It’s not just the Friday hawt chicks & links thread, it’s the Good Friday hawt chicks & links thread. Which means extra doses of goodness for all you readers to crave, enjoy, and digest over the long weekend. The weather forecast here in the Netherlands is glorious for this weekend so I shall be sitting inside with the curtains drawn playing old computer games. I kid, I’ll be outside wandering through the fields of joy. Okay, maybe not, but hopefully you all have some nice quality time to yourselves and your families and of course to the man Himself who gave his life so that we may be saved. Which was good of him, hence the name.
Anyway, on with it we shall proceed.
Let’s start off with an interesting one. A university professor in Australia suffered the ignominy of being fired from his job because he dared question the prevailing ‘science’ on climate change, I mean global warming, I means globals wermings. Well, he raised a bunch of money, took his former employer to court, and won his case quite spectacularly. One for the good guys.
Catallaxy Files has a nice breakdown of the judgement and I found it particularly interesting as to that old bugbear, the code of conduct. As well all know, nefarious employers have been relying on codes of conduct for some time so as to control wayward employees who might commit the sin of thinking for themselves. These codes of conduct have mushroomed into creeping documents of doom for all concerned. So it was encouraging to see that the judge on the case tore the university’s code of conduct into little pieces. And he did it with great scorn.
- Whilst cl.14.1 speaks of the commitment of JCU to act in accordance with the Code of Conduct, it does not, in that clause, bind anyone other than the university itself with the Code of Conduct.
- The clause puts its own limitations on intellectual freedom. The clause speaks of a “responsibility to respect the rights of others”. As referred to earlier in these reasons, there is no right to harass, vilify, bully or intimidate those who disagree with the views espoused.
- The clause links the rights to intellectual freedom to the responsibilities of staff to support the University as a place of independent learning and thought where ideas may be put forward an opinion expressed freely. The clause speaks of what staff should do and what they must do.
- When the clause already has sufficient limitations on the right to intellectual freedom, it seems incongruous to then impose other limitations that have not been expressly identified.
- If the clause is truly meant to be subject to compliance with the Code of Conduct, such a limitation would have been spelt out in the clause itself.
- As noted earlier, the Code of Conduct is not part of the EA. Clause 13 of the EA simply notes the existence of a Code of Conduct. It also notes that the Code of Conduct can be changed after “consultation” with the joint consultative committee.
- It seems incongruous that a document that can be changed by JCU, admittedly after consultation (whatever that means), can override a clause in an EA which can only be changed by the Fair Work Commission.
That last one is simply brilliant and a hole in the heart for all codes of conduct everywhere that are dreamed up by inept management and goaded by evil HR departments.
Via Maggie’s Farm a cool video of a guy who traveled from Europe to America on a container ship. Looks much nicer than modern air travel.
I’ve been reminded anew of this issue during the investigation into the recent crashes of two Boeing 737 Max airliners, one in Indonesia, the other in Ethiopia. It’s clear that Boeing needs to at least do some redesign work on their systems, to make them more transparent to pilots and easier to operate. Nevertheless, I can’t help noting the very clear signs that in both cases, maintenance and basic flight skills were lacking. I won’t go into detail here, because that would take far too long; but it’s already clear that the Indonesian aircraft was not properly maintained, and in both cases, the flight crews made several mistakes that may have been major factors in causing the crashes. Of course, it’s politically incorrect to say that, which is why neither investigation has yet come out and stated it in so many words: but if you talk to US pilots of the same aircraft, their opinions are pretty much unanimous. They can point to specific problems and incidents and actions, and criticize them on the basis of expert knowledge.
You may remember that I said exactly this when the crashes happened. Just saying. Keep her moving.
By the way, the Chinese system of collective farms was an example of hardcore socialism – i.e., government ownership and control.
So it’s hardly a surprise that it produced awful results. Including mass starvation.
But desperate times were the motivation for desperate measures.
…a farmer named Yan Hongchang summoned the heads of the village’s desperate families to a clandestine meeting. On paper torn from a child’s school workbook, the farmers wrote a 79-word pledge to divide the commune’s land into family plots, submit the required quota of corn to the state, and keep the rest for themselves.
And what happened?
Incentives and property rights worked. Spectacularly.
…farmers…reported a grain yield of 66 metric tons. This single harvest equaled the village’s total output between 1955 and 1970—but for once the figure was not exaggerated. In fact, villagers underreported their actual yield by a third, fearing officials would not believe their record haul.
Last week there were some heavy frosts in Europe. Here is a nice photo of French workers on a winery setting out frost protection.
When a woman has Heart Trust in a man, the Manosphere labels this as “affirmation mode”. Having the ability to continually operate with a woman in affirmation mode is an Alpha quality.
When a woman places Heart Trust in a man, the Tingles percolate. She’s always short of breath and walks around with her headlights on. Heart Trust is an aphrodisiac. This is because Heart Trust opens up the heart. It brings a person to life. It encourages faith and confidence. It breaks down psychological walls. It overrules egotistical Pride. It defuses defense mechanisms. It inspires respect. It affirms hope. It opens the eyes of the Soul.
This is partly because his purposes in life are independent of the outcome of his relationship with her, and partly because the man can handle all her S#!t with a fair degree of finesse. As a result, she knows there is no limit to that Heart Trust.
Interestingly, the boundaries presented by the man’s Frame serve to remove the boundaries that trap the woman in her own self-constructed solipsistic ℏǝll. These boundaries will determine her sense of security in the relationship. How tight or loose that boundary needs to be, is dependent on the individuals involved.
Washington, D.C., is going insane in anticipation of today’s release of the Mueller report, but honestly, I find it difficult to care. More than a year ago, I came to the conclusion that Robert Mueller’s “investigation” was actually a cover-up, intended to conceal or distract attention from the real scandal, i.e., that the Obama administration had authorized intelligence agencies to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign.