 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| 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.
|
|
 |
| UNimpressive | |
George W (Let's Roll) Bush gave his long awaited September-12 speech to the
United Nations, and it was pretty much as expected. He asked sweetly for the UN's
cooperation in action against Iraq, and let them know that he would just ignore
no for an answer - and soon. Some of the UN delegates may realize that it is not actually Iraq on trial
here - it's the United Nations itself. The delegates in the UN have to
continually balance the trade-off between the credibility of the UN, and the
the petty causes of the dictatorial tyrants who they represent. It is normally
far better for them to criticize the democracies of the world for not giving
them enough money rather than draw attention to the failings of their fellow
dictatorships. But they have enjoying a little too much sugar, and not
prescribing themselves enough medicine. And the cost has been UN credibility. While the UN constantly asserts their monopoly on international law, they have
failed to realize that rules are pointless without enforcement. By taking no
action against Iraq for ignoring UN demands for inspection compliance, they
have set a precedent for action against the US doing likewise. What action can
they take against the US for going into Iraq without UN permission? None. Apart
from further demonstrating their impotence. The UN is actually in serious trouble. They are likely to be sidestepped
completely on this issue, and with other treaties (such as the 1951 refugee
treaty and the ICC) in danger of collapse, they may never recover. They may go
the same way as the ill-fated League of Nations. Perhaps if the UN had spend a little less time criticizing Australia for her
treatment of Baktiari-class asylum seekers, and a little time focused on Iraq
they wouldn't be in this quandary now. Which way will they jump? Well, that's a bit like asking how to save a
drowning lawyer: who cares? It's not going to affect the actions of the US.
But either way, the UN will get a bitter dose of reality.
|
|
 |
| If the cap fits .. | |
At what point do university students
actually join the intellectual elite? Readers can make up their own minds about 23 drama students from Charles
Sturt University who had to be rescued after their ill planned
bushwalking/abseiling jaunt in the Blue Mountains went badly wrong, and they
had to be airlifted to safety after being stranded for three days. Apparently they wanted some 'real life' experiences to help them out in an
upcoming drama production. Authorities said that to describe these people as ill prepared 'would be an
understatement', and that they will be looking at the 'appropriateness' of
their actions. Some of us thought that universities were for smart people, but in defense,
one of the rescued students said "we never expected this to happen". Clearly
their inability to realize that it sometimes rains and gets cold in the bush
removes their responsibility for their own actions. Authorities estimated the total cost of the rescue at about $50,000. That's
over two thousand dollars per student. Surely adding that amount onto their
HECS liability would be the best education they could
receive. They could share the 'real life' experiences of the taxpayers who have
to fund their stupidity.
|
|
 |
| What's Cookin' George? | |
Conspiracy theories are usually the province of left wing nutters who need
to invent reasons for their failures which avoid their own shortcomings.
In fairness, the ABC generally tries to avoid the temptation of using them,
instead relying on straight out lack-of-balance to promote their mid-left point
of view. However the ABC's 7:30 Report (2002-09-09) has a good one. It suggests
that the US has a hidden Iraqi agenda which goes beyond the rapidly tiring
'regime change' mantra: a political reshaping of the Middle East. Until now, the US hasn't
wanted to destabilize the Middle East, and hence hasn't wanted to destabilize
Iraq, which sits pretty will in the middle of it all. But this may be just why
they want to go in now. Remember that the fanatical religion which spawned Al Qaeda and the
September-11 terrorists was Saudi-based. Saudi works very much like the corrupt
third world countries on the international welfare tit. In these countries, a
corrupt dictatorship survives by taxing foreign aid, and maintains just enough
military force to quell a revolution. Keeping their own people poor and
uneducated is essential for the elite to stay in power, so they do so. Saudi is similar except that incoming money isn't aid - it's oil money, and
it's in large, not short supply. But the issues in keeping their people
misinformed and uneducated still apply. And just like the rest of the
Middle Eastern dictatorships, the House of Saud has to keep their people
focused on religious and external matters to draw attention away from their own
corruption. Unfortunately for the US, the massive amount of oil money injected
into Saudi trickles down through the channels of corruption. The result? Many
brainwashed ignorant religious zealots who are also very rich. They also have
gripe with the US, who props up the House of Saud to ensure their supply of
cheap oil. The US may have spotted the cruel irony of their own money being used to
finance terrorists attacks against them, and decided the House of Saud must go. If communism was a cancer, then perhaps so is democracy. If it can start in
Iraq, maybe it can grow outwards, and destroy the Middle Eastern dictatorships
one at a time. Previously the US has not wanted to stir the cauldron of hate in the Middle
East to avoid unnecessary blood spillage. Suddenly though, the US seems keen on
cooking up another Desert Storm. Perhaps Saddam's head is not the only thing on
the menu.
|
|
 |
| War Cry | |
George W. and Tony B. have been at Camp David flirting with the prospect
of war like a former girfriend who's electoral temptations were once
irresistable. They are still a little coy about consumating this interest, but
can they resist the temptation? No. Tony (Polite War Dog) Blair was playing the dove for a while, and it looked
like he was going to buckle. But nothing is ever what it appears with the English, and he is an
experienced politician. What better way
to convince a skeptical English public of the rightness of the coming Iraqi war
than to speak against it, and then to suddenly say 'I have now seen the
proof. We must fight!'? Meanwhile Alexander (things-that-batter) Downer has described the UN's
approach to Iraq as "meaningless, weak and completely ineffectual". He almost
sounds English himself with his capacity to understate the very obvious!
Still, the Alexander Downers of the world will continue their talk of UN arms
inspectors and try to define 'compliance' and 'honesty' as if it they had
any meaning to Saddam Hussein. And George (tin-man) W. will make the call. How do we know? Because of two
words: "regime change". George hasn't been making any 'last chance for
cooperation' noises. He has just been talking about 'regime change', and saying
he hasn't made up his mind if or when. The if appears increasingly
certain. The only question is when. Everyone now is just waiting for Little Bush to utter the new American war cry:
'Let's Roll'. Saddam has been rubbing the US military the wrong way for too long, and the
war machine needs oil. The UN has not been adequately lubricating the
US-Iraqi relationship and Saddam's credibility has run dry. Back to the old girlfriend it is then.
|
|
 |
| Hot Issue | |
- It allows Australia to participate in carbon credits trading.
Wake up call - producing more CO2 and giving money to other nations can be
done regardless of whether Australia ratifies
Kyoto or not. When was the last time
you saw a corrupt third-world dictatorship refuse money? - It puts more onus on the richer people in the world.
Getting indirect subsidies from the
hard-working democracies isn't
really going to get the poorer nations face up to the fundamental issue of
why they are poor is it? - It will help the developing world by preventing the developed world from
expanding their greenhouse emitting industries.
Is the point of Kyoto to lower greenhouse emissions, or encourage the
third-world to produce more of them? Restricting the developed world is
going to move the greenhouse polluting industries to the developing
world. A nice little hidden subsidy for corrupt third-world dictatorships,
but hardly a win for the earth. - It has become international law, so Australia has to sign.
Rubbish. It will simply be a treaty between those who choose to ratify
it. There is no such thing as International
Law. The only way that Australia could become
obligated to it is if Australia ratified it, in which case it would (by
definition) become Australian law. If Australia doesn't
ratify it, it doesn't become Australian law. - Refusal will make Australia an international pariah.
That's what they said about a strong border protection policy.
That argument is wearing a little thin, isn't it? - It's been ratified by the UK.
The US is 50 times the
area of the UK, but only
produces 10 times as much greenhouse emissions. The UK have a formula
that suits them, haven't they? The same applies for most of the European nations. - It's been ratified by Beijing.
If a corrupt communist dictatorship is in
favor of it, that's a good reason to be suspicious. China has realized that
they have to address the problem with the Asian Haze over their
continent. They think they have found a way to make the developed world
pay for it. - It will reduce the temperature of the earth.
Maybe it will reduce the earth's temperature by one degree by the year
2100. Hardly a good reason for a century of rationing, is it? - Even if it is not perfect, at least it's a good start to addressing
global pollution problems.
So let's introduce bad legislation because it gives
us the opportunity to pass good legislation later? Well, why not
just pass good legislation instead? - Well, it might be useless, but it feels so good.
There are many things which fit into this category. Make a list and choose
those which only involve yourself, or consensual partners.
|
|
|
| Hot Issue | |
- It won't solve fundamental problems of pollution.
The Asian Haze which has hovered over most of China for the last few years
was not caused by the developed nations, but mostly by the Chinese. China
must reduce their level of pollution to improve their own country. - The system is fundamentally unfair.
It sets punitive restrictions on hard-working democracies ('developed
countries') while exempting corrupt dictatorships
('undeveloped countries'). Corrupt dictatorships can pollute as much as
they like, as long as they keep their citizens poor. Hardly a great
motivator for change is it? - The system is fundamentally unfair.
India is less than half
the area of Australia, yet produces over 2.5 times the amount of
greenhouse emissions. China is about 25% larger
than Australia and produces nine times as much greenhouse emissions. Yet
Kyoto restricts Australia and not India
or China. Punitive restrictions are placed on Australia for maintaining a
small population, while China and India are rewarded for the idiocy of
creating over a billion people in each of theirs. Hardly a great motivator
for environmentally friendly population policies is it? - The system is fundamentally unfair.
Even if the emissions levels were population based, the formula for
Australia would be wrong. Australia, being spread out, needs greater
transportation to achieve the same standard of living than higher density
nations. People in rural areas have to travel distances to get food and
fuel which Europeans would never dream of. Punitive restrictions are
placed of Australia because Australians have to travel further. - The system is fundamentally unfair.
Greenhouse caps are related to 1990 emissions levels. Punitive
restrictions exist against countries who were actively controlling
emissions before 1990, while rewarding those who did nothing until after
the 1990 deadline. Hardly a great motivator for countries to control
pollution of their own volition is it? - It won't stop global warming.
Estimates are that it will only lower the earth's temperature by one degree
by 2100. Hardly Earth-non-shattering is it? - It will cost the OECD $AUD1.7 Trillion annually
That much money could be used to save many lives, and feed a lot of hungry
people. Letting that many people die to lower the temperature by one
degree is hardly humanitarian. - The danger from global warming is based on misconceptions.
The media reports that rising sea levels are already swamping many pacific
islands. Sea levels around hard-working democracies (like Australia) rose
between 3mm and 30mm last century. The same sea could hardly have risen
several meters around Tuvalu, but yet this is
taken as gospel by the media. - The danger from global warming is based on bad Science.
Rising sea levels are a natural phenomena, and have been rising for
millennia. The Aborigines came to
Australia via a land bridge from PNG. The massive sea-level
rise since then was not caused by motor cars or factories. - It draws attention away from the real issues.
Global warming has become a convenient scapegoat for the corrupt
third-world countries to blame the developed world for their problems.
They will only solve their poverty problems when they address their own
faults. Corruption,
lawlessness, and lack of
secure private
property rights.
|
|
 |
| Weasel Words | |
At the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, Kofi (I've-got-gareth's-job) Annan has
called for greater business investment in poorer countries. This makes a
welcome change from the usual calls for greater handouts from rich,
hard-working nations to poor, badly managed ones. Or does it? Presumably Kofi feels that the rich (those with capital), instead of
investing in ventures in rich countries, should instead be investing in
ventures in poor countries. Why does he think that they don't do so already? Well Kofi, there are several possibilities
- They are totally irrational and don't know any better;
- They are all racists,
and want to hurt the poor countries out of spite; or
- They will get higher returns and/or greater security in the richer
country.
The first seems a little unlikely. Rich people are rich for a reason: they
make good financial decisions. The second seems pretty unlikely too - surely
there are enough rich people who don't care whether they feed starving Africans
or not - they just want to get richer. Surely there are enough people in the
world who are more greedy than racist? That really only leaves the third option, Kofi. But surely the undeveloped
world (offering more potential for 'development') should offer greater
potential benefits. Surely the money should be flocking into these countries! On the other hand, maybe there is no point building a building which is
likely to be suddenly seized by corrupt government officials. Maybe there
isn't much point in importing machinery which is going to smashed by rampaging
mobs. Maybe going to do business with you is unattractive when they have to
bribe corrupt officials at best, and at worst be beaten, assaulted and robbed.
Maybe there is no point is building infrastructure when a greedy government
will break their contract, dictate exactly how much you can charge for it, and
then set arbitrary taxes to strip any profits. Maybe the poorer countries should be looking within themselves to work out
why the rich are interested in investing in rich countries which provide
guarantees of the rule of law and secure private ownership. If they want to be
rich, maybe they should take a closer look at what the rich countries do to
become rich. The song remains the same - the call for investment is just a disguised
demand from more money handouts. Meanwhile many of the 60,000 delegates at the Earth Summit are complaining
about the richer countries hijacking the agenda. This seems only appropriate in
Johannesburg, which (since the appointment of Nelson (the-rich-must-pay)
Mandela) is the car-jacking capital of the world. At least they have excelled at something.
|
|
 |
| An Obvious Forgery | |
Philip (boundless-compassion) Ruddock has rejected the recent aboriginal
demands for guaranteed Aboriginal parliamentary representation as 'intellectual
pursuits'. Presumably these are things which the intellectual elites
engage in between dipping their hands into the taxpayer's pocket. Of course the
demands could be taken a bit more seriously if anyone was able to define what an Aborigine actually was. Some of us were taught in school that the Tasmanian Aborigines were totally
wiped out (they didn't use the word 'genocide' back then). So it
came as a bit of a surprised to see so many Tasmanian Aborigines on the ABC's Four Corners last Monday
arguing over who were 'real' Aborigines and who weren't. One fellow thought that ATSIC should buy $5000 motor cycles for his children to ride around his
farm because it would reduce the chances of them taking drugs. His blonde-haired kids
thought this was a pretty good idea too, and when asked whether they were
Aboriginal were happy to reply 'um, I suppose so'. All parties in the 'who is the real Aboriginal' debate had some common ground
though - they all agreed that it was about money. Everyone agreed that the
others just wanted to get their snouts into the big ATSIC honey-pot. The funny thing is that none of them could see an obvious solution - removing
the funding, and therefore the financial gain resulting from fabricating an
Aboriginal identity. It is impressive that their strong cultural ties have survived
several hundred years of neglect, dispossession and persecution. One wonders if
it would also survive the removal of the subsidies which it now
brings.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
