shannonsays.com

Would you fly NASA?

If you were given the chance to jump aboard a Space Shuttle and hurtle off into Space, would you?

If NASA was responsible for preparing and maintaining the Shuttle, I'd be saying "thanks, but no thanks..." 

NASA officials always remind us that space travel is inherently dangerous. They clearly are right, but it seems that the danger is due to the crap build quality and maintenance standards of the machines they spend billions putting together.  Not to mention that they buy some parts on eBay.

Just imagine if passenger aircraft blew up (twice in 113 missions) or had components falling off them as often as space shuttles have.  There would be hundreds of crashes every day.  Maybe that's not really a relevant or sensible comparison, but you get my point.

And after two and a half years and US$1billion dollars spent on safety since the Challenger crashed, killing all seven crew on board, how could NASA have got it so wrong and sent the aging old Discovery (it is 21) with the same problems? 

And now they expect their astronauts to venture out and do some "running repairs" and remove a piece of foam using such precision tools like a pair of scissors, a hacksaw fashioned out of a blade and a little duct tape.  Just the tools you need when you are working on the fragile thermal underbelly of an orbiting shuttle.

Hopefully, once the small piece of foam has been removed from its side , the shuttle should be able to land without incident.  And when it does, NASA should just give up, and ground its Death Trap Space Shuttles for good.

Anyway, why do we go to Space?  What good things, useful things, have ever come from these missions?  Can someone tell me one major scientific breakthrough that has resulted from a manned mission.  And that Space Station?  What does that do?  All it is is a fancy labratory with great view out of the window.

The bottom line is that going into Space is not all that useful. We can accomplish more science by sending unmanned probes.

The Queen & a "B-Grade" Hollywood Movie

Given the interest in here Australia in the British royal family – and by definition our own as well – it is a bit surpriosing that a fascinating piece in The Los Angeles Times (via Crikey) on the cost of running the monarchy was hardly mentioned in the Australian media.

The members of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy will be happy to know that keeping the queen of Australia costs the British public 61 pence per taxpayer per year – or $86 million. This is what it costs to produce a B-grade Hollywood movie and the comparison will not be lost on many people.

But whilst cries of "it doesn't cost us a cent" will be heard amongst these misguided folks – they  conveniently forget that keeping up the eight viceroys, whose names are largely unknown, representing the foreign, non-resident, unelected head of state, costs the Australian taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

While we insist on keeping the outdated, irrelevant colonial system of government, the cost will rise sharply every year, overtaking what the hapless British pay for the largely ignored and ridiculed soap opera known as the House of Windsor.

Cashing in on the Shapelle Corby Circus

The Shapelle Corby circus continues to roll on here in Australia tonight with the screening of a prime time TV special on Channel Nine.  (If you have no idea who Shapelle Corby is, check here).  The program will apparently tell the "untold story" and  a live audience that will offer their verdit at the completion of the show. Like lots of people at the moment, Nine will cash in tonight by pulling a big audience.  What'll it do with the advertising revenue?  How much did it pay the people who will appear in the show?

Who knows, but it is all getting a bit.  Whether Shapelle is some sort of Marijuana Queen or not, I dunno, but  between the swarming mass of reporters, dozing judiciary members, colourful lawyers and the ever expanding number of assorted hangers-on basking in the limelight and baking in the Balinese sun, it's often forgotten that in the middle of all of this is a girl who's life is at stake. It's bloody crazy, and I don't get it.

Let's just imagine the outcry in Australia if the Indonesian government, president and media interests took a such a massive interest in a case of an Indonesian citizen on trial in this country. There'd be a huge outcry of "bugger off" if  was taken up at the highest levels of our Government and our legal systems and processes, with TV crews and the media nosing about, day after day.

I don't think that we are a racist country- far from it, but the fact that many Australians think they can comment on Indonesian justice and legal system without real understanding or concern does smack of racism.

And whilst I have no real personal concern for any of them , I reckon some people would do well to remember that our government wrongly jailed an Australian resident, Cornelia Rau, and wrongly deported another, Vivian Alvarez Solon. But where's the outpouring of concern for the horrible experiences of these women?  Or what if the person on trial  was not a, young, slim, firm bodied, Australian girl, but was some short, fat, plain faced immigrant with an Asian name?

Would we care as much? Would the Nine Network run a prime time special on their experiences?

Doubt it.

At the end of the day, Shapelle Corby strikes me as being quite intelligent, confident and in control of herself.  She knows that she won't spend the rest of her lif in jail.  One way or another whe will come home, and she will be rich and famous for the rest of her life.

(UPDATE:  My take on the whinging following the Corby verdict here)

"Your" ABC rewrites the record books

Interesting article in today's Age that demonstrates the perils of live radio interviews and begs some questions about censorship levels within our national broadcaster the ABC:

"(During an interview with Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone, ABC Journo Tony Eastley was) attempting to establish how the seriously injured Ms Alvarez Solon, an Australian citizen, came to be (wrongly) deported to the Philippines, Eastley came out with the throwaway line that Government officials dropped her off in the country - perhaps from a moving car.

Senator Vanstone took umbrage, saying his comments were "extraordinary" and "indicative of an attitude" at the ABC.

ABC acting head of national programs Greg Wilesmith swiftly removed the interview's controversial parts from the transcript and audio links on AM's website.

"In the course of the interview and in the course of a question, Tony had made an error," he told The Age.

"It seemed to us best to remove the error rather than allow the inaccuracy to stand."

Quite extraordinary really.  The journo made a slip, so they decided to remove it from the record.   This is not like an edited newspaper, it is supposed to be a transcript of the interview.

And I can't help but wonder why it was necessary to completely remove the original comment rather than just putting a note at the end of the transcript acknowledging, and correcting the slip of the tongue?   After all, when politicians make mistakes during radio or TV interviews they're not afforded a similar opportunity to rewrite history – in fact, the words of politicians are regurgitated over and over again with much gusto.

Sure any media organisation with a commitment to the truth would work hard to correct it's errors – but that's a fair way from erasing the transcript of a live radio comment from the record.  And by completely erasing the comments from the transcript, the ABC has opened itself even further to its many critics in the government and elsewhere who point to its leftist bias on every available opportunity.

The Tom Peters Blog (not by Tom)

As I continue to play musical chairs with my RSS feeds, I have decided to ditch the "Tom Peter's Blog".

If Tom actually posted himself, it would undoubtedly stay on my list.  But instead a whole host of staffers maintain the blog, and their writing is not in the same league as Tom's.

It is interesting move, and a frustrating one.  Tom is Tom because his style of communication is unique.  His turn of phrase, use of grammar and ability to cut to the chase is what most Tom fans enjoy.  His unorthodox style is his point of difference from the masses of management writers and self-styled gurus floating about out there.

So why let a bunch of staffers maintain your own blog?  Particularly when their writing is no different to anything else out there?  Why risk tarnishing the brand?

Tom is compelling.  His hired-help are not.

Where are all the Australian Entrepreneurs?

An excellent question is posed by Stephen Mayne in the weeks Reader, about why Australian has so few successful young companies:

"Australia is a relatively young country, so why is it that so many of our biggest and best companies are so old?  A quick look at the top 20 Australian public companies reveals lots of old incumbent players like Coles Myer, the Big Four Banks, Telstra, BHP, AMP and Foster's- all of which have been around for decades- and hardly any new ones."

That is a very true observation; Australia doesn't have any new corporate champions coming through. 

I reckon that we (Australians, our Governments and other regulators) have made it too hard for all of our budding entrepreneurs to shake off the bad smell left behind by the rouges of the 1980's like Alan Bond, Christopher Skase and Jack Elliott.    We don't like corporate risk takers in this country any more.  We are adverse to risk, and don't have a culture that readily accepts that failure is all part of the game, part of trying, part of learning.

And of course we have turned chopping down "tall poppies" into a national sport.  A sport at which we (shamefully) excel.

In the US if you go broke having "a go" you don't seem to cope the same level of condemnation as you do here in Australia.  They have a far greater tolerance for things like bankruptcy and business failure.So is it any wonder that the US has produced billionaires from booming companies like Yahoo, Google, Dell and eBay.  And we have... well, not much.  Except for a few infrastructure companies with Government contracts, Child Care centres that rely on Government subsidies and airlines and telco's that make bucks because they operate in cosy little duopolies.

Add to that the barriers for entry into many of our growth areas are too high, and the level of Government support and encouragement for our genuinely innovative risk takers and innovators is too low. 

You are better off just getting a nice, secure job with one of the big, old, unoriginal companies.

Morons: 1 & 2

Morons #1: The 9 Australians caught smuggling drugs in Bali last night.

For the last month here in Australia our news has been dominated by the story of Shapelle Corby.  Everyone of them was filled with words like Bali, Drugs, Death Penalty and Firing Squad.

Yet these morons tried their luck anyway, strapping eight kg of Heroin to themseleves before attempting to jump on a plane home.

No doubt they'll plead thier innocence, but hopefully it will fall on deaf ears.

I have no time for drug traffickers, and Australian or not, they deserve whatever the Balinese caught decides.  There will be arguements over whether the local penatly (death) should apply, or whether they should be hauled home and locked up in a local jail.  I know there is a very real human side to all of this, but these people are scum.  Stupid, dumb scum.  They deserve what is coming to them.

Morons #2:  South Melbourne & Preston Soccer Fans

A Sunday night soccer game between South Melbourne, largely supported by Melbourne's Greeks, and the Preston Lions, backed almost by the Macedonian community,  become a mass riot that required Policeon Horseback to break the angry mob up.   

The disgraceful clash reflected historic enmity between the neighbouring European countries. The simmering tensions boiled over as they threw bottles and flares at each other until mounted police arrested ring leaders and, herded the anrgy mob back over fences.

So now future games are likely to be played behind closed doors in empty stadiums.  How stupid is that!  Competitive sport inside a empty, locked stadium.

These morons need to understand that here in multicultural Australia it is not the place to pursue your imported ancient grudges.

Breaking Election Pledges- breach of contract?

And politicians wonder why we don't trust them....

Let's say that  you or I made someone an "absolutely rock-solid ironclad commitment[s]", to deliver something such as the election pledge by the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to maintain the Medicare safety net.  And then that person accepts our offer and gives us something as consideration, (like a vote!) in return, but we fail to deliver on our promise, what would happen?

We would be carted of to court and sued for breach of contract, that's what.  Especially when the terms of the contract where delivered with such a clear guarantee.

But when the Government came out this week and did a u-turn on thier election pledge, all they had to do was shrug their shoulders, issue an apology, and we all have to get on with it.  Stiff.

Given the circumstance of the projected expediture blow-out the policy needed to be tweaked.  And this isn't the first time that politician has been caught saying and doing anything to get elected, and then once in power changing their mind.  And why wouldn't they?  There is no form of recourse for us until the next election (still three and a half years away), so they can do what they like.  Of course it sucks, it is wrong, and is totally inconsistent with what would happen to you or I if we behaved the same way in our business dealings.  But that is the way it it.

As an aside thought, I reakon the whole Safety Net idea was poor policy to begin with, but not one to be defeated easily, Tresurer Peter Costello had this to say on AM during the week:

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: Older Australians are high users of the Medicare Safety Net, and that is obviously blowing out from around $440 million to $1 billion. Hasn't the government completely miscalculated the cost of the Medicare Safety Net?

PETER COSTELLO: No we haven't. We've actually put down in our estimates reasonable anticipation of those costs. But since you're on the question, let me remind you of this. With the population aging, with the draw down on services four times higher for over 65s, the policy that was put forward at the last election, the so called Medicare Gold policy – free health care – must have been the most irresponsible policy ever announced in Australian history. Fortunately nobody ever had to hang around to see its implementation.

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: But Labor also said at the time that the Medicare Safety Net would blow out to around $1 billion and it has done. What will you do to rein it in?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I've said now, in the last three questions, the answer in Australia is to get our health services on to a sustainable basis.

In other words, if you think this is bad policy, you should have seen Labor’s.

Nothing though on how the doctored Medicare Safety Net will still cost twice the original estimate. Nothing on how the clumsy idea of a Safety Net wouldn’t even be needed if Medicare worked properly – or if levels of bulk billing were maintained.

But like I said.  Stiff.

One Wedding & A Funeral

iThere are two significant international events taking place this weekend.  One was the funeral of Pope John Paul II, and the second (and of more dubious significance) is the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles.

The Popes farewell was a majestic ceremony attended by Kings and Queens, Prime Ministers and Presidents, world leaders and assorted dignitaries as well as millions of people in St Peters Square.  It was a an event that was symbolic of status, class and respect held for the late Pope.

The Royal wedding will be attended by hardly anyone and is shaping up and an equally fitting event that is symbolic of Prince Charles; a chaotic, clumsy shambles, that is annoying more people than exciting them.

The lead up to the wedding has been far from smooth; two dead Heads of State (Pope John Paul II and Prince Rainier III of Monaco), a post-poning of the big day to avoid a diary clash with the Popes funeral, a security prank at the wedding venue, an angry Priest who says the wedding is illegal and that "double adultery should not be used to obtain a crown" throw in the hostile gossip from an unimpressed public, and the prediction of "sleet and rain" for the big day and you wonder just how hard it has to be.

But there is more.

He has had to get in a "rent a crowd", to a sea of friendly faces lining the streets of Windsor during the royal wedding, as well as to counter any protests from Diana fans.  In fact this rent a crowd might be the only ones there.  His parents (Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip) aren't going, issuing a Royal snub several weeks ago.  Also RSVPing in the negative are the British PM, Tony Blair and the Archbishop of Canterbury.  But at least they got an invite, the Duchess of York did not, nor did the girlfriends of his sons (Princes' William and Harry).

But I am sure it will all "be right on the night", and I don't blame the silly old fool if he gets blind drunk.  Even if it is only to make Camilla look better.

And to think that this bloke will one day be our King.  Worse, though, she'll be our Queen....No wonder the Australian Republican Movement is processing a flurry of new memberships.

There's Something About Mary... But could someone tell me what it is?

Prince Charles did a quick whip-around the country, and we didn't really give a stuff.  Wherever he went the reception was lukewarm at best.  Not surprising really ,he's a clumsy fool who even sheared a sheep in a suit.  And he will be our King....

Poor Chuck is certainly not Crown Princes Mary of Denmark, that's for sure, who accompanied by Crown Price Frederik, stopped by in Melbourne today.  And for reasons that I just can't grasp, thousands of my fellow Melbournians flocked to Federation square, clamoring for whatever vantage point they could to catch a glimpse of them.  It was frenzied atmosphere more usually seen at the Mosh Pit at a Big Day Out rock concert; or maybe reminiscent of the Queens visits during the 60's (when we kinda liked having a Royal family).

During the Danish Royal's brief five hour stay, they attended a State Reception hosted by Victorian Premier Steve Bracks and Governor John Landy also present were Melbourne's A-List and assorted hanger-oner-rer's.

They also launched a continuous video conference link from our own Federation Square to Copenhagen's Town Hall Square (Radhusspladsen).   I don't really understand why we need a permanent link to Copenhagen.  As far as I know, Melbourne has no historical links to Copenhagen of any real note.   And the fact that Princess Mary lived here for a few months is hardly a reason to link us permanently...  I wonder if people in Denmark think the same.

So why do we Australians have such a fascination with Princess Mary?  What is it about Mary?  What am I missing?

Like I said, we have no connection with Denmark, and we didn't even know that they had a royal family until Mary Donaldson announced her engagement to Frederik.  And after all  she is a hairdresser from Tasmania, who picked up the "right bloke" in a pub during the Sydney 2000 Olympics.  Sure she is attractive, and a nice-enough person and all; but do her and her husband really deserve all the bru-haha?  The State Receptions?  Lunch with our PM?  The motorcades? The screaming fans, some of whom were left speechless? The pages of newspaper coverage, and "Special Lift-Outs"?

Maybe it is the whole "Cinderella" fairytale thing, or the fact that our Royal Family are an outdated laughing stock, so we have adopted this pair.