was $1.19. Two weeks ago, on a Tuesday (before the rise) the price was $1.20 - prices are coming down.
And anyway, if the government were really serious about global warming and stuff, they wouldn't complain - prices are too low anyway.
[END]
Today (Friday - after the weekly rise) the price was $1.19. Two weeks ago, on a Tuesday (before the rise) the price was $1.20 - prices are coming down.
And anyway, if the government were really serious about global warming and stuff, they wouldn't complain - prices are too low anyway.
[END]
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Gun nuts
Boy, the gun nuts are getting me down.
I know I could just stop reading "Reason" but I agree with them on so much other stuff that when the odd story comes up that I know I'll disagree with, I try to read it to expose myself to some other arguments. (Except when they're writing their global warming denial articles; I draw the line at that.) Reason are libertarians, and they believe in personal freedom. For them, that means the freedom to own guns since what a person does in their own homes is no one else's business. The trouble with that is that, if a person fires their gun in their own home the bullets don't just miraculously stop at their edge of their property. Whereas I believe my personal freedom means I have the right not to be killed by someone with a gun.
Anyway, I digress. The reason gun nuts are getting me down is that they can't see the other side of the argument. There's been two big furphies that have come up in the wake of the Virginia Tech thing. The first is that if you make owning guns illegal and stop law-abiding people from owning guns that means only criminals will have guns. No, if you make it illegal to own guns there are a lot less guns around, and everyone will find it harder to get them. They don't can't imagine what a society without guns could look like, so all they look at is "I can't get a gun". They seem to imagine that Wal*Mart will still be stocked with loads of guns with the only difference being that they won't be allowed to buy one. They can't see that no guns means no guns. Seriously - do you know how to get a gun? I don't.
The second fallacy came in an article by Steve Chapman in Reason on April 19: "The carnage at Virginal Tech was as bad as gun crimes get, but it was also as rare as they get". What the? What Steve is arguing is that there are a lot less gun crimes - "deadly violence is a diminishing danger" - but that totally misses the point that "some" is still a lot more than "almost none".
But I'm a realist, I know things will never change in America. That's why I will probably never go there again.
[END]
I know I could just stop reading "Reason" but I agree with them on so much other stuff that when the odd story comes up that I know I'll disagree with, I try to read it to expose myself to some other arguments. (Except when they're writing their global warming denial articles; I draw the line at that.) Reason are libertarians, and they believe in personal freedom. For them, that means the freedom to own guns since what a person does in their own homes is no one else's business. The trouble with that is that, if a person fires their gun in their own home the bullets don't just miraculously stop at their edge of their property. Whereas I believe my personal freedom means I have the right not to be killed by someone with a gun.
Anyway, I digress. The reason gun nuts are getting me down is that they can't see the other side of the argument. There's been two big furphies that have come up in the wake of the Virginia Tech thing. The first is that if you make owning guns illegal and stop law-abiding people from owning guns that means only criminals will have guns. No, if you make it illegal to own guns there are a lot less guns around, and everyone will find it harder to get them. They don't can't imagine what a society without guns could look like, so all they look at is "I can't get a gun". They seem to imagine that Wal*Mart will still be stocked with loads of guns with the only difference being that they won't be allowed to buy one. They can't see that no guns means no guns. Seriously - do you know how to get a gun? I don't.
The second fallacy came in an article by Steve Chapman in Reason on April 19: "The carnage at Virginal Tech was as bad as gun crimes get, but it was also as rare as they get". What the? What Steve is arguing is that there are a lot less gun crimes - "deadly violence is a diminishing danger" - but that totally misses the point that "some" is still a lot more than "almost none".
But I'm a realist, I know things will never change in America. That's why I will probably never go there again.
[END]
Damn those intended consequences
Under WorkChoices, it's legal to sack someone for the "operational" reason that you can hire someone else for less money. Don't you hate it when things you intended to happen later happen sooner?
[END]
[END]
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Misc 070417
Only three days to go...
With the Virginia Tech shooting , they are angry about the fact that notification was slow for over two hours after the first couple were shot in a dorm room. I think the reason is two people shot was no biggie. This is not my usual "a few less Americans is a good thing" view - I'm just saying that so many people get shot over there that, statistically, two more wouldn't have seemed like a big deal.
John Howard still doesn't get it. He acknowledges he's behind in the polls and all he can say is "What it means is that I must work a lot harder to point out the dangers of a federal Labor government." No buddy, you've got to work a lot harder to point out the positives of continuing with a Liberal government.
With the Virginia Tech shooting , they are angry about the fact that notification was slow for over two hours after the first couple were shot in a dorm room. I think the reason is two people shot was no biggie. This is not my usual "a few less Americans is a good thing" view - I'm just saying that so many people get shot over there that, statistically, two more wouldn't have seemed like a big deal.
John Howard still doesn't get it. He acknowledges he's behind in the polls and all he can say is "What it means is that I must work a lot harder to point out the dangers of a federal Labor government." No buddy, you've got to work a lot harder to point out the positives of continuing with a Liberal government.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Misc 070403
New from Ikea: Flat-pack houses
This is the benefit of stacking the courts: everything is legal - even if it's potentially illegal - if the court won't even look at the case.
John Howard won't sign Kyoto because he says it would be economically damaging to Australia; it "would have disadvantaged Australian industry". But then he says that "Australia is on track to meet its own Kyoto targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." There appears to be a large contradiction there, leaving aside the fact the we can't have our "own Kyoto targets" if we haven't signed Kyoto. We're on track to meet reductions targets. These are the same targets that we would have if we'd signed Kyoto. These are the same targets that the government says would damage Australian industry. But we're on track to meet them without damaging or disadvantaging Australian industry. So doesn't that prove the 'signing Kyoto will disadvantage Australian industry' thing is false? (My own opinion, informed only by my own cynicism, is that the government is lying about being on track to meet Kyoto targets.)
[If I'm being totally honest (and I'm not saying if I am) I'd like for nothing to be done about global warming. I think it would be fun living in 'interesting' times. I like maps and aerial photos and such, so it would be fun to go down to the beach and every so often and go "I remember when the water was only up to here, I remember when that island was a part of the mainland" - it'd be like living in southern Louisiana. Let's face it, I don't know anyone personally who lives in any of these threatened Pacific Island countries, so while it will be sad if loads of them die, it's not going to affect me personally. Mind you, I don't have kids. I might feel differently if I had to worry about future generations. But I doubt it, since I'm dead inside.]
[END]
This is the benefit of stacking the courts: everything is legal - even if it's potentially illegal - if the court won't even look at the case.
John Howard won't sign Kyoto because he says it would be economically damaging to Australia; it "would have disadvantaged Australian industry". But then he says that "Australia is on track to meet its own Kyoto targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." There appears to be a large contradiction there, leaving aside the fact the we can't have our "own Kyoto targets" if we haven't signed Kyoto. We're on track to meet reductions targets. These are the same targets that we would have if we'd signed Kyoto. These are the same targets that the government says would damage Australian industry. But we're on track to meet them without damaging or disadvantaging Australian industry. So doesn't that prove the 'signing Kyoto will disadvantage Australian industry' thing is false? (My own opinion, informed only by my own cynicism, is that the government is lying about being on track to meet Kyoto targets.)
[If I'm being totally honest (and I'm not saying if I am) I'd like for nothing to be done about global warming. I think it would be fun living in 'interesting' times. I like maps and aerial photos and such, so it would be fun to go down to the beach and every so often and go "I remember when the water was only up to here, I remember when that island was a part of the mainland" - it'd be like living in southern Louisiana. Let's face it, I don't know anyone personally who lives in any of these threatened Pacific Island countries, so while it will be sad if loads of them die, it's not going to affect me personally. Mind you, I don't have kids. I might feel differently if I had to worry about future generations. But I doubt it, since I'm dead inside.]
[END]
Monday, February 05, 2007
You can probably skip this one
The Qld Police Union are "extremely angry at the treatment of Senior Sergeant Hurley."
Yes, imagine being held to the same standards as a regular member of the public. It's a travesty, I say!
[END]
Yes, imagine being held to the same standards as a regular member of the public. It's a travesty, I say!
[END]
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
This is so disgraceful, I'm going to have to use the c-word
Centrelink.
There, I said it. I'm pretty sure it's the first time I've used it here.
If you go into Centrelink to lodge your dole form and you have what used to be known as a 'breach' - they have some new-fangled euphemistic phrase for it now, 'participation failure' or something - they won't process your form. They tell you that no one in the office can help you and they send you over to a phone to call some other place. The problem is you can't get through to the other place; you sit listing to hold music for a half an hour, or sometimes an hour and a half.
Sometimes there is someone in the office who can help you, but instead of getting to see them, they make you go over and ring them up. They make you sit out the front of the office talking on the phone to someone hiding in the back of the office.
You have to do this, or you won't get paid. Ever.
Centrelink used to pride themselves on 'customer' service. Now it seems they just don't care. They used to want to help people, now they make you talk to people sitting 10 metres away from you by phone. I'm sure it's so the staff don't get to see the people on the other end as people, just annoyances they can hang up on if they feel like it.
This is symptomatic of the contempt in which the Howard government holds unemployed people. It matches the contempt in which they hold employed people. (c.f. WorkChoices.) If you aren't an employer, they don't give a crap.
[END]
There, I said it. I'm pretty sure it's the first time I've used it here.
If you go into Centrelink to lodge your dole form and you have what used to be known as a 'breach' - they have some new-fangled euphemistic phrase for it now, 'participation failure' or something - they won't process your form. They tell you that no one in the office can help you and they send you over to a phone to call some other place. The problem is you can't get through to the other place; you sit listing to hold music for a half an hour, or sometimes an hour and a half.
Sometimes there is someone in the office who can help you, but instead of getting to see them, they make you go over and ring them up. They make you sit out the front of the office talking on the phone to someone hiding in the back of the office.
You have to do this, or you won't get paid. Ever.
Centrelink used to pride themselves on 'customer' service. Now it seems they just don't care. They used to want to help people, now they make you talk to people sitting 10 metres away from you by phone. I'm sure it's so the staff don't get to see the people on the other end as people, just annoyances they can hang up on if they feel like it.
This is symptomatic of the contempt in which the Howard government holds unemployed people. It matches the contempt in which they hold employed people. (c.f. WorkChoices.) If you aren't an employer, they don't give a crap.
[END]
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Misc 061013
The Queensland Roar looked pretty good last night, but Tom Willis should not be goalie. And it's not just his creepy resemblance to Tom Cruise. He just doesn't inspire confidence. And it's not just because he fumbled the ball into the path of an attacker with less than a minute gone, it's that he appears likely to do this often. Maybe I'm judging him unfairly in comparison to Liam Reddy who has impressed me with the way he dives into the fray; and he's got the best hands in the league statistically.
Another meaningless opinion poll came out today. Apparently 7 out of 10 people think Howard will win the next election. That's all well and good, but firstly, what people think is going to happen isn't worth anything and secondly, we don't have a presidential election system. So this survey is even less meanful than the "preferred Prime Minister" stuff. I don't think that trailing in the preferred PM polls has ever stopped anyone whose party won more seats from becoming Prime Minister.
And here's some stuff from September 25 - lost in drafts again:
Dog Bites Man: The Chamber of Commerce and Industry say that any Labor changes to IR Laws will be bad for Australia. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?
Iraqi Govt removes Saddam trial judge: Iraq's Shiite-led Cabinet has removed the chief judge in the genocide trial of Saddam Hussein, accusing him of being biased towards the defendant. - They only want judges biased against the defendant.
Argentines don't like Hewitt says Nalbandian: Don't worry, David. Australians don't either.
[END]
Another meaningless opinion poll came out today. Apparently 7 out of 10 people think Howard will win the next election. That's all well and good, but firstly, what people think is going to happen isn't worth anything and secondly, we don't have a presidential election system. So this survey is even less meanful than the "preferred Prime Minister" stuff. I don't think that trailing in the preferred PM polls has ever stopped anyone whose party won more seats from becoming Prime Minister.
And here's some stuff from September 25 - lost in drafts again:
Dog Bites Man: The Chamber of Commerce and Industry say that any Labor changes to IR Laws will be bad for Australia. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?
Iraqi Govt removes Saddam trial judge: Iraq's Shiite-led Cabinet has removed the chief judge in the genocide trial of Saddam Hussein, accusing him of being biased towards the defendant. - They only want judges biased against the defendant.
Argentines don't like Hewitt says Nalbandian: Don't worry, David. Australians don't either.
[END]
Monday, September 25, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Misc 060918
Pope Nazinger's problem is that whether or not the words were from an ancient text, he still decided to use them in his little speech. (Even if he didn't write it, I'm pretty sure he would have veto power over its contents.)
I'm sick of reading debates about "Australian Values". There is only one Australian value: Australians value being able to do, say and think whatever the hell we like. Thus by definition, nothing is "unAustralian", although I could still probably try to make a case that the word "unAustralian" is, in fact, unAustralian.
And the problem with this "Values debate" is that the media is talking about it and they're not talking about whatever it is the government didn't want talked about. That is, this is just an orchestrated distraction. I'm not sure what from, though - Jack Thomas? Something callous Ruddock said or did? Something stupid Vanstone said or did - because the distraction has worked and the media isn't covering whatever it is that they're not covering.
Queensland beat New Zealand 5 - 0 on Friday night. We were originally going to go to the game, but we both ended up too sick to go. (Boycat's Mum was off sick for 4 days.) That's the first sporting event I've ever watched where I was spewing I wasn't at the game.
Queensland won on Friday night, yet there was not one word about it in the newpaper the next day. I know that the "Home Delivery" edition of the paper is printed first, so that it can get into the trucks and out to the newsagents so it can slam into our garage at 3.30am, but seriously, what time do they put the paper to bed? The game finished at 9.53pm.
Sydney F.C.'s Steve Corrica learns the Gorden Tallis Rule. You just can't call the ref a "fucking cheat".
What do you reckon about old Star Treks with new special effects?
Apparently they're trying to blame Peter Brock's death on an inexperienced navigator. If that's the case, don't you think Brock would have said something when his navigator told him to drive through the tree?
I'm sick of reading debates about "Australian Values". There is only one Australian value: Australians value being able to do, say and think whatever the hell we like. Thus by definition, nothing is "unAustralian", although I could still probably try to make a case that the word "unAustralian" is, in fact, unAustralian.
And the problem with this "Values debate" is that the media is talking about it and they're not talking about whatever it is the government didn't want talked about. That is, this is just an orchestrated distraction. I'm not sure what from, though - Jack Thomas? Something callous Ruddock said or did? Something stupid Vanstone said or did - because the distraction has worked and the media isn't covering whatever it is that they're not covering.
Queensland beat New Zealand 5 - 0 on Friday night. We were originally going to go to the game, but we both ended up too sick to go. (Boycat's Mum was off sick for 4 days.) That's the first sporting event I've ever watched where I was spewing I wasn't at the game.
Queensland won on Friday night, yet there was not one word about it in the newpaper the next day. I know that the "Home Delivery" edition of the paper is printed first, so that it can get into the trucks and out to the newsagents so it can slam into our garage at 3.30am, but seriously, what time do they put the paper to bed? The game finished at 9.53pm.
Sydney F.C.'s Steve Corrica learns the Gorden Tallis Rule. You just can't call the ref a "fucking cheat".
What do you reckon about old Star Treks with new special effects?
Apparently they're trying to blame Peter Brock's death on an inexperienced navigator. If that's the case, don't you think Brock would have said something when his navigator told him to drive through the tree?
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Darwin Police look freaky
Judging by the footage I saw on tv this morning, they dress like soliders and act like Nazis.
[END]
[END]
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Voting
Well, apparently candidate for Mayor of Logan City, Councillor Lutton has admitted to sending a threatening text message to Councillor Darren 'Supertool' Power: "ur dead meat arsehole" during the election campaing, which ends today.
He's got my vote.
But then again, Lutton did put "landscaping" as his second dot point... and I just think we have to accept it that plants have to be left to die when we're likely to run out of water in two years.
While not running, Darren has apparently endorsed two people. I must find out who they are and put them last. One of them will be that Jessica Rowe-looking woman, because she's listed that she tried to stop the Daisy Hill Rd development...
[END]
He's got my vote.
But then again, Lutton did put "landscaping" as his second dot point... and I just think we have to accept it that plants have to be left to die when we're likely to run out of water in two years.
While not running, Darren has apparently endorsed two people. I must find out who they are and put them last. One of them will be that Jessica Rowe-looking woman, because she's listed that she tried to stop the Daisy Hill Rd development...
[END]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)