BaSH PR0MPT

The other night I caught Soylent Green on late night TV. I got to pondering the disposal of humans on mass scales, such as in a future world of great overpopulation, which led me to the most obvious example of mass deaths we have in history, the holocaust. I wondered how the German’s got rid of so many victims, there’s actually not much out there on the subject aside from allusions to mass graves, which is inefficient.

So I contemplated what the makers of Audi, BMW and Mercedes, et al would do to efficiently dispose of corpses and assumed they’d incinerate the vast majority if not all of them. Let’s take Auschwitz as one example to work with, whilst I can only find reference images of mass graves at that location I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they had an inkling of guilt enough to try and cover up their crimes and thus incinerated their victims. This is where it got gross. Whilst the only figures I can find online are from some lass named Lucy Dawidowicz or a bunch of batshit historical revisionists (who usually claim that the Jews weren’t killed and were merely talented at playing hide and seek) we’ll work with Lucy’s figures.

She estimates that 6,000,000 died, but her break down of the deathcamps gives us 8,000,000 plus.

Her figure for Auschwitz is 1.1 million to 1.4 million. We’ll work with the smaller of those figures. Now assuming that the average person produces a density of 30cm cubed of 10kg’s of ashes (this is original research, sadly, I admit, based purely on the several dozen creepy encounters I’ve had with ash remains of dead folk sans urns (no you sick fucks, they were in boxes from the funeral home)) by modern standards, so let’s double that to reflect the haste required of mass murder then assuming that the average mass grave was a good depth, say 3 meter trenches with at least 1 meter topsoil above them, that gives us 1.1m * 60 / 1000 (to give us the result in meters) gives us 66,000 meters of surface area divided by the 2 usable meters depth gives us 33,000 meters.

Or 33 square kilometers.

Now open Google Earth, and go to 50° 2′ 9″ N, 19° 10′ 42″ E, the location of Auchwitz.

Notice that it’s only about 2 kilometers square? Notice what’s around it as far as the eye can see?

… FARMS. D: D: D: D: D: D:

Now this is with the assumption that they burnt all their victims, which they probably didn’t. So this figure is relatively conservative, albeit the scientific aspect of it is hillariously poor given that it’s got more assumptions in it than a first year law class and a lot of my assumptions were based on the stereotype of German’s, but seriously … I went through each and every other prison camp registered as having carried out mass executions (that we KNOW of!) and around each and every one of them were farms. Farms for kilooometers. Nothing but farms.

That being said, these are only figures of the Jewish death toll, not taking into account Russians, Poles, Romani, the disabled, Freemasons, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and just about anyone else who looked at them funny. So whilst flawed, these figures may even be more conservative than expected when taking the grand scale of the executions into account.

I’d end this like I do most hypotheticals with the comment of ‘food for thought?’ but in this case I think I may just take up breatharianism.

I began pondering whilst watching Evan Almighty, the sequel to Bruce Almighty, where Evan is directed by ‘God’ (Morgan Freeman) to build an ark. He pointed out that he, his wife, and his three sons will build the ark. That’s when the stink of bullshit began, given the size of the ark, it’d be practically impossible to build with just three kids as labor. Although that being said, Noah began building it when he was ’500 years old’ and finished when he was ’600 years old’.

There are two takes on this bullshit age figure, some claim that people ‘lived that long back then’, which is pure pishposh, others claim that they were ‘given extended lives’ which also macks of buttfuckery, then there’s the ‘authors of the scriptures were morons’ which is more likely. At a literal value, 100 years build, a non literal value, we could safely estimate 10 years, with idiot authors adding an extra 0 to everything. Now, either way, 100 years sounds rubbish, so we’ll dismiss that out of hand, let’s work with 10 years. Could you imagine constructing some behemoth of wood with crude hand tools in the middle east, which was very technologically disadvantaged in it’s peasant regions which is where Noah was from? Course not.

I then began to question a conversation I had with a Baptist ‘professor’ from a ‘university’ that teaches creationism, I asked him a little about some dinosaur fossils they have that they claim are ’3,000′ years old. I introduced myself to him as a casual blogger who’s merely curious about these fossils. He immediately got defensive, snooty, rude, and demanded I provide him references as to what journalist outlet I represent and wanted a link to my blog to review my writing before answering my question. So let’s run with the generic creationist view, right. So we have 7 pairs of ‘clean’ animals and 2 pairs of ‘unclean’ animals on the ark. That means 14 of every dinosaur. That’d sink the titanic let alone the ark.

We also have 1.5 million catalogued species of animals that currently exist, with an estimated 50 million yet to be catalogued. So let’s run a median of 25 million. The average weight of an ‘animal’ per unit of measure can be factored in by examining a few dozen heavy animals and a few dozen light, finding a median and you get roughly 14 kg’s (most ‘animals’ are bugs, or small critters y’see), but now let’s do the math. 4.9 million tonnes of clean animals, 1.4 million tonnes of unclean animal. That’s 6.3 million tonnes of animal right there.

The size of the ark is given to us from various faiths as 157m (515ft) by 26.2m (86 ft) by 15.7m (52 ft) or 64,580 meters cubed. This gives us a density of 97.55 kilograms per meter cubed. This density of mass is merely 1g/cm3 off lead. The animals would have to be put through a blender and then compressed to an immense density for these figures to even match up.

That being said, this post did start on Twitter, with a comment of what was vexing me at the time. The Ark was built 5766 BC. We’re 2010 AD. In 7776 years, with over 400 BILLION photos on three of the biggest websites for storing photos online (and 10 billion on Facebook) I have not been able to seek and find a SINGLE IMAGE of a dove carrying a branch, twig, or even an olive, let alone an olive branch. So what’re the odds of that never having been seen since the end of the flood? Improbable, that’s what they are. THE ENTIRE THING MAKES NO SENSE.

I’m sure creationists won’t stop and apply critical thought based on this post, because … well, the entire concept of religion and critical thought in this modern era are diametrically opposed. I think only the Jews have had the bollocks to question ‘Gods will’, a brilliant example of which was when they put ‘god on trial’ in the death camps in WWII (Brilliant and touching film by the same name, really worth watching, reviewed by yours truly a few months back btw!) but the rest of us following Judiac derivatives are too full of cocks to think straight. Mind you, one or two figures may be inaccurate above, but the end result is still incredulous; although I’m sure crazy creationist types will find a single fault in my calculations and write the entire thing off as some random atheist slagging them (Note: I’m not an atheist, and it’s 3am on a Friday night, give me a break.)

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.

This morning Australian news sensationalised (gasp, shock) a new Auditor-General’s report reveals more than 13,000 soldiers are not considered battle ready. About 7300 had either failed the basic fitness test – the most arduous element of which is a 2.4km run – or hadn’t done the test in the last six months. About 5800 Diggers failed weapons proficiency tests or were overdue for refreshers.

The Auditor-General found only 18,900 soldiers, about 53 per cent of troops, were ready to go at short notice.

Now let’s draw things into perspective. The Australian Bureau of Statistics cites that the average weekly income of an Australian is $1,268.50 with the average public sector employee being exactly a hundred more at $1,368.50. There are several methods of entry to employment with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), but I’m writing this primarily as a post-grad qualified guy who dabbled with the idea of off-setting university costs with enrolment for some time before realising it just had no financial worth at all. If you’re a professional with even reasonable qualifications you can easily make four to five times in private sector as you would with the ADF. But let’s assume you’re not.

Let’s assume you’re a regular person who signs up at age 18, for the first two years you’ll be getting 2/5ths of the average weekly wage Australian’s would get elsewhere. On completion of training, you’ll get a base wage of $25-$30k based on the salary scale on the ADF website. At the HIGHEST non-commission rank you can reach (and let’s face it, a lot of ADF personel can spend twenty years in and not get a commission) CPO/WO2/FSGT you will be on $1,138.53 so you’re still falling $100 short of the national, or $200 of pub. sec.

The biggest insult of it all is, part time ADF employees don’t pay income tax on their ADF salary, whereas full timers pay the same income tax as civillians. So drop several more hundred off that reach for full-timers as Australia is one of the worlds highest taxed nations (not to mention surprise tax, as I like to call it, on almost everything you purchase, from GST, to stamp duty, to other mythical unicorn taxes, speeding fines, bus lane fines, parking fines that hedge just short of $300 a piece, you name it).

So it’s safe to say we’re a reasonably expensive nation to live in, the ADF are paying fuck all, and then people rage at them for having people who can’t be arsed. Would you do your job for their wage? Would you do THEIR job for their wage? Fuck no.

Food for thought.

Ever notice smart phones tend to lag before disconnection? Ever notice how much screwing around it takes to hang up on a caller if you’re using your hands free kit and have the phone in your pocket? It’s usually easier to let them hang up than scramble for your phone, home key, swipe, key in your pin, home key, tap the call, tap end call (in the case of iPhones) right? Well I got to wondering, just why do modern smart phones, even when you DO hang up, take so long to drop the connection? I figure it’s big money.

Let’s assume you don’t roll over into a new 30 second block, and merely pay per second, and let’s give it a really conservative estimate of 1 cent per second. The average time to drop carrier for my iPhone 3G’s and my iPhone 3GS is between 6-8 seconds. There are over 4.6 billion mobile phone subscriptions in the world. Let’s assume that all of these lag 6 seconds for efficacy of fact. That’s $240,000,000 in phone fees just from one design flaw coming out of every mobile phone owners pocket.

Let’s go one step further and assume that each phone makes one call per business day of the week, that’s $1.2 billion per week. I guess designing flaws in your technology is big business, because you know there’d be kick backs. Let’s not even count in the money makers of voice mail, or other scammy crap. $62.4 BILLION per annum, and remember these are conservative estimates.

Dear K-rudd,

You know, that almost makes you sound like a rapper. I am writing this merely to mock you, knowing the people reading it will appreciate the tongue in cheek as I illustrate the ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’ you’re dishing out to smokers. I’m aware you’re about as detached from reality as a politician can get, but I do know the 12 year old korean sweat shop workers you have in your off shore PR department will read this and hopefully also get a chuckle at your expense.

Smoking, filthy habit, right? Some say it’s as hard as heroin to kick. In Australia, the land of the ‘surprise tax’ as I like to call it (we’re already one of the most taxed nations yet we have ‘stamp duty’ tax on … everything, which is usually 10% (see: bankrupting on your first home or car purchase by surprise tax) as well as road tax, breathing tax, you fucking name it tax) but now we have taxes on taxes. Cigarettes were always taxed at a premium, where a pack of fags would set you back $7 in the 80′s and early 90′s as opposed to $1-2 outside Australia.

Smokers clog up the healthcare system, right? What with their dying all the time and stuff, why not tax them? Fine. Smokers pay a lot more tax than any other Australian, with almost 90% of the price of them being ‘tax’ all going to the medical system. But fuck giving them organs, they’re smokers. Hell, let’s tax them more. Now we’re nearing $1 per cigarette, and what happens? The price of ‘quit smoking aids’ which always work out to cost more than cigarettes go up too.

As much as governments pretend to want us to not smoke they realise that the tax they can milk out of us by keeping us alive an average 10 years more is far less than what they can by taxing our addiction. I say this as an intermittant lifelong smoker, who quits as often as he restarts, but fairs fair this new tax has gone way too far.

Heroin addicts get shooting galleries, social support, free housing, $380 a fortnight and FREE methadone to inject instead. Smokers get mortgages, bills, two point seven five children, two cars, and a fuckload of surprise tax on top of their taxed taxes of cigartaxes and placebo ‘quit’ substitutes that freely state in their instructions that they won’t give you the ‘fix’ or ‘buzz’ of cigarettes (and thus never last more than a week in a smokers addiction).

So, I propose this K-rudd, rather than making heroin far more appealing to Australian’s, how about you cut back on the smoking tax, or even it out across the three big killers, obesity (being the biggest killer in this nation) and alcohol (and see how long it takes until parliament house is burnt down and you’r nailed to the flag pole given how crazed Aussies seem to be about drinking (coming from a non drinker here)), which I might add are two elements I do not participate in. Maybe we should have photos of the mega-litres of fat sucked out of womens arses and thighs and the horrible chaffed cellulite gone necrotic fat people get attached to every edible product? Why stop there, why don’t we up the gore level and throw up some awesome pics from ogrish of splatter deaths from drunken road kills of people?

Or better yet, maybe repeal the tax and stop being a cunt, eh?

Much love,

BaSH (Your #1 Fan) PR0MPT

Ps: Why the fuck did I vote for him? I guess he was Obama before Obama, he looked good because the competition was horrendous, and promised the right things, then backflipped on all of them.

Every so often I ask random questions of my 10,000+ strong twitter follower list, ninety percent of the time you never get any coherent answer, nor a reply of substance. However my most recent rhetorical was driven by a torturous review of Atlas Shrugged and Rand’s objectivism in an application to moralistic and social practice.

Many people replied, however the most thought out response came from Gisele Baxter who’s quite the avid ball of gray matter and took the time and effort to address a very complex topic through the very limited means of 140 characters per reply.

I’ve figured instead of the redundant Follow Friday type setup, and considering I openly fun the Twitter Follow 4 Follow network (shameless plug: follow it for thousands of new followers, no catch) I should perhaps feature users who answer my random hypotheticals in illustrious manner.

Follow Gisele Baxter on Twitter

Question: At what point would you say a situation can transcend morality?

Answer: First of all, you need to consider if there is an absolute, universal definition of morality, and whether it is dogmatic or flexible.  Second, you need to consider whether you believe the universe is deterministic or whether it allows for the exercise of free will.

If your universe is flexible and allows for free will, it allows for socially determined definitions of morality, also for situation ethics. So now you have to decide in what situations actions that go against your moral code (however you arrived at it) can or should be taken.

Most people apply situation ethics to large-scale issues: the so-called ‘greater good’. So let’s consider: when might you kill someone? Would you kill someone to save a group of people, or even one person, from death or torture? Or kill someone to spare that person from pain? I’m thinking of a book review I read once, about hospital personnel who euthanized patients rather than let the Nazis get them.

There might be people whose morality is so absolute that they could not conceive of killing, in any circumstance, whatever the consequence.  But many people, at least in the moment, might find themselves able to make that choice, even if otherwise they’d say they couldn’t kill.

Theft is generally not regarded on the same level as murder, but some might be able to steal if they or their loved ones were starving.  And then there are the smaller moral quandaries: lies to protect people’s feelings, or to spare them knowledge they couldn’t deal with.  Like at the end of Heart of Darkness, when Marlow lies to Kurtz’s girlfriend: though Marlow hates himself after and feels he betrayed Kurtz.

In Apocalypse Now, Willard trades military-sanctioned murder (his mission) for something almost like assisted suicide in killing Kurtz.  But I’m either veering off topic or opening up a philosophical discussion that could go on and on and on. I like these questions though.

7,000 screaming pubescent teenage females rushed the barricades like estrogen fuelled psycho hose beasts for the party frank of a 16 year old boy who resembles a 9 year old (polar opposite of a manchild) who sounds like a 12 year old girl.

What’s wrong with this picture? What the fuck is right with it? (If you answered nothing, read on, else beat yourself across the head, re-read, and repeat until enlightenment)

It’s 2010, when our prime minister lied about stopping Japanese illegal whaling, withdrawing our troops from America’s war against adjectives, and getting rid of the vile fuck-the-workers “work choices” scheme … we saw no one swamp the streets to protest.

In 2008 during the mandatory censorship protests we saw only 5,000 mob Town Hall to protest the decay of Internet freedom in our nation not to mention free speech at the draconian hands of Senator-can’t-program-a-VCR Conroy.

What is wrong with a society which has crazed teen girls acting like sleazy 40 year old men with their hand in their pocket over some kid? In what jilted fucked up take of reality do we see people mobbing barricades and police lines over some b-grade net celebrity? When did Australia turn into the US?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m well aware that teenage females are the least intellectually gifted let alone autonomous minority in our society and I’m also aware that they’re brain washed to be the future of mindless consumption technicians that will keep our male workforce subjugated; but there’s something seriously wrong with parents who don’t discourage clearly unhealthy behaviour.

I don’t have children, well none that Centrelink can prove are mine, and I’m personally a fan of ‘late term’ abortions up to the age of 35, but seriously, seeing this in the news disgusted me.

These silly little trollops need to watch less OC/hills/jersey shore and get the fuck back into a classroom or better yet an adidas sweat shop. We boggle our logic to no end trying to figure out why women are paid less than men and have more dick-in-butt ratio in the socio-economic front yet allow borderline psychotic behaviour and encourage hive mentality and worship of TV-told-me-to tin gods. No male would get away with that over any female without their mates outright telling them they’re bent in the head and probably slap them around when they won’t talk about anything but their obsession. Not to mention the extremes many young girls go to (see: changing their online surnames everywhere to reflect obsessed marital fantasies) are just bizarre and unhealthy.

How young females can’t see that there’s no such tangible thing as a ‘fanboy’ but ‘fangirl’ is an ever present term and not appreciate that they’re jipping themselves out of individualistic thought or gender rights progression is beyond me.

Pre-pube girls, grow the fuck up. Pre-pube girl parents, put them in therapy you disillusioned cunts.