 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| .. 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.
|
|
 |
| Former heavyweight about to lose a few pounds | |
The Australian
Democrats are not known for clear, sober reasoning at the best of times,
and former party leader Andrew ('listen here, bitch!')
Bartlett is a case in point. He hasn't made a sober decision for some
time, and sitting on electoral death-row doesn't seem to have focused his mind.
Your ABC
reports that he has now said he will remain on a hunger strike as long
as detainees at the Baxter detention center in South Australia's north do. He says he will drink water but not eat. Bartlett is well known for
enjoying liquid lunches, so that shouldn't be too hard. But just water? C'mon
Andrew - it's Christmas! What about a few of those bottles of red you
'liberated' from the Coalition Christmas party? It'll take your mind right off
those hunger pains! Regardless, this attempt to wallow in self hatred is likely to end in
tears. This can only go in three ways.
- The asylum seekers call off their hunger strike.
- Bartlett breaks his word - and his fast.
- Bartlett admits what the rest of us have known all along - that
asylum-seekers are like dieting fat chicks - they cheat.
Asylum seekers are well known for their hunger striking strategies - taking
turns in skipping meals, or going on hunger strike up to three times a day -
just after breakfast, lunch and dinner, then reverting to instinct like one of
Pavlov's dogs as soon as they hear the food bell. Andrew, it seems, is also pretty pissed at the government's treatment of
celebrity asylum seekers the Bakhtiyaris. The Bakhtiyaris are the Pakistani
family who, after being caught out lying about being from Afghanistan two years
ago, are still living at the Australian taxpayer's expense. It looks as through
Amanda (Killer Whale) Vanstone has finally grown the balls to throw them out. Maybe the Democrats could stitch their lips together to show even greater
support for the refugees? Maybe the women could mutilate their own
genitals to demonstrate solidarity with the Religion of Peace? Natasha
(king of the kids)
Stott Despoja has already posed with a head scarf to show solidarity with
Muslims - why stop there? On the other hand maybe Andrew should spend some time budgeting for when he will have to live on his parliamentary pension. If Cheryl
(I'm the victim) Kernot is any indication, employers are not exactly
lining up to employ ex-Democrat leaders, and unlike Natasha, Andrew is unlikely
to be able marry a rich sugar daddy and start popping out babies for him. You might have to start buying by the cask, Andrew. Sobering times indeed.
|
|
 |
| Scratching the seven-year itch | |
Every redneck knows that the best way to stop a woman from wanting sex is to marry her. But the more
experienced know that this is not the whole truth - sometimes it just makes her
stop wanting sex with her husband. To appreciate this, of course, is
to explode the myth that men are less inclined to respect marital fidelity than
women. Homosexual dalliances aside, logic suggests that for every man cheating, a woman
is knowingly doing it with him. Of course the woman might be unmarried, might be a highly promiscuous
individual or a prostitute (or even all three), so this isn't a proof - merely
an indication of availability, and a good reason for all husbands to be
suspicious of the wife's interest in social intercourse. On the other hand, female infidelity
also represents an an opportunity for enterprising men who like variety without
commitment. What follows, by
popular demand, is the solicited advice from someone who will, of course,
deny that it is derived from any practical experience. Morality Don't seduce a married woman until you have come to terms with the morality of what you are
doing. And this is easy once you realize that you are not responsible for her decisions. She may be
acting totally immorally, violating her marriage contract, lying to the father
of her children, and ignoring her parental responsibilities. But
that doesn't mean that you are. You are not stealing, and you are not breaking a contract. Women are not
property, and she signed her marriage contract - you didn't. Picking your mark Get real. There is no shortage of bored, lonely, neglected, dissatisfied
married women looking for some spice in their lives. If you don't know any,
move out of the seminary. The Seduction Normal rules apply: work out what she wants and give it to her. Just be
aware that there are several possible reasons for women to play the field. - She likes variety - just like you do. Easy pickings. Just make it sound
like sex is fun. If you want high-volume low commitment sex, this is the kind
to look out for.
- She wants to feel appreciated because hubby ignores her. These ones are
easy too. Gaze into her eyes, and tell her she is the most attractive woman you
have known. Just be aware that she is after emotional fulfillment - the sex for
her is incidental. [ed: That means lots of .. you know .. hugs and sloppy kisses and mushy stuff].
- She is thinking of leaving her husband, and is assessing her value in
the market-place. Be
cautious - these ones may get cold feet just before the home run. Be prepared
to manipulate the situation so you can make her think that she is only valuable
if she goes the whole distance. Don't worry if that sounds illogical. Persuasion is not
about logic - it's about building little bridges and helping people to cross
them.
- She is just bored with her marriage, and wants some
excitement. These ones are dangerous because they may deliberately leave
clues to let hubby know what is going on. Be very cautious about these
ones. They are the kind of girls who manipulated boys into fighting over them
at the high-school dance. If she seems psychologically manipulative, run a
mile. Then have a cold shower.
- Her biology is telling her to choose a more attractive partner than
her hubby to sire her children. She settled for someone
who would stay with her, but is fully aware that other men will give
genetically superior offspring. In this case your looks, wealth, physique and your
status are everything. But whatever you do, don't get her pregnant. In this age
of DNA paternity determination, you'll end up paying and paying. These
ones are a bit hard to spot because they are not actually consciously aware of
their reasons. A strong dissatisfaction with her marriage, but inability to
give any concrete examples is the best sign.
What she doesn't want Just as important as working out what she wants is working out what she doesn't
want. She is unlikely to want a love-struck stalker letting her husband
know about her affair, so the most important thing to stress is that you have
remained 'friends' (a euphemism for 'on acceptably good terms') with all of your
ex-girlfriends, and that the relationships ended 'because you wanted different
things out of life'. What you are really saying is that you will totally accept
her decision to end it at any time. Meeting the folks Don't ever meet the family. Especially the husband. You are not lying if you
never meet her family. As soon as you have a relationship of trust with the
husband, you are violating that trust. This becomes especially important if
hubby finds out. Few men will hunt down a stranger, but many will take out revenge on a friend or
acquaintance. Location, location, location Never have sex at her place when her hubby is out. Come to think of it,
don't do it if hubby is in either. Unless you want an axe in your skull. If she
insists on doing it at her place it is because she gets excited by risks - your risks. Don't
play. Bail. Out the window if necessary. Logistics In the information age, it shouldn't be hard to organize your little
trysts. Just be aware that they leave paper trails. Encouraging her to get her
mobile phone bills sent to her office would be a good start. Encouraging her to
delete her emails would be good to. And never put anything
incriminating in writing. Save the mushy stuff for the phone or the pillow.
Emails or SMS need say nothing more than "12:30 in Bankstown is fine". Her understanding of these things will also give you a strong indication of
whether she has done this kind of thing before. Exit strategy The most important thing in any affair though, is to plan your own exit
strategy. Telling her that you are totally in love is OK - provided that in the
next sentence you also tell her that it's just not in your nature to ever
'settle down'. One thing you don't want is for the woman to leave her husband with the
expectation of marrying you. After all - who wants to marry a woman who sleeps around on her husband?
|
|
 |
| Girt by 'E' | |
Australians all rejoice at technology. Flush toilets, motorcars and the whoopee
cushion have changed the way we think about hygiene, entertainment and sex -
though maybe not in that order. But alas, being young and free sometimes allows
artistic tools to become weapons in the hands of philistines - as demonstrated by
a recent interpretation of Australia's national anthem. Or at least according to Johnny
(I-don't-know-much-about-art-but-I-know-what-I-like) Howard, who is appalled by
the latest musical offering via artistic director Leo Schofield, who has
received some gold and wealth for toil by producing what has been
described as a 'disco remix' of Johnny's beloved Advance Australia Fair. Of course any ecstasy-popping rave-party freak could tell you that the
cacophonous offering is not disco, but a much more painful assault on nature's
gift of hearing called 'techno'. Disco may have sounded awful, but at least the
venues provided those with riches the rare opportunity to get laid after a few
beers. Rave parties, by comparison, seem to consist of stoners sucking lolly
pops and saying 'I love you' a lot over the sound of metal scrap yards. Arch-conservative Johnny clearly prefers his Australia anthem in the traditional
missionary position - it's Julie Anthony or nothing. Why is a semi-deaf man who
wears a hearing aid telling us what kind of music we should listen to? Is there
any part of our lives which this man doesn't want to control? Apparently he
will decide who celebrates patriotism and the manner in which we do it. Maybe someone should compose a new anthem for Johnny with a chord structure
like D-E-A-F D-A-G. Whether this version gets recorded on history's page remains to be seen, but
our neighbors are presumably glad that we are girt by sea - they are well out of
ear-shot. To be fair to Little Johnny, the strains of the new version are
anything but joyful. It sounds like chipmunks being castrated with scrap
metal. But then most techno does.
|
|
 |
| Pointing the finger of blame | |
"Mutual obligation" is one of the buzz-phases of the current government. Under
the principle of of "mutual obligation", welfare recipients are not just given
money - they have to give
something back in return. On the surface, this seems to embrace the new climate
of economic rationalism, trade-based economics and avoidance of welfare
dependency. Until you look closer anyway. The obligations imposed on the
welfare recipient are to help themselves. Free trade is
normally based on both sides agreeing to trade when it benefits both
parties. Trading $1 for a big juicy orange benefits both the farmer and the
fruit lover - that's why free trade is done. We have always known that God helps those who help themselves, but
apparently Liberal
governments help those who help themselves too. Even if they have no obligation to actually help
society. The welfare
recipient must turn up to job interviews on time, fill in job application
diaries, or do something else which is of absolutely no use to the hapless tax payer who pays them the
welfare. But it just got worse. Patric Dodson has supported the principle of "mutual
obligation" for Aborigines, and has been blasted by our favorite blond-haired,
blue-eyed 'Aboriginal',
Michael Mansell. Your ABC reports:
Mr Mansell has accused Mr Dodson of surrendering to the Federal Government's
plans in order to stay in the limelight. Mr Mansell says the plan to make Aborigines give something back in return for
their welfare should not be endorsed. "Aborigines have given up land, we've given up children in the Stolen
Generations, we are by far the most disadvantaged people anywhere in the
country," he said. "John Howard now says we can forget all those issues, this is an issue of
mutual obligation, in other words Aborigines have to give up even more."
Apparently Aborigines are entitled to welfare, without reciprocity, because of
stolen
land and stolen
generations. In other words, welfare payments are not for welfare, but they
are compensation. This argument has come up before in the slavery
compensation debate, where African Americans demand compensation for
slavery, and rednecks insist that it's already been payed in the form of
welfare. Mansell is setting a dangerous precedent for any future compensation claims
with this rhetoric. How much is a dry patch of land with no infrastructure and
6 months away from the nearest hospital actually worth? An Aboriginal
compensation claim which took welfare payments into consideration may end up
having Aborigines owing mainstream Australia money for overpayment. Time to get out the calculator and run some figures. The only question is, who
should the bill be sent to?
|
|
 |
| You gotta keep 'em separated | |
Bleeding hearts in the Australia's tax-payer funded capital are incensed about
the possible deportation of a family because they have a disabled son. 12 year
old Rophin Morris has been in Australia for 11 years with his family. He also
suffers from autism, and appeared on a poster to promote the government's
'disabled services'. And people with disabilities generally don't get permanent
residency. This, the critics cry is 'discrimination'. We aren't supposed to discriminate against
people who have disabilities. But we do. And we always have. Families with
disabled members have been refused permission to emigrate to Australia for
decades. They were judged to be an 'unacceptable burden to the taxpayer'. Immigrants are
cherry-picked from poorer countries. That's how the system has worked for a
very long time. This little uproar has been deliberately set up by the pro-immigration
lobby. Immigration activist Marion Le has brought the decision to a head by
encouraging the family to allow their temporary visa to expire - meaning that
the family was here illegally, and they became candidates for deportation. Marion clearly saw a win-win for her cause - a thin edge of the wedge
regardless of the result. If Rophin is sent home, then this will be proof of the
Howard government's uncaring asylum-seeker-sinking discriminatory racism. If he
is allowed to stay, then morally, handicapped people applying from overseas
shouldn't be rejected either - surely we can't discriminate against someone
just because of the country they are in at the time? His father insisted all costs associated with Rophin's condition so far had
come from the family's own resources, support from friends and the
church. Really? Then what 'disabled services' was he receiving from the
government department that produced the poster? And of course Rophin's father
didn't say that all costs in the future would met by non-taxpayer
sources. His church hasn't come forward with a written commitment to pay all
costs associated with his condition which are yet to come. Of course not. As
soon as the poster-boy has permanent residency, he'll slip quietly onto the
taxpayer tit and stay there for the next 60 years, while family and church
groups demand greater 'government help' for the disabled. Marion described the decision as "abhorrent", and protested that he "hasn't
been any cost to the community, and you could argue he's a bonus as they said
at the calendar launch". Apparently highlighting the need for the taxpayer to
spend more money on disabled people makes Rophin a 'bonus'. Thanks
Rophin! Maybe Australia should import a few more autistic children from other
countries to increase the 'bonus'. Maybe import a few leper colonies as well,
and a few million AIDS sufferers from Africa? They would be such a bonus.
|
|
 |
| Let those who ride decide | |
Those of us who pride ourselves on a sense of social responsibility worry
frequently about hitting motorcyclists with our cars. I certainly do. The
wife's new 4WD (okay, AWD, strictly speaking) would make quite a mess of most
motorcyclists and the motorcycles they ride. Actually, a collision wouldn't do
much for the 4WD either. Fortunately I have never had a road accident, except for being run into by
a car when I was on a bicycle many years ago before the delights of cars (and
the fast women which would come with them) became a financial option. But I actually had some sympathy for the guy who ran me over. It was night,
and he just didn't see the (admittedly modest) headlight of my bike before he
went through the give-way. Being a very defensive rider, I would rarely trust a
car, but I assumed that he had seen me because he had slowed down almost to a
stop. In the worst possible timing combination, I committed to going through
the intersection at the same time he did and suddenly found myself crawling
around on the road bruised, dazed, and convinced (until reason returned a
short time later) that he had done it deliberately. Several decades later, of course, I have joined the mainstream motorist
mindset, and curse cyclists and motorcyclists equally. Cyclists slow down the
traffic - you have to virtually run them off the road to get past them in busy
traffic. And motorcyclists are even worse - because they can duck and weave and
travel faster than you can. Sipping your latte from the built-in coffee cup
holder is little compensation when the dragon lady is going to give you the
rolling pin for not getting the kids to their music lesson on time. But yuppie living aside, there are serious issues about personal risk and
responsibility. Consider motorcycle crash helmets for example. Every licensed driver has made mistakes on the road. Most of them do not
result in collisions, but some of them do. Careful drivers can reduce, but
never eliminate those mistakes. Free will, it seems is concomitant with making
mistakes in fast changing situations - like Sydney rush hour. Riding a
motorcycle without a crash helmet might not quite be at the level of playing
Russian roulette, but a depressed skull fracture can be just as deadly as a
high-velocity lead injection, and makes a much poorer spectator sport. Even though the collision is usually the car-driver's fault, the car driver did
not dictate that the motorcycle rider ride without a helmet. Most people have
at least one collision in their lives, this is the backdrop of noise that
we drive in. Who is responsible for the depressed skull fracture? If a 25
year-old motorcyclist gets severely brain damaged because he chose not to wear
a helmet in an accident that was not his fault, who should pay for the nurse to
wipe his bum for the next 50 years? Apart from just letting him die, the solutions are
- Make the at-fault motorist pay;
- Make the injured party responsible for his lack of reasonable care;
- Make helmets compulsory.
This argument was won (or maybe lost) many years ago, and the nanny state
paradigm has, as usual, dominated. But recently the issue has cropped up again
in the form of whether motorcycles should be banned
completely. The very act of riding a motorcycle, it seems is too
much of a risk for the nanny state to allow us mere citizens to take. And the
arguments for and against, are pretty much the same. Sometimes it's hard to balance the issues of risk, safety, convenience,
good manners, social etiquette and personal responsibility. It's all too
hard. It's far easier to just get a bull-bar for the 4WD.
|
|
 |
| Australia's fading history | |
Modern Australians are taught to be less than proud of their history. But in
between apologizing for things they didn't
do, and grovelling like some religious zealot who insists that we are born
in sin there are some things the cultural elites allow us some pride in -
provided the history is rewritten with an appropriate politically
correct slant. 150 years ago today, Australia witnessed its only civil uprising. The local
land owners formed the political power block (only land owners got to vote),
and didn't like their workers saying 'take this job and shovel it', and
wandering off to dig for gold in Ballarat. So they put pressure on the government to charge the
prospectors exorbitant licenses to 'encourage' them back to work. Some 120 miners stood up to the local soldiers, refusing to pay the
exorbitant taxes imposed by a
corrupt government.
They formed a stockade - a pathetic area little bigger than a residential
house-block, and reinforced by hastily constructed pikes. The stockade looked
more like a picket fence than a fort. Then the soldiers came and the shooting started. 22 miners and 6 soldiers
were killed, the miners ran away and the uprising was crushed in less than 15
minutes. But it was, we are taught, the turning point - the conception for the
later birth of true Australian democracy. 150 years later, the event has become a grab-bag of political concerns. The local Aborigines
opened the festivities. But the stockade had nothing to do with the Australian
Aborigines. Then it was hailed by some as a 'multicultural day'.
But the miners were not celebrating diversity, they were celebrating
unity. They were not interested in cultivating their differences, but simply
uniting against a common enemy - the Australian government. The unions hailed it as a the formation of Australian unionism. But the
miners never asked that others be forced to give them money or on what terms -
they just didn't want the government stealing their money in the form
of 'prospecting licenses'. And a commemorative walk is to be led by Terry Hicks - the father of
celebrity terrorist
wannabe David Hicks. But the miners never advocated international terrorism, or
terrorism at all. They never sought to attack anyone. They just wanted to be
left alone. Johnny (no-flies-on-me) Howard resisted flying the flag at Parliament House
because he actually knew what it meant. For all of Johnny's commitment to
everyone having their own little picket fence around their residential block he
leads the highest taxing government in Australia's history. Today, we are taxed
at a rate which would have made even the wealthy squatters join the miners in
open rebellion. And Little Johnny would like to keep everyone very quiet about
that. He has little to worry about. As long as the various minority groups
frantically rewrite history, the truth will remain hidden - or at least barely
visible between the slats of the picket fence, and rendered inaudible by
the didgeridoo, the union slogans and the shrill incoherent rantings of
the multicultural lobby.
|
|
 |
| Oozing with promise | |
The Economist (2004-11-20) reports
some cheering news about Afghanistan - a bumper
opium crop. Apparently the area under opium poppy cultivation has jumped by 64%
this year. It is gratifying to see Afghans embracing capitalism so quickly
after being freed from their strict and oppressive government. It's not that the new government approves of their entrepreneurship, or even
that the government which removed the old one approves of it - it's just that
the new government is too ineffectual to prevent it. Many would argue of course
that the best government is an ineffectual one, but that raises issues of the
security of private ownership, and maybe that is a debate for another time. But the local farmers are now (relatively) free to produce an export
product highly in demand in The West - heroin. A cheap and (if taken
with care and moderation in its pure form) relatively safe form of
entertainment for those on low incomes. Plasma TVs, skiing holidays, fast cars, and dinners on the town also
constitute good entertainment but they are hideously expensive, particularly
with a 50% effective marginal tax rate. A
shot of heroin feels every bit as good as the black-run on the slopes of Mt
Buller or a 200Km/hr drive through Sydney harbor tunnel in a Maserati, and you
don't have to leave the safety of your own home to enjoy it. Of course the problem is that heroin is so cheap that it doesn't raise much
tax. Having someone choose to
live in a single room apartment, working one day a week and spending the other
six watching a black and white TV stoned on heroin would be a pretty good life
for many Western residents. But it would raise very little tax for greedy
Western governments. When governments are in a fix, they usually start a war. And the War on Drugs has been a
beauty. The only casualties are (by definition) 'sinners' or victims of others, the cost is
the billions of tax dollars stolen from the population to fight it, and the war
perpetuates - because it can never be said to be lost or won. Hopefully the coming influx of heroin will lower street prices in the
West. This will mean that the heroin on the streets will be cut with less
cement powder and other chemicals; it will mean that buying it will be easier,
and will involve less risk for users; and hopefully the cheaper price will make
it less attractive for users to steal in order to buy it. Who said that the other war (the War on Terror) was producing no dividends?
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
