Pertinent questions...

Why are the Poms obsessed with sex?

I have a confession. I have a soft spot for British politics. This article reads like a storyline from the OC (which, as an aside, is clearly going to be as weird as possible until it whimpers its last – out of body experiences, gigolos, frogs and otters Brokeback Mountain style).
It’s certainly a refreshing change from trying to separate the parties in our country from each other. It can sometimes be like getting the bread from the freezer and trying to get a bit to put in the toaster. Economic rationalism still rules them both, thank god for the differing stance on industrial relations. So far, Rudd hasn’t snapped off into crumbly bits – I am only slightly worried about his overtly Christian stance.

Who are they trying to kid?

Another report commissioned by the industry with the most to lose from renewable energy advancement, and another article on the news.com site which throws any pretence of balanced reporting out the window.

Now, I don’t know enough about the subject for an objective comment. For one thing, I fumbled through three years of an electrical engineering degree and, as you can imagine, those people aren’t the most environmentally conscious about.
And on the other hand, my olds are my olds. Grass Roots magazines, Franklin Dams stickers, Steeleye Span (I’m not sure if that’s related, but there must be a link somewhere).
The new thing seems to be that there is general agreement that climate change is an issue which needs to be addressed (random flat-earthers aside). The difference in the camps now concerns the best way to address the issue.
The mining corporations and big business (read: those with most to lose) support tarting up coal generation, nuclear power and other big capital power projects. Most scientists, environmentalists (obviously) and, according to the polls, the general public seem to favour renewable power generation.

There are strong arguments on both side.

Or so they seem.

You really need to do your own research, and also ask yourself what people have to gain. I mean, when a person gives you an opinion on something, there is always a reason they feel that way.

My personal belief is based on the realisation that a corporation must put the profit motive above all others. They don’t have a choice – it’s the law. So when a corporately funded report supports nuclear and coal power, there must be a profit motive behind it.

And what is the major difference between nuclear and coal power, and renewable energy?
First let’s assume that cost is ignored: do some research – you’ll find out that the cost of developing renewables to a viable level is line ball with the capital costs of nuclear and clean coal technology.
Forget about the fact that renewable energy produces no waste: I don’t give a shit how “safe” we can make nuclear reactors – this diverts from the fact that renewable energy simply does not have this problem in the first place!
Ignore the “renewables cannot provide base load” – that argument is also bollocks. In some ways this is the case now – the first reason is the technology is not advanced enough (read point one). Another is that the assertion is wrong anyway – it’s being done in parts of Europe. And finally – the grid is set-up for single large source power generation, so replacing old power stations with new ones would be easy. Of course, a progressive replacement approach to the power grid could be taken to insert more localised generation capacity, and this leads straight to the real reason there is strong corporate support for the contents of these types of reports – nuclear energy in particular.

The major difference is that once you have a solar panel, or a wind turbine, you don’t have to pay anything for the juice to run it. How can the poor old miners make any money if they can’t sell someone yellowcake?

Holy crap. That was longer than I expected.

Anyway, that’s all for today.

Adios, amoebas.

A few more....

¡Hola!

Tonight a few from the same spot - Kangaroo Point. That bit in front of the crazy Mormon joint with the freaky gold statue, with all the barbecues.

We were coming back from West End, quite late on a Saturday night. I may have had a couple of drinks, which made me confident enough to brush aside the random deals and snoggers.

The details of above:
Photo 1
Focal length: 18mm
F-stop: F/4.5
Shutter speed: 30 seconds
ISO: 100

Photo 2
Focal length: 50mm
F-stop: F/8
Shutter speed: 30 seconds
ISO: 100

Photo 3
Focal length: 22mm
F-stop: F9
Shutter speed: 30 seconds
ISO: 100

Anyway, today I read a debate about religion.

Made me cranky.

However, I am tired so I can't be bothered now, and I'm too busy at the moment to blog at work.

The photos I already have.

But stay tuned.

Cheers.

The Bris at Dusk

Morning all.

This one was taken from just near the Brett's Wharf restaurant at Hamilton. That blur is the citycat going through the shot, also leaving the wake. The rest is self explanatory - Brisvegas skyline, river, sky and clouds. I have just sharpened it a bit in Photoshop and cropped a bit of the river out, no other post processing.

This was one of the first shots I took with the Sony Alpha DSLR. The details are below:
Focal length: 70mm (using the 18-70mm lens that came with it zoomed right out)
Aperture: F/16
Shutter speed: 4 sec
ISO: 100
Taken 19/11/2006 6:46PM.

Cheers!

"He remains delusional”

This next may be somewhat controversial, I will preface by stating that Holocaust deniers are dangerous lunatics. That said, isn’t the consistent use of the Holocaust by some Israelis to justify aggression just a bit disrespectful?

The whole Middle East situation is problematic for me, a person who likes to pontificate on most everything.

I can remember as a kid being suitably impressed when told about how those tough little Israelis successfully defended their tiny little country from the evil intentions of their Arab neighbours in various short, intense conflicts. Sort of an underdog thing – and what Aussie doesn’t like the underdog?

Then I got old enough to understand what the news images of Israeli soldiers shooting kids throwing rocks meant. And at the same time, the blowing up of people on buses in Tel Aviv wasn’t very pretty, either.

Who the bloody hell was in the right?

It’s only now that I realise the danger of applying Western (I mean genre, not political sphereJ) storylines to real situations. Shit, I even started to find out that the Indians weren’t all bad, either. (I blame mum for giving me “Bury my heart at Wounded Knee” to read for that – “You like reading Louis L’amour? Here, read this.”)

It is never black and white, is it? Problem is, too many people think it is.

Like Dubya.

"He remains delusional”

Succinct, isn’t it? It was, of course, said about Dubya. This was the response from Greenpeace’s Steve Sawyer when asked about Dubya’s new environmental stance.

Off topic, maybe, but certainly apt.

Cheers.

Have a good weekend.

The River

My first photo. On the blog, I mean. A shot up the river from the newish Portside Wharf. For the technically minded, I might put up those sorts of details. This is a combination of two exposures using Photoshop. The darker photo which contains the sky has the following details:

Exposure time: 1/40
ISO: 100
Focal length: 18mm
Aperture: F9

The foreground shot uses exactly the same but with a 1/25 shutter speed. The two shots are -0.3 ev and +0.3ev respectively.

Anyway, enjoy.

Cheers.

This week’s bans: iPods, North Face and Benetton apparel and, apparently, most fish.

iPods: This ban really is redundant. iPods are absolutely hopeless – hard to use, overpriced and prone to manufacturing faults – so I would never buy one anyway. However, I have just read a story in the Big Issue regarding the conditions of factory workers in China who really build these products. It’s a bit involved; suffice to say they’re not great.
It turns out this story is actually quite old. It first appears to have surfaced in July or August last year in the UK’s Sunday Mail newspaper. Have a read.
Initially, my first thoughts were predictable – “Apple, you bastards!” followed by “Crap, how can I justify buying a MacBook now?”
As with anything, of course, further investigation is warranted. Apple has had a chance to respond to the claims and, while it really reads as a lot of PR garbage; at least they actually have a code of conduct for this.
It is a pity, though, that it took a media story to draw Apple’s attention to the conditions in their sub-contractors factory, if we are to believe that Apple didn’t know already.
The devil’s in the detail here. Apple mentions the workers receive minimum wage – all of three fifths of five eighths of fuck all is still fuck all. They also make mention of the great living conditions – good food, ping pong tables (one of life’s essentials) and air-conditioning. But no mention of how much of the workers income must go back to the company to pay for these.
On the other hand, how many products made by these types of places do we consume every day, products we know less about than this? I’d hazard a guess at a shitload. But it becomes convenient for us to place a ban on a particular product – “Look at me, I’m doing my bit to save the world because I buy dolphin friendly tuna and biodegradable detergent – what are YOU doing?”
Don’t misunderstand me here, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do our bit – I just think a lot of our motives are suspect, or at least misguided.]
And, if I really consider this objectively, is this argument just a lame attempt to justify buying a MacBook, saying Apple may well be the best of a bad bunch, but mainly because she really wants one?
It’s a difficult one.
But iPods are still banned.

North Face/ Benetton: It turns out the Argentinean government has sold great swathes of land to various parties. Two of the most prominent are the Benetton family and the founder of North Face apparel, Douglas Tompkins. They sort of stick out because of their public position as environmentally conscious and socially progressive business people.
The problem is similar to Australia’s – whose land is it, what are they going to do with it, and was it the governments to sell/ give away in the first place?
The Mapuche tribe claims parts of it as theirs, and they have some Argentinean political support. Tompkins, in particular, claims he is buying the land to save its precious ecology – an admirable goal.
But is it a paternalistic attitude? The “we know better” approach which has caused so much damage elsewhere, especially here in Australia?
I tend to think that, like the Big Day Out flag ban, it is trying to reach a great goal in a very stupid way.

Fish: Sherd’s fault, this one. There are so many fish I can’t eat because of sustainability issues that my brain hurts – paradoxical, fish being brain food and all.
Anyway, this will sort you out.

Other news: I watched the 7:30 report last night. Howard and Rudd were on. Firstly, I watched Howard for a bit. I was basically ignoring the words, the usual garbling we’ve all heard before, and looked at him. I noticed for the first time that he really looks like an old man. It’s as if he aged 10 years over Christmas or something.

And Kevin. I will be voting for him, I suspect, but he did come across as smarmy and a little arrogant. He rabbited on far too much, with this supercilious smile. I am just worried he’ll lose the punters a bit.
I mean, he’s definitely no Downer, but he needs to tone it down a touch.

Still, the LLR is rearranging deck chairs, so it might be he knows what will happen.

Cheers.

You are now entering ...

Today’s thought is just a quick one that grabbed me.

According to the Independent, Tony Blair has announced plans to set up “respect zones”

These are going to be areas of the UK which will receive extra funding on the proviso they come down hard on “anti-social behaviour” (I believe this refers to the practice of not wearing deodorant or not brushing your teeth, according to anecdotal evidence about the UK).

According to Blair, it reflects a need to get back to how things used to be. I think he secretly wants to announce as many weirdo policies as possible before he pulls the pin, just because he can.

Prediction: The llr hatches plans for a similar policy in Australia involving areas which mandate the wearing of Australian flags as hats (not thongs or underwear as that would be disrespectful), the hanging of Menzies and Lizzy pics, the winding back of the clocks to 1955, and general bowing and scraping to authority figures. The bushy eyebrows twitch as he happily scrawls “exclusion zone” at the top, humming to himself as he drifts away, dreaming of shiny brown surfer boys wrapping themselves in their icon and beating the snot out of minority groups.

Meanwhile, as a staffer gently suggests a name change back at the ranch, the Krudd Krew pounce, beating him to the punch. Taking time out from a particularly tough game of D&D chess they hold a press conference, where Kev declares that when he wins power he will turn all of Australia into a progressive/ conservative enclave – where the rights of women, ethnic minorities, the worker, the environment and industry are protected by the maintenance of good Catholic values. (How could he have known that when he won in a landslide the paradox would cause a rip in the temporal fabric just west of Barcaldine, sucking the entire dimension into oblivion?)

We’ll see.