 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| 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.
|
|
 |
| .. for the little children | |
Leftists are fond of
accusing the Liberal government of wedge politics, but they are
currently beating on a thin little wedge themselves as the asylum seeker issue has
hit the front pages again. This is an issue that everyone wants a hand in. The left are determined to
help the new arrivals dip their hands into Australia's collective
pocket; the latte-drinking elites are happy to
increase any segment of the population who is less qualified or educated than themselves;
the Liberal Party is
determined to capitalize on a strong border protection platform; the ALP is
desperate to claw back some electoral support by using phrases like
'compassion', 'tolerance' and 'big hearted nation'; and the working man is just
a bit nervous about the mass arrival of cheap labor who may be willing to do
their job for a whole lot less than their current wage. And then of course there are the courts. Many advocates of democracy believe that a democratically elected government is the
appropriate body to choose a country's immigration policy, but those who firmly
believe in separation of powers between government and
judiciary feel that the wishes of the majority of Australians can be rightly
ignored on issues that the elites disagree with. And so the courts keep trying
to deal themselves back into this game. In the latest round, the Family Law Court (well known
for its even handed treatment of minorities like adult
males) has declared that the indefinite detention of children is illegal. Of course the fact that their detention is not indefinite (it's only until the
law courts themselves get around to hearing their apparently endless appeals),
is ignored in the political game playing. Likewise the fact that they can leave (at least with their parents) whenever
they choose, and go anywhere (except Australia) is also ignored in the slithery
sophistic reasoning we have come to expect from lawyers and magistrates alike. Truth, as we all know, is what you win in a court of law. It has little to
do with reality, reason or rationality. And already the open-door advocates have declared their next move in
hammering in the thin edge of this wedge - their parents must be allowed out
too because it is in the best interests of the children to be with their
parents. Then of course the injustice of keeping others in detention simply
because they don't have any children will be used to argue that every
one else should be released, and presto - no more detention policy,
and the boats will start again within two weeks. Needless to say, Phil (thanks-for-the-donation) Ruddock is appealing to the
High Court. The outcome could go either way, but at least it's taking
the public's attention away from that little campaign contribution from his
ministerially-approved residency applicant. And if Phil loses his appeal? With the Liberal government currently leading
in the 2-party-preferred electoral polls at 54:46, this looks more like an
opportunity than a problem for the incumbents. Look forward to more excision
legislation designed to be blocked by the Senate for yet another double
dissolution trigger. Politics is a game of russian roulette and the government
seem to be playing with lots of bullets.
|
|
 |
| Monopoly rent on guilt | |
Some say that history is written by the victors, others say that sooner or
later the truth gets told. It's hard to work out belief is supported by the
recent spate of headlines such as 'Black child abuse at crisis point', inspired
by Mick (notice-me) Dodson. The word 'crisis' is an old favorite of both feminists and drama-queens
(not that the two are mutually exclusive). In these more enlightened days,
however, the word usually draws the question 'and so what exactly is about
to happen if the crisis is not resolved?' An answer of 'even more of
the same, just like before' does little to allay the skepticism. Sadly though Mick actually has a point in this case. While he points out
that 90% of aboriginal families are 'affected' by violence (apparently
none of these families actually contain perpetrators), the statistic is still
alarming. But why now? Several decades of leftist hysteria, screaming
'stolen generation', 'cultural
relativism', and 'deep dreamtime significance giant sleeping
serpent under big red rock' allowed the left to hide the problem of
Aboriginal child abuse, and their cries for more and more money allowed the average Joe to
pay his guilt money (what's a little extra tax?), and get on with watching
the footy, playing the pokies, and committing acts of domestic violence on the
wife on special occasions. But the Left were not careful enough about what they wished for, and got
it: a billion dollars a year for two decades (not counting dole money and other
subsidies), poured into the apparent black hole that was ATSIC. If the money was simply wasted, there would arguably have been a net
benefit - ie people would have felt less guilty, and therefore better about
themselves. Unfortunately the money was worse than wasted. Three generations
of welfare dependence
replaced the few remaining shreds of Aboriginal culture with a sound belief in
their victim-hood, no understanding of creating wealth, and a solid, if
confused, belief that wealth is dependent on not working. The problem with giving people welfare is the imposition of an effective
marginal tax rate. If welfare recipients start to create their own wealth,
they get less welfare, and it imposes an effective tax on them. Losing 90 cents
for every dollar of wealth you create is not conducive to creating wealth -
particularly for someone who starts with few or no skills. The damage was not through giving welfare, but through the effective
marginal tax rate it imposes. Even our richest (and perhaps most
motivated) people pay only about 55 cents in the dollar in effective tax
rate. Yet we impose between 70 and 90 cents on our poorest, least motivated and
most vulnerable people. So people are rewarded for doing nothing, and lose their welfare if they
produce anything. That social problems like child abuse would result from this
is not surprising for some, but apparently still to difficult for others to
fathom. The problem they say is not that we have given welfare, but that we
have not given enough. How much disincentive would be enough? But Mick (in-denial) Dodson says that violence was spread by 'poverty and social
exclusion'. Heaven forbid that a reduction in guilt money would affect his
new position of Head of the Australian National University's Institute for
Indigenous Australia. The guilt industry has worked well for him, and he's
working it a bit harder. Mick is onto a winner, and knows that this sacred cow can be milked for a
long time yet. He has framed his comments so there is ring of truth to them, he
can pretend to be controversial, and by making it a children's and women's issue, he can remain
the darling of the Left. Perhaps, sooner or later the victors will ensure the truth gets told.
One day. Perhaps.
|
|
 |
| Nothing to crow about | |
Mark (mad dog) Latham spoke of a number of 'rooters' in the front bench who
were backing the challenger for the top spot in the ALP pecking order, and yesterday their
chicken-coup failed. Kim (Fatboy) Beazley failed to get the numbers to defeat
Simon (Rottweiler) Crean in his leadership challenge. A possible surprise outcome considering the rampant unpopularity of The
Rottweiler with the electorate, and the unlikelihood of winning enough votes in
the next election to win government, but winning
votes hasn't had much to do with ALP policy in the last few years, having
lurched from one crisis to another. But why choose Simon? Of course few people would call John (victory lap) Howard a charismatic
man. He doesn't have the Saxophone playing, trouser-dropping appeal of Bill
(cigar anyone?) Clinton, or the frank Texan drawling guns-and-God appeal of
Dubya. Australians don't
choose their politicians for celebrity (that's what the Queen is for), but to
represent their public
service. And they have progressed from the foul-mouthed bullying ways of
Paul Keating, to the gentle, if somewhat over-taxing manner of Little Johnny. But the ALP may have taken this lesson too far, and presumably believe the
electorate is ready for a petty, whining Simon Crean. A just characterisation
of of the typical public servant to be sure, but surely not one to be
encouraged. Regardless, the ALP machine moved quickly to smooth the ruffled feathers
and to deny it was now party payback time - Simon had previously announced
a significant reshuffle in the shadow cabinet, and the perpetrators of this
foul deed (supporting Big Kim) looked like having their left-wings clipped, and
were destined for the naughty-boy's corner - up at the back. Simon now insists
they are now all one big happy family. Unpopularity doesn't imply stupidity. Not-so-simple Simon knows that being
on the back-benches would have left them with nothing to do but to scheme,
plot, and crunch the numbers for the next challenge. Maybe he is a fan on the
old political adage
'keep your friends close and your enemies closer', or maybe he just
didn't want those chickens to come home to roost.
|
|
 |
| The gloves are off | |
Well the rubber gloves are off, the knives are out of the draw in the ALP kitchen, and things are
cooking up for a showdown a week from now. In the defender's corner we have, weighing in a 96 pounds, the undefeated
champion of low polls and Iraq-war casualty: Simon (Rottweiler) Crean. And in
the challenger's corner we have, tipping the scales at 250 pounds, the two time
loser, small-target extraordinaire and Tampa-tantrum victim: Kim
(Fatboy) Beasley. Both are skilled at using the media as weapons, and these
two have been sniping at each other on long-weekend TV. Fatboy came out with: 'Simon has had eighteen months to connect with the Australian
people, and it hasn't worked' only to have Simon quip: 'Kim had six years, and he didn't connect with the Australian
people - who is he to criticize me?' Well, Simon, the simple point is that under your leadership things have gone
backwards. And besides, Bob (each-way) Hawke has come out barracking for Fatboy. Meanwhile, the Liberal leadership has
made a smart move - they have warned their junior MPs not to taunt the ALP too
much about their leadership. Why? Fatboy has a certain common, nonthreatening
charm about him which many people like. Some voters may like the idea of having
a scoutmaster as Prime Minister. Simon Rottweiler is a weaker opponent than
Fatboy, and the Liberals would rather face a Rottweiler-led ALP than a
Fatboy-led ALP into the next election. Of course, no-one's saying Fatboy can actually win (except Fatboy himself),
but he can slow the rot, and that's as good as the ALP can hope for, pushing a
totally discredited political and economic philosophy in the 21st century.
The jury is back guys - Adam Smith: 1, Karl Marx: 0. If only the Liberal party would realize this too.
|
|
 |
| Stickin' Round | |
Johnny's announcement yesterday that he intended to stay on as Prime Minister
'indefinitely' came as no surprise to most Australians, but it did come as a
disappointment to Peter (PM-in-waiting) Costello, whose usual insufferable self
satisfied smirk was replaced by a quivering pout. At least he kept a stuff
upper lip at his press conference as he described his day as 'not his best'. Yes, Peter, this is politics. Power isn't something you are
given - true power is something you take. You don't get to control the lives of
millions of people without controlling those around you. But Peter has said that he will be speaking outside his portfolio more often,
and clearly intends to start selling himself to the Australian people, having
failed to sell himself to his boss. Today Peter (who-likes-me?) Costello was
using the word 'tolerance' a lot to describe the kind of society he would like to
create. He hasn't said exactly what tolerance means, or how he intends to
created it, but presumably he thinks that taking people's hard-earned money and
giving it to other people is a good start. Why this would make people more
tolerant is a mystery to most people, but clearly politicians know us better
than we know ourselves, and always seem to know what's good for us. But despite the media orgy over leadership issues in the Liberal party, the media
sharks haven't actually been able to draw any blood. Little Johnny has pulled
his deputy back into line, Peter whimpered contrite things about being a good
team player, and no-one seriously believes that he would be stupid enough
challenge .. for now. So the media-pack ran back to hound the ALP about their leadership
issues. John Howard's announcement has make life both difficult and easy for
the ALP. Difficult because they can't win against Howard, but easy because at
least they are now free to choose the most worthy opponent for him - who will
lose the least number of seats. Simon (I-deserve-to-be-PM) Crean keeps hoping that the leadership question will
just quietly go away, but the forces of self interest are working against him:
journalists' leftist
political leanings are no match for furthering their own careers by producing
scathing stories about the ALP. So the speculation continues. But who would replace Rottweiler Simon? Mark (mad-dog) Latham might have been a
good opponent for Smirky, but will simply look like a thug up against Gentleman
Johnny. Jenny (affirmative action) Macklin is not much more than a token
pretty face .. OK, she's not even a pretty face, and the man with no face -
Kevin Rudd - is a bit like Johnny Howard without the profile. Why wouldn't
someone just vote for little Johnny and be done with? So it really comes back to Kim (the Scout-master) Beasley. Big Kim has been
testing the water a lot lately and sooner or later he's going to have to take
the plunge, or go back to the dressing room. Otherwise he'll just have to keep
doing what Simon says.
|
|
 |
| Fine Balance | |
Communications Minister Richard (I-own-the-airwaves) Alston has been
involved in a bit of tit-for-tat with your ABC. While the exact order of
events is unclear, the ABC seems to have expected more funding, while Richard
thought that around $600 million a year was an adequate sum for biting the hand
that feeds them. The government maintained the
ABC's funding in real terms. So the ABC cut their ABC Kids and Fly TV stations. Nothing
like a bit of self-harm to get attention from a moist-eyed public. They knew
this would attract attention. So Alston went on the offensive, and started criticizing the ABC's Iraq war coverage - detailing every
biased little pathetic leftie innuendo in the campaign on his web-site. And in the petulant name calling and mudslinging, one view gets
conveniently ignored - that the government has no business owning a mass media network. There is no
shortage of news or opinions on the Internet, and with Telstra subsidizing
'disadvantaged groups' (including groups like wealthy graziers) for Internet
access, there is no shortage of opinions, or alternative news sources, and
hardly a need for a Stalinesque 'official information source'. In a privatized
media environment, people wouldn't bother arguing about bias - they would just
press the channel change button on their remote controls and the irritation
could be gone forever. But for some reason Australians feel the need to
pool their money by force and then bicker over how
it is spent instead of just making their own decisions with their own
money. It's called 'collective good'. So this dinosaur of the glorious days of statism is going to be hard to
kill - particularly as the majority of ABC viewers actually vote Liberal. The middle
classes often prefer their news and current affairs to be a little more
analytical than little Orphan Annie stories of children born without skin or
two headed dogs. They turn to the ABC, where tolerating the left-wing bias is a
smaller price to pay than suffering the trash available on the commercial
channels. Of course in a free
market, more balanced analytical programs would emerge on commercial
stations, but the $600 million yearly government subsidy for the ABC
effectively drives everyone else out of the market. Then the Left use the lack of
commercial alternatives to justify the continuing ABC subsidies. So Alston doesn't want to cut ABC funding - that would reduce middle class
welfare, and lose him votes. He just wants it to be a little less biased.
And besides, the fuss draws attention away from his digital multi-channeling
policy fiasco. But squeezing this parasite off the government tit to teach it some manners
isn't going to cut it. This parasite has a very loud voice, and will do a lot
of self harm to get attention. And what about the little children? Cutting the ABC Kids channel is the political equivalent of
breaking children's toys - surely the kind of strategy that only a playground
bully or a spoiled, bloated corporation would employ. That's your ABC.
|
|
 |
| Inimitable, Investing and Incarcerated | |
Celebrity stockbroker, Rene (Rich Bastard) Rivkin has been sentenced to nine
months weekend detention after being found guilty of insider trading in which
he profited a whopping $335. Yes, this is the guy who wouldn't think of
spending less than $500 on lunch, accused of cheating the rest of the
hardworking Australian shareholders of $350. Clearly Rivkin has incurred the wrath of Australia's legal fraternity, and with
good reason: Firstly he's a smug, fat, flamboyant, arrogant, cigar-smoking Jew who likes
to wear more gold than even most lawyers could buy with their yearly
wage. That's reason enough for many to hate him. Secondly Rene talks about getting rich simply for the sake of spending money on
one's self and hardly ever mentions the collective good. Even lawyers have the
decency to do the occasional pro-bono and pretend the legal fraternity are more
than just social and economic parasites. Thirdly, he seems to make his money solely on the stock exchange which most
lawyers believe is a zero sum game, and doesn't actually produce anything
useful. Of course the reality is quite different (even the apparent
zero-sum-game of the futures market has enormous risk-offset benefits for
participating parties), but even if it were true, even a zero sum game would be
preferable to the nasty negative sum games the legal fraternity are so well
known to create in order to serve their own interests. And for those of us whose view of wealth is that rich people get money only by
taking it from other people, that's more than enough reason to deprive someone
of the equivalent to two and a half months liberty. So Rene goes down. And all for the price of a lunch - this must seem like rough justice for Rene,
who will spend two days a week enjoying the cuisine of Her Majesty's hotel.
At least it'll be taxpayer funded, but this is unlikely to excite Rene, who has
to also pay a $30,000 fine. Yes, Rene, there really is no such thing as a free lunch.
|
|
 |
| Flag of Inconvenience | |
As the echos of gunfire quieten down in Iraq (apart from the odd angry shot
from Saddamites who decided not to fight to the death in the first round) the
world looks on and innocently asks the question 'so, George, um .. where
are the WMDs?' Some six weeks after George (all-the-way) Bush declared the main fighting
over, the 2000 weapons experts scouring Iraq have been unable to find a smoking
gun which would have justified the war on the basis of disarming Iraq of WMDs.
The closest they have come to is a few suspiciously clean portable
laboratories, and the CNN viewers expected better. Apologists like Condi Rice have been mumbling about 'Just in time
assembly', suggesting that a strife and sanction-ridden Iraqi economy
could operate with the efficiency of modern Japan with its just-in-time
manufacturing of electronic equipment and cars, and spontaneously produce WMDs
on demand. Her qualifications are Political Science - not economics. US analysts are suggesting that data was 'reshaped' before being passed
to the higher levels of government. Apparently they don't call it lying when
the president is involved. And US officials are even suggesting that WMDs may never be found, and are
doing damage control, trying to tread the fine bureaucratic line between
'not my fault' and 'we all share collective guilt'. Of course, for every peace-monger pointedly tapping his foot and pouting
'so where are the WMDs?' there are two war-niks smugly answering the
question with a question 'who cares?' The predictions of millions of Iraqi civilian deaths, of mass starvation,
haven't come true, the sky hasn't fallen and the Saddamite regime has. As the mass graves are exhumed, the bodies of the murdered critics of the
regime are returned to their families and the true story of the horror of the
Saddamite era is told, there are few who would argue the war was unjustified on
compassionate grounds. Limbless children blown up by stray precision weapons
make good fodder for emotive hysteria, but so do hundreds of murdered bodies
exhumed from Saddam's killing fields. Saddam's information minister was fun while he lasted - in the end it must
have been a challenge to see how long he could continue to proclaim the
ridiculous with a straight face. Proclaiming the Americans were being
slaughtered as tanks were seen behind him must have been a hoot. Unfortunately,
the Americans (not known for their sophisticated sense of humor) may not have
shared the joke, so he had to give up his performance career and vanish, as the
Saddamite deck-of-cards fell. In the West, though, some people seem intent on flogging dead horses. Four
wheel drives proudly sporting No War stickers are still invading the
streets of our leftist cities. Guys, guys, you got your wish: the war is over -
but you lost.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
