Only possible explanation.
Only possible explanation.
Queenie: Vanished, Lord Percy, not *varnished*.
Lord Percy Percy: Forgive me, my lady, but my uncle Bertram’s old oak table completely vanished. ‘Twas on the night of the great Stepney fire. And on that same terrible night, his house and all his other things completely vanished too. So did he, in fact. It was a most perplexing mystery.
Overnight news coverage like this probably didn’t help:
Here’s a thought; if your best line of defence is that you’re not as bad as one of the largest frauds of our generation or not as bad as the largest banking collapses in the modern era, you might be in trouble.
Seriously though, Wokepac has more change and comms consultants than Belgium has waffle makers and he still made gaffes like this.
Who was advising him and why didn’t they said, “Brian, just fucking work from home until the Board meeting”?
Introducing William of Ockham’s General Theory of Australia:
A small pond results in a masssive case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
This is fine in a rising or stable market.
The moment negative consequences occur however, the enormous gulf between actual competence and perception is exposed.
Just the PR disaster of this sorry episode should be proof enough.
For me, a critical indicator you are dealing with someone who is subject to The General Theory of Australia are the shoes they are wearing.
No, hear me out…..
If you have a good inkling the person is earning, let’s say more than $250k a year, yet they are wearing rubber-soled shoes, likely bought at Kmart, rather than handmade Loakes or perhaps Cheney’s, then there’s a fair chance they’ve rose to that position without ever having to be tested in adversity.
That metric doesn’t work so well for females; I tend to judge the women by their choice of Friday casual clothes.
This rubbish imposed itself on my Creepbook for Business feed this morning.
Imagine having the available free time to be concerned about questions such as this?
Let’s take a moment to go full ad hominem and check out our corresponent’s experience and qualifications to be advising us on CO2 per Christmas tree:
Ok, bold claims. What’s your background?
Theology, executive assistant and an entry level degree in ecology.
This is the calibre of person demanding we change our economy to save the world.
If I thought she’d listen, I would suggest to Olivia McGregor that her time and energy would be better spent donating money and/or time to the organisations who are doing the hard yards inoculating kids in war zones in order to get the number of worldwide cases of polio from about 100 a year to zero.
We’re so close. Imagine the massive human misery that’s been averted so far.
And in the meantime, if it bothers you that much, don’t bother having a Christmas tree this year, just draw one with crayons and stick it on the fucking wall.
That the normal rules of logic don’t apply to discussions of climate change seems obvious to any casual observer, but sometimes we can also snatch a glimpse at a possible agenda through the offered illogic.
Take, for example, this argument on how the New South Wales’ climate fund should be allocated.
The Berejiklian government’s Climate Change Fund has spent almost $50 million supporting work on raising the Warragamba dam wall – an outlay critics say is unrelated to the fund’s original purpose.
In the latest year, the fund spent $24.7 million on the Hawkesbury–Nepean Valley flood risk management, the centrepiece of which is the plan to lift the Warragamba Dam by 14 metres. That sum was up from $15.9 million in the previous year and $5.9 million for the 2016-17 year.
It seems to me that, if one believes anthropological climate change is a global existential threat, there are a finite range categories of response:
Of these, (1) and (4) seem most likely to achieve significant progress without unprecedented international cooperation. These are within the gift of a sovereign nation to deliver.
Some are not happy with mitigation as an approach, however:
“The money is being used more like a slush fund on tenuously linked projects rather than a strategic reserve to invest in a real plan to reduce the state’s carbon footprint and climate risk,” said Justin Field, an independent upper house MP.
What’s the fund’s purpose?
The fund was set up in 2007 with legislated purposes such as cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of climate change associated with water and energy use. It was also intended to spur energy and water savings.
Seems like mitigation is a goal.
Harry Burkitt, a campaign manager with environment group The Colong Foundation, said it was “an absurd argument that raising the Warragamba Dam wall would somehow mitigate the impacts of climate change”.
Given that the current drought in NSW and increased bush fires this year are blamed on climate change by those who are most vocal on the subject, it seems somewhat hypocritical to suggest we shouldn’t try to capture more water.
“The government’s own leaked reports have stated that nearly 7000 hectares of UNESCO listed forests would be drowned by the raised dam, meaning thousands of tonnes of carbon would enter the atmosphere if the project were to be approved,” Mr Burkitt said.
More statistics obfuscation there. What’s the denominator, over what period, estimated relative impact, etc.?
If you believe climate change is going to wreak havoc on the globe, killing many people and plunging more into poverty, yet you aren’t pushing for mitigating actions in addition to reduce pollution, consider the possibility you’re driving an ideological agenda, rather than a fact-based one.
Ask yourself two questions:
1. Why shouldn’t we be immediately implementing local mitigation, and
2. Why aren’t we talking about nuclear energy?
Good friend of this organ, Brian Hartzer, CEO of Wokepac, hasn’t had the greatest of weeks.
It turns out that, while he was spending much of his working life making diversity hires, virtue signalling with drag queens and using shareholder value to project pretty coloured lights on the HQ for whatever victimhood day it happens to be, he took his eye off the less important part of his job description; running a bank.
Don’t worry, nothing bad happened, just a few illegal international money transfers in breach of the anti-laundering laws.
How many, you ask?
Oh, just 23 million.
Any issue in that number? Oh, only a load of payments likely used to facilitate sexual abuse of children in third world countries.
Nothing to see here then.
What’s really interesting though is how quickly Brian managed to recruit Prince Andrew’s PR manager.
Well, one assumes that’s what’s happened, otherwise how else can the press release be explained?
If facilitating extensive sexual abuse of children through professional incompetence isn’t a firing matter, I’m struggling to work out what is.
The most likely explanation is that the bank needs a little time to sort out the work visa for Brian’s replacement.
We can exclusively confirm that this will be none other than Prince Andrew who has fortunately suddenly become available for new work.
Same testimony, different takes:
Is it just me or is anyone else utterly bored by activism and opinion masquerading as “news”?
Perhaps it’s an unreliable memory, but I have a vague idea there was a time when journalists and editors genuinely aspired to report facts as objectively as they could in order to allow their readers to form their own opinions.
It seems to me that, as politics continues to bifurcate, the journalist class increasingly views the public as unable to form an accurate opinion. We therefore require our opinions to be ascribed to us.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.
Here’s a example of the modern malaise of innumeracy:
Whilst it’s clear there’s been a paucity of rainfall in the state of New South Wales, the article is riddled with unasked questions.
Sydneysiders are using higher than average amounts of water and face the prospect of four more years of restrictions and a hike in bills from next July if the drought does not break.
Higher than average.
Per person? Per household? In total and therefore compared to previous years?
Has the denominator changed, such as an increase in population, for example?
We aren’t told.
Instead, we have a late entry for the 2019 Stating the Bleeding Obvious Prize:
Although a typical household bill would be 2.5 per cent higher under the latest submission, customers could cut bills by saving water.
We do get a clue to the answers to the earlier questions though:
But despite a recent increase in usage, the Berejiklian government says Sydneysiders are using less water per person each day than they were during the Millennium drought.
Ok, that suggests a population increase has occurred. Funny the article doesn’t spell that out though.
That dreaded noun, “average”, makes yet another appearance:
It says rainfall across the catchments over the past two years was “below to very much below average” and the Bureau of Meteorology predicts a dryer and warmer than average summer.
Below to very much below.
Well, that clears things up for us….
Either the journalist writing this article is completely innumerate, not curious, blindly regurgitating a press release or trying to drive an agenda.
If the first explanation, perhaps they should read Factfulness.
The former Australian rugby player, Israel Folau, is in the news again today (not really; he’s only in the Sydney Morning Herald).
Yesterday, he gave a sermon at his church where he suggested the recent bushfires in Australia were a direct result of the godlessness of the country’s population.
Of course, the ever-declining business masquerading as a news outlet has inferred because of this, Folau is a religious nutcase.
Picking on the religious beliefs of others is always a fun pastime, mainly due to the low cost to oneself; a religious belief, by its definition, is one that not capable of being disproven using the scientific method.
I must admit to having never entered the auspicious offices of The Sydney Morning Herald in Pyrmont, but if I did, I would be unsurprised to discover the following demographic boxes and beliefs ticked by the vast majority, if not all editorial employees;
If you are or know someone who is employed in that department and don’t tick one or several of those statements, please do correct me below.
We all hold unprovable beliefs.
Sit on a bus or a train and look around you. Do you know even a fraction of the thoughts appearing in your fellow travellers’ minds?
Of course not.
Does it matter?
Not if they aren’t harming you in any way.
Israel Folau isn’t attempting to dip into my bank account, restrict my ability to heat/cool my home, drive a car or take overseas holidays.
Izzy can believe whatever utter garbage he wishes.
Mark McVeigh, a 24-year-old environmental scientist from Australia, won’t be able to access his retirement savings until 2055. But, concerned about what the world may look like then, he’s taking action now, suing his A$57 billion ($39 billion) pension fund for not adequately disclosing or assessing the impact of climate change on its investments.
Cue picture of stereotypical ponytailed unshaven millennial affecting zher best serious face:
Is that shirt available in “ironed”, son?
Before launching the legal action, McVeigh asked Retail Employees Superannuation Trust, or Rest, how it was ensuring his savings were future proofed against rising world temperatures. Its response didn’t satisfy him and he ended up engaging specialist climate change law firm, Equity Generation Lawyers.
Readers outside Australia might not know this, but the legislation around Superannuation is excellent in terms of portability and choice for the consumer. If you don’t like how your fund is invested or administered, switching to another provider is relatively simple. In most cases it’s a quick and easy online process using an industry standard reference number.
So, our faux gravitas-faced soy boy could log on to the laptop pictured in front of him and switch to this fund, for example.
That he has, instead, chosen to engage an activist legal firm (who are hopefully acting pro-bono) to sue his existing fund requires some explanation, then.
Given that portability of funds, and the availability of real alternatives, it’s not unreasonable for observers to wonder at Mark’s motivation in this.
Is he genuinely concerned about how his investments are being made? Complete an online form and switch funds then.
Or, is this an attempt to set a legal precedent restricting the choice of the rest of us?
We can’t read Mark’s mind, but his actions suggest less concern about his personal investments and more a desire to interfere with ours.
The problem he will face is that the prime objective, written in law, of superannuation funds is to increase the wealth of the savers.
It won’t be hard for the Defence lawyers to argue that, compared to a pathetic 1.2% annualised performance, his current fund is performing their legal duties far more diligently then the virtue signalling “ethical” fund.
It won’t have entered Mark’s mind, given the incontrovertible truth that, starting about 20 years before his birth, the world has witnessed nothing short of a miracle in the reduction of human suffering as a result of economic freedom to trade and invest:
But sure, go ahead Mark, tell us all how we should spend our own money, because you’ve worked it all out for us in your 24 years of existence.
….the entire world looks like a nail.
Or, put another way:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
With that Upton Sinclair quote in mind, one wonders what the outcome might be of Bristol University’s decision to hire a researcher to investigate whether or not the institution has any residual guilt for its part in the transatlantic slave trade.
Strictly-speaking, my description above is likely to be more specific than the actual job description. The press releases all quote the investigation to be into “slavery”, rather than one specific trade route of the egregious abuse of humans.
If the remit if her job was expanded to look at the impact of any slavery, we could save her some time; of course it has. Everyone alive has.
Slavery has historically been the only route to wealth for 99% of the duration of modern humans as a species. The fact you are alive today, strongly suggests some or many of your ancestors exploited the labour of others to survive.
The degree (pun intended) to which Bristol University benefited from this seems quite a strange choice of investigation. Surely a more useful and interesting area of inquiry would be whether slavery still exists in the world and what form it takes?
The two universities in England most likely to have been recipients of money made from the transatlantic slave trade are Liverpool and Bristol, because the trade flowed through the ports of those cities.
The risk, 228 years after slavery was made illegal globally by the UK parliament, is to contort oneself and, by extension, our institutions to find some way of making history “right”.
Which takes us back to the who/whom? problem.
But anyway, of course a person paid to find something will find it. Imagine the awkward conversation a year later if she were to submit a report passing a clean bill of health, historically-speaking.