 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| 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.
|
|
 |
| Did you sign this? | |
Some believe that we are born with a 'Contract With Society'. Contracts are
normally agreements which are entered into by all signitaries willingly, so the
word 'contract' is a little controversial. But in the absence of free choice,
the following is suggested as starting point:
- You have the right to not have others initiate force against you.
- You have an obligation not to initiate force against others.
- You have the right to the use of your private property.
- You have on obligation not to damage or steal someone else's private property.
- You have the right to not associate with anyone you choose for whatever reason you choose.
- Others have the right to not associate with you for whatever reason they choose.
- You have the right to whatever lifestyle you choose.
- You do not have the right to force others to subsidize your chosen lifestyle.
- It is your right to join any union you choose.
- It is an employer's right to choose not employ you on the basis of union membership.
- It is your right to go on strike for whatever reason you (or your union) choose.
- It is your employer's right to fire you for whatever reason they choose.
- You have the right to demand any wage you like from your employer.
- Your employer has no obligation to pay it.
- It is your right to join any organization you choose.
- It is other's right to refuse to associate with you for doing so.
- It is your right to burn your country's flag.
- It is other people's right to refuse to associate with you for doing so.
- It is your right to take any drugs you choose.
- Taking drugs is not an mitigating factor for committing crime.
- It is your right to protest whenever and whereever you choose.
- It is a crime to blockade someone's property.
- You have the right to have children, provided you care for them.
- It is not society's obligation to pay you to do so.
- You have the right to live in whichever part of the country you choose.
- Society does not have an obligation to subsidize that choice.
- You have the right to trade with anyone you choose.
- You do not have the right to stop others trading with whom they choose.
- You have the right to remain silent.
- Others have a right to regard silence as an admission of guilt.
- You have a right to an education.
- You have no right to force others pay for it.
- You have the right to adequate health care.
- You have no right to force others pay for it.
- You have the right to believe anything you choose.
- Others have the right to believe you are stupid.
Any questions?
|
|
 |
| Wrong way, go back | |
It's been over two years since the dot-com crash which saw so many on-paper
millionaires overnight become .. non-on-paper millionaires. Ever quick off
the mark, SBS has run a gossumentary on what went wrong. When Netscape went public in 1995 and the stock price soared, people realized
for the first time that it was possible to float a company on the stock
exchange which had no income, and no reasonable chance of getting any for
the foreseeable future. People saw geeks with a semi-good idea form dot-coms, float them, and
become millionaires. Then the whole thing took off, and followed the typical
greater-fool pattern - people know that buying them is foolish, but they keep
buying them because they believe there is a good chance of selling them to an
even greater fool. And in a rising market, the pattern
continues until you run out of fools. There may be one born every minute, but
that wasn't enough to keep this idiocy perpetuated. The same thing happened in Holland's 17th century Tulip craze - where the price
of tulips followed the same pattern. But the dot-com idiocy had a number of interesting twists, which have
allowed the Left (if
people who speculate can really be called the Left), to scream victim. The details are a
little complicated, and involve some concentration. The floats on the stock exchange are organized through investment banks. They
buy a certain number of shares from the company, and offer them for sale on the
Stock Market (the Initial Public Offerings or IPOs). The company gets an input
of capital from selling the shares, which it can use for growth. The banks sell
the shares on the market for the price they paid, plus about 7% commission. 7%
may sound high for just buying and selling a stock, but they guarantee their
price (if the stock just doesn't sell, they make a loss), and they also put
their reputation on the line by effectively telling prospective buyers "this
stock is actually worth the price". But then com-com stocks started to double, and then triple on their first
day of trading. Stocks would be floated for say $10, but would be trading for
$40 at the end of the first day. Once this pattern was established, everyone
wanted to buy in at the float price, and then sell (or 'flip') the stock later
that day, or a few days later. The problem was that the investment bank was not allowed to sell above their
agreed price. Hopefully, readers who know about price fixing and market forces
are now going 'ahh', but let's spell it out. Q: If you are forced to sell
something below the market price, but have a choice who to sell it to, what do
you do? A: Sell to your mates, who you can trust to give you a kick-back. The
scourge of every command economy: corruption. The kick-backs came in various forms - including guarantees to buy more stock
from the investment banks at higher prices thereafter. A factor which distorted
the prices of the stock. How did this happen on Wall Street - the supposed last bastion of
free-market, free-enterprise and capitalism? A nice cushy mixture of government regulation and
created monopoly. The
government pretends it is stopping people being exploited by imposing
strict rules on how companies can be floated, and how people can buy and sell
stocks. As a result, it is not possible to float a company without going
through a government approved agent - like an investment bank. While it is difficult to to sympathize with investors following the
greater-fool theory ("I'm being stupid, but there are still others more stupid
than me, so I can sell to them"), the whole process stopped the implementation
of more rational solutions like floating with a dutch auction - a suggestion
rejected by those protected by the government regulation. And the result of all this? Calls for more government regulation to stop it
happening again! Apparently the common-sense approach - removing government
regulation - is still too hard for those government 'experts' with connections
on Wall Street. The same people who are in a position to buy some cheap
stocks in the next hot IPO! No system is perfect, but this nasty little system seems to run a little more
smoothly when lubricated by government control, corruption and the naivety of a
voting public who think that government regulation is there to protect them.
|
|
 |
| Not taking 'yes' for an answer | |
Every self-respecting male hates to hear the word 'no', but George W. (not
beating around the) Bush is not like ordinary men. When it comes to Saddam
(celebrity dictator)
Hussein, George is just refusing to take 'yes' for an answer. After the cycle of self-serving United Nations debates
over Iraq, the members of the
UN Security Council had to make a choice between vilifying the US and looking
like they actually had some relevance. To vote against the US would have given
them the satisfaction of kicking the world's most successful democracy but to vote no
(and have the US ignore them) would have shown them to be corrupt, irrelevant
rabble. The dogs of war decided to play the lapdogs instead of bull-terriers. So the UN made their demands of Iraq and Saddam agreed at the eleventh
hour, in a petulant five page he-said-she-said letter in which he called Tony
Blair a lap-dog of the US. The funny thing is that Saddam's agreement has not put the war on
hold. It's still bombs away for the the US, who has formally approached Britain
for military support, and
Johhny (war-works-for-me) Howard has recalled the SAS from their unsuccessful
search for Osama in Afghanistan. The SAS are in for a treat - a few weeks home with the missus, Christmas
dinner, mopping up after the coming terrorist attack in Australia, and then off to
the Middle East to kick
some Iraqi butt in the new year. It doesn't get much better than that. Saddam should be easy to find when they go to Iraq. They just need to grab
the guy whose picture is on every billboard and TV in Baghdad. And if they
don't get to him before his own people do, they shouldn't bother. He's the one
thing the Iraqis hate more than Americans. There'll be nothing
left. Back in the West
though, it's a pity that feminism is dead. We could
have found a few desperate feminists to form a protest outside The Whitehouse
and chant "What part of 'yes' don't you understand?"
|
|
 |
| An issue too hot to handle | |
Your ABC is reports that asylum seekers in
the late 1990s were granted refugee status on the basis
of being religiously
persecuted for belonging to the now outlawed organization Jemia Islamia (JI). This makes a mockery not only of Australia's membership of
the UNHCR's 1951 refugee convention. On the one hand Australia is persecuting
people for belonging to JI (sending someone to prison would normally be
considered persecution), but on the other hand Australia has an obligation to accept
people who are persecuted because of their belonging to JI? So Australia has an obligation to accept people who she will immediately
imprison as soon as they report the reason for their refugee application? Does
that mean that if someone enters Australia on a visitor's visa, and then admits
belonging to JI, that they automatically get refugee status on their way to prison? How much longer will the 1951 convention signatories continue the charade of
adhering to an unworkable, outdated and illogical treaty? This pretty much vindicates John (we-will-fight-them-on-the-beaches)
Howard's Tampa tantrum before the last election, and Johhny's political credibility is
probably high enough to wipe the smirk off Peter (leader-in-waiting) Costello's
face. Meanwhile Simon (i-can-defend-the-motherland-too) Crean is too busy
defending
efforts to undermine his leadership to even comment. And Carmen
(open-the-borders) Lawrence is lying lower than a grass-snake. That's OK, lying
is something Carmen (I-don't-remember-saying-that) Lawrence is good at.
|
|
 |
| It aint rocket science | |
The
Australian reports that New Zealand is toughening up on migrant tests. Migrants will
have to pass secondary-school English test, though refugees will be exempt. Of course this issue is not actually new - Australia has given prefence
to people with English skills for many years. The Chinese government used to
discourange their population learning English during the cold war, encouraging
their populations to learn Russian. It was a two-horse race, and they backed
the wrong one. The result? Now Australia has a generation of Chinese immigrants calling
themselves victims of a
policy of deliberately excluding Asians. They prefer to dump on the the country
that they have chosen to adopt rather than the one they fled - it improves
their victim status. But New Zealand's policy may actually be about lowering the number of muslim fundamentalists entering
the country. Unfortunately the government only has a very blunt tool to make
the selection. Anti-discrimination laws prevent discriminating on the
basis of religion, so they have to look for other measurable correlating
factors. The fact that most muslim countries regard 'Islamic Studies' as an education, and try to
discourage learning English because of the risk of corruption by kaffirs
(non-believers). On the other hand, perhaps the NZ government bureaucrats have finally
spotted the correlation between speaking English and functioning in an English
speaking country. Perhaps they have realized that people who are illiterate,
and can't read the sign "HIGHLY FLAMMABLE NO SMOKING" are not employable even
for the most meniable tasks - they are simply a danger to their co-workers.
|
|
 |
| Where's my Scythe? | |
The Reverend Fred (preying for reign) Nile has called on the banning of
muslim women from wearing traditional Islamic dress (like the burqa). Great idea, Fred, but why stop with the Burqa? Why not legislate against mini-skirts,
high-heels, and those pushy-up bras? They are totally tastless - especially
when worn by men. And backward baseball caps, and those trousers with the crotch around the knees
that make the wearer look like they've had a toileting accident. T-shirts with
offensive pictures could go too - like the pictures of farting dogs humping
people's legs. Perhaps we could orchestrate a return to the dizzying days of the Maoist
era, in which a quarter of the world's population were forced to wear government approved 'Mao
suits'? The interesting thing is that Johnny (are-there-votes-in-this) Howard has not
actually ruled this out. Of course the government only wants what's
good for us, and I'm sure that when Johnny (i-believe-in-freedom) Howard gets
his way he will let us wear whatever we want behind our mandatory picket
fences. Of course he may have problems manufacturing consent for it - while some
think that the burqa should be banned, others think that, for feminists like Eva Cox, it
should be mandatory. Maybe we could just subsidize really ugly people to
convert to Islam, so they could wear the burqa? Of course Fred (veteran anti-lesbian-campaigner) Nile claims his concern is
that weapons (such as stap-on explosives) could be concealed under the
burqa. His real concern is clear: women with strapons. Coming soon to a shopping mall near you Fred, the incredible exploding Islamic
fat-chick!
|
|
 |
| A big hello to all my Australian fans | |
Chief Bali bomber suspect, identified only as Amrozi, smiled and laughed during
a police interrogation in Indonesia while admitting
his part in the massacre of some 170 people. This should come as no surprise to
anyone - psychopaths are without conscience, and therefore without remorse -
though apparently they often enjoy the public spot-light. What did surprise people is the circumstances of the interrogation. Amrozi was
not interviewed by the head of the Bombing investigation, but by Indonesia's
top policeman, in a bizarre media event. The official line was that the
authorities were determined to show that they were not mistreating their
suspect. Far from it in fact - police chatted with him and laughed at his
jokes. Everyone has their 15 minutes of fame, and the Indonesian police were obviously
keen to take full advantage of theirs. At one point all the police present
gathered around for a photo. The police can be seen gathered around the
suspect smiling for their group photo. All cultures have their
own ways of coping with grief, but this is very different to the Western norms. Australian victims and their
families were clearly quite distressed by it. With Indonesia criticizing Australia's raids on suspected Muslim fundamentalists,
Indonesia is clearly being far kinder to theirs. Even to their mass-murderers. And Indonesia's traditional reluctance to take action against those who
commit atrocities? Maybe they will dismiss this as a cultural misunderstanding,
or maybe he will get the death penalty - depending on political whim in one of the
most corrupt nations on the planet. But as those Australians anxious to make us a multicultural society would remind us, we
have an obligation to
respect the way they do things. Apparently though, the obligation is not
reciprocated.
|
|
 |
| Evolutionary Art | |
Three generous young women were kind enough to provide some light
entertainment at today's protests in the streets of Sydney. A group of thugs
trying to stop people from freely trading with others in foreign countries
protested violently, shouting slogans justifying violence in the name of peace, while protesting about
the prospect of war with a dictator who does exactly
that. But while the "Violence For Peace" groups were off breaking things and shouting
hate slogans at the police, these women stripped down to only red paint and
silly grins, then prostrated themselves on a big US flag. An odd way to show support for a culture which persecutes women
who do not cover their bodies with 'appropriate modesty', but that detail was
clearly missed by appreciative onlookers. Of course Bob (pro freedom expression) Carr had banned all protests during
the visitation of the VIPs at the WTO conference, and the police had to work
out how to deal with the situation. In a desperate attempt to stop masses of
Sydneyites joining the civil disobedience, leaving their offices and joining
the mob, they had little choice but to take the women into their
custody. Though the women were later released 'without conviction'. More demonstrations are planned for tomorrow, and with entertainment like that,
they should be well attended. But will all these attendees actually agree with the ideals of the protesters?
Well .. let's undress that issue when we come to it.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
