 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| They're at it again | |
One of the pleasures of being a member of the latte class is spending endless
hours sipping the warm, non-mind-altering (albeit fattening), comforting, decaf
liquid while making ever-more grandiose predictions about the political world. In one such recent encounter, my fellow latte drinker was outraged about the
recent aggressive show-of-weakness by wayward nation North Korea
in firing a number of missiles towards Japan and the US. One particularly large
rocket, apparently aimed at an area of sea close to Hawaii, failed after
launch, but it still upset the Americans. There's something about having people
shoot bullets close to your extremities which annoys most people. And
apparently many governments as well. This is, of course, another attempt to blackmail the rest of the world into
giving them more aid. The failures of centralized planning are nowhere more
apparent than in North Korea, where many people are said to be starving. My fellow latte drinker was outraged at the morality of a group of people who
thought it was acceptable to threaten other people with violence for material
gain - 'just because they haven't taken proper steps to feed themselves!'. The moralists in 'compassionate' successful Western countries might like to
reconsider that point of view carefully. In principle, North Korea's actions
are no different to the mob who demand welfare because of their 'needs'. The mob appointed policeman who arrests you for refusing to pay taxes to
subsidize people with less wealth than you, is no different in principle to the
North Korean soldier. They are motivated by the same seemingly unshakable
belief - that they are entitled to your wealth simply because they have less. The latte set of The Left often argues that war is an expression of a deep
sickness running right through society. In this case they are right.
|
|
 |
| Deal? What deal? | |
My father once said that his definition of an intelligent man was one who
could hate someone without them even knowing. That doesn't really apply
to politicians - but the converse probably does: The definition of a really
stupid politicians is one who thinks that there is someone, somewhere who likes
him. Politicians are so unlikable, it's hard to imagine even a marriage partner
liking a politician - or even their kids. Their dog might like them, but that
doesn't really qualify. And political marriages are not that different to other kind - an inseparable
couple who clearly despise each other and yet dutifully give their most
practiced smiles and then say the worst thing about each other which they think
they can get away with. No-one really knew why Peter (Smirky) Costello and Little Johnny had been doing
that for the last 12 years. There were, of course, rumors - but there are
always rumors in politics, and no-one pays them any attention unless they
involve politicians having sex with each other. And no-one really believes that
Little Johnny has sex. His kids must have been a series of indiscretions on the
part of Janette or something. But it seems that 12 years ago Smirky and Little Johnny had a conversation in
which Johnny indicated his intention to hand over the keys to The Lodge to
Smirky after two electoral terms - a conversation which guaranteed Smirky's
support and loyalty - for two terms. Lesser men might have considered this a deal. So a younger, less experienced, but still ambitious Smirky looked forward to
moving into The Lodge (well, Kirribilli house anyway) after two terms of
managing the nation's tax booty. But he didn't count on something that few
would have predicted - that Little Johnny would do such a good job, and enjoy
so much popular and political support he no longer needed Smirky's support. All
Johnny had to do was put on his 'Honest John' look and say 'Deal? What
deal?'. Smirky had that sharp pain in his back which only politicians can
really experience. And the wound has been festering ever since. Like the story of the mermaid who
had to smile even though she was walking on knives, Smirky had to smile while
suffering the slings and arrows of a thousand humiliations from a handicapped,
short bald man with the charisma of a defective bathplug. That must be why he has such a hard time putting a sincere smile on his face. After the deal was made public, Australia quickly split into two camps:
- Those who screamed 'John Howard Forever' - a worthy sentimement, but
Johnny is not actually getting any younger.
- Those who screamed for John Howard to resign immediately - presumably so
that the Governor General can appoint Bob Brown as interim Prime Minister.
But no-one was actually calling for the appointment of Smirky. And after a
gentle dressing down (and a polite but firm 'no') by Little Johnny, he went
quietly back to his desk. A more confident man would just calculate the difference in relative ages of
him and the incumbent, and let nature take its course. But Smirky knows that
all politicians have shelf lives. A truth-overboard mishap, or a
life-wasn't-meant-to-be-easy slip can break a politician. And unlike the ALP,
there are other strong contenders for the position. Like Malcolm Turnbull for
example. Maybe the best economic minds at Treasury could help Smirky calculate the
most efficient way to expend or conserve political capital? It would take his
mind off raising taxes anyway.
|
|
 |
| Failure in bid for political favour | |
One of the recognized problems with large powerful governments is that they
become corrupt. Leftists feel that the best way to deal with corrupt
governments is to make them more powerful. Libertarians, on the other hand,
generally feel that reducing the power of government is a better method. But Leftists are not the only pitifully naive people in this country. Many
Australian citizens seem to think that government corruption only happens in
other countries. In Australia, the faults of government are those of arrogance
or incompetence, and mistakes are mitigated by the fact that 'at least the
government means well'. Sometimes it's hard to justify that view,
especially in the ACT, where recent fishy land deals involving between 10 and 100
million dollars are involved. At the risk of oversimplifying .. The ACT government owns all land (all ACT land is lease-hold, not
free-hold), and keeps land prices artificially high by refusing to release more
land for people to use (apparently affordable housing is a bad idea). When the
government does release more land, it zones it for a particular purpose - not
just 'residential' or 'commercial', but it dictates the detail - eg what what
type of commercial activity is allowed. However, when it actually auctions the
land, it can be quite vague about what that use actually is. Even if the land
is kilometers away from the nearest house, it still controls what can be
bought, sold, or manufactured on that land. Are you seeing the opportunities for shonky government deals here yet? Well,
even if you are, they are way ahead of you. The government can choose to
'interpret' what the legitimate use for the land is after it is sold - ie, they
can change their 'interpretation' on who actually buys the land. Like one of
their mates, for example. Canberra Land developer Terry Snow (who owns the Canberra Airport) is a bit
on the nose with the ACT government because his 99 year lease for Canberra
Airport is with the commonwealth government, and he is immune from the whims of
the ACT development laws within the airport grounds. For the last decade he has
been happily building himself a private city on the airport - with office
buildings, and retail outlets - much to the chagrin of the ACT government, who
can be heard frequently railing against him on local radio. When Snow decided to build a retail outlet on the Airport the local
politicians had two arguments against it
- That it couldn't possibly succeed because it was in an inappropriate place;
and
- That it would be so successful that it would draw business away from other
ACT retailers elsewhere.
And yes, both of these arguments were made in the same breath. Politicians
truly are scum. Anyway, hell hath no fury like a politician ignored, so payback was
organized. A 7ha tract of land in the nearest industrial estate (Fyshwick) was
auctioned for 'bulky goods'. Snow tried to clarify exactly what was meant by
that, but didn't get any joy from the local planning minister - not even when
he tried to force the issue in court. Basically the court ruled the politicians
can do as they please. So he was outbid on the land by one of his rivals, and (surprise surprise)
the government has now decided that it can be used for 'retail'. It hasn't been
'rezoned' - just 'reinterpreted'. The site was independently valued at around $12 million (for bulky
goods), it went for $39 million (when Snow pulled out of the bidding), and Snow
says that, as a retail site, it was worth around $100 million. A nice little earner eh? Snow gets frozen out of the deal, and has to put
up with a competing retail site near his own (due to open later this month). He
got fitted up pretty good.
Serves him right for finding a loophole for getting around the meddling local
government, doesn't it? This will teach land developers a good lesson: absolute
power lies in the hands of government. Always give them what they ask for. It should teach the rest of us a good lesson too: the state is not your friend.
|
|
 |
| John Howard is watching over you | |
Feminists are fond of demanding 'what part of no don't you
understand?' The question may be rhetorical, but it doubtless makes the
fresh male recruits in the Australian Public Service quiver in their boots when
the question is raised by one of the many man-hating middle managers who are
reaping the benefits of years of officially sanctioned 'affirmative action',
and unofficial 'women's networks' in the bureaucratic hierarchy. However yours truly has an answer to this question: Well .. it's the part where she's in my bed with me, naked, and
rubbing her body against mine and giggling, and saying 'no'. That's the bit of
'no' that I can't understand. Could you explain that bit to
me? Then of course there are the other kinds of no. Like kind of 'no' that girls
love to shriek in high pitched voices at social gatherings where they pretend
they are not willing to do (or not yet willing to do) the things that
the young men seem to want them to. Feminists are not known for their ability to go out and have a good time, so
perhaps none of them have even been to these kinds of gatherings. Perhaps. And
perhaps none of them ever watched the ultimate in TV trash - Big Brother. The Big Brother program is well known for stretching the boundaries of good
taste - showing Fat Chicks in the shower for example. But this time the show
has caused outrage by a consent-vs-coercion incident. Details are patchy, but
it seems that a women climbed into bed with two men, and one of them held her
down while the other exposed himself and touched himself against her face. And
all the time she was saying 'no'. Well actually she was shrieking 'no' in that distinctive high pitched squeal.
And giggling. And afterwards she didn't think it was any big deal. But Big
Brother evicted the men from the house anyway. So some of us were expecting similar high pitched squeals from the feminist
movement. But before they even got the chance, the Prime Minister climbed into
bed with them started squealing himself - branding the show 'stupid' and
calling for it to be taken of the air. It seems that there is a real
possibility that government censors will pull the plug. Little Johnny is certainly right that the show is stupid, but calling for it to
be taken off the air? Johnny, Johnny, what happened to all those big-el Liberal
principles of personal liberty and small government? What ever happened to the
right of people to decide for themselves what to watch, or what to ignore? Johnny is quite happy for us to make our own decisions - as long as we make the
decisions he agrees with. And as long as we recognize his Big Brotherish moral
superiority, and his right to veto any viewing decisions we make. Just like a
neo-feminist. No surprises there. The conservatives have always been in bed
with the feminists, even through they hate each other. A typical marriage
actually. Funny how art imitates life - imagine Johnny Howard in bed with Eva Cox,
forcing her to do exactly what she wanted to do while she screamed in mock
protest. Well okay, that show really would be stupid, but no more stupid than Big
Brother. What else would you expect from a show exclusively featuring idiots,
and exclusively watched by morons?
|
|
 |
| The writing's on the wall for the Los | |
One of the tenets of The
Left is an abolition of the double standard. Invisible 'glass ceilings',
ethnic unemployment, indigenous wife bashing and child abuse - these are all
supposedly the result of the 'double standards' of mainstream Australia, which
discriminates
against minority groups (which somehow includes WIMMIN!**). But in fairness to The Left, there does seem to be some double
standardization going around. Take the Lo
family from Hong Kong for example. The Los entered Australia in 1989, and overstayed their visitor's visa.
We don't know how to apply, actually, and we didn't know where we can apply
because when we just come Australia, it's a new place, we didn't know
much. Apparently though, they knew enough to 'deliberately avoid detection for
several years' and never sought to contact immigration officials. Now, faced with deportation, they argue that that couldn't possibly return
to Hong Kong. Why? Because they have been staying in Australia too long. Their
children (born in Australia while they were here illegally) can't read
Chinese!
If we go back to Hong Kong, the education might not be good for us because we
don't - we can't write in Chinese. Clearly the children speak Chinese (they presumably just can't
write it). It's hard to imagine a good parent who (faced with the real prospect of
having to return to a Chinese speaking country) wouldn't teach their children
to write the language. But that aside, their now Visa seems to have been
extended indefinitely by Amanda (The Killer While) Vanstone on
those grounds. Apparently the trauma of children having to learn to write in a new
language is so great, it is reason to abandon their deportation. Surely then, the trauma of migrant children having to learn English on
their settlement in Australia must be so great as to refuse visa applications?
Having to learn to both speak and write in English must be more
traumatic than merely learning to write in Chinese. This is child abuse! All those children from non-English speaking countries must be refused
visas from now on - on humanitarian grounds. Only a heartless unthinking
bureaucrat could possibly want to make minors suffer in this way. Remove the
double standard! In the name of
mercy, compassion, social justice, and everything decent and right:
refuse a non-English speaking child a visa today! ------ ** Women outnumber men by about 100:99 in Australia. Accurate estimates of
the number of WIMMIN! are not available.
|
|
 |
| Sad day for political correctness | |
Australia's indigenous
population has always been a bit of a problem for the rest of us. From the
time that white settlers abandoned any efforts to form a treaty with a local
government and declared terra nullius to ease their consciences, right
up to the death of Bob Hawke's populist declaration of 'A treaty with the
Aborigines', Aborigines have been a thorn in the side of mainstream
Australia. Sort of like the occasional embarrassing smell emanating from the
bathroom. Annoying, but not annoying enough to actually do anything
about. Cleaning the bathroom is such a chore, and can't we just pay
someone else to do it? And besides 'it was like that when we got here'. Of course the situation has not been without it's opportunities. The
International Socialists
used the plight of the Aborigines to discredit Australian nationalism, to damage capitalism and to justify
higher taxes to punish the
rich. Feminists used the
plight of Aborigines to prove that dominant white males were the source of all
evil. And migrant
groups used their plight to justify open borders - on the basis that invaders
had no right to stop further invaders. Meanwhile, embarrassed governments did what what governments do best - pump
huge amounts of money into embarrassing holes in the hope of keeping them
covered them up until the next election. Whether the money had no effect on the
well-being of the Aborigines, or whether it was actually detrimental is a
debate which we will still be having a long time in the future. But the social
policies which came with the leftist self-serving disguised as compassion have
been immensely damaging. But the tide on this one seems to be turning. Collectivists may feel
that it's acceptable to punish someone for the actions of another (as long as
both are in the same identifiable group), but mainstream Australia has taken
about as much guilt as they are willing to put up with. Even the ABC, normally the
bastion of indigenous victim brigade, seem to be documenting the turn
around. The headlines over the
last week tell the story all on their own:
Culture of violence revealed in central Australia
NT defends efforts to tackle remote community violence
Indigenous groups warn violence worsening
Break up Indigenous paedophile rings: Brough
Brough urged to hand over paedophilia evidence
Child abuse reporting scheme works: doctor
SA program 'can stop Indigenous violence'
Health worker says Indigenous violence widespread
Police allow feuding families to slug it out
Money won't end Indigenous violence: Howard
More help urged for Indigenous men to cut sexual abuse rates
NT Chief Minister to boycott violence summit
Aboriginal leaders excluded from violence summit
Pay Aborigines to leave communities: Senator
Martin's violence summit stance under fire
Legal service supports feuding families' fist fights
PM takes stand against customary law
Indigenous Council head backs violence summit
Concerns over understanding of carnal knowledge case
Send Army to Aboriginal community: AMA NT
Minister calls for women-only Aboriginal refuges
One in 10 Indigenous men raped, survey
Labor criticises Indigenous violence summit
Readers are welcome to read the gory details, but there seems little point.
The tide has turned. Of course we still have Aboriginal lobbyists screaming
that all the problems are because the government didn't spent enough
money on the problem, or that they didn't spend it on the right things
(presumably not enough went their way). And of course the ALP are screaming
that after ten years in power, the government should have done something
(anything!) much sooner. Of course a decade ago the ALP
was still following their politically-correct
agenda. Any suggestion that Aborigines should answer to the law, (and the same
punishments) as the rest of us was met with howls about racism, genocide, cultural
relativism, the evils of mainstreaming, black deaths in
custody and (who could forget) The Stolen
Generation! In 2006 The Left has
suddenly discovered that the wonderful culturally enlightened
enclaves which they so carefully curated in the '80s and '90s are cesspits of
endemic violence, child abuse, pedophilia, wife bashing and gang warfare. How could this happen? Weren't these descendent's of the 'original Australians'
supposed to be the the spiritual caretakers of The Land? Weren't they supposed
to spiritually mentor the rest of us and provide role models to lead us away
from soulless consumerism? What went wrong? The Left doesn't really know, but somehow it must be John Howard's
fault. Thankfully, the collapse of leftist political correctness will allow the
government to take some positive action to improve the lot of the majority of
Aborigines who want the same thing the rest of us do: safety, security, and a
comfortable income. It is unfortunate that so many of them have had to suffer
for so long to get there.
|
|
 |
| Makes the stomach Churn | |
There are some things in life which are really disgusting. Not like rotten meat
disgusting, or under-age Bangkok girlie-bar disgusting, but none-the-less
disturbing enough to make one question the underlying morality of modern
society. I am talking, of course, about the annual
i'm-victim-for-having-children-so-give-me-money churn payment which the
government sends to any parent who takes the time to fill in a form once a year
and sends it to the appropriate government department. This year, the form was
shorter, simpler, and downloadable via Internet. (With all those efficiencies,
there must be some public servants somewhere who could be sacked, but that
never seems to happen ..) This year my families' collective (if not actually collectivist) eyes nearly
popped of our head on receipt of a family payment cheque of over $7800.00. We
were appalled of course, but not quite appalled enough to send the money
back. If a thief wants to stand on the street corner handing out $100 bills,
then I will join the queue with all the whining Leftists leeches and scream
'where's my free shit?' Little Johnny: you really are a piece of collectivist scum, but your my kind of
collectivist scum! This is quite disturbing. I must rush out and buy a second LCD TV before my wife
spends the entire amount on new shoes ..
|
|
 |
| Man in the middle | |
Traditionally, what has separated Left from Right on the political
spectrum is one's agreement with the sentiment From each
according to his abilities, to each according to needs. Statists on the left of Australian Politics (the ALP) have actively promoted
policies that reward the creation of need, whereas the statists on the right
(the big-L-Liberals) have focused on buzzwords like 'incentivation', which
pretend to reward the creation of wealth. It's pretty clear why leftists had to be statists - only an all-powerful
all-knowing government
could possibly make decisions about what someone's 'abilities' and 'needs'
were, and redistribute wealth accordingly. But it wasn't so clear why those on
the right had to favor government control over personal choice. Regardless, the poor voted ALP, the rich voted Liberal, and the
middle-class voted for the candidate with the most charisma. But then something unthinkable happened. Australia voted for a short, bald,
ugly man with a hearing aid and the charisma of a used dishcloth. And he stayed
Prime Minister for over a decade. Little Johnny might be an embarrassment
overseas next to the Texan gun-totin' stature of George Dubya Bush, or even the
easy-going likability of Tony Blair, but he's our embarrassment, and
we like him. And at least he's better than that rabid dyke across the Tasman. Of course Little Johnny still suffered the slings and arrows of cries that
he was supporting 'the big end of town' over the 'the little guy', but in fact
it was the blue collar who turned to him. Times were so good, and so many
people were upwardly mobile that the workers became 'aspirational voters', and
were reluctant to impose punitive taxes on a class which they hoped to belong
to. Whether this mobility-between-classes happened as result of leftist
egalitarian policies, or merely as a result of the choice which greater wealth
offered is something that historians will be rewriting for centuries, but it
has happened. The ALP, bastions of the unionized working man where percieved to have turned their backs on the
workers party, who joined the blue-bloods in voting for the blue ribbon party. Which is why Kim (Fatboy) Beazley, the champion of the non-statement, the
non-policy, prolix proliferator of pap, has made a decisive move - for the
middle! In his budget reply, he made 'a pact with middle Australia' and promised to
give them child-care places in school, and fast broadband. Of course, private schools haven't seen a commercial opportunity in
providing child-care on their premises, so it seems unlikely that people are
willing to spend their own money to fund it. However, if that money is taken
from them in the form of taxes, it becomes economically worthwhile. Obviously.
An all-knowing Government can make better decisions than mere individuals. And as for broadband, the competitive environment seems to be doing a
pretty good job of providing that at ever-reducing cost. Presumably Kim intends
to re-nationalize Telstra, and pump billions into the company to build a
government operated and controlled network. And it would be government
controlled - no surfing for porn on Kim's network. Kim will force ISPs to
offer porn filters, and anyone who requests an unfiltered feed will have to
identify themselves in writing. But that's not all. Fatboy will also re-ban 'unfair dismissal'. Apparently
someone spending money to buy labor shouldn't be able to choose to buy
it elsewhere - or at least a government body will make sure that the choice was
not 'unfair'. Clearly, the government knows what's best for you. Fatboy is continually fighting choice. Unfortunately for Fatboy, his
approval ratings have slumped below those of Julia Gizzard, Kevin Rudd, and
even the ever-smirking Peter Costello. The only person that Fatboy beat seems
to be The Rottweiler - Simon Crean. Kim is unphased, insisting that it is not
a popularity contest. Well, actually Kim, a democracy is just that. Loser.
|
|
 |
| Symbol of thuggery | |
No political blog would be complete without a mention of the May Day rallies
which get held around the world on May the first every year. Now that most
despotic communist governments have collapsed, it falls to those compassionate
Leftists in the First World to maintain the rage. Yes, those caring souls who respect the rights of all others are celebrating,
(or at least commemerating) a grubby little riot in Chicago 01-May-1886. It
went something like this:
1. Workers decide they want to work an 8 hour working day.
No problem with that. Most of us would like to spend more time lying on the
beach. Presumably they wanted the same pay as they were previously getting for
working more than 8 hours, but there's no problem with negotiating an effective
pay rise. 2. Employers decide not to pay them for only working 8 hours.
No problem. If the price of Big Macs goes up, you can choose to stop
buying them. If the price of labor goes up, you can stop buying it. 3. Workers strike.
Well, clearly .. if they weren't willing to continue to work for the old
rate. Seller and buyer can't agree on terms of trade. Both wait it out, hoping
the other will agree to their terms. That's what a strike is. 4. Striking workers set up a picket.
Apparently they have no problem with people blockading other people's
property. Presumably they would have no problem with the employers blockading
their homes until they agreed to work for the wage which the employers thought
was 'reasonable'? 5. Some workers decide that they are willing to trade for the
price offered by the employers, and try to cross the picket lines.
Sounds good. If I don't like the price MacDonalds charges for the Big Macs,
I can buy from Greasy Joe's down the road. The employers found sellers who were
willing to trade, and traded with them. 6. Strikers attack the workers.
Hmm. Presumably it's ok to attack people who are offering terms of trade
which you don't want them to. So in that case it would be okay for the
employers to attack the strikers as they tried to enter their homes? 7. Police retaliate. Two strikers are killed, and two others are wounded.
Clearly it's okay to attack people who who offer terms of trade that you
don't like. So what's the problem? 8. Strikers organize a riot and set off a bomb, which kills eight
police. Police respond, and fatally shoot eleven rioters.
Sounds fair enough. Thugs attack police, police defend themselves. There is nothing particularly extraordinary about this story - thugs will
be thugs. What is amazing is that so many True Believers deify
these thugs in the present day. Today thirty five
thousand people marched in a May Day rally in Brisbane, including Federal
Labor Leader Kim (Fatboy) Beazley. After trying to blame the Beaconsfield
gold mining disaster on the new IR laws, he vowed to "rip up these
industrial relations (IR) laws in 18 months time when we're elected". We have heard this broken record before. When Little Johnny introduced the
GST - unemployment was going to skyrocket, we were going to see hyperinflation,
children were going to starve, and the dead were going to walk the
earth. Instead we continued a decade of prosperity. And what of Little Johnny's timid IR laws? So far ALP has come up with a
man who claims he was sacked for smirking at the boss. But, in fairness, the
ABC managed to come up with an unidentified Tasmanian woman who claims she was
sacked because she couldn't do all the work she was assigned. Kim, you are a man of hidden qualities. Not just a two-time loser - an
eternal optimist. But you're right about the politically dead walking the earth.
|
|
 |
| Oil for food, money for guns | |
Most of us consider ourselves to be moral. Some of us have little blemishes on
our past we would describe as 'misunderstandings' or even (in severe cases)
'mistakes', but on the whole we like to think of ourselves as following a moral
code. A question to all such people is this: is it OK to pay a bribe in a
corrupt third world country? We are not talking about the kind of bribe which would stop you from spending
your best 20 years languishing in a Bali prison for an overweight boogie bag -
most people wouldn't have a problem with that. We are talking about the kind of
bribes that make your life (or maybe your business life) run a little smoother.
Giving the traffic cop $5 to avoid a trip to the local police station comes to
mind. Or maybe slipping the baggage handler a few crisp ones to overlook the
fact that you are overweight (your bags that is). Maybe giving the hotel clerk
a small tip to get a 'free' upgrade to a better room, or even help find you
some companionship on that lonely business trip? These things are not that common in Australia, but they are all part of the way
that business (and pleasure) are done in most countries in the world. Every
businessman who has done business overseas expects to grease a few government
palms to 'help things run smoothly'. Some people might have a problem with the
practice, but most of us believe that when in Rome, you pay unto Caesar that
which the Romans do. And Iraq is no exception. Does anyone believe that AWB hasn't been bribing Iraqi officials for decades?
Does anyone believe that the AU$300M in kickbacks to Iraqi government
officials is anything other than business as usual? Does anyone really believe
that the AWB didn't pay bribes when the ALP government controlled it? Do you
own a flock of flying pigs? This is why the Labour opposition has been so spectacularly unsuccessful at
getting any mud to stick to the government over the AWB weapons-for-oil
scandal. The AWB's charter was to sell Australian wheat to corrupt ratbag
governments, and they were expected to use corrupt ratbag methods. And they
didn't come much more corrupt and ratbaggy than Saddam's regime. Not that the current Iraqi officials won't complain about the AWB's actions. Of
course they will - it gives them more justification for demanding more bribes
now. Do these officials really wish that Iraq hadn't bought Australian wheat in
the 1990s? Do they wish their children had gone hungry during those years? It
seems unlikely. And from the average wheat-farmer's point of view, the AWB did what was necessary
to sell their wheat. That makes them .. maybe not good blokes .. but the kind
that you keep employing. Or voting for in the next election. It may go against the grain but the ALP is not sowing the seeds of an election
victory.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
