 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Casualty: Credibility | |
The first casualty of any war, they say, is the truth. In
the case of the Russia's Chechen conflict, the second seems to have been their
credibility. ABC 2002-01-03
reports that a Russian officer has been acquitted of murdering a young Chechen woman
in March 2000. The officer was acquitted on the grounds of suffering 'temporary
insanity'. The officer was apparently so insane that he abducted the 18 year old woman
and strangled her during interrogation. We was also insane enough to rape and sodomize her. And the
insanity must have been contagious because other reports reveal that his
colleagues had tried to incinerate the woman's body to hide the evidence. Sadly, rape, torture
and murder occur in nearly every war, and by soldiers (and civilians) on nearly
every side. Sadly too, military officials try to
cover them up. The more undisciplined and corrupt the soldiers (yes, they were
Russian) the more it happens. But the real test of a nation's character is what
happens when the cases go to trial. It is a little hard to sympathize with a people who elect a government which appoints a
judiciary which acquits murdering rapists. Russia has just lost any credibility it had as the legitimate
government of Chechnya - it will simply be regarded as an invading and
pillaging force. After the theatrical, and tragic, hostage drama late last
year, Chechen rebels are unlikely to make the mistake of taking hostages again,
but the Russian people can expect the less-than-temporary-insanity of more
suicide bombings in Moscow.
|
|
 |
| Your taxes at work | |
Bushfires are known to spread rapidly, but over the last three days fires have
been spreading between detention centers in Baxter, Woomera, Port Hedland,
Villawood and even Christmas Island! Initially rejectee-apologists were
claiming that it could be accidental - a claim that even the Baktiaris would be
reluctant to put their visa application. But now the rejectee-apologists have
changed tack, and are blaming the government's policy detention policy. Detainees, they say, have been reduced to this because of the inhumane policy
of rejecting their applications and sending them home. In other words, one fire
would have been accidental, but nine are justified. It's easy to believe that these detainees are thugs who believe that the best
way to get what they want is through threats, intimidation, violence and arson,
but that would be ignoring the facts. These people have already had their
applications refused. They have gone through the entire appeal process, and
lost at every stage. They have no chance of staying in Australia, and fully
understand they are going to be sent home. These are not people who just use violence and arson for a
purpose - they are people who use violence and arson even when there is no
purpose. This is just Payback: payback to the Australian people; payback to the taxpayer; payback for saying "we
don't want people like you in our country"; payback for making a judgment which
now seems to have been vindicated.
|
|
 |
| Suddenly Redundant | |
Sometimes arguments of fact become irrelevant, as pragmatics overtake truth.
The Middle East (a part
of the world where truth has always been pretty much 'pragmatic') is about to
experience more of the same. The year-long argument over 'does Saddam have
have WMDs
or not?' has just been overtaken by the pragmatics of Oriental politics -
the North Korean situation. The US have said that they can fight a war on two fronts (Iraq and North Korea), but they
don't want to. The US war machine is not a mindless mob
of Lord-of-the-Rings style zombies who dart into the fray and start hacking at
anything smelling of kimchi. They are expert and highly specialized, and being
able to choose the exact tool for the job will make a significant
difference. Spreading them across the world will cost lives - picking their
enemies off one by one means every tool is available when it's needed. Significantly too, they can't take on North Korea, all the Middle East and
China at the same time. These countries have scores to settle - China has a score to settle with
Taiwan (because they have
been more successful than they are), North Korea has a score to settle with South Korea (because they
have been more successful than they are), and the Middle Eastern countries have
a score to settle with just about everyone (because they are more successful
than they are). The US can't take them all on at the same time. If the the US just pulled out of the Middle East, Saddam would start harassing
his neighbors again, and that would threaten the oil supplies. The US war machine
will grind to a halt unless it's well oiled - so the US has to effect regime
change in Iraq to stabilize the Middle East (and hence stabilize the oil
supply). North Korea has been emboldened by the US focus on Iraq and seems to think
this is a good time to put the squeeze on - but the most likely effect will be to
bring forward the coming Gulf War II (WW-III will have to wait). There may be honor among thieves, but there's no love lost between dictators. Right now,
Saddam's worst enemy is North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il.
|
|
 |
| Asia's Playboy Dictator | |
It's sometimes hard to understand what goes on in the closed doors of the
rulers of communist
nations. Democracies on
the other hand tend to leak like sieves, After playing brinksmanship in 1994, North Korea won significant
concessions from the Clinton administration for terminating their nuclear
program - specifically
- Two light-water reactors
- 500,000 tonnes of fuel per year
Not a bad payoff for a few weeks of blackmail. Eight years later, the North Koreans are playing brinksmanship again.
After admitting that they continued to develop nuclear technology anyway,
the Dubya administration stopped the aid, and the fuel shipments.
The Pyongyang government has been squealing about being 'double crossed'
for the last few weeks, and no-one really cared, but now they have reopened
one of their reactors which is suitable for bomb-making. Dictatorships talk tough for two reasons, either
- They think they can get consessions through bluffing - it worked with the
Clinton administration in 1994;
- It is a response to internal power
struggles - such as the shaky Argentinian
Junta taking the Fauklands in 1982 to gain popular support from a suitably ignorant
and machismo public.
There are no obvious power plays in Pyongyang at the moment (although
information on the reclusive Stalinist state is pretty sketchy). It seems more
likely that this is in response to the recognition that a quarter of the North
Korean population is likely to starve this winter - something must have
gone wrong in the people's paradise utopian socialist state. Every North Korean
knows that all the problems are the fault of the Americans, and none of them
can say why. The North Korean government wants some kind
of change - because they realize their system is not working. Their insight
doesn't go as far as recognizing that they are the problem, but with dictators it
rarely does. Any solution which reduces Kim Jong Il's quota of Western
call-girls would be unthinkable. So it's back to squeezing what they can out
of the US tit. Their insight also doesn't go as far as realizing that they are no longer
dealing with a soft Clinton administration. The only hard thing about Clinton
was his .. ego. Dubya uses quite a different blunt instrument, and is saying
that he can fight a war on two
fronts - Iraq and North Korea simultaneously. But it all depends on China. While China no longer has
the ideological ties with North Korea, old habits die hard, and the old guard
in China still have control. A political struggle in China
could make it convenient to paint an American attack on North Korea as an
precursor to an attack on 'Middle Kingdom', and the Korean War would replay all
over again, with super-powers fighting their battles in North Korea. All of which seems like good reason to play out the 1991 Gulf war over
again - and soon. It will get rid of some of the uncertainty. But in the age of live CNN coverage, they will be under pressure to change
the endings of both wars - they weren't very popular with the US public, and
democracy (unlike dictatorships) demands popular outcomes. And besides Dubya doesn't want to replay his daddy's second election campaign.
|
|
 |
| Who gets the biggest slice? | |
Some interesting statistics are mentioned in The Australian 2002-12-28-p6,
which explores the relationship between country of birth and voting choice. It claims:
- 47% of Australian-born citizens voted for the Coalition in the 2001
election.
- 37% of migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds voted for
the coalition.
- Voting patterns from Britain, New Zealand and Ireland
migrants closely resembled those of Australian born citizens.
- The ALP holds 17 of the top 20 most 'multicultural' electorates
('multiculturalism is the percentage of voters born overseas).
-
Migrants from non-English speaking countries,
apparently favor a government which hands out
more welfare. This is certainly consistent with the notion that many of these
people come to Australia not to produce, but merely to take advantage of the welfare system. The article also explores education level, claiming
- 38% of Australian-born voters with a bachelor degree voted coalition.
- 54% of Australian-born voters with a trade qualification voted coalition.
The ALP has tried to sell itself as both the defender of the working
classes and also the defenders of minority groups (such
as migrants). Instead they appear to be appealing to the the intellectual elites
and the migrants. But it's hard to know whether the kind of people who go to university are changed by
their experience, or whether they were that way inclined to start with. Maybe these people have just been educated beyond their intelligence, or educated
out of common sense and into stupidity.
|
|
 |
| Someone has to .. | |
Whenever the coalition is in opposition it rumbles about slashing ABC funding, but whenever they are
in power, the rumblings seem to fall quiet. The typically left-wing ABC bias seems to
jump a little to the center too. A report in the The Australian 2002-12-28-p5 suggests a reason.
Former federal Liberal party president Tony Staley has firmed as favourite to
replace Michael Kroger on the ABC board.
He is regarded as more a 'palatable' option than Peter (who's using my phone
card) Reith. We see a hidden use for the ABC - puting the burnt-out political parties' cronies out
to pasture. At around $AU550M per year (the budget of your ABC), this is an inefficient
way to force the tax-payer to
slosh a few mil' to some political cronies, but it also keeps that special little
interest group 'Friends of the ABC' happy, and helps the Liberal party pick up a
few votes, as some of them decide that 'maybe the Liberals are not all bad'. But if it's my ABC, then can I choose to stop paying my 10c per day please? No. Our government,
ostensibly dedicated to free enterprise, isn't yet willing to abandon the
Stalinist symbolism of the state controlled media enterprise. Not when it's so
useful to them. Corporatizing the ABC and issuing equal shares to every Australian citizen (after all, it's
your ABC) might be good democracy, but it would create problems with
giving jobs for the boys.
|
|
 |
| No joy from ecstasy bust | |
Drug enforcement officers have made what they claim is Australia's largest
ecstasy bust. 750,000 tablets with a street value of $45M were seized from a
Sydney property in the culmination of a 4 month long operation involving
Federal, NSW and Netherlands police. For the uninitiated - people on ecstasy tend to walk around suckling
chuppa-chups and saying 'I love you' between gently fondling each other's
genitals at so called 'rave parties'. Stopping them from irritating you is as
easy as snapping 'go away, loser', and alcohol is typically banned at such
events. The only significant risk these losers pose is to themselves. Authorities were very quick to tell people the street value of the drugs, but
so far have made no announcements about how much taxpayer's money they have
wasted on this operation, or how much will be wasted on court costs and
imprisoning people. Nor have they made any announcement of the cost of the theft, assaults, rapes
and murders they have been unable to prevent because of their myopic focus on
preventing people from exercising their free choice of taking drugs. One of the reasons that people think drugs should be illegal is because people
should be stopped from self-harm. Harming people to prevent them doing
self-harm is sophistry worthy of a communist dictator - using the old cliche
"This hurts us more than it hurts you"? If only it weren't true.
|
|
 |
| Another government beat-off | |
Your ABC 2002-12-26
reports on a Japanese government initiative to
closely monitor Internet dating. Short of cutting access to selected overseas sites (as the Chinese and Vietnamese have
chosen to do), there really isn't much that can be done against Internet sites which ignore
the wishes of a particular country. Recent court cases in Australia suggest
that people can be made responsible for material on their sites, but this
assumes that the people involved can a) be identified, and b) brought into the
jurisdiction of the government in question. And of course the harder a particular government pushes the issue, the more
businesses will choose to operate from an overseas base, and the less taxes it can collect for
pork-barreling. But the Japanese seem to realize this, so the primary focus seems to be on
punishing individuals who use the site - particularly underage prostitutes. [A note for
the intellectuals: a few
well selected keywords on the Google search engine provides excellent insight
into the extra-curriculum activities of many "Japanese schoolgirls"]. Presumably the laws against underage prostitution are there to protect the
underage prostitutes - which they intend to do by punishing them. Talk about
blaming the victim! Maybe government officials are just angry because Japanese
schoolgirls can't see the point of paying taxes to government officials who
want to regulate their extra-curriculum activities. Governments have to look like they are doing something - even if it is
detrimental. It's a pity though, that they they can't even keep their hands off
underage prostitutes.
|
|
 |
| Shoot this | |
Australian drug trafficker Le My Linh faces a firing squad in Ho Chi Minh
City after her appeal against her death sentence failed. We can expect the usual outrage from Civil Libertarians, right to lifers,
libertarians and
trendy lefties, who will
be up in arm about this decision, but shouting mobs are rarely rational, even though
extreme situations are always the best for imposing rationality on. Punishing people for taking drugs is both stupid and immoral. Any intelligent
person recognizes this. Punishing people for supplying drugs is only marginally
less stupid and immoral. Unfortunately, however, we live in a stupid and
immoral world. It's tempting to see Le My Linh as someone who took advantage of the free market - she had a
product (supply), there was a customer (demand), she lubricated the market, and
aided in the transaction. Not really - in fact she took advantage of the
black market. The free-market value of the 888g of heroin she was
attempting to smuggle back to Australia would hardly have
paid for her in-flight meals. The reason why her little importation business
seemed attractive was precisely because of its illegality. She took advantage of the illegality of the drugs, it seems a little rich
to now call herself a victim if their illegality. Le My Linh is no different than someone who makes a deal: You play
Russian Roulette, if you win you get 30,000 and if you lose .. well you get
shot, OK? While most of us wouldn't choose to play such a game, the number
of children locked in cars outside casinos demonstrates there are many who
would. Many people choose to take risks. The black market offers a strange paradox - the greater the risk, the
greater the profit, and therefore the greater the temptation. If the risk (and
consequently the profit) had been less, would Le My Linh have bothered to take
it? She is merely someone who lost the bet. After she is executed, people will be reminded of the very real risks,
the prices will increase accordingly, and others will choose to take similar
risks because of the greater gains. Think of it as a kind of free-black-market. And while the notion that all Australians are equal is an attractive one,
the history of Le My Linh is worth examining. She was born in 1959, and
emigrated to Australia in 1979 (at age 20). She has joined the group of
Australian citizens and then gone back to her native country to knowingly break
its laws. She, more than anyone would have been aware of cost of failure. What
obligations does the Australian taxpayer have to attempt to
protect her? Le My Linh's only chance now is a presidential appeal or for communist Vietnam to become
sensible and rational before her execution. That hasn't happened anywhere else
in the world, and the chances of it happening first in a communist country seem
rather remote. Fire away.
|
|
 |
| Cottage Industry or Hobby? | |
People were shocked after September-11 that Islamic fundamentalists could
actually conduct suicide attacks on US soil. It was felt that the
fundamentalists would be softened (corrupted) by having close contact with the
West. In the same way that zombies brainwashed by fanatical communist countries can be
deprogrammed with just a few visits to MacDonalds and a trip to the movies
(without once being asked to show their papers or having their genitals sniffed
by drug dogs on the MET), it was felt that fundamentalist Muslims would
similarly self-deprogram over time. How wrong they were! However the latest wanna-be home bomber may test the convictions of the
rednecks and PC crowd equally. South African born Gill Daniels was arrested in Sydney after police claim
to have found ammonium nitrate, batteries and wires in his flat when they turned up
to evict him after he neglected to pay his rent.[ref] His lawyer has both rejected any connection with terrorism and claimed that this
will be used as an excuse for more Muslim bashing. Yup, you guessed it - this
man is a member of the Religion of Peace. All may not be as it appears though, as apparently this man has a
deep-seated hatred of his ex-wife and mother in-law. Just like every Australian man who has
experienced the 'gender neutrality' of the family law court first-hand!
Surely an adequate explanation for the half-constructed bombs? How could we harshly judge a man who has integrated into Australian culture so well? Blowing up
the ex- is a bit extreme, but the story he will tell in court will doubtless
gain sympathy from at least some of the 'experienced' jury members. Then
they'll put him away because anyone who broods enough to make a dozen bombs
in his kitchen is menace to society. Any civilized person would just use a gun.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
