 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| 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.
|
|
 |
| Safe as Houses | |
In spite of the protestations and predictions to the contrary, Johnny (now
using the 'V' word) Howard is riding a wave of popularity, while Simon (who?)
budget) Crean is somewhere between Iraq and a hard place. Post budget-reply
polls have put Simon somewhere between unmoved, and up one point. With double dissolution triggers lining up like bowling pins, and denials
about early elections rolling thick and fast one has to wonder. Johnny is
feeling pretty invulnerable now, but there are a few clouds on the horizon
which may break the opposition's popularity drought - mainly falling
residential housing prices. Readers may be sick of dire predictions about the bursting housing bubble,
and those of us who have nice houses and manageable mortgages (even if we can't
get Internet access you Telstra asses!) may not care. But elections are won
and lost in the western suburbs of Sydney, and these people are
vulnerable. Spending one's life savings on a nice place to live is nothing new,
but many people in the mortgage belt have committed their future life earnings,
and have forgotten the roaring eighties when (under the stewardship of the
Hawke/Keating administration) interest rates were in the high teens. The economy is running smoothly at the moment, but small movements may produce
large effects. An interest rate hike of just a few percent would leave many
people in a position where they couldn't keep up their repayments, and a price
fall of 30% would give many people a negative equity in their homes. Working two jobs to pay interest to a bank on something which has no value is
not something most people would enjoy. And if the usual responsibility-shifting
attitude of the proletariat ('the government should have done something') kicks
in, the electoral punishment would be brutal and severe. Sometimes good things come to those who wait - look at Johnny Howard's
career - and that makes Simon a serious pretender to the Prime
Ministership. Simon lucked out in the Iraq war when the massive civilian
casualties didn't eventuate. But economic casualties may be an even more
powerful electoral tool - especially when the victims are Australian. If the predicted collapse comes, Johnny may bow under pressure, cash in his
superannuation and hand the whole mess to Peter (Smirky) Costello. And with residential property on the nose, Peter might be glad to get the keys to
the lodge for more reasons than one - even if his stay were only until the next
election.
|
|
 |
| Great Expectations | |
Opposition and leftie
groups fell into the Treasurer's little trap before the budget. Peter (Smirky)
Costello hinted there would be no tax cuts 'because of the hard
times Australia has faced'. He mentioned drought, Iraq, SARS - three of the four
riders of the apocalypse (war, pestilence, plague, and famine) as reasons why
he couldn't possibly give our money back. Apparently letting taxpayers keep their own money is an indulgence which
the Liberal government bestows upon
its subjects only in good times, and it says a lot about the mentality of the
party. Every housewife knows that when times are hard the necessities still
have to be purchased, and the little luxuries have to be given up. So for the
national economy, what are the luxuries and what are the necessities? Clearly
Peter Costello feels that government expenses are the necessities, and private
money (little things like investing, employing people and so on) are mere
luxuries - that's why governments can't afford tax cuts in hard times. In other
words, the real economic force is the government - private enterprise is just
incidental. Hardly the hallmark of a party which is committed to free enterprise and
limited government is it, Peter? But there was a little sugar on the bitter pill. The highest taxing
government in the history of this country is giving back four dollars a week in
tax cuts. Imagine the pork-barreling which the
Liberal party must have given up to achieve that. The net effect? Bracket creep was wound back by a whole 18 months! Not bad over
a three year period! Thanks Peter. The left, who had been screaming about there being no tax cuts, suddenly
had egg on their faces, and had to go back to screaming 'what about the little
children?' in order to get some media coverage. At any rate, this budget was rumored to be Peter (PM-in-waiting) Costello's
last. We can only hope! Bring back the budgets of old, where it was a predictable "beer and cigs up", and the money was
spent on good-old middle-class
welfare. Like tertiary education and the ABC. Those were the days.
|
|
 |
| 'Dignity of the Office' | |
Only a day after Johnny (been-to-London-to-visit-the-Queen)
Howard returned to Australia, your ABC reports that Governor General
Dr Peter (now-it's-safe) Hollingworth has stood aside as the
Queen's representative in Australia while allegations that he raped a women nearly 40 years ago
are dealt with. This is a pretty safe commitment. With no forensic evidence, and only
here-say evidence from a woman who didn't even know what year it occurred and
who has since committed suicide, even the average feminist would think twice
before getting out the scissors. The case has a afro-american's chance in the
KKK of succeeding. So what's the future? The case will be thrown out, or at the worst will
return a not-guilty verdict, and the GG will appear vindicated, but what then?
But Johnny (bob-each-way) Howard's remarks raise questions
The Prime Minister says Dr Hollingworth has told him that his greatest
consideration in deciding his long-term future will be protecting the dignity
of the office of Governor General.
Not being reinstated after being vindicated of the accusations which caused
the standing down would hardly be protecting the dignity of the office of
Governor General, would it? Therefore a vindication would require
reinstatement. But it also leaves Johnny's options open, in case he (or
Elizabeth (II) Winsor) reasons differently. The Queen is not concerned with petty colonial politics or a bunch of
Anglican priests worrying about old age and thinking they are only as young as
the person they are feeling - she has a responsibility to preserve the Monachy,
and the 'dignity of the position of Governor General' is pretty central to
continuing her family's tradition of control. Johnny is a staunch royalist, and
doubtless pulled the forelock when Her Majesty demanded it. Regardless, at worst Peter Hollingworth leaves office as a man falsely
accused. Meanwhile Simon (normally the loser) Crean has made a good
point - asking why the Prime Minister is acting now, when he's known about the
rape case since December. Presumption of guilt or innocence is not the point
here - if it is important enough to stand down now, it was important enough to
stand down in December - whether Lizzy's royal subjects knew about it back then
or not. This round has to go to Simon (the republican) Crean. And the other person about to come under the spotlight in this affair?
Geoff (the bruiser) Clark who, also facing court over rape
allegations, has been called upon to step down. If it is appropriate for a GG
to stand down until old accusations of rape are dealt with, then surely it is
appropriate for the head of ATSIC. Unless there are relative cultural
considerations which make this different? But the mere suggestion that Geoff Clark has more in common with European
descendent's than Aboriginal ones would be cultural
genocide. And faced with genocide, who could criticize an overzealous urge
to procreate?
|
|
 |
| Hard head for politics | |
Dr Peter (protector-of-children) Hollingworth had a stroke of luck last
year, but his good fortune wasn't known to the public until he chose to make it
so. After carefully manipulating the legal system, he can now make it
known to the world that he has been accused of rape. And the disclosure comes
with the timing of a well-written sermon. Hollingworth initially applied to
have his name suppressed, but now applied to have it made public - right in his
darkest hour as people are screaming for him to resign over allegations of
complacency with pedophiles. For most of us, being accused of rape is something which would be
a great inconvenience, and quite stressful. But those skilled in the dirty art
of politics are accustomed
to stress, and know how to make bizarre situations work in their favor. Peter (I-love-women-too) Hollingworth has been accused of the rape of a woman
who was "19 or 20 at the time", some 40 years ago, and his accuser committed
suicide a month ago. He has produced a long list of facts (all checkable),
which (if true) make it extremely unlikely that he was even in the area where
this occurred, and will effectively prove his innocence. Of course if any of
his facts are proved false he will go down in flames, but after the intimate
examination of his private past in the last few years he has probably thought
this through. His accuser, who was apparently a victim of child abuse as a ward of the
state in the care of the Anglican Church (weren't they all?), seems to have
been somewhat mentally unbalanced by her experience. She claimed to have
recognized him in a photograph after 35 years and would have made a less than
credible witness - particularly claiming the assault occurred "late in 1965 or
early in 1966". Hollingworth is now the subject of unlikely allegations - and can regain a
status he lost when he was promoted to Governor General - the status of victim, that undefinable
quality which in the eyes of the left absolves one of any guilt on any issue at
all. He's in the clear. The Doubting Thomases who believe that praying is an unproductive and
time-wasting activity may have to reconsider their position - clearly Peter
Hollingworth's prayers have been answered.
|
|
 |
| Child's Play | |
Thumbing one's nose at political
correctness is always fun, and usually hard to resist, even when it
involves some level of risk, such as baiting the lezzo's at a Reclaim the Night
march. Perhaps though, Johnny (ne'er do wrong) Howard wishes he had been a
little more cautious before promoting a man of the cloth to position of Governor
General. In an age of multiculturalism, feminism and affirmative action,
many people thought a retarded Islamic Aboriginal lesbian feminist would have been a
suitable choice for Governor General. Johnny (more conservative than
conservative) seized this opportunity to appoint, not just a mere white male,
but a Christian Bishop no less. Avoiding compromising the principles of separation of church and state
apparently came a poor second to annoying the PC-republicans
when Johnny appointed Dr Peter (not-my-fault) Hollingworth to the highest
unelected post in the land. He would have weathered that storm easily, but
didn't twig to the fact that church figures untainted by pedophilia scandals
are about as rare as virgin births in the modern age, and while no-one actually
accused the good (trust-me-I'm-a) doctor of pedophilia himself, he
certainly seemed have turned a blind eye to his subordinates taking advantage
of their younger charges. Johnny (seasoned politician) Howard doesn't make many mistakes, but he made one
here, and now he has backed himself into a corner. Admitting he's made a
mistake will make it even worse. He just has to grin and bear the flames as the
talk-back radio is full of morons who have nothing to do than to bore other
people with their ill-informed opinions calling for his resignation. Clearly
they are morons - they haven't learned to use the thinking man's talk-back
radio (the Internet). And that might explain why they say stupid things like caller Sarah: "All children have the right to look up to and revere the office of Governor
General". Well Sarah, they still do have that right. And if they were stupid enough to
revere it in the first place, they are probably still stupid enough to do so
now. Stupidity is your right too, so what's the problem? Anyone can see that Doctor Peter (protector of children) Hollingworth is
doing a wonderful thing for children - revealing the true nature of politicians for when they
are forced to vote for them later in life. If this doesn't make them cynical about the nature of politicians, there is
truly no hope for democracy. What better
justification for an undemocratic office like a Governor General?
|
|
 |
| All the Rage in China | |
Your ABC reports
riots and civil unrest by a 2000-strong mob in the Chinese town of Tianjin, 150
kilometers south-east of Beijing. The authorities were planning to turn a local school into a SARS (Severe
Acute Respiratory Syndrome) isolation center. China's mostly peasant
population may be uneducated, but they know that their government will treat any
suspected SARS sufferers like medieval lepers, and they don't want to give them
the opportunity. Choosing to burn the school, smashing the local education
office, and overturning a few cars for good measure. Not surprising perhaps, but all cases of civil unrest are significant in
the People's Paradise Republic of China. China is more like a prison than a
country - people's anger and hatred at the guards are repressed, and generally
invisible, but they are there ready to boil over at an instant's notice - all
it needs is a trigger. Anyone who thought the Rodney King LA riots or the
post-Saddam Baghdad looting was a little over the top lacks imagination. SARS has genuinely scared the Chinese people, and their government's lying
and mismanagement of the problem has made them angry. Not a comfortable
combination for the dictatorship - and people
facing death from disease
will require more than a few tanks down the Avenue of Eternal Peace to frighten
back into submission. Suggesting regime change in Beijing may be a little premature, but this is
one hazard which the inner-party elites may not be able to isolate themselves
from merely by hiding behind surgical masks.
|
|
 |
| The Dingo is Innocent! | |
Your ABC reports
Researchers from the University of New England at Armidale in New South Wales
say urgent human intervention is vital if the pure bred native dog is to have a
future.
and quotes Professor Gisela Kaplan as saying
I'm happy to say, .. there are individual breeders who are making sure the genetic stock remains pure.
This is just plain weird. The usual Greenie arguments against
extinction are that any creature's DNA may contain a cure for cancer, and once
the species goes extinct, the genetic material is lost forever
(untrue in the age of cloning from DNA strands, but as that technology is still
formative, they get the benefit of the doubt). But no such extinction seems to be in store for the dingoes, who are just
interbreeding with other varieties of domestic dogs. Clearly all the genes are
still present, they are just scattered though a bunch of half-breed mongrels
instead of being in their 'pure' form. And the problem with this is ..? Perhaps these members of the intellectual elite
regard racial purity as a desirable thing in itself, and don't think that pure
races should be polluted with impurities? If this is the case, then shouldn't
this apply to humans as well as other species? Perhaps Professor Kaplan and his peer-reviewing colleagues think there
should be government funded programs to 'make sure the genetic stock
remains pure' and free of the inevitable pollution from cross-breeding?
Pure Aryan perhaps? Perhaps they think the Negroid races fill a particular
ecological niche in manual labor? Or that the Mongoloid races are needed for laundry
maintenance? Your taxes at work in the educational sector.
|
|
 |
| Big Kim | |
The Art of War is not Simon (the-UN-defines-morality) Crean's strong point, so
perhaps he should have avoided the current war of words with his predecessor,
Kim (Fat Boy) Beazley. Kim did an interview for The
Bulletin, and started shooting off at the mouth about 'if I were PM', and
then got onto 'if I were opposition leader again'. It wasn't clear whether Kim
was testing the water for a comeback, whether he was the stalking horse for
another contender, or whether he just can't shut-up, but his musings were
certainly noticed. With Simon's popularity at an all time low, and more Australians wanting
Kim Beazley as ALP leader than
Simon Crean, Simon was a more than a little testy on the subject, and shot back
with accusations about disloyalty, and whined about how he'd been a good an
faithful deputy to to Kim, so why couldn't Kim just shut up and let him run the
ALP into oblivion in his own way. Kim suggested that Simon was 'overeacting'. It wasn't only the Saddamites who lost the Gulf War. The ALP have realized that
Simon's short-term-popularity strategy was disastrous (they were counting on
more Iraqis dying), and they have to decide whether to effect a regime change of
their own. They have realized that Simon can't possibly win the next election, but they
also know that Kim (two time loser) Beazley can't either. So why should they
change? Because Kim will hold on to more seats than Simon. And that is the best
they can hope for when hunkering down for an indefinite opposition. It's a big job, but Kim's got to be the best man for it - he's used to having a
lot on his plate.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
