Deregulation to the Rescue!

Despite the world economic crisis confirming the massive dangers of rampant deregulation, there are still those who argue that it’s too much regulation that caused the disaster, not too little.

They are right, of course. It’s time everyone had the opportunity to benefit from deregulation.

In that spirit, I suggest we deregulate the road laws.
If someone has worked hard enough to afford a car that will do 200kph, and has the skills to control it, why shouldn’t he be allowed to perform at the peak of his potential? If it turns out that he cannot control such a powerful car, he will be made aware of that fact soon enough and natural attrition will take care of the rest. Why should the best and bravest drivers be dragged down to the level of the mediocre masses?

Let the market decide what a safe blood alcohol level is.

Rip out all traffic lights. First in, best dressed. He who hesitates is lost. You snooze, you lose. etc.

“What about pedestrians?” you may ask. Won’t they be in greater danger?
Well, at first they will. But as we all know, the greater the risk, the greater the return. Pedestrians will become fitter and more alert as increased competition leads to a better deal for everyone. As with drivers, the lower achieving pedestrians will fail and cease to be a drag on the market.

You know it makes sense.

The Rules: Answering Machines

If you don't want to leave a message when you get someone's answering machine or voice-mail, that's fine - but hang up BEFORE the beep. You know how these things work, you know what's going to happen. You don't have to wait.
(Psst: It saves you money too!)

Saturday Night Rocktails

Sorry there were no Rocktails last week. I was out getting rained on.

The JET

Pour 1½ measures of Jim Beam over ice and top up with Coca Cola.

Now I know it sounds like something that's been done a thousand times before, but really this is very new and innovative.... honest!
aka, The Strokes, The Vines, The Darkness, The Wolfmother, etc.........

The Rules: Journalism

ASK A BLOODY QUESTION!

I am sick of hearing so-called interviewers, mainly in the American media, saying to their guests, "Talk about this thing."

It's bad enough that so much alleged news is little more than uncritical repetition of party or department talking points, but can't you even make it seem like you're questioning the guest? Couldn't you at least say "Can you explain to us....?" instead of just saying, "Talk about [insert daily talking point here]"?

Even the most simpering puff-piece on Entertainment Tonight will at least say, "Tell us about your character," instead of just saying, "Talk about that thing you came here to talk about for a moment. Fill some air time for us."

How can anyone be biased when they're this lazy?

Bring on the Santelli revolution

So much has been written and said about Rick Santelli’s not-so-impromptu rant on CNBC a few weeks ago that to say any more seems like piling on. It has been debunked, exposed as planned, and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs quite inadvertently revealed Santelli to be a crybaby too. Santelli claimed that Gibbs’ comment, “I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives,” was a veiled threat against his family. Rick, if you’re going to call for a new revolution, you’re going to have to learn that if someone wanted to threaten your family, he would say, “We know where you live.” Of course, the mistake here is Gibbs’. When someone is calling for insurrection, the government ought to know where he lives. But the administration is right not to make Santelli any more important than he is.

But the reason I am bringing this up now is that for all the back and forth over Santelli’s “Chicago tea party,” speech railing against “losers” who can’t pay their mortgages, I have yet to see anyone just call Santelli’s bluff. There he was rallying the troops on the trading floor but when the most mild-mannered of press secretaries wondered about what kind of place he lived in, he cried foul. What’s more, I haven’t seen similar cries for revolution over the news that AIG is using some of its bailout money to pay executive bonuses. History has shown that this is how revolutions really starts, not by upping taxes on futures traders.

But if Santelli sees things differently, if he thinks his people are the real victims and they’re not going to take it any more, then I say Go for it! It will be great! Just think about it: a bunch of pale, pudgy share traders versus thousands of angry working class people who are about to lose their homes. Is that a fight you really want to pick Rick? If so, then bring it on! I’ll sell tickets.

Update:
Here was I thinking I was late with this comment. It turns out I couldn't have timed it better, since a few hours later, Santelli went on tv and rationalised the AIG bonuses.

In fairness to Santelli, he was making the point that the bonuses are a drop in the bucket compared to all the good money being thrown after bad at AIG. But it's still rather telling that he whips up an angry mob at the thought of having to pay losers' mortgages but not at having to pay other losers' bonuses.

Or maybe he'd just learnt from his mistake before. Place your bets.

An Open Letter to Sam Neill

Dear Sam,

I'm pleased to see them repeating your series of short natural history films on how red meat contributed to human development.





However, I still have some questions.

Could you please explain how eating meat that has been grown, slaughtered, butchered, packaged and sometimes even cooked in advance stimulates our physical and mental development in the same way as it did for our ancient ancestors who had to hunt and kill their own food?

Anyone who follows natural selection knows that those who weren't fast enough to catch their prey, or strong enough to kill it, or smart enough to find easier ways of catching it and killing it would die out, therefore raising the average of the pack. Does eating farmed meat purchased from the supermarket or pie shop raise the average in the same way?

Finally, while I don't dispute the nutritional value of red meat as you put it, those animals have to be fed too, and it turns out that the grain we feed them has a higher nutritional yield than the meat we get out of it. Were we “meant” to do this? Is this the behaviour we should expect from “the most highly developed species on the planet,”?

Thanks,
Bill

Saturday Night Rocktails

The INXS

Create a sweet but solid foundation of raspberry sorbet.
Top with Moet.
If you can't get Moet, try Riccadonna
If you can't get Riccadonna, try Great Western
If that doesn't work out, try fruity lexia
If that still doesn't work, pour in a bit of whatever's around. Surely something will work.


The Sex Pistols

Half fill a glass with lager, then spit in it.
Top it up with tap water, then laugh as people talk about how important it is.