Roddenberry_dot_com reports this morning that Majel Barrett-Roddenberry has died. Those of us who know who she was, will mourn her passing as another part of the Roddenberry dream fading away. I suppose I feel sad because the passing of people like Star Trek's face and voice since the death of it's creator, remind me of my own mortality. We all grow old and die. Nothing alters that inevitability. We can hope for, and make efforts at ensuring along the way that we enjoy the Roddenberry ethos, however. That of the Vulcans. Peace, and Long Life. Rest in Peace, Majel Barrett-Roddenberry
Let's face it. You can be booked where-ever you're hiding. Even in cyberspace.
It was the first day of a school in USA and a new Indian student named Chandrasekhar Subramanian entered the fourth grade. The teacher said, "Let's begin by reviewing some American History. Who said 'Give me Liberty, or give me Death'?"
She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Chandrasekhar, who had his hand up: 'Patrick Henry, 1775' he said. 'Very good!', said teacher. Who said 'Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth?'
Again, no response except from Chandrasekhar. 'Abraham Lincoln, 1863' said Chandrasekhar. The teacher snapped at the class, 'Class, you should be ashamed. Chandrasekhar, who is new to our country, knows more about its history than you do.' She heard a loud whisper: 'Fuck the Indians,' 'Who said that?' she demanded. Chandrasekhar put his hand up. 'General Custer, 1862.' At that point, a student in the back said, 'I'm gonna puke.' The teacher glares around and asks 'All right! Now, who said that?' Again, Chandrasekhar says, 'George H. W. Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, January 1992.' Now furious, another student yells, 'Oh yeah? Suck this!' Chandrasekhar jumps out of his chair waving his hand and shouts to the teacher , 'Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!'
Now with almost mob hysteria someone said 'You little shit. If you say anything else, I'll kill you.' Chandrasekhar frantically yells at the top of his voice, ' Michael Jackson to the child witnesses testifying against him- 2004.'
The teacher fainted. And as the class gathered around the teacher on the floor, someone said, 'Oh shit, we're screwed!' And Chandrasekhar said quietly, 'I think it was the American people, September, 2008".
.......................................................................................................................................................
1. Two antennas met on a roof, fell in love and got married. The ceremony wasn't much, but the reception was excellent.
2. A set of jumper leads walk into a bar. The bartender says, 'I'll serve you, but don't start anything.'
3. Two peanuts walk into a bar, and one was a salted.
4. A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
5. A man walks into a bar with a slab of asphalt under his arm, and says: 'A beer please, and one for the road.'
6. Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the other: 'Does this taste funny to you ?'
7. Patient to Doctor: 'Doc, I can't stop singing 'The Green, Green Grass of Home.' Doctors replies, 'That sounds like Tom Jones Syndrome.' 'Is it common ?' patient asks. Doctor replies, 'Well, It's Not Unusual.'
8. Two cows are standing next to each other in a field. Daisy says to Dolly, 'I was artificially inseminated this morning.' 'I don't believe you,' says Dolly. 'It's true; no bull!' exclaims Daisy.
9. An invisible man marries an invisible woman. The kids were nothing to look at either.
10. Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.
11. I went to buy some camouflage trousers the other day, but I couldn't find any.
12. A man woke up in a hospital after a serious accident. He shouted, 'Doctor, doctor, I can't feel my legs !' The doctor replied, 'I know you can't - I've cut off your arms !'
13. I went to a seafood disco last week...and pulled a mussel.
14. What do you call a fish with no eyes ? A fsh.
15. Two fish swim into a concrete wall. One turns to the other and says, 'Dam !'
16. Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were a bit cold, so they lit a fire in the craft. It sank, proving once again that you can't have your kayak and heat it too.
17. A group of chess enthusiasts checked into a hotel, and were standing in the lobby discussing their recent tournament victories. After about an hour, the manager came out of the office, and asked them to Disperse. 'But why,' they asked, as they moved off. 'Because,' he said, 'I can't stand chess-nuts boasting in an open foyer.'
18. A woman has twins, and gives them up for adoption. One of them goes to a family in Egypt , and is named 'Ahmal.' The other goes to a family in Spain ; they name him 'Juan.' Years later, Juan sends a picture of himself to his birth mother. Upon receiving the picture, she tells her husband that she wishes she also had a picture of Ahmal. Her husband responds, 'They're twins ! If you've seen Juan, you've seen Ahmal.'
19. Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This means he was....
A super-calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
20 And finally, there was the person who sent twenty different puns to his friends, with the hope that at least ten of the puns would make them laugh. No pun in ten did.
.......................................................................................................................................................
Finally, one for all the male chauvinists in the room.....you'll know who you are when you snicker.
Spotted this in my Business Spectator mail this arvo. It seems Margin Calls can now be retrospective, especially when the lender has a high court decision which can be interpreted in their favour. As Kohler points out, this is a clear case of gouging.
"But, boy oh boy, what an absolute shocker it is. Never mind ASIC – this is a job for the armed robbery squad."
Makes you wonder about using brokers when playing the market, eh? You could wind up worse off than Bob Cratchit
If you're anything like me - an early fifties boomer, looking forward and planning for a retirement from a constant daily grind by age 65 at the latest - you'll be as aghast as I was at this.
At what age would the bean counters, like Ken Henry, prefer workers to look at retiring? 70? 75? Why not simply keep on keeping on until toilet visits to change incontinence pads become too much of a time burden on the employer? Of course, then there's the possibility that an aged worker might not only piss themselves, but actually drop dead at the grindstone. Can you imagine the kerfuffel over something like that? Still.....a legislative amendment should absolve the employer of any obligations to family or estate.
This proposal, contained in this discussion paper, makes the following observation:
An immediate and obvious solution to the increasing costs of providing the Age Pension is to increase the Pension Age. The current Pension Age of 65 was originally set in 1908. Age Pension reform options when life expectancy for males at 65 was 11.3 years. The evidence usually provided in support of an increase in Age Pension age is that life expectancy for a male at age 65 has increased to 18.1 years
A compulsory increase in the Pension Age reduces the period of payment of benefits, thereby reducing the total benefits paid. This is certainly a step that has been taken by other countries. However, a compulsory approach will be politically unpopular; therefore it is worth also considering the implications of this approach and other approaches to reducing the reliance on the Age Pension
A compulsory increase in the Pension Age reduces the period of payment of benefits, thereby reducing the total benefits paid. This is certainly a step that has been taken by other countries. However, a compulsory approach will be politically unpopular; therefore it is worth also considering the implications of this approach and other approaches to reducing the reliance on the Age Pension
Increasing the Pension Age can be politically difficult, so it is interesting to note that since the early 1990s a third of OECD countries have increased the Pension Age for men and two thirds for women. Many countries are increasing or have increased the Pension Age for women to equal that of men
How bloody exciting! I can look forward to an additional 6.8 years over someone born around the turn of the century. Given that over 100 years, an individual's life 'expectancy' has improved by that much, it looks like I can 'expect' to snuff at age 83, or 2040, as the paper suggests. I smoke, and I drink. Not much admittedly, but Mr Murphy maintains that if I'm going to get crook, it'll probably be within 10 years of retiring, say age 75. If the age at which I can access the aged pension is raised to, say 68, forcing me to remain in the workforce for another three years, I'll effectively be cheated out of three years of a quality retired lifestyle because a mob of bean counters and previous governments that couldn't get their shit together sufficiently to allow me to enjoy a retirement I've been looking forward to and planning for the last decade.
All this, and a cut to Company Tax as well! That's really going to look after an ageing population, isn't it? Yeh, pig's arse! Word to the wise and all you ten-foot-tall-bullet-proof twenty-somethings. Retirement is worth looking forward to, but don't expect the society you'll work your arse off for to be there in your dotage. It simply ain't gonna happen.
That most prolific of Troppodillian bloggers, Nicholas Gruen, made an 'appearance' on ABC radio this morning in relation to an Open Letter to the PM which he and seven other economists have penned.
Now, anyone who reads these lines will know that I regard economists as little more than snake-oil salesmen. Practitioners of what the great unwashed public might regard as a mystical black art on the same lines as alchemy or oracle. Personally, when it comes to punting on what might be right, wrong or indifferent in regard to the nation's current economic woes, or what direction the RBA Board of Governors might take in relation to interest rates, my own educated guesses are more often more in line with reality than any economic prestidigitator.
Right. Position set. I have to say, I find proposals 2 and 3 to be quite sound. Logical approaches to issues which can be addressed immediately, or at least in the relatively near future, with little or no adverse impact at the individual level. I think it's well understood that in recessive economic times, it's government's responsibility to ensure that forward motion in growth is maintained, in order that job losses be minimised and consumer spending power be kept as high as possible. Infrastructure spending is the best way to achieve those aims, and if governmental borrowing is required, then so be it.
I have a problem with proposal 1. Reducing compulsory superannuation, for however short a period, I see as a retrograde step. Consider, for someone earning $50,000/annum, a cut in the 9% compulsory superannuation to 6% would add a grand total of $28.85 pre-tax to the wage earner's gross weekly wage. The resultant taxation impost on the increased gross income over the 12 month period this reduction would be in place increases by $580, or in weekly terms, $11.27. So for the surrender of 3% in super, which is taxed at 15% ultimately, the wage earner receives a post-tax pocket of loose change worth $17.58. I'm a light smoker and roll my own. That's a packet of tobacco for me. In fact I'd probably only buy a pack of tobacco once every two weeks, so maybe I could afford a trip to the movies & some popcorn. Whoop-de-doo! Don't forget either that Government coffers benefit greatly from this idea, and at a compounded cost to the worker.
For mine, I'd be far more concerned about the loss of probable income from superannuation which in 2008 returned between 6.1% and 8.5% on a ten-year average than I would be about whether or not I can afford to go to the flicks this week. Don't forget also, that superannuation is cumulative, and this reduction in compulsory super proposal promotes a one year reduction of 3%, with a slow return over three years to 9% then onwards over another three years to 12%. Still 3% short of where superannuation would have been by the early part of this decade, were it not for Howard & his mob. Certainly, over the longer term, and let's be honest and agree that superannuation is a long term investment, earnings may be recouped, but over what period of time? Has the modelling been done? I suspect not, but if so, where is it? All well and good to put out these open letter ideas, but where's the supporting data for the curious to survey?
I'm 51 years of age and while my super may not be gargantuan right now - it's well over the $100k mark - I'd like to think that given an economic recovery in the next couple of years, I'll still be able to retire around 63. Earlier would be wonderful, but I'm trying to be realistic. I'm not in the least bit interested in, nor supportive of any scheme which will be deliberately detrimental to my, and my family's future financial security, so that the greater good - being business, industry and those in the workforce a lot younger than I am - can be served. Social Democrat I may be, but when it comes down to me or the mob.....I'll back me every time. Is there any wonder I have a disdain for snake-oil salesmen?
I spotted this today in some of the interminable inter-office mail that floats around.
'Whatever you give a woman, she will make greater. If you give her sperm, she'll give you a baby. If you give her a house, she'll give you a home. If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal. If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart. She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her.'
Kinda schmaltzie, but spot-on, just the same. Worth repeating anyway.
...to smarten up Parliamentary behaviour and do away with the annoying and wasteful 'Dorothy Dixer'? I'm sure and certain I've heard and seen Kevin Rudd and his cabinet, on more than one occasion, make note of the practice of Government backbenchers asking questions of their own Ministers during Question Time in the House and Senate, for the express purpose of promoting Government policies and creating an excuse for said Minister to criticise Opposition policy. If memory serves, Labor promised to do away with this practice and yet, as I listen daily to QT, there seem to be more and more of these time-wasting, futile exercises in self-agrandisement.
Shouldn't the government, elected by the people, be utilising OUR time and OUR salaries in more productive pursuits, such as getting on with the business of Government? Question Time, from what I can tell, relates to proper Westminster-style government as a Rugby League scrum relates to competitive distribution of the ball.
Perhaps it's a case of, "They did it in Government, so now we're getting our own back". I don't believe the practice is at all justified. If the Government of the day is performing as the people want them to, then self-gratification can come after the House adjourns, in the Member's Bar. Certainly not on MY time and using MY taxpayer-funded salary.
Which 5 words would your best friend use to describe you?
Submitted by Ross.
What friend? I don't have any. It's better that way. No obligations, no back-stabbing and no people hanging off looking for hand-outs. If I DID have a friend?
"Who the fuck are you?"
Cost of "12 Days of Christmas" rises to $86,609
Given the economic downturn, even the most romantic might baulk at the $86,609 price tag for the items in the carol, “The Twelve Days of Christmas”.
That’s this year’s cost, according to the annual “Christmas Price Index” compiled by PNC Wealth Management, which tallies the single partridge in a pear tree to the 12 drummers drumming, purchased repeatedly as the song suggests. The price is up $8,508 or 10.9 percent, from $78,100 last year.
The creative but cash-strapped consumer might consider some modifications. After all, who needs dozens of birds?
Instead of two turtle doves ($55) why not two Dove chocolate bars at a few dollars each? Don’t have $4,414 for 10 lords-a-leaping? How about a “Riverdance” DVD? Plenty of leaping there, and it’s only about $25 on Amazon_dot_com. Save a couple grand by skipping the 11 pipers piping and getting a CD of Scottish bagpipe music for less than $20.
Prices of items in the Christmas carol “The Twelve Days of Christmas”, according to PNC Wealth Management:
- Partridge, $20 (last year: $15)
- Pear Tree, $200 (last year: $150)
- Two Turtle Doves, $55 (last year: $40)
- Three French Hens, $30 (last year: $45)
- Four Calling Birds (canaries), $600 (last year: same)
- Five Gold Rings, $350 (last year: $395)
- Six Geese a-Laying, $240 (last year: $360)
- Seven Swans a-Swimming, $5,600 (last year: $4,200)
- Eight Maids a-Milking, $52 (last year: $47)
- Nine Ladies Dancing (per performance), $4,759 (last year: same)
- 10 Lords a-Leaping (per performance), $4,414 (last year: $4,285)
- 11 Pipers Piping (per performance), $2,285 (last year: $2,213)
- 12 Drummers Drumming (per performance), $2,475 (last year: $2,398
For all the gentlemen - my tip is treat your lady to a gold ring. Based on the list, they have fallen 11% in price from last year!
