 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| A polite 'no' | |
ABC-2002-07-18 reports: Britain has rejected an application for asylum by two
young escapees from the Woomera Detention Centre. The two brothers, aged 12
and 13, had spent most of the day inside the British Consulate in Melbourne
seeking asylum. The boys (having already failed in their refugee application in Australia)
were appealing as refugees because of
oppression in Australia, and presumably were appealing on the grounds
of mistreatment by Australia. Eric Vadarlis, their lawyer, was the same lawyer who championed the cause of the
Tampagees late last year. It's not hard to see why he is working for nothing -
lawyers are supposed to smart, but he is incapable of thinking more than one move ahead. There were only two possible outcomes from this move.
- The UK procrastinates for a while and then approves their application.
- The UK procrastinates for a while and then rejects their application.
Either way Ruddock wins. Lets consider why: If the UK approves their application, then every escaped refugee will
suddenly appear at consulates around Australia. The consulates will get real crowded
real quickly, and the UK will have to pay to move them all to England, and let
them stay there. Australia is not China, and wouldn't forcibly stop people from
entering a foreign country's embassy against the wishes of that country. I can
see Phil ('this-way-folks') Ruddock personally driving bus-loads full of Woomera
rejectees to the British High Commission and Canberra, and saying - "OK guys,
if you walk straight to the front door, you'll never see Woomera again". If the UK rejects their application, they then can't criticize Australia's
treatment of asylum seekers. This would not only be out-and-out hypocritical,
but would probably give cause for challenge in a UK court of appeal. But the most hilarious thing is that the same applies to every other country
in the world. Any country which now criticizes Australia's treatment of asylum
seekers is leaving themselves open to an embassy invasion in Australia. Perhaps Australia should get all the inmates at Woomera and drive them to
the Norwegian embassy in Canberra so they can all claim asylum? Perhaps the
Norwegians would then be less inclined to throw Tampa Tantrums and take the moral high-ground at
sea? It's a bit like the bar-room scene in Star Wars where Obi-wan delivers a
decisive blow, and everyone in the bar immediately returns to mumbling
incoherently into their drinks. Sargent (I-know-nothing) Schultz would be proud. Of course the background to all this is that Australia, far from being made
an international pariah predicted by the left, is obviously the envy of the
rest of Europe. While a few lefties tried to sink the knife into Johnny
(we-will-decide) Howard on his recent European trip, most just wanted to
know how we were dealing with the problem. "Well guys, unlike you, we have a real big moat around our fortress. Too bad for you
that you don't have one too eh?" Of course England has a big moat as well. It's not as big as Australia's,
but it's served them well over the last 1000 years or so. But weren't these the
guys who invented the moat? What ever possessed them to dig a tunnel under it?
|
|
 |
| Working on What Really Matters | |
Why is the nation gripped about debate on an Australian postal worker being
docked $3000 in pay for having an extra photo on her desk? Why has such a
trivial issue become such a popular one? Well, this is one of those stories
that feeds on itself. Because it may signal the death of the union movement. When rabid feminists threw paint-soaked tampons at the Prime Minister
to protest the introduction of the GST we saw the death of feminism. The action was clearly designed to attract attention from Joe Average on
the evening news and it did. For the average Joe (and his wife Jill) it
demonstrated quite clearly that the biggest gender injustice that the feminists
had to complain about was paying an extra $20 per year on increased tampon
taxes. Forget the oppression that the feminist movement had protested for years, the
infanticide, the beatings, the slavery, the unfair treatment at the hands of
men; forget the male dominated patriarchal society built by men for men waging
an undeclared war against women. They were going to protest about something the
extra wages from the affirmative action programs weren't going to pay for: an
extra $20 a year on tampons. There could be no clearer indication that they had
no significant and credible complaints. We may be about to see the death of the union movement with Australia Post's
Desk Nazi affair. The unions are being a little coy, but they
look like they are going to go to lay in the boot on this one. The Jackboot
heel of socialism stamping on the face of the Desk Nazis will keep the
press-sharks fed for a few days, as well as getting a few giggles around the
office. Is this really the most serious issue facing Australian workers today? Being
told to keep three personal items on their desk instead of four? With the
unions being asked to share power equally within the ALP they will be
desperately trying to find something which makes them appear relevant to the
modern workforce, and be seen to be making a strong stand for a worthwhile
cause. Trust this advice, guys - this ain't it.
|
|
 |
| Buy or Sell? | |
With the Liberal Party trying to flog off Telstra like expiring dairy goods, and
the the ALP trying to cling dearly to their proud (if outdated) socialist
policy of nationalizing the means of production, a new player has weighed in.
Maverick Democrat Meg (I'm-no-lightweight) Lees, recognizing that relevance is a good as real
policies has said that a Telstra sale was 'inevitable'. Interesting, she
also said that the worst thing to do with the money was to put it into the
'black hole' of retirement of public debt. Bearing in mind that the sale of the remaining 50% of Telstra is likely to
net about $30 Billion ($30B), there are three possibilities.
- ALP: Keep it (and also keep the public debt).
- Liberal: Sell it, and virtually retire our public debt.
- Lees: Sell it, and spend the money 'usefully'.
There is a huge misunderstanding in Australia about the money in the sale
itself. Many people are angry about having paid Telstra exorbitant fees for the
last 30 years, and then seen nothing from the sale of the first 50%, and don't
want to see this happen again. Unfortunately they fail to understand the
situation. People perceive personal debt as something to worry about, but seem
to regard public debt as 'the government's problem'. Ultimately it's your
problem too. Lets put it like this: The ALP, in their wild 13-year spending spree ran up
debt to about $5200 on behalf of every man, woman and child in this
country. ($96B total). The Liberal Government has, over the past 6 years paid
off most of that, and we now owe only about $AU2000 each. It would be nice to
think they did this through sound economic management, but in reality they did
this mostly through the sale of public assets. It's also fair to point out that
the ALP inherited about a quarter of this debt from the Malcolm
(we're-making-life-easier-for-ourselves) Fraser government. Anyway, the $2000 is money which has to be paid back (with interest) as taxes
or sales of public assets in the future. The sale of the last 50% of Telstra can
reduce that by about $1600. Would you rather owe $2000 or $400? Of course, the government could just hand out $1600 worth of Telstra shares to
each Australian citizen, but there isn't much point in having $1600 in Telstra
shares AND $1600 in debt. You may as well just sell the shares, and use the
$1600 to pay of your debt. If you prefer $1600 worth of Telstra shares, you can
use your own credit card, and buy that much on the float. (hint - borrowing
money on your credit card to spend on the stock exchange is generally not a smart thing
to do). Of course if they hadn't borrowed the money on our behalf in the first place we
could just get the Telstra shares and choose whether to sell them or not, and
we would all be better off, but we foolishly kept voting for a government in
love with our communal credit card. It might be annoying to see our $30B asset going into the hands of the rich
and powerful, but the government effectively already did this when they
borrowed money on our behalf. We simply have the choice about whether to give
them the rest of Telstra, or whether we want to pay the money as higher taxes,
or keep paying the interest indefinitely. One way, or another, every man, woman and child in this country is going to
pay the price of government debt. [please accept my apologies if the figures above are a little rubbery. Feel
free to correct them - it will not change the underlying arguments.]
|
|
|
SMH-2002-07-14 reports the head of the Australian Islamic community has visited to
the parents of the convicted Lebanese serial rapists to convince them of the
guilt of their sons. Reportedly the families are still in denial, and are
insisting that the women literally invited it. Judge Megan Latham handed out laughably light sentences to three youths in
August after denying that race was a factor in the assaults. This denial was
continued in spite of the mounting evidence against it. The truth can now be
told. This was a series of racially-based hate crimes. SMH: Keyar Trad [spokesman for the Lebanese Muslim Association] said the
identity of the rapists should remain secret because their names made it
obvious they were Muslims, and the whole Islamic community was being blackened
because of their actions. Apparently if they were obvious Christian, Jewish, Vietnamese or Chinese names,
publishing them would be acceptable to Mr Trad. Apparently letting the public know that this was a series of hate crimes is
acceptable to Mr Trad, provided the fact that it was a hate crime committed by
Muslims against Caucasians was hidden. Perhaps such a half-truth would provide a justification for greater
'multicultural' funding by Mr Trad? SMH: "Because of the vile, heinous crimes they have committed, these men
have disowned their religion and their race" Mr Trad said. Apparently all Muslims are good Muslims by definition because bad ones are
no longer Muslims. Would Mr Trad say the same of Jews who committed heinous crimes against
Arabs - that they cannot be considered to be 'Jews' because they have committed
heinous crimes? It seems unlikely. Fortunately one leading cleric has has done more than scream 'victim'.
Lakemba-based Sheikh Khalil Chami has criticized Lebanese parents for isolating
their children from mainstream Australia, and has spoken of the need for
children to integrate successfully into the larger community. Apparently the
term 'integrate' is not such a dirty word for some ethnic leaders. His statements are welcome change in a chorus of 'multiculturalism', which has
done little but subsidize minority groups to resist integration. The Lebanese community is likely to benefit enormously from successful
integration. The Lebanese have one of the highest immigrant unemployment rates
in Australia, and already suffers great distrust by the mainstream Australian
community. These hate crimes offer little incentive to change entrenched
views. Perhaps it would convince more people - that Lebanese hate crime.
|
|
 |
| They're Not Making More of It | |
Much of the world faces a crisis of the supply of fresh water, and the
allocation systems in the world currently seem to be quite unfair, with some
12% of the world's population apparently consuming 85% of the available fresh
water. What is the best system to improve the situation? Is this an issue
of inequality, or just lack of clear thought in finding the optimal (and fair)
solution? Typical analyses only consider two alternatives.
- A totally socialist model, where water use is completely controlled by
a perfect, uncorrupt and efficient government with everyone's best interests
at heart; or
- A totally corporatized model in which the water is privately owned, and
the resource is run for the profit of the owners, with no consideration given
to consumer welfare.
For the sake of argument, lets consider a third alternative, a water-market.
- Every citizen is entitled to an equal share of the available water (lets
say this is 50 liters a day).
- Anyone has the right to sell any of their share of the water for any price
mutually agreed on.
- Anyone has the right to buy as much water as they like, provided the price
is mutually agreed on.
Why is this better than the 'socialist collective' solution? Because people
have more choice.
- They can choose to consume exactly their 50 liters;
or
- They can choose to consume less than their 50 liters, and sell some.
Then they can keep the money for something else, like health care or education;
or
- They can choose to buy more, and use it for running their factory,
or irrigating their farm or whatever. They can only buy this from people who have
chosen to consume less. They presumably will use the water for producing
some good, and will buy the water with profits from selling farm produce or
manufactured components or suchlike;
or
- They can choose to buy more, and also use extra water for washing their car, or having 3 hour
showers. Not too bright perhaps, but if other people want to sell their water
for this (because it makes them better off), and someone values their 3 hour
showers that much, both parties are better off.
No-one is worse off as a result of this, and people can use trade to make
themselves better off. If 12% of the people consumed 85% of the water in such a
market, it wouldn't be a problem, because the redistribution made every single
person better off. Anyone who was putting their health at risk through lack of
water could just choose to stop selling their share. People would literally buy and sell water-rights in a market:
'I'll sell you 20 liters of my quota for next Thursday for 0.21 cents per liter'
'I'll buy up to 300 liters of water for next Thursday at 0.22 cents per liter'.
(Those two people are about to cut a deal). Many (or most) people would choose to buy or sell through brokers, and would
over time choose the broker who gave them the best price, and a
kind of stock-exchange would evolve. Some brokers would be corrupt, but they
wouldn't stay in business for long, because their customers would just go
elsewhere to get a better deal. The only government
involvement required is to make sure that people weren't stealing water (which
they have to do under any system). So the optimal solution is found, not by allowing governments to choose
allocation systems based on their own bribe-taking pork-barreling corrupt and
incompetent agendas, but to use the power of the market to increase choice, and
optimize the resource to everyone's benefit. The issues in privatization of water are not to do with the market. They
are two-fold
- What should the initial allocation be, and should that be based on historical usage?
- Should you be able to stop someone selling their water allocation in-perpetuity?
Sadly, these important issues are usually lost in anti-market rhetoric and
socialist slogans. By the way - water in Australia has a system a bit like this. The big sticking
point in Australia is who gets the initial allocation. Big farmers already have
big water right allocations, they bought their farms with the water rights as
part of the package and regard the rights as their property. Another side effect is 'how much for conservation'?
Something such a water-market does is to give an estimate of how much it costs to
continue to channel water into wetlands (the teraliter of water
sunk into the wet-lands which had a value of $AU33M on the open market probably
cost that in productivity and standard of living).
Conservationists are very touchy about this because it allows a
rational argument of the actual worthfulness of conservationist policies,
which they believe are harder to win than arguments based on emotive slogans.
|
|
 |
| Too much Gravy Train or too much pork barrel? | |
Micheal (Dr Smoothy) Wooldridge has been unceremoniously dumped by his new
employers (the Royal Australian Colleague of GPs), who have prescribed a
$100,000 golden handshake, and a long rest. Dr Smoothy had a bit of a rough ride into politics - shortly before he gained
Liberal preselection he was filmed shouting "I've never voted liberal in my
life" at a protester, who was accusing him of being a Liberal sympathizer.
Later he said that he was lying, and justified it by saying that he was
frightened by the demonstrator. Frightened enough to lie apparently, but not
frightened enough to simply leave. His actual time in parliament was relatively uncontroversial except for letting
his radiologist mates know that they could cash in by buying an MRI
(imaging machine) in the few days before the budget was released. He managed to
keep out of trouble by using the Sergeant ('I know NOTHING') Schultz defense, but
some his his mates faced charges. Perhaps that made his some enemies who were instrumental in later recent events. He managed to allocate a cool 5 million taxpayer dollars in his last weeks in
office to his future employers. The 5 mil' was sitting around in a forgotten
bank account because the health department was too incompetent even to spend
money in time (I wish I had that problem). He was presumably expecting
to get most of transferred into his bank account in the form of consultancy
fees after he left parliament, but Johnny (this-is-going-too-far) Howard got
the money back before it was actually transferred. The operation was looking pretty sour for Dr Smoothy by this stage, so
spent the next few months continuing to access his parliamentary email,
perhaps trying to resuscitate a plan 'B'. Meanwhile the Royal Australian Colleague of GPs had missed out on their
commission on the 5 mil', and were simply paying consultancy fees to a
political liability. They couldn't dump him straight after the 5 mil' fiasco
(that would have been a little obvious), so they turned off his life support as
soon as they had another excuse - the parliamentary email access. Anyway, $100,000 is not bad pay for four months work, and he's got has fat
parliamentary pension to keep him, but Micheal had still better be budgeting
carefully. His old mates at parliament house have no intention of giving this
old-boy a job, and at this rate he may be joining Cheryl
(no-one-has-offered-me-a-job) Kernot on the dole queue. Watching a doctor having to wait long periods to see other people would be
compensation for waiting all that time in the dole queue. And rubbing shoulders
with Dr Smoothy would be a laugh too. Just be a little cautious if he uses the
old line 'trust me, I'm a doctor'.
|
|
 |
| Do you want them or not? | |
DT-2002-07-09 reports that Bobby (trying-to-be-a-Liberal) Carr is suggesting
an 'incentives scheme' to get new migrants to move out of Sydney and into
regional areas where skills are badly needed. These 'incentives' are said to include relocation grants and low-interest
loans. So a new arrival, who has never even paid tax in this country gets taxpayer
paid grants and subsidized and cheap loans if they decide to leave the
city. But someone who has paid tax for years who makes the same decision gets
nothing. Well done Bobby, can you say 'discrimination'? Your true color-sensitivities
are showing. Is this guilt money because of your negative comments about
migrants, or are you just bowing to pressure from your party - following the
patterns of mainstream Australia being forced to subsidize politically correct
minority groups? Yet another example of political interference. The worst thing that a
government can be accused of is doing nothing, so they feel the need to
subsidize someone to make it sound like they are doing something - anything.
Even when it is counterproductive and totally irrational. Bobby, Bobby, people who live in Sydney do so because they have decided it
gives them a better life. The infrastructure isn't about to collapse. If
overcrowding starts to cause problems people will choose to make the move
themselves. Don't try to fix it and it won't break.
|
|
 |
| True Machismo! | |
SMH-2002-07-08 Reports that a 20 year old Australian has been gored by a bull
in the world famous Running of the Bulls in Pamplona. This is nothing to do with a rising stock exchange.
The running of the bulls is a a bizarre occurrence in which bulls are
released (at a scheduled time) into the streets of Pamplona, and thousands of
people voluntarily stand in the streets, and then run away trying not to get
gored. Apparently these people are too stupid to understand that the best way to
avoid being gored is simply to not be in the streets when the bulls are
being released. In fact people travel from all over the world just to be there
when the bulls are released so they can avoid getting gored. They don't seem to
understand that the best way to avoid being gored is to stay at home! Unfortunately the miracle of modern medical technology manages to repair
these people's bodies (though it can't do anything about their minds), and they
go on to lead (what appear to be) quite normal lives. What would once be an
almost automatic removal from the gene-pool now merely costs the tax payer a
small fortune as they pay for these people to be cared for. Many people struggle to get adequate care, and wait for hours in hospital
waiting rooms after serious injuries because of the limited budgets of
hospitals. Yet the resources that do exist get squandered on morons with
self-inflicted injuries. This has got to be one of the best arguments for private health cover that
has been presented since the fall of the Berlin Wall. A private health fund can
ask questions like 'do you intend to run with the bulls in Pamplona?' and have
a Pamploma exclusion clause: 'you get gored, you bleed to death'. Let's face it, these people want to demonstrate machismo. What could be
more machismo than bleeding to death in the street with no pain killers and
a crowd of people cheering you on? Now that's a story the independent media could cover!
|
|
 |
| I'll grin .. you bear it. | |
There may be no innocent parties in a divorce, but there
are usually winners from scandal. The winner from the
Kernot-Evans scandal is .. Simon Crean! Studying the scores in the Kernot-Evans fiasco:
- Cheryl (still-not-my-fault) Kernot has been been totally discredited
as a politician, human being, woman's advocate and a memoir writer.
- Gareth (thank-god-i'm-not-head-of-the-UN) Evans has been shown to
be an adulterer (entirely his and his wife's business), and a liar (the business of every
Australian during his reign as Attorney General)
- Kim (fat-boy) Beazley has broken even - his refusal to let Cheryl into the
inner leadership circle has been vindicated, but his claim to Cheryl that 'you
just handed me the Prime Ministership' makes him look like a roasted turkey.
- Natasha (everyone-on-the-welfare-tit) Stott Despoja has been forced to wiggle and squirm like school-girl, and say
"no-one's business but theirs". Apparently she feels that lying to parliament
is justified if a woman's virtue is at stake (at least she has priorities, just
no principles).
- John (hiding-his-smirk) Howard has just said 'I have nothing to say on this matter
whatsoever' because he doesn't have to. He looks like the true statesman, but doesn't really want the
issue of 'truth before elections' studied too carefully.
- Mark (mad-dog) Latham and Peter (smirky) Costello haven't been able to work
out how to make mileage out of it at all.
- The Liberal
Party are enjoying themselves, but they didn't know
this was coming, and hence were unable to
use the scandal to cover up a slightly smaller scandal of their own (Like Mrs
Costello's thick ankles).
- The ALP look like a bunch of dishonest scheming school children,
but looking at the polls, this won't make any difference.
Which basically leaves our favorite little rottweiler, Simon
(I'll-grin-and-you-bear-it) Crean. Simon has taken the view that "ye shall
answer to your sins", and that the fundamental principle is to not mislead
parliament. As a result he looks squeaky clean! Even more so than
no-longer-quite-so-honest-John! He still looks ineffectual as a leader, and by taking this position he is the
only politician to have legitimized the media feeding frenzy over the whole
affair, but he has come out of this as a man of principle. I don't know whether the average Australian would leave their teenage daughter
in his care over the weekend, but he has raised his status from the man you
couldn't possibly vote for to the man who you might have to vote for in a
emergency. Now he just has to wait for that emergency. But judging from the
smirking government front-bench, they aren't expecting one anytime soon. Good luck Simon. This is the only correct decision you have made since you
became leader.
|
|
 |
| Not My Fault | |
Rumors have hit the trashy commercial TV news that Cheryl
(that's-a-terrible-thing-to-say-to-me) Kernot was doing the 'wild thing' with
Gareth (I'm-going-to-head-the-UN) Evans, and that this was a key factor in her
defection to the ALP in 1997. It hurts to have to defend Cheryl, but this is sticking the knife it too
far! Crass commercialism hurts people and Gareth (like Richo) is entitled to
do whatever it takes to woo people away from 'the dark side' of extremist
socialism to the enlightened side of socialist moderation. I mean really, is it
anyone's business but Cheryl's and Gareth's? Well normally not, but lets
think this through. This would have been around the time that Gareth was seeing his dream of UN
leadership collapse. His plans to set up a Stalinist-style left-wing world
government under the aegis of the United Nations were collapsing, and he
just wanted to take his $AU4.3M in tax-payer's superannuation and get out. Perhaps Cheryl offered to be his 'comfort woman' during the collapse of his
un-imperial empire? Or perhaps it was actually the supreme sacrifice of a true
believer, and he had a few too many schooners to accomplish the task? Maybe
that's why he got arrested for driving drunk in Melbourne? More bizarre
conspiracies have been suggested on this site. It also would explain the black condom that Cheryl has admitted receiving
shortly after her defection, and her lack of popularity within the ALP. Cheryl,
Cheryl, sleeping your way to the top is not making yourself a good role model for
women wanting 'equality in the
workplace', and sleeping with someone else's husband doesn't say much for
female solidarity. I guess after sleeping with her ex-student, she wanted to
experience the full gamit of power-plays in relationships. Of course Gareth (shorry-mista-offisher-shir) Evans is remaining as tight
lipped as a Woomera detainee protester about this one (which makes it hard kiss
and tell). And Cheryl (it-never-happened) Kernot may no longer be a politician, but
after a decade of being one, maybe the habit of telling half-truths is a little
hard to break. If Cheryl had been more honest and called the book 'Doing it to Myself Again',
then the whole rumor could be dismissed as a media beat-off, but that might
stretch the French
envelope of good taste, or at least the site-editor's tolerance. Let's stop there.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
