Parched

I have been following John Quiggin's excellent blog lately. He was recently on a radio national program about the politics of water in Australia and the world. You can listen to the discussion here. Once again however, there was a gigantic elephant in the room called overpopulation that nobody wanted to talk about.

Only one of the speakers touched on it, and then only very briefly. In a closed economy (like planet Earth), demand for water -and indeed every natural resource- is driven by two things: per capita demand, and population. The bigger our population, the more we must constrain our lifestyles in the long term.

In discussions like these we often treat population levels as a given, but here in Australia we are doing everything we can to increase our population as fast as possible. At the same time, we seem completely unable to talk about the consequences for the environment and our enjoyment of life. Until we face up to this, and start including population as one half of the argument in any discussion about natural resources, we cannot hope to truly deal with the problem.

“They would have been happier having someone closer to president Bush's policies.”

The quote in the title is from this article, about al-Qa'ida getting worried about Obama's popularity.

Now that's funny isn't it? I thought they would "pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." Could John Howard have been wrong?

Los Angeles Forest Fires

Look at this guy. He's all decked out, with all the equipment he'll need to survive this emergency. The only thing he forgot is how not to be a wanker.

Columbus

I'm reading a book about Christopher Columbus. Let's put ourselves in his head for a moment, and believe that in sailing west from Europe across the Atlantic, he had reached India, rather than the New World. Why then, did he call it the West Indies? That doesn't make any kind of sense. He had clearly reached the most easterly point of India. Anybody who thinks that that sounds reasonable, and that it makes sense to speak of "India in the West" is either trying to make me angry, or has not properly understood the concept of the spherical Earth with it's arbitrary meridians.

Update: Geoff falls into at least one of the above categories. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.

I'd forgotten how messy it is eating a mango with a beard.

That's it. That's the whole post

US elections

If McCain wins the US election, I will be very upset. Why? Partly because I am a left wing pinko, and partly because I have US$250 riding on it. That's right, I put my money where my political mouth is and bet on the intrade prediction markets. As a result I stand to gain a cool US$31 playing the stocks.

It seems as though this political betting system could use some "innovation." The odds of all the individuals mentioned as possible winners add up to more than 100.% I should be able to exploit arbitrage opportunities to rectify that. Also, I would like to short sell McCain shares. I think that at 12.7%, they are overvalued. Maybe we could introduce options trading. It certainly couldn't hurt. I mean, can you name me one occasion when exotic derivatives did harm to the financial system?

Update: Maybe I wasn't so smart after all. I bought the shares at 1AUD= US 60.8c. Now the exchange rate has improved to 68 something. I'm going to find a window ledge somewhere.

Australia Needs To Have A Superficial Conversation About Religion.

The people of Australia need to put aside their differences and come together on common ground. Especially at this crucial moment in our history. How better, I ask, to achieve this goal than to engage in an inconclusive, protracted, ignorant, and superficial examination of the issue of religion?

Forget that old refrain about not mentioning politics or religion at the dinner table, emotive asseveration is all the vogue.

Before we get started though, I think we need to set a few ground rules. First of all, let's be really drunk and loud, and only get started at about 3am. Sobriety and appropriate courtesy are the twin killers of any incoherent, boorish argument. Interrupt as often as possible. Every time your opponent verbally completes a train of thought, baby Jesus cries. Crucially, the personal enmity grounding this vitriolic nonsense should centre (at least at first) on mistaken identity, where the semiconscious mind of a juvenile inebriate projects the hebephrenic pro-fascism of one drunken idiot onto another (drunken idiot). The fact that a certain disliked character in "Die hard 4" bears a passing resemblance to your adversary cannot be brought up enough.

After we've interrupted the other side's facile, vapid nonsense, we need to replace it with our own; pick out the most irrelevant part of their ill-considered diatribe and argue on a complete tangent. Allow the conversation to oscillate randomly from religion to the War on Terror. No rejoinders please, that would get uncomfortably close to a logical debate. The format should be assertion, interruption, rebuttle, personal attack. In fact if at all possible, we should maintain logical coherence only at the level of the individual sentence. Contradict ourselves as often as possible. Confuse male circumcision with castration. One person who thinks the US government organized the September 11 attacks should use it as evidence of the absence of a benevolent creator, the other side should recycle half remembered BBC documentaries that fail to address the question, and then claim that no one in Afghanistan supports Al-Qaeda.

During an intermission, we should play drinking games, but even then, residual nastiness is key. When playing "I never" (normally a way to discover the other's adventurous side) we should declare "I never met a supervisor of Kim's that I respected."

On the pro-religion side, we need to make liberal recourse to the "appeal to consequences" fallacy. Let's insist on the existence of local metaphysical truths applicable to the whole universe, which vary from person to person depending on mood and circumstance. Deny the atheist's right to an opinion; assume their lives lack personal tragedy, and argue that as a result they are too shallow to think about this.

For the anti side, 2 simple words; Scientific Chauvinism. Deny any possibility of being wrong, even the solipsistic one intrinsic to all empirical observations.

Only by opening an embarrassingly one- dimensional dialogue on the most simple and wholly ignorant level can we ensure that we, as a nation, never get down to the deeper issues about religious identity that truly threaten to tear this country apart.

Who's with me?

With apologies to the onion.

Queensland Transport

I am quite frequently told, and not without an element of truth, that I am overly simplistic in my political and economic prescriptions for society. I am told that the problems facing the world are by nature complicated, and that a lowly non-expert like me should not be quite so certain in lambasting those in charge of dealing with them. To a certain extent I have to accept this advice as sound, and nowadays I do try to learn a bit about different sides of an issue before I form concrete opinions.

Today I received an email asking me to participate in a survey for Queensland Transport. After completing the questionnaire, I browsed the site and had a look at their infrastructure plan. I like infrastructure, especially rail. I had a train set when I was a kid, and it was really fun to play with. Trains use electricity to run, which theoretically can be produced from green sources. They are fast, efficient, and clean. The website explained that, with South East Queensland projected to grow from 2.9 million to 4.3 million by 2026, rail upgrades were urgently required. Here is the plan:

What needs to happen

To help determine suitable solutions to increase capacity, Queensland Transport engaged independent consultants Maunsell Parsons Brinckerhoff to conduct the Inner City Rail Capacity Study. The study found that inner city rail required an additional four tracks (a doubling of existing track capacity) on two new lines to meet the growing demands on our rail system over the next 20 years. These new lines will ideally be constructed in a two-phase upgrade of inner city rail infrastructure.

Phase one will connect the southern (Beenleigh/Gold Coast) rail line to the northern (Caboolture/North Coast) rail line through the inner city by 2016.

Phase two will connect the western (Ipswich) rail line and to the northern (Caboolture/North Coast) rail line through the inner city by 2026. Infrastructure such as new routes, tunnels and underground stations are key features of the proposed upgrades.

What happens next

Queensland Transport will now undertake a detailed feasibility study to decide on a preferred phase one route. Determining any preferred rail alignment for our future needs must be carefully planned to ensure all options have been sufficiently investigated.

The detailed feasibility study will commence shortly and is estimated to be completed by mid-2011. Completion of this study will allow construction to commence in 2012.

I'll leave the question of how a severely water stressed region can possibly accommodate a doubling in its population for another time. What I want to talk about here is how impossibly unambitious this scheme is. The feasibility study for phase one won't even be finished until 2011! How can anything possibly take that long? In China they made a 50 km Maglev track in 2 years. In Victorian times, they rolled out rail track at walking pace. I understand that there are legitimate environmental concerns these days in Australia, and that responsible planning for these things takes a bit more time and effort, but 3 more years to complete a report before even getting started is appalling.

Things are no better federally. As part of its fiscal stimulus package, the Rudd government plans to invest heavily in infrastructure. This means that they will bring forward a report on priority infrastructure projects by a few months. The study was begun as soon as the last election ended. This is insane. They should already have a list of such projects ready to be started as soon as macroeconomic pressures ease. By moving so slowly, encumbered by such hulking bureaucracy, Labor governments are proving all those hoary old Milton Friedman cliches about state ineffectiveness correct, and he didn't used to be correct. Now I am not a small government person, I am a big government person who is trying not to become disillusioned. I like to see a lot of orange vested workers scrambling around cities laying complicated looking cables, and digging tunnels and things. But all these independently commissioned reports, counter reports, memos, reviews, inquiry groups, fact finding missions and endless focus groups are making me angry. Government should have less paper pushes and more actual workers, there I said it. Without wanting to contradict the change of heart towards moderation and humility indicated in my first paragraph, everyone in charge of everything is an idiot, and I could do it all much better myself.

US election

More Shadenfreude from me.
This part is especially funny

Some Republicans say they are uncertain of McCain’s electoral strategy, wondering why, for example, he’s back in Iowa this week, a state few independent analysts see as being in play and where public polls this month show Obama enjoying a double-digit lead even before the economic meltdown. Asked why McCain was in Iowa, one veteran Republican there replied: “Because he’s running a senseless, non-strategic campaign. Why else would he come here?”

More nonsense from Mark Day

Now he wants to start charging for ABC podcasts. This is a terrible idea. It inhibits diffusion of taxpayer produced intellectual property, something we all have a right to use. It clearly goes against the spirit of the ABC charter of free, open access, and at a time when the commercial networks are serving us so poorly, the public broadcaster has never been more necessary. I know The Australian is full of free marketeers who think "user pays" trumps all, and that the government has no role to play in the economy, but guys, on a day like today, I would be keeping a low profile.

"Not" Wanted

I saw this movie a couple of days ago. I don't make the claim that it's the worst movie ever made, merely the worst I have personally seen. Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, this is a joke right?
One star, and only because of
a) The special effects and
b) I'm not sure you can give less than one.
I mean, you should actually go see it, this movie seems to have gone Misere, so in a strange way, I feel like it deserves an Oscar in hell.
This guy says it better than I could. What's the worst movie you guys have seen? Should we have a bad movie night at my place some time? We could hire a projector.

Guest workers

In 2001 I was 18 and looking for adventure. I wanted to earn enough money (about $14 500, as I recall) to have Centrelink declare me independent from my parents, and pay me while studying. The method I chose to earn this money was fruit picking. I had a license, an old car and barely enough money to drive across the state. There is almost no skill in this industry, and farmers never turn away workers that are willing to turn up. All I had to do was find a fruit picking farm that needed workers. Surely a simple task?

I contacted Centrelink, and asked them which farms had vacancies. They said that they wouldn't tell me, as I wasn't a registered jobseeker on Newstart or Youth Allowance (which of course I couldn't be given I wasn't independent from my parents). They also said it wasn't really their job to directly get people work, only to manage the network of employment agencies. So I rang the relevant agencies, like CSR, and Employment National, etc. They all said that each one of their branches, in each little outback town operated as little semi autonomous entities, that did not share records with one another, nor with their parent office. In short, I would have to call them all, every single office of every single company, throughout the state. After several rejections, I finally got a tentative "yes" from a company in Wondai. After driving down with a high school friend on a 1200 km trip from Townsville, we arrived at the office, only to be told that the position had been filled, but that positions open up all the time, and would I mind waiting around for a day or two? After two weeks in a grubby caravan park, and with our money running perilously low, we decided to try another town. I can't remember how many horrible little places we went to but the answer was always the same; "Just wait around here for a little while and we will probably get you work." Having read Marx's Das Kapital vol 1 that summer, the words "Reserve army of the unemployed" kept flashing up in my mind. It became clear that these job agencies always ask you to stay, no matter how scarce the work is, just so they have a good selection of workers to choose from when they need it. In Bundaberg, we stopped in at a backpacker's hostel. They said they could get us work in exchange for us staying there-paying $100 a week to sleep in a bunk bed. At that time, the average rent my friends in Brisbane were paying (for a house) was $70 a room. By now, my friend and I didn't have $200 between us, so we had to drive home. Once back, we decided to simply call every farm in the phone book within a 200 km radius. In this way, we did eventually find work at a farm near Ayr.

The work was reasonably physical, but not exhausting and I enjoyed it. I talked to my coworkers and none of them had been employed by a job company. Most of them had done the same, incredibly inefficient thing that I had been forced to do, and cold-called every farm they could. Some were living in another horrible backpacker's hostel, paying extortionate rent to live in squalid conditions. After 6 weeks of living this way, a Canadian coworker named Dan decided to move out and get a house somewhere in Ayr. In response to this, the backpacker's hostel forced the farmer to fire him, with the threat of sending no more workers otherwise. This was not a subtle suggestion on the part of the hostel manager, but an explicitly stated policy. The word "Dickensian" comes to mind. Fruit picking seasons inevitably end and I was again forced onto the same treadmill. For that year I was out of work around a third of the time, in a state where fruit was being left to rot on the trees, and by the end of the year I had still not quite earned the required amount. The same stories were repeated in town after shitty little town. The failure of labour supply in this industry is not due to laziness on the part of the unemployed (or at least not entirely) . Rather, a dysfunctional system for finding work imposed by a set of Neo-liberal free-market ideologues acts in concert with grubby collusionist small town cockroach capitalists to deliver the least efficient possible outcome.

This is why I oppose the fruit picking guest worker scheme. Enough willing Australians exist to fill every job available, especially if it becomes a requirement for the long term unemployed in fruit picking areas. The employment system just needs to become more centralized, with the government mandating that all vacancies be advertised on one central website. It is incredibly inefficient to fly pacific islanders back and forth for a few months at time. It would be a terribly carbon intensive exercise for a start, and the resulting additional strain on our overpopulated country can only increase the pressures on water supplies and so forth. The economic cost should also not be underestimated. I am not blind to the developmental benefits such a program could have (in the form of remmitances) on the Pacific nations themselves, but I believe that direct foreign aid on the part of our government is a much more efficient way to deliver improvements in living standards in the third world. The guest worker scheme is a Turnbullite solution, one that posits eternal population growth and environmental vandalism as a remedy to deliberately engineered market failure.

She's not even that hot! And don't you have to be 35?

I can see that this is mostly a self parody, but somewhere in the back of her tiny narcissistic mind, this inspiration for "The White Chick's Burden" thinks she should be taken seriously. She thinks that even though she hasn't bothered to inform herself about "all that boring stuff," that her opinion on these issues matter. She plays precisely the same role in public affairs as Marie Antoinette, in her time. The only difference is that after the revolution no one at all will weep for her. It's a good thing voting is non-compulsory in America, or generation Y could really do some damage.

Karadzic

One more naturopath off the streets.

WYD

"Australia in its historical configuration is part of the Western world," the Pope said. "The West over the past 50 years has seen great success, economic and technological success. But religion has been relegated."
But? BUT? Why not AND?

Surely its a bit late?

Italy declares Pompeii emergency

Arguments with Dave

I don't think it was background on Scalia. He is saying that his fierce commitment to textualism was the cause of his decision on the Gore case. He said that the recount was "unconstitutional" and hence should not continue (even though such a recount was clearly in the public interest). What I want to know is, why did he think it was unconstitutional? What silly obscure reason in the letter of the law did he find?
He writes that the original founders of the the constitution were in favour of the right to bear arms, even though the second amendment does not make it literally clear that this state of affairs should persist after the temporary emergency of the revolution. But surely they would also have been in favour of a thorough recount in a disputed presidential election? Scalia is clearly a selective textualist, and a partisan hack, and you Dave will only disagree with me because you share his prejudices.
But this isn't even my main point. He can't say that it was Al Gore's fault for the judicial outcome. Gore was perfectly entitled, morally and legally, to demand a recount. If you want someone to blame for the inauguration of the most disastrous presidency in history, look no further than this gun-toting, religiously anti-abortion, illiberal, Republican voting Reagan appointee who cast the deciding vote in this case for the most sectarian of reasons.

Worse (in outcome) than Zimbabwe

I genuinely don't understand this, it doesn't seem logical. It was Al Gore's fault this guy brought down an indefensible judgement, because he asked the courts to intervene? He should have conceded defeat in the face of probable illegality like a previous election loser? If I was mugged in the street and asked for a cop to help, it would be my fault if he awarded the criminal my wallet? And what does textualism have to do with this case anyway? Lawyers irritate me, they seem too much like practicing philosophers, revelling in distorting the law into a caricature of basic ethics.

I have become that guy

support@txt-services.com

Dear Sam

Thank you for contacting our helpline. We understand that you have
requested a refund for the premium text messages sent to your mobile
phone.

This is to confirm that the requested number 0435203527 has been
unsubscribed from the service and will not receive any further
messages.

When you first subscribed to the service on the internet on 25.04.08
all subscription charges, how to unsubscribe and a helpline number for
further information, were explained on the web-ad.

The following free of charge message was delivered to your phone
explaining the costs and how to unsubscribe:

Free msg: Play this subscription quiz: add. 8 msg/month, 14+ only,
$2.5/msg each way, stop? txt stop to 19993500, $2.50 joining fee.

You initiated the service to win a Macbook Air by entering the pincode
on the online advertisement.

Please be advised that the registered bill payer is ultimately and
wholly responsible for the access, activity and usage of their mobile
phone.

We regret to inform you that we are unable to offer a refund as you
did receive all the necessary information regarding the service.

Yours Sincerely

Kirsten
Customer Services
Txt Services



sam.kault@gmail.com


I did not, repeat not sign up to any such service. I have never received your claimed text message, and have had no communication with your company prior to receiving my phone bill. I did not enter into any competition to win a Mac-book air, in fact I consider such plebeian indulgence in games of chance with negative expectation value to be irrational and somewhat beneath me. I think you misunderstand my position. I am not "requesting" a refund from your company, I am simply demanding that you drop your bogus claim. I have not paid that portion of the telephone bill, I shall never pay that portion of the bill. Since you have refused to withdraw your pernicious and ridiculous allegation, I shall now be in communication with my telephone company instructing them to manually remove those items fraudulently added. If they refuse, I will end my relationship with them, and take my case to the relevant telecommunications ombudsman or regulatory authority. Opportunistic financial predators like your company shall not go meekly unchallenged in today's business environment.
Yours in wearied irritation,
Sam Kault

Update- After speaking to Virgin Mobile, they agreed to grant me a one-time "refund", and warned me that this is the only time they will do so; I suppose this is as far as I'll take things. If Virgin Mobile wants to give a donation to that company, that's their prerogative. However, even though I've won I've still lost. I've had to invest time and energy into these parasites, but more important that that is the abrogation of basic free market commercial principles; that transactions proceed only with the consent of both buyer and seller. I also take issue with the term "refund," as though items on a bill are a divine commandment, reducing my net worth in a cosmic ledger somewhere in an invisible platonic heaven. This is wrong-headed, a bill is a legally challengeable claim for money, nothing more. If I agree with the claim I will pay it, If I do not, I have the option to take the matter to a civil court and make my case, where two and a half thousand years of civil law will back me up. I thanked the woman at Virgin Mobile for this "one time refund," and assured her that if this happens again, I will make precisely the same phone call, and demand that the item on the bill be again withdrawn. I will do the same thing on the third time, and once again on the fourth.

It's not that I believe these companies shouldn't exist, indeed, I believe they fulfill a very valuable social function; they act rather like reverse miner's canaries, when businesses like these are doing well, policymakers know there is something very wrong with society. The size of their revenue correlates well with just how much the education system is failing our kids. I am more than happy with this vital social barometer being funded by a non-government collected tax on abject stupidity. It's only when the economic parasites cross the line and invade polite society that I raise my voice, and very calmly say "Listen vultures, DO NOT FUCK WITH ME."

Posting

By popular demand I have decided to present another post. Trouble is, I don't have any material. I decided to do some research on the blogosphere for inspiration (yes firefox it is a fucking word, also firefox is a word). Naturally, I don't have as generous a figure as our one time bridesmaid, nor do I know as much about boring cricket statistics as a certain expatriot. I could spend my time lamenting my lack of understanding vis-a-vis international anti-piracy safeguards, or screening the poor sportsmanship involved in human-chimpanzee wrestling. But I won't do any of those things. I won't even attempt to plumb the depths of profanity portrayed in Pink Elephants. Perhaps I should do something really lame and just show some Youtube videos. I've been asked by a certain European politician to show solidarity with my fellow democrats.



Less political, but still crucial to our way of life is;



Speaking of showing solidarity,



This makes me think a Communist revolution would be a good thing. My Vietnamese girlfriend doesn't completely agree, and I think the Beatles also make a convincing rebuttle



So I'm a little confused on the issue. How could two awesome, emotive, glib examples of popular culture contradict each other? Many hands make light work, but too many cooks spoil the broth. A stitch in time saves nine, but haste makes waste. Having been largely failed by Youtube I shall close by asking people what they thought of the 20 20 summit. How about banning smoking for everybody born after 2009? How about giving every Australian citizen 1 free degree, but charging full price for every subject failed?
Ok, I'll admit this was not my most inspired post, but for all you know, some random postmodernist internet denizen could be perusing my work and be inspired by the intertextuality. Look, everyone is entitled to one Phillip Adams moment, and anyway, me at my least coherent is still more sensible than Fitz on the best day of his life.

Mary; For your enjoyment

And everyone else's too.

You maniacs!

Can I take Charlton Heston's gun away from him now?

Hatred and Envy?

I'll grant him hatred, though a better word would be contempt. But why on Earth would the West feel envy toward the Islamic world? I've racked my brains trying to think of an advantage Islamic countries enjoy over stable, liberal democracies. It's possible a sober man might regard a violent, antisocial drunk at a party with envy, knowing that without a hangover in the morning, his condition cannot improve markedly over the course of the next day. That's about it. Does anyone have any suggestions (apart from the 72 raisins that await martyrs to the faith of course)?

Boycott!

I will certainly be doing my bit during the Beijing olympics. I would encourage everyone else to do the same. Come August, I plan to switch off the telly, and not watch even a single second of it. I will walk away from any conversation that even briefly touches on the subject. I would applaud the moral integrity of any country or athlete who refuses to participate.

Of course, I think that about every olympics. This time however, not only would a boycott serve to have less people watching boring sport, it would also humiliate the fascist barbarians in control of the Chinese State. This can only be a bonus.

The economy

The Reserve Bank has just released what is hopefully its last interest rate rise for this cycle. It has done this in order to deliberately hurt the economy enough to curb our rampant spending habit. Higher interest rates mean less borrowing, less spending, and thus less pressure on scarce supply. This should lead to a slowing in inflation which is what the Bank wants. Essentially then, the Bank is trying to reduce spending by making it more expensive. This is called monetary policy, and is the preferred countercyclical policy tool at the moment. It works, but can be very painful.

Here is my suggestion. Why not have the government appeal to the public directly, asking them to defer nonessential spending until after the inflation crisis has passed? After all, in a water crisis, we don't just raise the price of water, we appeal to people's sense of civic duty, tell them there is a physical problem with supply, and ask them to voluntarily reduce their consumption. It works, Brisbane's domestic water consumption is only 140 litres a day. Also, those people who for patriotic/protectionist reasons "buy Australian" could be told that at the moment they can best help their country by buying anything but Australian. Surely such an attempt could at least do no harm, and could take the edge off the harshness of tight monetary policy. Kevin Rudd's message could be; "Save your money now, so everyone can pay less on their mortgage."
What do you think?

Letter from the OZ. A sensible middle ground?

THERE can be no denying that the Jewish people have a moral and historical claim to their homeland. But what they don’t have is the right to extend this claim to a greater Israel on the basis that it constitutes the prophetic fulfilment of the Jewish Torah.

Such prophecy is not only a clear breach of any standard moral claim, it also looks to the day when Israel’s Arab neighbours will be obliterated by a cataclysmic divine intervention.
The time has come to now finally recognise that the prophetic dimension of religious fundamentalism is what constitutes the greatest threat to our democratic freedoms.
Dr Vincent Zankin
Rivett, ACT

More stuff from Geoff

My readers, as trivia shareholders, you will want to know firstly what I have done with your winnings. Well, of the two cartons of pre-mixed spirits we won last week, one carton was divided among the team and the other sits beneath my desk (or at least the empty box now does) and helps me deal with the realisation that society really has no need for a combinatorist.

Now I have never been present at a shareholders meeting, but I imagine that one should demonstrate not just goals attained but also improvements on past performances.
I shall start with the make-up of the team. Imagine a graph (not a real graph, one of those evil cartesian planes) with two data points:
(week 1, 8 players),(week 2, 11 players).
Imagine myself standing next to the aforementioned graph presented as a comically over-sized poster and pointing to it with an unnecessarily large stick. "As you can see," I would say in my best attempt at earnestness, "our team has grown by an impressive 37.5%."
"However as impressive as that improvement is, the most telling statistic (I mean of course parameter but making such a distinction would sound pretentious.) is in our female numbers. In week one we had no females and in week two we had a massive two. That is an undefined increase in female participation. So two out of eleven players were female, a better ratio than that attained by Kevin Rudd for his 2020 ideas summit. HOw did this happen? Well, maybe trivia seemed quite pleasurable in contrast to enduring the cringeworthy sexual advances of a mathematics undergraduate in the first year science room. What effects will this have on our trivia performance? Read on if you are intrigued. Even if you are not intrigued please read on as at Dave's behest I will mention something about the actual trivia.

Despite my hullabaloo, nobody with sufficient mettle has stepped forward to claim the right to hold the pen of truth. We heard that Rupert was going to be late because he had a lecture (as if Rupert goes to lectures) so I went to the bar to purchase a jug of their finest local beer. When I got back I discovered, much to my dismay, that Rob Pfeiffer was holding both the pen of truth and the trivia sheet. Let's just say that the Rob Pfeiffer experiment didn't make it to a second trial.

There was to be three general knowledge rounds and a final round on food. If Victor was there he might have been heard to remark "oh dear". Some noteworthy questions for the first round were:
What was a knobthatcher? (Rob corrected Rupert, "That's Baroness Thatcher to you!")
John Lennon airport is in which city? (Since John Lennon is from Liverpool that would seem like the obvious answer. We went with Mumbai!)
What French phrase means in english 'the free hand'?
What New Zealand city is named after an alternative name for Edinburgh?
This week also saw the return of Rupert's bonus question. In each round a clue is given and (5-n) points are awarded for the answer, where n is the number of the round in which the correct answer is first given. The first clue: This kingdom was in the past, controlled by the Romans, French, Spanish and Portugese. When we got the trivia sheet back, there were five ticks, a four next to our answer to the bonus question and a circled nine with a double underline. After five minutes of deliberation, we concluded that we got five questions right, plus four for the bonus question making a total of nine. Thanks to getting the bonus question right we won the first round (nice work Chris).

On commencement of the second round, the pen of truth changed hands. Now, throughout history there have been numerous examples of people who have come to power that were never fit to lead: Caligula, George W. Bush, Mark Latham, the list goes on. Append to that list the name Stevo. Apparently Stevo thought that holding the pen gave him the right to shout and whinge a lot. At least George W. Bush has the balls to use his veto powers. Let me explain.

Every once in a while a question comes along that brings together all the right elements together in one place at one time to create the perfect storm. Nobody knew the answer but everybody thought they did. Here is the question: "Which finger is the most sensitive?" Immediately everybody threw their two cents into the middle of the table. "I know this", everybody thought,"I have hands." My inital reaction was the index finger. This went no way towards settling the argument because let's be honest, my answers are given roughly the same respect as that afforded to the drunk bogans who shout their answers for the whole room to hear. Many suggested the thumb until Rupert made it clear that the thumb is not a finger (for some reason everyone always tries to answer the thumb to any question about the fingers). Where did we go to then? Well Stevo in an inspired piece of leadership thought that he would decide democratically. So here we were raising our fingers in the air while Stevo counted the most popular answer. Some people held their pinke finger in the air which was surely the most ridiculous answer. The answer that won was the ring finger. Straight away Stevo began to try to rationalise an answer that had no logic behind it whatsoever. He came up with this. A finger becomes less sensitive with use so the most sensitive finger will be the one that is used least. Leaving aside the fact that the question is obviously referring to the finger that is innately the most sensitive, I commented as sarcastically as I could that it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that the finger used the LEAST would be the MOST sensitive (surely the least used finger is the pinke anyway!). Being affronted by this, Stevo, ever the experimentalist, suggested that we perform an experiment. The results: inconclusive. (This reminds me of The Simpsons episode where Lisa goes to the scientist with the sample of the angel to be tested. Lisa: Why did your tests come up inconclusive? Scientist: I am going to be honest with you Lisa, I didn't perform the tests.) So after ten minutes of fruitless debate Stevo declared that he was going with the majority, wrote down ring finger and handed a poison chalice to Socrates.

For round three we got 9 out of 10. The question we got wrong, which Chris assures me he did in fact know (but not at the time): "Sherlock homes was addicted to what?"

Round four if you remember and are still reading this, was on food. We were disconsolate at being three points behind first. We needed something special. If I was in the Kashmir and going to do Wazwan, I would be doing what? Well the round was on food, so the answer was either eat or not eat. We went with fast. The answer was feast. A few more interesting questions:
What is scovilles a measure of? (Chris's quip: A capsiclism is a chilli so hot that it brings about the apocolypse. It was funny at the time anyway.)
The first recorded use of chocolate was where? (We were shocked to learn that the Simpsons was wrong.)
Which country has the highest per capita consumption of beer?

The coup de rupert came when Stevo decided to write down the answer to the bonus question again because Rupert was unlikely to realise that we had already got the marks for it in round one.
It was a move that reeked almost as much as the odour that arrived at our table along with Harry. We got the extra mark and tied first. Harry was calling for a sculling competition to break the tie but thankfully Rupert decided to split the prizes. So our streak continues.

This post has turned out to be more periphrastic than I intended. I will probably cut out the trivia component in future.

Introducing..

Once in a great while, something important happens in literature. Something so significant it shakes the very pillars of civilisation. Think of the Gutenberg bible, think of Samuel Morse's immortal first teletyped words "What hath God wrought?" Think of Shakespeare, The Leviathan, Das Kapital. Think of Ulysses, Catch 22. Then for a long time nothing happened. However, it is entirely possible that this post will surpass all of them. It is possible, I say, because I haven't written the following. Nor, as I write this, have I read it. The following has been written by a guest blogger, one who's debut I am honoured to host. Ladies and gentleman, introducing the one, the (hopefully) only Geoff Martin!

I commence this report as a nervous, ill-prepared best-man would begin his speech at the wedding reception. Trivia...what can I say about trivia? Dave is gone. Fitz is gone. Who then was to take up the most crucial position on any trivia team, the Lord Protector of the Pen? Should we promote from within or head-hunt some young up-and-comer from without? I thought about advertising the position and accepting applications in much the same way that Rhodes Scholars are selected. The candidates would be judged on their all round abilities: leadership, trivia knowledge, fairness, services of beer to the community, sense of humour, singing, sculling and scissors-paper-rock skills (1), and beach body. It was then that I realised that a true Lord Protector of the Pen chooses himself and not t'other way round. What easier way was there to become Lord Protector of the Pen than by supplying your own pen? As it happened nobody arrived with a pen and we had to borrow one from the quizmaster, which by the way was not Rupert!

Who would know about our proud, rich tradition of mocking Harry, delivering a pride crushing defeat to the 'memes', dancing with cartons of beer born upon our shoulders through the swing dancers and all the way back to Lorenz's desk to drink our winnings. How would we get points for answering questions with Rupert? (2) It was like history meant nothing. I now know what it feels like to be an exponential distribution.

Well, Harry was still there. That's right, THE Harold Steven Robert Kinsman. Who the hell are you? That's all I'm saying. All your favourite Harry traits were on display: hair that hadn't been washed in months, the stench of tooheys, cigarettes and failure, mirth inducing umming and ahhring, insincere sympathy, an exaggerated sense of important and finally the most important Harry trait, without which he would have little to elevate himself above your typical denizen of the Red Room; two middle names.

But enough about Harry and onto the part that ultimately decides whether a game of trivia is won and lost, the report. In the greatest restructuring of power since the Magna Carta, the Lord Protector of the Pen no longer writes the trivia post-mortem. You might rightly question how lacking divine sanction I could possibly deign that my report is the one true report. Well it says so right here in the report. Case closed.

The question remains though, with what style should I report. Any sensible man would look to his predecessors for guidance. First there was Dave, renown for his dispassionate newspaper-style reports and attention to detail. Some harsh critics accused him of phlegmaticness but any historian knows that you should judge a person by the standards of their contemporaries.

At a time when every other live journal user was busy writing slash fiction, Dave was a revelation.

Contrasting starkly with Dave were the trivia posts of the son of Gerald. Less concerned with facts and structure, he preferred to grab on to your gonads and squeeze until you passed out. Sure his posts were trite, his footnotes gratuitous, his prose stifling and riddled with anacolutha but occasionally he mentioned your name and that made it ok.

I acknowledge my forebears for if in were not for them I would not be writing this report today. So what then for my style. Well, there will be footnotes, for one. However, unlike my forebears I will not feign a dispassionate voice, and I will not pretend that everyone played an equal role. There will be no mention of affirmative action trivia players that did not pull their weight, such as the girl who offered us two answers, one incorrect which we used, one correct which we ignored. I will however describe my style as melodious. I will start andante with the woodwind and stringed instruments before the crescendo bringing in the brass and percussion. So if you are ready, we may commence.

We were an eclectic set. In attempting to assemble a well rounded team with absolutely no weakness or redundancy I had before me a mathematics post-graduate student, a different kind of mathematics post-graduate student and a physics post-graduate student. One shameful person had the temerity to ask me why I had stolen his seat in the middle of the table. I replied in my usual anserine fashion, "This better ables me to distribute beer to the four corners of the table". I got a good laugh, not great, just widespread enough to ease the anxiety and nervous tension created by the uncertainty of not knowing who will collect the trivia sheet in the post-Fitz era (3).

Questions were asked and answers were given. The first three rounds were entirely ordinary; we weren't running hot, just well enough to be ahead of the riff-raff that have nothing better to do than visit the red room on a Wednesday afternoon at half five (4), and level with our arch-rivals the "memes".

The stage was set, it was the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded, or perhaps more accurately it was the fourth and final round. The theme was proverbs; we were given the beginning of a proverb and required to complete it. Some notable examples (5), for those playing along at home, were: a half truth is ... and a truly wealthy man owes ...

Someone remarked that the questions seemed easy, maybe this was the feel good round, to which I retorted, "It will be the feel good round if we win!". The tension was palpable as we argued over who should collect the sheet. We got, ladies and gentlemen, a perfect 10 out of 10, handing us both the round and match. A mighty cheer rose up, interrupted only briefly to disparage those doubting Stevos who questioned whether our winning ways were to continue.

Our victory was soured somewhat when the beer de triomphe arrived and many of the pusillanimous members of our team decided that they had had enough to drink. To those people lacking any intestinal fortitude I say, “Have a glass of concrete and harden the fuck up!”

This ends the post. I would like to thank Sam for allowing me to guest-star on his blog. Let's face it though, his blog needed some outside assistance. Some of you are probably wondering what possessed me to strive so hard for laughs that ineluctably, I will never hear. Well I may not experience your mirth, but some day I will be wandering the corridors of the mathematics department and Liz Billington will be crossing my path, look over at me and make a pistol gesture towards my heart, and maybe even some explosive sound effects. It is at that point that I will know my trivia report was worthwhile.

1. Girls only like trivia players with skills and our trivia team desperately needs some feminine influence.

2. Stevo was the first to realise this and cleverly asked for the Quizmaster's name. Dan by the way, thanks for asking.

3. This footnote is dedicated to the late great Fitz, may he rest in peace.

4. If you have something better to do, let me just inform you that you're mistaken.

5. Notable in the sense that I could remember them.

Trapped!

Kim and I are now officially criminals. For our trip to Vietnam we stocked up on plenty of presents for Kim's family, including a bread maker so I could introduce Vegemite sandwiches to the heathens (a universal thumbs down by the way Dave, they preferred Nuttella). In addition to this, we bought eight enormous tins of baby milk powder for Kim's friend who's baby has gone off breast milk. We were beginning to think we might be a tad over the aircraft's weight limit, but still we kept packing gallantly. As part of our continuing program of East-West cultural exchange, we decided also to take two of those collapsible foot scooters that were once all the rage during the dot-com boom. Now, we thought, we really ARE over the limit. Singapore airlines allows up to twenty kilograms of checked luggage, and seven kilograms of carry-on per person, or fifty four kilos between us, and we had the feeling we had shot way through that.
So we turned up to the airport, checked in, and sure enough, our checked luggage was ten kilos over. This turned out to be no big deal, Kim has a very sweet smile, and my dumb, naive first time traveller impersonation exhibits an approximation to sincerity that only reflexive relationships can. We were waved right through.
At this stage we thought the danger had passed. Upon passing through the customs X-ray
check however, our carry-on was treacherously weighed! From an allowable fourteen kilos we came in at a whopping forty! Of course, the Aussie customs guy was as unsmiling and cold as any Stalinist bureaucrat, and he wrote "Excess Weight twenty six kg*$30=$780" at the top of our boarding passes. The bastard wouldn't even let us go out of the departure lounge to dump our stuff and come back in. Well, I thought, that's our holiday gone. Kim however, is not to be trifled with. She made the rather insightful observation that the guy made no entries into his computer and that in fact, the only record of our crime was in our possession. Furthermore, we had printed out our own boarding passes from home (a relatively recent advance in e-ticketing for which all criminal opportunities have evidently, not yet been exposed). Who was to say then, that our boarding passes had to be an A4 page? What if, for example, they had a few inches at the top shaved off? Of course, my pocket-knife scissors were stowed away, but Kim, ever resourceful, used her laminated bakers delight rewards card as a makeshift paper knife, and calmly eviscerated our little problem. Not a very big change to the universe. The only difference was that instead of two sheets of paper we now had two sheets and two little strips. Now, at this point, I admit I was a little worried. I am pretty sure that the penalty for trying to avoid paying $780 is even more than $780, but we were committed now. Splitting up to avoid detection we lined up to board, Kim with 10 kilos, and me with 30, trying to look as though we were each carrying 7. My thinking though, was that the people checking our passes are bored, more worried about drugs than illicit Higgs boson surpluses, and, at 11:45pm, starting to get tired. Remembering my CIA days (or at least Jack Ryan's), I attempted with nonchalance to blend in with the all-Asian-Businessman crowd as much as possible.
Of course, you know how this ends. If we had gotten caught you would not now be reading this smug, self-congratulatory post. Of course we got through, without a further hassle, and I have to take my hat to my beautiful partner in crime. Kim is a genius at counter-counter-espionage. Perhaps the difference between her and me is that while I have grown up believing that surveillance bureaucracy is implacable, unreasonable, and omni-cognisant, Kim's experience is that they are implacable, unreasonable, dysfunctional, half-paralysed, and spasming. Thus, she is possibly better trained to spot loopholes in the system.
I'd like to end this post with a question posed to my readers (of which I'm sure there are none, given my appallingly long absence from this blog); Do you believe that Kim and I, weighing vastly less than the average passenger, should feel guilty about overloading the plane, even though our combined human-luggage weight is still less than normal? Should obese people be charged excess baggage? Has Sam read too many Tom Clancy novels? These are questions, I think, for us all to ponder as we go about our daily lives.
Until next time, Ye Hasera, and goodnight.