 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| The search for pattern | |
Some of us have labored under the belief that all those canings we got
from our sadistic school mistresses after the weekly spelling test were
actually good for us. They were certainly character building - and might
explain our fetishes for gags, thongs and rubber, but did the spelling skills
actually help out in our post-pubescent realities? How important is it to be
able to spell? Well it's very important because it makes us appear smart. And everyone wants
to appear smart because smart people are usually right. And people listen to
smart people. And smart people are better at telling others what they should
do. Smartness is the path to success. And the way to show you're smart is to know stuff. Like spelling. If two people
are having an argument, the better speller clearly knows more stuff (eg how
words are spelt). Therefore they must be smarter. Pointing out your adversary's
spelling mistakes proves that you're smarter than they are - therefore you must
be right. Remember Harvey Krumpet?
The lovable little retard who used to write facts in his little fact-book?
He knew that if he remembered enough facts he would become smart. Sarcasm aside, some of us (including yours truly) grit our collectivist
teeth when our colleagues confuse their/they're/there whether/weather/wether or
it's/its. Of course the annoyance is mitigated by the smug little inner glow we
get when our adversaries display similar peccadilloes. The reality is that some people just can't spell. Annoying to some of us
perhaps - but so are many things in life - those baseball caps and baggy shorts
that teenagers wear, techno, Ray Martin's toupee, Amanda Vanstone's dress sense
.. the list goes on. Sometimes it's just easier to look the other way
(metaphorically speaking). Particularly in light of the fact English is such a terrible language, and (if
the quality of the language itself were the only criteria) one of the worst
possible choices for an international lingua franca. It's just a
hodge-podge of different languages which were spoken by the
invaders-of-the-time in England, or by the elites who were trying to distance
themselves from the common English peasants. The Americans made some small
improvements to the language, but it's still an absolute bete
noire. However, like the qwerty keyboard and the Westminster system, we are kind of
stuck with it. So why not just memorize the little quirks, and take it
like men? It's not that hard - you just have remember .. you know .. stuff. Because maybe being a good speller doesn't actually make you smart. Maybe
just the opposite. One only has to read the relatively coherent ramblings of
people like Dear
Leader to understand that reasoning and spelling ability are quite
different things. People with a logical mind tend to reject irrationality and
inconsistency. Memorizing spelling rule exception after exception is a bit like
memorizing random numbers - why bother when you can learn principles, or facts
about the real world which can help to solve real problems? Which of the professions requires the most logical mind? No - don't say lawyers
- lawyers just need to lie with a straight face and perform logical
twists. Law is not about truth or justice, it's about persuasion. The
people who require real skills in logic are engineers (and IT developers). If
the bridge falls down, or the program fails there is little point in pleading
mitigating circumstances or reasonably doubt conspiracies - you will just get
sacked. And both of these groups have a reputation for appalling spelling
skills. Coincidence? Je ne crois pas. This is a good reason for never rejecting someone's arguments because of
their poor spelling. A piece of work rich in both vocabulary and spelling
errors is probably a sign of a logical mind. On the flip-side, it's also a sign of personality more concerned with solving
problems than convincing people of the correctness of their arguments. Someone
truly concerned with persuasion understands that more people will be
convinced by a spelling checker than logical structure. The real abuse of the language, of course, is not the spelling mistakes on the
web, but the sudo-Nglish which GEN-Y is SMSing on their mobile fones. The
tiny keyboards make proper typing nigh impossible, and the limited vocabs which
these ppl employ beg 4 a coding system which is all but unintelligible 2 the
uninitiated. Nglish has evolved gracefully over the centuries, but it may not
survive the age of the SMS txt msg. In the final NLysis, Nglish is in what the evolutionists wood korl 'a
period of punktuated ekwilibrium'. UR going 2 hv 2 lrn it B4 lng. I H8 it 2.
|
|
 |
| Back to the salt mines | |
The latest tactic in the union vs coalition industrial reforms battle is the
suggestion that employees will lose their rights to holidays including
Christmas and new year's day. Under the proposed changes, all holidays are up
for negotiation. Employers and employees will be free to negotiate the terms
and conditions of employment. The coalition claims that employees would be free to negotiate away holiday
rights for extra pay. Unions claim that employers will strip away the
hard-earned worker's rights. And many Australians are clearly concerned that
their bosses will demand they work these holidays - with penalty rates, and no
right of refusal. Ignoring the issue of whether the government should dictate the kind of
agreements which private parties voluntarily make between each other (if either
party doesn't agree, they can choose to go elsewhere), will this new law
(actually the removal of an existing law) make it worse for employees? The unions are certainly right that many employees will lack the confidence
to 'negotiate' better terms and conditions with their bosses. A young,
inexperienced worker will be no negotiating match for the experienced
businessman paying their wages, and they are well aware they will come out
second best. But over time, these people will take the less confrontational
approach - simply finding an employer who gives them a better deal. No
government legislation, or unions representation is necessary. People will just
gravitate to employers which offer better pay and conditions. From a personal point of view, I would love to get my employees working extra
days with no extra pay. I could extend the operating time of the business, and
the extra work done would increase my profits. But I wouldn't dream of
dictating this to my employees. About a third of them would quietly resign on the spot, another third would
turn up, but start applying for other jobs, and the remaining third are the
third that I would least like to keep as employees. Good staff are hard to
find, and up and coming employees (as they gain greater confidence and skills)
are even hard to keep. They get yearly performance reviews and pay increases,
not because the governments (or unions) dictate it (I don't think any of them
even belong to a union), but because they become more valuable to the business.
The cost of losing them goes up, and their attractiveness to other businesses
(like my competitors) goes up. So the reforms will make little difference in practice. They will create
greater possibilities. Perhaps one of my employees will one day negotiate to
work through public holidays, and neither of us will be prevented by government
legislation. But this is not very likely. But I am still hoping the reforms go through. There is the possibility
(however slight) that one of my competitors will be foolish enough to believe
the union propaganda and think they can take advantage of their staff. I might
be able to pick up some good employees, and maybe pick up some of his customers
in the fallout from his suddenly rapidly shrinking business. What a capital idea.
|
|
 |
| Telstra diminished by subsidies | |
Telstra has said that its obligation to provide basic phone services under its
Universal Service Obligation (USO) will become untenable. Under the agreement
Telstra subsidises the bush by $350M per year, and the government pays for
around half that. In an economy in which government monopolies were used to provide hidden
subsidies to special interest groups, the USO agreement didn't even raise
eyebrows. Clearly disadvantaged groups (like those in the country) deserved to
have their lifestyles subsidised by the rest of Australia. Direct subsidies
through the tax system may have been the preferred option, but indirect
subsidies through forcing 'price equality' were also popular. However, the economic climate has changed considerably in the last few
decades. Privatisation and deregulatory reforms started by the Labour
government, and continued with gusto by the Coalition have brought the nation
much closer to a system where the consumer chooses, and pays, for their
products. Telstra now operates in a competitive environment, and is about to be
completely privatised. A government payment to a private company would be
unacceptable to their competitors, not to mention the voters. And forcing a
private company to sell their product (phone services) below cost would be
considered an unfair burden to place on a private company, and would greatly
lower the share price when the remaining shares are sold in the T3 float. So the goverment, and Telstra, face a dilemma. How do we continue to
subsidize our fellow Australians who choose to live in the country? We
don't. We never should have. The arguments in favor of rural subsidization are fallacious. They usually
revolve around two arguments: one, that disadvantaged people deserve
welfare; two, that removing subsidies will raise the cost of food, and everyone
will be worse off. Rural subsidization proponents usually flip between these
argument to avoid getting pinned on either of them, while mouthing as many
platitudes as possible. People disadvantaged by their address have the option to move. If moving to
a less disadvantaged address has prohibitive overheads (eg the high cost of
rents in the city) then perhaps those people are not actually disadvantaged by
their address at all. Given a free choice, people will tend to move to places
where they enjoy the best lifestyle. Removing rural subsidies probably would increase the cost of food, but is
unlikely to rise by more than the subsidies needed to keep it low. Any
suggestion that people would starve is ridiculous. Less rural dwellers would
lower the supply of rural labor, and therefore raise its cost, food production
prices would increase, and lead to lower production. As production dropped,
food prices would rise, and prices would stabilize accordingly. But Australia's national pride is at stake - the romantic notion that
Australia is a nation of sweeping plains, droughts, floods and massive food
surpluses is threatened, and reason takes a back seat to national fervor. In fact, Telstra's conundrum is an relic of a past mindset - a failed,
damaging and discredited economic paradigm which has no place in modern
Australia. There is no call for people to live at the expense of others, and
genuine choice is crucial for a free society. It might be a bitter pill for our nationalist pride but sometimes the
best medicine is the worst tasting. Australia will make a full recovery.
|
|
 |
| Press any key | |
Yes, there was an outage. This one was caused by a blackout which
even took out the UPS. Gotta love those state-run monopoly power companies .
|
|
 |
| Anticlimax in intended orgy of blood | |
The connection between impotence and suicide bombers has been observed before
in this column, and the second wave of London bombings are a case in point. Four suicide bomber wannabes were all ready for earthly departures and pressed
their triggers. Expecting to be hoist by their own petards, they
said their Allah Akbars, assumed the position ready to receive their
72 Virgins and ... poof! The detonators failed to set off the primary
charges. Every leftie knows
that the key to compassion, understanding and world peace is to put yourself in
someone else's position and see things from their point of view. So what goes
through the mind of the Islamic psychopath as their suicide bomb fails? Well that was easy. Hang on. I seem to be at the same
place. Where are my 72 virgins? Maybe that's one there across the isle. She's
bloody ugly. Nope these are the same dreary London commuters who were here
before - only they look a bit angrier now. Damn. My bomb didn't go off, and now
everyone is looking at me. Why didn't the bomb go off? Am I the victim of some
weird practical joke? Did I just blow up 3 kilos of child's plasticine? Never
mind I'll have to go to plan-B. Umm .. so what is plan-B? I must have missed
that day in terrorism school. These commuters look pretty angry, I think I'd
better run away before they .. you know .. hurt me. Then I guess you leg it as angry fellow commuters form an instant lynching
squad. Clearly these guys must have been the B-team. The photocopies who were not
quite as sharp as the originals. The guys who used the cheap Asian imports
instead of the real thing. The laughing stock of the alma mater. The elevator
doesn't go all the way to the top. A few deaths short of a jihad. Nice
try. 10/10 for effort, 0/10 for success. No banana (and no virgins). Back to
Terrorism A01 for you psychos: How Not to Make a Complete Goose of Yourself on
Public Transport. At least the English police are doing their part - demonstrating their
enthusiasm for keeping the subways safe by shooting people on trains,
presumably a source of great comfort for Londoners. The shooting of a man for
refusing to obey police instructions may stop short of being a public
execution, but it was pretty decisive - he fled onto a train wearing a bulky
coat, and they thought he might be carrying a bomb. Carrying even small amounts
of lead can slow you down quite a lot, and five bullets worth kind of did the
trick in his case. Wearing a big bulky coat in the middle of summer didn't do
him much good - but the event gave everyone else a warm inner glow.
|
|
 |
| For your protection | |
Philosophers say that every cloud has a silver lining, capitalists acknowledge
opportunity in every changing circumstance, and socialists see every government
failure as evidence of a need for larger and more powerful government. All three will be claiming to have been proven correct after Little Johnny's
latest position on ID cards. Honest John of course, being the master
politician, doesn't take positions on any new policy straight away. His initial
position is always that 'we need a serious debate on the issue', then he
gradually hardens his view as he sees political opportunity coming out of the
debate. If it becomes a wedge issue (ie if the left are split on the issue),
then he normally adopts it - because it demonstrates the chaotic state of the
opposition. Kim (Fatboy) Beasley is left to waffle desperately and endlessly,
saying nothing, in order to try to unify opposing factions on the left while
the swinging voters quietly vote for the man they believe shows some principle:
Little Johnny. After the horrific London bombings by home-grown Islamic psychopaths,
the English are expected to be more likely to come over to the pro-ID card camp. Johnny was
critical of the ALP trying to introduce ID cards in Australia in 1987 because he was in
opposition. But now that he is firmly entrenched in government, something that
gives the government greater control doesn't seem at all bad. Exactly how issuing ID cards will stop Australian-born psychotics from boarding
subway trains with explosive back-packs is not clear, but democratic
populations are fickle things. Just like confused Muslim teenagers, they may be
easily persuaded - especially when they are groomed into a state of 'alert but
not alarm'. Who knows which way John and Jane Doe will jump on this one? Some of us remember with embarrassment going to anti-ID card demonstrations and
rubbing shoulders with lefties and those dirty looking people selling the
Socialist Worker, but a brisk walk to parliament house might be a good way
battle the mid-life spread. If only producing a thinner government were that easy.
|
|
 |
| That time of the year | |
Tax time is here, and many
people are wondering exactly what to tell the tax man in their tax returns. For
some, the temptation to move a decimal point to the left or right as they fill
in their income and claim forms it too great to resist. Particularly with many
'middle Australians' being quietly seduced into the
61.5-cents-in-the-dollar-effective-marginal-tax-rate bracket after the last
election's spending orgy. An extra 100 dollars on the 'expenses' column means
an extra $61.50 in the bank account. Not bad for 0.5 seconds work. But what about the morality? Given the problems with the tax system, is evading
tax merely a right or is it
in fact an obligation? It's not that taxes are evil
exactly - just that they reduce wealth because so much is lost through the
taxation process. Recent estimates put the immediate overall welfare loss at
20% (ie to spend $1 of government revenue costs the economy $1.20 because of
disincentives, having to pay bureaucrats etc), but that doesn't take into
account the damage that the government actually does
with the money. Paying a bureaucrat to decide whether you can cut a tree down
on your own property, paying someone to decide whether you are being discriminated against
at work, paying someone to decide how much someone else 'should' pay you for
your labor, paying countless petty bureaucrats to run around and issue industry
fines against people for not complying with ever more complex compliance rules
.. it all adds up). By evading taxes, you are creating incentive for yourself, and therefore you
are likely to generate more wealth, and you stop the government damaging the
economy with your money. This is a win / win. Or at least it would be if it
weren't for the possibility of having to spend time in one of Her Majesty's Hotels sharing a
cosy little cell with that big bloke called Bubba. So evading tax is good for
the overall welfare (ie good for 'society'), but possibly bad
for you. Hard-core libertarians would say
that you don't have an obligation to put yourself at personal risk for the
overall benefit of 'society', so they have no obligation to put themselves at
risk by evading taxes. Many statists however, say that
you have an obligation 'to the common good'. Hence for libertarians, tax evasion is merely a right. But if you are a good
statist, then tax evasion becomes an obligation. It's a pity more statists don't realize this.
|
|
 |
| Bureaucrat deported! | |
As predicted in this column, the government made a slow and calculated release
of information about bungles in the department of immigration which have resulted in
wrongful detention and a deportation. The slow release of information might prolong the electoral agony, but it
allows incompetent or dishonest public servants time to reposition themselves
before any recommendations are released. Immigration Department secretary Bill Farmer has been 'moved on' just days
before the report which is believed to be highly critical of the department,
and of its management. If he were being 'moved on' to managing a broom cupboard or sweeping floors
(with a corresponding salary adjustment) one might think that there was some
justice. But he is taking up a post as ambassador to Indonesia. Philip Ruddock insisted that
his skills can still be used effectively in support of the nation
It's true. Bum covering, and denial of responsibility are skills which will
make him right at home in the world's second most corrupt country. But the last
word has to go to the ANU's William Maley:
This appointment .. can be seen as an offshore solution to the Farmer problem,
If only more government employees were going with him. Maybe Professor William
Maley could set an example?
|
|
 |
| Stench lingers | |
Libertarians are fond of denouncing the power of the mob, but it is easy to
lose sight of the fact that they are actually denouncing coercion by the
mob. Voluntary actions of the mob (in the form of consumers of a product for
example) are a core part of the power of the free market. Sometimes,
however, actions of the mob are downright controversial. Intellectual elites (ie those of us with televisions) might be aware of recent
unpleasantness
on London's train system, but may have missed the South Korean transitory
tale
of the Dog Poop Girl.
For The Great Unwashed, here is a summary:
- Girl's dog does its business on a train.
- Fellow travelers suggest to the girl that it might be appropriate
for her to clean it up.
- Girl gets belligerent, and tells them to f- off (as you do when you are obviously
and inarguably in the wrong).
- Techno-junkie fellow traveler takes pictures of the incident with a mobile phone camera
and posts them on a popular web-site.
- There are calls for the people to try to identify the 'Dog Poop Girl'.
- People not only identify her but (in the resultant web-media feeding frenzy) try to dig
up other dirt on her. Old enemies start posting every sordid detail of her
present, her past, that of her parents and her extended family.
- Publicly humiliated and indelibly stained with the publicity stench, 'Dog Poop Girl' quits her university.
- Bleeding heart bloggers explore whether the behavior of the mob was
'fair'.
George Washington University law professor and privacy specialist, Daniel
J. Solove writes:
Most people would seemingly agree to clean[ing] up after your dog, but having a
permanent record of one's norm violations is upping the sanction to a whole new
level . . . allowing bloggers to act as a cyber-posse, tracking down norm
violators and branding them with digital scarlet letters.
Ah, so the intellectual elite are concerned about the masses having a
permanent record of one's violations. Where does this stop?
Here is a little character test for the reader.
Your score is the highest number you answer 'yes' to.
- Do you have the right to have an opinion about someone?
- Do you have the right to record that opinion in a diary?
- Do you have the right to let someone else read your diary?
- Do you have the right to make a photocopy of that diary, and give the copy to someone else to read?
- Do you have the right to make many photocopies, and give those copies to others to read?
- Do you have the right to use a printing press instead of a photocopy machine?
- Do you have the right to use the internet instead of a photocopy machine?
- Do other people apart from you also have that right?
- Do voluntary groups of people also have that right?
- Do those voluntary groups include those who call themselves 'firms'?
On what moral basis do you prevent someone from letting others know about
someone's past actions? [we are of course talking about opinions or matters of
fact - defamatory lies are a topic for another time] It is not surprising that society's intellectual elites feel uncomfortable
about commoners having the power to record the past. Like common criminals,
power blocs always like the ability to 'reshape' history to suit their own
purposes - it reduces accountability. But surely if a ten year-old misdemeanor is truly of
no consequence after someone has 'paid their debt to society', then no-one
should care if it is recorded. Apparently power for the mob is good when used in a coercive way, but very
dangerous when everyone's actions are purely voluntarily. As for Dog Poop Girl, she probably wishes that someone had just rubbed her
nose in it and moved on.
|
|
 |
| London Underground: not a political movement | |
Everyone is famous for 10 minutes, but the corrupt, poverty stricken continent
of Africa got a whole three days attention as aging rockers and
anti-globalization protesters tried to get the first world governments to give
away ever increasing amounts of other people's money to corrupt African
governments in the name of 'justice'. That cause just died, as six 'security incidents' paralyzed the city of London. Blasting the anti-globalization thugs off the front page might be a good
feeling, but some of us were hoping to revel a bit longer in the joy of seeing
collective French noses rubbed in the proverbial after Paris' failure to win
the 2012 Olympics. Just the day before, Londoners were either rejoicing in the streets or shaking
their heads in dismay about London winning the 2012 Olympics. Even those people
who were intelligent enough to realize that winning the Olympics was a curse
must have secretly taken comfort in seeing hundreds of Parisians in tears when
their city failed to win in the corrupt bidding war of the International
Olympic Committee. The London committee was simply better at paying bribes to
the OIC officials than the French, and the best team won. Britannia Rules, UK! But now London has bigger problems. It's a little too early to start finger pointing at terrorist groups, but
if the nature of the arrests in London over the past few years is any any
guide, Middle-Eastern concerns would have to be high on the list of suspects. England has more surveillance cameras per head of population than any other
country, so there are likely to be some incriminating shots of people with
suspicious packages. And as for 2012, this may be shape of things to come, and it may be an
interesting Olympics. With terrorism promising to be the most high-profile
event, it's a pity the French didn't win.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
