C*nts welcome at Richmond Tigers FC

Ben Cousins was the nation's foremost druggie c*nt.

Mainwaring was a stupid c*nt for being his mate.

Now Richmond FC is giving the c*nt more money.

I wonder if you could actually add up how many Aussie kids are going to die as a direct result of this decision?

Then we could add to that the kids who go mad or become miserable loners and losers?

If you interviewed every kid admitted to casualty or a phych ward across Australia for drug related heath problems and asked them about Ben Cousins I reckon you'd get alot of responses like, "If Ben Cousins is allowed to take drugs why can't I?"

Then maybe you could interview these same kids in a year's time and see how many are alive, happy, employed, sane etc. That might give you some idea. Maybe you'd have to narrow it down to AFL fans, or even Eagles and Richmond fans, but i reckon it would still be alot more than zero.

Does anyone out there have the wherewithal to do this research? Maybe someone who's involved with Hawthorn. Maybe Someone who deals with mental health issues aswell? Hmm i wonder if there is such a hero?

Survivor, Aussie style

Location: The Kimberley, WA.

Your first task is to turn your busted 4WD into a makeshift campsite with shelter and sleeping facilities, then devise a way of trapping rainwater for drinking and survive for a week by catching and eating wild animals. You must not eat your own dog, for he is your best friend, but must rather feed it from your hunt.

Result: PASS

Well done. Your next task is to befriend the local fauna by speaking their animal language and then re-assemble your 4WD into a Kookaburra-powered flying machine and travel to civilisation by air navigating your way via the river system.

Expected result: No wuckin furries!

Drugs Are For C*nts

Fiona Connolly in the Sydney Daily Telegraph asks why Young Australian of the Year contender Iktimal Hage-Ali is not ashamed of her cocaine use?

Because, Fiona, all people on coke are wankers. They never feel ashamed of anything because they are convinced the sun shines out of their arses when stuff goes up their noses.

I have been sitting on this next thing for a while coz it's a bit crude, but I'm gonna put it out there because it needs to be said. Mild content warning: If you cant handle the c-word TOO LATE! but i've cleaned it up with asterixes's (*). Which makes it less funny but i dont want my blogger account frozen, you c*nts.

Drugs Are For C*nts is an on-line campaign dedicated to tacking Australia’s biggest problem: c*nts on drugs.

The problem basically is that drugs make you a c*nt.

Please read this message and pass it on to any c*nt that needs to hear it.

Pick a c*nt…

The Lazy C*nt

Drug Of Choice: Marijuana

Smoking weed takes away this c*nt’s desire to do anything else with their life. Eventually, having achieved nothing in life, becomes a miserable c*nt.

The Pissweak C*nt

DOC: Marijuana, Ecstasy

The drugs take away this c*nt’s ability to stand up for themself. Lacks the emotional strength to make decisions, so is always “going with the flow man”. Doomed to be a sheep and run with the herd. When all the other sheep eventually abandon them to their drugs, becomes a miserable c*nt.

The Miserable C*nt

DOC: Any, mostly Marijuana

This c*nt constantly feels oppressed and downtrodden, as if the world is against them and/or they can’t do anything right. Oscillates between self-pity and rage against anything and everything, including themselves. Bitter, whinging c*nt. Tries desperately to cling to strangers entering their life, ends up freaking them out and bringing them down, so they leave. Becomes a miserable old c*nt.

The Boring C*nt

DOC: All, particularly Marijuana, Ecstasy and Cocaine

This c*nt thinks they are doing something significant with their lives when they aren’t. Thinks they are funny when they aren’t. Thinks they are smart when they aren’t. Thinks nobody else has noticed they aren’t. See also: stupid c*nt.

The Stupid C*nt

DOC: Speed, Ice

Always does stupid stuff when on drugs such as getting in fights, crashing cars, getting pregnant. C*nt’s always getting in trouble with the law, parents, friends and anyone else who gives a shit about them. Becomes either a thieving c*nt or a dead c*nt.

The Stuck-up C*nt

DOC: Cocaine

A total wanker both on and off the gear. See also: boring c*nt. This c*nt thinks they are god’s gift to just about everything because they managed to snort a powdery substance off a piss-stinking public toilet seat. Wrongly believes they have found an alternative source of self-esteem to substitute for achieving things. Congratulations. Now f*ck off, c*nt

The Spaced-out C*nt

DOC: Marijuana, LSD, Mushrooms and other hallucinogens

Convinced that, when on drugs, they have uniquely truthful insights into the meaning of life and love, yet can never seem to remember what they were once the drugs wear off. This c*nt does tarot and crystal healing and acts like they are like the most in-tune with the universe of any c*nt since Morrison, man. See also Stupid c*nt, boring c*nt.

The Thieving C*nt

DOC: Heroin

This c*nt rips off family, friends, strangers, anyone and everything within reach to fuel their habit. Isolates themselves from everyone who gives a f*ck. All drives for food, shelter, love and morality are subordinated to the drive to get f*cked albeit temporarily. A miserable c*nt the entire time they aren’t f*cked. Becomes a dead c*nt faster than most.

The Psycho C*nt

DOC: All

One minute they are fine, the next this c*nt thinks they are Jesus, then they are Satan, then Napoleon. Off the f*cking planet. You never know who the phycho c*nt is gonna be before they take the drugs and flip out. It could be you. It could be the c*nt you give the drugs to. Known to be a violent c*nt towards people they were mates with a moment ago. Frequently the psycho c*nt permanently damages their brain, never fully recovering proper emotional function, and becomes a miserable c*nt.

The Dead C*nt

DOC: Ice, Heroin

Whether it’s behind the wheel of a car or an in bed from an overdose, sooner or later death catches up with c*nts who takes drugs. Good riddance, if ya asked me. A dead c*nt is the only good c*nt.

Add a c*nt...

If it's war he wants...

...then war he shall have.

I cannot believe this philistinism and elitism from Melbourne's new lord mayor.

He has opened fire on the "bogans and bad buskers" in Melbourne's CBD.

BOGANS and bad buskers will be driven off Melbourne's streets as new Lord Mayor Robert Doyle looks to make the city family friendly.

Mr Doyle said this morning he would work with nightclub owners and the Australian Hotels Association to address alcohol fuelled violence and that he did not want the city "to become a bogan magnet."

"I actually want families to feel comfortable coming in to the city, bringing their kids and having family time," he told 3AW.

What? What precisely is the big emergency with buskers?

Family time?? When does this alcohol get consumed? Who takes their kids out at midnight? I mean what the hell is this guy on about?

It seems to not make any sense but this is dog-whistle politics for Melbourne snobs. The whistle is tuned to the frequency only the owners of corgis, poodles and shitzus can here.

It is the most odious sucking-up to the milky morally-superior middle class that i think i have ever heard. He's just buying into their distaste for PLT - people like them (as opposed to PLU, people like us, which is to say, them)

There's not even any specifics. He just throws the word bogan in there and everyone has a little chuckle at the expense of the suburbanites like we're all watching an episode of Kath and Kim.

I am honestly disgusted by this patronising, lofty moral elitism. It's the same class politics that we all hate the Labor party for. And a former liberal is now rubbing this filth all over himself.

What is a bogan? I think we all understand it's a person from the suburbs without a university education (unless they have an engineering degree like me in which case you are still a bogan) who wears non-designer jeans, non-designer flannelette shirts and was into Motley Crue before anyone on Chapel street had even heard of them. They like waving the aussie flag at sports events and music festivals. They are big-hearted friendly people but have a healthy distrust for airs and graces being unafraid to fart in public. It's a free country after all. They state their views plainly, for the same reason.

The Bogans are the Bon Scotts, the Angry Andersons, the Shane Warnes, the Lara Bingles, and the John Howards.

Basically Bogans, male and female, have balls.

It's this very stubborn self-possession that offends the middle class. It reminds them too much of the upper-class, the warrior princes, whom they hope to emulate but can't because they are so mentally pissweak. No middle-class ponce will ever even openly disagree with anyone else, let alone challenge them to a duel.

They over-compensate for their sickly weakness, and attendant lack of real respect, by forever attacking the bogans for the lack of morality - which is similar actually to the upper-classes lack of morality, but the middle class are too busy sucking up to them to direct criticism upwards.

The moral middle class are forever finding new things about bogans to dissapprove of, from tastes to lifestyles to houses to cars. Lately global warming elitists love to bash V8 drivers for using up too much petrol, and then hop on a plane to europe.

Now, according to the lord mayor, the very presence of a bogan is offensive and possibly soon to be against the law in the CBD.

Well i for one will not stand for it.

I call on all Bogans to don the flannalette with pride, rev up their Holdens, pump the AC/DC to full volume (for a review of their latest album click here) and head for the Melbourne CBD.

Dont do anything illegal or anti-social, not that a bogan would. Dont shout abuse at anyone with dreadlocks, as tempting as that might be. Just make your presence felt by having a rip-roaring good time. Sing songs arm-in-arm with your mates. Flirt mercilessly with bogans of the opposite sex. Drink responsibly but loudly. Rock out as only a Bogan can.

Show that putrid patronising prick of a Mayor who here knows how to have a good time, and that we as Australian citizens have the right to do it wherever and whenever we like.

Bogans are the beating heart of this great nation. We are the only ones left in the country with the ANZAC's fighting spirit. Dont let some gutless wanker tell you you dont belong in the heart of your own city.

Bon Scott is rolling over in his grave (albeit in Fremantle) knowing that the city where he filmed the video for Long Way To The Top on the back of a truck is now closed off to his fans. How is the Melbourne music scene to survive the loss of its most copious beer-buying patrons?

Do not dissappoint Bon, the man who had the greatest lust for life of any human being, let alone Australian, who has ever lived.

So unto the CBD, my fellow Bogans, once more. If you see me there shout "Oi!" and together we will shake the foundations and rock this ponce off his high horse. Mine's a Carlton Draught.

Anyone seen "Withnail and I?"

Well people are now selling fake penises that dispense fake urine with which to fool the authorities if you get busted for substance abuse. Or rather they were, until they got sent down.

I dont condone substance abuse but I felt i had to include a good dick joke.

Ruddstuff

Rudd's Godson's dad (editor of the OZ) chooses to blow smoke up the rectum from whence daylight comes, but the rest of us can smell the foul stench that emanates from within Rudd's socialist bowels.

Once such patriot has set up shop: http://www.ruddshop.com/

Check it out an have a bit of a giggle at Rudd's expense. Better than GM/Holden having a giggle a the taxpayer's (that is your) expense.

Aftermath: Obsessed Obama supporters' lives no longer have meaning

Genius from the Onion:

Looking on the bright side

Obama won. There are some good points to take from this.

Firstly, from now on when people say that the US is fundamentally racist, we will all know it's bullshit.

I am glad that when you tell a little black boy that he can be president one day, he will believe you. Unfortunately if you still tell a little girl of any colour that same thing, they wont quite.

Perversely, for all this talk of redistribution of wealth from Obama, the very fact that he is president might make Black people and Americans in general go more self-reliant. If minorities really believe that "yes we can" achieve status and wealth and power then they might be less despondent about their future and less dependent on welfare as a group.

Obviously this is a historic moment, just like Thatcher becoming the UK's first woman PM. The next test becomes whether that person fights for the narrow interest of their group within society, or really does govern for all. But the guy deserves props just for getting elected.

Or as we say in Australia, "Good on ya, mate".


Secondly, it looks at this point that the Democrats will not achieve a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate. That means that their most drastic agenda for change can be delayed and stopped though rigorous debate. The Dems control the white house and both houses of congress, but they will have to explain what they do and bring others with them. Rather than "crash through or crash" in the Whitlam-style.

I think Obama will be like Rudd. He will be cautious about implementing his change, aka income redistribution and proto-socialism. There are still close to 50% of Americans who disagree with it, and most of American history disagrees.

Obama is already watering down is rhetoric and managing expectations. Talking about a hard road or whatever in his acceptance speech, and how we all need to make sacrifices etc. It sounds like he's going to leave them in a bit of a rut for while yet. He's not going be be anyone's saviour in a hurry.

Obama will be loathe to tinker with, let alone pull apart, a system that fundamentally works. After all, it worked well enough to put him where he is.

On foreign policy, it's one thing to bash Bush for taking action, but when you are commander-in-chief and you risk something going very wrong if you dont take action, like Israel getting nuked, then you change your mind pretty fast. I think,like Blair, Obama is driven by ambition (not to say vanity) and he will be very worried about his legacy. He does not want it to read "they guy who sounded cool but allowed America to become weak in the eyes of the world." Blair was a left-winger swept to power by wets who became a stauch ally of the US in the war in Iraq. When Obama says he'll invade Pakistan, i believe him.

"Yes we can" change American foreign and domestic policy, but do we really want to?


Thirdly, and i think most importantly for the long term future of America and the world, the American conservatives have been electorally punished so badly that they must now reform.

The Republicans conceded this election when they nominated McCain. McCain was too much of a maverick to have a direction, see Ace on that. I was rooting for Giulianni 18 months ago. He still might have lost against Obama but this race was not a walkover, and if the Reps had hit Obama hard over the economy, which McCain never could because he hates Wall St too, they could have had a chance.

BUT Giulliani was a deal-breaker for the religious right in the US because he was not socially conservative enough. They stopped him getting the nomination. I dont like those guys. They freak me out. They freak alot of people out both in the US and abroad. I also think they are part of the reason why the GOP lost.

I supported Bush because i thought he was a strong leader and a defier of conventional weakened wisdom of the hippies in suits and no ties who run the media. i did it because i am a conservative. I am not religious. I dont think you have to be religious to be conservative. It's about pride, patriotism, hard-work, honesty, self-reliance and a fundamental distrust and distaste for the politics of pity. It should have nothing, or very little, to do with religion.

I do not begrudge people their religion and I dont think anyone should be excluded from a political party on the basis of religion, but when the whole identity of a party is bundled up with a religion I don't like it. The Christian right have too much control over the US Republican party. They should be a part of it, but not the dominant part.

The other conservatives, the economic and foreign policy conservatives, need to form a values platform that can compete with the Christian right, so that they can then compete with the values-talk of the left, of which Obama is the master. They need to create a form of Social conservatism that is not based on religion. To talk about real-world rational reasons why we need to take responsibility for ourselves in our personal lives, as well as defend basic personal rights in the same rational way. If you have religious reason too, fine, but that should not be seen a sufficient justification on it's own from now on.

I feel a bit apprehensive in saying this, because i'm not an American and i dont really know that much and it's not really any of my business. But i think it's true. I hope these will be the last words I say on the topic of US politics for some time. I got a country of my own to worry about. Good luck y'all, and if there is a God, may he/she bless America.

Obama Toast?

This article by Malstrom, a guy i had never heard of till today, has got some seriously juicy bits on why the polls are so far off. He is predicting a crazy upheaval on election night. Saying all the pundits have it wrong. It's long but I recommend the whole thing. He focuses on Pennslyvania, where the candidates are appearing on the stump. It's a big blue state about to turn red, he says. Here is one paragraph that jumped out at me as directly relevant to Aussie politics:

Lying to pollsters is frequent and a necessity in Pennslyvania due to the unions. Many union bosses will call their members, posing as a ‘pollster’, and if the member gives the wrong asnwer, a thug is sent to the house. The Teacher’s Union there has sent strict orders to vote for Obama “or else”.

I just watched Insiders on-line and am saddened to see Alexander Downer predicting an Obama victory. I guess that's why he was never PM. He's not suspicious enough of other's motives. Too much of a gentleman I suppose you could say.


So what are my feelings at this late hour? I'm exhausted. It seems like only last week, it was last November, that we fought our own election here and i had to ignore polls for a year prior to that to keep from going insane. I'm not game to make a prediction to the contrary of the polls now. I've been burned.

I will say however that the legacy media bias in this election for Obama has been unprecedented. A few years ago I, like Downer probably, would had dismissed it a quarter-arsed conspiracy theory. No longer. It's a deliberate attempt to "break the spirit" of the conservative voters. My guts fell out last year when the OZ started pulling for Rudd. I've seen the media line up candidates before. I've seen it in Britain with David Cameron's bid for the conservative leadership. I've seen it with Rudd. Now i'm seeing it with Obama. I desperately want to believe that the unelected ideologues in the MSM can be kept in check by the people. I hope tomorrow this is shown to be so.

Maybe i should not be so melodramatic. My girlfriend is more upbeat. She said something yesterday that had not occurred to me because I was living in Britain for the 2004 campaign here. She said "This whole Obama thing is just like what happened with Latham." I didn't realize the media had lined up Latham in the same way as Rudd, and been denied. Nice.

I guess the difference between the 2004 and the 2007 Federal elections was the sustained poll advantage Rudd had in the lead up. But the article at the link above debunks all the current US polling, and towards the end says stuff that can easily be compared to the Latham case:

America is right of center. While Carter and LBJ were the last Democrats to win over 50% of the vote, LBJ didn’t bother to run for a second term due to how despised he had become over Vietnam, and Carter was flushed out during the election of 1980. The point is that there is an acceptable level of leftness the electorate will accept. Clinton campaigned and acted a little left which was acceptable to the electorate. But LBJ and Carter went way too far and the electorate sank them. Obama has likely gone too far left which is why the ’socialism’ charge is sticking to him.

The Aussies ditched Latham for being too far Left. He freaked everybody out. The ALP had to put the (false) safe face of Rudd on their lefty agenda. Are the American political and media establishment about to learn a lesson in political reality they they could have got from watching us Aussies? For the US equiv of the ALP, the Democrats, the moderate candidate is Hillary. She won the primaries in the rust belt states like PA that Obama now stands to lose.

If Obama does lose it will be the end of the far Left for another generation. It will also be the end of the legacy media's special status as truth providers. They have staked so much on predicting an Obama victory that no-one will ever believe them again. I mean that here in Australia too. The falsity and bias will be exposed, but that is too much to hope for.

Still, if I were religious i'd be praying for it. I am not religious but i love hymns. So maybe i'll sing instead of pray. These lines are from the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which became an anthem for the Union (Northerners) during the American Civil War. I may not be in the mood to quote it tomorrow, so in the hope of a McCain victory, i'll do it now. For "the Lord", read "The People".

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

Bit too passionate for ya? Is so, feel free to get lost.

I just upgraded my Joe the Plumber to Tito the Builder

Dead.Set.Legend.



Attempted transcript of the last and best bit, with omissions:
"I'm gonna tell you why i dont want it (socialism). Because they throw you a few crumbs just to keep you down there. Here you go little poor man. And that keeps you happy so you dont question their connections and their philosophy. So they can keep the power."

But you have to listen to it in his hispanic accept to have to beauty of his latin metaphors. These guys know corruption when they see it

Plus those shades. Awesome!

Recession + Govt Intervention = The Great Depression

Well i'll be. It looks like the New Deal, the government intervention that US Pres FDR introduced to lift lift the US economy out of the great depression in the 1930s actually prolonged the depression. So say respected economists from UCLA

Read the whole article at UCLA newsroom because, despite being about economics, it is really easy to understand. Here's some key quotes.

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
...

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
...

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

...

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Does this remind you of anything, or anyone. Maybe todays financial crisis here in Aus, and Rudd's completely screwing up his "solution" to it? All that has hapenned is we've gone from bad to worse, and we have less chance of getting better soon. Funds are frozen. Go figure.

To boot Rudd has lead the union movement to it's strongest political position ever in Australia. They will push for wage increases at the expense of the unemployed and the same inflated wages, prices and interest rates scenario mentioned above will keep us in a Rudd rut for a decade.

And then there's the ETS. It just keeps getting better, sorry worse. The possibilities for price inflation, failure of key industries and job losses multiplies many times over.

But i'm not alarmist. I'm not undermining trust in our institutions. I'm undermining trust in one man. Kevin Rudd. If he doesn't touch anything we'll be fine.

Introducing Li'l Obama

Genius from Treacher and pals (copied with permission)

bigger at the link

A Point of No Return

As the OZ gets stuck into the important issue, such as whether Sarah Palin is a diva in expensive clothes, Mark Steyn writes a brilliant article about how the sole remaining super-power teeters on the brink of Socialism and unfreedom and weakness.

An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

[My emphasis on the poetry.]

All you Aussie Obama fans should have a good hard think how the power balance of the world, let alone the Pacific region we are in, would be shifted if America became a bunch of touchy-feeling weeklings living of govt handouts.

Think and sh1t your little knickers.

What drought? Labor's war on country people continues

This takes the cake. Labor dont like paying the subsidies to farmers that help them in the drought so they try to erase the word "drought" from the lexicon .

It's not a drought anymore, it's "dryness" in official government literature, if Labor get their way.

Interestingly enough, this is also the name i give to the feeling in my mouth when i get gripped by the horrifying visions of a brainwashing socialist future.

As Orwell says, if you cant say the word you can't think the thought. Welcome to AusSoc. Rudd is a doubleplusgood duckspeaker.


A drought has an end. Dryness doesn't. In Labor propaganda, Global Warming has changed the climate forever and it will never rain again. This is a total BS. BS pushed forward with an agenda.

If the dryness is seen as permanent it makes no sense to help farmers get though tough times. Better, in the Labor mind, to run them off the land.

Labor's agenda is taking money from people who produce things in this country, the agricultural sector, and give it to people who dont, the unemployed and others who benefit from this new so-called economic booster package, so these people's support for Labor is entrenched.

Well that money has to come from somewhere. Might as well be from people who voted Liberal and National.

AC/DC: Back with Black Ice

Just bought the new AC/DC Album "Black Ice".

In the words of Borat: "Is nice"

The album is exactly what you'd expect from AC/DC. Which is to say it's exactly like the last AC/DC record. What's not to like?

When you have perfected Rock, where do you go from there? You rock some more, naturally. You cant improve on perfection. AC/DC know better than to try.

Before i even heard it, just looking at the pictures on the sleeve got me giggling in fits. Angus just gets funnier as he gets older. It was funny to have a grown man in a school uniform pulling an infantile lippy smirk. To see a bloke in his late 50's doing it cracks me up.

How can the same joke still be funny so many years later? True genius that's how.

The ridiculousness of Angus' act is a shining of example of how not to take life seriously.

A guitarist who used to play for Alice Cooper once said to me "If you go to an AC/DC show and you dont have a good time, you're an asshole." He was a Canadian so that spelling of "asshole" is correct, and the meaning is slightly different from the British/Aussie/NZ "arsehole". An arsehole is an immoral person, an asshole can be an unlikable person in other ways too, two examples being a miserable asshole and a stupid asshole. My friend meant the latter.

AC/DC is about having a good time. Anyone who knows what a good time is understands AC/DC on some level - above or below the belt.

The new album opens strongly with the single Rock'n'Roll Train, a song about an wanton woman as unstoppable in her escapades as a hurtling juggernaut. The song has the same irresistible momentum as the subject. Toe-taping head-banging bliss.

Next track of note for me was track 3 Big Jack, a guy who's "got your back". First hoes, then bros. Brilliant. The only other subject they have to cover is beer and it's all there. This tune has some major key blues chord work that sounds like the Cult's attempts at mimicking AC/DC, with more subtly complex arrangement befitting the original masters of the "guitar bite".

The next track was a pleasant surprize, and the one I was looking for. Songs like this are the difference between good and great AC/DC records. The song is called "Anything Goes" and it's a major-key melodic rocker akin to You Shook Me All Night Long and Money Talks . When there is a melodic singalong like this on an acadaca record it shows they have really pushed the envelope and put alot of effort into the writing. Men with balls as large as AC/DC need to be very confident of themselves before they express the smiley kind-hearted feelings the major key requires. Top track.

Other awesome tracks is the bluesy, gritty and downright eerie Stormy May Day. To get the ominousness across Johnston drops his voice a couple of octaves at the end, into the register in which mortals speek - intimate, or intimidating? you be the judge. I gotta say that you could write the crappiest song in the world but if Brian Johnston sang it would still be awesome. He could make Mary Had A Little Lamb strip paint.

Apart from the rifftastic title track, I cant really recall exactly how most of the other tracks went. I'll update this if more of them leap out of the riffy entanglment to strangle me, but when the overall standard is this high, it's hard to get noticed.

One title does jump out at me though, Money Made. As a rock fan I am green with envy at the ability of rap artists to sing about money and making money and make it sound cool. Rock musos are always so obsessed with dressing down and looking like commies and singing about their unfortunate lot in life. If they make money they hide it. It's pathetic really, but you can understand it because it will kill your career if you dont fall into line. AC/DC are breaking the glass ceiling for rockers who not only want to be capitalists (all musicians are business-people) but also ... sound like it. I was going to say "look like it", but let's face it AC/DC have not progressed that far yet. They wouldn't know what an iron was, not without the maiden anyway.


That AC/DC are so popular worldwide is Australia's greatest cultural achievement. Especially since the sound so Australian!

Basically they exported the gleeful Aussie sense of misbehaviour and mischief, and sold more albums than anyone apart from Micheal Jackson. (look it up, fool: #1 Thriller, #2 Back In Black)

AC/DC can teach all of us about how to have a good time, but they also hold a lesson for the new generation of Aussie musicians:

Firstly Australian bands should sound Australian, not like pale imitations of the latest American or British trend.

Secondly and more importantly YOU CANNOT BE A ROCK STAR IF YOU DO NOT ROCK!!!!!

The more you rock, the more success you will have. Stop trying to sound so pissweak. Nobody likes it except the lazy hacks in the indie record labels.

Rock is not the preoccupation of some fringe group in society, ROCK IS THE MAINSTREAM.

What is the highest praise you can ever give to anyone or anything?

One simply says "YOU ROCK", "THIS ROCKS", "HE/SHE/IT ROCKED", "WE WILL ROCK YOU".

You can conjugate the verb to rock more ways than you can re-arrange the chords in an AC/DC track to make another AC/DC track.

And that's more than enough to enjoy life.

.... That last bit made no sense at all. I think the AC/DC is affecting my thinking. Thank God for that. Whooo hooo!!!!!

And by God, of course I mean Angus Young.

RBA Chief breaks with ALP ... better late than never

This is the story of the week and probably month, if not the year. The RBA has opposed Rudd recent's Socialist intervention into the credit markets.

I didn't blog it at the time (stupidly) but as a capitalist Rudd's unlimited guarantee of Bank deposits in the wake of recent stock market troubles troubled me.

My problem was that he was putting the tax payer on the hook for sake of the banks, just like the Dems in the US with the housing crisis. Christ! you think they'd learn the right lesson. Nooo. it's all about Gordon Gekko's greed for (multi-millionaire) Rudd.

But my fears were too diffuse to blog. I dont think Aussie banks are going to collapse. The tax-payers exposure is hyperthetical. (and i'm on a roll with my book - no time people)

Turnbull (gotta hand it to him) put specifics to my fears on the insiders on Sunday. The littlest credit union in the land now was a safer bet for deposits than the most well-respected non-bank credit trader. This is causing in sever distortions in the market and actually risks making it harder for some businesses to get credit, the opposite of what was intended.

Rudd is meddling with the market AGAIN!!! He's trying to make it fairer, to the detriment of all.

Rudd and Swan's press conference during the week had snippets on insiders too. Swan assured us that "the world really has changed in the last few weeks". Which is of course code for "The chickens have come home to roost for you Capitalist running dogs. The time for government control of the economy is here, comrades."

Like all Socialists Swan is a LIAR.

The world did NOT change. Capitalism is here to stay. Especially in the most Capitalist nation on Earth, Australia.

Today the RBA has made sure of that.

Glenn Stevens has basically told Rudd to shove his Socialism up his arse.

RESERVE Bank governor Glenn Stevens is warning the Rudd Government its blanket guarantee of deposits is creating serious dislocation in the entire financial system and must be changed.

Steven's actions have dovetailed beautifully into the ALP's economic narrative up until this point. Not any more.

Despite the Government's assurances that it is working closely with the regulators on the global financial crisis, the argument has strained relations between the RBA and Canberra.

My question is: if the RBA is supposed to be independent why is there a need for the government to work with them (read: tell them what to do)? Why do they need a cordial relationship? The RBA was all but openly hostile to the previous government and went out of their way to demonstrate their "independence" by putting up interest rates during the election campaign dispite there being no economic justification for it, the credit crisis already having hit.

Now that he is taking on Rudd it seems Stevens has at last rediscovered his independence of mind.

Or has he?

He didn't say anything to the press about this until Malcolm Turnbull hammered his point home in Parliament and on the ABC.

Maybe Glenn Stevens is just backing the winning team, again.

But i should not get distracted by Joe the Plumber. I must focus on Obama ... sorry i'm coming down with with US election fever.

Rudd, Swan and the ALP are the real problem here. The are amateur socialists in charge of this great capitalist nation. They have been humiliated by Turnbull and Stevens over their clumsy and over-zealous interventionist tendencies.

Either Rudd stands his ground and looks Socialist, or introduces a limit to the deposit guarantee and looks weak and stupid. It's a lose-lose situation for Rudd, of his own making.

He can pull the wool with his Sunday night TV appearances all he wants, but the smart people in this country are moving away from Rudd. Sure, obviously the really smart ones (me and my mates) didn't vote for him in the first place, but you know what I mean.

This time it's personal ... and that person is Joe the Plumber.

The media have gone to far in attacking their enemies. Again!

And again they will reap what they have sown.

We saw it before with Palin, when the MSM's feeding frenzy on baby trig helped boost the GOP in the polls.

Backlashes happen. There is about to be another one because the one man who asked Obama a tough question (and i include McCain in that) is about to be run out of business

Joes question exposed Obama as a socialist and so "Joe the Plumber" was mentioned more times in the prez debate than Iraq was.

He was approached by Obama on the campain trail, not the other way around, he said what was on his mind about taxes, and now media scutiny is being applied to him.

Here's an Expose on Joe in the NYT deconstructed by Treacher

Bear in mind this is the same media scrutiny not applied to Bill Ayers or the The One, who actually wants to be President, not a plumber.

Joe will now pay the price of free speech in the new West: the ending of his career.

Sure, he should really get a license to be a plumber but his boss is happy employing him. This would never have happened if he had not taken on The One and the media

This time they have really gone too far. Sarah Palin was a politician. Joe is an ordinary citizen. The Media are taking on the people directly, openly, unapologetically.

This could tip the election. There are alot of Joe the Plumbers in America.


(picture swiped from Ace Of Spades HQ)

PS I just noticed how on the first line I wrote about the media's enemies, not the Democrat's enemies. I now unconsciously assume the entire media to be left-wing and vehemently so. It doesn't help when Murdoch's main Aussie rag always plumps for The One. I cant even read The OZ anymore. I just skim the headlines on-line. It's all about how great Rudd is ... and no news. You wouldn't read about it.

UPDATE: Ha!! Told ya. news.com.au the main on-line portal for Murdoch in Australia has exposed Joe too. Feel oppressed yet? This is no joke folks. The media really are out to get the everyman in their way.

Undercover Cops bust ring of dangerous Hippies

In a word: Awesome . The Victorian Police's stocks just went up in my book.

This comes via Blair and Bolt but I thought i would link straight to The Age because their blatant anti-police spin make is funnier, and the picture of the disgruntled hippies (post-showering) makes this even more awesome.

I get so warm n fuzzy when i hear about a hippie beat-down in my home town. Yeee Haaawww!!

Quick post of final US Prez debate

Thought McCain was way better. Was smiling and taking the piss out of Obama throughout, Obama seemed ruffled and put off to me. HE rambled with some of his responses, which did seem like amateurish bureaucratic interfering in people's lives (or they did to me).

McCain main great headway out of the "spread the wealth around" remarks Obama made on the campaign train recently, particularly by addressing to "Joe the plumber" straight down the barrel of the camera were great and warning him that is was his wealth that Obama was about to spread (read: take).

McCain ironically praising Obama for his "eloquence" and then offering to decode Obama's speech for the audience. brilliant.

It seems now that we are seeing enough of the real Obama for McCain to be able to create a aura of uncertainly around him. Just what is Obama gonna do? The more he talks the more he sounds like a real socialist. That freaks people out. When Obama says he wants to take America in a fundamentally different direction he means it!

And it's not just a different direction to the last 8 years as he says. It's different to the entire history of the United States. It's socialism.




Via Ace of Spades HQ

They are a bit down on the debate, and make the point that McCain didn't pin subprime on Acorn/Dems/Obama. At least he brought up Ayers!

Peerless Akerman finds some gritty figures

Looks like Rudd's been a little bit greed-is-goody in his Brisbane real estate dealing with "directors of a key Labor Party company which controlled party assets."

*Chortle chortle*

He also gives his a slap along the lines of what I said: that Capitalists (like Rudd) are not to blame for this crisis but rather Socialists (like Rudd ... yeah i'm confused too).

US Prez Debate: Closing remarks said it all

Just finished now. (no link)

I'm biased (that honestly tells you i'm a conservative) but i'd call it McCain by a nose. Not a game-changer unless people really let some of the messages sink in. I'd say the game has been kept alive. McCain did well enough not to sink his campaign.

I was glad to see McCain on the attack about Obama's record on the current crisis and foreign policy, and still homely and physically embracing the serviceman in the Audience. I'm disappointed Ayers did not come up, i guess that means there as still aces in the pack, and McCain had to confront the economic message of the Dems head on. Still, Obama was pretty slick and seemed to have a counter attack for every attack on his record.

For me, the real difference came not in the debates over specifics but the visions of both men. Before i read a single line of commentary i'd like to say the closing statements said it all, paraphrased below:

Obama: I was poor to start with and rose to great heights that i could never have hoped for in any other country. Now it's time to change the country fundamentally. I hope you are with me on this amazing journey (destination not specified)

McCain: (in unspoken reference to his POW years) I know what suffering is like. I know what it's like when others look to you for hope. I know what it's like when others pick you up and give you hope. I ask the American people to give me another opporunity to serve because through all this it has always been "my priviledge to to put my country first."

That last part is a direct quote.

Obama's statement was all about himself, and how the country has to change to suit him.

McCain's was all about his country and how much he loved it and was willing to sacrifice himself for it.

Oh yeah. There are "fundamental differences" alright.

One candidate understands the words of Kennedy "Dont ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country"

The other is a total wanker.

Some people's legs might shake when Obama speaks. I was almost in tears when McCain spoke.

I never knew he had it in him.

Sack the Reserve Bank Governor

Glenn Stevens has just cut rates by 1%. The biggest cut since 1992, the Keating horror years.

Why the drastic reversal now? It's almost like the present economic difficulty was unforseen by him. Sorta took him by suprise. That's bad for a econobrainic isn't it? hmm

But hang on. This crisis started in August last year.

Stevens increased interest rates FOUR TIMES since August last year!!

Sep 2 2008 25bps down 7.00pc
Mar 4 2008 25bps up 7.25pc
Feb 5 2008 25bps up 7.00pc
Nov 7 2007 25bps up 6.75pc
Aug 8 2007 25bps up 6.50pc

As i recall the first one just before the crisis hit, at that point Stevens failed to foresee it.

Since then he's failed to see whats right in front of his goddam eyes!

There was never any need to increase interests rates since August last because this danger was always coming our way, and our economy was never expanding out of control, except in ALP propaganda.

Is Australia the most Capitalist, and therefore safest, country in the world?

That is the questions I asked myself as i read this great piece in the OZ about how regulation of capital markets always fights the last crisis, and risks making the next one worse.

The author Johan Norburg directly contradicts Rudd.

I learned that America has loads of regulation already. I had heard of the mark-to-market rule when accounting asset values, which devalues all companies balance sheets every time there is a stock market dip (even though they have no intention of selling anything). But I did not know about how much regulation started under FDR's New Deal after the depression, and persisted for so long. Note the Fannie Mae was created as part of the New Deal, to give loans to people who cant afford it which led to the current crises now, over 60 years later!

As far as i'm aware Australia is free from all this Socialist hocus pocus.

You little rippah! We can be proud we are at the forefront of Capitalism - that force which makes everything happen.

The Geek speaks out against Capitalism

Tell me. Does this sound like an economic conservative speaking?

Rudd is the Reddest PM we've ever had, and a total lightweight.

He has written a column against Gordon Gekko, a fictional character created by Hollywood to parody Capitalism. No real person ever said "greed is good". Us capitalists dont say it. We dont think it. We know greed is overstepping the mark and will get you in the shit.

Rudd has his little knickers in a twist so bad about evil capiltalism he doesn't even bother to look up the facts about the current crisis before shooting off his gob.

He's so petulant and lazy. Like a spoiled teenager. "Whhhhaaaaaahhhhh. Those capitalists want me to do my homework. It's not faaaiiiir."

The fact is that, Capitalism is not at fault here. Socialism is.

Left to their own devices, the capitalists at the big US banks would never have lent to money to people who they knew could never pay it back. That's not greed. That's just common sense.

Rudd could read on this blog here and here the way the Left in America, specifically ACORN, forced banks to lend to people from minorities without jobs, assets, income or any form of security in the full knowledge that one day this would all come crashing down, so they could then turn around and say the Capitalist system has failed.

Sure the debt was packaged off in supposedly non-transparent instruments and that's how the risk was spread around the globe, but the problem was the government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (big Democrat donors) gave the impression that the debt was government-backed and secure, when they had no intension of going guarantor for millions of home-owners and couldn't if they wanted to. The BS originated in the Socialist desire to make the the market "fairer", which distorted it's proper working.

You wont find a single capitalist arguing for less transparency. We want to know what we are buying. Once again that's not greed. Just sensible rational self-interest. The reforms needed to avoid this crisis were put forward by real economic conservatives like Bush in 2003 and McCain in 2005 (yes, even McCain is economically conservative compared to Rudd). The Socialists Democrats in congress blocked them.

Costello on insiders yesterday was very level headed and sober in his discussion of this, as has been Turnbull in recent interviews. Rudd's panic attack about Capitalism has shown him up to be anything other than an economic conservative. He's a died in the wool Socialist and unfit to run this country.

If Rudd keeps this BS up he wont be around for long.

Rudd's kind of not-quite-high-brow commie-talk has only ever appealed to a small minority of the Aussie public. Aussies dont like being ripped off, that's why they make good cautious un-greedy capitalists, and they know Socialism is the biggest rip off of all.

UPDATE: Expert Hypocrisy-spotter Tim Blair hits the nail squarely on the head:

Kevin Rudd is complaining about “greed" and “extreme capitalism”. The challenge is to measure these things. Does capitalism become “extreme” when one amasses $20 million? Should a person who blows $10,000 per week renting a beachside apartment be considered “greedy”?

Obama and the Crisis (part II)

Man. This piece at AmericanThinker has gone for Obama harder than anything i've ever seen. Basically fills in all the details from the my prev post, and then some.

I'd always throught the lefties would ruin everything. I didn't know they are one record as doing it on purpose. I thought they were just thick.

Scary stuff.

PM brings us international disgrace at UN

Rudd makes us all look like pig-ignorant stuck-up wankers with his ill-informed, sickeningly morally superior and basically communist speech to the UN against banking.

Rudd is lecturing the world on economics because of the global financial crisis. I wonder if they are offended, or they just dont give a shit.

Rudd's plan for banks:

putting rules in place to ensure they are adequately capitalised and developing “internal incentives within institutions to promote responsible behaviour rather than unrestrained greed”.

And just how do you propose that? I bet he can't think of one workable example of one rule that might be put in place to make this happen. He cant think in specifics . It's all "the vibe". Basically he wants bureacrats to look over the shoulders of capitalists and go "nah. i reckon that looks a bit greedy, mate. better tone it down.... or else."

One of the main aspects of Nazism and Communism is the breakdown of the rule of law. Its not enough to make sure you follow the rules. The courts cant protect you if you do. You have to please the right people. It's like living under a mafia gang.

Confusion over regulation, which is to say over-regulation with ambiguous or conflicting regulations, is the path to this unfreedom. Honestly, the Maoism in Rudd's thinking really spooks me.

This is Socialist demagoguery at it's worst - fit only for the likes of John McCain. A truly honest "economic conservative" would never dream of acting superior to capitalists.

Also an "economic conservative" would look up the economic facts before he shot of his mouth. This crisis was not caused by "greed" at all (for "greed" in Ruddese read "self-interest" in English).

Might I remind Rudd that the CREDIT CRISIS WAS CAUSED BY LEFTIES SCREWING WITH A CAPITALIST INSTITUTION SO THAT THEY COULD ACHIEVE THEIR SOCIALIST REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH BY UNDERHAND MEANS. IF LEFTIES COULD JUST LEAVE THE MARKET AS IT IS THERE WOULD BE NO CRISIS.

See my blog. And this FOXnews clip by way of explanation.

Oblivious to the disastrous consequences, Rudd fully intends to mess up the free market here and repeat Tony Blair's failed New Labor experiment here. Health and education are the areas as i've said. Why else would the OZ be reporting studies that say our health spending is (can't find link).

They're all in it together.

Commies! Everywhere!

Honey, get my gun. I just hope we can take a few down with us.

Yeeee-haw!

(note: that's exaggeration, but not irony. Note also i am not blogging much of late because i've broken the drought on my book. I'll try to get something up every couple of days. Pls stay tuned, dear readers)

UPDATE: in the last 5 minutes the headline at the OZ has gone from "Rudd lectures world on finiancial crisis" (or similar, the word "lectures" was definitely used - implying the Rudd is a tosser) to "Rudd urges big economies to lead reforms".

Does that sound more humble, master? Thank you, master.

(Note again: Only the bit about the gun was exaggeration. As you can see they really ARE all in it together)

Current US Housing/Credit Crisis created by evil ruthless capitalistic currupt ... Democrats?!! WTF??

OMFG!

My mind is truly blown. I dont want to seem like i've had a Truther insight into the huge conspiracy behind the current crisis. But that's just what happened. I haven't researched this independently myself but it's on a few US blogs. Read it. Please read it.

Basically Republicans Bush and McCain have been trying to regulate the huge mortguage brokers in the states Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, and the Democrats in congress blocked the legislation that requires. More that this current economic Advisors to Obama were behind the creation of the ticking time bomb that has now exploded, at huge expense to the taxpayer.

The Left in the US, denied a semi-socialist taxation system, has maintained a policy of income redistribution by stealth, legally known as theft.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored banks the make home loans, often to "poor" people with poor credit, basically people who cant pay it back. The famous sub-prime mortguage is a variation on this theme. The problem of bad debts, huge in complexity and scale (trillions of dollars worth today) has been growing for some time. In 2003 Bush tried to stop it and in 2005 McCain did. The Democrats blocked the formation of a new regulatory body in congress.

The Democrats deliberately held these institutions in limbo as they kept lending money to people who could never pay it back, without as much as a house deposit in many cases. This inflated house prices, but they just kept lending more so people could buy houses they couldn't afford. The bankers pocketed huge wads in exec bonuses as the interest payments came in. And the tax-payer (that is YOU!) was left to pick up the bill when the whole thing went tits up.

Guess who are big donors to the Democratic Party? That's right. Execs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (see source)

Now these Democrats have the nerve to say it was all fault of the Republicans as part of their election campaign. I can imagine them now, "Hey. They are the ones who talk about how good capitalism is. Makes them look greedy. We'll just pin it on them. Suckers. If those Conservatives could just get over their honestly and pretend to be charitable they would be able to steal money like us."

Dont fall for it. And dont let it happen here. And dont think the Left wont try. They are already working on it. the whole New Labor ethos is to take the tools of the free-market, eg Banks, and try and make them do something against the market to make things more "fair". I've spoken about the UNFREE MARKET at length before. The areas it will be tried here are schools and health amongst others.

Whether bankers or bureaucrats it is typical of the Left to take money from the working people, give a bit to the non-working people (a bribe so they will vote for their party again), and cream of a good chuck from the top and keep if for themselves.

On top of this, when the business-sector is involved all the usual assumptions about business get fucked up. US credit crisis has corrupted the notion of credit by taking away the repayment part of the contract. Who could be surprised now that banks are loathe to lend, except at high interest rates?

So was the US experiment with home-loan redistribution fairer than the free market?

In the end the poor ended up getting it in the neck worse that anyone, as their houses were repossessed.

Dont forget, the tax payers who just paid off the bad debt.

Dont forget the builders for whom its not worth building since the collapse of prices. Fewer houses for all.

The lesson is clear. When you fuck with the free-market nobody gains, except the corrupt officials who mastermind it all.

We're onto you, Ruddyboy.

Pwned! Nelson v Nelson. Turnbull off to a flying start

Well they finally got to Nelson. He surrendered the leadership in spectacular fashion. Why insult your collegues with distrust by inviting them to a secret unscheduled meeting, then accuse them of disloyalty, then quit and re-apply for the post in spite of the highly-publicised defection of your support to the opposition, then refuse to to the usual ring-arounds before the poll?

It seems a wholehearted rejection of the process of politics. He invited defeat. A moral plea to your enemies is not going to cut it - eg terror. He didn't seem to understand he had the power for as long as he held onto it. The others can carp all they like, but until they do something he's in charge. He seems to lack Howard's thick skin. It appears he had just had enough and wanted to make one final protest before bowing out.

But still, the disloyalty would have got to me after a while too. Hard to know how you would act in that situation of being constantly undermined by collegues with the help of the media. I gotta say though that the manner of Nelson's exit has made me question his judgment. I was supporting him mainly because Turnbull bashed Howard's legacy after the election. I felt that was counter-productive, as Costello's constant complaints about Howard not stepping down. There were flashes, eg 5 cent petrol excise cut, where Nelson showed Howard's knack for reading the ordinary voter. But without a result in the opinion polls he was going to have to take alot more shit. He chose not to, and to unwisely start dishing it out himself.

I do think that is it's some nerve for Turnbull supporters to say we should get behind the leader now, when they never did. Get behind their leader is the real message. Still, that's what I intend to do because Malcolm has come out swinging straight away.

You do have to admit that Turnbull has got off to a flying start. He (and his mate in the media) must have been ready for this for some time. He had his rejection of Rudd's offer of a Republic ready. He had his message about his humble upbringing, and his the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black defense against Rudd's class-war attacks against his wealth.

The main piece of comfort I draw from Turnbull's takeover is that Henry Ergas is Turbull's main economic adviser. I respect him alot. I quoted him extensively in a piece below about bureaucrats running schools. Ergas is behind Turnbull's review of the tax system. If Turnbull's slightly Left image is only skin deep, then great. If he's got people like Ergas advising him he is true-blue free-marketeer and economic liberal.

Turnbull used the word "freedom" in his acceptance speech too. That's a good thing. It's a good slogan, if a bit American. The problem is that in the hands of the lefty media this message becomes freedom to take drugs, freedom to plot against your country, and freedom to generally be totally irresponsible - socially liberal as well as economically liberal. I hope Turnbull is not too far from the madding crowd to realise the damage that will be done if he pulls apart the Liberal's socially conservative message.

I like lines like this:

"We know our job is to empower and enable the enterprise, the dreams, the ambitions of Australians - of all Australians," he said.

Australia has a bright future if we all strive for our dreams. But does does this message mean that we are allowed to be proud of our country in a cultural sense as well as ambitious in an economic sense. Are we Australians, or just individuals? I say we are both. We have individual freedoms and responsibilities to the country. We live in a challenging (not to say dangerous) international cultural environment as well as economic one. The current terror trials in Melbourne highlight the ever-present dangers of cultural division. If Turnbull's message is purely economic and not cultural, he will encourage Aussies to think of Australia as a means to get ahead, rather than a country we should love and defend.

Turnbull has pride, no doubt. I hope that means he will stand up for Australia. I wonder will he help create a climate where all of us are allowed to be proud, not just the priviledged and the PC.

The inside story of the WA Lib Victory

A WA political insider emails:

What a week in WA it was.

It started with Labor losing the election on the Saturday 5 Sept. That night Labor leader Alan Carpenter looked forlorn as he came close to admitting defeat. Liberal leader Colin Barnett was smiling as he all but claimed victory. Half way through the ABC election coverage anchorman Kerry Obrien broke the news that the National Party might support Labor. On the panel Julie Bishop Federal Liberal Deputy Opposition Leader was incredulous. They wouldn’t do that. So the count continued with the Libs and the Nats being counted together as usual.

Next morning Alan Carpenter was all smiles again. He had had a meeting with his new best mate Brendon Grylls the Nats leader and a deal was on. Carpenter was “excited” by the prospect of working with the Nationals as he should have been because Labor had just spent four years in government shafting the Nationals reducing their seat numbers. Grylls was all smiles, he was having his 15 minutes of fame, he was the kingmaker.

Barnett was not particularly phased by all of this and in the end gave the Nationals a few pages of mainly rhetoric agreeing to their “Rotalties for Regions” policy but little more. Labor however produced a glossy publication and upped the ante by offering even more money. Now that was exciting. Treasury weighed in and said it was all a bit irresponsible. The week moved slowly on.

Brendon Grylls gave advise to Labor, keep my new best mate Carpenter or else. Labor Caucus gave Carpenter a standing ovation. Here was the man who was going to turn defeat into victory. Forget the massive swing after the unnecessary early election. Forget that the Libs, who had been a rabble 4 weeks before, were going to take the white cars and the drivers. No. Alan was going to deliver the impossible. Those Nats were an OK bunch after all. The painfully slow count confirmed the Libs and Nats had won and so the next Sunday everyone was waiting for the big announcement from the Nats. Would they go with Labor?

Now to some numbers. The Nats have a lot of new members in the Upper House from their fence sitting policies (see www.brendongrylls.com before it goes off the air) and so young Brendon had the numbers. But the lower house seats are all ultra conservative, in Wilson Tuckey country no less, and the MPs were getting lots of irate phone calls and imagining how they would go dodging the eggs and rotten tomatoes as they walked down the main street of some dusty wheatbelt town after voting with their arch enemies the ALP.

By now the Feds were getting worried. Imagine the fallout: The Libs are so rotten not even the Nats will join them. That was not going to help anyone. The Nats in WA have a chardonnay sipper as their President and she was all for going with Labor, but not the rest of the cockies. They would have none of it and so Brendon was rolled and the Nationals were back in the conservative camp.

Colin Barnett was all smiles and Alan Carpenter quit with a tear in his eye. The Nats had gone with the Libs even though the deal was inferior. Carpenter had given Labor two bad weekends instead of one, the Libs got to celebrate twice, Labor’s pains were twice as bad and the Libs smiles twice as big.

It’s hard to figure out who took who for a ride: Grylls was genuine, well you know, genuine in his disingenuousness, he would have gone with Labor; Labor was genuine, they would have done it; the Libs were genuine, they weren’t going to buy their way out; the farmers were genuine, they wanted nothing to do with it. I personally think the dunce was Carpenter. He should have known better. He didn’t know a sales pitch when he saw it and he should have clarified if Grylls had the authority which he plainly didn’t. Grylls was a genuine fake.

Humorous headline of the day

The SMH can't really compete with The Sun, but a good pun never goes astray

Pissweak, Gutless, Two-faced: The Real Rudd exposed

Kelly, editor of the OZ, as written a piece that shows just how pissweak and gutless Rudd is when dealing with the entrenched power of the unions in the Labor Party. Read the whole thing, but here's my take.

It's about how, when former NSW premier Iemma asked Rudd for help in getting the ALP behind the electricity sell-off in NSW, Rudd snubbed him. Rudd refused to return calls for 3 days and when Iemma did finally get through to the evasive PM he would not touch the NSW conflict with a 10 foot pole.

At the time he was Labor PM in a country where all the power was in the hands of the Labor party (except Brisbane city council, GO QLD!) enjoying almost record-breaking approval weightings. If ever there was a person who could weigh into this debate and turn the tables, it was Rudd at that time.

STILL!!! He chickened out.

Bearing in mind Rudd's formal public position is in-principle support for electicity privatisation, Rudd's failure to stand up to the NSW party power brokers is is not only gutless, but two-faced. He was quite happy to say he supported it, but when it came to making it happen, when he actually had to take action and stand up and fight entrenched interests - Fail.

Iemma (as much as i dislike him generally) was at least putting up a fight. In the end all he wanted from Rudd was a statement to help protect his supporters from the infamous payback policy of the unions. He wanted Rudd so make a statement that NSW Labor MP's preselection should not be threatened if they supported privatisation. In reply to this very reasonable request for support for political fairness, Rudd said:

"I don't want to establish a precedent."

I think that sums Rudd up brilliantly. Translated from Ruddese to English it reads:

"I dont want to be the first to do anything. I dont want to lead. I want to follow the focus groups, keep this here PM's chair warm, boost my reputation in China and then retire to the high-life with my commie mates. If I do do anything it will only be stuff that Tony Blair has done (badly) first."

In a sense, I suppose Rudd's gutlessness and laziness is Australia's greatest hope at the moment. Everything Rudd doesn't do is another thing he cant screw up.

Victory in WA!!

I'll be writing more on this later, but for now i'd just like to say

EAT SHIT AND DIE YOU LABOR BASTARDS!!!

WA is the state where the money is made and the state that is showing the way.

This is a victory for Australia.

Breaking Rudd's false consensus at COAG is very important to protect Australia from a march to bureaucratic mismanagement of public services and the economy. There is no need for us to attempt the UK's failed New Labor model in this country. Barnett will do his best to block it.

This is also a victory for sensible politics and people power in this country.

Barnett's opening up WA to uranium mining is proof that you can come develop a respected, caring and honest profile as a political leader without following the PC trends laid down by the media. Other State Liberal leaders would do well to learn from his example.

WA is now leading the ENTIRE WORLD politically as well as economically. We are showing them all how it's done. Take head US and UK. The Aussie lesson on good governance, started by Howard, continues.

Clumsy Anti-American Irony backfires

An Australian has made a computer game called Muslim Massacre that is quite rightly causing international outrage. Muslims are spewing, as would I be, but the Idiot who made it is actually trying to dis America.

"The United States of America has declared war on Islam!" the Muslim Massacre website says.

"Take control of the American hero and wipe out the Muslim race with an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons."

This game has to be the most arse-about-face attempt at irony ever to fail to get it's point across. He has tried to attack America but is so intellectually clumsy he ends up attacking and offending everyone: Muslims and fans of America alike.

This game reveals yet another anti-Americanist who uses the Muslim cause to bash America but cares nothing for Muslims. The author has shown a flagrant disregard for the way this game would be perceived by the people it's supposed to help ... i think. The butt-fucked-up irony has got me confused too.

Well done, fuckwit. (Doh! more irony)

Underneath it all there is an message here that applies to all Lefties who pray so desperately for the end of American power. Their attacks on America are really just attacks on everything and everyone. Their anti-Americanism is just a smoke-screen for their Anarchism. It is a deception they tell themselves so they can permit the bile and hate to flow. Anti-Americanism is the PC means, the hate, the destruction, the violence, the bringing down of everything mankind has achieved to date, is the end. Deep down they just want to vent anger and they dont really care who cops it.

Just like terrorists.

As Micheal Caine's butler character says to Batman, in The Dark Knight: "Some people just wanna watch the world burn"

Or was that "You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!!" Same thing.

Maybe I should write a game myself (I was once a programmer, you know) called Lefty Massacre where the main character is an Aussie that looks like Paul Hogan and goes around machine-gunning hippies with tie-tied trousers, Che Guevara T-shirts and rose-tinted glasses.

That sounds like a blast. And no irony required.

Shit, Grylls, or get off the Potty

The WA Nationals leader Brendon Grylls is taking his sweet time about deciding which party to join with to form government in WA. Each passing day is an insult to the people of WA and to the conservative cause nationally. Taking the WA Nationals into a coalition with the ALP will be a betrayal of conservative voters, one they will punish him for at the first opportunity.

This election result was above all else a vote against failed state Labor government.

In spite of Labor Premier Alan Carpenter trying every cynical trick in the book to hang on to power - a snap election ,using the Olympics to block the oppositions message etc - the people of WA decided last Saturday that they did not want Alan Carpenter as their Premier.

Despite the count proceeding at Zimbabwean pace (is Carpenter behind that I wonder?) every morning we read about the Liberals picking up new seats from the ALP. The ALP has lost their majority. In every election i have ever witnessed to date, this means that The government has been kicked out.

So now, very reasonably, the people of WA expect Labor out. Why are the people being denied?

In short, because it's business as usual in dodgy WA politics, and Brendon Grylls, for all his show of freshness and change, is playing it just like one of the boys.

WA is the state that gave us Brian Burke and Noel Chrighton-Browne (no I cant spell the has-been's name and i dont ever care to learn). These people have been kicked out of their various parties over a long and painful process of reform that does credit to both sides of politics. The clean-up of WA Inc has involved the hard work of anti-corruption commissioners and the vigilance and determination of all those involved in WA politics and public service. These gears have ground slowly but inevitably towards bringing WA's political reputation on a par with it's economic one - a shining example to the rest of Australia and indeed the world.

But it's not there yet, and the patience of the people of WA has run out.

Last weekend the people of WA voted for honesty. Liberal Leader Colin Barnett's whole platform was honesty and the voters responded well to it (in the brief time they got to hear it, thanks Carps). The people of WA are looking to the future. They want to get away from they frontier-style wheeling and dealing between vested interests they've had to put up with for years.

But what do they get? More of the same. This time from the Nationals.

Grylls has now admitted to speaking to Labor before the election about doing a deal to form government. Now he is calling for Carpenter to stay on as Premier. WTF???

The post of leader of the Labor party has got nothing to do with Grylls, because he is in the National party (duh). He should not be making demands like this, especially since they run so contrary to the obvious wishes of the WA people as expressed in a democratic election.

Why is this man so intent on sending the messages to WA people that their votes don't count? It begs the question, just how close is Grylls to Carpenter?

Grylls said before the election that he would not form a coalition with the Libs. But that's very different from having a plan to form a de-facto coalition with Labor. Had the people of WA known a vote for the National Party was a vote for the Labor Party they would have voted Liberal in larger numbers just to make sure they got rid of Carpenter.

I do not question the desirability of Gryll's "Royalties for Regions" proposal, nor his playing hardball to get what he wants for regions, just the way in which he is slyly using Conservative votes to shore up a Labor government.

The National party base is Conservative. They are hard-working law-abiding hippie-hatin' country-types. The thought of having in-effect voted for a latte-sipping Labor government would make them very angry indeed. Conservative voters want to vote for a conservative party. If Grylls has been more forthcoming with his intentions conservative voters would have voted for the other conservative party, the Liberals.

Grylls owes his voters. He owes them Conservative government.

Ok, sure. Grylls has been saying that that the Nationals will be a more centrist party under his leadership, but what does that even mean? Either you are centre-right or centre-left. When Kevin Rudd says stuff like this we all know he means the Labor federally will be more centre-left, rather than far-left as it was under Latham. He can say the words "economic conserative" all he wants. We all know he is centre-left.

When a National Party leader says he wants to be more centrist. We are entitled to assume he means centre-right. Because the Nationals ever since their conception have been Conservatives. For Grylls to be taking his Party into coalition with Labor is actually taking his party to the centre-LEFT as no centre-right person would dream of working with the professional whingers and rent-seekers of the Left.

Had Grylls been perfectly honest he would have said say he is taking his party to the left of centre, not the centre, because we are entitled to assume that means centre-right. Instead he was economical with this truth, and, it appears, about his closeness to Labor personalities like Carpenter.

So, WA Inc's shadow looms large. Carpenter has been voted out, yet he still clings to power. Today the Labor ministry announced their support for him. Nice one, Al. Maybe you should have put a bit more effort into getting the electorate's support, by say, not being a shit Premier.

But Carpenter is not the issue here. He's gone. It's time for Grylls to realize this (just let it go, man) and make his decision about who he will side with in the WA parliament. The longer he delays the more he tarnishes his name with the smear of old-school arrogant WA Inc-style backroom dealing. The longer he insults the people of WA by making them wait outside that backroom door for a decision from the big boys, the more they will punish him.

Latte-sippers lack of respect

Excellent article in the FT on London about the problem with the democratic party. (Of course i dont have to tell you that a "liberal" in America is means the opposite of "Liberal" here. It means someone who would never vote for the Liberal Party of Australia.)

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

The article gives many lesson there for the latte-sippers who claim to be so concerned for the working people of this country. So concerned that they support a government that is putting people out of work.

The Yanks have their rednecks and we have our bogans.

And i'm proud to call myself one of them.

It's all about the Bogan Vote. Howard knew it. Nelson is the king of the bogans with his stratocaster and motorbike.

The BV is something Turnbull will never tap into.

Union Control = Fewer Jobs

Sharp drop in number of jobs advertised since Rudd and the unions threatened to take power.

I guess it's simply not worth the hassle employing people if you cant get rid of them when they are shit and, shit or not, you have to pay them what the unions wants or risk strikes and thuggery.

Newspaper job ads are now 25.8 per cent lower than in August, 2007.

A drop should not have suprised anyone. But a drop of a quarter! Holy Socialism! I guess it just goes to re-enforce the message:

Union Control = Fewer Jobs

Just to repeat for the rusted-on labor-voting, management-hating tribal leftards out there.

Union.Control.Fewer.Jobs

Got it? I dont believe you. It will take at least two more years for the message to sink in. Probably longer.

So who did they cremate?

As he was watching morning TV after working the night shift, this guy spotted his father on a show about missing persons. The dad had gone missing years earlier, and had been thought dead after a body turned up, which was then cremated at a funeral service for the father. Weirdness.

Defense spending now at lucky 13th in the world

It's a start thanks to years of cash injections from Howard. But we are still behind Italy! That sucks. Those guys knocked us out of the last Soccer World Cup by faking a fall and getting a dodgy penalty. Plus did you see the amount of hair gel they used? We simply can't let them look tougher than us on defense. Oh, the indignity!

The dangers of bureaucrats running schools

This is the best article i've read for ages from Henry Ergas head of Concept Economics and pretty regular commentator with the OZ.

It recounts the British experience with bureaucratic central planning, performance targets and league-tables in education and health provision. This is really relevant to what Rudd and Gillard are proposing right now is OZ. Rudd is refusing to learn from the Brit's bad example. We are about to go through the same New Labor experiment here and we we are about to learn the same lesson: It doesn't work.

The British experience with performance indicators shows how serious these problems can be. Under the Blair government, schools were set targets defined by performance on tests. Predictably, that is what they focused on, especially as the intention was to penalise low-performing schools. As even the chief inspector of schools recognised, teaching became concentrated on those skills most important in the tests, with less attention being paid to all the other aspects of student development. But even that was only part of the problem, as the emphasis on testing created incentives for schools to select pupils, including by trying to get rid of those who were likely to be the worst performers. The result was to distort the allocation of students across schools and the education students received.

While causing those distortions, the system did little to improve performance, even on the tests. The best evidence available suggests that outcomes improved more rapidly in the final years of the Conservative government, when no targets were set, than they did in the Blair years. The failure to improve performance was compounded by deficiencies in performance evaluation, with numbers fudged and assessments massaged so as to avoid political embarrassment.

But seriously read the whole thing at the link above. It explains brilliantly why "even the best crafted performance indicators will be very partial."

The problem is that you can't synthesize a free-market. Rudd and Gillard say they want competition between schools, but they dont want to actually expose them to market forces by giving parents the choice of their child's school. Empowered consumers make a real market.

In contrast (to performance measures), consumers of the service, in most instances, can weigh up the different elements that comprise performance and can evaluate, on the basis of their experience, the quality of the schools their children attend...

New Labor think they understand economics and laud the value of a free-market, but they never quite have the courage to go there. They want to limit the free market and make it more fair somehow. So they create a hybrid mutant beast: the UNFREE MARKET.

They take away the consumers freedom and instead they make up rules and regulations that they think model a free market and THEN THEY GIVE BUREAUCRATS THE UNFETTERED POWER OF A FREE MARKET.

All of a sudden a school could close at the scratch of a bureaucrat's pencil. This is the only significant difference between the old system and the new, apart from the extra-paper work burdening teachers. These bureaucrats will be only to happy to use their power so they can prove they are helping, not sitting on their arses. They will close schools based on dodgy performance indicators. Where will the kids go?

Labor fundamentally misunderstand the free-market because they cannot cope with the idea of winners and losers. This is one of the underlying principles of a free market. If you're not free to fail you can't be free to succeed. New Labor thinks they've got it, and try to use the free-market to boost up the losers. This is the opposite of what a free market does. It is no surprise to me that the whole thing goes pair shaped in the end.

The cognitive dissonance brought on by this doublethink (winners are best, and losers are also best) causes New Labor to declare statistical war on the underprivileged. They try to write them out of existence, but they never go away, and most of the time they are worse off.

A free-market is the only way to get the "rising tide that lifts all boats." We have to realise that unfortunately not all boats will rise the same amount. The market is not perfectly fair, but it's the closest we can ever get. Labor's attempts to create an artificial market that is more fair just stuffs things up.

For instance, In a free market, money will move away from an under-performing school as parents choose to take their kids somewhere else. If they spot it early, the school can react to this small but significant market signal by lifting it's game. But Labor can't take money away like this. That would just make the underprivileged more underprivileged in their minds. Labor wants to give them more money so they get better. But Labor still wants to apply market principles and punish them somehow for underachieving. Small signals, like fines, are not possible. They are therefore forced into severe measures that cannot be measured in dollars, like sacking the teachers, principles or closing or merging the school with another.

This is utterly perverse. Sacking teachers in underperforming schools is punishing the very people who are helping the most. Teachers are by and large an altruistic breed to who do it mainly for the love, cause it sure ain't for the money. Teachers choose to work in these underprivaged schools knowing that the results are not going to be good, because they want them to be a little better. This dedication cannot be measured on a bureaucrat's chart.

Some schools will be better than others. It will always be thus. You cannot punish them by sacking the principles and or drive the into non-existence by closing them and merging them with other schools. You can leave the teachers to do their jobs properly, rather than burden them with paperwork.

I sounds like i'm in the pay of the teachers unions here, whereas i actually consider them public enemy number one for creating a culture in schools that teaches kids that competition is evil (see below). Some conservatives are happy with the way Rudd is taking on the teachers unions. I of all people would love to see those Lefties humbled, but introducing these performance measures will merely move power from one public sector union to another, that of the bureaucrats. Labor is in the pocket of both of them, and any reform they introduce will be implemented by these unions and end up strengthening them and entrenching their power.

So do i like teachers or hate them? I like teachers, but hate their union. It's complicated. Let me give you some background. I used to think performance pay for teachers was a good idea because I thought it would reverse the Lefty influence of the teacher's union and encourage a culture of competition in schools between teachers, which would flow on to the students. But I went off it once i did some research that led me to the same conclusion as Ergas: It's an unproductive waste of time, at least in the way we currently think about it. The only way to monitor teacher and school performance in my view is to measure the intangibles with school inspectors that visit the school. Their gut instinct would substitute for alot of statistics. I know these people are bureaucrats, but they are bureaucrats that once worked as teachers and know what it's like on the ground. Plus they monitor things up close, not from a distance.

As Ergas says, for as long as state schools exist their performance does have to be measured and bureaucrats must have some power. It's a question of how much power and how effective it is in getting the results PARENTS actually want. Like me, Ergas does not outright oppose bureaucratic control but he says that unless there is also real competition between schools, that is parents/consumers can choose their kids school, AND THE MONEY THE SCHOOL MAKES IS TIED TO THAT CHOICE then school standards will not improve. Indeed they may well get worse as the bureaucrats' power increases.

Rudd, the incurable bureaucrat and Hayek-denier, will never admit to any of the flaws in his scheme and will take us down the failed British New Labor path in this country if he is not confronted. I caution other conservatives in their support of him on this issue.


ASIDE: I gotta ask aswell why there is so much emphasis on the needs of the under-performers in education? I think the real problem is that the real high-performers have nowhere to go. They are not encouraged to think of themselves as leaders, and they flounder and develop drug addictions from the sheer boredom. If these bright kids were truly rewarded for their achievement by encouraging them to lead then the other kids would have someone to look up to, to emulate - heroes, mentors whatever you wanna call it. Some people's stomachs turn at the idea of anyone looking up to or emulating anyone else, but we all do it and if we dont put the bright kids up the top the the other kids will just emulate the drug-dealers and no-goodniks. Who can blame them? At least those characters have balls.

Putting most of the attention/praise on the well-behaved child is a well understood concept in parenting. If you spend all your time trying to correct the problem child, and ignore the well behaved one, you inadvertently encourage bad behaviour. Why has this concept never escaped the family and gone out into the wider world? Still more proof that parents should be in charge of education.