Great idea!

My daughter M has a cunning sort of cleverness about her that I am sure will serve her well in life. When she uses her powers for good, she comes up with some smart stuff.

Here are three of her recent ideas - two just from today - that I think are pretty good:

• Sweets van:  Like an ice-cream van but selling sweets, like lollies (candy) and cakes

• Digital devices (cell phones, tablets, etc) that are charged by the energy in your body

• A high-powered hot-air fan that dries and warms your body as soon as you step out of the shower

I told her today that she comes up with some pretty good ideas. She said, "Well, that's because I want a lot of things in my life that I don't have."

I guess all inventions come from wanting things that don't yet exist.  The more I think about it, the more I want the third one too.

Belt-tightening 101: the answer

I've been thinking about the question I posed yesterday: why don't politicians trying to convince the public on the need to cut spending cut some of their own salary or allowances to win hearts and minds?

And I think I know the answer.

In a parliamentary system one of the hardest jobs the leaders have is to rally, control and maintain unity among their MPs. These may include members who've worked very hard to win marginal seats, members on the back bench not earning big bucks, members already getting disillusioned or embittered and members on the rise looking for any excuse to either jump ship or try and take your job.

Most governments try and do the cost-cutting early in their term, aiming to get the pain - and public anger - out of the way early and betting that the electorate will have forgiven and moved on by the time of the next election.

So the most important hearts and minds the leaders need to win during this sort of program are those of their own MPs.

And of course, from a purely budgetary standpoint, cutting MP allowances won't deliver the same millions or billions beckoning them temptingly from the list of public benefits and subsidies, so they probably don't see it as worth the pain, considering the factors above. To sell a belt-tightening program and help you through all the hard work of your pet reforms, you need your MPs on-side and energetic, not bitter and angry.

Politics, eh?

Belt-tightening 101

I guess it's not news that Joe Hockey is out of touch. 

The man who insisted that "poor people don't drive" is now coaching first home buyers through the property bubble with the advice to get a well-paying job. Good idea Joe! I mean, why do so many people stick with their low or average wage jobs when they should just get a well-paid one? It just shows, people are not rational.

But more to the point.

As fascinating, in a train-wreck way, as these gaffes are, Joe Hockey's are usually explicable by remembering that instead of talking like a savvy politician, he usually talks like an economist, which can seem insensitive to a regular person. ("If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no-one would be buying it," he said.)

What I find more interesting is how governments never - inexplicably in my view - offer to tighten their own belts while they claim the need to cut back on public spending.

It's quite amazing how many of our parliamentary leaders - one is tempted to say "all of them" - claim every monetary allowance their jobs entitle them to, even while: 

(a) they are rich 

(b) their claims are not really in the spirit in which the allowances were intended, and 

(c) the same politicians are operating a nation-wide belt-tightening manifesto and do not hesitate to chastise less well-off people for claiming less ambiguous entitlements.

Let's let point (a) slide, as I know, everything's relative. The richer you are, the more expenses you have, so sure, none of these guys feels rich I am sure.  And they work hard for us, right?

On to point (b). Sorry to harp on Joe Hockey, but I will anyway. Thanks to Nick Xenophon, we learn that Joe Hockey, like many other MPs, claims a $270 per day travel allowance while he's staying in Canberra, and uses that money (as he is allowed to), to pay off the mortgage on his Canberra home. 

Obviously, travel allowances for MPs to go to Canberra make sense. And maybe even this usage of them does too - when you get into the detail, it's hard to draw a line in the sand on these things.

But - point (c) - politicians don't find it hard to draw a line in the sand when it comes to entitlements paid to other people. Things like maternity payments, single-parent allowances, Newstart allowances, pensions, schoolkid bonuses, and all the rest that are paid to the leaners and double-dippers and bludgers of this nation, who neglected to secure themselves a well-paid job and a chauffeur and travel allowance.

In a liberal democracy where votes are bought with tax cuts and spending programs, the tax system and the government transfer system always get messy. Periodically a review is done over the whole system and changes are proposed, and by and large they never happen.  That's one of the drawbacks of the system and it will probably never be fixed.  Likewise, whether a particular payment is "middle class welfare" or "tax justice" for bracket creep, to what degree payments are undermined by rorting and to what level benefits should be paid, are all never-ending debates. 

But people are fairly reasonable. They won't buy a "budget emergency", but they will agree on the general necessity to limit spending and maintain a working budget. Disregarding the diehard left and right, most people agree that governments should not tax unreasonably, should support the needy and provide basic services, and should maintain a strong economy. 

So here is what I don't understand. If governments want to get people to accept spending cuts and a "belt-tightening" regime, why don't they ever reduce their own entitlements?  I mean just a little??  In my living memory, only Mark Latham ever did anything along these lines, when he cut MP super entitlements to match the public rate. (Maybe only the more... ah... out-there politicians attempt this stuff).

I would think that if Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott got up and said, "Look, we're cutting all these things, but also, we're cutting these travel allowances / placing a moratorium on any MP study tour that can't be managed with a couple of Skype calls / freezing MP salaries for three years", that they would win a lot more hearts and minds.

So why don't they do it? Just a little? Cutting just a few things would at least show MPs are tightening their belts too. They wouldn't even need need to cut that much - just offering SOMETHING would arguably only reduce their total compensation by a little, and yet would pay off hugely in the form of much-needed public support.

Seriously, I don't understand why this is never done. Can anyone enlighten me?

"Politics" according to a 9gag user

New job

I have a new job. 

After 15 years working in stockbroking operations, I am now working for a software vendor and loving it. The vendor's product is fantastic and the company is small, nimble and growing - everything I've been looking for. 

The last couple of years have seen an explosion in agile and cloud-based business and I decided a little while ago that was where I wanted to be. In my last job I worked closely with a couple of very good vendors and it really opened my eyes up to this whole "new" world of agile methods and business in "the cloud".

I've also become a bit disillusioned with much of the financial services industry. I know! It seems like such a good, honest industry, right?! Actually, what I meant by that was, the last few years have just become a bit of a downer. No one is making a lot of money, clients are understandably leery, and as a result of everyone trying lots of different things to try and find new ways of making money, the landscape is constantly changing and there is a lot of "work" but not too much excitement or optimism to go with it. I love the people I worked with - some of them for many, many years - and I did like and will miss many things about my last jobs, but it was definitely time for a change for me.

The new job has been a learning curve for me. I'll admit my first week left me absolutely exhausted. By the end of my second week I was merely fatigued. So by the end of next week I should just be tired! Full steam ahead!

With a change of workplace comes also a change in location. I've worked at the eastern end of the CBD for nearly 15 years, and am now all the way diagonally across the city, at the north-west end.  Many years ago I worked down this way and always did like it. It's a nice part of town.  It's also much, much handier for public transport, and much, much worse for driving - so after only two weeks I have thoroughly broken my previous bad habit of driving to work.  My commute now takes no longer and is much, much cheaper!

The only downside is I am too far away to meet former workmates for lunch. But I'm sure we will work something out.

So, some photos.

My last photo from atop the Herald Sun building on Flinders Street. A little sad to lose this daily view:

My last iCaramba wrap from the Blue Bag cafe on Exhibition Street :(

You can also see on the right of this photo, the iPad loaned from my old job, which I spent my last lunch break restoring to pre-me condition to return it to work - deleting my daughter's Minecraft, Instagram selfies, photo edits, apps and webpages only to remember at the end that there is a one-step "delete iPad" option in Settings.

... And so to the other end of town:

Flagstaff Gardens:

King Street:

Some of the old buildings and remnants of old Melbourne:

 

And I have no idea what this is, but I love it:

A change is as good as a holiday, right?

I hope so, because I won't be getting a holiday for quite a while.

Blowback: Mothers' Day

Blowback. Otherwise known as the law of unintended consequences. Always an eye-opener.

Last week was the occasion of that glorious annual institution, the school Mother's Day Stall.

A. announced she intended to spend her own money on me for her gift this year. "That's lovely, honey, but you don't have to do that," I said (stupidly). "I'll give you both $5 each to spend."

A asked, "Next year will you give us more pocket money and we pay for our own gifts?"

"Why yes," I said proudly, "That is indeed the plan, and is how pocket money should work. We'll start that next year."  (We've talked about it before, I just have to work out how much pocket money I'm going to give them, so they can manage it).

M did not even hesitate. "Well, if we do that, I'll just buy really really cheap presents."

Oh yeah. Obviously.

Our work continues.

Still here

I'm still here.

I will post something again, but life is busy and changing, my kids are getting older and I can't really blog about them anymore, and work is getting exciting, and so things are a bit different. All in a good way. Life is good.

In lieu of a proper post, here is a quick list of how I've been spending my time. Ciao for now!

CLEANING

DECLUTTERING

RE-ARRANGING FURNITURE

COMMUTING

WORKING

COOKING

GODDAMN LAUNDRY

KIDS AND THEIR FRIENDS

SWIMMING (a little bit)

DOG

LATE NIGHT STUDYING

NECESSARY PRODUCTIVITY BREAKS / FURTHER BRAIN TRAINING

NETFLIX

IMDB message boards (with movie spoilers)

One of the things I like to read on the internet is the message boards on IMDB. Sometimes there are very thoughtful and informative posts by serious film afficionados (who probably call themselves afficionados) which add something to my understanding of a film or TV series. Sometimes (wait, no, actually always) there are long diatribes about why the main female character is a selfish harridan who has horribly oppressed her poor male partner (ugh). And sometimes there are good questions and entertaining conversations between people with opposing views.

Here are some things I've watched recently and my favourite comments from the IMDB message boards.

This post has SPOILERS for all the movies included here, so read on forewarned!

Drag Me To Hell

Drag Me To Hell is a great horror-comedy about a loan officer whose hard-hearted business decision at work leads an old gypsy woman to curse her with three days of torment followed by being dragged to hell. Many of the message board discussions are around whether or not Christine deserved to be dragged to hell, for what she did, or the kind of person she is. Dragged to hell. For an eternity of pain and torment. I love the fact people think they can debate whether or not a person (any person?!) would deserve this.

Fair use rationale of movie posters: ditto

[The old woman who curses Christine] is an evil b!tch, and the fact that she happens to be old, sick, and poor doesn't change that. 

Christine is a vegetarian, which in my book earns her some points as a compassionate person. She kills her cat to try to appease the demon, hoping that she will be able to avoid spending eternity in Hell. I think that's totally understandable.

Why exactly did that old woman need a third extension on her mortgage? Isn't the whole point of being a gypsy means you're constantly on the move with no permanent roots?

In reply to an argument in a thread:
You are assuming that all demons behave the same way under all circumstances. 

Also opens up a side discussion on the merits of banks and capitalism generally, and the fairness or not of loan extensions.

The Walking Dead

I'm not a huge fan of The Walking Dead. I found the first episode absolutely compelling, but it kind of seems to be the same thing over and over again, and it doesn't really seem to be going anywhere. I watched Seasons 1 and 2 and felt I had probably got the idea.  But it's an interesting take on the zombie apocalypse and it's done the visuals and tropes a bit differently, so I still watch it occasionally.

One user review opines that this show is good because of character development (hmm, arguable), which is "not usually a very big trait in the Zombie genre."  Um, yes, that is true.

There is a question about why we don't see characters using bicycles more, which opened up a whole discussion about whether bikes or cars are better transport during a zombie apocalypse, including their merits with regard to fuel use, speed, dexterity, ability to use weapons while riding, conservation of fighting energy, etc.

There is a discussion about how strong zombies are, whether newly minted ones are stronger and then decay, or whether the virus has made them strong.

Here's a very good point too:

 ...inconsistency that allows a rag tag group with no training to survive yet had the military and police be wiped out in a week.

and this one:

Where are all the fat walkers? America is full of overweight folks. Stands to reason about 50% of the walkers we see should be heavy. 

Not to mention the show takes place in the south so 70% of the walkers should be crisco filled fatties.


and:

Why aren't we seeing any child walkers?

LOL cos child actors suck at that!

127 Hours

127 Hours is the true story of Aron Ralston, who got trapped by a fallen boulder while hiking in the Utah desert, and after suffering for days without food and water, finally amputated his arm with a pocket blade, before rapelling down a cliff face and walking to find help. While it might not sound that entertaining, it's actually a pretty good movie. James Franco stars and is unbelievably good.

As you'd expect, most of the message board comments focus on the real-life story:

Be honest, could you have done what he did?
NO I would have literally $hit myself within the first 10 minutes, I would have used all the water in few hours and slit my throat by second day lol.

Why didn't he wait for like a month and get super skinny? And just pull his arm out? 
It would have rained eventually and he wouldnt have needed to cut the arm off.


In response to a serious post "don't actually drink your own urine, it's full of salt, etc":
Wow. Thanks for that great tip. I shall make sure I never drink my own p!ss. Good job I read this post. 

Who knew? 
OP - would it be OK to drink your own p!ss if you filter it first through, oh, I don't know, a sponge or a sock full of sand? You know, only if you were really really thirsty and miles from home?

How could he drink that puddle water at the end?

He had already drank his own pee at that point, I think some muddy water won't do him much harm.

am i the only one...
i guess not being familiar with mr. ralston's back story, i found the unexpected display of foolhardy stupidy.. er, bravado, totally devoid of anything i could have empathized with or relate to on a human level.. 
worse yet, after the movie was over, all i kept thinking about is that he deserved it.. 
in fact, halfway through it, i had completely lost interest and kept openly rooting for him to cut his arm off and put himself and the audience out of our collective misery.. 

Internet comment forums are well known for compassion.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Another pretty good movie. Kudos for taking a different tack to start off the franchise anew, and like all good science fiction, starting with something that is controversial now (vaccines, animal testing). Here's something in it I hadn't noticed:

I just saw this movie yesterday and there was one detail I started to notice after about an hour. None of the apes seemed to have genitals. You can clearly see that during some frontal shots. I looked it up on the internet and it seems I'm not the only one to complain about this. 

Some good responses:

Guess CGI penis is a bit too risque for a major studio like Fox.

Movies like this don't want nudity, they want to sell the tickets to the entire family if they can... it's not an art-house picture.

And an ethical discussion:

If a cure for cancer could only be found by animal testing....would you approve of it? I certainly would. I'm 110% against animal testing for cosmetics but for curing horrible illnesses and pandemics (such as AIDS), I think it's a necessary evil. 

Cancer, yes. 
HIV/AIDS, no. 

???! Let's hope this guy isn't tasked with making actual ethical decisions ever.

Romancing the Stone

My absolute favourite movie from the 80s, recently re-watched. There is some funny discussion on 1980's aesthetics, including synth pop music soundtracks, shoulder pads, curly hair and non-whitened Hollywood teeth.

But also:

A friend recommended this movie to me. Just want to check, is this movie ok for men to enjoy? Or is it more of a girls movie? (I ask because of the title)

(better not take the risk, dude!)

And a justifiable complaint here, as movies from this era had a cringingly awful habit of fetishising foreign places:

It would be nice if Hollywood people did some research about Colombia. I live in the capital city Bogota. Remember they had to take a funny bus to go to Bogota? well guess what, Bogota has an airport!   We don't have monkeys on trees even if you travel from one city to another. Bogota is not some hot tropical city as they depict, it's average 13 celsius. 

- followed by an argument between commenters over whether Colombia is tropical or not, whether it's dangerous or not, and finally one exhorting a commenter to get a Colombian girlfriend to do some research because American girls are all fat and awful.

This movie contains a visual trope I have since seen in many, many movies set in far-off places, which I've mentioned before: bus passengers carrying live chickens.   It seems to be a Hollywood shorthand for 'poor country'.

Big Eyes

Big Eyes is Tim Burton's latest film, the true story of artist Margaret Keane whose husband falsely took credit for her work and gained it international fame/notoriety (not everyone was a fan) in the 1950s-60s. I'm not a big Tim Burton fan but thankfully this film was Bonham-Carter/Depp free and I loved it.  However the message boards asked two questions I had wondered myself:

How did Margaret get the money to fly to Hawaii and buy a house?
(not really explained... commenters assume they had cash stashed in the house but still doesn't really explain it... But apparently the real Margaret Keane left Walter for another man, which is not as cinematically dramatic as running for her life out of a burning studio, but would explain the cash question a bit better). But, you know, in movies women can't leave husbands for other men as it makes them unsympathetic.


Why does Margaret's daughter sit in the back seat of the car?
I mean this was the 1950s! Safety-conscious parents just made sure their kids weren't riding on the hood or the roof of the car, right? But following a long string between commenters back and forth about whether 1950s parents made kids sit in the back seat or not, and whether throwing your arm in front of your kid's chest will stop them flying through the windscreen in the event of a crash (it will not), the consensus is reached that it was done mainly for visual effect, which is fine by me.

The final post in the thread is by "tomisinthehouse" who says simply:
What a dumb question.

Well no it isn't, tomisinthehouse, because I had the same question and I am not dumb! So there.

What's your favourite internet comment forum?

Here, I've fixed it: Dear Future Husband

There is a song that is currently HUGE on the tween girl circuit that is so teeth-grindingly annoying to me that I was very glad to see Salon just called it out for being "the worst".

If you're not familiar with Meghan Trainor's "Dear Future Husband", the real lyrics are here.

Now obviously, this is a light-hearted pop song, depicting a girl fantasizing about her ideal husband, a man she seems to know does not really exist. The 1950's sound make it an obvious retro-fantasy, and it's clearly not meant to be taken seriously ("Even if I was wrong / You know I'm never wrong / Why disagree?"). So obviously, I know this is just a fun silly song and not an actual guide to life.

But I still hate it!

I hate that whole "treat me like a lady" thing, and don't want my daughters to learn it.
I hate that whole "you better treat me right" thing, and that whole "you have to love me even when I'm batshit crazy" thing.
I hate that whole "if you treat me like a princess I'll have sex with you happily" crap that no one really means or can keep up in real life anyway.

So I've made the lyrics a bit better:

Dear Future Husband Partner

Dear future husband partner,

Here's a few things
You'll need to know I think will help us if you we wanna be
My one and Each other's only all my life our lives

Take me Let's go on a date
I We deserve it, babe
And don't But let's forget the flowers every anniversary
'Cause if you'll treat me right
I'll be the perfect wife
Buying groceries
Buy-buying what you need
We'll treat each other right
No one's the perfect wife

And we'll take turns
Buying groceries

Buy-buying groceries

You got that 9 to 5
But, baby, so do I
So don't be thinking I'll be home and baking apple pies
I never learned to cook
But I can write a hook
Sing along with me
Sing-sing along with me (hey)

You gotta know how I don't want you to treat me like a lady
Even when I'm acting But never tell me that I'm crazy
Tell me everything's Gaslighting's never alright

Dear future husband partner,
Here's a few things
You'll need to know I think will help us if you we wanna be
My one and Each other's only all my life our lives
Dear future husband,
If you wanna get that special lovin'
Tell me I'm beautiful each and every night

After every fight
Just We'll both apologize
And maybe then I'll let you try and rock my body right we'll hold each other tight
Even if I No matter who was wrong 
You know I'm never wrong We won't stay mad for long 
Why disagree?
Why, why disagree?

Dear future husband partner,Here's a few things
You'll need to know I think will help us if you we wanna be
My one and Each other's only all my life our lives (hey, baby)
Dear future husband partner,
Make time for me
Don't leave me lonely And I'll make time for you
And know we'll never see your family more than mine And we'll take turns to see our families all our lives 

I'll be sleeping on the left side of the bed (hey)
Open doors for me and you might get some kisses if you go through them first, 
Or if I'm first through, I'll hold the door for you
Don't have a dirty mind 
at least not all the time
Just be a classy decent guy
You don't have to Buy me a ring
Buy-buy me a ring, (babe)

You gotta know how I don't want you to treat me like a lady
Even when I'm acting But never tell me that I'm crazy
Tell me everything's Gaslighting's never alright

Dear future husband partner,
Here's a few things
You'll need to know I think will help us if you we wanna be
My one and Each other's only all my life our lives
Dear future husband,
If you wanna get that special loving
Tell me I'm beautiful each and every night

Future husband partner, better let's love me each other right


______

Not quite as catchy, I'll agree - but MUCH BETTER! 
Now to get my daughters singing along to this version...

Threes

Time for something a little lighter. I quite liked this latest questionnaire meme on Sunday Stealing, which I came across on Princess Pandora.  Clean, short and simple.


1. Three things that scare me:

• poverty
• extremism: the ultra conservative right and the radical left
• fire

2. Three people who make me laugh:

• Phil Dunphy (Modern Family)
• Rebel Wilson
• John Stewart

3. Three things I love:

• solitude 
• dogs
• pens

4. Three things I hate:

• extremism
• boasting (including Humblebrags) on Facebook and Instagram
• loud noises

5. Three things I don't understand:

• How perfectly nice, decent people can be so hardcore unsympathetic to those less fortunate than themselves (eg the Americans' deep antipathy to universal health care; many people's attitudes towards asylum seekers; how people with good jobs and earning good money don't understand they are also lucky)
• men's rights activists 
• how The Greens would run a viable economy

6. Three things on my desk:

• towering pile of papers, DVDs, kids' drawings and notebooks
• pack of my daughter's Hubba Bubba
• a two-pole puncher that hasn't been used in years

7. Three things I'm doing right now:

• blogging 
• laundry
• re-watching Final Destination 2 on DVD

8. Three things I want to do before I die:

• write a book
• live for a year in Y's Greek village



iPad art by my daughter aged six

• get fit 

9. Three things I can do:

• data mining and analysis
• learn a language fast
• talk in rhyming couplets

10. Three things I can't do:

• sing
• mix colours into ready-to-roll icing
• watch cricket

11. Three things you should listen to:

• birdsong in the morning when everything else is quiet
• your favourite music, regularly
• opposing points of view, at least sometimes

12 Three things you should never listen to:

• talk-back radio
• advertising aimed to make you feel inadequate 
• anyone who claims to cure cancer with food 

13. Three things I'd like to learn:

• how to write a novel
• how to stay calm and relaxed
• ballroom dancing

14. Three favourite foods:

• chocolate
• spanokopita: Greek spinach and cheese pie
• steak

15. Three beverages I drink regularly

• coffee
• Coke Zero
• water

16. Three shows I watched as a kid:

• Bewitched
• The Flintstones
• Get Smart

The destruction of Nimrud by ISIS

Do I detect something new in the world's response to ISIS' destruction of the ancient city of Nimrud?

In 2001 when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, the world was aghast. During the Iraq War when the Baghdad Museum was looted there was condemnation and outrage.

It's possible the world has got used to these wanton displays of barbarism. But I think there is something else.

The atrocities of ISIS have been so horrific and so many, and their brand of Islam so ignorant and barbaric, that we can only feel a sort of numbed sadness, but no surprise, at these latest crimes (which, obviously, are NOTHING compared to their crimes against humans).

Also, we now know how ISIS operate. With their English-language magazine, beheadings on Twitter, and horrific rhetoric, we know they need shock, outrage and publicity. They want us to be outraged, to feed their campaign of fear.

So I am detecting, in the comparatively muted media response to the destruction of Nimrud, a refusal to play into that. And this is definitely MY feeling in response as well.


Hey ISIS:

You destroyed the idolatrous statutes in the Mosul Museum? You bulldozed Nimrud? And you're going to bulldoze Nineveh too?  Well SO WHAT.

You've beheaded aid workers and journalists. You've mutilated children, raped and sold girls into slavery, terrorized and tortured your populations. You've just burned a man to death in a cage, you barbaric thugs. You want to destroy your region's heritage, and knock down structures which pre-date Mohammad by centuries and have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam? You want to bulldoze ancient statues and treasures which already exist in a million photos and textbooks and videos worldwide, and so won't ever be erased?

Well go for it, you thick, ignorant psychopaths. Knock it all down, and just watch how much the world is not going to give one single shit.

Idiots.

"Iraq; Nimrud - Assyria, Lamassu's Guarding Palace Entrance" by M.chohan - Own work.
Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons