 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| You still here? | |
Simon (compassion-incarnate) Crean was quick to point out that John (preemptive
defense) Howard timed his remarks to overshadow the overwhelming ALP win in
Victoria. But Simon is pretty quick to criticize others for doing the same
thing he is. The ALP chose to leak some of their asylum seeker policy when
they knew it would be squeezed onto page 10. Their new policy? The details
have yet to be given, but 'no detainee shall be in detention for longer that
three months'. It's hard enough to check out a story from someone claiming to be persecuted by
a belligerent country, but preventing people from entering mainstream Australia
is one way to encourage them to tell the truth. But under an ALP government?
Presumably any asylum seeker who does a Baktiari (ie keeps 'refining' his story),
cannot have his application processed within three months, and will just be let
them out into the community. Who would bother telling the truth with this system? This is clearly the only compromise that the ALP could agree on. The ALP are
totally split on the asylum-seeker issue and can't find a solution which will
satisfy both their redneck unionists and the feminist academics. The prickly
truce between these parties which carried the ALP to victory through the 1980s
and early 1990s is over. The feminists are voting Green, and the rednecks are
voting Liberal. They could paper over the cracks for a while, but now the
gloves are off, and the ugly schism is there for all to see. As are the
ridiculous wishy-washy, half baked and unworkable policies it is producing. Simon doesn't want this policy examined in detail, so he is leaking the worst
bits at times when people are distracted by other matters. He is walking a thin
line, and risks getting thrown overboard in protest. And who could he blame for
that?
|
|
 |
| Friend or Foe? | |
The Left has had a
field day protesting at Johnny (did-I-say-that) Howard's statement that it was
acceptable for Australia to undertake preemptive military strikes in other
countries if there was a direct and specific threat to Australia, and if there
was 'no other way'. Indonesian officials
have said that military action in another country is 'unacceptable' - but
presumably regard Indonesia's invasion of East Timor was an exception
to the rule. The terrorist-friendly
south-east Asian countries - The Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand, have
jumped onto the bandwagon too, squealing about Australian aggression. Even the ALP has tried to
lay in the boot, though Simon (how-can-I-look-important) Crean did say the
whole thing was a put-up to draw attention away from Liberal's crushing defeat
in the Victorian election. Yes Simon - you've been out-maneuvered again. But this raises fundamental questions about defense. Apparently the Left
think that preemptive defense is always unjustified - that if
Australia could only take action after she were
attacked. Recall that Johnny (I-chose-my-words-carefully) Howard said it would
apply if there was no other way. Would they take the same position if an Australian criminal was threatening them
or their families? Isn't it interesting that the Left consider that preemptive
defense is unacceptable against corrupt Asian nations, but that it is perfectly
reasonable against law-abiding Australian citizens who want to own guns. The
double standard is alive and well in the Left. In fairness though, hypocrisy is also alive and well in the right - who are
outraged at the prospect of their government taking away
their hand-guns, but yet are all out for attacking Iraq - just in case Saddam has a
cache of WMDs in his presidential palace. At least Johnny (wanting-to-control) Howard's position is consistent - he
believes he is the responsible one, and he will decide who can have weapons,
and he will take action - at least in his role as as the US's deputy sheriff.
|
|
 |
| Spending political capital wisely | |
Johnny (I-want-to-be-remembered-as-the-good-guy) Howard has hinted at tax
cuts. He says the budget is in surplus, and in such cases it is appropriate to
give the money back in the form of tax cuts. This appears to contradict many predictions about governments and taxes,
particularly those who think that a social democratic government will always
result in taxing at the Laffer curve level. Given the choice, governments will always
choose to maximum taxation revenue, because the votes they can buy from
pork-barreling are more than the votes they will lose through raising the
taxes. So what is going on here? Is this another Keatingesque 'L-A-W law tax cut'?
Another Howardesque 'non-core' election promise? No. This is actually quite
genuine. How can we tell? By looking at the man with the long knife ready to
stick in Johnny's back - Peter (Smirky) Costello. Peter is being very cautious, and saying that we should only be talking
tax-cuts once the drought relief and war efforts are taken into account. That
is - why give a tax cut when there are more pork barrels to fill? The reason for this difference in approach is two-fold. Firstly, John Howard does not intend to retire before the next election -
because he believes he has won it already. His position on border protection
just before the war on terror began, and the fact that the ALP are still
bickering over the issue, really mean they are in without a chance. Given that Howard has won the next election, he is planning his victory
lap. What would he like to be remembered for - increasing tax revenue in every
one of his four terms, or doing what the Liberal party proclaim to believe in -
reducing the size of government and reducing spending? Johnny wants to be
remembered as the good guy; everyone's mate; the PM who not only kept the Islamic hordes at bay, but also
gave us some tax cuts to repair the picket fence. Costello however is still lean and hungry. He is unpopular, and knows it.
He knows he will have work hard to win an election if he ever gets to become
leader, and he is desperate for the extra taxes to buy the votes. The other reason is more conventional. Howard's position will simply make
Peter (can-you-say-overspending) Costello even more unpopular with
voters. Costello has been outwitted yet again by a smarter and more experienced
opponent. His long knife will have to stay in its sheath for a while longer.
|
|
 |
| Love it or Leave It | |
SBS TV reports that an Indonesian family, raided by
ASIO in the recent targeting of suspected Jemah Islamia (JI) sympathizers have gone
home. The family said they were hounded out by 'hate mail and death threats', and
doubtless this is how it will be portrayed in the Indonesian media. Along with slogans
like 'Australia is the
Satan' and 'Australians are evil people who will throw your children into the sea', this
is the best kind of publicity that Australia could have in the region, as
people get the (albeit distorted) message that Australia's tolerance of Islamic fanaticism and
anti-Australian hate from the
new arrivals is at an end. However this doesn't make the family's claims true. Clearly these are
people with a complex relationship with the truth. In fact the father of the
family (Jaya Basri) was escorted to the Airport by immigration officials after
spending some time as a guest in Villawood detention center. Apparently he had
overstayed his visa, and he was here illegally. This didn't stop him calling himself a victim of course - he said
that after the recent raids everything was fine, and he had spoken to his
immigration agent 'only recently' before immigration officials showed up, and
took him into custody. Spotting the connection between overstaying a visa and
being deported was obviously too hard for him. Presumably his family knew that they were unlikely to convert their visas
into permanent residency, they were going to be eased out sooner or later, and
it was time to join their brethren in peace-loving and morally superior
Indonesia. The bizarre thing is that Jaya Basri's father is an Australian citizen, so moving to live
with people you hate is a family tradition which this apparently traditional
family will have to break. Breaking with tradition is sometimes a good thing.
|
|
 |
| Cat and Mouse | |
After a second day of 'surprise' snap inspections, the UN inspection team has
been racing around Iraqi in
their expensive-looking 4WDs (that's SUVs for our US readers) and dropping in on
surprised machine-shop workers. And they appear to have turned up .. nothing. While it's tempting to blame this on the usual UN incompetence there are
more forces at work here. These are just the opening moves in a larger
game, and both sides are watching the other very closely. Let's revisit
the background. - Observing what the Iraqis do when they have nothing to hide will make it
easier to spot when they do have something to hide.
- Saddam has until the 8th of December to come clean, and tell the world
that everything he has said before that was a justifiable lie, here are the
WMDs, and from now on we should trust him that everything he says is Allah's truth.
- Saddam will only admit to what he thinks he can get away with.
- The purpose of the inspection team isn't to find the WMDs as
quickly as possible - it's to catch the Iraqis lying about it to justify
military action.
So if the UN inspection team bumbles around like a bunch of international
public servants for the next ten days (and that shouldn't be hard), they can
fool Saddam into making the mistake of under-declaring his arsenal. Then on the
9th, the team can unexpectedly get lucky, find a big stash, and let George W
know that it's OK to start the war. Normally such involved conspiracy theories would merely be an embarrassment,
but this is a situation in the Middle East. The whole political system is based on
weird conspiracies, so when in Baghdad, so as the Iraqis do. But for the next ten days, it's UN business as usual.
|
|
 |
| Green behind the Ears? | |
ABC-2002-11-28
Reports that the Greens want
the voting age dropped to 16, and say they have the support of the Youth Action
and Policy Association. Of course most of the Greens vote is the very young and stupid. The concept
that someone should pay for every aspect of your chosen lifestyle is quite
logical when that's all you have ever known. The idea that you may have to
support yourself is anathema to Green voters, and the experience of being one
of those that has to pay the others is something they have yet to experience. Some of them of course never do - extending their adolescence throughout
their entire lives through mixtures of welfare, study payments and a plethora
of government grants. But if the Greens believe that 16 year-olds are responsible enough to make
the critical decisions about the futures of other people (through voting),
surely they also believe they are responsible enough to make their own
decisions. Are they suggesting that 16 and 17 year-old criminal offenders face adult
courts? Are they suggesting that criminal records no longer be sealed at age 18
so they can start again? Are they suggesting that 18 year-olds have the same obligation to work and
earn money as over 18s? The Greens are the fairy-floss party - they know they can make all kinds of
irresponsible promises and adopt all kinds of silly policies because they will
never win government, and hence will never have to implement them. Who easy to
sell fairy-floss to than children? It's like giving candy to a baby!
|
|
 |
| Feminazis | |
Channel 10 reports that a Melbourne school has introduced a scheme for bullies:
compulsory dancing. Boys who are prone to bullying are forced to wear leotards and
participate in ballet dancing classes. This is almost on par with the early 1990s idiocy some schools in California,
where boys were forced to wear dresses. Let's review history to see how we have ended up here:
- Gough (i-never-did-anything-wrong) Whitlam set up the Family Law Court in
1975. This was a new branch of law which was was immune from
public scrutiny and accountable to no-one, except themselves.
- Carefully crafted 'non-gender specific' legislation ensured that a)
custody of children would
automatically be given to the mother, and b) women could not be forced to allow their children
access to their fathers.
- Generous 'single parent's welfare', and compulsory child
support ensured that there were no shortage of women volunteering for this
victim role.
- As a result a generation of men were raised by their mothers. [Argue about
the use of the word 'generation' if you want, but if 13% of part-aborigines constitutes a
'stolen
generation' ..]
- Feminist hysteria
about child molestation forced or scared male teachers out of the teaching
profession.
- The female dominated teaching profession, helped along by feminist hysteria about rights for girls gradually
feminized the school curricula, to the point where girls now outperform
boys in every subject. Of course when boys outperformed girls it was
proof of discrimination, but when girls outperformed boys it was because of
their natural abilities in concentration and reason.
The result? A generation of boys alienated by a school system which they
regard as irrelevant to them, raised by their mothers with no strong male
role-models except for older boys in gangs. Ie - bullies. And the feminist-school-curriculum solution? Ballet classes for the boys!
Maybe if they just give all the boys female hormones and make them act more
like girls they will get the behavior they want? Not that there is anything wrong with boys doing ballet, but forcing them to do it is the
worst solution. Ultimately boys want to be like the strong male role-models
they see around them - fathers, or responsible male teachers. They might line
up for the TV cameras and
say how great ballet is - this is their sound-byte of fame, but trying to
forcibly feminize them will ultimately just create alienation and anger. Of course the perpetrators of this perverse little scheme have nothing but
praise for it. 'We have turned bullies into Billy Elliots', 'they
have greater confidence', 'they have a greater awareness of their own
bodies'. Doubtless estrogen treatment would also elicit the same defenses from
these feminists. And at $20,000 per school, there are some nice little
kickbacks for them too.
|
|
|
| When I'm 64 | |
The Prime Minister has urged people to work past 65, describing them as a
huge untapped resource. Of course Johhny (I-like-my-job) Howard is about to
turn 64, and has said that we will 'assess his future' at that age. Everyone
thought this meant the 'R' word, and Peter (leader-in-waiting) Costello was
smirking in anticipation of getting the big chair. But more and more it's
looking like 'assessing his future' means no more than choosing the flavor of
his birthday cake, and the 'R' word might be 'Re-run'. But the (ever objective) ABC's 7:30 report has jumped on
this and run a story on the number of aging Australians who are laid off, and
then unable to gain further employment. 59 Year-old Trevor Moir was featured - a former $100,000pa+ executive who was
'downsized', and is unable to get another job. He claims that he has received
over 200 rejections, and describes the look on people's faces when he turns up
for interviews before they learn of his age. 'Discrimination!' they
cry, 'the government
must do more for old people!', and the old favorite - 'victim', 'victim'. Of course the 7:30 Report's segment didn't actually say what Trevor's
skills were. Clearly he was a skilled politician and manipulator
(that's what it takes to climb the corporate ladder in most organizations), but
apart from going to meetings, justifying his existence, and being 'overhead',
would could he actually do? He didn't describe himself as an engineer, designer,
developer, or even an accountant or (heaven forbid) a lawyer. His job
description? '' Position Vacant: Executive. Someone to
wander around, go to meetings, give orders, and generally tell people what to
do. No special skills or experience in the field required. No need to
understand new technology (that's what the
junior is for), no need to use a computer (that's what the
secretary is for). $100,000+ package. Ability to step on people's fingers on
corporate ladder an advantage. Backstabbers welcome. Apply now! Every large organization has at least one specialized 'executive' in
it. Invariably some of them fall foul of a new management (competent people do
get promoted occasionally even in large organizations) and, having no real
skills, they get 'downsized'. The only odd thing about this is the surprise
that these people get when it happens. Of course Johnny (top-of-the-heap) Howard will never have to worry about
that. No-one expects him to have real skills beyond political manipulation, and
the chances that he'll end up answering to someone who is not a politician are
quite remote. He's seen the knife, and is back is well guarded. And as for Peter's future? Sometimes even competent people get promoted in
large organizations - who knows what the field of applicants will look like?
|
|
 |
| And they're still taking your money - Amazing! | |
In yet another abuse of taxpayers money, SBS has publicized the results of
their own survey on 'multiculturalism' in
Australia. It reports that while the vast majority of migrants are happy to call
Australia home, relatively few actually call themselves Australian. Of course it's a change from several decades ago, when whining migrants
somehow always seemed to believe that they were just here to squander and
pillage for a while, and then would 'return home'. Fortunately some did, and
slightly raised Australia's human capital in the process. But as the gaps between the quality of life available in Australia, and
that in most of the rest of the world, grew, the whiners chose to just complain
bitterly about their chosen new home, and demanded more and more subsidies for
refusing to integrate, calling it 'multiculturalism'. Multiculturalism is based on the premise that new arrivals have no obligation to
integrate, but if they don't integrate, Australia is to blame. The report also reveals that most of Australia's indigenous population
regard themselves as Aborigines and Torres
Strait Islander first, and Australians second. Again hardly surprising when
they are entitled to land rights, Aboriginal Legal Aid, Ab-Study, special
consideration when in custody, and a nearly $1 billion dollar a year slush fund
via ATSIC. If they were mere Australians, they wouldn't have there extra
benefits. But the real shocker comes with the conclusion of the report - that this
demonstrates that Australia is intolerant and therefore needs to have a
stronger commitment to multiculturalism. Apparently paying people to be different has resulted in them thinking they are
different, so we need to give them more money to be different. Maybe this is inevitable from a government organization
like SBS. When a private initiative fails, it goes broke. But when a government
initiative fails it gets more funding. Isn't the world an amazing place?
|
|
 |
| Sweet mystery of life I have found thee | |
The recent media
flurry around the Reverend Fred Nile's unusual desire to undress Muslim women
is another good illustration of the idiocy of public ownership and discrimination laws, and how the issues could be
easily solved with a little more private ownership. Many people like to hang-out in shopping malls - especially before
Christmas choosing the perfect present for that special person (like
themselves). This Christmas though, gift buyers will have more to contend with
than mobs of blue-rinse ladies fighting for the red-light specials at their
local K-mart stores. There is a very real possibility of becoming a victim of a terrorist bombing. 'You'll be blown away by our specials this Christmas' is an likely
advertising slogan for 2002. The good Reverend would have us believe that
amongst the blue-rinse ladies will be a freedom-hating terrorist with
a bomb under her (or worse, his) chador. Of course if Australia's idiotic discrimination laws were replaced with
something reasonable (like 'on your private property you can discriminate
against whoever you please') the whole issue would go away. Some shopping malls would choose to ban the Burqa, and promote themselves
as the 'safe store'. The blue-rinse rednecks would flock there secure in the
knowledge that if they are murdered it'll at least be from
someone dressed like themselves. Other malls would make take a moral stand with the Muslim community and
some might even make the Burqa compulsory. They could hand out bags at the door
for women to put over their heads. Many feminists (escaping repression by white
males) would flock there for the authentic and liberating Afghan experience. Even
the local tolerant Muslims
would shop there so they could pretend they weren't mixing with the Kaffir (non
believers). And which one would get bombed? Allah only knows, but at least people
would have the opportunity to rely on their own judgment, and not that of
self-serving politicians like .. well .. Fred Nile.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
