13 August 2003
What is a dog? A loud, stupid shitting machine. Nobody needs that.
There was a classic episode of South Park, where a Johnny Cochranesque lawyer, faced with the impossible task of defending his client, mounts the 'Chewbacca defence', which took the form of....
are the facts of the case"
Niall Cook's grumbling defences of the ABC (over the space of three painfully laboured posts) has taken the Chewbacca road. When confronted with a viewpoint asking why someone should be compelled to pay for a broadcasting service they don't watch, Niall rants about every issue other than this. Among them...
commercial broadcasters are crap
All of which of course (apart from being wrong) completely avoid the issue.
Well it seems he realises he's run out of room to argue, so finally (after even more waffle), Niall mounts his justification for using taxpayer money for the ABC, and it's every bit as shallow as I expected:
And in three posts, you still haven't shown how public broadcasters can be vulnerable to ratings when they are already getting the tax dollars of people who are not watching them.
Which doesn't change the fact that they are unpopular.
You've already provided it. In your bizarre attempt to show SBS's popularity, your link actually showed that outside of the World Cup coverage, it could only grab a 5.5% audience. Naturally, Niall blusters that 5.5% is one hell of an impressive audience, because - you know - it's higher than nothing.
They prove a point all right, but it wasn't the one you were thinking of.
And it's still a small minority, and that the remaining 16 million is a lot bigger...a vast majority in fact. I couldn't find the Fairfax article with the 16% 2001 figure, but I just found another which paints an even worse picture for your beloved ABC: that the 15% audience share in 2002 was it's best ever performance. That's some popular network you got there.
Except it gets public money, regardless of bad ratings, which the commercial entities do not. The ABC gets Joe Bloggs' tax money, whether or not Joe Bloggs is watching it. It is not reliant on revenue derived from the market. Commercial broadcasters rely on revenue from advertisers hoping to sell products to their audience, and this is influenced by ratings. Which part of this don't you understand?
Highways should be privatised, the Collins submarines are already universally regarded as lemons, and politicians should be paid a higher salary but have their superannuation and retirement perks slashed. By the way Niall, I noticed you're changing the subject again.
Well, here's the point in table form:
Niall - clearly not living in the real world with the rest of us - thinks 16% and 5.5% are healthy figures next to 100%.
Anyway, after obfuscating and talking about every issue other than why my money should be used to fund the ABC, he finally presents his big point:
Ye gods, he actually wrote that. You'll notice he's now ditched the argument that the ABC exists because we all love it, or that it serves some grand purpose. Now it's because we are morally obligated to fund this wonderful institution. And why? He seems to have two reasons: 1) because we are funding it already, 2) So a minority of Australians can enjoy their own entertainment preferences without having to pay the real cost of them. Wonderful.
In other words: you should fund the ABC because I like it and it's better than the crap you like. My tastes are better than yours. So what if I can't justify spending your money on it? You are going to have to pay for it whether you like it or not. How dare you complain about the way your money is being spent. Go move somewhere else if you don't like it!
the pretensions to cultural nobility fade away. In the end, you're left
with some good old fashioned bludging.
Capitalism gives us choices. Ross Gittens thinks this is really, really scary.
I particularly liked this stunning observation:
My god, businesses exist for their own benefit?????
Attention stupid people: if consumer choice confuses or scares you, then don't choose. Don't shop. Move to Cuba. You'll lose nothing. Nobody is forcing you to engage in this frightening practice known as shopping.
Then, we have my vote for The Most Stupid Thing Anyone Has Written in 2003:
Yikes!! Who has ever been able to cope with the trauma of picking between an apple and an orange?
What the fuck?
This explains why Apple have a 50% share of the home computer market. Except they don't.
In other words: companies like to sell goods and services to customers. We can see why Gittens' economic skills are held in such high regards at the Fairfax empire. But wait, Ross reveals another shocking secret of the capitalist cabal:
Maximising the price of an asset they are trying to sell? Is there no end to the horror?
Most people who buy mobile phones seem to manage it just fine, fatso.
Amazing guy, he's figured out people can't afford everything they'd like.
Has Gittens been reading a bunch of Hugh Mackay and Richard Neville articles recently? He certainly shares their solipsistic pathetic insecurities and predictions of spiritual doom: I'm old and miserable, so the world is going to hell...... The existential ennui is crushing my spirit...... I see Pepsi where there should be Panda Bears, mobile phones where there should be leather-bound books...... Oh cruel world! If only we were more like North Korea, Sudan and Cuba, we wouldn't have all this horrible choice destroying the authenticity of our humanity.
And this arseclown
is one of Australia's most respected economic commentators.
Tim is all excited about the Mini-Cooper he just grabbed, presumably to collect some fruit baskets or something.
If makers of alternative energy-source cars want to be taken seriously, why do they make their cars so hideously UGLY?
Sweet jesus, if you're smart enough to come up with a clean engine technology that actually works, can designing even an average-looking body be so difficult?
Excuse me while I attract some google searches.......
you for your time.
11 August 2003
Say hello to the fabulous Octodog!!
to Carol for the link.
Just what you've always wanted: a guide to making origami penises.
The owners of this site really should have checked their english dictionary first, eh?
to Zoopie for this one)
We've all read those chain mails describing stupid help desk calls. But what happens when the help desk guy is dumber than the callers? Click here to see the full horror......
tip: Forge and Darth)
This thing has been going around on the web, so here's my version....
Things That Make You Laugh:
scene in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot where the psycho car driver
picks up Eastwood and Bridges, drives insanely and yells gibberish. I
nearly died laughing the first 2-3 times I watched this.
Seven Things You Love:
my ZX-9R very fast
Seven Things You Hate:
Seven Things On Your Desk:
Predator external CD burner (finally working after two months)
Seven Facts About You:
have travelled to Singapore twice, Japan twice, New Zealand once, USA
once, Canada once, Hong Kong once
Seven Things You Can Do:
Seven Things You Can't Do:
Seven Famous People You Want To Meet:
Seven Songs People Should Give A Listen:
of Death - PIL
8 August 2003
Joh Bjelke-Petersen - who presided over the most corrupt government in Australia's history - is suing the Queensland government for $300 million for 'pain and suffering' caused as a result of the crimes of his gangsters being brought to the public's attention. A great editorial in the Oz sums it up beautifully:
Well, well, well. It seems our brave little Asshole-For-Allah isn't as keen on martyrdom as he made out:
Niall is getting even more confused in his responses defending the ABC. He offers this howler:
Niall then supports his argument by offering a link which shows SBS had a whopping 5.5% audience share. How impressive. That's means only 94.5% of the audience who are paying for SBS are not watching it. If 5.5% doesn't rate as "not popular", then Niall uses a different system of maths from the rest of us.
Here we have an entire network which is very unpopular, yet it has not died as Niall has promised. It has received taxpayer dollars despite these terrible ratings for over two decades. It is immune to the forces of the market. It doesn't have to perform or satisfy.
And the ABC plunged to a 16% share in 2001. They survived too.
Yep, you showed links proving my point - almost noone watches it, yet it continues to get money. Guess you should have got your argument straight first eh?
Well, I'd figured that part out thanks to, you know, all those commercials it shows. And that still makes no difference: they are still using my money to broadcast a product I don't want.
So commercial stations can attract advertising revenue through popular programs.
No stupid, I said I don't want the government using my money to fund the network. If other people want to subscribe to it, good luck to them.
Their "inalienable right" to use my money for a service they want? These are the sort of "rights" that are popular in North Korea. The only "inalienable right" of the ABC viewer is to use their money to pay for it if they want.
Duh. That's what I getting at you klutz. The leftie elitist attitude that popular shows are there to amuse the stupid masses. Because when it comes down to it, lefties don't like popular opinion. The Great Unwashed tend to vote for the wrong politicians, watch the wrong TV shows, go to the wrong movies and basically don't know what's good for them. Rather than respecting people's choices and rights to choose, Niall - the big baby - calls them all "brainless".
Except you're wrong already. I don't have access to quite a few of Foxtel's channels. Go find me a place where I complained about that.
(...sound of crickets....)
It's because I couldn't care less that I don't have access to them, because I have chosen not to pay for them thanks to my total lack of interest in them. If I wanted them, I wouldn't complain that I didn't have it, or start whining about my ""inalienable right" to have other people buy a subscription for me. I'd just go ahead, find the money and subscribe to it.
I can't stand blue heelers, or Neighbours, but I don't complain much about these, because noone is forcing me to pay for it.
This is, after all, my point that Niall has completely failed to address: that there is no justification for anyone to use my money to fund the ABC.
of choice, the will of the market, paying your way. Such simple concepts,
yet they so confuse and frighten the ideologically righteous ones.
7 August 2003
Could the real reason why social conservatives oppose gay marriage be much simpler? They oppose it because they hate gay people. They think it's disgusting what these faggots do. They think the state should punish them for their depravity.
If not, could they perhaps explain themselves?
Really? SBS has been surviving for over twenty years with near-zero ratings. And the ABC marches on, despite not being able to get anywhere near the commercial networks. In short: they aint popular, but they're surviving thanks to public funds.
Talk about thinking with yer arse: if I stop complaining then people would make me not pay for it? How does that work? "Excuse me minister: we have had zero complaints about the ABC this month. We'd better shut it down or we'll be killed by indifferent voters at the next election!"
Public broadcasters rely on taxpayer dollars. As long as they get those dollars, they'll survive. And they continue to get them because people are forced to pay for the ABC whether they like it or not.
Well, why do they have to?
I agree. The ABC should be canned because the government has no right to extract money from people for a service they don't want.
I prefer the murpack "monopoly" (note dude: it can't be a "monopoly" of there's more than one supplier) because I don't have to pay for it.
And don't ya love leftie elitism? They're more popular, so they're "brainless". Nice going Niall, you egalitarian you.
you should have no problem getting private funds to run it then.
Paul Bickford writes:
giving you a right good slagging off over your choice of four-wheeled
transport, and rightly so; why would you want one of those horrible little
Coz they've got 4 wheels and they're cheap, dude. It's transport, you dig? That's the only reason I'm buying a car: transport. 4 wheels and a roof. It's to drive to work in, transport people and carry things, and that's it. Spending money on anything else is a waste of money. If I want speed thrills, I have my ZX-9, which can blow any car off the road. Why spend money I can't afford on something to get speed thrills I already get with my bike?
Jake D. sez
Before you make the worst decision in your life please take a moment to think. All those cars suck more than a $2000.00 hooker on speed. Perhaps consider an older Ute or station-wagon - both can carry heaps of stuff and no one will ask you if it's your girlfriend's/Mum's.
who buys a car on the basis of what other people think is a dick.
The ute is a possibility though, They seem to be doing good deals on the Hilux. The bench seat can carry the driver + 2 passengers, so the giving-people-a-lift part is covered. And I can take my bikes in the back.
As they're all pretty much unintelligible as a whole, here are excerpts from this one: "Slam Bam Thank You Frisco"..........
- Australia's policy toward (so-called) refugees is likened to the Nazis:
- Richard's interesting views on parenting:
- here he agonizes over the existential horror of American hotel pastry:
- and he's squealing his tits off again about technological progress (get a load of this):
Wait, there's more...
everyone will just get on with their lives like they always have, you
stinky old fart.
Looking for older whackings?
Wanna see my previous rants against lefty, commie, peacenick wankers, plus lots of fun stuff about motorcycles, music and movies?................ Click here for the full past whackings index
Support Brave Multinationals!!!