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.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)