Electricities for Car

"Hello. I am Queensland Australian business."
"Hello. I am Queensland Australian business employee."
"Hellos employee."
"Hellos boss. Can I haves electricities for car?"
"Yes, you can has electricities for car. We has big solar panels and can't exports electricities to grid."
"Why you no export electricities to grid?"
"Because coals."
"How much is electricities?"
"Spare electricities is free."
"Why you no charge?"
"Because hates coals."
"Thanks boss!"
"Gets to work. Them banannas not going to bend selves."

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Explosions are Liberal!

I had a peek at the internet today and saw some people discussing whether or not American movies were conservative or liberal.  That is, an American liberal which actually means liberal instead of conservative.  Although by our standards American liberal is actually pretty conservative.

Anyway, their discussion was far too erudite and refined for me to have anything very constructive to add.  Shamefully, I have spent far too little time analyzing the politics of American movies.  For example, I couldn't even give you the percentage of philosophy in Dumb & Dumber 2 that is Marxist in origin, accurate to two significant figures.

Anyway, the last American movie I saw was Captain America: The Winter Solider. Stuff got blown up good. If blowing stuff up is conservative then it was a conservative movie. However, when one thinks about it, blowing stuff up doesn’t really conserve it now, does it? Instead it tends to radically change it and so should be classed as more progressive than conservative. However, explosions do result in large increases in entropy which reduces the ability to perform constructive work in the future. So I am forced to conclude that while explosions are liberal, they contain within them the seeds of their own destruction.

But the use to which explosions are put probably merits consideration. Explosions caused by the “good guys” were in support of the status quo of a “free” America, while explosions caused by the “bad guys” were in the service of a revolutionary coup aimed at installing a dictatorship. Actually, to avoid bringing moral considerations into this, I should perhaps refer to them as, “the more physically attractive side” and “the less physically attractive side”. After all, I don’t want to be put in position of arguing that installing a tyranny at the point of guns mounted on magic flying aircraft carriers is not the moral thing to do.

Anyway, in conclusion, I’m not really sure how to categorize this movie. The explosions make me lean towards classing it as liberal, but with the more physically attractive side working to maintain the status quo it’s hard to call. It is simply not a clearly conservative film like The Grand Budapest Hotel.

The last American movie I saw was Captain America: The Winter Solider. Stuff got blown up good. If blowing stuff up is conservative then it was a conservative movie. However, when one thinks about it, blowing stuff up doesn’t really conserve it now, does it? Instead it tends to radically change it and so should be classed as more progressive than conservative. However, explosions do result in large increases in entropy which reduces the ability to perform constructive work in the future. So I am forced to conclude that while explosions are liberal, they contain within them the seeds of their own destruction.
But the use to which explosions are put probably merits consideration. Explosions caused by the “good guys” were in support of the status quo of a “free” America, while explosions caused by the “bad guys” were in the service of a revolutionary coup aimed at installing a dictatorship. Actually, to avoid bringing moral considerations into this, I should perhaps refer to them as, “the more physically attractive side” and “the less physically attractive side”. After all, I don’t want to be put in position of arguing that installing a tyrany at the point of guns mounted on magic flying aircraft carriers is not the moral thing to do.
Anyway, in conclusion, I’m not really sure how to categorise this movie. The explosions make me lean towards classing it as liberal, but with the more physically attractive side working to maintain the status quo it’s hard to call. It’s simply not a clearly conservative film like The Grand Budapest Hotel.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/02/assorted-links-1361.html#comment-158444507

The last American movie I saw was Captain America: The Winter Solider. Stuff got blown up good. If blowing stuff up is conservative then it was a conservative movie. However, when one thinks about it, blowing stuff up doesn’t really conserve it now, does it? Instead it tends to radically change it and so should be classed as more progressive than conservative. However, explosions do result in large increases in entropy which reduces the ability to perform constructive work in the future. So I am forced to conclude that while explosions are liberal, they contain within them the seeds of their own destruction.
But the use to which explosions are put probably merits consideration. Explosions caused by the “good guys” were in support of the status quo of a “free” America, while explosions caused by the “bad guys” were in the service of a revolutionary coup aimed at installing a dictatorship. Actually, to avoid bringing moral considerations into this, I should perhaps refer to them as, “the more physically attractive side” and “the less physically attractive side”. After all, I don’t want to be put in position of arguing that installing a tyrany at the point of guns mounted on magic flying aircraft carriers is not the moral thing to do.
Anyway, in conclusion, I’m not really sure how to categorise this movie. The explosions make me lean towards classing it as liberal, but with the more physically attractive side working to maintain the status quo it’s hard to call. It’s simply not a clearly conservative film like The Grand Budapest Hotel.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/02/assorted-links-1361.html#comment-158444507

The last American movie I saw was Captain America: The Winter Solider. Stuff got blown up good. If blowing stuff up is conservative then it was a conservative movie. However, when one thinks about it, blowing stuff up doesn’t really conserve it now, does it? Instead it tends to radically change it and so should be classed as more progressive than conservative. However, explosions do result in large increases in entropy which reduces the ability to perform constructive work in the future. So I am forced to conclude that while explosions are liberal, they contain within them the seeds of their own destruction.
But the use to which explosions are put probably merits consideration. Explosions caused by the “good guys” were in support of the status quo of a “free” America, while explosions caused by the “bad guys” were in the service of a revolutionary coup aimed at installing a dictatorship. Actually, to avoid bringing moral considerations into this, I should perhaps refer to them as, “the more physically attractive side” and “the less physically attractive side”. After all, I don’t want to be put in position of arguing that installing a tyrany at the point of guns mounted on magic flying aircraft carriers is not the moral thing to do.
Anyway, in conclusion, I’m not really sure how to categorise this movie. The explosions make me lean towards classing it as liberal, but with the more physically attractive side working to maintain the status quo it’s hard to call. It’s simply not a clearly conservative film like The Grand Budapest Hotel.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/02/assorted-links-1361.html#comment-158444507

Rupert Murdoch Hasn't Changed A Bit. Possibly.

From the little I've seen, the Murdoch press appears to very much have gone all in for the LNP during the Queensland state election and clearly failed.  And maybe the "little I've seen" part is key.  Back in the distant past when Rupert had shallower wrinkles and a little more hair, he appeared a lot more impartial.  Both sides of politics would court him and he would play the role of kingmaker.  So maybe it's not Rupert that has changed but the times.

It's very easy to go without consuming traditional media these days.  Personally I don't watch TV, listen to radio, or read newspapers.  While I am probably an exceptional example, the traditional media has clearly lost a lot of its grip and the more they try to tighten their grip the more minds slip through their fingers.  And there is a big age differential between the minds they lose and the minds they keep.  As a result Rupert's media empire is simply less valuable to the major party with younger demographics than it is to the Coalition with its older voting base.  And so Labor did not need to court Murdoch as badly as the Coalition.

Now it might seem like a bad play to go all in with one end of the political spectrum, why not keep to the old position of power in the apparent center?  Well, because that's only apparent power, which doesn't translate directly into money.  But if most of the people who purchase your products are old and trending conservative, then having your media push conservative issues a lot of the time can help sell papers and raise ratings, and so it may not be a bad business choice.  So rather than Rupert having undergone some big change in his personality as he aged, I think he might well still be what he always was, a business man who is currently trying to make the most profit possible out of a sunset industry in deep decline.  To the detriment of the planet and us all. 

NOTE:  I should mention that people don't get more conservative as they get older, on average they get more progressive.  It's just that society as a whole progresses further than they do.  (I firmly hope that, when I reach a ripe old age, I will be regarded as a monster.)

Reduce Prime Minister's Pay to Reduce Struggle Incentive

Well it looks like Prime Mister Tony Abbott, a man who couln't shut up about the supposed damage caused to Australia by the previous government's leadership struggles is about to go down to a leadership challenge in his own party.  Yes, it is poetic, but it is hardly surprising since despite apparently being obsessed with the issue he never actually did anything to reduce the likelyhood of leadership struggles in Australian politics.  Surely if he was serious, his first initiative in government should have been to reduce the Prime Minister's pay down to that of a backbencher in order to remove one of the incentives to struggle for leadership?