== GST is not fair -- no matter how it is cut ==
The NSW state Treasurer is complaining that the NSW share of GST is "a tax on the success of NSW" (NSW cries foul, The West, 21 June). Meanwhile, WA is claiming that the WA share of GST is a penalty on the financial *failure* of WA.
NSW should get more because they earn more. WA should get more because they earn less.
Of course our own (previous) Premier started his call for a larger share of GST at a time when WA was still high on a mining boom. His cry then was, WA should get more because WA earned more.
Oh my, how the cries have changed.
== What colour was that terrorist's van? ==
"What we know so far is that [the terrorist] drove a white van into a group of Muslims..." (Ideology splits terror reaction, The West, 21 June). This is in an article about the different reactions to terrorist attacks by and against different groups.
The theme of the article is that all terrorist attacks are, as the columnist concludes, "terror and should be condemned categorically, not just when it is convenient to your ideological narrative." Absolutely true. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Although I do believe that there are strong arguments against an absolute definition of good and evil. A starving person may -- so it is argued -- steal food to feed the family. Even killing may be justified in order to, for example, protect the life of your own family. Means justify the ends, and all that.
But in this call for equal reporting of terrorism... What colour are the terrorists' vans? Is it just me? I don't remember any comments on the colour of the vans (or trucks, or cars) driven by *Moslem* terrorists. But every report of the white terrorist seems to feel that the colour of his van is worth reporting.
Equal reporting, with prejudice?
== Fat chance of equal opportunity ==
"Murdoch University has back-flipped on its decision to allow a nutrition adviser to use its campus this weekend" (Uni cancels 'fat diet' talk after backlash, The West, 21 June). Yet another story of a public body being pressured to deny freedom of speech to a speaker with radical ideas.
Radical, perhaps stupid, possibly dangerous... Mostly, ideas with which opinionated people disagree. One, unpopular ideas are being censored. Two, the public are considered to be too stupid to make up their own minds.
Three, the university is expected to filter the "acceptability" of speakers and groups who rent their rooms.
It's about time that the university stopped letting anyone at all use their rooms. After all, even a university lecturer may be pushing an objectionable barrow. Alternatively, let anyone at all use their rooms. After all, even the crackpot detractors -- I mean, of course, the detractors of the crackpots -- can rent a room to present their own ideas.
That's what free speech is all about. Unfortunately, it depends on trusting the public to make up their own minds on contentious issues.
== Board of booing ==
I couldn't beat that headline from a letter today...
The letter writer wonders why the Eagles (football) board does not appoint a club member to their ranks. Is it because the board, "just couldn't take the booing"?
No, the board would never appoint a fan club member. A club member would believe that the game is about the game. The board knows that the game of football is all about the money. The views of a fan of the game would simply be wasting the valuable time of a board meeting.
====
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper
Agamedes Consulting / Problems? Solved.
====
Hamilton's fourth law: "Infer nothing without ground or reason."
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper
Agamedes Consulting / Problems? Solved.
====
Hamilton's fourth law: "Infer nothing without ground or reason."
