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!!!!!!
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
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)