 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Coming soon to a politician near you | |
In this day and age we are expected to be tolerant of those who are
'different'. 'Different', of course means lots of things, but some of us old timers,
'different' generally meant homosexual. Like in the footy for instance - where gay footballers have recently been
advised to stay in the closet. Whether closet means 'water closet' or 'locker
room' in this instance isn't clear, but basically it's between them, their
friends, families, and their locker-room shower-mates. It's none of our
business, and most of us like it that that way. There is, of course, a principle here. The price we pay for keeping people out
of our bedrooms is that we stay out of other people's. And in the case of gay
footy players, most of us are happy to oblige. But does the same standard apply to politicians? Well, in an ideal world it
would. If a senior state-ALP minister were to, say, frequent gay sex clubs (to
pick a completely random example), would it be anyone's business apart from his
friends, family, gay sex partners, anyone with a video camera, any of his
constituents, those who came under his power as a state politician, and everyone
disgusted with the fact that state ministers continually set themselves up as
the high priests of personal and sexual morality? Well, probably not, but that's an awful lot of us. Maybe when NSW Transport Minister and closet homo David Campbell campaigned on
platform of 'family values' he should have let us know whether he regarded
anonymous gay sex partners as 'family'. Maybe calling him self 'Camp Bell'
should have rung a .. well .. camp warning bell with the voters, but such
things are not generally regarded as reliable indicators. Unlike video evidence. In a more rational world, government would limit itself to stopping murder,
rape, assault and theft. But politicians with power are like drug addicts.
They need more and more control over people's lives. What do you say to someone who dictates what people can watch on the TV, what
they can access on internet, what they can eat or drink, and who they can
marry, and then blames the media for 'unfair media attention of their private
lives'? Only three words: ha ha ha. Just because the State displays a keen interest in your personal life, does not
mean the state is your friend.
|
|
 |
| A nose for political opportunity | |
We all like to explore our feminine sides occasionally .. getting
pampered when we are sick, watching the occasional chick flick, employing
that Asian lady with the big boots and the whip .. But most of us have no interest in exploring our feminist side. Surely
only the most retarded spineless gender apologist would want to to explore total
self-loathing. Which brings us to Tony (Sluggo) Abattoir. It all started with Sluggo playing to the conservatives, and insisting that a
Sluggo-led government wouldn't raise any taxes, or to introduce new ones. Good
move Sluggo, and self respecting rednecks raised a glass to you. Or at least a
cold can. But then he let his teenage daughters talk him around, and convince him to
force the taxpayer to finance their reproductive ambitions. Suddenly he was in
favor of paying middle class women up to $75,000.00 to pop out a baby - paid
for by a great big new tax on big business. Then he got cornered by Kerry O'Brien on everyone's ABC and admitted that the
two were 'not entirely consistent', and said that he was 'not always entirely
accurate' in the heat of verbal combat, that his words couldn't be taken as
'gospel truth' unless they were in writing. What was Sluggo thinking? Maybe telling a lie is okay if you say it
quickly enough? ABC journalists do present themselves as the high priests of of
democratic thought. Maybe Sluggo thought he was back in confessional or
something? Sluggo is perhaps the first politician honest enough to admit lying. Thanks for
your honesty, Tony, but it's a bit hard to sing your praises for this. It's a
bit like the partner who loves you enough to admit to having an affair. 'thanks
for your honesty you deceiving b...'. But enough about the ex- .. Normally it's easy to tell when a politician is lying - his lips move. But Tony
(Sluggo) Abattoir has proven to be the exception to the rule. A
politician telling you that he is a liar, is clearly telling the truth. Sluggo is, of course, not the first politician to break promises. Bob Hawke had
his 'no child in poverty' mandate, Paul Keating had his 'L.A.W. law' tax cuts,
Howard had his 'core promises', Kev's ETS commitments are now on hold
indefinitely, and of course there was George Bush Senior's classic: 'Read my lips. No
new taxes'. But broken promises are not the same as lies. Sluggo, admitting you are lying
doesn't make you seem more trustworthy. And that's the gospel truth.
|
|
 |
| Debt squeeze for the PIIGGS! | |
Some of us mere mortals struggle with the complexities and subtleties of
international finance and government borrowing, but in a nutshell Dear Reader,
the Greek sovereign debt crisis can be summarized as follows. A bunch of thugs (the 'Greek Government') borrowed a whole bunch of money from
some loan sharks (banks in France and Greece) and signed a form promising that
the money would be paid back by someone else (the Greek people). They then used
the money to try to retain power (mostly though buying votes from stupid
Greeks), while all the time lying about how much they were spending and how much
they were borrowing. Eventually they got caught out in the lies, and two things happened. Firstly
the loan sharks wanted their money back, and secondly, no one wanted to lend
them more money. The thugs weren't able to extort enough money from the Greek
people to pay the interest on the loans, so the whole charade was close to
collapsing. Exactly why having this charade collapse would be a bad thing is beyond us
mere concrete thinkers. If some common street thugs tried this stunt, then the
lenders would lose their money and everyone would say "It serves you right. Why
did you think that anyone else had an obligation to pay you the money you lent
to those thugs?". Apparently though, basically morality and common sense don't
apply to big governments. Everyone panicked and screams of 'market failure'
convinced the proletariat that a regulated government solution had to be found. So the thugs got some other thugs (in this case the German government) to lend
them some money, so they could pretend that all the debtors would get their
money. So how did the German thugs get the money to lend to the Greek thugs? Well
they borrowed it from some other loan sharks, and signed a form saying that
someone else would pay it back (in this case the German people). And everyone said how good it was for the German thugs to do this. Thank
heavens that the 'market failure' was dealt with with unprecedented government
intervention! Even Wayne Swan made obscure references about the Greek crisis
reminding us that the world economy was not out the woods. And then promptly
used this as an excuse for borrowing another 50 billion dollars on behalf of the
Australian taxpayer. Is everyone suffering lead poisoning here? Or just the voting public? Think for a moment, Dear Reader: what would happen if market forces were
allowed to do their thing here? Well, the Thugs (the Greek government) would be
unable to tax the Greek people highly enough to pay the interest, and then
simply default on the loans. The banks would lose money. Shareholders would be
unhappy. Heads would roll. Investors would look nervously at all the other
governments who have borrowed trillions of dollars promising repayment by
people who haven't even been born yet, and these governments would have to pay
higher interest on their loans. Irresponsible government defaults would
spread around the world like Greek Fire. And the fiction that loans to governments are risk free would be totally
discredited. The interest on government loans would be so high that it would no
longer be regarded as responsible to governments to borrow money for 'social
justice', 'equality' or 'economic stimulus'. Governments would still steal from
the populations, but at least they would be stealing from the current
generation (who are better position to stop it) and not from future generations. And none of this would be market failure - it would be simply the market at
work. Investors would think very carefully about where to entrust their money
in the future. And fifty years of moral hazard could be avoided - specifically
the expectation that bad investment decisions can be undone simply by large
enough government interventions. But alas this will not happen - at least not yet. The governments of the world
fear the facade dropping to reveal wizard behind the curtain, as the faces of
millions of deceived voters decide that the needs of the many really do
outweigh the greeds of the few. And politicians around the world are closing
ranks. Even the Turkish government has rushed to support its Greek
counterpart. Apparently hundreds of years of hostility, border disputes,
invasions, and religious wars count for nothing when politicians' mutual
interests are involved. Some of us were taught to be wary of Greeks bearing gifts, but maybe now the
Greeks should show some wariness of German favours -
wooden horses of the world of global financing are disguised as piggy banks.
|
|
 |
| Size matters! | |
Anyone who thought the Punch-drunk Tony was a bit bird-brained had their worst
suspicions confirmed this week as the opposition leader announced a
maternity leave scheme to top all maternity leave schemes. In a brand new
scheme to populate the nation, Australia's favorite budgie smuggler announced
that women would receive six months full pay if they popped out a baby. And all
paid for a new Great Big Tax! Of course the Great Big Tax wouldn't be paid by us commoners, no no. It would
only be paid by Large Corporations. That is - out of our compulsory
superannuation contributions, which are largely invested in (you guessed it)
Large Corporations. Worried about having to eat dog food in your old age? Well don't be, because
your savings went towards impregnating some woman who was earning $150,000 a
year. Feel better now? Those of you who thought that impregnating women was
supposed to be more fun than that need to reconsider their priorities. Like
getting Tony Abattoir elected. Political parties are well known for panicking when an unwinnable election
looms, and hard-nosed conservative politicians are not immune. A Liberal
ideology about greater responsibility and small government is all very well,
but it's just not sexy. Voters, like naive young girls, want promises of care,
commitment, and the ability to live at someone else's expense. At least in the
short-term. And how long does seduction take? Well, in the case of the federal election, possibly until the the start of next
year. The cement might already be dry by then. Tony started his run too early. The last laugh though, had to go to Peter 'not-my-job' Costello, who compared
Punch-drunk Tony's antics to those of Crocodile Dundee who, when confronted
with a knife announced "that's not a knife, this is a knife" before producing a
bigger and more impressive knife. Tony's Maternity Scheme is bigger that Kevin's Maternity Scheme. And it seems
that size is important. Especially when you are wearing budgie smugglers.
|
|
 |
| Explosive undies - silent but deadly! | |
Normally exploding undies are the butt of people's humor. The merest whiff of
an undies joke is enough to make the bottom feeders of the sophistication
hierarchy chortle with delight. And make The Elites sniff with disdain. But there is nothing funny about this particular set of exploding undies
because they were being worn by a member of one of the Religion of Peace (a
group not known for their lighthearted humourous nature). An angry little psychopath named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab thought that
exploding vests were just .. like .. sooo 2002, exploding shoes were just sooo
2001 and exploding backpacks were just sooo 2004. He decided to get down and
personal with his suicidal obsession and blow up the
airplane he was on by lighting up his undies. Farouk returned to his seat after an extended visit to the toilet, then
passengers heard 'popping noises and smelled a foul odour'. But it's not what you think. This wasn't the normal lighting up of the undies that drunken cowboys get into
sitting around a camp fire after a few too many beans in a B-rate movie.
Young Farouk put something more potent in his undies than the Good Lord
provided. Apparently Allah provided him with undies made of pentaerythritol -
an explosive related to nitroglycerine. Unfortunately for Farouk, who was clearly unexperienced in such matters and
probably hasn't even seen Blazing Saddles, he
suceeded only in causing severe burns on his bum before some of the other
passengers tackled him to the floor. Farouk's family warned authorities that he could be dangerous, but he didn't show up
on a 'search this guy's undies' alert.
And the Americans are now
talking about a whole lot more security measures, including not letting people do potty in the last hour of flight, keeping their hands in plain sight, and having
nothing on their laps. Are they going to let them cross their legs? The government has to be seen to be doing something - anything. Except that
actually doing the sensible thing and and stopping ratbags entering the country
is just too politically incorrect. Besides, why just stop a few ratbags when
this can be used as a justification to control everyone's life? A capitalist
knows that every problem is an opportunity. A politician knows every disaster
is an also opportunity - to create bigger more powerful government. Looks like everyone's going to be on the undie search alert. What a pain in the arse.
|
|
 |
| Hot Stock! | |
Amidst much hysteria about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming for anyone who has
been locked in a fridge for the last few years), it's sometimes a good thing
to keep a cool head and look at it from the cold hard view of an entrepreneur.
Like Malcolm Talkbull for instance. Malcolm Talkbull acquired considerable capital over the years by buying and
selling stocks. And right now he's evaluating the future worth of a stock with
a ticker symbol of "AGW" - an influential little enterprise with heavy
dependencies on enviro-science, pseudo-scientific hysteria, and international
air-conditioning. And in fact, most canny politicians have to make a call about whether they will
adopt a short-term or long-term position on AGW. Right now it's trading higher
than ever, but what about the future? What if the hysterical cries of
'WE'RE ALL GONNA BURN!' don't eventuate? What if they do? Will the
share price go up or down? Should a politician use his political capital to
sell short or buy long on AGW? A politician can take the short term view - wring his hands about AGW and
scream for greater government intervention to create ineffective feel-good
measures like the ETS - or he can take a long term view and try to capitalize
on post-hysterical cynicism. Puerile taunts of 'I told you so, nah nah nah
nah nah nah' go a long way in our sophisticated Westminster system if they
are delivered with poise and self-confidence. Many in the Liberal party have taken a long term position. They intend to ride
out the hysteria, and be in a position to capitalize on the possible collapse
of AGW shares two elections from now. But party leaders can't wait that
long. Party leaders have short lives in the Westminster system. Malcolm
Talkbull is only looking to the next election. He has no choice but to jump
onto the AGW band-wagon and ride the stock through high and low. The current leadership tension in the Liberal party is not an ideological
difference, but just a tension between the positions of 'Party Leader' and
'Long Term Sitting Member'. Are the sea levels really rising or are we just witnessing a
Poseidon bubble?
|
|
 |
| Aww .. shucks! | |
We all know what a great
service affirmative
action has done to minority groups. Letting everyone know that members of
certain groups get promoted merely on the basis of their race, gender, sexual
preferences, pregnancy or
other victim producing
formula reinforces the knowledge that that they are just as competent and
capable as everyone else. And it proves that there is no discrimination. Like for example the
story of the photo of the three white firemen taken at 9-11 which was to be
made into a statue - of a black man, a Latino and a white. Unfortunately
the project got canned. Someone must have thought that a Latino, a black man
and a white man sounded like the opening to a bad joke. The latest bad joke comes from Microsoft. And no, it's not their
Vista operating system. Microsoft used a photo of an Asian guy, a white woman and a black guy to
promote their web site (no point including any white males - we all know white
males don't go into IT). However when they made up the Polish edition, they
felt the need to make a few Stalinist changes. For the Polish site, Microsoft
photo-shopped the black guy into a white guy. How politically incorrect! Apparently political correctness hasn't made it to Poland. Maybe the population
of the former Soviet
Socialist Empire People's Paradise aren't as enlightened as us mere running
dog lackeys of the military industrial complex. Perhaps being raised in a
communist state doesn't awaken one's
natural leftist political
philosophical leanings. It's hard to imagine why. Maybe we need more capitalism?
|
|
 |
| Uncle Kev's housing solution | |
There are two kinds of people in the world. There are looters (who live off the
tax tit) and tax cattle (who actually work, and are forced to give up a large
proportion of their wealth to the government, who in turn gives much of it to
the looters). This is easy for most people to understand - except for Public
Servants. For some strange reason they regard themselves as tax-payers, because
on paper they pay tax. It never actually occurs to them that if someone is forced to give you 100
dollars and is then allowed to take back 45, then you have received 55 dollars
in stolen property. This is totally different to someone who generates 100
dollars worth of wealth, and is forced to give 45 dollars of it to some slimy
bureaucrat. But the worst thing about the Public Service is not the theft, it's either the
sanctimonious belief that they have the right to control other people's lives
('for the common good'), or the incredible inefficiency and waste in everything
they do. Particularly when Australia's traditional land owners are involved. Two years ago Kevin ('economic stimulus') Rudd allocated 672 million
dollars to build houses for Aborigines. Now, dear reader, let's do a quick
calculation on how many houses that might build. A friend of mine spent
$350,000 building a house recently. Add 50,000 for servicing a block, and
that's probably around $400,000 to build a lovely spacious modern house. So 672
million hard-earned tax dollars should build around 1920 houses, right? In fact
if we were willing to do without the double garage with internal access we
could easily do over 2000. So how does that get allocated? Well, Tenant Creek was allocated $36 Million
for 20 houses. That's 1.8 million dollars per house! But it gets worse. It was
then revised down to nine houses. That's four million dollars per house!
Apparently "training costs and fees for consultants" were significant (who'd
have thought). But still it gets worse. Now it's been revised to zero
houses. Yes, that's right - zero houses will be built with the $36 million. The
money is going to be spent on fixing up some existing houses. In fact no houses at all have been built on the scheme so far. Anywhere. With
the whole 672 million dollars. Some houses might be built in 2011. Maybe.
And they are talking about a total of 300 houses. That's 2.2 million dollars
per house! If they even build that many. Many Australians were overjoyed when Kevin Rudd apologized to the Aborigines.
All the child abuse, the drug problems, the health issues were all going to be
solved. Because we apologized. Kevin had the solution. Kevin was smart. Kevin
could close the gap. Kevin could make everyone happy. Except that 672 million of hard-earned tax-payers money and two years has not
produced a single house. Now that deserves an apology.
|
|
 |
| Racist? Me? | |
Many years ago, some of us oldies recall the excesses of
our Islamic guests after a
certain Salman Rushdie published a tacky little novel which poked fun at the
Religion of Peace. A fatwa was proclaimed against Salman Rushdie for daring to
mock Islam, and the Islamic community called for Salman Rushdie's execution. This was at the dizzying heights
of political
correctness and any of us who expressed nervousness about the behavior of
our excitable guests were quickly shouted down by
the academe,
the feminists, the
international socialists
and any of the factions generally associated
with leftist ideology. Even
television programs showing graphic female mutilation at the hands (well,
actually the knives) of members of the Religion of Peace were merely met with
tut-tuttings and vague mutterings about tolerance and the importance of
cultural relativism. Over time, of course, the proponents Religion of Peace realized that the
conversion of Western
countries to Islam required a smarter game. They appointed spin doctors to
assist the mainstream to avoid 'mis-understandings' about what Allah fan-bois
were actually saying. "Cut off the Kaffir's fingers one by one" apparently didn't actually mean any
such thing - it just meant "show your enemy your are strong". "The Kaffir must
die" actually meant "we want peace" (presumably after the Kaffir are all
dead). We were warned against literal translations of Islamic sermons, because
"the Arabic language is full of simile and metaphor". Apparently in Arabic it is impossible to say "the cat sat on the mat" without
including loudly shouting "Death to the Kaffir", or at least making references
to leaving the meat out. Arabic is indeed a strange and subtle language. But the Islamic spokesmen were there help us mere Kaffir through these cultural
difficulties, and to loudly proclaim "mistranslation" or (when that failed)
"out of context". One such spokesman is Keysar Trad. Some of the Kaffir have been rather critical of Keysar Trad over time, and recently
Keysar took 2GB Broadcaster Jason Morrison to court for defamation over
statements made on air. Apparently Keysar took umbrage to being called
'racist'. Unfortunately Keysar lost the case, and has to pay costs because the judge said .. well .. that he was racist. Oops. The president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ikebal Patel, was 'surprised' and
commented: "I thought that what [Keysar] was saying was quite conciliatory". Maybe that's a translation for "he wasn't calling for the sudden and
painful death of the Kaffir for a change". Anyway, after playing the race card for all of his career, Keysar has just been trumped. Read'em and reap, Keysar.
|
|
 |
| Police credibility shot down in flames | |
There is an childish school-boy Confusion joke to the effect:
Confucius say no such thing as rape: woman with skirt up run faster than man with trousers down.
This is offensive, silly and wrong of course. Its only real merit is its lack
of political correctness. That, and the fact that there are times when
the running away objection surely applies. Like when someone is running at you
with a jerry can full of petrol. Today's true story goes something like: 36-year-old (Aboriginal) Ronald Mitchell was (allegedly) threatening police
with a container of petrol and a cigarette lighter when he was tasered by the
police. 'No problem there' you might say, 'nothing like a few thousand
volts to calm the nerves, and create peace and harmony with the local
brudders', except for one thing: Ronald caught fire, and suffered third
degree burns to his face, arms and chest. Oops. Perhaps firing up a spark-plug on someone already dowsed in petrol is not
the smartest thing to do. Perhaps the Western Australian police force has
discontinued their policy of only recruiting the brightest applicants? Not so! Declared the West Australian Police Union. In fact a spokesman
appeared on our TV screens insisting the taser use was necessary because 'the
man was a threat to himself and the police felt they were themselves at risk'. Huh? Surely a fit, able bodied and intelligent (?) police officer can run faster
than someone carrying a jerry can and a cigarette lighter. Personally, I think I could do the 100 meters in 9.8 seconds in such a
situation, even when weighed down by a handgun, handcuffs, baton, radio,
notebook, taser and those gloves they use to do illegal cavity
searches. Actually I could probably even make pretty good time in full riot
gear if someone were chasing me with a jerry can and a cigarette lighter. So it really comes down to the police setting someone on fire because there
was a risk of him .. well .. setting himself on fire. What ever happened to 'Serve and Protect'? This is actually a reflection of the attitude of the police force, which is a
reflection of attitude of The State. It is acceptable to use any kind of force
to prevent 'self harm', even if the harm is greater than any self inflicted
kind. Enforcement of any kind of victimless crime follows the same pattern: if
someone is hurting themselves, hurt them even more to stop them! Because they
have no right to damage State Property! Remember: The State owns you, it is not there to be your friend.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
