A NEW MODEL FOR IRAQ?
No, not a third way between American Imperialism on the one hand and Islamic Fundamentalism on the other, but a model who actually speaks realpolitik at the grassroots (no pun intended - or maybe there was) level.
From the website: "Gabrielle Reilly... Political Commentator, Bikini Supermodel, Speaker and Diplomat. " Just about says it all, really. Visit:
Friday, April 30, 2004
A NEW MODEL FOR IRAQ?
Posted by Stephen at 8:31 pm
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
VICTORY AT THE VICTORY
Last Sunday night I had occassion to visit the Victory Hotel in Edward St Brisbane. Now, I have had prior to this quite a negative experience at the aforementioned venue. not because of anything that happened to me there but because of what DIDN't happen. I had arranged to meet certain people there who failed to show, thus destroying my faith in pub culture, mateship and what it means be be part of a team. At the time it felt like this would last forever, but fortunately my faith in the fun side of human nature has been restorred. From the outside the Vic as it is known is nor particularly impressive (See pictures here), although there is a whopping great neon sign on the outside. Also outside was an enormous queue which was a surprise. I was a bit concerned as to the criteria for entry as a well-dressed albeit young and inebriated looking couple were knocked back, but I managed to squeeze past the hostiles at the entrance after a bit of loitering outside.
I didn't visit the beergarden - packed to the gills, and also the scene of the uncrime last time - but headed straight upstairs to the pool room to marry up with my contacts (you know who you are). Not seen. Right turn into a little corridor and ran straight into them. On this subject the place is a veritable maze of winding passageways and staircases just like grandma's house - but instead jam-packed full of drunken punters on a spree. Off to the bar upstairs which is a kind of square arrangement bridging two separate rooms, one a kind of dance floor and the other I didn't care tolook into. Whatis it with pubs and dance floors? It has to a kind of hybrid intensity to it - not quite a pub, not quite a nightclub -with the end result being that you take your pots (guys) and Archers (girls) onto the dance floor to have a suck while you boogey the night away. This is obviously thirsty work as one of the keynote dancers (IMHO) I sailed straight over to the bar for a water with not much of a wait and the bar babe not missing a beat, simultaneously knocking up a vodka and orange.
Back to the dancefloor to mingle with the fashion tragics (Are satin boob tubes really coming back? And ladies, yes, tight denim jeans really do make your bum look big) and groove along to the DJ - reasonable choice of music - a little 80's, a litlle 90's, a little now, all competently mixed to a thumping bass line. It is my theory (although not tested) taht the drubker one gets, the quieter music sounds, thus necessitating a proprtionate response of volume. So it was loud, but not too bad, as a shouted conversation directly in another's ear could almost be heard.
I had to exfil early but overall I can happily say that my faith in human nature has been restored and I enjoyed myself thoroughly. Although the music was loud and the fashion was poor, this, combined with the sweaty press of hundres of drunken yobs, merely added to the cahrm and caharcter of the moment. Because of its rustic appearance and plethora of bar options, the old Vic stands tall in my books as a venue worthy of patronage. Well worth an investment of your time and money. Cheers.
Posted by Stephen at 5:06 pm
Monday, April 26, 2004
Not a new video, but an amusing one nevertheless. In my search for footage of US soldiers in Iraq to marry with Midnight Oil's US Forces, I came across this little gem. Shows US soldiers - the "Mullet mafia" - playing "air guitar" on a shovel, and pulling ridiculous tricks on a MTB. Quite a big download for us on dial-up (14MB or so) but well worth it (at least I think so). Set to the tune of Styx - Renegade (and yes, Tom will probably find that last sentence amusing).
Posted by Stephen at 10:38 pm
THORPE BROUGHT BACK! (NEARLY)
Well, actually, Stevens steps aside. Yeah! And who said our campaign to bring back Thorpe was a waste of time! the Thorpedo is back in the water, in the 400 and will be winning gold at Athens (if they ever finish actually making the poll, that is). We are taking this as a win for our team. Details to follow.
Posted by Stephen at 10:13 pm
DASH FOR CASH
Gotta love the USMC. The Green PR machine has churned out an article identifying the financial bonuses of being in a combat zone. but they were a bit hard pushed to get some nice sound bites. Thus:
"I'll have enough money to put in savings and on a down payment on a car," said Lance Cpl. Tirian M. Smikle, 20, a 1st Force Service Support Group legal assistant originally from Miami.
Staff Sgt. Travis E. Burks, 32, 1st Force Service Support Group's legal services chief: "I'll miss my ninth wedding anniversary on this deployment," he said. "I'm not thrilled about that fact, but the extra entitlements saved during the deployment will be there next summer when we celebrate our tenth. Our plans currently are to do something grander than we otherwise would have done."
Lance Cpl. Jonathan C. LaRoch, 20: "It's nice, but I'm not doing this for the money," said the administrative clerk, originally from Los Angeles. "If you're in this business for the money, you're in the wrong business."
Not trying to knock these guys down for trying, but don't the marines have any, well, Marines? You know, the guys that go hoo har, throw the grenade, storm the trench, kill with the bayonet? A legal assistant, a legal service chief, and an administrative assistant? Did the PR guys get lazy and just interview whoever was laying around the office at the time? (And BTW, this articel is not begrudging them their entitlements either. Every person deployed into combat is worth every cent they get paid, and more. So there.)
Posted by Stephen at 10:06 pm
Thursday, April 22, 2004
AS YE SOW ...On the off-chance he might be reading this... Open letter to the young man waiting beside his conked-out Camira by the roadside this morning:
(1) The bill of your baseball cap faces the front, not the back.
(2) It may seem very smart and funny to plaster your car with bumper stickers that say NO FAT CHICKS and PISS OFF. But don't be surprised if old fogies like me then can't find the time to spare to stop and help you.
Posted by Tom R at 12:50 pm
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
POLL RESULT: Should Australian troops be expecting Christmas cards in Iraq this year?
No, they will be home by then 0% 0
No, in accordance with local custom, Christmas is not celebrated 29% 2
Yes, and I will be sending each of them one 43% 3
Yes, they still have an important job to do 29% 2
7 votes total
Posted by Stephen at 12:18 pm
TURN OFF TV WEEK : APRIL 19 to 25, 2004
What happens during a seven-day experiment in life without TV? A whole new space to think emerges. You find yourself passing time in ways you never expected. And you start to wonder: when I reach for the remote, who is really in control?
See more at http://www.adbusters.org/metas/psycho/tvturnoff/
Does this mean there will be a blog turn off week too? Oh no! How will I cope? What will I do? I know - start a diary!
Posted by Stephen at 12:11 pm
NEXT: ACLU "NO PROBLEM WITH" PENNSYLVANIA LAW REQUIRING HOLY WATER DISPENSERS IN ALL STATE BUILDINGS AND TEXAS STATUTE MANDATING GIDEON BIBLES IN PRISON CELLS
"[California] Legislators would argue that most of the 5,000 bills they consider every year serve clear public purposes, and that it’s a cheap shot to trivialise their work by citing rogue proposals to regulate the size of children’s backpacks, control the amount of water a dishwasher can use, or prohibit the de-clawing of exotic cats. Indeed, the Legislature is about to debate whether to incorporate feng shui, the Chinese art of spiritual harmony, into state building codes. Political wags say the only good news about this proposal is, if it is adopted, it will probably result in the Capitol being closed down, since the building’s chi is way out of whack."
– John Fund, “Less Is More: Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks making laws should be a part-time job. He’s right”, Wall Street Journal (Monday, 19 April 2004).
Posted by Tom R at 11:00 am
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
100 LINKS IN 100 DAYS
Today I am starting a campaign to increase traffic to the blog.
This will also help increase traffic to your blog / website.
If you like this blog, please place a link on your site to it.
In exchange, I will link to your site. Easy?
I of course, as would you, reserve the right to decide what sites to link to.
Post your comments and blog / site URL below. DO IT NOW!!!
LINKING IS FUN!
Posted by Stephen at 11:05 am
Sunday, April 11, 2004
B. L. O. G. = Blog Loving Obsessives Group
You know you're obsessive compulsive about your blog when:
1. The last thing you do at night, and the first thing you do in the morning, is think about blogging
2. You rigorously critique each passing thought in order to deem it "blogworthy" or not
3. You dream about blogging
4. You write things for your blog on the nearest scrap of paper so they don't get forgotten
5. You save each of these scraps, in case your blog ever "goes down"
6. You keep a handwritten blog diary of all of your blogs
7. You ensure your blogs are e-mailed to you, and you carefully archive them after printing each one out. Twice.
8. You try and think up clever and witty headlines for each post, like "Blog Loving Obsessives Group"
9. You regard blogging as one of the four cardinal web virtues, along with Linux, opera and netiquette
10. You smile inwardly at new words like "blogosphere", and try to coin your own
11. You keep posting so as to keep your blog high up in the "recent postings" lists
12. You continually visit your blog in an effort to create more "hits"
13. You have more than one hit tracker on your blog, "in case any visitors get missed"
14. You check the results of each hit counter at least daily
15. You "google" your blog to see if it comes up first
16. You treasure every comment like precious gem, rare and beautiful
17. You regard strangers as merely people who haven't read your blog yet
18. You write comments in other peoples' blogs promoting your own
19. You ask everyone you meet if they know about your blog.
20. If someone asks what is a blog, you launch into an extended discussion finishing with them sitting in front of your blog
21. You continually tweak your blog template, in an effort to make your site look "better"
22. You put an RSS feed on your blog, but don't know what it is or how it works
23. You put as many site feeds, images and links on your blog as possible to generate "interest"
24. You start a campaign to get more links to your blog
25. You create your own merchandising advertising your blog
26. You have a blog named after you
27. You have your own domain name, which is your name, and is also your blog
28. You have BOTH a public AND a private "secret" blog, just for you
29. You regard blog hosting services other than your own with a competitive eye
30. You love your own blog hosting service with a passion approaching worship
31. You "rate" other blogs against your own as either better or worse
32. You regard your blog as an extension of your inner self
33. You regard your blog as a member of the family with the same rights and privileges
34. You spend "quality time" with your blog in lieu of other people in your life
35. You believe your blog loves you as much as you do it
36. You imagine your blog will be read by generations to come and marvelled at by future historians
37. You write lists about what it means to be obsessive compulsive about your blog
38. You blog lists like this on your own blog
39. You become anxious if you haven�t posted to your blog each day. Quick, post this list now.
40. You got this list from http://fathermckenzie.blogspot.com
Posted by Stephen at 5:18 pm
Saturday, April 10, 2004
WHAT ARE WE HAVING FOR DINNER ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT?
In accordance with the blogging policy of this site, mundance daily decisions will be put to the blogging community and the world at large to decide on our behalf.
I accordance with this policy, please complete the following poll:
Posted by Stephen at 2:59 pm
Friday, April 09, 2004
Thursday, April 08, 2004
TOM'S FATHER MCKENZIE BLOG
Thanks to Mark Shea for adding us to his great blog! We are henceforth now and forever more without disputation or error to be known, understood and referred to by the moniker "TOM'S FATHER MCKENZIE BLOG" (or at least until Tom gets over it).
UPDATE (15 APR): Tom has woken up to this as prefers the blog to stay as it is. Oh well.
Posted by Father at 9:27 pm
BRING BACK THORPE POLL CLOSED
Results just in.
You can see them here
Or if my HTML is flakey (drumroll please):
No, rules is rules 32% 7
No, because the "Thorpedo" is a known WMD 14% 3
No, his sexuality is questionable 0% 0
Yes, his sexuality is questionable 5% 1
Yes, there was a second gunman, on the grassy knoll 9% 2
Yes, he holds the world record at this event and is the best swimmer, and Australia loses if he doesn't swim 41% 9
22 votes total
YESSSS! BRING BACK THORPE (actually I voted at least 8 times for the last one, so there may be some sampling bias there. Who knows?
Remember to check out the merchandise, and vote in the next poll.
Posted by Father at 9:00 pm
Seen the latest in fashion? It involves mutilation of one's eye (now see here!)
Leave it to those crazy Dutchmen to do something like that. Reminds you of "Goldmember" doesn't it? "I'm from Holland - isn't that vierd?"
The title of this blog of course come from The Goodies episode where all the fashionable layabouts of London amputate their left leg in imitation of "Punkerella"'s appearance at the ball. (Punky Business). Ah the Goodies. The Prescient Ones.
Check out the last paragraph of the eyeball article:
"The institute, which carries out the procedure in cooperation with an eye clinic near the city of Utrecht, said it has a waiting list for people who wanted the implant."
And I bet you that list is as long as your arm. I see queues as snaking around corners like an opening weekend for a Hollywood blockbuster for that one. Idiots.
Posted by Stephen at 8:39 pm
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
ABBOTT: "DEPRAVED AND CORRUPTING"
In a recent article posted in The West Australian, Health Minister Tony Abbott suggested sexualised media images of women may lead men to act inappropriately towards them.
Really? No? Are you sure? This is scandalous! Now, were NOT blaming the victim here, but there is a relationship between provacative poses of scantliy clad females baring acres of flesh and men's attitudes to them. Wow!
I actually agree with the man. Now don't go howling me down and all that. But if you check out the Cosmo online poll you will ("What Kind Of Sexy Are You?") there is obviously a relationship in at least the author of the poll's mind between scanty dressing and sexual allure.
What's a hot date to you?
Slipping into your sexiest plunging neckline dress and hitting a club to shake your booty.
At a bar, you suddenly spot a totally gorgeous guy. What do you do?
Walk over and tell him he's just inspired a new drink: the Yummytini!
When you're talking to a guy you really like, you tend to:
Overtly play with your hair or the strap of your tank top.
Fill in the blanks: If I were reincarnated as a bra, I would be ________.
A red satin, cleavage-maximising, diamond-encrusted bustier.
Which famous women do you most identify with?
Jennifer Lopez and Britney Spears: eye-poppingly glitzy and gutsy.
For the ultimate birthday present, you'd give your guy:
Tasteful nude photos of yourself.
You've just been invited to a fabulous party. What do you wear?A low-cut slinky top and super-low-rider pants, to showcase acres of skin.
And this doesn't inspire to consider women as vacuous sexual playthings obsessed with men's opinion of them? Next you'll be telling me that I can't dress like the fab five and insist that I am straight!
Posted by Stephen at 3:09 pm
Monday, April 05, 2004
MORE ABOUT BLOGS
[Blogshop] - (the classic, orginal blogshop, from Alan Levine, Maricopa College)
[A Beginner's Guide to Blogs] (David Wiley, Utah State University)
[ETUG Blogtalk] (British Columbia's Educational Technology User's Group)
[WebLog WorkShop] (Georgia State University)
[Do You Blog?] (Randy Brown, Sinclair College)
from UBCWiki: Blogshop
Posted by Father at 5:02 pm
WOT IS A BLOG?
Top 20 Definitions of Blogging
by Debbie Weil
December 9, 2003
What is a blog? Why blog? Who should blog (journalists, marketers, CEOs, techies, educators, scientists, hobbyists)? Should blogging be pure or can you make money with a blog? Will blogging change everything?
Picture several hundred intense writer/thinker/bloggers at a recent blogging conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts. On the Harvard Law School campus, no less. You get the idea.
A blogging conference is not for the fainthearted. The metaphysics of blogging was a hot topic. The warmth of a virtual community (the blogosphere) enjoying face-to-face interaction was palpable.
Posted by Stephen at 4:57 pm
The Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) has wrestled with a few issues in its time, not the least being Resolution 84. Just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water . . .
Recently I can across the Reforming Alliance, no, not an anti-Taliban style federation of Afghani tribes, but a group committed to stamping out Resolution 84. Sounds like a plan. Just hoping they will not wind up being a single-issue party.
A group concerned at the 10th Assembly’s Resolution (84) and its impact have formed a national body, The Reforming Alliance within the Uniting Church in Australia.
This group has witnessed with dismay the crisis created for many congregations, migrant ethnic churches, Congress (UAICC) and the strains placed on some of our ecumenical dialogue. We believe that addressing this situation is urgent.
See their aims in detail here
By the way, everything you ever wanted to konw about the Uniting Church and sexuality but were afraid to ask can be found here .
And how does the RA relate to (now getting elderly) EMU? See here.
Posted by Stephen at 4:28 pm
Sunday, April 04, 2004
SPORT = ENTERTAINMENT = BUSINESS
Here's something I found recently on the William Morris Agency website:
Realizing that the lines between sports, entertainment and business continue to blur, the William Morris Agency's Sports Marketing Department provides on- and off-field representation to a growing number of some of the most dynamic sports personalities in the industry.
Good logic. Follow along with me:
Sport = Entertainment. Ok, I'll give you that, and even the other way (Entertainment = Sport, for those mad sports fans out there)
Entertainment = Business. Yup, I'll subscribe to that as well.
I''l even give in to Sport = Business. There's heaps of dosh to be made there boys and girls.
Business = Sport? No way, na huh.
Business = Entertainment. Only at 1am when there's nothing else to watch except the stock market ticker scrolling across the bottom of the test pattern.
And "dynamic sports personality"? How about "play sport first - be a dynamic personality second". If you're on field getting hammered weekly for your dynamic personality, I think your ball skills need to improve.
Posted by Stephen at 12:36 pm
Friday, April 02, 2004
Latest site updates:
Verse of the Day
Time / Weather Applet (although I'm not too sure about this one - it may go the way of the dodo)
Blogroll (haven't yet fully grasped how this works...)
Extreme Tracking (finally got a counter - actually 2!)
Posted by Father at 9:55 pm
IAN THORPE... AGAIN
Rearranging the letters of "Swimmer Ian Thorpe" gives some interesting results (courtesy of www.anagramgenius.com):
Is more mph in water
I'm the manpower sir
Try it. You'll like it. The second is definately my favourite. A series of commemorative items of memorabilia will be struck to honour this moment.
Posted by Stephen at 7:25 pm
INTERESTING ARTICLE IN THE JERUSALEM POST (link requires free registration) about a former Catholic nun, Rivkah Hyatt, who converted to Judaism. As far as I can tell from the article, she does not -- unlike other ex-Catholic Jewish converts such as Stephen Dubner -- have any ethnic Jewish background. Her reasons seem to be partly theological, but more a reaction against the extremely strict discipline of her cloistered Franciscan order (eg, one girl whose father died during her novitiate was not allowed to attend the funeral, since it fell during her year of absolutely no contact with the outside world).
Religious conversions always fascinate me. Almost all of the Christians I know of who've become Jews are former Catholics; very few Protestants, except for one French ex-Salvo (whose name escapes me) and a friend of a friend of a friend whose former denomination was Seventh-Day Adventism, which meant the difference was about the smallest it can be between Judaism and Christianity, at least as regards dietary laws.
Posted by Tom R at 2:46 pm
This is one of those areas in Iraq that is definitely squirrelly
Amidts the controversy over whether or not American news services should be showing graphic images of American dead, and the inevitable response by the US military,
I happened across the following comments:
1. "Viva mujahedeen!" shouted Said Khalaf, a taxi driver. "Long live the resistance!"
2. "Everybody here is happy with this," Mr. Furhan, the taxi driver, said. "There is no question."
3. Nearby, a boy no older than 10 ground his heel into a burned head. "Where is Bush?" the boy yelled. "Let him come here and see this!"
4. After the fires cooled, a group of boys tore the corpses out of the vehicles.... The boys dragged the blackened bodies to the iron bridge over the Euphrates River, about a mile away.
5. Captain Logan, who is stationed at a large walled base on the outskirts of the city, said, "This is one of those areas in Iraq that is definitely squirrelly."
Taxi drivers supply the resolve, boys provide the mayhem, while Marine officers draw on home grown hick comments to make sense of it all.
Picture this: Taxi Driver crossed with Lord of the Flies with a bit of Aliens thrown in for good measure. A foreign country, a US presence, and disgruntled locals. Sounds like every version of American foreign policy since the Alamo to me. It would also make a great Jerry Bruckheimer production .
Posted by Stephen at 12:25 pm
AS YOU CLIMB UP/ LIFE'S TALL TOWER/ FEAR THE MULLET/ AND FIGHT THE POWER/ EVERY MINUTE/ OF EACH HOUR/ FEAR THE MULLET/ AND FIGHT THE POWER ... From The Australian today (Friday 2 April 2004):
Drivers of hotted-up vehicles prized them more than their partners and believed their cars boosted their sex appeal, an Australian survey has found. A survey by an Australian car insurance company, conducted via their website, found drivers of modified high-performance vehicles often rated them more highly than their girlfriends or boyfriends. Almost half of the 180 respondents to the Just Car Insurance online survey said their cars were their main interest in life. Fourteen per cent of respondents said if forced to choose between their car and their partner, they would pick their car. Many drivers believed driving a hot-looking car boosted their sex appeal and 44 per cent of those surveyed said they believed people who drove modified cars got more attention from the opposite sex. Most respondents (52 per cent) considered themselves to be obsessive about their car. Just Car Insurance national manager Andrew O'Hara said he was not surprised by the results, posted by drivers of V8 and Japanese imports modified with body kits and expensive stereo systems. "They are just so passionate and obsessive about their cars - it's just amazing", Mr O'Hara said.
Posted by Tom R at 10:38 am
AHA! SO THAT'S WHY ABORTION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION! Slate.com's "Fraywatch" column quotes (with the heading "If fetuses are people, do we care?") a letter responding to William Saletan's recent article "Face the Fetus: It's time for abortion rights advocates to stop denying reality":
You might not wish, after all, to carry a tiny attorney around in a body cavity for nine months; you might not wish to undergo significant physical changes and risks to your health. And if I was to tell you that IF you let me stay there, then even after I exited your physical body you'd be utterly and comprehensively responsible for my well-being for the next 18 years... My guess is that if "miniaturization and random abdominal lodging" of fully grown adults was a common medical condition, the laws surrounding it would be complex and they would not assume that the "miniaturized" have an inalienable right to make use of other people's bodies by simple virtue of their condition.
The next 18 years? Gosh, that really is a heavy burden that might justify killing the parasite -- if there were no other alternatives. But is that the case?
Here's a thought-experiment. Suppose that, instead of having to feed, clothe, burp, change, educate, chauffeur (etc) this uninvited parasite for the next two decades, you could give the child away to someone who did want it. It would then become another person's child and their responsibility. You could forget about the child completely, if you wanted -- though of course contact, by mutual consent, would be permitted once the kid was an adult. After all, we're all about freedom of choice here.
A radical idea, no? I'm going to copyright this one under the brand name of "adoption" (pronounced "uh-DOPP-shun").
It's possible that there might be couples out there who cannot conceive children of their own, judging by the widespread popularity of IVF clinics. So there might possibly be a market (so to speak) for unwanted children.
Of course, any laws we make in this area have to be gender-neutral, because sex discrimination is wrong. So if a woman can evade caring for an unwanted child for the next 18 years because "adoption" is legalised (or for the next almost-19 years if both "adoption" and abortion are allowed as alternatives), then of course the man who impregnated her must have the right to refuse, if he wants, to pay child support for the next 18 years too. After all, we're all about freedom of choice here -- and also gender equality.
Posted by Tom R at 10:12 am
Thursday, April 01, 2004
ESPECIALLY THE EAR-SLICING SCENE IN GETHSEMANE... Andrew Sullivan on Passio Christi: "If Quentin Tarantino became a member of Opus Dei, this is the kind of film that might result".
UPDATE: This could really kick off a Top Ten sort of list:
* Opening quotation would be from Ezekiel 42, not Isaiah.
* Apostle Peter gets code-name "Mr Purple".
* Asked "How does freedom feel?", Mr Blonde (ie, Barnabas) replies "Freedom? No! Save us, Lord Jesus! Come back as Moses bearing a new Law!"
All right, seven still to go.
Posted by Tom R at 7:54 pm
NOT TO BE OUTDONE BY THE DR
The latest news about the real Doctor indicates that all systems are go for a new series starring Christopher Eccleston.
Hopefully the budget for this round of Doctor Who extends beyond a BBC back lot and an old quarry. Take a look at what the new Doctor may be wearing...
And note the outfit and situation of his female sidekick ...
(Actually the first picture is of Eccleston in Elizabeth, and the other is of "Perry" from the 1980's, but who cares? It's still Doctor Who-ish)
Posted by Stephen at 4:15 pm
TURBULENT PRIESTS ... Once again, whoever wrote this report on new background-checking procedures in the Sydney Anglican Diocese didn't realise that calling Jansenite clergy "priests" is as provocative south of the Lakes as it would be to, say, call Catholic churches "temples" or to address a Baptist pastor as "rabbi". On that same topic, barely a week after his successor was evicted from the Lord Mayoralty of Brisbane, apostate ex-priest Jim Soorley has been appointed urban growth adviser to Ron Clarke (yes, the running man), newly-elected Hizzoner of the Gold Coast. (Not to be confused with John Landy the runner, who's been appointed Governor of Victoria. Cathy Freeman for President!) What, Cavill Av not crowded enough already?!
Posted by Tom R at 4:01 pm
RULES IS RULES, OR WHY PACKER IS NOW $84 MILLION RICHER
So we think rules is rules is a good thing? Well that's what the tax office thought way back in 1999
The Australian Tax Office is tonight claiming a major win against the billionaire businessman Kerry Packer. A full bench of the Federal Court found that companies in his privately held consolidated press group have avoided millions of dollars of tax. The tax office believes it can now retrieve tens of millions of dollars in back tax, and that the judgment will worry many of Australia's major companies."
But now? Well, rules WAS rules. Kerry's had his day (or rather years and years) in court and emerges with a cool $84 million.
"Australia's richest man, Kerry Packer, has scored a big win against the Australian Tax Office (ATO) in court.
Newspaper reports today say the Federal Court ruling means Mr Packer will keep at least $84 million the ATO had been seeking."
It seems the Tax Office has been TOO RIGID in its application of the RULES IS RULES theory. According to Ray Conwell, a tax partner at Delloite and a former deputy commissioner of taxation, the case shows that:
"the tax office can't just apply a policy across the board without looking at the particular circumstances of the case and in particular the policy behind the law that they're applying".
How about that?
Posted by Stephen at 3:37 pm
SOME RELIEF FROM MY CO-BLOGGER'S OBSESSION WITH L'AFFAIRE IAN BLOODY THORPE ...So why did the chicken cross the road? Yes, you've seen that list before with Bill Clinton, Foucault, et al, on it, enough times to crash your mailbox. Here's some others...
GK Chesterton: Modern man often asks himself why the chicken crossed the road. But he has forgotten that it is pointless to ask that question until he has first gotten quite a different thing clear in his head. It is a queer thing, but it is true, not that the chicken crossed the road, but that the road crossed the chicken. Nay, a thousand roads have crossed a thousand chickens; ten thousand chickens have been crossed by ten thousand roads since the world began. A road is nothing but God's way of crossing a chicken. So if you begin by asking why the chicken crossed the road, you must soon come to ask why the road crossed the chicken. This is a truth that the Pagan did not understand, the Parsee could not understand, and the Puritan will never understand.
Jeremy Bentham: For the Chicken to cross the Road; - To traverse and surmount the span of the public Causeway; - may upon the basis of the First Principle of Utility properly be said to have of the Intitulative causes, two; - And of the De-Ratiocinated causes, three. Of the former causes, the Intitulative , three sub-types or further genera may be discerned; - Namely...
John Calvin: What! - that thou, impertinent mortal, shouldst spurn and account so little the sovereign will of God, as to ascribe unto the act of His creature, the common fowl of the yard, any other cause or antecedent motive soever, but that which was by the mighty outworking of His foreknowledge, will and decree eternally preordainéd?
John Finnis: Chicken, by virtue of its very nature as a rational creature, is possessed of certain intrinsic desires and faculties, which conjointly render it capable of ordering both the intention and the proximate result of its actions toward the crossing of roads.
John Hart Ely: We figure something's sure going on here, if chickens go crossing roads, and it doesn't take a genius to smell a rat with that - to guess that something must be pretty damn wrong with this side of the road when even the chickens start leaving it. Do chickens therefore constitute some kind of discrete and insular minority on this side of the highway, so much that they prefer to exercise an "exit" rather than a "voice" option? While no one can say for sure, it seems highly likely so...
John Rawls: Why did the chicken move away from its original position to a more Pareto-optimal locale? That is a question which classical Utilitarianism cannot answer. Instead, it is a question that can only be answered by a representative assembly of chickens called upon to draw up constitutive principles of road-crossing behind a veil of ignorance...
JRR Tolkien: Presently to the great Road they again came. Broad it was, and paved also, and in dust covered; and upon the dust could be seen tracks of feet, many of them. "Ho!" said Gimli. "Whether these marks be left by Man or Dwarf, Elf or Halfling, I know not. Yet this much will I warrant; it was no fell beast. For many servants has the Dark Lord; yet the Road they do not cross." "Can you discern no more amidst these signs?" answered him Legolas. "These marks are as of the feet of a certain fowl, one bred unto the farmyard, him that is named among us Círnol Sândas. Have you none such in the Shire also?" "Yes, but we call them chickens ," replied Frodo, shivering miserably. "O! How I should love to sup again upon some nice roasted chicken! But why did it cross the Road, here?" "Of such things it is no longer lawful to speak," told him Aragorn, sternly.
Karl Popper: We can never prove with absolute certainty any truth-claim about the chicken's motive. However, we can scientifically refute several alternative explanations.
Liam and Noel Gallagher: Ee, lad, noo doobt to re-enact yon scene off the ABBEY ROAD album coover.
Meatloaf: Refer to lines 675 to 831 of "Why The Chicken Crossed That Goddamn Road (And Why I Ran It Over With Mah Harley As I Went Burning Down The Highway Like An Angel On Fire, Because Mah Girl She Left Me, Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah)" (copyright 1978 by Jim Steinman).
Robert H Bork: The intention of the individual chicken is irrelevant to the task of interpretation. All that counts, and that should count, in any democratic polity is the intention of the Founders of 1787 who wrote the Constitution. Anything else is liberal egalitarianism that hardly deserves the name of law.
Ronald Dworkin: Any decision by a chicken to exercise its transversative rights and make its own road-crossing choices must be upheld by any rights-based thesis of law as integrity. For the state or any public actor to inquire into the chicken's motivations would be wicked; such an action would be profoundly violative of the chicken's basic avian entitlement to equal concern and respect.
Thomas Hobbes: Forre therre Bee bvt twoe Cawses thatte myght yndvce an Fowle orre Chyckenne too bestyrre Ytselfe ande ventvre fromme yts Farmyarde vnto ye Roade ande there-acrosse: And thee Fyrste of svch Cawses bee thatte whyche wee calle Hvngerre, ande ye Seconde bee thatte whyche men doe calle Vayneglorie.
Tom Lehrer: Some ask me why a chicken ambulatory/ Would cross the road. This whole debate's nugatory./ The answer's very simple, as it's plain to see/ Like all of us, his motive is amatory...
Posted by Tom R at 1:49 pm