I'll be the first to admit that there was something a little fishy about the official "one gunman" line on the JFK assassination. Sure, colorful figure Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald in a secure police station cos he had a keen sense of public spirit.
And I'm still wondering if the Chinese will find the plaque and USA flag when they eventually send a man to the moon. Really, we haven't been back there since the 1970's? NASA saving money are they?
But when it comes to September 11, 2001 and conspiracy theories, I'm thinking they really are just a little far fetched. Sure there are some unanswered questions. And maybe people think the twin towers wouldn't really collapse under aviation fuel. But sometimes bad and unpredictable stuff happens.
I mean quite seriously, an airliner flying into a 30 year old building isn't something that the architects factored in. And it surely isn't going to do good things to the building's structure. Yes they fell. To me, that's not a surprise.
The Victorian Trades Hall president and MUA secretary Kevin Bracken sparked some controversy when he said on radio that the attacks on the world trade centre didn't stand up to "scientific scrutiny." Apparently the buildings didn't collapse because of the plane attacks - they were as a result of pre prepared bombs planted in the towers. I guess that's a theory.
Bracken has earlier hinted that perhaps the US government were behind the attacks. Which is only slightly better than the theory that it was a Jewish conspiracy - with Jews in the building phoned just before the attacks and warned to leave. All balderdash of course.
As if any government organisation could actually get their act together to plan and implement such a sophisticated scheme. This from the same people who spent days and weeks trying to respond to the starving and homeless after Hurricane Katrina. And it took them months to plug one lousy oil hole. No organisation isn't their strong point.
Not to mention that with all the planning, not one person has gone deep throat - nobody has leaked. Maybe its a like a Grisham thriller - all those involved have mysteriously been killed off.
No. If there is a choice between stuff up and conspiracy - stuff up wins 99.9% of the time. If anything, the stuff up occurred in allowing the attacks to occur. That was a break down in systems and intelligence. Not conspiracy.
What was interesting about the follow up to Kevin Bracken's comments was the condemnation from "some" quarters. I say some, because his theory is not without support.
The Herald Sun's editorial was scathing "To suggest that the al-Qaida terror attack on the World Trade Centre towers on September 11, 2001 was actually a US conspiracy is nothing short of appalling." Unfortunately for the editor, the comments section to the Bracken story painted a different picture.
Just 36 hours after the story broke, there were over 500 comments. One of the bigger stories of the year. But id calculate that of the 500, 80% were actually in support of Bracken. Just think about that. A conservative newspaper with a comments section filled with hard liners. And 80% of them supporting a hard left unionist? Wow.
It proves what a nutty lot of people there are out there.
Some choice comments include:
"Those who attempt to cover up the facts about the Sept 11 INSIDE JOB are committing treasonous conspiracy."
"Explain building 7 which was not hit by the planes but collapsed in a perfect demolition heap all on it's own. Isn't that just a little bit strange? Wake up people. Can't you smell the BS you are being fed?"
"The "attacks" of 9/11 were perpetrated by the people who benefited from the incident and it's aftermath, the same people who orchestrated the attack on the Lusitania bringing America into the first world war."
"Thank you Mr. Bracken for your courage and bravery."
"INSIDE JOB. COMMECRIAL AIRLINERS CANNOT DO 6 G TURNS at 600kmh. THEIR CONTROL SYSTEMS WILL NOT ALLOW IT." (Commenters use of BOLD)
"Anyone read the children's story THE EMPEROR"S NEW CLOTHES? NUFF SAID ? KEVIN is a TRUE HERO with self respect humanity & BALLS - Thanks Kev UR HOT ... a REAL MAN * BRAVE"
and my favorite comment from Duncan of Glen Waverley (I'm not sure which side he is on)
"If stupid people knew they were stupid, they wouldn't be stupid"
For those of us who grew up watching Happy Days even if many of them were re-runs, the death of Tom Bosley who passed away on Tuesday is a great loss. Along with Henry Winkler as the Fonz, Bosley apparently appeared in every episode of Happy Days as the wise father, Mr (Howard) Cunningham or just Mr C.
While it's no replacement for the real thing, and this sounds fairly corny, TV families can have a real influence on your lives. Happy Days really was a comedy show for all the family, yet still managed to present life's little dilemmas and real solutions. Bosley as the head of the family was always the wise one giving sage advice to those around him. He was however not without fault - i still recall the episode where he blackballed Fonzie from the Leopard Lodge.
I think Bosley's genius was a portrayal of Howard Cunningham not like the fathers of Leave it to Beaver or other such 1960's family shows. This character was more real and a genuine father figure for many of those watching from home. In other words, Bosley's work actually did influence a generation - in a good way.
The success of Happy Days no doubt paved the way for other shows, like the Cosby Show, Family Ties and Growing Pains. All with strong and wise father figures. All modelled to some extent on the Howard Cunningham character.
But to remember Bosley's life as just Mr C would be selling him short. He was so much more both as an actor and as a father and husband. Bosley's first wife died while he was filming Happy Days and he was left to raise his only daughter who was 11. He remarried a few years later and is survived by his wife.
His TV, movie, voice and theatre performances as well are immense. Many of us watched him in Murder She Wrote, then as investigating Catholic Priest in the Father Dowling Mysteries. And there were many other times where he popped up like episodes of the Love Boat, and it was always a joy. Bosley also won a Tony Award way back in 1960 in a Broadway musical.
In a recent interview (video below), Bosley was asked what he considered his greatest personal achievement was, and stated "I think the fact that I've gone through life without hurting too many people and I've always respected the rights and beliefs of other people and i think that's an achievement because i don't really see too much of that today." Just like Mr C, wise words.
An $850,000 payout and not a red cent to charity. That's because she obviously needs it. Living on the north shore of Sydney cant be cheap.
And anyway, being hugged and touched in a slightly inappropriate way is worth all that money.
So my advice? Don't give the money to charity Kristy. You need it more.
Don't worry about all those other people who truly suffer real discrimination in the workplace.
Don't worry about all the starving millions in sub Saharan Africa.
Don't stress about the millions of displaced people after the floods in Pakistan.
Don't give a thought to the underprivileged in our own backyard (granted, not your backyard), like much of the indigenous population.
Don't give a toss for the homeless people you step over when you venture over the bridge to go shopping.
Don't concern yourself with the billion people in the world who live on about a dollar a day. You can choose to ignore them as you fly 35,000 feet above their heads while on the way to Paris or the Hamptons.
So you enjoy all that money Kristy. God knows you deserve it. Don't give anything to charity. Dont give a red cent. Any starving child in Africa could see that you need it more.
Kristy Fraser Kirk - The True Face of Australian Poverty
I love animals as much as the next person, and I'm particularly fond of dogs. But after a couple of sad stories this morning I'm a little curious about the priorities of Melbournians.
The first story involves "hero" dogs whose barks woke up their owner during a house fire. Sadly, the four Jack Russell dogs all passed away in the blaze. No doubt about it, you have to feel for the guy who is now in hospital. It elicited numerous responses from Herald Sun readers - so far 16 comments.
Such insightful comments too like "what wonderful brave dogs to save the owner and only to lose their lives, sad case again" from Tia Maria and "poor man had no family and freinds and his beloved companions perished . Im guttered and saddened for this poor individual and his dogs" from Peter Koulis.
And then we come to another sad story. A woman in her 30's died in a Brunswick West flat fire on Sunday morning. And didn't that bring out the comments from the readers? So many messages of sympathy must have been added that the Herald Sun was overwhelmed. At least that's a theory. At last count the amount of comments added to this story was...zero. Not a one. I guess she didn't have a dog.
Wow, and after all that, the matter of Kristy Fraser-Kirk V David Jones has been settled out of court, for much less that the $37 million claimed as damages. According to news reports, the settlement was in the order of 6 figures. Probably in the high hundreds of thousands.
Now of course we will be waiting for the imminent announcement of the charity that Fraser-Kirk will be donating all the money to. Yes, we are waiting.
According to Ms Fraser-Kirk's media spokesperson in August (yes, she had one of them), "One hundred per cent of any punitive damages, if awarded, will go to either an existing charity or a new one to be set up or a combination of both. If a new one is set up there will be transparency and integrity processes put in place.”
But look clearly, despite the spin and what we were led to believe by media reports, the donation to charity was only any figure awarded in punitive damages. There were other claims made by Fraser-Kirk, namely statutory compensation, damages in relation to breach of contract and importantly, costs.
The settlement figure is unlikely to be made up entirely of punitive damages. It may well be that the punitive amount is little or indeed, nothing at all. It may be something we never get told.
Meanwhile those who have truly suffered discrimination in the workplace and don't work for a high profile employer and have ready access to good lawyers and media spokespeople can suffer in silence.
I've often said that it's easy to spend money without consequence so long as it's someone else's money you are spending. In recent years, Governments of all political persuasions have decided to spend spend spend without a care in the world. When you are rolling in cash, why not throw more of it away?
The latest harebrained scheme, this time from the Victorian Government provides for publicly subsidised bike helmets for the Melbourne Bike Share Scheme. That's right, your money going to fund an inner city elite feel good green project. The scheme provides bike hire in the city, with an emphasis on short term use, usually under 30mins.
This failing scheme has already cost over 5.5 million. It ran into difficulty when the government refused to offer the hire of bike helmets, ostensibly on safety grounds. Perhaps true.
Thus, after 6 months the scheme has only 600 subscribers paying just $50 per year. Yes, that's $30,000 annually for the $5.5 million scheme. There may be some upside on that $30,000 when calculating casual users and longer hire times. But not enough to even go close to paying for the scheme.
So what of the subsidised helmets? This is where it gets worse. They are being offered to bike riders at a cost of just $5 - maximum purchase 2 per customer - and will be available from vending machines and 7-11 stores in and around the city. The real cost to the government (or you, the taxpayer) is $13. That's an $8 per unit subsidy. But, if you return the unit to a 7-11 store, they will give you $3 cash back, making it a subsidy of $11. Not counting the cost of disposal or commission paid to 7-11 or upkeep of vending machines.
Here's the real problem. The cheapest you can pick up a similar helmet from Ebay is around $14 with another $9 thrown in for postage. So what is to stop people just picking up their helmets in the city at a bargain basement subsided price and then making use of them personally outside the bike scheme, or worse selling them on Ebay to other people?
As far as i can tell, there don't appear to be any restrictions on who can buy the helmets. Worst case scenario is before being allowed to get a helmet they make you purchase a casual pass for a bike, stinging you for a massive $2.50. That's still an incredible saving on a helmet, courtesy of the taxpayer dollar.
I can just see bike retailers throwing their hands up in anger at the government becoming another player in this booming retail market. Why buy a helmet from a bike shop when you can get one for just 5 bucks in the city?
I've no objection to governments playing a role in public safety. Providing riders with subsidised bike helmets isn't such a terrible idea. After all, they subsidised new shower heads to help us save all that water we no longer need to save because of the desalination plant and a little thing called rain. But subsided bike helmets just to prop up a failing scheme is bad policy and is open to massive rorting - and its all done at your expense.
About Just Grumpy
