Jy blaai in die argief vir 2012 September.

Hit Parade: 2 Oktober 1965

29/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

1. Satisfaction – Rolling Stones (2)

2. Goodbye my love – Murray Campbell (1)

3. I’m alive – Hollies (3)

4. Tossing and turning – Ivy League (4)

5. Pearly shells – Pat Boone (6)

6. Catch us if you can – Dave Clark Five (8)

7. You’ve got your troubles – Fortunes (nuut)

8. Help – Beatles (7)

Na twee weke as naasbestes het die Stones plekke geruil met Murray Campbell wat drie weke lank die kampioen was. Ietwat ongewoon dat die derde en vierde plekke onveranderd gebly het. Ek kan die Fortunes nie dadelik plaas nie, maar daar lui tog veraf ‘n klok. Dalk val dit my later by.

‘Satisfaction’ wat twee weke agtereenvolgens tweede was laat my egter onthou van ander ‘hits’ wat in die 2de plek uitgekamp het. Omtrent 1961/62 was daar ‘Ruby-Ruby’ van een of ander Dion (nie ek nie, ek kon toe nog beswaarlik engels praat, laat staan nog sing). Die liedjie onthou ek as ‘n gekreun, gesteun en geween. Iets soos,”Ruby, Ruby. Ruby when’ll you be mine. Uh-uh”. Nogtans was dit meer musikaal as ‘Satisfaction’. Een wat ek wel goed onthou uit dieselfde tydvak was ‘Blue train’ van John D. Loudermilk, wat omtrent 6 weke lank aan die tweede plek vasgeklou het. Met ‘n bietjie verbeelding kon jy die geklop van die trein se wiele in die ritme herken.

(uitgerekte treinfluit)

Blue light flashing down the railroad track

Blue smoke flying from the old smoke stack

Oh Blue Train don’t leave me behind

Blue steam coming from the blue choo-choo

Wheels a-whining their lonesome blues

Oh Blue Train on the heartbreak railroad line.


My baby said she loved me true

Then she ran off with someone new

Oh Blue Train don’t leave me behind

Let me ride ’till I lose

These doggone awful blues

Oh Blue Train on the heartbreak railroad line


Blue Train, you’re coming in on time

Blue Train, you’re coming in on time

‘Cause I just love that lovey of mine

Blue Train of the heartbreak railroad line


(uitgerekte treinfluit)

A.B., Aai!

28/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

“En wie moet ons bedank? Boland.Boland Bank”

En wie moet die Pakistani’s bedank? A.B.. A.B. de Villiers

Dis om van naar te raak. Met Pakistan se telling op 77/6 na 15 boulbeurte was die wedstryd feitlik in die Proteas se sak. Gedurende die Proteas se kolfbeurt is die lopies meestal teen ‘n slakkepas aangeteken, hoofsaaklik omdat die Pakistaniese draaiboulers ons kolwers vasgeknoop het. Dat die uiteindelike telling darem drie syfers gehaal het was net omdat daar ook snelboulers gebruik is.

Pakistan se kolwers het egter netso rondgekrap teen die drie Protea-draaiboulers, Peterson, Botha en Duminy. Hul gesamentlike statistiek lees: 8 boulbeurte – 4 paaltjies – 30 lopies (ekonomie = 3.75/beurt). Daar was nog 4 ongebruikte draaibal-boulbeurte oor, maar A.B. in sy wysheid het al 5 die laaste boulbeurte deur die vinnige boulers laat afstuur. In net twee beurte, een elk van Kallis en Albie Morkel het die skaal terug in Pakistan se guns geswaai. Kallis is onder andere van agtereenvolgende kort aflewerings gestraf met twee sesse.

Carbon Emissions Trading: The E.U. taking Oz (and S.A.) for a ride

28/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

Combet’s Cut-Price Carbon Caper Blows $25 Billion Budget Black Hole – By Henry Ergas (The Australian, 29/08/2012)

The carbon floor price is dead, but it certainly hasn’t died alone. Rather, there are so many fatalities in this announcement that Canberra will need a new cemetary. The first victim of this double-pike with lateral twist is the credibility of the government’s budget forecasts.

True, they were already at death’s door; yet it was only a few months ago that Wayne Swan smugly announced a surplus predicated on a 2015-16 permit price of $29. But even if the carbon price falls to only $10, and then rises after that by 4 per cent in real terms annually, the commonwealth’s fiscal position during the period from 2015-16 to 2019-20 worsens by $25 billion. To leave budget outcomes unchanged, the government therefore needs an additional $25 billion in revenues, spending cuts or both. Where are those savings, Mr. Swan?

But the Treasurer isn’t the only minister swinging in the breeze. After all, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet repeatedly stressed that the entire purpose of the carbon scheme was to provide a “predictable, long-term price signal” whose steady rise investors in renewables and other low-emissions technologies could rely on. Moreover, the floor price was essential to achieve that goal, as it ensures “stability and predictability” and avoids “the risk of sharp downward movements in the carbon price, which could undermine long-term investment in clean technologies”. Where is that predictability now, given the wild gyrations that characterise European carbon prices?

As for Treasury, it was so confident of the price path that its modelling simply assumed a stair-case of ever-climbing prices climbing to a carbon-free heaven. Indeed, such was the confidence of the oracles at Langton Crescent that they have no scenarios – not a single, solitary one – in which prices start high and then collapse. And with good reason. For Treasury’s modelling is premised on those continuous price increases “driving” the development of entirely new abatement technologies, which make it possible to reduce emissions without massive economic costs.[???] So where is the revised modelling that shows what happens when, freed of their earthly shackles, prices plunge into the netherworld before pirouetting off in directions unknown?

As for the Climate Change Authority, established to advise on the future price path, what possible justification is there for spending taxpayers’ money on seeking its sage council? After all, once our scheme is fully linked to the EU’s, it is the EU’s decisions that will determine our carbon price. How then will we reach our targets? No one knows. And as for putting Brussels in charge of Australia’s carbon policy, what a fine idea that is!

Not that anyone would want to say unkind words about the EU’s economic skills – it is a sin to speak ill of the dead. But even assuming the EU manages to pull off the second resurrection in recorded history, it is hard to imagine economies less like Australia’s. And with the EU accounting for less than 5 per cent of world emissions, it is hardly as if we are linking to carbon markets that are particularly representative, deep or resilient. On the contrary, those markets’ most striking feature has been persistent instability.

Then again, maybe that is why the Greens can live with this change: because it means the Australian carbon price will ultimately be set by countries without any base in natural resources, much less in mining. No need for the Europeans to worry about carbon prices, if any, are being charged by Australia’s resource competitors – and worry about them the EU certainly won’t. Yet we should. The EU exempts virtually all its export industries from its emissions trading scheme; we don’t exempt ours. So it is the EU that will decide, but our living standards that will suffer. With the Nobel prize in economics only weeks away, whoever devised this scheme won’t be wasting any money in sending the monkey costume off to the dry cleaners.

But if aligning our carbon price on thev EU’s is such a good thing, why make us wait? Since carbon prices are going to be allowed to fall in 2015, what useful purpose is served by keeping them at gravity-defying levels, all the more so as a study by the Centre for International Economics shows having a higher carbon price than Europe’s will cost our economy $1.6bn to $3.4bn in 2012-13 alone? No useful purpose at all. For as a signal to long-term abatement, the current high level of the carbon tax is entirely worthless.

But there is one thing it does do: it raises revenue. And that helps feed the government’s addiction to redistribution: to shuffling around bits of the pie, regardless of the losses incurred along the way. So the current carbon tax is just that: a tax that serves only to raise revenue, and very inefficiently at that. As for the fine words about “locking in predictability and stability”, they are merely another commitment to be disposed of. Like soiled nappies. Jilted lovers. Or former colleagues. And then buried under the floor.

So much ado about nothing!

Climate Data

24/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

Australian temperature records (Source: The Weekend Australian, Weather)

1 September, 2012

Canberra: highest 22.5C in 1993, lowest -4.0C in 1958

Sydney: 27.5C in 1865, 5.1C in 1905

Brisbane: 29.2C in 1953, 4.8C in 1896

Melbourne: 25.5C in 2006, 1.3C in 1873

Adelaide: 26.5C in 2006, 2.6C in 1987

Perth: 27.1C in 1959, 1.5C in 2005

Hobart: 22.7C in 1941, 0.1C in 1959

Darwin: 35.6C in 2007, 14.3C in 2006

22 August, 2012

Canberra: highest 20.4C in 1954, lowest -5.6C in 1979

Sydney: 28.6C in 1954, 4.9C in 1866

Brisbane: 28.5C in 1929, 4.6C in 1900

Melbourne: 22.4C in 1976, 0.0C in 1926

Adelaide: 24.1C in 1924, 3.3C in 2008

Perth: 26.8C in 1978, 1.5C in 2000

Hobart: 20.0C in 1980, 0.6C in 1904

Darwin: 35.1C in 1916, 14.4C in 1947

The records are for the corresponding day in the year

Hit Parade: 25 September 1965

21/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

1. Goodbye my love – Murray Campbell (1)

2. Satisfaction – Rolling Stones (2)

3. I’m alive – Hollies (5)

4. Tossing and turning – Ivy League (6)

5. Mr. Tambourine-man – Byrds (4)

6. Pearly shells – Pat Boone (8)

7. Help – Beatles (3)

8. Catch us if you can – Dave Clark Five (nuut)

DC5 is weer terug na ‘n afwesigheid van meer as ‘n jaar. Hul vorige hit, ‘Can’t you see that she’s mine’ het No.1 gehaal.

‘Goodbye my love’, reeds 3 weke bo, kry strawwe kompetisie van ‘Satisfaction’. Pat Boone het ook destyds ‘n ‘fan club’ gehad netsoos Cliff en Elvis. Die vermiste reels van ‘Pearly Shells’ is nou bygevoeg by die vorige Hit Parade-pos.

Twee weke gelede is nagelaat om die Ivy League bekend te stel. Dit was ‘n groep manssangers met ‘n effek soos die Tremeloes in ‘Silence is Golden’. Netsoos hul latere treffer, ‘Funny how love can be’, was ‘Tossing and turning’ strelend op die oor:

I can’t sleep at night, tossing and turning

I turn on the light, and while it’s burning

I think of all the things that we do

And all the reasons why I love you

Tossing and turning, I’m tossing and turning all night…

In my memory there is confusion

Was it you and me or an illusion

Was I really holding you tight

Did I really kiss you goodnight

Tossing and turning, I’m tossing and turning all night…

Watcha gonna do at night

Nobody to hold you tight

Are you lonely

Don’t you know that I’m lonely too

And I’m blaming you….

When we meet again, maybe tomorrow

You will smile and then, goodbye to sorrow

We’ll be lovers just as before

I guess I’ll never sleep anymore

Tossing and turning, I’m tossing and turning all night….

Occupy Movement (continued)

21/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

OWS is a crock

Whatever it was a year ago, it is today a sadder, more pathetic, more laughable version of that very thing. But this is a financial publication. And as much as I like to point out the absurdity of what goes on in the heads of some of the more spoiled of our youth, I’m going to point out how the mere passage of time has already healed much of what this army of professional complainers was complaining about…

Unemployment is down.


The stock market – whose collapse was blamed on the 1% and largely credited with widening the financial crisis to sectors outside of the flash point of real estate – is at a five-year high.


And housing prices – whose bubble burst, causing millions of over-leveraged mortgagees to lose vast chunks of their paper net worth and starting the failure cascade in several harrowing weeks in 2008 – are also recovering.


Amazingly enough, this is all happening without a single of the OWS demands being met.

So I guess my big question today, on the first birthweek of the OWS movement, is: What exactly is everyone still so angry about?

Are they angry that corporations do not pay enough taxes?

Well, they should be happy to know that ours are already tied for the highest in the world.

Are they unhappy that the wealthy do not pay enough taxes?

Perhaps they should be reminded that while 47% of Americans do not chip in anything more than displaced air and methane to the equation, the 1 percenters pay 38% of total federal taxes collected by the IRS.

Are they unhappy that the rich take advantage of unfair exemptions?

If so, the OWSers should educate themselves on the concept of long-term investments – and how while the tax rates on long-term gains are far lower than the highest federal income tax bracket, the practice of investment also comes with inherent risk of loss…

Not to mention the fact that by investing their money, the wealthy help finance economic growth, which does, indeed, lead to more business, stronger industry, and – yes! – more jobs.

To ask for more, when so many contribute nothing at all, seems nothing short of childish to me, especially when the economy is finally starting to return to its glory days of five years ago.

However, there is one demand whose validity all of these tough but concrete facts about where our national wealth comes from cannot refute: the need for art regulation. My advice to OWS, if they want to be celebrating the movement’s second birthday one year from now… Take that demand and run with it.

To your wealth,

Brian Hicks”

[Wealth Daily]

Occupy Movement

20/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

OWS Back from the Dead? By Brian Hicks, September 19th, 2012 [“Wealth Daily” newsletter]

“One year ago this week, the world got its first taste of what would come to be known as the Occupy Movement. Clad in too-tight jeans and sporting all manner of Apple products, the self-appointed representatives of the 99% descended upon Lower Manhatton with protest signs demanding everything from the end of money to the forgiveness of their own personal debts. Before long, similar protests erupted in a number of major U.S. cities – each with their own unique flavor, but all sharing one basic feature the OWS movement would become known for… A lack of focus. As skeptics and onlookers around the world criticized this apparent lack of understanding of their own complaints, organizers slowly started to piece together a list of demands in an attempt to define the character of the protest.

Searching the Internet, this is the closest thing to an exhaustive list I could come up with:

Although unofficial (as all things OWS were in order to stay true to their super-grassroots nature), this list touches on everything from free education to ending reliance on fossil fuels… to opening the borders for free immigration… to a guaranteed living wage… to – my personal favorite – the immediate forgiveness of all personal debt; some $65 trillion worth of it.

Well, one year later, as the stoutest of these protesters takes back to the streets in what can only be described as a strange, mutated, zombified version of the original, at least one demand has already been added to this hefty list: government regulation of the art industry. War on… Art? Artist Beth Whitney, 45, apparently seeing the shortcomings in the 13-point list, decided that art itself has become a tool of the 1% to abuse the other 99%.

If you’re detecting a note of sarcasm here, it’s for a reason… And sadly, that reason has remained unchanged in the 52 weeks since this case study in mass-consciousness whining began. From its very beginnings, Occupy Wall Street was a mockery of itself.

Spurred on by financial hardship that found its roots primarily in the very predictable ending of the real estate bull market, hundreds of thousands of educated yet under-qualified young people (and a couple of older people to boot) took to the streets to complain about a small segment of the population – whose only real salient distinction in this whole thing was that they hedged properly against the inevitable end of housing appreciation – and demanded something they were never entitled to in the first place. Showing a total lack of accountability for their irresponsible spending, their haphazard, self-centered selection of college majors that virtually guaranteed no work – and therefore no ability to repay loans, and their childish jealousy of the rich, this group took to the streets and demanded things that were not theirs to begin with.

Maybe some of them thought they were carrying on the revolutionary spirit of their parents and grandparents, who protested in the name of things like civil rights and an end to the Vietnam War. Well, those who considered themselves the spiritual brethren of 60s-era protesters should be put on notice that the mere comparison is an insult to their idols.

In the 60s, protesters fought for something thar rightfully belonged to them – namely, the rights to live free of racially-biased oppression, and, in the case of the Vietnam draft, the right to live without getting shot at.

They did not fight for what amounts to nothing more than free money… or the right to be free from self-imposed financial obligations that come with signing the dotted line on a loan agreement.”


Hit Parade: 18 September 1965

15/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

1. Goodbye my love – Murray Campbell (1)

2. Satisfaction – Rolling Stones (3)

3. Help – Beatles (2)

4. Mr. Tambourine-man – Byrds (4)

5. I’m alive – Hollies (6)

6. Tossin’ and turnin’ – Ivy League (8)

7. Ciao – Gene Rockwell (5)

8. Pearly shells – Pat Boone (nuut)

Die trompet-nommer was nou reeds twee weke lank bo. Die nuwe toetreder het ek nie in my liedjie-boeke nie, maar kom ons probeer hom in die volgende week voltooi:

Pearly shells from the ocean

Shining in the sun, covering the shore

When I see that my heart tells me that I love you

More than all the little pearly shells.

For every grain of sand upon the beach

I have a kiss for you

And I’ve got more left over for each star

That twinkles in the blue

(herhaal alles)

Die liriek vir die week pre-dateer my hit parade rekords. Moontlik kontemporer met ‘Some enchanted evening’. Ek is nie seker van die sanger nie, maar Nat King Cole se fluweel-stem sou reg daaraan kon laat geskied:

Moon River, wider than a mile

I’m crossing you in style someday

You dream maker, you heart breaker

Wherever you’re going I’m going your way

Two drifters off to see the world

There’s such a lot of world to see

Waiting round the bend

My Huckleberry friend

Moon River and me

(herhaal alles)

The Weekend Australian, September 1-2, 2012

14/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

Defining our national insanity – Terry McGrann (continued)

This gets to the heart of why we are talking about emission permits and Europe at all. Because just like Europe and Kyoto, the importation by us of emission permits is designed to enable us to pretend to cut carbon dioxide while continuing to emit. The over-arching policy is to cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 compared with 2000 levels.This is a policy which has an almost unique ability to be both utterly pointless and punishingly punitive at the same time.

A cut of Australia’s emissions by 5 per cent equates to cutting global emissions by barely one-quarter of 1 per cent. It would make four-fifths of five-eights of very little difference to the global climate, far less local climate, even if the world managed to cap its emissions. It will make even less difference in the reality of global emissions continuing to rise until 2020. There is only one thing that can save us from increased global emissions by 2020; and it is not either a real or another phony agreement at one of the never-ending carbon dioxide spewing global climate conferences. It is a sustained global depression.

So our policy is pointless. But it is also punishing. Because a 5 per cent cut in emissions equals close to a 30 per cent cut in emissions per (Australian) head. To actually achieve that, we would really have to close coal-fired power stations and all our aluminium smelters, instead of throwing money after them to offset the consequences of the carbon tax and all the other Rudd-Gillard policy disasters.

So, Treasury built the clever edifice of international emissions trading above the utterly stupid foundations of the carbon dioxide reduction policy. So we achieve our 5 per cent “cut” by actually increasing our domestic emissions by more than 10 per cent compared with the 2000 level. We achieve this miracle, according to the Treasury modelling, by “importing” something like 17 per cent of our 2020 emission “cuts”. We of course wouldn’t import anything tangible at all. All we buy is a piece of paper which says: you may emit one tonne of carbon dioxide.

If that’s not collective national insanity, nothing is. According to Treasury, Australia will be paying nearly $3 billion in 2020 – and rising every year thereafter – just for permission from Brussels to keep our light on. That’s if the carbon price is $29 a tonne at that date. Which brings us to the deep analysis of the “consequences” of the linkage. It’s been done in desperation because the European price – the global price, as 97 per cent of the permits are there [very clever! DLR]- below $10 makes a mockery of the policy’s $15 floor price. But also in desperate hope that the Europeans will somehow “fiddle” the price higher, because if the price stayed low, it would make an utter shambles of the government budget.

Perhaps that is the definition of national insanity. That we lock in a policy, hoping and praying that it will be fiddled by others who control are national destiny. But never fear, you can take the Treasury modelling – of the state of the European economy, the euro, Europe’s ability to deny the physics of the carbon atom, and much, much else – to the bank. After all, Greg’s told you so.

The Weekend Australian, 1-2 September, 2012

14/09/2012 in Sonder kategorie

Defining our national insanity – Terry McGrann

The carbon policy is both pointless and punitive

It’s a challenge to decide which was more inane and utterly delinked from reality. The decision to tie our carbon-constrained future to the old tree of Europe, in historian Manning Clark’s iconic phrase. Or the detailed analysis of what would be the consequences. Certainly, there’s an appropriateness in both the phrases and its use in this context. If linked to this old tree is, in any way and in any context, “the answer”, I would dread to know what was the question.

Europe’s – despite the claims of Climate Change Minister Greg Combet – lonely and largely only attempted assault on the production of tree food, almost announces its determination not to be the contrasting alternative proffered by Clark: the young tree green. Unlike old dead trees, they need carbon dioxide.

To the extent that Europe has achieved its reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, it’s been less the consequence of its embrace of renewable energy – actually, more an embrace of renewable energy installations, than usable energy. And more to do with two other factors, both of which should inform caution against a naive embrace of the old dead tree. The first is the European-centric 1990 starting point for the Kyoto Protocol, and its more general identification as year-zero for life after carbon.

This date was picked for one reason, and that reason alone: to suit Europe. To enable it to pretend to take tough decisions to reduce carbon intensity. By simply closing down the grossly inefficient carbon dioxide emitting and real pollution spewing heavy industry of the old Eastern Europe. The second driver has been Europe’s pathetic economic performance, grown more pathetic since the GFC. Irrespective of your electricity generation mix, you can reduce carbon dioxide emissions from industry by closing factories and from consumers because they can’t afford it.

So looked at holistically, we have rushed to link our future, and indeed make it hostage to both a sclerotic Europe in the broad sense and the bureaucrats in Brussels more specifically, who have honed the art of looking after … European special interests.

As John Hannagan, the chairman of the Australian arm of European – or should that be Russian – aluminium producer Rusal, rather succintly pointed out in this paper mid-week: Our major trading partners are in Asia; shouldn’t we be linking to them?

There is, of course, only one problem in doing that. Again, despite Combet’s climate of fantasy, our major partners aren’t going to be producing any carbon emission permits of scale soon; because they are going to continue to keep increasing their emissions of carbon dioxide. We are going to Europe for carbon dioxide permits because, in the words of Willie Sutton in a different but stunningly relevant context, that’s where the permits are. There and, of course, Nigeria. Now Sutton was talking about taking money out of banks; Combet could just as well have been enthusing over sending our money into banks. And into the pockets of main-chancers, whether resident, in virtual or traditional reality, in Nigeria or not.

To be continued