A: When it is a Borders Gift Card.
The international Borders bookselling group has been in difficulties for some time now. That is hardly news in itself. The operations of its Australian arm were bought out a little while back by the corporate group that includes Angus & Robertson booksellers. I recall reading some media speculation not long ago which was suggesting the Australian Borders operations were likely to survive due its divorce from the US Borders, which was in turn expecting to crash. Hard. Soon.
Earlier this week, news broke that the group containing A&R and Borders was going into Voluntary Administration ie going broke.
Earlier this evening I was down the street, doing a little shopping. I happened to walk past the local Borders. To my surprise, the following signs were prominently placed in the store's entrance.
Due to Borders being placed in Voluntary Administration, the administrators are redeeming existing Gift Gards when the transaction is double the face value of the card.
EXAMPLE
Gift card value = $50
customer needs to spend another = $50
total transaction value needs to be = $100
This is outrageous.
A customer has come in and paid say $50 to Borders, receiving a 'gift card' with a face value of $50. This is a commitment to honour that 'gift card' by the bearer presenting, to claim goods to the value of $50. In contractual terms, the payment is called 'consideration' and is the sealing point of an implicit contract being present. Why are Borders are not allowed to unilaterally change contract conditions simply because they have gone into voluntary administration! Could you or I get away with pulling a stunt like that? Could a car dealership accept payment for purchase of a car but then suddenly decide to refuse to hand over the keys unless the full purchase price is forked over a second time? No way. But will Borders get away with this form of corporate theft? Almost certainly. Because for some strange reason, our society supports that sort of behaviour, despite all the supposed laws to the contrary.
Out of curiosity, I then went for a walk past the nearby Angus & Robertson outlet. Interesting that no such notices were present there.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Fair suck of the sav, Channel Seven!
Gee I really, really hate it when I find myself defending Tony Abbott. Well, to be honest, I am pretty sure that this is a first time. But I'm still unhappy about it.
OK, so what actually happened? Tony Abbott, leader of the Australian Opposition, was in Afghanistan, visting Australian troops. While in conversation with senior officers, he was filmed making the comment 'shit happens'. Australian prima donna television network, Channel 7 aka Prime, captured the footage. They were very quick to start claiming this was Abbott dismissing the latest death of an Australian soldier on active service in Afghanistan as 'shit happens.' That is not what happened. Watch the footage for yourself. This comment was made in a far broader context. That didn't stop Prime however from ambushing Abbott, playing the footage for him on a laptop and quizzing him over the angle that he was so dismissive of the death of Lance-Corporal Jared MacKinney.
Fair suck of the sav, you lot. Tony Abbott does not need Prime's assistance in making an utter dill of himself. He has shown his true colours and hypocrisy often enough over the past few years. But in this instance, Prime and the reporter in question, Mark Riley, have been guilty of nothing other than twisting the facts in a cheap ratings stunt. Spare a thought for a moment for his poor widow, 26 year-old Beckie MacKinney. Her husband and father of her young son, Nathan, has just died on active service. Beckie now has to relive all this over and over again, for no other purpose than Prime trying to score a point or two over arch-rival, Channel Nine.
Abbott being one of those individuals that so many of us just love to hate, Prime and Riley decided to play fast and loose with the facts in order to blow up a 'story' that didn't actually exist.
It is stunts like these that make me ashamed to be generally grouped with the media as a writer (having been so informed in no uncertain terms by a journo on a previous occasion after letting rip on the media). However I am not a journalist and make no pretense of being so. I am a story writer, primarily a fiction writer. And so should Mark Riley probably be after last Tuesday's stunt.
Unfortunately, Abbott does not get it all his own way. His response to Riley was to stand in quivering, rage-filled silence for some twenty-five seconds. He honestly looked like he was about to up his fist and clock Riley one on the jaw. But it was his later response that gets my goat. Jug Ears Abbott has come out, jumping up and down about how dare the media take a tragedy and use it just to push their own agenda.
Hold on a minute. Isn't this the same Abbott who has been using the floods in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia as a simple excuse to start pushing his own political agenda of unseating the current Federal government? And as usual, he doesn't let the facts get in the way too much. For example, his biggest platform has been that because of the floods, followed by Cyclone Yasi, the proposed National Broadband Network should be dumped. He then states that the loss of mobile communication (cell phones for my US friends) in the area hit by the cyclone is somehow proof that the NBN won't work. Ahhh excuse me Jug Ears. Mobile comms relied on physical broadcast towers that were damaged in the cyclone. The NBN will run on optic fibre cable buried underground and safe from the tender attentions of cyclonic winds.
Of course this also happens at the same time that press releases, email and a website statement all appear under Abbott's name, followed by requests for donations to the Liberal party for a fund to fight and cease imposition of a national levy to pay for rebuilding of shattered Queensland. In other words, don't give money for Queensland flood relief, give it to the Libs instead. Abbott denies all knowledge of this request going out. He and his mates then claimed it is common practice and referred to the Labor Party doing a similar email request only a day or so before. The only problem however was that the Labor Party request was for people to donate funds to flood relief funds, not a political donations grab.
For Abbott to go claiming Prime/Channel Seven have used a tragedy for their own purposes is nothing short of appalling hypocrisy as he has been doing exactly the same thing but on a larger scale.
If all this wasn't PR-suidcide enough, while Abbott is wandering around flood- and cyclone-ravaged parts of Queensland, accompanied by the non-entity that is the leader of the National Party (does anyone actually know who that is these days?), the Nats leader decides that is exactly the right time to start publicly claiming that Queensland premier, Anna Bligh, has let all of Queensland down during the floods and cyclone.
Give me a break. Just at present, Bligh is rapidly approaching sainthood status in parts of the country due to her non-step efforts during these crises and her frank and honest presentations to the press. There was a complete absence of any spin or political grandstanding. No make-up, tears, even appearing like a drowned rat at one point. And this wasn't stage-managed opportunism. This was genuine. Even if the subsequent Inquiry into the floods finds her government 100% culpable (which is not that likely given she hasn't been in the job long enough to be responsible for any and all infrastructure problems), that should not detract from her frank humanity during that terrible few weeks. But Jug Ears's partner in crime, leader of the Nationals, thinks it is a good time to go for her jugular. How many votes will that ultimately cost them in Queensland?
So, Channel Seven, Tony Abbott and his mates do a damned good job of screwing up all by themselves. They do not need dodgy stunts like that pulled by Mark Riley. The management of Channel Seven should be bloody ashamed of themselves for ever allowing this appalling stunt to go ahead. And how dare you put me in a position of having to defend Jug Ears!!
Meanwhile, that other commercial television network with the morals and attitude of a cheap used car salesman, Channel Nine, are probably now congratulating themselves for not dreaming up Prime's stunt for themselves, considering how it is blowing up in Prime's face, big time.
OK, so what actually happened? Tony Abbott, leader of the Australian Opposition, was in Afghanistan, visting Australian troops. While in conversation with senior officers, he was filmed making the comment 'shit happens'. Australian prima donna television network, Channel 7 aka Prime, captured the footage. They were very quick to start claiming this was Abbott dismissing the latest death of an Australian soldier on active service in Afghanistan as 'shit happens.' That is not what happened. Watch the footage for yourself. This comment was made in a far broader context. That didn't stop Prime however from ambushing Abbott, playing the footage for him on a laptop and quizzing him over the angle that he was so dismissive of the death of Lance-Corporal Jared MacKinney.
Fair suck of the sav, you lot. Tony Abbott does not need Prime's assistance in making an utter dill of himself. He has shown his true colours and hypocrisy often enough over the past few years. But in this instance, Prime and the reporter in question, Mark Riley, have been guilty of nothing other than twisting the facts in a cheap ratings stunt. Spare a thought for a moment for his poor widow, 26 year-old Beckie MacKinney. Her husband and father of her young son, Nathan, has just died on active service. Beckie now has to relive all this over and over again, for no other purpose than Prime trying to score a point or two over arch-rival, Channel Nine.
Abbott being one of those individuals that so many of us just love to hate, Prime and Riley decided to play fast and loose with the facts in order to blow up a 'story' that didn't actually exist.
It is stunts like these that make me ashamed to be generally grouped with the media as a writer (having been so informed in no uncertain terms by a journo on a previous occasion after letting rip on the media). However I am not a journalist and make no pretense of being so. I am a story writer, primarily a fiction writer. And so should Mark Riley probably be after last Tuesday's stunt.
Unfortunately, Abbott does not get it all his own way. His response to Riley was to stand in quivering, rage-filled silence for some twenty-five seconds. He honestly looked like he was about to up his fist and clock Riley one on the jaw. But it was his later response that gets my goat. Jug Ears Abbott has come out, jumping up and down about how dare the media take a tragedy and use it just to push their own agenda.
Hold on a minute. Isn't this the same Abbott who has been using the floods in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia as a simple excuse to start pushing his own political agenda of unseating the current Federal government? And as usual, he doesn't let the facts get in the way too much. For example, his biggest platform has been that because of the floods, followed by Cyclone Yasi, the proposed National Broadband Network should be dumped. He then states that the loss of mobile communication (cell phones for my US friends) in the area hit by the cyclone is somehow proof that the NBN won't work. Ahhh excuse me Jug Ears. Mobile comms relied on physical broadcast towers that were damaged in the cyclone. The NBN will run on optic fibre cable buried underground and safe from the tender attentions of cyclonic winds.
Of course this also happens at the same time that press releases, email and a website statement all appear under Abbott's name, followed by requests for donations to the Liberal party for a fund to fight and cease imposition of a national levy to pay for rebuilding of shattered Queensland. In other words, don't give money for Queensland flood relief, give it to the Libs instead. Abbott denies all knowledge of this request going out. He and his mates then claimed it is common practice and referred to the Labor Party doing a similar email request only a day or so before. The only problem however was that the Labor Party request was for people to donate funds to flood relief funds, not a political donations grab.
For Abbott to go claiming Prime/Channel Seven have used a tragedy for their own purposes is nothing short of appalling hypocrisy as he has been doing exactly the same thing but on a larger scale.
If all this wasn't PR-suidcide enough, while Abbott is wandering around flood- and cyclone-ravaged parts of Queensland, accompanied by the non-entity that is the leader of the National Party (does anyone actually know who that is these days?), the Nats leader decides that is exactly the right time to start publicly claiming that Queensland premier, Anna Bligh, has let all of Queensland down during the floods and cyclone.
Give me a break. Just at present, Bligh is rapidly approaching sainthood status in parts of the country due to her non-step efforts during these crises and her frank and honest presentations to the press. There was a complete absence of any spin or political grandstanding. No make-up, tears, even appearing like a drowned rat at one point. And this wasn't stage-managed opportunism. This was genuine. Even if the subsequent Inquiry into the floods finds her government 100% culpable (which is not that likely given she hasn't been in the job long enough to be responsible for any and all infrastructure problems), that should not detract from her frank humanity during that terrible few weeks. But Jug Ears's partner in crime, leader of the Nationals, thinks it is a good time to go for her jugular. How many votes will that ultimately cost them in Queensland?
So, Channel Seven, Tony Abbott and his mates do a damned good job of screwing up all by themselves. They do not need dodgy stunts like that pulled by Mark Riley. The management of Channel Seven should be bloody ashamed of themselves for ever allowing this appalling stunt to go ahead. And how dare you put me in a position of having to defend Jug Ears!!
Meanwhile, that other commercial television network with the morals and attitude of a cheap used car salesman, Channel Nine, are probably now congratulating themselves for not dreaming up Prime's stunt for themselves, considering how it is blowing up in Prime's face, big time.
Friday, January 21, 2011
A Reflection
Not a rant this time but a reflection. And I promise - no profanity this time whatsoever. Oh wait - better get it out of my system. Buggershitbum. Right. Done.
I arrived home this afternoon to Canberra after a month down in Victoria, staying with Mum.
Dad passed away back in October and this was the first trip back down since the funeral.
The house seemed strangely empty. The past couple of years, Dad occupied the same seat in the living room, or on a fine day would sit on an old park bench at the rear of the house, enjoying the sun. Those seats seemed strangely vacant without him. Several times I found myself about to say something to him, except of course he wasn't there.
That park bench had been a bugbear of mine the last couple of years. Mum bought it for dad years ago and time had taken its toll. The wood had deteriorated, some screws had come adrift and the whole thing wobbled badly. I wanted to replace the worst of the wood but initially Dad wanted something else done to it instead, then didn't want that done either. Well, it's not wobbling now. The worst of the wood has been replaced, painted up, screws replaced, more inserted that had never been put in when the original kit was assembled, other bits tightened and tweaked. After it was hauled back outside, I sat down and for a moment, it felt like Dad was there with me.
Dad's funeral was in October. He was cremated but his ashes were not returned to Mum until after I had had to get to Canberra and work. On Boxing Day, I saw his memorial plaque in the rose garden at the cemetery where his ashes were scattered beneath a rose bush. I was there with some of the family. When the others moved on, I stayed back for a moment, crouched down and told Dad that I missed him. Then for the first time since Mum had called me with the news of Dad's passing, the tears came.
While I was home, in conversation with Mum, I learned things about both Mum and Dad that I hadn't known before. It left me wanting to ask more questions, even though I already knew a fair bit about Dad's life. I was also left with an even greater appreciation of just how much family had meant to him. At one point, I admitted to Mum that I would have loved to have learned to box in my teens but knew there was no hope of ever getting Mum to agree so never brought it up. Her initial reaction on hearing that was 'would have been over my dead body.' After a moment's thought, Mum said that if Dad had gone along with it then I would have boxed. He as well as Mum supported pretty much everything we kids wanted to do. Within reason. But until talking about this with Mum, I hadn't realised just how much Dad supported us behind the scenes even though it was Mum who took the kids to sporting events etc.
In all this, it got me to thinking just how much my parents put into their family over their years. I like to think that I am going to put it to good use. Somehow.
I have plenty of regrets for things I have said or done over the years, particularly when I was still drinking. Yet probably my biggest regret is that I have not had children. The great love of my life was sadly unable to have children and she passed away before we could do something like adopt or foster. At my age (47), I believe I am now too old to be starting a family. So I am not going to be able to do the same things for my family that Mum and Dad did for we four kids and there is only so much that one can do in living that experience vicariously through nieces and nephews.
Right now I am feeling closer to my parents than ever.
I arrived home this afternoon to Canberra after a month down in Victoria, staying with Mum.
Dad passed away back in October and this was the first trip back down since the funeral.
The house seemed strangely empty. The past couple of years, Dad occupied the same seat in the living room, or on a fine day would sit on an old park bench at the rear of the house, enjoying the sun. Those seats seemed strangely vacant without him. Several times I found myself about to say something to him, except of course he wasn't there.
That park bench had been a bugbear of mine the last couple of years. Mum bought it for dad years ago and time had taken its toll. The wood had deteriorated, some screws had come adrift and the whole thing wobbled badly. I wanted to replace the worst of the wood but initially Dad wanted something else done to it instead, then didn't want that done either. Well, it's not wobbling now. The worst of the wood has been replaced, painted up, screws replaced, more inserted that had never been put in when the original kit was assembled, other bits tightened and tweaked. After it was hauled back outside, I sat down and for a moment, it felt like Dad was there with me.
Dad's funeral was in October. He was cremated but his ashes were not returned to Mum until after I had had to get to Canberra and work. On Boxing Day, I saw his memorial plaque in the rose garden at the cemetery where his ashes were scattered beneath a rose bush. I was there with some of the family. When the others moved on, I stayed back for a moment, crouched down and told Dad that I missed him. Then for the first time since Mum had called me with the news of Dad's passing, the tears came.
While I was home, in conversation with Mum, I learned things about both Mum and Dad that I hadn't known before. It left me wanting to ask more questions, even though I already knew a fair bit about Dad's life. I was also left with an even greater appreciation of just how much family had meant to him. At one point, I admitted to Mum that I would have loved to have learned to box in my teens but knew there was no hope of ever getting Mum to agree so never brought it up. Her initial reaction on hearing that was 'would have been over my dead body.' After a moment's thought, Mum said that if Dad had gone along with it then I would have boxed. He as well as Mum supported pretty much everything we kids wanted to do. Within reason. But until talking about this with Mum, I hadn't realised just how much Dad supported us behind the scenes even though it was Mum who took the kids to sporting events etc.
In all this, it got me to thinking just how much my parents put into their family over their years. I like to think that I am going to put it to good use. Somehow.
I have plenty of regrets for things I have said or done over the years, particularly when I was still drinking. Yet probably my biggest regret is that I have not had children. The great love of my life was sadly unable to have children and she passed away before we could do something like adopt or foster. At my age (47), I believe I am now too old to be starting a family. So I am not going to be able to do the same things for my family that Mum and Dad did for we four kids and there is only so much that one can do in living that experience vicariously through nieces and nephews.
Right now I am feeling closer to my parents than ever.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Thieving insurance bastards!
Well, it's happened. Despite appeals from the Prime Minister downwards (appealing to insurance companies to show the same generosity of spirit shown by the community), thieving bastard insurance companies have struck. Then again, who really believed that they would be so generous? Nobody who has ever had to try and deal with the scum.
Unbelievable as it may sound, claims for flood damage are being refused in places like Toowoomba, Queensland, with insurance companies claiming that the floods weren't actually floods! Huh? Yep. That's what is being reported in the media. Apparently, massive rains do not create floods. What these thieving bastards are relying on is an insistence that the policy holders were not subject to floods, but to rising river levels which, according to the esteemed insurance assessors, are not in fact floods at all!
Unbelievable. Un-be-fucking-lievable.
Why oh why are insurance companies and banks consistently allowed to write their own rules, answerable to none but their shareholders. This is not what deregulation was about. And what do governments actually do about it? Sweet Fanny Adams. At best, tinkering and nothing more.
David Koch wrote a good piece on the subject recently at The Punch, highlighting the dirty tricks that insurance companies rely on in circumstances such as those being experienced in Queensland, northern New South Wales and Victoria, with the worst still yet to come in some parts of the latter. But how blatant a lie is it to claim that the likes of Toowoomba were not subject to flood???
Here is another one for you. The Victorian town of Newstead was flooded last week. Why? Because during the torrential rain, the relevant water authority thought it would be a really great idea to turn the storm water drains off, meaning they were not emptying into the river system. End result - massive backup of storm water through the streets of this geographically pretty flat town, flooding basically the whole damn place. Who's going to pay for that damage? It's an easy out for the insurance companies, "sorry, you're not covered for bureaucratic idiocy." Just where on earth did the responsible shit-for-brains think all that water was going to go? Vanish into thin air? Get sucked up by his anal-retention? New Victorian Premier, Ted Ballieu, leaping in front of the flood waters, opening his gigantic mouth and swallowing them up?
It is more than bad enough that so much death, hurt, loss and misery has been suffered, not to mention the long-term economic problems that will result. But should the victims really have to be subjected to yet more heartbreak just in order to keep the financial services sector secure in its multi-billion dollar profits? The problem is we simply do not have a single government with the cojones to stand up and be counted in any meaningful manner. Joe Hockey was and still is pretty good at blustering and posturing about it, but that was it.
One last, irrelevant to the subject, rant. But it's my blog so I'll write what I bloody-well want to. Queensland premier, Anna Bligh was out on the flood scene, making heart-felt public statements about the status, announcing more deaths etc. Ex-Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd was out in waist-deep water helping recover people's belongings in his electorate, later throwing a public BBQ open to all comers. Prime Minister Julia Gilliard has been just about anywhere and everywhere, on the ground, meeting the victims. Victorian Premier, Ted Ballieu, a man that I normally consider a total git, has been out at the coalface, gumboots and all. So what have we seen from Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott? Out in his best suit, pulling the hems of his trousers up, tip-toeing through a patch of mud that might, just might, have almost made it to the top of the soles of his shoes. And out of all the main political players, who has tried to make political mileage out of it? You got it, Tony Abbott. Good one, dickhead. Oh alright, yes, yes, Bob Brown from the Greens started jumping up and down, claiming the coal miners were the cause. And the real pity of that was it made Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce actually make sense when responding to Brown. However that is still a little different to Abbott's blatant attempt to use the Queensland flood to kill off the National Broadband Network, to his obvious political advantage. Arsehole.
Here endeth the rant.
Unbelievable as it may sound, claims for flood damage are being refused in places like Toowoomba, Queensland, with insurance companies claiming that the floods weren't actually floods! Huh? Yep. That's what is being reported in the media. Apparently, massive rains do not create floods. What these thieving bastards are relying on is an insistence that the policy holders were not subject to floods, but to rising river levels which, according to the esteemed insurance assessors, are not in fact floods at all!
Unbelievable. Un-be-fucking-lievable.
Why oh why are insurance companies and banks consistently allowed to write their own rules, answerable to none but their shareholders. This is not what deregulation was about. And what do governments actually do about it? Sweet Fanny Adams. At best, tinkering and nothing more.
David Koch wrote a good piece on the subject recently at The Punch, highlighting the dirty tricks that insurance companies rely on in circumstances such as those being experienced in Queensland, northern New South Wales and Victoria, with the worst still yet to come in some parts of the latter. But how blatant a lie is it to claim that the likes of Toowoomba were not subject to flood???
Here is another one for you. The Victorian town of Newstead was flooded last week. Why? Because during the torrential rain, the relevant water authority thought it would be a really great idea to turn the storm water drains off, meaning they were not emptying into the river system. End result - massive backup of storm water through the streets of this geographically pretty flat town, flooding basically the whole damn place. Who's going to pay for that damage? It's an easy out for the insurance companies, "sorry, you're not covered for bureaucratic idiocy." Just where on earth did the responsible shit-for-brains think all that water was going to go? Vanish into thin air? Get sucked up by his anal-retention? New Victorian Premier, Ted Ballieu, leaping in front of the flood waters, opening his gigantic mouth and swallowing them up?
It is more than bad enough that so much death, hurt, loss and misery has been suffered, not to mention the long-term economic problems that will result. But should the victims really have to be subjected to yet more heartbreak just in order to keep the financial services sector secure in its multi-billion dollar profits? The problem is we simply do not have a single government with the cojones to stand up and be counted in any meaningful manner. Joe Hockey was and still is pretty good at blustering and posturing about it, but that was it.
One last, irrelevant to the subject, rant. But it's my blog so I'll write what I bloody-well want to. Queensland premier, Anna Bligh was out on the flood scene, making heart-felt public statements about the status, announcing more deaths etc. Ex-Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd was out in waist-deep water helping recover people's belongings in his electorate, later throwing a public BBQ open to all comers. Prime Minister Julia Gilliard has been just about anywhere and everywhere, on the ground, meeting the victims. Victorian Premier, Ted Ballieu, a man that I normally consider a total git, has been out at the coalface, gumboots and all. So what have we seen from Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott? Out in his best suit, pulling the hems of his trousers up, tip-toeing through a patch of mud that might, just might, have almost made it to the top of the soles of his shoes. And out of all the main political players, who has tried to make political mileage out of it? You got it, Tony Abbott. Good one, dickhead. Oh alright, yes, yes, Bob Brown from the Greens started jumping up and down, claiming the coal miners were the cause. And the real pity of that was it made Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce actually make sense when responding to Brown. However that is still a little different to Abbott's blatant attempt to use the Queensland flood to kill off the National Broadband Network, to his obvious political advantage. Arsehole.
Here endeth the rant.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Outdated Amendment
This latest mass-shooting the USA, despite suggestions of political culpability, is really a product of this so-called ‘right to bear arms.’ But how many of the US defenders of that ‘right’ are aware of the actual wording of the infamous Second Amendment? The key passage is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Clearly the Amendment was to support the existence of a citizen militia in those formative years after the War of Independence. Further, the 1792 Militia Act required all ‘free, able-bodies, white, male citizen’ between ages 18 and 45 to be enrolled in their local militia.
This US militia is long gone. It has a massive regular defence force, supplemented by its National Guard. There is no need for the citizens militia any longer and the concept of mandatory service outside of wartime is long gone from the US statute books. So why retain this massively outdated amendment?
Exactly how does having enough guns present to make it easy for gang bangers to go armed for drive-by shootings, support a free state? Or enough guns to make it easy for depressed teenagers to go on shooting rampages at their school? Or an eight year-old being able to play with an Uzi sub-machine gun at a gun show and blow his head apart? Or this latest deranged man having access to the firepower to kill and injure people at a political rally?
Surely it is time for the US to show some real leadership for a change and finally do something about gun control?
Ironically, the subject of Saturday’s attack, Gabrielle Giffords, claims to own a 9mm Glock pistol, stating she is “a pretty good shot.”
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Clearly the Amendment was to support the existence of a citizen militia in those formative years after the War of Independence. Further, the 1792 Militia Act required all ‘free, able-bodies, white, male citizen’ between ages 18 and 45 to be enrolled in their local militia.
This US militia is long gone. It has a massive regular defence force, supplemented by its National Guard. There is no need for the citizens militia any longer and the concept of mandatory service outside of wartime is long gone from the US statute books. So why retain this massively outdated amendment?
Exactly how does having enough guns present to make it easy for gang bangers to go armed for drive-by shootings, support a free state? Or enough guns to make it easy for depressed teenagers to go on shooting rampages at their school? Or an eight year-old being able to play with an Uzi sub-machine gun at a gun show and blow his head apart? Or this latest deranged man having access to the firepower to kill and injure people at a political rally?
Surely it is time for the US to show some real leadership for a change and finally do something about gun control?
Ironically, the subject of Saturday’s attack, Gabrielle Giffords, claims to own a 9mm Glock pistol, stating she is “a pretty good shot.”
Friday, December 31, 2010
Corporate thieves arise once more
The floods in northern Queensland have barely begun to recede in some areas yet we have already seen a regular post-disaster event occur: insurance companies reneging.
It has been reported in the press that insurance companies are already refusing to pay out for destruction of seafood factories in the Bundaberg region.
Why are insurance companies apparently the only part of the wider community that are allowed to contract for provision of a service only to renege in the face of wide-spread demand on realising that contract? They will undoubtedly resort to crying poor if questioned about this seemingly unlawful and regular stunt. We seem to see this in the wake of every large scale natural disaster.
Insurance companies are clearly just as unprincipled as the banks (hardly news to anyone who has had to deal with both). Whereas banks insist their outrageous fees, passing on more-than official rate rises along with refusals to pass on the entirety of any rate decreases, are necessary to just cover costs, the big four banks still manage to achieve literally multi-billion dollar profits each year. Insurance companies in turn like to cry foul when they are called on to honour their obligations in wake of a large-scale natural disaster, similarly protecting their profit margins.
When will we see a government that will actually do something about these corporate thieves?
Treasurer Wayne Swan’s proposals for the banking sector merely tinker at the edges and do not address the root cause – the unaccountability of banks to any but shareholders who benefit by their excesses. Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey’s blustering rhetoric is all very well but he was full of the same bluster in a finance portfolio while part of the Howard government but still failed to do anything meaningful. Any questions raised about the insurance companies basically scamming people will be met with more of the same.
This begs the question of why do governments of any persuasion in Australia continually fail to address these issues properly. Could it be that the big players in the financial services sector simply donate too much to political party coffers, buying themselves protection? More rational answers are rather thin on the ground.
And that's my rant.
It has been reported in the press that insurance companies are already refusing to pay out for destruction of seafood factories in the Bundaberg region.
Why are insurance companies apparently the only part of the wider community that are allowed to contract for provision of a service only to renege in the face of wide-spread demand on realising that contract? They will undoubtedly resort to crying poor if questioned about this seemingly unlawful and regular stunt. We seem to see this in the wake of every large scale natural disaster.
Insurance companies are clearly just as unprincipled as the banks (hardly news to anyone who has had to deal with both). Whereas banks insist their outrageous fees, passing on more-than official rate rises along with refusals to pass on the entirety of any rate decreases, are necessary to just cover costs, the big four banks still manage to achieve literally multi-billion dollar profits each year. Insurance companies in turn like to cry foul when they are called on to honour their obligations in wake of a large-scale natural disaster, similarly protecting their profit margins.
When will we see a government that will actually do something about these corporate thieves?
Treasurer Wayne Swan’s proposals for the banking sector merely tinker at the edges and do not address the root cause – the unaccountability of banks to any but shareholders who benefit by their excesses. Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey’s blustering rhetoric is all very well but he was full of the same bluster in a finance portfolio while part of the Howard government but still failed to do anything meaningful. Any questions raised about the insurance companies basically scamming people will be met with more of the same.
This begs the question of why do governments of any persuasion in Australia continually fail to address these issues properly. Could it be that the big players in the financial services sector simply donate too much to political party coffers, buying themselves protection? More rational answers are rather thin on the ground.
And that's my rant.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Are you a Comsuper pensioner? Be afraid!
I thought it time for an update on my continuing saga over my invalidity pension.
My pension was finally reinstated. And, after furious efforts on my part and attempts by Comsuper to put me off including even resorting to outright lies, I was finally paid backpay that I was entitled to.
Through this ridiculous saga of Comsuper losing documents, failing to act on information repeatedly provided, promising the world but only delivering a couple of badly eroded pebbles from the Stuart Desert, I have lodged formal, detailed complaints. I received written confirmation of these being lodged and also received assurances of certain explanations being made and data being provided.
I received a formal response to it all yesterday. In short, because I have dealt with other people in the organisation, the entire thing has been wiped. Thanks for coming, now piss off.
This is an organisation that:
This mob are in charge of literally billions of dollars of people's money. They are in charge of safeguarding those monies and with establishing a pension fund that will actually pay people their entitlements. Based on current performance, I wouldn't trust this lot to organise a trip to the public shithouse.
Are you a member of CSS, PSS, Defence Super etc? Then be afraid. Be very, very afraid. Because this lot will stuff you and your pensions up. They do not give a rat's arse about the financial and emotional stress they will cause you. They will refuse to do anything unless forced to it by someone shouting at them. Contrary to popular belief, I do not enjoy doing that. They will lose your records. They will willingly lie to you. And we are somehow supposed to be happy about leaving them in charge of our financial future???
My pension was finally reinstated. And, after furious efforts on my part and attempts by Comsuper to put me off including even resorting to outright lies, I was finally paid backpay that I was entitled to.
Through this ridiculous saga of Comsuper losing documents, failing to act on information repeatedly provided, promising the world but only delivering a couple of badly eroded pebbles from the Stuart Desert, I have lodged formal, detailed complaints. I received written confirmation of these being lodged and also received assurances of certain explanations being made and data being provided.
I received a formal response to it all yesterday. In short, because I have dealt with other people in the organisation, the entire thing has been wiped. Thanks for coming, now piss off.
This is an organisation that:
- has repeatedly lost documentation provided to them - proven!
- has thought it fair play to outright lie to me - proven!
- routinely fails to return promised contact - proven!
- does not supply Call Centre staff with the correct data regarding pensions paid - proven!
- has computer systems that are unable to cope with someone working part-time, forcing them to manually calculate pensions each fortnight - proven!
- promises to provide information but routinely and repeatedly fails to do so - proven!
This mob are in charge of literally billions of dollars of people's money. They are in charge of safeguarding those monies and with establishing a pension fund that will actually pay people their entitlements. Based on current performance, I wouldn't trust this lot to organise a trip to the public shithouse.
Are you a member of CSS, PSS, Defence Super etc? Then be afraid. Be very, very afraid. Because this lot will stuff you and your pensions up. They do not give a rat's arse about the financial and emotional stress they will cause you. They will refuse to do anything unless forced to it by someone shouting at them. Contrary to popular belief, I do not enjoy doing that. They will lose your records. They will willingly lie to you. And we are somehow supposed to be happy about leaving them in charge of our financial future???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
