I'm about to import a bunch of stuff (photography junk mostly), and since I've previously been lucky (or clever) enough to avoid the $1,000 threshold for any one shipment, this is the first time I'm going to be subject to import duty.  I understand taxing imports, I really do, but what is leaving me a little annoyed is that I will be taxed locally on a service that isn't even provided to me, and is sold by an overseas entity, to another overseas entity.

See, outrageously, the taxable amount includes the value of postage.

I don't understand why I'm to be taxed on a service provided by UPS or FedEx or whatever, to the company that I'm buying my goods from.  Presumably the relevant taxes have been paid in the country of origin by the company sending the goods, the fees for which are passed onto me at the time of sale.

I understand that I must pay for that service, but I'm not importing postage, am I?  So why then must I pay import taxes on it?

In the grand scheme of things, the tax on the postage isn't going to be a big deal... like $20 or so, but given the number of imports and enormous transport fees paid by the larger distributors, this must come to quite a lot of money and of course it's always passed onto the consumer at the checkout, where we pay our tax on that tax.

That's not particularly cool.

I completely understand having to pay GST (10%) on inbound goods, and I'm even willing to swallow the 5% "buy from your local asian importer" tax, but import tax on the postage that isn't even strictly provided to me?  Rude.

Wow, I have to thank Karthik Narayanaswami for posting about these incredible sculptures by Bathsheba Grossman.

I'm a great fan of the visual expression of mathematics, and was completely blown away by the artistry displayed in her work.  Check out Karthik's much more informative post, then head on over to Bathsheba Sculpture to see them all.

My favourites would have to be the Schwartz' D Surface (left) and the Gyroid (right).  I could just stare at these things for hours.

I think when it comes time to properly decorate my offices, I'd love to have a really big one of these in the reception area.

From her site:

They're visions of order in the universe, my peaceful places.  I feel calm and hopeful in making them, and I hope they will bring some of the same satisfaction into your life.

Indeed they do.  I must have one.

I realise that Al Gore isn't particularly popular amongst Americans, but he seems to have won the respect of the rest of the world.  Accused of lacking personality during the United States Presidential Election in 2000, this is a man who has shown himself to be an intelligent, articulate and good-humoured guy who is passionate about his message.

Climate change is a contentious issue given our limited understanding of Earth's temperature fluctuations and our even more limited weather records, dating back only a very short time in the grand scheme of things.  It's easy to understand why people disagree on whether climate change has anything to do with man-made emissions or not, but one thing that should be easy to agree on is that reducing them can't in itself be a bad thing.  All that's left to work out is the finer points of when, and by how much.

People don't act on good ideas alone.  Prompting people into action requires the dedicated application of publicity in such a way as to personalise the issue for them.  If you can make people understand how they're involved, and keep the issue current, there's some chance that you'll be able to overcome the boundless laziness of humanity and actually get people to do something positive.

Agree with him or not, Al Gore is doing his part to keep the message out there, phrased in an accessible way and delivered via accessible media.  His political weight has helped garner him additional publicity for a campaign against climate change which has seen him win a Nobel Peace Prize which he shares with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In his acceptance speech he said that losing the 2000 election made him search for other opportunities to generate publicity for an issue which has always been important to him.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, "We must act."

He's clearly still mourning his lost opportunity in 2000, but he's not the only one.  We've now had the chance to get to know both men on the world stage and I hope you'll forgive me for saying that if the roles were reversed, I don't think George W Bush would have ever won a Nobel Prize of any kind.

Comparing these two, its hard to see how Bush was elected once, let alone twice.  I have no intention of forgiving America for that anytime soon.  Five minutes of airtime is enough to see that Bush would earn his place at a war crimes trial, and that he would escape punishment on grounds of diminished capacity.

As Al Gore continues to attract praise and adulation, I too mourn his loss in 2000.

I'll leave you with another excerpt from his acceptance speech:

The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, "One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door."

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: "What were you thinking; why didn't you act?" or they will ask instead: "How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?"

Our government's #2, Julia Gillard has assumed the role of Acting Prime Minister of Australia while Kevin Rudd is on sojourn to Bali for the climate change conference.  She is Australia's first ever female to assume the role, but I'm not convinced it's as big a deal as everyone says it is.

The media is making a big fuss about this, and so are women's groups, but I feel that all the fuss is misplaced and actually damages feminism.

In a world (and a country) where women hold positions of incredible power and wealth, the role of Deputy Prime Minister seems pretty underwhelming.  She isn't given much (if any) unilateral power, and compared with similar leadership roles in business, she makes barely any money.  She wasn't elected by popular vote, and her claim to fame is that she's keeping the seat warm for a man, while he's off doing more important things.

"I think the main thing that's important is that it gives that sense of visibly that we are at a stage where women can do anything."

Sorry Julia, but I don't think being a political housewife, left home alone and in charge of the kids for three days is necessarily groundbreaking female achievement.  Others have come before you with greater power, greater responsibility, and in fact greater visibility.  They're the ones who are entitled to use a word like 'anything'.

In an interview on today's morning television she said:

"I really do think that if there's one girl in the country that looks at the TV screen and it makes them think about what's possible for them, that would be a nice feeling."

Yes, girls should learn that the height of their achievement will be to play second fiddle to a man.  In a species with only two genders, that's not particularly encouraging, is it?

Why is everyone acting so happy and surprised by all this?  Is it really that much of a momentous shock?  Do we really think that Australia is any more conservative and backward than New Zealand or England?  Perhaps our political parties are, since they're not putting forward female candidates for party leadership, but that is only representative of some crusty old arse-kissers who love their boys club, not the rest of our population.

Less time had passed since the bra burning in the 1960s to the appointment of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1979, than has passed since then.  For women to be expressing this much glee is just a symbol of acknowledgement of their own perceived inadequacy.  It's condescending to celebrate this as though it were achieved by someone retarded.

It's high time women started expecting their own success instead of being surprised by it.  What might legitimately surprise them is that by and large, men already do expect that women will be successful, and don't feel that coddling is necessary nor beneficial.

No, really.

Eating several bananas today has left me with a question.  Why do only Americans think the second 'a' in the word 'banana' should sound any different to the first or the last?

Of course me actually asking it leads to yet more questions about the effect they have on the brain, but that sort of talk is far too high-brow for me, after the mountain of paperwork I've just shoveled through.

It's now 3:40am.  Monkey Squirrel want banana.