 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Celebrating patriotism! | |
Indians are taking over! Not the indigenous North American variety, but the
subcontinental variety. It will come as no surprise to some that over two
hundred thousand Indian 'students' are enjoying Australian hospitality. This
wouldn't have been newsworthy several weeks ago, but apparently some are enjoying
it less than others. Some have found themselves the victims of assault. The voice of reason might suggest that any population of two hundred thousand
is bound to have members who find themselves the victim of assault. But, as the
good Chairman pointed out, 'the voices of the many will drown out the
voices of the few'. And two hundred thousand voices can drown out a lot of
reason. Especially when they are helped by a Leftist political agenda. Suddenly the immigrant groups are up in arms, and are back to branding
Australians as racist, and reminding everyone about the White Australia Policy.
Apparently there were gangs of shaven headed white supremacists roaming the
streets seeking ethnic victims. Then some of our Indian guests got their mates to start burning Australian
flags back in India, and even started burning effigies of Chairman Rudd. .. well, even a fool is now and then right by chance, but burning the
Australian flag? Fair shake of the sauce bottle! But a few attacks later, a much maligned and indignant police force came out
and reported the whole truth - that the attacks are not by shaven headed white
supremacist hate groups, but by Lebanese gangs. Oops. Whether the Indians are over-represented as victims of crime is not really
clear. And whether they are specifically overrepresented as victims of Lebanese
violence is not clear either. In fact, the suggestion that Lebanese gangs would
favour Indian victims (over any group) would be tantamount to accusing them of
racism. And since racism is such a bad thing, the suggestion itself could be
construed as racist. And that would never do. Modern political correctness only allows someone's ethnicity to be identified
when they are victims, not when they are perpetrators. Acts of violence are
never perpetrated by an individual against an individual - they are perpetrated
by mainstream society, and are against a minority group. Apparently the
individual victims don't matter - just that fact that they belong to an
identifiable minority group. The identity of the perpetrators doesn't matter -
they are part of the 'racist' (and predominantly white) society. Of course the possibility that two immigrant groups are waging a religious war
on Australian soil goes quietly unstated. It wouldn't support the underlying
agenda for an open-door immigration policy. Everyone loves sacred cows, but surely we don't need to import any more of them.
|
|
 |
| .. to the dog. | |
Another day another fatal dog attack. Your ABC reports
that a three year old girl was mauled to death by pet dogs in the the NSW
Riverina. According to everybody's
ABC, the local community is
(collectively I presume) shocked that this happened. How could anyone be shocked by a dog attack? I mean - if you were the actual
victim, and suddenly found yourself having your flesh ripped off faster than an
Abu Ghraib inmate
you might go into shock. But shock is normally regarded as a state
of great surprise. How could people possibly be surprised at another vicious
dog attack? Haven't enough children been killed, maimed or permanently scarred by vicious
dogs for people to understand that keeping large pack animals around small
children will result in many of them being eaten alive? Apparently not. Dogs are of course, much like Leftists.
- They are supposedly loving, warm and only want to be friends with everyone.
- They are cowards when they are alone with something bigger and more powerful than they are.
- When they mob together in sufficient numbers they attack anything and everything weaker than they are.
- They have no responsibility for anything they do.
This, of course, qualifies them to be 'man's best friend', or maybe even 'friends of the Earth'. And in this case a woman looking after another someone else's children decided
to leave the
meat out. And the pack of cute little lovable doggies helped themselves. The woman herself claimed to be 'in shock' (no point in letting the police
interview you until you get your story straight eh?). Her husband was later
quoted on the ABC as saying
that it was just an accident, and was no-one's fault. Presumably 'society' is to
blame. Somehow. Again. It might baffle some that people would want to keep such animals as pets - in
their houses, around their children (or in this case around other people's
children). But the reason is actually quite obvious. There is a popular notion that the Left need peace, tranquility
and calm. They don't. In fact, they crave conflict, confrontation and
aggression. That's why they surround themselves with it.
|
|
 |
| Something to look forward to | |
Solving the problem of poverty is easy. All we need to do is to get the government to buy plasma TVs and give them to poor people. Everyone knows that rich people have plasma TVs, and poor people don't. Plasma TVs are what separates the rich from the poor. Giving poor people a plasma TV would make them rich people. Or even if it didn't actually make them rich, this would be the most effective first step to address the serious imbalances in economic and social injustice in today's world of have and have-nots. Well, actually, any intelligent person knows that the previous paragraph is utter nonsense. But substitute the word 'notebook computer' for 'TV', and you will become the darling of the leftist elites, who are intent on forcing tax payers to buy millions of notebook computers so they can be distributed to those more worthy than themselves. We have the international OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) project, Australia's determination to give a notebook to every Aboriginal child, and then Kevin (Pixie) Rudd's election promise to give one notebook to every school child. Apparently the average destitute Aboriginal child, struggling with substance abuse, domestic violence, sexual molestation and chronic ear infections will get onto the internet to research the solution to his community's problems. "Hey Dad, it says here on www.social-workers.gov.au that you should stop getting drunk and bashing mum and I. How about going off to AA?". "Hey Mum - it says here on www.healthy-eating.gov.au that diet is an important lifestyle choice. How about some fresh food for dinner?" "Hey bros, I read on www.say-no-to-drugs.gov.au that sniffing petrol can damage your brain. I guess we'd better stop doing it now." Fly. Pigs. Might. In African nations, there is a plan to give free notebooks to children who don't even have electricity. 'No problem,' say the scheme's advocates, 'we can attach wind-up generators to them. And they could even be use to supply light in their mud-huts after dark!' Are there any intelligent people who find this anything other than totally perverse? Even The Pixie's proposal to supply notebooks to bogans in a first world country is faltering. It seems that the rubbery figures used in estimating the cost of the one-laptop-per-bogan scheme didn't take into account that the notebooks have to maintained. You need IT support for them. IT people, dear reader, are those people who command obscene salaries for doing something that the rest of the population don't even understand. IT support is expensive. More expensive, in fact, than the computers themselves. The cost of buying a notebook for a motivated, middle-class brat is just the cost of the notebook itself. Within a day, a teen-age computer nerd will strip off the firewall protection and censorship filters, and be happily surfing www.horny-cheerleaders.com in between downloading his homework from essays-for-sale.com, and still have time to post party invitations on MySpace. But how long is a notebook going to last in a mud hut? Or even a tin hut? Or even a bogan's school bag, getting thrown around with the footy boots? Answer: not even until the next federal election. Oops. And the destitute African children? Apart from sending Nigerian 419 scam letters, there is little in the way of local industry which can benefit from information transfer. Social networking is a great way for bored western teenagers to kill time, but when there are animals to feed, crops to grow and water to fetch, on-line gossip about pop stars is pretty much irrelevant. Commodity prices on the other side of the world won't help you if you are merely subsistence farming. And great literature is of no interest to someone with an empty stomach. Doubtless these elitist initiatives will result in someone, somewhere doing something useful, and the proponents will declare the whole fiasco a success. But does anyone think that the hundreds of dollars per unit would not have been better spent on food, medicine, conventional education or even on a mercenary force to topple their corrupt thieving governments? And that applies for governments other than Australia's too.
|
|
 |
| Mahem in Mumbai | |
Try as they might, the followers of the Religion of Peace can't seem to
avoid controversy. Some particularly devout Allah fanboys decided to conduct
their own little Jihad in Mumbai, and kill as many Westerners as they could.
On second thoughts, maybe these ones weren't trying that hard. Anyway, the local police followed procedure - rushing to the scene and standing
around looking for opportunities to take bribes. Unfortunately the guy in charge
got shot, and so did two of his deputies. Total chaos ensued. But at least our
own government officials
responded appropriately. Kevin (Pixie) Rudd stood up in parliament and branded
the perpetrators as "murderers and cowards" (he was, presumably, talking about
the terrorists and not the local police). Good on ya, Kev! Here is a true leader!
Someone who will ignore several decades
of politically
correct cultural
relativism and call a spade a spade! But hang on, did he say 'cowards'? Isn't a coward someone who runs
away from personal danger? These terrorists were quite prepared to die for
their beliefs. Their beliefs might be little radical (that Allah wants them to
kill as many kaffirs as
possible), but they are prepared to die for those beliefs. And that doesn't
make them cowards. Religious extremists maybe. Sadistic lunatics
probably. Murderous psychopaths definitely. But not cowards. The coward rhetoric may sound good. And many alert-but-not-alarmed people may be comforted
by the words. But they illustrate a fundamental lack of clarity of thought,
and understanding of the enemy. The first step in winning a war is understanding the enemy. To predict his
strategy, you must understand what he will do in a given situation. To
understand what he will do, you must understand what motivates him. The
motivation of a coward is totally different to that of the irrational religious zealot. Of course fuzzy thinking is, and always has been, the choice weapon for the
lovers of bigger government. The Pixie
is merely continuing the tradition. The idea that higher minimum wages will create jobs, or that a welfare
state will make us rich, or that socialism will create
equality, or that government declared wars on poverty, obesity or drugs will make us free and
happy. Running away from personal danger might be undesirable, but running away
from reality is surely worse. What a pity there is no war against ignorance and fuzzy
thinking.
|
|
 |
| Stop the drop | |
There's something funny about blood. People get emotional about it. Whether we
are spilling it, or ensuring that it's thicker than water, or adding it to our
sweat and tears, we are pretty close to it most of the time.
Blood is clearly very important. That's why it's critical that the government makes so many
rules about it to stop us doing what we want with our own blood.
For instance, the government has laws against actually paying any
poor people for donating blood.
Until recently there were also rules against selling blood. It's not that
no-one was allowed to profit from the blood industry. The doctors who
administer the blood, the nurses who service them, and the many many health
administrators who take their immodest salaries to keep us safe - they are all
allowed to benefit from the blood industry. The recipients presumably benefit
from the blood industry too - by receiving blood. Actually the only people who
aren't allowed to benefit from the blood industry were the people who actually
donate the blood.
Which may be why blood supplies are always critically low, and the supply
system is always in crisis.
In fact the blood supply situation has gotten so critical, that the government
has a new mechanism to deal with it: making blood recipients pay for the blood
(at least at private hospitals anyway).
Exactly how having the government charge people for consuming blood will
increase the number of people supplying blood is a bit of a mystery for
us mere voters. But clearly the government must have the answer. The government
is very smart. That's why they are the government.
The Daily Telegraph is running a typically hysterical front page article
complete with an ailing blond child called 'Ruby' on the cover. Apparently Ruby
is an immunoglobulin transfusee (that's medicarati for 'needs lots of blood').
It's good that the paper cleared that up because 'Ruby' doesn't look
anemic. Actually her cheeks are quite rosy, and she doesn't look underweight
either. In fact, in a few years, people will probably be describing Ruby as
'Rubenesque'.
Regardless, the blood-thirsty Ruby attends a private hospital, and the
government has decided to make private hospitals pay for blood. The embattled
NSW government (which is unable to balance their budget even in the wake of
unprecedented revenue surges) has resorted to the desperate measure of charging
private hospitals for blood.
So on the one hand we have a government which forbids people selling their
blood, but still forces people to pay for it, and on the other side we have
people who want to ban both the buying and selling of blood.
Isn't it supposed to be the capitalist
elites growing obscenely fat by sucking the blood of the hard working
proletariat who are victims of their needs?
No Dear Reader. It's your socialist government, and their blood tax.
|
|
 |
| The lie unravels | |
The Daily
Telegraph reports
that hundreds of women who have duped men out of years of child support for
children that are not theirs can now be forced to pay back the money.
DNA techniques can, of course prove conclusively who the father is, and isn't. Needless to say, WIMMIN!'s groups are outraged that WIMMIN! will have to
actually take responsibility for their actions.
Angry women's groups said last night that it would be the children at the
centre of the disputes who would suffer most if money were paid back.
Apparently these loving mothers are going to take it out on the children.
The money has already been spent on rearing the child, If the
mother is forced to pay it back, its hard to imagine the child won't be
disadvantaged.
Apparently WIMMIN! shouldn't have to pay their debts if they have already spent
their ill gotten gains on raising children. Does that mean they don't have pay
mortgages, or car loans or credit cards too? Or is this a special exemption which
only applies to men they have lied to? While the knee-jerk reaction might be to have some sympathy for 'confused women
acting in good faith', perhaps women who have have so many partners in the space
of a month that they don't know the paternity of their child should speak up about
their uncertainty before pursuing a man they claim to be responsible. While people may not have an obligation to let a partner know about their
infidelities, they surely have an obligation to report relevant factors when suing
them for child support.
She said men should raise doubts about paternity when they are first told they
are a father.
Serves them right for believing the word of a woman I guess.
|
|
 |
| Pale and afraid | |
Amrozi, was a bit of an enigma. The continually grinning Bali Bomber inhabited
the pundit space somewhere between the smiling assassin and the village idiot.
Regardless, the smile was wiped off his face last night as he and two of
co-conspirators faced a firing squad for his efforts in promoting the Religion
of Peace. Media reports described his final moments as 'pale and afraid'. Maybe
he was starting to suspect that the whole thing was a trick. Maybe there
weren't 72 virgins for waiting him - maybe he was the virgin. Several generations of Indonesians, of course, have been taught to hate
Australians by both their Islamic leaders and their corrupt
government. Focusing the hate toward the rich, hardworking and comparatively
uncorrupt nation to the the south was a good strategy both for the survival of
the dictatorship, and the religious elite. But murdering 202 people in a nightclub was a bit excessive even if 88 of them
were Australians. This went way beyond the call of duty. Embarrassingly so.
The Indonesian government was shamed into accepting the help of the Australian
Federal Police in tracking the bombers, and their judiciary were then sullenly
forced to convict and then execute them - or have their hypocrisy and
corruption exposed to the whole world. This is the cynical view of course. The un-cynical view is that the Indonesian
power bloc realized that the Bali bombers represented a zealotry which could
destabilize the government. Hatred of westerners is good, but must be
moderated. Government sanctioned protests outside the Australian embassy with
the occasional incursion into embassy grounds while burning the Australian
flag; spitting on foreigners in the street - that kind of stuff. Regardless, the really interesting thing (as usual) was the reaction to the
executions. Most of Balinese Muslims seemed to be on Australian TV screaming
for more infidel's blood. No surprise there. This is pretty much what
Australians have come to except from Religion of Peace. Unfortunately some
Australians had the bad taste to celebrate with a beer. Faux pas! Whether The State should
be in the business of executing people is a question of debate. One of the most
powerful arguments is 'we are no better than them if we kill too'. A
little contrite perhaps. But celebrating the spilling of Muslim blood because
the Muslims are celebrating the spilling of Christian blood? Hmm .. there but
for the grace of Allah .. There is something disturbing about celebrating the execution of someone with a
beer. It is one thing to shrug, and say 'who cares?', or even
'at least it's over', or even a 'hoist by his own
petard'. It's quite another to actively celebrate someone's
execution. Even an evil psychopath like a Bali bomber. But at least it's over.
|
|
 |
| Clueless | |
Most Australian taxpayers wouldn't have been surprised to see the weekend's
headlines 'ABC given $22M handout'. The ABC gets hundreds of millions of
dollars of your hard-earned every year, so what's another 22 between pork barrels?
But there might have been a little confusion about which
ABC was getting the money. It wasn't the media broadcasting giant
created to spread the gospel of collectivism to the masses. No dear reader this was the
other blood-sucking tax-leaching namesake 'ABC Learning'. ABC Learning is a private company which caters to parents who value
their career above caring for their own children. It's all about outsourcing.
If outsourcing is good enough for the public service, then why not outsource
Junior's upbringing too? Leave the job of child raising
to government-approved experts! Need a well deserved rest? Why not just pay
someone to take a well deserved rest for you. Actually they do that already -
it's called 'the dole', but we digress. ABC Learning was so badly run, that it couldn't even make a profit by sucking
on the inexhaustible corporate welfare tit, and has been placed into
receivership by the banks, which are owed over half a billion dollars. The childcare centers are (of course) still running, money is coming in (much of it from
the government) children are being cared for, carers are still caring.
But thousands of parents are terrified that they might have to take responsibility
for their own children if the centers start closing. Perhaps they should think again. The banks might be greedy, but they are not
stupid. The centres are worth far more as going concerns than they were if the
assets were liquidated. Consider:
- If the centers were closed, there would be a bunch of parents wanting carers for their kids.
- Setting a up a child-care center is expensive and takes considerable skill and resources.
- The receivers won't get much for three blocks and a baby change table on eBay, and would still have to pay for the leases on the centers themselves.
Ergo, it would be far more profitable to sell the centers as going concerns
than to liquidate. Even giving the centers away for nothing would be cheaper
than paying out the remainder of the leases on the buildings! This is a situation which bankruptcy laws (and market forces) will take care of all on their own.
The government didn't need to give the banks $22M of tax payers money to keep
things going until Christmas. But once again, the (supposedly Leftist)
government is determined to socialize the losses and privatize the
profits. And thousands of supposedly loving parents nod approvingly and dote on
the latest government intervention. Infants need to grow up sometime. Companies do too. Maybe it's time for this whole industry to
be weaned off the government tit.
|
|
 |
| Trumped at last! | |
Dealing the race card has been a time honoured favorite for a generation of
ethnic minorities. Whenever you don't get something you asked for (like
someone else's money for instance), just throw yourself on the floor and scream
'racism' repeatedly. It
works for small children, so why not victims of racial
discrimination? Of course time marches on, pets die, children grow up, and societal attitudes to things
like institutionalized racial discrimination evolve. But not always for the
better. Like in the case of former ATSIC commissioner Alan Wolf,
who is suing the Tasmanian Aboriginal Council for not being racist. Yes, dear
reader, for not being racist. The Australian reports that Alan Wolf, who has presumably based his entire
career on claiming to be a member of the institutionalized racial minority (that
would be the Australian Aborigines for anyone who doesn't get out much), has
suddenly found that the Tasmanians don't accept his qualifications as an
Aboriginal and won't give him preferential treatment in his application for a
fishing licence. He may have apply with all the white people at the back of
the bus. If this all seems a little confusing to anyone with a logical mind, It
really is totally logical. You just aren't considering the bigger picture. Remember that Aborigines (by weighted genetic proportion) are actual less
than two percent of the population. That's not much to support a political
movement. [Actually it's probably about the same as the Libertarians, and look
how spectacularly ineffectual they have been in changing Australian
politics]. Even as a special interest group, the percentage is too low to have
much effect. So in the heady '80s, Aboriginal lobby groups decided that the best special
interests of the Aborigines were served by an 'inclusive policy'. That is, get
as many people as possible to claim to be victims of the Aboriginality,
regardless of whether they were, or weren't actually of pre-European ancestry.
Even in Tasmania. And boy it worked. Never was there so much hand-wringing and self
flagellation for such a small minority group. And the buckets of money started
flowing into 'Aboriginal concerns'. This might have been a surprise to those of us unfortunate enough to have
been educated by the Tasmanian State education system. We were
taught that the last full blooded Tasmanian Aboriginal was a woman called
Truganini, who died in an Aboriginal settlement in 1876 (far too soon to have
given birth to modern political correctness). But the money still flowed. And nothing exceeds like success. Once money
(and affirmative
action policies) were flowing. Then a new strategy was effective - to
maximize your share of the trough by locking people out. Suddenly, people of
questionable ancestral qualifications were having that ancestry questioned. One of the fastest growing populations in the world has suddenly started
shrinking. A new genocide, or just a mercy culling
of a stupid political movement? Normally leftist political movements shrink when the government money supply is
cut. But in this case the movement is just reeling from a reduction in blood
supply.
|
|
 |
| Too much bull in bear market | |
Your ABC headline is Bailout approval fails to boost US stocks And the article begins:
United States stocks have fallen heavily after Congress passed a huge financial
rescue plan, as investors remained nervous about a global credit squeeze and
the weak economy.
After giving Treasury 700 Billion to buy trash for cash, which was
supposed to restore everyone's faith in capitalism to the extent that they
would re-invest their life savings in the stock market. Of course turning to a socialist solution would save capitalism.
Obviously. We knew this was true. George Bush told us so! Oops. At least it's only tax-payer's money.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
