 |
|
|
|
| Most Recent Postings |
|
 |
| Explosive undies - silent but deadly! | |
Normally exploding undies are the butt of people's humor. The merest whiff of
an undies joke is enough to make the bottom feeders of the sophistication
hierarchy chortle with delight. And make The Elites sniff with disdain. But there is nothing funny about this particular set of exploding undies
because they were being worn by a member of one of the Religion of Peace (a
group not known for their lighthearted humourous nature). An angry little psychopath named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab thought that
exploding vests were just .. like .. sooo 2002, exploding shoes were just sooo
2001 and exploding backpacks were just sooo 2004. He decided to get down and
personal with his suicidal obsession and blow up the
airplane he was on by lighting up his undies. Farouk returned to his seat after an extended visit to the toilet, then
passengers heard 'popping noises and smelled a foul odour'. But it's not what you think. This wasn't the normal lighting up of the undies that drunken cowboys get into
sitting around a camp fire after a few too many beans in a B-rate movie.
Young Farouk put something more potent in his undies than the Good Lord
provided. Apparently Allah provided him with undies made of pentaerythritol -
an explosive related to nitroglycerine. Unfortunately for Farouk, who was clearly unexperienced in such matters and
probably hasn't even seen Blazing Saddles, he
suceeded only in causing severe burns on his bum before some of the other
passengers tackled him to the floor. Farouk's family warned authorities that he could be dangerous, but he didn't show up
on a 'search this guy's undies' alert.
And the Americans are now
talking about a whole lot more security measures, including not letting people do potty in the last hour of flight, keeping their hands in plain sight, and having
nothing on their laps. Are they going to let them cross their legs? The government has to be seen to be doing something - anything. Except that
actually doing the sensible thing and and stopping ratbags entering the country
is just too politically incorrect. Besides, why just stop a few ratbags when
this can be used as a justification to control everyone's life? A capitalist
knows that every problem is an opportunity. A politician knows every disaster
is an also opportunity - to create bigger more powerful government. Looks like everyone's going to be on the undie search alert. What a pain in the arse.
|
|
 |
| Hot Stock! | |
Amidst much hysteria about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming for anyone who has
been locked in a fridge for the last few years), it's sometimes a good thing
to keep a cool head and look at it from the cold hard view of an entrepreneur.
Like Malcolm Talkbull for instance. Malcolm Talkbull acquired considerable capital over the years by buying and
selling stocks. And right now he's evaluating the future worth of a stock with
a ticker symbol of "AGW" - an influential little enterprise with heavy
dependencies on enviro-science, pseudo-scientific hysteria, and international
air-conditioning. And in fact, most canny politicians have to make a call about whether they will
adopt a short-term or long-term position on AGW. Right now it's trading higher
than ever, but what about the future? What if the hysterical cries of
'WE'RE ALL GONNA BURN!' don't eventuate? What if they do? Will the
share price go up or down? Should a politician use his political capital to
sell short or buy long on AGW? A politician can take the short term view - wring his hands about AGW and
scream for greater government intervention to create ineffective feel-good
measures like the ETS - or he can take a long term view and try to capitalize
on post-hysterical cynicism. Puerile taunts of 'I told you so, nah nah nah
nah nah nah' go a long way in our sophisticated Westminster system if they
are delivered with poise and self-confidence. Many in the Liberal party have taken a long term position. They intend to ride
out the hysteria, and be in a position to capitalize on the possible collapse
of AGW shares two elections from now. But party leaders can't wait that
long. Party leaders have short lives in the Westminster system. Malcolm
Talkbull is only looking to the next election. He has no choice but to jump
onto the AGW band-wagon and ride the stock through high and low. The current leadership tension in the Liberal party is not an ideological
difference, but just a tension between the positions of 'Party Leader' and
'Long Term Sitting Member'. Are the sea levels really rising or are we just witnessing a
Poseidon bubble?
|
|
 |
| Aww .. shucks! | |
We all know what a great
service affirmative
action has done to minority groups. Letting everyone know that members of
certain groups get promoted merely on the basis of their race, gender, sexual
preferences, pregnancy or
other victim producing
formula reinforces the knowledge that that they are just as competent and
capable as everyone else. And it proves that there is no discrimination. Like for example the
story of the photo of the three white firemen taken at 9-11 which was to me
made into a statue - of a black man, a Latino and a white. Unfortunately
the project got canned. Someone must have thought that a Latino, a black man
and a white man sounded like the opening to a bad joke. The latest bad joke comes from Microsoft. And no, it's not their
Vista operating system. Microsoft used a photo of an Asian guy, a white woman and a black guy to
promote their web site (no point including any white males - we all know white
males don't go into IT). However when they made up the Polish edition, they
felt the need to make a few Stalinist changes. For the Polish site, Microsoft
photo-shopped the black guy into white guy. How politically incorrect! Apparently political correctness hasn't made it to Poland. Maybe the population
of the former Soviet
Socialist Empire People's Paradise aren't as enlightened as us mere running
dog lackeys of the military industrial complex. Perhaps being raised in a
communist state doesn't awaken one's
natural leftist political
philosophical leanings. It's hard to imagine why. Maybe we need more capitalism?
|
|
 |
| Uncle Kev's housing solution | |
There are two kinds of people in the world. There are looters (who live off the
tax tit) and tax cattle (who actually work, and are forced to give up a large
proportion of their wealth to the government, who in turn gives much of it to
the looters). This is easy for most people to understand - except for Public
Servants. For some strange reason they regard themselves as tax-payers, because
on paper they pay tax. It never actually occurs to them that if someone is forced to give you 100
dollars and is then allowed to take back 45, then you have received 55 dollars
in stolen property. This is totally different to someone who generates 100
dollars worth of wealth, and is forced to give 45 dollars of it to some slimy
bureaucrat. But the worst thing about the Public Service is not the theft, it's either the
sanctimonious belief that they have the right to control other people's lives
('for the common good'), or the incredible inefficiency and waste in everything
they do. Particularly when Australia's traditional land owners are involved. Two years ago Kevin ('economic stimulus') Rudd allocated 672 million
dollars to build houses for Aborigines. Now, dear reader, let's do a quick
calculation on how many houses that might build. A friend of mine spent
$350,000 building a house recently. Add 50,000 for servicing a block, and
that's probably around $400,000 to build a lovely spacious modern house. So 672
million hard-earned tax dollars should build around 1920 houses, right? In fact
if we were willing to do without the double garage with internal access we
could easily do over 2000. So how does that get allocated? Well, Tenant Creek was allocated $36 Million
for 20 houses. That's 1.8 million dollars per house! But it gets worse. It was
then revised down to nine houses. That's four million dollars per house!
Apparently "training costs and fees for consultants" were significant (who'd
have thought). But still it gets worse. Now it's been revised to zero
houses. Yes, that's right - zero houses will be built with the $36 million. The
money is going to be spent on fixing up some existing houses. In fact no houses at all have been built on the scheme so far. Anywhere. With
the whole 672 million dollars. Some houses might be built in 2011. Maybe.
And they are talking about a total of 300 houses. That's 2.2 million dollars
per house! If they even build that many. Many Australians were overjoyed when Kevin Rudd apologized to the Aborigines.
All the child abuse, the drug problems, the health issues were all going to be
solved. Because we apologized. Kevin had the solution. Kevin was smart. Kevin
could close the gap. Kevin could make everyone happy. Except that 672 million of hard-earned tax-payers money and two years has not
produced a single house. Now that deserves an apology.
|
|
 |
| Racist? Me? | |
Many years ago, some of us oldies recall the excesses of
our Islamic guests after a
certain Salman Rushdie published a tacky little novel which poked fun at the
Religion of Peace. A fatwa was proclaimed against Salman Rushdie for daring to
mock Islam, and the Islamic community called for Salman Rushdie's execution. This was at the dizzying heights
of political
correctness and any of us who expressed nervousness about the behavior of
our excitable guests were quickly shouted down by
the academe,
the feminists, the
international socialists
and any of the factions generally associated
with leftist ideology. Even
television programs showing graphic female mutilation at the hands (well,
actually the knives) of members of the Religion of Peace were merely met with
tut-tuttings and vague mutterings about tolerance and the importance of
cultural relativism. Over time, of course, the proponents Religion of Peace realized that the
conversion of Western
countries to Islam required a smarter game. They appointed spin doctors to
assist the mainstream to avoid 'mis-understandings' about what Allah fan-bois
were actually saying. "Cut off the Kaffir's fingers one by one" apparently didn't actually mean any
such thing - it just meant "show your enemy your are strong". "The Kaffir must
die" actually meant "we want peace" (presumably after the Kaffir are all
dead). We were warned against literal translations of Islamic sermons, because
"the Arabic language is full of simile and metaphor". Apparently in Arabic it is impossible to say "the cat sat on the mat" without
including loudly shouting "Death to the Kaffir", or at least making references
to leaving the meat out. Arabic is indeed a strange and subtle language. But the Islamic spokesmen were there help us mere Kaffir through these cultural
difficulties, and to loudly proclaim "mistranslation" or (when that failed)
"out of context". One such spokesman is Keysar Trad. Some of the Kaffir have been rather critical of Keysar Trad over time, and recently
Keysar took 2GB Broadcaster Jason Morrison to court for defamation over
statements made on air. Apparently Keysar took umbrage to being called
'racist'. Unfortunately Keysar lost the case, and has to pay costs because the judge said .. well .. that he was racist. Oops. The president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ikebal Patel, was 'surprised' and
commented: "I thought that what [Keysar] was saying was quite conciliatory". Maybe that's a translation for "he wasn't calling for the sudden and
painful death of the Kaffir for a change". Anyway, after playing the race card for all of his career, Keysar has just been trumped. Read'em and reap, Keysar.
|
|
 |
| Police credibility shot down in flames | |
There is an childish school-boy Confusion joke to the effect:
Confucius say no such thing as rape: woman with skirt up run faster than man with trousers down.
This is offensive, silly and wrong of course. Its only real merit is its lack
of political correctness. That, and the fact that there are times when
the running away objection surely applies. Like when someone is running at you
with a jerry can full of petrol. Today's true story goes something like: 36-year-old (Aboriginal) Ronald Mitchell was (allegedly) threatening police
with a container of petrol and a cigarette lighter when he was tasered by the
police. 'No problem there' you might say, 'nothing like a few thousand
volts to calm the nerves, and create peace and harmony with the local
brudders', except for one thing: Ronald caught fire, and suffered third
degree burns to his face, arms and chest. Oops. Perhaps firing up a spark-plug on someone already dowsed in petrol is not
the smartest thing to do. Perhaps the Western Australian police force has
discontinued their policy of only recruiting the brightest applicants? Not so! Declared the West Australian Police Union. In fact a spokesman
appeared on our TV screens insisting the taser use was necessary because 'the
man was a threat to himself and the police felt they were themselves at risk'. Huh? Surely a fit, able bodied and intelligent (?) police officer can run faster
than someone carrying a jerry can and a cigarette lighter. Personally, I think I could do the 100 meters in 9.8 seconds in such a
situation, even when weighed down by a handgun, handcuffs, baton, radio,
notebook, taser and those gloves they use to do illegal cavity
searches. Actually I could probably even make pretty good time in full riot
gear if someone were chasing me with a jerry can and a cigarette lighter. So it really comes down to the police setting someone on fire because there
was a risk of him .. well .. setting himself on fire. What ever happened to 'Serve and Protect'? This is actually a reflection of the attitude of the police force, which is a
reflection of attitude of The State. It is acceptable to use any kind of force
to prevent 'self harm', even if the harm is greater than any self inflicted
kind. Enforcement of any kind of victimless crime follows the same pattern: if
someone is hurting themselves, hurt them even more to stop them! Because they
have no right to damage State Property! Remember: The State owns you, it is not there to be your friend.
|
|
 |
| You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. | |
There are some organizations that really won't let their members leave. The Mob comes to mind. Scientology too. And Islam. But today lets talk about citizens of socialist countries - like The People's Paradise Republic of China. You may take out citizenship of another country, but your mind, body and soul remain the property of The Collective. If you are born in China, you are Chinese. Which creates a bit of an issue for those who wish to take out Australian citizenship, and then represent Australian companies in their negotiations with China. Like Stern Hu for instance, born in China, and granted Australian citizenship in 1994. Things can get particularly problematic when these people stand in the way of the Chinese government's acquisition of strategic foreign resources. Like in the failed buy-out of Stern Hu's employer, Rio Tinto, for instance. Beijing was furious when the attempt to increase Chinese control of the major resource company was thwarted by a mixture of political and economic events last month. So furious in fact that they smashed into the Rio Tinto offices, helping themselves to Rio Tinto's paper and electronic files. Apparently this made Rio Tinto guilty of stealing 'Chinese state secrets', so they also arrested Stern Hu, and several other Rio Tinto employees. The cynics are claiming that this is a deliberate attempt to humiliate Australia over the rejection of the Rio Tinto bid. So Kevin ('I speak Chinese, you know') Rudd is talking tough on the issue, and warning the Chinese that countries the world over are observing how they behave in business dealings (and by implication evaluating potential Chinese business partnerships accordingly). Rudd's words are for Australian domestic consumption. He knows that the real message from Beijing is to any Chinese who might be considering helping the White Devils in dealings with the Chinese government:
You still belong to us. Loyalty to the White Devil is disloyalty to China. Disloyalty to China is treason. And you will be punished accordingly.
|
|
 |
| Afghan business opportunity | |
Opinion is split on whether
the Taliban used to allow
opium to be grown
in Afghanistan during
their mad reign. While fascist control freaks invariably want to control or
prevent the use of drugs by their subordinate population, opium was also a nice
little earner, allowing the islamicists to continue to arm themselves via an
income of US dollars. What is agreed though, is that opium production is flourishing in Afghanistan
under the not-so-watchful gaze of US troops. With heroin hitting over $US100
per gram on the Streets of San Francisco, growing a few poppies looks like a
far more more attractive prospect than herding goats. Previously, when confronted with a poppy farm, the US marines adopted a .. well
.. a US marines approach, and demolished the poppies. It finally occurred to
someone that destroying someone's crops while presenting yourself as champions
of Freedom was a tad
hypocritical, and wasn't making friends in the local rural community. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. envoy for Afghanistan is quoted "Eradication is a waste
of money". What? Next they'll be telling us
the War on Drugs is
unwinnable! So how do you wage a war on drugs if you can't destroy opium poppies? Well, if
you thought the old policy was confused, the new one is bizarre. They are no
longer going to destroy opium crops. They are going to pay opium farmers to NOT
grow opium, and crack down on their buyers. It's not clear whether someone who doesn't grow 10000 poppies gets paid
more than someone who doesn't grow only 5000 poppies. Perhaps people
can start out not growing 100 poppies, and gradually grow their
business to not growing thousands of poppies. Confused? Well .. apparently growing opium and then selling it is
okay, but buying it
is evil and deserving of
severe punishment. But don't 'addicts' (victims) buy drugs, and don't
'pushers' (perpetrators) sell drugs? Why does it work the other way
around for Americans? I guess Americans really are special! Generally, the leftist mindset dictates that people are evil if
they employ someone to do something.
- A worker who knowingly violates safety procedures is a victim, but the
employer who repeatedly trained him in the correct procedures, and urged him to
follow them is a perpetrator.
- Asking for more money is righteous if you are employee, but exploitative if
you are selling goods for profit.
- A police officer can violate someone's rights, and hide behind 'just
doing my job', but his employer 'society', is to blame.
But sometimes inexplicably, it works the other way around.
- Someone who sells drugs (a 'pusher') is a perpetrator who deserves gaol but the people who
employ him (the drug takers), are victims who are entitled to tax-payer funded help-programs.
- People smugglers are evil people who should be imprisoned - but the people who
employ them (the asylum-seekers) are victims who deserve the rights of
welfare, free health and citizenship.
Confused? There is a hidden rule: the person who is more hardworking and successful is
is always the perpetrator. Obviously. It's called the tall poppy syndrome. Best understood through an opiatic haze.
|
|
 |
| Unbreakable! | |
Westerners have long criticized China and the quality products made in the
People's Paradise Republic, but those critics should be silenced by news from a
Shanghai building site. A 12 story building fell over and stayed intact! How many Western buildings do that?! Hmm?! This is proof that countries with big Socialist governments produce high
quality products that mere running-dog lackeys of the military-industrial
complex (er .. that's us, Dear Reader), could only ever hope to emulate. The inhabitants of the neighboring identical structures on the same site
are also very happy, knowing they are living in such solid structures.
|
|
 |
| The trouble with censorship is **** **** **** | |
For anyone who has been in a coma over the last few weeks, there is some
political upset in Iran. Some Muslims pretended to set up a democratic government. Some Muslims objected
to the farce and started to protest in the streets. Some other Muslims didn't
like the protests, and so started shooting them. Or maybe it was the first
bunch. Or something. This of course is markedly different to every other upset in the Middle East.
And before you all say "of course it's different - this is one is a struggle
between freedom and oppresion, between good and evil", well think again. Actually it's just different because of cell phones. Iran is a wealthy country
(compared to most of the other poverty stricken Islamic cess-pits in the
world), and protestors and passers-by have cheapo cell phones, which do two
interesting things which conventional phones don't. Firstly, they do texting, so written reports of bloodshed and oppression can be
thumbed out in glorious 160 character sound-bytes (er .. I mean text bytes).
Secondly, and more importantly, they have cheapo video cameras in them.
Video cameras which can actually record the bloodshed in even more glorious (if
low resolution) color. Humanitarians all over the world were outraged by the youtube vidoe of a murder of a pretty young
girl called 'Neda', shot through the chest by government forces, and bleeding
out of her mouth and nose as she died on the street. Then we learned that the Iranian government was using technology supplied by
Nokia and Siemens to detect 'subversive activity' on the internet, and the cell
phone network. And they used it to censor data and shut down the protests.
Naughty Nokia and Siemens. Now Slashdot reports that two US senators (Schumer and Graham) want to punish
Nokia and Siemens for providing that technology. Apparently supplying governments
with the technology to restrict internet access is an evil thing to do. Funny thing is, there are many governments with that this kind of technology.
Including the US, and including Australia. In fact Uncle Kevin is part way through an
internet
filtering trial which would stop us mere citizens from accessing 'unwanted'
material (so 'unwanted', apparently that we wouldn't want to access it anyway). Are they willing to punish multinationals for selling that technology to
Australia as well - or just
to Axes of Evil? Selling internet censorship technology must be only evil if it it is sold to
bad governments, not to good governments. Because we all know that the likes of
Uncle Kev would never abuse their power. Remember: Other governments are evil, but YOUR government only wants what's good for you.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Always remember:
The government only want what's good for you.
|
|
Copyright © 2002,2003. All rights Reserved. |
Strawman
| |
|
|
|
|
