Wednesday, 31 December 2014

Paved with good intentions

I thought I'd post something relevant to the party season.

Apparently the original source of the Party Safe logo.
Presumably the QLD Police have permission to use this.

Below is a note I received in the letterbox some time in the past year (names and dates removed to protect the innocent).


At first glance it's an extremely praiseworthy and considerate thing to do. I'm sure that if this blog had a big readership I'd be regaled with multiple horror stories (some of them maybe even true) of criminally inconsiderate neighbours partying to the point of a full-on Ferguson riot every other night; and everyone would be telling me how lucky I was to live in such a genteel neighbourhood.

But think about it from a different angle: Have we gone so far down the road to a totalitarian Police State that you have to register with the cops whenever you're going to have a party?

I checked out the web site referred to on the note and it appears that the registration process involves such things as getting supplied with identification wrist bands.

For a kid's birthday party!

Next there will be guards taking people's fingerprints at the door and making them step through a metal detector. Maybe they'll ban candles on the birthday cake as a fire hazard and you'll have to cut it with a plastic spatula (knives, of course, having been outlawed).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not criticising the people who sent this note. They're thoughtful people going out of their way to do the right thing; which is more than I could say for some. I'm just saddened that, these days, the "right thing" appears to be to unquestioning obedience to the Orwellian dictates of a Police State.

Sunday, 9 November 2014

Brisbane's Berlin Wall

Last year, a law was passed in Queensland parliament to "provide for the safety and security of persons attending the Group of Twenty leaders’ summit in Brisbane in 2014".

Having heard disquieting things about this legislation, I decided to download a copy and look for myself, and it's as bad as they say. It goes without saying that it won't provide any additional "safety and security" - you just can't do that in a city full of people. It seems to be there for three reasons:

  1. The usual Security Theatre. Window-dressing that looks like you're "doing something". Arse-covering if something happens.
  2. Extra powers for the police. An early Christmas present for the loyal Boys in Blue. Queensland coppers love their extra powers and, even though the powers are for a limited duration, they'll be sure to make full use of them while they last.
  3. Last, and certainly not least, to criminalise any form of protest against the summit. Section 18 of the legislation purports to allow for "lawful assembly", however § 18 (1) (c) states that if two or more people violate any of the sections of the act (and, as we will see, this can pretty much be guaranteed), the protest immediately becomes illegal. Moreover, much of the legislation can be used to harass and intimidate people pretty much at will.
Parts of the inner city are being fenced off, and the rest has been turned into a "declared area", within which there are extended powers of arrest and search . These powers are very wide-ranging and quite worrying. Some examples:

§ 33 (1) give the blanket permission: "A police officer may enter and search any premises in a restricted area without a warrant."

§ 27 (3) gives police officers the power to conduct a frisk search of a person of a different sex if "a police officer of the same sex is not immediately [my emphasis] available".  I don't see how that one could be abused.

They can of course use detection dogs, and are apparently protected from liability under § 35 (a) (ii) if this dog "physically intrudes onto a person or the clothing of a person" or "causes damage to a thing" that "may [my emphasis] have had in it or on it, a weapon or explosive". Despite the diplomatic wording, I can't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than permission to monster people with dogs with no comeback.

There is a "prohibited persons list", a blacklist compiled by the commissioner. § 51 (4) says that the commissioner "need not give reasons for the commissioner’s decision to retain a person’s name on the prohibited persons list", even if this defies "any rule of natural justice to the contrary".

To me, a blacklist is a perversion of justice. A person can be denied their rights at whim without being guilty of anything.

Persons on the blacklist will be prevented from entering the area for the duration of the conference. If they live within that area they will not be allowed to live in their own homes but will be forced to find accommodation elsewhere. Truly! The state has to pay "the cost of reasonable accommodation", but no other compensation, to the innocent person being thrown out of their own home.

But when we get to Schedule 6: Prohibited Items, the law goes from outrageous to outright ludicrous.

Let us have a look at some of the items that are prohibited within the city of Brisbane.

"3 (h) handcuffs"
[Source]

"3 (i) a whip"
[Source]

"14 a thing capable of disguising or concealing the 
identity of a person including camouflage paint or 
cream, a mask or a balaclava, but not including 
headwear, worn by a member of a religious group, of
a type customarily worn by members of the group"
[Source]

I have a feeling that some of the G20 leaders themselves might be at risk here.

"3 (m) glass bottles or jars"
[Source]

The humble jar of Vegemite; now banned! Is nothing sacred?

"3 (n) metal cans or tins"
[Source] 

I hate spam as much as anyone, but I wouldn't go so far as to classify it as dangerous in the physical sense.

"3 (o) projectiles, including, for example, 
stones, ball bearings or eggs"

This one was no doubt spurred by the "eggpocalypse" which occurred during the recent Scottish independence referendum; A politician got egged and it was hyped up by the British media as if it was the worst crime since the holocaust, and maybe even more newsworthy than Julia Gillard losing her shoe (difficult though that is to believe).

But then the real agenda starts to show through:

"4 a placard or banner to which a timber, metal or plastic 
pole is attached or a banner more than 100cm high by 
200cm wide"

Shush! It's not meant to be that obvious! You're meant to at least pretend it's all about the dreaded terrorists, and not about quashing legitimate protest.

Or are the terrorists going to smother people with their over-sized banners?

"11 a communication device, other than a mobile phone or other
telephone, capable of being used to organise activity designed to
disrupt any part of the G20 meeting, including, for example, a
two-way radio or a loud hailer, whether powered or not"


...or announce their presence using megaphones?

"13 (j) a thing capable of being used to construct a stage,
platform, tripod or tower or a structure similar to a stage,
platform, tripod or tower, other than a camera tripod"


...or exhibit themselves on a stage?

But now they've got their real reasons out of the way, time for a bit of weirdness.

"15 a manually operated surf ski or surfboard, kayak, boat or canoe"
[Source]

I have visions of insurgents, spear-guns ["3 (d) a spear gun"] at the ready, powering down the foetid swamp that is the Brisbane River on their surfboards, crying out "Cowabunga, you capitalist pig-dogs!"

"8 a reptile, insect or other animal capable of causing 
physical harm if released in close proximity to a person"
[Source]

Someone had some fun coming up with these.

"16 a floatation device"
[Source]

Seriously, I'm not making these up.

"17 a kite or other device suspended by airflow and
controlled by a string or cord attached to it"

[Source]

Truly...

But they didn't mention plastic oral thermometers with teddy-bear heads on them! Or did they?

"21 any other thing prescribed under a regulation"

This one seems to cover anything they want (note the use of "prescribed" rather than "proscribed").

So everyone, please take care when passing through Checkpoint Campbell this coming week.

Friday, 31 October 2014

In Support of Halloween in Australia




Over the last perhaps five years there has been a concerted effort by retailers to import the celebration of Halloween into Australia. "Happy Halloween" go the advertising banners in the supermarkets, which always struck me as terribly inappropriate: Happy Halloween? Shouldn't it be Scary Halloween or Spooky Halloween or some such?

As a fully paid-up member of The Left, my first reaction to this trend was naturally to denigrate it; partially on the basis of "Bloody Seppos trying to take us over" and partially because it was obviously entirely motivated by the desire to sell yet more lame junk to the public.

However, I thought about it a little more.

Currently, the major celebrations of the year; Christmas and Easter are already a) Utterly inappropriate to the country and b) Completely commercialised beyond any hope of redemption.

Christmas derived from a pagan winter solstice celebration and Easter from spring-time fertility rites. Wicker Man stuff that was uneasily incorporated into the Christian tradition as it overwhelmed other cultures.

Easter has now morphed into a celebration of gluttony. I mean, a few Catholics go to church and stuff, but the majority of people just gorge themselves to the point of sickness on chocolate.

Christmas, in turn, has become a horrible orgy of consumption. The worst, most ill-tempered behavior you'll see all year is in Christmas shopping crowds. And, seriously, Santas with fur-lined boots and hats in an Australian summer! And reindeer and snowmen!

So my argument is that if you're going to celebrate stupid, inappropriate, occasions for no rational reason, you might as well at least choose a celebration that's cool and fun.

Halloween is fun. It's not restricted to a narrow range of conventional behavior, but gives the opportunity to be creative. You can dress up in an almost infinite variety of ways. You can stick a Tony Abbott head on a pike in your front yard, and people won't look at you like you're crazy, but say admiringly "Wow! That's a really gross zombie head!"

So, open your mind a bit. Just because it's American, doesn't mean that it's inherently bad.

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Props for the Security Theatre

Cower in fear at the fiendish tools of death that appear in this airport display: A spoon, a miniature 1" long can-opener, and, worst of all, a pink plastic oral thermometer.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Imagine the terror you would feel when confronted by such a horrifying weapon, peeping, barely visible, out of the fist of your assailant.

Sunday, 21 September 2014

Terrorists STILL Don't Exist

The same people who brought you "weapons of mass destruction" and Dr Haneef, have done it again. An extraordinary attack on the Muslim community by the media, culminating in theatrical raids by hundreds of police officers.

Do not say that it is an insane overreaction; that is being too generous, because it implies that there was something to react to in the first place.

Every bit of this is based on outright lies. There are no terrorists, no bombs, no plots, nothing. Some innocent people have been arrested in order to further a political agenda.

Clearly, as an individual with no contacts in the security apparatus, I can't know this for sure. But I can't know for sure that you don't have a dragon living in your garage either, and one is as likely as the other. I'll bet you any money that no one arrested was guilty of anything worse than a parking fine, and probably not even that.

That the Murdoch/Abbott coalition is going down this Fascist* path is no surprise, but what is a surprise is that the Labor party and a large chunk of its supporters are goose-stepping along behind them.

[* = I don't user this term lightly, but it legitimately describes the situation.]

What is the point in going along with Murdoch's lies (and anyone in politics must know that this is all a bunch of lies)? You can't appease him; he will always be your enemy and he will always attack you whatever you do. You can't win by out-nastying the nasties (as Rudd tried to do on refugees), because the Coalition will always be perceived to be tougher in this area.

I hear people saying that Shorten is doing the right thing by maintaining a small target and giving Abbott enough rope to hang himself with. "Soon Abbott will go too far", they say. I call bullshit on this.

The ALP have been saying the same thing ever since Abbott became Leader of the Opposition in December 2009. "He's so obviously a brain-dead thug that soon he will do something so stupid that even Murdoch won't be able cover for him," was the theory.

Meanwhile, over the subsequent five years, Abbott has made disastrous blunder after disastrous blunder. Rarely has anyone called him on it, and always the media have covered things up or spun them to his advantage. If there was any theoretical line which could have been described a "going too far", he has long ago crossed it.

To complete the metaphor; Abbott has, with the aid of Murdoch, used the rope he was given to hog-tie the ALP.

You need to use different tactics because what you are doing at the moment isn't working.

The ALP only has a 1% lead in the polls at the moment. Given the absolute train-wreck the Murdoch/Abbott government has become, this should be at least 10%; even factoring in the mass of disengaged (and outright knuckle-headed) voters.

And then there is this insanity about going back to war in Iraq.

The Vietnam War spelled out in agonising detail just how stupid and counter productive it was to go around invading other countries. Do I need to point out the extraordinary human, environmental, financial and even political cost of this disaster? The cost was unbelievable and the benefits none.

You would have thought people would have learned from this, yet they happily marched off to repeat exactly the same mistake in Iraq (with, if anything, even worse motives and not even any clear idea of what they hoped to achieve).

The same lesson was therefore repeated; this time with the aid of glove puppets and slowly spelled out in words of one syllable.

If you don't get by now that it was a really really bad idea, you cannot be thinking at even a kindergarten level. To repeat this mistake before the blood is even dry from last time is something I find difficult to comprehend.

Please, could we just dial the idiocy back down to 11?

Thursday, 11 September 2014

Terrorists Don't Exist

Let's qualify that by saying that we're talking about Australia here. Other places, maybe there are some around, but over here a terrorist attack is only marginally more likely than getting gored by a unicorn.

Consider this. The last terrorist attack in Australia was the Sydney Hilton bombing outside the venue of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. This happened in 1978. Let us discount the theory that the bomb was planted by security forces, and assume that it was in fact a deliberate terrorist attack (by people unknown and for motives that are still a mystery).

That was a long time ago. Nearly half* of the people in Australia were not even born when this happened, yet if those in power were truly concerned about terror attacks, you would think they would do their utmost to ensure that subsequent conferences of this type were secure.

[* = median age of the Australian population is 37 years as per the last census and the event happened 36 years ago.]

Yet in 2007 the Chaser team easily managed to infiltrate the APEC summit in Sydney, with one guy dressed as Osama bin Laden, and all wearing fake passes, with printed on them in red "It's pretty obvious this is not a real pass". We're talking here about an economic summit with representatives of 21 nations, including even G W Bush, being present. The mind boggles; you'd have better security at a school social.

To me this was a real smoking gun. It shows that those in charge of our security are not even slightly interested in security. They know it's just a farce.

OK, if you've been paying attention, you'll know all this already.

But some people who must realise this (and I am talking about the majority of the federal ALP) are not pulling their weight in countering the deluge of Abbott-Murdoch hysteria that's yet again flooding the media.

So let me offer some advice for you to ignore.

If legislation is proposed for the purposes of countering terrorism, don't say: "This legislation is open to being abused" - that is conceding too much. You can assume that the purpose of the legislation was only to allow the abuses to occur.

We are not talking about side-effects of an otherwise worthwhile objective, we are talking about straight-out lying to justify something that is straight-out unacceptable.

Similarly, do not criticise such legislation as being ineffective in achieving its stated goal (and I admit that I have been guilty of this). If you say "That's silly, a terrorist could easily get around it by doing X", you have already been tricked.

When we are debating what a "terrorist" would or would not do, we are implicitly admitting that terrorists a) actually exist and b) are worth worrying about. We are letting the opponent set the terms of the debate; which means we have conceded ground and are half-way to losing before we've even started.

Moreover saying this sort of thing carries the risk that those in power will say "OK, then we'll ban X too". This is what happened when some genius realised that the explosive TATP could be manufactured from relatively innocuous liquid ingredients, and led to the absolutely retarded ban on taking liquids on board aircraft. The fact that actually manufacturing the simple chemical TATP (let alone anything more sophisticated) on board an aircraft is ludicrously impractical* didn't seem to concern anyone.

[* = The owner of that site, Nick B Possum (no relation) tends to venture more deeply into the land of conspiracy theories than me, however as far as I have been able to verify, what he writes on this particular subject is technically accurate.]

If someone uses the "T" word to justify anything, the onus is on them to prove there is a problem that needs to be solved. And they won't be able to do it because there isn't one. If they say "there is a real threat, but we can't tell you for security reasons", they are asking you to take the words of a known liar, with a vested interest, on trust alone. This should be rejected as a gross insult to the intelligence.

Let's call this nonsense out for the bullshit it is.

Saturday, 30 August 2014

Throw another Quorn on the barbie

This post is about Quorn. Not the town in the Flinders Ranges, but the food. Never heard of it, you say.

Barbecued Quorn

The story of Quorn starts in the 1960s. This was the time of books like Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. People were looking at the future and worrying. One of the concerns was that there would be a food shortage, and more specifically a shortage of protein, within a couple of decades.

One food company decided that it would be a good idea to research mycoprotein for human consumption. The idea was that rather than the inefficient process of raising animals for food, you instead took some cheap feedstock (in this case, starch-based waste products from cereal manufacture) and fed it into a fermentation vessel where it was used to grow a single-celled organism, such as a yeast or a fungus. With an appropriately chosen organism, you could produce a nutritious, protein-rich food on an industrial scale. Just what was needed to feed the starving, overpopulated world that many had predicted.

Had things worked out differently, they might have virtually saved the world, and become immensely rich in the process. As it happened, they ended up producing a niche product, unknown to the majority.

Quorn has a bit of an image problem. It's essentially a mould that has been processed in a factory to resemble meat, so it immediately evokes the response "Ewwwwww!". Which is illogical; we eat mushrooms which are a fungus. We eat bread and cheese and drink beer and wine, all of which are synthetic foods produced by fermentation. We even eat processed meat products like sausages, whose production would make the average person physically ill to witness. Much of the stuff we eat already comes from nameless factories. For instance, the "cherries" in a fruit bun are most often made from Calcium Alginate (extracted from seaweed) with artificial colouring and flavouring.

Because Quorn is something that's manufactured, it doesn't have any intrinsic flavour any more than - say - a car has an intrinsic colour; it's a case of "tell us what flavour you want". This is a problem. If you tried to create a strong distinctive flavour for it, most people would reject it as being unfamiliar, and it would rule out many traditional dishes which are expected to have specific flavours. If you try to emulate an existing flavour - say lamb or beef - you'll never do as well as the original article. You can try to make the flavour as neutral as possible, but then people will taste it and say "Meh" and "Why bother?".

The creators of Quorn have tried a mixture of the second and third approaches, with a surprising amount of success.

Nevertheless, Quorn seems to have few supporters in Australia.

The "average" Aussie, used to steaks and roasts, would reject Quorn as some weird hippie nonsense (although they would most likely not phrase it this politely). Why eat some meat substitute when you can eat Real Meat? they would say.

Whereas the hippies in turn would look in askance at this strange and possibly sinister synthetic food - one step short of Soylent Green - and stick to their organic tofu and lentils.

Foodies, although more willing to try the unusual, would probably not be so interested in an inauthentic ingredient which has (intentionally) an unexciting taste.

Fast food outlets could probably use the stuff very efficiently, but it seems they have to appeal to the masses and make a big deal of using "100% beef"*.

[* = I would never make the libellous suggestion that this means they use 100% of the cow; tail, hooves, eyeballs and all.]

The "Housewife" (and I'm afraid that this is still a valid title in this backward country) has probably never heard of it, and would be doubtful about introducing such an alien product to her family.

So Quorn falls, unloved, between the various camps.

Which is a pity, because the rationale behind this food still holds; it's a high-protein food similar to meat, but can be produced without the inefficiency (and often cruelty) involved with farming animals. Also, unlike factory farming practices (and even sustainable/organic farming for that matter), the process is under tight control, so you virtually eliminate the possibility of disease.

I eat Quorn myself.

I understand the virtues of growing your own food or buying it fresh from a local market, but here in the Brisbane suburbs it's a case of the local Coles/Woolies or fighting your way into the city to get to a market that's barely any better. So if you're going to buy stuff from an amoral faceless corporation like Coles Group, you might as well go the whole hog and get a completely artificial food.

The price of Quorn is comparable with free-range chicken. The economies of scale are such that Quorn could be very much cheaper than this if it were more widely eaten, but since it's a niche product, you have to pay a premium price.

Quorn comes in a number of different forms, the majority of which are aimed at the convenience food market (the holy trinity of the corner store - Pies, Pasties and Sausage Rolls - are there). This is not the emphasis that I personally like, but it's understandable under the circumstances.

My favourite variety, for reasons of taste and versatility, is Quorn Pieces.

Quorn Pieces

These are meant to substitute for chicken pieces and are intended to be used in a sir-fry. In terms of taste, texture and appearance they are almost indistinguishable from chicken, however I find them to be overall superior because they are easier to prepare and they absorb flavours much better. This is where Quorn beats tofu hands-down. Tofu has a texture like synthetic rubber and actively repels flavourings. It takes a first-class chef to make tofu taste any good, whereas anyone who can put together a meal can get good results with Quorn.

Quorn pieces cooking in a very well seasoned wok

When stir-frying, Quorn pieces can be cooked in pretty much the same way as chicken. Cook them from frozen (there's no real advantage in thawing them first, although you can do this if you want to), and use a little more oil than you would normally use for meat, since they are almost devoid of fat. Cooking time is about the same.

The standard (I believe) method of cooking a stir fry (cook the meat first, set it aside to rest while cooking the vegetables, and then add it back in at the end) works well with Quorn. I usually drizzle the Quorn with kecap manis (sweet soy sauce) and sprinkle with spices while it's resting - Quorn absorbs the flavours and they seem to come through better than when the spices are added separately to the wok.

A Quorn stir-fry

A quick and easy meal is to stir-fry some Quorn pieces and wrap in pita bread, along with lettuce and tomato and whatever sauce you favour (a home-made Caesar dressing works well, as does sweet chili sauce and sour cream). This is essentially a donner kebab. It's very tasty and can be done at a moment's notice.

You can also thread Quorn pieces onto a skewer and cook under a grill or on a barbecue. The trick is to select the biggest pieces from the packet and stir-fry them first for 3 to 4 minutes to firm them up. You can then marinade them and thread onto the skewer. Simply thawed, they are too brittle and can break when skewered, but a little cooking first makes it much easier.

Tandoori Quorn with steamed vegetables

The Tandoori Quorn above and the barbecued Quorn at the start of this entry were both made this way. The barbecued Quorn was simply marinated in store-bought barbecue sauce.

There are a couple of other varieties of quorn which can be used as basic ingredients (as opposed to those varieties which are essentially prepared meals):

Quorn Mince


This is meant to substitute for minced beef. You could use it in a dish like spaghetti bolognaise and most likely no one would be able to tell the difference. I've also successfully used it in spring rolls.

Quorn Fillets


These look like fish fillets, but are meant to substitute for chicken breast, although they seem a little denser in texture. They are not quite a 1:1 substitute for chicken (e.g. if you simply fry one up and present it with minimal seasonings, as shown on the packet, you'll be able to tell that it's not chicken), but I can attest they work really well in a parmigiana. Don't try to flatten them with a mallet (they're already flat enough and tend to disintegrate when hit), but thaw, coat in beaten egg and bread crumbs and proceed as with a normal parmigiana.

To sum up:

Quorn isn't a wonder-food that's going to cure all of your ills and turn base metals into gold, nor is it some incredible taste sensation that will have the gourmets writhing in ecstasy. It is, however, an extremely under-appreciated and versatile ingredient, which is convenient to use and very easy to get good results with.

If you want to cut down on your (or your family's) meat intake for health or other reasons, it gives you an easy option because it can be directly substituted for meat in many dishes.

Saturday, 23 August 2014

Who will rid us of this troublesome Abbott?


Peta Credlin and her amazing evil monkey puppet
source

This post is a little unconventional as far as blog posts go because I'm not trying to reveal my deep inside knowledge and incredible insights to an adoring audience of millions (that was sarcasm, by the way), but instead I'm posing a question, because I'm having difficulties in coming to grips with exactly how best to approach the horrifying situation this country finds itself in.

With my previous post on this subject (of only five months ago, but it seems like longer) I thought it was worthwhile to list the actions and policies of the Abbott government with which I disagreed. It was a long list and I ended up having to generalise, but I thought it was worth doing; partly to raise awareness amongst those who hadn't been paying attention, and partly to dispute the assumption that "all politicians are as bad as each other and there's nothing you can do about it". [OK, I don't have any audience worth speaking of, so this was arguably a waste of time. Nevertheless, you never know who'll get here via an obscure search, or what might suddenly go viral and if we all do our bit to fight the bad memes etc. etc. ]

But now it seems things have got worse to the extent that there doesn't seem to be any benefit in listing policies or explaining why they are wrong. All but the wilfully blind can see what is happening, and all but the wilfully ignorant (or those who hope to benefit from what is essentially systematic wrecking of the country) can see that it's bad.

A couple of examples from personal experience:

A few months after the election I was working in a Northern Territory town. I won't be naming any names. This town is a red-necked place where, until recently, Aboriginal people were openly referred to by many as "coons" (now they use the word "indigenous" with an ironic wink, which is not much of an improvement) and where Rudd's Apology was greeted with foaming-at-the-mouth rage.

Two workers were trading banter and one retorted "Next you'll be saying I voted for Tony Abbott!". This, apparently, was the worst possible insult that he could imagine.

At another work-site in the North of Queensland (not quite as red-necked but hardly a hot bed of left-wing radicals), a feeling of resentment against the government seemed to hang over the place like a toxic cloud. In the past, during the worst parts of the media campaign against Gillard, you'd hear a few people sounding off here and there, but it was nothing like that this time. This time a feeling of depression and suppressed anger seemed to fill every single person in the place.

There was a worker there who rides a Harley. He is dead-set against the current fire-arms laws and desires a return to the Gold Standard (which is the identifying mark of a libertarian). I wouldn't be surprised if he had a Confederate flag flying outside of the caravan in which he lives. [I should in fairness point out that he's a really good person to work with: easy to get along with, highly skilled and willing to go to considerable personal inconvenience to do a job right. Stereotypes only go so far.]

Politically speaking, you would think he would be a natural Abbott supporter, but he is irate at the Abbott government. His opinion is that their handling of the country is so bad that they should be executed for treason. He had never said anything like this about Rudd or Gillard.

And that was before the budget came out...

So there doesn't seem to be any point in banging on about how loathsome Abbott and his partners in crime are, and why what they are doing is so disastrous. It's like an outbreak of the Black Plague; everyone gets that it's bad, and most important thing is working out what can we do about it.

So what can we do about it?

It seems to me that there is only one reason that Abbott is currently in power: the vicious, unrelenting and totally one-sided press campaign against Labor. In my entire life (and bear in mind that I've lived through the greater part of the Cold War) I have never seen such blatant bias and outright lying by such an overwhelming majority of the mainstream media.

If it was wasn't for that, there's no way Abbott could have won. He has an obnoxious personality, his political views are extremist and out of step with perhaps 90% of the population, and his party didn't go to the election with any real policies (three-word slogans don't count). In any remotely fair contest, the Coalition would have been decimated.

The fact that the media is specifically biased in favour of the Coalition (rather than, say, just being right-wing in general), is most clearly indicated by the behaviour of the Coalition itself. They seem confident to tell obvious lies and contradict themselves in the most blatant manner. The only way that they would this is if they know the media will always cover for them.

And when I say "media", I am of course talking about Rupert Murdoch.

Now, the book Coup d'Etat - A Practical Handbook [Edward Luttwak 1968] - which is a sort of 20th Century version of Machiavelli's The Prince - has the following to say:

"If a political entity is actually controlled by a group which is not structured politically, then obviously political methods cannot be used to seize power. This is the case of a country dominated by a business unit. Imagine, for example, that General Motors did control the USA, in the sense that the Presidency and Congress acted as its stooges. If that were the case, power would have to be seized in Detroit, not Washington."
So it would seem that rather than worrying about Abbott, a better strategy would be to concentrate on Murdoch. It makes more sense to destroy Sauron than waste your effort fighting his orcs and trolls.

But how can this be done?

As Luttwak has pointed out, the normal political tools - protests, petitions and so on - aren't of any use.

Boycott his papers? Maybe, but they make a loss anyway. Their purpose is to influence people and not to make money.

I'll be damned if I want to wait around for him to die off; he could hang around for another decade or more, and cause an extraordinary amount of damage in the process.

Any suggestions? Anyone?

Help, please!

Monday, 28 July 2014

World's Best Practice

In the light of recent events - namely airliners dropping out of the sky like flies in an insecticide commercial - my previous post might look a bit precious; whinging about minor annoyances on an airline that has an unrivalled reputation for safety. First World Problems indeed.

In fact, I believe my complaints are all the more relevant, because they show that Qantas is continuing to embrace a "Worlds Best Practice" philosophy.

"Worlds Best Practice" seems like a good thing. How can it mean anything other than that you are the best in the world?

In reality it's a deceptive piece of corporate jargon. You need to ask "best for whom?".

For instance; some other airlines might be able to get away with half the ground crew of Qantas. Clearly (at least to the short-sighted bean-counters in charge) it would be better for the company to match this level of "efficiency". Half of the ground crew staff are then sacked. This is what "Worlds Best Practice" means.

It reminds me a bit of the rhyme: "Good, better, best / Never let it rest / 'till your good is better / and your better best." It can be twisted to mean the opposite of what it was intended to say. Consider this:

When something is good, it is good in comparison to some relatively objective standard. You can always argue about exactly what constitutes a "good" apple, but a blackened and bruised apple with worms in it would not be described as "good" by any honest person.

When something is better, it is only more good in comparison to something else. Thus the blackened and bruised apple above may be described as "better" when compared to an apple that has deliquesced into a pool of rottenness, teeming with maggots.

When something is best, it the most good out of a group. Unfortunately, that group may have no other members in it. The deliquescent apple above might be the "best" apple in the kitchen of a particularly piggish bachelor, if it's the only apple they have.

That is to say, "best" can be worse than "better" which can in turn be worse than "good"; it all depends on what you are comparing things to.

"Worlds Best Practice" means using the rest of the world as a reference point to aim at. We are now seeing what airlines are like in the rest of the world.

Do we want this here?

Saturday, 12 July 2014

QANTAS Baggage Handlers' Football Club: Favourites for the World Cup

It is arguably unfair to put the boot into airline baggage handlers, since they are only a symptom of deeper problems with our national airline. Nevertheless, it's a bit like the mugger who comes from a broken home; the ultimate cause behind their behaviour might lie elsewhere and they might be worthy of some sympathy - but that sympathy reaches its limits when it's your kidney they're poking a knife into. Or in this case trying to drop-kick your luggage into the back row of the grandstand.

Some years ago, after having numerous suitcases damaged, I purchased a Pelican case. This came with a lifetime warranty against everything except "shark bite, bear attack and children under five"*. On their web site they had photos of Pelican cases which had survived being blown up in Iraq.

[* = Yes, they are one of those over-hyped American products, but they are still very tough for all that.]

I don't suppose they employ bears or sharks at QANTAS, so they must be using children under five, because the first time I took the case on a flight, it arrived damaged so badly that I had to borrow a screwdriver to open it.

Here is what they managed to do:

Exhibit A

It doesn't look so spectacular, but consider that the metal reinforcing for the locking point was torn loose and rammed so deeply into the side of the latching mechanism as to jam it solid. It wasn't possible to open the case by hand. It's a mystery how they managed to achieve this; it must have required considerable force. Did they place it against a sharp edge and jump on it? Did someone repeatedly hit it with a hammer?

In subsequent trips, the case acquired scratches all over, deep gouges in the top, and was sent to the wrong place on one occasion.

The check-in staff used to have a nasty trick they'd play on people.

"Is it fragile?" they would ask.

"Yes," you would reply, hoping to have your case spared the worst of the kicking.

"OK," they would say, "sign this."

And you'd be given a label to sign waiving your rights to claim damages, because your property was "fragile and improperly packed". Checkmate, sucker!

The abuse of baggage, however, is actually one of the least bad aspects of airline travel these days.

I use to be strongly loyal to QANTAS, but now I alternate between airlines. I try QANTAS and they piss me off so much that I vow never to fly with them again. So I travel Virgin. Virgin then manage to piss me off even worse and I think QANTAS weren't so bad after all. So I go QANTAS next time, whereupon they find some new different way to annoy me.

At this stage the reader is probably thinking "First World Problems", and for sure I'm appreciative of the fact that I have (at least currently) safe and (moderately) convenient air travel available at a reasonable price. Nevertheless, the point I want to make is that things are unnecessarily and artificially bad and this is symptomatic of a worse underlying problem. Things could be (and were in the past) so much better.

It seems that both major airlines are engaged in a classic race to the bottom. Dishonest and deceptive practices are the norm. Staff are mistreated. Customers are a fungible commodity - eleven dollars made by annoying and ripping off a (previously) loyal customer is better than ten made by treating them decently.

A couple of examples:

1) Low cost air fares cannot be changed on line, but instead you have to ring them up to do this. Since they already have to set up the software to allow the more expensive fares to be changed, they could do this for cheaper fares at zero cost. Instead they have to spend extra money to employ people to handle the calls.

This is bean-counter logic. You actively spend money to give people on cheap fares a worse experience, in order to make those on the more expensive fares feel like they're getting something extra. It's the sort of thing that no one with a conscience would even think of, but it's more cost-effective than providing value for money, and that's all that matters.

2) Then there are tricks with extra baggage. If you want to take a second piece of luggage, it has to be booked separately, and rather than an endorsement on your ticket, you get sent a separate receipt by email which you have to print out (and it's not even a PDF, just to make printing harder). Sometimes - and this has happened to me - they "forget" to send the receipt and you have to ring them up and hassle them about it. It's all about tricking the careless (and we're all careless sometimes) into not bringing the receipt with them to the airport, so they have to pay again, at an even higher rate, for their baggage.

Naturally people complain and I'm sure they get their money back eventually, but meanwhile QANTAS essentially have an interest-free loan of your money. Again, appealing to the bean-counters. Of course the check-in staff have to bear the wrath of angry customers, but that doesn't appear on the balance sheet.

I could go on here and bore you with a list of further petty grievances: crowded seating, check-in Nazis with idiosyncratic ideas of what may be allowed in baggage, meals which exemplify the term "all sizzle and no steak", frequent-flier programs now rendered a joke, the high incidence of cancelled flights, peculiar pricing policies which often make it cheaper to forfeit a flight rather than rebook, and of course the ever-present Security Theatre, which is just as much a farce as ever. [And to be clear, these complaints apply equally to QANTAS, Virgin and Jetstar.]

What really concerns me, however, is that aircraft maintenance has not been exempted from this mania for sacrificing everything in the pursuit of the short-term Dollar. We are seeing yet another round of job cuts to engineering staff in QANTAS.

My understanding is that modern aircraft are like modern cars: they are safer and require less maintenance than previously. Paradoxically, this can be dangerous because it gives an excuse to cut back on maintenance and you can get away with more for longer before a real disaster happens. I have zero confidence that the heavy-handed industrial relations attitude of QANTAS is in proportion to any reduced demand for maintenance.

Friday, 9 May 2014

In defence of 419 scammers

I'm sure you've all had those emails from the widow of a Nigerian general who wants your help to get US$120,000,000 out of the country, and is willing to let you keep 10% for your trouble. Don't they just suck, and it isn't it terrible when people get taken in and lose all their money?

Some time ago, I stumbled upon a scam-baiting site; a place where people work together to get their own back on Internet scammers of this type. At first I was pleased that some effort was being made to stamp out this menace, but the more I read, the more I felt that something wasn't quite right. I first became worried, then horrified at what was going on. It certainly changed my perspective on the matter.

Before I write further on this, let me digress with a little imaginary scenario.

Imagine a place where there are two rival groups, let us for sake of neutrality call them the Silvers and the Golds. These groups are frequently in conflict and fatalities often result on both sides. The Silvers are distinguished by their use of blunt weapons; clubs, baseball bats, tyre irons and so on. By contrast the Golds always use edged weapons; cut-throat razors, knives, etc.

So far so bad: It isn't obvious whether being clubbed or being stabbed is worse. Both can hurt or kill you. They are by no means identical in their effects and it might be that under certain specific conditions one method of attack might be considered significantly worse, or more immoral, than the other. Nevertheless a sensible person would say that there's essentially nothing in it; being stabbed and clubbed are both are really bad things.

Now let us say that we are constantly regaled by sensational stories of people (invariably Silvers) being shivved and bleeding to death. Every time someone (invariably a Gold) sticks someone, it is reported in gory detail. Much is made of the pitiful suffering of the victim.

Societies band together for the banning of knives and the compulsory use of safety razors. Vigilante groups form to lynch anyone caught with a blade.

Meanwhile, clubbings go unreported and are ignored. Silvers take pride strolling around with clubs stuck in their belts, those who wield the biggest clubs are honored. Skill in the art of clubbing (but only for legitimate defensive purposes, of course) is considered to be the foremost determinant of a person's worth.

Now if you to complain to an anti-knife society about this situation, they would quite reasonably reply that it isn't their job to fix all of society's ills. After all, a cat shelter could not be considered hypocritical for ignoring abandoned dogs.

They would go on to say, also quite reasonably, about how knifings and slashings are a very terrible thing. They would truthfully say that it's not a good thing to have knife merchants skulking around looking for someone to stab. They would ask (probably sarcastically) whether you were wanting anti-knife societies to disband and thus allow stabbings to continue unchecked.

They would most vigorously claim not to be biased against Golds. They would never mention the word Gold when talking about stabbings (and would strongly censure one of their own for doing so) and they would certainly never claim that a Silver caught stabbing someone would be any less liable for retribution than a Gold. And this would not simply be window-dressing to obscure their real motivations, but would be something they genuinely believe.

"Yes, we agree it's also a terrible thing when someone who doesn't deserve it gets clubbed, and we also agree that clubbing can be every bit as bad as stabbing, but," they would conclude, "it's a free country; you can go form your own anti-clubbing society if it's a concern to you."

They would be saying nothing that's false or even unreasonable. Yet, when the clubbings outnumber the stabbings a hundred to one, and are punished by a limp slap on the wrist (if at all) - and when it's considered taboo and border-line subversive to mention this fact - the presence of a well-resourced anti-knife society exacting unusually harsh justice against knifers can't really be something to feel happy about.

Now let us return to the real world.

Consider the history of Africa: Slavery, massacres, the Belgian Congo, Apartheid, and God knows what else, going back centuries. Much of the wealth in Europe was plundered from its African colonies. Much of the wealth of America was derived from slaves kidnapped from this continent.

This sort of stuff hasn't just stopped. There are still massacres and genocides. Slavery still occurs; both literally (in terms of illegal human trafficking) and in terms of widespread exploitation of people; which is slavery in all but name. Who is it who sews your clothes or puts together your iPhone or digs your diamonds out of the earth for a pittance? Are they really any better off than slave labourers on a 19th century cotton farm?

Rich multinational companies have more power than poor African countries. By threats and bribery, a multinational can steal billions from an African country with impunity.

In my imaginary tale above, we can quite legitimately make the following substitutions:

    "Gold" = Poor Black
    "Silver = Rich White
    "knifings" = Taking money by 419 scams
    "clubbings" = Taking money by other dishonest means

But in actual fact, the real situation is even more unfair. Those billionaires exploiting third-world countries are amongst the richest in the world (apparently, the richest 84 people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion). They are not in any sense of the word in need, yet they destroy the lives of tens or hundreds of millions of people simply to increase their wealth still further.

Now imagine, if you can, living in Nigeria. Although not the poorest country in the world, it is hardly a wealthy place and nearly all of this wealth is held by a small elite. For the majority, there are few opportunities. Even if you're smart and work hard you'll have a miserable life. You are surrounded by corruption, and the examples given by your government and by the rich white corporations who control your resources, is that it's quite normal to grab whatever you can by whatever means are available.

Would you consider it legitimate to use your skills to lift a bit of money off (comparatively) rich whites - and especially whites hoping to obtain unearned wealth by dishonest means - or would you take the more "moral" course of working around the clock sewing brand-name running shoes, in an unsafe factory for starvation wages?

I know what I'd do in those circumstances.

Now let use look at an exchange from the 419eater scam-baiter forum, a place which deserves to be named and shamed:
"I'm going to throw this out here, but, and no offence to the great baiters who have done this, Abeche is so... last year. I hear the new Abeche this season is Liberia. Liberia, where our lad has a pretty good chance of being executed by a 9 yo child soldier, is a great travel destination... though things have calmed down recently. "
...

"Yeah, Abeche has been done. It's greatest selling point was how far from anything it is. However, the thought of our lad being shot by a child soldier is delightful to me. Liberia is more accessible than Goma, Congo at the moment."
[That was in the context of a romance scammer who was being tricked into following his supposed victim around the continent.]

Read it again and consider it for a moment. Here are a bunch of well-off whites quite openly trying to get a black man killed, and they are gloating over the prospect. [And in passing, I note that that they don't consider the existence of 9-year-old child soldiers to be an abomination, but merely a useful tool in their sadistic games.]

By comparison, consider this; sometimes salesmen knowingly try to trick people into buying stuff they can't afford just in order to get a commission. Bankers can knowingly give people loans that they can't repay. People lose all of their money and get hopelessly into debt as a result. Both in terms of the morality of the perpetrator and the effect on the victim, this is in many ways worse than a 419 scam.

Should we therefore form societies to arrange for the murder of used car salesmen, bankers and so forth? It would only be fair.

So, as usual, I've laboured my point excessively, so let me just conclude by saying:

Scam-baiters are cowardly lynch-mobs of well-off people who are unconsciously motivated by racism. By comparison, 419 scammers are simply doing what they can to survive and (in comparison) deserve your sympathy.

Monday, 28 April 2014

The Qantas apple

WTF is this? A "ready to eat" sliced apple in a plastic bag.


Aren't apples already "ready to eat"?

Sunday, 20 April 2014

Taking the Fuhrer's name in vain

I have a suspicion that the real reason people invoke Godwin's Law is that they are closet Fascists who consider any mention of their beloved leader's name to be blasphemy.

Apparently, if you call someone a Communist*, that's a perfectly legitimate criticism, whereas if you call them a Fascist you automatically lose because "Godwin's Law". That is to say, it's firstly a descent to a school-yard level of logic, and secondly it unfairly targets one side of politics.

[* = Recently however, the term "Socialist", or even in some circles "Liberal", seems to be taking over as a term of abuse, which is a very worrying trend.]

What I find interesting about the business is that whenever I have seen this law invoked (and it must run to the hundreds by now), it has almost without exception been incorrectly applied. There must be some selective blindness at work, because I have seen people cut-and-paste the wording of this law into a post without realising that it completely contradicts their use of this law.

Godwin's Law in no way prohibits the use of any words. It is not a law in the legal sense ("you must do this"), but instead a law in the scientific sense ("this is true"). In its original form it goes as follows:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
In other words, it states that over time, discussions tend to degenerate into name-calling and hyperbole. Which is a perfectly valid observation.

You can see how the law was intended to be applied: If, for instance, a discussion on the relative merits of different game consoles reached the point where people were calling each other Nazis (a thing likely to happen relatively quickly), it would be fair enough for someone to cry out "Godwin's Law", as a short-hand way of saying "this discussion has now descended to the point where rational debate is no longer possible and therefore it should be abandoned".

The difficulty I have is that this law is also used to stifle legitimate political discussion. Nazism and Fascism are not isolated phenomena belonging entirely to the past. People don't actually call themselves Nazis or Fascists any more, but the fact is that the same sorts of people, with the same sorts of motivations, are saying and doing the same sort of things today - to the extent that things are getting actually frightening.

You can point out, giving specific examples, where the behaviour of some political figure mirrors that of Hitler or Goebbels, and then some arsehole can arrogantly dismiss your whole argument (without having to counter any of the points you've raised) with the line: "Bzzzzzzzzzt. Godwin's Law. You Lose."

For sure, the vast majority of the time someone gets compared to a Nazi, the comparison is not valid. E.g.:
"I think euthanasia should be legalised"
   
"Isn't that what the Nazis did?"
or
"I believe in stricter firearms laws"
   
"Hitler brought in stricter firearms laws"
But that's only because debate on the Internet is usually at such a low level that the vast majority of the time any one line rebuttal is logically flawed. It's the same principle as Sturgeon's Law**.

[** Supposedly someone said to science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon "90% of science fiction is crap" and Sturgeon replied to the effect of "True, but that's because 90% of everything is crap".]

Now consider this exchange:
"Taking aspirin to reduce a fever is counterproductive, because a fever is the body's way of fighting off invading microbes. In this case it's better to leave your body alone to look after itself."
"Isn't that what a Christian Scientist would say?"
You wouldn't argue that a comparison to a Christian Scientist violated some particular law and that this in itself invalidated their statement. You'd probably reply something along the lines that in this case the Christian Scientist would be right despite themselves and that this was irrelevant to the argument you were making (or more succinctly: "a stopped clock is right twice a day").

If a comparison is invalid or irrelevant, you can simply say that it is invalid or irrelevant. Similarly, if a debate has degenerated to name-calling, you can say that it has degenerated to name-calling and therefore should be abandoned. Godwin's Law is neither necessary nor sufficient to address these issues.

So I suppose all of this is a long-winded way of saying that I think Godwin's Law has outlived its usefulness and should be retired.


[Update 17th August 2017 - it seems that Mike Godwin himself has come to the same conclusion and writes: "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis."]

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

It is un-Australian to worship the Australian flag

I saw this obnoxious thing on someone's car at the local shopping centre recently. [Edit: I should add  that despite the date of this post, this is not an April Fools joke; sadly it is real.]

Flag-worship is un-Australian, as is ordering people around like a freaking Dalek.
 
I can understand why certain people have an attachment to the flag of their country.

Imagine you are a soldier fighting a battle. Suddenly a large number of armed men start coming towards you. They may be the enemy and you may be about to die. If the flag of your country suddenly appears over these soldiers, it will become the most beautiful thing in the world at the moment. If you have a flag of your own, you'll be waving it over your head frantically, since your life may literally depend on doing this.

By the end of the war, it is easy to imagine that this behaviour has embedded itself at a deep emotional level in a soldier's subconscious - even without the help of the ceremonies and other rituals they take part in. The attachment could be so deep that a person might get misty-eyed at the sight of their flag, or homicidal at the thought of someone "disrespecting" it.

In other words, flag-worship could be thought of as a pathological condition caused by a traumatic experience.

Edgar Rice Burroughs - the author of Tarzan - wrote a novel called The Red Hawk. Like most of his work, this was a simplistic, action-packed tale of goodies versus baddies and (apparently) not intended to be a social commentary. However it featured the interesting concept of "The Flag" (the Stars and Stripes; naturally enough) actually being worshipped as a deity in itself. Thus characters would say things to the effect of "When The Flag created the world..." and "The Flag will be angry if you do that". I found this much more amusing than it was probably intended to be.

The worshippers of The Flag were, naturally enough, a fierce warrior tribe engaged in a generations-long war. Although fictional, the scenario made sense; if a people have endured an invasion or a civil war, they may be traumatised in the same way as an individual soldier, and their resulting psychoses (including flag-worship) may become part of their national character.

So it would fair enough to say that a flag may have great importance to those on both the giving and receiving ends of militarism.

Australia, however, fits neither of these categories.

Consider ANZAC day; the primary military-related event on the Aussie calendar. It was originally to commemorate the Gallipoli landings. There is much (perfectly legitimate) talk about bravery and sacrifice and so forth, but no one can say that Gallipoli was being celebrated. It wasn't glorious and it wasn't a victory. It was basically a disaster. We lost and had to run away.

ANZAC day is also unusual (and possibly unique) as far as such events go in that it's about both Australians and New Zealanders. It's not a nationalistic thing.

Australia's military heritage consists pretty much entirely of getting dragged into other people's wars (and generally losing*). The only exception was defending against Japanese invasion in WW2, and that was forced on us.

[* = Not necessary because we're incompetent but generally because we get thrown into unwinnable conflicts. I'm not sure whether this makes it more or less humiliating.]

While there's a general belief that Australians punch above their weight in warfare (but don't all countries think that about themselves?), we don't glory in fighting. It isn't part of the national character to think that it's wonderful to go around invading other countries. We don't parade our missile carriers (do we even have any?) through the streets, followed by ranks of goose-stepping soldiers. We aren't militarists, and we haven't suffered invasion, civil war or revolution either. We don't need a flag to cling to, and we should be glad about this.

Now let us look at the flag itself: It is ugly, both visually, and symbolically.

First of all, the Union Jack in the corner is an irrelevant relic of a fairly unpleasant colonial past. Australia was a prison colony. It was taken from its original inhabitants by the British without even the pretence of a treaty. Nothing to be proud of. Moreover, the United Kingdom has very little relevance to modern day Australia (we play cricket, and that's about it).

The Southern Cross is hardly uniquely Australian either; it's visible in all parts of the Southern Hemisphere, and a little way into the Northern. It could equally well be used by perhaps half of the countries in the world.

Symbolically, the Union Jack consists of the crosses of St George, St Andrew, and St Patrick. The Australian flag adds the constellation of the Southern Cross. That is to say, four crucifixes on the one flag. According to a recent WIN-Gallup poll, Australia is one of the top 10 atheist countries in the world. Isn't a flag consisting almost entirely of crucifixes just a little bit inappropriate?

The construction of the flag is also awkward. Aesthetically, the Union Jack looks fine by itself, and the Southern Cross doesn't look bad either (although having stars on a blue background is arguably illogical; at least PNG chose a black background for their Southern Cross), but the two don't go together. By contrast, the Aboriginal Flag is simple, distinctive, and with a choice of colours that not only look good in themselves but also are symbolic of the country**.

[** = I'm not saying that we need to appropriate the Aboriginal Flag; I think that would be unacceptable to both black and white unless a lot more reconciliation takes place. I'm just saying we don't have to look very far afield to find a better flag.]

Don't get me wrong here: I'm not campaigning for a new flag. Our flag is ugly and stupid and in an ideal world we'd have something better, but this is so unimportant compared to all of the other problems we're currently facing that we might as well not bother. And if it's going to upset a few service-people, why create unnecessary pain for very little gain?

Nor am I saying someone shouldn't be allowed to bow down before their flag if they want to. Put a sticker on your car that says "I love this flag" and I won't complain.

But what does concern me is that this person - and there are more like him appearing all the time - feels he has to right to aggressively order me to join him in his psychotic beliefs, and apparently I must either obey him or get out. That is un-Australian.

Thursday, 20 March 2014

Ditch the Drongo!

I went to the March in March last Sunday. This is the first protest march I have attended in quite possibly as long as 20 years. I was what you could probably describe as riled up, and not just about the "ultimate conservationists" comment I posted about last time - although that rendered me almost speechless, in the scheme of things it was simply another layer of diarrhea icing on a very large shit cake.

My apologies to any other drongos out there
 
A problem I had on the march - and I am facing a similar problem writing this blog entry - is that I didn't make a sign, because any sign that listed all of the things that were wrong with the Abbott government, would either have to use an unreadably small font or been too large to carry.

I'll try to briefly summarise how much the current government has achieved in just 6 months. To simplify things, I'll break it down into different categories of bastardry.

War on Science
  • No science minister. Seriously? This is the 21st century, and perhaps I should emphasise that this is the 21st century AD.
  • Mass sackings at the CSIRO.
  • Deliberate trashing of the NBN. 
  • Multiple statements to the effect that climate change isn't happening. On par with announcing the earth is flat. 

War on the Environment
  • No minister for Climate Change, but has a Minister for Sport.
  • Abolishing the Climate Commission [this also counts as part of the War on Science].
  • Seeking to repeal the carbon price. Abbott seems to have some crazed obsession with this scheme - a relatively simple and logical measure which has been adopted by many other countries without drama - to extent of blaming every possible economic problem on it. Multiple times he had blamed the shutdown of one business or other on the dreaded Carbon Tax, only to be contradicted by the actual company involved.
  • Sending a bunch of yahoos to the Warsaw Climate Change Conference to disrupt it and block progress in general.
  • Appointing Dick Warburton, a climate "sceptic" to head a review into the renewable energy target.
  • De-funding the Environmental Defenders Office.
  • Scrapping the Home Energy Saver Scheme.
  • Cutting all aid programs for environmental purposes.
  • Supporting the insane shark "cull" in WA. [This one is so stupid it also counts as part of the War on Science.]
  • Bullying the Great Barrier Reef authority to reverse their stand on the Abbott Point coal terminal. Just what we need; export more coal even faster, and dump 3 M tonnes of sediment on the Great Barrier Reef in order to do so.
  • Green-lighting the Galilee Basin mine. An extraordinarily large coal mine in the middle of a nature reserve.
  • Seeking to de-list world heritage forests in Tasmania.
  • Allowing grazing in alpine national parks. This had been banned for decades for good reason.
  • Removing the Standing Council on Environment and Water.
  • Scrapping the Critically Endangered listing of the Murray Darling basin to allow irrigators free reign. A serious ongoing environmental problem about to get worse.

War on the Refugees

I wouldn't have thought it would have been possible to actually make the situation here any worse than it already was (putting children in concentration camps is not the action of a civilised country), however the Abbott government has somehow managed it.
  • Navy personnel "allegedly" torturing people by forcing their hands onto the exhaust pipe of a boat, and then turning the boat around to Indonesia without giving medical treatment.
  • Sticking people indefinitely in a hell-hole in PNG where they get bashed and even murdered.
  • Separating new-born babies from their mothers.
  • Plus masses of other bastardry that makes me sick to even think about.
When things get to a stage where you have to have a media blackout to prevent the bogans (many of who are quite open about wanting the refugees shot on sight) from finding out what's going on, and when even China complains about your human rights abuses, you have achieved something really remarkable.

War on the Economy

For some reason, the coalition have a reputation as good economic mangers (not, in my opinion, borne out by the facts), so you'd think they'd at least do a little better in this area, but apparently not.
  • Start off by ham-stringing the economy by crippling the NBN.
  • Create uncertainty about what will happen with the carbon price.
  • Repeal the (already watered down) resources rental tax so that excess profits from mining go overseas rather than benefiting the economy.
  • Piss off our trading partners, especially Indonesia, but also India and China.
  • Then say goodbye to Holden
  • and goodbye to Toyota
  • and goodbye to SPC
  • Hello highest unemployment in 10 years. Quite an achievement considering that Labor did better during the entire Global Financial Crisis.
  • Then there's the sinister TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) deal. I'm not sure what to say about this one since it's a completely secret process. In so far as any information is available it appears to be the sort of agreement that a corrupt third-world dictator would sign to sell out their country for a wad of money under the table, before making a run for it. It's likely to be devastating for the economy, unless by "economy", you mean "foreign-owned multinationals".
  • And that's not even counting the economic effects of trashing the environment (e.g. tourism in Tasmania accounts for 5x as many jobs as forestry, so let's assist the latter at the expense of the former).

War on Women
  • Abbott taking on the job of Minister for Women. I mean, seriously, that's just insulting. If it hadn't actually happened, you'd think it was a heavy-handed satire. Even his supporters call him a Man's Man. It is so obvious that he doesn't know or care anything about women, that this has to be a calculated attack.
  • His explanation for appointing only one woman in his cabinet was that the appointments were made "on merit". Given that he gave cabinet posts to the likes Peter Dutton - someone who has roughly the intelligence (and general usefulness) of a termite-riddled fence post - this would also have to be a calculated insult.

War on the Indigenous

Howard's "intervention" (which Labor, to their shame, did nothing to wind back) was already such a blow to Aboriginal Australians that it would be difficult to make things worse. Pretty much every bad thing that could have been done, already had been done. Nevertheless, Abbott managed to find a way.
  • Savagely cutting the budget of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, such that they had to sack a third of their staff.
  • Cutting Indigenous legal services by $13.4 million, while at the same time providing $2.2 million in legal aid for farmers and miners to fight native title claims.

Miscellaneous Bastardry
  • Overriding ACT law on gay marriages - and not just doing this to appease some dinosaur like Fielding (which would be evil but at least understandable in political terms), but because he is actually against the idea himself. Moreover, Abbott condones the incredibly reactionary statements of Cory Bernardi, whose views on "non-traditional" families are remarkably close to those of Vladimir Putin (except that most likely Putin is doing it for cynical political motives, whereas Bernadi actually believes what he is saying).
  • Abolishing AusAID. Huge cut backs in international aid generally.
  • Cutting compensation for bushfire victims. Just after a big bushfire.
  • Attempting to block funding to organisations who refuse corporate sponsorship on ethical grounds. Even from tobacco companies.
  • An absolute extravaganza of royal commissions into even the most trivial actions of the previous government.
  • An orgy of union-bashing and attempts to reduce working conditions, even going as far as introducing legislation to allow people to work for half of the minimum wage, and be exempt from health and safety laws.
  • Multiple acts of bastardry against the unemployed, students, the disabled, and the less well off in general. This even goes so far as cutting the welfare payments to the orphans of soldiers.
You can see that at this point I've started to lose patience (it's like cataloguing individual turds in a giant sewage pit) and been lumping things together that deserve to be spelled out individually. But hopefully you can see why I consider this to be by far the worst Australian government ever. Even Bjelke-Petersen didn't manage to do as much damage as quickly, and his damage was limited to only one state.

Anonymous are taking up the fight, but, like in V for Vendetta, we will all need to help. 

However, the real problem we have here is not Tony Abbott.

Abbott is not a hereditary monarch, nor did he seize power by a coup d'etat. He was democratically elected by the voters of this country.

Democracy is often treated like a gift bestowed upon a people, like having a good climate or fertile soil, but with the additional advantage that it somehow makes you morally superior as well. In fact, democracy is a responsibility, or even a burden, imposed on a people. You get the right to choose, but it doesn't work unless you put in the effort to choose well.

It seems that people put more effort into decorating their living rooms, or even preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse, than choosing their government. People do sudoku or cryptic crosswords for fun, but aren't willing to fill in the senate ballot paper below the line. We are now reaping the results. And don't give me that "whoever you vote for, a bastard gets in" bullshit. Some politicians are demonstrably less bad than others; try voting for them for a change and see what happens.

Maybe I should expand on this last point. The process whereby politicians are elected is exactly like the process of natural selection. The environment dictates the nature of the animals within it. Those individuals who most suit the environment prosper, whereas those who are unsuited die out.

But the important point here is that natural selection works slowly. A giraffe does not spring fully-formed into the world, instead an environment which favours long-necked grazing animals gradually pushes evolution in that direction.

And so it is with politics. You can't expect a politician who is perfect in every way to stand up for election; instead you have a number of people to choose from, all of whom have various flaws. What you need to do is rank the available candidates in order of desirability and cast your vote accordingly (fortunately we have a preferential voting system which allows us to do this). If you create an environment that favours the better politician, you will get better and better politicians each time. Even if every candidate is unacceptably bad, you can still choose the least bad one. Casting a vote in this situation is not futile; in fact it is critically important. If you continuously maintain the selective pressure in the right direction you will eventually get your giraffe. If you stop applying pressure, it will be even worse next time.

If you punish a better candidate out of spite for not being perfect, you are applying selective pressure in favour of a worse candidate.

If you let your vote be dictated by biased mainstream media, you are applying selective pressure in favour of Rupert Murdoch's interests - and almost certainly against your own.

So everyone; next time you vote; take this important task seriously, invest a little bit of time and energy and don't be a fucking idiot.