38,000ft somewhere over the Pacific Ocean today.
38,000ft somewhere over the Pacific Ocean today.
It is a rare occasion that CM praises the Turnbull government. However, the actions taken to say “NO” to a special UN investigation on Israel’s activities on March 14 are worthy of congratulation. Two reasons;
1) the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is stacked with countries (Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar) with woeful human rights records and have no place dicatating impartiality. When the HRC has looked to investigate Israel more times than the rest of the world combined one doesn’t have to question bias. In the last 3 years, Israel has been the subject of 83 of 97 UN General Assembly resolutions. 86%. The UNHRC has zero credibility – period.
2) Hamas openly came out and admitted that 50 of the 62 dead were its own terrorists. 84% accuracy of those carrying handgrandes and other weapons. Yet honestly, who brings their children to an area where there is risk (and plenty of warning) of live fire? It is pretty simple. If you don’t want to get shot then don’t put yourself in a zone where there is a high likelihood of such. If no one turned up on the border, the body count would have been zero. As written last week, Hamas is far happier with sacrificing lives than Israeli Defence Forces are taking them. When Hamas websites call for killing Israelis for those that break through, can you honestly blame Israel? The Israelis are not out to make headlines any worse than they already are. They are defending their sovereign borders and the reality is any of us would expect our armed forces to do the same if they were under siege.
The UN has long outlived its usefulness. Robert Mugabe is considered an ambassador for WHO. How he could possibly pass a sniff test on any level is beyond most. Such is the bias within that the UN, in an attempt to strike back at Trump’s intended cuts, considered deploying Blue Helmets in Chicago to help stem gun violence. These people are unreal.
It was once said, “if the Palestinians chucked their weapons into the sea there would be peace. If the Israelis threw their weapons into the sea there would be genocide.”
Any aspirations working for organizations that support mayhem and chaos are off the list. Sydney Airport must be telling me I have no chance for that line of vocation. A 100% ETD screening record at Sydney Airport in the last 20 trips. I am constantly told it is random but if I could score 100% on every other ‘indiscriminate’ event – investments, love or lottery tickets – wouldn’t life be simple? I do note that I had the option to decline. When he offered an explanation of how I was selected I thought, “why not, I’ll hear him out?” – “Sir, we are trained extensively to profile people at random” That settles it then. Since when did ‘profiling’ and ‘random’ become mutually inclusive? Or do I just need to face the fact that I must look shady? It is 6am afterall.
Massive arbitrage opportunities in the Kiwi/Aussie dollar cross.
On March 18, CM wrote about the gross inefficiencies at the ABC, which have rapidly deteriorated over time. We said,
“Since 2008, the average salary of ABC’s staff has risen 25% from $86,908 to $108,408. Total staff numbers have risen from 4499 to 4769. Therefore salaries as a percentage of the ABC revenues have risen from 37.1% of the budget to 50%. The ABC’s ability to generate sales from content has fallen from A$140mn to A$70mn last year. The multicultural SBS has seen its budget grow from A$259mn in 2008 to A$412mn in 2017. SBS staff numbers have grown from 844 to 1,466 over the same period with average salaries rising from A$82,689 to A$88,267 or 7.2%. Which begs the question why is the SBS able to operate at 31% of the budget in salaries while the ABC is at 50%? Surely the ABC’s economies of scale should work in its favour? Clearly not.”
According to The Australian, in response to the budget cuts coming over the following three years, the ABC responded today with,
“Make no mistake, there is no more fat to cut at the ABC. Any more cuts to the ABC cut into the muscle of the organisation…We’re as efficient as we’ve ever been…We’re the most minutely scrutinised media organisation in Australia…$84 million over three years, there is simply no way we can achieve that without looking at content creation and certainly looking at jobs within the organisation.”
Well perhaps if the ABC stop airing radical feminists who demand that parents seek approval from their babies when changing nappies or called conservative politicians who served in the military as “c*nts” perhaps it might justify for more budget.
It is a pretty simple. Online media pretty much allows such a wide array of choice that we do not need a taxpayer funded media (which readily breaches its code of conduct with regards to political bias) to provide so much content.
We have multiple ABC TV & radio stations plus multiple websites. One could argue for one each. We certainly do not need to give the ABC more money to expand its platforms to make up for a shortfall in quality content to arrest declining market shares.
It shouldn’t surprise us with the left’s lunatic thinking that a child knows that it is responsible for soiling it’s own diaper. Of course only our national broadcaster, the ABC, would host such people on their programmes. Is it any wonder the ABC has had a budget freeze for the next three years. It should be heavily slashed given it wastes tax payers money on such inane stupidity. No wonder it’s viewership continues to decline.
“We work with parents from birth… just about how to set up a culture of consent in their home so, “I’m going to change your nappy now. Is that okay?” Of course the baby’s not going to respond, “Yes mum, that’s awesome. I’d love to have my nappy changed.” But if you leave a space and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact, then you’re letting that child know that they’re responsible…”
You can find the ABC’s budget malaise here.
Apart from the 100% certainty of me being screened for explosives at Sydney Airport (yet again today), the one other certainty of life is that the growth in air travel suggests that more and more people are happy to save the planet, provided that someone else offsets on their behalf. CM has long argued this position. Our consumption patterns dictate the “true” state of care of the environment. It hasn’t stopped SUV sales dead in their tracks and last year the IATA forecast that the number of airline passengers is set to DOUBLE by 2030. Could it be that taking a holiday outweighs saving Johnny Polarbear (whose numbers are growing by the way)? Is it conceivable that many of those that are climate alarmists don’t practice what they preach? Well if the UNIPCC COP summits are anything to go by, 50,000 of these pilgrims fly half way around the world every year to kneel at the altar of the climate alarmists pagans.
Virtue signaling airline Qantas has had a long history of emissions offset programs. Now you can choose how to waste your money.
So to offset my flight to Haneda, CM is calculated to pay $11.21 AUD. I can put it to ‘local action’ (fund activism?), ‘developing communities’ or ‘global renewables’. In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasts,
“We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”
Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.
In the last 10 years Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less.
Perhaps more embarrassing is that The Guardian noted in Jan 2018 that,
Kind of a massive load of hot air when you do the maths!