 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| .. looks like a black's camp. | |
Over the last few decades there have been two main schools of thought about how
to deal with the Aborigines: mainstreaming and curation. The mainstreamers believe that Aborigines are pretty much the same as the
'good white folk' but are just deprived of the opportunity to be 'just like
us'. It stands to reason that anyone who didn't spend 40+ hours every week
working their way to an early grave so they could pass an aging Mac-mansion, a
second-hand 4WD and an outdated plasma TV to their surly ungrateful children
hadn't been given the opportunity to do so. The curationists, on the other hand, realize the folly of this way of
thinking. It stands to reason for them that all Aborigines are victims of a
dreadful violation (the invasion of the white men). The Aborigines clearly want
nothing more than to return to their idyllic life of banging rocks together, mutilating
each other's genitals, making up children's stories about 'the dreamtime'
and shivering under lousy pieces of fur before dying of the first infection or
injury around the age of 40. In fairness, the many enlightened Australians recognized the folly of both
these schools of thought, and believe that (in true cultural relativistic
style) that the truth lies somewhere in between: that the government had to buy
them Mac-mansions and 4WD and subsidize their mutilating
each other's genitals. Unfortunately many Aborigines learned that drinking
alcohol was more fun than genital mutilation, and that the dream time was
simply no substitute for a drunken stupor. And mainstream Australia has been
ringing its collectivist hands ever since. Just recently this has broken out into yet another slanging match between
Indigenous Affairs Minister Amanda (The Killer While) Vandstone and the entire
federal opposition. The Killer Whale said
supporting the 1,000 smaller homelands across Australia might make people feel
good but it is not viable to provide services such as water and sewerage.
and that she
also wants Aboriginal children in remote Australia to have the same
opportunities as other Australians to move to cities and join professions such
as medicine or law.
What an outrage! Chris (Snaggy) Evans replied
It's very insulting to Aboriginal people, it fails to recognise their
relationship with the land, it fails to recognise their independent abilities
to decide where they want to live, and it's a real slap in the face for any
recognition of their culture. I think it's pretty insulting.
And it gets worse. A new
report has recommended camping at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy (pictured
above) in Canberra be banned!
Federal Territories Minister Jim Lloyd says the consultant's report calls for
an educational centre to be built on the site.
What a great idea! A 'mainstreamed', affirmative-action educated Aboriginal could lecture fellow
Australians on the merits of keeping his fellow Aboriginals curated. Surely a win for both sides.
|
|
 |
| Very Happy, John! | |
Of all the dreadful violations inflicted on populations by collectivism, few
can be more morally bankrupt than compulsory unionism. The idea that people of
a certain profession, employer, skin color, hat size or educational institution
should be forced to give money to other people who share that profession,
employer, skin color, hat size or education institution is quite bizarre. That notion died a lingering, rotten, stinky death today in the nation's
collectivist capital. What a blow for the parasitic Canberra mindset. Of course compulsory unionism hasn't been a total loss. Watching the mental
contortions that The Left has gone through to prolong the last bastion of
compulsory unionism - Compulsory Student Unionism (CSU) has been a bit of
giggle. The notion that students are poor, therefore they should be forced to
steal off each other to make themselves a bit richer has been a good
one. Likewise the notion that being forced to subsidize someone else's
lifestyle choices (be it sporting clubs, WIMMIN!'s groups, gay 'social' clubs
or the PLO) strengthens civil society. CSU looked like it might survive another election term after
Barnaby (Backdown) Joyce crossed the floor. Barnaby recognized
that he had no obligation to subsidize WIMMIN!'s groups, or the gay lobby, but
somehow still thought that WIMMIN! and gays had an obligation to subsidize his
football team. Funny man. Just this morning he was beating his chest and saying.
"If you are playing sport on fields next year just remember that it's the
National Party that protected them,"
Get real, Barnaby. The rednecks already vote for you. Exactly why the
Liberals have formed a coalition with the Nationals has always been a bit of a
mystery. A party which praises free markets and small government teamed up with
a party formed to maximize rural subsidies is a bit strange, but politics
always makes for strange bedfellows. And in the end it didn't matter because Johnny (master of perception)
Howard cut a secret deal with Family First senator Steve Fields. Johnny played
the Field, and Steve's vote was enough to pass the legislation on the final
parliamentary sitting day for the year. As of July next year, students will have the choice of whether to join a
student union or not. Barnaby must be feeling a little lonely right now. Trying to force The Left to
subsidize the university footy team hasn't made him any friends on that side of
politics, the Liberals hate him and most of Australia just thinks he is nong. And The Left are writhing about in agony. Your ABC reports
The president of the National Union of Students, Felix Eldridge, says VSU will
create "haves" and "have-nots".
Yep - those evil capitalists who still have their $240, and those
collectivists who have-not. And guess who's going to come out in
front? Of course if The Left are to be believed, Howard's 'extremist' policy
agenda has alienated the voters, and the ALP are guaranteed of regaining
government at the next election. So why are they so upset? Well for two reasons. Firstly Joe and Joanne Average either agree with
Howard's changes, or will forget about them about a month after they are
introduced. Just like the GST was going to cause economic collapse and
mass starvation, people will realize it was a storm in a teacup and move on. Secondly, even if the ALP wins the next election, it will be extremely
difficult to re-impose compulsory student union fees on so many people who will
tell them to get stuffed. Students traditionally vote ALP, and telling an
impoverished student 'support the ALP so you can be forced to pay an extra $240
per year' will do down like a Catholic schoolgirl. They will lose a lot of votes. Student Unionism is voluntary or not. It's a little hard to 'rollback'. And the ALP just lost a major recruiting ground.
|
|
 |
| Flagging a new problem | |
Border protection is an important issue in the minds of many Australians. But
border protection is normally associated with cavity-searches at airports, and
foundering asylum seekers in near Christmas Island. Not since Winston Churchill
has attention about unwanted immigration been focused on the beaches. On Sunday a gang of youths 'of middle-eastern appearance' assaulted two young
life-guards on Sydney's southern beaches. The Daily Telegraph reports that the
youths claimed to 'own' the beach, gone around kicking sand in people's faces,
and 'accidentally' hitting other beach goers with footballs. Beach goers were
outraged at the suggestion of 'ownership' of the beach - push came to shove-off,
and the fists seem to have followed. This in turn was followed by a near riot
on Wednesday, as 'the Lebs' and 'the Aussies' engaged in a turf-war (or at
least a sand war). This is unthinkable! What happened? This kind of thing is only supposed to
happen in the impoverished western suburbs. No-go zones where the streets are
ruled by middle-eastern gangs are only in areas where the proles live - it
teaches the proletariat the benefits of multiculturalism by being forced to
live in fear. Good, decent middle-class whites are supposed to be able to buy
their way out of this kind of thing (the enlightened elites are already great
fans of multiculturalism, and don't have to actually live with the outcomes of
their policies understand appreciate their benefits). No more, it seems. The problem has reached the middle-class suburbs, and now
Dad has to take the wife and kids halfway to Wollongong to avoid getting sand kicked in
his face. The NSW premier Morris Iemma showed his true cultural
relativistic colors by taking the middle ground, and preaching that solving
problems by force was unacceptable for either side. Truly a man of principle -
who stands for nothing. So what's the solution? Well, perhaps the claim of 'ownership' by the middle-easterners is worth
considering. What about privatization of the beach? An owner could charge a
fee, and would make decisions about who to allow (and who to eject), on a
profit-maximizing basis. Anyone kicking sand in someone's face would be barred
before you could say 'multicultural
utopia'. It wouldn't even be necessary to privatize all of the Sydney beaches -
just privatizing a few would give people a choice. It could even be trialled
with a five or ten-year lease, after which time we could return to the status
quo if the experiment failed. So why don't the local pollies want to try this?
Simply because they are afraid that it will succeed. This would be the thin
edge of the wedge toward privatization of many public facilities, which would
threaten the collectivist makeup of
our society, not to mention
the justification for the highest levels of tax in history. Instead they will try to employ armies of police to try to control the hordes,
and to try to disguise the failings of the tragedy of the commons. As well meaning local citizens wring their hands, bleating 'Can't we all
just get along?'.
|
|
 |
| Facing reality | |
I have this idea for a movie script:
A woman has an argument with her daughter, and takes an overdose
of sleeping pills. While she is unconscious her pet dog gnaws her
face off.
No, it's not a prequel for a Hannibal Lecter
movie - it really happened to French woman Isabelle Dinoire. The idiocy of keeping vicious pack animals as pets has been noted before
in this column. Surely every owner of every pet dog who has attacked someone
has insisted that their dog would never - could never - attack someone. Then
after the event they claim 'I have no responsibility - it's only a dog'. The
distress from hearing about the numerous attacks on children are only partially
mitigated by hearing of attacks on the owners. So it's hard to sympathize with someone who gets their face eaten off by
their pet dog (particularly someone French). Maybe she should have fed the dog
instead of arguing with the daughter. Even better maybe she should have fed it
the sleeping pills. Nonetheless it happened, and whether it was her own silly fault or not, she
has a right to improve her life in the manner of her choice. And modern
technology offered her a solution: a transplant from someone who didn't need
her face anymore on account of being dead. On the face of it this seemed like a good idea, except for the do-gooders
who like to stop progress and prevent people from exercising their own free
will: ethic committees. A French surgeon ignored the advice of a government
ethics panel, found a donor, and transplanted the face. His critics hit have
back with:
"You cannot have informed consent as an emergency procedure."
Emergency procedure? Her face got eaten off in May. It's now
December. Apparently 'informed consent' can only be made by a government
appointed ethics committee. Mere choices by individuals about their own welfare
don't count. The future for Isabelle Dinoire is not clear - transplants are finicky
things, and sometimes don't take. She may yet end up faceless. But at least she
has been given a chance, and hopefully she will recover completely. But for the rest of us, there is only one moral course of action: feed an
ethicist's face to a pig today. Then try to stop them getting a face
transplant for 'ethical' reasons.
|
|
 |
| Benefits of global warming? | |
Those of us with busy lives seldom feel the urge to wallow about with issues
discussed at the the local garbage dump, the local playground, or even Kindymedia. Occasionally though, one
stumbles onto the site by following links of well-meaning fellow bloggers, and
this paragraph suddenly polluted my LCD monitor:
As the world awaits the beginnings of the first meeting of the parties of the
Kyoto Protocol in Montreal, the Carteret Islanders of the Pacific have already
lost their battle to stay on their islands. This is the first instance of an
entire cultural group forcibly displaced by climate change due to sea level
rise doubling in the last 150 years caused by global warming. According to
Norman Myers in A Citizens Guide to Climate Refugees, up to 200 million people
may be displaced because of climate change by 2050. Many more islands and low
level coastal areas are facing a crisis. [Emphasis added]
Yikes. It's true! We are all about to drown! Get out the goggles and
flippers. How long can you hold your breath? Blub blub blub .. But hang on - if people are now being displaced due to rising sea levels,
then they must be measurable. How much have the sea levels risen in the
Carteret Islands? And how much have they risen in Sydney? Careful - think about
all those experiments in the bathtub where the water rose by an equal amount
everywhere. How come the sea-level rise in Sydney has been immeasurable, but
yet the sea level rise in the Carteret Islands is high enough to force
evacuation? Can anybody with an IQ of more that 70 see anything wrong with this
picture? But wait a minute - the article didn't actually say they were forced out by
sea level rises, but by sea level rise doubling. Hmm. I guess
two times zero is zero, but why would this force them to evacuate the islands? Apparently when you are preaching to the converted, facts are
unimportant. A quick Google search yields the
following little pearl:
Some authorities caution that the islanders might have brought their woes upon
themselves by blasting reefs with dynamite to kill fish, thus removing natural
barriers protecting the atolls.
Since sea levels rises have not even been measurable, this seems a far more
likely reason for their crop failures. Orwell was right. Ignorance truly is strength for the champions of The Left.
|
|
 |
| The caring hand of the state | |
The eve of the state sanctioned, pre-meditated murder of immigrant
Australian Nguyen Tuong Van may be a good time to reflect on the issues which
have brought us (or at least him) to this point. Tomorrow morning he will
presumably jerk about at the end of a rope for the few short, but horrific,
last moments of his life. Some Australians claim to be horrified, others claim
to be glad to see the convicted drug courier executed for putting young and
impressionable lives at risk. Certainly there are elements of the case which could explain why many
Australians are less than totally sympathetic. Firstly there were the claims of Australian racism during the Schapelle Corby
media frenzy. 'Would Australians be as outraged if she were Asian?' the
apologists of the corrupt Indonesian justice system demanded. Well, maybe not,
but Australians are a little tired of people obtaining Australian citizenship,
using their 'home country' connections to smuggle drugs, and then trying to use
their Australian citizenship to get them a better deal in court. Many
Australians see this as an abuse of their trust. Part of the oath of
citizenship is to obey the laws of the country, and smuggling drugs
breaks that oath in a big way. Many of us may reject the notion of an implied 'contract with society', but in
this case there is nothing implied about it - it has your signature at the bottom. Secondly there were the disturbing revelations about his twin brother
having faced drug charges. People are, of course, innocent until proven guilty,
but others are rightly suspicious of those whose family members are known
criminals. And thirdly there was the group of friends which lobbied on his behalf. A
few ring-ins may have been added to the group later, but initially it was
exclusively attractive young Asian girls. 'Lucky fellow' we might say, but
combined with the actions of his mother, it suggests something which may have
annoyed many Australians. When the Singapore government sent notice of the
execution date to his mother, they sent it in English - not a surprising thing
to do since both Singapore and Australia are English speaking countries. The
media reported that Van Nguyen's mother needed a translator to interpret it.
Van Nguyen and his family give the impression of people who have not tried very
hard to assimilate into mainstream Australian society. How hard should
mainstream Australian society try to save him? Of course not everyone wants to see him die. Some moral guardians seem to
be outraged at his imminent death, morally opposed to the death penalty, and
demanding that John Howard do something - anything - to stop it. It's nothing
to do with the crime they claim - it's just that the death penalty is morally
wrong. Of course if the death penalty is morally wrong, will these people be
protesting when Bali bomber Amrozi is executed for slaying 80 Australians? There will be little opportunity to embarrass John Howard in that case, so
our moral guardians will shake their heads and mutter something about
respecting Indonesian sovereignty before moving onto another anti-Howard cause. There some people, though, who would like to stop his senseless and barbaric
execution for other reasons. A few people are pointing out that Van Nguyen is a
casualty of John Howard's prohibition on drugs. If drugs were decriminalized in
Australia, it would be cheaper to produce them locally than to import them, and
there would be no financial incentive to smuggle them into the country. In the end, Van Nguyen is another victim of the war on drugs. A war which
in unwinnable, which should never have been declared, and one which we should
cease fighting immediately, before more people die from government oppression. On the other hand, millions of people have died from government oppression,
over the ages. What's one more? Perhaps it's just one more sad reminder that the state is not your friend.
|
|
 |
| Fall from grace | |
It seems that Australians are not the only Westerners who can't stay out of
trouble in south east Asia. Some of us habitually toast the pleasures of Asian
girls, but it seems that former pop-star Gary Glitter may have taken the 'girl'
part of it a bit too literally and he has now begin what may be a rather long
stay enjoying the hospitality of one of Ho Chi Min's Hotels (ie rotting in a
Vietnamese prison) on child sex charges. Conflicting reports put the age of consent in Vietnam at either 16 or 18, but
Glitter is being investigated for having sex with a 12 and 15 year old. It
seems that Vietnamese authorities were willing to turn a blind eye (and
possibly an outstretched palm) to his antics until the British press started
reporting them, and then felt obliged to take action. Glitter was arrested
trying to flee to Thailand. Glitter's fall from grace has come in several stages. The first was the
standard has-been crisis which seems to affect so many pop stars who are
dismayed to discover that when you are at the top, the only way to go is
down. In 1976 Glitter, no longer at the top of the charts, and already a
has-been, suffered his first fall - into alcoholism and depression. The second was in 1997 when he took his computer to the repair shop.
Everyone who works in a computer repair shop says the same thing about the job:
the pay is lousy, but you build up an excellent porn collection, because you
copy the pornos off every computer that comes in for repair. But in Glitter's
case, they sent a copy to the police instead, and Glitter was arrested on
kiddie porn charges. Then, since being on the sex-offender's register in England makes it a bit
hard to explore one's .. er .. 'unconventional' side, he spent the last few
years trolling through busted-arsed pseudo-communist countries where a wink, a
nudge and a little spare change will get you considerably more than it will in
England. And he seems to have suffered his third fall - this time into a Vietnamese
cell, and no-one seems to care. Maybe people would judge Glitter a little more sympathetically if it were
not for the lyrics of one of his most memorable songs, aimed presumably at
naive pre-pubescent girls.
Do you wanna touch? - Yeah!
Do you wanna touch? - Yeah!
Do you wanna touch me there?
Where? There! Yeah! Oh!
Yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Mymymymymy!
Yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah!
Some of us former-fans will never be able to listen to that song in quite
the same way again.
|
|
 |
| Doing my part | |
Every member of the intellectual elite
is concerned about global warming - and equally convinced of the need to use
their superior intellects and rationalizing abilities to control the lives
around them to prevent further greenhouse emissions - for the good of the many
of course. While some of their fellow citizens cruise around in comfortable gas
guzzling four wheel drives, pious greenies brave freezing cold
mornings to combat global warming on their bicycles. Apparently those unhappy
dirty-looking bearded people are worried that their trip to work will become
slightly more comfortable. The men are pretty miserable too. But, not one to stand up against the overpowering collectivist will of The
Mob forever, this blogger has decided to do his part, and make a small
concession to those who want us to regress to the stone age in order to save a
few icebergs floating off a country they have never been to. While not a sin of biblical proportions it was, nonetheless, all the wife's
fault - or at least that of her four wheel drive. The problem is of course,
that while parking it in the garage under the house adds convenience and
personal safety (not to mention longevity for the vehicle), it also adds to the
household temperature in summer. Having a ton of hot metal under your office
invariably makes an impression in a room already filled with computers and
networking equipment. So yours truly decided to do his part to combat global warming - and installed
central air conditioning through the whole house. I am thinking globally, but
acting locally - and at least my small part of the world is now refreshingly
cool. And for all you greenies out there who might feel to need to write - no
need to thank me. Just sitting in air conditioned comfort through the summer is
reward enough for my selfless sacrifice to ecological sustainability. And I
know that as I spend a cool summer in front of the LCD TV, watching you riding
past sweating like pigs, you will be comforted by my contrition and newfound
commitment to the good of the many. Ah, now that's cool.
|
|
 |
| Will the real Muslim please stand up? | |
When not worrying that the government's new IR reforms will cause babies to be
eaten, and the dead to walk the earth, the attention of the average Australian
has been split between Muslims and drugs. Muslims have kind of been in the paper - blowing themselves (and a few of
the Kaffir) up in Iraq, Bali
and Jordan, and some were apparently planning to bring the same multicultural
message to Australia. Those particular ones are enjoying some R&R in one of
Her Majesty's Hotels. And Australians have been enjoying similar hospitalities overseas, after
getting themselves into trouble with drugs. What is it about overseas
Australians and drugs? Why can't they leave well alone? Even our own Dear Leader
looked like getting
himself into trouble over some baggage scan misreadings. And as for
Nguyen Tuong Van, who is about to be strung up in Singapore for his commitment
to the free market, well .. So any story about Australian drug takers and Muslims has to be a
good one. And model Islamic
convert Michelle Leslie has provided one - having apparently converted to Islam
during her imprisonment and trial over two ecstasy pills, and having abandoned
the hijab (along with most of her other clothes) on her way out of prison. Several Islamic community spokespeople started to squeal like stuck pigs at
the sight of Michelle's naked midriff, and apparent intention to go back to
modeling skimpy undies. They seem to be upset that she only pretended
to convert to Islam in order to get more favorable treatment from the
Indonesian court system. But it is unthinkable that any Muslim would discriminate in favor
of their fellow Muslims - so why could they be upset? Surely they should be
smugly commenting that her fake conversion did her no good. Except that it
seems to have done her a lot of good, because she got out. Which leaves her
critics with a prima facie credibility problem. So what gives? Another of the questions we may have to leave for the wisdom of Allah.
|
|
 |
| A Clear and Present Danger | |
Exactly what skills are befitting of a politician is not always clear, but
loud protestations of valuing justice, liberty and freedom must rank pretty
highly. Probably on par with the firm belief in the virtue of ever more
powerful government
regulating the lives government subjects. But surely the most important ability
is the ability to bluff, as indicated by the the fiasco surrounding the newly
introduced terrorism laws. Around three weeks ago, the State Premiers (and two self-important Chief
Ministers) met with Little Johnny to discuss possible 'anti-terrorism
laws'. The Labour Premiers went into the meeting determined to flex their political
muscles and give Little Johnny a hard time over violations of civil liberties,
personal freedom, and even a little thing called The Australian Constitution. It's not clear what Little Johnny said to them in their meeting, but it
must have scared the living daylights out of them, because they came out of the
meeting looking like lemmings. Ignoring the little matter of John Stanhope's
little indiscretions in posting proposed legislation on his website, and his
desperate face-saving after the event, it is clear that something at the
meeting changed his mind. And it was probably as simple as this: 'ASIO have told me there is highly likely to be a terrorist
attack in the near future. If you don't pass this legislation, and people die,
then I will finish your careers by saying 'that Premier wouldn't pass the
legislation which would have saved those people's lives'. Even the True Believers would have to be wearing their balaclavas backwards
not to see the logic of this statement. So it would really come down to how
likely they though a terrorist attack was. Unfortunately the only one to
actually know this was Little Johnny himself. Johnny was holding all
the cards, and all he had to do was to wink and say 'trust me - these ones
are hot!' The True
Believers, including Kim (Fatboy) Beasley, folded. Little Johnny out-maneuvered his opponents again. But since the laws were passed, there has been silence from ASIO. Shouldn't
they have
raided the wrong address and assaulted the hapless occupants before being
paying them an undisclosed sum in compensation by now? C'mon guys - you
needed these powers for a reason - now use them. Have you already rounded
hundreds of terrorist wannabes up into holding cells in Manus Island without
trial? Nothing so exciting. Lady liberty is alive and well and being held in indefinite preventative
detention.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
