 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| 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.
|
|
 |
| The ugly face of street protests | |
Phil Ruddock may have been out of the country, but that didn't stop
pro-asylum seeker protesters converging on his Sydney home this afternoon.
They didn't actually get to their destination though. Their right to conduct the protest was upheld in court, but their squishy
pro-bono lawyers didn't see
the legal trap that was coming, and obtained permission to protest in the
street, but not actually outside the house of Phil
(no-one-home-anyway) Ruddock. Police stopped them before they got to the house
itself, and smugly said the conditions of the protest were met. Inevitable
scuffles and arrests followed. Politicians on both
sides of politics were
clearly disturbed at the precedent of protests outside their private homes. Bob
(I-just-spend-the-money) Carr clearly thought that this was taking
accountability of office a bit too far. The protesters on the other hand presumably thought that no-one had the
right to tell someone else where they could or couldn't go. Which was kind of
what the protest was about really. Of course if the streets were privatized this wouldn't
be a problem - it would be a straight issue of permission or trespass, but few
politicians are going to voluntarily give up their power to control who uses the
city streets. One could almost hear Johnny Howard, gently explaining
We will decide who enters the public streets and the manner in which
they do so.
|
|
 |
| The Red Menace | |
The eastern end of Dubya's axis of evil is the one without oil, and maybe that's why it's
squeaking so loudly. The playboy of Asian politics, Kim Jong (Dear
Leader) Il, is making headlines again as North Korea keeps up the
strong rhetoric about developing nuclear weapons. The US is talking of a national
embargo to stop the failed cash-strapped nation exporting the nukes to other
countries. But many believe that Dear Leader has very little to do with the decisions, or
the rhetoric. The smart money seems to be tipping that he is being retained as
a figurehead while the generals run the country. A brave assertion considering
that so little is known of the reclusive Stalinist state, and considering the poor
intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. But this assertion is also supported by
common sense: because no one man could be that stupid. Having seen Iraq fall in
three weeks under the guns 'n' God policies of Dubya, one would think that that
North Korea would realize that the blackmail 'n' cheat strategies which worked
so well during the days of Bill (plausibly-deniable) Clinton's regime are
over. Why then, take a course which is likely to lead to a war which the North Korean power block cannot possibly
survive? Quite simply because North Korea is being run by a collective. In a social
democracy, the quiet voice of reason has no chance against the cries of
'people before profits', or 'safety first'. In North Korea, the rhetorical
cries of 'Iraq proves that disarmament means invasion', will simply drown out
the quiet voice of reason. There is a kind of tragedy of the
commons where everyone wants to hold the wheel, even if the ship is
steering into an iceberg. Everyone will act in their own interest, and lead the
collective into disaster. This is simply the nature of coercive collectives. So Dear Leader gets to pretend to be the leader of 22 million starving
people, and gets all the Western call-girls he can poke a stick at. And he gets
to watch the political machinations. Game theorists know that one of the best strategies for winning a game of
bluff is to convince your opponent of your lack of rationality (would you
continue to play chicken against an opponent who has just thrown his steering
wheel out the window?). Unfortunately the North Korean power block is not
bluffing - the power block is genuinely crazy. And without knowing how China would jump in the advent
of hostilities, the US would be equally crazy to act without careful
consideration. Wedged up against China, North Korea is like a zit in an inaccessible and
embarrassing place. And unlike Iraq, squeezing it is unlikely to produce oil.
|
|
 |
| Separated in Death | |
Two heads are better than one, and Iranian Siamese Twins Laleh and Ladan
Bijani clearly agreed, making the decision to undergo separation surgery, which
yesterday cost their lives. An international team of doctors put their heads
together in Singapore to do the operation, but in the end there were too many
shared blood vessels between the twins' brains, which shared the same skull
cavity, and both died from massive blood loss. A sad day for their families, and a powerful reminder of the limitations of
modern medicine, but also a powerful message about personal freedom. Clearly
the twins were aware of the dangers of the operation, but made the decision to
take that risk. Why? Because they were sick of compromising on everything from
when to get up in the morning, when to eat and even what career to follow. Clearly they wanted to be individuals, to make their own decisions, and to
lead their own lives. Having to live their life in a collective, even a
collective of two, was unbearable for them. It was not that either of them
disliked their twin, they just wanted to be able to make decisions on their
own, even if it meant taking a very dangerous risk. The twins were unable to get the surgery performed in their native Iran,
because doctors could have been charged with murder if the operation failed.
However in Singapore, a country not normally associated with personal freedom,
they had the right to take that risk, and to make their decision instead of
having the government make it for them. Sadly their decision cost them their lives, and doubtless collectivists
everywhere will use their deaths to claim that society, not the individual
concerned is the appropriate authority to make such decisions. The fact that
the increased information about the risks is now available to everyone
(including other Siamese twins), and the fact that the desire for personal
freedom is so basic and so strong as to make people take those risks, will be
collectively ignored in the rush to the middle. The old adage 'give me liberty or give me death' seems as
pertinent now as it ever has been.
|
|
 |
| Chrissie from Big Brother | |
George Orwell's invention of Big Brother is something which has fascinated
social analysts for over half a century. Sadly though, the dumbed down
commercial adaption of the concept in the TV series of the same name is more
like the Soma rations in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It is something to be
shunned or ignored by those of us who like to believe we belong to the intellectual
elite. Unless of course it involves fat chicks. Some technician was watching resident fat chick Chrissie about to hop into
the shower and said 'I'd never go for a fat woman'. Most of the
live-feed audience was probably saying the same thing but, unlike the
technician, they weren't within range of the microphones. Chrissie overheard
the remark, choose to be mortally offended and, presumably in one of her few
moments of lucidity, realized she was a piece of meat on show, cried victim, and was promptly
supported by the rest of the boring under-achieving exhibitionists on the
program. People are expected to feel sympathy for overweight women, but exactly why
is puzzling - they could diet, but choose not to - ie they are merely women who
enjoy food more than sex. Why do people put themselves on exhibition, and then cry victim when people
make unflattering comments? A smart person doesn't take a shower on national
television (or the Internet) and then take the
view that someone violated her citadel of dignity by making a crass remark. Which really highlights Crissie's problem: it's not actually her weight -
it's that her weight exceeds her IQ.
|
|
 |
| Liberia | |
While Australia is
busy recolonizing the Pacific, the Americans look like they may be
pressured into doing a bit of recolonizing of their own. Buying African slaves from other Africans to
import into America was, of course, one of the most repressive actions in
history, and caused untold misery. Invariably in such situations there are
winners and losers. In this situation, the losers were clearly the slaves, and
the winners were clearly the black Africans who captured and sold them, their
white transporters and their new white Americans owners. It's not quite so clear though who the winners and losers are in the
current day. Endless statistics about black disadvantage and repression in the
US are par for the course in any politically
correct discussion about world's superpower, as are the nodding heads of
approval at suggestions of reparations for
slavery. However these tend to meet with 'well why don't they go back
to Africa then?' from
those of us with rational minds and no
ambitions to win awards on contributions to humanity. Suggestions that the
descendants of slaves were disadvantaged by their ancestors'
enslavement suffer a crisis of credibility when their plight is compared to
blacks living in the big begging bowl of modern day Africa. Lefties are quick to
point out that most of Africa is in a 'post colonial' phase, and blame white
males, but it seems that the less that the colonial powers have to do with the
countries the worse they become. The American redneck fantasy of ten million blacks swimming back to Africa
with a Jew under each arm has
been around in spirit for a long time. Liberia is a country formed by freed slaves who were naive enough
to believe the rednecks and do-gooders who encouraged them to return to
Africa. Freed from the repression of their former owners, they would be able to
build a new nation of prosperity and freedom. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way, with the nation descending
slowly into civil war, and now there is quiet, though mounting, pressure for
(guess who?) the Americans to go in and sort it out. These post colonial nations are a bit like small children screaming for
freedom, choice and control over their lives - until they actually get it, then
it's the phone call back to daddy to get them out of trouble. Of course if the Americans go in, they will be accused of further
colonialism, and if they don't, they will be accused of not meeting their
responsibilities. Is it any wonder that the US is so keen on a missile defence shield?
The big lock on the door which will enable them to let the neighbourhood
go to rack and ruin while they sit in front of the fire and ignore it.
|
|
 |
| Australian Immigration - open-bordello policy | |
Politics makes for
strange bedfellows, and there's nothing like sexual scandal to create the
mood. The sex slave issue has been portrayed as a mounting problem the media again, as a seemingly
endless stream of visa-less women in Australia claim to have been
taken from their happy families in impoverished countries, and
forced into sex slavery in Australian brothels. Its one of those mutually agreeable issues that seems to satisfy all parties.
- The reactionary right can be up in arms about the lack of morality of sex smugglers and
sex-worker clients alike, while screaming for greater powers to 'guide' the
morality of those around them.
- The feminists can
shriek about the debasement of women in society, and add it to the
justifications for greater affirmative action
in the work place, and greater preferential treatment in the general community.
- Open border proponents can use it to create little trickles in the
dyke by insisting that they are refugees.
- And many Australian yobbos can go out to the local bordello and get a
taste of multicultural Bangkok
action without without risking a cavity search by some drug-obsessed customs officer at
Sydney airport.
The only victim, it
seems, is common sense. People generally accept that Australia is an attractive immigration
destination. Getting more money on the dole in Australia than the median wage
in your own country is a pretty powerful incentive, even before the personal freedom and safety issues are
considered. Then there's even the opportunity to go out and get a job. For some reason though, the possibility that Australia might also be an
attractive destination for sex workers (we don't
call them whores anymore), is unthinkable. Unfortunately for the victim lobby groups, whenever they try to hold up a
particular sex-worker as a showcase, the cracks appear in the story. Pictures
of skiing holidays and expensive looking harbor cruises don't do much for the
claims of imprisonment. Nor do the investigations revealing that the women were
prostitutes before they ever came to Australia. So the lobby groups have
changed tack. Visaless sex workers are now encouraged to claim that, while they were told
that they would be plying their oldest trade in Australia, they were also told
that sex-work in Australia is like the movie 'Pretty Woman' in which a
common street-walker (Julia Roberts) meets a caring, handsome and loving single
billionaire (Richard Gere) who falls in love with her. In reality, doing a dozen tricks a night must be pretty much the same in
Sydney as it is in Bangkok, and the cost of living is higher. And the billionaires? Well if they want to experience Bangkok, they
probably fly their Lear jets there for the real thing.
|
|
 |
| Pacific solution springs a leak | |
Australians worried
about the Asian invasion may be concerned to hear that the latest boatload of
54 Vietnamese immigrant hopefuls are all from the same extended family! Forget
the family reunion scheme, these guys just brought all the relo's with them! It's been nearly two years since the last lot of hopefuls ended up in Nauru or Manus Island and this
lot presumably thought that border protection fervor had died down enough to
try their luck. The average Australian has realized we can still kick butt in
the Middle East (with
the help of the Americans of
course), so maybe we can still survive the larger onslaught. So 53 hopefuls
(and the Australian instigator) climbed on the proverbial Vegemite lid and
almost made it to the Port Hedland detention center, before being gently guided
to the Christmas Island detention center instead, where the government was
hoping to keep them out of the clutches of leftie high-court judges, who
invariably seem be inclined to let them stay. But it turns out that they may have gotten so close to the mainland that
the excision legislation (which denies them the normal appeal process in the
Australian courts) won't
apply. In other words - legally they may have made it to the mainland. Legally
the invasion happened, and the courts are dealt back into the game. Surely enough to feed the flames of redneck insecurity as Phil
(brave-little-boy) Ruddock puts his finger in the dyke to stop this little
trickle becoming a new flood of asylum seekers.
|
|
 |
| Badge-engineered solution | |
Johnny (deputy-sheriff) Howard, was trying out his badge today, committing
Australian police, troops and
miscellaneous law people to
bring some law 'n' order to the failed nation of the Solomon Islands in what he
called a 'new policy direction'. Doubtless there are squishy leftie chain-blame arguments
making the Solomons Islands failure all the fault of some diabolical white
males, but the reality is that sometimes countries just don't take. And unlike
failed businesses, which are eventually forced to cease trading and sell off
their remaining assets to others who will make more productive use of them,
when countries fail they just limp on and on, perpetuating the misery on their
unfortunate inhabitants. The British gave the island
nation full independence in 1978, and a slow, but inevitable collapse into
lawlessness ensued. Initially most of the judiciary were British, and thereby
generally above the 'one-tok' (tribal favoritism) system of the locals, but it
wasn't enough to maintain law and order. Enter Savior Johnny, who says that the existing system is likely to harbor
drug smuggling, money
laundering, and terrorism. It's a little hard to see how these things could affect Australia - it's
just as easy to search arrivals from the Solomons as Tehran or Kabul, but it
would be impolitic for Johnny to say the real reason for going in: we don't
want to see a Chinese
military base in the Pacific. No one is using the term 're-colonization' yet, and Jonny (we-know-best)
Howard isn't willing to go that far. Under the proposed deal, the country
maintains sovereignty, but law and order services are courtesy of the
Australian taxpayer. This could work out well for the Solomons, and is claimed to have
overwhelming local support. Traditional foreign aid has caused
incalculable damage to many third world countries, serving simply to prop up
corrupt tin-pot pseudo-democracies at the expense
of their populations. Particularly damaging are the politically
correct forms which (in a effort to avoid being being culturally elitist) don't
dictate what aid money is
spent on, but merely give it to the governments
themselves. Somehow people believe that money given to an organization which
has ruined an entire country's economy will be well spent. Yet another
conclusion of cultural
relativism. But this is aid with a difference - it's not economic aid, it's just a law
and order package. People might be safe in their homes, feel safe enough to
send their children to
school, or send the missus out to buy a few beers. It's got to be a good
thing. Eventually people might even feel secure enough to start businesses, and
actually create wealth. This is unlikely though. Unfortunately the aid is not about real
law-and-order, and will be less about protecting property rights than just
keeping the peace. That's a
start, but it doesn't meet the minimum requirement for creation of wealth. And
with a greedy and corrupt government relieved of the
duty for maintaining law and order themselves, they are likely to spend their
energies pursuing less violent means of theft - taxing and regulating their
population's lives. So the Solomon Islands will stumble on as a semi-failed nation, the drugs, the
dirty money, the terrorists and the Chinese will be kept out, Johnny will hold
his head up high as a big fish in the Pacific pond, and his commitments will
remove any international pressure for Australia to fill her share of body-bags
in the messy aftermath of fighting in Iraq. A clever move, Johnny - surely worthy of the wisdom of Solomon.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
