 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Lost Property | |
In the modern age the question of 'what it means to be Australian' is often
raised, but is usually just answered with politically
correct slogans about the wonders of digeridoos, bunyips and
multiculturalism. The more serious question of 'what is Australia?' is hardly
ever asked. But consider the following definitions
- Regional: The big island south of Asia (and some of the islands near it).
- Constitutional: The Australian Constitution.
- Membership: The set of people with Australian
citizenship.
- Proprietary: The assets owned by people with Australian
citizenship, and the Australian government
(regardless of where they are).
- Or various combinations of these.
And these definitions raise an interesting question: If Australian sovereignty is just the collection of people - regardless of the
region they are in, then sovereignty is really just a big protection coalition.
Nothing wrong with that it itself - but it's a little counter-intuitive. It's even less intuitive when applied to the U.S. of A., and its national
anthem's - land of the free, home of the brave. Did you say
land, and home? The US government clearly feels it has the right (and perhaps the obligation) to protect US
citizens who voluntarily leave the US, and enter into other sovereign
territories which have their own rules. Some would describe this as pragmatic,
others would describe it as arrogant. It's one thing to assert your rules in
your own house - it's quite another to apply them in someone else's. Forcing
people to apply your rules in their nation is good old fashioned imperialism. This is of course, a different issue to taking preemptive defense of the
realm. Attacking people outside your region if they are likely to attack you
in your region in the future is totally justified. And some would say using force to prevent abuses of fundamental human rights
is justified, wherever they occur. Unfortunately though there is no agreement
on what fundamental human rights are - first world leftists seem to think that
refusing to buy someone a color
television is a fundamental human rights abuse. But attacking Iraq because
Iraqi WMDs
may be used to attack American interests outside America in the future? Maybe
not. There are good arguments for a war with Iraq - but this is not
one of them. And attacking Iraq to avoid another Bali massacre? Not our business. If we
don't like the fact that Indonesia has an oversupply
of murderous Islamic psychopaths, well .. we
can take our holidays at home. And maybe go and smoke some dope up at Byron Bay and hang
out with those naked
feminists instead. Hmm .. on the other hand, maybe intelligent and well
informed people who are willing to take responsibility for
their own decisions may decide, on balance, that Bali is still worth the risk.
|
|
 |
| Saddam's Unwanted Helper | |
Osama bin (hiding-for-a-while-now) Laden has made a celebrity appearance on
Al Jazeera. Strictly speaking it was a hearing - just a recording of his
voice. Or at least someone who sounds like him, and says the kinds of things
which people thing that Osama might say if it were him. Choosing to use tapes
instead of may be because he doesn't want people seeing how sick he is. On the
other hand, maybe he doesn't want people to realize he's shaved off his beard,
and living it up in the South of France, or Las Vegas. Or maybe he doesn't want
people to see that he is dead. Regardless, he calls on Muslims everywhere to join celebrity dictator
Saddam Hussein in a holy Jihad against the crusading US infidels. This doesn't
seem to be based on affection for Saddam so much as hatred of the US - he even
distances himself from Saddam on the tape. True to form, Al Qaeda is driven not
by friendship, but by hatred - My enemy's enemy is my friend as the
Middle Eastern saying goes. Hardly surprisingly, the broadcast has been leaped on by the coalition of
the willing - Bush, Blair and Howard - as evidence of a connection between
Saddam and Al Qaeda. If mutual hatred of the US can be considered a connection,
then this is quite logical, but it isn't strong evidence of cooperation between
them. It does however indicate that Osama would be willing to cooperate with
Saddam for the destruction of the US - like, say, buying some WMDs if the price
were right. What it does not demonstrate is Saddam's willingness to supply them. But the coalition of the willing may have been given another way to demonstrate
Saddam's belligerence. UN weapons inspectors seem to have had
their first real win with the claimed discovery of long range missiles - a
violation of the UN rulings. But nothing is clear cut in the Middle East -
while George and Tony are screaming 'smoking gun, smoking gun', UN veto-powers
France, Russia and China are saying there's not enough smoke to prove there's a
fire. Indeed Gerhardt Schroeder has said that even if Iraq is in material breach,
then war is still not justified. Things have heated up for the US, Germany and France though - they
have been sniping at each other for the last few days. Perhaps the US, France,
Russia and China couldn't come to an agreement on administration of
post-Hussein Iraqi oil. And there's no cooling off period - the heavyweights are going into the
ring tomorrow at the UN at the next weapons report, and it's a little hard to
see how they could find a compromise in which everyone can claim victory. But
then - that's what war is about.
|
|
 |
| From Which Bank? | |
There are two kinds of people in the world - those who think they have the
right to spend their money in the manner they choose, and those who think
they have the right to spend other people's money in the way they choose. Lefties and Liberal-leader-wannabes demonstrated they were in the latter
group today when commenting on a termination payment of over $AU32 million paid
by the Commonwealth Bank to Chris (rolling in it) Cuffe, the
former head of its fund management arm. The story got the usual media-round, pointing out how many mortgages / apprenticeships
/ orphanages / refugee sponsorships / third-world budgets it was equivalent to.
Then Peter (this-will-make-me-popular) Costello weighed in with
I find it impossible to believe that any executive is worth 32 million
dollars, and I would say to the directors - they had better have a very good explanation
to their shareholders.
Excuse me? Since when did the aspiring leader of a party standing on a
platform of small government and free enterprise get off on telling people how
much money they should give, and to whom? This was not money taken by threat of force from taxpayers. It was money
given by a private company (yes, Peter, the ALP sold it when they were in
government - it was in the papers) to one of their (ex) employees.
In other words, Peter, it is none of the government's business unless they broke the
law. Even then, it wouldn't be the responsibility of the Treasurer, or any
other politician, regardless of their leadership aspirations - it would be
the responsibility of law enforcement officials. Yes, the share-holders have a right to an explanation - and so far, the
explanation is that they inherited the contractual obligation when they merged
with (they don't call them takeovers in the Banking business) Colonial
First State, and the money was largely productivity bonuses for growing
Colonial First State from a small bank to a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
Shareholders may not like that explanation, and many of them may scream - but
they are the only ones who have call to, and even then, only at each other, and
their employees (the Board). But not to be outdone, Bob (hysteria-in-moderation)
McMullan weighed in with some even crazier rhetoric.
It's not enough for the government to cry crocodile tears on these matters -
they need to see what they can do in the law to stop companies from making
these excessive payouts.We have to look at the levers available to government, including the tax laws
to see what we can do about one person, however meritorious he might be,
getting a $33 million payout of share holders funds.
In other words, if the ALP wins government they are going to introduce caps
on wages. Most people thought that the principles of command economies were
discredited after the collapse of communism last century, but old habits die
hard in the ALP's old guard. The ALP think they are going to create a better world by telling people who
they can give their money to - in other words by taking away people's rights to
their private property. Meanwhile of course, Chris Cuffe is laughing all the way from The Bank.
|
|
 |
| Just a little prick with a needle | |
Australian Defense Force Chief Peter (I-can-visit-kindergartens) Cosgrove
has been embarrassed by revelations that Australian military personnel on their
way to the Gulf have refused Anthrax vaccinations, and hence have been sent home.
The sensitive-new-age Defense Chief hasn't wanted to force personnel to have
injections, and has instead tried to get them to sign consent forms -
presumably trying to avoid the inevitable outbreak of 'bad-back' claims against
the defense department after the war. Of course many military personnel didn't actually join the defense force
(ADF) to go to war - they just
signed up for the uniform, the free education, and the chance to get drilled by
their shout-at Sergents. So they are looking for the easiest ticket home. Peter
(this-isn't-in-the-military-manual) Cosgrove is not sure how to cope. Peter, the answer lies in basic contract principles. These people have signed a
contract enabling the ADF to send them to the gulf, but not to force them to
receive anthrax shots. The solution? Don't give them anthrax shots and send
them anyway. How many personnel are going to stick to their guns and go into
Iraq without an anthrax shot? Then all they need is a few photos of cutaneous Anthrax victims (yes, those are the
ones with their flesh eaten away), and subtle suggestions that inoculated
Anthrax-infected personnel would be given lower medical priority than
non-self-inflicted cases (like shrapnel wounds). There would be blood on the
floor as they fought each other for the vaccine once they realized that
belligerence were not a ticket home. But Peter (we-all-have-consciences) Cosgrove will doubtless visit a few
orphanages, ring his hands together, and approach the issue with gentleness
and calm - "Now, now, soldier - just a little prick with a needle". "Yes Peter, but what are you going to do with it?"
|
|
 |
| Let's all get naked and lie in a great big pile | |
'Men never listen', is the age-old complaint of women - and it is
just as valid in the current political climate. So is is
any wonder that women have to do bizarre things to get the attention of powerful men? Feeling their complaints couldn't be heard above the drums of war, 750 desperate women wanting
some attention from Australia's most powerful politician, decided on a visual
form of communication. They took off their clothes in protest about the coming
Gulf War. The protest wasn't exactly a public one though - they simply chose to get
naked on private property near Byron Bay, and form the words 'NO WAR'
in a heart-shape out of their bodies, while the media took photos from a
respectable distance. The organizer said that she wasn't totally comfortable with nudity, but she
was going to get her gear off anyway in the hope that John Howard would
notice. Surely a worthy goal, but with Australian obesity rates
approaching those of the US,
Johnny might have gotten the wrong message. Most of these women would have
looked a whole lot better if they didn't eat so much - what better justification
for putting the 10% GST on
food, so they could afford 10% less? In the US there was a similar protest in which 30 women braved freezing
temperatures in New York's Central Park to form the words 'NO BUSH'.
Reports didn't say whether their claim was true. But there could be a trend here. It seems that the word NO is
regaining popularity within women's groups. Though in visual
form some of the old slogans may need to be refined -
What part of NO don't you understand? I'm not sure .. could I take a closer look?
|
|
 |
| Lubricating the free market | |
Opponents of the coming war
who like to believe it's all about OOOOIIIILLL would have been
heartened to see the ABC's
Lateline 2002-02-05, in which the international interests in Iraqi oil were discussed. There are several major powers who have considerable interests in the Iraqi
oil fields, and some of them have permanent seats on the United Nations Security
council (and therefore veto over the decisions). The US are barred from oil contracts
in Iraq (they are unpopular with Saddam after their falling out over Kuwait),
and the UK don't rate much better. However Russia, France and (to a lesser
extent) China have major interests. While it's easy to claim that the US wants to go to war because regime
change will give them investment opportunities in Iraqi oil, the cynics can
also say that the reason Russia, France and China don't want regime change is
because they will lose their investments in those same resources. Which raises the issues about governments, contracts, and obligations. 'America wants to steal our oil!' chant Iraqis trying to show loyalty to
their totalitarian dictator, in apparent
denial of the fact that dictatorship is about theft anyway - theft of people's
rights, theft of their private
property, and theft of their oil. Russian, French and Chinese interests have signed
contracts with Saddam, and they hope these contracts will be honored, a new
regime is unlikely to do so. If someone agrees to sell your stolen car to
a third party, this doesn't actually give that third
party rights to your car (though they may have rights to compensation from the
thief if acting in good faith). However these oil companies have knowingly contracted to buy stolen property, and
have no such rights. Just as anyone who makes contracts with dictatorships has
no rights to have those contracts honored. And even if they did in this case, the thief is unlikely to have the means
to pay compensation. Being inside a box (either the 10ft square variety at The
Hague or the six feet under variety in the cemetery) can make it hard to repay
those squandered billions. Regardless, the new Iraqi government is likely to be keen to do favors to the US,
and simply throw the others out. In short, any UN vote will be a sham. All the voting countries will simply
be acting in self interest, while claiming to be acting for the common good.
One doesn't need much imagination to work
out the kind of deals being negotiated behind closed doors at the UN at this
time. Any decision the UN security council makes will have no moral
credibility. In fairness though, the US doesn't have much either. That's why every
intelligent thinking individual should decide the merits of the
war themselves - and then proclaim: WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER! .. War is the question. 'Yes' is the answer.
|
|
 |
| Property Boom | |
It is normal to see panic buying before a war. People are uncertain about
supplies of food, water, clothes and other necessities of life. It might come
as no surprise to see the prices for these basic items skyrocketing in Baghdad
as demand grows before the US led attack which would decimate the entire
country. However a different pattern is emerging in the Iraqi capital. Reports
are that property prices have doubled over the last year, and are continuing
skyrocket in the lead up to war. Have the Iraqis gone mad? Why buy top dollar for something which is going
to be reduced to rubble in a few short weeks? What is the point if you are dead? Shouldn't they be
spending money on milk-powder and blankets? Shouldn't they be fleeing Baghdad
in their thousands to board leaky boats bound for Nauru? Is this proof that markets are fundamentally
irrational? Is this an
example of market-failure? Not even close. The behavior is quite rational, and gives an insight into what
is actually happening in Iraq. The Iraqi people lived through the previous Gulf War 12 years ago, and know
what the US war machine will
do. They know about the precision smart bombs, and know they will be used
against public property - not private property. Why would the
Americans waste precision smart-bombs on residential properties? The US will
bomb Baghdad at the rate of one smart bomb every four minutes in the first days
of the war - but the targets will not be private houses. They will be military installations,
electricity stations, water supplies, and government offices in that
order. So that explains why property prices have not dropped, but why should
they have increased? It's because people are getting more when they buy the same property. Would
you prefer to buy something which is likely to be taken away from you at the
whim of government or criminal elements, or something
which you can actually retain and control? Which would you be willing to pay
more for? Iraqis are anticipating the economic conditions after the war, and taking
positions based on those expectations. Clearly their expectations are of more
secure private ownership,
and a booming economy - once Saddam is gone. Informed Iraqis (ie the ones wealthy enough to buy
real-estate) may expect the war to bring hardship, but are expecting a much
brighter future after the bombs stop. And they are expecting their houses to be
not only still standing, but actually belong to them after the war. This suggests that the Iraqis are looking forward to the war - or at least
looking forward to it being over. Dubya, Dubya, the markets have spoken! Bring
it forward! The Iraqis want it to happen as soon as possible! Of course, some taxpayers in the US, UK and Australia have expressed
resentment at having to fund the coming Gulf War through their taxes - maybe the war could be
funded through property speculation in Baghdad?
|
|
 |
| On your marks, get set .. | |
George (I-love-oil) Dubya, has pretty much committed his troops to war in his
State of the Union address. "We will consult but let there be no misunderstanding - if
Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the
peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." This is not actually a declaration of war - just a declaration of a
declaration of war, but there's no turning back now. The most formidable war
machine in history is about to be taken out for a test-drive. He's also promised the UN extra information
about weapons programs next week. This supports theories that the US has known where the WMDs are
all along, but didn't want to risk their sources by telling the UN. Dubya
presumably overestimated the competence of the UN inspectors and thought they
might be able to find some themselves. Finding WMDs at the
eleventh hour would fit in nicely with Dubya's diplomatic agenda, and the US
could still come out of this smelling like a rose. Of course the US is not the only organization with an agenda here - the UN
is doing pretty well too. The long-awaited WMD inspection report didn't really
contain much - it was a compromise document. It compromised between the
inspector's agenda of extending their project, and the UN's agenda of trying to
look relevant. The inspectors apparently get paid in 'UN dollars' (tax-free US
dollars), and who wouldn't want their commission extended? They have said they
may need a year to complete the task. The UN is terrified that the US will
simply go in without their consent, and the rest of the world will simply see
the UN as the planet's most expensive debating club. And on the subject of debating, the battle positions taken by Australian parties have been
consolidated too. Liberal
leader Johhny (I-have-guns-and-you-dont)
Howard has pretty much said that war is justified if Saddam doesn't lay
down his arms, and stressed the importance of our alliance with the US
(translation: "the war is just, and after the recent fires we have to regain
Canberra's title of 'Bush Capital'"). Democrats
leader .. um .. (what's his name?) has said "no war" - even if the UN approves
it. He doesn't think Australia should go, and at least his position is
consistent and moral. There are intelligent people who agree with him - even if
they are wrong. ALP leader
Simon Crean is totally opposed to the war, but has said that he
will change his mind completely if the UN tells him to. So if the US diplomats
are manipulative enough, can pull enough strings, grease the right palms, and
get a resolution through the UN, then it will suddenly war will become right,
moral and just. What judgment! What leadership! We have a little time to go. Strategists are saying Dubya needs one more
carrier in the gulf, and he'll be set. Other troops are still settling in while
waiting for the word to roll and the smart money seems to be on the third week
of February. The US war machine will do a few laps around the block before
getting an oil top-up and it will all be shown to those who have pay TV. Don't
miss out! If you don't have pay TV - ring up your cable guy now and say "Let's
Roll ... out some cabling".
|
|
 |
| One Two .. Many | |
The US killed innocent
people in Afghanistan
after September-11.
Unofficial estimates were of 5000 dead out of a population of 27
million. That's about one in 5400. This was the price of regime change, and it
sent the left into spasms
of protest. Lets translate that into Australian numbers. Suppose a band of psychotic Muslim fanatics were to take control of Australia by force, and they
carried out summary executions, forbade women to work, go to school, travel
outside without men etc etc etc. Imagine if the US were prepared to reinstate
democracy, but one in
5400 innocent Australians (about 3500) would be killed in the process. Would
you support the US? 3500 people is less than two year's worth of Australian road fatalities! Of
course it would be worthwhile. The only people who would not take those odds
would be sympathizers, and would be liable to be shot after the event. Of course the 'democratic' government propped up in Afghanistan is far from
perfect, and there is evidence that the country is slipping back into
fundamentalism, but the underlying analysis doesn't change. Not even when we apply the analysis to George Dubya's 'axes of evil'. How many people have to be killed in the coming Gulf War for it to not
to be justified? The left will reject this question outright, which in itself is good reason
to consider it. If the war were to bring human rights, removal of
sanctions, and democracy to the 22 million people in Iraq, but were to cost the life
of one innocent Iraqi, would it be worth it? If your answer is 'no', then think again. Innocent people are dying in Iraq now:
- from direct involvement of the Hussein regime (torture, killings etc);
- from the effects of sanctions on the country (lack of suitable medicines etc); and
- from the the usual effects of poverty (lack on nutrition,
proper sanitation and so on).
Some may think that regime change will actually make Iraq worse off,
and that Saddam will be replaced with something worse. That is hard to
imagine, but can these supporters of Saddam Hussein please step forward
and say why? Modern Western military personnel are not given orders. They are given
objectives, and populations of democracies have some say in the nature of those
objectives. Let's suggest one:
"Take out Hussein if the number of innocent civilians is less than X,
otherwise don't."
The challenge to the anti-war lobby is to set the US military an objective. How
many innocent deaths would
make the war unjust? A negative answer means you are a redneck who thinks the purpose of
the war is to kill as many innocent Iraqis as possible. And an answer of zero means you either support the Saddam regime,
or you believe in the validity of every government except your own. A positive answer means that you have a metric for judging the success of
the war after the event. Sounds good - any volunteers?
|
|
 |
| North Korean take-out? | |
They say that as soon as someone achieves greatness, their emotional development
stops. This would explain why Michael (Whacko) Jackson has an emotional age of
six - that's when he became famous. It could also help explain the irrational tantrums of Kim
(Dear Leader) Jong Il. The 'Dear Leader' has been the heir apparent since childhood, and the
People's Paradise Democratic Republic of North Korea has been
throwing tantrums on the international stage. After making a no-nukes deal with
the Clinton administration in exchange for aid, and admitting
cheating, they have started up their nuke program again. It's not clear what they intend to achieve from this. Starting wars is a popular diversion
strategy for threatened governments. Both democratic and dictatorial governments
start wars to draw attention away from 'destabilizing' domestic factors (like
sagging popularity). But there are no indications of a revolution in the air
for North Korea, so the behavior is a bit mysterious. What is clear is that North Korea will try to get concessions from the US, but unlike Bill
(compromise-is-always-best) Clinton, the George (lets-not-beat-around-the) Bush
administration is prepared to meet recalcitrance with recalcitrance and force with force. However, both sides have toned down the initially strong rhetoric. North
Korea is about to watch the US make an example of Iraq, and the US doesn't want to
take on China on the Korean
peninsula. Neither side wants a war, but neither side is prepared to lose face.
So what is the most likely outcome? There is talk of the US is sending food to North Korea. Forget technological transfer,
forget oil, fuel or equipment -
the US will send them food. The North Korean people are virtually starving
because of the incompetent, corrupt command economy forced
upon them, and they need food donations to survive. But North Korea has always had an incompetent, corrupt, command economy.
What's changed? Not much. Except for the death of Kim Il Sung, and the
succession of his playboy son Kim Jong Il. There was genuine affection for Kim
Il Sung among his people - much of it was misguided, and it most of it was
based on propaganda, but it was still genuinely felt by a population who had
lived through the conflict with the US, and had no access to other points of
view. Opponents of socialism frequently
underestimate the power of personality. Many people can be programmed into
working hard by consistent propaganda, and by a strong leader. Collectivism is
not a socialist invention - it is an instinct which can be nurtured, expressed
and exploited by
clever people. Hard work, loyalty and dedication may not overcome the
limitations of a corrupt command economy, but it can stop the population
starving. Just as many Chinese believed in Mao Tse Tung, and worked hard in spite of
China's problems, so too many North Koreans worked hard under Kim Il Sung.
It kept them fed. There is no such affection for Kim Jong Il. No cult of personality. No
loyalty. The people understand they have been had. They are not 'working
towards communism' to
make North Korea better. They have been conned and they know it. And as a
result, the people are starving. And the Americans will probably feed them. Partly because they want to
avoid a war with China, but mostly because it is the final degradation of the
socialist ideology which once threatened the world - an admission that
socialism can't even feed people, and that it makes them beggars to capitalist countries. And there is another bonus: aid to countries damages their economies -
their economies get distorted and simply shift to take advantage of the aid -
not to become self sufficient. Feeding the people will have a short term
benefit, but in the long run will simply make them grow less food, and less
able to grow food. Less food, more dependence on the US, and America will be able to stop the food
supplies at any moment to starve the country back into submission. North
Korea's defiance in the face of this is very quaint. It would be fun to watch the final death throes of socialism if it weren't for
having to watch the suffering of 22 million innocent people in the process.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
