Schrodinger’s Cat, Trump And Tax Cuts
Most of you have probably heard of the famous thought experiment proposed by Schrödinger where there’s a cat in a box and a vial of poison. If the poison has escaped then the cat is dead, but if the vial is still intact then the cat is alive. Consequently, the cat can be thought of as both alive and dead at the same time.
Of course, those of you who aren’t physicists aren’t so sure that a life trapped in a box is really a life although the philosophers among you may argue that we are all trapped in a box, but whatever, it’s only a thought experiment and, like the square root of negative one, the cat doesn’t actually exist, so there’s no need to call the RSPCA.
I couldn’t help but think of Schrödinger’s cat when someone started talking about Trump’s hold on the Republican Party the other day. According to rhetoric from Donald, he’s an anti-establishment outsider and that’s why Washington politicians are so opposed to him and why Deep State is working against him. However, like the cat, this hasn’t killed his sway with the Republican Party where, almost without exception, those in Congress back him to return as President. This is reminiscent of Reagan’s “Government is not the solution, government is the problem”, which could be considered a confession from someone who’d been a governor and a President, but I don’t think that was what he was trying to convey.
Similarly, Trump is both concerned about the lawlessness of various groups, while openly showing contempt for the legal system. Interestingly his argument in a number of cases is not that he hasn’t broken any laws; rather that the President has immunity. A point which his supporters consider to be both true and untrue – the cat again – because they simultaneously agree with this, while calling on Biden to be tried for corruption, treason, stealing an election and being a couple of years older than Donald…
All of which brings me to the tax cuts which Sussan Ley will wind back in government but also not wind back in government. Apparently, Labor are spreading a lie by repeating her exact words… A statement that can be true and untrue, because if her statement was a lie and Labor are spreading it, then they ARE spreading a lie, but if she wasn’t lying then Labor aren’t…
Ah, these tax cuts have caused the Coalition a bit of confusion. For example, David Littleproud has made the assertion that $190,000 a year is not a lot. This would be a good time to ask him if he thinks the payment to the unemployed should be raised. Notwithstanding that, David reminds us again that a cat can be both alive and dead, by going on to tell us that the tax changes are class warfare. Perhaps it’s just me, but if those on $190,000 aren’t earning a lot, how is it class warfare? I mean class warfare isn’t the poor against those not earning a lot as far as I’m aware.
Whatever, I expect that the Coalition may decide to wave the Stage 3 changes through, rather than hold them up and make them something that people focus on. Too much attention and people may become aware that the poor people on $180,000 are still getting a tax cut of $3729. Ok, it’s not as much as they were going to get, but when someone on $60,000 who’s only getting $1179 hears that someone earning three times as much is getting more than three times the tax cut and they’re the ones complaining, well, that’s when you will have a bit of class warfare happening…
I could be wrong. Just because it’s the sensible thing to do doesn’t mean that Peter Dutton will do it. Actually, when I think about it…
After all, Peter Dutton did say that he thought that big corporations like Woolworth’s should stay out of politics, so I guess this means that he’ll be asking his party to ban political donations from any large corporation because surely donating to a party is getting involved in politics.
It’s really quite interesting when you look at all the people who shouldn’t be involving themselves in politics. We have big corporations. Also, unions shouldn’t be involved.
There’s another example of Schrodinger’s political situation right there: Last week Liberal senator, James Paterson, was suggesting that the Albanese government was too willing to do the bidding of big business. Of course, this man is from the same party that regularly suggests that it’s the unions dictating Labor policy.
And, of course, there were suggestions that local councils were “being political” by not holding citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day and this was outrageous because local councils shouldn’t be political because politics is all about people who put forward positions and get elected which local councils don’t… oh wait!
Teachers also shouldn’t discuss anything political in the classroom. However, they should teach about the benefits of mining. Teaching about any problems with mining would no doubt be political, as would climate change or explaining how science works…
As for students, well they should be in school, not attending protests or writing letters to MPs or even thinking about anything but the 3Rs… And they shouldn’t think about the 3Rs too deeply or they may wonder why only one of them actually starts with an “R”.
And universities shouldn’t really get into politics either. Unless it’s some study that backs up Gina Rinehart’s desire to be the richest person alive.
Charities too shouldn’t be political. The Coalition passed legislation forbidding charities from getting political. Pity Josh Frydenberg didn’t understand that it also referred to people from the Guide Dog Association endorsing him. He thought it only applied to ones critical of the government.
Churches also shouldn’t get involved with politics unless they’re endorsing the Coalition. Any of this bleeding-heart lefty nonsense isn’t a position that a church should involve itself in.
So the list of people who shouldn’t be political includes ABC presenters, the Public Service, big corporations, unions, teachers, local councils, charities, students, universities…
Oh, and Marxists.
Yep, the only people who should involve themselves in politics are the people who agree with what the Murdoch papers are telling us…
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
9 comments
Login here Register here-
Phil Pryor
-
Hotspringer
-
Canguro
-
New Bruce
-
Clakka
-
John Haly
-
John Hanna
-
Andrew Smith
-
B Sullivan
Return to home pageOld scrotumfaced scrotty scummmy R Merde Dog, the treacherous ex-Australian, has magnified his egopersona to huge swollen bloatedness, all to make his limited and distorted views unmistakeable and overbearing. He rents the services of the damned, deviates, dills, drongos, dregs and dropouts from realtiy, all to bend the ear of the world profitably. Promoting, say, a Trump, is just so fun, money for gossip, cash for crass comment, dough for delusion. It is a huge POX on mentality, objectivity, honesty, decency, legality and “common sense” of which there is little in the aridity of USA discourse. This evil stinks…
That swine Schrödinger never had a cat, only a dog. He had no idea how superior cats are.
Hotspringer, re. the reference to der schwein Schrödinger, I’m guessing your opinion is a function of this aspect of his behaviour? He was, sexual proclivities aside, one of the eclectic group of brilliant physicists & mathematicians in the early 20th C whose aggregate efforts paved the way for the emergence of the electronic era; computers, mobile phones, GPS and much much more. I don’t think he attracted criticism apart from his infatuation with young girls.
Getting back to the box.
How big is it. Does the box have a litter tray? What about a dinner flap ? Does it have a sea view?
If a cat is expected to live on the “it’s not a lot” of $190G then I would like the box to be in a good location. What cat would like to have to live in some crappy transportable container next to the hillsong cult?
But I digress.
Has someone worked out that Schrodinger actually put the cat, and the poison, into trumps’ head? That is the only reason that I can come up with for the ex pres to be such a strange colour, and to say such incoherent things.. He has a combination of poison and catshit slopping around between his ears, and he can’t think straight for the incessant need to scratch himself. Poor guy……
How much does the lnp pay the voldemurdichracy to keep their heads in the game? Ever since Albo and Chalmers came up with the satge 3 reshuffle, the ragtag and bobrtail too the Speakers left have tied themselves in knots trying too get their own gotch on the guvvm’nt, but have only succeded in putting their feet in one anothers’ mouths. Their semi tame harpie, ssussan came out with the cunninge planne of just reversing the free giveaway until she worked out that, fuck, some of us plebs actyually got something. Just yesterday, the dealer of the notionless, little davey proudfootinmouth came to the enlightened decision that a number times the standard blue collar and teacher, police, ambo type wage was “not a lot” and class warfare had been declared. Not sure on whom, but I’m ready……..
The only ones who are still aware of the “truth” are the msm, who keep up with “He LIED” as the only reality We the Voter need to know, which led to the pm being hecled at the tennis over the weekend. All of the nobs in their megathousand dollar seats were obviously pissed off that instead of the guvvm’nt paying for their tickets via their S3 tax cuts they had had to pay for them themsemselves. poor darlings. It must be hard having to work out where $20grand for the tennis finals weekend plus food and drinks is going to come from. Plus accomodation, because all of the boxes in Melbourne are already occupied.
Trump and his downtrodden adoptees, the LNP, hiding in the donor box while at the same time being outside at large bigging themselves up, may indeed have had Schroedinger to thank for their conjuring.
It seems though, believing they’d become the masters of obscurantism, they got a tad ahead of themselves when they launched as NFTs. Wail as much as they might, they seem to have forgotten that one can’t take the fun out of fungible, and no matter how much they would like to be loud whilst not there, eventually the law and the punters love to kick the shit out of the deceiver losers.
Ahh, the ivory tower of hypocrisy and double standards from politicians and those from whom thy thin skin be fair but religion dark. Consider the combination of the white Evangelical politician (Morrison comes immediately to mind) are a unique sort of evil that lacks any perspective into the human condition, and whoes sociopathically has no empathy or desire for equality with others but self perceives themselves as judges condemning fellow human’s plights as beneath them. From their own biblical perspective hypocrisy was the one thing that brought Jesus to anger. The fig tree and the money changers being prime examples.
When it comes to Morrison I am reminded of when banks who break the law were smacked on the wrist and at the most their company directors lose their job but only if the shareholders decide that is appropriate. There Mr Morrison does not want to interfere or ensure integrity or apply Laws to upset or heavens forbid, “ban a bank” BUT if it is a Union then he wants laws to interfere, and close a Union.
Is it only me that spots the ideological hypocrisy in these two position by Scott Morrison on different industries? Of course not. I must although complement Rossleigh on the structure of this argument and how well the parallel so constructed works! Thank you for that!
I think the ALP should consider banning the family trust since it allows farmers (and other rich people) to earn their income through an income splitting entity.
Family trusts are a convenient way to minimise your personal income tax by (on paper) apportioning a slice to each family member.
The users of family trusts declared class warfare on the rest of us many years ago and NO government is brave enough to ban the provision because it would be very unpopular with the farmers.
No doubt all the investment properties owned by members of parliament are structured that way. Anyone earning $190k is probably on a contract of some sort and in all probability already has a family trust into which the salary is paid.
Universal symptom of nativist authoritarians or proxies acting for power, their fear of educated younger people and the future.
Even with a natural constituency of above median age skips and right wing media support, they still struggle to gain traction; except their broken commitments on The Voice referendum used to kick off a permanent electoral campaign.
How casually we use our language to reinforce injustice. Some people have incomes of $190,000 a year, but did they all really earn it? When we say that they earned $190,000 in a year the use of the word earned implies that they deserved it, that they received payment commensurate with the effort required by the work that they performed. But did these ‘earners’ really work ten times longer or harder or even more responsibly or smarter than the workers who were only paid $19,000 for their efforts? Do billionaire tech giants earn their billions? Are the workers who slave away to make those giants rich paid so little because they don’t do enough to earn more, because they don’t deserve to paid more?
Do billionaires really earn a thousand times more than mere millionaires because they work a thousand times harder or longer? Our use of the language says they earned it, therefore it is automatically understood that they deserved it. We should take a lot more care of how we use our language, and not make it a weapon of class warfare that serves to endorse the status quo of the privileged.