Rudd has found the money he needs to get his $18b surplus. He's going to get it by renegging on tax cuts as I predicted only yesterday, but not the tax cuts he promised, he'll be axing tax-cuts by another name.
That other name is 'middle class welfare'. That sounds yucky doesn't it? Those aweful middle class people taking money that should go to poor people.
The purported target of the tax-cut-cuts is Family Tax Benefit B. It's currently not means tested, so relatively well-off parents can claim it. The plan is to introduce means testing and thereby avoid paying to people who earn more than a certain amount (probably not much) .
Rudd does not have the courage to say so himself, but has spread the rumour and allowed economic experts to speculate and defend the cuts ahead of time. Oddly enough the experts are the same group, ACCESS economics, quoted in the blog linked above. I wonder how much what their cut of the 'welfare' will be.
Notice how Howard called this payment Family Tax Benefit. That's because it's not welfare, it's giving tax back.
The problem with the term 'middle class welfare' is that the middle class earned the money in the first place, then had it taken away from them in tax. So-called 'Middle class welfare' was just John Howard's way of cutting tax to the people that earned it. As i've said before, welfare is giving money to people who have not earned it. Tax benefits are giving money back to the people who did earn it. Big difference.
But Labor talks about 'Middle class welfare' to make it sound like there is no difference. The money never belongs to you, it belongs to the government. If they let you have some of it you should be grateful, but if they choose to spend on poor people's welfare (either as direct welfare payments or in other ways which enhance their general 'welfare') then that's up to them. You are bad person if you claim to own your own money. All property is theft. You are acting in a selfish capitalist way, but the government acts on behalf of the community. This sounds not unlike like something Lenin would say with all his 'dictatorship of the proletariat' bollocks.
Whatever the spin, the upshot of means testing Family Tax Benefit B is that money will be taken off the middle class in ways that they were not told about before the election. I told you Rudd was hammering the inflation message hard for a reason. There will be a big backlash from mums and dads that were previously getting their tax back. Many middle class parents voted for Rudd because he banged the family drum and made them feel secure.
Rudd specifially targeted well-off middle class parents during the campaign with promises like tax-deductable child care. Tax-deductable child care is well known to benefit well off families more than poor ones.
Why should these families not get a tax break if they choose to stay home and look after their children? It's almost like Rudd wants parents to surrender their kids over to the new wave on indoctinated child-care workers in the first wave of the 'education revolution'. Almost? Who am i kidding? He's a Maoist commie and no foolin'
How many times did he say 'working families' during the compaign? Dont forget to add on the number of times the ACTU said it on their adds. A million times here, a billion times there and pretty soon you're talking real propaganda - all of it false it now becomes clear. Every one of the families he is taking money away from will have at least one member in work. Truth be told Rudd is looking after non-working families not working ones.
They've been conned by Rudd and they are about to get ripped-off by Rudd but I have to admit that at this point I don't have alot of sympathy for middle-class parents. Alot of them voted for Rudd because they fell for the spin i'm trying to expose. They are about to get what they deserve. This cut of the tax-benefit is just the start.
If you want to keep your money and defend the family unit, vote for a conservative. The conservatives are not in the ALP. It's pretty simple really. You'll know for next time, guys.
I accept that John Howard is partly to blame for this tax-cut-cut that will now take place, but only to the extent he was not conservative enough. If he simply cut tax and did not go all Nanny state and tie tax cuts to having to bear children first then he could have forced the ALP to admit a tax-increase was a tax-increase. This is my only regret about the Howard years: that we did not become a proper low-tax economy. He and Costello did the best they could at the end by slashing tax during the campaign and forcing Rudd to to the same, but Rudd is able to weazel out of some of it now. Still, Howard probably did everything that was politically possible. He started us on the low tax path and Rudd can't turn that juggernaut around, just slow it down.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
What's so great about budget surpluses anyway?
Rudd wants an 18b surplus to 'fight inflation'.
I'm all for razor gangs and cutting government spending, but why is it so good that the government takes more money out of the economy than it needs? Surely a balanced budget is the way to go, in good times and bad.
They say we need to run deficits in bad times and surpluses in good, to smooth the economic cycle. I don't buy it.
I dont believe taking money out of the economy during a boom helps the boom, it stifles growth and restrains capacity. I dont believe the surpluses are being safely locked away in good times for a future government to spend on building dams when the next downturn comes stimulate the economy.
I don't accept this interventionist model. I want free markets with the govt doing less, all the time.
Most of all I want my money back!
Rudd is using inflation as an excuse not to cut tax. How on earth is he going to deliver all these tax cuts and get his surplus?
How on earth is he going to cut the public service and maintain support of the huge public sector unions?
He can't do all this. Chairman Rudd might wish he was the leader of a communist dictatorship, but he does not have the power to do this in reality.
Why on earth does he not just deliver the budget, rather than make outlandish promise months ahead of time?
I'll tell you why, because he expects alot of opposition to what he's about to do and he's trying to drill in the message of inflation first. He's expecting politcal flak from renegging on election promises like tax cuts and the so-called education revolution.
If he delivers his tax cuts, great. If he cuts the public service, great. But we will need to maintain the pressure and the scrutiny all the way to make sure this happens. He is trying to shift the public mood so that they think the and the economy are better off without tax cuts.
As another indicator of how full of shit Rudd is. A whopping surplus is the key part of Rudd's inflation right (he hopes), but he attacks Howard for fueling inflation. If budget surplus were the key to stopping inflation, then the Howard governments efforts against inflation would be the greatest any government has ever made in any country at and time. When else have so many surpluses existed in a row?
I still don't believe in surpluses. And i dont believe they are the reason why inflation is still amazingly low given our extended period of growth. The reason was the Howard Govt's economic reforms, of which IR reform was a central part. If Rudd wanted to tackle inflation for real he would leave them in place.
I'm all for razor gangs and cutting government spending, but why is it so good that the government takes more money out of the economy than it needs? Surely a balanced budget is the way to go, in good times and bad.
They say we need to run deficits in bad times and surpluses in good, to smooth the economic cycle. I don't buy it.
I dont believe taking money out of the economy during a boom helps the boom, it stifles growth and restrains capacity. I dont believe the surpluses are being safely locked away in good times for a future government to spend on building dams when the next downturn comes stimulate the economy.
I don't accept this interventionist model. I want free markets with the govt doing less, all the time.
Most of all I want my money back!
Rudd is using inflation as an excuse not to cut tax. How on earth is he going to deliver all these tax cuts and get his surplus?
How on earth is he going to cut the public service and maintain support of the huge public sector unions?
He can't do all this. Chairman Rudd might wish he was the leader of a communist dictatorship, but he does not have the power to do this in reality.
Why on earth does he not just deliver the budget, rather than make outlandish promise months ahead of time?
I'll tell you why, because he expects alot of opposition to what he's about to do and he's trying to drill in the message of inflation first. He's expecting politcal flak from renegging on election promises like tax cuts and the so-called education revolution.
If he delivers his tax cuts, great. If he cuts the public service, great. But we will need to maintain the pressure and the scrutiny all the way to make sure this happens. He is trying to shift the public mood so that they think the and the economy are better off without tax cuts.
As another indicator of how full of shit Rudd is. A whopping surplus is the key part of Rudd's inflation right (he hopes), but he attacks Howard for fueling inflation. If budget surplus were the key to stopping inflation, then the Howard governments efforts against inflation would be the greatest any government has ever made in any country at and time. When else have so many surpluses existed in a row?
I still don't believe in surpluses. And i dont believe they are the reason why inflation is still amazingly low given our extended period of growth. The reason was the Howard Govt's economic reforms, of which IR reform was a central part. If Rudd wanted to tackle inflation for real he would leave them in place.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Labor Busted over Boom
Rudd is trying to free-up interstate migration so that people will move to WA and QLD and work in the mines. He is telling the states to harmonise skills training and reduce stamp duty.
The big headline in the Weekend OZ is Rudd's 'reforms to extend boom'.
Did you see what they did with the headline there? They (Rudd and the OZ) are re-enforcing the message that the mining boom will end, the message the used to attack Howard for economic complacency, but at the same time they are acknowledging that it's a good thing for the country and they are dutifully extending it. Both halves of this message are pure bullshit.
The mining boom is not going to end. Not soon. Not ever. Australia is one big mine the size of a continent. The demand for our resources is only going to increase internationally as living standards in third world nations continue to rise. That fact that the mining boom refuses to do what the ALP wants, and end, is causing the ALP problems (and not just with their credibilty).
The problem for the ALP, and their real motivation for these 'reforms', is that labour market restrictions in the booming mining sector are threatening to increase wages and inflation beyond sustainable levels, thus forcing the RBA to increase interest rates. This wont end the mining boom, but it will end the economic boom we were enjoying under howard, and the boom in ALP support at present.
To that end Rudd is tryng to free-up interstate migration so that people will move to WA and QLD and work in the mines. He's called on the states to decrease stamp duty. I think stamp duty is a sin, but I have two problems with this policy: The states wont do it without demanding cash from somewhere else, and stamp duty is not significant compared to the pay-increase you get working in the mines.
Either you are gonna to the mines, or you're not.
The big thing keeping people in unproductive jobs is other states is that they ARE PAID TO MUCH TO SIT ON THEIR ARSES BACK HOME. They are in highly unionized workplaces, or sitting on the dole.
People don't want to work in the mines because they dont want to work.
If the stranglehold of the unions on building sites and other manual trade areas was loosened, pay would go back to market rates. Then there would be some incentive to get off your arse and earn a better living in a sector that actually contributed to the economy in proportion to the costs involved.
I'm sick of people cruising out of school at year 10, refusing to use their brain their whole lives and still expecting to live like kings. Fuck you you lazy shits!
If you want to earn big bickies working with your hands go and work 12 hour shifts in the middle of the desert. Move more than 5 kms from the beach you bums!
This will of course never happen under the ALP, because these unionist blue collar bozos are running the country again. Well not really. They never run anything really. They just intimidate the brain-workers who are smart enough the manage all the variables into throwing them a bigger bone. Without university trained managers, engineers, marketing staff etc to run the show for them these slobs would have jobs at all.
Call me elitist. Whatever. I dont care. I'm a democrat, I know that much. Everyone should vote and be equal before the law. Countries are way more stable, livable and less currupt that way. In that abstract sense people are equal, but i dont pretend that we are all as smart as each other. That is an egalitarian lie.
We all have our ways of contributing (those that choose to contribute, that is). Everyone's contribution is valued. The main way this is valued is measured in dollars. Some contributions are more valuable than others. That's just the way it is. I dare anyone out there to deny it.
The economic systems that have a future are the ones where people get paid according to the free market value of their contribution. That is not 'economic extremism'. That is the definition of fairness - ie you get what you deserve.
Fairness is equity. What the ALP wants is equality - of pay. That is socialism: a 19th century idea, tried and tested and rejected in the 20th century. It's a new century, ALP. We all need to lose the shoulder chip, get off our butts and do some work.
While these policies to 'extend the mining boom' are laudable as individual policies, the motives given are bullshit and they wont make any difference to the labour shortage in the mining sector. Labour market tightening will remain until someone has the courage to continue with Howards IR reform agenda. The ALP we fiddle at the edges but as trade unionists they will never fix the problem.,
The big headline in the Weekend OZ is Rudd's 'reforms to extend boom'.
Did you see what they did with the headline there? They (Rudd and the OZ) are re-enforcing the message that the mining boom will end, the message the used to attack Howard for economic complacency, but at the same time they are acknowledging that it's a good thing for the country and they are dutifully extending it. Both halves of this message are pure bullshit.
The mining boom is not going to end. Not soon. Not ever. Australia is one big mine the size of a continent. The demand for our resources is only going to increase internationally as living standards in third world nations continue to rise. That fact that the mining boom refuses to do what the ALP wants, and end, is causing the ALP problems (and not just with their credibilty).
The problem for the ALP, and their real motivation for these 'reforms', is that labour market restrictions in the booming mining sector are threatening to increase wages and inflation beyond sustainable levels, thus forcing the RBA to increase interest rates. This wont end the mining boom, but it will end the economic boom we were enjoying under howard, and the boom in ALP support at present.
To that end Rudd is tryng to free-up interstate migration so that people will move to WA and QLD and work in the mines. He's called on the states to decrease stamp duty. I think stamp duty is a sin, but I have two problems with this policy: The states wont do it without demanding cash from somewhere else, and stamp duty is not significant compared to the pay-increase you get working in the mines.
Either you are gonna to the mines, or you're not.
The big thing keeping people in unproductive jobs is other states is that they ARE PAID TO MUCH TO SIT ON THEIR ARSES BACK HOME. They are in highly unionized workplaces, or sitting on the dole.
People don't want to work in the mines because they dont want to work.
If the stranglehold of the unions on building sites and other manual trade areas was loosened, pay would go back to market rates. Then there would be some incentive to get off your arse and earn a better living in a sector that actually contributed to the economy in proportion to the costs involved.
I'm sick of people cruising out of school at year 10, refusing to use their brain their whole lives and still expecting to live like kings. Fuck you you lazy shits!
If you want to earn big bickies working with your hands go and work 12 hour shifts in the middle of the desert. Move more than 5 kms from the beach you bums!
This will of course never happen under the ALP, because these unionist blue collar bozos are running the country again. Well not really. They never run anything really. They just intimidate the brain-workers who are smart enough the manage all the variables into throwing them a bigger bone. Without university trained managers, engineers, marketing staff etc to run the show for them these slobs would have jobs at all.
Call me elitist. Whatever. I dont care. I'm a democrat, I know that much. Everyone should vote and be equal before the law. Countries are way more stable, livable and less currupt that way. In that abstract sense people are equal, but i dont pretend that we are all as smart as each other. That is an egalitarian lie.
We all have our ways of contributing (those that choose to contribute, that is). Everyone's contribution is valued. The main way this is valued is measured in dollars. Some contributions are more valuable than others. That's just the way it is. I dare anyone out there to deny it.
The economic systems that have a future are the ones where people get paid according to the free market value of their contribution. That is not 'economic extremism'. That is the definition of fairness - ie you get what you deserve.
Fairness is equity. What the ALP wants is equality - of pay. That is socialism: a 19th century idea, tried and tested and rejected in the 20th century. It's a new century, ALP. We all need to lose the shoulder chip, get off our butts and do some work.
While these policies to 'extend the mining boom' are laudable as individual policies, the motives given are bullshit and they wont make any difference to the labour shortage in the mining sector. Labour market tightening will remain until someone has the courage to continue with Howards IR reform agenda. The ALP we fiddle at the edges but as trade unionists they will never fix the problem.,
Rudd's commie diplomacy
The Rudd Labor govt's three diplomatic moves so far all have one thing in common: they suck up to China.
1. No targets, not even aspirational ones for 'developing' countries under the new Kyoto
2. Attacking Japansese whaling with Aust govt vessels
3. Stopping uranium sales to India
You can expect this pattern to be maintaned. Chairman Rudd is in the
process of selling us out.
I know Rudd has alot in common with bureaucratic communists, but this nation does not need to go the way of China.
China is not a democracy. They are our our trading partner not our ally.
(this was orginally cast as a comment on Peirs Akeman's peice on uranium sales to India at news.com.au. He's got a good one on whaling too.
1. No targets, not even aspirational ones for 'developing' countries under the new Kyoto
2. Attacking Japansese whaling with Aust govt vessels
3. Stopping uranium sales to India
You can expect this pattern to be maintaned. Chairman Rudd is in the
process of selling us out.
I know Rudd has alot in common with bureaucratic communists, but this nation does not need to go the way of China.
China is not a democracy. They are our our trading partner not our ally.
(this was orginally cast as a comment on Peirs Akeman's peice on uranium sales to India at news.com.au. He's got a good one on whaling too.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Rudd's top-priority: Political speed-dating
Rudd obviously wants some more attention, so he's taking his cabinet on a tour of the country on a series of meet-the-people forums.
Of course the people will be hand picked by Rudd's team.
He's going to kick off the forums with an hour long Q&A session. Then he's there will be ono-on-one sessions available with each of the cabinet ministers, 6-a-piece lasting 10 miniutes each.
I know 10 minute private sessions are a regular thing between labor ministers and trade unionists around the country but there's no need to drag the rest of the country into this atmosphere of sleaze. (was that a double-entendre or not? keep 'em guessing)
Rudd, you've won the election already. The campaign is over. Why dont you stop calling focus groups and implement some of your ideas of how the country should be run?
Oh, Right. You dont have any.
So much for New Leadership.
Of course the people will be hand picked by Rudd's team.
He's going to kick off the forums with an hour long Q&A session. Then he's there will be ono-on-one sessions available with each of the cabinet ministers, 6-a-piece lasting 10 miniutes each.
I know 10 minute private sessions are a regular thing between labor ministers and trade unionists around the country but there's no need to drag the rest of the country into this atmosphere of sleaze. (was that a double-entendre or not? keep 'em guessing)
Rudd, you've won the election already. The campaign is over. Why dont you stop calling focus groups and implement some of your ideas of how the country should be run?
Oh, Right. You dont have any.
So much for New Leadership.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
World War 2.1
Article in the smh from Minoru Morimoto (san), Japan's commisioner to the Internation Whaling Commission.
quoting...
There are enough whales for both those that want to watch them and those who want to eat them.
I fully respect the right of Australians to oppose whaling for some "cuddly" reasons, but this does not give them the right to coerce others to end a perfectly legal and culturally significant activity that poses no threat to the species concerned.
Now that's a put down.
Basically his position is that whales are not people. We don't protect other animals that are not endangered. We can't consistently kill roos on farms and allow indigenous Aussies to hunt Dugong and tell Japan they can't hunt whales, as long as there are enough whales to hunt.
Japan reckons they are researching whales so that they can one-day re-commence commercial whaling and have a good idea of the stocks before they do so, and the amount of meat on any given animal too I guess. They may eat the results, but according to them the research is needed and sanctioned under international law.
I personally dont cry for the whales, but I don't want engangered species driven to extinction. My problem is that this just seems to be ganging up on Japan, an ally. We dont here Rudd telling off China for doing exactly this to their River Dolphin.
Rudd is supposed to be an ex-diplomat but he is potentially going to cause the biggest rift between between Aus and Japan since WWII. Either he his extremely clumsy and diplomatically inept, or he is doing it on purpose. I get the feeling that either Rudd is deliberately pissing Japan off to get in China's good books. Maybe appeasing the greenies at home is sufficient motivation for what he has done but it did not need to be handled by the RAN in a way that looked like and act of war.
And what of the RAN? Two protest vessels have found the Japanese whaling ship to date. One even managed to send two crew-members to board it and get captured. Why not the Australian Navy? Apparently Greenpeace have been tailing the Japanese form weeks and radioing back the coordinates to The RAN (read about this on monday in the OZ, can't find the link now). My friends and I have a theory that the RAN is 'losing' the coordinates on purpse and telling Rudd, "Sorry Sir can't find 'em. The dog must have eaten it". I'd say the RAN desperately want to avoid attacking a vessel from a country they do naval excercises with. Perhaps also the proud sailors of the RAN also dont take kindly to being relegated to the role of spies. They dont get paid to take pictures.
Japan and Australia, two powerful Pacific democracie's militray co-operation came to a zenith under Howard. We just signed a new treaty. Aussie troops are/were protecting Japanese engineering soldiers in Iraq.
Rudd's not a diplomat, he's a bureacrat.
quoting...
There are enough whales for both those that want to watch them and those who want to eat them.
I fully respect the right of Australians to oppose whaling for some "cuddly" reasons, but this does not give them the right to coerce others to end a perfectly legal and culturally significant activity that poses no threat to the species concerned.
Now that's a put down.
Basically his position is that whales are not people. We don't protect other animals that are not endangered. We can't consistently kill roos on farms and allow indigenous Aussies to hunt Dugong and tell Japan they can't hunt whales, as long as there are enough whales to hunt.
Japan reckons they are researching whales so that they can one-day re-commence commercial whaling and have a good idea of the stocks before they do so, and the amount of meat on any given animal too I guess. They may eat the results, but according to them the research is needed and sanctioned under international law.
I personally dont cry for the whales, but I don't want engangered species driven to extinction. My problem is that this just seems to be ganging up on Japan, an ally. We dont here Rudd telling off China for doing exactly this to their River Dolphin.
Rudd is supposed to be an ex-diplomat but he is potentially going to cause the biggest rift between between Aus and Japan since WWII. Either he his extremely clumsy and diplomatically inept, or he is doing it on purpose. I get the feeling that either Rudd is deliberately pissing Japan off to get in China's good books. Maybe appeasing the greenies at home is sufficient motivation for what he has done but it did not need to be handled by the RAN in a way that looked like and act of war.
And what of the RAN? Two protest vessels have found the Japanese whaling ship to date. One even managed to send two crew-members to board it and get captured. Why not the Australian Navy? Apparently Greenpeace have been tailing the Japanese form weeks and radioing back the coordinates to The RAN (read about this on monday in the OZ, can't find the link now). My friends and I have a theory that the RAN is 'losing' the coordinates on purpse and telling Rudd, "Sorry Sir can't find 'em. The dog must have eaten it". I'd say the RAN desperately want to avoid attacking a vessel from a country they do naval excercises with. Perhaps also the proud sailors of the RAN also dont take kindly to being relegated to the role of spies. They dont get paid to take pictures.
Japan and Australia, two powerful Pacific democracie's militray co-operation came to a zenith under Howard. We just signed a new treaty. Aussie troops are/were protecting Japanese engineering soldiers in Iraq.
Rudd's not a diplomat, he's a bureacrat.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Regulation increases competition : Swan
Treasurer Wayne Swan is not thinking of outlawing exit fees from mortguages to allow people to switch banks more easily. (can't find the link to this story but it was in the OZ)
Labor's answer is always ONE MORE LAW.
It's called a FREE market for a reason you moron, Swan.
What is this guy on? The is a dead set socialist and he's in charge of the economy.
As it happens fees to transfer mortguages are pretty low, compared to the the interest bill, and mortguages can be transferred pretty easily already. This is just another pointless noise and goes further to revealing how powerless Rudd and swan are to do anything about interest rates in the short term (as was Howard).
In the long term they have the power to increase it hugely, by elevating the power of the unions and increasing wage demands and inflation.
As any idiot knows, the biggest capacity constraing in the unemployment rate. Infrastructure spending will never offset this.
Labor's answer is always ONE MORE LAW.
It's called a FREE market for a reason you moron, Swan.
What is this guy on? The is a dead set socialist and he's in charge of the economy.
As it happens fees to transfer mortguages are pretty low, compared to the the interest bill, and mortguages can be transferred pretty easily already. This is just another pointless noise and goes further to revealing how powerless Rudd and swan are to do anything about interest rates in the short term (as was Howard).
In the long term they have the power to increase it hugely, by elevating the power of the unions and increasing wage demands and inflation.
As any idiot knows, the biggest capacity constraing in the unemployment rate. Infrastructure spending will never offset this.
Monday, January 14, 2008
"Best Party Ever"
We've all heard of the mental house party in Melbourne that supposedly necessitated a visit from numorous police cars and the dog squad.
I just love the kid's total lack of repentance.
The press have tried to turn him into public enemy number one, his parents are tried to scold him VIA the media, the cops are threatening to charge him for the deployment that probably sparked the mini-riot rather than responded to it.
The kid knows that he has not broken the law and that unless someone can charge him with a crime they can't charge him any cash, and even then they can't without charging peadophiles and murderers (real crims) for room and board during their jail terms.
There is only one consequence for this kid, he is going to get off with every girl at his school, and all the schools in the surrounding area, hell! the state! - probably at the same time. The more the press go for him the more the chicks will love his arse.
Good on ya, son. You're courage in the face of herd intimidation is an example to every kid in the country, and every adult.
I love Gen-Y.
But, I have to say, as a Gen-X lad my mates and I chucked a party in Perth once that was busted up by 13 cop cars and a helicopter! Our band played. It was awesome. If you want an accurate discription of what happened read David Lee Roth's autobiography 'Crazy from the Heat'. He and Van Halen did all the same shit in the 70's.
I just love the kid's total lack of repentance.
The press have tried to turn him into public enemy number one, his parents are tried to scold him VIA the media, the cops are threatening to charge him for the deployment that probably sparked the mini-riot rather than responded to it.
The kid knows that he has not broken the law and that unless someone can charge him with a crime they can't charge him any cash, and even then they can't without charging peadophiles and murderers (real crims) for room and board during their jail terms.
There is only one consequence for this kid, he is going to get off with every girl at his school, and all the schools in the surrounding area, hell! the state! - probably at the same time. The more the press go for him the more the chicks will love his arse.
Good on ya, son. You're courage in the face of herd intimidation is an example to every kid in the country, and every adult.
I love Gen-Y.
But, I have to say, as a Gen-X lad my mates and I chucked a party in Perth once that was busted up by 13 cop cars and a helicopter! Our band played. It was awesome. If you want an accurate discription of what happened read David Lee Roth's autobiography 'Crazy from the Heat'. He and Van Halen did all the same shit in the 70's.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Labor tackles the big issues, like plastic bags
We all re-use the plastic bags in supermarkets to hold anything from garbage and dirty laundry to even recycled aluminium cans, but to labor they are a symbol of evil capitalist decadence and they must be banned.
I presume the aim of this new law is to reduce the number of plastic bags that get caught in our waterways and suffocate our platypus population. Labor could address this in another way, say by enforcing laws that are already in place but getting broken, but that would mean punishing crims whom labor instictively sympathise and identify with. They see themselves as little Ches or Ned Kellys fighting the 'system'.
Laws are not meant to be enforced, say Labor, only introduced and boasted about. Labor hopes people will obey them out of the goodness of their hearts. That's why the only laws they ever seem to introduce are targeted at law-abiding people.
This policy suits Labor down to the ground: it's a gesture that rings well with morons, it's patronising, it removes yet another freedom and it will have little or no net effect so you can't tell it if worked - they can claim credit for introducing it but avoid blame when nothing improves.
After all people can get plastic bags from sources other than supermarkets with which to suffocate platypuses (or platypi?)
Garrett: "We need to trade convenience for caring. Everybody, group hug."
I presume the aim of this new law is to reduce the number of plastic bags that get caught in our waterways and suffocate our platypus population. Labor could address this in another way, say by enforcing laws that are already in place but getting broken, but that would mean punishing crims whom labor instictively sympathise and identify with. They see themselves as little Ches or Ned Kellys fighting the 'system'.
Laws are not meant to be enforced, say Labor, only introduced and boasted about. Labor hopes people will obey them out of the goodness of their hearts. That's why the only laws they ever seem to introduce are targeted at law-abiding people.
This policy suits Labor down to the ground: it's a gesture that rings well with morons, it's patronising, it removes yet another freedom and it will have little or no net effect so you can't tell it if worked - they can claim credit for introducing it but avoid blame when nothing improves.
After all people can get plastic bags from sources other than supermarkets with which to suffocate platypuses (or platypi?)
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Rudd removes Patriotism, Gratitude and Pride from the school syllabus
Predictably the Howard model of teaching history, which gives European settlement some credit for creating the Utopia we now enjoy, has been dropped from the national curriculum.
Next he'll be dropping English. Hey it's a second language for some, why force it on people?
The heroic narrative from Blaney et al will no longer be compulsary. BTW the heroic narrative was never tha whole syllabus under Howard, other sides were explored, but the overall thrust was that we Aussies are the good guys not the bad guys, and we should be proud of what we've done, not ashamed.
The states will get a list of recommendations about teaching history instead, which is bound not to have any positve statements about everything we have achieved, and lots of shame-laden revisionism that provokes every enquiring mind into feelings of crippling guilt.
That way the bright kids wont demand a brighter future. They wont be motivated to work hard, thereby they wont set a bad example. The ALP want us all to be lazy. They can't have bright, enquiring proud young Australians making the rest look like slackers. This is a holiday home for blue collar bozos again, "as it should be".
"Put that history book away son. You're getting to big for your boots. There's nothing out there worth fighting for. Just grab another tinnie and sit here on the couch next to me.
What? Don't you wanna do fuck all your whole life?
Some Australian you turned out to be."
Next he'll be dropping English. Hey it's a second language for some, why force it on people?
The heroic narrative from Blaney et al will no longer be compulsary. BTW the heroic narrative was never tha whole syllabus under Howard, other sides were explored, but the overall thrust was that we Aussies are the good guys not the bad guys, and we should be proud of what we've done, not ashamed.
The states will get a list of recommendations about teaching history instead, which is bound not to have any positve statements about everything we have achieved, and lots of shame-laden revisionism that provokes every enquiring mind into feelings of crippling guilt.
That way the bright kids wont demand a brighter future. They wont be motivated to work hard, thereby they wont set a bad example. The ALP want us all to be lazy. They can't have bright, enquiring proud young Australians making the rest look like slackers. This is a holiday home for blue collar bozos again, "as it should be".
"Put that history book away son. You're getting to big for your boots. There's nothing out there worth fighting for. Just grab another tinnie and sit here on the couch next to me.
What? Don't you wanna do fuck all your whole life?
Some Australian you turned out to be."
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Rudd's free speech farce
Rudd is removing so called gag clauses in contracts for non-profit organisations bidding for govt funds. This is apparently going to help freedom of speech which was so eroded during the Howard years, or so they would have us believe.
In reality this is a difference that makes no difference. There is always a way to shut up a charity: stop giving them charity. There is no law to say we have to donate, so ultimately the person with the money (Rudd in this case) has the power.
The clauses in the contract merely stipulate that penalties will be incurred during the course of the contract, not at it's end. If a charity is attacking govt policies then the government, whether Howard's or Rudd's, can, and presumably will, simply not renew the contract when it runs out. (I am assuming here that Rudd will apply the same principle to charities as he did with civil servants during his time in QLD: put them in the dog house). All this clause does is bring the inevitable consequences of biting the hand that feeds forward, so that we dont have to wait for the contract to run it's coarse before giving it to someone else.
Removing these clauses is nothing but a gesture that will not free anyone up to say anything they otherwise would not have said. Rudd still had the money and is merciless with dissenters.
In the clause's defense, it is not an attack on freedom of speech, it's an attack on hypocrisy necessitated in a climate of moral manipulation in the media. Most not-for-profit organisations will be creatures of the left (they are not-for-profit after all). They would have been much more likely to attack a conservative government than a socialist one (dispite Rudd's noises we know his govt is of the latter persuasion). Howard could have stopped given to charities all together, but he's a nice guy, so instead he gave them the money they wanted and asked them nicely not to return the favour by bad-mouthing him in the press.
Paradoxically, these "gag clauses" actually increase freedom of speech because the power relationship between the donator and the beneficiary of charity is written down and exposed for all to see. The Right are much more transparent in these regards because they can admit to themselves, and others, that power relationships actually exist. Socialists like Rudd on the other hand always claim to be wielding power on behalf of some oppressed minority. They like to pretend it's not really power at all, but moral authority invested in them to dispense summary justice. 'Right is Might', you might say.
By contrast a conservative admits there is dissent. We do not pretend it's just confusion. We do not assume re-education will bring opponents on the the 'right' path. We do however reserve the right openly and honestly to dissagree, and if we have the power, to do otherwise without apology. A conservative listens to the arguments and decides. Socialists force people into a false unanimity and only then have the courage to act.
No removal of a puny punitive clause can convince me that Rudd is the friend of free speech, or that Howard was its enemy. We all know Howard's huge contribution to freedom of speech was cultural not legal. He lifted Australians out of their haze of self-censorship. We now say what we think without checking to see if our mates, or the media, approve of it first.
Well, more often anyway.
In reality this is a difference that makes no difference. There is always a way to shut up a charity: stop giving them charity. There is no law to say we have to donate, so ultimately the person with the money (Rudd in this case) has the power.
The clauses in the contract merely stipulate that penalties will be incurred during the course of the contract, not at it's end. If a charity is attacking govt policies then the government, whether Howard's or Rudd's, can, and presumably will, simply not renew the contract when it runs out. (I am assuming here that Rudd will apply the same principle to charities as he did with civil servants during his time in QLD: put them in the dog house). All this clause does is bring the inevitable consequences of biting the hand that feeds forward, so that we dont have to wait for the contract to run it's coarse before giving it to someone else.
Removing these clauses is nothing but a gesture that will not free anyone up to say anything they otherwise would not have said. Rudd still had the money and is merciless with dissenters.
In the clause's defense, it is not an attack on freedom of speech, it's an attack on hypocrisy necessitated in a climate of moral manipulation in the media. Most not-for-profit organisations will be creatures of the left (they are not-for-profit after all). They would have been much more likely to attack a conservative government than a socialist one (dispite Rudd's noises we know his govt is of the latter persuasion). Howard could have stopped given to charities all together, but he's a nice guy, so instead he gave them the money they wanted and asked them nicely not to return the favour by bad-mouthing him in the press.
Paradoxically, these "gag clauses" actually increase freedom of speech because the power relationship between the donator and the beneficiary of charity is written down and exposed for all to see. The Right are much more transparent in these regards because they can admit to themselves, and others, that power relationships actually exist. Socialists like Rudd on the other hand always claim to be wielding power on behalf of some oppressed minority. They like to pretend it's not really power at all, but moral authority invested in them to dispense summary justice. 'Right is Might', you might say.
By contrast a conservative admits there is dissent. We do not pretend it's just confusion. We do not assume re-education will bring opponents on the the 'right' path. We do however reserve the right openly and honestly to dissagree, and if we have the power, to do otherwise without apology. A conservative listens to the arguments and decides. Socialists force people into a false unanimity and only then have the courage to act.
No removal of a puny punitive clause can convince me that Rudd is the friend of free speech, or that Howard was its enemy. We all know Howard's huge contribution to freedom of speech was cultural not legal. He lifted Australians out of their haze of self-censorship. We now say what we think without checking to see if our mates, or the media, approve of it first.
Well, more often anyway.
fur is not murder, it's moral!
I enjoyed this piece on fur by Albrechsten where she tell how the fur industry in Canada has out-manouvred the guilt trips of the anti-fur lobby by claiming that fur is environmentally friendly.
Kill a mink. Save the planet
A synthetic jumper uses petrochemicals, a fur only kills lovable little animals. Petrochemicals will one day run out. Beavers are inexhaustable!
This has been the subject of alot of jokes in canada (see article).
What I find most humourous are the comments on the article where some morons tout their moral outrage at her choice of attire - janet bought a fur coat on a trip to canada - exhorting her to buy wool instead and stay put in oz to save greenhouse gasses.
Bait, hook, line and sinker.
(explanation of joke for lefty readers, skip if you get it: Can they not see it's their haste to condemn others as environmentally immoral and the blind fur-vour that has created that has left the public wide open to this sort of manipulation?)
Janet proves you can still make money in Australia winding up the left.
Divisive you say? I say that when the other side have warped instincts and cannot be convinced of the truth no matter how hard you try, then dividing and conquering is the best way to isolate them and expose their hypocrisy.
Lefties have created a cynical society where being the biggest smart-arse makes you the most popular. They should not be suprised when they are shat on by those with smarter arses than them.
They will complain, but as right-wingers we understand, that does not mean it's not fair.
Kill a mink. Save the planet
A synthetic jumper uses petrochemicals, a fur only kills lovable little animals. Petrochemicals will one day run out. Beavers are inexhaustable!
This has been the subject of alot of jokes in canada (see article).
What I find most humourous are the comments on the article where some morons tout their moral outrage at her choice of attire - janet bought a fur coat on a trip to canada - exhorting her to buy wool instead and stay put in oz to save greenhouse gasses.
Bait, hook, line and sinker.
(explanation of joke for lefty readers, skip if you get it: Can they not see it's their haste to condemn others as environmentally immoral and the blind fur-vour that has created that has left the public wide open to this sort of manipulation?)
Janet proves you can still make money in Australia winding up the left.
Divisive you say? I say that when the other side have warped instincts and cannot be convinced of the truth no matter how hard you try, then dividing and conquering is the best way to isolate them and expose their hypocrisy.
Lefties have created a cynical society where being the biggest smart-arse makes you the most popular. They should not be suprised when they are shat on by those with smarter arses than them.
They will complain, but as right-wingers we understand, that does not mean it's not fair.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
RBALP
More proof, if any were needed, that the RBA acted hastily and irresponsibly in putting up interest rates during election campaign.
They are not now expected to raise rates until August because of the credit squeeze initiated by the US sub-prime crisis. This crisis is old old news and happenned immidiately after the the second last rate rise by the RBA. It's likely affects should have been taken into account for about 6 months now.
But the RBA smuggly shrugged off any warnings of a threat to the economy from the US. Stubbonly arguing that Australia was immune to the US downturn. Do they believe we are more closely tied to China now? This sounds alot like the Rudd line to me. In any case this was and has been proved to be bullshit.
In the wake of the sub-prime crisis the RBA increased rates unnecessarily. They squeezed the banks who are now passing increased costs on to mums and dads. The chrissy presents were all bought on higher-interest credit cards this year because the money had already gone on the Mortgage.
I believe that the RBA are not independent but partisan, either that or grossly incompetant. They acted on behalf of the ALP to topple Howard.
Was Rudd complicit in this betrayal of his beloved 'working families'? Well let's not forget he rewarded the RBA with greater influence immediately after being elected. You decide
They are not now expected to raise rates until August because of the credit squeeze initiated by the US sub-prime crisis. This crisis is old old news and happenned immidiately after the the second last rate rise by the RBA. It's likely affects should have been taken into account for about 6 months now.
But the RBA smuggly shrugged off any warnings of a threat to the economy from the US. Stubbonly arguing that Australia was immune to the US downturn. Do they believe we are more closely tied to China now? This sounds alot like the Rudd line to me. In any case this was and has been proved to be bullshit.
In the wake of the sub-prime crisis the RBA increased rates unnecessarily. They squeezed the banks who are now passing increased costs on to mums and dads. The chrissy presents were all bought on higher-interest credit cards this year because the money had already gone on the Mortgage.
I believe that the RBA are not independent but partisan, either that or grossly incompetant. They acted on behalf of the ALP to topple Howard.
Was Rudd complicit in this betrayal of his beloved 'working families'? Well let's not forget he rewarded the RBA with greater influence immediately after being elected. You decide
They're Back!
Just another bit of news you might like to read about the unions getting their way under Rudd, who made such a song and dance about keeping them in check during the campaign.
Witness the exclusion of foreign ships - with foreign workers not loyal to (scared of) the Maritime Union - from running domestic routes in the country.
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese told The Australian last night: "This review will be about boosting Australia's international competitiveness and finding ways to increase coastal shipping's share of the domestic freight market."
Um, how is decreasing competition by regulating the market to exclude competators going to increase our competativeness? Does a sports team get more competative when they have no-one to play against? Not in this universe.
Labor is lying again, as they did all year, because they want to turn the country into a holiday home for layabouts and blue-collar bozos, and they want you to pay for it. They want to milk the Aussie taxpayer dry and live in the lazy manner to which they have become accustomed.
For those who still don't get it, the ALP and the union movement are one and the same thing. Rudd is not beholden to the unions. He IS the unions.
You've been conned.
SUCKERS!!!!!!
Witness the exclusion of foreign ships - with foreign workers not loyal to (scared of) the Maritime Union - from running domestic routes in the country.
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese told The Australian last night: "This review will be about boosting Australia's international competitiveness and finding ways to increase coastal shipping's share of the domestic freight market."
Um, how is decreasing competition by regulating the market to exclude competators going to increase our competativeness? Does a sports team get more competative when they have no-one to play against? Not in this universe.
Labor is lying again, as they did all year, because they want to turn the country into a holiday home for layabouts and blue-collar bozos, and they want you to pay for it. They want to milk the Aussie taxpayer dry and live in the lazy manner to which they have become accustomed.
For those who still don't get it, the ALP and the union movement are one and the same thing. Rudd is not beholden to the unions. He IS the unions.
You've been conned.
SUCKERS!!!!!!
The bureaucracy doing the bidding of the unions
Welcome to the future of Austrlian IR.
The unions are pushing their 19th century agenda with 21st century techniques.
They no longer send the boys round to the office, they send an army of bureaucrats for the workplace ombudsman to innundate you with red tape and requests for information, and waste you and you empoyee's time by contacting 19,000 of your staff.
That's what happenning to Telstra. According to the unions they coerced their employees into siging AWAs. In actual fact they offerred their employees huge cash incentives to sign, thereby by looking after their employees alot better than any union. But the unions are not about worker's rights. It's about maintaining, or rather re-gaining, control of the workplace so they can bury their noses in the trough.
Thank god, i mean Howard, that Telstra is run by an American. He wont have Australian management's inbred fear of the 'workers' (read: Union bosses who've never worked a day in their lives). Sol Trujillo will cooperate with the ombusman, and if taken to court will fight all the way.
Australian management should hang their heads in shame that they did not fund a bigger and better ad campaign against the unions. They are about to pay a huge price.
The unions are already getting their way in ways that decreas productivity and reduce our competativeness. See next blog item
The unions are pushing their 19th century agenda with 21st century techniques.
They no longer send the boys round to the office, they send an army of bureaucrats for the workplace ombudsman to innundate you with red tape and requests for information, and waste you and you empoyee's time by contacting 19,000 of your staff.
That's what happenning to Telstra. According to the unions they coerced their employees into siging AWAs. In actual fact they offerred their employees huge cash incentives to sign, thereby by looking after their employees alot better than any union. But the unions are not about worker's rights. It's about maintaining, or rather re-gaining, control of the workplace so they can bury their noses in the trough.
Thank god, i mean Howard, that Telstra is run by an American. He wont have Australian management's inbred fear of the 'workers' (read: Union bosses who've never worked a day in their lives). Sol Trujillo will cooperate with the ombusman, and if taken to court will fight all the way.
Australian management should hang their heads in shame that they did not fund a bigger and better ad campaign against the unions. They are about to pay a huge price.
The unions are already getting their way in ways that decreas productivity and reduce our competativeness. See next blog item
You have rights, but the goverment has the right to take away those rights if they feel like it
The legal system in Victoria has gone completely bonkers
The new Victorian charter of human rights clashes with the actions if the Victorian government. But that's OK, according to the Victorian government, because the rights are breached for the common good. Of course they, not you or anyone else get to decide what the common good is.
---quoting
According to other examples in the report, film classification laws were found to limit freedom of expression but were permissible for the protection of public morality and national security.
Issues were also raised with alcohol laws allowing people to be instantly banned from pubs or clubs for 24 hours for being drunk. But the Government deemed it necessary to achieve its aim of reducing drunkenness and violence.
Controversial rules aimed at preventing protests over channel deepening were found to limit people's rights to freedom of expression. In the Government's statement, the laws were justified on the basis that they allowed the dredging of Melbourne's main shipping channel to proceed and public safety to be enhanced.
------
That last one is a gas. How does dredgeing help public safety exactly? Presumably by increasing port traffic, thereby increasing tax revenues that the government will party spend on safety initiatives, but mostly on new unionist beurocrat appointments to oversee the smooth flowing of the new legislation.
Oh right. I was confused by a journalist again. They must mean the protesters endanger public safety. I guess that is true, we would not want hippies on the loose. But Labor could well approve of a union march against IR laws on the basis that it improves public safety. In that case most of the thugs in the state are kept busy for the afternoon and prevented from beating up their wives.
Getting off the track. The point is that surely a court should be deciding on the interpretation of two seemingly conflicting laws, not the legislature that makes those laws, or the executive the enacts them. Labor is just poo-pooing any clash between the two.
Surely this defeats the entire purpose of introducing the rights legislation in the first place. Why make a right into a law only to trample it? What is the point of a law if people can break it at will? The government are nominally governed by law. They should not be able to break or re-interpret the law as they see fit any more than you I can.
The rule of law curtailing the actions of the government is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. Labor fail to understand the very basics of democracy. Labor cannot be trusted with our rights.
This shambles is just another example of Labor clumsiness when it comes to the civil liberties. They are too herd-minded to handle the trade off bettween the 'common good' and the rights of the individual.
And Labor wants to introduce this model nationwide!!!
Thank heavens no-one can change the constitution without a referendum, accept activist lefty judges that is, who can change the way it is interpreted beyond recognition. These judicial idiots erode the primacy of written law at their peril and ours. their lucative jobs will lose their importance as they surrender power to the legislture and the executive, and we will lose our freedoms.
If the judges know what's good for them and us they will join again with the Liberal cause and fight for their central role in upholding the constitution and the laws of the land from clumsy do-gooding hoolums. It will make them a packet in the process. The 'human rights' legislation probably conflicts with the action of almost every law there is. They and the lawyers will be on what Tony Blair calls 'the gravy train of legal aid'.
The new Victorian charter of human rights clashes with the actions if the Victorian government. But that's OK, according to the Victorian government, because the rights are breached for the common good. Of course they, not you or anyone else get to decide what the common good is.
---quoting
According to other examples in the report, film classification laws were found to limit freedom of expression but were permissible for the protection of public morality and national security.
Issues were also raised with alcohol laws allowing people to be instantly banned from pubs or clubs for 24 hours for being drunk. But the Government deemed it necessary to achieve its aim of reducing drunkenness and violence.
Controversial rules aimed at preventing protests over channel deepening were found to limit people's rights to freedom of expression. In the Government's statement, the laws were justified on the basis that they allowed the dredging of Melbourne's main shipping channel to proceed and public safety to be enhanced.
------
That last one is a gas. How does dredgeing help public safety exactly? Presumably by increasing port traffic, thereby increasing tax revenues that the government will party spend on safety initiatives, but mostly on new unionist beurocrat appointments to oversee the smooth flowing of the new legislation.
Oh right. I was confused by a journalist again. They must mean the protesters endanger public safety. I guess that is true, we would not want hippies on the loose. But Labor could well approve of a union march against IR laws on the basis that it improves public safety. In that case most of the thugs in the state are kept busy for the afternoon and prevented from beating up their wives.
Getting off the track. The point is that surely a court should be deciding on the interpretation of two seemingly conflicting laws, not the legislature that makes those laws, or the executive the enacts them. Labor is just poo-pooing any clash between the two.
Surely this defeats the entire purpose of introducing the rights legislation in the first place. Why make a right into a law only to trample it? What is the point of a law if people can break it at will? The government are nominally governed by law. They should not be able to break or re-interpret the law as they see fit any more than you I can.
The rule of law curtailing the actions of the government is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. Labor fail to understand the very basics of democracy. Labor cannot be trusted with our rights.
This shambles is just another example of Labor clumsiness when it comes to the civil liberties. They are too herd-minded to handle the trade off bettween the 'common good' and the rights of the individual.
And Labor wants to introduce this model nationwide!!!
Thank heavens no-one can change the constitution without a referendum, accept activist lefty judges that is, who can change the way it is interpreted beyond recognition. These judicial idiots erode the primacy of written law at their peril and ours. their lucative jobs will lose their importance as they surrender power to the legislture and the executive, and we will lose our freedoms.
If the judges know what's good for them and us they will join again with the Liberal cause and fight for their central role in upholding the constitution and the laws of the land from clumsy do-gooding hoolums. It will make them a packet in the process. The 'human rights' legislation probably conflicts with the action of almost every law there is. They and the lawyers will be on what Tony Blair calls 'the gravy train of legal aid'.
Kulturkampf 1: rock against Rudd
The cultural war against socialist mind control has to start some time. You're not going to hear anything along these lines from Rage Against the Machine, so I guess it's up to us, and by 'us' I mean me.
So I've 'appropriated' some lyrics by Pink Floyd, and by 'Pink Floyd' I mean Roger Waters.
Imagine the sinister brooding minor riff and the melody to 'Another brick in the wall'....
When I went to school there were certain politicians
Who'd brainwash the children anyway they could
Pouring their supervision over everything we did
Exposing every divergent thought, however carefully hidden by the kid
But in Canberra it was well known
When Rudd got home at night
His fat and phycopathic wife
Would thrash him to within inches of his life
Ahhh Ahhh Ooohh Ahhhh
We don't need no Education Revolution
We don't need no thought control
No propaganda in the classroom
Labor leave those kids alone
HEY! LABOR! LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!
All in all your just another beurocrat at the union's beck and call
All in all your just another brick in the socialist's berlin wall
(repeat with cockney children's choir)
(solo)
---------
Pretty good huh? I might record it but that might get me in trouble.
So I've 'appropriated' some lyrics by Pink Floyd, and by 'Pink Floyd' I mean Roger Waters.
Imagine the sinister brooding minor riff and the melody to 'Another brick in the wall'....
When I went to school there were certain politicians
Who'd brainwash the children anyway they could
Pouring their supervision over everything we did
Exposing every divergent thought, however carefully hidden by the kid
But in Canberra it was well known
When Rudd got home at night
His fat and phycopathic wife
Would thrash him to within inches of his life
Ahhh Ahhh Ooohh Ahhhh
We don't need no Education Revolution
We don't need no thought control
No propaganda in the classroom
Labor leave those kids alone
HEY! LABOR! LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!
All in all your just another beurocrat at the union's beck and call
All in all your just another brick in the socialist's berlin wall
(repeat with cockney children's choir)
(solo)
---------
Pretty good huh? I might record it but that might get me in trouble.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Communism's cracks
Good read in the OZ via The Times about Beijing's trouble with civil rights in the lead up to the 2008 games.
Beijing said to the IOC that giving them the games would help improve human rights in China, and now they are regretting it.
This is classic. It's like the IOC is a parent saying to a bullying child "i'll give you 1000 dollars now. Just promise me you'll be nice to these other kids."
What's gonna happen there?
The kid goes on being a bully, right? He's already got the money.
(I dont think even the IOC believed for real the carrot would work without a stick, but they still accepted the promise as legit)
But then, magic happens. The other kids hear about bully's promise via the internet and demand part of the 1000 dollars. They gang up on the bully and do the work of the stupid parent for them.
I love a happy ending.
This is exactly what is happening in China. People are making demands of the government to keep it's promises to the IOC. The biggest issue of civil rights in China does not appear to be freedom of speech. Most people dont have all that much to say. The big issue is private property. Specifically private farmland. Farmers are just taking their land back.
That's right. China is moving away from collective ownership. Why, because the people don't like it when the 'people' own stuff. When the 'people' own it the government owns it and decides who gets it. In China the curruption is endemic in this respect (according to the article).
This grass-roots trend backs up the western liberal economic viewpoint that private property is central to prosperity. It's the principle economic freedom.
And without economic freedoms the other freedoms ain't worth a penny.
Just ask the Chinese. Economic freedom comes first. Intellectual freedom comes later, once you're not starving. Our political freedoms are founded on economic freedoms. They cannot stand without them.
If Rudd takes our economic freedoms away, like the freedom to bargain our employment conditions without collectives like unions, then our other freedoms, like freedom of speech, will be eroded too.
Man, I hate commies.
Beijing said to the IOC that giving them the games would help improve human rights in China, and now they are regretting it.
This is classic. It's like the IOC is a parent saying to a bullying child "i'll give you 1000 dollars now. Just promise me you'll be nice to these other kids."
What's gonna happen there?
The kid goes on being a bully, right? He's already got the money.
(I dont think even the IOC believed for real the carrot would work without a stick, but they still accepted the promise as legit)
But then, magic happens. The other kids hear about bully's promise via the internet and demand part of the 1000 dollars. They gang up on the bully and do the work of the stupid parent for them.
I love a happy ending.
This is exactly what is happening in China. People are making demands of the government to keep it's promises to the IOC. The biggest issue of civil rights in China does not appear to be freedom of speech. Most people dont have all that much to say. The big issue is private property. Specifically private farmland. Farmers are just taking their land back.
That's right. China is moving away from collective ownership. Why, because the people don't like it when the 'people' own stuff. When the 'people' own it the government owns it and decides who gets it. In China the curruption is endemic in this respect (according to the article).
This grass-roots trend backs up the western liberal economic viewpoint that private property is central to prosperity. It's the principle economic freedom.
And without economic freedoms the other freedoms ain't worth a penny.
Just ask the Chinese. Economic freedom comes first. Intellectual freedom comes later, once you're not starving. Our political freedoms are founded on economic freedoms. They cannot stand without them.
If Rudd takes our economic freedoms away, like the freedom to bargain our employment conditions without collectives like unions, then our other freedoms, like freedom of speech, will be eroded too.
Man, I hate commies.
You can plead all you want, Swan
Swan 'pleads for families' according to The Age. He is begging commercial banks not to increase home loan interest rates.
You can plead all you want, Swan, but this is a capitalist country, and businesses have to make money. This in turn gives people jobs and feeds families. Go read some Adam Smith you commie twat.
Costello did this before, I know, but Costello knew it was a gesture. Swan probably believes in his socialist heart that the banks give a shit. With his economic training Swan should know that for the sake of the greater good it's better they DON'T give a shit.
I guess politically you have to be seen to do everything in your power to keep rates down. But the fact is that the federal govt is totally powerless in this regard, at least in the short term.
Labour knew this, and still blamed Howard for interest rate rises.
Howard had done more than any Labour govt would dare to free up labour markets and contain inflation by building workforce capacity. It was and still is a miricle that we have growth to the extent that we do, and interest rates are as low as they are.
This is all about to change, and it gives me no small degree of personal satisfaction to know that Labour will be in charge when it does.
As Kevvy wanted, this is another case of the buck stopping with Labour. Well done Rudd, take responsibility for everything just before it fucks up.
He's not a poltical genius any more than Athur Daley is a business guru. The two of them are simply liars that exploit people's gullibity. He has found no secret to pleasing everyone, he just says he can.
Instead of encouraging people to be independent and look out for themselves he encourages them to complain and expect a world where the government will take all their problems away.
When the problems remain who do you think they will blame?
These tax-cuts better be coming in full. If Labour use inflation as an excuse to keep more of our money they know what to expect.
That' right. A big fucking whinge from coast to coast they they cant ignore.
You can plead all you want, Swan, but this is a capitalist country, and businesses have to make money. This in turn gives people jobs and feeds families. Go read some Adam Smith you commie twat.
Costello did this before, I know, but Costello knew it was a gesture. Swan probably believes in his socialist heart that the banks give a shit. With his economic training Swan should know that for the sake of the greater good it's better they DON'T give a shit.
I guess politically you have to be seen to do everything in your power to keep rates down. But the fact is that the federal govt is totally powerless in this regard, at least in the short term.
Labour knew this, and still blamed Howard for interest rate rises.
Howard had done more than any Labour govt would dare to free up labour markets and contain inflation by building workforce capacity. It was and still is a miricle that we have growth to the extent that we do, and interest rates are as low as they are.
This is all about to change, and it gives me no small degree of personal satisfaction to know that Labour will be in charge when it does.
As Kevvy wanted, this is another case of the buck stopping with Labour. Well done Rudd, take responsibility for everything just before it fucks up.
He's not a poltical genius any more than Athur Daley is a business guru. The two of them are simply liars that exploit people's gullibity. He has found no secret to pleasing everyone, he just says he can.
Instead of encouraging people to be independent and look out for themselves he encourages them to complain and expect a world where the government will take all their problems away.
When the problems remain who do you think they will blame?
These tax-cuts better be coming in full. If Labour use inflation as an excuse to keep more of our money they know what to expect.
That' right. A big fucking whinge from coast to coast they they cant ignore.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Kruddmeister picks his first fight with Gen-Y
I am encouraged by the number of Rudd-dissenting comments on this opinion peice at the OZ. It appears to me that alot of people understand the nature of censorship and are beginning to smell a Chinese-style communist rat in Rudd's approach to creating a 'cleen feed'.
Not so hip now are you, censorboy?
Gen-Y are well abreast of issues like this. The web is the only place where alot of young people feel free. That might sound wanky but I know it's true dispite being gen-X. It's the only place where I get to mouth off like this for a start.
The idea of all the sites I visit and contribute to being screened for so-called undesirable content unsettles me somewhat. Is child-porn now, which is bad for sure - illegal acts get commited in creating those sites, but should we not crack down in those crimes, or seek out the site-creators, rather than put the onus on the web-providors to filter every user's traffic.
How long is it before Rudd starts filtering political content? They will start with obvious targets like Islamist terrror sites and then extend it to any right-wing site at home they label 'extermist'. These wont just be neo-Nazi sites. You dont have to go too far right to offend a leftie. Howard was an 'economic extremist' according to Rudd. I'm sure there are loads of people in the ALP who would like to censor conservatives material on the web, or at least make the users feel watched.
But Rudd probably wont get that far because he'll fall at the first hurdle. His political skill has been hugely overrated. .
How NOT to play politics 101:
Rudd, after encouraging everyone to think that internet speed is the government's responsibility now proposes to make it slower.
All this filtering will slow stuff down enormously. Nobody stands between a kid and his fast internet. Rudd himself was the man who replace schooling with 'surfing' by furnishing every kid with a computer in the classroom. You'd think he understood how important it was to get those YouTube vids downloaded doublequick.
Apparently not.
What's the bet Rudd just me-toos Howard's parental supervision software download policy.
Not so hip now are you, censorboy?
Gen-Y are well abreast of issues like this. The web is the only place where alot of young people feel free. That might sound wanky but I know it's true dispite being gen-X. It's the only place where I get to mouth off like this for a start.
The idea of all the sites I visit and contribute to being screened for so-called undesirable content unsettles me somewhat. Is child-porn now, which is bad for sure - illegal acts get commited in creating those sites, but should we not crack down in those crimes, or seek out the site-creators, rather than put the onus on the web-providors to filter every user's traffic.
How long is it before Rudd starts filtering political content? They will start with obvious targets like Islamist terrror sites and then extend it to any right-wing site at home they label 'extermist'. These wont just be neo-Nazi sites. You dont have to go too far right to offend a leftie. Howard was an 'economic extremist' according to Rudd. I'm sure there are loads of people in the ALP who would like to censor conservatives material on the web, or at least make the users feel watched.
But Rudd probably wont get that far because he'll fall at the first hurdle. His political skill has been hugely overrated. .
How NOT to play politics 101:
Rudd, after encouraging everyone to think that internet speed is the government's responsibility now proposes to make it slower.
All this filtering will slow stuff down enormously. Nobody stands between a kid and his fast internet. Rudd himself was the man who replace schooling with 'surfing' by furnishing every kid with a computer in the classroom. You'd think he understood how important it was to get those YouTube vids downloaded doublequick.
Apparently not.
What's the bet Rudd just me-toos Howard's parental supervision software download policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)