Thursday, December 24, 2009
Garden 25 december 2009
Update view of garden - we harvested 8 lettuces today to take to xmas dinner,
Coriander is getting old - will harvest seeds for next year
Two sorts of chilli
Zinnias are close to flowering
Nasturtiums are coming along
Cosmos are looking great
Some of the flowers
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Internet censorship in Australia

The government wants to introduce an internet filter scheme - this is crazy as internet speeds will plunge as content is verified. Australian speeds and costs of the internet are already substandard and the filter will just exacerbate the situation.
The filter will be promoted as saving children from paedophiles - it won't! But if it is thought that a filter will work, then other known paedophile environments should also be banned, catholic priests and brothers could be de-frocked. In fact, the success of police in rooting out child molesters has been because of their sophisticated data mining activities, desperate people resort to desperate measures to indulge the deviance, if they are not traceable ... well, who knows what they might do!
Further, once one excuse for a filter is let through, then who is to say that other "worthwhile" reasons to prevent access to information will not be invoked. Political parties and their ideas might be banned like the countries whose policies we abhor.
Beware of politicians who want to restrict peoples' information - it is primarily for their benefit - not ours!
Public Private Partnerships
Kenneth Davidson has written again about this important topic - http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/flawed-figures-condemn-our-descendants-to-needless-debt-20091213-kqbh.html
I wrote this for publication on The Age site
The enforced usage of the infrastructure, eg, the taking of water from the desal plant, whether needed or not, and the artificial restrictions on traffic flows to force vehicles on to citilink, show that even the basic model is flawed.
But hey, ministers prefer to go overseas to talk to the putative suppliers of infrastructure than stay in Victoria and issue a few bonds!
How can something be cheaper when profits have to be made over and above the cost of capital???
It is axiomatic that businesses have to make profits - profit is selling price minus cost price - so how can a government say that a private enterprise will be cheaper than public enterprise when public enterprise can sell at cost and not incur the wrath of the public.
I wrote this for publication on The Age site
The enforced usage of the infrastructure, eg, the taking of water from the desal plant, whether needed or not, and the artificial restrictions on traffic flows to force vehicles on to citilink, show that even the basic model is flawed.
But hey, ministers prefer to go overseas to talk to the putative suppliers of infrastructure than stay in Victoria and issue a few bonds!
How can something be cheaper when profits have to be made over and above the cost of capital???
It is axiomatic that businesses have to make profits - profit is selling price minus cost price - so how can a government say that a private enterprise will be cheaper than public enterprise when public enterprise can sell at cost and not incur the wrath of the public.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Melbourne's new trains not to go west
I asked whether the excellent Xtrapolis trains that the Vic government is spruiking so loudly and proudly would be used on my local train line, here is the response :
Dear Mr Partington
Thank you for your email received in this office on 30 November 2009.
You have requested information as to when the governments’ newly acquired fleet of X’Trapolis trains will be utilised on the Sydenham line.
Your feedback is important and we welcome the opportunity to respond.
Train Purchasing
Under the terms of our franchise agreement with the State Government we are required to manage the day-to-day operations of the metropolitan rail network. The decision to purchase new trains, and what trains they may be, falls under the jurisdiction of the State Government.
An unprecedented increase in patronage of metropolitan train services (including 46% in the past four years) means that there are more trips on the network now, than at any other point in its history.
We recognise that new trains need to enter service in order for the increased number of customers to be catered for. As a result, the State Government has announced the purchase of 38 new trains, the first of which is scheduled to enter service in late 2009.
The new trains which have been purchased are X’trapolis trains, which currently operate on the Alamein, Belgrave, Epping, Glen Waverley, Hurstbridge and Lilydale lines. Due to current stabling requirements, the new trains will also operate on these lines exclusively.
If you have any further concerns in relation to the new trains on order, you may wish to more appropriately direct your comments to the Department of Transport: www.transport.vic.gov.au
\
We appreciate you taking the time to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Michael Krause
Case Resolution Manager
So the west loses out on the pick on the train fleet - we are saddled with the atrociously designed siemens trains as the new trains on our lines.
It is fascinating to see that "stabling" requirements preclude the trains coming out west - sounds like a crock to me!!
Dear Mr Partington
Thank you for your email received in this office on 30 November 2009.
You have requested information as to when the governments’ newly acquired fleet of X’Trapolis trains will be utilised on the Sydenham line.
Your feedback is important and we welcome the opportunity to respond.
Train Purchasing
Under the terms of our franchise agreement with the State Government we are required to manage the day-to-day operations of the metropolitan rail network. The decision to purchase new trains, and what trains they may be, falls under the jurisdiction of the State Government.
An unprecedented increase in patronage of metropolitan train services (including 46% in the past four years) means that there are more trips on the network now, than at any other point in its history.
We recognise that new trains need to enter service in order for the increased number of customers to be catered for. As a result, the State Government has announced the purchase of 38 new trains, the first of which is scheduled to enter service in late 2009.
The new trains which have been purchased are X’trapolis trains, which currently operate on the Alamein, Belgrave, Epping, Glen Waverley, Hurstbridge and Lilydale lines. Due to current stabling requirements, the new trains will also operate on these lines exclusively.
If you have any further concerns in relation to the new trains on order, you may wish to more appropriately direct your comments to the Department of Transport: www.transport.vic.gov.au
\
We appreciate you taking the time to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Michael Krause
Case Resolution Manager
So the west loses out on the pick on the train fleet - we are saddled with the atrociously designed siemens trains as the new trains on our lines.
It is fascinating to see that "stabling" requirements preclude the trains coming out west - sounds like a crock to me!!
Monday, December 7, 2009
#cop15: Fifty-six newspapers run Guardian
#cop15: Fifty-six newspapers run Guardian’s climate change editorial
Posted using ShareThis
Climate change deniers need to look at the people who agree that climate change IS happening and that humans are responsible.
To those who say in Australia that we need to stop immigration so as to lower our carbon emissions, it doesn't matter where people are they will still create the problem but, with strong regulation, ALL Australian residents can help lower the world's total emissions.
Posted using ShareThis
Climate change deniers need to look at the people who agree that climate change IS happening and that humans are responsible.
To those who say in Australia that we need to stop immigration so as to lower our carbon emissions, it doesn't matter where people are they will still create the problem but, with strong regulation, ALL Australian residents can help lower the world's total emissions.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Water & restrictions
We received our water bill the other day, we have been using 6 litres total a day more than the suggested allowance of 155 litres each.
We are growing herbs, lettuces and flowers (see previous blogs) which all need water.
We have been using the dish water, the water from the washing machine and the initial cold water from our showers. We then use a watering can to water the plants.
we have ignored the lawns but the recent rains have given them a kick along.
A minimalist water usage regime is achievable even by a non-gardener.
There is talk of relaxing the current restrictions on water use, in my opinion, this is way too soon. The dams need to get to well over half full before an easing of restrictions should be contemplated.
Melburnians, by and large, have been adapting and modifying their gardens to low water usage - the hard scarcity equations have been evaluated and behaviours altered. Our gardens are more and more taking note that we are the driest continent and are becoming drought tolerant.
Water companies want to sell more water and yet this is not in the best long-term interests of society.
We are growing herbs, lettuces and flowers (see previous blogs) which all need water.
We have been using the dish water, the water from the washing machine and the initial cold water from our showers. We then use a watering can to water the plants.
we have ignored the lawns but the recent rains have given them a kick along.
A minimalist water usage regime is achievable even by a non-gardener.
There is talk of relaxing the current restrictions on water use, in my opinion, this is way too soon. The dams need to get to well over half full before an easing of restrictions should be contemplated.
Melburnians, by and large, have been adapting and modifying their gardens to low water usage - the hard scarcity equations have been evaluated and behaviours altered. Our gardens are more and more taking note that we are the driest continent and are becoming drought tolerant.
Water companies want to sell more water and yet this is not in the best long-term interests of society.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Garden 29 November 2009
Nasturtiums and lettuce grown from seed, ready for planting today
Chilli from seedlings
Coriander from seeds
Mint from a runner given by a friend
Chilli from a pot from bunnings
Basil from seeds
Cosmos from seeds
Flowers from pots
More flowers from some pots $2 each & seedling tray
Friday, November 27, 2009
A politician who nearly sounds real
Malcolm Turnbull, a politician in extremis, has lost some of his stridency, he is being almost statesman like on climate change by adopting a bi-partisan approach.
I have been dismissive of him up until now, but his determination to drag his climate change denying party members into the light of reason has lifted him up in my estimation.
But, like KRudd, he is still soft on the polluters, it is like rewarding bank robbers with faster get away cars
It is shame that principles are so rarely exhibited by our elected representatives.
I have been dismissive of him up until now, but his determination to drag his climate change denying party members into the light of reason has lifted him up in my estimation.
But, like KRudd, he is still soft on the polluters, it is like rewarding bank robbers with faster get away cars
It is shame that principles are so rarely exhibited by our elected representatives.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Gardening
coriander
We have planted stuff in the garden.
Herbs and flowers, some as seedlings and others as flowers, the above is lemongrass.
beside the driveway, cosmos in the foreground
Flowers plus spring onion - we didn't plant it but somehow it is there
near front door
we are growing nasturtiums and lettuce from seed - these are seedlings 3 weeks old
Basil also being grown from seed
Chilli from seed
Mint from runner, chilli from a bought seedling and coriander from seed
We are very happy with the way stuff is growing - will update shortly
Monday, November 16, 2009
Mealy-mouthed non-apologies
The trite line "if I have offended anyone, I apologise" is such a crock.
The deliverers of the line have said something that people have objected to so strongly that even the thickhead who uttered the original statement knows that he did the wrong thing.
The apology is worthless when it is subject to such conditions.
A true apology would be along the lines of, "when said x about y, I was wrong, I have hurt the person and I am sorry that I hurt them."
Why does the injured party ask/demand an apology? Easy, because they have been hurt and/or offended.
A certain well-publicised case featured the classic phrase "{lawyer} apologised ''if she suffered any hurt or distress''" - I repeat, if she was not hurt or offended, she would not have pursued the issue through the courts.
Further, it is interesting to note that the perpetrator offered no apology of any description.
An aged sportsman, notorious for attempting to be young by squiring nymphets, showed a disctinct lack of sportsmanship by not accepting the umpire's decision.
Meanwhile, his employers through their tame minions on a current affairs light entertainment show allege he is a good guy by providing a role model. The sports chap has by revealing his prostate condition has apparently encouraged other men to be checked for cancer.
He is a good role model, yeah right! This same buffoon says to ignore his fellow "stars" on his show when they exhibit drunken, violent behaviour because they aren't role models! Hypocrite!!
The deliverers of the line have said something that people have objected to so strongly that even the thickhead who uttered the original statement knows that he did the wrong thing.
The apology is worthless when it is subject to such conditions.
A true apology would be along the lines of, "when said x about y, I was wrong, I have hurt the person and I am sorry that I hurt them."
Why does the injured party ask/demand an apology? Easy, because they have been hurt and/or offended.
A certain well-publicised case featured the classic phrase "{lawyer} apologised ''if she suffered any hurt or distress''" - I repeat, if she was not hurt or offended, she would not have pursued the issue through the courts.
Further, it is interesting to note that the perpetrator offered no apology of any description.
An aged sportsman, notorious for attempting to be young by squiring nymphets, showed a disctinct lack of sportsmanship by not accepting the umpire's decision.
Meanwhile, his employers through their tame minions on a current affairs light entertainment show allege he is a good guy by providing a role model. The sports chap has by revealing his prostate condition has apparently encouraged other men to be checked for cancer.
He is a good role model, yeah right! This same buffoon says to ignore his fellow "stars" on his show when they exhibit drunken, violent behaviour because they aren't role models! Hypocrite!!
Big is not beautiful - urban sprawl
Our cities are growing like topsy. And that growth is creating problems for us, environmentally, socially and economically.
Those areas are intertwined; government says it can’t do something about the environment because they think it will be economically not optimal. Social alienation and economic disadvantage and can be linked to destructive behaviour like littering.
The “cars that ate Paris” have turned their attentions to Melbourne. The urban sprawl means that cars are being used excessively.
We need to get smarter.
Expansion horizontally into areas with no public transport and with large distances to anywhere is a recipe for disaster and it is being followed in Melbourne and Sydney even as I write.
Travelling 3 to 4 hours a day to get to work sitting in your car is bad for you, family suffers (because you are away from spouse and children), health suffers (being inactive in a stressful situation surrounded by fumes), wealth suffers (you and your spouse, and maybe kids, need more than just the “family” car) and it is bad for the rest of us as well – pollution, increased costs of production and costs of trauma via collisions.
If we could conveniently walk or take public transport to work, so many resources would be freed up.
Higher density housing closer to the CBD is a solution. Time to start thinking about having houses that more sustainable, not having a mansion miles from civilisation.
And using what is now productive farm land to grow bricks seems such a waste!
Those areas are intertwined; government says it can’t do something about the environment because they think it will be economically not optimal. Social alienation and economic disadvantage and can be linked to destructive behaviour like littering.
The “cars that ate Paris” have turned their attentions to Melbourne. The urban sprawl means that cars are being used excessively.
We need to get smarter.
Expansion horizontally into areas with no public transport and with large distances to anywhere is a recipe for disaster and it is being followed in Melbourne and Sydney even as I write.
Travelling 3 to 4 hours a day to get to work sitting in your car is bad for you, family suffers (because you are away from spouse and children), health suffers (being inactive in a stressful situation surrounded by fumes), wealth suffers (you and your spouse, and maybe kids, need more than just the “family” car) and it is bad for the rest of us as well – pollution, increased costs of production and costs of trauma via collisions.
If we could conveniently walk or take public transport to work, so many resources would be freed up.
Higher density housing closer to the CBD is a solution. Time to start thinking about having houses that more sustainable, not having a mansion miles from civilisation.
And using what is now productive farm land to grow bricks seems such a waste!
Bike helmets and fines
Police on bikes at the local station stopped a number of people for not wearing helmets. Fair enough, but then I considered the penalty these people faced, a fine of $50.
The riders, there were three of them, included a woman, probably in her fifties, who looked as though she may have been a pensioner - the bike was old, she was wearing a dress, and of course, no helmet.
Having been knocked off my bike and hitting the ground head first, I am glad I was wearing a helmet - the helmet shattered, I was concussed which is a far, far better result than skull shattered and dead! So I understand the value of helmets.
The less well-off would struggle to pay the fine - it represents a considerable slug of their income (most of which is probably not disposable anyway!).
My solutions:-
One, make the fine a percentage of income - the poor can afford the fine and if a highly paid person gets a high fine, well, you wonder why they are paid heaps when thy are patently stupid to not wear a helmet!
or
Two, just like cars with an unroadworthy sticker, the rider must present themselves at the local police station with a helmet (educative and not as expensive as the fine!) if it is their first offence, for subsequent nabbings, then hit them with the fine.
The riders, there were three of them, included a woman, probably in her fifties, who looked as though she may have been a pensioner - the bike was old, she was wearing a dress, and of course, no helmet.
Having been knocked off my bike and hitting the ground head first, I am glad I was wearing a helmet - the helmet shattered, I was concussed which is a far, far better result than skull shattered and dead! So I understand the value of helmets.
The less well-off would struggle to pay the fine - it represents a considerable slug of their income (most of which is probably not disposable anyway!).
My solutions:-
One, make the fine a percentage of income - the poor can afford the fine and if a highly paid person gets a high fine, well, you wonder why they are paid heaps when thy are patently stupid to not wear a helmet!
or
Two, just like cars with an unroadworthy sticker, the rider must present themselves at the local police station with a helmet (educative and not as expensive as the fine!) if it is their first offence, for subsequent nabbings, then hit them with the fine.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Myki
The continuing stupidity of government is highlighted by the sending of good money after bad.
The Myki ticketing "system" is overpriced and overdue, the government has tipped additional funds and allowed extended time to get this thing "working".
The current system, Metcard, has a huge flaw in government's eyes - it does not track users! Big Brother government wants to surveil our travel on an individual basis rather than on a group basis.
Also the user of the Metcard has the power to control their costs by picking the right combination of tickets - for instance, starting work before 7 am (using Early Bird ticket) and using a two hour ticket validated 1 minute after the hour (giving me three hours to get home) meant my daily commute cost $2.90 from Laverton to Elsternwick and return.
I have downloaded the 8Mb Myki 120 page ticketing guide, looks like the same system is available, do that is okay UNLESS the train is delayed and then the "touch off" will be after the 7 am point and a two hour charge will be made.
I can choose to be anonymous which I will.
A new "feature" is that no longer is there a Monthly ticket which can give 28, 29, 30 or 31 days travel - the new regime is 28-365 days so rather a ticket initially validated 7 October expiring 6 November costing $5.45 a day, under Myki 31 days is $5.56 per day.
The biggest issue though is the touch on/touch off requirement - the traveler is responsible for the process even if the machinery ias not working!! This is bizarre - machines have no discretion, to say you can't use an airplane without a valid ticket is a spurious argument as your ticket is checked by the flight attendants before you board, maybe we need train/tram attendants to check tickets (we could call them conductors, maybe).
The Myki ticketing "system" is overpriced and overdue, the government has tipped additional funds and allowed extended time to get this thing "working".
The current system, Metcard, has a huge flaw in government's eyes - it does not track users! Big Brother government wants to surveil our travel on an individual basis rather than on a group basis.
Also the user of the Metcard has the power to control their costs by picking the right combination of tickets - for instance, starting work before 7 am (using Early Bird ticket) and using a two hour ticket validated 1 minute after the hour (giving me three hours to get home) meant my daily commute cost $2.90 from Laverton to Elsternwick and return.
I have downloaded the 8Mb Myki 120 page ticketing guide, looks like the same system is available, do that is okay UNLESS the train is delayed and then the "touch off" will be after the 7 am point and a two hour charge will be made.
I can choose to be anonymous which I will.
A new "feature" is that no longer is there a Monthly ticket which can give 28, 29, 30 or 31 days travel - the new regime is 28-365 days so rather a ticket initially validated 7 October expiring 6 November costing $5.45 a day, under Myki 31 days is $5.56 per day.
The biggest issue though is the touch on/touch off requirement - the traveler is responsible for the process even if the machinery ias not working!! This is bizarre - machines have no discretion, to say you can't use an airplane without a valid ticket is a spurious argument as your ticket is checked by the flight attendants before you board, maybe we need train/tram attendants to check tickets (we could call them conductors, maybe).
Monday, November 2, 2009
Australia & Immigration
I am the child of children of children of immigrants.
And so are most of us in this country. After two hundred and twenty one years of immigration, there are very few residents of Australia that can claim that they have no immigrant blood in them.
So why are so many people anti-immigrants? Effectively, they are anti-themselves!
We started as a prison, and in New South Wales, it is a badge of honour to be related to First Fleeters, that is, to be descendants of criminals "worthy" of being shipped half way round the world. So we shouldn't be too precious about the backgrounds of new arrivals now.
A mono-culture is monotony - we are all contribute to the community with our ideas and lifestyle but we all need to work together
And so are most of us in this country. After two hundred and twenty one years of immigration, there are very few residents of Australia that can claim that they have no immigrant blood in them.
So why are so many people anti-immigrants? Effectively, they are anti-themselves!
We started as a prison, and in New South Wales, it is a badge of honour to be related to First Fleeters, that is, to be descendants of criminals "worthy" of being shipped half way round the world. So we shouldn't be too precious about the backgrounds of new arrivals now.
A mono-culture is monotony - we are all contribute to the community with our ideas and lifestyle but we all need to work together
Infrastructure Finance and Political cowardice and veniality
Our society needs infrastructure so that we can go about our daily business. Electricity, water, transport (public, road and air), schools and hospitals are the principal examples of the areas where infrastructure is required to deliver services to the people.
Let's pick an oldy but a goody, Citilink, to examine some of the issues.
We, the people, needed a better(?) road system. Government decided not to provide us with the roads with our money, but chose the public-private partnership route. There was dodgy financing involved with stapled securities, special arrangements to "encourage" users to use the system and public guarantee of debt and income. The public sector, us, kept the risks and transferred the profits to the private sector.
The new road was tacked on to existing roads that we had paid for - we did not receive compensation for this.
The new water desalination is another example where the private sector is guaranteed income and we have to pay extra for the privilege.
It is government's responsibility to provide us with the fundamentals like water, however, they are frightened to do so because they would have to borrow to do this. And the opposition party of the day will bleat about inflicting debt on our children. So government says private sector is carrying the debt, but this is, in fact, extreme carelessness with truth. Government is guaranteeing the debt and paying the private company money so the private company can pay its interest bill and make a profit.
So, in reality, it is the government's debt, but without the debt appearing on the government balance sheet.
Debt is not necessarily bad, we all borrow to buy our homes, we even borrow to do renovations or extensions, and as long as we pay off that debt, we considered by banks and our friends and families as be eminently sensible.
But if government borrows to renew or increase infrastructure (effectively our home) then it is called irresponsible. It is not - the government is doing its job providing the essentials.
The misrepresentation that borrowing for infrastructure burdens our children with debt ignores the fact that the infrastructure has a lifespan. For the early part of its life, we are paying for it, then as our children get into the work force and use the item, then it is their turn to pay.
Conversely, with water, they are using the infrastructure without the means to pay for it when they are young, so at some stage they should pay for the water they consume.
The overall cost of the project via the private route has to be more costly to community in the long run because private sector has higher costs of borrowing and also has to ensure significant returns to their shareholders.
Public-private partnerships are flawed and a fraud on the community.
Let's pick an oldy but a goody, Citilink, to examine some of the issues.
We, the people, needed a better(?) road system. Government decided not to provide us with the roads with our money, but chose the public-private partnership route. There was dodgy financing involved with stapled securities, special arrangements to "encourage" users to use the system and public guarantee of debt and income. The public sector, us, kept the risks and transferred the profits to the private sector.
The new road was tacked on to existing roads that we had paid for - we did not receive compensation for this.
The new water desalination is another example where the private sector is guaranteed income and we have to pay extra for the privilege.
It is government's responsibility to provide us with the fundamentals like water, however, they are frightened to do so because they would have to borrow to do this. And the opposition party of the day will bleat about inflicting debt on our children. So government says private sector is carrying the debt, but this is, in fact, extreme carelessness with truth. Government is guaranteeing the debt and paying the private company money so the private company can pay its interest bill and make a profit.
So, in reality, it is the government's debt, but without the debt appearing on the government balance sheet.
Debt is not necessarily bad, we all borrow to buy our homes, we even borrow to do renovations or extensions, and as long as we pay off that debt, we considered by banks and our friends and families as be eminently sensible.
But if government borrows to renew or increase infrastructure (effectively our home) then it is called irresponsible. It is not - the government is doing its job providing the essentials.
The misrepresentation that borrowing for infrastructure burdens our children with debt ignores the fact that the infrastructure has a lifespan. For the early part of its life, we are paying for it, then as our children get into the work force and use the item, then it is their turn to pay.
Conversely, with water, they are using the infrastructure without the means to pay for it when they are young, so at some stage they should pay for the water they consume.
The overall cost of the project via the private route has to be more costly to community in the long run because private sector has higher costs of borrowing and also has to ensure significant returns to their shareholders.
Public-private partnerships are flawed and a fraud on the community.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)