 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Calling the tune | |
At the Pacific Island Forum in Auckland Johnny (paying-the-piper) Howard
has indicated a new approach to giving aid to failed Pacific
nations by linking aid money to 'good governance' - specifically, reducing
corruption. Johnny has realized that in the political climate of 2003 it is
acceptable to say that much of the aid money given to corrupt tin-pot pseudo-democracies has been
'wasted'. Giving money to governments who have
squandered their entire nation's wealth, and expecting them to spend it wisely
may seem like foolishness to anyone who has thought it through, but in the
past, the few voices of reason were drowned out by the many amid popular calls
for 'self determination' of our 'less fortunate' neighbors. Reducing corruption is a good start - corruption undermines private property
rights - the key to production and prosperity. Unfortunately Johnny's
vision of 'good governance' is unprecedented high taxes, which undermine growth and
prosperity just as much as other kinds of theft. But Johnny's plans don't just stop there. He is also pushing for unification of
the pacific nations - a kind of United States of the Pacific. All proudly using
Australian currency, and engaged permanently on the Australian welfare tit. The only sensible comment came from Fiji's representative who said that
Australia had the right to attach whatever conditions she liked on aid money,
but equally that Fiji had the right to refuse that aid. He appears to be the
only man in the Pacific who understands the free market, and its relationship
with corruption and his bank balance. In corrupt countries, politicians get kickbacks (one of the perks of office).
They get benefit from the kick-backs (money in the bank), and benefit from
Australian aid money (it buys electoral pork). If these two
become negatively linked (corruption kickbacks means no electoral pork) they
must choose one or the other. Johnny must make sure his corruption-reduction
demands lose the politicians less money than they can get from the extra
electoral pork. Johnny can win this one, but only over a long period of time (like several
decades), by reducing the corruption bit by bit, continually waving the
carrot and only occasionally bringing out the stick for the worst of the
Pacific delinquents. That's why today Johnny stepped back from the brink, and denied any
direct link between corruption and aid cutbacks. He's also been quick
to insist that the new push 'isn't neo-colonialism, it is just just common
sense'. Actually Johnny - they are both. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and Johnny's demanding we all march
to the beat of 'good governance'. If only he wasn't paying the piper with other
people's money.
UPDATE: 2003-08-16 19:00 Money truly does talk! Johnny (do-ya-wannit-or-not) Howard got his way and
had Australian Greg Urwin appointed as the Pacific Island Forum's new
secretary-general. Common sense would suggest that Australia (not normally
considered a Pacific Island) wouldn't be eligible for this position, but the corrupt little tin-pot
countries pulled the forelock and succumbed to the man with the cheque-book. In a surreal twist, Johnny has described the changing emphasis as
'enhancing sovereignty'
for these struggling nations. Ahh, the things you have to do for money.
|
|
 |
| Another casualty | |
Many enlightened folk admire the U.S. of A. for her views on freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately the
occasional distortion of this view makes the soaring eagle look more like a
vulture - as US citizens who made themselves 'human shields' in operation Iraqi
Freedom face hefty fines for violating the embargo against Iraq. It's just as well we already know the US are the good guys, otherwise it
might be hard to tell. Clearly a country which promotes liberty and individual
freedom has an obligation to prevent its citizens going to other countries -
allowing people to go to other countries would restrict liberty and
freedom. Just like the iron curtain protected the liberty of the proud citizens
of the Paradise Soviet
Socialist People's Utopia
from capitalism and
individualism. Sarcasm aside, it is difficult to see why the US couldn't reach the rational compromise with
these people - ie allowing them to go to Iraq and then simply bombing them to
oblivion along with the targets they were 'protecting'. Any country truly committed to liberty and individual freedom would happily
have let them make this choice. Particularly as the human shields were such
champions of freedom. Your ABC reports that ex- school teacher and human shield
Faith Fippinger of Florida wrote to her government explaining "please be
aware that I will not contribute money to the United States Government to
continue the build-up of its arsenal of weapons". Apparently Faith feels that no-one has the right to force someone to pay for
something they don't want to pay for - truly a laudable position. One wonders
if she applies the same reasoning to the other 90% of taxation expenditure - like
expenditure on wages of school teachers? Why are those who embrace the notion of collectivism so strongly
always the first to scream when the collective will chooses something they
disagree with?
|
|
 |
| Down but not out | |
Phil (consummate politician) Ruddock has moved his pieces into position for the
final play against Geoff (the Bruiser) Clark. The ATSIC chairman has been
suspended for 'misbehavior', and is likely to have his position terminated if
and when his appeals against charges of obstructing police and 'riotous
behavior' fail. It has taken the Howard government years for their
'enough rope' strategy to work, and it has been expensive and wasteful. Now,
finally, it seems to be paying dividends - The Bruiser is down, and after the
count, he'll be out. The Bruiser only really understands two strategies - threatening and
attacking, so his next move was predictable. The sneering Irish bully claimed
his suspension was an attack on Aboriginal people, then blasted the ALP and Democrats for not
doing more to help him. The ALP did good mileage from grandstanding about
Aboriginal rights when it was fashionable, but they can now see the writing on
the wall: Geoff aint election '04 material, and they would just like him to go
away. Even the squishy Democrats are a reluctant to climb into bed with the
public face of Aboriginal violence. Clark's behavior is a clear indication that achieving Aboriginal
'self-determination' though giving money to a pseudo-democratic
Aboriginal-appointed structure (ATSIC) has failed. No more can ATSIC be
considered an 'alternative government' - ATSIC is a government department
and its employees, like
other public
servants, can be sacked. In the dizzying '80s, phrases like 'self determination' met the politically
correct criteria, but it's now obvious to the swinging voter that it was a
failure. Giving money to poor people is an attractive
concept - after they get it they are a little less poor. Unfortunately, it
ignores the main cause of poverty: making poor financial decisions. The idea
that people will squander and waste their own money, but spend other people's
money wisely would be laughable if it were not believed by the left. And the future of ATSIC? Well, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect it to
work at least with the efficiency of the rest of the public service (not
actually a high expectation). The Coalition will let it wither on the vine
until electoral frustration will allow it to pull the drop lever. In the
meantime they will get just enough rope.
|
|
 |
| Gays fighting on dual fronts | |
In typical prima-donna style, the gay lobby has
successfully taken center stage in two theaters at once - church and state. The first theater is the Christian churches in
which the shirt-lifters want to be accepted as clergy. Still in the midst of
pedophilia scandals, the conservatives in the church are torn between pursuing
the moral high-road (no Nancy-boys allowed), and giving into popular pressure
during an embarrassing ratings slump. With fewer and fewer people bothering to
give to the church, maybe a bit of political
correctness (promoting rear-admirals) might help win the ratings battle. But not afraid to take on two fronts at once, the tail-gunners have also called
for acceptance of gay marriages. Johnny
(I'm-an-individual) Howard has jumped to follow Dubya (guns-n-god) Bush's lead
declaring that marriage is for the continuation of the species, and is
inappropriate between same-sex couples. This has a ring of sincerity from little Johnny: anyone who put their hand
that far into the taxpayer's
pocket presumably feels quite at home in every Australian's bedroom. It's
all part of the the collectivist mindset
which Johnny subscribes to so deeply. The fact that the physical act
which leads to having children has little to do with signing a government approved
contract. The problem of course is that the government nationalized the
institution of marriage in
the first place. In any reasonable legal system, contracts (marriage or
otherwise) between individuals are for the individuals themselves (and other
organizations which they choose to involve). Just like the gay clergy issue, this one belongs back in the churches. If
the churches don't want to conduct teapot marriages, that is entirely up to
them (though individuals could still draw up their own marriage contracts
outside any church). Either way, there seems little merit in making the
taxpayer have to fund the bickering and grandstanding of politicians. One is forced to have a begrudging respect for the purse-carriers on these
issues - for once they aren't trying to suck on the subsidy tit. They are
unlikely to get everything they want, but they have the right to try. On the
other hand it demonstrates how little they have to complain about - if
inability to get government recognition of their relationships is the worst
injustice they face, they haven't much to complain about. In the end they will
have to just take it like men: bite the pillow and put up with it.
|
|
 |
| Row over Death Row | |
Australians and
enlightened Indonesians
alike have applauded the guilty verdict and subsequent death sentence for Bali
bomber Amrozi. Concepts like 'closure' and 'justice' were bandied around, but
no-one seemed to be talking about the thing which is arguably more important
than revenge - deterrence. Sometimes the thoughts of a simpleton are hard to read, and while Amrozi
may be somewhat concerned about checking out early, he has shown little concern
about it - even raising his fist in triumph at the sentence, and displaying his
trademark idiot grin. Amrozi believes (or claims to believe) that he is going to enjoy a position
of glory next to Allah - presumably with his quota of 70 virgins. Why should he be
concerned about death? Executing terrorists
like Amrozi seems about as intelligent as as chanting 'death to the suicide
bombers'. No point guys, death is not a deterrent to such people. A much
greater deterrent is to lock them in a small cage for the term of their natural
lives. Everybody gets a warm warm inner glow from revenge, but it is a dish best
served cold, and ultimately the best revenge is a happy life, and that is
achieved by maximal deterrence: minimizing the number of innocent people hurt
and killed by similar acts in the future. Some of the Bali victims and victim's families
have recognized this - saying that death was too good for Amrozi, and that a
spot of torture first would be appropriate. An unpopular judicial mechanism in
modern democracies, but
not one totally without merit. A more rational approach would be to set up a company ('Victims of Bali
Bombing Inc'), and give shares to each of the victims (or their families),
and make Amrozi the property of the company. The shareholders could then decide
what to do with him at a shareholder's meeting. Some would want torture, some
would want death, and some (like Adelaide Magistrate Brian Deegan) would
presumably want him to emigrate to Australia so he could go on the dole, and
have titty social workers could understand at him a lot). Some might even
consider selling him back to Jemiah Islamia, though (with the current funding
squeeze caused by US
anti-terrorism pressure) they probably couldn't afford him. Perhaps though, the firing squad is a good idea in the light of a recent
chink in the armor - Amrozi has agreed to his defense team launching an appeal
against his death sentence. Maybe he's not in such a hurry to get his 70
virgins after all. Or maybe he has had second thought about the whole thing. Amrozi shouldn't let his appeal go for too long though. As every Sari
Nightclub patron would know, virgins are a limited
resource, and at the current rate of suicide bombings they must be going fast.
By the time he gets to heaven there will only be ugly ones left.
|
|
 |
| Bubble bursts on Pentagon IT start-up | |
Things move fast in the Information Technology arena, but the
last 24 hours have been a blur for some geeks at the Pentagon. They launched a
bet-on-terrorism site which was to enable people to make bets with each other
about terrorist actions. Then they abandoned the site after being shouted down
by the left. Presumably these geeks got to talking to free-market types, and
realized that markets predict world events better than panels of peer-reviewing
experts, and thought the
best way to evaluate risks was by looking at the market price of risk. Why does this work? Basically because every grubby government-funded expert is
miniature politician. They are
experts in making predictions, giving advice, and (when they are demonstrated
wrong) explaining why they were really right because of other factors which
couldn't have reasonably accounted for. On the other hand every stock market investor has to make a genuine assessment
of risk. If they are wrong, they can't just bluff about how they were really
right - their bank account tells the story, and all they can do is lick their
wounds, and try to get it right next time, or get out of the game. The successful investor is one who has made good decisions about where to move
investment capital. The successful government analyst is expert merely at
getting air-time at executive meetings. Hence, people who make good predictions about world events would make a lot of
money from the bet-on-terrorism site, while people who made poor predictions
would lose money. And as with markets generally - over time, those who make
good decisions end up with more capital to bet, and the predictions get even
better. But collectivism
hates rewarding talent. The leftist politicians instantly produced the
predictable hysterical slogans "federal betting parlor on atrocities",
"a plan to trade in death" and "ridiculous and grotesque". This was a plan which was destined to fail - it just challenged too many
leftist beliefs - in particular, beliefs about insider trading. Rene Rivkin recently did goal time for Insider trading (if only
for a day), and people consider it to be an evil thing. But insider trading on
a terrorism future is likely to be a good thing - the price change is likely to
alert people to the real risk. As it could in many other situations: - How many US generals in the Cold War would have seriously bet that the
USSR had a more efficient fighting force than it actually did. Overstating communist muscle may have
helped their careers, but their personal greeds and insider knowledge would
have bid the price down.
- How many pro-asylum
seekers would have actually bet that Ali Baktiari was from Afghanistan?
- What would the market price on children overboard have been in the lead-up
to the previous election? (It would have been interesting to see John Howard's
bids too).
But less than a day after the site was launched, the protests and squealing
achieved their purpose, and it was taken down. And once again those who were
good at getting air-time got their way, and managed to drown out those
who actually believe in their own judgment. The smart money in this
round would have always been on the collectivists.
|
|
 |
| Pork in the flight path | |
There two main strategies democratic governments use when faced
with decisions which will be unpopular regardless of the outcome -
procrastination and decisive procrastination. Both sides of government in
Australia are firmly committed to a second international airport for Sydney,
but neither really wants to commit to where or when. John (wiffle-waffle) Howard has been stalling on this issue since the GST was a mere glint in his eye -
scrapping plans for the Badgerys Creek site (in order to prop up the value of
Sydney Airport for the sale), but retaining the Badgerys Creek land (funny
that). Simon (strong-man) Crean on the other hand has firmly committed to
something - to not build an airport at Badgerys Creek. He hasn't actually committed to where else to build one, or even when - he
has merely committed to commission another investigation into other
possibilities. Yes, faithful tax-payer, that means more of your
money. But at least he has
committed to something - he has committed to
not doing anything in his first term. Now that's leadership! Simon (I-beat-Kim) Crean is feeling pretty cocky about his leadership, and
he can now make decisions which are good for the ALP collective but which alienate
some members of his shadow cabinet, who are unhappy with not being consulted
about this non-decision. Simon knows that the next election will be won or lost in
the western suburbs, and the announcement is done to placate those voters. But not the voters under the flight paths of Sydney Airport. House owners
under the flight path regularly whine louder than the jet engines about their
lives being unbearable due to aircraft noise. Apparently none of them knew that
jet engines made noise when they bought their homes, and the fact that their
homes were priced accordingly when they bought them, and that they stand to
reap massive capital gains from any scaling back of Sydney Airport, is lost in
the roar. That's the nature of politics guys - there's never
enough pork to
satisfy everyone.
|
|
|
I was wondering how a table would be rendered in this Blog. Now I know. Not
very nice, is it!
You have to actually insert the HTML to do this <TABLE border=2>
<TR><TD>this</TD><TD>is</TD></TR>
<TR><TD>a</TD><TD>table</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
Will yield this table So easy that even an Arts student could do it!! .. the tricky bit is getting the blog to show the code for the blog
instead of the table itself. This is left as an exercise
for the intellectual elite.
|
|
 |
| Dogs of the sea | |
Greenies and crystal
gazers were up in arms about a dolphin trading in the Solomons before the
arrival of the Australian law-men. The dolphins were being held in sea-cages at
the Solomons and were sold to a Mexican theme park - being rushed out to their
new home before the arrival of the main Australian force due to fears that the
Australians might interfere with the shipment. And not without reason, since Australia's Environment Minister had called on
Mexico to block the importation. Exactly why Australian politicians think they
have a right to interfere with peaceful trade between other nations is
something of a mystery, but presumably has something to with navel-gazing
crystal therapists who like to believe there is something mystical about these
dogs of the sea. Dolphins are more intelligent than most animals, but are are no more
intelligent than the common canine. The fact that they always seem to be
smiling in trashy US TV programs like Flipper, and the fact that that only a
small proportion of people have serious contact with them have given them a
friendly yet mystical image which mere common sense seems unable to dispel. Of course even dispelling that myth wouldn't stop many of the Greenies, who
have also been howling about the importation of clothes made of dog and cat
fur. Apparently they think that the fact that many people have dogs and cats as
pets gives them the right to stop other people from farming them. Think this through guys - the reason that they make such cuddly pets is because
of their soft fur, which also makes them excellent for cuddly fur coats. Which
is more than you could say for the dolphins. So what's the problem?
|
|
 |
| Trumped! | |
Card games are normally games of chance, and Uday and Qusay got unlucky
yesterday as their cards came up - trumps for the US, and the two hated sons of
Saddam were dealt out of the game. Many people wanted to see their heads on pikes in central Baghdad, but the
US is a bit coy about such open displays of violence, instead to show a gentler
face to the Iraqi population. They are now debating which pictures to show of
the corpses - the gruesome blood spattered corpses or the cleaned-up and
peaceful funeral home variety. The US is sensitive to the fact that many Iraqis hate them even more than
Saddam's sons and doesn't want to provoke anti-US fervor. The obvious solution of handing over all the photos to the interim Iraqi
administration, and letting them make the choice themselves presumably hasn't
occurred to George W. (must-retain-control) Bush, but presumably his
sensitivity doesn't extend that far. Meanwhile the US deck-of-the-most-wanted is looking a bit thin, and the US
is rapidly burning the deck as more and more of the most wanted are captured or
killed in the post-conflict mop-up. No sign yet of the Ace of Spades (Saddam), but with the next generation
eliminated (and even one of the generation after that caught in the crossfire),
the regime is clearly finished. The former dictator must be feeling a little despondent. With Iraqis in
Baghdad celebrating by firing into the air (it must be an Arab thing), with
tens of thousands of US soldiers looking for him, and with millions of his
fellow Iraqis dreaming of getting the 25 million bounty on his head, the deck
does seem rather loaded against him. He may still be in control of the several truckloads of cash that were
looted from the banks as the regime's house of cards fell, but he he has to use
that money to continually out-bid the American's 25 million, and over time that
could become very expensive. Unless he has something pretty good up his sleeve,
it's only a matter of time.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
