 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| A Leader among yes-men | |
Andrew (not quite a Bart, just a) Bartlett, has been elected
as the new leader of the Democrats. Apparently the Democrats,
realizing that their loony left vote was being slowly grazed away by the Greens felt the need to
differentiate between parties. They didn't have a feminist to choose from this
time - all the powerful women
have left, been thrown out, or unwilling to stand. So they had a choice between
the homosexual and
the yes-man. Not happy to be just 'the other' party with the homosexual leader,
they chose the yes-man. Andrew Bartlett of course was Natasha's Andrew in the slanging match
between the matriarchal power brokers, fought out using the Andrews. According to ABC radio,
most Australians didn't even know who was standing for the Democrat's
leadership. Having risen from obscurity, he has to concentrate on avoiding his
most serious electoral risk: being ignored.
|
|
 |
| Madness Takes its Toll | |
Catholic Priest
Tony Pearson from the Aboriginal Catholic Ministry has appealed to Phil
(keep-em-out) Ruddock on behalf of Qadir Fedayee, a mentally ill Afghan asylum seeker, on the
basis of his mental health. Apparently a mental illness is now grounds for becoming a refugee. All the healthy,
well adjusted but persecuted people in the world have to queue up behind the
mental retarded psychotics roaming around the third world. The people who may one day be able to support themselves, or even make a
positive contribution to Australia, are less
important than those who are likely to be a financial drain, or even threaten
other people's safety. Perhaps we could offer Saddam Hussein asylum in Australia on this basis?
Surely no sane person would commit those kind of atrocities against human
beings. This man needs help! Further, Father Tony Pearson insists that if Qadir got off the plane in
Kabul he would have no-one. Of course neither would Ali Baktiari, but that
didn't entitle him to asylum either. Of course if the Father Tony's rich multi-national employer - the Catholic
Church - were truly concerned, it could set up a mental hospital for these
people in Kabul and give them around the clock care. But I guess they are too
busy lobbying for the right to spend other people's money. Are these people crazy?
|
|
 |
| Housing Bubble | |
The Australian Housing
market seems set to go the same way as the dot-com bubble at the end of last century How do we know this? Lets look at why people were not buying dot-com stocks on the
US NasDaq stock exchange.
- They weren't getting returns (the price-earnings (PE) ratios were in their hundreds on
most stocks);
- They weren't expecting great returns (everyone knew that in every niche
only one out of a hundred companies would survive).
So why were they buying? They were buying the stocks simply because the
price was going up - they were buying for capital growth. Clearly that pattern
can't continue forever. It's a bit like gambling and playing double-or-nothing
to recover your losses. Eventually the capital available is exhausted, and
things collapse. Normally housing markets consist of a mixture of home-buyers and investment
buyers. But rental prices have stayed pretty much the same, and prices have
gone through the roof. The PE ratios are higher, so buying a property to rent
out is a poor investment. Unless you are expecting capital growth, you don't
bother. As soon as capital runs low, the prices will level out, but as soon as
they level out there is no point in buying, so they will drop. It's the same pattern as the dot-com in 2000. When something is full of
hot-air, it eventually burps. It's best to stand well clear.
|
|
 |
| I want to hold your hand | |
With all the armchair generals and war pundits playing the 'what if'
game about the coming Iraqi
war, no-one seems to be playing the 'what if' game about a non-war. Suppose the
latter-day John-Lennonists and other Lefties get their way, and
Saddam is left to play with his chemistry set unhindered? What are the likely
scenarios?
- He happily plays, and then gets bored and goes back to doing horrible
things to small animals (ie his subjects). The Left seem happy for him to do
this. Apparently corrupt Middle Eastern
dictatorships have absolute sovereignty - it's just
wealthy first world
countries are not allowed to control their borders. He has gassed the Kurds before, and the Left seemed to regard it as an unfortunate
misunderstanding - certainly nothing to use force to stop.
- He uses the chemistry set against a neighboring country. As none of
those countries are supporting a US move against him, it's a little
hard to get excited about this.
- He uses his chemistry set against Israel or the US. Now we're
cooking with poison gas!
What if Saddam uses Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) against a non neighbor? The main candidates are Israel
and the US. England is also a
candidate, and Chechnya and western China could end up in the
cauldron if he passes them around his mates, but frankly, Australia is way down on the
list. So what happens if the Americans don't go to war, and then get WMD'd for
their trouble? Let's just say that the the political fallout would be
greater than any nuclear fallout. The outcome would be quick, brutal and
decisive. And there would even be a good side: the Left would be silenced for an
entire generation. Definitely a win for Australia though, on balance, not such
a good turnout for the US. So the only wrong move that Australia can make here is to either
- discourage the Americans from going in; or
- refuse to follow them if they do go.
It's kind of quaint that the world's only superpower desperately wants
Australia to hold its hand as it goes into Iraq. If they don't go that would
be fine, but it would be a mistake for us to refuse to do so.
If something bad happened, Uncle Sam would never forgive us.
|
|
 |
| Not enough womb for everyone | |
A deaf couple in Australia recently got permission to screen
their embryos for the genes which cause their deafness. In short
they intend cull the defective embryos, and harvest one which is
non-defective. While this makes a refreshing change from deafcouples who insist
on both their right to have a deaf child and also on their right to
taxpayer's money to assist their 'disability', it is also a little scary. The wedge of designer humans has just been hammered a little further
in. What does the wedge look like? On what grounds should legislation
demand, encourage, permit or ban harvesting?
- Gross and abnormalities which will make them
live their entire lives in pain.
- Severe mental disorders (eg schizophrenia).
- Expected reduced quality of life (eg alcoholism, drug abuse).
- Attributes which society regards as 'undesirable' (eg deafness).
- Leading less-full lives (eg low intelligence).
- Aesthetic attributes (eg blue eyes, premature baldness).
Organized religions will try to stop the technology because it undermines
their power base by de-mystifying humanity, but it will go ahead anyway. It
can't really be called murder if it done at the IVF
stage because there is only so much womb-time/space to go around. People choose
to have a small number of children, and they want to
use the technology to
minimize their chances of getting a dud. And while some Leftists on the ratbag fringe
are screaming about only the rich having this ability, most
people know this is rubbish. This technology will be affordable to anyone in
the first world within a
generation, and any social-democratic government will subsidize it because it
will save them money in
health and special-education program costs. And does anyone believe the Chinese government will stop
this technology from being available to its 1.3 billion subjects? The thought
of an entire generation of genetic Chinese superhumans brainwashed
to hate the West is a
little too scary to not compete with. And in the end, it will only take one pain racked cripple screaming 'why
did you let this happen to me?' To silence this technology's detractors even in
the West. Welcome to your brave new world, children. What parts do you want to inherit?
|
|
 |
| Hot New Military Fashion | |
Saddam won't be the only one sweating it out in the coming months if
reports on US military logistics are to be
believed. Faced with the real prospect of Saddam's Army having biological and
chemical weapons, the US troops are going to have to fight much of the war wearing their protective
suits. Problem is, the protective suits - designed to combat chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons - are not designed to combat heat. They are
just too hot for the Iraqi
desert any time except in winter. 'Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics' as the saying goes,
and it will take the US military juggernaut 4 months to gear up for the war.
They can't fight it after February, which means George Dubya has just a few
weeks to make up his mind. Saddam knows this, and thinks that if he can just confuse the United Nations for
another month, things will cool off for another year. Confusing the corrupt and disorganized
rabble of the UN can't be hard, so he thinks he's onto a winner! The heat is on Dubya, though. Maybe he is wishing that he had signed that
Kyoto treaty to avoid global warming after
all.
|
|
 |
| In the crosshairs | |
Celebrity Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein blinked when it looked like the United Nations was going
to petulantly stamp its collective foot if he didn't allow weapons inspectors
back into the country. In fact the final straw was something else. Firstly the Saudis said that they
would allow the US to use their
Saudi air bases to
launch attacks. This would make an attack on Iraq very much easier. Secondly a
senior Al Qaeda operative
captured in Pakistan has
been handed over to the US. This operative might be the 'smoking gun' evidence that the US has been
desperately searching for which links Iraq and Al Qaeda. And while US
interrogation may be less uncomfortable than that of the Pakistani's, it is
probably no less effective in the long run. If he has trained in Iraq, the
US will know. So the best strategy for Iraq is the old 'cheat and retreat' games they played
for the years after the last Gulf War. Can Saddam hide his weapons of mass destruction? It won't be easy, but the
papers were full of rumors about him having a nuke by Christmas. With Saddam
having so few friends, this is just the kind of Christmas present he needs to
cheer him up. Meanwhile the US had set an approximate date for the Invasion of Iraq - January
or February. It will take that long to put the US military juggernaut into
gear. But just after Christmas could be a little late if the nukes
will be ready by then. Just before Christmas might be a better idea. It would
also be a good date for a new Christian crusade - even if (in the case of the
Americans) it is actually a second coming.
|
|
 |
| Plain Dull | |
The Ruddocks were this week's feature in the ABC's 2002-09-16 dullest hour -
Australian Story. It featured the history of two dull lawyers in the nation's
biggest dating club, the Young Liberals, leading to their dull, but happy
marriage, and the raising of their not so happy daughter, Kirsty. Kirsty, now a 30 year old lawyer, described herself as 'upset' that her father
couldn't take a more 'compassionate' approach to asylum seekers. There is
something slightly nauseating about a lawyer demanding their right to be
'compassionate' with other people's money. Lawyers of course have the most to gain through protracted legal battles
over asylum law technicalities
at taxpayer expense. That's why
most of them have been so outraged by Phil and John's Pacific Solution - it
puts career opportunities out of their reach. But then again, what did Phil expect when he sent his eldest daughter to
Law School? What was he thinking? Kirsty said she is leaving the country, largely because she can't cope with
Australia's policies on refugees. She is going to do volunteer work in a
developing country. But what's she going to do when people ask about her
background? Probably take a leaf out of Ali Baktiari's book, and lie about it. Her qualifications in law will certainly come in handy for that. As a result there is now one less lawyer in the country. That's got to be a win
for Australia. Hopefully she left her passport behind.
|
|
 |
| A Bit More Equal .. | |
If the government doesn't pay for me to buy a new car, I'll be
forced to ride a motorcycle and put myself in danger. If this piece of sophistic drivel came from a teenager, most Australians would
give them a number nine kick up the bum and tell them to take some responsibility
for their own actions. But when the same argument is applied to paid maternity leave, breast cancer and
women, we are expected to swallow this foul logic, hook line and stinker. Pru (Chief Government Feminist) Goward has called for further subsidies for
middle-class feminists even if it costs half a billion (yes that's billion)
dollars a year and produces no increase in the nation's fertility rate. In the previous generation, the family law court established a woman's right to
help herself to her ex-partner's income even if her ex-partner had no access
rights to their children. Women had rights, but men had responsibility. However the strategy isn't working in this generation. Younger men
have seen what happened to the previous generation, and are just going to avoid
having children. Pru Goward's solution? Give women the right to help themselves
to the income of complete strangers who have no connection with the child at all. .. and all of it justified by women supposedly being victims of their ability to choose whether or not to
have children. The logic
doesn't get much more infantile than this.
|
|
 |
| Ghost Ship? | |
Two shipwrecked fishermen claim to have languished for two weeks off the coast of
Queensland before being rescued by a passing trawler. The fishermen claim to
have been seen by several boats in their life-raft ordeal which refused to rescue them. It has been suggested that this is the legacy of last year's Tampa
fiasco. Mariners are supposedly reluctant to rescue people in distress if they
are not allowed to enter Australian waters after doing so. Needless to say the Left are blaming the Howard
Government for
this. They are not blaming the people smugglers, nor the asylum seekers who
employed them, but are blaming the Howard Government for asserting Australia's
sovereignty. The real reasons in this matter are actually more sinister. Skippers are reluctant to rescue people in the high-seas because they don't
want their ships hijacked by thugs, as happened with the Tampa. It has now been over a year since any boats of asylum seekers have made it
to Australia. When the
Left wakes up and stops trying to encourage more asylum seekers to attempt the
trip this will become part of the Tampa legacy which people can eventually feel
secure to forget. Then such nightmares can be avoided.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
