[Singing] Aussie Bonds, Aussie Bonds
It looks like that iconic underwear manufacturer will have to move offshore and at the same time the lady in charge is being harassed for a huge pay rise before the company started laying off people.
Now, I am against huge salaries for executives, especially for companies that are losing money or whose share price is dropping etc. Perfect case in point is the soon to be ex-head of Telstra. His salary was going up as a mirror image of Telstra's fortunes falling. This and similar examples are easy to find in Australia, particularly in the banking sector where these salaries are now being paid for by tax payer's money.
There should be a tax or a cap or something when the company involved is not making profits.
The Aussie Bonds case, while still a ridiculously large salary, has been misrepresented by our media (say it isn't so!). The lady involved gained her pay rise by being promoted and only taking half of the salary that was being offered. Strange how not one MSM groups reported it this way.
Yet another reason not to trust our media, or just about anyone else's for that matter.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
The New Australian English Edjumication
If you can get past the quote in the Australian from the Teachers Union the implications are disturbing.
"meaning making in and through language, in a range of forms, media and expression, should be the core organiser of the curriculum."
First you will need to check their definition of literature as being "culturally valued texts" and not things like "plays, novels, poems" that they define as being too "nebulous."
If you want culturally nebulous think about what culturally valued means. From the students perspective this might be some idiotic TV show and the nuances of SMS texting. Lazy teachers can select movies to watch in stead of actually standing up and teaching anything. Instead of teaching there seems to be a trend towards social engineering.
This includes pushing social agendas like global warming and socialism over grammar and a well constructed sentence. Instead of challenge the curriculum demands equality. "Equality" in this sense means materials aimed at the dumbest or least privileged members of the class.
So they have no access to books at home so the plan is to make sure that they don't read any good ones at school? I.e. if you are disadvantaged we are going to make sure that you stay that way, in the interests of "equality."
A conspiracy theory might go this way. There are a small, elite group of people who recognise that having good language skills are important for staying on top and being recognised around the world. If these people ensure that the majority of the population graduate with poor language skills then their positions at the top of society are assured and they can make sure that only those people they want to rise to those positions do so.
This kind of theory is of course just crazy talk, isn't it?
If you want to see some examples of what pompous and meaningless English looks like I direct you attention to The Australian, Letters to the Editor, Feb 28 (Sat) from Frank Brennan, Brian Tee and Stephen Brady.
"meaning making in and through language, in a range of forms, media and expression, should be the core organiser of the curriculum."
First you will need to check their definition of literature as being "culturally valued texts" and not things like "plays, novels, poems" that they define as being too "nebulous."
If you want culturally nebulous think about what culturally valued means. From the students perspective this might be some idiotic TV show and the nuances of SMS texting. Lazy teachers can select movies to watch in stead of actually standing up and teaching anything. Instead of teaching there seems to be a trend towards social engineering.
This includes pushing social agendas like global warming and socialism over grammar and a well constructed sentence. Instead of challenge the curriculum demands equality. "Equality" in this sense means materials aimed at the dumbest or least privileged members of the class.
So they have no access to books at home so the plan is to make sure that they don't read any good ones at school? I.e. if you are disadvantaged we are going to make sure that you stay that way, in the interests of "equality."
A conspiracy theory might go this way. There are a small, elite group of people who recognise that having good language skills are important for staying on top and being recognised around the world. If these people ensure that the majority of the population graduate with poor language skills then their positions at the top of society are assured and they can make sure that only those people they want to rise to those positions do so.
This kind of theory is of course just crazy talk, isn't it?
If you want to see some examples of what pompous and meaningless English looks like I direct you attention to The Australian, Letters to the Editor, Feb 28 (Sat) from Frank Brennan, Brian Tee and Stephen Brady.
Magistrates Love Criminals
There is a case today where a citizen chased after some youths, on the instructions of the police, and detained them until the police arrived.
The person, who was following police orders, was found guilty by a magistrate. The youths probably got off with a warning. That criminals are regularly treated as first class citizens by magistrates seems backwards, particularly in light of this case.
We regularly see news where someone who has killed a person while driving too fast gets off with a suspended sentence but someone who does something minor ends up in jail. Criminals are never given full sentences and even if they are they get out on parole in a fraction of the time.
The biggest excuse is that prisons are full. OK here is an idea let's use the infrastructure money from Rudd's stimulus plan to build prisons. It will keep people actively employed and allow judges to give real sentences for real crimes instead of letting them back out on the streets to do it all over again.
The person, who was following police orders, was found guilty by a magistrate. The youths probably got off with a warning. That criminals are regularly treated as first class citizens by magistrates seems backwards, particularly in light of this case.
We regularly see news where someone who has killed a person while driving too fast gets off with a suspended sentence but someone who does something minor ends up in jail. Criminals are never given full sentences and even if they are they get out on parole in a fraction of the time.
The biggest excuse is that prisons are full. OK here is an idea let's use the infrastructure money from Rudd's stimulus plan to build prisons. It will keep people actively employed and allow judges to give real sentences for real crimes instead of letting them back out on the streets to do it all over again.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Programmers and Traffic Lights
Anyone who has spent time in Asia and places like Thailand, India and Indonesia will tell you that the craziest driving can be found in these places. In some respects this is true. I have been caught in some epic traffic jams while living in Bangkok.
People who know both places tell me that whoever set up the traffic patterns in Sydney must at least be related to the people who did it for Bangkok. Possibly but my experience is in Adelaide which I now dub the worst traffic programming on the planet.
You are talking about a small city in international terms but somehow the councils and government has managed to completely mess up the traffic patters in Adelaide. I suspect it all started when they brought in the 40/50/60 km/h zones. For some reason some bright spark figured that this would somehow save lives. There is at best anecdotal evidence to support this.
What it has done is made the traffic light phases a mess. If you drive in a 50 zone at 50 you will miss the lights, if you drive at 60 you will make them. People come out of 50 zones and drive that speed in 60 zones. At best this causes those who can read some annoyance that they are not only stuck behind such individuals but that they also miss the lights.
Drivers in Adelaide also appear to be dosed up on Ritalin. They leave the lights at a glacial pace, make right hand turns in such a way to double the time people need to wait at red lights and seem to be oblivious to anyone else on the road. Many drivers do not enter the intersection to prepare for a right turn at lights. I am sure that this is taught by driving instructors. People are afraid to pass or drive next to a bus or a semi.
All in all I vote Adelaide drivers and council planners the worst I have seen. Then there are the traffic light programmers either they are not getting the right information to do reprogram the lights or it is the fault of the councils. On second thought I doubt the problems lie with the programmers at all.
Finally there is the Wakefield/ Grote street road changes. Some bright spark in the council decided to cut off one lane before the Central Markets to widen the footpath in front of the Hotel. This has caused no end of traffic problems for a major artery that feeds to the Airport. All for a pretty sidewalk. Then they banned U-Turns on the same road making visiting the market a painful experience. All in all about the worst civic planning I have ever seen.
People who know both places tell me that whoever set up the traffic patterns in Sydney must at least be related to the people who did it for Bangkok. Possibly but my experience is in Adelaide which I now dub the worst traffic programming on the planet.
You are talking about a small city in international terms but somehow the councils and government has managed to completely mess up the traffic patters in Adelaide. I suspect it all started when they brought in the 40/50/60 km/h zones. For some reason some bright spark figured that this would somehow save lives. There is at best anecdotal evidence to support this.
What it has done is made the traffic light phases a mess. If you drive in a 50 zone at 50 you will miss the lights, if you drive at 60 you will make them. People come out of 50 zones and drive that speed in 60 zones. At best this causes those who can read some annoyance that they are not only stuck behind such individuals but that they also miss the lights.
Drivers in Adelaide also appear to be dosed up on Ritalin. They leave the lights at a glacial pace, make right hand turns in such a way to double the time people need to wait at red lights and seem to be oblivious to anyone else on the road. Many drivers do not enter the intersection to prepare for a right turn at lights. I am sure that this is taught by driving instructors. People are afraid to pass or drive next to a bus or a semi.
All in all I vote Adelaide drivers and council planners the worst I have seen. Then there are the traffic light programmers either they are not getting the right information to do reprogram the lights or it is the fault of the councils. On second thought I doubt the problems lie with the programmers at all.
Finally there is the Wakefield/ Grote street road changes. Some bright spark in the council decided to cut off one lane before the Central Markets to widen the footpath in front of the Hotel. This has caused no end of traffic problems for a major artery that feeds to the Airport. All for a pretty sidewalk. Then they banned U-Turns on the same road making visiting the market a painful experience. All in all about the worst civic planning I have ever seen.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Filtering the Internet
Showing that it is desperately trying to beat the UK at being the biggest Nanny State the Australian Government is still going ahead with the Internet filtering.
The government started their trial of the filtering software on 11 February. Using a few ISPs the target were "illegal sites" as defined by the Broadcasting Services Act. The problem to date is what is to be filtered, the story keeps changing. The target as defined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority is RC, R18+ and X18+ content. The R18+ materials will be blocked if it is not part of some restricted access system.
The block list is 1300 sites but there is a larger list of 10000 sites. So far not sounding too bad but Senator Ludlam has talked about dynamic filtering, according to content and categories: the use of computer-driven algorithms to establish categories, rather than any human insight into what may be blocked. This could mean that perfectly legal sites can be blocked if they happen to have a few words the filters don’t like.
The scheme was initially focused on protecting children but the scope seems to have grown somewhat since then. What is lacking is any clarity from the government on exactly where this scheme is going.
It should be content that is banned under any medium. Not content that is banned in one form but available in others. Blocking access to any form of child pornography is a given and should be mandatory. When they start talking about violence the lines can become somewhat blurred.
They are also talking about sites that advocate carrying out terrorist acts. I wonder if all those Islamic sites that propose such things will indeed be blocked or will somehow get a pass under some form of ‘equal opportunity’ excuse, (translation: cowardice in the face of protests).
In general censorship is not a good thing and when it comes to trying to filter the Internet it has been demonstrated to be a complete failure even in places like China.
The government started their trial of the filtering software on 11 February. Using a few ISPs the target were "illegal sites" as defined by the Broadcasting Services Act. The problem to date is what is to be filtered, the story keeps changing. The target as defined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority is RC, R18+ and X18+ content. The R18+ materials will be blocked if it is not part of some restricted access system.
The block list is 1300 sites but there is a larger list of 10000 sites. So far not sounding too bad but Senator Ludlam has talked about dynamic filtering, according to content and categories: the use of computer-driven algorithms to establish categories, rather than any human insight into what may be blocked. This could mean that perfectly legal sites can be blocked if they happen to have a few words the filters don’t like.
The scheme was initially focused on protecting children but the scope seems to have grown somewhat since then. What is lacking is any clarity from the government on exactly where this scheme is going.
It should be content that is banned under any medium. Not content that is banned in one form but available in others. Blocking access to any form of child pornography is a given and should be mandatory. When they start talking about violence the lines can become somewhat blurred.
They are also talking about sites that advocate carrying out terrorist acts. I wonder if all those Islamic sites that propose such things will indeed be blocked or will somehow get a pass under some form of ‘equal opportunity’ excuse, (translation: cowardice in the face of protests).
In general censorship is not a good thing and when it comes to trying to filter the Internet it has been demonstrated to be a complete failure even in places like China.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Only Try This at Home
Today's' challenge for the practically handicapped or Islamic apologists.
1. Go to Pakistan , Afghanistan , Iraq, Iran or illegally.
Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense.
2. Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family.
3. Demand that all nurses and doctors be fluent in English, and that all food be cooked according to your special specifications in the hospital.
4. Demand free local government forms, bulletins, etc. be printed in English.
5. Procreate abundantly.
6. Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behaviour with, 'It is a cultural thing; you wouldn't understand.'
7. Keep your original identity strong. Fly your previous country's national flag from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window, or on your car bumper.
8. Speak only English at home and in public, and make sure that your children do likewise.
9. Demand classes on English culture in the Muslim school system.
10. Demand a local country driver license or national insurance number equivalent
11. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Pakistan , Afghanistan, Iran etc.
12. Drive around with no motor, tax or insurance and ignore local traffic laws.
13. Insist that local country law enforcement teaches English to all its officers.
14. Organize protest marches against your host country, inciting violence against non-white, non-Christians, and the government that let you in.
15. Build a Church.
In reality you in all likelihood would not make it to point 2 and if you did make it further you would have omitted an offense punishable by death well before you reached the end.
All of these things are being accepted in places like Australia, without question, from many in our government and by many of our community leaders. It is called "Multiculturalism" A concept considered weak by those who take advantage of it and one that weakens what we used to stand up for.
1. Go to Pakistan , Afghanistan , Iraq, Iran or
Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense.
2. Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family.
3. Demand that all nurses and doctors be fluent in English, and that all food be cooked according to your special specifications in the hospital.
4. Demand free local government forms, bulletins, etc. be printed in English.
5. Procreate abundantly.
6. Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behaviour with, 'It is a cultural thing; you wouldn't understand.'
7. Keep your original identity strong. Fly your previous country's national flag from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window, or on your car bumper.
8. Speak only English at home and in public, and make sure that your children do likewise.
9. Demand classes on English culture in the Muslim school system.
10. Demand a local country driver license or national insurance number equivalent
11. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Pakistan , Afghanistan, Iran etc.
12. Drive around with no motor, tax or insurance and ignore local traffic laws.
13. Insist that local country law enforcement teaches English to all its officers.
14. Organize protest marches against your host country, inciting violence against non-white, non-Christians, and the government that let you in.
15. Build a Church.
In reality you in all likelihood would not make it to point 2 and if you did make it further you would have omitted an offense punishable by death well before you reached the end.
All of these things are being accepted in places like Australia, without question, from many in our government and by many of our community leaders. It is called "Multiculturalism" A concept considered weak by those who take advantage of it and one that weakens what we used to stand up for.
Islam - Music, Entertainment and Fun
According to Hadith Qudsi 19:5: "The Prophet said that Allah commanded him to destroy all the musical instruments, idols, crosses and all the trappings of ignorance."
In the Sharia law book it also says that Muhammad said (Nuh Hah Mim Keller r40):
(1) “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.”
(2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”
(3) “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”
(4) “This community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.” Someone asked, “When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”
(5) “There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful ….”
So there it is. No music or musical instruments and no singing. That means no MTV, no opera and no CD’s. Verse one also points out that there can be no crucifixes.
As the Ayatollah Khomeini pointed out in Iran ahter he came to power “"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."
Bummer.
If you think that was then but this is now consider recent news from Afghanistan where armed Taliban patrolled Harichand Bazaar in the jurisdiction of Mandani Police Station and removed cassette and CD players from the vehicles. All as the enforcement of Sharia.
Remember also that this is but one of the rules that some Muslims want to see implemented in Australia and are gradually implementing in places like the UK.
In the Sharia law book it also says that Muhammad said (Nuh Hah Mim Keller r40):
(1) “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.”
(2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”
(3) “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”
(4) “This community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.” Someone asked, “When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”
(5) “There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful ….”
So there it is. No music or musical instruments and no singing. That means no MTV, no opera and no CD’s. Verse one also points out that there can be no crucifixes.
As the Ayatollah Khomeini pointed out in Iran ahter he came to power “"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."
Bummer.
If you think that was then but this is now consider recent news from Afghanistan where armed Taliban patrolled Harichand Bazaar in the jurisdiction of Mandani Police Station and removed cassette and CD players from the vehicles. All as the enforcement of Sharia.
Remember also that this is but one of the rules that some Muslims want to see implemented in Australia and are gradually implementing in places like the UK.
The Ultimate Nanny State?
So a Catholic Priest and a judge walk in to a bar. I wish it was a joke but it appears that a judge is going to decide if it is OK for a priest, who no longer believes in God can continue to serve in in the Catholic Church.
Now I am no fan of the Catholic Church in general but I suspect that not believing in God would be like your commercial airline pilot no longer being able to fly a plane, even a remote controlled toy one.
The basis of most churches are faith and belief, the priest concerned has neither. How would confession work? What about administering the sacraments or baptism or any other action that requires a link to God? If your job description is to being God to the people how can you do that work when belief is not present.
How does such a conversation go?
"Father, I am having doubts about my faith and I am thinking about leaving the Church"
"OK"
Enter the all knowing judiciary, you know those people who let people out on bail after they have killed someone, who will decide if it is OK for a priest to stay in their position of leadership. What is the yardstick they are planning to use? Perhaps they will consult someone like Richard Dawkins, a self avowed atheist, for an unbiased opinion.
What higher form of Nanny State can their be that one who tells you what religion is and who can say what about them? By Nanny State I means some amalgamation of Fascism, Socialism and Stateism all rolled together.
Now I am no fan of the Catholic Church in general but I suspect that not believing in God would be like your commercial airline pilot no longer being able to fly a plane, even a remote controlled toy one.
The basis of most churches are faith and belief, the priest concerned has neither. How would confession work? What about administering the sacraments or baptism or any other action that requires a link to God? If your job description is to being God to the people how can you do that work when belief is not present.
How does such a conversation go?
"Father, I am having doubts about my faith and I am thinking about leaving the Church"
"OK"
Enter the all knowing judiciary, you know those people who let people out on bail after they have killed someone, who will decide if it is OK for a priest to stay in their position of leadership. What is the yardstick they are planning to use? Perhaps they will consult someone like Richard Dawkins, a self avowed atheist, for an unbiased opinion.
What higher form of Nanny State can their be that one who tells you what religion is and who can say what about them? By Nanny State I means some amalgamation of Fascism, Socialism and Stateism all rolled together.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Women in Islam
For some reason Western women, and others, are apologetic about the plight of women under Islam. By 'Islam' here I mean according to Sharia Law, the Koran, the Hadith, the Life of Mohammad and the practice and implementation is countries across the globe. I don't mean some idealized fantasy ideas that we seem to hear from the media and other sources.
There are other excellent sources like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who lived the life and Rosemary Sookhdeo who interviewed many Muslim family members but lets stick to the actual teachings.
Let's start with the definition of equality. The dictionary version makes everything the same, e.g. a man is equal to a woman, let's see what the Koran has to say about it. Suras 4:1, 17:70 and 49:13 intimate that men and women are equal, in terms of their creation.
The Bukhari Hadits 1:303, 8:456 and others like 2:28, 2:161, 2:541 and others all describe hell as being full of women. This is because for a women to get into paradise she must be absolutely obedient, any infraction and its off to hell and the man gets the houris. In the Sunan Abu-Darwood hadith 876 (narrated by Qaya ibn Sa'd) it says that women should postrate themselves to men because of the special right given to men by Allah. Women that make it to heaven are submissive, subordinate, veiled and secluded in a harem while their husbands make love to beautiful houris. Not really very equal then.
Women go to hell because they are ungrateful to their husbands (Hadith, Al Bukhari, 161:2), 1:301 from the same source also tells how women are deficient in intelligence. Sura 4:34 describes how men are in charge of women because they are superior. The same verse talks about beating your wife is she disobeys. A woman must drop everything when her husband wants sex, including the cooking (Hadith: Al-Bukhari 121:7, Al-Tirmidhi 959). A woman's veracity is also less than that of a mans with two women needed to equal one man's in testimony, but only when accompanied by a man, i.e. 2 men = 1 man and 2 woman but 4 women do not equal 2 men (Koran 2:282). Why? because, as Mohammad said, they are deficient in intelligence (Hadith: Al-Bukhari 301:1).
This inequality also carries over to inheritance where sura 4:11 states that men get half as much as the man. There are many other topics that can be covered under this subject like the veil, marriage in which the woman must surrender all rights, that men get the children after divorce and just how easy it is for a polygamous man to divorce a woman but how difficult it is for the woman to do so.
So while there are some verses in the Koran that seems to support the idea that men and women are equal when you scratch the surface there is a lot more to it. The result is that women are beaten or killed for any perceived loss of honour. A man can bring or restore honour, a woman can only bring shame. This is common across all major divisions and schools within Islam.
At the same time there are moderate Muslims who do not practice these things but out of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today a large number of them do accept and practice these teachings and the really scary part is that many of the under 30's are stronger in this than the elders ones, particularly the males in that category. This is why we see 'honor' killings in Western societies.
So when a Western woman thinks that Islam will treat them with any equality try visiting Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia or any other large Muslim nation and try exercising your freedoms. Try not wearing a head scarf, or a short dress or criticise a man in public. If you live to tell the take I am sure that this will cure you of your misconceptions.
What I fail to understand is why so many women's groups are silent on this issue?
There are other excellent sources like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who lived the life and Rosemary Sookhdeo who interviewed many Muslim family members but lets stick to the actual teachings.
Let's start with the definition of equality. The dictionary version makes everything the same, e.g. a man is equal to a woman, let's see what the Koran has to say about it. Suras 4:1, 17:70 and 49:13 intimate that men and women are equal, in terms of their creation.
The Bukhari Hadits 1:303, 8:456 and others like 2:28, 2:161, 2:541 and others all describe hell as being full of women. This is because for a women to get into paradise she must be absolutely obedient, any infraction and its off to hell and the man gets the houris. In the Sunan Abu-Darwood hadith 876 (narrated by Qaya ibn Sa'd) it says that women should postrate themselves to men because of the special right given to men by Allah. Women that make it to heaven are submissive, subordinate, veiled and secluded in a harem while their husbands make love to beautiful houris. Not really very equal then.
Women go to hell because they are ungrateful to their husbands (Hadith, Al Bukhari, 161:2), 1:301 from the same source also tells how women are deficient in intelligence. Sura 4:34 describes how men are in charge of women because they are superior. The same verse talks about beating your wife is she disobeys. A woman must drop everything when her husband wants sex, including the cooking (Hadith: Al-Bukhari 121:7, Al-Tirmidhi 959). A woman's veracity is also less than that of a mans with two women needed to equal one man's in testimony, but only when accompanied by a man, i.e. 2 men = 1 man and 2 woman but 4 women do not equal 2 men (Koran 2:282). Why? because, as Mohammad said, they are deficient in intelligence (Hadith: Al-Bukhari 301:1).
This inequality also carries over to inheritance where sura 4:11 states that men get half as much as the man. There are many other topics that can be covered under this subject like the veil, marriage in which the woman must surrender all rights, that men get the children after divorce and just how easy it is for a polygamous man to divorce a woman but how difficult it is for the woman to do so.
So while there are some verses in the Koran that seems to support the idea that men and women are equal when you scratch the surface there is a lot more to it. The result is that women are beaten or killed for any perceived loss of honour. A man can bring or restore honour, a woman can only bring shame. This is common across all major divisions and schools within Islam.
At the same time there are moderate Muslims who do not practice these things but out of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today a large number of them do accept and practice these teachings and the really scary part is that many of the under 30's are stronger in this than the elders ones, particularly the males in that category. This is why we see 'honor' killings in Western societies.
So when a Western woman thinks that Islam will treat them with any equality try visiting Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia or any other large Muslim nation and try exercising your freedoms. Try not wearing a head scarf, or a short dress or criticise a man in public. If you live to tell the take I am sure that this will cure you of your misconceptions.
What I fail to understand is why so many women's groups are silent on this issue?
Are All Our Departments Crazy?
"I'm German, I'm German, I'm German" [spoken in German]
This is how is all started, with some crazy women, no passport and only speaking German. It ended up with the crazy women being put into detention only to be found out later that she held dual citizenship. Then as usual our weak willed government paid her a large sum of money. Given the situation she should have just been sent back to Germany to let them deal with her.
Sometime later she is detained in Jordan, after being refused entry to a couple of others, and will only speak German to Australian representatives. Her equally wacko sister is now declaring that she is not being helped enough. That last word sums it up nicely, enough. Let her be looked after by her favourite and native country, Germany. Why is it that our stupid officials are even bothering with this case.
Its not like she is a Dokic who can at least play some entertaining tennis for which some starry eyed citizens instantly forgive all of her slights against us. This is a crazy German woman who wants nothing to do with us?
This case just reinforces the strange trend to 'help' everyone, even when they don't want it or welcome it. It is the prevalent Big Brother attitudes that have infected our politicians, our government departments and the minds of decision makers who now believe that they know best, not the individuals.
Imagine what the outcry from her sister would have been if she had been stopped from leaving the country.
Then there is the strange case of the two lads who were caught driving so far over the speed limit that the usual rules could not be applied and they are still allowed to drive. Instead of the sensible application of the lesser rules, i.e. no driving these are ignored until there is a trial.
Our legal system is broken and the lawyers have way too much power.
This is how is all started, with some crazy women, no passport and only speaking German. It ended up with the crazy women being put into detention only to be found out later that she held dual citizenship. Then as usual our weak willed government paid her a large sum of money. Given the situation she should have just been sent back to Germany to let them deal with her.
Sometime later she is detained in Jordan, after being refused entry to a couple of others, and will only speak German to Australian representatives. Her equally wacko sister is now declaring that she is not being helped enough. That last word sums it up nicely, enough. Let her be looked after by her favourite and native country, Germany. Why is it that our stupid officials are even bothering with this case.
Its not like she is a Dokic who can at least play some entertaining tennis for which some starry eyed citizens instantly forgive all of her slights against us. This is a crazy German woman who wants nothing to do with us?
This case just reinforces the strange trend to 'help' everyone, even when they don't want it or welcome it. It is the prevalent Big Brother attitudes that have infected our politicians, our government departments and the minds of decision makers who now believe that they know best, not the individuals.
Imagine what the outcry from her sister would have been if she had been stopped from leaving the country.
Then there is the strange case of the two lads who were caught driving so far over the speed limit that the usual rules could not be applied and they are still allowed to drive. Instead of the sensible application of the lesser rules, i.e. no driving these are ignored until there is a trial.
Our legal system is broken and the lawyers have way too much power.
Friday, February 20, 2009
We Know What You Are
There is a small, growing, influential movement to take control over what you think you are.
Equal Opportunity Bills, Commissioners, commissions, committees and other sources are deciding what should and should not happen to you.
"I'm not feeling stressed"
"Yes, you are"
"No, I feel fine"
"No you don't, you are stressed"
"Really?"
"Yes, we know about these things, you are stressed?
"Umm, I don't feel stressed but perhaps you are right"
Substitute the word stressed for "discriminated against" or "vilified" or anything else you can think of and this is the current direction of our society. Self-righteous individuals and groups pre-deciding what is good, or not, for you.
It doesn't matter what you may think or feel, they will feel for you. Not feeling discriminated against
The equality commission will decide if you are or not and you must not only go along with them but give them the ammunition to so do. If you fight against it you can be forced to testify. This is what happens in Victoria, NSW and soon in SA of the current Equality Bill is passed into Law.
One interesting note on the SA case. They tried twice to get it in before, in secret but it was blocked. Yet again the Attorney General has put it into play, this time by having someone else do it so that it can bypass the lower house.
Equal Opportunity Bills, Commissioners, commissions, committees and other sources are deciding what should and should not happen to you.
"I'm not feeling stressed"
"Yes, you are"
"No, I feel fine"
"No you don't, you are stressed"
"Really?"
"Yes, we know about these things, you are stressed?
"Umm, I don't feel stressed but perhaps you are right"
Substitute the word stressed for "discriminated against" or "vilified" or anything else you can think of and this is the current direction of our society. Self-righteous individuals and groups pre-deciding what is good, or not, for you.
It doesn't matter what you may think or feel, they will feel for you. Not feeling discriminated against
The equality commission will decide if you are or not and you must not only go along with them but give them the ammunition to so do. If you fight against it you can be forced to testify. This is what happens in Victoria, NSW and soon in SA of the current Equality Bill is passed into Law.
One interesting note on the SA case. They tried twice to get it in before, in secret but it was blocked. Yet again the Attorney General has put it into play, this time by having someone else do it so that it can bypass the lower house.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Islam - Truth and Lies
If you have been paying any attention to things like the Gaza conflict, Iraq, Iran, stories on Terrorism and so on, and if your source has been the main stream media, you are probably very confused.
On the one hand you hear that Islam is a religion of peace, one that is tolerant of other religions, that believes in equality and treats their women well. Then you see acts of terrorism, and hear about honor killings, death for apostates and hear about women having few rights in a Sharia based society.
Truth is important within Islam. There is the ultimate truth of the Koran, dictated by an angel directly from the book of truth in Heaven. There are versus in the Koran like "Truly God guides not one who transgresses and lies!" (40:28) that rails against lying and others like (33:24) that praise Truth.
Behind these is a second doctrine, one of taqiyya (dissimulation). This was developed to deal with religious persecution but has now become the norm of public behavior among Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a, to be used whenever there is conflict between faith and expectancy. It is supported by (16:106 and 2:195) in the Koran and others like (3:28) that warns against taking any non-Muslim friends.
There are some supporting Haddith like (Al-Tirmidhi Number 5033: Narrated by Asma, daughter of Yazid) "Lying is allowed only in three cases: falsehood spoken by a man to his wife to please her, falsehood in war, and falsehood to put things right between people." The second one has a very broad definition and is used in any defense of Islam. I.e. it is completely justified for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim about their faith.
With the understanding of taqiyya comes some understanding of the apparent dichotomy of Islam that exists to the outside observer. Those that want to think the best or hope for it will only look at one side, the side that is tayiyya, while not even understanding that such a principle exists within Islam.
Note: The references are included for self study. They are taken from authorised Islamic texts.
On the one hand you hear that Islam is a religion of peace, one that is tolerant of other religions, that believes in equality and treats their women well. Then you see acts of terrorism, and hear about honor killings, death for apostates and hear about women having few rights in a Sharia based society.
Truth is important within Islam. There is the ultimate truth of the Koran, dictated by an angel directly from the book of truth in Heaven. There are versus in the Koran like "Truly God guides not one who transgresses and lies!" (40:28) that rails against lying and others like (33:24) that praise Truth.
Behind these is a second doctrine, one of taqiyya (dissimulation). This was developed to deal with religious persecution but has now become the norm of public behavior among Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a, to be used whenever there is conflict between faith and expectancy. It is supported by (16:106 and 2:195) in the Koran and others like (3:28) that warns against taking any non-Muslim friends.
There are some supporting Haddith like (Al-Tirmidhi Number 5033: Narrated by Asma, daughter of Yazid) "Lying is allowed only in three cases: falsehood spoken by a man to his wife to please her, falsehood in war, and falsehood to put things right between people." The second one has a very broad definition and is used in any defense of Islam. I.e. it is completely justified for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim about their faith.
With the understanding of taqiyya comes some understanding of the apparent dichotomy of Islam that exists to the outside observer. Those that want to think the best or hope for it will only look at one side, the side that is tayiyya, while not even understanding that such a principle exists within Islam.
Note: The references are included for self study. They are taken from authorised Islamic texts.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Prepared and Insured - Or Not
With all due respect to those who have died and lost their houses there are two type of people who will be feeling fairly hard done after the bushfires. Those who were prepared and those who had insurance.
Those in the first category spent the time clearing fire breaks around their houses, soaking the ground and their buildings and generally thought about fire safety. They ignored those who scoffed and for the most part their houses were saved, even for some who had left ahead of the fire.
The next category paid the additional 40% levy imposed by the Victoria Government to protect their livelihood if heaven forbid a fire came through and destroyed everything. About half rolled the dice and decided not to bother, or they could not afford it.
If your house burns down in the city or in a small bush fire you can expect very little in the way of help or sympathy. If you are not prepared or insured what you need is a decent sized fire so that the country, local governments, celebrities and others will send you donations, food, clothing and try to guilt the government to cover your uninsured house.
From a psychological viewpoint this might make sense from a social viewpoint it is a disaster. It says that you don't have to worry about anything because Uncle will pick up the tab and make it all better. It also means that less people will worry about insurance or protecting themselves or their assets.
This is wrong on so many levels that it is not even worth spending the time to write the words.
Those in the first category spent the time clearing fire breaks around their houses, soaking the ground and their buildings and generally thought about fire safety. They ignored those who scoffed and for the most part their houses were saved, even for some who had left ahead of the fire.
The next category paid the additional 40% levy imposed by the Victoria Government to protect their livelihood if heaven forbid a fire came through and destroyed everything. About half rolled the dice and decided not to bother, or they could not afford it.
If your house burns down in the city or in a small bush fire you can expect very little in the way of help or sympathy. If you are not prepared or insured what you need is a decent sized fire so that the country, local governments, celebrities and others will send you donations, food, clothing and try to guilt the government to cover your uninsured house.
From a psychological viewpoint this might make sense from a social viewpoint it is a disaster. It says that you don't have to worry about anything because Uncle will pick up the tab and make it all better. It also means that less people will worry about insurance or protecting themselves or their assets.
This is wrong on so many levels that it is not even worth spending the time to write the words.
Fuel Watch - Blind To All It Sees
At the petrol pump today unleaded petrol was a $1.33 a liter with diesel $1.16 a litre. The past week or so is the first time that unleaded has been more expensive than diesel. Unleaded dropped below $1/litre when the price of oil dropped below $40 per barrel. The current price is $37 per barrel but unleaded is 30% more expensive.
The formula is fairly easy to calculate: price per barrel in Singapore times exchange rate plus profit margin. Given that the exchange rate is about the same as it was when unleaded was under $1/litre then the only variable is profit. Put simply the local oil companies are gouging the local consumers. Diesel is around the correct price based on current oil barrel prices but we are paying 30% more than we should be for unleaded.
The solutions is simple. The government should set a maximum price for each fuel type based on the same formula outlined above. Petrol companies and their stations can vary prices, adjusted dynamically based on current spot price, to the max amount set, but not above. Simple, neat and fair. This would turn Pricewatch, the impotent and useless construct, into something that actually works and benefits the people of Australian.
Once that is up and running the government could really help out the backbone of Australia by making sure that Diesel is always less that unleaded in price.
The formula is fairly easy to calculate: price per barrel in Singapore times exchange rate plus profit margin. Given that the exchange rate is about the same as it was when unleaded was under $1/litre then the only variable is profit. Put simply the local oil companies are gouging the local consumers. Diesel is around the correct price based on current oil barrel prices but we are paying 30% more than we should be for unleaded.
The solutions is simple. The government should set a maximum price for each fuel type based on the same formula outlined above. Petrol companies and their stations can vary prices, adjusted dynamically based on current spot price, to the max amount set, but not above. Simple, neat and fair. This would turn Pricewatch, the impotent and useless construct, into something that actually works and benefits the people of Australian.
Once that is up and running the government could really help out the backbone of Australia by making sure that Diesel is always less that unleaded in price.
Monday, February 16, 2009
It’s the Economy Stupid
Will a stimulus package work? To answer this all we need to do is look around the world and at a bit of history, oh and the stock market.
A good example is Japan, they tried to spend their way out of a downturn and their economy has been down for ten years, worse unemployment became a factor in Japan, something never seen before. They also tried the infrastructure idea, that failed as well.
In general smaller governments are better than bigger ones. If you see a government trying to grow then you can be fairly sure that the economy is not getting any better. Governments seem to think that they are better at things than the private sector so they take on more and more ‘responsibilities’ and grow government by creating new groups to handle new things. Given that a government is always worse and less efficient than the private sector version, if it has controls, then any new business that the government takes on is an automatic area of failure.
A tax cut is not the same as a tax rebate no matter what the government tries to tell you. The latter is like a cheque from the government and it does not stimulate the economy because it is like taking $950 from one pocket and putting it into another pocket. Tax cuts work better because people see it as a long term real thing that they can plan around.
A debt becomes a deficit when a government keeps borrowing. This ultimately requires a tax increase to cover it and to cover the spending. Debt and deficits are but a symptom of the disease, i.e. that the government is borrowing and spending.
Look at France, Germany and Italy. These all have unemployment rates much higher than the US or Australia but we being told that we are getting into terrible areas, that need stimulation and protection from the government. The cost is that a greater amount of your pay will have to go to the government to pay for all of this. Worse any payout you get from the government will cost you more than that, by some multiple, down the road.
Public Choice Theory tells us that as a government grows, liberties drop. A stimulus is done for the government, i.e., to get re-elected and to allow the formation of new departments which is really just a power transfer.
The question becomes “how many jobs are created by the $40b? Some estimates put it at about one job per $250,000, well above the average wage. Our government tells us that other jobs are “preserved” and that these also count. Another question to ask is “what would the economy look like without the stimulus.” Anecdotal evidence says that we are no better off after the last $10b and history and other countries tell us that we will be in the same place after the $42b.
How will we even know that it is working? One indicator is what did the stock markets do after the stimulus was passed. They went down, so the market is not confident that it will do anything. Down the track we can look at growth rates. Again looking at the smaller governments of say HK, they are doing OK at 5% but France is hovering around 2% and falling. People spend money a lot better than the government does. The government does not work for a profit, or efficiency and it takes loans that would not be feasible in the business world.
Bottom line, those advising Rudd and Swan are not rocket scientists, they don’t even seem to be all that good at basic economic principles.
A good example is Japan, they tried to spend their way out of a downturn and their economy has been down for ten years, worse unemployment became a factor in Japan, something never seen before. They also tried the infrastructure idea, that failed as well.
In general smaller governments are better than bigger ones. If you see a government trying to grow then you can be fairly sure that the economy is not getting any better. Governments seem to think that they are better at things than the private sector so they take on more and more ‘responsibilities’ and grow government by creating new groups to handle new things. Given that a government is always worse and less efficient than the private sector version, if it has controls, then any new business that the government takes on is an automatic area of failure.
A tax cut is not the same as a tax rebate no matter what the government tries to tell you. The latter is like a cheque from the government and it does not stimulate the economy because it is like taking $950 from one pocket and putting it into another pocket. Tax cuts work better because people see it as a long term real thing that they can plan around.
A debt becomes a deficit when a government keeps borrowing. This ultimately requires a tax increase to cover it and to cover the spending. Debt and deficits are but a symptom of the disease, i.e. that the government is borrowing and spending.
Look at France, Germany and Italy. These all have unemployment rates much higher than the US or Australia but we being told that we are getting into terrible areas, that need stimulation and protection from the government. The cost is that a greater amount of your pay will have to go to the government to pay for all of this. Worse any payout you get from the government will cost you more than that, by some multiple, down the road.
Public Choice Theory tells us that as a government grows, liberties drop. A stimulus is done for the government, i.e., to get re-elected and to allow the formation of new departments which is really just a power transfer.
The question becomes “how many jobs are created by the $40b? Some estimates put it at about one job per $250,000, well above the average wage. Our government tells us that other jobs are “preserved” and that these also count. Another question to ask is “what would the economy look like without the stimulus.” Anecdotal evidence says that we are no better off after the last $10b and history and other countries tell us that we will be in the same place after the $42b.
How will we even know that it is working? One indicator is what did the stock markets do after the stimulus was passed. They went down, so the market is not confident that it will do anything. Down the track we can look at growth rates. Again looking at the smaller governments of say HK, they are doing OK at 5% but France is hovering around 2% and falling. People spend money a lot better than the government does. The government does not work for a profit, or efficiency and it takes loans that would not be feasible in the business world.
Bottom line, those advising Rudd and Swan are not rocket scientists, they don’t even seem to be all that good at basic economic principles.
Quantum Mechanics
Bet you never thought you would see that heading in this blog.
I have read many books on this subject and after all that all I have managed to get is some kind of intuitive feel for the subject. The basics seem fairly simple. At very small sizes i.e. a few dozen atoms or smaller, things are observably different. Some have heard of the Uncertainty Principle, the Schrödinger Equation and so on but to really give an example of how bizarre quantum mechanics is you need to remember back to high school physics and the double slit experiment.
If you remember you shone a light that hit one or two slits and projected this on a background. When two shits were open and interference pattern was formed, because light has the characteristics of waves (and of particles). When waves interfere you get lighter and darker places because the waves either reinforce each other or cancel each other out. So far most people can follow this kind of description and logic. With the single slit open you get a bright spot in the middle gradually getting dimmer as you spread out, again fairly obvious.
Now instead of a light you start firing individual photons (the smallest unit of light) at the slits. In this case they are behaving like particles. In fact this experiment has been duplicated using atoms and bucky balls (carbon or boron atoms in a ball like structure C20, C20 etc.).
Particles are not waves so there can be no interference pattern, but at relativistic speeds (close to the speed of light) matter starts to behave like a wave. To make sure you fire one particle say every second. When both slits are open, over time, the interference pattern is still created!
My first question when learning about this was, "how does it know?" and started imagining intelligent photons and the like. People far smarter than I am use terms like probability, all possible paths and then pages of mathematical equations. The experiment is repeatable and probabilities are predictable and verifiable. Getting your head around just this one experiment however is a very difficult thing to do.
The theory says that with a large slit if you could fire elephants at the speed of light through them you would get the same, albeit messier, result.
Then there is quantum entanglement where two particles can be linked together and instantly react to each other across distance a seeming violation of the speed of light. The latest theories posit that all matter is ultimately made of of random quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. Basically we just don't know.
So why is this topic in the blog? Well if you think about it sometimes it is nice to know that our universe has even more bizarre things that deaths caused by bushfires, the problems with Islam and the weird machinations of our governments.
So take a few minutes to ponder the weirdness of the quantum world before you have to turn your mind back the the weirdness that is our world. If you want to learn more about this field I can recommend Dirac's lectures and for a broader overview Brian Greene (both his books and his DVD)
I have read many books on this subject and after all that all I have managed to get is some kind of intuitive feel for the subject. The basics seem fairly simple. At very small sizes i.e. a few dozen atoms or smaller, things are observably different. Some have heard of the Uncertainty Principle, the Schrödinger Equation and so on but to really give an example of how bizarre quantum mechanics is you need to remember back to high school physics and the double slit experiment.
If you remember you shone a light that hit one or two slits and projected this on a background. When two shits were open and interference pattern was formed, because light has the characteristics of waves (and of particles). When waves interfere you get lighter and darker places because the waves either reinforce each other or cancel each other out. So far most people can follow this kind of description and logic. With the single slit open you get a bright spot in the middle gradually getting dimmer as you spread out, again fairly obvious.
Now instead of a light you start firing individual photons (the smallest unit of light) at the slits. In this case they are behaving like particles. In fact this experiment has been duplicated using atoms and bucky balls (carbon or boron atoms in a ball like structure C20, C20 etc.).
Particles are not waves so there can be no interference pattern, but at relativistic speeds (close to the speed of light) matter starts to behave like a wave. To make sure you fire one particle say every second. When both slits are open, over time, the interference pattern is still created!
My first question when learning about this was, "how does it know?" and started imagining intelligent photons and the like. People far smarter than I am use terms like probability, all possible paths and then pages of mathematical equations. The experiment is repeatable and probabilities are predictable and verifiable. Getting your head around just this one experiment however is a very difficult thing to do.
The theory says that with a large slit if you could fire elephants at the speed of light through them you would get the same, albeit messier, result.
Then there is quantum entanglement where two particles can be linked together and instantly react to each other across distance a seeming violation of the speed of light. The latest theories posit that all matter is ultimately made of of random quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. Basically we just don't know.
So why is this topic in the blog? Well if you think about it sometimes it is nice to know that our universe has even more bizarre things that deaths caused by bushfires, the problems with Islam and the weird machinations of our governments.
So take a few minutes to ponder the weirdness of the quantum world before you have to turn your mind back the the weirdness that is our world. If you want to learn more about this field I can recommend Dirac's lectures and for a broader overview Brian Greene (both his books and his DVD)
Australia The Best - At Everything
If you were an alien landing in Australia directly from outer space and started watching a news channel you would be excused for thinking that Australia was the best and had the best of everything.
We have the best tennis players, the best cricketers, the best soccer players, the best bushfire fighters, the best economy, the best banks, the best education system and the best refugee package. OK that last one is actually correct.
In reality our leaders and decision makers believe that when something has been found to have failed everywhere else that it must be possible to make it work here. Ask our students how they are going these days. With the regular subjects replaced with sensitivity training, the absence of grading, of meaningless performance evaluations, we are producing a new group of sub standard graduates. Well from high school at least, then they hit the harsh realities of the real world either in the workplace or in university.
It is the same in our defense forces where a recruit can hold up a stress card if they feel they are bring hard done by. I wonder how well that works with the Taliban. Extend this principle across the spectrum of behavior and you end up with a very weak country that spends all its time blaming others and not getting on with it.
The continued promotion of such philosophies can only end up with two possible futures. A strong kickback from the populous at some later time or a culture and society that fades into obscurity. I am hoping for the former, sadly if we end up going the way of the UK it will probably be the latter.
We have the best tennis players, the best cricketers, the best soccer players, the best bushfire fighters, the best economy, the best banks, the best education system and the best refugee package. OK that last one is actually correct.
In reality our leaders and decision makers believe that when something has been found to have failed everywhere else that it must be possible to make it work here. Ask our students how they are going these days. With the regular subjects replaced with sensitivity training, the absence of grading, of meaningless performance evaluations, we are producing a new group of sub standard graduates. Well from high school at least, then they hit the harsh realities of the real world either in the workplace or in university.
It is the same in our defense forces where a recruit can hold up a stress card if they feel they are bring hard done by. I wonder how well that works with the Taliban. Extend this principle across the spectrum of behavior and you end up with a very weak country that spends all its time blaming others and not getting on with it.
The continued promotion of such philosophies can only end up with two possible futures. A strong kickback from the populous at some later time or a culture and society that fades into obscurity. I am hoping for the former, sadly if we end up going the way of the UK it will probably be the latter.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Telstra - Now They're Human Rights Experts
They can't respond to a service call. They love to hire foreign nationals to run their company. They can't implement Internet services for the country. They are monopolistic in nature, expensive, inefficient and made quite a loss in the last financial year. Leveraging in such success and believability they are now attacking Australia's human rights record.
Not China's or Burma's or Saudi Arabia's or Rawanda's but Australia's human rights record.
OK let's do some comparisons. Does our constitution allow for wife beating, genital mangling or killing in the name of God? No, not when I last read it. Do we immediately deport all illegal immigrants, refugees or people we don't like without any hearings or representation? No. Can anyone coming into our country buy land? Yes they can. Try to do the same thing just about anywhere in Asia. Try doing it in China, Burma or Thailand for example.
After working here for a few years can the individual apply for citizenship? Yes, again try doing that in any countries, apart from New Zealand in a 6000 mile radius. In Thailand for example it takes a minimum of fours years, under ideal conditions, to get something as simple as residency and even then you are not given a work permit. Do we put our children to work and let them beg at intersections? Not that I have ever seen but common in any nation to our general north.
What right does a business even have to use their position in the country to even make such claims. What we have now is a system that gives us everything and only those things that are not allowed are declared under law. Telstra, and all the Bill of Rightists, are arguing that we should give this up for a document that tells us what we can do with everything else not allowed. To see what a system brings just look across the oceans at America.
There you will find a litigious society where the judges and lawyers tell you what you can and cannot do. This by people that do not fall under review in our country and a group that is not at all interested in what of right or wrong or who is guilty or not but how well they can play the game of 'law.'
How about those in Telstra, and the rest who are spouting the Bill of Rights, move to the US and leave the majority of us remaining here who want nothing to do with it. We are so far ahead, in terms of human rights, than anyone else (NZ again excepted) in the region that to make such claims only means those making them know nothing about the realities of this subject.
Not China's or Burma's or Saudi Arabia's or Rawanda's but Australia's human rights record.
OK let's do some comparisons. Does our constitution allow for wife beating, genital mangling or killing in the name of God? No, not when I last read it. Do we immediately deport all illegal immigrants, refugees or people we don't like without any hearings or representation? No. Can anyone coming into our country buy land? Yes they can. Try to do the same thing just about anywhere in Asia. Try doing it in China, Burma or Thailand for example.
After working here for a few years can the individual apply for citizenship? Yes, again try doing that in any countries, apart from New Zealand in a 6000 mile radius. In Thailand for example it takes a minimum of fours years, under ideal conditions, to get something as simple as residency and even then you are not given a work permit. Do we put our children to work and let them beg at intersections? Not that I have ever seen but common in any nation to our general north.
What right does a business even have to use their position in the country to even make such claims. What we have now is a system that gives us everything and only those things that are not allowed are declared under law. Telstra, and all the Bill of Rightists, are arguing that we should give this up for a document that tells us what we can do with everything else not allowed. To see what a system brings just look across the oceans at America.
There you will find a litigious society where the judges and lawyers tell you what you can and cannot do. This by people that do not fall under review in our country and a group that is not at all interested in what of right or wrong or who is guilty or not but how well they can play the game of 'law.'
How about those in Telstra, and the rest who are spouting the Bill of Rights, move to the US and leave the majority of us remaining here who want nothing to do with it. We are so far ahead, in terms of human rights, than anyone else (NZ again excepted) in the region that to make such claims only means those making them know nothing about the realities of this subject.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Speech That Never Was - Wilders in the UK, not
What Wilders would have said if the dhimmi British officials had allowed him in:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.
This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.
The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.
In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.
What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.
Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.
Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.
There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.
Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.
Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.
For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.
But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.
You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?
Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trail.
The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.
Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?
We have to defend freedom of speech.
For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.
What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?
The choice is ours.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.
Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.
Thank you very much.
Geert Wilders MP
Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
The Netherlands
Fire, Blame and Alarmism
"More than 300 people would die in the first hour of a major bushfire in the Adelaide Hills" This on the front page of the Sunday Mail. Just under a larger headline that states "Hills fire could kill 300 in first hour."From could to would in less than a column inch.
In the past some people getting killed in a fire, while tragic, would have had people buckling down and rebuilding. Instead all we get are sensationalist headlines, page after page of pictures, many of them repeated. Everyone story from the cat to the grandma is printed, said or displayed on TV.
So what was the basis for this estimate of certain death? "Secret modeling from the CFS and the State Government." Ah, the same kind of modelling that predicts the oceans will rise by meters this century and that cannot explain why things that are happening for real or happening at all.
So it is society that has changed from the lets get on with it to lets dwell in the misery and sensationalism, or is it just the media trying to wring the last scraps of attention out of a tragedy to push up their numbers and advertising revenues?
Both. As a society we now spend all of our time trying to figure out who to blame. The Greens, the Government, the idiots who planted trees next to their houses, those responsible for warnings, those who ran, those who stayed, the lack of equipment, nature and god. Did we miss anything, oh yes anyone but us. It is no longer ever our fault but the greens who told us we could not clear. It wasn't we who stayed because the warning were not strong enough but those who were not forceful enough to make us go.
The same people would have been ridiculed for it a few decades ago are now getting face time on TV and radio. The Jihadists think that it is wonderful that Australians died, but this gets tucked away in a corner back on page nine just in case someone sees that this has been reported at all and gets offended. I doubt it would have even made it into Victorian newspaper.
So we get weaker, our society gets weaker, the media outlets get richer and Australia is one step closer to becoming someone else's.
In the past some people getting killed in a fire, while tragic, would have had people buckling down and rebuilding. Instead all we get are sensationalist headlines, page after page of pictures, many of them repeated. Everyone story from the cat to the grandma is printed, said or displayed on TV.
So what was the basis for this estimate of certain death? "Secret modeling from the CFS and the State Government." Ah, the same kind of modelling that predicts the oceans will rise by meters this century and that cannot explain why things that are happening for real or happening at all.
So it is society that has changed from the lets get on with it to lets dwell in the misery and sensationalism, or is it just the media trying to wring the last scraps of attention out of a tragedy to push up their numbers and advertising revenues?
Both. As a society we now spend all of our time trying to figure out who to blame. The Greens, the Government, the idiots who planted trees next to their houses, those responsible for warnings, those who ran, those who stayed, the lack of equipment, nature and god. Did we miss anything, oh yes anyone but us. It is no longer ever our fault but the greens who told us we could not clear. It wasn't we who stayed because the warning were not strong enough but those who were not forceful enough to make us go.
The same people would have been ridiculed for it a few decades ago are now getting face time on TV and radio. The Jihadists think that it is wonderful that Australians died, but this gets tucked away in a corner back on page nine just in case someone sees that this has been reported at all and gets offended. I doubt it would have even made it into Victorian newspaper.
So we get weaker, our society gets weaker, the media outlets get richer and Australia is one step closer to becoming someone else's.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Modern Islam - Part 3
The first two parts of this trilogy began with the renewal of Islam, the results of this renewal and the internal dawa or mission that has resulted from the renewal. After the internal mission has been started and some progress made then the external part begins.
The External Dawa starts with revisionist history and efforts to reshape the Western mind. All discoveries become Muslim. The invented hospitals, and all manner of things. A book published in the UK called “1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World” for example lists many inventions self attributed to Islam but all but a few of them are in fact not.
Then comes the protectionism of all things Islam and in particular Mohammad. No criticism at all is acceptable and any, like seen with the cartoons, triggers a mass response form the Muslim community.
The Dawa also includes and drives demographic changes. This occurs through migration, immigration and higher birth rates. If for example Turkey is allowed to join the EU he resulting exodus is estimated to have Europe 47% Muslim by 2020 and in the majority by 2022. Remember that most Western nations have zero or slightly negative birth rates so they remain static while Muslim families breed to steadily increase numbers.
There is also a push for Islamic schools in places like the UK and Australia, Islamic schools and what is taught in them has an ethos that is not common with Western societies and civilizations.
There is no freedom of speech, no freedom of choice and more importantly no critical analysis allowed within such education systems. It is all rote learning of the Koran, the Sunna and Sharia.
An Islamic school then will teach only internal subjects and will work to ensure that the government and relevant departments can not control their curriculum.
The effect on the boarder society then is that the children grow up with no understanding for, or tolerance of the Western society in which they find themselves. They become insular and society becomes fractured similar to what happened in Lebanon.
Islamic society is also connected in a far greater way than say Christian societies are. What is taught in mosques is typically preauthorised and distributed globally. Compare this to the messages say taught in Christian churches. These are not focused on a single topic and neither on a single or unified defense.
The general mindset is also not understood. If you hold up your hand and spread your fingers then ask someone “how many” the common answer if five (fingers) if these say represent the different elements within Islam that are fighting amongst each others what happens when you challenge Islam? The fingers close back into the ‘family’ or Umma and form a fist. We saw this with the cartoons and we will see more of this in the future.
The External Dawa starts with revisionist history and efforts to reshape the Western mind. All discoveries become Muslim. The invented hospitals, and all manner of things. A book published in the UK called “1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World” for example lists many inventions self attributed to Islam but all but a few of them are in fact not.
Then comes the protectionism of all things Islam and in particular Mohammad. No criticism at all is acceptable and any, like seen with the cartoons, triggers a mass response form the Muslim community.
The Dawa also includes and drives demographic changes. This occurs through migration, immigration and higher birth rates. If for example Turkey is allowed to join the EU he resulting exodus is estimated to have Europe 47% Muslim by 2020 and in the majority by 2022. Remember that most Western nations have zero or slightly negative birth rates so they remain static while Muslim families breed to steadily increase numbers.
There is also a push for Islamic schools in places like the UK and Australia, Islamic schools and what is taught in them has an ethos that is not common with Western societies and civilizations.
There is no freedom of speech, no freedom of choice and more importantly no critical analysis allowed within such education systems. It is all rote learning of the Koran, the Sunna and Sharia.
An Islamic school then will teach only internal subjects and will work to ensure that the government and relevant departments can not control their curriculum.
The effect on the boarder society then is that the children grow up with no understanding for, or tolerance of the Western society in which they find themselves. They become insular and society becomes fractured similar to what happened in Lebanon.
Islamic society is also connected in a far greater way than say Christian societies are. What is taught in mosques is typically preauthorised and distributed globally. Compare this to the messages say taught in Christian churches. These are not focused on a single topic and neither on a single or unified defense.
The general mindset is also not understood. If you hold up your hand and spread your fingers then ask someone “how many” the common answer if five (fingers) if these say represent the different elements within Islam that are fighting amongst each others what happens when you challenge Islam? The fingers close back into the ‘family’ or Umma and form a fist. We saw this with the cartoons and we will see more of this in the future.
UK Abandons Freedom of Speech
Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP, was barred from entry to the UK after landing at Heathrow.
First of all this is a diplomatic incident, an MP from the EU was banned from entering another EU State.
Second he was invited by members of the House of Lords.
The reason is that Wilders created "A hate-filled film designed to stir up religious and racial hatred in this country is contrary to our laws."
So it is OK to allow people like Dr Ijaz Mian who said the following while preaching in a mosque in the UK. You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir. We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others... King, Queen, House of Commons: if you accept it, you are a part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it."
This means that sedition against the Crown is fine but saying the truth is not. Wilders film used actual footage prepared by jihadists and others to reinforce verses taken from the Koran. Essentially England will accept intolerance but not anyone who points out that it is happening is banned.
This is the end of freedom of speech in the UK. While a socialist government is in power in the UK it is a Dhimmi nation under the control of Dar-Islam. Of course since the majority voted in such a government they must want this to occur.
First of all this is a diplomatic incident, an MP from the EU was banned from entering another EU State.
Second he was invited by members of the House of Lords.
The reason is that Wilders created "A hate-filled film designed to stir up religious and racial hatred in this country is contrary to our laws."
So it is OK to allow people like Dr Ijaz Mian who said the following while preaching in a mosque in the UK. You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir. We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others... King, Queen, House of Commons: if you accept it, you are a part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it."
This means that sedition against the Crown is fine but saying the truth is not. Wilders film used actual footage prepared by jihadists and others to reinforce verses taken from the Koran. Essentially England will accept intolerance but not anyone who points out that it is happening is banned.
This is the end of freedom of speech in the UK. While a socialist government is in power in the UK it is a Dhimmi nation under the control of Dar-Islam. Of course since the majority voted in such a government they must want this to occur.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Carbon Credits - Someone's Getting Rich
It is estimated that the carbon, in the form of CO2, that was released into the air as a result of the recent bush fires, exceeds the total usage for Australia for a year.
Thanks to Rudd's signing and ratifying of Kyoto and other agreements this means that we will need to buy millions of dollars of carbon credits to offset what is essentially a natural process. At the same time 'developing nations' like China and India can burn whatever they like with no need to buy any credits at all.
So if the Earth is warming (latest satellite data says "no") and if CO2 drives climate change (basic science says "no") and if changing the amount of CO2 will make any difference (still huge debate on this one) then how does paying a guilt tax help?
Al Gore buys carbon credits from his own company. Carbon credits do nothing for the supposed problem other than to assuage guilt. That means that someone is making a lot of money off common people (paying taxes that the govt then spends on the carbon credits) for no realised benefit.
Who gets all the money? Supposedly it goes to corporations that are supposed to invest in green energy. This doesn't reduce carbon or provide carbon sinks (unless they are cooling the oceans or planting a lot of trees).
At a time when sensible spending and fiscal management our government is wasting money on at best dubious causes and by going into debt. Talking about paying for carbon from bush fires is just silly. Catch the arsonists and charge them instead.
Thanks to Rudd's signing and ratifying of Kyoto and other agreements this means that we will need to buy millions of dollars of carbon credits to offset what is essentially a natural process. At the same time 'developing nations' like China and India can burn whatever they like with no need to buy any credits at all.
So if the Earth is warming (latest satellite data says "no") and if CO2 drives climate change (basic science says "no") and if changing the amount of CO2 will make any difference (still huge debate on this one) then how does paying a guilt tax help?
Al Gore buys carbon credits from his own company. Carbon credits do nothing for the supposed problem other than to assuage guilt. That means that someone is making a lot of money off common people (paying taxes that the govt then spends on the carbon credits) for no realised benefit.
Who gets all the money? Supposedly it goes to corporations that are supposed to invest in green energy. This doesn't reduce carbon or provide carbon sinks (unless they are cooling the oceans or planting a lot of trees).
At a time when sensible spending and fiscal management our government is wasting money on at best dubious causes and by going into debt. Talking about paying for carbon from bush fires is just silly. Catch the arsonists and charge them instead.
Protecting & Selling Australia - Short Term Thinking
If you have read the contents of the stimulus package you will have seen all the 'pork' it contains. The really scary part it how much it will put the country into debt. This all based on a brief handout of money to families that will put them into deeper debt. Historical and current evidence from other nations is that such a package will do nothing for the long term stability of the country but Rudd and Co. are more interested in the political advantages rather than any benefits for the country as a whole.
Senator Feidling is also looking at the short term gains for his families and ignoring the longer term pain it will cause. Labor is just looking to put the country into debt and Senator Xenephon is pushing for South Australia or this is a smoke screen to masks his real concerns about the long term effects of the Bill.
Swan is moving as fast as he can to arrange for more of Australia's assets to be sold to China. He is looking at the short term cash flow and ignoring the long term losses as China gets to buy resources at a much cheaper rate by taking profits from the goods they sell to themselves.
Apart from the occasional flash is thinking from Xenophon the rest of the country seems to be hell bent on taking a brief payout to sell the country down the river. The latest high end figures put Australia $200b in debt this year. That beats all previous debt and Labor will have managed to do it only after a couple of years in power.
A government should not be able to place the country in debt like this. To do so abdicates their responsibility to the nation and to the people. State leaders are still going ahead with their airy fairy projects like tram extensions in South Australia, while ignoring larger issues and problems. All to get themselves reelected at the expense of Australia and Australians.
You know what, let's do it. Lets spend what we don't have and sell off our last remaining assets. That way it will be a much shorter path to the self-realisation that our leaders and the people that supported them are idiots or simply hate Australia. It will only happen when all Australians are feeling the problem. Despite what some are saying now, the depression has yet to hit, all we are feeling and seeing now are the very light front fringes of the problem and there is a long way down yet. Our leaders are doing their best to make sure that we hit bottom as quickly as possible. Sadly, once again, most of the media has yet to see this. I must try to remember to refer back to this in 6 months time.
Senator Feidling is also looking at the short term gains for his families and ignoring the longer term pain it will cause. Labor is just looking to put the country into debt and Senator Xenephon is pushing for South Australia or this is a smoke screen to masks his real concerns about the long term effects of the Bill.
Swan is moving as fast as he can to arrange for more of Australia's assets to be sold to China. He is looking at the short term cash flow and ignoring the long term losses as China gets to buy resources at a much cheaper rate by taking profits from the goods they sell to themselves.
Apart from the occasional flash is thinking from Xenophon the rest of the country seems to be hell bent on taking a brief payout to sell the country down the river. The latest high end figures put Australia $200b in debt this year. That beats all previous debt and Labor will have managed to do it only after a couple of years in power.
A government should not be able to place the country in debt like this. To do so abdicates their responsibility to the nation and to the people. State leaders are still going ahead with their airy fairy projects like tram extensions in South Australia, while ignoring larger issues and problems. All to get themselves reelected at the expense of Australia and Australians.
You know what, let's do it. Lets spend what we don't have and sell off our last remaining assets. That way it will be a much shorter path to the self-realisation that our leaders and the people that supported them are idiots or simply hate Australia. It will only happen when all Australians are feeling the problem. Despite what some are saying now, the depression has yet to hit, all we are feeling and seeing now are the very light front fringes of the problem and there is a long way down yet. Our leaders are doing their best to make sure that we hit bottom as quickly as possible. Sadly, once again, most of the media has yet to see this. I must try to remember to refer back to this in 6 months time.
I'm Aboriginal
How often do you hear the phrase "I am an Aboriginal" from someone that looks white, with perhaps a hint of something else.
The legal definition is 1/8th which means one great grandparent is a full blood or some similar combination. The other definition is some one accepted by the Aboriginal Council. This could be someone one 1/23 or even 1/64 which is about the limit for any descendants.
So thinking about this. The majority of the mix is abandoned or denied to declare oneself Aboriginal. Why? The cynic might suggest that since anyone from that group gets all kinds of benefits that it is for the money. There is for example a dog allowance, no I'm not making this up. Being Aboriginal also means less likelihood of being arrested for breaking the law.
Sadly the effect is to fragment society. Those not in the Aboriginal set consider them a protected and pampered class that are considered to give nothing substantive back to society and are not to be respected. The whole Stolen Generation Myth has seen not one single case (that fits within the definition) ratified in a court. Still the myth persists and this also causes fracturing.
Essentially there are only two ways to handle this in the future. Either everyone is Australian or we end up with a fractured society where there can be no Australia, no Australians just a mass of splinter groups. Treating one group as special out of some sense of guilt is no way to run a country. Sadly special interest groups have the decision makers tied up with their particular brand of flag waving that does nothing for the majority.
The legal definition is 1/8th which means one great grandparent is a full blood or some similar combination. The other definition is some one accepted by the Aboriginal Council. This could be someone one 1/23 or even 1/64 which is about the limit for any descendants.
So thinking about this. The majority of the mix is abandoned or denied to declare oneself Aboriginal. Why? The cynic might suggest that since anyone from that group gets all kinds of benefits that it is for the money. There is for example a dog allowance, no I'm not making this up. Being Aboriginal also means less likelihood of being arrested for breaking the law.
Sadly the effect is to fragment society. Those not in the Aboriginal set consider them a protected and pampered class that are considered to give nothing substantive back to society and are not to be respected. The whole Stolen Generation Myth has seen not one single case (that fits within the definition) ratified in a court. Still the myth persists and this also causes fracturing.
Essentially there are only two ways to handle this in the future. Either everyone is Australian or we end up with a fractured society where there can be no Australia, no Australians just a mass of splinter groups. Treating one group as special out of some sense of guilt is no way to run a country. Sadly special interest groups have the decision makers tied up with their particular brand of flag waving that does nothing for the majority.
People Keep Misusing Words
Watch a newscast and pay particular attention to the politicians, people in leadership positions, newscasters and their like.
Now listen for the word "obviously." You will hear it many times. Now pay attention to what they are saying and decide if what they are talking about is really 'obvious' or not. It is surprising the number of times that people will use the word when not only is it not obvious but most of the times they would not be able to prove it. To quote from one of my favorite movies, the Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think it does. (sic)"
People use words like this all the time. The word hero is used in ways for which it was never meant e.g. "our cricket heroes." What is heroic about standing in a nice safe oval and hitting a few balls?
Then there is stress. The recent bush fires apparently stressed out thousands of children who watched the news on TV. Children are remarkably resilient and will only get stressed if people keep telling them they are until they finally do get stressed. It is the old thoughts create reality problem, if you say it often enough then both you and your targets may very well believe you no matter how ridiculous it is.
I'm sure there are some psychologists who would disagree but then I question their loyalties and would want to know who is paying them. I believe that in modern society stress is allowed to be used as an excuse and feigned at every opportunity. You can apply stress and things can be stressed but the former is the biggest form these days.
Now listen for the word "obviously." You will hear it many times. Now pay attention to what they are saying and decide if what they are talking about is really 'obvious' or not. It is surprising the number of times that people will use the word when not only is it not obvious but most of the times they would not be able to prove it. To quote from one of my favorite movies, the Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think it does. (sic)"
People use words like this all the time. The word hero is used in ways for which it was never meant e.g. "our cricket heroes." What is heroic about standing in a nice safe oval and hitting a few balls?
Then there is stress. The recent bush fires apparently stressed out thousands of children who watched the news on TV. Children are remarkably resilient and will only get stressed if people keep telling them they are until they finally do get stressed. It is the old thoughts create reality problem, if you say it often enough then both you and your targets may very well believe you no matter how ridiculous it is.
I'm sure there are some psychologists who would disagree but then I question their loyalties and would want to know who is paying them. I believe that in modern society stress is allowed to be used as an excuse and feigned at every opportunity. You can apply stress and things can be stressed but the former is the biggest form these days.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Fitna, Widlers and UK Dhimmis
A dhimmi is a second class citizen under Muslim rule.
In an earlier post I mentioned Gert Wilders who has been invited to present his film Fitna to some members of the House of Lords and was blocked and threatened by the only Muslim Lord. Later this was overturned and the trips was allowed to proceed.
That is until now. To put this in context Wilders receives regular death threats for comments on the Koran, using not his own but Islamic sources. He is, like we all should be, an advocate of freedom of speech.
As you can imagine representatives of the British Muslim community, currently representing a single digit percentage of Britons, have complained. The result is that Wilders has been told that he will be arrested if he sets foot in England.
This is worth repeating. The UK, supposedly a Western nation with the basic principles of free speech included in their democratic process, will be arrested if he comes to speak at the House of Lords!
As one MEP put it "Whether our government is actuated by cowardice or authoritarianism, it’s equally ugly. We are a meaner country than we were this morning." It indicates that some Lords do not believe in freedom of speech and as such the UK is essentially finished as a democratic nation.
In an earlier post I mentioned Gert Wilders who has been invited to present his film Fitna to some members of the House of Lords and was blocked and threatened by the only Muslim Lord. Later this was overturned and the trips was allowed to proceed.
That is until now. To put this in context Wilders receives regular death threats for comments on the Koran, using not his own but Islamic sources. He is, like we all should be, an advocate of freedom of speech.
As you can imagine representatives of the British Muslim community, currently representing a single digit percentage of Britons, have complained. The result is that Wilders has been told that he will be arrested if he sets foot in England.
This is worth repeating. The UK, supposedly a Western nation with the basic principles of free speech included in their democratic process, will be arrested if he comes to speak at the House of Lords!
As one MEP put it "Whether our government is actuated by cowardice or authoritarianism, it’s equally ugly. We are a meaner country than we were this morning." It indicates that some Lords do not believe in freedom of speech and as such the UK is essentially finished as a democratic nation.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Modern Islam - Part 2
In Part 1 we looked at the five aspects of Islamic renewal, this time we look at the results of that renewal.
1. Muslims become more aware of who they are and in particular they get a ‘common’ religious identity. This provides a creed that emphasizes how different they are from others. This comes from awareness and acceptance of the Sharia and the Umma (the Muslim Nation)
2. It also pushes the development of political Islam. This is based in the events after circle 622 AD when Muhammad moved to Medina and from Prophet to judge and ruler. This then drives the change in Jihad from inner development to the defensive and offensive forms.
3. The results also provide the Dawa (Mission).
On the internal side this dawa or mission is found in the following:
This is the development of the Islamic consciousness e.g. what is Halal (allowed) and what is Haram (forbidden). Events like Ramadan (fasting) take on greater meaning and importance.
The development and expansion of the consciousness leads to the development of structure. These take the form of societies, i.e. Muslim societies, Muslim schools and other formal Muslim structures that emphasize difference.
These societies are then used to address the social elements outside of their own societies. The targets are the governments and a series of incremental changes some call the stealth jihad others Sharia creep.
If they do not get their own way then the ‘warfare’ elements emerge. Demonstrations, fighting and conflict as is now seen in places like Europe and the UK.
The above are examples of the internal dawa or mission.
In the final part the external dawa (mission) is considered.
1. Muslims become more aware of who they are and in particular they get a ‘common’ religious identity. This provides a creed that emphasizes how different they are from others. This comes from awareness and acceptance of the Sharia and the Umma (the Muslim Nation)
2. It also pushes the development of political Islam. This is based in the events after circle 622 AD when Muhammad moved to Medina and from Prophet to judge and ruler. This then drives the change in Jihad from inner development to the defensive and offensive forms.
3. The results also provide the Dawa (Mission).
On the internal side this dawa or mission is found in the following:
This is the development of the Islamic consciousness e.g. what is Halal (allowed) and what is Haram (forbidden). Events like Ramadan (fasting) take on greater meaning and importance.
The development and expansion of the consciousness leads to the development of structure. These take the form of societies, i.e. Muslim societies, Muslim schools and other formal Muslim structures that emphasize difference.
These societies are then used to address the social elements outside of their own societies. The targets are the governments and a series of incremental changes some call the stealth jihad others Sharia creep.
If they do not get their own way then the ‘warfare’ elements emerge. Demonstrations, fighting and conflict as is now seen in places like Europe and the UK.
The above are examples of the internal dawa or mission.
In the final part the external dawa (mission) is considered.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Unions and Growth - Mutually Exclusive
How many companies in Australia export goods in any real numbers?
If I am setting up a company and want to export my goods I face a huge hurdle. The wharves. Moving goods into or out of Australia is throttled by the Wharfies. I believe that they hate Australia and Australians.
Look at a country like Sweden. They are a lot smaller than we are but everyone has heard of Volvo and Ikea. They have huge amount of social services but still do well. Finland and Nokia is another example. When you say Australia what product name do you think of? I bet you not a single product came to mind. The biggest problem getting it out of the country. Too many charges, too many steps and too much power in the hands of a small group of people holding the country at ransom.
How many contracts have been lost to overseas locations because of the same problem. Aluminium smelters and other opportunities spring to mind.
With Labor in power the power of the unions is only increasing. It needs to change or Australia will fade into greater obscurity or be taken over by some other nation in the future.
Addendum: I thought of one: Billabong.
If I am setting up a company and want to export my goods I face a huge hurdle. The wharves. Moving goods into or out of Australia is throttled by the Wharfies. I believe that they hate Australia and Australians.
Look at a country like Sweden. They are a lot smaller than we are but everyone has heard of Volvo and Ikea. They have huge amount of social services but still do well. Finland and Nokia is another example. When you say Australia what product name do you think of? I bet you not a single product came to mind. The biggest problem getting it out of the country. Too many charges, too many steps and too much power in the hands of a small group of people holding the country at ransom.
How many contracts have been lost to overseas locations because of the same problem. Aluminium smelters and other opportunities spring to mind.
With Labor in power the power of the unions is only increasing. It needs to change or Australia will fade into greater obscurity or be taken over by some other nation in the future.
Addendum: I thought of one: Billabong.
Bushfires, Muhammad, and Auntie
See, thanks to global warming we have had more bush fires, and of course irreversible damage to the Great Barrier Reef. This and other alarmist propaganda can be found on a daily basis in all forms of the ABC.
First point, bush fires are natural. They have occurred for millennium and will continue to do so. The aborigines knew about them, as does our early history e.g. Black Thursday in 1851. The more people that start living in denser bush communities, the greater the death toll when one sweeps through.
Despite all the talking heads who have only ever seen a fire on a TV set there are some basics that if followed would cut future deaths to a bare minimum.
1. Look at the US cyclone model. During cyclone period a map appears on people's TV sets showing the current position of a cyclone , its direction and if it is about to hit a population area. US citizens watch and when it gets close they jump into their cellar for it to pass by.
What Australia needs is someone, dare I suggest the ABC, to do exactly the same thing. Pop up a map that shows where fires are, and wind directions. This will give likely escape routes and warning if an area if about to be hit. We have the technology lets use it, with calm WW2 style commentary, not raving idiots.
2. Look at those houses that survived what did they have in common? Easy. They had a cleared area around them. No bushes growing up next to houses. No houses built in valleys (natural fire paths). A bit of work will fireproof most houses. People need to do a bit of work to protect themselves and their houses. They might also like to build a cellar to hide in as the fire goes over. Yes smoke can be a problem, so a small air tank of some kind if it gets really bad perhaps.
3. Sensible people giving directions. Some communities complained that they were told to stay, then leave, directly onto smoke filled roads where many died in the accidents and confusion. Escape plans are important but only with good intelligence of which direction to escape through.
So where does Muhammad come in in this story?
Back on September 8th there was a story in the Age about the group Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network who argued that it was OK to start bush fires because people had cut down trees in their lands in the past. The group had urged Muslims in Australia and elsewhere to start bush fires as a weapon of terror. No I am not making this up.
First point, bush fires are natural. They have occurred for millennium and will continue to do so. The aborigines knew about them, as does our early history e.g. Black Thursday in 1851. The more people that start living in denser bush communities, the greater the death toll when one sweeps through.
Despite all the talking heads who have only ever seen a fire on a TV set there are some basics that if followed would cut future deaths to a bare minimum.
1. Look at the US cyclone model. During cyclone period a map appears on people's TV sets showing the current position of a cyclone , its direction and if it is about to hit a population area. US citizens watch and when it gets close they jump into their cellar for it to pass by.
What Australia needs is someone, dare I suggest the ABC, to do exactly the same thing. Pop up a map that shows where fires are, and wind directions. This will give likely escape routes and warning if an area if about to be hit. We have the technology lets use it, with calm WW2 style commentary, not raving idiots.
2. Look at those houses that survived what did they have in common? Easy. They had a cleared area around them. No bushes growing up next to houses. No houses built in valleys (natural fire paths). A bit of work will fireproof most houses. People need to do a bit of work to protect themselves and their houses. They might also like to build a cellar to hide in as the fire goes over. Yes smoke can be a problem, so a small air tank of some kind if it gets really bad perhaps.
3. Sensible people giving directions. Some communities complained that they were told to stay, then leave, directly onto smoke filled roads where many died in the accidents and confusion. Escape plans are important but only with good intelligence of which direction to escape through.
So where does Muhammad come in in this story?
Back on September 8th there was a story in the Age about the group Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network who argued that it was OK to start bush fires because people had cut down trees in their lands in the past. The group had urged Muslims in Australia and elsewhere to start bush fires as a weapon of terror. No I am not making this up.
Why Our Govt. Parties Love Minorities
Governments are about votes, not people, not what is best for the country, but votes.
Every election you can figure that about 40% will vote for one party and 40% will vote for another. They will do this year in and year out. Perhaps because their parents did so, or perhaps because they believe in the party politics but it is very unlikely that under normal conditions they will change their votes. The number may not be 40/40 but you get the idea.
That leave s a smaller segment of the community to focus on before each election. A canny politician will know that some racial or ethnic groups will vote in a block. This is what happened in Benalong with the Chinese and pushed Howard out.
This is also what happens at all levels of government. The Chinese community put a Chinese mayor in Adelaide and kicked him out when he did things that they did not like.
So if you want to win an election you will identify the major ethnic groups in the swing voter category and tailor your policies towards them. You will keep away from the major issues that drive the majority of voters and focus on getting enough of the smaller groups to push you past the required numbers.
This is why policies and Bill are drafted that are no good to the majority and sometimes would be directly against the wishes of the majority, to get the votes next time. When you think about it this is no longer democracy in the sens of looking out for the majority but populism. This is what people like Rudd and Obama do to get elected. The problem is that it takes a while before the rest of the people start to understand just how much they may have lost in the process. In some cases it may also be too late.
Every election you can figure that about 40% will vote for one party and 40% will vote for another. They will do this year in and year out. Perhaps because their parents did so, or perhaps because they believe in the party politics but it is very unlikely that under normal conditions they will change their votes. The number may not be 40/40 but you get the idea.
That leave s a smaller segment of the community to focus on before each election. A canny politician will know that some racial or ethnic groups will vote in a block. This is what happened in Benalong with the Chinese and pushed Howard out.
This is also what happens at all levels of government. The Chinese community put a Chinese mayor in Adelaide and kicked him out when he did things that they did not like.
So if you want to win an election you will identify the major ethnic groups in the swing voter category and tailor your policies towards them. You will keep away from the major issues that drive the majority of voters and focus on getting enough of the smaller groups to push you past the required numbers.
This is why policies and Bill are drafted that are no good to the majority and sometimes would be directly against the wishes of the majority, to get the votes next time. When you think about it this is no longer democracy in the sens of looking out for the majority but populism. This is what people like Rudd and Obama do to get elected. The problem is that it takes a while before the rest of the people start to understand just how much they may have lost in the process. In some cases it may also be too late.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Modern Islam - Part 1
The Kitab al-Malâhim in the Sunan of Abu Da'ûd opens with the following Hadith:
"At the beginning of every century God will send to this community someone who will renew/revive/restore religion." (Inna Allah yab'ath li-hadhihi al-umma 'ala ra's kull mi'a thana man yujaddid laha amr diniha.)
The fifteenth century of Islam began in 1979 (and some scholars argue that this will be the final one). Who this "someone" is, is a natter of debate. It could be the Ayatollah Khomeini or someone else but there has certainly been quite a shift in Islam in general since about that time.
There are five aspects associated with this renewal process.
1. A Return back to the Koran.
Before 1979 the Koran was being learned in Arabic by Muslims all across the globe. For those who did not speak or understand Arabic they were learning to memorize texts without understanding the underlying meanings. In the past 30 years or so this has changed to include the underlying meanings of the Koran and so get back to the Koran.
2. A Return to the Hadith
Before 1979 it was unusual to know much abut the Hadith as memorizing the Koran was all a believer needed to be able to do as they received blessings from the acts itself. This has also changed in the past 30 years where the Hadith are part of the learning of the Koran and what is being taught in the mosques.
The Hadith are necessary because they provide the context, the where and the when of a verse in the Koran.
3. A Return and Renewal of the Status of Muhammad
This has been evident by the reactions of the Muslim world to something as simple as a cartoon. Any criticism of Mohammad is met with a widespread reaction, one the often includes violence. Like with the Hadiths pre-1979 Muslims did not consider Mohammad as much in their daily lives.
4. A Return to the Sharia
This is to provide the complete framework of all aspects of the life of a Muslim. IT also includes the understanding of Izet (honor) as part of the Muslim creed.
5. A Return to an Understanding of the first 100 years of history.
This period, after Mohammad's move to Medina, represents "Allah's holy history" and was considered a good time for Islam where it spread east and west without.
The results of these five factors will be covered in the second part of this series.
"At the beginning of every century God will send to this community someone who will renew/revive/restore religion." (Inna Allah yab'ath li-hadhihi al-umma 'ala ra's kull mi'a thana man yujaddid laha amr diniha.)
The fifteenth century of Islam began in 1979 (and some scholars argue that this will be the final one). Who this "someone" is, is a natter of debate. It could be the Ayatollah Khomeini or someone else but there has certainly been quite a shift in Islam in general since about that time.
There are five aspects associated with this renewal process.
1. A Return back to the Koran.
Before 1979 the Koran was being learned in Arabic by Muslims all across the globe. For those who did not speak or understand Arabic they were learning to memorize texts without understanding the underlying meanings. In the past 30 years or so this has changed to include the underlying meanings of the Koran and so get back to the Koran.
2. A Return to the Hadith
Before 1979 it was unusual to know much abut the Hadith as memorizing the Koran was all a believer needed to be able to do as they received blessings from the acts itself. This has also changed in the past 30 years where the Hadith are part of the learning of the Koran and what is being taught in the mosques.
The Hadith are necessary because they provide the context, the where and the when of a verse in the Koran.
3. A Return and Renewal of the Status of Muhammad
This has been evident by the reactions of the Muslim world to something as simple as a cartoon. Any criticism of Mohammad is met with a widespread reaction, one the often includes violence. Like with the Hadiths pre-1979 Muslims did not consider Mohammad as much in their daily lives.
4. A Return to the Sharia
This is to provide the complete framework of all aspects of the life of a Muslim. IT also includes the understanding of Izet (honor) as part of the Muslim creed.
5. A Return to an Understanding of the first 100 years of history.
This period, after Mohammad's move to Medina, represents "Allah's holy history" and was considered a good time for Islam where it spread east and west without.
The results of these five factors will be covered in the second part of this series.
ABC - Revisionist History
A few days ago I added my vote to an ABC Poll. The question was about the heat wave. "Do you think that the heat wave is being caused by global warming?"
There were three choices:
No
Yes
Global Warming is a Myth
Being an ABC poll I was expecting the Yews choice to be prominent and I was surprised to see that the figures were roughly even for the Yes and No choices and a whopping 93.7% for the Myth answer.
In true ABC style however, they do not like the will of the people. If you try and find the historical result of that poll in with the others you will be disappointed, they have removed it.
This is what the ABC has turned into a one sided, results changing, biased news service. It has been taken over by the Left and turned into the mouthpiece of the Labor party.
There were three choices:
No
Yes
Global Warming is a Myth
Being an ABC poll I was expecting the Yews choice to be prominent and I was surprised to see that the figures were roughly even for the Yes and No choices and a whopping 93.7% for the Myth answer.
In true ABC style however, they do not like the will of the people. If you try and find the historical result of that poll in with the others you will be disappointed, they have removed it.
This is what the ABC has turned into a one sided, results changing, biased news service. It has been taken over by the Left and turned into the mouthpiece of the Labor party.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Media's Role in the Phelps Ban
There it was, a clip on a UK news feed showing Phelps, the Gold Medal hero of the Olympics, taking what looked like a toke from a Bong.
For the UK media to have this kind of clip, someone at the party, perhaps a 'friend' of Phelps had to have taken the video with probably a camera phone. That same 'friend' would have then had to contact the media to sell the video/ My favorite part was the comment "a source also told the paper it was obvious Phelps had smoked before and seemed a natural." Then Libby Trickett says that a three month ban is too lenient and that "it's a pretty big fall from grace after what he achieved in Beijing. It takes some of the shine off his spectacular performances in Beijing".
So let's look at the background of Phelps. He trained every day all year round for years where most athletes take days off in their training schedule. He was tested regularly for drugs and any cannabis would have been detected. He did what no other human being has ever done and won 8 gold medals in an Olympics and Libby Trickett tells us that it takes the shine off his achievement.
What planet is she from and the rest of the commentators? He won 8 gold medals. You can;t take the shine off that. The guy went to a few parties and some unnamed commentator declares that "he was smoking it like an expert." What defines an expert here? The ability to put a pipe to your mouth and suck? I bet you could train a money or a two year old to do it in a few seconds (not that I am advocating that in any way).
Here is a more likely scenario. Phelps is at a party. Someone has an idea on how to make some money and urges Phelps to give it a try, or even simulate it (you know like Clinton, I smoked but never inhaled). Conveniently as he does someone has their camera ready to record it. A day later a reputation is ruined but they have a pocket full of money. Notice how you never get any of the back story from the press?
This is Woman's Weekly or National Enquirer kind of trash reporting but sadly our media and some of the public just lap it up without ever thinking it through. One toke is certainly less destructive that a drag from say a cigarette. He didn't go out and beat someone up afterwards like some of our athletes do after drinking. It is a matter of perspective and proportionality and as usual we can count on people like Trickett and the media to make sure we forget this.
For the UK media to have this kind of clip, someone at the party, perhaps a 'friend' of Phelps had to have taken the video with probably a camera phone. That same 'friend' would have then had to contact the media to sell the video/ My favorite part was the comment "a source also told the paper it was obvious Phelps had smoked before and seemed a natural." Then Libby Trickett says that a three month ban is too lenient and that "it's a pretty big fall from grace after what he achieved in Beijing. It takes some of the shine off his spectacular performances in Beijing".
So let's look at the background of Phelps. He trained every day all year round for years where most athletes take days off in their training schedule. He was tested regularly for drugs and any cannabis would have been detected. He did what no other human being has ever done and won 8 gold medals in an Olympics and Libby Trickett tells us that it takes the shine off his achievement.
What planet is she from and the rest of the commentators? He won 8 gold medals. You can;t take the shine off that. The guy went to a few parties and some unnamed commentator declares that "he was smoking it like an expert." What defines an expert here? The ability to put a pipe to your mouth and suck? I bet you could train a money or a two year old to do it in a few seconds (not that I am advocating that in any way).
Here is a more likely scenario. Phelps is at a party. Someone has an idea on how to make some money and urges Phelps to give it a try, or even simulate it (you know like Clinton, I smoked but never inhaled). Conveniently as he does someone has their camera ready to record it. A day later a reputation is ruined but they have a pocket full of money. Notice how you never get any of the back story from the press?
This is Woman's Weekly or National Enquirer kind of trash reporting but sadly our media and some of the public just lap it up without ever thinking it through. One toke is certainly less destructive that a drag from say a cigarette. He didn't go out and beat someone up afterwards like some of our athletes do after drinking. It is a matter of perspective and proportionality and as usual we can count on people like Trickett and the media to make sure we forget this.
Racism, Equality and The Aust Government.
An Australian company has bid for an secured a contract for a US company. The rules of many US companies, especially if they are tied to the government, specify that certain groups cannot be involved in the process. The Australian government stepped in and said that such groups had to be considered and not discriminated against.
Put another way if the Australian firm is forced to follow what the Aust. government wants they will lose the contract. The term "equality" is very loosely applied here. There is a Bill being proposed in South Australia called the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2008. It is a lot like the Anti Vilification Bill passed in Victoria but with the worst part taken out. It still sets up a condition where minorities are favoured over the majority. It also sets up a condition where subjective opinions can override facts and common sense.
Equality is one of those terms that often does not mean what the dictionary definition states. In many case the term really means inequality, hidden by the term equality. The ones on the wrong side of this balance tend to be the majority of Australian.
We can be called racist but a 'minority' group cannot. An Israeli cannot travel to Malaysia. In fact if you have traveled to Israel, except in special cases, you are not allowed to travel to Malaysia either. You cannot call the Malaysians racist but if you bring this situation up they will call you one. Strange how our world has evolved over the past few decades.
Put another way if the Australian firm is forced to follow what the Aust. government wants they will lose the contract. The term "equality" is very loosely applied here. There is a Bill being proposed in South Australia called the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2008. It is a lot like the Anti Vilification Bill passed in Victoria but with the worst part taken out. It still sets up a condition where minorities are favoured over the majority. It also sets up a condition where subjective opinions can override facts and common sense.
Equality is one of those terms that often does not mean what the dictionary definition states. In many case the term really means inequality, hidden by the term equality. The ones on the wrong side of this balance tend to be the majority of Australian.
We can be called racist but a 'minority' group cannot. An Israeli cannot travel to Malaysia. In fact if you have traveled to Israel, except in special cases, you are not allowed to travel to Malaysia either. You cannot call the Malaysians racist but if you bring this situation up they will call you one. Strange how our world has evolved over the past few decades.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Labor, Socialism and Unions
Lets start with some basic figures.
The ruling element of the Labor is top heavy with Unionists, about 70% of them were or have close affiliations with unions. This on its own is unsurprising since Labor was created to represent the interests of the working class.
In current Australia unions have about 17% penetration into the workforce, that for those with a calculator is a minority. Ergo the Labor party and the unions are currently representing a minority, when considered from a unionist perspective. Gillard and her ilk are working hard to try and get these numbers up. So you are currently being represented by those interested in a minority of interests.
Many labor reps are essentially socialists or follow the socialist agenda. Socialism is an idealized system that sounds good, has some interesting principles but does not work in practice. To demonstrate this find the most rabid socialist you can, the easiest place to start is with a Uni lecturer, and ask them to provide a single example of a socialist state that has worked.
Since there has never been on they will not be able to give you an answer. They might bluster and try to give some examples but they cannot give you a real world example because socialism only works on paper.
Currently we have PM who is being advised by socialist leaning economists. This means we are hearing solutions based not in the real world but in the fantasy world of an idealised theoretical system. You should not be feeling very confident about how soon we will be out of this recession.
Don't blame me, after examining the options I voted Liberal.
The ruling element of the Labor is top heavy with Unionists, about 70% of them were or have close affiliations with unions. This on its own is unsurprising since Labor was created to represent the interests of the working class.
In current Australia unions have about 17% penetration into the workforce, that for those with a calculator is a minority. Ergo the Labor party and the unions are currently representing a minority, when considered from a unionist perspective. Gillard and her ilk are working hard to try and get these numbers up. So you are currently being represented by those interested in a minority of interests.
Many labor reps are essentially socialists or follow the socialist agenda. Socialism is an idealized system that sounds good, has some interesting principles but does not work in practice. To demonstrate this find the most rabid socialist you can, the easiest place to start is with a Uni lecturer, and ask them to provide a single example of a socialist state that has worked.
Since there has never been on they will not be able to give you an answer. They might bluster and try to give some examples but they cannot give you a real world example because socialism only works on paper.
Currently we have PM who is being advised by socialist leaning economists. This means we are hearing solutions based not in the real world but in the fantasy world of an idealised theoretical system. You should not be feeling very confident about how soon we will be out of this recession.
Don't blame me, after examining the options I voted Liberal.
Time for a Stateless Australia
What most companies do in times of economic crisis is to cut out useless middle management. It is time to the same in Australia.
The population of some greater metro areas of a city are more than the whole population of Australia. Australia has three levels of governance, Federal, State and Council. This is one too many.
There are no decisions required at a State level that could not be guided by a federal oversight with council level implementation. States spend large sums of money doing State stuff, designed to impress the voter but not that does anything substantive.
So lets get rid of the States. We don;t have the population to need them and all original reasons for them vanish in the modern world. With travel and communications times reduced and in a world where contact is easy the States system is not longer required. Worse States stand in the the way of efficient distribution of resources.
In a Federally managed system there would be no water wars because the whole system would be managed not controlled by a single State that holds the others to ransom. The amount of public funding and taxes required by one less layer of government would result in savings for every taxpayer in the country. No more fighting and blocking by a State of one party when another is in power at the Federal level.
Its time to consider getting rid of what are now just arbitrary lines on a map supporting an opulent lifestyle by a small groups of individuals sucking up a lot of taxpayer funds.
The population of some greater metro areas of a city are more than the whole population of Australia. Australia has three levels of governance, Federal, State and Council. This is one too many.
There are no decisions required at a State level that could not be guided by a federal oversight with council level implementation. States spend large sums of money doing State stuff, designed to impress the voter but not that does anything substantive.
So lets get rid of the States. We don;t have the population to need them and all original reasons for them vanish in the modern world. With travel and communications times reduced and in a world where contact is easy the States system is not longer required. Worse States stand in the the way of efficient distribution of resources.
In a Federally managed system there would be no water wars because the whole system would be managed not controlled by a single State that holds the others to ransom. The amount of public funding and taxes required by one less layer of government would result in savings for every taxpayer in the country. No more fighting and blocking by a State of one party when another is in power at the Federal level.
Its time to consider getting rid of what are now just arbitrary lines on a map supporting an opulent lifestyle by a small groups of individuals sucking up a lot of taxpayer funds.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
UN, Gaza, Lies, Time
The UN is currently controlled by the group of 57, a collection of Arabic and Muslim nations. During the Gaza offensive it was reported by the UN that one of their hospitals had been shelled by Israel. Like others who have seen this kind of reporting before I waited for the other shoe to drop.
Sure enough interviews with those living near the hospital and footage from the IDF showed Hamas launching rockets from in front of the hospital and an attack on those in front of the hospital but nothing within its grounds. A little while after that the UN admitted that there had been no shelling inside their hospital.
What does this tell you? First it says that nothing from the UN, especially in that region, can be trusted as far as information or balance. It also reinforces that the UN is now controlled by the Arabic-Muslim block and that other nations, like France and others, are simple too weak to fight against this.
It also highlights how closely information out of Palestine is controlled. The media representatives must surrender their passports on entry, watched closely, and must file their reports from inside Palestine after being vetted. For some reason the reporters are seem to be happy with this because they get access. In a recent Time article such a story was printed. It was a two pages and read like a poorly constructed fairly tale. It also shows how a once reasonable and balanced publication has joined the ranks of the sell outs. My father has just cancelled his 3 year subscription because of this story.
The number of news sources that are now reliable when it comes to reporting the facts has diminished to the point where no main stream media or news service is reliable. You now have to be reading services like pajamamedia.com instead.
Sure enough interviews with those living near the hospital and footage from the IDF showed Hamas launching rockets from in front of the hospital and an attack on those in front of the hospital but nothing within its grounds. A little while after that the UN admitted that there had been no shelling inside their hospital.
What does this tell you? First it says that nothing from the UN, especially in that region, can be trusted as far as information or balance. It also reinforces that the UN is now controlled by the Arabic-Muslim block and that other nations, like France and others, are simple too weak to fight against this.
It also highlights how closely information out of Palestine is controlled. The media representatives must surrender their passports on entry, watched closely, and must file their reports from inside Palestine after being vetted. For some reason the reporters are seem to be happy with this because they get access. In a recent Time article such a story was printed. It was a two pages and read like a poorly constructed fairly tale. It also shows how a once reasonable and balanced publication has joined the ranks of the sell outs. My father has just cancelled his 3 year subscription because of this story.
The number of news sources that are now reliable when it comes to reporting the facts has diminished to the point where no main stream media or news service is reliable. You now have to be reading services like pajamamedia.com instead.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Financial Crisis - Solutions
Instead of stimulus and tax cuts how about some other solutions.
1. Cut payroll tax.
Payroll tax affects two levels, the employer and the employee. The more a company has to pay in payroll tax the less the employee gets and the less employees can be hired. So by cutting the payroll tax it allows businesses to keep their employees and some of the savings can be passed along to workers. Less people get sacked, so less money the government needs for social security and services. It is simple and everyone wins. It also means that the taxpayers themselves get some of the benefits, not the freeloaders.
2. Money to home loan payers, not the banks.
Instead of giving money to the banks so they can lend to home owners how about the same payment given to those with home loans with the provision that it can only be used to pay off the loan (this could be done directly).
First of all this reduces the amount of debt being carried by banks and gives them liquidity that can them be used to provide other loans. It also directly benefits those with home loans at 100% of the value instead of some trickle down amount from the bailed out banks. The banks still get their money but via a different pathway that reduces the burden across the spectrum. This is win, win for everyone involved and it does not screw the guy at the bottom.
1. Cut payroll tax.
Payroll tax affects two levels, the employer and the employee. The more a company has to pay in payroll tax the less the employee gets and the less employees can be hired. So by cutting the payroll tax it allows businesses to keep their employees and some of the savings can be passed along to workers. Less people get sacked, so less money the government needs for social security and services. It is simple and everyone wins. It also means that the taxpayers themselves get some of the benefits, not the freeloaders.
2. Money to home loan payers, not the banks.
Instead of giving money to the banks so they can lend to home owners how about the same payment given to those with home loans with the provision that it can only be used to pay off the loan (this could be done directly).
First of all this reduces the amount of debt being carried by banks and gives them liquidity that can them be used to provide other loans. It also directly benefits those with home loans at 100% of the value instead of some trickle down amount from the bailed out banks. The banks still get their money but via a different pathway that reduces the burden across the spectrum. This is win, win for everyone involved and it does not screw the guy at the bottom.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Taxes and Payments
37.2 per cent of Australia's taxation revenue is derived from indirect taxation, including the GST (value added tax), excise and customs duties, and property taxes. Nearly 50% of your airline ticket is made up of taxes.
Examples of indirect taxes includes goods and services taxes, equalization taxes and others on both locally made and imported goods. Excise duties on petrol and other commodities all add to as part of the indirect tax burden.
So now Rudd is giving everyone money and it has to come from somewhere. There are only two sources now that the surplus is gone: taxes and borrowings. Unless indirect taxes are increased that leaves borrowing, from sources outside of Australia using an vastly deflated currency.
Examples of indirect taxes includes goods and services taxes, equalization taxes and others on both locally made and imported goods. Excise duties on petrol and other commodities all add to as part of the indirect tax burden.
So now Rudd is giving everyone money and it has to come from somewhere. There are only two sources now that the surplus is gone: taxes and borrowings. Unless indirect taxes are increased that leaves borrowing, from sources outside of Australia using an vastly deflated currency.
AGW Believers - They Never Learn
The Antarctic is melting at an unprecedented rate, this will raise the water levels, change the climate and it 'proves' the skeptics are wrong.
These were announcements a few days back and I have been waiting for the analysis, its in. The underlying data and analysis came from our favorite data manipulator Mann (Hockey Stick).
The paper was written by Professor Eric Steig and announced in Nature. He apparently had noticed a warming in West Antarctica that previous researchers had missed through poor analysis and this indicated a warming so strong that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica. The co author of the paper was Mann.
The truth was not that the previous researchers had overlooked the data but instead ignored data from four stations producing obviously bad data that did not meet quality control standards. Steig et. al. used these bad data sources to make their claims.
You can find some of the analysis by Steve McIntyre here and here .
These were announcements a few days back and I have been waiting for the analysis, its in. The underlying data and analysis came from our favorite data manipulator Mann (Hockey Stick).
The paper was written by Professor Eric Steig and announced in Nature. He apparently had noticed a warming in West Antarctica that previous researchers had missed through poor analysis and this indicated a warming so strong that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica. The co author of the paper was Mann.
The truth was not that the previous researchers had overlooked the data but instead ignored data from four stations producing obviously bad data that did not meet quality control standards. Steig et. al. used these bad data sources to make their claims.
You can find some of the analysis by Steve McIntyre here and here .
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Labor Deficit - China
Kevin Rudd is telling Australians that the problems in Australia are not caused by Australians. Kevin also told us that we were independent from places like the US when it comes to financial concerns. Kevin came into office with a surplus that he managed to turn into a deficit within a year. He blames this on the previous government and other factors over which we have no control like the global financial crisis.
He gives large sums of money to auto manufacturers who's Chief Executives still get their double digit multi-million dollar salaries. He tells us that the way out of the crisis is to have the government manage projects.
If you are not rolling around on the floor by this point, you may not have any grasp of basic economics. Keynes gets a lot of blame these days but how many people have read his theories? I have, and one of the primary conditions for his spending stimulus, apart from the bit where this is described as a short term measure, is that retailers must fix their prices during this process. Another basic fact is that any government run enterprise will lose money and be far less efficient with funds that a private concern.
The facts are simple. Australian financial institutions decided to theory away any risk analysis and led at sub-prime rates, i.e. 100-110% to people with poor collateral and low chance of making payments. They took the risk to make money and got it wrong, that is their fault, not the previous government. If it was, then why hasn’t Rudd et. al. changed the laws on this. Liberal economics does not say to bail out the people who made the bad business decisions but Rudd and Swan are doing and have done just that.
Any first year economics student knows about international trading, finance and the inter connectivity of these things. If Australia was isolated then why has our $ dropped by 30% against other currencies? Why have our resources prices dropped by half? If the previous government got it so wrong then why did we go into deficit so quickly and why will we continue to do so and historically always do so under Labor?
You can ponder your own answers to these questions but I suspect that Kevin is being less that honest when it comes to many of these issues. Or if he doesn’t know then he is very naïve about international finance and Australia's place in that equation.
China – A Developing Nation.
China as a space program, nuclear weapons, a stock exchange with the most transactions per day (Shanghai), some of the most advanced manufacturing systems on the planet and is certainly the biggest manufacturer. It has huge cities like Shanghai that makes Sydney look rural and a growth rate until recently that outstripped everyone.
Since they are still classified as a "developing nation" they get all kinds of favored treatment by the UN, Copenhagen Climate Conference 2009 and others. They have the resources to buy up our resources and the companies that produce them.
China has a saying don’t give a man a fish, instead teach him to fish. In our case they are buying up the whole stream/pond/lake building a fence around it and saying that we have to pay to fish in their pond/Australia.
If China is a developing nation then Australia needs to be reclassified as at the very least a stupid and cowardly nation and be given a third world status of some kind.
He gives large sums of money to auto manufacturers who's Chief Executives still get their double digit multi-million dollar salaries. He tells us that the way out of the crisis is to have the government manage projects.
If you are not rolling around on the floor by this point, you may not have any grasp of basic economics. Keynes gets a lot of blame these days but how many people have read his theories? I have, and one of the primary conditions for his spending stimulus, apart from the bit where this is described as a short term measure, is that retailers must fix their prices during this process. Another basic fact is that any government run enterprise will lose money and be far less efficient with funds that a private concern.
The facts are simple. Australian financial institutions decided to theory away any risk analysis and led at sub-prime rates, i.e. 100-110% to people with poor collateral and low chance of making payments. They took the risk to make money and got it wrong, that is their fault, not the previous government. If it was, then why hasn’t Rudd et. al. changed the laws on this. Liberal economics does not say to bail out the people who made the bad business decisions but Rudd and Swan are doing and have done just that.
Any first year economics student knows about international trading, finance and the inter connectivity of these things. If Australia was isolated then why has our $ dropped by 30% against other currencies? Why have our resources prices dropped by half? If the previous government got it so wrong then why did we go into deficit so quickly and why will we continue to do so and historically always do so under Labor?
You can ponder your own answers to these questions but I suspect that Kevin is being less that honest when it comes to many of these issues. Or if he doesn’t know then he is very naïve about international finance and Australia's place in that equation.
China – A Developing Nation.
China as a space program, nuclear weapons, a stock exchange with the most transactions per day (Shanghai), some of the most advanced manufacturing systems on the planet and is certainly the biggest manufacturer. It has huge cities like Shanghai that makes Sydney look rural and a growth rate until recently that outstripped everyone.
Since they are still classified as a "developing nation" they get all kinds of favored treatment by the UN, Copenhagen Climate Conference 2009 and others. They have the resources to buy up our resources and the companies that produce them.
China has a saying don’t give a man a fish, instead teach him to fish. In our case they are buying up the whole stream/pond/lake building a fence around it and saying that we have to pay to fish in their pond/Australia.
If China is a developing nation then Australia needs to be reclassified as at the very least a stupid and cowardly nation and be given a third world status of some kind.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)