With one of the world’s most well-known companies, Apple, pulled in front of a US Senate hearing over the amount of tax it pays, there comes a greater question: who owns the corporate tax problem, particularly for multinationals? Have no doubt: this is not a problem confined to Apple. Even a casual search will show many large multinational corporations questioned by governments on their tax processes. Australia and the UK have been asking questions for a while, and now the home government for many of these companies – the United States – is also getting involved.

And there’s usually just a single, core question being asked – why doesn’t your company pay enough taxes?

Within this question, there are two key considerations:

1. What is a primary responsibility of a company towards its shareholders? (Either public or private.)
2. Who makes laws?

For the first consideration, from a financial perspective, it’s to maximise profit. The end result of which should be maximised return on investment for shareholders within the bounds of the law.

For the second consideration, it’s obvious: the politicians.

So where, pray tell, is the logic of politicians summonsing the CEOs and CFOs of companies to grill them about why they don’t pay “enough” tax?

Regardless of any ideals about ethics, history shows us that corporations will seek to maximise profits through whatever legal means available to them.

So the answer to the question, why doesn’t your company pay enough taxes? is clear – because governments don’t care. Adequate taxes will be paid when tax laws are adequate, and tax laws will only become adequate when governments set appropriate tax laws. If you think this is unachievable – that taxing multinationals across international borders is impossible, you need to rethink the word impossible. An example of impossible is “An unmodified 1991 Mazda MX-5 can be driven faster than the speed of light”. Cross-country tax laws? Hell, multinationals are subject to a swathe of laws that affect them regardless of their location; Sebanes-Oxley has implications for any public company that operates in the USA, irrespective of the amount of business they do there. Governments (such as the United States) have complex search and seizure laws that allow them access to cloud data, regardless of where it’s stored, if the cloud services company is American or even owned by an American company.

Taxing appropriately across international borders? Sure, it may be hard, but it’s hardly impossible.

So the next time you hear of a politician grilling a CEO or CFO about the amount of tax their company is paying, remember the person being grilled is just doing his or her job. The person doing the grilling isn’t.

• Those who are arguing for marriage equality;
• Those who are arguing against marriage equality.

The third side comes from those who don’t believe and marriage and therefore don’t see the point of the entire thing, and thereby insist the real solution is the abolition of marriage in its entirety.

They’re the Social Justice Warriors of the marriage equality debate.

There are plenty of people who don’t believe in marriage personally who are gainfully involved in the debate. There are those who aren’t married and have no intention of marrying who are saying marriage should be left “as is”, and there are those who aren’t married and have no intention of marrying who are saying that marriage should be extended to support same-sex couples as well.

But there’s this piping, distracting chorus from those who aren’t married and have no intention of marrying who can’t believe that marriage equality will solve anything, because marriages just shouldn’t happen in the first place.

They make about as much sense as someone who looks at “male” and “female” toilets and demands they all become simultaneous access unisex, because they don’t give a damn about urinating in front of someone of the opposite gender they don’t know.

Demanding the solution to the marriage equality debate is to end marriage entirely is a bizarro-world pipe dream – it’s a form of collectivism, “equality through equal loss”.

It’s also a pointless, worthless distraction, and it’s insulting to both sides of the argument. Whether you believe in marriage equality or want to keep the status quo, having someone jumping up and down on the sidelines sanctimoniously shouting “well marriage is stupid anyway!” isn’t helpful.

Yes, they’re entitled to their opinions.

Yes, there’s nothing stopping them from espousing those opinions.

But we need to keep in mind – the only people they’re “helping” are themselves, through petty self-aggrandizement. They’re not contributing to a healthy discussion, they’re wanting to change the topic entirely, and in doing so, hijack the entire movement.

The owners of a New Zealand guesthouse who refused to let a lesbian couple share a bed are standing firm despite threats.

The Age, “You’re not doing this in my home: lesbian bed ban sparks threats and abuse”, May 21 2013.

That’s the introduction to a story about a lodge run in Whangerei, New Zealand.

The lodge in particular is Pilgrim Planet, who have updated their website recently to fairly stridently point out that their ‘values’ are no longer in alignment with the values espoused by the New Zealand government.

And by dang, they’re not going to have any of it happen in their lodge. After all:

“Everyone knows what homosexual activity is. It’s quite clear if two guys rent one bed you know what’s going to happen. We have to protect our other guests.”

Mrs Ruskin, quoted in the above article.

Clearly they’ll be hammering all night long like carpenters building a tasteful credenza, and convert the entire population of the lodge to homosexual behaviour!

I’ve grabbed a snapshot the current frontpage of the website, and having read it a few times, I’ve got some changes to suggest.

Old Fashioned Values

We probably need to clear up this “old fashioned” values bit. It’s very, very open. Does this mean warrior gentlemen can bring female slaves they’ve captured in war to rape in their assigned rooms, thus forcing marriage upon the poor women?

Or maybe they mean that based on old fashioned values, they’ll also prohibit interracial couples from staying?

They should also be advertising what fabrics they’re using in their rooms. I’d hate to go and stay there only to find that they’re using a cotton/polyester mix, for that would be an abomination.

Will they clarify whether guests who wish to strictly follow bible scenes are allowed to visit? That’s traditional values, right?

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:20.

Activities

One of their main selections at the top of the page is “Activities”. Unfortunately and rather confusingly at the moment, this links to another page that mentions all the things you can do in Whangarei. This seems to be an oversight on the part of the developers of the website, because clearly it should just link to something along the following lines:

After all, we can’t have anyone thinking that they may be able to get up to anything that violates those traditional values, right?

Room Descriptions

Currently the room descriptions say:

5 modern soundproof, interestingly decorated bedrooms.

This probably should be updated to:

5 modern, soundproof, sin-free bedrooms.

Because that’s what they meant, right?

Internet Facilities

The Lodge lists that it has:

Free WiFi and guest computer

It probably should be modified to say:

Free WiFi and guest computer which must not be used to access gay or lesbian porn. Also, same sex location based dating SmartPhone apps must not be used on the free WiFi.

Location

The location states:

Ideally located for exploring Whangarei city and superb Mair Park bush/river walkway on foot.

To ensure people get the drift, it should be:

Ideally located for exploring Whangarei city and superb Mair Park bush/river walkway on foot and doing no homosexual activities in the park.

*

The gorgeous little sanctimonious footnote is a wonder to behold:

Essentially parliament’s concern is matters legal and the peoples’ concern is matters moral. When these line up we have peace and harmony but when politicians legislate against morality, a disconnect occurs. Unjust laws need to be questioned for if we fail to do this we will be corrupted by the law instead of edified and protected by it.

Yes! Just like when interracial marriages were permitted!

But seriously, it’s a shame they didn’t think of putting this tidbit on their website earlier. According to the Way Back machine, their website sidebar lamentably was just the following in February:

You’d think, given the discrepancy between the current and previous version of the page, that homosexuals in New Zealand were thoughtful, considerate practicers of chastity, determined not to have sex until they could do so in wedlock! Having met a few homosexuals in New Zealand, I can attest this is not the case. Bless their innocent little hearts at the Pilgrim Planet, they clearly hadn’t thought about out-of-wedlock homosexual sex!

There, those changes should clear it all up, shouldn’t they?

Then you wake up on a Sunday morning to unsolicited, unprompted messages like the above. They’re not unique, of course. For me, it’s at least fortnightly. For others, even more regularly.

There’s all sorts of techniques for dealing with those messages. Some people argue back, some people simply block, and others ignore. Personally, I choose to respond with a single short burst of unmitigated vitriol and contempt. It’s even had a really positive result a few times, eliciting an apology for poor behaviour. I’m not, after all, a fighter. I may look like some intimidating bikie, but I’ve never swung a fist in my life. On the other hand, language is my passion, and in these cases, my sword.

And there’s a reason I respond so strongly to such random vindictiveness, of course. It’s for all the people who get messages like that, and become thoroughly depressed about their self image; for the people who delete their profiles, withdrawing just that little bit more from happiness, and for the people who are unable to mentally shield themselves from the random attacks of gutless wonders.

It’s easy to demand that the GBLTI community be treated with respect and compassion. Do we deserve it though, in the face of those sorts of messages? Of course, those messages aren’t representative of the average GBLTI community member. So yes, of course, we do deserve the respect of the broader community.

We also deserve respect within our own community. We mustn’t forget that bigotry and bullying is embedded in our community as well as the broader community.

Silence and ignorance is complicity.

And then there’s the above.

Maybe a proximity joke, given the location, of course – but maybe the sighing release from someone just full of their own stresses and weary of the world around them.

Why oh why must I act like I give a shit?

I think we’ve all been there once or twice in our lives. Some, more than others. Where you reach that point where you just want to throw your hands in the air and say “f*ck it!” to the world and walk away for a little while.

What we often forget is that we’re entitled to do that, once in a while.

I love social media – I find great satisfaction in being able to interact so readily with a wide variety of people whom it would be otherwise impossible to gather into the same room. Yet, social media can trigger for some the same sort of “TIME OUT NEEDED NOW!” alert so many of us introverts find when we’re being inundated with activities, or surrounded for too long.

In other words, these days it doesn’t matter whether it’s physical or electronic, we can all reach a point from time to time where we feel a little overwhelmed. For some people it may never happen, for others, just once, and for others, it may be a regular occurrence.

But when it happens, it’s important to recognise it, to seize it, and to allow yourself to be selfish. In fact, to not think of it as selfishness, but self preservation. I am important, I need a break, I will focus on me for a while.

Sometimes, those of us left behind when someone chooses to withdraw or focus on themselves can suffer almost a form of abandonment, but we owe it to our friends and loved ones to realise that merely comes from over-thinking and over-analysing the situation. Occam’s razor in particular comes into play – and there’s little more simpler than someone saying TIME OUT!

When it comes to self preservation, there’s nothing wrong with being selfish from time to time.

Back in my day, kids were seen and not heard!

Back in my day, the youth respected their elders!

Back in my day, kids dressed properly!

Back in my day, kids worked hard for their pocket money!

Back in my day, kids took whatever jobs they could!

Back in my day, if we didn’t have, we’d just make do!

Somedays, you can’t turn around for seeing another newspaper article critical of a younger generation. Often, Gen-Y. It’s an unfortunately reality that so many people are quick to criticise behaviour in those younger than them, without fully considering the long term history, without taking the time to stop and consider the generational divide they had with their elders.

Back in my day, it drove us all nuts when older people would say “back in my day”.

Mr Combet used four-letter words to rebuke those who claimed Labor didn’t know what it stood for any more and that it had lost its values.

Combet Blasts ALP whingers, Chris Johnson, The Age, May 12, 2013

The sad thing is – Greg Combet is right.

Labor does know what it stands for. It also still has values. That’s not necessarily a good thing, however.

Consider some of the things Labor stands for:

• National Broadband Network – great idea.
• National Disability Insurance Scheme – great idea.
• Improving Primary and Secondary school funding – great idea.
• Improving that funding by siphoning funding from Tertiary education – not so great an idea.
• Imprisoning asylum seekers who have arrived by boat in harsh, dehumanising conditions, often for years.
• Placing some asylum seekers in the community, with strict requirements not to work and below-minimum funding, leaving them in crippling poverty.
• Being unwilling to sufficiently lift unemployment benefits, leaving people without a job in critically poor circumstances.

Sure, Labor knows what it stands for. Sure, Labor still has values.

But to suggest all those tenets it stands for are beyond reproach, and to suggest all its values are beyond reproach, is to stand on the edge of insanity and scream out for your winged monkeys.

Combet is right – Labor knows what it stands for, Labor still has values.

But a demand that we stop criticising, that we stop agitating for change, is, whether Combet would care to admit it or not, is at the core of what’s wrong with politics in Australia. Politics is about agitation. A long-held opinion of many commentators and historians in Australia is that by and opposition parties aren’t voted in, incumbents are voted out.

Maybe one of the reasons they’re voted out is because they become intransigent. Combet – and others like him – would do well to stop using four letter words and start using a six letter word: listen.

I make no bones about the fact that these days I prefer the Stargate franchise over Star Trek. I was late coming to Stargate, but if anything that gave me a concentrated experience – over the course of a little more than six months, Darren and I watched first eight seasons of Stargate SG-1.

But regardless of how much I prefer Stargate over Star Trek, the Trek franchise still holds a very firm place in my memories. I’m hopeless with names – I usually need to be introduced to someone a half dozen times before I remember their name, but show me 5 seconds of a Star Trek Voyager episode, and I’m likely to be able to tell you a fairly accurate summary of the entire episode. Same for The Next Generation, for that matter.

When the reboot of Star Trek was released in 2009, I cheered, and I thought the movie was, without a doubt, spectacular. Five out of five, four thumbs up (well, if I were some four thumbed alien) and 10 out of 10 wavy tentacles.

This one? I’d give it two and a half out of five, and it only gets over the line on the basis of special effects and acting.

At this point, be warned the rest of this review contains spoilers.

Given this was the second new Star Trek movie, as soon as the previews were released and the villain was human, it seemed entirely predictable that the villain would indeed be Khan Noonien Singh.

Depressingly, the plot of Star Trek: Into Darkness was as equally predictable as the villain. Indeed, it was pedestrian and mundane. As a friend commented at the time, replace Kirk with Bruce Willis and you would have effectively had Die Hard in Space. There were no surprises, no unexpected twists. A Starfleet Admiral ordering Kirk to park at the edge of Klingon space and fire missiles at their homeworld to ‘avoid’ a war? If there’s one thing we’ve learnt from Star Trek movies, it’s that unless an Admiral is 100% above the line, he’s a dirty low-down crook who’ll just as soon cut your throat as rescue your grandmother from a burning house. (With of course, the exception of Admiral James T. Kirk himself.) Oh, and surprise, Khan almost turned out to be good, but … no, wait, he’s still bad. Repeat, ad nauseam.

Even momentarily forgetting about the pedestrian plot, there was another poor writing choice within this movie. While applauded by many, the decision to re-use critical lines out of Wrath of Khan, and Search for Spock was, in my mind, not so much homage to what had passed, but laziness disguised as freshness via a little juxtaposition.

Kirk, dying in the irradiated engine room whilst speaking of his friendship, instead of Spock?

Kirk, telling Spock the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one?

Spock, screaming “Khan!” instead of Kirk?

This was like a “greatest lines” compilation, with new effects and sets wrapped around it, rather than a promise of something new and exciting. And the pedestrian nature wasn’t just limited to Kirk and Spock. Bones has been reduced to nothing more than a Metaphor Machine; acknowledged even as such within the plot itself, when Kirk effectively shouts at him to stop speaking in analogies. It seems that the Bones script largely wrote itself: every insult or exclamation (“Are you out of your Vulcan mind?!”) was fed into one random phrase generator, and every metaphor known to man was fed into another random phrase generator. Every time they needed a line for Bones, the script writers just pressed the appropriate button.

The interaction between New Spock and Future Spock was entirely predictable, and, much as I love Leonard Nimoy, something I hope never happens again. Paraphrasing:

New Spock: Did you ever run into anyone called Khan?

Future Spock: I said I wouldn’t tell you anything. I really swore. Because that would make things terrible. BUT yes, I did run into him and he’s really, really bad. It was bad. Bad, bad, bad.

Had they been in the same room, Future Spock would have been dressed like a magic 8-ball, and New Spock would have shook him for answers.

If this is the best that JJ Abrams and his writing crew can do for Star Trek, it’s time it gets passed on. Otherwise, the next Star Trek movie will be about a mysterious probe that starts digitising everything in its path at the start of the Klingon borders while it heads to Earth … or another mysterious probe that wants to talk to some whales. (How exciting would it be to hear New Kirk exclaim, “Everybody remember where we parked!”?)

It’s reboot. Not regurgitate.

Who are you?

What do you want?

In Babylon 5, two ancient races, implacably opposed, ask people two different questions – who are you? and what do you want?

Science Fiction or not, those two questions are largely representative of how so many of us go through our lives in a quest to understand who we are, and with a need to understand what we want.

We’re not only asking this of ourselves, but others ask it of us. Take job interviews, for instance. We’re asked to explain who we are. We’re asked to explain what we want – now and in the future.

With the who, and the what, it’s so easy to forget the other question, the why.

One of the most powerful, thought provoking videos I’ve seen, ever, was Simon Sinek’s TED presentation, How Great Leaders Inspire Action. If you haven’t seen it, I suggest you watch it now. Sure, it’s almost 20 minutes long, but it’s well and truly worth it.

The what we want and the who we are are easy; they’re also almost entirely pointless if they’re not driven by a why.

All around us, every day, we see the effects of people who become lost in the who and the what, to the exclusion of the why. They’re the people obsessed with making a quick buck from blogging, but are such terrible writers they just lurch from one bout of histrionics to the next, hoping the media will latch on and give them a free ride. They’re the people who work in an industry for the money, without any passion for it, and thus, without any skill.

There’s nothing wrong with having desires, but desires work best when there’s a reason behind them. And that reason can’t be a what or a how or a who, it must be a why. You want to make money? That’s not a reason, that’s a finish line in a race, and totally unrelated to why you went in the race in the first place.

In short, so many people spend their entire lives soul searching in the wrong places – they’re looking for their what and their who. You need to know those, of course, but they’re the easy ones. Really – they are. You can discover a what and you can discover a who at the drop of a hat. Ironically enough, that’s why there’s so many bad life coaches and self-help books out there – because it’s easy to convince people that they’ve found purpose by finding a what and a who.

It’s the why that takes longer to discover, and that discovery comes from within, not without. Yet, it’s much more rewarding when you do. Your what and your who are the things that make you smile; your why is that deep-centred epiphany that lifts you and gives you purpose no matter what else life throws at you.

What’s your why?

And if it happens to be Wile E. Coyote standing in the path of the avalanche, a tiny umbrella suddenly appears for protection, but it doesn’t achieve anything.

We’re at that pebble-bumped point with marriage equality in the western world, with opponents holding up their flimsy, tiny umbrellas in the hopes of stopping the onslaught.

Except, as we’re seeing demonstrated in the countries where marriage equality has come to pass, there’s no onslaught. Societies aren’t disintegrating, divorce rates aren’t shooting through the roof, water supplies aren’t being filled with mutated ill-tempered sea-bass, and babies are still being born.

Even in United States, often dominated by conservative christian thought, the individual states are starting to tumble. Today, a friend messaged me to say:

Marriage equality passed the Minnesota House today bipartisan 75-59. It will easily pass the Senate and be signed by Gov Dayton on Monday. Minnesota will be #12 plus DC.

The United States goes on, despite what crazies holding their comic little cocktail umbrellas are saying.

The world goes on, just as it has gone on before, but with just that little bit more equality in it. Each country that achieves marriage equality adds to the proof that there’s nothing dangerous or society-shattering about it.

It’s not to say we can be complacent about marriage equality if we haven’t already achieved it … we are the rocks tumbling down the mountain, both us and those who have already gained their equality.

We must continue to tumble, and with it, the barriers to equality will keep tumbling down.

-Epilogue-

Ironically, I have to point out that my tumbling won’t include attending the marriage equality rally in Melbourne this weekend. That may make it seem like I’m not doing all I can, but quite the contrary. I intend to show my solidarity with everyone offended by the parasitic socialists who have usurped the rallies in Australia with their own bitter and radical politics. Equality at any cost is not equality at all.