 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| 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.
|
|
 |
| Send in the Hounds! | |
The Australian Security Intelligence Office (ASIO) has been emboldened by
the concerns about domestic security, and are keen to flex their muscles after
being given new powers as well as a wink and nod from the government. They have taken
to raiding the homes of suspected Jemaah Islamia (JI) sympathizers - seizing
documents, computers and photographic films. A young university student claims
to have had her computer taken, with her only copy of her honors thesis (about
insects), due in two months. Predictably, local Muslim
groups have been squealing 'victim'. Some of the people under investigation have been Indonesian, so of course the
Indonesian press has reported the raids as brutal full-scale ethnic cleansing,
and the Muslim politicians in Indonesia
have felt obliged to jump on the Australian-bashing bandwagon
and join the chorus, also protesting about Australia's 'brutality'. Never mind that JI poses a much bigger threat to the Indonesian government than
to the Australian government, never mind that cracking down on JI is actually
far more important for the Indonesians than the Australians - they have to meet
their immediate needs - appeasement of the Australian haters their policies have
created. Of course in later discussions with Alexander (things-that-batter)
Downer they resolved the 'misunderstanding'. Better to bite the hand that
feeds them when the feeder is not looking. After bristling indignantly whenever the US suggested that Indonesia was
becoming a haven for Islamic terrorism, the Indonesian government was forced to
admit there was 'an issue' after the Bali bombings. But even after Bali
Bombings, Indonesia is trying to avoid making a decision which is increasingly
forced up on her - whether to appease her Muslim fundamentalists, or take steps
to stamp out the fundamentalism. Ironically, Australia faces a similar choice - to appease Islamic
fundamentalism or to crack down on it. Appeasement would appeal to the Left, who can happily remain
in denial of any problem (at least until the attacks start in Australia). More
and more money could be spent
paying them to avoid integrating (we call it multiculturalism).
The benefit is that it will make it harder for JI-like groups to recruit within
Australia. The subsidies will not
actually cause alienation. On the other hand, a hard crack-down will scare many Australian-based
Muslims from supporting or associating with fundamentalist organizations. On SBS recently, several Muslims were
complaining that they might give money to an apparently good Muslim cause, only
to find later that the money was redirected to a terrorist group. Clearly
they want to be able to give money without taking responsibility for it -
"but they said they wanted to buy the Ammonium Nitrate for
fertilizer! When they said that great fruits would be borne from
sowing the seeds of Western destruction, I thought that it was a
metaphor!". Right - and my flock of pigs flew away with the tooth fairy. A crack-down will increase the sense of alienation, and may make it easier for
JI-like groups to recruit, but it also gives a clear message that people are
running a risk by doing so. People are less likely to 'drift into' such a group
if they are aware of this from the outset. As any shepherd knows: if foxes are killing your sheep, you don't feed the
foxes. It may stop them killing your sheep, but it will also bring more of
them; eventually you won't have enough food for all them, and there will be
even more hungry foxes than before. The only solution is to get rid of the
foxes. Fox-hunts may have become too politically-incorrect
in England, but Australia has only just
begun. Forget the dogs of war,
call ASIO! Send the hounds! Metaphorically speaking of course.
|
|
 |
| A drip at a time | |
Victorian Premier Steve (I-want-to-control-every-aspect-of-your-lives) Bracks
has introduced water rationing in Melbourne for the first time in 20
years. There are restrictions on what you can use water for and when you can
water for certain things. It even states that you must hold a hose when
watering your lawn, as opposed to plugging the hose into a sprinkler. This is
a bit like making Russian citizens stand in bread-lines for hours to reduce the
demand of bread so the government could deny there was a shortage. Worse still is the Hitler Youth mentality which Bracks is encouraging. People
are encouraged to spy on their neighbors to ensure they only use water for
purposes which the government approves of. Get caught using water for something
else, and the water Nazis will pay you a visit. This is astonishing in its almost unparalleled stupidity. Does anyone actually
care what their neighbors use water for? Does it matter if their neighbors if
they use a liter of water for flushing their toilet, washing their car or
filling up their swimming pool? No. All that is important is how much they use
- ie leaving enough for others. If water has to be rationed, then ration it,
but let people use their ration for whatever they want. Steve, there is already a mechanism for measuring people's water use - it's
called a water meter, and there's one in every yard. It's the thing that ticks
when you turn a tap on. Work out a water quota for everyone, and then let them use that much water. No
need for water Nazis - just use the water meter. If some people choose not to
use their entire quota - let them sell their quota to others who are willing to
pay them for it. Think this through - everyone will end up at least as well off, and probably
better. They can end up with the same amount of water as they do now, but they
can use that water for whatever they want. Sprinklers were invented for a
reason, Steve - so people didn't waste their time standing there with a hose in
their hand. Some people will even be able to make some money by selling part
(or even all) of their quota. If some rich buffoon is willing to buy water to fill their swimming pool, then
they can discuss price. If people don't like the price they are offering,
they can choose not to sell it to them. Some people may even effectively get a
negative water bill. The more the shortage of water, the more that the rich
will be willing to pay for extra water. But this solution is too hard for Steve (but-then-I-won't-control-people) Bracks.
The more obvious the market-based solution is, the more desperately his
government moves towards a discredited socialist solution. Better to use the
tax-dollars to control people's lives, threatening them with water Nazis while
indoctrinating them into believing the government is working toward their
freedoms. It's called 'socially responsible governance'. Except that everyone ends up worse off.
|
|
 |
| Stone the Crows! | |
ABC-2002-10-28 Reports that some Australian morons
(particularly in NSW) have taken to harassing Muslims. The Daily Telegraph
reports that there have been 40 violent incidents against
Muslims since the Bali bombings. The complaints have ranged from stoning homes
and Mosques to ripping the headscarves off Muslim women. The stoning shouldn't come as a surprise to the fundamentalists. Many of
them in Nigeria are enjoying the anticipation of stoning-to-death a woman for
simply choosing who to have sex
with. However they will be merciful - the rules strictly forbid the use of
stones which will kill outright, only allowing small ones which kill over a
period of time. No shortage of people to cast the first stone there. But ripping off a woman's headscarf is going a bit far - a true violation of a
Muslim's woman's citadel of
dignity. They have no respect! It is interesting to note that the Islamic community was squealing in protest
when the mainstream media started reporting the ethnic and religious backgrounds of
Lebanese-Muslim gangs committing hate-based rapes. They insisted that crime was
crime, and that race and
religion were not the issue. But apparently they have no objection to the media mentioning religion
and race when they are the victims. Of course it would be tempting to dismiss this as a Muslim conspiracy designed
to promote their status as victims, but that would be attributing to conspiracy that which can
be explained through ordinary old ignorance and stupidity. Similar incidents
after the September-11
attack turned up many idiot rednecks who thought they would solve the problems
of Islamic fundamentalism by setting fire to a few mosques. It is not clear what these morons think they will solve by this kind of harassment. Few people would choose to leave Australia for this. How many
people would give up free medical care, cheap government-housing, and $10,000
per year (conditional on doing no work) so they could go and live in
crime-ridden squalor? Putting up with the occasional loosened head-scarf or insurance policy is a
small price to pay. And it has the added benefit of promoted victim status. Meanwhile the ABC's
(normally left-of-politically-correct)
4-Corners program has claimed that the Muslim groups involved with Jemaah
Islamia want to set up an Islamic super-state encompassing
much of South-East Asia, including much of north-western Australia. What hysterical rubbish! When Islamic fundamentalists demand part of Australia
for a sovereign Muslim state, they are hardly likely to settle for the poorest,
driest and least-economically-viable part of
the country.
|
|
 |
| The Man | |
True to form, Vladimir (hard-man) Putin sent in the Russian
special forces to take out the Muslim extremists holding 820 hostages demanding
(you guessed it) their own Islamic homeland. Apparently the
Chechen terrorists didn't like seeing their populations being repressed by a
post-soviet Russia, and wanted to oppress their population with a their own
1500 year old fanatical ideology instead. Of course over a hundred hostages died along with the extremists, but what's a
hundred serfs when you command 145 million? And even the survivors are now facing severe problems from the poison gas used
by the Russians to subdue the terrorists before bursting in on them. Media
reports are that it was something which caused 'extreme drowsiness and vomiting'.
Apparently Russian special forces thought it was safer shooting at someone half
asleep and vomiting a lot. The Russians won't say what gas they used. Rumors are that it was some old
nerve gas left over from the cold war, or some kind of previously undeployed
hallucinogenic drug. Forget Iraq, sounds like Russia has a WMD program
itself! And the outcome of all this? It will deter more attempts to do the same
thing. 50 Muslims died in order to kill just over a hundred civilians. A
infidel:believer ratio of 2:1 is not going to defeat Russia (there aren't
enough Chechens), and nor is it going to endear the Chechens to the rest of the
world. The US will now agree to
turn a blind eye to further atrocities in Chechnya if Russia stops objecting to
the Iraqi invasion: "I won't
objecting to you killing Muslims if you don't object to us doing it
too". They'll get along fine. Despite the incompetence of the Russian special forces, Putin made the
intelligent political
choice. Chechnya will continue to be a thorn in Russia's side, but this episode
will stop other remnants of the empire seceding, and after the outrage of the
Muscovites subsides, Putin's operation will be judged a success. The Arabs have a saying "My enemy's enemy is my friend". Who would have
thought that Islam would have been so instrumental in improving US/Soviet relations after the
Cold War? Two belligerent
super-powers putting aside their differences to crush an ideology even more
outdated and repressive than communism - sounds like
Islam really is a catalyst for peace. Thank you, Allah.
|
|
 |
| How dare you let me stop you doing the right thing! | |
Last night the world's highest funded international debating society (the
United Nations)
actually made a decision - to blacklist Jemaa Islamia (JI) as a terrorist organization. Simon (protecting-Australia) Crean has immediately jumped on the bandwagon
demanding that the government act by also banning the organization. Funny thing is - it was his party who stopped legislation which would have
allowed the government to ban the organization in the first place. The ALP
forced the government to water down legislation banning groups unless the group
was blacklisted by the United Nations. Apparently he feels that a democratically elected
Australian government
should not be allowed to make Australian laws on their own. We presumably
need the permission of a bunch of corrupt dictatorships before making
our laws. But now the UN has made a decision he is demanding that John Howard act now,
and questioning why he didn't act sooner to protect Australian citizens. He seems to think there is no shortage of true believers. Or maybe he just
thinks that Australians are stupid.
|
|
 |
| Suddenly Friendly | |
ABC-2002-10-26
reports that Indonesia's
Megawati has expressed concern to John Howard about about the economic cost of
Australian warnings to people against traveling to Indonesia, and has asked how
long the warnings will last. This is a change from Megawati's much celebrated snub of John Howard at the
last APEC meeting in which she refused to meet with him, and wouldn't even answer
his 'hello'. And 2 years ago the Indonesians were talking about applying an 'Ugly
Australian Tax' - an extra payment which Australians would have to
pay in order to get visas into Bali. How the tables have turned. After the Megawati government's successful
cultivation of anti-Australian hatred in Indonesia, they have now realized that
their actions have a price - Australians will simply stop dealing with
them. And if Australians do, so will most other Westerners. Indonesia's economic woes - the fallout of 30 years of corrupt dictatorship
followed by 3 years of corrupt pseudo-democracy - are likely to worsen with the
vanishing Australian tourist dollar. Even more significant though, is
Indonesia's inability to develop (or even properly maintain) their infrastructure without
ex-pat western
workers, many of whom are now leaving. And Megawati has realized, too late, that economic hardship will
destabilize her already struggling government. Of course it's never too late to give good advice: "Megawati - be careful
what you wish for - you might get it."
|
|
 |
| A New Plan Needed | |
They weren't quite unbloodied before, but Russia, after a long period of
dormancy on Chechen issues, may have thought the war had moved to the West. No such luck for
some 700-odd Moscow theater-goers who found the show didn't go on when the
theater cast was upstaged by 40 Muslim terrorists who took them
hostage. Apparently they want Russia to agree to Chechen Independence - which
they declared in 1991. Traditionally prisoners are fed only on bread and water, but stories coming out
of the former Communist stronghold state that the hostages are only being fed
chocolate and water. Maybe this is a symbol of Western decadence, or
maybe that was all that was left in the Candy Bar after the rebels helped
themselves to the popcorn. They are also keeping the Western hostages - not just the Russian ones. This
is a pretty clear indication that they think their war is not only with Russia,
but also with the West. They have only released Georgians - which could
explain why the Russians have been talking about attacking Georgia. So far President Vladimir (hard-man) Putin hasn't done much
except to rehash his cold-war rhetoric by blaming 'foreign agents' for the
attack. The nationality of the foreign agents may have changed but his victim status apparently
hasn't. He saw that this worked for Bush after September-11 and
presumably hoped to emulate his success. Of course in America's case it was actually
true. Putin is not known for his compassion or sensitivity. After the Kursk disaster
which killed over 100 submariners, he didn't even interrupt his holiday. He
came to power on a ticket of security - particularly from Chechen rebels, and it
seems likely that he will choose to be the hard-man in this case. His problem
is that he can't let Chechnya secede or many others will follow. After the
collapse of the Russian Empire a decade ago, the battered ego of collectivist
Russia will not survive an implosion of Russia itself. Chechnya will stay
Russian, whether the Russian people want it to or not. One of the interesting thing is that many of the hostage-takers are
women. Rumors are that most of them are Chechen women who have been raped by Russian servicemen, and
that traditionally, Muslim women raped in war either die or become whores. So in this case
they expect to die. This may
make them hard for Russian authorities to negotiate with. The part about Russian servicemen committing rape is pretty believable -
their levels of corruption, ignorance and
lack of discipline surpass that of China's PLA. For Russian
Servicemen, telling transparent lies is a way to demonstrate their
dominance - at least the PLA have the decency to to try to argue their case
convincingly. Of course rape is an effective weapon of terror, but few rape victims
feel endeared to their rapists. It is not an effective mechanism for dissuading
populations from seceding from the rapists. The Russians seem to be reaping what they have sown.
|
|
 |
| Issue Finally Sunk | |
The carefully orchestrated 'Children Overboard' witch-hunt came to fruition
today. Instead of causing the big splash the Left hoped for, it pretty
much blew up in the face of the protagonists. The inquiry, dominated by the Left, was carefully designed to embarrass the
government and the Australian Defense Force but
was cut short when embarrassing facts around the events themselves began to
surface. Little things - like the fact that an asylum seeker had
threatened to throw a child overboard (that was on
the video), the fact that people had then sunk their own boat (effectively
throwing everyone overboard, children and all), and the fact that 18 days after
this, a child was actually thrown overboard (details here) though
from another boat. But the worst thing for the Left was the timing of the final report. Nine
days after nearly a hundred Australians were murdered by terrorists in Bali,
Australians couldn't really care whether a bunch Pakistani asylum-seekers
pretending to be from Afghanistan threw their
kids overboard or not. They were more concerned with their national
security. And frankly, the difference between a) throwing children overboard
and b) threatening to throw children overboard and then sinking the whole boat,
seemed a little bit moot. And further reports of foreigners drowning due to
overloading their foreign boat off the coast of a foreign land barely raised a
ripple. The Greens may be
keeping up the water-on-stone treatment on this issue for a while yet, but
Simon (I-can-protect-our-borders-too) Crean just wants to sink this one as soon
as possible. The more he stirs it up, the wetter he looks when he tries to play
the strong-man. He just has to keep Carmen (unsinkable) Lawrence out of site
until the next election. Good luck, Simon - you'll need it!
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
