 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| 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.
|
|
 |
| The First, Noel | |
Aboriginal activist and media-tart Noel Pearson has been on the ABC's
'Australian Story', again lamenting the plight of the Australian
Aborigines. However Noel is an Aboriginal activist with a difference. He has more
insight into Aboriginal problems than any other Aboriginal
leader. People generally get educated out of common-sense and into stupidity, and
Noel (lawyer) Pearson appears to have been no exception. But since being back
with his people at Cape York he seems to have had some of that
outback-common-sense knocked back into him. Unlike the other Aboriginal activists, he has spotted the link between welfare dependence, and
substance abuse. He has also admitted the dreadful problems with sexual abuse and
incest in Aboriginal communities. He even said that full citizenship for Aborigines
(granted in 1967) was a mixed blessing. On the positive side it brought human rights and land-rights, but on the
negative side it removed Aborigines from the mainstream economy. He agrees that the much leftist-lauded 'equal wages decision' made a whole race unemployed, and 'work-free
money' and alcohol
availability destroyed the remnants of Aboriginal culture. Unfortunately Noel's recent clarity of vision doesn't extend to actually seeing a
solution. On the one hand he talks about the injustice of the previous
generation being paid in tobacco, food and only small amounts of money, but then
fully admits that 'money is the fuel for the drug problem, and the fuel for the
petrol [sniffing] problem'. He wants to have an outright ban on alcohol, but seems to have no understanding of
the violation of human rights that any enforcement would require. And his alternative to government-funded welfare seems to be government-funded
'business initiatives' - mostly based around the victim-industry of Aboriginal
art and tourism. Government grants for painting dots on non-functional
digeridoos to sell to whites who are desperate to hand over guilt-money is
hardly going to bring the Indigenous people into mainstream society. However, in spite of Noel's short-comings, he deserves some
credit. At least he can see the causes of the problem, even if he can't
see the solution.
|
|
 |
| Smart and Happy, but do they have a conscience? | |
With a firm-sounding UN resolution on Iraq, the Warmongers and armchair
generals may have to wait until the next war before seeing the latest US war technology.
Nonetheless, the US are still preparing for war, because they are not really
expecting compliance. The US has perfected a very obvious, but very simple weapon - an intelligent, but passive
bomb which makes the smart bombs used in the last Gulf War look positively dumb
by comparison. Veteran CNN viewers may remember the carefully edited video-clips of US smart
bombs flying into the front doors of Iraqi bunkers and such-like, as proud
generals narrated like doting parents. Of course the ones that missed
ended up on the cutting room floor. That technology relied on a pilot flying a guide plane above the target area,
and a navigator guiding the weapon down to its target. Quite a few flight crews
were shot down in the process, and Saddam made life very uncomfortable for them
until the end of the war. He had them beaten up until they agreed to be videoed
saying what a great guy he was. Even at the end of the war he wouldn't release
them until their bruises healed. But the latest US technology doesn't even need the navigators to guide the bombs.
These are pretty much conventional bombs, but they have computer controlled
tail-fins with Global Positioning System (GPS) and inertial guidance
backup. They can be programmed for their destination, and released 10,000m up
and 20Km away and drift gracefully down to their targets while the pilots turn
and head for home. The crew can be most of the way back to some R&R by
the time the weapons hit (within a few meters of) their target. And in case they
can't find a gung-ho pilot to fly the plane, they can even be launched
from their pilotless Drones. Of course the weak GPS signal can be blocked, but then the inertial guidance
takes over, which halves the accuracy. And the cost? Well because the US military is such a good customer, their
suppliers have been giving them a bulk discount at a mere $30,000 each. Much
cheaper than a Tomahawk cruise missile, which comes in at over $1 million. Ever wondered why the Americans seemed to be using Tomahawks like they were
going out of fashion in the Gulf? Well, it's because they were. Can you imagine
the embarrassment of having to use out-of-date tomahawks for 40 times the price
of the newer technology. The American military would be the
laughing stock of the Middle
East - until they got bombed anyway. The US is getting pretty good bang for their buck. Modern wars
are won on industrial strength and technology, and both require fragile
infrastructure. At 30,000 a pop, the US can easily destroy more
infrastructural asset than the cost of manufacturing the bomb, and all without
risking an American life. This makes the outcome of any conflict with the US quite predictable. Provided
the US could ensure air-supremacy, they could simply use these weapons to
battle an opponent's economy, and win any war by technological attrition.
Quite literally bombing them back to the stone-age. Now that's progress!
|
|
 |
| Gibraltar's Stiff Upper Lip | |
England and Spain have been at loggerheads
over sovereignty of an
unattractive lump of limestone in the Mediterranean called Gibraltar. It was one of those awkward yours-mine-yours-mine regions in the endless
European wars throughout history. Now Britain wants to hand it back, or at least agree to joint sovereignty
with Spain - something firmly and aggressively rejected by the inhabitants of
the island in a recent referendum on the subject. Presumably they would rather
be part of a semi-busted-arsed country than a corrupt semi-busted-arsed
country. But Britain has stated that it will ignore the referendum. This has a certain irony, because in 1981 Britain went to war with
Argentina (a nation of Spanish offspring), after it re-annexed
the South-Atlantic Falkland Islands which have a similar history. At that point, the British said they were quite willing to discuss
sovereignty of the Falklands in the United Nations -
provided the wishes of the population were taken into account. It should come
as no surprise that the Falkland islanders didn't want to be part of Argentina,
which has since regressed gracefully from dictatorship to
bankruptcy. But apart from the absolute hypocrisy of the British, why is this an issue at
all? In the 'new improved' EU environment, why does Gibraltar have to belong to
either country? They could pay their protection money to the EU
military, and just be a
sovereign state within the EU. There are only two reasons why countries enter into territorial disputes:
- So that the rulers can exploit the natural
resources. There may be oil, fish, minerals or peasants to exploit.
- Because it is militarily important -
it is a good staging post for you to invade someone else, or for someone
else to invade you.
War is not an important
issue within the EU - there are no territorial disputes, hence Gibraltar is no
longer of strategic importance to either country. So it can only be exploitation. So who is
exploiting who? Well, the answer in obvious from the preferences of the parties
involved.
- Spain wants Gibraltar to be part of Spain;
- Gibraltar wants Gibraltar be part of England;
- England wants to be rid of Gibraltar.
Clearly the Spaniards intend to pursue their tradition of pillaging foreign
countries and, like most of South America, then turning them into corrupt
bankrupt pseudo-democracies. And the
Gibraltans are desperate to continue the subsidization and
freeloading which they get from England. Fat chance! Keep waving that Union Jack, guys, the Spanish conquistadors
are coming!
|
|
 |
| Neville Roach - bleating to the enemy | |
ABC-2002-11-07
reports that Neville (where's-my-affirmative-action) Roach has declared that multiculturalism is
now on 'life support'. The former chair of the Council for Multicultural
Affairs has attacked not only the government, but also the
opposition for not taking a stronger pro-multicultural stance before the last
election. So far so good - multiculturalism isn't the vote puller that it used to be,
the government tit is drying up, and he is throwing an infantile
tantrum. Nothing unusual about that, but it gets better - he has also said that
if people had an alternative they may not have returned the Coalition to
government. He claims that if the opposition had gone to the poll on a
pro-multicultural platform in the aftermath of the Tampa and the September-11 attacks that
Australians would have voted them into office! This is a claim which could only be made by the insane, the very stupid, or
the very desperate. Like Bashir's claim that the Bali bombings were
committed by the CIA, this claim has a purpose - it won't convince anyone
outside his 'multicultural sphere', but it makes him look like the hard-man
within his own group. The only rational motive? He's facing a threat from within the group. Of course his original premise is correct - multiculturalism is on life
support. It was always pretty brain-dead, but now we are just seeing the dying
spasms. A mercy killing is called for. Where's the switch?
|
|
 |
| How much would you pay for this? | |
Johnny (confiscation-protects-property) Howard has claimed that farmers who
have their water allocations taken away for environmental protection reasons
will be 'duly compensated'. While the ownership of water-rights is complex, water-rights are effectively
privately owned in this country - they can be purchased, sold, traded and
transfered. So what does John (pro-nationalization) Howard think that an appropriate
compensation is? Is it the market price? Below the market price? Above the
market price? If it is above the market price, then the taxpayer is paying more
than they could just buy the water-rights for - a stupid idea. If it
is the market price, then they could be just purchased on the free
market, and there would be no need for compulsory acquisition - hence the idea
is stupid. If it is less than the market price, it's theft. Taking something from someone and giving them half the value of it is
stealing 50% of it (even when the morality of using force is discounted). Taking
something and giving 90% of the value is stealing 10% of it. So the only just and fair way for the government to acquire water rights for
its environmental concerns is to purchase the water on the free market (and at the market value). Interestingly, the market value also gives a pretty good idea of the
real cost of the policy. Suppose the market value for a mega-liter (Ml) of
water is $100.00 (currently it's higher, because of the drought), this is a
pretty good measure of the productivity that a farmer can use it for. Why?
Because if no farmer could make $100.00 of extra income from it, they wouldn't
pay, and the price would drop. And if lots of farmers could make more that
$100.00 extra income from it, then the price would increase. So $100 would be a
pretty good measure of the lost-income from taking it away from farmers. Moderate conservationists are tipping that 3,000 giga-liters (Gl) of water per annum
are needed to save the Coorong at the Murray mouth. At $100/Ml, 3,000Gl will cost
$AU300,000,000 per annum (yup that's 300 million per annum). Hence saving the Coorong will cost $300 million per year (more this year,
less others). Are the pelicans worth it? How many people could you feed with
$300 million worth of food each year? Of course the government could also buy
the water outright - enduring allocations are currently fetching around $800/Ml. So a mere
$AU2,400,000,000 once-off cost (yup that's 2.4 billion dollars) can save the
Coorong. Of course if we were really serious about it we would take into
account the fact that only 3% of the water allocation is available this year
because of the drought, so we would have to buy 100,000Gl. The price? A bargain
at 72 billion dollars! Nearly half of the entire annual federal budget! Half as
much as the entire GDP of New Zealand! That's nearly
as much as the entire national debt racked up the by the last Labor Government's 13 year
spending frenzy! Some people will think it's worth it, some won't - Australians will debate
these kinds of issues for as long as there is an Australia, but one thing seems
certain. The government
will avoid the rational
free market approach
like the plague. Having people able to objectively look at the cost of conservationist
policies would undermine the usefulness of the tried and true slogans 'Greens cost jobs!' and
'people before profits!'. That wouldn't suit the agenda of either side of politics.
|
|
 |
| With friends like these .. | |
About 300 students protested yesterday at the Australian Embassy in Jakarta
shouting anti-Australian slogans. They are blaming Australia for the Bali
bombings, and were apparently also angry about Australian authorities raiding
the homes of Indonesian
citizens living in
Australia. Australia has been accused of ethnic cleansing. The funny thing is, that when Australians feel they are in danger in
Indonesia, they just leave (and the Indonesians scream about being victims of that). But when
Indonesians living in Australia claim to be in danger, they refuse to leave,
and the Indonesians spew anti-Australian hatred. The protesters were certainly right about something - Australia and Indonesia
are very different countries.
|
|
 |
| The Intellectual Elite's Solution | |
ABC-2002-11-05
reports that a water management report Blueprint for a Living Continent
by high profile scientists, including the CSIRO's John Williams is under
serious consideration by John (lets-pretend-to-be-pro-free-market) Howard. The report starts out stating the very obvious, that Australia cannot be
drought-proofed. Most of the inhabitants of the driest continent on the planet
didn't need to employ the intellectual elite
for that, but they do apparently need the intellectual elite to lead them
totally off the path of common sense. Among other idiocies, the report calls for:
an immediate end to broadscale land clearing, paying farmers to maintain
environmental services like clean water and healthy soils, and extra costs on
food and water to pay farmers to farm sustainably.
In other words, more interference in the market. John (corporate-welfare-is-ok) Howard, still enjoying the sweet electoral
aftertaste from giving sugar-cane farmers $AU150M in subsidies for
not growing sugar, seems to have acquired a greater taste for
subsidizing other unprofitable food producers. Presumably any unprofitable farmer who is farming infeasible land, and
rapidly turning their asset into salt-pan will be subsidized. As the damage to
the land gets greater and greater, the more and more subsidies will be pumped
into continuing to over-exploit it. Meanwhile any efficient farmer who has rich
healthy soil, and could achieve even greater productivity and efficiency by
clearing more land (and buying water-rights on the free market to irrigate it)
will be forbidden from doing so. The ignorance of the scientists who formulated
the report is obvious from the description of 'healthy soil' as a
'service'. Healthy soil is not a service any more than a mechanically-sound
truck locked in a garage is a service. It's not a service, it's an asset that
can be used to provide a service, and if the owner is stupid enough to
damage it, he will bear the cost. When water is treated like a commodity, farmers can sink or swim on their
own merits - not on the perceived worthiness of their chosen occupation. It
will flush many infeasible farmers out of business, including any who do not
farm 'sustainability' - their land will be left to return to its natural state,
and the damage to the soil will stop. This will allow their water quotas to be
purchased by other more efficient farmers - some of whom may wish to clear land
to increase their productivity. Australia will become the clever country when individuals are free to use their own
innovation to exploit their own resources. By following the government-employed intellectual elite,
with their narrow collectivist view, she is well on her way to sinking into
collective poverty.
|
|
 |
| Headed for the Elephant Graveyard | |
ABC-2002-11-04
Reports that the United
Nations' "Trade and Endangered Species" convention in Chile is going to
vote on whether to overturn the 1989 ban on ivory, after African nations have
proposed selling 11 tonnes a year, mostly from stock-piles confiscated from
ivory poachers. Ivory is actually a pretty useless material. Presumably it will be sold to
men in Asia who think that it works like Viagra, or to tourists who think
that the little white carvings are authentically south-east Asian, or maybe to
red-neck racial supremicists who think that removing all ebony from their piano
keyboard is a good start. There's no accounting for taste: like they say, if
you think it's an aphrodisiac, then it is! Elephant feet, on the other
hand, make very practical umbrella stands. Of course the ivory ban was one of the most disastrous things for
elephants. Reducing the supply of ivory raises the price (yes, just like the war on drugs), and therefore
creates larger incentives to poachers. The most efficient way for the poachers
to take the ivory is to kill the elephants. Knocking them out with drugs for
long enough to saw off the tusks is expensive and risky. Further, there is no
money or incentive for anyone to protect the elephants - they have no owners,
and even if they did, those owners would not have the financial resources to
protect the elephants - because they would have no income. Why? Because they
couldn't sell the ivory! On the other hand, if people were able to run large areas as elephant
farms, the elephants would have economic value. They would
be jealously and greedily guarded by their owners, who would be far more
determined than any corrupt government official to not
only protect them, but breed more of them. Sheep and cattle are not exactly on
the endangered species list - because they are farmed. The ivory trade is big business. Privately managed
it could be a lot bigger. 24-hour satellite monitoring of every elephant would
be quite feasible with the expected value of the farmed ivory. A video
satellite feed for each elephant will be feasible in a few years. Of course the African nations are not talking about private ownership. The
corrupt governments claim to be capable of running this themselves - using
money from ivory sales on elephant protection. Principles of private ownership
would undermine the begging-bowl culture built up between first and third-world countries
through the UN. The African nations are choosing to ignore the fact that their corruption
and incompetence will prevent proper protection of the elephants because they
have their eyes on the bribes they can collect from the elephant trade, but it
is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately many other nations (including Australia) are not going to
support the move. Australia's reason? 'A firm commitment to elephant
conservation'. The Howard government must be trying to attract the green vote. For most self-described conservationists, stopping people making money is more important than
saving elephants from extinction.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
