Friday, 27 August 2010

The Great Toast Debacle of 2010 (Cont.)

I went back and showed the black powdered semi-buttered toast and the guy asks me if he should make it again. I concur.

Once the new toast had popped up, he proceeds to butter the toast and then presents it and asks me if it is sufficient. I agree and the add, “now some peanut butter” to which he acknowledges. Then he takes it back to the bench and is about to cut it and I quickly jump in saying, “no, wait, what about the peanut butter?”, the guy looks a little lost, I point out where it is and at that point he realises I wanted peanut butter with a little bit of butter, not half a container of butter with some peanut butter but at that point I think to myself, least it isn’t semi-buttered toast with black powder.

This is perhaps one of my greatest stories. I hope you enjoyed it.

You win! I ROCK!

Good night Seattle.

Posted via email from jww://

What was meant to be peanut butter on toast

Ended up as butter on some pieces and this odd black powder all over. Is it pepper? Maybe charcoal?

Who knows. What I do know is it’s going back.

You win! I ROCK!

Good night Seattle.

Posted via email from jww://

Wednesday, 25 August 2010

Greer calls Abbott a clown, refuses to acknowledge her role as bear in Moscow Circus

For someone based in the UK, I must say that Greer is an pest of the highest order.  In the SMH article entitled “Greer takes swipe at 'clown' Abbott” she forgets that she used to be a bear in the Moscow Circus...wait that’s absurd...yes and so is her labelling of Abbott.

Then as is mentioned in the article, Greer felt that Ms Gillard was targeted by the media during the election campaign because she was a woman. "The election wasn't fought on policies or issues or ideologies, but on sound-bites and gossip and sex," she added.

Umm, what? I don’t recall that. I do recall the bit about Gillard coping it for backstabbing Rudd, especially when she was on the same committees and wanted the same outcomes and yet after all that she is somehow meant to come out smelling of roses? Oh and right before going into a Federal election. Not once! Not once at all. She murdered a PM and to be honest, staying in power, even though a minority government, it’s pretty bloody lucky if you ask me.

Now back to the advertising campaign. I thought Greer was based in the UK. I didn’t know our tax payer funded advertising campaigns were broadcast in places a far reach as the UK. I would like my tax money back please.

The thing with Greer is her points in some sense aren’t so bad. It is the sheer single minded view though that ultimately ruins her. Clinging the feminist bandwagon as it plunges down a steep embankment. I’m not racist but come on, do we really need someone force feeding us this drivel? It only stirs anger and emotions that won’t help. It may well have had its place in history, it did but are we really a sexist nation now? I certainly hope not and from my experiences (OK, so I’m a guy and could be blind to this) I haven’t seen it and I know I’m certainly not like that. Is she simply repeating words that don’t need to be said like an  ever-present nag? Who knows.

Greer doesn’t leave me shaking my fists, however she certainly does leave me shaking my head in disbelief.

Thanks for your input Greer. Please do not come back to Australia. Oh yeah and England...she’s all yours.

You win! I ROCK!

Good night Seattle.

Posted via email from jww://

Students in WA told to plan terror attack

There was an article in the news this morning of a teacher in WA setting an assignment for his students to plan a terror attack with the aim of killing as many innocent people as possible and to be honest, I’m not entirely sure what to think. Reading the comments below the article, most were deploring the teacher. Only perhaps one or two were in agreement.

It ranges from comments such as,

       This teacher should be sacked.

       Posted by Stevie - August 25, 2010, 8:09AM

to this,

It's the Australian's who think their precious little darlings shouldn't be exposed to this sort of thing that are clueless; have none of you ever heard the term "know your enemy"?

      Posted by Tanukisan - August 25, 2010, 8:05AM.

It is a controversial topic but we teach sex education around the same age warning teenagers of all the consequences, why not expose them to something they see on TV all the time anyway? I guess it’s easy for me, not having kids removes some of the emotion from the topic and perhaps leaves me too pragmatic.

If you were to be working for any department in the intelligence community there’s a good chance you’re writing up contingency plans day in and day out. Thinking like a terrorist to work out what they might consider next. You do need to plan as if you were the enemy; it’s the only way to find your true weaknesses. I work in IT and one aspect there is to do penetration testing of firewalls and servers to see if there’s a weak point. Once you find it, you correct it. The intelligence community, much the same as an IT professional look for weaknesses within.

I can understand the worry however, it is perhaps something that should be addressed in the later years of high school or University. Though some students don’t continue with formal education after year 10 so maybe it is the last chance to get them thinking critically about a subject that may impact them more and more in the coming years.

I’m not sure what I think, at the end of the day it is a tough thing to ask students to do and who knows, one of them might try to use their plan one day in the future if life doesn’t work out how they wanted it to. Right now they’re not mentally developed and so if the thought is only a seed now, quietly tucked away in gestation; one day it might bloom and if it does, how ugly will that flower be?

Well, as your comments and of know the rest.

You win! I ROCK!

Good night Seattle.

Posted via email from jww://

Monday, 23 August 2010

Is it possible to scrap the Wasteminster System?

I've mentioned this topic before but never in any great detail and since the population has politics on their minds I felt it might be a poignant time to propose some ideas on changing our system of government. The Westminster system (sorry about the Wasteminster joke...slightly tongue in cheek there) is an old system of government which should be replaced or reformed. If the Westminster system can’t be changed then can we indeed scrap it altogether and come up with something that increases the level of power to the common voter?

When there's so much infighting in the inner sanctum the only real loser is the Australian population. I think what the people really want is actual debate on the content of policy as opposed to childish rhetoric like "That's a stupid policy"..."why?"..."I...I...I dunno, just stupid head!". By the way, I no longer support either party. I was probably more aligned with the Liberal party before and saw good in both or more need for both but the more I have looked at our system the more I suspect we’re fighting a losing battle. I mention my non-affiliation with a major party so that people don’t think this is just another episode of pointless fighting over which party is better, like it were some football team. In fact the concept of political parties being more akin to a football team is one of the points I intend to raise below.

I guess the best way to start would be to list the things I feel our system does, consciously or subconsciously that hurts us as a people and propose ways these may be alleviated. I’ll also point out that you may find some points raised are already what happen in our current system. I do this to better show how some of the differences will work with the better elements of what we already do.

On a side note, while I attempt to propose a thesis of new government, it is only a blog post and more to put my ideas out there crudely to start with and for people to read those ideas, think about them and to come up with answers as well. Therefore this won’t be a thesis of new government but more a draft of the thesis.

For me, party politics or toeing the line so to speak is the biggest threat to national democracy. I only very recently read a blog post by Rob Oakeshott entitled What’s so wrong with being ‘hung’? and it addressed a lot of things that I had been thinking about for at least five years. If someone is elected as an MP they should be voting on issues based on the concerns of the people who put them in that position of power; certainly not what their party claims to be correct. This leads me to another thought and that is of respect for our leaders; admittedly they don’t often give us reason to respect them but it is a terribly difficult job and as long as they are doing right by their electorate then we should support them as they support us. I understand that such respect for authority is more of an American trait which is fine but it couldn’t hurt to show a little bit of support for the leader even if they were in a different party than whom you vote for if they propose a policy you agree with instead of pushing back and rejecting something that may well be good for the country. To be given the chance to help an electorate is an honour and should be treated as such; it is national service and should be treated as such. In our current political system “crossing the floor” should not be considered taboo, if anything it should be commended and encouraged. This is obviously unlikely to occur in our current state of affairs; this is why I propose the end of our current two party system. It seems to me that the majority of voters vote for the leader of the party or even just the party irrelevant of who is their local member. This mentality also ruins our system in that when forced to vote we end up voting on a popularity contest and some of the heated arguments tend to sound more like an argument over which football team is best. It is not beneficial for our democracy.

Over government is another flaw with our system, unless state government feel they can improve in the near to distant future. One other thing I propose is the elimination of state government but give more powers back to the local governments. In this case you might now begin to notice a more corporate feel. The federal government would contain ministers who were voted into their respective roles, they are experts who are highly knowledgeable or qualified to lead in their respective roles even if not specific experts in that field. The role of PM or in this case, the CEO (so to speak) is also elected and the ministers would be like the board of directors; the people, the shareholders have an open and transparent government and based on effort and achievement by each minister they are voted in or removed. Those who have been ministers or board members in this example have the ability to run for the top job in the next election. The local governments then become branch offices of the federal government who bid for funding and deal directly with their constituents. They DO NOT work in Canberra but maybe the few higher positioned members meet each quarter in Canberra to give briefs of their region. There would be a lot of these branch offices so this would be staggered over the year. Budgeting would be done and business plans used by each local government to bid for funds for local projects.

In this example we don’t lose someone who is doing a great job in a particular role just because their respective party is removed from power. There is also no issue of crossing the floor as there is no longer a party line. Yes there will be groupings of people who believe common things. I think people being people will always find ways to corrupt, what I am trying to do is minimise the ability for the corruption.

One last point before I leave this topic to the floor for discussion is that by having the federal government run things is we then get standardisation in things like rail, transport, real estate, education and many more areas that would greatly benefit from standardisation.

Now I leave this up to you to read and ponder. You may think I am completely wrong, you may agree somewhat or you might completely agree and want to know where to sign up.

Lastly, there is significantly more in my head on this matter but to write a blog post on a topic of this nature and get it out before ones lunch break finishes is no mean feat. That and it’s long enough as it is, not many people will want to read a blog post this long. If you did read, thanks for doing so and like I said, I would love some comments on this.

You win! I ROCK!
Good night Seattle.

Monday, 16 August 2010

What next for Iran, North Korea and the West?

Firstly, let me preface this piece with the use of the West; I use it in reference to the allies fighting with the U.S. overseas.

I remember some years ago, maybe early 2002 after George Bush’s State of the Union address where he listed “rogue” nations in his Axis of Evil. I said to some friends at the time that if I were either Iran or North Korea I would be in constant communication with the other waiting for the allied forces to be stretched to their limit across the globe and then embark on a concerted attack against the West.

Now, obviously while only a hypothetical it still is important to look at potential events such as these. It was sometime ago when I proposed this possibility and yet somehow it seems more poignant now than ever.

On the flip side, war is seemingly good for the U.S. and other western economies and so with that in mind; can we completely remove the possibility of false flag attacks however remote they may be? We are meant to be cutting back in Iraq soon so will the West require a new front in the near future?

When considering two famous “false flag” operations, we have Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Operation Northwoods was meant to be a staged, in-house attack on the States blamed on Cuba as a way to instigate full-scale war; this never occurred, thank goodness but still, it was considered. While the Gulf of Tonkin incident is said to have sparked unnecessary U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

I don’t know if North Korea is as bad as we’re made to think; our mainstream media is so tainted that it could very well be possible that the west is deliberately breaking the DPRK like they did to the former USSR. However, it could be that there are slight nuances making both possibilities completely different; interesting to consider nonetheless.

If we take the possibility that the West is trying to eliminate communism still and as such is currently helping South Korea get the North back then we could accept that the sinking of the Cheonan could be a U.S. led false flag attack attempting to get a heated response from the DPRK in trying to defend their name. Maybe when they say they didn’t do, they really didn’t? Maybe I’m really na├»ve. Either way we now have the U.S. and South Korea beginning 11 days of war games which is certainly provoking the North.

There was also another recent event similar to this where a Japanese tanker was “attacked” or at least something hit it about 18km off the coast of Oman on its way back from Iran. Now while the ship was never sunk, it is interesting if it was meant to be an attempted false flag. Was someone trying to make Iran look bad or was it simply coincidence and nothing to be concerned about? I would hazard a guess that it was more than likely an innocent and natural occurrence and nothing to do with a nation state.

Conspiracy talk aside, there is perhaps a more likely story; the DPRK have barely any funds remaining, their threats generate an income of sorts and so it seems to be in their interest to make idle threats. In a sense, their bark is stronger than their bite. Maybe they are in talks with Iran; I would if I was them, and they have or are considering concerted attacks.

I understand that at the end of all this we’re still no closer to the truth if there is a hidden truth out there but I still think it is very important to at least consider these possibilities as sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

UPDATE: If you look at the recent artillery fire on South Korea by the North and also that Iran allegedly received advanced missiles from North Korea (read the last paragraph for that bit of information) and are merely using negotiations as a means to stall for time so as to get their nuclear objectives met, it certainly appears to be heating up. One can only hope not, for all our sake.

You win! I ROCK!
Good night Seattle.