 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Twists and turns .. | |
Fiction is sometimes stranger than truth. All politicians have ghosts
from the past which haunt them, and Tony (Punch-Drunk) Abattoir's has been his
adopted-out son. Many years ago, between boxing matches, Punch-drunk Tony was
mixing his seminarial experiences with a few seminal ones, and didn't bother
with protection. He and then girlfriend Kathy Donnelly adopted out their
unwanted son. So Punch Drunk Tony has had to wear this in his time in federal
politics,and tolerate the taunting of the ALP about hypocrisy and
irresponsibility. A difficult cross to bear, particularly with Kathy running
around and whining that Punchy's family had exerted the pressure to have the
child adopted out. A single mother forced to adopt out her newborn babe
because of the cruel manipulations of an uncaring Abattoir family? Truly a victim if anyone could
qualify! But at least the story had a happy ending when Punchy was reunited with his
long lost son. It transpired that the prodigal son had actually worked along
Punchy at parliament house, recording Punchy's morally enriching sound-bytes
to be broadcast for the enlightenment of all via the ABC. Yes, conservative Punchy's
son was an aging leftie hippy sound-recordist for that
collectivist
showpiece, the ABC. Same goal, different techniques. Like father like son. Beaming with apparent pride, Punchy announced that he was building an
(albeit belated) relationship his son Daniel after all these years, and that he
was struck by Daniel's resemblance to his eldest daughter. A chapter closed on
27 years of regret and uncertainty. Or so we thought. In a twist which would have a scriptwriter for
soap-operas blushing about implausible plot-enabling mechanisms, it turns out
that Daniel isn't what he appeared to be. A DNA test confirmed that Punchy and
young Daniel ain't related. Presumably Kathy wasn't quite as enamored of Tony
as she made out, and in the true spirit of the '70s was sharing it
around. Oops. Tony wriggled and squirmed and spoke about what 'a great girl' Kathy was, and
slunk out of the spotlight. It's hard to know whether the taunting from the ALP will stop after
this. Can you legitimately taunt someone for something they have not actually
done, but just believed they have done? Of course! All's fair in love and politics. It's only war
that has rules. It could have been worse. Kathy could have kept the kiddie and hit Punchy
for 18 percent of his parliamentary salary for child maintenance. And at
least Daniel can now hold his head up high in the lunchroom at the ABC, knowing
he's not Tony Abattoir's son. But in the end it's a pity that Punchy became the politician, and not the
morally bankrupt Kathy. It would test the powers of even a seasoned feminist to twist this little
deceit around to make herself the victim.
|
|
 |
| Impotence and suicide bombing | |
Statists on the left and right of politics seem to have been a little
surprised by the number of suicide bombers popping out (so to speak) in
Iraq. Hearing about some psychotic suicidal Muslim making a public
spectacle of himself by blowing himself (and often several hapless bystanders)
into more pieces than a space shuttle crew member seems almost a daily
occurrence. Having not collected statistics on the kill ratio of such events (ie the
number of dead bystanders versus the number of dead suicide bombers), a
guesstimate will have to suffice: it's probably around 3:1, which makes it a
pretty inefficient way to fight a war without population
superiority. It means that you have to have to start with more than one quarter
of the population of the enemy to actually win. Even at September-11 ratios, where
19 Muslim psychopaths managed to achieve a kill ratio of 150:1, they would
still need two million psychos to take out the American population. And that's
even assuming that the psychos had the same fertility rate as the rest of the
population. Most suicide bombers seem to be young and childless, so taking out
someone who already has 5 grandchildren is kind of pointless. So unless the Clerics can recruit two million suicide bombers and get them
US visas, the whole thing is
pretty pointless really. Likewise in Iraq - more people die in car
accidents than suicide bombings, so the population are not actually that
alarmed. And taking out two American soldiers a day from an army of around a
million? It might make good TV, but strategically it's a bit of a
giggle. There's no shortage of rednecks volunteering for a bit of Middle-Eastern target
practice. Suicide bombing is basically like a powerless infantile tantrum of an
objectionable teenager who wants something that no-one is willing to give
it. An annoying, but futile exercise, which serves to underscore their
immaturity and inability for objective thought and reason, and the refusal to
take responsibility
for their own problems. But every cloud has a silver lining - it does marginally reduce the
population of Islamicists. Maybe suicide bombing is Allah's way of pruning
psychos off the evolutionary tree? About
time Allah helped to clean up his mess!
|
|
 |
| Finding the balance | |
Blogger Yobbo has recently
rediscovered a tried and true way to make his site 'sticky' - by putting up a
'Girl Friday' picture once a week, which is a picture of an Asian lass
who more than makes up in youth and prettiness what she lacks in sensible warm
clothing. In fact one couldn't imagine any of these women ever being unable to
find a warm bed to spend the night. Reader Steve Clancy writes
What is it with Aussie/Western libertarian/conservative guys and Asian women?
The Intellectual
Elites are unlikely to give stolen tax money to any politically unbiased
researcher to collect statistics on such matters, so less academic methods (observation, logic
and common sense) will have to be employed instead. Having just been to a morning tea party in which 4 of the 5 married couples
comprised the Caucasian male / Asian female mix (and having been to a similar
child's birthday party last weekend), I would have to say that either
- The conservative side of the Caucasian male population seems to prefer their
women more tinted than the small-el liberal side, or
- Asian women prefer conservative men.
This kind of goes against the grain. Aren't conservative men all xenophobic
racists who despise our slanty-eyed northern neighbors? Why would they choose
Asian wives, and the resultant semi-slanty-eyed children? And wouldn't Asian
women (being victims of racism) want culturally sensitive men who will give
them space, and sympathize endlessly about a harsh male-dominated society in
between encouraging them to take full advantage of affirmative action pogroms
in the Pubic Circus? ** Why would they choose a conservative male partner? Ignoring the fact that conservative men generally make more money than
their whining, sniveling, victim-oriented leftist anti-globalization
demonstrating counterparts, and that Asian women have less propensity than
Western women to the mid-life
spread, this is actually a meeting of the minds. With the exception of the occasional foreign Asian student educated out of
common sense and into stupidity by the unashamed left wing feminist carriculums in our
government owned tertiary education
factories, Asian girls are mostly quite conservative. They have not had
their feminist instincts awakened by societal programming, and don't feel the
constant need to compete with the men around them. They are happy to find comparative
advantage, and make it work for them. Finding a partner who doesn't use their feminist training to promote their
victimhood every moment of their lives is a formula that suits many men. And
finding a partner who believes that children need two parents (probably even
one of each gender) is a formula that works for both parties. It seems to work
pretty well for the kids too. And once again we see that feminism is women's worst enemy, particularly in
the age of globalization. When
striking workers raise wages and production costs, people just start importing
goods from overseas, leaving the strikers unemployed. So too, feminist
male-hatred prices many Australian women out of the marriage market, and men with
attractive personalities (and attractive incomes) import the desired product. Of course feminists would never speak out about such a thing, because it
would be racist - better to
just deny the trend exists. Part of the leftist anti-globalization platform is
pro-immigration (go
figure that one), and trying to stop the practice would just draw attention to
the many contradictions in the leftist mind-set. Instead they opt for more subtle approaches, like forcing prospective
Filipina brides to watch videos of Caucasian men beating up their wives. The
strategy seems to have little effect. Anyone who thinks that Australian men are
more likely to beat their wives that Filipino men is already punch-drunk. Of course not all Asian women have common sense. One of the wives at the
morning tea party was a great proponent of 'Feminist Legal Theory' during her
days at Law School. The definition of Feminist Legal Theory was never really
clear, but it obviously included having an affirmative-action-appointed magistrate being able to
override the terms of any contract made between
consenting parties in favor of terms that she would regard as being 'fair'. It's heartening to see that self-serving power-seeking hypocrisy does indeed cross the boundaries of
race. But is it any wonder
that people regard lawyers
as scum? --------- ** Pubic Circus = Public Service for those uninitiated in the parlance of our
nation's taxpayer supported capital city, and "pogrom" is .. well .. what it is.
|
|
 |
| Counting the cost | |
Libertarians occasionally come under criticism for labelling tax as theft. The objections to the
'theft' label are many and varied. Some claim that property is theft, therefore
tax is 'redistribution'. Some claim that tax is 'necessary', and therefore
couldn't be theft. Some claim that theft is wrong, so if the majority of people
approve of it, then it couldn't be wrong, and therefore couldn't be theft. Such
claimants are morons. However one of the logical and compelling claims is that
Australia is a for profit corporation owned by its shareholders
(citizens). It's private property. By consenting to live on private property
you have have agreed to live by its laws and one of those laws is that you must
pay rent (tax) to live there. The objections to this are twofold:
- This is not how Australia is run.
- Even if that were true, it is a very inefficient way to run it.
Is Australia a Corporation? There is nothing inconsistent with the view that all of Australia belongs
to Australia Inc, and that people in the sovereign territory have no rights
other than what the government gives to them. Just as there is nothing
inconsistent with my view that I have a God-ordained right to enslave you and
your family. Equally there is nothing inconsistent with the view that Saddam
Hussein & sons have the right to rape, torture, and enslave the entire
Iraqi population. If you start with the axiom that 'society' (whatever that is)
owns your mind, your body, your thoughts, your house, your car and your family,
then you will end up with all kinds of weird conclusions. Extreme socialists do indeed start with that axiom, and they are extremely
difficult to argue with.
I could also quite intelligently and consistently argue that I have the right
to rape your family because 'God told me', and you would find me quite hard to
argue with too. And we won't even mention forced Islamic conversion .. [ Incidentally, the socialists who are easy ones to deal with are those who drop the term
'individual liberty' in their argument - as soon as they do that, they have lost.] So the issue is not the conclusion you draw ('tax is not theft'), but the
axiom you have started with
('Australia is a for profit corporation owned by its
shareholders'). Actually I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. However there are little chinks in the argument that I will draw to your attention.
If Australia Inc is a corporation, then
- Who are the shareholders? Presumably those with Australian Citizenship?
Why then does the government have the right to strip people of citizenship, and
therefore taking their asset by force? Isn't this theft? Could a normal
corporation decide to take a shareholder's shares away?
- If the corporation is 'for profit', then why don't the shareholders get a
dividend? If a corporation doesn't make a profit for 7 years, I believe the
tax-office closes it down. Australia Inc doesn't make a profit 104 years
and we still call it a 'for profit organization'?
- Why can't the shareholders buy multiple shares? Why should Australia Inc be
different from other corporations?
- Why does the Australia Inc Board of directors (ie the government) pass (or
attempt to pass) laws in other countries? [eg it is illegal to have sex with
minors in other countries even if it is legal in those other countries]? This
is like Macdonalds dictating the price that Greasy Joe's can charge for hamburgers.
- Why does the government talk of home 'ownership' when they know that no
such thing exists? Why do they deliberately mislead their shareholders into
believing they own something when they don't?
While none of these things disprove the conclusion that 'Australia is a for
profit organization', they indicate that the government itself doesn't regard
itself this way, and doesn't make its decisions based on this belief. Try this experiment - ask a number of politicians what the primary purpose
of government is, and measure how many say 'to protect the asset Australia
Inc', how many say 'to do the bidding of the shareholders', and
how many say 'for the good of the people'. Don't bother posting the
result - we all know it already. How can you say that Australia is a corporation when the board of directors
themselves deny this? In fact Australia has never been a corporation. It has never been run like
a corporation. One only has to read the Australian Constitution to realize that
it is not a contract with the share-holders, but a document on how to
administer a country, and control the people. The US constitution has been progressively undermined over 200 years. The
Australian constitution didn't need to be. Then there is the separate issue of, if Australia were a for profit
Corporation, How should Australia Inc be run? and this is a perhaps topic for another time, but .. If the political experiences of last century, the scourge of communism, and
the disaster of the social democracies' flirtation with socialism hasn't
convinced anyone that the key to prosperity, wealth and freedom lie with
secure property rights, they will never be convinced.
|
|
 |
| No strings attached! | |
Whoever said that a day was a long time in politics surely wasn't referring to
the boredom. In an excruciatingly slow day in politics, Kim (Fatboy) Beasley was
(ho-hum) re-elected to head chook of the ALP. Something as dull and monotonous
as the reinstatement of a two-time loser would hardly be worth mentioning if it
weren't for the antics of non-contender Julia Gizzard. Julia was the favorite of the Left faction of the ALP. Those of us who thought that
the the ALP's Left faction had disbanded and slunk away in embarrassment
thought too soon. Political hope springs eternal, and much like the tiny
faction in the Liberal
party which actually believes in personal freedom and small government, they hold onto
their union tickets like it
was confederate money. There are still some ALP supporters who believe that the ALP's four election
losses in a row was the result of the ALP not being sufficiently left
wing, and that people hand turned away from the ALP because it had
lost site of the critical social issues (like socialism). Apparently
these people believe that Liberal voters would suddenly back the ALP en
mass 'if only they promoted social justice a bit more'. Reality
check #1: Those days are gone. But Julia was the great red-haired hope of the Left. And pulled out of the
pissing competition because 'the vote was going to split along factional
lines' and she therefore 'didn't have the numbers'. Perhaps. But another theory is that the whole fuss was actually a plot by Julia
to oust her ineffectual colleague - deputy leader Jenny Macklin. Julia knew she
would never get the numbers, but she would lobby, and then agree not to
challenge in exchange for the deputy leadership. No kitchen is big enough for
two women, and apparently neither is the ALP front-bench. That little plot failed when someone leaked it to the press, so then it was
all over bar the whining. Suddenly the feminist press commentators were
claiming it was the ALP's fault because they were inherently sexist. Reality
check #2: if the misogynist old farts in the ALP thought that a woman was more
likely to win them power than
a man, they would appoint her in a second. But the still-kicking carcass of feminism will always make
this claim. And the Left faction will climb on board because it saves them
having to look at what they actually represent, and seeing what the electorate
actually thinks of them. Reality check #3: the Cold War is over. You lost.
|
|
 |
| Moral trappings .. | |
It is not often that I ask moral advice on this forum, but I will make an
exception in this case. Something has been scratching around in my ceiling at night, and I am worried
about rats and mice eating through my cables (alarm system, phone, internet/LAN,
electricity, TV, and CCTV **). Previously a simple mouse trap deployment has
resulted in a dead mouse and an unpleasant, but mercifully brief, disposal task. This time however the mouse-trap has caught something much bigger, which
refuses to die. It has fallen into the little pit over the man-hole and keeps
scratching around trying to escape. It surely couldn't be as big as a possum
because it would simply run away, avec piege de souris. It's presumably a
rat or a bird. So I have started sleeping in the guest quarters to get away from the outbursts
of noise - the pitter patter of tiny feet dragging a mousetrap round and round,
amplified by the sound-board of the man-hole cover, and I have started having
nightmares and reliving the worst scenes from horror movies - Willard (ie The
Rats), Alfred Hitchcock's 'The Birds', and that series of Alien movies.
Fantasizing about Sigourney Weaver is no longer a pleasant experience. So the issue is what should I do? Unfortunately, if I lift the man-hole cover, it will fall into the hallway and
start running around, and find somewhere to hide (eg in the wife's underwear
drawer). I can leave it there for a few days let it die of thirst, and get it
out before it becomes stinky, but that would be quite inhumane. Does anyone have any suggestions? Damn -- there it goes again! ------- ** Yes, the cabling is quite a mess up there.
|
|
 |
| Maddog goes out with a whimper | |
A statesman, as everyone knows, is a politician who has been dead for 15 years.
No such luck with Mark (Maddog) Latham, who seems to have gotten out while the
going was good - or at least until it got too stinky. How long does an ailing
washed up 43 year-old politician have to wait for his promotion? Maybe not that
long. Politicians
normally sing the praises of any powerful player in the opposite camp who
retires. It's their reward for eliminating the competition. Politics is much like the
classic torturer: 'I'll
keep doing these horrible things to you until you tell me what I want - but
then you have anything you like, and I'll be your best mate for life'. The carping, belittling, harassment and ridicule normally stops immediately
upon retirement and is replaced by praise. The incentive for leaving politics
is that the sooner you retire, the sooner people will start saying good things
about you. So far though, the only accolades for Maddog have come from his own party.
The Coalition must be too busy resetting their sites on Kim (Fatboy) Beasley
to pay much attention to the pancreatitic departee. So it falls to the blogsphere to try to find good things to say about Maddog. Here are three: - If the Daily Telegraph is to be believed, Mark could have stayed on for a
few more days and gotten a much higher payout (at the taxpayer's expense) . He
could have sat in sick and sullen silence until he reached his 11th anniversary
in federal politics and leached an extra few grand per year from the
tax-payer. He didn't. He believed in parliamentary superannuation reform, and
he has lived it.
- Secondly, he was always willing to throw ideas into the ring. Most of them
were stupid, unworkable or were actually motherhood statements in policy's
clothing, but they were still ideas.
- Thirdly, he got the ALP to try to sell the notion of lowering tax, and effective marginal tax
rates. They would never have done this in practice of course, but the True Believers were at
least introduced to the notion that lowering tax might be a good thing.
So with Fatboy's return to the leadership, it'll be back to the wall-to-wall
special interest groups, and trying to be everyone's best mate, as the old
farts on the back bench try to oust all those 'progressive WIMMIN!' who Mark
appointed to the front. Who would have thought that the ALP would have two generational
changes in 14 months?
|
|
 |
| Do you really want to know? | |
We all hate the co-worker who brags about 'getting away from it all' on his
holiday - going to that beach resort which is so remote that it doesn't even
have mobile phone coverage, and who insists that telephone communication is
only available 'if it's life or death'. Attractive as that proposition is, it's
a sentiment that might kill you. Western governments are falling over themselves to supply an early
warning tsunami system. Details are sketchy, but the reality is that this
doesn't take much more than some seismographs, some crude oceanographic
modeling and, the bane of the post-modernist techophobe, SMS. But before proclaiming 'the gummint must do something', let's consider
whether private enterprise could handle this perfectly well. Leftists and other fans of all-powerful government may be outraged at the
suggestion that such a warning system should have nothing to do with government
- after all isn't that what government is for? Outraged people are rarely
rational, and Leftists are no exception. It wouldn't have been too hard for a seismologist and an oceanographer to
get together and predict that a magnitude 9.0 earthquake off Sumatra would
cause waves that would kill people in several busted-arsed third-world
countries. And there is nothing stopping people from subscribing to an earthquake
reporting service via SMS. Such a service could report the magnitude and
location of all significant earthquakes around the globe, predict tsunami
strength, location and arrival time, and then SMS anyone who subscribed to the
service, almost immediately. "But we can't trust private enterprise" the leftists will scream
"the greedy private company won't actually have the incentive (or possibly
even the ability) to give timely warnings of an imminent catastrophe and it
would take people's money for nothing (unlike governments which are always
pinnacles of honesty and efficiency)". Get real. People could easily judge
the quality of the service by judging the timeliness (and correctness) of the
low level warnings. The occasional "EARTHQUAKE OFF SIBERIA STRENGTH 3.3
TSUNAMI WAVES 0.03m DANGER NIL" would provide a very good periodic check
of the effectiveness and timeliness of the service. There would of course be freeloaders - people who rely on someone else's
phone warning of the coming tsunami, and rely on their good will to pass
on the warning instead of muttering something about a sudden interest in
mountain climbing and bolting for the nearest hill, but so what? People could
make their own decisions. Anyone genuinely concerned about tsunamis could
subscribe to the service, while others could choose to take their chances. Of
course it would only take one SMSed beach-goer to warn a whole crowd. In fact there are any number of companies who would jump at the chance to
supply this service for nothing just for the sponsorship. Broadcasting
"THIS INFORMATION BROUGHT TO YOU BY PHILIP MORRIS BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP
YOU ALIVE" is something that a certain cigarette company would kill
for. Come to think of it, they probably already have. Not content with private sector solutions, governments generally like the
idea of a government hook into the SMS function on everybody's mobile phone -
including our very own Little Johnny. He will control the messages that we
receive, and the manner in which we receive them. Regardless of which solution succeeds, those people who want to 'get away
from it all' might think twice before leaving their mobile phones at
home. Wearing the electronic leash might be tiresome, but much like an infant
is comforted by being swaddled, the bonds of slavery can comfort the slave. Who needs an ID card when you have mobile phone?
|
|
 |
| .. like a festering sore | |
Mark (Maddog) Latham was feeling too sorry for himself over the Christmas
break to offer words of comfort and sympathy for Asian tsunami victims, and
left it up to his senior colleagues to whine about the Howard Government not
spending enough tax money. He was even giving his senior colleagues the silent
treatment forcing them to face the media pack without the encouraging words of
support from their Dear Leader. Apparently he wasn't feeling too sorry for himself to go to his luxury
resort, paddle in the pool with the kids, and buy junk food from the local fish
and chip shop, but hey - it's all part of the recovery treatment. After his disastrous election result, many ALP supporters were hoping he
was going to use his illness as a dignified escape to the obscurity to the back
bench, and let that pinnacle of health and fitness, Kim (Fatboy) Beasley, have
another go at bringing down Johnny (stickin' like mud) Howard. But, showing a tenacity worthy of Little Johnny himself, the absentee
leader has decided to stay on in his role as party leader and return to work
later in the month. His possibly-stress-related pancreatitis isn't going to
stop him from applying for (arguably) the most stressful job in the country. Before the last election, Maddog demanded a guarantee from Little Johnny
that he could guarantee to stay the entire electoral term. With his poor
health, he can hardly make that claim himself, it seems unreasonable to expect
it of others. So it will be interesting to see what demands he will make in
the next election campaign. Can Australia afford to have leader who can't handle stress, and who runs
for the sick-bed whenever a 'hard' decision has to be made. If the historical
success of government interference is any indication, maybe so. Australia may
be better off re-electing Harold Holt as Prime Minister. Regardless, every socialite knows that you have to be there or be bitched
about, and there's no shortage of bitching in the ALP over the break. Between
poor health, and the long knives of the ALP star chamber, Maddog's next severe
pain might be sticking out of his back. And lying flat on his back will only
make that pain worse.
|
|
 |
| Aid trickle becomes a flood | |
The word 'tsunami' normally conjures up images of fat chicks jumping into
swimming pools, but Mother Nature had the last laugh on this one. The last few
days have been an education for many, and a
reminder for many more that even in the age of nature's conquest, nature is to
be respected and even feared. Baring the four riders of the apocalypse (pestilence, plague, famine and
war) the tsunami in the Indian Ocean has to be the worst human disaster on
record. How could we have missed this? All those scientists who found
themselves in need of funding after the end of the cold war pursued other
avenues of alarm - global
warming or catastrophic meteor strike: why didn't anyone think of a plain
old tsunami after a run-of-the-mill (albeit rather powerful) earthquake? Maybe 100,000 people drowning in filthy sea water from a natural disaster
just wasn't sexy enough. But as horrible as major catastrophes are, they frequently don't compare to
the horrid political
stench in the aftermath. A cynical view of capitalism is that all
human suffering provides an opportunity. The complimentary view of course, is
that capitalism is a system which turns suffering into opportunity. As
distasteful as this sounds to to those at the other end of the political
spectrum, there is no shortage of 'social justice' proponents who have an
uncanny ability to turn other people's suffering to their own benefit too. Kofi Annan, head of the global public service,
had a pretty bad year. Just 8 days ago he described 2004 as his "annus
horribilis", and said that he was glad that it was almost over. 2004 saw
(once again) the clear demonstration of the UN's ineptnes and corruption. But even worse
for Kofi was that his own son was shown to be 'involved' in the Iraqi
oil-for-food bribery scandals ('involved' is UN-speak for 'financial gaining
from', which in turn is a nice way of saying 'criminal'). After fighting calls for his resignation, Kofi got the best Christmas
present he could hope for - 100,000 rotting third-world corpses, and the
perfect reason to call for greater subsidies from the first-world to the
'developing' nations who are now even more 'in need'. 'This is an
unprecedented global catastrophe which requires an unprecedented global
response'. Right - just like AIDS, global warming, world poverty and
Coalitions of the Willing ignoring the UN. Already he is calling for not just short-term relief to save lives, but
longer term 'donations' to
aid the 'reconstruction' of devastated areas. That means more money flowing to
the UN; more power to the centralized wannabe world government; and greater
justification for an international taxation regime to reward
need. (ie transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in
poor countries). Kofi is back from the precipice, back in his element, and his ability to
take a long term view rivals that of any venture capitalist investing his own
money. And he has support. We already have people complaining that governments
(particularly the Australian and US governments) haven't been
generous enough with donations. Your ABC reports:
The Federal Opposition is calling on the Government to match donations
Australians have made to the tsunami relief effort. OK, so for every donation you make willingly, they want to force you to donate that much
again whether you want to or not. Talk about rewarding generosity! Foreign aid damages the local economy, and makes it more dependent on
future aid money. Short term, organized aid will save lives. Long term aid will
ensnare the local population in a more severe poverty trap. To every private corporation or individual who voluntarily donated their
own money to help these victims - good on you. To everyone who voluntarily
donated someone else's money - shame on you. Compassion is when you give
your own money. When you give someone else's money it's theft. No matter how worthy you
regard the cause.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
