Just got back from furniture shopping with SWMBO.
I was wondering why my backside felt so toasty warm until I realise it was the credit card starting to glow in my wallet.
Bloody hell, $7700 and more to come.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Shopping
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
I love talkback radio
Heard the following call on the radio this afternoon.
Caller: Yeah mate, just wanted to let ya know there’s been an accident in Somewhere St, in Suburb.
DJ: Right… that’s in Sydney, isn’t it? What happened?
Caller: Looks like a box trailer came off a car and took off down the road, it’s cleaned up a bloke on a bike and fed him into a wrought iron fence.
DJ: Wow! Does anyone know if he’s all right?
Caller: I don’t reckon so. The ambos ain’t here yet, but there’s a bunch of people standing around lookin’, and they ain’t all lookin’ in the same place…
Monday, August 29, 2011
Youtubing at 3:30am
It’s just after 3:30am here and I’ve been having a bit of a Youtube concert with myself, playing some of my old favourites and stumbling across some stuff I had forgotten – mostly doing a bit of an 80’s rock revival thing. Some of the original video clips are great, some are freaking weird. Lyndsey Buckingham’s Holiday Road video clip would be a good example of the latter, what the hell is that all about??
I decided to play one of my favourite songs, the original USA for Africa We Are The World track – fantastic song. The best part of it for me is listening with my eyes closed, just picking out the famous voices – they’re so distinctive, they just leap out at you. They’re voices I’ve been listening to for decades and they evoke so many memories, and even though it’s weird, Cyndi Lauper and Huey Lewis actually go pretty damn well together. And Dan Akroyd looks seriously dorky up there at the back of the chorus. Dude, seriously - haircut.
Then I found the remake version. The We Are the World 25 for Haiti version.
Fuck. Me.
I actually had to look it up on wikipedia to see the "artist" list, and you've never seen such a monotonous list of self-styled, self aggrandising, utterly talentless fuckwits in your life. With rare exceptions, the whole lot of them are a shambolic mix of "harmony", out of time ebonics mumbling and incoherent attempts at lyrics. How the hell anyone could possibly regard any of it as being anything you'd possibly want to listen to defeats me, and mixing it all together is akin to churning vomit, dog shit and slime mould up - the individual ingredients aren't anything you want to deal with to start with, and the combination can only be described as truly vile.
You wouldn't read about it, but Celine Dion is actually the star of the track - she's basically doing Bruce Springsteen's bit from the original, and the vocal attack she's got going is both impressive and totally different to her regular genre. Pink can genuinely sing too, as can Usher, but I have no idea what Tony Bennett is doing there - was he picked for comic relief,or because he was walking past at the time or something?
I suppose what struck me most about the whole experience is precisely how manufactured, synthetic, and unmemorable the whole lot of lackwits are. In the original, you can pick out Kenny Rogers, Springsteen, Steve Perry, Dylan, Ray Charles, Dionne Warwick etc instantly. Their voices are clear and distinctive, they're full of character, timbre and power. The modern remake... is about as memorable as a McDonald's plastic cheeseburger. The "artists" will be forgotten in a few years as just another corporate manufactured wannabe who churned out a few tracks for the inbetweenies market and were then cast on the pile. And as for the "gangstas" [c]rap artists... just sad.
Oh yeah, one last thing - who the FUCK let Babs Streisand sing? That's bad.
I decided to play one of my favourite songs, the original USA for Africa We Are The World track – fantastic song. The best part of it for me is listening with my eyes closed, just picking out the famous voices – they’re so distinctive, they just leap out at you. They’re voices I’ve been listening to for decades and they evoke so many memories, and even though it’s weird, Cyndi Lauper and Huey Lewis actually go pretty damn well together. And Dan Akroyd looks seriously dorky up there at the back of the chorus. Dude, seriously - haircut.
Then I found the remake version. The We Are the World 25 for Haiti version.
Fuck. Me.
I actually had to look it up on wikipedia to see the "artist" list, and you've never seen such a monotonous list of self-styled, self aggrandising, utterly talentless fuckwits in your life. With rare exceptions, the whole lot of them are a shambolic mix of "harmony", out of time ebonics mumbling and incoherent attempts at lyrics. How the hell anyone could possibly regard any of it as being anything you'd possibly want to listen to defeats me, and mixing it all together is akin to churning vomit, dog shit and slime mould up - the individual ingredients aren't anything you want to deal with to start with, and the combination can only be described as truly vile.
You wouldn't read about it, but Celine Dion is actually the star of the track - she's basically doing Bruce Springsteen's bit from the original, and the vocal attack she's got going is both impressive and totally different to her regular genre. Pink can genuinely sing too, as can Usher, but I have no idea what Tony Bennett is doing there - was he picked for comic relief,or because he was walking past at the time or something?
I suppose what struck me most about the whole experience is precisely how manufactured, synthetic, and unmemorable the whole lot of lackwits are. In the original, you can pick out Kenny Rogers, Springsteen, Steve Perry, Dylan, Ray Charles, Dionne Warwick etc instantly. Their voices are clear and distinctive, they're full of character, timbre and power. The modern remake... is about as memorable as a McDonald's plastic cheeseburger. The "artists" will be forgotten in a few years as just another corporate manufactured wannabe who churned out a few tracks for the inbetweenies market and were then cast on the pile. And as for the "gangstas" [c]rap artists... just sad.
Oh yeah, one last thing - who the FUCK let Babs Streisand sing? That's bad.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Political unrest
I've been watching the slow-motion train wreck that is the federal ALP for some time now. Not only does it interest me personally but it's got quite a bearing on my current job - the federal LNP have not exactly been NBN supporters, although it remains to be seen what that would metamorphose into should they get into power at any stage. That's another discussion.
The biggest problem for the ALP at the moment is the unrelenting pressure the LNP seems to be able to provide, and damn effectively too. There really are just too many targets being thrown out there or the hitting.
The ALP is more or less stuck with pursuing the catastrophic carbon dioxide tax, I fear. The Greens likely know full well that this is their one chance to get this rammed through. The public will remember this legacy of minority government and non-major party candidates for some time (because the major parties will keep reminding them), and I do think it's a prime example of where the looney fringe really can do some significant damage if allowed to. Or not prevented from doing so. If they want to should slogans from the sideline while they recycle their sandals I don't think anyone cares too much.
Ultimately, I think the carbon tax will be the rod that beats the ALP down at the next election. Nobody likes a new tax (ever) and there's just too many opportunities for scaremongering and casting fear and doubt for the LNP not to make hay from it. The tax won't be in operation for long enough before the next federal election for it to be proven that there's no adverse impact on the economy or consumers (assuming the ALP holds on that long, and I presume they would be waiting as long as humanly possible to call an election at the current rates of progress) so it's basically a free kick for the LNP to continue bashing it.
I don't even think Gillard can go to Bob Brown (Poofter Party) at this stage and look at face saving options, because Bob knows full well this a suicide mission, and he prefers oblivion to ongoing obscurity, knowing full well the public isn't going to forgive this one for some time.
The problem of the independents then arises. One doesn't appear to give a damn about getting reelected one way or the other as long as his short term objectives are met, although he's not an LNP supporter. Two have sided with the ALP because they like the political promises, and one with the LNP because that's where his political leanings fundamentally are, although he won't actually align with the camp. What a fragile, insecure and weak bunch of people to determine the leadership of the country.
Frankly, if this government hasn't been an example of precisely why our system of government needs a revamp, I don't know what is. I can see the looney minority parties growing over time, not decreasing, so this sort of thing is likely to become more and not less of a reality. But I digress.
Interesting article in The Australian today on the crisis, basically saying dump Gillard for the good of the party. On balance, I am increasingly thinking it's not a bad idea. It gives an opportunity for the new leader to divest themselves of some of Gillard's baggage on boat people, although they would still be saddled with the partnership with the Poofter Party and the Craig Thomson affair. All in all though, I think it's a gamble worth taking. Tony Abbott is deeply unpopular as a potential PM against the most unpopular PM of some years, so a mediator could potentially strike a middle ground with the public. On balance, I think it's time to go, Julia.
The ALP may also escape with Craig Thomson still in power, although tarnished - I see someone has done a quite effective Enron job on the associated financial records. Tony Abbott's bleating aside, I suspect the case for the prosecution is about to unravel there.
The only remaining question is whether or not the independents would support a change of power by the ALP. I think Gillard's job rides on that.
The biggest problem for the ALP at the moment is the unrelenting pressure the LNP seems to be able to provide, and damn effectively too. There really are just too many targets being thrown out there or the hitting.
The ALP is more or less stuck with pursuing the catastrophic carbon dioxide tax, I fear. The Greens likely know full well that this is their one chance to get this rammed through. The public will remember this legacy of minority government and non-major party candidates for some time (because the major parties will keep reminding them), and I do think it's a prime example of where the looney fringe really can do some significant damage if allowed to. Or not prevented from doing so. If they want to should slogans from the sideline while they recycle their sandals I don't think anyone cares too much.
Ultimately, I think the carbon tax will be the rod that beats the ALP down at the next election. Nobody likes a new tax (ever) and there's just too many opportunities for scaremongering and casting fear and doubt for the LNP not to make hay from it. The tax won't be in operation for long enough before the next federal election for it to be proven that there's no adverse impact on the economy or consumers (assuming the ALP holds on that long, and I presume they would be waiting as long as humanly possible to call an election at the current rates of progress) so it's basically a free kick for the LNP to continue bashing it.
I don't even think Gillard can go to Bob Brown (Poofter Party) at this stage and look at face saving options, because Bob knows full well this a suicide mission, and he prefers oblivion to ongoing obscurity, knowing full well the public isn't going to forgive this one for some time.
The problem of the independents then arises. One doesn't appear to give a damn about getting reelected one way or the other as long as his short term objectives are met, although he's not an LNP supporter. Two have sided with the ALP because they like the political promises, and one with the LNP because that's where his political leanings fundamentally are, although he won't actually align with the camp. What a fragile, insecure and weak bunch of people to determine the leadership of the country.
Frankly, if this government hasn't been an example of precisely why our system of government needs a revamp, I don't know what is. I can see the looney minority parties growing over time, not decreasing, so this sort of thing is likely to become more and not less of a reality. But I digress.
Interesting article in The Australian today on the crisis, basically saying dump Gillard for the good of the party. On balance, I am increasingly thinking it's not a bad idea. It gives an opportunity for the new leader to divest themselves of some of Gillard's baggage on boat people, although they would still be saddled with the partnership with the Poofter Party and the Craig Thomson affair. All in all though, I think it's a gamble worth taking. Tony Abbott is deeply unpopular as a potential PM against the most unpopular PM of some years, so a mediator could potentially strike a middle ground with the public. On balance, I think it's time to go, Julia.
The ALP may also escape with Craig Thomson still in power, although tarnished - I see someone has done a quite effective Enron job on the associated financial records. Tony Abbott's bleating aside, I suspect the case for the prosecution is about to unravel there.
The only remaining question is whether or not the independents would support a change of power by the ALP. I think Gillard's job rides on that.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Greenwashing
Ever since the furore and hand wringing began over plastic bags at supermarkets, I made a prediction as to what the outcome would be. Lo and behold, here's a report published this morning showing EXACTLY what I thought the outcome would be.
Supermarkets get to cut their costs by not supplying plastic bags any more, or charging for them if they do. Does anyone see a price cut to the consumer? Pig's arse they do, and when the surcharge is a measly 15c then you can bet your arse that the cost to the supermarket was less than that to begin with.
The supermarkets will then SELL you a solution to the nonexistent problem by flogging you reusable bags, which you will forget and leave at home, thus forcing you to pay the surcharge or buy more next time.
You now don't have any bags to recycle as bin liners, so the supermarket will SELL you plastic liners, which end up as landfill anyway, thus acheiving nothing.
So what's the net impact of all of this?
Supermarket - cost saving through not supplying bags free, plus additional profits from selling reusable bags and bin liners.
Plastic bag manufacturer - either neutral or slightly positive, as they're making more reusable bags and bin liners that use more plastic than thin disposable bags, not less.
Environment - neutral at best, probably slightly negative as the bin liners contain more plastic than disposable shopping bags.
Consumer - takes it in the arse as usual and pays for everything to precisely ZERO BENEFIT.
Like anything greenies get near, this doesn't work, is totally fucking useless, and costs the consumer more. Most rational people don't need a reason to detest tree huggers already, but this is why. Fuck off and go recycle your sandals or something.
Supermarkets get to cut their costs by not supplying plastic bags any more, or charging for them if they do. Does anyone see a price cut to the consumer? Pig's arse they do, and when the surcharge is a measly 15c then you can bet your arse that the cost to the supermarket was less than that to begin with.
The supermarkets will then SELL you a solution to the nonexistent problem by flogging you reusable bags, which you will forget and leave at home, thus forcing you to pay the surcharge or buy more next time.
You now don't have any bags to recycle as bin liners, so the supermarket will SELL you plastic liners, which end up as landfill anyway, thus acheiving nothing.
So what's the net impact of all of this?
Supermarket - cost saving through not supplying bags free, plus additional profits from selling reusable bags and bin liners.
Plastic bag manufacturer - either neutral or slightly positive, as they're making more reusable bags and bin liners that use more plastic than thin disposable bags, not less.
Environment - neutral at best, probably slightly negative as the bin liners contain more plastic than disposable shopping bags.
Consumer - takes it in the arse as usual and pays for everything to precisely ZERO BENEFIT.
Like anything greenies get near, this doesn't work, is totally fucking useless, and costs the consumer more. Most rational people don't need a reason to detest tree huggers already, but this is why. Fuck off and go recycle your sandals or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)