Forget the modern Greeks, it's Queen Victoria time with the hole in the bucket man ...
The pond woke to news of SloMo blathering about China, and was astonished to discover he was still here, but at least finally understood the dictionary definition for "brazen". And as well as the shamelessness, the lack of decency and modesty, there was news from Greece ... with the poor old Greeks doing it tough of late in the climate wars, and sure enough, in most respectable news organisations, there was news of the latest events ...
Naturally Timeout asked the right question for travellers. Never mind the Greeks, what does it mean for your trip? (remember to capitalise every word so the importance of the question can sink in)
Even Twitter had stories, and the pond only notes this because it seems that Google simply refuses to use the X word ...
When will they get around to reporting Greece news from X? If it was re-named XXX would that be better?
But what of the reptiles? Well the pond's hits are down and so is the pond's interest in the reptiles. It turns out you can't even give them away for free, and the top of the digital edition might explain why, with the hapless Greeks banished to the wilderness ...
A brazen old racist bigot, formerly a historian, at the top, and down below cackling Claire blathering about the 'leets? With a sigh, the pond reached for its red cards, and headed down below ...
Oh sheesh, the brazen, shameless John Anderson wanting air travel freebies? Is that what 'leets do? Isn't the generous parliamentary pension enough? And they positioned him next to the onion muncher, who hadn't been disappeared, and instead held on to his slot, so he could keep on sticking it up the fuzzy-wuzzies, as Sudan and Boer war fighters like he and Lance Corporal Jones are wont to do ...
The comments section was also dismal ...
The hole in the bucket man talking about Qantas? Would there be a lecture about Thucydides thoughts on flying?
The pond didn't come down in the last Greek storm, and knew at once that along with the pompous, tedious lecture about history, the portentous blowhard would use Qantas to take a slap at the Voice ...
Should the pond red card him, should the pond strip him of his gobbet status? In the end, there was nothing better to do, and if it were to be done at all, best that it be done quickly ...
Yeah, that'd be right, that'd be the bloody Romans, and as for the talk of the Greek furies apparently the doddering old fart hasn't caught up with the current crop of climate furies afflicting the Greeks ...
As for Qantas, the problem isn't that it's tried to do the right thing, it's that it's been haring off doing the wrong thing, but you'd have to turn to a cartoonist for a list of the things that matter (or batter, if you want to make fun of domestic violence in a way only Liberals can do) ...
And, above all, it was this that stuck in the nostril ...
Is there anything on that departure board about the Voice? Nope, but news of that farewell bonus has now landed ...
Meanwhile, in his usual infallible way, our Henry entirely misses the point, and in his ineffably exasperating way, delivers an entirely useless lecture, no doubt to his satisfaction, but to the pond's sinking realisation that you can't even give this crap away ...
Dear sweet long absent lord, and apparently without any awareness that he's become a caricature of the original caricature ... and to distract the reptiles slipped in a snap of Swannie from 2011 ...
2011!? But the pond supposes that it's relatively up to date against the hole in the bucket man's meandering mendacity ...
Okay, that did it. That mention of Victorian legislation broke the pond's back, not to mention that talk of rent seeking.
The pond had already noted a rent seeker at work ...
... so it was time for a few cartoons ...
Fortified by that brace of Goldings - the pond should dine out on a brace more regularly - the pond was ready for the last gobbet of tedium ...
Is there an alternative to the stuff the pond can't even give away? Well without endorsing the following, you could head off to The Atlantic, and Clive Crook way back in 2008, first of all quoting Martin Wolf ...
Kant, Hobbes, tout court, just right for the old humbug. And then came a bit more about Smith, though the pond only had room for a bit ...
Well yes, better read the originals than wayward hole in bucket man quoting them, but the pond is lumbered with reading pompous asses of the reptile kind ... and only gets some relief by way of cartoons ...
And now as the pond keeps mentioning the Greeks, time for a quickie from the lizard Oz editorialist ...
Luckovich has a thought for that ...
Just to rub it in, for some reason the pond's logarithms coughed up this timid effort by PBS to talk to a climate scientist. Still, it's more than you'll find in lizard Oz la la land ...
Is there any chance that Our Henry is having a bit of a laugh, and deliberately parodying his own style? Okay, I know that the chances of that are about zero, as two things Henry lacks are a sense of humour and a realisation of his own absurdity; but today’s contribution certainly reads as though the Desiccated One has decided to try and test the limits of how tedious and irrelevant he can be and still get away with it.
Buckethole Henry: "...prohibiting activities that were 'ultra vires' reduced the risk that corporate resources would be diverted to political ends." Now I don't think I've ever heard Henry rail against corporations making significant donations to political parties, have you ? And in what sense would making corporate contributions to political parties - which they have been doing for many years - not be 'political'?
And if we're talking about 'shareholders money' doesn't that depend on whether some money changed hands or not ? So, if Qantas donates some spare seats to the Yes campaign, then what money has changed hands ? Perhaps a few dollars on the basis that with an unpaying passenger or two on board, the plane might consume a few dollars more of fuel than if the seats had been left vacant ? Assuming, that is, that Joyce didn't actually kick paying passengers off to make way for the Yes folks.
Oh but then "...governments may nobble your competitors in return, as Qantas' dispensing and securing of favours so starkly proved." Ok, so they weren't just handing over money, they ere buying political favours with 'shareholders money' that bought favours that increased shareholder value. It all works out well.
Well I dunno, mate, that's just Gina Rinehart "donating" to the IPA isn't it. And she doesn't have any shareholders other than herself, does she ? She's still in court making sure her own kids don't get any shares, isn't she ?
There are several easy shots one might take at the Henry’s meanderings through the background to the generation of corporations. Many other writers have remarked on the attractions of being able to establish a ‘body’ which could be effectually immortal. It did take a few centuries for the real value of that to manifest itself, because for several centuries, that wonderful English law, which contributors to ‘Quad Rant’ in particular tell us, the indigenous folk who were here in 1788 should have given deep thanks for coming under its benefits - and should be giving voice to their continuing gratitude to this day - that English law was enmired in trusts around land tenure, which was about the only property worth having.
It is a little surprising that our Henry did not see some promising holely discussions in the evolution of the concept of trusts in English land law; he could have meandered around medieval England, with a tip of the hat, or bucket, to Roman times, and the fideicommissa, and quite likely find himself looking at his own back, but still wondering why indigenous Australians were not ecstatic to be brought under English law of that century.
Why, our Henry might have brought the discussion forward 70 years, to that struggling colony of South Australia, and the invention of what is known conveniently as Torrens Title, which simplified the identification of the person who has tenure of a portion of land; land still being the basis of most palpable property.
Mr Crook: "Profit-maximisation is not a generizable norm for a successful capitalist society." Yeah, well actually "profit maximisation" is simply impossible: how can you prove that you've extracted every last fraction of a cent of profit out of the market ? You can't, and that is why you accept as much profit as you can relatively easily extract. Yes ? And then you go on 'managing the financials' in order to keep as much of it for yourself as you can.
"the pond's logarithms coughed up this timid effort by PBS to talk to a climate scientist." Oh, but Gavin Schmidt: "Unfortunately, it's very hard to go back, right, so it's very hard now to suddenly cool the planet back to where it was in the 1980s or in the 20th century." Back in the 1980s ? But surely there was no global warming back then, was there ?
So when those Green-Left Wokies say this: "Extreme heat is the number one weather-related cause of death in the U.S., killing more people on average each year than hurricanes, floods and tornados combined." then they're only just playing Tuckyo Carlson with us, aren't they.
Today's Mr Ed: "As the renewables energy transition falls further behind schedule, the public subsidies to bring it back on track continue to mount." Yeah well I guess they would - if those subsidies increase a further order of magnitude or two, they might even catch up with the public subsidies for "exploiting" fossil fuels*. And of course we just won't mention how much the dedicated inactivity of the LNP feds over the 9 years from 2013 to 2022 have made fixing things ever so much more delayed and expensive.
As usual of course, the reptile posturings completely ignore the growing costs of the global 'heating' significantly increased by the processes of mining, extracting, transporting, refining, distributing and consuming 'fossil fuels' including oil, gas and coal. But then that's just the normal way of the 'free market economy' and somebody's cost of recovery from a bushfire has no connection whatsoever with fossil fuels, has it.
* For a discussion of Canavan versus Bandt: Adam Bandt says the fossil fuel industry receives $10b in federal subsidies a year. Is that correct? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-19/fact-check-adam-bandt-fossil-fuel-subsidies/101071962
Is there any chance that Our Henry is having a bit of a laugh, and deliberately parodying his own style? Okay, I know that the chances of that are about zero, as two things Henry lacks are a sense of humour and a realisation of his own absurdity; but today’s contribution certainly reads as though the Desiccated One has decided to try and test the limits of how tedious and irrelevant he can be and still get away with it.
ReplyDeleteBuckethole Henry: "...prohibiting activities that were 'ultra vires' reduced the risk that corporate resources would be diverted to political ends." Now I don't think I've ever heard Henry rail against corporations making significant donations to political parties, have you ? And in what sense would making corporate contributions to political parties - which they have been doing for many years - not be 'political'?
ReplyDeleteAnd if we're talking about 'shareholders money' doesn't that depend on whether some money changed hands or not ? So, if Qantas donates some spare seats to the Yes campaign, then what money has changed hands ? Perhaps a few dollars on the basis that with an unpaying passenger or two on board, the plane might consume a few dollars more of fuel than if the seats had been left vacant ? Assuming, that is, that Joyce didn't actually kick paying passengers off to make way for the Yes folks.
Oh but then "...governments may nobble your competitors in return, as Qantas' dispensing and securing of favours so starkly proved." Ok, so they weren't just handing over money, they ere buying political favours with 'shareholders money' that bought favours that increased shareholder value. It all works out well.
Henry’s view on corporate donations to, say, the IPA could be interesting. Well - as interesting as Henry can be…..
ReplyDeleteWell I dunno, mate, that's just Gina Rinehart "donating" to the IPA isn't it. And she doesn't have any shareholders other than herself, does she ? She's still in court making sure her own kids don't get any shares, isn't she ?
DeleteThere are several easy shots one might take at the Henry’s meanderings through the background to the generation of corporations. Many other writers have remarked on the attractions of being able to establish a ‘body’ which could be effectually immortal. It did take a few centuries for the real value of that to manifest itself, because for several centuries, that wonderful English law, which contributors to ‘Quad Rant’ in particular tell us, the indigenous folk who were here in 1788 should have given deep thanks for coming under its benefits - and should be giving voice to their continuing gratitude to this day - that English law was enmired in trusts around land tenure, which was about the only property worth having.
ReplyDeleteIt is a little surprising that our Henry did not see some promising holely discussions in the evolution of the concept of trusts in English land law; he could have meandered around medieval England, with a tip of the hat, or bucket, to Roman times, and the fideicommissa, and quite likely find himself looking at his own back, but still wondering why indigenous Australians were not ecstatic to be brought under English law of that century.
Why, our Henry might have brought the discussion forward 70 years, to that struggling colony of South Australia, and the invention of what is known conveniently as Torrens Title, which simplified the identification of the person who has tenure of a portion of land; land still being the basis of most palpable property.
Still is, isn't it: land (a suburban 1/6th of an acre block) being the only palpable property to which the average working schmuk can aspire ?
DeleteMr Crook: "Profit-maximisation is not a generizable norm for a successful capitalist society." Yeah, well actually "profit maximisation" is simply impossible: how can you prove that you've extracted every last fraction of a cent of profit out of the market ? You can't, and that is why you accept as much profit as you can relatively easily extract. Yes ? And then you go on 'managing the financials' in order to keep as much of it for yourself as you can.
ReplyDelete"the pond's logarithms coughed up this timid effort by PBS to talk to a climate scientist." Oh, but Gavin Schmidt: "Unfortunately, it's very hard to go back, right, so it's very hard now to suddenly cool the planet back to where it was in the 1980s or in the 20th century." Back in the 1980s ? But surely there was no global warming back then, was there ?
ReplyDeleteSo when those Green-Left Wokies say this: "Extreme heat is the number one weather-related cause of death in the U.S., killing more people on average each year than hurricanes, floods and tornados combined." then they're only just playing Tuckyo Carlson with us, aren't they.
Today's Mr Ed: "As the renewables energy transition falls further behind schedule, the public subsidies to bring it back on track continue to mount." Yeah well I guess they would - if those subsidies increase a further order of magnitude or two, they might even catch up with the public subsidies for "exploiting" fossil fuels*. And of course we just won't mention how much the dedicated inactivity of the LNP feds over the 9 years from 2013 to 2022 have made fixing things ever so much more delayed and expensive.
ReplyDeleteAs usual of course, the reptile posturings completely ignore the growing costs of the global 'heating' significantly increased by the processes of mining, extracting, transporting, refining, distributing and consuming 'fossil fuels' including oil, gas and coal. But then that's just the normal way of the 'free market economy' and somebody's cost of recovery from a bushfire has no connection whatsoever with fossil fuels, has it.
* For a discussion of Canavan versus Bandt:
Adam Bandt says the fossil fuel industry receives $10b in federal subsidies a year. Is that correct?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-19/fact-check-adam-bandt-fossil-fuel-subsidies/101071962
See ? No fossil fuel subsides at all.