We should shine a light on, a light on

And the book of right-on's right-on, it was right-on

I WANT ONE

Good couple of days. BDO was somewhat subdued (why Bjork why), joanna was awesome to the max.

A coupla weeks ago, talking things over with Oliver and some of his fairly rad friends, topics inevitably turned over to why people suck/knowledge about things. Some people sort of said that if they don't know something about something, they just tend to sit quietly and let it pass over their heads.

I do not. I mentioned that if I don't know something about something (and it sufficiently piques my curiousity) I will go and research the shit out of it. I will read as much possible and learn about the damn topic within a reasonable (what's reasonable you say? I'll let the courts decide on that) period of time. The funny thing is, I remarked, even after spending all that time and effort learning, i'm usually not that much better[less confused/more decided] off then when I started.

Which brings me to my question: Why am I such a damn fool?

Much unlike this one, who's probably one of the my favourite people ever. It makes me cry when you learn about that much goodness.

On a side note, that has to be one of the most entertaining wiki articles I've ever read. I actually want to read it the entire way through and not just skim/skip parts of it; i've read it multiple times and still find it engrossing. Kudos to the person/s who collaborated on it. I'm sure Erdos would appreciate it.

A recap, of sorts

Saturday January 5 (All subsequent days are in chronological order)

Brian Wilson at the Domain. It was grand. Must remember to marry woman in polka dot dress. Watch out for (potential) husband.

Sunday

Spank Rock:

"It's party music." "No consequences." "Just ass-shaking shit." "Why you hating?" "Stop thinking so hard."

Monday

Andrew Bird was great. Really great. I also wish to marry him. He would be a most excellent suitor.

Tuesday

Brian Wilson

GODDAMN FUCKING AWESOME. 25 BUCKS?! Fucking, 25 BUCKS FOR THAT MUCH FUCKING COOLNESS!? Jesus.

Wednesday

Bobs. I love vodka. Makes me feel great. Not even sleepy.

Thursday

Oliviers film. I look forward to Tropfest and his subsequent placings. Should be good. Also, my maelstrom (ignore the damn umlaut) that is my mind produces some nice shit. I keep forgetting just how entertaining I really am sometimes. Effortful though. Maybe, I have something to say on that matter. (Turns out, I don't. Go figure.)

Friday

Fullhouse. Always lovely. Chiquis for poker (Lost. I did well last week, counts?). I hope I don't end up being too much of a dick, even if I'm good at making it something.

Saturday

Jazz in the Domain. Lordy, it was crowded. More than the festival first night.

Sunday

Missed out on tickets to Sufjan. Went to construct instead. "I liked it a lot, despite the fact that it was so abstractly pretentious." (why am I quoting myself now??)

Monday (my birthday)

Slept in. Had a lot of nice pizza. Nice things happened (Support/fuck the police! Drums in the park at 3 in the morn was cool. Really cool. I dig) I wish I could afford good vodka. ALL THE GODDAMN TIME

It could be summed up in one, very unique way:

Suck my battleship/sunk my cock

I think Machiavelli would understand

Life is mostly froth and bubble;
Two things stand like stone:—
Kindness in another’s trouble,
Courage in our own.

END COMMUNIQUE

BEGIN COMMUNIQUE

My boobs aren't cut out for this cold weather. They're too new.

Good Vibrations drive out bad juju

What do you think it's about?

Past few days have been good, yeah. I finished On The Road. Depends who you ask, yeah.

OR

"Yes! Yes! Yes!"

Je ne sais pas, eh?

It's really sort of that whole concept of craft and creativity. "That's not writing, it's typing."

Methinks someone is jealous.

Andrew Byrd is a wonderful, wonderful man. I still hold to the theory that he stole the throat of a warbler. There exists now, a poor, lonely, quiet, warbler, hoping to whistle.

I think I have some things to write. Facts, even.

I would blog right now

But I have to go soon, and I want to watch Whose Line. So, in an imitation of I might consider my favourite medium, this post will be delivered in episodic fits.

(It's aptly ironic the writer's strike is on.)

The title is:

"Good vibrations drive out bad juju"

More to come later!

Scientists are stumped

“ The universe is like a safe to which there is a combination. But the combination is locked up in the safe. ”

Peter De Vries

“ ...Fuck. ”

Peter De Vries

One of these quotes is real! Can you guess which one?

This explains a lot

Maybe not everyone needs a "chain of logical arguments" to convince them that God exists? Or of other things - I don't have any logical arguments to convince me that my husband loves me. Logically, it's just as likely that having and raising children is very very important to him, and he believes that I will be an excellent mother, and so he wants to take good care of me and make me happy so that I will help him raise children. That could, potentially, be indistinguishable from him actually loving me, but still I believe that he does love me.

I don't think I love any of you. It's all just a series of giant coincidences, you sneaky bastards.

Why I love Slashdot and you won't care

On the contrary, the Prime Minister in a Westminster style system has much more power than the President of the USA, because the PM fully controls the legislative agenda.

In the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, laws that spend public money or raise taxes must be accompanied by a "Royal Recommendation". Since the Monarch of each country with respect to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative has been an automaton since at least 1936 (and for hundreds of years with respect to the UK and its legal predecessors), acting only on the advice of the Prime Minister, this means that the PM has a veto on whether Parliament can even consider most important bills. Ireland and India have similar rules, but have (appointed) Presidents instead of a (heridtary) Queen and (appointed) Governor-General.

This is Section 56 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (current version): "A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated." The Senate and House of Representatives both have rules and standing orders forbidding the debate of votes, resolutions or proposed laws that may not be passed, and the President or Speaker enforces these assiduously.

Moreover, in all of these countries except the UK, either the Royal Assent can be deferred, or the Proclamation can be deferred, in the event Parliament passes a Bill that the Prime Minister does not want. In the UK, the Royal Assent has been automatic and has not involved the Monarch or the Prime Minister since the early Victorian era; Proclamation is not a feature of the UK system -- an Act of Parliament that receives Royal Assent becomes law immediately (or at a future date fixed in the Act itself). It is pretty clear that if it became necessary, the Prime Minister could constitutionally insist that "the Queen withhold Royal Assent in order to consider the Bill" ("la Reyne s'avisera", is the Norman French formalization), which in practice would mean sending a letter to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament.

This is described in Sections 58 (Royal Aseent) and 60 (Proclamation) of the Australian Constitution.

Finally Section 59 of the Australian Constitution uniquely retains the power of Disallowance (it was abolished with respect to Canada and New Zealand, and never existed in the United Kingdom). (It reads: "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.")

In effect, these tools represent a Prime Ministerial veto over legislation, available even if the majority of Parliament supports a bill.

Section 59 might actually be used by the new government. It is normally considered a political mistake to do so, but since the campaign dealt with legislation forced through at the end of the Howard premiership, it is plausible that the new Prime Minister can claim an electoral mandate to exercise the power.

In short, the veto powers of a Westminster-style Prime Minister far exceed those of the President, who must veto or not within a short period of time, and whose veto can be overturned by Parliament.

In the Westminster system, the only remedy for Parliament is to refuse to pass the bills the PM actually wants, or to withhold confidence in the government (by declaration of no confidence, or the defeat of a supply bill), which likely would trigger an election. However in that case it is the PM who decides whether to name a replacement, try to secure confidence with a new set of ministers, or set an election date. The Monarch or Governor is expected to act like an automaton in this regard too.

The only two cases in the past few hundred years where this did not happen (King-Byng and Whitlam-Kerr) led to heavy restrictions on the Crown (King-Byng led to the Statue of Westminster, ultimately; Whitlam-Kerr had a less dramatic aftermath but did result in a revision of the rules of the Senate with respect to blocking supply and the convention that the Governor General serves only during the Queen of Australia's pleasure, and that may be tested ONLY through the Prime Minister) and both led to a more or less disgraced Governor-General. In other words, the Prime Minister always wins, especially if he enjoys a majority in the House of Commons/Representatives.

The last British Monarch who refused to act on the advice of the Prime Minister was beheaded.

The last British Monarch who exercised Royal Prerogative without first securing the formal advice of the Prime Minister was forced to abdicate and leave the country.

Since the Prime Minister typically sits in Parliament, can directly influence the progress of legislation within the rules of the House of which he is a member, and enjoys greater party discipline (usually thanks to selecting even junior members of the Ministry from Parliament), these powers are rarely needed. Cohabitation is unusual in Westminster systems; it is commonplace in the USA.

In fact, the President of the USA is much weaker than most heads of government of systems in which a president is given a personal mandate. In France and Germany, for example, the President (or Chancellor in Germany) has greater influence over the process of legislation both formally (various recommendation systems, and stronger vetos) and through the power of patronage appointments.

The President of the USA has enormous power with respect to firing department heads and members of his Cabinet, but is constrained in the upside of patronage since the Senate must approve of most senior appointments. That approval is occasionally embarrassing to the President (and prospective appointees) and may not always be forthcoming, particularly when the appointment is an overt payback to a former member of Congress for showing loyalty in pursuit of a legislative agenda (e.g. John Ashcroft). No such review exists in the Westminster system, or in France, and the legislature's reviews and confirmations in Germany, Italy and Israel (as examples) are tepid to the point of being pro forma.

In fact, I can think of no area in which the President of the United States is formally more powerful than a Prime Minister in any European state other than Liechtenstein. It's just that the exercise of his or her restricted set of powers can be formidable, since the United States is such a large economic, political and military superpower internationally and domestically, so the President seems much more powerful than other executive heads of government.

*sniff* Wasn't that beautiful? How many places do you know can give you an indepth look into the Australian Federal Constitutional law and parliamentary procedure, comparative and historical analysis with other parliamentary systems AND backed up with examples? All in the one, surprisingly easy to understand (atleast for me) breath?

I want to marry Slashdot.

This lady is my hero

Tired and unable to sleep due to irritating fever, so came across this. (One really hopes she spayed the damn things.)

Warning! Cats! Not the musical kind!

I can't believe that i've had to do this again

BUT I HAVE THE INTERNET AGAINS LOLS YES

See, it's things like this that drives me to whisky. Atleast you can't get disconnected from sweet, sweet Chivas.

Either way: INTERNET LOLS YES

Technological Hullabaloo

Posting to resume shortly.

Fuck the pain away

Damn Peaches and her sexy (yet addictive) agenda!

Plastic is back. That's all I'll say for now.

Am I the only one excited by the changes to the NSW Liquor laws? In previous discussions about bars, I facetiously remarked that I would go to Melbourne [bars] to meet interesting new people. The reason was that bars in Sydney often have to cater to the lowest common denominator to make any money, one of the costs being the $15,000(!) dine-or-drink license.

From what i've read, the new laws are 1) aiming to encourage wine bars and other 'boutique watering holes' and 2) increasing live music, and making it easier for underage performers to get into bars (Operator Please keeps coming up. They're not that good, or that influential...or are they!?) More details here. They 'stiffed' hotels, but they have more than enough power anyway. Not really a big deal. Either way, the new deal looks to be awesome.

In inflationary news, milk went up by 10 cents a litre. That's a 10 percent rise! Methinks Woolworths is lying about low prices. Also, possible interest rate rise? 8-ball says:

YES.

Frighteningly fast time travels

(that made more sense if you talk like Yoda. Also, mixing tenses!)

Misinterpretation!

The Actual™ quote is "R U 4 SECKS CHAT????" (it's from a Slashdot story) When I recontextualised it into my musings below, I was parodying the way the people behave in such places, claiming through this clever use of technique that bars and such were the real-life equivalents of seedy chatrooms and the like.

As Dostoevsky said,"Goddamn it, I shouldn't have to do all the work."

Well, that was what I said. What he said was a trifle more poetic ("Let the reader do some of the work.")

Know that I miss you

In what must be truly karmic retribution to my longwindedness downstairs, I got 'Around The World' stuck in my head for a day.

Who knew it was actually good advice to not go shopping on an empty stomach? I'd attach an addendum to that, which would be more generally along the lines of, 'Don't go shopping while craving something' and more specifically along the lines of, 'Don't go shopping while craving icecream.'

Because you know what the inevitable end of that transaction is going to be.

Answer: Delicious.

I may have royally pissed off my boss today. That's too bad, because I got sick of skipping class for him. I did what I had to do however, so we'll see what the fallout is. My Prac. Ethics class ended on a nice enough note, but it did get a little tiring to rag on MacKinnon the entire time. State priests are so tiring, you dig?

I'm trying to keep my writing fresh and interesting, and I realise it's hard work. This is an example of me not doing so. Jesus, I haven't started a third day of this and I've moved on a meta-post. I have no qualifications whatsoever.

As an excuse, I offer the time tested one of writer's block. To paraphrase Marx (the one with eyebrows, not the one with the beard), if you don't like that one, i've got others.

(Was that actually Groucho Marx? A quick google search is inconclusive)

Really, the main thing I'm trying to do with my writing is less is more approach. I hope you appreciate how difficult that is for me to take, even if you are as I, believe brevity is a high form of wit (as Shakespeare did! This I am sure of. Well, I actually think irony is the highest form of wit, whiles good ole Shakes there thought it was brevity)

[If you wish for me to level with you, I'm feeling not so peaky; there exist pockets of depression hiding in my mind longer than I thought possible. It's not something i'm proud of, nor should it be something you should encourage. This has been your Public Service Announcement. Please take the proper precautions.]

Ravioli: Buoyant

All systems go!

Unfortunately, it boiled over :(

I'm talking a lot. It seems to stem from my mind. This is how I deal. The cards.

Some justification: I've (presumably) remarked numerous times (possibly to no one in particular) of my general distaste and dislike for what might be named dance music (really, as the link states, more correctly, electronic dance music, music played at clubs, discotheques, raves and the like) My reasons for this range from the aesthetic to the philosophical, and i'll try to go through as many as I can to prove my point.

To me, however lax I may be about it, music is an artform. It is a platform from which to express, from which to edify, educate and entertain (I mean entertaining solely through the music itself) Really, I can find no better aesthetic position on which to explain it from as well as: Do you dig it? I mean, man, do you really dig it? When someone says something like, 'It's all about the music', that's what I mean.

What 'dance' music seems to do is subordinate that talent, that ability, merely to the point of sounding non-offensive (might as well say boring), providing a beat to move to. Technically, it seems dull. 4/4? C'mon, that shit went out with Beethoven. Music should be listened to, not measured in bpm. If you want to dance (physical sense of the term) to a beat, get a metronome.

The social reasons: most clubs, discos, raves, hell even most bars play this sort of 'dance' music. I dislike most of these places, not only due to the type of music being played, but due to the fact that they play music too damn loud, making it near impossible and seriously infuriating if you try to have a half-decent conversation. The innate seediness of many of these places doesn't help either; it's like a real-life version of people asking "R U FOR SECKS????", with louder music, and overpriced drinks.

Now, the disclaimatory personal reasons: I've remarked (again to someone) how much I hate my brother (goddamn douchebag). He listens almost exclusively to dance music (although recently he seems to be broadening; i've caught him listening to both my (that's right, my) MIA (that was most likely because of hearing her at Parklife, again an event I do not like) and Gotye))) In addition, he frequents many of those places i've mentioned above. In particular, he goes out specifically to 'dance clubs'. If my impression that my brother is the average sort of solicitor of such places is correct, well that really explains my dislike of those places.

Lastly, the philosophical/psychological: I've wondered whether my opposition to dance music (and its [is this the right apostrophication, or lack thereof? Apparently, grammar nazis read this, so I be wary. I've never really been solid with rules of possesive apostrophes; I feel there should be a ' after the 's' of the 'its' I just did] wider association with clubs, bars, et al) comes from that wider association. I've never really been comfortable with those places; I do not enjoy flirting/hitting on people, I'm much more of a direct lecher for that. Primarily, I talk a lot; this is most how I make friends, socialise and develop (secret) crushes on people. I do not 'groove', nor 'move', nor do I 'tear up the dance floor'. Those places seem like places where looks and style (how I loathe that word) seem to dominate, filled with younguns full of hormones aiming to have fun and casual sex, with a minimum of talking or engagement. This distinctly doesn't suit me, as a) I lack looks b) I lack style and

c) my greatest strength is most likely my intelligence, which I express through talking. Put me in an environment where you cripple that, and it's natural I get defensive. I'm still wondering whether all this talk is just a post facto rationalisation for my dislike of dance music.

Obligatory caveats: Generalisations apply heavily in above. I acknowledge that there exist artists who make great music, utilising 'dance' techniques, or even artists who make great dance music (Kraftwerk comes to mind). However, I should have made it clear by now that i've talking about a different subset of music (read: fuck you Purple Sneakers), of which again i'm generalising. Please filter where appropriate.

A reply

The (surprising) amount of things said about what I said has freaked me out. But also, a reply:

The problem is that people are naturally risk averse, and thus we always arrive at a point of utility that is sub-optimal. Not only that, we are not wise enough, nor rational enough to live anywhere near the lives that we have within grasp.

Risk-averseness: I agree, partially. Knowing you're risk-averse can (and should) lead you to compensate for it. See winner's curse, prospect theory et al. And I'm not entirely sure about risk-averseness outside agency problems. If the axioms of invariance and substitution hold (as they should within standard micro theory), risk-averseness should be compensated for.

we always arrive at a point of utility that is sub-optimal.

Better a point that is sub-optimal than null-optimal.

Now in analysing tasks from a simple marginal benefit/cost analysis, you risk falling into a pattern in which the tendency to be risk-averse moves you closer and closer to adapting demand to supply, rather than supply to demand. To some extent, this has to happen

On adapting demand to supply: Even you said this has to happen, in a sense. Remember, unlimited wants. There's no real way you could possibly satisfy all those wants, so you adapt those demands to the ones that can (ir)rationally be satisfied.

The economic problem is precisely that, in one sense: To pick the option that gives you the most utility at the lowest opportunity cost.

but in satisficing, rather than maximising, this can have the effect of higher qualities being run out of business and thus resulting in a continual narrowing of boundaries for all.

I call slippery slope. This was a subjective account of my own demand/utility functions, and there obviously exist some people who place greater utility on maximising than satisficing. I never said everyone does this.

Higher qualities? I call strawman. Higher qualities (in a consumer-sovereign, market-oriented sense) are those qualities I (and you, and everyone else) determine to have value to me/them. You can't blame people for buying what they want, regardless of how misinformed they may be (or want to be even. You can lead a consumer to information, but it doesn't mean they'll learn. In addition, I'm making concessions to market-distortive situations such as monopoly, externalities, cartels, etc. This is where stepping in is justified.)

That's why I object to the logic of obeying price signals. To some extent it's unavoidable, but the extent to which you conform creates a greater alienation from self that degrades the lives we lead.

Greater alienation of self that degrades the lives we lead? Shopping around is not a "greater alienation from self that degrades the lives we lead." That's a mighty presumptious statement about my life right there. Call me what you want, but do not call me a bad consumer. Price signals are a valid (and valuable) form of information transmission. Are you saying I shouldn't act on information available? Not only that, I act on other signals available to me as well; if this were some other game available to me at the same price, I would not buy it. I do not base my decisions solely on price.

Effectively, what I was describing in The Spectrum of Wants was a simple heuristical method of demand sorting, given finite time, finite information and infinite wants. YMMV. In short: cognitive biases do not an argument make.

Jesus, you've made me sound like Miltie Friedman. I feel dirty.

As to Sam's whiteness:

I told you!

The next time you weather an existential storm

pause and wonder if it's all in your head. And bring clean underwear. It's important.

So i've had a few things whirling in my head recently, and I really wish it would stop. It's making me dizzy. I'll try to set one of these things down as a short (hopefully) essay I will entitle for now:

"On the Spectrum of Wants"

After my recent and fairly annoying incident of wallet losing, I've begun the process of replacing my cards. One of the cards I replaced was my 'Access' card, the commie one that lets you do commie things. It's great, I recommend you get one. Now, with this little card came a bag of goodies, mostly in the form of vouchers. The big voucher book (like the one we got last year with the krispy kreme vouchers, which are back this year; hurrah for diabetes!) had a voucher for Liberty City Stories [the PS2 version: as a change of style, brackets] for 10 dollars in it. Which brings me to my point.

I went and purchased this game from the Broadway store that had this promotion, with Ed who came along as he seemingly had nothing better to do. As he generally does, he asked a simple enough question: did I actually wanted the game or not? Good question. Demand, generally speaking, isn't supposed to be a function of price, as it is a function of utility. Now, obviously, you have to look at tradeoffs between utility and the money exercised to obtain this utility, but did I buy the game because it was cheap or because I actually wanted it? My response was/is this: I did buy the game because I did really want the game. It had existed in my spectrum of wants, albeit at the fringes. It was pushed further towards the middle by a combination of a lower of price[effort], and the new information provided to me in voucher form.

Atleast for me, the spectrum of wants is extremely wide. I generally satisfy the spectrum of wants through a value system: how much effort do I have put into this to satisfy a particular want? Which is why consistently, my wants tend to be things that are possible already to me: reading, gaming, music, learning and so on. However, it should be noted that I internally individuate those wants quite specifically; that is, there is a different want when I want Baldurs Gate as opposed to Majesty, there is a different want when I read Steinbeck rather than Slashdot, and so on. Those wants are not monolithic blocks of things.

Occasionally, such events (mostly concerts) have enough utility attached to them such that even though more effort would be required of them than simpler wants, I am willing to expend the effort required to satisfy them. To be accurate, it's not neccessarily more utility that i'm gaining, as it is a different type of utility not available to me from other wants.

A anarchist's motto

If men were angels, there would be no need for government.

If men were angels, they could be trusted to government.

1000 pictures and all that

Keep looking