I've lost count of the number of those TV exposés where they show you the trashed Housing Trust home, show you pictures of what looks like a garbage dump and then tells you that the previous occupants had been moved to a nice new home.
Why? How is is that some people get to stay on the list for years while others go through home after home, trashing each one, but are then given a new one?
The answer is probably something simple like no one in that government department takes any responsibility for what happens. Or it could be worse and there is some clause in the housing trust laws that states an occupant must be given a new place no matter what they did to the last one.
Whatever the reason it is wrong. You should get one change at a free house and if you destroy it you don't get another chance. Instead it should go to someone else in the queue who will probably take much better care of a home when they get one.
For some reason that is certainly beyond my understanding, the worse or more feral someone or a family is the more they get for free. The worse they behave the more they get. The administrators forget that they are supposed to protect the trust of the public, the ones that pay taxes for all these welfare schemes, and do the right things for all.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Is Obama good for the West?
The jury is out but the opening statements are not encouraging.
His first interview was to the Qatar press where is highlighted his Muslim relatives.
His administration is drafting a conciliatory latter to Iran, the same Iran who said they would not talk to the US unless it withdrew all troops from all locations around the world.
He is talking about reigniting the same "respectful partnership" that the US had with the Muslim World 20-30 years ago.
During that period, the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power after the Shah was disposed and started his war against the West igniting the current Jihad period of Islamic history. For those who have forgotten that was when the US Embassy at Tehran was seized. It was also about that time when Soviet invasion of Afghanistan occurred. This triggered the rise of the Mujahideen who gave us Osama, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It was also about the time that Islamic militants took control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. This triggered greater fundamentalism in Saudi royal family.
Twenty years ago the US shot down a couple of Libyan jets, Khomeini issued he fatwa against Rushdie and Hezbollah was torturing to death U.S. Marine Colonel William “Rich” Higgins, who had been kidnapped the previous year while serving as a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon.
So yes. let's go back to those heady historical times with a nice new peace treaty with Iran and see how much damage can be dome to us and the US by Islam in the next ten years.
His first interview was to the Qatar press where is highlighted his Muslim relatives.
His administration is drafting a conciliatory latter to Iran, the same Iran who said they would not talk to the US unless it withdrew all troops from all locations around the world.
He is talking about reigniting the same "respectful partnership" that the US had with the Muslim World 20-30 years ago.
During that period, the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power after the Shah was disposed and started his war against the West igniting the current Jihad period of Islamic history. For those who have forgotten that was when the US Embassy at Tehran was seized. It was also about that time when Soviet invasion of Afghanistan occurred. This triggered the rise of the Mujahideen who gave us Osama, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It was also about the time that Islamic militants took control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. This triggered greater fundamentalism in Saudi royal family.
Twenty years ago the US shot down a couple of Libyan jets, Khomeini issued he fatwa against Rushdie and Hezbollah was torturing to death U.S. Marine Colonel William “Rich” Higgins, who had been kidnapped the previous year while serving as a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon.
So yes. let's go back to those heady historical times with a nice new peace treaty with Iran and see how much damage can be dome to us and the US by Islam in the next ten years.
The UK is Finished
A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Mr. Wilders’ opinions with him.
Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place next Thursday was cancelled.
Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistani press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.”
Do I even need to make a comment on the above excerpt I found over at www.jihadwatch.com?
OK, just one. This is a case of COWARDICE from the Lords. In a slightly different era this would have been called treason and the best that Lord Ahmed could expect would be expulsion.
Tactics - Part 1
How does someone like Al Gore get away with peddling what is an obvious farce?
The first is to appeal to fear. This is a tried and true tactic used by many leaders. Consider the "Terror Alert Status" days of the US. The higher the status the easier it was to get legislation through the congress. Now closer to home consider statements of gloom and doom by former 'Australian of the Year' Tim Flannery. Al Gore told us that the seas were going to rise and flood out most of the coastal towns. Ironically he owns a condo on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.
"The debate is over", "the scientific community says", "the government has to do something". The use of testimonials and appeal to those in authority is another common tactic. Instead of detailing which scientists and what peer reviewed evidence is a vague group with equally vague credentials and proof. Flannery's specialties are mammalogy and paleontology, hardly core climate change disciplines. Instead reputations are used as weight and proof.
"We all have to join together" or get on the bandwagon because you will feel better if you join us and our cause. The tactic is to imply that everyone is already there and that you are just part of the remaining few who have not. Its the consensus versus the deniers paradigm. If you are not with us then you are against us, and against the Earth.
If that fails you can always try flag-waving, "it is for the good of Australia", "as global citizens we must protect the planet". "we have done this before when we fought together against tyranny in World War 2".
My personal favorite is where you attack someone who is against you. This can be in a general way like "they are just deniers", or a bit more specific "they are the kind of people who also believe that the Earth if flat" or directly personal "he is just a dissenter who goes against the majority, and he picks his nose." This kind of attack is called the ad-hominem and is used particularly when an individual has good research or evidence that contradicts your view. This is a very common form of attack on Global Warming forums. Attack the person not their science.
The latter is the most common method used by the alarmist. They insult anyone who disagrees with them, accuse people of being in the pockets of 'big oil', of being intellectually inferior, questions their commitment to the environment etc.
There is a distinction between ad-hominem and a proper challenge. Consider my mention of Tim Flannery above. I mentioned his qualifications being not directly relevant to climate change but I need more than that. That he jumps from cause to cause is also not enough. What I can challenge are his outrageous claims of catastrophic results of climate change as being based not on science but in wildly inflated results of heavily challenged climate modeling techniques. Also that when any of these are found to be false instead of apologizing he moves on to another outrageous example instead. You cannot listen to or believe this kind of person except to do you own research to find out just how inaccurate their views are.
The first is to appeal to fear. This is a tried and true tactic used by many leaders. Consider the "Terror Alert Status" days of the US. The higher the status the easier it was to get legislation through the congress. Now closer to home consider statements of gloom and doom by former 'Australian of the Year' Tim Flannery. Al Gore told us that the seas were going to rise and flood out most of the coastal towns. Ironically he owns a condo on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.
"The debate is over", "the scientific community says", "the government has to do something". The use of testimonials and appeal to those in authority is another common tactic. Instead of detailing which scientists and what peer reviewed evidence is a vague group with equally vague credentials and proof. Flannery's specialties are mammalogy and paleontology, hardly core climate change disciplines. Instead reputations are used as weight and proof.
"We all have to join together" or get on the bandwagon because you will feel better if you join us and our cause. The tactic is to imply that everyone is already there and that you are just part of the remaining few who have not. Its the consensus versus the deniers paradigm. If you are not with us then you are against us, and against the Earth.
If that fails you can always try flag-waving, "it is for the good of Australia", "as global citizens we must protect the planet". "we have done this before when we fought together against tyranny in World War 2".
My personal favorite is where you attack someone who is against you. This can be in a general way like "they are just deniers", or a bit more specific "they are the kind of people who also believe that the Earth if flat" or directly personal "he is just a dissenter who goes against the majority, and he picks his nose." This kind of attack is called the ad-hominem and is used particularly when an individual has good research or evidence that contradicts your view. This is a very common form of attack on Global Warming forums. Attack the person not their science.
The latter is the most common method used by the alarmist. They insult anyone who disagrees with them, accuse people of being in the pockets of 'big oil', of being intellectually inferior, questions their commitment to the environment etc.
There is a distinction between ad-hominem and a proper challenge. Consider my mention of Tim Flannery above. I mentioned his qualifications being not directly relevant to climate change but I need more than that. That he jumps from cause to cause is also not enough. What I can challenge are his outrageous claims of catastrophic results of climate change as being based not on science but in wildly inflated results of heavily challenged climate modeling techniques. Also that when any of these are found to be false instead of apologizing he moves on to another outrageous example instead. You cannot listen to or believe this kind of person except to do you own research to find out just how inaccurate their views are.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Who is Dr. John Theon?
He was until recently James Hansen's supervisor. James Hansen is spiritual adviser to Al Gore and runs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
He recently came out as a skeptic against global warming. He describes Hansen as "never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting." Even though he was Hansen's supervisor he was not allowed to give him his annual performance evaluation. He also states that "climate models are useless" and that some scientists have manipulated their data to to justify their models results. He claims that Hansen adjusted temperature data to make his claims of global catastrophe more plausible. Theon calls Hansen "a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA's own data contradict him."
So how is Hansen getting away with all of this? I'll give you a scenario. What former Vice President is currently making a fortune on global warming. Who has the power to protect an individual within NASA? What is a great organization to have support you when you are claiming that global warming, if unchecked, will cause doom and gloom for the world? If you are going to get away with such claims then will you need a scientist and a major scientific organization to support you?
OK, I 'm sure you are seeing where this is going but remember that this is a just a plausible scenario.
How much are you willing to bet that none of the is ever reported by the mainstream media? If you do a little digging I bet you will find all sorts of information on Dr. John Theon.
He recently came out as a skeptic against global warming. He describes Hansen as "never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting." Even though he was Hansen's supervisor he was not allowed to give him his annual performance evaluation. He also states that "climate models are useless" and that some scientists have manipulated their data to to justify their models results. He claims that Hansen adjusted temperature data to make his claims of global catastrophe more plausible. Theon calls Hansen "a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA's own data contradict him."
So how is Hansen getting away with all of this? I'll give you a scenario. What former Vice President is currently making a fortune on global warming. Who has the power to protect an individual within NASA? What is a great organization to have support you when you are claiming that global warming, if unchecked, will cause doom and gloom for the world? If you are going to get away with such claims then will you need a scientist and a major scientific organization to support you?
OK, I 'm sure you are seeing where this is going but remember that this is a just a plausible scenario.
How much are you willing to bet that none of the is ever reported by the mainstream media? If you do a little digging I bet you will find all sorts of information on Dr. John Theon.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Population - A Serious Issue
The population of the planet has essentially tripled in the past 100 years or so. This has put large pressure on the resources of the planet and the ability for the world to feed its population. Some countries e.g. India have done little to curtail the explosion in population. In some cases there is an active effort to out breed the inhabitants of a country with the aim to take majority and through the democratic process take power to then remove democracy.
Sensible nations and sensible people will match the population with the available resources. In Australia, with water figures and arable land area this figure in Australia is probably around the 25 million mark as an upper limit.
The government and the business community wants to see figures like 30 million in the near future so they are importing people as fast as they can.
The issue here is that the places where these people are coming from typically suffer from over population and a culture of having large numbers of babies. So we are bringing people in from a failed environment, people that have no understanding of, or use, population as a measure of control.
Some of these groups, e.g. followers of Islam, have no respect for our freedoms, our religious or our culture and want to replace it with their own. To that end they bring in more family members and start increasing their community sizes.
The results can clearly be seen in places like the UK and Europe. Through study people like Dr. Peter Hammond have categorised the progress of this process.
If the population of Muslims stays around 1% or lower then they remain peaceful, non-threatening and are portrayed as an interesting minority group. Australia currently enjoys this position.
At 2-3% they start to proselytize from other minorities, jails and street gangs. The UK is in this position now.
After 5% they start to push for halal food and so secure this industry for Muslims. They also start pushing for Sharia law for their own communities. France and Sweden are in this position.
At 10% they will start breaking laws to complain. This is also when the threats start. Paris, Amsterdam showed this kind of behaviour.
By 20% the rioting starts, the jihad militia starts up, church burning and so on. Ethiopia is an example of this.
At 40% the widespread massacres start, and serious terror attacks begin. Bosnia is a good example. By 60% the free persecution of non-believers kicks in, ethnic cleansing, genocide etc. Malaysia and Albania fall into this category. By 80% , well you can see the pattern. Egypt, Gaza, Indonesia.
At 100% all is "peace" because everyone is Muslim. Somalia and Afghanistan are examples of how this does not work. By then they are typically actively killing each other.
What is true is that at whatever stage a Muslim population wields more influence (and problems) than their percentage should indicate.
Sensible nations and sensible people will match the population with the available resources. In Australia, with water figures and arable land area this figure in Australia is probably around the 25 million mark as an upper limit.
The government and the business community wants to see figures like 30 million in the near future so they are importing people as fast as they can.
The issue here is that the places where these people are coming from typically suffer from over population and a culture of having large numbers of babies. So we are bringing people in from a failed environment, people that have no understanding of, or use, population as a measure of control.
Some of these groups, e.g. followers of Islam, have no respect for our freedoms, our religious or our culture and want to replace it with their own. To that end they bring in more family members and start increasing their community sizes.
The results can clearly be seen in places like the UK and Europe. Through study people like Dr. Peter Hammond have categorised the progress of this process.
If the population of Muslims stays around 1% or lower then they remain peaceful, non-threatening and are portrayed as an interesting minority group. Australia currently enjoys this position.
At 2-3% they start to proselytize from other minorities, jails and street gangs. The UK is in this position now.
After 5% they start to push for halal food and so secure this industry for Muslims. They also start pushing for Sharia law for their own communities. France and Sweden are in this position.
At 10% they will start breaking laws to complain. This is also when the threats start. Paris, Amsterdam showed this kind of behaviour.
By 20% the rioting starts, the jihad militia starts up, church burning and so on. Ethiopia is an example of this.
At 40% the widespread massacres start, and serious terror attacks begin. Bosnia is a good example. By 60% the free persecution of non-believers kicks in, ethnic cleansing, genocide etc. Malaysia and Albania fall into this category. By 80% , well you can see the pattern. Egypt, Gaza, Indonesia.
At 100% all is "peace" because everyone is Muslim. Somalia and Afghanistan are examples of how this does not work. By then they are typically actively killing each other.
What is true is that at whatever stage a Muslim population wields more influence (and problems) than their percentage should indicate.
Hot Weather
The Chicken Little's are running around shouting the shy is burning and blaming it on global warming. ROTFL.
The current weather pattern is simple to understand. A system is sitting off the NW coast and another stationary system is sitting of the SE coast. The combination of the two is drawing air down from NW to SE, across the dry, hot, desert. The result, predictably, is hot weather. Note that last word "weather" not "climate change."
We had much hotter weather just before 1900 and I remember sitting in the shade at 52 degrees in the very early 80's. Its hot get over it.
Our beloved PM wasted his time on the phone with Obama talking about global warming. His carbon tax scheme will be putting a lot of pressure on out business community which will cause more unemployment, high social services bills, inflation and feed the 1-3 year depression. So I guess you could say that global warming will cause employment problems. I believe that it will also cause the Lbor Govet to lose in the next election.
The current weather pattern is simple to understand. A system is sitting off the NW coast and another stationary system is sitting of the SE coast. The combination of the two is drawing air down from NW to SE, across the dry, hot, desert. The result, predictably, is hot weather. Note that last word "weather" not "climate change."
We had much hotter weather just before 1900 and I remember sitting in the shade at 52 degrees in the very early 80's. Its hot get over it.
Our beloved PM wasted his time on the phone with Obama talking about global warming. His carbon tax scheme will be putting a lot of pressure on out business community which will cause more unemployment, high social services bills, inflation and feed the 1-3 year depression. So I guess you could say that global warming will cause employment problems. I believe that it will also cause the Lbor Govet to lose in the next election.
Holocaust Deniers
Holocaust deniers are ranked about the same as the Flat Earthers and the Moon landing deniers.
Forget for a moment that there have been many personal records made by survivors. Forget the books written by observes, the mass graves and other accounts. The Germans themselves kept meticulous records detailing exactly how many people, gold teeth, railway car loads etc. of people they killed.
If you missed it the first time, the Germans themselves kept records proving the numbers claimed. About 6 million Jews and a load of other sub standard citizens by the Nazi definitions.
The deniers tend to be anti-Zionists, so they take any chance they can to make up the figures, twist the facts and stir up trouble. People forget that Haj Amin al-Husseini the mufti of Jerusalem spent time supporting the Nazis in Auschwitz and generally trying to kill as many Jews as he could. Many of the world's deniers find their roots with or are sympathetic towards such individuals of history.
Forget for a moment that there have been many personal records made by survivors. Forget the books written by observes, the mass graves and other accounts. The Germans themselves kept meticulous records detailing exactly how many people, gold teeth, railway car loads etc. of people they killed.
If you missed it the first time, the Germans themselves kept records proving the numbers claimed. About 6 million Jews and a load of other sub standard citizens by the Nazi definitions.
The deniers tend to be anti-Zionists, so they take any chance they can to make up the figures, twist the facts and stir up trouble. People forget that Haj Amin al-Husseini the mufti of Jerusalem spent time supporting the Nazis in Auschwitz and generally trying to kill as many Jews as he could. Many of the world's deniers find their roots with or are sympathetic towards such individuals of history.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Privacy Laws - Who Do They Protect?
Forensic genealogy is an interesting activity. You trace your ancestors to the ship they arrived on, when they dies, how many children they had and so on until you have completed a large family tree stretching back generations. That is up until part way through the 1900's, after that you run into the privacy laws.
While there may have been some good reasons for the concept the implementation protects criminals at all levels from the pedophile to the senior Minister. The Freedom of Information Act breaks down and unevenly applies exception to the Privacy Acts in a subject manner.
Privacy laws stop people from getting their lost property back e.g. the case of a lost cell phone that could not be given back to the owner because of privacy laws. In some cases privacy is a good thing, especially in the cases of acts against children. The blanket application of such a philosophy protect the wrong groups and blocks reasonable activities for the majority.
It is easy to destroy things when activities are hidden behind walls of secrecy.
While there may have been some good reasons for the concept the implementation protects criminals at all levels from the pedophile to the senior Minister. The Freedom of Information Act breaks down and unevenly applies exception to the Privacy Acts in a subject manner.
Privacy laws stop people from getting their lost property back e.g. the case of a lost cell phone that could not be given back to the owner because of privacy laws. In some cases privacy is a good thing, especially in the cases of acts against children. The blanket application of such a philosophy protect the wrong groups and blocks reasonable activities for the majority.
It is easy to destroy things when activities are hidden behind walls of secrecy.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Journalists - Why Do They Hate Us?
Why is it that journalists hate Australia and just about any Western nation they work for? They attack everything about the country that feeds them, employs them and gives them the freedoms to do what they do.
Take Gaza for example. The Western reporters reported that over a thousand people were killed in the 'war' and many of these were civilians. As the facts start to come out the numbers appear to peak out at 600 with over 400 of these identified as Hamas fighters. Not sure what the actual children killed figures will be but the 400 the reporters dutifully passed along is obviously incorrect.
Why are our reporters willing to be propaganda mongers for our enemies? Is it to be able to gain access? If so then they are the equivalent of prostitutes, selling themselves to get to information no matter how biased it is. Worse when the truth does come out they will not report it.
It appears that modern journalism means to report the anti-facts in the most sensational way possible. It used to be the standard evening ritual, sit down and watch the news to get some facts about what might be happening in the world. Instead the news has turned into some kind of game show, perhaps titled "find the facts" a game where you see if you can spot the single fact in every episode.
Take Gaza for example. The Western reporters reported that over a thousand people were killed in the 'war' and many of these were civilians. As the facts start to come out the numbers appear to peak out at 600 with over 400 of these identified as Hamas fighters. Not sure what the actual children killed figures will be but the 400 the reporters dutifully passed along is obviously incorrect.
Why are our reporters willing to be propaganda mongers for our enemies? Is it to be able to gain access? If so then they are the equivalent of prostitutes, selling themselves to get to information no matter how biased it is. Worse when the truth does come out they will not report it.
It appears that modern journalism means to report the anti-facts in the most sensational way possible. It used to be the standard evening ritual, sit down and watch the news to get some facts about what might be happening in the world. Instead the news has turned into some kind of game show, perhaps titled "find the facts" a game where you see if you can spot the single fact in every episode.
The Australian Flag
In a country with very little to look up to or identify with it is strange to see people complaining about the flying of the Australian flag.
The rise in popularity of the flag may be a response to the failed multicultural experiment. The flag gives the rest of the population something to rally around. We don't really have an anthem or a song that is ours, The anthem is still British in nature for example and most people, including myself, do not know the words.
We have songs like Waltzing Matilda but these are about thieves, which while is part of our heritage, is hardly something you want to rally around to move into the future.
So fly the flag proudly, make it a symbol of our land and our people. Diversity is OK but only as long as it is also part of a respect for our country and our nation. Pushing for something like a republic is no answer and is mostly driven by the likes of bitter Irishmen and anti-monarchists. As a nation we are one of the most democratic and open, let's not ruin this with unnecessary changes.
Instead of adopting 'heroes' like Dokic who still carry and represent Serbia, let's make some of our own that we can be proud of.
The rise in popularity of the flag may be a response to the failed multicultural experiment. The flag gives the rest of the population something to rally around. We don't really have an anthem or a song that is ours, The anthem is still British in nature for example and most people, including myself, do not know the words.
We have songs like Waltzing Matilda but these are about thieves, which while is part of our heritage, is hardly something you want to rally around to move into the future.
So fly the flag proudly, make it a symbol of our land and our people. Diversity is OK but only as long as it is also part of a respect for our country and our nation. Pushing for something like a republic is no answer and is mostly driven by the likes of bitter Irishmen and anti-monarchists. As a nation we are one of the most democratic and open, let's not ruin this with unnecessary changes.
Instead of adopting 'heroes' like Dokic who still carry and represent Serbia, let's make some of our own that we can be proud of.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Australia Day
A couple of hundred years ago people invaded Australia and made it their own. This was a familiar pattern repeated many hundreds of times by all types of peoples since then. Australia however stands alone as being the only country who lets the conquered people 'rule.'
Consider the latest Australian of the Year. A strange title that is recently conferred on people who hate Australia. The latest winner wants to get rid of or at the very least move Australia Day to some other date. Note that this is for a minority who rarely contributes in any way to the country.
He, containing some minor fraction of native blood, also wants compensation for the 'stolen generation' ROTFL. Given that there has been no successful prosecution of such a claim, apart from the rather obvious case in SA that was not stolen generation related at all, such a claim could not even be made of those 'stolen' had they not been educated and given a much better life than they faced at the traditional rape camps.
Australia is rapidly becoming a nation defined by minorities, enjoy what is left of it while you can.
Consider the latest Australian of the Year. A strange title that is recently conferred on people who hate Australia. The latest winner wants to get rid of or at the very least move Australia Day to some other date. Note that this is for a minority who rarely contributes in any way to the country.
He, containing some minor fraction of native blood, also wants compensation for the 'stolen generation' ROTFL. Given that there has been no successful prosecution of such a claim, apart from the rather obvious case in SA that was not stolen generation related at all, such a claim could not even be made of those 'stolen' had they not been educated and given a much better life than they faced at the traditional rape camps.
Australia is rapidly becoming a nation defined by minorities, enjoy what is left of it while you can.
Dokic the 'Hero'
How fickle is the Australian media. They are praising Dokic for? Why for making it through a few rounds of tennis until she was the sole Aussie standing. Thus she is the golden girl.
A few years ago she trashed Australia and the Australian public. Yes some of her issue stem from feral, money grubbing father but that is no reason to suddenly be gushing over her now. She denounced her Australian citizenship but all is forgiven if you do something for 'Australia'
It doesn't matter if you are a rapist, murderer, terrorist all are welcome and embraced. Dokic is of course none of these but it shows how weak we are as a nation when we can so easily welcome someone like her without question. All part of the endemic attitudes that will allow the aforementioned undesirables to also be welcome here.
The more of these we allow in the faster becomes the self-destruction. It is a fairly simple equation but one our leaders do not seem to be able to understand or envision.
And another thing. What is with all these players doing the Hewitt, in your opponent's face, fist pump? This is bad sportsmanship and shows an immature personality. Keep it out of the sport.
After her battle in the fourth round though I find that I have some respect for her determination. Right at the end she twisted her ankle but instead of the more common time out she battled on to win her game. She gets points for that.
A few years ago she trashed Australia and the Australian public. Yes some of her issue stem from feral, money grubbing father but that is no reason to suddenly be gushing over her now. She denounced her Australian citizenship but all is forgiven if you do something for 'Australia'
It doesn't matter if you are a rapist, murderer, terrorist all are welcome and embraced. Dokic is of course none of these but it shows how weak we are as a nation when we can so easily welcome someone like her without question. All part of the endemic attitudes that will allow the aforementioned undesirables to also be welcome here.
The more of these we allow in the faster becomes the self-destruction. It is a fairly simple equation but one our leaders do not seem to be able to understand or envision.
And another thing. What is with all these players doing the Hewitt, in your opponent's face, fist pump? This is bad sportsmanship and shows an immature personality. Keep it out of the sport.
After her battle in the fourth round though I find that I have some respect for her determination. Right at the end she twisted her ankle but instead of the more common time out she battled on to win her game. She gets points for that.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Thank God We Don't Have Fox
It was interesting to compare Fox News with the rest of the MSM in the US. Fox, directed and operated by Murdoch, is about as Right as you can get.
Their coverage focused on ex-President Bush all the way to his next destination after leaving Washington. They have a 100 days chart they are going to use to uncover the "real Obama" one day at a time.
Thankfully we don't have anything like that here. Well there is SBS which is subject to no real oversight. Foreign language programs for example are not required to have English subtitles. They can show full frontal nudity and active sex and they can show anti-Australian propaganda. I guess this is kind of like Fox will be with Obama in power.
On the other hand it will provide a non starry eyed perspective of the Obama presidency and this is what freedom of speech is all about. Try criticising the leader in just about any non-Western culture and see how long you last. At best you would be silenced.
It will be interesting to see how well Obama does during his first 100 days. We should all be praying that we don't get the terrorists left over in the Cuban facility sent here.
Their coverage focused on ex-President Bush all the way to his next destination after leaving Washington. They have a 100 days chart they are going to use to uncover the "real Obama" one day at a time.
Thankfully we don't have anything like that here. Well there is SBS which is subject to no real oversight. Foreign language programs for example are not required to have English subtitles. They can show full frontal nudity and active sex and they can show anti-Australian propaganda. I guess this is kind of like Fox will be with Obama in power.
On the other hand it will provide a non starry eyed perspective of the Obama presidency and this is what freedom of speech is all about. Try criticising the leader in just about any non-Western culture and see how long you last. At best you would be silenced.
It will be interesting to see how well Obama does during his first 100 days. We should all be praying that we don't get the terrorists left over in the Cuban facility sent here.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Criminals - The Privileged Class
Being a criminal in Australia is like being a pampered being. For the most part people who commit crimes are 'rewarded' by the system rather than punished.
Consider someone who steals a car, crashes or burns it. They may get their license suspended and if they subsequently drive without a license they may get a slap on the wrist or a "stern warning."
Now consider the victim of the crime. They are left with the cost of a new car. If they have insurance their premiums go up and this affects everyone else in society as so do theirs.
The solution is to assign a permanent debt to the criminal for the cost of damages. This debt stay with them until it is cleared. Wage garnishing and other techniques need to be in place to ensure the debt is paid.
Instead of allowing the minor crimes to go unchallenged these should be addressed more aggressively. If the prisons are full them implement Singapore style canings. The minor crimes will drop off and then by extension so will the number of major crimes. If you want evidence of this look at the case of New York over the past ten years.
Stop treating criminals as the privileged class and stop them causing the depth of damage they are doing so to our society.
Consider someone who steals a car, crashes or burns it. They may get their license suspended and if they subsequently drive without a license they may get a slap on the wrist or a "stern warning."
Now consider the victim of the crime. They are left with the cost of a new car. If they have insurance their premiums go up and this affects everyone else in society as so do theirs.
The solution is to assign a permanent debt to the criminal for the cost of damages. This debt stay with them until it is cleared. Wage garnishing and other techniques need to be in place to ensure the debt is paid.
Instead of allowing the minor crimes to go unchallenged these should be addressed more aggressively. If the prisons are full them implement Singapore style canings. The minor crimes will drop off and then by extension so will the number of major crimes. If you want evidence of this look at the case of New York over the past ten years.
Stop treating criminals as the privileged class and stop them causing the depth of damage they are doing so to our society.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Malcolm Fraser on Gaza
In a recent article on Gaza Malcolm Fraser, probably no relation to the Australian PM, claimed that Israels response was disproportionate. The reasoning was that since none of the 8000 rockets caused a lot of civilian deaths that killing hundreds of children (Palestinian figures, unconfirmed) was not reasonable.
So the reasoning is that in times of war unless you side gets a lot of casualties you cannot respond in kind.
Let's look at intent. Hamas has declared since its inceptions that they will be satisfied with no less that the total annihilation of Israel, that is their intent. Israel responds by warning people to get out of the areas they are going to attack, i.e. to minimise civilian casualties. Hamas responds by bringing women and children in by the truckloads to use as shields. The difference in intent is very clear here.
Fraser argues that the rockets did not kill many civilians or children, regardless of their intent. By the same logic if I fronted up to Malcolm's place and emptied a clip from say a 9 mm pistol at him, and all the shots missed, then he would have no grounds to attack me or complain. I would be willing to wager large sums of money that in this case he would immediately abandon any 'principles' displayed in his writings and there would be an opposite reaction.
It is always easier to pretend something when it is not happening to you.
No what about all those complaints about relief shipments being blocked by Israel. There is a long friendly border with Egypt that could be used but no one is complaining that the Egyptians are not allowing the relief to get through. Seems very one sided to me.
So the reasoning is that in times of war unless you side gets a lot of casualties you cannot respond in kind.
Let's look at intent. Hamas has declared since its inceptions that they will be satisfied with no less that the total annihilation of Israel, that is their intent. Israel responds by warning people to get out of the areas they are going to attack, i.e. to minimise civilian casualties. Hamas responds by bringing women and children in by the truckloads to use as shields. The difference in intent is very clear here.
Fraser argues that the rockets did not kill many civilians or children, regardless of their intent. By the same logic if I fronted up to Malcolm's place and emptied a clip from say a 9 mm pistol at him, and all the shots missed, then he would have no grounds to attack me or complain. I would be willing to wager large sums of money that in this case he would immediately abandon any 'principles' displayed in his writings and there would be an opposite reaction.
It is always easier to pretend something when it is not happening to you.
No what about all those complaints about relief shipments being blocked by Israel. There is a long friendly border with Egypt that could be used but no one is complaining that the Egyptians are not allowing the relief to get through. Seems very one sided to me.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Rudd and the United Nations
If you follow Kevin Rudd's movements over the past year it is fairly obvious that his goal to to be something high up in the UN. A new Asian coalition, donations to those countries we need the vote of to enter the Security Council, weak responses in situation where we should be strong so as to curry the favour of nations that have nothing in common with us.
All with the goal of becoming a member of the UN and ultimately a nice cushy job for Kevin in the UN hierarchy. While all this is going on others are running the country under Kevin's unfocused direction.
What can Australia possibly offer as a member of the Security Council? We have no military to speak of, no nuclear weapons, a small population, an insignificant blip in the global economy.
Keep watching Kevin as me positions his pieces for his UN aims.
All with the goal of becoming a member of the UN and ultimately a nice cushy job for Kevin in the UN hierarchy. While all this is going on others are running the country under Kevin's unfocused direction.
What can Australia possibly offer as a member of the Security Council? We have no military to speak of, no nuclear weapons, a small population, an insignificant blip in the global economy.
Keep watching Kevin as me positions his pieces for his UN aims.
Obama - The Messiah
The media are falling over themselves , gushing about how Obama will bring, "Hope" and "change" to American and the World.
I am a great believer in giving someone a chance to prove themselves. The media and just about everyone else has set these impossible targets for Obama. World Peace, end to suffering etc.
Then I saw that Obama is using Al Gore as his chief environmental adviser. The mad who brought us the fear mongering and completely unscientific documentary on global warming. The man who is making a fortune milking this sociological cow will now have the era of one of the most powerful people on the planet. Hopefully he is as bright as he is articulate and will do some reading on his one for this one.
My prediction? Obama will turn out to be like Rudd, lots of taking and activity and not so much real action or results. Hopefully I am wrong.
I am a great believer in giving someone a chance to prove themselves. The media and just about everyone else has set these impossible targets for Obama. World Peace, end to suffering etc.
Then I saw that Obama is using Al Gore as his chief environmental adviser. The mad who brought us the fear mongering and completely unscientific documentary on global warming. The man who is making a fortune milking this sociological cow will now have the era of one of the most powerful people on the planet. Hopefully he is as bright as he is articulate and will do some reading on his one for this one.
My prediction? Obama will turn out to be like Rudd, lots of taking and activity and not so much real action or results. Hopefully I am wrong.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Hamas and 'Cease Fire'
The left have been pushing for a cease fire. Joined by the UN and the French there has been a string push for the past few weeks for Israel to stop activity, primarily for the US inauguration of Obama.
As expected, immediately after the cease fire was declared Hamas predictably fired rockets into Israel. Expect more rockets over the next few days of the 'cease fire' because the Hamas charter does not allow for any kind of cease fire on their side. In fact it explicitly states “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are a waste of time and a farce.” Until people start to understand that the problem of peace is not with the Israelis Hamas will lead the international community around by the nose.
Let's hope that once the fawning over the inauguration of Obama is over that some sense can start to creep back in the the Western nations.
Prediction: Obama will end up to be just like Rudd, full of words but with no substance behind them.
As expected, immediately after the cease fire was declared Hamas predictably fired rockets into Israel. Expect more rockets over the next few days of the 'cease fire' because the Hamas charter does not allow for any kind of cease fire on their side. In fact it explicitly states “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are a waste of time and a farce.” Until people start to understand that the problem of peace is not with the Israelis Hamas will lead the international community around by the nose.
Let's hope that once the fawning over the inauguration of Obama is over that some sense can start to creep back in the the Western nations.
Prediction: Obama will end up to be just like Rudd, full of words but with no substance behind them.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Liberal PC Lie - 47 - Torture
So here is the deal. The other side can carry out any kind of torture they want to, with little or no comment but if anyone from the coalition of good even the appearance of such a thing then the full weight of the liberal outrage is expressed.
First of all lets look at the definition of torture as expressed by the liberal left: overly strong verbal interrogation and some sleep deprivation. Mother's chastising their child after a long night out falls into this category (yes the liberal left has an opinion on how to raise your children as well).
One rationalization is that torture does not work. Feedback from a professional African torturer claimed that they never had a person who did not sign the confession. In war a torturer/interrogator is after information, not a confession. They can check or verify any information given.
Water boarding is a non destructive torture technique that returns results in 3 minutes or less. Liberals are more concerned with mental trauma than lives in most cases. They would rather save the feelings of a terrorist and see hundreds die that submit one to any kind of 'torture.'
This is yet another reason why Australia and other Western nations are on the slippery slope to self-destruction.
First of all lets look at the definition of torture as expressed by the liberal left: overly strong verbal interrogation and some sleep deprivation. Mother's chastising their child after a long night out falls into this category (yes the liberal left has an opinion on how to raise your children as well).
One rationalization is that torture does not work. Feedback from a professional African torturer claimed that they never had a person who did not sign the confession. In war a torturer/interrogator is after information, not a confession. They can check or verify any information given.
Water boarding is a non destructive torture technique that returns results in 3 minutes or less. Liberals are more concerned with mental trauma than lives in most cases. They would rather save the feelings of a terrorist and see hundreds die that submit one to any kind of 'torture.'
This is yet another reason why Australia and other Western nations are on the slippery slope to self-destruction.
Handling the Financial Institutions
So here is the deal. You can misuse other people's money. You can put yourself at high risk and when it all goes bad the investors loose and you get to keep on doing what you have been.
Worse the government will bail out the financial institutions, let the leaders keep on paying themselves those high salaries and not have to change a single thing about the way they do business. Then when it starts to pick up again you get to do it all over again.
So when things are going well it is the "free market economy" but when it goes bad the concept gets thrown out of the window and those rich assholes that caused it get rewarded, saved and get to keep on doing it next time.
Worse they get to go on television and tell you how to get out of it, i.e. by spending more and investing more with them. There is something very wrong with how this whole process went down and the government for one is not on the people's side.
Worse the government will bail out the financial institutions, let the leaders keep on paying themselves those high salaries and not have to change a single thing about the way they do business. Then when it starts to pick up again you get to do it all over again.
So when things are going well it is the "free market economy" but when it goes bad the concept gets thrown out of the window and those rich assholes that caused it get rewarded, saved and get to keep on doing it next time.
Worse they get to go on television and tell you how to get out of it, i.e. by spending more and investing more with them. There is something very wrong with how this whole process went down and the government for one is not on the people's side.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Western Nation Cowardice
Most of the Western World's governments are now socialist in nature. The effect of such governance is a leveling of the differences between people, even when those differences are a good thing.
It is much easier to appears everyone than to take a stand. Small special interest groups and minorities have learned that all they need to do to get what they want is to threaten. This can be legally, with demonstrations, with violence or the threat of violence, committees, "projects" or any other strategy from the range of those available to them.
The media is too weak to challenge them, governments and politicians want their votes and they are the ones yelling so they give in as well. The courts back down to them and the result is a weakness that can only be described as cowardice.
Either the Western Nations will stand up to this and survive or will be destroyed from within and it is possible that in 50-100 years there will be no more Western countries.
It is much easier to appears everyone than to take a stand. Small special interest groups and minorities have learned that all they need to do to get what they want is to threaten. This can be legally, with demonstrations, with violence or the threat of violence, committees, "projects" or any other strategy from the range of those available to them.
The media is too weak to challenge them, governments and politicians want their votes and they are the ones yelling so they give in as well. The courts back down to them and the result is a weakness that can only be described as cowardice.
Either the Western Nations will stand up to this and survive or will be destroyed from within and it is possible that in 50-100 years there will be no more Western countries.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Media Hates You
There is very little research or verification carried out by the media in modern times. In the past a reporter was required to have a source and independent verification.
Looks at what the main stream media is reporting on say the Gaza situation. 350 children killed.
The total estimated deaths to date are 800, independent Palestinian observers have acknowledged 400 to be Hamas. Remember that these are the ones that are admitted. That means that of the rest only 50 are Adults of the other figure is to believed.
There is no verification of the figures on children. What we do know is that Hamas will bring children and civilians in to be human shield to fire from behind. We also know that the MSM will happily print anything they are told by Hamas. We also know that the UN is allowing Hamas to use their locations as firing points.
The UN is not complaining about this and the media are not asking them any hard questions.
The media is not pointing out that Israel is going further than any other nation to try and ensure that civilians are not targeted.
The media is not hammering Hamas over the use of children or civilians but is instead blaming Israel for unsubstantiated deaths.
There are many sources for information on what is happening but these are not being being used by our MSM. The bias is overwhelmingly towards Hamas as the 'good guys'.
Some basic facts.
The Jews occupied a much larger area than Israel well before there were Muslims.
Palestinians were all Jews until Yassar Arafat usurped the term for the Arabs living in that area.
Israel has been forced to give up key areas thanks to idiots like Carter and the basic non understanding of the dynamics of the region particularly those of the followers of Islam.
Islam only has a 'holy site' in Israel because it destroyed and built upon the existing Jewish temples.
On the walls of the existing temple are slogans concerning hatred for and the destruction of Israel and the Jews.
These are the kinds of facts that should come out when people 'support' Hamas, a terrorist organisation. An organisation that does not care if children are killed except for the media attention it brings them. If the media stopped supporting them then there would be less deaths.
Ergo, our media is directly causing the deaths of civilians and children. Just like the ABC did in Timor and others have done in many other nations and conflicts.
Looks at what the main stream media is reporting on say the Gaza situation. 350 children killed.
The total estimated deaths to date are 800, independent Palestinian observers have acknowledged 400 to be Hamas. Remember that these are the ones that are admitted. That means that of the rest only 50 are Adults of the other figure is to believed.
There is no verification of the figures on children. What we do know is that Hamas will bring children and civilians in to be human shield to fire from behind. We also know that the MSM will happily print anything they are told by Hamas. We also know that the UN is allowing Hamas to use their locations as firing points.
The UN is not complaining about this and the media are not asking them any hard questions.
The media is not pointing out that Israel is going further than any other nation to try and ensure that civilians are not targeted.
The media is not hammering Hamas over the use of children or civilians but is instead blaming Israel for unsubstantiated deaths.
There are many sources for information on what is happening but these are not being being used by our MSM. The bias is overwhelmingly towards Hamas as the 'good guys'.
Some basic facts.
The Jews occupied a much larger area than Israel well before there were Muslims.
Palestinians were all Jews until Yassar Arafat usurped the term for the Arabs living in that area.
Israel has been forced to give up key areas thanks to idiots like Carter and the basic non understanding of the dynamics of the region particularly those of the followers of Islam.
Islam only has a 'holy site' in Israel because it destroyed and built upon the existing Jewish temples.
On the walls of the existing temple are slogans concerning hatred for and the destruction of Israel and the Jews.
These are the kinds of facts that should come out when people 'support' Hamas, a terrorist organisation. An organisation that does not care if children are killed except for the media attention it brings them. If the media stopped supporting them then there would be less deaths.
Ergo, our media is directly causing the deaths of civilians and children. Just like the ABC did in Timor and others have done in many other nations and conflicts.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
PC Cowardice and Interference
For some reason there are people out there who believe that they know what is best for a person to the extent that they will feel offended for them. Consider the recent case in the UK the royal family. While I not any kind of fan of the group two recent events there are just plain stupid and reflect similar events here in Australia.
The first was an in unit video of one price referring to his "Paki friend." Having served in the military I know what it is like to use abbreviations and derogatory terms typically in the spirit of camaraderie or on the basis that it is fair for all, i.e. you give it and get it back. It also makes a great way to release tension.
Under this situation someone released the video and it 'offended' people and they were offended for the recipient. On the same basis we should not be using the term Aussie, Brit, Yank or any other shortened or variant of any nationality.
Worse is the incident with Prince Charles. He, like many others in the same group referred to a friend as Sooty. He is of course dark skinned. Sooty's statement is that he likes the name and accepts it as his nickname, and one he has had for a very long time. Observers are telling him that he should feel insulted and outraged.
Here is the thing. It is no-one's business what I or anyone else like to be called. If they want to be offended then do so in private and leave the people involved alone. In Thailand they have the perfect word for this "Seu-ak" The translation is roughly "don't put your nose in my business and in things that do not concern you" but in a very strong way.
To all those who feel offended for others, get a life and look at yourself before you start criticising others.
The first was an in unit video of one price referring to his "Paki friend." Having served in the military I know what it is like to use abbreviations and derogatory terms typically in the spirit of camaraderie or on the basis that it is fair for all, i.e. you give it and get it back. It also makes a great way to release tension.
Under this situation someone released the video and it 'offended' people and they were offended for the recipient. On the same basis we should not be using the term Aussie, Brit, Yank or any other shortened or variant of any nationality.
Worse is the incident with Prince Charles. He, like many others in the same group referred to a friend as Sooty. He is of course dark skinned. Sooty's statement is that he likes the name and accepts it as his nickname, and one he has had for a very long time. Observers are telling him that he should feel insulted and outraged.
Here is the thing. It is no-one's business what I or anyone else like to be called. If they want to be offended then do so in private and leave the people involved alone. In Thailand they have the perfect word for this "Seu-ak" The translation is roughly "don't put your nose in my business and in things that do not concern you" but in a very strong way.
To all those who feel offended for others, get a life and look at yourself before you start criticising others.
The Myth of Religious Freedom
There is a new "religious freedom" project being pushed by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). These are the same people that brought you the Religious Vilification Act you find in Victoria.
Religion Freedom in AHRC context means all minority religions i.e. not Christianity and Judaism get all the freedoms at the expense of the other two. The Victorian committee for example is stacked with only minority representatives, i.e. no one is representing or defending the majority of Australians.
In essence anyone that criticises Islam, homosexual Satan worshippers and similar groups is taken to court. The accuser gets government support and the accused, even if they win, get nothing back for all they have had to do to defend themselves.
Groups like the AHRC seem to be determined to undermine the basic freedoms of the average Australian and give them only to minority groups, some of which hate all Australia stands for.
A side note. What you and know as Australia and what it stands for is based on an underlying Christian influence. You don't have to believe in a god or be Christian to see that these fundamentals like freedom of speech, freedom to question, freedom to debate and criticise and the very fundamental that even allows the question of greater freedom for other groups to exist, is a good thing. To allow this to be taken away is simply cowardice.
Religion Freedom in AHRC context means all minority religions i.e. not Christianity and Judaism get all the freedoms at the expense of the other two. The Victorian committee for example is stacked with only minority representatives, i.e. no one is representing or defending the majority of Australians.
In essence anyone that criticises Islam, homosexual Satan worshippers and similar groups is taken to court. The accuser gets government support and the accused, even if they win, get nothing back for all they have had to do to defend themselves.
Groups like the AHRC seem to be determined to undermine the basic freedoms of the average Australian and give them only to minority groups, some of which hate all Australia stands for.
A side note. What you and know as Australia and what it stands for is based on an underlying Christian influence. You don't have to believe in a god or be Christian to see that these fundamentals like freedom of speech, freedom to question, freedom to debate and criticise and the very fundamental that even allows the question of greater freedom for other groups to exist, is a good thing. To allow this to be taken away is simply cowardice.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Media - Bias or Incompetence?
Our Media is desperate for news, the nastier the better.
Consider for example the situation in Gaza. No Western reporters are allowed in so the only source is from either Hamas or the Palestinians (non-Hamas). Both sources have no reason to report anything other than massive civilians. There have been some 'real' reports out of Gaza but I have yet to see any of these in the Main Stream Press (MSP).
Instead we read about 200+ childred killed with no independent verification. Why? Because it makes great press. It doesn't or won't matter if these figures, as so many have in the past, turn out to be pure fabrication. There will be no retractions, no apology and perhaps no corrections published. Instead our MSP will simply jump to some other outrageous claims.
The reporting has been about Paestinian soverignty but nothing on the same thing for Israel. There has been very little on the fact that Hamas has not only broken every treaty and cease fire but also that their charther forbids it and demands only the annihalation of Israel.
Consider for example the situation in Gaza. No Western reporters are allowed in so the only source is from either Hamas or the Palestinians (non-Hamas). Both sources have no reason to report anything other than massive civilians. There have been some 'real' reports out of Gaza but I have yet to see any of these in the Main Stream Press (MSP).
Instead we read about 200+ childred killed with no independent verification. Why? Because it makes great press. It doesn't or won't matter if these figures, as so many have in the past, turn out to be pure fabrication. There will be no retractions, no apology and perhaps no corrections published. Instead our MSP will simply jump to some other outrageous claims.
The reporting has been about Paestinian soverignty but nothing on the same thing for Israel. There has been very little on the fact that Hamas has not only broken every treaty and cease fire but also that their charther forbids it and demands only the annihalation of Israel.
Australians Hating Australia
The Left is a significant factor in the self-destruction of Australia. They praise everything non-Australian and forgive all issues of any non-White group. They encourage 'refugees', those that do not meet even the UN definition, with open arms.
They are quick to tear down any freedoms or culture that belongs to Australia and "Australians" while allowing the worst of other cultures to be forgiven at every opportunity. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment that grew from a theoretical university like environment. It is based on the very ideals that are attacked by the Left. Those of freedom of thought, the freedom to question and push boundaries or essentially the 'Christian' ideals that sprang from the Greek and Roman times. It is also based on the flawed assumption that other groups will accept and embrace these ideals.
Multiculturalism only works in the 'melting pot' environment where those joining the culture of Australia adopt and accept it to join with their own. Instead typically the opposite occurs. There is no acceptance of our culture only acceptance of the support, funding, housing, free legal representation and the jumping of all the queues. The incoming culture is kept, often to the exclusion of our own.
The only way to protect our culture is to firstly demand that a statement be made that it will be supported and the laws followed. Then if it is later found that the applicant lied or has been working against Australia that they are immediately deported.
If the focus is always on the imagined slights of reactions to the basic Australian culture then it and Australia is doomed and will be replaced by the largest or most dominant cultural group.
They are quick to tear down any freedoms or culture that belongs to Australia and "Australians" while allowing the worst of other cultures to be forgiven at every opportunity. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment that grew from a theoretical university like environment. It is based on the very ideals that are attacked by the Left. Those of freedom of thought, the freedom to question and push boundaries or essentially the 'Christian' ideals that sprang from the Greek and Roman times. It is also based on the flawed assumption that other groups will accept and embrace these ideals.
Multiculturalism only works in the 'melting pot' environment where those joining the culture of Australia adopt and accept it to join with their own. Instead typically the opposite occurs. There is no acceptance of our culture only acceptance of the support, funding, housing, free legal representation and the jumping of all the queues. The incoming culture is kept, often to the exclusion of our own.
The only way to protect our culture is to firstly demand that a statement be made that it will be supported and the laws followed. Then if it is later found that the applicant lied or has been working against Australia that they are immediately deported.
If the focus is always on the imagined slights of reactions to the basic Australian culture then it and Australia is doomed and will be replaced by the largest or most dominant cultural group.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Shutdown Our Military
While Australia should have a military no-one should be asked to serve under the current rules of engagement and subsequent criticism back home.
The other side is allowed to fire from behind civilians but Australians are not allowed to shoot back under those circumstances. Non military trained reporters are allowed to sit, watch and criticize so that at the next engagement the solder could double think.
Acting as a soldier under war conditions requires concentration and a natural response to training. Take that away and lives are at risk. The news is allowed to condemn, to second guess and has the luxury of after the fact analysis. The soldier may have a split second and now that time has been corrupted by the actions of the reporters and the government.
Any father or mother who is willing to allow their child to go to war under such conditions knows nothing about war. Better to close down the military than allow this farce to continue.
The other side is allowed to fire from behind civilians but Australians are not allowed to shoot back under those circumstances. Non military trained reporters are allowed to sit, watch and criticize so that at the next engagement the solder could double think.
Acting as a soldier under war conditions requires concentration and a natural response to training. Take that away and lives are at risk. The news is allowed to condemn, to second guess and has the luxury of after the fact analysis. The soldier may have a split second and now that time has been corrupted by the actions of the reporters and the government.
Any father or mother who is willing to allow their child to go to war under such conditions knows nothing about war. Better to close down the military than allow this farce to continue.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Climate Change - Lots of Ad Hominem
There will be a lot of posts on this subject since I have spent a great deal of time researching it and even wrote a longish paper on the subject.
In a recent Australian letter Professor Any Pitman chastised Jon Jenkins. He was criticized because he was a virologist commenting on the subject of climate change. Professor Pitman belongs to the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of NSW and is also an IPCC lead author. Sounds impressive and so I imagine that a lot of people took notice of his comments but did no further research, I did.
Professor Pitmann specializes in computer modeling with a specific focus on extreme weather events. You can look him and his centre up for further information http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/.
Dr Jon Jenkins is a awarded doctor who has a web site http://www.trac.org.au/. You will find that he has an anti-left-green stance on subject like global warming. He studied life sciences, was in parliment and has done some work with computer modelling.
Pitman's attack was the standard ad-hominem one, i.e. he attacked the person not the science. His 'science,' that of computer modelling has been debunked in a plethora of papers and by actual measurements and events over the past decade. I'll leave comments on the individual to others.
Climate change is a reality, it has happened for millennium, man's influence (if any) is so minuscule and unimportant that it can be ignored, and probably has been by nature.
In a recent Australian letter Professor Any Pitman chastised Jon Jenkins. He was criticized because he was a virologist commenting on the subject of climate change. Professor Pitman belongs to the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of NSW and is also an IPCC lead author. Sounds impressive and so I imagine that a lot of people took notice of his comments but did no further research, I did.
Professor Pitmann specializes in computer modeling with a specific focus on extreme weather events. You can look him and his centre up for further information http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/.
Dr Jon Jenkins is a awarded doctor who has a web site http://www.trac.org.au/. You will find that he has an anti-left-green stance on subject like global warming. He studied life sciences, was in parliment and has done some work with computer modelling.
Pitman's attack was the standard ad-hominem one, i.e. he attacked the person not the science. His 'science,' that of computer modelling has been debunked in a plethora of papers and by actual measurements and events over the past decade. I'll leave comments on the individual to others.
Climate change is a reality, it has happened for millennium, man's influence (if any) is so minuscule and unimportant that it can be ignored, and probably has been by nature.
Israel - Gaza - Palestine - Hamas
The reporting of this conflict has been atrocious.
During World War 2 the British moved their children out of London to keep them safe. Similiarly, Israel has moved its children out of harms way for the current conflict. By contrast, Hamas deliberately brings children into the line of fire, to use as shields to fire behind, and as propaganda for the media photos and video clips. The UN allows Hamas to fire from within their "safe zones" directly putting children at risk.
All of the reporting of events inside Gaza are provided by the people there. This means that they all have a bias against Israel. The mainstream media has been spoon fed these materials and like good little puppies they obediently report things as given.
For some reason it is OK that Israel has rockets fired upon it but not OK of Israel to respond. Tunnels can be built to supply weapons and materials to make rockets but it is bad to try and bomb these.
It was reported that Israel attacked a UN hospital. It was later found and reported by observers that there was indeed rocket position set up within the UN 'safe haven' and rockets were indeed fired from that position.
No one took the UN to task over this. No one strongly condemns the policy of Hamas to use children as shields but they do complain when children get killed. When rockets from Gaza hit a kindergarten there is little comment from the media. The focus, as always, is on the Pallywood style set shots of the grieving parents and the children laid out for the perfect camera shot.
The Red Cross complain that they cannot get to the injured but you see shots of the Red Crescent attending scenes. News flash the REd Cross is not allowed into Muslim controlled areas, the symbol of the cross is considered insulting hence the creation of the Red Crescent. This is standartd misdirection, easy to research but never mentioned.
During World War 2 the British moved their children out of London to keep them safe. Similiarly, Israel has moved its children out of harms way for the current conflict. By contrast, Hamas deliberately brings children into the line of fire, to use as shields to fire behind, and as propaganda for the media photos and video clips. The UN allows Hamas to fire from within their "safe zones" directly putting children at risk.
All of the reporting of events inside Gaza are provided by the people there. This means that they all have a bias against Israel. The mainstream media has been spoon fed these materials and like good little puppies they obediently report things as given.
For some reason it is OK that Israel has rockets fired upon it but not OK of Israel to respond. Tunnels can be built to supply weapons and materials to make rockets but it is bad to try and bomb these.
It was reported that Israel attacked a UN hospital. It was later found and reported by observers that there was indeed rocket position set up within the UN 'safe haven' and rockets were indeed fired from that position.
No one took the UN to task over this. No one strongly condemns the policy of Hamas to use children as shields but they do complain when children get killed. When rockets from Gaza hit a kindergarten there is little comment from the media. The focus, as always, is on the Pallywood style set shots of the grieving parents and the children laid out for the perfect camera shot.
The Red Cross complain that they cannot get to the injured but you see shots of the Red Crescent attending scenes. News flash the REd Cross is not allowed into Muslim controlled areas, the symbol of the cross is considered insulting hence the creation of the Red Crescent. This is standartd misdirection, easy to research but never mentioned.
Introduction
Australia is self destructing.
On the surface or at first glance Australia looks like a well balanced nation. It has a democratically elected government, a system of laws and what appear to be a great number of freedoms.
Scratch the surface a little deeper though and problems soon become apparent for those who want to look.
A growing population, mainly by immigration, backed by a growing lack of clean water and other resources to support such increases. The legal system allows murderers to get out on bail and there is a gradual erosion of what made Australia what it is, replaced by a hatred of the country by those who live here.
The media is so far left that socialists dominate every viewpoint and journalism is rarely displayed by any writer or presenter. Feral letters to the editor are published and more balanced viewpoints are not. Facts quoted in articles are rarely checked but stated as if they have been verified.
The population is lied to on a regular basis and the latest government is represented by three names in the majority of all news reports.
This blog will represent letters written to the Australian, never published along with more detailed examination of what is printed and what really happened.
On the surface or at first glance Australia looks like a well balanced nation. It has a democratically elected government, a system of laws and what appear to be a great number of freedoms.
Scratch the surface a little deeper though and problems soon become apparent for those who want to look.
A growing population, mainly by immigration, backed by a growing lack of clean water and other resources to support such increases. The legal system allows murderers to get out on bail and there is a gradual erosion of what made Australia what it is, replaced by a hatred of the country by those who live here.
The media is so far left that socialists dominate every viewpoint and journalism is rarely displayed by any writer or presenter. Feral letters to the editor are published and more balanced viewpoints are not. Facts quoted in articles are rarely checked but stated as if they have been verified.
The population is lied to on a regular basis and the latest government is represented by three names in the majority of all news reports.
This blog will represent letters written to the Australian, never published along with more detailed examination of what is printed and what really happened.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)