 |
|
|
|
| Most Recent Postings |
|
 |
| Redneck fashion | |
Feminists love to scream 'victim' of course, and now they are exploiting the
genitalia of Australia's new PM to score political points. It seems that our new Prime
Minister Julia Power-Woman Gillard has made a few
fashion faux pas. Like mistakenly wearing a cheap hotel bed-spread, thinking it
was a coat. Apparently this makes her a victim because 'society' judges women by the
way they look, not by the way do they do their jobs. Of course the feminists
don't say that 'society' in this case is basically other women (since most men
think that a fashionable women is one who is still wearing lacy lingerie in
their internet download). But somehow that still makes women victims of a male
dominated patriarchal society waging an undeclared war against WIMMIN!. Confused?
Well, it gets worse .. Now there are calls for fashion-model Julia to be given a special clothing
allowance ($70,000 a year of tax-payers money has been suggested) because she
is a woman. Of course a powerful and confident women couldn't possibly just do what men
do - wear a dark colored business suit with a few changes of shirts and splash
of color from a cravat or something. No no, the first woman to break the
ultimate glass ceiling, the woman who runs the country has no choice but to
conform to society's stereotypes. In other words, Dear Reader, women should be paid more than men for doing the
same job. And here we were thinking that feminists just wanted equal pay for
equal work! Of course some equal pays are more equal than others.
|
|
 |
| Reelection chances refloated | |
Every proponent of free markets likes to watch an auction. An auction
cuts through the socialist rhetoric about needs, social justice, and
humanitarianism. The rubbish about 'the rights of the stakeholders' counts for
nothing. The auctioneer doesn't care how much you want something. Saying
'but I really, really want it' doesn't cut much at an auction. The
auctioneer will just sell to the highest bidder. If you want it more than the
other guy, you'll bid more for it. And of course politicians big against each other for votes. Usually they get
elected by promising to spend more money than their opponent, but there
are bids on other things too. US politicians are well known for having execution
auctions ('vote for me because I'll execute more convicts than my opponent'),
but in Australia we are more civilized, and politicians normally confine their
auctioneering to wasting greater and greater sums of hard-earned for taxpayers
money. Well, normally. Astonishingly, yesterday saw a policy auction between Australian
politicians which didn't simply involve spending more money. This auction was
about asylum seekers. The Labour and Liberal parties were having a 'we'll
deport more asylum seekers than you will' day. Julia Australia-needs-a-woman's-compassion Gillard
threw down the gauntlet by proclaiming that people should not be labelled
'rednecks' simply for expressing concern over the ever increasing number of
boaties. Then Tony he-man Abbott started the bidding by saying
that he would immediately send anyone back who deliberately destroyed their
documentation (asylum seekers are well known for throwing their documentation
overboard just before being picked up by Australian Authorities - it makes it
harder for Australian Authorities to disprove fabricated claims, and helps to
protect their employees - the so called 'people smugglers', who supply
transport, logistics, GPS units and the satellite phones they use to ring the
Australian navy, demanding to be 'rescued'). So Julia look-at-what-I'm-wearing Gillard promised
to set up an offshore processing center in East Timor. Uninvited boaties would
be sent to the center to have their claims processed, and many (like nearly
everyone from Sri Lanka) would never even step foot on Australian soil. Of course Julia's solution was nothing like
Johnny we-will-decide-who-comes-here-and-the-manner-in-which-they-do-so
Howard's 'Pacific Solution'. No no.
Little Johnny's solution was to have forlorn and destitute asylum seekers in
Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Julia's solution is to have forlorn and destitute
asylum seekers in East Timor. See the difference? Umm .. anyway .. This is actually a master stroke by the fashion challenged PM. Because they
couldn't possibly reuse infrastructure set by the previous government in Nauru
or Papua (that would be inhumane), negotiating with the East Timorese, choosing
a site, and setting up the much-more-humane infrastructure in East Timor, will
all take time. That is, Dear Reader, it can't possibly happen until after the
next election. In other words, Julia can call the election, and survive the election
campaign without actually doing anything - just making more promises. Nice work if you can get it. There will be a few awkward moments after the election of course (having to
explain why the promised policy changes are now suddenly totally
inappropriate), but that is what politicians do. And everything in politics is
about winning the next election - focussing on later elections is pointless if
the next election is lost, particularly with the half-life of the average
political leader resembling a Chernobyl meltdown. So Julia has found a solution to take her through an election win. Not a
Pacific Solution, not even really a Timor Sea solution. Just a temporary
solution. Until the next Labour back flip. Julia is seeking asylum in the rhetoric of a tough border protection
policy.
|
|
 |
| Why fuss over this? | |
For the proletariat, Ayres Rock is the place to go to have your babies eaten
by wild dogs, but the big red rock means considerably more than that to us
intellectual elites. Uluru (ie Ayres Rock), is an important symbol of traditional Aboriginal
culture, and many of us remember being forced to sit in school watching grainy
anthropological films of overweight topless Aboriginal women performing their
not-so-secret women's business - dancing around at their corroborees, before
being forced to write essays on the sanctity of multiculturalism. This is a traumatic image which for most of us, thankfully, fades from memory
over time. But not so for 25 year old French exotic dancer Alizee Sery, who
apparently was to taken by these anthropologist gems that she felt the need to
make a tribute to the traditional owners of Ayres Rock, by doing as the local
Aboriginal women traditionally did - going topless and dancing.
Fortunately for
the sake of posterity, she had the presence of mind to bring her own amateur
anthropologist to film the event, and then (in the interests of sharing) put
the film up on youtube. At this point, one could comment merely on the artistic nature of the film. It
is foreign film made in Australia, which captures the harsh and rugged beauty
of the Australian landscape, and yet contrasts it skillfully with the soft
curves of the female form. But that would miss the significant cultural
contribution of the film itself. It would be hard to imagine the Aboriginal population objecting to anyone doing
what they had done themselves for the last 40,000 years or so, but the local
Elders seem to have gotten upset once Alizee's film went viral. Local Elders
have been so fired up over Alizee's film that they have even demanded her
deportation. Why on earth would they do such a thing?
Maybe they are trying to create a monopoly on topless films?
Or maybe they just don't like French?
|
|
 |
| Coming soon to a politician near you | |
In this day and age we are expected to be tolerant of those who are
'different'. 'Different', of course means lots of things, but some of us old timers,
'different' generally meant homosexual. Like in the footy for instance - where gay footballers have recently been
advised to stay in the closet. Whether closet means 'water closet' or 'locker
room' in this instance isn't clear, but basically it's between them, their
friends, families, and their locker-room shower-mates. It's none of our
business, and most of us like it that that way. There is, of course, a principle here. The price we pay for keeping people out
of our bedrooms is that we stay out of other people's. And in the case of gay
footy players, most of us are happy to oblige. But does the same standard apply to politicians? Well, in an ideal world it
would. If a senior state-ALP minister were to, say, frequent gay sex clubs (to
pick a completely random example), would it be anyone's business apart from his
friends, family, gay sex partners, anyone with a video camera, any of his
constituents, those who came under his power as a state politician, and everyone
disgusted with the fact that state ministers continually set themselves up as
the high priests of personal and sexual morality? Well, probably not, but that's an awful lot of us. Maybe when NSW Transport Minister and closet homo David Campbell campaigned on
platform of 'family values' he should have let us know whether he regarded
anonymous gay sex partners as 'family'. Maybe calling him self 'Camp Bell'
should have rung a .. well .. camp warning bell with the voters, but such
things are not generally regarded as reliable indicators. Unlike video evidence. In a more rational world, government would limit itself to stopping murder,
rape, assault and theft. But politicians with power are like drug addicts.
They need more and more control over people's lives. What do you say to someone who dictates what people can watch on the TV, what
they can access on internet, what they can eat or drink, and who they can
marry, and then blames the media for 'unfair media attention of their private
lives'? Only three words: ha ha ha. Just because the State displays a keen interest in your personal life, does not
mean the state is your friend.
|
|
 |
| A nose for political opportunity | |
We all like to explore our feminine sides occasionally .. getting
pampered when we are sick, watching the occasional chick flick, employing
that Asian lady with the big boots and the whip .. But most of us have no interest in exploring our feminist side. Surely
only the most retarded spineless gender apologist would want to to explore total
self-loathing. Which brings us to Tony (Sluggo) Abattoir. It all started with Sluggo playing to the conservatives, and insisting that a
Sluggo-led government wouldn't raise any taxes, or to introduce new ones. Good
move Sluggo, and self respecting rednecks raised a glass to you. Or at least a
cold can. But then he let his teenage daughters talk him around, and convince him to
force the taxpayer to finance their reproductive ambitions. Suddenly he was in
favor of paying middle class women up to $75,000.00 to pop out a baby - paid
for by a great big new tax on big business. Then he got cornered by Kerry O'Brien on everyone's ABC and admitted that the
two were 'not entirely consistent', and said that he was 'not always entirely
accurate' in the heat of verbal combat, that his words couldn't be taken as
'gospel truth' unless they were in writing. What was Sluggo thinking? Maybe telling a lie is okay if you say it
quickly enough? ABC journalists do present themselves as the high priests of of
democratic thought. Maybe Sluggo thought he was back in confessional or
something? Sluggo is perhaps the first politician honest enough to admit lying. Thanks for
your honesty, Tony, but it's a bit hard to sing your praises for this. It's a
bit like the partner who loves you enough to admit to having an affair. 'thanks
for your honesty you deceiving b...'. But enough about the ex- .. Normally it's easy to tell when a politician is lying - his lips move. But Tony
(Sluggo) Abattoir has proven to be the exception to the rule. A
politician telling you that he is a liar, is clearly telling the truth. Sluggo is, of course, not the first politician to break promises. Bob Hawke had
his 'no child in poverty' mandate, Paul Keating had his 'L.A.W. law' tax cuts,
Howard had his 'core promises', Kev's ETS commitments are now on hold
indefinitely, and of course there was George Bush Senior's classic: 'Read my lips. No
new taxes'. But broken promises are not the same as lies. Sluggo, admitting you are lying
doesn't make you seem more trustworthy. And that's the gospel truth.
|
|
 |
| Debt squeeze for the PIIGGS! | |
Some of us mere mortals struggle with the complexities and subtleties of
international finance and government borrowing, but in a nutshell Dear Reader,
the Greek sovereign debt crisis can be summarized as follows. A bunch of thugs (the 'Greek Government') borrowed a whole bunch of money from
some loan sharks (banks in France and Greece) and signed a form promising that
the money would be paid back by someone else (the Greek people). They then used
the money to try to retain power (mostly though buying votes from stupid
Greeks), while all the time lying about how much they were spending and how much
they were borrowing. Eventually they got caught out in the lies, and two things happened. Firstly
the loan sharks wanted their money back, and secondly, no one wanted to lend
them more money. The thugs weren't able to extort enough money from the Greek
people to pay the interest on the loans, so the whole charade was close to
collapsing. Exactly why having this charade collapse would be a bad thing is beyond us
mere concrete thinkers. If some common street thugs tried this stunt, then the
lenders would lose their money and everyone would say "It serves you right. Why
did you think that anyone else had an obligation to pay you the money you lent
to those thugs?". Apparently though, basically morality and common sense don't
apply to big governments. Everyone panicked and screams of 'market failure'
convinced the proletariat that a regulated government solution had to be found. So the thugs got some other thugs (in this case the German government) to lend
them some money, so they could pretend that all the debtors would get their
money. So how did the German thugs get the money to lend to the Greek thugs? Well
they borrowed it from some other loan sharks, and signed a form saying that
someone else would pay it back (in this case the German people). And everyone said how good it was for the German thugs to do this. Thank
heavens that the 'market failure' was dealt with with unprecedented government
intervention! Even Wayne Swan made obscure references about the Greek crisis
reminding us that the world economy was not out the woods. And then promptly
used this as an excuse for borrowing another 50 billion dollars on behalf of the
Australian taxpayer. Is everyone suffering lead poisoning here? Or just the voting public? Think for a moment, Dear Reader: what would happen if market forces were
allowed to do their thing here? Well, the Thugs (the Greek government) would be
unable to tax the Greek people highly enough to pay the interest, and then
simply default on the loans. The banks would lose money. Shareholders would be
unhappy. Heads would roll. Investors would look nervously at all the other
governments who have borrowed trillions of dollars promising repayment by
people who haven't even been born yet, and these governments would have to pay
higher interest on their loans. Irresponsible government defaults would
spread around the world like Greek Fire. And the fiction that loans to governments are risk free would be totally
discredited. The interest on government loans would be so high that it would no
longer be regarded as responsible to governments to borrow money for 'social
justice', 'equality' or 'economic stimulus'. Governments would still steal from
the populations, but at least they would be stealing from the current
generation (who are better position to stop it) and not from future generations. And none of this would be market failure - it would be simply the market at
work. Investors would think very carefully about where to entrust their money
in the future. And fifty years of moral hazard could be avoided - specifically
the expectation that bad investment decisions can be undone simply by large
enough government interventions. But alas this will not happen - at least not yet. The governments of the world
fear the facade dropping to reveal wizard behind the curtain, as the faces of
millions of deceived voters decide that the needs of the many really do
outweigh the greeds of the few. And politicians around the world are closing
ranks. Even the Turkish government has rushed to support its Greek
counterpart. Apparently hundreds of years of hostility, border disputes,
invasions, and religious wars count for nothing when politicians' mutual
interests are involved. Some of us were taught to be wary of Greeks bearing gifts, but maybe now the
Greeks should show some wariness of German favours -
wooden horses of the world of global financing are disguised as piggy banks.
|
|
 |
| Size matters! | |
Anyone who thought the Punch-drunk Tony was a bit bird-brained had their worst
suspicions confirmed this week as the opposition leader announced a
maternity leave scheme to top all maternity leave schemes. In a brand new
scheme to populate the nation, Australia's favorite budgie smuggler announced
that women would receive six months full pay if they popped out a baby. And all
paid for a new Great Big Tax! Of course the Great Big Tax wouldn't be paid by us commoners, no no. It would
only be paid by Large Corporations. That is - out of our compulsory
superannuation contributions, which are largely invested in (you guessed it)
Large Corporations. Worried about having to eat dog food in your old age? Well don't be, because
your savings went towards impregnating some woman who was earning $150,000 a
year. Feel better now? Those of you who thought that impregnating women was
supposed to be more fun than that need to reconsider their priorities. Like
getting Tony Abattoir elected. Political parties are well known for panicking when an unwinnable election
looms, and hard-nosed conservative politicians are not immune. A Liberal
ideology about greater responsibility and small government is all very well,
but it's just not sexy. Voters, like naive young girls, want promises of care,
commitment, and the ability to live at someone else's expense. At least in the
short-term. And how long does seduction take? Well, in the case of the federal election, possibly until the the start of next
year. The cement might already be dry by then. Tony started his run too early. The last laugh though, had to go to Peter 'not-my-job' Costello, who compared
Punch-drunk Tony's antics to those of Crocodile Dundee who, when confronted
with a knife announced "that's not a knife, this is a knife" before producing a
bigger and more impressive knife. Tony's Maternity Scheme is bigger that Kevin's Maternity Scheme. And it seems
that size is important. Especially when you are wearing budgie smugglers.
|
|
 |
| Explosive undies - silent but deadly! | |
Normally exploding undies are the butt of people's humor. The merest whiff of
an undies joke is enough to make the bottom feeders of the sophistication
hierarchy chortle with delight. And make The Elites sniff with disdain. But there is nothing funny about this particular set of exploding undies
because they were being worn by a member of one of the Religion of Peace (a
group not known for their lighthearted humourous nature). An angry little psychopath named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab thought that
exploding vests were just .. like .. sooo 2002, exploding shoes were just sooo
2001 and exploding backpacks were just sooo 2004. He decided to get down and
personal with his suicidal obsession and blow up the
airplane he was on by lighting up his undies. Farouk returned to his seat after an extended visit to the toilet, then
passengers heard 'popping noises and smelled a foul odour'. But it's not what you think. This wasn't the normal lighting up of the undies that drunken cowboys get into
sitting around a camp fire after a few too many beans in a B-rate movie.
Young Farouk put something more potent in his undies than the Good Lord
provided. Apparently Allah provided him with undies made of pentaerythritol -
an explosive related to nitroglycerine. Unfortunately for Farouk, who was clearly unexperienced in such matters and
probably hasn't even seen Blazing Saddles, he
suceeded only in causing severe burns on his bum before some of the other
passengers tackled him to the floor. Farouk's family warned authorities that he could be dangerous, but he didn't show up
on a 'search this guy's undies' alert.
And the Americans are now
talking about a whole lot more security measures, including not letting people do potty in the last hour of flight, keeping their hands in plain sight, and having
nothing on their laps. Are they going to let them cross their legs? The government has to be seen to be doing something - anything. Except that
actually doing the sensible thing and and stopping ratbags entering the country
is just too politically incorrect. Besides, why just stop a few ratbags when
this can be used as a justification to control everyone's life? A capitalist
knows that every problem is an opportunity. A politician knows every disaster
is an also opportunity - to create bigger more powerful government. Looks like everyone's going to be on the undie search alert. What a pain in the arse.
|
|
 |
| Hot Stock! | |
Amidst much hysteria about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming for anyone who has
been locked in a fridge for the last few years), it's sometimes a good thing
to keep a cool head and look at it from the cold hard view of an entrepreneur.
Like Malcolm Talkbull for instance. Malcolm Talkbull acquired considerable capital over the years by buying and
selling stocks. And right now he's evaluating the future worth of a stock with
a ticker symbol of "AGW" - an influential little enterprise with heavy
dependencies on enviro-science, pseudo-scientific hysteria, and international
air-conditioning. And in fact, most canny politicians have to make a call about whether they will
adopt a short-term or long-term position on AGW. Right now it's trading higher
than ever, but what about the future? What if the hysterical cries of
'WE'RE ALL GONNA BURN!' don't eventuate? What if they do? Will the
share price go up or down? Should a politician use his political capital to
sell short or buy long on AGW? A politician can take the short term view - wring his hands about AGW and
scream for greater government intervention to create ineffective feel-good
measures like the ETS - or he can take a long term view and try to capitalize
on post-hysterical cynicism. Puerile taunts of 'I told you so, nah nah nah
nah nah nah' go a long way in our sophisticated Westminster system if they
are delivered with poise and self-confidence. Many in the Liberal party have taken a long term position. They intend to ride
out the hysteria, and be in a position to capitalize on the possible collapse
of AGW shares two elections from now. But party leaders can't wait that
long. Party leaders have short lives in the Westminster system. Malcolm
Talkbull is only looking to the next election. He has no choice but to jump
onto the AGW band-wagon and ride the stock through high and low. The current leadership tension in the Liberal party is not an ideological
difference, but just a tension between the positions of 'Party Leader' and
'Long Term Sitting Member'. Are the sea levels really rising or are we just witnessing a
Poseidon bubble?
|
|
 |
| Aww .. shucks! | |
We all know what a great
service affirmative
action has done to minority groups. Letting everyone know that members of
certain groups get promoted merely on the basis of their race, gender, sexual
preferences, pregnancy or
other victim producing
formula reinforces the knowledge that that they are just as competent and
capable as everyone else. And it proves that there is no discrimination. Like for example the
story of the photo of the three white firemen taken at 9-11 which was to be
made into a statue - of a black man, a Latino and a white. Unfortunately
the project got canned. Someone must have thought that a Latino, a black man
and a white man sounded like the opening to a bad joke. The latest bad joke comes from Microsoft. And no, it's not their
Vista operating system. Microsoft used a photo of an Asian guy, a white woman and a black guy to
promote their web site (no point including any white males - we all know white
males don't go into IT). However when they made up the Polish edition, they
felt the need to make a few Stalinist changes. For the Polish site, Microsoft
photo-shopped the black guy into a white guy. How politically incorrect! Apparently political correctness hasn't made it to Poland. Maybe the population
of the former Soviet
Socialist Empire People's Paradise aren't as enlightened as us mere running
dog lackeys of the military industrial complex. Perhaps being raised in a
communist state doesn't awaken one's
natural leftist political
philosophical leanings. It's hard to imagine why. Maybe we need more capitalism?
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Always remember:
Property is theft.
|
|
Copyright © 2002,2003. All rights Reserved. |
Strawman
| |
|
|
|
|
