Past Writings of Michael Ross

Is Higher Education All It Is Cracked Up To Be?

2005-07-08T19:59:00.000+10:00

The standard flow of students these days is...

Go to school until Year 12
Then go to university and get a degree
Then use that degree to get a job

But is this sequence the ideal sequence - or - has everyone been sold a bill of goods and is everyone being lead down the garden path?

Personally, I think that latter. And for a variety of reasons you will see in a minute.

When I went to uni - yes, yours humbly did go - I could not understand WHY I was being taught a bunch of stuff I would not be using. In fact, I thought this before uni. I thought this in highschool.

In highschool I wondered why I was being forced to memorize so much "history" of which I had no interest. Sure it was interesting to learn about WWI and WWII. But I couldn't see how knowing this stuff to a level to pass a test, would be of benefit to me in the big wide world. The only use I could see of being FORCED to learn this history was if I wanted to go to university and learn to be a history teacher, or some kind of historian.

I had the same view of the math I was learning. I thought those who were doing "Math in Society" were learning far more practical math that had everyday applications. While I was not learning that and was, instead, learning higher level math that had no real immediate use other than learning even higher math at uni.

So while doing my B.Sc/DipEd. you can understand how I was puzzled as to WHY I would need to learn such a high level of science when the degree would enable me to only teach lower school-level science.

It's pretty hard to be enthusiastic about something that doesn't make a real lot of sense to you. So I deferred my studies. And something interesting happened. I was sent a results card half way through the year - even though I had NOT enrolled for that year. Of course, because I wasn't there and had not sat any test, my results were all "Fail."

At the end of the year I got another results card. Same result - Fail. And there was an additional note. Because I had failed the same subjects for two semesters, I was not allowed to do those particular subjects for 12 months. Well, because I had "failed" ALL subjects, I was not allowed to do any for 12 months.

Anyway. I looked at the possible rewards of continuing on. And what I had to look forward to was a $30,000 a year job - which was ok at the time. But I did some calculating and it went like this...

If I left and made $25,000 a year (the average wage), by the time I finished my degree after four years (it was a four year degree) I would have earned $100,000.

If I complete the degree I can get a $30,000 a year job - only $5,000 a year more. And at $5,000 a year more, it will take me 20 years to make up for the lost income of $100,000 I could have earned during those four years.

And if I factor in the student loan I would have to pay back should I stay, it might take an additional five years to make up the short fall. So I was looking at spending 25 years to catch up what studying for four years would cost me.

How many other business/income opportunities would I miss in those four years while I was holed up trying to learn subject matter I would never use?

And what if I wanted to do something else besides being a science teacher. Such as a Park Ranger. I'd need a science degree, but WHY. How would such a degree help me be a better ranger? How would such a degree help me be a better fighter pilot - if I joined the airforce? I could see no way it could, and all these years later I still cannot.

Police in my state have to do 12 months of uni before going to the academy. Why? How does that enable them to be better police officers? How does that enable them to interact with the public better? I cannot see how it does. And so if I wanted to be a cop, I would be doing something I felt had no bearing. So would not be enthusiastic about it. And so wouldn't do it to the best of my ability, and probably would drop out as I view it as silly.

Most staff in an office have a degree. How many tasks performed require that degree? I cannot think of any. After all, a short course in typing and using Word or Excel would teach them most of what they need to know. And the rest would be taught on the job as they learn how that business uses Word or Excel. Which means, the student loan taken to get the degree, as well as the time spent in its attainment, were not wise investments.

And of that loan... migrants tend to be more successful than people born in a country because they arrive without any ability to get into debt - even if they wanted to. And so, being forced to remain debt free, debt free becomes a habit. And instead, they invest their money.

Picture the poor student. Fresh out of uni with a debt of $20,000. They are behind the eightball. They may earn a little more than a migrant in a $25,000 process working factory job - BUT - they are paying off a debt which sets them back in more time and effort.

If you want to know something for your own sake, study it. You don't need a piece of university paper to say you studied it. Just do it.

And if you want to obtain a skill, then it can be self-taught (just like how I learned to program in Visual Basic and Delphi, how I learned to type (does it show?:o)), how I learned to code webpages by hand, and so on). If I wanted to get a job working for someone, I would present my "evidence of ability" as my way in, not some piece of university paper which doesn't let the potential employer know I can do anything other than pass a test.

I cannot see a valid reason for most people going to university. The degrees they get don't make them better able to do anything. And if anything, cost them in time, effort and money, and put them into debt before they earn anything.

AWOL

2005-06-27T05:49:00.000+10:00

Since my last entry a tad shy of two weeks ago, I've been absent from the blogosphere. Not only haven't I written, I haven't even visted my usual blogs to see what's what.

To some, it could have appeared as if I had abandoned all of blogdom. I am sure this would have made certain people happy, and others wondering.

For those who wish I had gone first let me say, thanks for reading. For the others out here in blogsville, let me add, I will be back to regular blogging in a little while.

My absenteeism has been due to a new project I have nearing completion. As the 80/20 rule states, 80% of the work is done in the last 20% of the time. Or to put it another way, the last 20% takes up 80% of the time.

Either way, the new project has been a time drain in its creation and launch. Time I would have spent blogging, has been spent doing fiddly things to get this new beast moving.

One of the laws of motion states that is takes more energy to get a reting body moving than it does it keep it moving. And the same can be said of projects - it takes more time and effort to get them going than it does to keep them going.

All should be completed some time within the next two weeks. And normal blogging shall return - as if I (or my actions) have ever been what could be called normal.

Slave To The Govt

2005-06-14T04:48:00.000+10:00

YOU are a child. YOU are worthless and weak. YOU must do what you are told by your betters. For you don't know how to do what's right all by yourself. You have no brain with which to form a thought to do the right thing. So says the govt.

And to demonstrate this attitude the South Australian state govt is banning plastic bags. Yep. The people of South Australia - the only state to offer money for recycled plastic bottles - has decided enough is enough. It cannot be bothered waiting for the trend to see people switch from plastic bag use to calico and those green heavy-duty plastic bags everyone is using theses days. The switching trend is happening way to slow.

And so in their parental wisdom, they are banning plastic bags.

Businesses will no longer be able to give you a plastic bag with your purchase. Otherwise THEY will be breaking the law.

And bag makers will lose what had become a nice little cash cow for them. Their investment in machinery will be worth zero. I wonder if the bank will still want the money on the loan paid back?

It's kind of funny when you think about it....

South Australia - where it is LEGAL to grow pot, but don't you dare have a plastic bag.

Many people will be in agreement with what that state govt has done. But they will fail to see the principle behind it.

If it is ok to ban plastic bags, why not all plastic used in packaging? What would rice and bread be sold in? How about the liquid laundry detergents? Bottled water? The wrapping on boxes of tea? The wrapping that covers meat. What would butchers (which is a store that sells just meat, for my American readers who don't have butcher stores) put the meat in? What about those naughty sealed magazines at the newsagents? How will people pick up their dog's poop? What about trash bags in offices, and even at home?

Logic would suggest we move to paper bags. But that requires trees to be cut down. And the same dickhead greenies who don't want plastic bags would jump up and down about that too.

I know. Why don't we just all turn our backs on modern society and go and live in a hole in the ground and wear clothing made from leaves. Greenies are such fuckers.

But back to the govt. What else does this set a precedent for? What is next on the govt hit list to tell us what to do? Mandatory "anti-smoking" injections (don't laugh, I see it going that way)? Compulsory anti-fat injections once the chemical has been perfected some more? A ban on all meat in case we could get mad cow disease? Hmmm... the meat board might be too powerful for that one.

How about gas rationing. Can only fill up on odd and even days and only put a maximum of $20 in the tank. Say good bye to courier work across the state as they all run out of gas - unless they buy directly from suppliers in 44 gallon drums and fill their vehicles at home, or pay for a permit for unlimited gas filling - now there's an idea for the govt to raise extra revenue.

The South Australian govt is now on my official "Fuckers" list.

Blairy Poppins To Use Oldest Con In The Book To Steal From The Productive

2005-06-08T05:53:00.000+10:00

The people of the UK are heading down a big brother road like no-one else, it seems, if this latest infringement is anything to go by.

We used to cringe at the idea of having to carry around papers to present to any authority figure upon request, as was the case in the USSR. But Britain and their National ID Card have now made that ok - with the US to follow with a National ID Card shortly (although they won't call it that, it will effectively be the same, regardless of what they call it).

Well, Britain will soon be tracking WHERE its citizens go, constantly.

In moves I can only describe as the greatest infringement yet, on privacy and freedom of movement, Britain will soon have tracking devices in all cars. Their reasoning is simply this: There is too much congestion on the road, and some people drive more than others, so it is only fair they pay for the roads more than other people, so let's have a "driver pays" system in place.

I am all for user pays systems. However, what this Brit govt is about to do is use the idea as a leverage tool to gain something else, and/or take extortion-level amounts of money from people.

With the device in your car, you will be charged varying amounts of money per mile, depending on which road you drive and what time of day you drive - though why the time of day should matter is not explained.

Some roads would charge you 2 cents a mile while others would charge you $1.30 per mile! With the high-priced roads being the motorways and highways.

As those main roads are designed to move a lot of traffic fast, I can see a lot of people using the cheaper side roads - effectively negating the high road fee and negating the effectiveness of the motorways in the first place, bringing congestion to side roads.

Imagine, for a moment, you need to drive from one side of London to another side. Some of the roads you travel on are the cheap 2 cent roads and others are the $1.30 roads, with some other roads being somewhere between those prices. A simple trip like this, as Sky News in England showed, would cost the driver $157! And that's just one way!!!

Oh they [the govt] say they would get rid of registration (or greatly reduce it) and the same with fuel tax (removed or reduced). But look at the numbers...

Even if you only have to pay an average of $0.30 per mile you drive, someone that drives 20,000 miles a year will pay $6,000. Which is more than the cost of their fuel and car registration combined, at the current prices, let alone that amount being how much tax they pay in registration and fuel tax.

And while everyone is in shock at this proposal, and up in arms as well, they are about to have the oldest trick in the book used upon them. As Maxwell Smart would say, it's the old "don't ask if, ask which" trick.

Everyone will jump up and down about this. And so the govt can then give "better" options to placate the people. Either reduce the per mile fee, or introduce a Public Transport Levy to improve Public Transport so more people will use it. And as the British govt is a leftist socialist one, then this seems more like their end goal.

Once presented with this option, the people will welcome the public transport levy. And their con will have been pulled off.

If the govt had announced an introduction of a public transport levy, the people would have jumped up and down about it. But by proposing this stupid idea, the people will welcome any alternative that is less severe.

It's the very same trick our local govt used. Previously, it was free for buses and mini-buses to drop off people at the local airport. The local govt announced at the beginning of April that ALL such businesses now had to pay an annual permit fee to drop people off at the airport. And this fee was going to be $2,500 for the small operators and as much as $6,000 for the larger operators who drive larger buses. And all operators had less than one month to ante up.

Well, as you can imagine, there was an outcry from the business owners. Where were they supposed to come up with that much money on such a short notice. It would be the smaller guys out of business. And yadda yadda yadda.

So, the local govt in their graces, reduced the fee to $2 per trip onto the airport grounds. And they all lapped it up.

If the govt had announced a new $2 per drop-off, where it had previously been free, there would have been outcry. But by announcing a huge and stupid fee, the outcry stopped being one of "why do we now have to pay" to one of "please, we will pay anything but that."

The people are presented with the appearance of a choice. You can have this stupid tax, or this greatly reduced tax. But either choice still represent a tax being paid where once there was none. They haven't been asked IF they want to pay a tax, they have been asked WHICH tax they want to pay.

Here is how this gambit is used in negotiating...

Let's say I am looking for investors to buy a small block of units. And let's say I want each investor to put in $15,000. I would approach someone with the idea and let them sleep on it overnight. When I visit them the next day, or a few days later, they are in the mind of negotiating DOWN the investment required. So to head that off I say, "Bob, I told my partners what I had offered you and they were furious. They said the number should have been $25,000 and not $15,000. So we really should be asking you for $25,000 instead."

Bob's immediate reaction will be to forget trying to get me down in price from the $15,000 and all he will now want to do is hold onto that price. And he will then argue to let me let him be in it for $15,000. To which I can play along and pretend to go outside and make a call to my partners who reluctantly agree. And Bob will then be thankful I let him pay full price.

My prediction for Britain is this: This usury-rate pay as you drive tax will give way to a public transport levy, and then the pay as you drive tax will be phased in at greatly reduced amounts over the coming years. The registration and fuel taxes will be reduced initially, but will not be removed, and will slowly increase over time as well.

I also see a blackmarket in turning the devices off. And more money being needed to add extra police and other such people to "inspect" cars to make sure the devices are being used. Which means more govt bloat.

Time will tell if I am right.

More From The Dept Of Silly Grants

2005-06-02T08:41:00.000+10:00

In more silliness from our ~~stupid, moronic~~ beloved govt, we have this... "A Gold Coast midwife and lactation consultant (what the heck is a lactation consultant? Putting a baby's mouth on the tit is natural. No so-called consultants needed here.) has been given a $10,000 state government grant to find out what is going on [with women who stop breastfeeding early] and what can be done to help."

On the surface this sounds like a noble thing to do, right? But then you discover the areas to be researched...the physical difficulties moms and babies experience, the mothers attitude to breastfeeding and their support system - public, family. And the information will then be used to improve post-natal services so moms breastfeed for longer.

This nutjob do-gooder who wants to impose HER view of how long mothers should breastfeed says, "I'm very passionate about this because it's every baby's birthright to be breastfed."

In more idiocy, she is a baaing sheep lapdog for the World Health Organization and regurgitates what they reckon - that mothers should breastfeed exclusively for six months and then slowly introduce more solid foods while continuing to breastfeed into the second year and beyond.

Picture in your mind some two and a half year old kid still getting breastfed. Odd image, isn't it? I mean, were are talking about a kid with a set of teeth here.

Hey listen up you doinks at WHO, if an animal (us included) has teeth, it means we should be masticating our own food and not living off food that BABIES are designed to live on so they can grow. And how arrogant of you to want to impose what you reckon onto other women. How about letting THEM decide for themselves?

Anyway. This useless research will involve four phone calls over the course of twelve months to help determine why moms might not have been able to breastfeed the way they had planned. And to ask those who did not achieve their breastfeeding goals, what would have made it easier for them. (And you just know, the answer to this question would then become another thing the do-gooders would want to petition the govt about to get funding for.)

For example, "It could mean we have to look at more ante-natal preparation". (And we all know where the funding for THAT would come from, don't we?)

Obviously, any of these questions could be asked of any mother. Just print up a small one page questionnaire, hand it out on the street to mothers with young children (or do the damn survey on the street), and ask them to mail it back. She only wants to do this research with 200 mothers. And I'm sure it could all be done face-to-face on the street within one week and would cost MUCH less than $10,000 of my tax dollars.

But the icing on the cake is her real reason for wanting to do this... "I just want to find out." Meaning, so then she can push to suck more money out of us tax payers to fund her good works.

I have a name for people like this. I call them "fuckers."

Utopia Sucks

2005-05-31T21:08:00.000+10:00

I often rant about the nanny state, govt intrusions, the left socialists, and so on and so forth. I add how the market will provide, if given half a chance. And free trade would see us advance in leaps and bounds. For the game of capitalism is currently being played at only half speed - thanks to govt restrictions and taxes and rules and regulations. But let's take a moment to imagine a utopia world...

There would be no govt intrusion on business. Businesses would be free to trade amongst themselves as they saw fit. Many would self-regulate, and those that didn't would not stay in business due to word of mouth, and other businesses who had set themselves up as "Reviews of businesses" businesses - where a prospect could go to find out about a business before doing business with it.

Everyone would be treating each other with respect and as they wanted to be treated. As such, there would be little crime and no real need for a police force. There would be police BUT they would act more in an advisory role to help people sort out their own differences.

Everyone would have pretty well equal wealth and "things." This is because there would be no tax paid on money earned.

We could hire people to do bothersome tasks - such as cleaning - while we pursued out pleasures.

Sounds blissful, doesn't it?

I have another word for how it sounds...

BORING!

Imagine if there really was no socialist or group of people trying to take from you to give to some low-life they want to help. Imagine no govt forcing itself upon you. Imagine everyone being totally courteous.

It'd be like going back to pleasantville. It would drive us all batty.

It is only because we have these "obstacles" that we become strong people - with healthy egos and self-esteems. It gives us drive to achieve. Otherwise, we'd be living in some odd utopia mediocrity. Where everyone was equal and no-one else was especially better than anyone else.

Currently, the education system tries to paint a utopian picture to the students. Where you study hard, get good grades, go to university, then get a good job.

But none of this teaches people about the really real world. And so they enter into it as adult adolescents. As far as interacting in the real world is concerned, they are immature. Some grow up, most do not.

What if, instead of going to university, students had to have a job for a year or two? Maybe a factory job as a process worker or something.

In a factory you will meet nearly every type of person you can think of. Different shapes and sizes as well as personalities. A factory is like a microcosm of the world at large. And as a menial process worker, there is a good chance the stuck up student will come down to earth a bit.

Then, after a year or two of such work, they will have fulfilled the university pre-requisite and be allowed into their course, if they still want to go, that is.

Many will not want to go. Many will have come to realize that uni is the big con. Where you waste three to four years of your life, and spend loads of money, getting a degree so you can get a job that won't pay much more than the process worker was making.

Further, what if it turns out they don't like their career? They will be reluctant to throw it in because of the time and money they invested in it.

I recently had a chat with a young dentist client. He HATED being a dentist. When I asked why he didn't go do something else, he mentioned that he'd spent too much time and money to become a dentist to throw that all away.

Yet he was willing to throw more time away in a career he despised.

But getting back to the process work experience and other obstacles. They make us then realize how much we want something else. And then we would really strive for it. And when we achieved it, it would be all the more sweeter of a triumph.

We would not experience this in utopia land. In utopia land we would have no obstacles to overcome. So the triumphs would not really do it for us. We would become, in essence, kind of pod like. Dull and boring.

Utopia sounds kind of interesting, until you think about it. But as long as we never achieve it, trying to, does make for an interesting life's journey.

Experience The Road Rage - I Did

2005-05-28T05:02:00.000+10:00

I can now proudly proclaim that I am a member of the Victims of Road Rage club - as in, someone who has now personally experienced genuine road rage as opposed to a toot of the horn and a fuck you with a flip of the bird as they drive away.

Let me tell you all the juicy details...

I was coming down a hill that had a small, nothing speed bump half way down. I was about to hit the speed bump and a guy up ahead on the right was parked in his driveway looking at me. He then back out right in front of me and stopped in the middle of the road. As it was a road that allowed overtaking, I simply went around him and kept going. I turned left a couple hundred yards further up, then left into a gas station another couple hundred yard further up.

As I put the nozzle into my car, the guy pulled in front of me, got out and yelled "I oughta punch ya fuck'n head in."

I calmly looked at this moron and he yelled it again, "I oughta punch ya fuck'n head in" as he walked towards me.

As he approached me I was contemplating how I was going to hit him IF he made a move. And having figured out what I was going to do, kept pumping my gas.

He got a couple of feet away from me and yelled again that he oughta punch me out. I just quite calmly looked at him. Which must have set him on edge because I didn't flinch, blink, back away or look in anyway intimidated. Then he said, "ain't cha got noth'n ta say?"

I paused, took a step towards him!, looked him square in the eyes and in a direct, firm voice full of control, and at a volume only he could hear, said, "I see no need to justify anything you said by replying" and turned to watch my gas numbers.

Well, that sent him into a deeper craze. He went off about how I came down the hill and blah blah blah. I took another step towards him and said, "It's ok. There was no danger. I could see you and what you were doing and you could see me. No danger." And went back to my gauges on the bowser, while watching him out of the corner of my eye.

Ah. That response sent him into froth-at-the-mouth mode. "Danger? Danger? I'll tell you about fuck'n danger." He came right up to me, a couple of inches away from my face and again threatened to punch my head in. Then it dawned on him that I wasn't the slightest bit perturbed or concerned by him. I had a look in my eyes of complete and utter self-assuredness that I would take him out in a heart beat if he pushed it. (Remember, I had already decided how I was going to finish him off. And that my martial art is BaGua Zhang - the martial art of overkill that concentrates on deathpoint blows and inflicting grievous bodily arm.)

He, now not sure of himself, took three steps back and yelled, "I'm gonna get your number and give it ta me mate at the cop shop and he's gonna come visit cha."

I asked, "And which police station does he work at?"

He replied, "Southport. I'm gonna give him ya number and he'll come visit cha."

I then asked, "Oh, would that be So-And-So, the officer in charge?" (Little does he know I am on a first name basis with a dozen or so of the police at that station as well as the officers in charge of two other stations.) But he was fart-assing around in his car looking for a pen.

I walked in to pay for my gas and he came storming in and tried to tell the cashier what I was guilty of - that I went around him after he backed out of his driveway and stopped in the middle of the road - and walked around the counter and grabbed a pen.

I went outside to offer him a piece of paper from my notepad but he already had one, so I jotted down his tags instead and went back in to pay for my gas.

I asked the cashier if he was a friend of her's and she replied, "We don't have friends here." I asked "What is he then?" and she replied, "Just a regular customer." I paid, got my receipt and drove off.

The interesting thing is, during the entire confrontation - even when he was inches away from my face - I was totally calm and had no adrenaline coursing through me. And this only comes about because of complete self-assuredness.

Think of it like this... the first time you do something new, such as go over a jump on your bicycle, you will feel an adrenaline rush. And maybe again for the first few times. But after a while that rush is not there and you now know you have the situation under control.

It was the same with me in this instance. If he had made a move I was going to strike his throat, crushing his windpipe and putting him out of action. And this is possible in BaGua Zhang thanks to what we call Fa-Jing (explosive energy ). It is an explosive move that resembles sneezing.

When you sneeze, the body gives a quick, sharp jerk. Using that same principle, there is no need for withdrawing the striking arm to cock it in readiness to release. Tere is no need to get into a stance to strike. There is just full-powered release from any angle, with the entire body moving and the force of the blow fully directed at the target. (BaGua Zhang is the only martial art that does all its strikes while in full motion - no stances.)

You may have heard stories of warriors going into battle and being completely calm - and therefore devastating. Or you may have heard how the founder of Aikido experienced this calmness during a fight he was experiencing, and upon that moment he became machine like with computer speed - his actions and reactions so fast as if he could read the opponent's mind and know beforehand where the blow was going to be.

This calmness is very real. And to someone who faces such an opponent, it is very unsettling. Because it gives them total 100% self-doubt about the confrontation.

And this is what happened in my example. He reverted from threats of physical harm to telling me he was going to tell on me, just like any scared child will do when they realize they are powerless to do something - they threaten to tell someone they deem to be in authority who can deal with it for them.

Maybe this is what Bruce Lee called, fighting without fighting.

Why The World Will Never Be At Peace Without Mass Death

2005-05-26T15:10:00.000+10:00

There are some things that are impossible to do... flap our arms and fly like a bird, lift ten times our own weight unassisted, and reason with someone speaking nonsense.

There are certain levels of nonsense. There is nonsense we all agree with and there is nonsense that some people think isn't nonsense. And it is this latter type of nonsense that is specially insidious. For most people do not know how horrid it is until it is too late, if they do realize at all, that is.

Regular readers will know I am anti-religion. Which is to say, I do not believe in religion and am against it. Organized religion has, as its base, that a man is not worthy and must bow down to the higher authority stance. A type of slave/master deal. Where values are not produced or created but leeched from others.

Within the religious frameworks and dogmas there are some that are worse offenders than others. For example: the puritan work ethic vs praying to Allah five times a day.

When you have a look at the world, you will notice there are countries that create values and produce goods and services, there are countries who could but do not and instead make use of those who do, and there are countries who cannot under any circumstances.

And when you examine the countries who cannot create or produce values of their own, you begin to see a few patterns...

Pattern # 1: They are muslim countries.

Pattern # 2: They are poor countries.

Pattern # 3: They are often some form of dictatorship.

Pattern # 4: There can often be terrorist activities going on, on a somewhat regular basis.

The poorest country in Europe is Albania. Albania is a muslim country. Albanians outbred the Serbs in Kosovo and then the shit hit the fan.

There are no muslim countries that create or produce values of their own. Besides the oil which just happens to be under much of the Arab section of the globe, those muslims create and produce nothing of significance for the world. There are no medical breakthroughs. No technology breakthroughs. Nothing. And they are repressive "do as you are told or else" type countries.

When you look at the countries which lead the way in technology and medicine and industry, you see that they are NOT muslim countries. And the frightening thing is this... the value creators and producers do not breed at a rate that even replaces them. A value producing and creating couple will have one child, sometimes two. The muslims have half a dozen.

Look to Kosovo again. The Albanians were having families with an average of 7! That's average, meaning some were lower and some were higher. The Serbs were lucky to have 2 children per family. The christian Serbs were being outbred by the muslim Albanians.

And this is not just restricted to Albania. Look at other muslim countries. Besides producing nothing of value off their own bat, the families breed like crazy. They pop out more and more muslims who also producing nothing and add nothing to the globe. (Which would explain why Islam is the fastest growing religion according to Islam - they breed faster than any other religion.)

And this is the scary thing. They are value leeches that breed like rabbits who also see non-muslims as infidels who deserve to die. It's scary because this has been going on for a long time - 1,000+ years. And now they have access to weapons of greater power and destruction, it is a matter of time before they use them.

I do business with muslims. And the ones I do business with are more your assimilated, free range type who have intimate relations with non-muslims. No praying five times a day, and all the other malarky. But they believe in Allah and that makes them a muslim. Some of those types are value producers - BUT - they live in a value producing country. The muslims I am talking about in this entry are those practicing muslims who live abroad, or non-assimilating locals who sympathize with the abroad way of life.

There are hundreds of millions of them. And they breed like rabbits. They cannot function in a modern world because their faith is not able to adapt to a modern world. Instead, they want us to change to their backwards ways.

The ONLY possible outcome is one of confrontation. The small skirmishes will give way to larger and larger skirmishes in this thousand year war. And, unfortunately, due to their massive breeding and our lack of breeding, the ONLY way for there to be an end to the hostilities is if massive amounts of people die.

Because you cannot reason with nonsense, you therefore cannot reason with the staunch muslims who want us to become one of them. And either we will all perish to give way to a world run by Imams and Muftis and Ayatollahs - at which point all progress will cease, what progress had been made will decay, and we will all become like 10th century peasants fighting each other in little warlord groups. Or, they will perish to allow us to flourish and to keep progress going full steam ahead.

There is no, nor can there be a, middle ground. In the movie Independence Day, Bill Pullman, playing the POTUS (President of The United States), asked the captured alien if their was a way to co-exist. He was told "No." And when he asked the alien "What do you want us to do" the alien said "Die."

Now look to the muslim world. There is no way to co-exist with non-assimilating practicing muslims, and specially the Shiites and the Wahhabis. And they want us to die, or be under their control (which is really the same thing).

If this world is to have peace, massive amounts of people will need to die. There is just no way the muslims will be able to change their mind-set, because they live in fear of their non-existent Allah, who was made up by Mohammad. And they perceive self-sacrifice as a virtue and that when they blow themselves up, and us, they are doing a good thing for themselves and us. This mindset cannot be reasoned with because it is nonsensical. The only way is for them to all die.

I am not advocating for anyone to go and kill a muslim. Nor suggesting that muslims should kill us until we subjugate ourselves to their Mohammad-created god. I am merely stating things as I seem them to be... that the forces of Islam and Non-Islam are diametrically opposed and cannot exist together and that the only way for there to be true peace is if one side or the other is totally obliterated. The likelihood of total obliteration/annihilation of one side or the other is highly unlikely in the immediate future, or in the more long term future, as our evolved sensibilities won't allow such wanton slaughter of them, and there are too many of us for them to get it over on us totally. So in the interim, this thousand year war will continue on, possibly for another thousand years, or more. With more pointless deaths of millions of people sacrificed for both sides.

The U.S.'s foray into the middle east is pointless. There has been talk about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis - we won the war but had no strategy to win the peace. Unfortunately, that is not possible. They are non-value-producing muslims who see us as second class beings who would be better off dead. As they believe in wars of attrition, whenever the US and co leaves Iraq, they will claim it as a victory that we couldn't take it anymore and ran away. This will only strengthen their resolve against us. Yes, this thinking is total nonsense, but remember, you cannot reason with nonsense and it is pointless trying. It is an exercise in futility.

As much as all the belly aching from the left about the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, it is only one small battle in a long line of battles of this war that has been going for a thousand years. Sometimes they hit us, sometimes we hit them. Sometimes many people die and sometimes only a few do. Sometimes the battle lasts longer than other times. But in the final write up, no side makes progress against the other. It could be deemed to be a stalemate. The never ending war. If there is really a world war, then this is it. This is the true world war. World War I, and it has not ended, nor will it any time soon. The other wars we learn in school as WWI and WWII were merely distractions.

It's funny, if all the Islam vs Non-Islam incidents were revealed in chronological order, in quick succession, it would be quite obvious to all that this is a war that has been going for a thousand years. But when the battles of the war are here and there a year or two apart, it is not so obvious. We can look back at the crusades and what really started them and see it for what it was, even though many years separated the events. We need to apply that same hindsight to the more modern events to see them clearly.

I can only imagine what the world of the future will be. If there is peace, it means many hundreds of millions (possibly billions) of people from one side or the other have perished. And we will be living wonderful lives taking advantage of all modern advances - or - we will all be muslims living like peasants in a dead and decaying world of depravity. Only time will tell.

Asthma - Big Pharma's Golden Goose

2005-05-23T18:46:00.000+10:00

Big Pharma must love this modern world of ours. They must love it because it makes people sick and then they go running to the doc for a Big Pharma Pill to hide their symptoms so they can carry on. Carry on until their body is overwhelmed some more and a symptom shows, at which time they run for a big pharma pill again.

The best business models are those where the customer keeps buying over and over again. The more frequent the purchase, the better for business. You save on marketing costs - it is always harder to land a customer than to market to an exiting customer. And even better if you don't have to market to existing customers once you have them, and they keep coming back anyway.

One such big pharma windfall is asthma spray. Once a person has asthma, they keep buying the asthma inhaler forever and a day. And each time they do, big pharma makes some more money.

Obviously, with such a situation, it is NOT in big pharma's interest to actually cure your asthma. And nor is it in the doctor's interest as he won't get his cut for writing the prescription. To cure asthma you need to do it yourself. And the first step in doing so is knowing WHY you have problems breathing.

The all knowing eye told me today - on a health show - that one in four children have asthma. That's 25% of children. And that is a frightening number. Not because that's how many have it, but because that is how many will be taken to the doctors by their parents and given "medication" to help them. And that is a lot of children to subject to big pharma's vice-like "til death do us part" grip. And specially when it is all unnecessary.

Our body is a wonderful thing. It knows how to fix us when we are sick, and to get rid of stuff that is making us sick. Health, you see, is a natural state. Illness is not. If we are sick, and we remain sick it is only because we keep subjecting ourselves to the thing that is making us sick.

The body has many wonderful ways to keep us healthy. It raises the body temperature to keep nasties from multiplying while at the same time it speeds up the immune system. It forms small deposits of fat around objects (cysts, lipomas, and other lumps and odd growths). It places toxins in our skin until it can deal with them (we know this as a rash or reaction). It sometimes excretes the toxin through the skin (as in the case of certain childhoods diseases). It places toxins in mucus and releases the mucus (phlegm in the lungs, runny nose, etc.). It protects our eyes by watering. And so on and so forth.

So IF you are having some kind of reaction (illness) it is because your body is dealing with something. If the reaction continues it is because the thing causing the reaction is still in your environment.

When I was young I had bronchitis. That anti-biotics did not clear it up suggests it was NOT bacterial. It suggests it was caused by something in my environment. And in an effort to stop that something getting into my body, my body enveloped it with mucus in the lungs. Then waited for me to cough the toxin up and spit it out. The same toxin that was inflaming my bronchial tubes.

What could have been in my environment? Car exhaust as we lived on a main road; chemical fertilizers as we lived near farms; carpet fibers and lino fumes as they were fairly new items in the home and in their fume-making height when I was born; cigarette smoke; talcum powders; fragrances from deodorant and room fresheners; and so on and so forth.

As I was home all the time - being a baby and all - I surmise it was something within the home. And my bet is carpet fibers, lino fumes, cigarette smoke and smelly stuff in the house. When we moved and I began attending school, my exposure was less and my bronchitis went away.

Now let's come back to the "one in four kids have asthma" claim. And let's look at all the ways this breathing difficulty could be happening...

Carpet fibers; lino fumes; formaldehyde fumes from foam mattresses; fumes from laminated kitchens and cabinet type furniture; fumes from paint on the walls; fumes from the plastic boxes TVs and computers are made from; a proliferation of air fresheners (plug in, automatic sprays, oil burners, toilet bowl flush fragrance dispensers, fragrant air strips in plastic containers, and so on and so forth).

In short, the air in the house is laden with toxic fumes. And seeing as windows and doors now have better seals and don't allow airflow. And that more and more people close their hours up tight. And the children do not play outside anymore and sit inside, breathing the fumes while playing the playstation or Xbox, and you have a recipe for breathing problems.

A person cannot breath in those kinds of chemicals in the air all the time without the body reacting. And it normally reacts by producing mucus to trap the chemicals and not let them into the lungs. This could allow less air into the body. The lungs will breathe more. And possibly, as one researcher theorizes and my own experimentation verifies, we over-breathe. The result is an carbondioxide/oxygen unbalance in the lungs and we feel short of breath - as the body doesn't want to breath as much in an effort to increase the CO2 to even out the balance. Welcome to an asthma attack, or general feeling of shortness of breath.

Instead of rushing to the doctor for an asthma medicine, open the bloody windows and stop filling the air with toxic chemicals. This act alone will see the asthma numbers drop.

In addition, examine the preservative numbers on food stuffs. Many are known to cause breathing difficulties. (This is avoided by only buying fresh fruit and vegetables and meat and not buying anything that has been processed by someone else.)

It's also wise to examine the air where you live. I know one couple whose three kids all had asthma. It didn't appear in the hospital but it did when the kids got home. It took this couple a few years to figure out it was the chemicals in the air from the experimental farm across the road from their home. They sold up and moved a mile away and the asthma of ALL their children was totally gone within the month! No more asthma medicine. No more worrying when a child had an asthma attack.

If the lungs are playing up, it is because there is something in the air the body does not want to enter the body. Your job is to identify that thing - usually a man made chemical of some kind - and get it out of the environment.

It's also a good idea to look for possible air-borne mold. As might come out of an air-conditioner. This can also cause breathing problems.

One thing asthma is not, is a disease that needs medicine to treat for life. Doctors know this. And so does big pharma. That they are keeping quiet about it shows the corruption of the medical system. If you cannot trust a doctor to tell you the truth about something like asthma and/or breathing problems, what can you trust them to tell you the truth about? Anything?

And They Call Themselves Fans

2005-05-22T18:25:00.000+10:00

There is stupid, and there is totally moronic. And the Manchester United fans who are opposed to their club being owned by an American, fit into the later Moronic area.

You have a guy who has bought shares in a club. While so doing, the value of those shares have gone UP. Meaning, anyone else who owns shares is now richer.

But some doinky fans don't like that. They say he will ruin the club and make all kinds of lame excuses why he shouldn't own the club. But what it really comes down to is they are bigots and racists. They don't want him owning the club because he is an American. And the flavor of the month is to hate everything American.

To get their point across they propose to NOT buy any club merchandise and to boycott all club's games.

And now let me ask you WHO is the one doing harm to the club? Is it the guy who has millions of dollars to invest, who has already increased the club's stock price, and who will inject new life into the club with his money - or - is it the idiots who want to deprive the club of its revenue?

If you said, the idiots who want to deprive the club of its revenue, go to the top of the class. Their actions are akin to the actions to be expected from Marxists and other socialist types. Those who are against capitalism - unless it is done by one of their own, such a Bromovic (from the former communist Russia) buying Chelsea.

I'd like to see Manchester's owner call them all out. To tell them right to their face for all the world to see, that their protest is NOT about Manchester having a new owner who is not an avid soccer fan, but it is, instead, about him being an American. And if he was a British millionaire, or a Russian one like Chelsea's owner, there would be no outcry at all. So all those protestors are actually bigots and racists.

I'd like to see it called what it is, then watch them scream bloody murder at him. But it won't happen, because at this stage its the typical political game. And calling it what it is, is just not done and might piss of real fans who would take the side of the protestors, in sympathy for the harsh words thrown their way.

Just your typical situation where a few bad eggs are making a lot of noise and gathering around them a bunch of blithering idiots who haven't had an original thought in their head for ten or twenty years. So they can spew forth rhetoric their "leaders" have filled their empty brains with.

How Honestly Are You Applying Your Analytical Skills?

2005-05-20T18:25:00.000+10:00

I've been accused sometimes of "Thinking Too Much". "You think too much" I've been told. And it's rather an odd thing to say.

Imagine not thinking. Your mind would be blank. No memory jog as you hear a song on the radio, no thought process of what to wear, or what's on the all knowing eye. Just total nothingness.

We'd be walking zombies is what we'd be. Susceptible to anyone else's thoughts and opinions as our mind would be blank and ready to allow in almost anything. (Kind of how most people are, isn't it?)

Ok. So what if we just stop thinking a little bit? Same result really.

What these people mean when they accuse me of thinking too much is, usually based on my tendency to wonder about all kinds of things and how they are often connected. If someone doesn't like my conclusions they will either call me a name or tell me I think too much. Because they would rather not be faced with something that might disrupt their view of the cosmos.

And I try to apply the same level of questioning of things, to all areas. Even areas I enjoy. But I wonder how much of that goes on with other people.

Let me give you a brief example and then a more extensive one...

Iraq War. Where the USA invaded IRAQ under the pretence of disarming it of Weapons of Mass Destruction. At this moment those on the right will begin to feel their blood starting to rise in anticipation of me "having a go" at them. Those on the left will begin to smile at where they think I am headed. And yet, all I have done is state a fact. The war was based on the idea that Iraq lied about its weapons of mass destruction and we had to go in and take them away. And we were authorized because the UN resolution breaking allowed it.

Further facts are: This war was called operation Iraqi Freedom. Which is a sly political ploy to name something that doesn't sound so bad.

Since this war began it was found that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. The left have hounded the right over it. And in response, the right claim that 25 million Iraqis are now free of the murdering Saddam, and isn't that a good thing?

And while I do agree it is a good thing. It doesn't negate that the reason for invading the country in the first place was to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. But the right wing cannot accept that blunder from their fellows. More on this later.

Onward.

Another example is in the shape of two different online articles and the right-wing view of both of them.

The first is an article about a woman who claims to have been on a flight in which a very scared looking man was brought on. He was apparently gagged with tape around his mouth and was handcuffed and treated with disregard (roughly).

The rightwing was up in arms about this article. It was riddled with inconsistencies. And reeked of the usual leftist "poor innocent criminal" stuff they often write about.

The second article was about a child who was taken from school, driven to an abortion clinic where she underwent an abortion, without consultation with her mother who had found out about it and was yelling inside the clinic for her daughter to come out. The article makes the clinic out to be monsters. And the rightwing jumps up and down at the injustice the left has brought upon us with legal abortion.

And yet, there is something odd going on here. The story from the leftist journalist, which was published in a known leftist publication, is actually full of holes and inconsistencies. Too many to have been an actual event that actually took place.

Upon close inspection of the abortion story - written by a righty - a bunch of holes and inconsistencies are also evident. Too many to have been an actual event.

And it is interesting to note. The righties see the holes in the lefties stories, but the lefties do not. And the lefties see the holes in the righties stories, but the righties do not. It is almost as if both sides are in denial about their own sides shortcomings.

As exemplified by the Iraq War. Excuses are made, from both sides, when valid arguments are put forth concerning the invasion.

The left denies any good has come of it for the Iraqi people. The right denies the original reason for going in has been proven to be wrong. But the facts are clearly this...

The reason for the invasion - and it was an invasion, as going into any country who is sitting doing nothing clearly is an invasion - was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, coupled with regime change due to the badness of the regime.

No weapons of mass destruction were found, hence evidence of guilt to pin upon the regime to justify its removal is not available.

Attention is quickly drawn away from those bothersome aspects and it is proclaimed that the Iraqi people now enjoy a freedom they could not have enjoyed under Saddam. Silly muslims can now do that long walk while hitting themselves with whips, and other insane things. They can have elections deemed to be valid by our standards. And go through the bullshit appearances of freedom and democracy like we do.

As much as the right will hate to admit it, these are the visible facts. There can be no denying them.

The right will harp on about Saddam being a bad man. And he may well have been. But if that is a reason, why not go into every country in which a bad man is in power and subjecting the country's citizens to all kinds of horrors, and remove them? Who decides what is "bad" anyway? Why not go into Zimbabwe? Congo? North Korea? Iran? Syria?

This is the tangled web of bullshit you enter when using the "he was a bad man" excuse.

On the other hand, the left will not accept that Saddam did anything wrong. Saddam's people starved (or were killed by him) while he lined his pockets with money and built monuments to himself. Mass graves, etc. All undeniable. Yet the left will not acknowledge any of it. And will try to excuse it away in some fashion.

So both sides are guilty of self-denial of reality. Hence my question to start this entry off, "How honestly are you applying your analytical skills?"

Can you see the fault in your side's articles, politics, views and opinions? Can you think independently?

The Results Of Our Wonderful Brainwashing Education System

2005-05-18T07:03:00.000+10:00

The left loves a cause. Specially one that ceases progress in any way, shape or form. The anti-progress stances they take are usually based around "saving" the environment in some way. And what's interesting is that their stance is usually hypocritical.

Take the sleepy Brisbane bayside area known as the Redlands Shire. This is made up of some older suburbs and some newer suburbs. With the newer suburbs being your typical housing estate with windy roads and culdesacs - all built on land that was cleared enmass.

In that shire there seems to be a constant battle raging between the land developers and those who do not want the land developed. And the hypocritical part of it is, those who do not want the land developed, are living in houses built on land that was developed only a few years earlier. It's as if they really don't want anyone else to come and enjoy living in the area, or something like that.

You will also notice that those people never volunteer to give up their house so the bush can reclaim it. Nope. They just want to force their views onto other people. And usually in areas that have no effect on them. Such as in developments 20 miles away.

Anyway. In my local paper is the following "Letter to the editor"...

OUR class, 6R at Pacific Pines State School, opposes the building of the proposed cruise ship terminal at The Spit.
We disagree with the need for the terminal for a number of reasons:
Ships would pollute the area around the terminal with grey water, oils and exhaust.
And the terminal would take away public space that is now being used for swimming, fishing, accessing South Stradbroke Island and other activities.
Instead of a cruise ship terminal, why not make the area a place where people can enjoy themselves? Shade, toilets, barbecues and bike paths would be a much better alternative.
CLASS 6R, Pacific Pines State School

This is a sixth grade class - full of eleven year old children, and some 12 year olds. And "The Spit" is the name given for a point of sandy land which juts out from the mainland. It has a road on it and at the end of that road is a sand-pumping jetty which keeps the entranceway into the waterways clear of build up. There are some shops and small shopping centers near the mainland part of it, but for the most part it is barren sand dunes with some sand-growing bushes on it. The area proposed for the terminal use is not used by anyone for any reason, despite what the "children" write in their letter. Also, the suburb of Pacific Pines is a 15 minute drive away (that's driving through 50 mile an hour zones) and is up in the coastal hinterland not anywhere near The Spit.

The reality of the situation is this: The brouhaha was started by a group of residents in a suburb called Paradise Point. These residents have the furthest north livable area in the city - that is, livable and with direct water access. Any further north and they are in the water.

Initially, they were against the terminal being built on a nearby island, or they didn't want the island to be taken away to make way for the terminal. And at first, it sounds like a viable argument. Until you realize, the island is nothing more than a glorified sand bank with some bushes growing on it, and is not used by anyone for any purpose - AND - the suburb in which they live is ALL built on reclaimed land and what used to be small islands similar to the one they want left alone. In fact, if you look at old aerial photographs of the city and new ones, you can see how the vast majority of land and canal-front property used to be small sandbanks and similar.

And what of this Pacific Pines where the school is? Ten years ago it didn't exist. It was pristine hinterland native bush. And the school was only completed two years ago.

So it appears it is alright to strip a thousand acres of natural bushland, but not ok to build on a small nothing sandbank.

The claims of polluting the area around the terminal are somewhat laughable. I'm not disagreeing that some kind of pollution would take place, but at the idea this will make a difference. This city is a water-front and beach-front tourist city. There are canals and boats everywhere. And on the weekend, a flotilla of boats descends on the area to go fishing, skiing and so on. A cruise ship that may dock once or twice a month is hardly going to make a lick of difference to whatever pollution is already in the water due to the existing number of boats.

But my biggest beef with the letter is who it is supposed to have come from... sixth graders.

A sixth grader (11 and 12 year old) does not have the mental faculties to understand what is going on with this development. They have no understanding of economics as they relate to a city, and what certain infrastructure can mean to a city. All that matters to children of that age is whether mom has a Kinder Surprise waiting for them at home after school, or some such thing.

Let's have a closer look at the letter...

"Ships would pollute the area around the terminal with grey water, oils and exhaust."

Exhaust? Hmmm. Maybe we should all move out of the city because there is a LOT of exhaust created in a city. And I don't see these kids complaining about the exhaust fumes which comes from the eight lane highway that runs right past their suburb.

Grey Water? What 11 year old kid knows what grey water is? How many reading this even know what it is? My wife didn't even know. A sixth grader doesn't know about grey water. And grey water is not something that is on their mind, nor is it something a sixth grader has any concern about.

A sixth grader who lives miles away from the site doesn't know what the area is used for. And we come to the most obvious bit that says this letter did not come from the kids...

"...why not make the area a place where people can enjoy themselves? Shade, toilets, barbecues and bike paths would be a much better alternative."

How do I know no kid wanted these things? Because there is no mention of a playground or park with playground equipment in it like swings and slippery slides. It is those things a kids wants. Not toilets and shade.

Imagine if this rosey view of things was applied to all progress. We wouldn't have the world we have today. We would just have a world full of shade and toilets and bike paths. A world where people could have barbecues and do nothing else.

No. Sixth graders did not write this letter. This letter was a creation of their teacher's who has FORCED her views of the matter onto the children. The teacher doesn't want the terminal to go ahead, so convinces and brainwashes the children the same. I can picture it... she talks about doing a class project to help the community. And this is the result.

If I was a parent with children at that school, I would be outraged. I would be questioning WHAT my children are being taught besides the basics, which is all they should be taught. I'd be on the buzzer to the principle, writing letters to the Minister for Education and calling the minister's office. And would pull my children out of the school and begin home schooling them.

Home schooling is no guarantee a child won't be brainwashed either by idiot parents. But at least the parent knows what the child is learning.

Those in favor of stopping the terminal would be glad their child was part of such a project. While those in favor of the terminal being built would be annoyed.

The teacher is an abomination of a human being to use 11 year old school children to push her personal agenda. And she is not fit to teach any young children at all. But the situation will not change. She is a govt employee and govt employees tend never to be fired. Their actions are excused and justified by the other members of the club (govt employees in the same profession who may be slightly higher up). And the worst that will happen is she will be moved to another school - but only if parent outrage is too loud and continuing.

Of this, I am feeling the outrage baby.

Every "K" Over Is A Killer

2005-05-16T17:13:00.000+10:00

Every now and then our govt runs TV campaigns trying to get people to slow down. These ads usually depict someone speeding, and then show the results of the speeding. With the tag line, "Every K over is a Killer". Meaning every Kilometer over the speed limit is a killer. We say "K" because that is Aussie short-speak for kilometer. And for those in the US it would be "Every mile over is a killer."

Anyway. The latest ad shows a father going to get gas for the BBQ. He's weaving in an out of traffic. He weaves behind a car which hits the breaks. His is going too fast to stop, swerves onto the sidewalk and collects a mother pushing a pram - the mother turned away as the car hits. The mother is dead in the bushes and the baby, while alive, is covered in blood.

The ad is pointless.

Sure it is designed to get us to think and to graphically show us the results of that speeding. But speeding is NOT to blame for the crash.

Other ads tells us 50% of accidents involve alcohol (which means 50% don't, and thus have no excuse, right?). And other reports talk about "speed" being a factor. But all these ads and reports are missing one vitally important thing that underlies all of it...

Not Paying Attention

Accidents happen because drivers are not paying attention to what is going on, on the road. If they were paying attention, they would know they are approaching traffic too fast, or that the car up ahead has hit the breaks. They would see the tight corner coming, or that bump in the road. They would see the oncoming traffic and not overtake into it and have a head on crash.

All you need to do is watch the other drivers on the road when you are out and about. They take their eyes off the road and look at passengers they talk to; they get rubber necks and watch what is going on on the side of the road - maybe a sexy girl walked by, or they are driving past a car yard that has cars they would like to own, or some construction is going on, or anything; they fiddle with CDs in the car's CD player; fart ass around in the glove compartment; adjust their hair; put on make up; try to write stuff down they are getting over their cell phone; try to write text messages on their cell phone; sit at green traffic signals unaware they changed until someone toots a horn at them; and so on and so forth.

It is not speed that causes crashes. It is not alcohol. It is a lack of attention to what is going on that leads to speeding and bad judgments on the road. Lack of attention to the road conditions, traffic conditions, and anything and everything that a driver needs to be aware of.

Instead of spending millions of dollars telling us to slow down, the govt would be better served telling us to PAY ATTENTION when we drive because we are in control of lethal weapons.

Feel The Outrage

2005-05-13T06:09:00.000+10:00

It's outrageous. That's what it is. Fancy someone thinking that way and writing about it. Why they should have their head read. They must be mental to think that way. What vile horrid filth comes out of their mouth and from their fingers on the keyboard.

Me? I just don't see it. I'm like, "Oh, he's going off again" and I flick the channel, turn the page or click the link away. I don't need to subject myself to it. But I am not like others. They seem to revel in being outraged.

It's true. They read online articles written by journalists they cannot stand. They watch TV shows that are hosted by people they cannot stand, who push agendas they are against. The listen to talkback radio on subjects that drive them nutty. But they don't turn away. They keep coming back for more, and then they complain about it. And that's the bit I don't get.

Why subject yourself to something you don't like? You should never complain about something you need not subject yourself to. It's just plain silly.

Recently, some journalist - I'm not sure if he is one or just some guy who wrote a piece - wrote that he hoped the insurgents in Iraq would win and beat the US. He also said he would hope that, even if his son was over there fighting.

Well. You should have heard and read the outrage. Oh. It was everywhere. Coming from the right. After all, the right loves Dubbya and Dubbya can do no wrong. And anything that is anti-American is taken personally. And you get the idea.

I had switched off when reading the piece because it was obviously written to get a reaction - which is did. But was quite amused at the railings of the right-wingers as they wished all kinds of abominations on the writer. It was like reading a gathering of crazies. Where all sense of rational thought had left, and all that remained were insane blathering idiots.

They spread the outage around too. Letting each other know of the hideous man who wished bad things upon the US soldiers in another land. Suddenly, righties were linking to it from all over the web. Sending ever more and more craziness into the area. All spouting more and more vile words of condemnation. And I'm thinking of those words spoken by Murphy Brown when she would encounter someone who hated her and her show and the segments she did. And she would say to them... "Thanks for watching."

I can just imagine that journalist sitting behind his keyboard. If he was reading what they wrote about him and his article he'd be thinking... Thanks for reading.

Me? I'd shake my head and click away. Next. I just don't feel like being outraged. It's not productive. Why make myself miserable? For what? I don't gain. If anything, I give power over to the one who wrote/said the thing I became outraged over. I don't need that shite in my life. I'd rather have Peter Pan Happy Thoughts. And I don't mean to imply I wish to escape reality. Far from it. I simply choose what I will listen to and read. And listening to people who I know are irrational socialists and/or who wish death and destruction upon value producers, has no purpose to me. I won't change their mind, nor do I even care to try. I won't even link to those bad things I comment on, if you notice, because I don't want to send traffic, readers, and energy their way. I don't want to spread it around.

I can understand getting outraged over something you might stumble upon. And fair enough too. But the puzzle to me is, those who go out of their way to feel the outrage. THAT, I do not get. I don't know what is worse, the doink who wrote the piece that outrages people, or the people who flock to read it so they can get outraged.

Maybe I'm just all outraged out? Like the outrage only goes down so far, and then nothing more. No more outrage. Just a kind of mild amusement of those who are outraged and those who do the outraging. Maybe it's a matter of learning to ignore it, or letting it go. For in the grand scheme of things (not there is a grand scheme, but you know what I mean), none of it matters one jot anyway.

What the journalist wrote doesn't matter. What any doink politician lying bastard says doesn't matter. What any socialist student union leader wants doesn't matter. Nothing matters. In fact, if being outraged causes mental discomfort, then it is certainly something we should avoid for our own health's sake. For to live, to truly live, we should strive to do things we enjoy. To do them for ourselves. Selfishly. To hell with anyone else. And being outraged isn't that enjoyable, really.

See. I can't even get outraged at this. It's merely an observational diatribe about, what I consider to be, a mindless behavior. Where people are letting their feelings get the better of them.

The outragees over at FreeRepublic love to link to anything and everything Robert Fisk writes so they can all feel the outrage. And I don't get it. Do they get a kind of good-guy badge by showing each other how outraged they are?

It's like those battered women who keep going back to the guy who battered them. We all scratch our heads and wonder why. This is the same... they keep going back to be outraged by the same people over and over again. Failing in their fundamental survival mechanism of not subjecting themselves to things they don't enjoy. Heck, an animal learns this real fast. Humans? They seem to ignore it. If anything, they seem to prefer self-destruction. And in this case, mental destruction as the outrage tests their sanity, as they try to hold on to their emotions and only manage to do it by a very thin thread.

So some guy reckons WWII was really started by England and the only thing Germany was doing was having a simple, nothing-much-really, border dispute with Poland. Just par for the course.

Another guy reckons society should be based on needs. I need more so you should provide it for me. Hmm mmm. Same old same old.

Dubbya/Howard are fascist dictators. Yep Yep Yep. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Maybe that's it too. There is nothing new to be outraged at. I've heard it all before. It's not your fault; someone else is to blame; right wingers are all Nazis; tax the rich value producers and distribute the money to the value leeches; blah blah blah. It was a load of bollocks then and is a load of bollocks now. So what?

Turn, walk away and get on with your life. You cannot reason with nonsense. And you'll just get frustrated trying. Let go of the outrage and you feel a whole lot better.

How To Solve The UnEmployment Welfare Problem

2005-05-12T05:58:00.000+10:00

"We're moving to Tenant Creek", they said, "to work on a construction project."

"Both of you?" I asked.

"Yep." he replied.

"What jobs will you be doing?" I asked.

"I'll be driving a site truck and Janey (not her real name) will work in the office", said Joe (not his real name).

"Did you need special qualifications to work in the office?"

"Nope" said Janey, "I've never done any secretarial course. All they care about is can I answer the phone and type the few things they need typed. That's what it's like out there. As long as you can do the job you're hired. And if you've done work out there on any site before, you are guaranteed of getting work on other sites."

They told me they would be away for two years and their stuff was going into storage. Their house would be rented out.

Now here was a couple who were going to move to a location about a thousand miles away from where they lived, and a place where there was no city or city conveniences. They would be living on a construction site in the middle of nowhere. Getting a place to sleep and food to eat on top of their high rates of pay due to the isolation. They were willing to do something no welfare bludger is willing to do.

Onward.

My BaGua Zhang (the martial art of overkill) instructor had been away for a month. He'd been picking fruit and vegetables. Beans, carrots, that kind of thing. It was outside work. Physical work which was hard at first but easy once you were used to it and had shrugged off the city flabbiness. Work that added variety to his life.

Onward.

With the camera in her face, she was asked by the reporter why she collected unemployment welfare, instead of picking fruit which was so readily available in her area. She said she was too busy to pick fruit.

Too busy? She was unemployed! How could she be too busy to work? Busy doing what? Sitting at home sucking down beer and smoking cigarettes?

Onward.

"How does it work?" I asked.

"I put my name down for work. When someone calls them they call me and ask me if I can be at the location within 30 minutes. I say "Yes" or "No". If it's "Yes" then I go and I work for four hours. It's four hours minimum. The client pays them $25 an hour and I get $15 an hour from that. I can put my name down with as many agencies as I can and don't need to have a full time job cause I get all the work I can handle from that."

He owns a pair of steel-capped boots and a hard hat and that is all. He was talking about having his name down with Workforce Agencies. Not job finding agencies but the agencies that businesses call when they need someone for a day, or half a day or what have you. He puts his name down with the Manual Labor agencies and with the agencies that have manual labor categories. Sometimes he does cleaning jobs, sometimes its yard work, other times its work on a building site.

Onward.

He called the company and told them he was looking to work, and could he put his name down with them for when they needed someone. He was asked to come fill out a form. And once the form was filled out, instructed to call in each week to see if work was available. This, he did. And he started that weekend.

On the day he hopped in his car and drove about 50 miles (80km) ready to start at 6.00am. His job was simple. Walk up and down the seating isles of the sporting arena picking up the trash - discarded cigarette packets, drink containers, food containers, and so on and so forth. When his bag was full, he tied it in a knot, pulled out a fresh empty bag and continued. He was one of about 20 or so.

After his "shift" he asked if he was needed next week. And was told "Yes" and when and where to be.

He noticed the group of workers was like a family almost. Because they were all willing to do what most people were not. Some of the workers got to prepare the arena for game day. Some got to work at the arena on game day - emptying trash cans. And some were making $25,000 a year just doing this part time, weekend and evening work.

Onward

You know that large 20 storey high-rise going up on the old Sundale site? They are desperately looking for people to work. And they can't find anyone. Even though they are offering $1,000 a week, in hand (after tax).

Month's later, I get chatting to a couple of guys who have just walked out of the door of one of my client's businesses. They tell me they have traveled up from Sydney (about 625 miles away; 1,000 kilometers) to work on the building scraping the gunk off of the inside of the windows. They are both about 45 - 50 years old. They are willing to "move to work." To "go where the money is."

And therein lies the secret. They are WILLING. All the people in this story were WILLING - except the dole bludger, who wasn't willing to do anything.

The dole bludgers complain about no work being around. And yet here, in this entry, is revealed many ways to get work...

Picking fruit and vegetables
Putting your name down with labor hire agencies
Contacting construction sites and letting them know you are looking to WORK
Contacting the local sporting arena and asking about joining the after-game cleaning crew
Being willing to travel to isolated locations where labor is so hard to come by.

All PROVEN methods of getting money coming in.

There is a saying. It goes something like... it takes money to make money.

This saying is wrong. It should be, someone else must have money and be willing to spend money before we can make money. And the most fundamental thing we have to exchange for that money is our effort.

The basic effort is physical labor. But office jobs aren't that much different. They are still an exchange of effort. Just not as physically demanding. And usually not as high paying either - and require pieces of paper before you can do them.

This fundamental principle of money getting needs to be drilled into the heads of the dole bludgers. And then once they get it, tell them all the ways they can get work (they may not know). And then, cut off their unemployment money.

They won't starve. They will get off their butt and pick fruit and be willing to do labor work on building sites. If they need food because they ran out of money before their job money comes in, charity organizations will give food coupons. If they need a few bucks for rent while they wait for their job money, the charity organizations will provide a check made out to the landlord. Charities which are funded by private citizens and businesses - just like during The Great Depression before there was government welfare to support an army of leeches.

The Scam of Mother's Day

2005-05-11T06:15:00.000+10:00

The once a year shop-fest called Mother's Day has just passed. And I cannot help but wonder what a load of bollocks it is.

Throughout the western world society has been trained, like an obedient dog, to buy a whole bunch of gifts and cards on this day. And to send/give those gifts to their mothers. To show how much they appreciate their mother, or something like that.

I need to ask... if you think your mom is so special, why do you need a special day of the year to show it? Wouldn't you be showing your appreciation throughout the year?

I notice the concept is like religion. Religion wants us to all worship the thing they said created us (their god). Mother's Day wants us all to worship our mothers. (Both see that WE had no say in our existence but expect us to worship the creator - interesting.)

There is a lot of pressure on children to conform to the societal norm and get something for their mom on Mother's Day. With moms getting upset if they receive nothing or are not acknowledged. But I think... no-one forced you to be a mom. That was done of your own volition. So why get upset that someone doesn't "praise" you for something you did of your own volition. You should never do something for another person of your own volition, then get upset when you get nothing back in return - unless you had an agreement to the contrary.

People who do complain about "all I've done for you" when you didn't ask for it and they did it of their own volition, are known as Psychic Vampires. (Psychic Vampires want to make you feel guilty somehow, so you "owe" them something. Often giving gifts without a supposed reason, but then will act hurt if you don't do something for them when they ask and remind you of the gift. Often also known to off load their problems into you, behaving as if they cannot get by emotionally without your support and by using you as a crutch - but when you want something from them they don't want to know and will quickly move on.) Psychic Vampires are a vileness in our society. Get rid of them out of your life, whenever you encounter them. They will suck the emotional energy out of you.

That's what Mother's Day is about. And the world has been conned into it. All to the betterment of business - such as restaurants and florists.

Another thought I've had about this day - and Father's Day - is, why isn't their a Child's Day?

Some would say it is Child's Day every day. And I beg to differ. Ask any child if they think they are treated as if it is Child's Day every day. The answer will be "No."

There are a whole myriad of "days" - Mother's Day, Father's Day, Secretary's Day, Professional Worker's Day, Valentine's Day, and so on and so forth. But no Child's Day in amongst them.

And how about the gifts people buy on Mother's Day?

"Here mom, to show how much I appreciate you, here is an iron (so you can iron my clothes better)." And for fathers it would be, "Here dad, to show how much I appreciate you, here is a pair of work gloves and a push mower (so you can work in the yard)." There are almost no gifts promoted that see the parent pampered. The gifts almost always are related to the parent doing more work around the house.

Oh sure. Going to a restaurant to "give mom a night/day off" is considered a pampering thing. As if to imply it is mom's sole job to cook. But notice how the restaurant trip doesn't just give mom time off, it also gives dad time off too. It's not like dad does the cooking is it? Dad doesn't want to do the cooking so the "gift" is to eat out.

Sometimes comfy clothes are bought. But I think clothes are a personal thing. And should be left to the individual to buy. Boxes of chocolates can be bought any old time. As can food processors and other bullshit gifts so mom can work.

If you want to give your mom a gift, then just do it. Don't wait for one day in a whole year when you feel you have to due to some kind of society pressure. But do make sure the gift is not a tool for her to use in the kitchen or something for the house like lightbulbs. Gifts should be personal. Which creates a problem because only the receiver of a gift knows what they really want, and most gifts from other people don't even come close. Which makes a voucher for $X to spend in a certain store as probably the best gift you can give, not just your mom but anyone. But then, giving such a thing any old time is kind of odd, isn't it? It's like giving a $50 note for no apparent reason. Imagine going up to your mom, handing her a $50 note and saying, "Thanks for being so wonderful."

If we didn't fall for the Mother's Day con, there would be a lot less money spent in florists and restaurants. Stores like K-Mart, Target and so on, would not have as much turnover nor make as much money. And the effects would filter through the economy. But then again, we would all have more money to spend on our own interests, or to invest with for our future. So the money would be spent, just not at florists, restaurants and department stores.

Somehow, I don't think the con will end any time soon.

Sorry For/To [Insert Bullshit Here]

2005-05-09T07:55:00.000+10:00

Picture this... it's 8pm at night. You're just settling in to watch some drivel on the idiot box. The phone rings. You get up, pick up the receiver and say "Hello" into it. The person at the other end says, "Sorry for calling so late" and then gets into what they want.

Sound familiar?

It might be late at night, or early in the morning, or on a public holiday, or weekend day. But whatever it is, it starts with a "Sorry for..." apology. An apology that is totally and utterly bullshit.

Fact: People only call you when they want something from you. And we only call other people when we want something from them.

It is okay to admit this. The world won't end. And the dash of honesty might free you up a bit as well.

When we make that call, we don't give a toss what the person on the other end of the line is doing. We want something - information, favor, product, service, whatever. And because we don't care if our call is convenient or not, it makes no sense to start the call with bullshit.

Sorry for calling so late...

Bullshit. If you were so sorry for calling so late, you would NOT have made the call in the first place.

Whenever someone calls me and gives me the "sorry for..." line I tell them, "No you're not" and wait for their reaction. Their reaction is usually stunned silence. Stunned silence I should be so honest.

One caller said something about not getting off on the wrong foot. I told him to not apologize for things he wasn't sorry about. And that if I didn't want to answer the phone I wouldn't have. And asked him what he wanted.

This leads to another one of the phone's bullshit speech patterns. When people say they hope they weren't interrupting something, or do I have a minute, or words to that effect.

Hey! If I was in the middle of something that could not be interrupted I wouldn't answer the phone. If I didn't have a minute I wouldn't answer the phone. I would let it ring out, or will have diverted it to voicemail to let voicemail take a message.

"How are you?" the voice said, then continued on without a pause to tell me what it wanted. And while it did I said, "I'm excellent, thanks." The voice stopped, said "What?" and I said, "You asked how I was, and I answered you." The voice said, "whatever" and continued to tell me what it wanted.

This is something you will not find me doing... asking people how they are. Why? Because I can honestly admit that I do not care how they are. They are voices on the other end of the phone. People I don't know. Faces I pass in a store. How can I possible care one iota how they are? The answer is, I cannot. So I don't even pretend to.

If I ask someone how they are, it is because I genuinely do care how they are and want to know. But most of the time you never have to ask this question anyway as people are so willing to tell you how they are, without needing a prompt.

I was in the print shop the other day and the printer made a call to a customer to let them know their printing was ready. The call went like this, "This is Joe from Better Copies R us, how are you? [pause for answer]. I'm just calling to let you know your printing is ready."

Two things about this call. One is the "how are you" line. The other is the use of the word "just". To me it is a word to use when unsure of oneself in a call. It is a word almost all people use and one I never do.

I tend not to beat around the bush with inconsequentials. I come out and say why I am calling. If I was the print shop guy my call would go like this... "This is Michael Ross from Better Copies R us. I'm calling to let you know your printing is ready."

No useless, "Sorry to call you so late" or "Hope I didn't interrupt something" or "Do you have a minute" or "How are you" bullshit. Just direct, straight to the point, concise communication.

I overheard a secretary making follow-up phone calls to car service clients. All calls went like this, "This is Sue from Jibble Motors, how are you? I'm just calling to..."

The nature of my business saw me being near her location for about 30 minutes. And by the time I was done I was ready to scream at her. For being so bloody fake and phony on the phone. For asking someone how they were when it didn't matter about their answer, because their answer wasn't being listened to.

I got an email. It started with, "Sorry to bother you on your email".

Huh? Email is specifically designed for communication purposes. If I did not want email communication I would not give out my email address.

My reply began like this: "First, please don't apologize for things you aren't sorry about. If you were sorry, you wouldn't have sent me the email in the first place. I'd rather we dispense with such nonsense. Agreed?"

A guy was getting driving directions from me. He kept making turns I hadn't told him to make and getting lost, and so called me four times in thirty minutes. Each time he called he asked me how I was. And when he finally arrived the first words out of his mouth were "how are you?" I told him I was the same as I was the four other times he asked me in the last thirty minutes.

The thing is, people don't even realize they are doing it half the time. It has become a habit of their speech, and now text. It is not a communication from a conscious, thinking human being. It is mindless noise coming out of their mouths. Noise from a pod person who does it because they have heard other people doing it. They don't even know if what they are saying makes sense. You can tell, because if they had thought about it they would come to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense to say it, and so wouldn't say it.

Meet The Newest Addition To Indonesia Zoo, The Corby

2005-05-08T07:24:00.000+10:00

Shapelle Corby is the girl whose bodyboard bag was found to contain marijuana. She was subsequently arrested, thrown in jail and has been undergoing a trial for her freedom.

Many believe she is innocent of trying to import dope into the country. And I am just baffled. I cannot understand any reason why a person - even a drug cartel - would want to import dope from Australia to Indonesia, when there are much cheaper sources of the drug in and around that country. It's just darn odd.

But the thing that fries my grits is how Australians are treating Corby like some kind of zoo attraction. They go to her jail and want to visit with her. What's with that?

They don't know her. They are nothing to her. They say they want to offer their support. But what good is a visit from a stranger. It's not support. It's a sick and twisted kind of voyeurism. Like a real life reality TV show. Where they want to see her for their own need to be a part of the controversy. So they can tell friends back home, "We saw Shapelle Corby in jail. Oh, what's that? No, She really is a lovely girl... blah blah blah."

They want to take up her precious time, time she could be spending with her own thoughts in deep contemplation, maybe coming up with items for her defense. And they want to absorb that time away from her. So they will feel better about themselves. As some kind of good-guy badge. So they can boast how kind they are because they went to see her.

Those people are vile creatures. They masquerade as offering support. But want to feed off of her energy and the energy around the incident. By becoming part of it.

It's a scenario played out repeatedly in any controversial incident. Let the church or whomever make a lot of noise about some movie or book or what have you, and people flock to watch the movie or buy the book, so they can feel a part of the controversy.

Watch a news reel. When there is nothing to report, they are having interviews with the nextdoor neighbor's friend's brother, who once was in the same bar as the person involved. So we can all feel closer to the controversy.

Corby is not an animal put in a cage for all who have the inkling to go have a good old gawk at. She is a human being who is in a position no other human being would ever want to be in. And you just know, if there was some kind of Corby doll or t-shirt or other such thing, these energy leeches would be buying it. As proof positive they were there. As a kind of trophy to show their friends.

I Know What I'm Doing ==> Oops, Guess I Didn't, But It Wasn't My Fault

2005-05-05T17:32:00.000+10:00

Kids are FIERCELY - I can do it - independent. Parents quickly drum that out of all but the most determined ones. Turn them into sheep kids who never grow out of being sheep. They, in turn, do the same to their children. And round and round it goes.

Some children are immune to it. They mentally resist sheepdom. They keep their independence. And it comes out, at some point. The sheep might think of them as "fringe people" or "eccentric" or "odd" or any number of words that really mean, "not like us."

The interesting thing about those independent ones is they have a tendency not to be pig headed. They can quite readily admit they do not know everything. And will accept new information if it makes sense - while they will stick to their guns until otherwise.

The sheep, on the other hand, never change their minds. They can't. Because as I previously wrote, they are really shells of other people's opinions, thoughts, images, etc.

You get funny results when you see a sheep trying to be independent. They fight for their independence and won't accept assistance from outside. They are the true "know it alls" we see around us.

A client of mine was like this. They just "knew it all" about their business. So much so, they are now out of business.

It all started with their job. They worked for a prestigious business in Sydney, doing managerial/supervisory type of work. They sold their house in Sydney and came to The Gold Coast to make their fortune. Bought a business in the same line as the one they had worked, and were set to take on the Gold Coasters and show them how the Sydney-ites did it.

Two years later they closed their doors and whimpered off to non-existence in a country town of 30,000 people. Hoping to salvage what little money they had left and start from the ground up.

During their two year experiment as business owners, I constantly asked them for discount vouchers I could give my other clients as "Thank You for doing business with me" gifts. They never printed them. They told me once they had some coming, but that never eventuated. They never marketed their business. Never ran ads or mailed "please come back" letters to their customers. But they did drive around in a new BMW and hired a mobile care detailer to detail it every week.

So what really went wrong here?

The total lack of marketing should give you a clue. While they knew how to manage such a business because they had managed someone else's in another state. They knew bupkiss about getting customers in the door. And while they might have been able to manage the business, they didn't really understand money management - otherwise they would have been driving a less expensive car and devoting the weekly car detailing money to something that would have brought customers into the business.

As a result, they slowly watched their money dwindle away over two years.

They did try to sell the business, to recover some of what they had spent. But no-one wants to buy a money-losing business without a customer list. So in the end they just closed the doors and walked away. And moved to a small country town where they could run the same kind of business but on a much smaller scale where they could even save additional money by doing most of the work themselves.

But even there they will be doomed to fail - UNLESS - they learn how to bring customers in the door. But that just won't happen. And it won't happen because they are sheep. They are the A-typical look at me and what I have yuppie. Image is important no matter the cost. I know best and no correspondence will be entered into. Even though I have never owned and run a business before and am a person with an employee mindset.

Michael Gerber would call them employees who had an entrepreneurial seizure. They THINK they can run a business because they know a certain part of someone else's business. In all cases, they are doomed to fail unless they can let go of their "I know how to do it" ego and accept hands-on wisdom from those who have done what they want to do.

Whenever they saw another business like theirs that appeared to be doing very well, and I asked them about it, they would say that such a business cannot be run like that. And trying to do so would see their customers disappear, if they did it. And yet, they never actually asked their customers what they wanted, or tested it to see if their customers would disappear. They "just knew". With the result being they closed their doors while the businesses they said couldn't be run that way, stay open and thrive.

The funny thing is, there was a business like theirs whose owner had tried before and gone bust. But he had learnt his mistakes and didn't make them again. He re-opened with a way to get customers into the door and kept doing the "customer generation" thing. Now he has five locations throughout the city and is doing fine thank you very much.

His products aren't any better than others who sell the same thing. But he markets his business. He has, what associates of mine have termed, a "PCGS" - Perpetual Customer Generation System.

You can have problems in every other area of your business and still get by - as long as - you have a way to get customers into the doors on a continuing basis.

My clients didn't have such a system. Nor did they have the slightest desire to have such a system, or discuss such a system, because they knew what they were doing. I think they believed in the mythical "open it and they will come" mumbo jumbo. As if somehow the ether would plop customers on their door step.

It reminds me of another "couple" I was speaking to in another city, who had opened the same type of business. I was told, "We know what we're doing. We've worked in six other business previously." And that was their downfall. Working in someone else's business doesn't mean you can run your own. Six months later they too closed their doors.

And so it is kind of ironic. The independent people who cannot be dictated to, are willing to admit they do not know it all, and to accept outside information, if it will help them in their independence. While the sheep, who are renowned for absorbing everyone else's opinions on all manner of things and not thinking for themselves, become incapable of accepting outside information, all to their own detriment.

Maybe it is, as one self-made multi-millionaire told me, they don't think they deserve success and undermine and sabotage their own efforts. While independent people do think they deserve success and endeavor to enhance their chances of achieving it.

One thing I do know. Those sheep who fail, always blame outside forces for it. It is never their own bad judgment to blame. It is always "market conditions".

Like the business I talked about. $100 a week on car lease fees and another $100 a week on cleaning the car, saw $10,800 a year disappear down a hole. I could do a LOT of marketing for $10,800 a year. But it wasn't their fault no-one wanted to come to their business, because no-one knew their business existed. It was "market conditions". Might make 'em feel better, but won't allow them to learn from their mistakes.

Intriguing Mystery Around Us Every Day Remains Mystery. Scientists So Baffled They Don't Even Attempt To Discover Reason Why

2005-05-04T17:14:00.000+10:00

When we are babies, we explore and get into everything we can. At first, this is whatever is in arm's reach. But as we gain the ability of motion, our exploration widens. We get into cupboards, draws, everything. We are exploring machines. Everything is a thing to be explored.

As we get older, our exploration should move from the physical (what we see) into the mental (wondering why). We move from climbing trees to wondering why their leaves are green, or shaped like they are, or shiny on one side and less so on the other side, and so on.

Most adults don't get into the mental exploration too much. And it isn't because they can't, or haven't thought about it. It's due, I think, to a complete and total lack of interest in anything outside of pody life, or a drive of not wanting to stand out, which their mental exploring might see happen to them.

I don't suffer those pody afflictions. I find wonder in all kinds of odd things - odd as far as pody people are concerned. I know because I've been told by them. After expressing an observational question about something in our world, one pody told me, "You are really quite odd, aren't you?" And my local fruit shop guys tells me "You're not like anyone else." Which is all fine by me. I've seen how other people are. I'd rather not be like them, thanks.

Anyway. One question has been running around in my head for a while and I cannot find any scientific explanation as to why. Yep. It would seem that scientists have not bothered to ponder this mystery. No research grants have been given to find the answer. Nothing. And so I am left to speculate as to a reason why.

And the question?

Why is dust gray?

Whenever I sweep our floorboards, the dust swept up is gray. You can't see it, but after a sweep and pushing it all together, it forms large clumps of fluff-like dust. And it is gray. Even wiping down the top of the TV or whatnot reveals a gray dust. And this is puzzling.

We wear all kinds of different colored clothing. Curtain and carpet fibers all different colors. Airborne dust particles from outside are a different color again. And yet, when they accumulate to be seen by us, they are all gray.

I have a client whose business is dance instruction. And when visiting you can see dust clumps in the corners of the dance floor. And they are gray in color. And when they sweep their dance floor, the resultant large clump of dust is also gray.

What makes this even more puzzling is, when you put clothes into a clothes dryer, the fluff caught is not gray. It is usually white or almost black - depending on whether you did a light or dark load.

There may be a reason why dust is gray. And this is pure speculation on my part, as no study has been published that I can find.

What if, dust really is not gray at all? What if it is a multitude of color - BUT - it is so small we cannot see the individual specks of color. And what if, the light bouncing off of all those particles interferes with each other and becomes "blended" into an overall average of color? Just like load of lights in the dryer gives white fluff, and a load of darks give very dark fluff, even though there can be small specks of color in the fluff.

The mix of colors turns into a mix of light and dark which blends to form a gray, which we see.

The closest thing I can find in science to this is something called "Mie Scattering" - the scattering of light (without regard to wavelength) by larger particles, such as those of dust or fog in Earth's atmosphere. But Mie Scattering is more about small spherical shaped particles in the air than the random shapes of dust particles laying close together on the ground. Though the principle (the scattering of light waves) could be the same. And where we see white clouds due to Mie Scattering in the atmosphere, we see gray dust when the light scatters off of odd shaped dirt granules, clothes and fabric fibers, skins cells, bits of hair and the other elements that go into making up household dust.

Another funny thing is when you wash a window or floor, the dirty water is also gray. Maybe for the same reason? Or maybe we are so overwhelmed with brake-pad dust (which is gray) it taints everything else?

Who knows for sure? I only have a theory. And you may have a different one. And if you do, please leave it in the comments. Together we can get to the bottom of the mystery of why dust is gray.

Justice Done, At Last

2005-05-03T21:22:00.000+10:00

Graffiti is an abomination. And those who do it are GUILTY of a criminal offense. That of willful destruction and damaging of other people's property. That the property can be "fixed" doesn't make it any less of a crime than smashing a car's window or putting a hammer to a car's door. As those items can also be "fixed."

For too long we have seen a court hamstrung by liberal-minded do-gooders making excuses why "children" do graffiti. And trying to reason why we cannot punish these poor little darlings for the crimes they commit.

Well. Praise be to the all knowing Brazil nut god for dropping a Brazil nut pod onto the head of some people and knocking some sense into them. For I have just heard of a wondrous graffiti solution being actioned in the town/city of Bundaberg.

It would appear that Bundaberg used to have a problem with graffiti. And that problem is disappearing rather fast. You see, when graffiti value-destroyers in Bundaberg are busted, their punishment is to clean up all the graffiti they did.

Recently, a city magistrate ordered six "youths" to clean off all the graffiti they had committed, and to have it done within two weeks. A reasonable request, if you ask me.

Well. As you can imagine. The parents of those little preciouses were not too happy about it. How dare a magistrate order their most angelic little-uns around. And fancy ordering them to clean up their own damage. Why. That's just not liberal-minded at all. After all, it wasn't the fault of those most endearing teenage toddlers for doing what they did. Oh no. It was the invisible jibble man what made them do it. And so, they complained to the magistrate and DEMANDED a meeting with him - to tell him a thing or two, as you can imagine such injustice, right?

So the magistrate had the meeting. And for all the parents' trouble, he slapped them EACH with a $100 fine for having no duty of care!

HA! Don't ya just love it?

Future Value - What It Is, Where It Came From, And Why It Drives Our Species Forward, In More Ways Than One

2005-04-30T12:27:00.000+10:00

Stonehenge is somewhat of an enigma. No-one knows who truly built it, or why. And considering that is was built over the course of some 1,500 years, in three stages, the puzzle just grows.

While watching a documentary on it, some boffin reckons that it was not built for sun worship, it was built for moon worship. He reckons it went like this...

We used to worship the moon. The moon was associated with women, and the sun with men. Men would hunt during the night. And everything was hunky-dory. Until, that is, the ice-age gave way to a period of global warming. For then, the large herd animals, which he reckons we fed on, all went away and we found it too hard to hunt small animals, like rabbits. And after a thousand years of trying to live off animals like rabbits, we gave up. And we were forced to begin farming - planting seeds and growing them. This shift required us to pay attention to the sun and not the moon. So we began worshiping the sun. Therefore the men became the dominant party, and not the women like it had been when we worshiped the moon, and fighting between rival groups of the "owned" land began. In an effort to show the people the moon was still a good thing, Stonehenge was built by a secret cabal of priests. And the proof is, if you imagine it as how some believe it was when it was in its prime; and if you stand at a certain place; then once a year you see the sun pass through a small gap between a certain set of rocks, and once every 18.6 years you see the moon pass between a different but higher gap. And thus, this was to show the people that the sun was copying the moon, but could only do it once a year while the moon did it every month, every 18.6 years.

Apart from the fact we are not nocturnal. And if we didn't have enough plant foods to sustain us, how was there enough to sustain large herds of animals. And if there was enough to feed them during the ice-age, why did they go away when the thaw happened and food for them would have been even more abundant. And how did we survive for a thousand years hunting rabbits if it wasn't enough to provide us with food. And who were this secret cabal of priests that appear in no records anywhere. And how come this "let's show the people it's still ok" took over one thousand years to achieve? And, better not ask too many questions of that theory for fear it will fill it full of holes like a sieve.

Despite the craziness of his theory - that Stonehenge was built to calm down the citizens and show them the moon was still okay - he said a few things about other monuments built around that time. And that got my old gray matter onto a line of thought that leads to the wonderful world we have around us of today. And explains why other third world countries seem doomed to not join us in our evolved society.

The essence of it all is one of events and technology improvements based on our lifestyle, and why.

First, I don't believe we were forced to develop farming as much as he thinks we were. I think more that we did it because we could. It was somewhat easier to plant a crop, let nature do her thing, then eat it. Easier than trying to hunt large game animals that were dwindling in number due to the extensive hunting of them throughout Europe, by a gradually increasing population and due to climate change which may have seen the larger ice-age animals not be suited to a warmer environment.

As farming increased and we became more settled and less nomadic, our territorial claims became more fixed. We fought over our territory, like all animals do, and like we would have done while nomads and hunting our wide territory. The increase in farming also meant, we could increase the size of the population. Because a large population cannot be nomadic, it can only be fixed. And fixed populations tend to grow in size.

The dead which had been left on the side of the road, so to speak, when we were nomadic, now had to be put somewhere. And in the initial instances, they were simply placed in mass-like graves (burial caves). As our societies grew, people began being buried individually. And here in lies a key to a fundamental mind shift. And it is at this point in time we begin to see the mega-structures being built.

To fully understand this you need to know of the Bi-Cameral mind. Without going into too much detail about it, just realize, consciousness as we understand it to be, did not exist way back then. Back then we were nothing more than highly intelligent animals. We had no feelings of remorse or regret as we understand them to be today, just like an animal has no feelings towards other animals of its kind. This is seen in the disposal of the bodies - just dumped with the other dead bodies.

BUT, as we developed consciousness... the mind most of us have today, a realization and self-awareness of the individual takes place. And when dead, individuals are buried individually.

The catalyst to make this happen was larger society. In small groups our minds didn't need the consciousness of today. But to be able to function in a large group, with what we would call right and wrong, we needed to develop a conscious mind.

Now it is interesting that this mind shift can only take place when we are forced to live in larger groups as a society. And this is only possible due to farming.

There is another element that farming brought into our existence. And that is the concept of Future Value.

Future Value, as I use it here, is the idea of trading something today, right now, for a payoff at some point in the future. And this is evident with farming - you trade time and effort now, for food crops later on.

Up until this point, we operated like all other animals - for the now. If we were hungry we hunted and fed our bellies. To satisfy the immediate urge to eat. This mind-set would not allow farming to take place. Only a concept of future value would allow that.

And once future value was a concept that was accepted and understood, we begin to see large structures being built. Because the time and effort devoted to the building now, would have a future pay off.

If we look back to Stonehenge as claimed by this new theory, and even accept some of it, we can appreciate that it was built to give future pay off. And as the society then was heavily reliant on farming, my conclusion is that it was built to monitor the time of the year and the year in general.

Hence, by looking at the stones it could be determined when the summer solstice (longest day) was. And this would have great importance for the planting of crops. And the fact the building was built over many hundreds of years shows a continued use and refinement to "get it right".

This, to me, is a more-easily acceptable theory of why it was built.

Now getting back to future value. If you are reading this, you subscribe to the idea. You go to school for years, for a future job payout. You get a home-loan to live the great dream of home ownership - you are planning for your future. Businesses invest NOW for a hope of future profits. The idea of future value drives our world. And has its origins in farming.

Now look at the third world desolate countries. There is no concept of future value there. There is only immediate values.

Take the middle east, for example. The blatant disregard for life, shows no concept of future value. The nomadic way of life signifies no concept of future value. And the fact all middle east countries that are in the pits, are also those countries without a farming history, and thus no concept of future value.

Look at the dump countries in Africa. Again, tribal conflicts without a farming/agriculture history, and the countries do not progress. They stagnate.

China used to be like that. But as it went agricultural many years ago the country progressed.

In fact, as I look at the countries that previously led the way in technology and those who continue to do so, I see a history of farming. And as I look at countries with continual strife and terrorist activities, I see countries without a history of farming. Without a history of farming there is no concept of future value. And without that, effort is not made today for a future pay off. Effort is made today for a pay off today. Otherwise no effort is made.

Have a look at the Australian Aborigines. They did NOT farm. Hence they did not have a history of future value. And thus created nothing. They did not advance technologically at all. Still not even having invented the wheel by the time Europeans discovered them! And why should they have? They were about satisfying the now, not putting in effort for a future pay off. And sadly, this is reflected in their race today.

Have a look at the American Indians. They too did little farming. Hence, they advanced little because they never learned the idea of future value. And their state today reflects that of the Australian Abos.

Pick an advanced nation and you will see one with a history of farming. Which means a history of future value.

Pick a desolate country and you will see one withOUT a history of farming. Which means no concept of future value so no effort now for a payoff later.

Future value meant people would sit down and spend time and effort to create better tools and equipment and larger buildings, because of what it would mean to them further down the line. And this was only possible with a conscious mind and not an animal-like mind as we used to have.

It is no coincidence that as we developed farming as a result of the idea of future value, and developed a conscious mind as our societies grew as a result of the farming, we advanced technology wise. Because the technology was a direct result of an understanding of future value - time and effort spent now creating more advanced tools because there would be value to be had from doing so, and that value would be had in the future.

The thing with future value and its link to farming is important because our survival was dependent upon it. And, our lifestyle became better because of it. There was an "Action = Reward" in play here.

If there was fighting, as the previously mentioned theory suggests, it wasn't because we suddenly worshipped the sun, it was because those who had no sense of future value needed to satisfy their immediate needs and so would fight against those who were farming for a better life. Your typical band of savages coming to take what isn't theirs. And in a world undergoing such a change, you would expect this to happen. (Typified by the Vikings being attacked and slaughtered by nomadic natives when they first landed in Nova Scotia and set up little farms. Whites being speared by Abos when landing in Australia.)

And in the world of today it is still happening. And mainly in the middle east. Where those who have no sense of future value on this planet, want to take and/or destroy what isn't theirs, to satisfy some immediate desire. It's like... kill and get rewarded; die as a martyr and get rewarded; aim for reward in heaven because no reward was experienced on Earth.

And herein lays a problem with the Muslims. Their entire focus is one of worshipping a deity for a future reward in heaven. But having no experience of a future reward on Earth, which farming would have given them as a society. But because they were not farmers and were nomads and wanderers, their society grew unbalanced. To a state of warlord-dom. Where the gang with the biggest stick rules the day. They are, in essence, adult teenagers with demands of the now. Immature.

Imagine a Palestinian couple. There will not be a thought of, "Honey, let's save enough for a deposit for a house so we can have a place of our own; a sense of belonging." There might be an encouragement to blow one's-self up for a few shekels for the family - so their immediate need is met while too much energy had been spent in looking forward to a time with a deity.

And this ain't gonna change any time soon what with bowing down to a deity five times a day and having that deity be an integral part of existence 24/7.

At least the other religions gave a person a reprieve. Bow down to the deity once a week and farm your land the rest of the time. This enabled those people to experience future value here on Earth. And it was a harder sell to get them to devote their entire being to a future value with a deity. (Yes, the realization of future value was also the beginning of religion as we know it, for religion is all about future value.)

So which came first, future value or a conscious mind?

Future value came first. It had to. Without it we would not have begun to farm. Farming enabled larger societies to form. It was living in those larger societies which saw the release of the conscious mind to help deal with living in a larger society. That conscious mind could then fully exploit future value and technology began to advance in earnest from that point on.

Archaeologists talk about an explosion in advancement. And the conscious mind's awakening is why. Coupled with the awareness of future value the conscious mind was free to create whatever it thought of.

If that meant a structure of stones to help predict time of year so better farming could be done, then so be it. If that meant building large mounds with select holes to observe certain times of the year - for farming practices to be better - then so be it. If that meant experimenting with fire and dirt until metal was created then so be it.

Some researches suggest that as we began to farm our overall health declined. They blame farming directly for this. Whereas I say, it was the larger concentrations of people living together without the usual sanitation, which is to blame. As that problem got sorted out, lifespans increased accordingly.

So anyway. We have a situation where some boffin reckons Stonehenge was built by a secret cabal of priests to worship the sun and the moon. I say it was built as a result of our realization of future value in an effort to know the times of the year for better farming, as farming was our way of life now.

That farming gave us all a sense of future value. And that future value is what gave way to all advancements in our society, as all advancement depends on time and effort being spent now for a value in the future. We spend time in school for better grades for better opportunities to make money with which to save for a better tomorrow. Always with an eye on the future.

Take this entry as an example. I have spent my time and effort to type these thoughts so that someone, at some point in the future, may gain something out of it. They too may realize the truth of what I have written here. And maybe will see the world in a new light of future value. A realization they can pass on to their children and further down the line.

On the other hand, the hunting tribes in Africa, the Australian Aborigines, American Indians, those of the middle east, and so on, do not have a history based on farming and future value. As a result, they have NOT advanced and have stagnated instead. Anything modern they have is a result of someone bringing the advancement to them and showing them how to use it - they did not create it themselves.

But those native people's aren't the only ones to lack a sense of future value. Many teenagers also lack it. This is the basis behind all that teenage angst. Exemplified by the Sex Pistols lyrics in their song "God Save The Queen, "no future, no future, no future for you; no future, no future, no future for me..." With no sense of a value in the future, destroy today to satisfy that passing whim. Go on the dole, get paid sit down money. Prove to yourself there is no future. And why not, mom and dad did the same. Everyone owes me. You know how it goes. All of it stemming from a lack of sense of future value.

That you are reading this is an indication you are the result of a sense of future value. But don't take my word for it. Think about it yourself. Look back at your life and see how you have come to where you are today because you believe, without realizing it, in the concept of future value. Money you put aside for investing or business building or home owning or retirement, is all the result because you believe in future value.

(For an interesting observation on the idea of the Bi-Cameral Mind, see Tim Boucher's entry "Cults and the Bicameral Mind". I especially like his final concluding paragraph, and the one preceding it.)

Classic Example Of Local-Govt Waste And Idiocy

2005-04-29T07:31:00.000+10:00

Our local council has spent the last two months upgrading a very heavily congested road. A road that sees four lanes of traffic, from two different locations (both main roads), merge into two lanes.

At the beginning they took away the curb and we all thought "Hooray, another lane is coming." And we were right, but not how we thought.

As they re-did the curb I thought the road looked too narrow for a third lane - even when taking the wide median strip out and replacing it with a narrow one. But what do I know, right? I mean, once the lines are drawn I might see that there is room for three lanes after all.

Alas, three lanes for cars it was not to be. Nope. They have spent the last two months - and who knows how much money - upgrading this road, resealing it, redoing the curb, for a bike lane. So now cyclists will have somewhere to ride their bikes.

Here's the craziness of this... I have never seen a cyclist along that road. Of course, I will be told, "that's because there was no bike lane." And they may be right. But the road is not near anything a cyclist would ride to. So once on it you are riding for about four kilometers before getting to anything else.

There is a bike lane further up. But it is NEVER used. So creating this bike lane to link with the other one, still won't make them be used. Why can't the council just face it and admit that cyclists don't need a bike lane there. And certainly not at the expense of the main arterial road that goes smack bang through the middle of the city.

But that's not the full story. It gets worse. Much worse.

You see, that entire section of road they just spent loads of money and time on, is in the plan to have an extra lane added to it, and for that lane to be a bus lane. Meaning, when the bus lane is added in the next year or so, the road will have to be ripped up again. And all that work they just did will have been a complete and utter waste of time, effort and money.

And when they add the bus lane, they will still not be giving the cars a third lane to drive on. By then there will be an extra 25,000 - 40,000 people living in the city. All trying to squeeze onto those same inadequate two lanes.

There is NOTHING in the plan for the next ten years to upgrade that road so it carries more cars. Just a bus lane.

This govt is mental, I swear. They all need their heads read or something. Of course, it might just be a case of no-one in authority living near that road so they don't experience it and have no incentive to fix it up.

Then again, after they so brilliantly made two three-lane roads into two two-lane roads, added a couple of extra traffic lights causing a traffic jam for all daylight hours and a nightmare at peak hour, and told us they had improved traffic, then I expect anything from these dimwits.

Meet The Shell People

2005-04-28T13:58:00.000+10:00

There are a few of us. We experience the same frustrations, if you will. We wonder why people can be so pod-like. Why they seem to have the ability to be a non-thinker. Why a conversation with them is like talking with a broken record. Why any kind of inductive reasoning is beyond them.

For example: Recently, someone commented about the need for tolerance from those who would like a separation of church and state. He said we should be respectful of other religions and opinions. And I am sure we would all agree with this. However, he then said the govt should promote a religious stance regardless.

So what he is basically saying is, everyone be tolerant, but I won't and I expect you to be tolerant of the govt doing what I want it to do, because it is what I want and to hell with you.

I pointed out the error in his logic and all I get back is some drivel about communism and the country being founded on judeo/christian malarky and one nation under god.

I gave examples that the country shuts down on Christmas day and Easter, and those are Christian events being forced down my throat. I gave an example of those who want the nativity scene removed not being tolerant of those who enjoy that scene.

Again, I get communism comments back at me, and I opted out of the discussion. With someone else advising not to bother because you cannot reason against circular logic. Something I agree with.

But it begs the question, WHY? Why can't you discuss something with someone using circular logic? Why are they so unable to grasp your point?

I think Ayn Rand has the answer. Let me quote Howard Roark from "The Fountainhead". To set the scene, Howard is a staunch individualist architect who is frustrated at every turn by podies. He designs unique buildings that are copies of nothing. A woman comes to him to design her a building which she so aptly describes. He tries to talk to her and then comes to this conclusion...

There was no Mrs Wayne Wilmont; there was only a shell containing the opinions of her friends, the picture-postcards she had seen, the novels of country squires she had read; it was this that he had to address, this immateriality which could not hear him or answer, deaf and impersonal like a wad of cotton.

This analysis so aptly describes the majority of people. They are merely shells that contain the opinions of others, bits and pieces of stuff they have read, seen or heard. Hence they are unable to form a valid opinion. And discussion cannot be had with them because they don't have the full set of opinions in their shell. So they just repeat the bits they do have.

Later in the week Roark encounters a similar situation. Someone wants him to design a house EXACTLY like the house of the wealthy Randolph family from the area he grew up in. Of this discussion Roark concludes...

Roark felt again a bewildered helplessness before unreality; there was no such person as Mr Mundy; there were only remnants, long dead, of the people who had inhabited the Randolph place; one could not plead with remnants or convince them.

To me, this sums up the podies nicely. There are no people. Just shells containing the opinions, memories, pictures, images, sound bites and remnants of other people. There is nothing in that shell of the person who claims ownership of that shell.

Try this: Ask someone, anyone, if it is okay to lay a fridge on its side. You will be told "No" the gas will leak out, or some equally oddball reason. If you ask, "where did you hear that?" you will not get an answer. If you ask, "How can the gas leak out if the pipework is sealed? After all, if it could leak out it would do so already, wouldn't it?" You will get "I don't know" type answers.

Here is the truth. You CAN lay a fridge down on its side. Lay it down so the pipes that come out of the condenser point up and the gas, in liquid form, will stay in the condenser. If you lay it down the other way, the liquid gas will flow into the pipes out of the condenser. You will then need to let the fridge stand for an hour or two to let the gas flow back into the condenser so there are no air bubbles in there. BUT, you cannot convince people of this because their shell is already full of fridge information from some unknown source long ago, and there is no-one there that can think for themselves, and the "fridge thought" from long ago cannot give a new answer.

Maybe there are some vague vestiges of the people who once lived in the shell. And when they reach a certain age that vestige cries out. And somehow directs the shell to "find itself." And so the person goes on a long journey of "self discovery" and "personal growth." But alas, they have been a shell for so long, they simply absorb more of other people's opinions and text blocks from books, in readiness to regurgitate them back out to anyone who will listen, as some kind of proof they have "grown." And the "seeking" becomes more important to them than what they seek. And you see them sit around with others in the same boat and they talk about spirituality and one-ness and vague notions of universal laws of abundance, while they aren't abundant. And they pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for absorbing more of someone else's opinion. And they all feel the energy vibrating and consult the rune stones to make sure this was the right thing to do. And they talk about manifesting this and that, while they hardly have enough money for rent.

I had a chat with such a person. The shell she was told me all about "Prosperity Thinking" and "Manifesting" and the usual bollocks. When I asked her for examples of people who live by this prosperity thinking, trusting the universe to provide, all she gave me were examples of people who work darn hard for their money. When I asked how this was the result of prosperity thinking she could not answer. And when quizzed about her own situation she admitted she was not prosperous, but still claimed *I* didn't get it. The shell she was could not grasp the idea that she was trying to teach me a philosophy as TRUTH but she could not find a single example to show me, and it wasn't working in her life either. As the opinions of others in her shell had not encountered my questions before, she could not answer and so ended the discussion. (I could almost here her brain shutting down from confusion.)

So there you have it. Next time you feel the frustration rise that a person - or group of people - just don't get what is so plainly obvious, you know why. They aren't there. There is only a shell full of the opinions and thoughts and sights and sounds of other people. For them to actually be able to answer any question it would require the originator of the thought to be present to answer for them. But as that isn't going to happen, you feel like you are talking into a vacuum.

Why do people become shells? Ahh... that is for another entry and another time. But it should give you something to think about. And if you know why people become shells, please leave it in the comments.

Ethanol, The Other White Meat

2005-04-25T20:44:00.000+10:00

Oh to be driving around in an ethanol-powered vehicle. No toxic exhaust. Fuel made as needed - need more fuel, crank up production. Money saved on oil exploration. Wouldn't the world be a blissful place?

At first, the idea of driving solely on plant-derived ethanol (not oil-derived ethanol) sounds appealing. Until you realize the problems that need to be solved to make this a viable option.

Problem # 1: Current engines cannot run on ethanol-only, only part ethanol (10%). For an ethanol-only vehicle, the engine needs to be an ethanol only engine. This would require a complete rework in the manufacturer's workshops. And as they are only geared up for gasoline engine making, they won't be changing any time soon.

Problem # 2: Selecting the source plant. Ideally, it would be what would grow best in your particular location. However, sugar cane produces more ethanol than corn. So those locations where sugar cane will not grow are forced to use corn. But using corn as the plant leads to problem number three.

Problem # 3: Finding yourself in a negative energy situation where it takes more energy to create the ethanol than the energy gotten out of the ethanol. Even if you burn the corn husks to help create heat for making the ethanol out of corn, you don't get enough. You need to bring energy in from the outside to turn the corn into ethanol. This leads to problem four.

Problem # 4: Ethanol from sugar cane would have to supply shortfalls in problem 3, or be imported by those locations who experience problem 3, yet this would place a much greater burden on ethanol makers who use sugar cane. That increased burden creates problem 5 in greater amounts than it otherwise would have.

Problem # 5: It takes land to grow sugar cane. The more land devoted to growing sugar cane for ethanol production, the less land available for food crops.

As it is now, we have food crop land, feed growing land (land devoted to growing feed for meat animals), animal growing land, and unused land.

If greater demand is placed on ethanol makers, their only real recourse is to get more sugar cane. And the only way that will happen is by growing more, and that requires more land.

That land has to come from somewhere. If it is existing food land, then the food must be grown somewhere else. But no farmers would want to bother growing food if they know they have a guaranteed market for their sugar cane. As it is now, some farmers plough their ready-to-harvest crops back into the ground because it costs more to get them to market than what they will get for them at the market. This would be compounded if sugar cane was the ethanol source. This would result in food having to be imported, where it currently may not be. Placing increased burden on the food growing areas.

If it is new land, then that needs to be cleared. And look out you don't squash an environmentalist greenie, who is trying to protect the trees and bugs and other little critters, in the process. And when it comes to rainforest, there is concern because the rainforest is linked to itself. Such as Brazil Nut trees will NOT produce nuts in logged forest.

That leaves animal land. And that might be possible but for one thing... people eat meat and that land is used for them.

One solution is to put animals into feed lots, like the chickens, so they take up less space. Imagine cows and pigs caged like we all know the chickens are.

Another is to build sugar cane growing factories. Multi storey high. Growing hydroponic sugar cane. A one acre building of 10 floors would be producing the same as a 10 acre farm, for example. And hundreds of these buildings could be built around ethanol-producing factories. (Or growing the animal's food in this way near the meat growing factories, and the sugar cane in the ground.)

The other thing with growing the sugar cane on the land is that of no diversity. If the only thing growing in soil is sugar cane, that soil will be depleted of everything sugar cane needs to grow. Artificial gunk will then be added to "make" it grow. And our land deteriorates more.

As it stands at the moment, our food is grown on the ground and our energy source comes from under the ground. If both were above ground, we could be in trouble.

For example: It is estimated that if ALL the available growing land in Germany was given over to sugar cane growing for ethanol, the ethanol would provide all of Germany's energy needs. However, ALL food would need to be imported into the country.

Multiply that concept by all countries... and take into consideration the HUGE energy requirements of countries like India, with reduced land capacity... and you start to get a picture of the realities of using ethanol and the problems that must be over come.

Some would argue that there would be no problem if we replaced our source of electricity to something less energy demanding to make. Such as the amount of energy used to burn coal to create electricity. And that an efficient ethanol plant should throw off additional electricity which could go back into the grid. But the greenies don't like alternatives. They just know what they want gone.

For instance: We could all have nuclear powered electricity. The same power stations could convert sea water to drinking water. And it'd be pretty darn cheap. But greenies don't like nuclear power. Reasoning is not their strong point. As is evidenced by their push for full ethanol powered cars without any thought to the problems mentioned in this post.

I'd love for us to all drive ethanol cars if for no other reason I won't ever have to follow smoke bombs spewing out thick plumes of smoke as they drive on the road. Forcing me to somehow avoid breathing in the toxic gases. But I am also a realist. And know that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is silly. It is silly to cover energy shortfalls of ethanol manufacture by burning more energy over there, and to ruin our food growing land which would lead to mass starvation at some point in the future, just for the sake of driving on ethanol.

I'm willing to wait until nuclear fusion is accomplished. Then we can all tip a cup of water into our engines and drive around on the energy for 20 years or more. THAT is true green energy.

Or a more efficient form of hydrogen extraction. Again, tip water in, let the converter get the hydrogen out, and then use that to power the engine.

But as it stands... ethanol, while being praised as "renewable" fuel, comes across as a cumbersome way to go about getting energy and I question its renewablness as land degradation, of long term single crop growing, would put an end to it as a fuel source. And certainly an end as a transport fuel source in the growing world of the future.

The Noise

2005-04-25T05:59:00.000+10:00

The Noise is my nickname for the family next door because, frankly, they make a bucketload of noise. And not only that, they have this tendency to make this noise in their opened garage, on their driveway, spilling onto the street and in their front yard.

I can honestly say, I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a people who seem to live in their front yard.

So what kinds of things do they do?

Well, he used to own a suped-up car. Just the air sucking into the air-filter, which a mechanic tells me is a special air-filter that makes it sound like there is no air-filter, used to vibrate the windows of our house.

He sold that car - but - it made little difference as his other car - some kind of suped-up pick-up/ute - is just as loud. And, he doesn't just start it up and drive away. Nope. He starts it, idles it, revs it, drowning out any noise we make in our own home from TV, stereo, etc. And then after five or ten minutes of this, drives it from the drive way onto the road in front of his house.

As if that is not bad enough, he has a V8 ski boat which he never takes out. But he sure tinkers with it all weekend, and at night when he gets home in the evening. He pulls it out onto the driveway and revs the heck out of it.

Our front door faces his yard. So we have to close it to reduce the noise level that comes in, as well as keep the fumes out - and boy do his toys put out some fumes.

Sometimes he revs up this boat at 9.00pm and 10.00pm at night.

And still there is more...

They have a little - and I mean little - motor bike thing. It looks like a mini version of a road bike. And I think they are becoming all the rage with the youngsters. It is as loud as a trail bike and the kid roars up and down our street for half hour at a time.

But it doesn't end there. Oh no. He has friends. And they come over with their suped-up cars and rev and idle in front as well. Our street looks like a used-car yard sometimes. And as far as I can ascertain, he owns four cars plus the boat. He is a mechanic and I figure he buys cars at auctions, fixes them up and then sells them.

And there is one more noise that comes out from them... their loud voices. I swear these people must all be deaf from the other noise they make, and so have to speak very loudly with each other. And maybe it wouldn't be so bad if every second word wasn't "fuck" even from their nine/ten year old.

They aren't house-o people. Meaning, next door isn't owned by the govt housing commission for welfare people to live in. They are just very noisy people. And any entries about them will be more about what kind of noise they made that day, or a run down of the noise they made during the week, if I feel like writing about it.

Such as yesterday... the kid comes home from school and the yelling starts. He is calling his friend - who seems to be staying there for a week or so. He says shit a few times. Yells to his mom that something is in a tree. And yell-commands a girl to move something from the side of the house so he can ride his bike down it. This yell-command is repeated four times before his mother shouts back Shut Up. And all of this action takes place in the front yard.

Today there was a bit of fucking coming out of the kids mouth, dad and a mate where cutting back some paint on a car they were working on. So the buffing machine was going for hours - mixed with swearing all the while. Then there was some kind of carpet cleaning machine being used on all the cars, as well as on the house itself. A few tire squeals to go up the road to grab a packet of smokes. It's a never-ending noise fest coming from them. Stay tuned for more.

It Started With An Ache

2005-04-23T07:35:00.000+10:00

Knowing what your body is doing, and why, is of tremendous benefit to us. It means you can't have the wool pulled over your eyes by a medical profession that only wants to write a script for anti-biotics.

When your body is dealing with dead matter that needs cleaning up, it sends a cleaning crew. If the cleaning crew is overwhelmed by the amount of stuff to be cleaned, it calls for assistance. This is done by the release of a chemical into the blood. That chemical does something interesting besides call for help. It makes us feel achey, lethargic and, in large doses, nauseous. In smaller doses we feel achey, lethargic and have lost our appetite.

This is EXACTLY how I first realized I was undergoing Herxheimer (die off). Herxheimer is the word used to describe the dying off of bacteria and the release of toxins into the body enmass when undergoing a detox or herbal cleanse. The sudden increase of such things into the body causes an immune system response to deal with it.

It is NOT the toxins and dead bacteria which make us feel ill. It is the body's doing. In this case, the chemical from the cleaning crew.

Following this achey feeling I developed a temperature.

Feeling achey with a lost appetite and a temperature would send most people running to the doctor. But not me. For I know WHY these things are experienced.

The temperature is also all the body's doing. And it serves two purposes...

Purpose # 1: An increased temperature doesn't make the environment very favorable for bacteria. They prefer it to be normal because an increased temperature slows down their dividing.

Purpose # 2: An increased temperature speeds up the body's immune system so it can deal with the bacteria and toxins quicker.

When you have a temperature you may sometimes experience cold sweats, or just a feeling of being cold. This is also the body's doing to help increase your temperature even more.

If you feel cold, your body might shiver to increase warmth. This extra heat energy helps increase the internal temperature more. If you sweat, it will evaporate and cool the skin. The cooled skin will then give a feeling of chill. To which the body responds by shivering which increases temperature more. The sweat also is a faster way to get toxins out of the body.

A lost appetite is useful so the body does not need to devote precious resources to digestion. It can thus concentrate on dealing with what it needs to.

So as you see, all feelings normally associated with being sick, are our body's doing! And when I went through the die off, I marveled at how wonderful my body is at dealing with things.

My temperature was 38.1C (100.8F). I felt very warm to the touch. A little achey and lethargic. But pleased my body was doing what it was designed to do. And also pleased as it was a sign my detox had gotten rid of stuff.

The only things I did to help my body was to consume about 10,000mg of vitamin C powder, take some Olive Leaf Extract (OLE) and have a whole lot of garlic. My body would use the vitamin C in its immune functions and the OLE and garlic would help kill off anything that lingered.

The symptom time line (the first day of symptoms until the last day) went, achey began half way through day one, temperature began on day 2 and continued through the first half of day three. Aches all gone by day three evening.

I know you'll think this odd, but I felt good that I was achey, lethargic and had a temperature. It meant my system was functioning as it should and good stuff was happening inside.

What most people would do is run off to the doctor, get some anti-biotics and get rid of the symptoms - symptoms which are all your body's doing for very important reasons.

You may have heard about the toxic shock caused by tampons. This happens because the blood is not left to leave the body. The decaying blood contains bacteria which begin to multiply and release their toxins into the body. The body's response is aches, lethargy, nausea, increased body temperature and, in extreme cases, an all over body rash. The rash is due to the body placing the toxins out of the blood and into the skin until it can deal with them at an appropriate time. And the skin reacts to the toxins by developing a rash.

What the individual will then do is rush to take anti-biotics - giving the immune system extra stuff to deal with - and try to lower their body temperature. Yet, it is this increased temperature that the body has created and uses to help fight the bacteria and here we are interfering with it.

Fact is, our body knows how to fix us more than any doctor does. All the medical profession does is hide symptoms so we think we are better. But hiding symptoms represses the immune system function and usually gives it extra work to do at the same time.

What this all comes down to is knowing your body. What different signs mean and why you get them. You will find that often, the best course of action to take is to let your body handle it for it knows best.

Meet The Anti-Capitalist Moonbats Forces

2005-04-19T21:42:00.000+10:00

It's kind of interesting. Many people of the socialist anti-capitalist way, have a certain look about them. All you need to do is see one and you can just tell they are socialist.

Generally speaking, the guy wearing jeans, a ripped t-shirt with profanities written all over it, with messy hair (usually in dreadlocks) is almost always a leftist socialist.

And if you hear of a gathering of them, and then see this gathering, you will see the socialist's uniform too.

So it came as no surprise to see these kinds of people promoting a "Buy Nothing Day". Yep. They want to have a day where people do not buy anything, to teach the capitalist pig dogs who exploit the workers, a lesson. Or some such jibble.

Here's a bit from one website promoting the Buy Nothing Day...

November 28 is the busiest shopping day of the year, [it is] the result of corporate propaganda and capitalist brainwashing. This November 28th, DON'T BE A SHEEP!!! Celebrate the holidays by buying nothing.

You can see the site here and another here.

The site continues on by hinting that good things to do on Buy Nothing Day include such items as knitting. Little do they realize, the balls of wool and knitting needles needed to be bought in the first place. And those items are only available because of the capitalist pig dogs they despise and want to see suffer by having a buy nothing day.

They forget, or ignore, that by encouraging people to join in on the buy nothing day, they are asking people to be sheep and follow them, instead of the capitalist pig dogs. It's like, don't be a sheep and follow them, be a sheep and follow us.

The website they use to help promote the day is able to exist thanks to capitalism. But hey, use the enemy's equipment against the enemy, is the way it goes.

They also forget something else... people will buy, even if they join in on a buy nothing day. They just won't buy on that day. They'll buy on days before or after. And the buy nothing day will have served no purpose. And those who don't buy before or after, weren't going to buy anyway.

It's like those "don't buy gas" days. People who join in just tank up the day before or the day after. And the gas stations can raise their prices on those days accordingly. Selling just as much gas as they would have, but for more money. And those who promote such days most likely don't have cars so aren't effected either way.

Look at the pictures on the website. They appear to be penniless students. So it's not like they could even afford to buy anything on that day anyway. So their solution is to encourage everyone to be like them and buy nothing. It's an effort to drag everyone down to their level because to raise themselves up to a higher level is too much like effort.

Of course, they think their cause and reasons-why are noble. And they get to wear a good guy badge as well. But I think differently. I think anyone who would encourage people to weaken capitalist enterprises is a villain... they are value destroyers and value leeches who are actively trying to promote the financial harming of businesses they know nothing about, and which employ people who want to get ahead in their life and so their actions would hurt those people too.

The Raw Meat Diet

2005-04-18T05:53:00.000+10:00

I'm puzzled. There is a certain something I see all the time and cannot figure out a good reason why. I can kind of figure a reason. But not a good reason that makes any kind of sense.

I am talking about the habit of ALL TV cooks - cooks that have a show on the TV and who make dishes for us to salivate over - to NOT cook meat and to only lightly brown the outside while the inside stays blood red raw; and then they serve this meat up to be eaten.

I can understand it on a show like "Ready Steady Cook" where they only have 20 minutes to prepare and cook a meal from ingredients the contestant brings in. So in that case, meat might not be cooked well. But the other shows... the ones that put something in the oven and then come back later with a camera cut... I cannot figure why. They can hide the cooking time from us with a camera cut. So why not bother cooking the food properly?

The other day that Neil Perry guy has some other guy on who cooked some beef. Apart from the maybe couple of millimeters of slightly browned edges, the rest was blood raw - blood was seeping out of it. And then Neil ate it! Two or three chews and it was gone, swallowed into his stomach.

Then Neil produced a Lamb Roast, or something like that. It had been in the oven for only 20 minutes, and was equally blood raw on the inside. He cut this up to serve as well.

This is just a couple of examples from one show. ALL cooks on all TV shows do it... hardly cook the meat and serve it up blood dripping raw. So whatever bacteria are multiplying in the rotting meat, don't even get neutralized by the heat of cooking cause the heat of cooking never got to them.

If this is how you are going to prepare the meat and serve it, why bother cooking it at all? The result will be the same, and you'll save on time and washing up.

And it's not like they don't know about the bacteria in meat. They won't chop meat on the same board as vegetables to avoid cross contamination. And bacteria getting on vegetables that aren't cooked. But then they serve the raw meat and it defeats the purpose.

Oh well. I guess there are just some things that aren't meant to be known unless you are an initiate - in this case, a chef.

Too Much Hygiene Is Making Us Sick... Yeah Right

2005-04-15T18:37:00.000+10:00

Don't you just love some of the "claims" that comes out of so-called scientists. And this is one that really takes the cake.

Some bofin reckons that our super-hygienic lives (anti-bacterial soaps, shampoos and lotions, filtered air and water, and disinfecting cleaning products) don't give our immune system enough to do. And as a result, our immune system doesn't develop as it should, and doesn't learn how to fight all the bugs it needs to. With the result being that, when we get a bug we are more likely to get sick. And this is supposedly evidenced by the ever increasing sickness people seem to have.

As usual, I have a different and more-realistic conclusion.

IF we are indeed suffering more sickness - and this could be true - it is NOT due to leading hygienic lives. It is due to the increased use of immune-system-hampering chemicals in our lives - and - the increased consumption of moldy food stuffs, as mold is a well-known immune system suppressor.

So while the so-called scientist says the chemicals used to kill germs doesn't give our immune system enough to do and so it gets weaker, I say, the chemicals used to kill germs are being ingested by us and overloading our immune system - giving it too much to do - and so it cannot effectively deal with the germs that enter the body.

The moldy food comes into play due to our increased consumption of bread and other processed foods loaded with sugar. Often, the sugar is used to help mask the fact the food in a can or whatnot has gone moldy. Wheat silos are sprayed with anti-mold chemicals - some of which DO get into the flour, as a matter of course throughout the processing - and some wheat doesn't get the chemical on it allowing mold to grow at will. This wheat is then turned into bread - and - placed in air-tight plastic bags, which is just how mold likes it - air-tight with moisture.

Don't believe me? Next time you buy bread, buy two loaves. Eat one and leave the other one on the counter or in your fridge for a week. Notice how it goes moldy. Which doesn't mean it "goes moldy". It means the mold that was already on it, has now grown enough so you can see it. It was there all along. It is just that it wasn't large enough for you to see.

Mold is VERY difficult for the body to deal with. Breathing in mold spore does cause illness in adults and children alike. There are countless documented cases of widespread illness being traced back to mold growing in the home - specially after prolonged rain or flooding. I have heard that it says in the Christian's bible back in the Moses or Noah days, that if the house you live in gets mold to burn it down. It has been established scientifically that one of the seven plagues of Egypt - the one that killed the first borns - was due to mold. And it happened like so...

The harvest had taken place. The grain had been stored. And then the "flood/rain" happened. This got the grains wet and not used, long enough to allow mold to begin growing - specially on the outside layers of grain. As was the custom on those days, after such periods the first borns - who were usually the strongest and heirs - were given the first food stuffs available. And that meant the top most layers of grain - which were the moldy layers. The animals and humans were fed this moldy grain and subsequently died due to the mold ingested.

Some scientists describe mold's effect on our immune system as gagging it. Though, regardless of how you call it, mold hampers our immune system reducing its ability to function adequately. So when it is trying to defeat the mold that keeps being consumed and also the chemicals that are also continually consumed, it is no wonder we get sick.

And when we do get sick, and our body tries to fight it, we then take an anti-biotic (anti-biotic means anti-life). So now our body has to also deal with the pill we took, because it is a foreign substance too.

Let me give you an example of chemical overload and how easily we put it into our lives...

A few years ago I had a client who was serviced every couple of months. And every time I was in their house - every single time - my throat used to become agitated. And the reason was, they had these plug-in air-fresheners. Where there is a small reservoir of fragrant oil which is gradually heated into gaseous form and goes into the air. We then breathe this fragrant chemical in. And in my case, it agitated my throat.

Anyway. One day she asked me to look at one of their windows to see if I knew what the odd fog-like substance was - there was something on the glass which made the glass look like how a car window is fogged over on cold days from the warm breath inside. And I traced it to her anti-mosquito plug-in pesticide burner next to the window. They had only had this thing for a month and that day my throat was particularly bad. Which isn't surprising considering she was putting a pesticide into the air.

I noticed she was walking around with a tissue in hand - something she had always done - because she had a constantly runny nose. To me, that was a sign her mucus linings were being agitated by the chemicals in the air. And I told her as much - based on how my throat was being extremely agitated by my brief time in her place. She denied it and said she just "had a cold."

She moved a couple of months later into a larger home. And in that home the chemical in the air was worse, because she had the plug-in air-fresheners in EVERY room. And on top of that, she had the place shut up tight. Not a window open in the joint. It was that bad I had to open windows and stand next to them to get a breath of uncontaminated air, and to hopefully dilute the fragrant chemical in the air.

In the new place she was still walking around with a tissue and constantly blowing her nose. Her dogs, of which she had two, and which were always locked inside breathing the chemicals, were in bad states of health.

A couple of months later when I went back, she was laid up sick in bed with her "cold". And she never recovered. She kept going down hill until she died. (You see how you feel after breathing in pesticide and fragrant chemicals 24/7. I bet you'll go down hill too. After all, if the chemical in the air can kill a mosquito, what is it doing to us!?)

I know a family whose three kids ALL suffered from "asthma." They lived near an experimental farm. Where new farm practices and chemical fertilizers and the like were tested. When they moved away, miraculously the asthma in ALL their children went completely away never to return.

There is a new product on the domestic market - which has been available for years in the commercial market - that puts a measured spray of air-freshener into the air every X number of minutes. Meaning, you will have chemical in the air you breathe in your home, all the time. You will not be free of it unless you go outside. You will spend 8 hours sleeping in it. You WILL get sick. And some dork of a scientist will say it is due to sterilizing your hands or being too hygienic and not letting your immune system do its job and get strong by doing its job.

Animals are smarter than people. To prove it, get a large plastic container. The kind people store things in. Now put a small hole on the side near the bottom. A hole a pen could fit through. Now go to the pet store and buy a mouse and put it in the container. And now spray air-freshener into the container. Or light an incense stick, put it in a corner and put the lid back on.

Here is what will happen: In an effort to get good clean air, the mouse will run to the hole and stick it's nose out and breathe the air outside of the container. The mouse will NOT have to be taught this. It will do it all by itself.

And yet, people are the complete opposite. We deliberately put smelly chemicals into the air we breathe. Then wonder why we get breathing problems or general illness due to a chronic lack of oxygen getting into our bodies, and getting chemicals into our blood via our lungs and skin.

Of course, we also get chemicals into us from processed foods. Yep innocent numbers are not so innocent. And you can prove it to yourself.

Visit your local supermarket with a pen and paper - or go through your pantry - and jot down the chemical numbers on the food products. Preservative 220, 442, etc. Then do a Google for "MSDS 220" or whatever number you have. Also do a search for "Material Safety Data Sheet 220" or whatever number you have.

What you will find are the safety directions related to that chemical - and - its side effects. And you will find out such things as, the chemical in coconut cream/milk is a blood oxygen inhibitor. It can stop oxygen getting into the blood. Can cause asthma. And other nasty stuff - even death!!! And yet, this is in our food. And when we consume it our immune system has to deal with it.

We breathe the chemicals in, eat them and drink them. And do so while also eating moldy food. THIS is what messes with our immune system enabling us to get sick easier. NOT being too clean and hygienic.

Labels Are Dangerous

2005-04-14T05:42:00.000+10:00

We live in a world of labels. Many of them self-imposed. And the end result is, we often think of ourselves as the label.

An example would be stuttering. Those who stutter consider themselves to BE stutterers instead of someone who stutters on occasion. They are their ailment, in their own eyes. And having accepted that, they will continue to stutter - because that is what stutterers do.

The same applies to alcoholics. "I am an alcoholic" those who attend the meetings say. Even if they haven't had a drink in eight or nine years. How stupid is that? If they do not drink they are NOT alcoholics. They are people who do not drink alcohol - like myself. And I wouldn't walk around calling myself an alcoholic when I don't drink. To do so would be stupid.

People who speed are known as Speeders. This implies a state that is unchanging. Like being a Caucasian or Asian. They are speeders and so speed, because that is what speeders do.

Perhaps one of the more dangerous areas of labels is in politics.

I call people lefties and leftists because it is an easy way for me to group people together. As those people tend to exhibit certain similar traits - such as wanting a more socialist system in place, a system that removes individual freedoms and responsibility. But it is how people view themselves, that holds the dangers.

For instance: I call myself a "right leaning libertarian". I do this NOT because that is what I am, but because other people have this need to categorize things. And to help them in that process I give them a label that is close to something they can understand.

See. A libertarian, as most people understand it to be, is someone who could belong to the libertarian party. However, that implies the existence of a govt, even if it is limited. I am anti-govt. Which is to say, I do not believe in a govt; I don't believe they are necessary for society to function.

I add "right leaning" to indicate that I believe in personal responsibility and that changes should only happen when necessary, and not just for the sake of it, as the left seems to do. It also indicates I am not for a free-for-all society without morals - as being a libertarian could imply. Because to my mix I would have to add "Objectivist" and a person that believes through-out self-interest is a good thing.

In short, much of my take goes AGAINST the standard libertarian view point. I am just me, with my own thoughts.

However, those on the right, for example, might change their thoughts to match their label.

Take abortion, as an example. It is widely held that conservatives - and people on the right - are anti-abortion (pro-life; anti-death). BUT, I am certain, some on the conservative right WOULD think abortion is ok as a choice, and not just for medical emergencies. That they view themselves as a conservative and conservatives are pro-life, they will be under great pressure to conform to the label... to change their mind about things so they fit the label.

And that is the danger. People fight against their natural disposition to try to fit a label. They try to BE a conservative instead of someone with some conservative thoughts. And this can play havoc with your mind. Can lead you into hypocritical actions and thoughts.

It's like people walk around calling themselves Christian. Then do the most unChristian things you can imagine - like molesting children. It would be better if they simple said they were people who followed some of Jesus' teaching and not all of them. It would be more truthful.

The guy at my local fruit & veg store asked me WHAT I was - as in nationality/ethnicity. I told him, "I am a human. I am an entity. I live on a planet known as Earth." We chat sometimes. I think I fascinate him as he can't figure me out, and is spun out when I tell him something that should be obvious to everyone, but isn't.

I do NOT view myself as an Australian. I view myself as a person who currently lives in a country called Australia. Hence, I have no national pride. Because I don't deem myself to be a part of a nation - any nation.

Many people would not be able to comprehend this. And that is fine. They will also be the first to label themselves as something - their job, the suburb, whatever. And maybe, after all this labeling, will go on a retreat into the bush to help "find themselves." Then they might give themselves a new label - a new ager. HA!

There is a difference between BEING a label and being a person who does some things associated with that label. And the difference can be subtle.

Let me ask you a question... do you want one million dollars - or - would you rather be a millionaire?

There is a difference. Can you see it? You can BE a millionaire - or - you can BE someone who wants a million dollars. And if you choose the latter, then you will always remain someone who wants a million dollars. If you choose the former, then you will begin a journey to become the millionaire you say you want to BE.

And this is the power of labels... and why they can be dangerous. What label are you?

Get Ready, Cause Here I Come, $4,500 Extra Tax A Year Is Fun

2005-04-13T20:03:00.000+10:00

Have you heard the good news? The Australian govt wants to increase taxes by an ADDITIONAL $4,500 a year to cover the cost of aged care. Of course, they are quick to add that by the year 2044 when this would be fully in force, our average incomes will have risen by $35,000 a year and so this tax will only take about 15% of that. However, they fail to also mention that, by then, we will be earning so much and be on the highest tax bracket which takes about 50% of the income, that of that additional $35,000 earned, we might only get to keep $13,000 of it - with the rest going in silly taxes!

I think it's interesting to see the govt's mind-set on this. They are talking about increasing taxes instead of, encouraging people to save and build wealth so they can fund their own aged care.

Also, they are not mentioning that those who will be on aged care in 2044 are 26 years old today!

It has been proposed that "having babies" could be one solution to the future problem. But the govt knocked this on the head. Which, at first glance, seems understandable. As it is too long before babies are productive members. BUT, when you give it a couple of seconds thought, you realize the govt is full of bullshit. Because they are saying, having a bunch of babies NOW, will NOT add additional taxes to the kitty in 40 years time. And that just ain't so. It WILL add additional tax to the kitty. In fact, it will have added additional tax for around 20 years before the burden comes around.

It has been suggest to allow more migrants into the country. And the govt also knocked this on the head. They claim, it would take an immigration number close to 500,000 a year, with a total population of 80 million people in 2044 to solve the problem. And that would mean a 500% increase in the current immigration numbers of 100,000 a year. And is greatly above the estimated population of 28 million by 2044.

In short, the solution of having more people in the country, which would provide more tax dollars and thus fund this "problem," have been knocked on the head.

The concept of encouraging people to "save" for their retirement and aged care, is being ignored. The underlying message is that you do NOT need to prepare for the future because the govt will take care of you by taxing the heck out of those who are working in 2044.

How much? Well... the govt reckons there are currently a little over 5 workers for every person on aged care. But by 2044 there will only be about 2.4 workers for those on aged care. And so those 2.4 will be a life-support system (a wallet, if you will) for irresponsible people who didn't prepare for their future.

If this is in the works NOW, it tells me NOW is also the time to start making plans to leave Australia - if you live here. Otherwise, you will be sucked dry to keep old people alive who couldn't be bothered preparing for their own future. And, quite frankly, be buggered if I will be a party to that. We already support enough bludgers on the welfare system as it is, without being FORCED to give up more of my effort for the care of a bunch of old and irresponsible people. I am already forced to fund their ambulance trips. Be stuffed if the govt thinks I will fund the rest of their "care."

If you are interested in breaking free of daddy govts and their humongous taxes, then check out Sovereign Life for the tools and information you need to free yourself of the heavy tax burdens daddy govt wants to impose on you.

Interestingly, the govt can see this "problem" coming. So my question is, why do the tax payers have to pay more for it, instead of the govt better managing the money they already suck out of us for this purpose?

Could it be just another "excuse" for a money grab? Like my being forced to pay Ambulance tax under threat of loss of electricity supply.

I don't know. To me it makes more sense to teach people how to prepare for their older years. But then again, if the govt did that then people wouldn't be dependent on the govt. And they might come to realize they don't need a govt at all. But this way, the govt kind of forces dependence onto us.

For me, I think it would be wise for us to vote with our feet. If that means leaving the high-tax country Australia will become, then so be it. If that means those left behind will have to pay even more taxes, then so be it. They can leave too, if they want. Unless all international travel is banned due to the War of Terror.

So far, after this announcement, I haven't seen or heard too much outrage at it. Makes me wonder if the govt has asked the press not to make a big deal out of an additional $4,500 tax being forced onto the people. Or maybe, this is just the kind of thing the lefty press want... more forced social welfare.

Left is Right and Vice Versa

2005-04-11T18:46:00.000+10:00

The political left hates the political right and the political right hates the political left. But they are really the SAME side of the same coin, only viewed from different angles.

Consider the left... associated with socialism, leading to communism and ultimately some kind of dictatorial like state.

Consider the right... associated with capitalism, leading to tighter and tighter controls, fascism and some kind of dictatorial like state.

Both want to impose their doctrine onto the public. With neither doctrine seeing the public actually free.

Both increase taxes - even when they decrease them, other taxes are increased to make up for it. Effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Both only ever create an increase in govt and govt spending.

Both make new rules and laws to keep us in check.

They may disagree on certain things. But it is often only the degree which they disagree on, and not the thing itself.

Take Australia's involvement in Iraq. The main disagreement is really a matter of WHEN our troops come home. The left, knowing they can get free publicity out of it and that it is not possible, want our troops home soon. The right want them home when the job is done. So both sides want them home with only the time difference varying.

The right "claim" to want to decrease welfare. And put in place "work for the dole" schemes. The left dislike these schemes and don't want a decrease in welfare - unless - certain conditions are met, such as testing the means of the welfare recipient. Notice that neither side is willing to abolish welfare at all. They are both quite happy to take our money and give it to other people. Only the degree varies.

The right "claim" to want a smaller govt. But in their push for "progress" and ever more controls, we need more govt to oversee it all. The left like more govt as their push for ever more departments and committees and the like reveals. The result is the same... more govt. Only the degree varies.

The right and left aren't really that different from each other. But they do play the part well.

Recently, George Bush senior and Bill Clinton have been seen together. And they appear to be getting along great guns. These two political adversaries are chummy chum with each other as if they have been buddies the whole time. Odd, isn't it?

Pauline Hanson threatened to upset that applecart in Australia. Both parties attacked her. Accused her and her party of all kinds of things. Even got her sent to jail. Only the degree of their hate for her varied.

Honest Politician has to be an oxymoron. Which is why I call them all "Lying Bastards." It is in their nature to lie. They have to. To keep up the charade that there are two opposing political forces in action, when really there aren't any. For if it became apparent to the people they have no choice, the people might rebel and oust the govt.

Someone said Ross Perot would make a good president. And if he ran the govt like a business I am sure he would. However, he would be stepping on too many toes in the process. So he becoming president could not be allowed. And we are left with Democrat and Republican.

Dubbya and Kerry are supposed to be both Skull and Bones men. No matter who would be elected you got a Skull and Bones man at the helm, the only difference was in the degree of the disagreement.

Dubbya and Kerry agreed on homosexuals getting together as legal couples. Only the method of that union varied.

Despite what the press said, both were in favor of stem cell research. Only the degree of freedom in that research varied.

But we are presented with a picture of two opposing forces. The left and the right. The reality is, we have one force wearing two different masks. The result of all their actions is the same. Only the degree varies. And that variance is often only slight.

Come election time our choice is...

Party A who will only kick us in the guts 7 times a week

And...

Party B who will kick us in the guts 8 times a week, but only softly.

In essence, each party tries to get us to vote for them by telling us they will kick us in the guts less than the other party. No party ever promises to NOT kick us in the guts. Thus, the left/right game is a good distraction to divert our attention away from the truth - that we don't really have a choice, only the appearance of choice.

Which Food Fad Has Infected Your Brain?

2005-04-10T15:50:00.000+10:00

It seems that every year or so there is another food fad, or version of a food fad. And as I look at the fads in turn, not any of them actually address the "problem" they claim to address. And often, they make the problem worse.

Take the "No Fat" craze. It's logic was simple... to stop being a fatty, don't eat fat. After all, fat has loads of calories.

On the surface this seemed to make sense. To reduce the amount of calories consumed, eat less of the food high in calories. And fat has the highest calories of all.

What was ignored was... fat makes us feel satisfied/full. So we would tend to eat less of it as a matter of course.

So. Instead of eating fat, people went for the carbo-loaded foods. And felt good about doing it because they weren't eating fat. But little did they realize, they were eating the worst thing they could... dense carbohydrate.

Dense carbohydrate is a "no no" because it is easily and rapidly turned into glucose. Which raises the blood sugar levels. Insulin kicks in to get it out of the blood. And in so doing it is stored as... fat!

But because no fat was being consumed, feeling full was not accomplished when eating the dense carbo foods. And as the glucose spike was so high, and the insulin response equally high, too much glucose was stored as fat, leading to a too-low level of glucose in the blood. So the body would crave a dense carbo food to rectify the situation. And here we go again... another glucose spike followed by an insulin reaction storing the excess as fat.

So as people went off foods with fats, they increased their consumption of dense carbo foods, which made them fat.

We had the "no salt" fad too.

Interestingly, if you eat a salty food you feel thirsty. The reason is, your body takes fluid from itself and sends it to the stomach to help dilute the salt. You thus feel thirsty and so drink water... water which your body will also use to help dilute the salt and replace the fluids it sent to the stomach to dilute the salt.

But there is really only so much salt which you can eat. At a point you will not feel like anything with salt in it at all. So by removing the salt in those dense carbo foods, to cater to people's sudden dislike for salt, the consumer was able to eat more of the food.

We had the "natural" fad. Everything had to be "natural". And companies were quick to tell us how natural their products were. Problem was, they reckoned that sugar was natural. So you'd see the most sugar-loaded food you could think of being passed off as natural. And people bought in droves. And ate in bigger droves because it was natural.

But because it contained loads of sugar and other processed foods that were called natural and which were dense carbs, people put on even more weight. (It's like the Natural Confectionery Company - sugar in the form of candy but called natural.)

It was fat free, had no salt and was natural. Yet eating it sent the insulin response into overdrive and the excess energy that was hitting the body in waves and in amounts far greater than the body could use, was stored as fat. People got fatter! And over time the insulin response got weaker from over-use and diabetes was the result.

And because of the increase in sugar consumption, calcium was being leeched out of our bones to process the sugar. Making our bones weaker.

Next we have the "no sugar" fad. And again we see the problem not being addressed.

So the food has no sugar. Instead it has the poison called aspartame (see www.dorway.com for extensive information about the health dangers of aspartame).

Anyway. Without sugar, people felt they could eats lots of it. It had no sugar, was fat free, had no salt and was called natural. Thus, it was consumed by the bucket full. And people got fatter.

Then we have the "no hydrogenated oil" fad. And while I commend the push to educate people about these types of oil, I feel it is a wasted effort unless full nutritional education is also given. Otherwise we will have people consuming foods by the plate full simple because it doesn't have any "bad fat."

No fat, no sugar, natural, no salt, no hydrogenated oil. BUT, the darn food is so loaded with dense carbs its not funny.

Then we have the small glimmer of hope... the GI index... an index designed to let us know which foods are high on the list, and which will therefore send glucose/insulin response into over-drive.

The problem with this index is the terminology used... Low GI, Medium GI, High GI. And also, that the GI level can change with cooking. And you must consider the GI Load (the available carbo within the food multiplied by the volume of food consumed)!

What this means is, manufacturers can claim their food is low GI, as it is. But seeing as the food needs to be cooked, then the GI rating can change from low to high. And if the available carbs within the food are fully available, then the GI Load will be high as well. Totally negating any benefit you thought you were getting by eating low GI.

In other words, manufacturers are playing around with the term "Low GI" just like they play around with the word "Natural."

We have the Vegetarian fad. This one is really dangerous because those on it think they are eating healthy by avoiding meat, but could be consuming increased amounts of other toxins and the like.

For instance, I saw a woman who was vegetarian but hated vegetables. She lived on breads, cakes, chocolate, potato chips and so on. Drank liquid candy (Coke, Pepsi, etc.). Ate ice-cream. Pasta with rich sauces. And generally was eating garbage food.

One thing the vegetarians - and vegans - can get tricked into eating is tofu. Tofu comes from soy and as a result is not good for them. And seeing as they don't eat meat, they make up for it by eating loads of tofu and other soy products.

Without getting into the full range of things soy does to us - which you can check out for yourself by visiting www.soyonlineservice.co.nz - all you need to know is that it interferes with the thyroid. As that helps increase or decrease metabolism, a slowed down thyroid can lead to slow metabolism and a tendency to gain weight and difficulties in burning it off.

Which brings us to the soy fad...

The biggest pushers of soy as a wonder product are the soy makers.

For instance, the Independent Soy Association (or whatever they are called) in Australia, is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church who also owns Sanitarium, the largest seller of soy milk and other soy products in Australia!!! (Can you say "conflict of interest"?)

Soy flour is in ALL bread. So not only do you get a dense carb likely to cause an insulin spike and store the energy from the bread as fat, you are also consuming at the same time, a substance which prevents your body from burning off that fat. Double whammy!!

Ok. Time for a rehash... so far we have covered...

No fat
No sugar
No salt
Low GI
Bad oils
Vegetariansm/Veganism
Soy
Natural foods when they aren't.
Carbo Loading for energy

Now let's move onto the diets...

Without getting into the various diets, of which there are many, they all seem to advocate a higher protein intake. The logic is simple... eating protein does NOT cause an insulin spike. So if you have no high levels of insulin in the blood telling the body to store energy, it will be easier for your body to burn the excess fat off.

This actually does work. And it works wonders. Fat does burn off rather fast with only moderate amounts of physical activity. The problem is, you are eating a hard-to-digest food loaded with pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, bacteria and viruses. So what can happen is this...

The immune system has to deal with the chemicals in the meat. While it is busy doing this, the bacteria from the meat can multiply and hamper an already overrun immune system. The antibiotics kill our good bacteria and the hormones interfere with our natural hormonal system. But hey, you will burn off fat. And possibly have bad breath too - if eating total meat only.

As the meat is hard to digest, it puts an undue amount of pressure on the digestive system. But our "regularity" may pay a high price, as we have rotting decaying meat in us for a longer period of time.

During all this food fad stuff, there are some fundamentals which would do people much better. One is simply this... if the food is NOT as nature provided, do not buy it.

If people followed this alone, they would be forced to eat low carb, high nutrient, quality foods without artificial chemicals and additives in them. Their health would improve as a matter of course. And there would be no need to buy the latest fad book, or course of fat burning pills.

You could call it HI (Human Interference). The greater the HI, the less of it we should buy. If you want to "process" food - liquefy it, juice it, blend it, cook it, whatever - then YOU do it yourself from fresh ingredients. I guarantee you will burn off excess weight and cease the insulin spikes. You will also get "regular."

Of course, it means no more canned stuff. No bread or pasta - unless you want to make it yourself from low-GI flour. No soy products. No dairy - milk, cheese, eggs. And does mean fresh fruit and vegetables. But you won't be a fad-victim. And your health should improve no end.

What will be the next fad? Well, MacDonald's and Burger King / Hungry Jacks are offering "Healthy Choices" in their menu - doesn't that mean they admit their other food is not healthy? But the problem is, people who go to those places want fat. Otherwise they'd be making their own salad sandwiches. So I see their "healthy" menu falling by the way side.

As for fads for the general population... more of the same with slight twists. Maybe even a GM low-GI grain or some bullshit. But consumption of chemicals and other stuff will still flourish. The only thing is to educate yourself and do your own thing.

You'll get odd looks. Something I get all the time when people offer me a beer or coffee and I tell them I don't drink that stuff. And as they offer me other beverages and foods, I decline it all. Which leads to questions from them. And answers from me about my "no wheat, no sugar, no soy, no diary, no eggs, no meat, no processed or canned food, diet."

Like two days ago (Friday). A client asked me about milk drinking. I told her I call milk "runny pus" and cheese is "moldy pus" - because they contain cow pus (white blood cells). And if drinking cows milk is ok/normal, why not cat milk, or dog milk, or rat milk! To which I get no answer.

But now we have the "eat fat" fad appearing on the horizon. Coming from Poland, of all places. It will be interesting to see how much popularity this one gains.

Silent Left - An Oxymoron?

2005-04-07T20:07:00.000+10:00

As far as the left is concerned, the right can do no good whatsoever. In fact, I cannot recall any time ever when the left actually praised anything the right did. But that's ok. We don't expect anything other than ridicule from the left - ridicule of right leaning lying bastards.

So it should come as no surprise that when Indonesia's president visits Australia - just days after his country has undergone a second catastrophe - the left do not condemn him for flying around the world.

I can only imagine if Howard were to do something similar. If Australia suffered a loss of, say, ten thousand lives in a tsunami, and then a couple of months later another thousand died from an earthquake, and if Howard then went overseas to meet with any other country's leader, the lefties over here would have a field day. All you'd see on the evening news would be outbursts from all the lefties - including backdoor Bob - about what a disrespectful thing it is that Howard is doing; how he is abandoning his people in their time of need; and blah blah blah.

And yet, when the exact same thing is presented right in their face, they are quiet about it. Instead, they make noise about giving a "hero's medal" to soldiers that died when their chopper went down while dropping off some "humanitarian aid" to some of the Indonesians.

This just opens up a can of worms it does. Where would we draw the line? Civilians who go over to such places of their own volition, and who die. Should they also be given medals of "bravery"?

Just goes to show, the left just cannot keep their mouths shut for a week. They just have to open up and unleash some diatribe about something bad about the govt. Even some trivial thing.

I could understand if it was something worthwhile. Like if the govt wanted to set free all murderers from jail, or pardon all pedofiles. Then, I think, we'd all be joining in on the outrage. But when the left spews forth their verbal diarrhea like they do, it becomes more like the boy who cried wolf. And we tend to switch off and ignore them. Kind of like... oh, here they go again, ranting on about some inane nothing as if it's a life or death matter. Pass the cheesy poofs and change the channel too, thanks. I seem to have seen this performance before.

Public Transport Bungle Reveals It's Cheaper To Scrap Public Transport And Buy Everyone A Car Or Motor Bike

2005-04-06T19:18:00.000+10:00

My state govt has been on the weed again. At least, that's the conclusion you have to draw after their latest public transport initiative has been released.

Down my neck of the woods the dorks want to spend $182,950,000.00 (one hundred and eighty two million, nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars) on some bus lanes and other dopey things.

There are two MAJOR roads near my place. In the morning and evening they are chock-a-block full of traffic. It is that bad, the traffic ends up being bumper-to-bumper half way back out to the highway. And we're talking a two lane road with a 100k speed limit. We're talking about five kilometers of stop/go crawling. On one road.

That road has to filter onto another road which, for years, has been the bane of the city. It has the highest death-toll of any 2.5 kilometer stretch of road in Australia. It's problems arise because two lanes of traffic have to filter down into one lane. And then the road I just mentioned has to filter into it as well.

I've lived and driven in Sydney peak hour traffic. And I got to tell you, that is a cake walk compared to this shamozzle.

The road URGENTLY needs fixing. At least one other lane needs to be added to the road that gets both lots of traffic onto it. A new bridge needs to be built where all cars are forced to go from two lanes to one lane to cross the bridge. Certain traffic lights need to be removed because they hinder the flow. And then, maybe, traffic will improve for a few years.

But no. None of that is on the govt list of things to do. What is important for them is to spend $182 million adding a new lane - BUT - designating a "Bus Only" lane.

What insanity is this? A MAJOR tourist destination and the solution to traffic problems is NOT to add another lane for cars to drive on. It is to make another lane and make it a bus only lane.

Yes. We all know the leftist agenda is to force everyone onto public transport. But that's the problem. Tourists hire cars so they can get around town. They have touristy things to do. And items to buy. These things cannot be done on buses.

Nearly 1,000 people a week move into the city from interstate. When people move they do not arrive without transport. They arrive with their vehicles, ready to drive around.

So we have a situation where 1,000 a people a week arrive in the city, with their cars, and instead of fixing the road system, the govt wants to deprive cars of the use of the road and make bloody bus lanes.

It's funny. When the conservative guy got elected to Mayor of Brisbane, one of the first things he did was REMOVE the bus lanes that the leftists before him had put in. This allowed an extra 1,400 cars an hour on those roads. And relieved traffic congestion no end.

But not in my town. This is the town that took a three lane road, made it into two lanes and said, "There, the traffic problem is solved." And now are hiding under their desks as residents suffer endlessly through traffic jam chaos. A chaos that did NOT exist to that extent before the road was "improved".

Anyway. In addition to the $182millon, they are also going to spend an additional $7.9 million each and every year maintaining their system. Some of this money will be spent on painting sign posts - as I saw some painters doing today.

Now I'm not right up to speed on how much it costs to lease a car... specially the el-cheapo cars. But let's do some numbers...

A cheap car - second hand - can be bought for about $3k. That means the govt could buy $2,633 cars for that $7.9 million dollars, and give them to people who want to ride buses.

Brand new mopeds, vespers, whatever you want to call them, sell for $2,000. The govt could buy 3,950 of them EACH YEAR and GIVE them to the bus riding public. Heck, the govt could take $20million and buy 10,000 of them and give them to those who would ride buses. There would be no need for ongoing money to the tune of $7.9 million a year. No need to deprive cars of the use of the road - which is built for cars to drive on in the first place. And a LOT of money which would have been spent building bus stops and keeping them painted all nice colors, could be better spent elsewhere.

The funny thing is, I know of the govt plans because they just spent a fortune sending colorful brochures into all the houses. They want our feedback on it. They call it "consultation". But what they really mean is... education, until we see it their way.

I could write to them and let them know what I think. But last time I contacted my state leftist lying bastard to tell him I objected to the ambulance tax being forced onto me, instead of listening he tried to convince me why it was a good thing. So much for representing the people.

Ding Dong The Pope Is Dead

2005-04-05T18:41:00.000+10:00

Watching the TV news you could be mistaken for thinking that the day the pope died, nothing else happened in the world. All they reported on was pope stuff. How he was dead. How people were gathered in the square. How people were lighting candles. What other priests in other countries were thinking about it all. And yadda yadda yadda.

Quite frankly, all this pope stuff is annoying. I just don't get it. He was just a man, like any other man. The only difference was, he was king leech... who lived lavishly off of the effort of others. Surrounded by opulence while homeless and starving people begged on the steps of the Vatican. What "good works" did he personally do?

Recently a man died. His name was Joe. Joe personally fought against Nazi Germany, and spent years in a camp for his troubles. Joe fled by the skin of his teeth as the Soviets swept down. Joe left the continent and moved himself, his wife and his seven kids to another country, another continent. There, he personally looked after his wife and seven kids. As a volunteer firefighter he personally saved lives. He personally did good. And NEVER once did he ask for handouts. Not before the war during the depression, and not after the war as the world got back on its feet, while he was a stranger in a strange land. Joe personally did a whole heck of a lot of good. With his own two hands.

Joe didn't preach one thing while all appearances said otherwise. Joe didn't think himself above anyone else. And if people tried to put him on a pedestal, he quickly sorted them out. Joe had no airs and graces about him. He didn't ask people to kiss his ring. He paid his way.

When Joe died, a few friends and family attended his funeral. This man of good deeds who raised seven kids and was "hands on" his entire life.

Unlike the pope. A man who personally did no good works and who has been a leech on others for many years. Who lives in the lap of luxury. Professing one thing while living the other. Allowing people to kiss his ring in reverence.

For some reason I do not understand, people cry at his passing. They don't know the man. Never met him. Never even spoke with him. And yet are upset he is gone.

He is just a man, like any other man. But in my eyes, not worthy of the accolades bestowed upon him. Men like Joe are worthy of far more. For men like Joe personally added to the betterment of people. Personally saved lives.

Some will argue that the pope did this too, by his words. Well, I don't care about words. I care about deeds. Because deeds is what matters in the really real world. Deeds follow your words.

The Catholic church has child-molesting priests, and the pope doesn't condemn them, doesn't come out and publicly denounce their acts. He - and the entire Catholic system - is strangely quiet. Only making utterances when there is no way to avoid doing so.

Why is this man cried over? This man who gave a good talk (sometimes) but was short on the walk.

What values did he produce? I can't think of any.

Joe produced more values. He got a brief mention in the local paper when he and his wife celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. But half a country didn't want to see his dead and decaying body. Half a country didn't light candles for him. Half a country didn't weep at his passing. Nor should they have. Doing so would have been quite unproductive.

I look at the 80,000 odd people in the square in the Vatican, and can't help but think of the productive energy being squandered. Instead of wasting time in a square getting all teary over a value-leech (the king value-leech), those people could be spending the time producing values for the world.

How much did it cost to get to the square? $10? So that's $10 x 80,000 for a total of $800,000. That money could have been better spent elsewhere. Those 80,000 people would do a lot more good helping some unfortunate soles, then spending it in fake-sorry in a square somewhere in Italy. Being upset at the death of a man who said nothing while members of his team molested children around the globe.

Some might say I should show some respect for the man is dead. I ask WHY I should respect a man who sat idly by, while his team molested children - and while those molesting team members where ushered about the place to avoid trouble.

We think the Iranian's and others are a bit nutty going on like they do when some Ayatollah "carks it". I don't see any difference here. This is a bit more civil looking. But it is still the same... a bunch of podies getting all out of shape over some leech they don't know.

I don't believe in religions. And I don't believe in leaders of religions. I am anti-religion. And the sooner religion falls by the wayside, the better.

Bloody Do-Gooders

2005-04-04T19:25:00.000+10:00

The last few days has seen me extraordinarily busy. It always happens at the end of one month and the beginning of another. Such are the joys of running multiple businesses as well as publishing a paper and ink publication with a publishing date of the first Wednesday of the month - a couple of days away. So it could be said, there is no way I am bored. And I certainly wouldn't have any time to commit acts of vandalism.

Odd intro, isn't it?

Well consider this bit from my local paper...

Graffiti artists targeted Nerang businesses this month in what police are describing as a 'tagging rampage'.

Angry business owners believe the increase in graffiti attacks is due to poor police presence and bad parenting, while a local youth worker says the lack of social activities for bored youths is the real cause.

Well, there you have it, folks. Destroying other people's property is caused by being bored, according to that extremely out-of-touch-with-reality youth worker. What a dumb-ass thing to say.

If these kids are so bored, why are the attacks done some time during the night when no-one is around? Why aren't they at home with their parents? Why does the boredom drive them to destroy other people's property and not just graffiti their own fence or house or bedroom?

And the fact the little crims have bought cans of spray paint indicates premeditation. Meaning, they had planned, in advance, to graffiti someone else's property. A premeditated act cannot be considered one due to boredom due to a lack of social activities.

If they have enough money to buy cans of spray paint, surely they could anticipate their boredom and buy a pack of playing cards instead of paint cans. Maybe they could pool their money and buy a boardgame, or whatever.

When will the do-gooders realize (probably never) that you cannot keep blaming outside sources for criminal acts. Those who commit the acts are totally responsible for their own actions. It's about time blame is leveled where it should be... directly at those infringing upon people's property rights.

I'd say the attacks are due to poor parenting first and low police presence second. Because if the parenting had been good, then the police presence wouldn't be needed. Because bored or not, you just do not go around destroying other people's property for the heck of it.

I remember years ago, when the lefty do-gooders complained about a lack of activities for the bored delinquents near another placed I lived. The council response was to build an activity center for them. It had a gym, indoor basketball, badminton, do-gooder workers, a skateboard area. The lot. Within one month after being built, those "bored" bastards had burnt it down to the ground - just like they tried to burn the local shopping center every few weeks.

So if the myriad of social activities provided by that community activity center weren't enough to stop the criminals being bored, then what activities will stop them being bored?

The answer, of course, is none. That's because "being bored" is not a cause of criminal activity. Total disrespect for other people's property, which is due to bad parenting, is the cause. And the thing is, you can't even correct the behavior because punishment is non-existent.

We all learn by a feedback loop. We do something, analyze the feedback, and determine whether we can do that thing again. If we don't like the feedback, we make adjustments.

So with these crims, they do some graffiti, get no punishment as feedback, and realize they cannot be touched by the law and so do it some more. And even if they are caught, nothing will happen to them. After a few times of this, the activity is cemented into their brains. So even if they get punished later on, they keep doing the crimes because they get away with it more than get caught.

So the Youth Worker reckons more social activities are needed. Even a designated Graffiti Workshop. Well, if THEY want this so much, let THEM run it out of their house and using their own funds. After all, if they are so damn passionate about it, let them fund it and run it. Let them organize social activities.

Of course, we all know that just ain't ever gonna happen. There is no way a youth worker would have these criminals over to their house, to run graffiti workshops using their own fence as the canvas - painting over it the next day. No. What they are about is taking our money - via the govt via tax - to fund their good works, and their income of course. Pure leftism in action.

Having said this, is there a solution?

Sure there is. First, we need to instill property rights into children. This will never happen at school because the kids would quickly learn the govt is the biggest infringer of property rights there is.

Second, we need to abolish welfare. Let people make their own way in the world and take responsibility for themselves. Because welfare teaches a leaching-off-society mentality. This will also never happen as the do-gooder groups will be outraged. And politicians need the votes.

Third, then, is to separate the welfare people - because it is children whose parents are on welfare who do these crimes. Instead of lumping them all together in one large welfare suburb like they currently do, have a welfare house here and there scattered throughout the city.

This makes sense. When employees can't get along, they are separated. When students in class are disruptive when seated together, they are separated.

But spreading the welfare people thinly throughout the city, they will find it harder to amass and bring down entire areas. Of course, it just might be spreading the crime around more. And they might form single dwelling ghettos in individual streets - which would bring down the value of the surrounding homes.

Ideally, I'd remove from the parents, any child born while on welfare. If they are too irresponsible to prevent having a child without any means of supporting that child, they are not responsible enough to raise that child.

To me, if you are a self-sustaining individual, then you can have a child. Otherwise, don't expect us to support your child having.

Within one generation, much of the problem will be wiped out. Sure it doesn't sit well with the libby do-gooders. But to hell with them. They are the same ones who think damaging other people's property is the result of boredom - no matter how premeditated that crime is.

Another alternative, which would also bring down the ire of the lefties, is temporary sterilization for while on welfare. When you go off welfare and are gainfully employed for at least 12 months, then you can have the sterilization reversed.

These are drastic solutions, I admit. And they do go against my belief we are all free to do what we will. But as I don't want to be supporting someone else's children - as is the case with the current welfare system - then I see this as a viable option. Specially if the govt wants to continue to offer welfare to unemployed parents.

Another thing with the graffiti is this, all graffiti should be cleaned up the same day it is discovered. The longer it is left in sight, the more graffiti it attracts. It's like rubbish. Leave rubbish on the ground and people will be more inclined to drop their rubbish on the ground.

When an areas is clear of graffiti, it might seem like an ideal area for the taggers to hit. However, they will be a little more reluctant as they may get caught. Whereas, a graffiti laden area is a sign it is ok to do graffiti here.

This concept touches a bit on Gladwell's Tipping Point. Where he proposes that crime is like an infection. Reduce it to below a certain level and it seems to clear up all by itself. And evidence shows he is right. And evidence shows it often starts with cleaning up graffiti. When graffiti is cleaned up and an effort is made to prevent it and clean up any signs of it, other crimes in the area drop as a matter of course. As if the Crime Infection ceases to spread at a rate which overwhelms the system. (You can read a little about the book at http://www.gladwell.com/tippingpoint/.)

Unfortunately, the state of affairs will only get worse before it gets better. Because there are rewards for letting it get worse.

The police can claim they are understaffed - notice that claiming to be understaffed is different to saying "we aren't utilizing our staff correctly."

The govt can form ever more depts and employ more do-gooders. And as long as the do-gooders have a job in trying to prevent the graffiti, they are happy.

If the graffiti problem was fixed, then the do-gooders would be out of free money. The police would lose an argument for more police (which would only be used in booking people for stupid things like no wearing seatbelts, even if they did have more police).

As long as there is a problem, more money can be sucked out of us for solution providing - which, of course, won't solve anything. This is the nature of govt and leftism.

Who Cares?

2005-03-31T20:44:00.000+10:00

The news is almost always pointless. Instead of "telling me fast and telling me true, or else to hell with you." Or telling me about things that actually effect me. They waffle on. Extending a story to death without any actual change in the story. News "updates" after the main news are really news repeats. Repeats of society gossip.

There was an earthquake. X number of people die. Fine. Next. But no. We got to hear from someone who ran across some Australians who were in the area when the earthquake happened. I say, Who Cares?

Hillary Swank was fined $200NZ for trying to bring fruit into New Zealand. I say, Who Cares?

Some security guard somewhere brings in a porno video to watch at work when he does the graveyard shift stuck in a small security office. I say, Who Cares? And, would you have made a fuss if it had been a book brought in to read? And even if a fuss was made of bringing in a book to read, I still say, Who Cares?

Patrick Rafter, former world champion tennis player, was at a fashion show recently. I say, Who Cares?

The "Easter Holiday Road Toll" (which doesn't actually see an increase in the rate of deaths on the road as research has discovered - same applies to all holidays) is the highest in ten years. I say, Who Cares?

The temperature in Moscow today is 10 degrees. I say, Who Cares? It's not like I am there, or can even get there to experience Moscow's weather today, or even tomorrow for that matter, because the flight takes so long.

A house in Such-And-Such suburb burnt down because someone put a bar heater next to a curtain. I say, Who Cares?

A family is relieved to hear their son wasn't killed by the tsunami, and wasn't even in any country effected by the tsunami at the time, and was trekking high on a hill top somewhere thousands of miles away. I say, Who Cares?

A puppet show theater's storage room was flooded and insurance doesn't want to pay, but looks like it will anyway. No-one in town new the puppet show theater even existed except for a few parents and their children. I say, Who Cares?

It's like the TV News people think I care about a bunch of inane stuff. As if my life wouldn't be complete without me knowing about stuff that has nothing to do with anyone other than the person it happened to. And even then, it is no big deal.

It's like the regular story (at least every six months) of some kid getting his finger caught in the sink at daycare. Like I care. Like I need to know. Who decides that this drivel is newsworthy? Is the world so devoid of events that might actually have an impact on me, that I need to know that some five year old, who I don't know, got a finger caught in the sink somewhere?

Now let me let you in on something. Come closer. This is important. [Look left and right to make sure no-one else is listening in.] The TV News gets their story ideas from the newspapers. Very rarely does the TV news report something before it hits the newspapers.

When you think about it, there is very little news that actually matters. Most of it is just blah. The kind of stuff you can say, "Who Cares" about and your life won't change one jot.

Freedom of Speech? We Used To Have That When I Was A Boy

2005-03-27T07:16:00.000+10:00

Freedom of speech carries with it a burden... to allow others to express their freedom of speech even if what they say disagrees with you, and even if you find their speech repulsive.

Unfortunately, the left are at the forefront of removing our freedom of speech.

See. If there is something they disgree with, they say you are being racist, sexist, a bigot, or are guilty of "hate speech". Even if you say it in a calm and rational way.

However. When they go right off the edge. Ranting. Raving. Cursing. Screaming - as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have been known to do, even going red in the face while doing it - then that isn't hate speech. They are exercising their right to free speech.

If you say, "The problems encountered in black getto areas are due to a lack of parental supervision and control of their young. And how they are not taught any responsibility by their parents." Then you will be crucified by the left. In their eyes, you will be the most vile of vile humans that ever walked the planet. You will be abused no end. Accused of not only being a racist, but a white supremacist Nazi.

It won't matter if what you say it true. Your calm statement will be called hate speech and met with the most insane ranting you could hear. While those insane rantings will be called freedom of speech.

If the left say, "The problem is that all the white male CEOs are sponging off of the effort of the blacks and causing them to talk drugs and lead lives of violence. Capitalism is the scourge of the planet, and all those who are for it should be taken out back and beaten up." Then that is ok, even if there is not one single shred of evidence of proof to back it up. If you object to their false statements and encouragement of your beating up, you will be accused of infringing upon their right to free speech.

And so in light of this, is a story that Google News, the news search engine run by Google, will ban "Hate News" from its news service.

The first questions asked then are, what is "hate news"? and how does one know who is banned? and who determines this "hate news"?

For Google News, at the moment the first site is National Vanguard (who are affiliated with the National Alliance, the leading organization for people of European descent around the world). You can read an article on Free Speech on their website There is No Freedom Without Free Speech as well as An Open Letter to Google.

And on the surface, Google's move can seem rather hypocritical. As other news feeds which say some very horrid things are left in their news matrix, while National Vanguard is removed. And we can jump up and down about it. And cry foul. And say how it's just another nail in the coffin of free speech. And no-one was forcing anyone to read the National Vanguard articles, because you actually had to search for that kind of stuff to find it on Google News in the first place. And all of these comments will be correct.

However. Those who complain about what Google has done are forgetting one very important point... Google is a private company. Which is to say, it is NOT a public govt enterprise. As such, Google, and only Google, has the right to determine what does and does not get into their news matix.

Here's my point using a different business besides Google. Imagine a news-agent. The owner of the news-agency has the final decision about which magazines are, or are not, sold there. No-one else can force that business owner to sell certain magazines. If that business owner does now want to sell magazines to do with Kit Planes or other forms of Experimental Aircraft or Ultra-Light Airecraft, then that is his choice. And I doubt many of us would accuse him of censorship.

If that business owner does not want to sell any "girly" magazines for men to oggle over naked and nearly naked women, then that is his choice. He isn't trying to ban the publication of those magazines. He is deciding his business doesn't want to have anything to do with them.

This is what I see Google News doing. Deciding not to take the news feed from certain publications. And as a private business not owned by the govt, they have every right to do that. (That it defeats its purpose for existing is a different matter. That it diminishes its usefullness as a news source is also a different matter.)

The problem is created, however, the moment they do it while leaving other equally, but opposite, sites in their feed. And this problem comes about because the term "Hate Speech" or "Hate News" is not clearly defined. It is left up to interpretation.

If Google had simply said, "We will not longer be providing service from any source that advocates whites breeding with whites." then everyone would know where Google stands. We would all then see Google as the hypocrits they are, for banning the whites but allowing the Greeks, Italians, Blacks and so on, to talk about keeping their races pure and only breeding with others of the same race.

If Google had made this decision of its own violition, I am sure we would all understand. But if Google is bowing down to pressure from some lobby groups, THEN we really need to question Google. And even more so with regard to its news service.

With the news service, to find these supposedly offensive articles, you have to actively search for them. Meaning, those who do not want to read them would not search for them in the first place. And so would not even know they exist.

So it would appear that what you have here is the following: Someone went out of their way to search for something. When they found it and didn't like it, they complained about it. Complained about the very thing they searched for. Complained that it was there! And wanted it removed.

Now. Even though I applaud Google for making a decision to only index sites it feels fine with indexing (just like I only link to select sites). I boo them and give them two thumbs down if it came about as the result of complaints. And I question their decision based solely on the fact they became so large, in terms of useage, because they indexed everything to begin with.

(The solution, in my eyes, is the same as what was done with the porno websites. It used to be no matter what you searched for, a porno website came up. The search engines reconfigured their algorithms to stop that from happening. And now even give you the option to search with adult filter on or off. So I ask, why not do the same with these supposed hate news feeds?)

If Google continues on in this censoring way, then people will stop using their service. They will move to other search engines like Clutsy or AllTheWeb (from Overture) - both of which have fast loading interfaces free of junk, like Google's interface is free of junk.

In other words, while Google can exercise its right to accept or ban whatever sites it wishes, the MARKETPLACE which made Google can also break Google and COMPETITION will provide what people want. And quite possibly, at some point in the future, we will see more and more niche search engines emerge.

There are already search engines for the occult - AvatarSearch. And a search engine for business discussion boards was created - but this might be too narrow of an engine.

In short, the speed at which Google gained dominance - word of mouth - can also bring it down and create other dominant sites and search engines. And that's what's so good about the internet. The market rules out here. The market adapts to what people in the marketplace want.

Could this be the sounding of the Death Nell for Google News as a legitimate news source? Or will people take it in their stride just like they did when Ebay banned listings that "promote or glorify hatred, violence or racial intolerance, or items that promote organizations with such views (e.g. KKK, Nazis, neo-Nazis, Skinhead Aryan Nation)"? Only time will tell.

One thing is interesting though. Even though Google removed National Vanguard from its index, at least it still shows new stories which report on what it did, as you can see from this Google News search for "google national vanguard".

Oh. And if you want to tell Google what you think about their censoring, you can do so here.

Wasted Dead Days

2005-03-25T13:32:00.000+10:00

Today, as I write this, the entire country has shut down. It's "Easter Friday" you see. Easter being a Christian (achem) celebration. And so, we must all suffer - those of us who are of other faiths, those of us who are of no faith. All because some Christians want to celebrate a bastardised date.

Businesses are all closed. So my business cannot serve the business clients it has.

Employees are enjoying their "paid day off" (something us business owners do not get) and aren't conducting business. They are "out" for the day - BBQs, Beach, Picnics, etc.

So that means that days like today are wasted and dead days. An entire economy shut down for the sake of the belief of a few of its citizens - to hell with the rest of us.

Sure there are some businesses open. Namely, petrol stations - so the employees can tank up on their trips to the beach, or wherever they go.

But if you want stuff from the supermarket, you are shit out of luck. Want to "eat out" in a restaurant? Sorry.

So not only do all business fail to generate revenue on such days, they are FORCED to pay their staff for the day off. A day which is also FORCED upon them by the govt. And if a business does want to open for business - not that there will be anyone walking about to give that business any business - then they have to pay their staff quadruple rates - cheaper to close for the day and pay staff for not being at work.

We are supposed to live in a FREE country. But it is obvious, that this freedom means, "free as long as it is what we, the govt, say is free."

Onward.

Just got a knock on the door from some child abusers. Oh. They call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. I call them Child Abusers because they drag their young children around the streets with them while they bible bash every person they come into contact with. They force their religion down the throats of their children - removing the child's freedom of choice to be involved in the religion or not. They deprive the child of its own journey of discovery. Force the child to come face to face with strangers and talk about points a child has no reasoning ability to comprehend, let alone talk about. THAT is child abuse, to me.

They didn't come right out and tell me who they were either. She, the mother, started prattling on about wanting to talk to me for a moment and blah blah blah. I asked her to get to the point. While she prattled on some more about nothing, she removed a booklet thing from her carry-folder. I looked at her child, the husband then appeared with their other child, I asked if they were the Watchtower people, to which they responded in the positive. I told them I have all their stuff (which I do... their bible, their red and blue books) and bid them a day. They didn't argue and quickly left. To drag their kids to the nextdoor neighbor's house to preach their beliefs some more, and brainwash their children all the while.

Organized religion (which is what all religions are) is EVIL. While one version sees the entire country close down and money be drained from the entrepreneurs of the nation, another abuses their children.

Millions of people have been killed because of organized religion. Even today, people are being killed in the name of religion. Islamic terrorists... killing in the name of Allah... leave bombs behind to blow people up, and even kill themselves by strapping bombs to their own bodies. And teaching their children the same thing. As Pascal said... "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

I don't care what religion you are - Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Scientologist, Raelian, whatever. Just do NOT force it on to me. Forcing my business to close down due to your religious beliefs is forcing it onto me. Knocking at my door to preach your religion is forcing it onto me. And it is all done thanks to religion.

If religion was free form, we would see philosophies merge and grow. Instead, we see some person manipulate the faithful by controlling the religion and then using those people as a source of free labor and finances - which create an even bigger power base for those in control. Something that would be impossible if religion was free form. (If religion was free form, there would actually be no religion... just various theories that would merge over time and possibly grow to become larger more accurate concepts.)

I used to think religion was ok, in moderation. I now think otherwise. Religion is the scourge of the planet. It infects people like a virus, destroying their free will and destroying their ability to think and reason. As my wife often says, "I am anti-religion."

Religion is nonsense. And it's dangerous believing in nonsense.

As Nature Intended?

2005-03-24T13:53:00.000+10:00

At the moment, there is a lot of debate on whether removing the feeding tube that keeps Terri Schiavo alive, is the right thing to do, or not. With much of the argument being based on what makes someone feel good about it - though they call it a "moral" issue. (Whenever situations require us to look at a part of ourselves without emotion, and we don't like what we see by way of answer, we ignore the answer and call it a moral issue.)

What do I mean by this? Simply that, much of the argument to keep her alive is based on how the person wanting her to live feels about it. THEY feel better if she is alive, so want to keep her alive.

Oh sure, they then argue she is making improvement, or that she responds to people she knows. As if that proves she has some cognitive ability and that she just lacks the ability to communicate what is on her mind. But their motivation behind saying those things is how it makes them feel. And they feel better if other people think well of them. So they want her to live in the state she is in, for their own reasons, and merely dress it up as if they are doing it for her.

Same goes for her husband - and those who would see her feeding tube removed. The hubby wants to get on with his life and he cannot while she is still living in limbo. It doesn't matter if he has found himself another woman or not. From his point of view, as long as she is being kept alive, he is tied down.

Ok. Having said that - and I will come to a conclusion that I am sure both sides would be in agreement with - let me say a few things you might not like...

Remove the tube and let her perish. Because... she has NO ABILITY to sustain herself in any way. And self-sustaining is a thing we all have inherent in us. Even a baby knows how to suckle. And they gradually learn the "food in mouth, then swallow" thing. But Terri doesn't even have that.

You cannot leave an apple on her table for her to pick up and eat. You cannot feed her like you would feed a baby, where she chews and swallows. She has to be feed with a tube directly into her stomach because she has no ability to consume food in any other way.

In nature, such an animal would perish. It is no different here, as far as I see it. After all, we are still animals.

She has zero cognitive ability. If she only had a physical disability, she could still be a value-producing member of society (like Stephen Hawkings or Christopher Reeve). If all she could do was control her ability to blink, then a set of glasses could be placed on her head which read where her eyes are looking. A large keyboard could be placed in front of her, and she could communicate by looking at letters and blinking to select the letters she wants. In that way, not only could she communicate, she could also create values for others - be that of her written thoughts, or books to enjoy and read. But as it is, she doesn't have any such ability. At this moment, she isn't even living on "lower brain" functions which take care of the absolute basics - like eating - let alone a "higher brain" function like communication. Her current condition is no more than that of a bunch of living cells which is in the shape of the animal we know as human. But all traces of humanity - the stuff that makes us different from a bunch of cells in a human shape - are NOT present.

Such a person is a drain on the herd. And should be allowed to perish, as nature would have had it before our evolved sensibilities called it a "moral issue".

Imagine a small tribe of people. All producing values for each other and the tribe. Now one of them becomes like Terri. She will quickly be left to die.

Imagine where such people are not left to nature's laws of life - where self-sustaining is the ultimate ability, without which you perish. How many such people do we say enough is enough. 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? At what point do we say these people are a drain on our society and if we keep it up we will be sacrificing our own survival and values for no gain, so let's pull the plug?

For those who would want to keep her alive, I need to remind you I am talking about Terri and her situation. Not some hypothetical situation you make up which is not Terri's situation. So don't bother trying to come back at me with anything that is not Terri's situation. And Terri's situation is a total lack of the inherent ability to keep one's-self alive with even auto-response actions like swallowing - and - zero cognitive function while being awake. And being in such a state for a pro-longed period without any significant signs of a change in condition.

Some would argue, "do you think she would want you to unplug her, if you asked her and she could answer?" To which I say, "No." Then again, if she could actually understand such a question and answer it, the question wouldn't be asked in the first place. So it is a silly argument to use and is a question to divert the obviousness of the truth - that she is in a state that would see her perish in the wild, that any other animal would such perish, and to think that way upsets us.

Some would say, "Don't you want people in comas to live?" To which I reply "yes... BUT... Terri is NOT in a coma and people in comas are not in Terri's condition." As I said, this is about Terri and her condition and NOT hypothetical situations or situations which are not Terri's situation.

Anyway. I realize my position (to let her perish) doesn't bode well with some people. It upsets their sensibilities. And so I offer this solution...

Freeze her until science has discovered a way for her to be fixed up. And let those who want her to be saved, fund it all.

This not only serves the purpose - giving her the capacity to be fixed up at some point in time - it is also humane from her point of view. As it does not subject her to a needless vegetative state of being alive without existing, while her cells age and become less likely to be able to be fixed. If she is frozen, her cells will stay in their current young state, which is better for her if/when a solution to her problem is discovered. And she could be fixed as a young woman and not an old one who is about to die of old age anyway. And let those who want to "save" her set up a "Save Terri Schiavo" fund where those who want to do so, can give money to help her. (Let them put their own money where their mouth is.)

But before such people set up a fund, I would ask them "why just Terri?" Aren't there many other people in all kinds of situations who could do with a fund being set up to help them? Why ignore them and not Terri? Could the answer be because it is only Terri's situation you find upsetting and not the others, and so to make you feel better you want to help Terri? Could it be due to the media? The more they show of Terri the more the podies want to get on the "save Terri" bandwagon and earn themselves a good-guy badge? Would a black girl in the middle of Africa be getting the same level of support from these people as Terri is getting? Why do I seem to be the only one suggesting to freeze her? Could it be the others want to keep her awake for their own selfish reasons as I outlined - it makes them feel better?

Sure these questions are hard to answer. That's because they make us look at aspects of ourselves we might not like. They make us maybe admit things we don't think we should. So we discard such questions, call it a moral issue, and argue from there.

Saddam's Gift To Australia

2005-03-21T21:11:00.000+10:00

It is reported that in Saddam's Iraq was a building which housed information on Iraq's citizens. A dossier depository, if you will. Where a govt authority could look up information on each and every citizen at will. To find out when and where they were born, who they were married to, where they worked, how many jobs they had had, how many dwellings they had lived in, and so on.

We, in the civilized world, find such a place appalling. It reminds us of Stalin's USSR, or gives us Nazi (Nationalist Socialist) nightmares. And for those of us who have read the book, brings George Orwell's 1984 to mind.

But in Saddam's Iraq we have a working example... and an accessible one at that, now that the war ousted him from power.

Now, some two years after the war began, the Australian govt is looking to compile similar dossiers on each of its citizens. The govt body known as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has proposed linking records to individual names and addresses in future census surveys (thanks to Patrick Hawke for bringing this to my attention).

What this means is, a govt official will be able to type in your name and see all the addresses you have lived at, how often you move, complete details about your family, how much money you make, everything.

Granted, a govt official could find out all this information anyway. By cross referencing electoral roll information with motor vehicle records, tax records and so on. But it would take time and effort - something govt employees really don't like spending.

What I find interesting is how the leftist opposition party has said nothing about this. And how the left-leaning TV media have also kept quiet about it.

This is, perhaps, the greatest threat to our civil liberties this country has had to face - amongst such threats as the national ID card known as The Australia Card, which was discarded due to public outcry. But there is silence about it. Instead, we get news of what Kerry Nettle (Greens senator) thinks of the Iraq war. Seems she is against infringing upon the rights of Iraqi citizens but compiling dossiers on each and every Australian citizen is ok with her.

The fact ALL political parties are remaining quiet about this tells me they condone it!

Of course, if such a proposal goes ahead, and isn't just a test proposal to see how the public react to it, then I foresee a lot of misleading information being submitted in future census surveys. Even though there is a threat of a fine for providing misleading information.

Some people will give false names. Others will say they were at a friend's house on the night of the census survey and all their information is on the friend's form. Incomes will be under-estimated. Religions will be made up. And so on.

And what would have seen Joe Bloggs, the bricky's labor assistant, be honest, will see him put his name down as Zaphod Beeblebrox who earns $12,000 a year and whose religion is Jedi (like the 300,000 or so Britons who said they were Jedi in their last census) and with an occupation of Jibble Inspector.

Last census, some people were forced to fill out additional information after the census had been conducted. I was unfortunate enough to be one of those who was forced to fill in the form. When I told them I didn't want to I was informed I would be fined something like $100 a day if I didn't. So I reluctantly filled it in.

Even then, the census collector wanted additional information "about one of the people" at that address. I told them they had moved away and I don't know where they are. And never heard any more of it.

As someone who has been targeted as a person to fill out the extra forms, I wonder if I will also be targeted next time as well. All I know is, I considered it a gross violation of my privacy.

This new proposal is even worse. For the data would stay with you from birth until death.

Anyway. I called my Federal Member for Parliament to voice my objection to the proposal. I was told the proposal had been knocked on the head. When I asked WHEN, I was told, as soon as it had been proposed. I have asked for WHERE I can see that it has been knocked on the head and am awaiting a return call to let me know where I can view the apparent head knocking. I will update this entry when I find out more.

Gold Just Ain't Worth The Tools Used To Dig It Up

2005-03-20T18:57:00.000+10:00

There is somewhat of a gold-fixation amongst survivalists. Many acquire gold - in the form of coins - in case the economy collapses. They believe that having the gold will enable them to buy goods. I have a different take. A take that hints that gold's value after a collapse will be worse than useless. And not even worth the value of the tools used to dig it up.

If you have a gold coin, take it to the bank and ask them to give you cash for it. After you get a "no" take it to another bank. And then another. And all the banks in town. You'll still have your gold coin at the end of the day.

Next day, walk into a store and ask to buy something with that coin. In all stores you'll be told "no". And if you do happen to find a store willing to do a deal, it is only because the salesman might have a bit of cash in his pocket which he will put in the register - effectively buying you the product with his cash, in exchange for you giving him your gold coin. He will then try to sell the coin and make a bit of money. And the reality is, you won't get anywhere near the real value of that coin.

Take your coin to a coin dealer. He'll probably tell you to come back in a week after he has had it fully checked out.

Now seeing as a collapse is something that happens fast, the above should be a clear indication that holding onto gold coins is not a quick way to survive an economic collapse. And certainly not a way to get a wad of cash, or consumer goods, quick.

So what WOULD be worth something in an economic collapse?

Consumer goods and tools with a function. Shovels and spades. Cookware. Needles and threads. Shoes. Axes. Headache tablets. Etc. Because all these items can be exchanged/bartered for other items.

If someone approached you with a gold coin and asked to swap it for your cooking pots, you'd tell him to get stuffed. But if he offered a pair of shoes for a pot or two, then you might actually go ahead with it.

And what this means is, in a collapse, gold coins would actually be a burden. And the effort to carry them around will prevent you from carrying around other items more able to be traded. So gold coins are worse than useless.

You'd be better off buying surplus consumer goods to hold onto in case of a collapse instead of gold.

The "Conspiracy Theory" Conspiracy

2005-03-18T21:50:00.000+10:00

There is nothing like a good conspiracy theory. What makes a good one is a total lack of any evidence - BUT also - conclusions drawn which, on the surface, seem not to be able to be refuted. And certainly not able to be refuted by the average reader.

One of the most in-depth ones I read went something like this, "The Jews wanted something from the U.S. and the U.S. wasn't playing ball. So after a few threats and still no cigar, the Jews had their lapdogs crash two planes into The World Trade Center towers. Not only did this prove to the U.S. govt that they meant business, it also destroyed the evidence the CIA had against the Jews - as the evidence was housed in the building - and destroyed the gold reserves of a few nations which were also being housed in the towers. This was also a signal to those other nations that the Jews could get at their stuff no matter where it was."

The theory also goes on that the attack was due to the U.S. about to let Palestine be its own nation and the Jews didn't want that. That Osama bin Laden is on the payroll of the CIA. That Kennedy was killed as a warning to those who might resist Israel's wishes and yadda yadda yadda.

It is quite detailed and can be read here: The World Trade Center Bombings.

If you read it, pay VERY close attention to the use of factual sentences without anything to back them up. Such as this example...

"There are certain neighborhoods in Israel where a Palestinian cannot be issued a building permit, nor have the opportunity to buy or rent a home."

At first, this may sound like a very bad thing that Israel is doing - denying someone the ability to buy or build a home. But let me point out, before you join the ranks of the mindless socialists who want to champion the cause of the Palestinians, that the very same thing could be said of your country. Which is to say, there are certain neighborhoods where you (or a foreign person who is not a citizen of your country - even if they are a Palestinian) cannot be issued a building permit or have the opportunity to buy or build a home.

For instance, Industrial estates. No matter what your nationality is, you will not be issued a building permit, nor be allowed to buy or build a home. Because homes are considered residential and not industrial. See how misleading something can be when taken out of context.

Also when/if you read that piece, as it starts by asking "Who benefits" of the WTC bombings, ask "Who benefits" by writing such a piece.

Onward.

Then, of course, we have the New World Order conspiracy. Where everything is a plot by the hidden power brokers to control the world for their own benefit. THEY are the ones behind the WTC bombings so THEY could instigate wider controls which infringe upon our property rights. THEY are the ones who decide who wins the elections and who does not. THEY control the money flow and monetary policy. Some call them Illuminati, others hint at the Bilderbergers, Rockerfellas, Rothschilds, Skull and Bones, Tri-lateralists, and so on.

Let's imagine, for a moment, they did "control" the whole world. They would control nearly one billion peasants in India, about the same in China, and about the same in Africa. Of course, trying to actually control such a large number of people would be near on impossible at the best of times, let alone when they are peasants, raging savages and/or other forms of dullards who only know how to breed. The U.S. has a hard enough time with its own leeches on society without wanting to take on the role of looking after more of them.

And also consider this point... as the super rich and powerful people that they are, they want for nothing. Which is to say, if they want cleaning done, they pay someone to do it out of the money that streams into their hands every day. They make money faster than they can spend it. IF they "controlled" everything, they would then be adding a whole bunch of responsibility to their load and not gaining anything other than what they already have right now.

Sorry. A conspiracy of a small cabal of people who want to control the world, doesn't make sense no matter which way you look at it.

And besides, considering that this conspiracy is out in the open, it would be a pretty silly hidden power broker to go ahead with it, wouldn't it? I mean, if someone was publishing for all the world to see, all about your plans to rob a bank, for example sake, it would be daft of you to then rob the bank, yes?

So how are all their actions explained?

Simply like this: People will do what matters to THEM and THEIR property. These rich people have different businesses than the rest of us. If something would effect their business in a bad way, they take action to prevent that. The results of that action may or may not effect us. When they do effect us, the conspiracy crowd write about it.

Take the Savings and Loan crash of the 1980s. IF - and this is just conjecture as I do not know the American system - banks were required to keep X% of the deposits in the Federal Reserve, but Savings and Loans were not, then as more and more people started using Savings and Loans, the Fed would begin losing money. As the Fed is a private enterprise business, they would see their cash cow drying up. To prevent what is happening to THEIR business, they influence the govt to pass laws that effectively collapse the Savings and Loans across the country. All business thus goes back to the banks. And as the banks have to keep X% of their deposits with the Fed, the increased bank business means more money in the Fed. Those who run the Fed are too rich to give a stuff about you, or trying to control you. They can already buy whatever they want in the world. Having to be your minder is the last thing they want.

Another conspiracy is that govt wants to control us all like in the book 1984.

Ok. I admit to making reference to us heading that way. And we are. One step at a time. But one thing I will not do is say it is one giant conspiracy from the govt to enslave us.

The lying bastards do not sit around in clandestine meetings plotting how to enslave us. All they are concerned with is feathering their own nest. That it is done at our expense is a secondary consideration.

And the only way to feather their own nest is to tax us and take a cut of that tax. And to make sure we pay up, they pass laws. And to enforce those laws they need police, which need to be funded. So more laws are passed that enables the police to raise revenues. And on and on. All of it with the end result that the lying bastards live fat off the hog. They are like leeches we cannot get rid of.

And to ensure they stay in power, they pander to whatever whim the people have. If people are scared of something, the lying bastards will promise to fix it. Once elected they won't fix it.. but fixing it was never the goal... getting elected was the goal. And the goal was accomplished.

Sometimes they need to create new laws. But those laws usually have a way of fattening their wallets at our expense.

All liberals of wealth are so far left it isn't funny. They detest the ability of someone else to reach their level - it would mean more competition. So, sticking with what I just said about caring for themselves, to keep the competition away they want increased taxes and whatnot. Making it harder for others to reach their level of wealth and compete. And thus, their position is protected.

Also, all politicians serve only one function... to get re-elected. And will do anything to maintain their elected position. If that means bowing down to the wishes of a noisy lobby group, then they will do it. As most noisy lobby groups are leftist, and leftism is about control and infringing upon the property rights of people, then that is what happens when the politicians take action to silence the lobby group.

Politicians don't have time to examine the truth of the claims those groups make. If they did, we would not have fluoride in our water or have joined the Kyoto push to stem global warming - because global warming isn't happening as claimed.

Next is the conspiracy that the govt is going to take all our guns. Something I have written about a few times - as in, it is the little steps that will lead to civilians having no guns; and gun removal paves the way for rampant crime against the unarmed citizens. But while I write about the results of too much gun control, I wouldn't go so far as to say there is a secret plot being hatched by our leaders to take our guns away. Our leaders are just covering their own butt... bowing down to the loudest lobby group so it looks like they are doing something, while not totally pissing off the other side.

Imagine what would happen if they truly wanted to grab all the guns. People would either bury them in oil soaked sacks inside PVC pipes to protect them from the damp conditions. Or, they would think "Heck, they want to round us all up" or something like that, and then attack the govt, with a civil war ensuing.

Neither option sees the lying bastards feathering their nest very well, or being re-elected. So it just ain't gonna happen. But those who do benefit from the cries of gun conspiracy are the gun sellers and manufacturers - as people rush out to buy guns in case they are banned or something.

This is what happened when Australia had the forced gun buy-back. Those forced to hand in firearms that, up until that moment in time, had been legal, then went out and bought other guns to replace the ones they had to hand back. And not only that, they bought additional guns. Just like people buy up big when there is a sale for fear of missing out, the gun owners bought more guns in case there was going to be some kind of ban on importing guns or whatever.

Another conspiracy is that the U.S.A. controls the world. All I will say on this one is, maybe someone should tell that to North Korea, France, Germany, Russia, China, Belgium, and so on. They obviously need to be re-educated that the U.S.A. controls the world and shouldn't go against what the U.S. says or wants.

Anyway. As you look at most conspiracies, what you actually see are people who care only about themselves, trying to get by or maintain their position. That their actions sometimes effect us in negative ways is of no concern to them. That you can look back at events and see what appears to be a plan, is pure coincidence - as you would see the same plan-like occurrence when looking back at events in your own life.

Now let me leave you with this thought... what if the conspiracies were true? What if a secret cabal really was planning to control the world by first getting rid of guns and whatnot? Obviously, it would be in their interest to have a list of people who could stand to oppose them. And such a list would be easily generated by simply creating a conspiracy website and selling conspiracy books. Then, when the secret cabal was ready, it would be a relatively easy matter of rounding up all those who knew of the conspiracy and locking them up. Leaving the rest of us for easy pickings.

Why We Can NEVER Stop Terrorists

2005-03-16T06:06:00.000+10:00

Regular readers will know of my disdain for the "War on Terror" (WOT) and how I think it is being used as an excuse to take away our freedoms and instigate additional controls upon us.

In this entry, I'd like to give my reasoning for WHY all the measures the government is taking to "protect" us, are a complete and utter waste of time, effort and money and won't stop any terrorist act at all.

First, the WOT is targeting an action. Terrorism is an action, like running or walking is. So to understand the futility of what the govt is doing, call it a War on Running, or a War on Walking. See how stupid it is? You cannot have a War on a military strategy. It's as silly as calling it a War on Bombing or a War on Shooting.

Anyway. Let's have a good ol' look at how the terrorists are carrying out their dirty deeds...

With semi-improvised weaponry. Home-made bombs. Box cutters. In short, pretty low tech stuff. Stuff available to any civilian.

And yet, the govt launches a high-tech assault. Digital mug-shots and fingerprinting upon entering the U.S. Linked databases (like any good dictator would have - funny how we cringed at Saddam's stockpile of info of Iraq's citizens but think nothing of it when the U.S. does it). Computers trying to figure out if an audio message has a hidden trigger in it. And a whole bunch of stuff.

On the surface, this seems insane, doesn't it? Using the super high-tech to fight terrorists who use improvised weapons and tools and equipment which is readily available in any hardware store or supermarket. But to truly understand why they launch a high-tech assault you need to know how they think.

My contacts in the military tell me that they are taught, "to never under-estimate the enemy. If you have a certain type of weapon, ALWAYS assume the enemy has the same or better."

So the govt has all this high-tech gear and they are thinking, "the enemy also has this high-tech gear or even better." And once they think that way, their high-tech assault is the result.

They target banking, making it ever harder to open accounts and whatnot. Supposedly, to help stop the flow of money into the terrorist's hands. But the terrorists aren't doing any illegal banking. It draws too much attention. They do all their banking above board. And they conduct business in CASH. Which is to say... they take cash out of the bank and then spend that cash, leaving no paper trail behind so other people can't see what they spent money on - just like we ALL used to do years ago. (And many still do because each time you use your debit card your wear a transaction fee from the bank. Easier to withdraw a bunch of cash to see you through until next pay day.)

Restricting my banking activities, or passing laws that require banks to file reports with the govt for any transactions that fit a certain guideline, will not have any effect on what a terrorist does or doesn't do. But it sure effects the honest people who are now more exposed to the ever watching gaze of big brother.

The govt wants wider hold and search powers. Powers that see them NOT need a warrant to enter your property. And yet, if there is evidence to suggest you might be up to no good, then a judge will grant that warrant. So how this now warrantless search helps law enforcement to a greater extent is not said. We are just told it will help fight the WOT better.

But such laws are "police state" laws. Where the cops can just up and enter your sanctuary and search through it. We were outraged at those kinds of goings on in Nazi Germany, but don't seem too upset when those laws are to be brought to our society.

If you object the reply is, "Don't you want to prevent a terrorist attack". To which I would say, "Yes. But this doesn't prevent a terrorist attack. And to say warrantless searches and unlimited powers of entry will prevent such an attack is an out and out lie without any basis in fact or proof of effectiveness."

Massive police presence at the slightest hint of some possible terrorist threat. Hmmm. Imagine it... terrorists threaten MacDonald's. The law floods into all MacDonald's eating places throughout the city. People can't stand the disruption and so go to Subway instead. All the while, some terrorist with a simple improvised weapon goes and blows up a Pizza Hut or Walmart - while the police resources have been diverted and distracted by threats at MacDonald's.

You cannot search and pat down every person who wants to board a train. So ANY terrorist who wants to blow one up, can. And there ain't a god damn thing the govt can do about it. And making it harder for me to get a bank account certainly isn't going to stop the terrorist from blowing up that train. Spending hours trying to analyze a crackly audio for possible trigger phrases, isn't going to prevent a terrorist from blowing up a train either.

And if it isn't a train, then driving a car into a fuel tanker would be pretty disruptive. As would driving a fourwheel drive into a school playground during lunch break... or driving it into a shopping center tossing Molotov cocktails out at the same time.

How else could a terrorist perform a terrorist act?

Well, if we assume they want to not be caught, then a delayed timing mechanism with some explosive material is the ideal. If you know how, these delayed timing mechanisms are NOT hard to create. And some can be made waterproof, until they go off. Which means, they could be dropped into a container of petroleum and explode the lot.

Imagine a 2 liter milk bottle filled with gasoline. Unscrew the lid, drop your delayed detonator in - which will give you about a minute to leave - then walk away. One minute later a fireball explosion.

Now imagine such a device being deployed in a major supermarket on a weekend. Possibly next to the chlorine or Cleaning chemicals and other flammable stuff like methylated spirits, kerosene, turps, etc.

Now imagine a dozen terrorists doing this in a dozen different locations throughout the city, at all the same time. They would escape in the confusion with ease, and all supermarkets would shut down for fear of other attacks.

There is just NO WAY to prevent such improvised weapons being used, by a person who wants to use them.

But the public cannot be told this. For it would undermine the faith they have in the govt to protect them. It would show the govt for what it is... incapable of protecting anything other than its own interests... and even that is by infringing upon the property rights of its own law-abiding citizens.

All the high-tech stuff in the world is useless against improvised weapons - such as ALL those the terrorists have been using to carry out all their deeds.

What about the World Trade Center, you ask? They used planes.

Um. No. They used box cutters to hijack planes. A box cutter is a fairly low-key weapon. No-one would have thought it possible to hijack a plane and fly it into a building by using a box cutter... until it happened that is.

And the result is, more high-tech "protection" employed to stop hijackings again. Reinforced cockpit doors. Passenger screening.

But we caught the shoe bomber? So? You caught one guy. How many have NOT been caught?

Even just a small baggie of gas then ignited on a plane in mid-flight would be enough to cause absolute mayhem. If five terrorists did it at the same time, it would be a nightmare on the aircraft. And such a small bag could easily be held in place under the arm. Because there is no metal, the metal detector will not sound. And the baggie wouldn't be found unless a full pat down took place. And again, you only need a couple to get through even if some get caught - because you can't pat down everyone who wants to get on an aircraft.

Thinking that terrorists can be stopped, is foolhardy. The govt can't even prevent crime - it can only respond to crimes already committed - in our towns and cities. How is it going to stop terrorists? The answer is, it canNOT. The terrorists have been thinking up a whole plethora of ways to stuff us up. More than I could ever think of in writing a few blog entries.

Knowing and accepting this means YOU can take your own precautions to keep yourself safe. And doing so anyway is a smart thing to do.

Private Militias - Oh The Hypocrisy

2005-03-14T20:26:00.000+10:00

A "militia" is like an independent army or fighting force. Usually their loyalty is not to a country, per se, but to something smaller - a local area, a person, small group of people, and so on. And in plain speak a militia is a bunch of civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army.

What makes them so effective is, if trouble starts they come together as a force and defend their area/person/whatever. Once the danger has passed, they go back about their day-to-day lives.

George Washington was a member of a militia. And I suppose you could think of them in a similar way to a volunteer fire brigade. But to protect not against fire, but those who want to take you over and control you.

Ideally, they would be on the local level. Which is your immediate community made up from a small group of suburbs. And possibly a city version - based on the coming together of the local militias.

Their role is to protect the citizens within their communities. If a riot broke out, the militia would come together and quell the riot. No outside interference needed.

Such an idea would be frowned upon by the govt. Because it would undermine their self-proclaimed authority and remove the need for a police force. And yet, there are militias the govt ignores, even accepts without question!

The most famous one of these is the Grenadier Guards who protect the Queen of England. They are loyal to her, have sworn an oath to her, and NOT the U.K. govt. So they are, in essence, the Queen's own private army.

Another example could be considered to be the private "security force" some of the wealthy employ. Those private "security force" groups are also left alone by the govt.

But there are militias the govt doesn't like. They are the militias who are opposed to the govt in question, or whom are protecting someone the govt doesn't like much.

The best example of this is Sadr's "militia" in Iraq. There was talk about such militias not being good, needing to be outlawed, etc. And I would expect nothing less of a govt who wants to control everything. Because a militia means a force that "might" need to be fought against if/when laws become too controlling.

And here we have the classic govt hypocrisy - the Queen's militia is ok because no-one is trying to control the Queen; whereas Sadr's militia is not ok because it interferes with the control trying to be imposed in the area.

I can hire my own private security force and the govt will be ok with is, as long as, they (the govt) aren't after me. At which point in time, my security force becomes illegal and something to be disbanded.

The govt will also leave me and my force alone as long as I don't try to remove the control of the govt. If I let them have their control, all will be fine.

Want to see it in real life. Just look at your city. As long as everyone bows down to the wishes of the local council, all is well. As soon as you discard your approval and try to remove yourself from their control, they will come after you. First it will be with words on paper. Words reminding you of their "authority". And if ignored long enough, they will confiscate your house - because they have some magical authority to do so, even though YOU NEVER GRANTED them this authority. If you resist, you may be forcibly removed by armed police. If YOU are armed, the police will create a "no go zone" around your property and the TV news will appear to film how the police are being held at bay. Maybe even SWAT will be brought in. And now you see the guns.

And this is just you, by yourself. If there are a bunch of you in a private militia, the feds will arrive. And it'll be another Waco - guns a blazing, people dying. And for what? Because you decided you didn't want to be controlled by the govt any more and withdrew your permission, and tried to withdraw totally - including the paying of land taxes. And you will be labeled a criminal. And the actions taken against you will be HARSH, so as to discourage others from doing it too.

This is why the govt really doesn't like militias - even though they truly are the best form of protection for a community - and a country, for that matter. If it wasn't for militias, the U.S.A. would not have won its War of Independence.

Personally, I'd like to see community militias that a person could join for a while, like a child can join the Scouts, or like a person can join the volunteer fire brigade.

Such volunteer groups would teach self-defense and self-reliance. What to do in a range of situations would be learned. And, as a result, the community would become safer. Not just because the citizens are willing to band together to fight off "bad apples" but because individually, each citizen is capable of defending themselves. The "bad apples" would think twice before trying anything in that community. For one, the person they attack might hurt them back. And for another, they may soon find themselves swarmed upon by other equally trained members of the community.

Such groups would also stop the govt getting too controlling, or flexing its muscle too much.

But ultimately, our view (meaning the community's view) of militias, which is closely linked to the govt's thanks to govt propaganda via the mass media, is that they are good when they "protect" things we like and are bad when they protect things we don't like. Where what we like and don't like are really what the govt does and doesn't like.

The govt likes the Queen and so tolerates her militia. The govt doesn't like Sadr and so thinks his militia is bad. Of course, if you were Sadr, you'd be thinking your militia was pretty good - just as the Queen would think should anyone want to attack her.

Militias aren't really a known thing in Australia. In fact, I am unaware of any that exist at all. But in the U.S., they seem to have survived from before the War of Independence. Unfortunately, the govt has done a pretty good job of making most people think of them as far right looney wack-jobs who run around in the bush shooting at anything that moves, not trusting anyone outside of their militia group, and people to be avoided at all costs (and while there are some militias that are like that, the entire concept of a militia is for protection only). Yet it is these very people who may one day prevent the govt from totally controlling the citizens when its fascist ideals turn dictatorial - as they eventually will as a consequence of the tyranny by vote (democracy) system we are forced to live under.

Here's a thought: The country of Swizterland is a militia - all the citizens, while not being an army, have been trained in soldiering and do keep guns at home. Wo the country that tried to invade Switzerland, they would be fighting a militia (armed force) millions strong!

Some reading this will think I am advocating the creation of a military force to go against the govt. I am NOT. What I am advocating is community-based protection. Like Neighborhood Watch where each member has been trained. That is all. And if something happens in the community which needs action to be taken, then action will be taken.

I suppose you could think of those White Knights that ride the trains keeping fights from breaking out. A community based security group. Where instead of hiring a private security company to keep an eye on things, the members of the community do it. It'd be like Neighborhood Watch on Steroids.

Pot Calling The Kettle Black

2005-03-13T07:38:00.000+10:00

To fluoridate the drinking water, or not. That seems to be the question of the moment being foistered onto my state's lying bastards.

Our state generally does not have fluoridated drinking water. One city does. But the rest of the state does not.

The dentists "claim" that our state has the highest incendents of cavities, but don't back this claim up with any data. They "claim" adding fluoride to the drinking water will reduce these cavities, without any data to back this claim up.

No voice from the dentists is telling our children to stop eating liquid candy (soft drink like Coke and Pepsi, cordial and so on), to stop eating candy all together, and to eat wholesome and nutritious foods as nature intended - free of processed, refined and added sugar. Nope. Instead of advising to stop doing the thing which causes the cavities in the first place, the dental association wants the govt to add toxic sludge to our drinking water. (I wonder if the dental association gets kick backs from industry for convincing people that toxic sludge fluoride is good for us - even though it will kill you in a heart beat?)

The last thing I want is to have this chemical FORCED onto me. It is like FORCED medication, where the medication has questionable health benefits and no proof it can do what is claimed.

Thankfully, the person in charge of our city's water has a few brains. Her response to calls from dentists to fluoridate the water was...

Wouldn't it be better to educate people about what they eat rather than adding poison to the water supply?

She also said a more effective and efficient option would be to add fluoride to a consumer item such as milk. This would give people the choice of whether they wanted to consume it or not. And also...

We have issues of fluorosis in teeth. There's cancer risks and I don't know any govt that's given any guarantee that there are no health risks.

Environmental scientist (whatever that is) and director of the Sustainability Center, Dr Mark Diesendorf described fluoridation as mass medication with an uncontrolled does. "Your daily dose depends on the amount of fluoridated water your drink. High doses may be ingested by athletes, outdoor workers, people with diabetes insipidus, and infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated water - these infants get 100 times the fluoride dose of breast fed babies."

The Australian Dental Association of Queensland (ADAQ) accused the anti-fluoride groups of scaremongering. Which is the pot calling the kettle black considering they also say this... "Evidence is mounting that poor oral health can impact adversely on your body's wellbeing. Your mouth and teeth can leak inflammation into your body that can increase the risk of heart attack, stroke and even premature labor if your are pregnant."

Now who is doing the scaremongering?

All we get from the ADAQ are a bunch of platitudes... the fact less than 5% of the state enjoy the benefits of water fluoridation is the greatest triumph of quackery over science... in face of the 'big lie' perpetrated by anti-fluoridationists, it is time for the public to be aware of the facts and demand the long overdue introduction of one of the greatest preventative public health measures of modern times.

There is nothing to back up these comments. And they are riddled with the type of wording normally seen in politics... claims without substance. - Just like the implied result that lack of fluoridation leads to leaking inflammation from the mouth into the body which can cause heart attacks.

FACTS are, fluoride is a poison. Organic fluoride does occur in nature and is in our water in small doses. Inorganic fluoride which is added to water is an industry waste product. Better care of teeth while not eating liquid candy or refined process sugar leads to better dental work. While adding industry waste products to water has no proven benefits.

If YOU want fluoride, then buy some fluoride tablets and add it to your own water. But do NOT force this toxic waste product into my water.

Sure, I could spends hundreds of dollars buying a filter to filter it out. But why should I have to?

Let those who want it, add it to their own water. That seems the simplest solution to me. But then again, I don't have an agenda to push.

Govt Grows By Failure

2005-03-10T06:03:00.000+10:00

It's funny. At least it would be if it wasn't true.

I'm talking about how govt grows and works. And it goes something like this...

Govt has some hair-brain idea about something. This idea costs us money by way of some tax/levy/fee. It turns out the idea is useless. And instead of canning the idea, the govt response is... we need more money and THEN it will be okay. With that more money being a higher tax of some kind, and still the "problem" remains.

If business worked this way it would go like this...

I cleaner comes to clean your house. They do a half-assed job and when you complain they say... to do a better job you need to pay more. And so you pay more. And they only do a marginally better job. And when you complain they say, you need to pay more to get the better job. And when you pay more, you don't get the better job. And when you complain they say...

You get the idea.

When a govt initiative fails - as they always do - instead of admitting to it being wrong, people willingly throw more money to govt to "fix" their failure.

A business would last two seconds in the market place if it operated like govt does.

It's a coincidence, that govt in my state is guilty of this very thing right now.

The city of Brisbane supposedly has a security problem. With Friday night party-goers not feeling safe. And the govt has just announced their solution is... a Security Levy imposed on businesses within the city to help protect the citizens.

No one mentions that this protection should have been in place already. And that it wasn't is a clear reflection on the govt failure. Instead, the govt justifies taking more money off of business to throw at the problem. And their solution will be to employ security at taxi ranks and a few other lame ass ideas.

The govt already charges business money for "promotion" of the city. And it is set to increase the charge by 20%! And they will implement the dreaded of dreaded things... a trial of it.

Of course, all the 9-5 businesses will be up in arms at being forced to pay a levy because some people want to frequent nightclubs. They will wonder why they need to pay for protecting people who are not doing business with them during normal business hours. And they'll have a good point. But they'll be wasting their breathe. Because govt grows by failure. And this is a classic example. Failure to use the existing cops effectively, and having them do mundane revenue-raising tasks instead of protecting the public. Their solution is more money is needed for...

Taxi Marshals and late night bus services. In other words. More govt employees.

Of course, when hit with more taxes a businesses response is to increase business to compensate. And that could mean offering cheaper drinks. And we are back to what is claimed to be the heart of the problem... too cheap drinks which encourages drinking, and drunk people are violent people.

My solution is simple. A user pays system. I had already mentioned it previously but this city is slightly different and so it would be worked differently. And in this case... A $1 flag fall fee for the taxis picking up at taxi ranks in the city, between the hours of 12.00am and 6.00am. This way, those who party are the ones who pay for the increased security at the taxi ranks.

And for the buses, the same rules can apply. A higher bus fair for bus rides between the same hours.

If it was all private enterprise, this is how it would be - user pays, and higher rates for additional services - so I see no reason why it cannot be run the same way.

Of course, the govt would never do this because it would be an admission that they are fallible. And that they make mistakes. And can't handle simple measures like keeping a city free of bashings on Friday and Saturday nights.

But security isn't the only area the govt uses this ploy. They use it in all areas. Such as schools. They are forever clamoring for more money for schools. And yet, the results the schools pump out are not going up accordingly. If anything, things are getting worse! With the cry for more money to fix the problem. It's a never ending cycle.

Imagine a private enterprise school that failed to teach children the basic skills of reading and writing. Parents would leave in droves and the school would go out of business. The school would not be able to say... give us more money and we will do better. They would be out of business.

Not with govt schools. The more their fail, the more money they are able to get.

We tend to do what we are rewarded for doing. If you keep getting rewarded for failing, then fail is what will happen. And that is exactly how the govt operates. One failure after another, with increased taxes and levies to make it right. Only to see more failures and more taxes. In a vicious circle. And the public, being the docile sheep they are who still believe a group of people calling themselves govt and ruling over them is a good thing, let the increased taxes take place without so much as a whimper. Something they would be jumping up and down about if a private enterprise tried to do the same thing.

One of the tricks the govt uses to help this along is the summit. That is, a group of them get together, with a supposed-representative or two of those effected, and talk about it. This way, if a decision turns out bad, no single person can be blamed because it was decided at a summit.

Summits, invariably always end up going ahead with what the govt wanted in the first place. So they are a trick designed to shirk responsibility as well as make a show that the govt is listening to the people.

If people treated govt like they treat business and held the govt to the same performance expectations and accountability, govt would be out on its ear in no time.

Could THIS Be The Cause Of Aging Prematurely?

2005-03-09T12:33:00.000+10:00

Like all animals on this planet, we are governed by hormones. They control a woman's fertility cycle, enable a man to produce sperm, make us grow, give men deep voices, square jaws and bald heads, give women soft voices and rounder faces, and all manner of things.

One thing they do not do is make us younger - reverse the clock, so to speak. In fact, they do not reverse the clock in any animal. They are one function chemicals. Which means, while present, their effect occurs, when not present their effect does not happen.

Take estrogen, for example. It is a cell growth promoter. While present it encourages cell growth. Which is needed for the woman's uterine lining to grow during her cycle. When ovulation takes place, estrogen production stops and progesterone begins. With progesterone helping to raise the woman's body temperature (raised temperature is needed for increased cell division as a growing baby would need) and helps prepare the uterine lining for implantation. If progesterone is not in the system, or is being overwhelmed by estrogen from an outside source, the uterine lining will not be able to accept a fertilized egg. And a period will occur after the lining gets too big to support itself.

At certain times, a child is born whose growth hormone does not switch off. Those people keep growing and usually die in their twenties. A sign of how powerful growth hormone is, and what would happen to us all if we had such levels of growth hormone in us. Thankfully, we do not and our body regulates it and switches it off accordingly.

What this means is, hormones age us. Faster than we would otherwise.

Logic would thus suggest, to slow down aging we should reduce the level of age-promoting hormones in our system.

Now. I am NOT advocating messing with nature and trying to control our hormones with drugs - as so many women have been conned into doing of late, what with human growth hormone and hormone replacement therapy.

But I am advocating to stop overloading our system with hormones that age us quicker than we otherwise would. So we must first identify WHERE the excess hormones are coming from. And the main culprit is... animal products - meat and dairy.

To help the animals grow quicker - and larger - they are injected with growth hormones as well as getting hormones in their food. When they are slaughtered and fed to us, we ingest those hormones. Hormones which act on us as they were designed to act on the animals.

As the animals are all young, they have an increased level of hormone in them any way (young animals, including us, grow quicker due to increased hormones). So the artificial hormones make the amount of growth hormone even more.

It makes sense, therefore, that when we eat meat loaded with hormones, those hormones will act on us. And that means, make us grow in some way. If we have finished our "growth" then the hormones may help our cells grow (age). Specially those cells which are being used a lot. And even reproductive system cells. Brain cells. Etc.

As I am not a scientist with access to advanced equipment to test this, this is conjecture at the moment. But it does fit based on anecdotal evidence.

Take Asians, for example. They are generally shorter in stature and less physically developed. Which is to say, they do not look like body builders - the men - or have large breasts - the women.

However, when you see Asians born and raised in western countries with western diets, they are taller, have larger breasts, and are fatter too.

With the main difference being diet. Our western diet is high in meat. Slabs of meat. Like a steak and two veg meal. While the Asian meal might have meat in it, it is extremely thinly sliced - and - what meat there is, is combined with loads of vegetables and rice.

In other words, meat is not the main ingredient of a traditional Asian meal, while it is the main ingredient of western meals.

Now lets look at the northern Europeans... such as Polish, Checzoslovakian, Russian, etc. In their native lands eating native diets they are shorter and stockier (exactly what you'd expect for the climate). Yet, when those same people are born in western countries and are fed western diets from birth, they grow tall and are generally not as stocky.

This is evident in my relatives. With one side of the family being short, while ALL their offspring are over 6ft - towering over their parents. Obviously, this height was NOT in the family tree and MUST be attributed to something else. And, while some would say the ancestors didn't have enough nutrients to grow tall (as if our western diet with vegetables that have had all the goodness boiled out of them and then the cooking water poured down the sink before the cardboard vegetables are served, or eating fully process foods devoid of any nutrition at all, has any usable nutrients) I say it was their largely meat-less diet that kept them shorter. And, younger looking and living longer too. After all, supposedly, Asians tend to look younger and live longer. Avoiding the sun and eating not much meat are obvious reasons behind this.

And some of the oldest living peoples are those living in Tibet and Russia. With growing to be 100+ as a norm. And those peoples eat a diet much devoided of meat.

Now let's turn our gaze to the hunting tribes. And they are mainly African. Such as Zulu's. They are TALL and do not live to be 100. They eat high amounts of meat.

Another factor to consider, besides meat, is cow's milk. It is HIGH in protein compared to human milk. And is meant to be drunk by baby cows.

But besides the protein content - which I'll return to in a moment - it is loaded with hormones. The milk cow is basically pregnant and the milk is designed to help a calf grow - and FAST. And drinking cow's milk will see you ingest hormones designed to help a baby cow grow.

So whether you drink animal products or eat them, you will be getting hormones into your system that will promote cell growth (aging) at a faster-than-your-body-wants-to-happen rate. Because you will be ingesting hormones your body did not expect to be there. You will have a level of hormones higher than your body would ever produce of its own accord.

For instance, a newborn human baby might double its birth weight in 180 days - a rat 5 days, a cow 47 days. Obviously, milk which helps a cow double its weight in 47 days and which helps is go from 80 pounds to 1,200 pounds in a little over a year should not be consumed by humans due to high hormone and protein levels. (Human milk has about 2.5% protein, rat milk 8-11% protein and cow milk 15% protein.)

I don't expect you, or anyone, to believe a word I say. But I do ask you to think about it yourself. To see if, it makes sense that ingesting animal products loaded with growth hormones is likely to make us age prematurely. And to get us back to how our body would like us to age is more a matter of stopping the ingestion of growth hormones from other animals. Which is done by avoiding all animal products; ingesting mature animal flesh only which has been caught in the wild (including fully grown fish); or drastically cutting down on meat consumption and considering it as only a garnish on food and not the main ingredient. (In that order.)

Two research scientists, Osborne and Mendel, did research with rats. They discovered the rat's rate of growth INCREASED when their diets contained mostly animal proteins such as milk, beef, and fish. And the rate of growth was slower when their diets included mostly vegetable proteins. The high-protein rats also died sooner.

And while they might assume it is animal proteins.. and they may well be right... it is erroneous to ignore the part growth hormones present in animal products plays in growing/aging.

The most glaringly obvious sign that we are aging sooner than should be is the onset of puberty. From around 15/17 years ago to as early as 10/12 now a days. And it correlates with increased eating of meat.

The Big Brother Future Here And Now And Coming To A Train Near You

2005-03-08T13:48:00.000+10:00

When we think of big brother and the future, we imagine televisions in trains on and buses. TVs tuned to what big brother wants us to see - which is the usual big brother authorized propaganda. So we can never escape its brainwashing influences.

Well, that imagined future is here and now, in Atlanta.

The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (why do they put the word "authority" in their name?) will put TVs in their rail cars. Initially, 115 of its cars will EACH have 5 TVs. And eventually ALL of the authority's 300 cars will have 5 TVs in each of them. With every single TV tuned to the Atlanta ABC news affiliate WSB-TV. And the system will be able to convey emergency information. Though whether this emergency information is both ways is not mentioned in the information I have.

Currently, to listen to the TV is to be done with headphones and an FM radio tuned in to the correct frequency. But seeing as emergency information can be broadcast on it, my bet is the volume can be controlled in case all passengers need to hear something. Which makes it only a short step to leaving the volume up all the time.

With TVs accepted in the trains, buses will be next.

And as some road cars have TVs in them, it is only a stroke of the pen to force manufacturers to enable "emergency broadcast" onto those TVs, or to force the manufacturer to have a set news station as the only available station.

Many classrooms already have TVs in them, for educational purposes in case there is a educational show on, and for emergency broadcast reasons. And it's not a great step to have those TVs be on all the time. So students would get big brother sanctioned news on the way to school, at school and on the way home from school. Effectively, subjecting them to propaganda most of their waking hours. And hopefully, according to big brother, turning them into good little workers for the state.

But this is in the future. For the now it means something else. It means a leftist barrage. That's because the media elite are almost all left leaning.

And over time, the constant "republicans are bad" message that comes from the elite media, will have an effect on the voting public. And come next election, the subtle propaganda will have had an effect, and an increase in Democrat votes will be likely.

Of course, those who are staunch Republican voters will seethe at the news they are forced to see. As their CHOICE of what to watch has been removed.

I see a point a few years from now, where children will be in wonder when you tell them trains never used to have TVs in them. 1984 here we come.

More Wrong Research Deductions

2005-03-06T17:25:00.000+10:00

Research comparing MS in adults who had younger siblings, seems to show, "Adults who had the most contact with younger siblings were found to have the lowest risk of MS... the change is thought to be linked to immune reactions formed in childhood."

Ok. I'm going out on a limb here and saying, their results might be correct but their reasons are wrong.

My take is that MS is the result of exposure to chemicals - at work or in the home. And because we all have different chemical sensitivities, what might cause MS in one person might not cause it in another.

There is evidence from Hulda Clark (and others) that many people from the same work environment developed MS. Obviously, something in that work environment is having an effect. Sometimes quicker than other times, but an effect nonetheless.

Speaking with a 70+ year old client last week, she made a comment after performing some task many 70+ year olds cannot do... "Not bad for someone who supposedly has MS, hey?"

So I asked her a bit about it. She said, she USED to work in a place that used a lot of chemicals. And she was exposed to those chemicals. It was while she was there that she began to show signs of MS and was diagnosed as having it.

She left that work environment... and where she lived... got a different job working in a chemical free environment and lived on a house boat!

Her MS cleared up and went away. And she put the MS down to her exposure to chemicals. And the clearing up of it to her lack of exposure when she changed jobs and living in a fresh air environment on the house boat, instead of the restricted airflow chemicalized house she had been living in. Then she made another comment how chemicals effect our health, before talking about something else.

Anyway. My medically untrained opinion is this: MS is the result of chemical exposure... usually over time... and MS can be cured by avoiding the chemicals that created it in the first place.

Sure my opinion goes against conventional wisdom. But conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. And to blindly believe something when there is no evidence to support it, while there is evidence to support something else, is insane.

Anyway. How does this relate to MS being higher in people without younger siblings?

Well, first, this was research aimed at ADULTS with younger siblings. Those adults lived a different kind of lifestyle when they were young, than do our youngsters of today.

Imagine a 50 year old. Imagine what kind of life they lived when they were young... 5, 10, 15 years old. And the chances are they were playing OUTSIDE with their siblings. Not inside playing X-Box or Play Station. They were outside away from chemicals. Not inside breathing stale air full of chemical fumes from our chemicalized carpets, drapes, laminated furniture and so on.

So that reduced time spent inside, could have helped create a habit. And a person who spent more time outside than inside. Because if they had been only children, they probably would have spent time playing in their room, and developed the inside habit through to adulthood. Being inside thus exposing them to continued chemicals.

This makes a lot of sense to me. And I would also like to see research examining the lifestyles of those people... inside people vs outside people.

Obviously inside vs outside is not a definitive answer (as some outside people get MS. And I would guess that even though they spent time outside, they constantly exposed themselves to certain chemicals - detergents, solvents, etc.), but it would be a step in the right direction.

I'd also like to see the results of similar research in many years time. Where the current inside X-Box playing youth of today have their MS rates compared to less inside-staying youth. I think we will find, those who stay inside and are breathing in more chemical fumes will have higher incidents of MS and other ailments.

The insidious nature of the chemicals is that their effect is gradual and cumulative. Meaning, a few breaths of air with slight chemical fume will not kill you, but over time it wears down the liver's ability to deal with it, is stored in places it shouldn't be, harming those places, and we develop illnesses as a result.

If you imagine filling up a bathtub one teaspoon at a time. You won't notice anything is wrong until it overflows.

Our bodies are like that. Storing all kinds of chemicals out of the blood until the liver can deal with it. Over time, the chemical stores will overflow. At which point we notice it and then try to do something about it. With the simple answer being... stop ingesting the chemical that made you ill in the first place.

Which is easier said than done as we are exposed to so many chemicals. From make up and mascara, to fluoride and chlorine in our water. All kind of hideous artificial yuck in man-made foods stuffs. Any one of which could have a detrimental health effect over time.

But I digress. This is about the research, and how wrong conclusions can easily be drawn when ignoring basic biology and biological functioning.

Lefty Survey Alert

2005-03-02T19:20:00.000+10:00

The headline in the article should allude you to where this one is going... Women pay dearly for career breaks.

After a headline like that, you just know this is going to be another "poor women, they are so hard done by compared to men" things. And as you read, you find out the spin is exactly that. For instance, here are the first two paragraphs...

PROFESSIONAL women who put careers on hold for family or other reasons, earn 18% less when they return to the workforce, a new US survey shows.

The salary penalty for hopping off the career track was even higher in the business world, where earnings dropped an average of 28%, said the survey by the New York-based Center for Work-Life Policy

Sounds grim, doesn't it? And I bet you're thinking, they are being taken advantage of by their employer, and other things. After all, the survey does imply the women pay for their time off. As if the time off was a bad thing and they are being punished. But we begin to see the underlying truth in the next paragraph...

The drop in pay partly reflects the decision of many women to return to jobs with less responsibility, or to part-time jobs. However, it may also reflect that women are leaving the workforce during the years when many men make the largest leaps up the corporate ladder, the survey's authors conclude. [emphasis added by me]

Partly reflects? I would think, the results completely reflect the decision to choose lower paying jobs and part-time jobs. After all, if you leave a $50k a year job and then take on a part-time job one year later, of course you will have a drop in pay. And that drop in pay is totally and unequivicably the result of taking on a part-time job in a "lower down the ladder" position.

Further on in the piece... the last two paragraphs actually, so you get their spin before you get to see the results... we discover the following...

Nearly 40% said they had intentionally chosen a job with less responsibility and with lower pay. So they could have more time for their family.

Only 40% who went back to work, went back to full-time work. About 25% chose to have a part-time job and about 10% decided to work for themselves. (What happened to the other 25% isn't said. And how far away from the 25% and 10% the figure really is we do not know because they cleverly use the word "about" to describe those figures.)

Side note: Using the above figures, I'll show you how to doctor survey results...

Survey size: 100
Actual Income: $52k per year ($1,000 per 40 hour week at $25 per hour)

Of those 100, 40 go back to full time work, however, they also get $1,200 a week jobs (an increase) which gives them $62,400 a year.

The rest get part time jobs (20 hour per week) also earning more, at $30 per hour - which gives them $600 a week

So my survey people all got jobs with an increase in hourly rate.

Now let's average it out...

40 x $62,400 = $2,496,000
60 x $31,200 = $1,872,000
Total = $4,368,000

The average being $43,680 - a drop of $8,320 a year (16.64%).

So there you go. The people in my survey ALL increased their hourly rate and yet my results show a drop in income of 16.64%. (Those who conducted the real survey claim this choice by women to opt for less demanding jobs with a reduced yearly income, is a penalty. And is something that needs to be addressed in some way.)

Oh. Something you might like to know about the survey, 653 men were also surveyed. So they could draw comparisons. Though what kind of comparison you get comparing a women who chooses to get a part time job with a man who continues to climb the corportate ladder, is not stated. But it certainly can make their claims more slanted, that's for sure. (Maybe if they compared women who choose part time jobs with women who do not leave employment at all, instead of gainfully employed men, we might get a different picture again.)

And why is their researched aimed at women? Why not do a survey to show the results of men who leave the workforce for a year or two and then who opt for part time work. Is THAT kind of research ignored because there are no political points to be scored with it... and because it might show that men are equally "worse off" under the same conditions?

Onward.

Other notable items lifted for the news piece include... "...even relatively short career interruptions entail heavy financial penalties" and "The longer you spend out, the more severe the penalty becomes."

What's with all the talk of penalties? As I said, they are making out as if the lower pay is a punishment, when their own survey clearly shows the lower pay is by CHOICE of the women.

Perhaps a look at WHO conducted the survey might give us a clue...

As already mentioned, the survey was conducted by the Center for Work-Life Policy. And a quick Google revealed "The Center for Work-Life Policy is the new name of the National Parenting Association." And a quick look at the CWL website shows a leftist leaning. For instance, one initiative is "to better retain and more fully tap into the productive energies of women and persons of color..." And they want to examine key policy challenges and then develop "policy and practice with enough heft and traction to drive change." In otherwords, they want to meddle in the affairs of private business owners so they will be forced to accommodate the wishes of women and minority colored people.

All of which goes against their claim of being "committed to promoting policies that enable individuals to realize their full potential across the divides of gender, race and class." For if it were true, they would not spend all their time dealing with initiatives that single out women and colored people.

And elsewhere on their site, one of the members (Hewlett), the same one who lead the questionable research revealed in this entry, "urges lawmakers and corporations to establish policies that support working parents." Which, going by the women/color slant, means make rules so that private enterprise has to foot the bill for a woman's choice to have a kid.

A quick click over to the National Parenting Association reveals some of theses property rights infringing gems...

* flexibility in our work lives so that we have time for our kids
* first-rate education with after-school programs that offer students options for an extended, enriched day
* laws that keep guns out of the hands of children

O-oh... they are anti-gunners. And they want it achieved by "laws". And who is to fund all of these "after school programs"? And I suppose they expect the govt to force employers to allow these parents to come and go as they please or force the employer to pay for a woman to have time off for a kid, but call it being flexible.

All in all, from my few minutes of researching those behind this survey, all I see is a do-gooder lobby group trying to create a problem where none exists. And trying to brainwash others into thinking this is a problem which needs addressing... and that addressing is to be done by the govt creating new rules, laws and policy forcing it onto everyone - employers, mainly.

Just a look at their "hot issues" says enough... Paid Parenting Leave and Gun Control as well as Increasing The Minimum Wage. All of which are prime property rights infringing issues - forcing me to pay for someone else's child bearing, forcing me to hand over my means of self-defence and forcing me and my business to pay staff a certain income. And all of which go against helping me realize my full potential, as they claim to want to do (I cannot realize my full potential when being forced to pay for someone else's kid, being forced to pay staff a certain amount and removing my means of protection).

The Spin Doctors Have Been Hard At Work

2005-02-28T15:49:00.000+10:00

In my city there is a supposed problem... too much violence in and around the main tourist attraction suburb (which is full of nightclubs) on a Friday and Saturday night. Of course, with all such problems, it is only a problem when the media decides it is a problem and makes a big deal out of it, which then encourages others to jump onto the bandwagon, which then puts pressure on politicians to "do something about it".

The authorities (the city's mayor and his cronies) decided "that something" was to alter the trading hours of the clubs. To force them to close their doors at 3.00am instead of 5.00am. How this was supposed to fix the problem it wasn't said. And that this effectively caused a massive loss of business to the clubs was ignored.

How massive a loss of business? Well, if you conservatively estimate the club takes in $1,000 profit in an hour, they have lost $2,000 profit for the night. Which is $14,000 a week! (If one of the authority members had been a nightclub owner you could bet your bottom dollar the law would not have made it through. Because then they would have had a personal stake in it. But because none of the authorities go to nightclubs or have a financial stake in them, it is okay to punish them financially.)

The first night the new law went into effect there was a MASSIVE police presence. Police had been imported from a nearby city to help deal with the forecast problem. Those problems never happened and so the authorities said the new closing time was a success. Not bothering to admit that maybe it was due to the massive police presence and not the new closing time.

With the media spotlight off the "problem", for the moment, the number of police in the area was reduced to its normal level. A level of 12 police to patrol an area which sees as many as 20,000 people partying on a Friday and Saturday night. That's only one police officer for every 1,667 nightclubers.

With such odds against them, they cannot patrol by themselves or even in pairs. They need to patrol in groups of four or more. And if there is trouble, then even that small group of four is inadequate and so another group will come to assist. Tying up two thirds of the available police for just one scuffle.

Some of the public complain the police aren't "doing enough" while the police claim - and rightly so - that they need more police, that you cannot keep an eye on 20,000 nightclubers with just 12 police. (Note: I have spoken with police - at all levels from constable to 'officer in charge' of the station - at three different stations in the city and ALL of them are undermaned. Even one of the so-called 24 hour stations has to close its doors at 10.00pm due to a LACK of police! Despite the citizens requests and the requests from the police dept to the state politicians, the police numbers remain the same.)

How The Numbers Are Doctored

As you know, no politician will admit to being fallible - ever. As far as they are concerned, ALL their handed-down rules and laws are what is best for us. And the idea to FORCE nightclubs to close their doors at 3.00am instead of 5.00am is no exception.

Violence in the nightclub district is real. It is happening. And the forced closure has not diminished it one jot. So how do the lying bastards make it appear that it did do some good? They make asinine claims like, "You're more likely to have a car crash on the way to the nightclub district than get into a violent confrontation when you are there." And they quote doctored police numbers. Which is easy and goes like this...

On a normal day, police might have to deal with X number of incidents. Let's call it 100. With each incident needing to be written up "for the record". And on a normal day this might even be possible - when spread out over the day.

Now take those 100 incidents and have them occur in a much shortened day. Now the police are being overloaded with work. And the only way to cope is to disregard some of the incidents. Hence, the number of "for the record" reports goes down. And the politicians can claim their hair-brain idea has worked. They saved the taxpayer money by not employing more police (though they cost many businesses a shitload of profits). And have gained more control.

Then with the decrease in reported incidents, the police are shuffled off to do revenue raising...

On the wall of "officer's room" at my local police station is a whiteboard with a large number written on it. That number is the number of random breath tests that station has as a quota, which MUST be fulfilled. And it is fulfilled like so...

Once a week, six officers head off to a dumb-ass location. They take along two 20 gallon trash cans and a shitload of breath-test machine blowing tubes. They sit in that one location for four hours - or until they run out of blowing tubes, or until the two trash cans are full of discarded blowing tubes. Then they go back to the station and mark on the whiteboard how many "random" breath tests were done for the week.

With less police doing anything productive, and the incidents being ignored because the police are too overworked, the number of incidents actually increases. At which point the public starts making enough noise the media picks it up again.

Blame It On The Nightclubs

Now the politicians are faced with a dilemma... who to blame? It isn't the idea of forcing the clubs to close all at the same time, causing thousands of intoxicated people out onto the street at the same time, overwhelming taxi ranks, and resulting in even more incidents. No. Their idea works (despite all evidence to the contrary). And it isn't the lack of police. Nope. What it is, according to the politicians, is the nightclubs. It's all their fault you see. Because they sell discount drinks and two-for-one deals. They even have people on the street handing out vouchers to nightclubers to entice them into the clubs. As a result of all this "supposed" cheap alcohol, people get drunk.

The obvious solutions, therefore, is to BAN two-for-one offers, happy hours, discounts of any kind, and nightclub employees handing out vouchers on the street to entice people into their clubs.

It doesn't matter that what the politician calls a cheap drink is already expensive compared to other drinking establishments (like RSL clubs). It doesn't matter that no-one is forcing people to drink alcohol. And no-one is looking at the fact that many nightclubers drink at home BEFORE going out.

Nope. None of that matters. It's NOT the piss-head's fault for getting drunk. It is all the fault of the nightclub. So let's control them even more, the lying bastards cry. And so begins the most hideous of hideous things...

Beware The Trial

When faced with public outcry over their silly ideas, the good old fallback for the politician is the trial. Because no-one can object to a trial. Of course, the problem is, once a trial has been put in place, it ALWAYS becomes law.

For instance, by making the discount vouchers the boogie man, the politician's will then justify their removal - or - the implementation of a trial. Let's just trial "no discount vouchers" for three months and see how it goes.

What happens now is a merry dance of statistics. If, before the trial, there was a downtrend in incidents. And that downtrend was actually the result of fewer people going to nightclubs because for fear of assault. That fact will be ignored. The lying bastard will quote the recent incident figure at the time of the trial. Then three months later quote the new number. Because the downtrend was steady, the new number will be down. Not because of the new rule, though. Then the lying bastards will hail the success of their new initiative and the trial will remain.

The most classic example of this in action is with unleaded petrol. A few years after it was put into force, the amount of lead in the blood was shown to have decreased from before unleaded petrol was forced onto everyone. What was ignored was...

The amount of lead in the blood had been going down at a steady rate BEFORE unleaded petrol was introduced. And that reduced level the lying bastards were parading around was merely an extension of the trend. Meaning, unleaded petrol did NOT reduce the amount of lead in blood, it was something else.

That something else was simply the removal of the old lead-lined water pipes which fed old houses and suburbs. And the replacement of those lead-lined pipes with PVC pipes and copper.

If we did a study that compared copper levels in the blood with lead levels, we will find a DIRECT correlation with the removal of lead-lined pipes and the introduction of copper pipes.

Of course, this information can NEVER be made public. Because it would show the lying bastards to be fallible. And that their costly idea was a total waste of time, money and effort. And didn't achieve anything at all. In fact, it made things worse by putting more poisonous and deadly gases into the air we breathe.

Another example is with suicide by gun. In Australia, when national gun registration was introduced, one of the reasons was to reduce the number of suicides by gun. And after the registration, gun suicide was down. BUT, it had already been going down with a 15 year trend BEFORE gun registration. And the rate of the downward trend didn't change after gun registration. Questionable data.

This is why trials that are started by lying bastards only ever compare data immediately before the trial with data after the trial, and ignore trends that were occurring before the trial began.

The Solution

Anyway. We now face a situation where, what could have been solved by doing nothing - in which case the whole sorry mess would sort itself out as people stopped going to dangerous places of their own volition; or which could have been solved by employing more police for those areas and times of the night most needed; has been turned into a big control fest. Where the nightclubs are blamed for everything and punished accordingly. Less income will mean less money to pay for staff. Less promotion will result in less income, which will also mean less staff. Cash flow slows. Business profits dwindle. To compensate, prices rise. Which will force some people to go elsewhere, where it is cheaper. The problem, which seems to have been made better due to doctored numbers, remains the same, gets worse, or moves into other areas.

I don't know why the lying bastards can't get it into their thick skulls, that it is police presence that reduces incidents and not restricting private enterprise.

Look at people driving on a highway. When there is a cop car on the highway, even if it is doing slightly below the speed limit, everyone slows down and drives carefully.

When people know a radar trap is up ahead somewhere, they drive slower and with more care.

Look at the soccer matches in England. At the end of the game police line the field. There must be a hundred or two cops at the game. Their presence keeps the fans from getting too unruly. And, for the most part, they behave.

Take away the police presence - and thus the possibility of getting in trouble - and some people infringe upon the property rights of others left, right and center.

When the nightclub curfew was introduced, loads of police were brought into the area and there was nothing of note to happen. Police presence - just their presence - kept people behaving themselves. THAT is a proven - here and overseas. Why the success of such actions are ignored and moron ideas of punishing private enterprise are brought down to bear instead, escapes me.

The problem exists because of the state. By having a police force in the area, people have an expectation of being "protected." The expectations do not match reality, however. As reality reveals a lack of police to enable the expected protection. That lack of police means certain people (and it's usually only a small number) can create trouble without fear of punishment.

Who will pay for the extra police? Not me that's for sure. I see no reason to pay (by way of my tax dollar) to protect people who want to go out on the town. If they want the increased police presence, let them pay. And let them pay by way of a $1 or $2 cover charge at the door of every nightclub. And once you have paid the Police Fee, you don't have to pay again when you go to a different nightclub. (Or have an official Police Fee Collector at the door of each nightclub collecting the protection fee - so the onus is not on the nightclub to become a revenue collector.)

The nightclubs would directly benefit by increased patronage because the area is safer. And the nightclubers would benefit because the area is safer.

Run the numbers: 20,000 people paying $1 - $2 Police Fee comes to $20,000 to $40,000 in revenue. Sure that is enough to pay for an extra 20 or so police for the night.

If the police are paid $150 for the shift, then 20 police will cost only $3,000. Which means, at $20,000 collected, an additional 133 police could be put on for the night. And now you're talking police presence. And all of it provided under the fair "user pays" system.

On the other hand, if there were no police at all. There would not be an expectation of protection. People could thus make an informed decision about what is best for them...

a) Avoid the area all together
b) Only go out in large groups
c) Arm themselves for their own protection
d) Hire protection to accompany them

Nightclubs could likewise make an informed decision...

a) Let thugs bully people and thus lose business
b) Employ an independent security force for the club - AND - the surrounding area
c) Close doors and move to a more peaceful area to do business

Either scenario above will see a reduction in incidents. With a privately hired security force, the bad eggs will go where the pickings are easier. If going out in large groups, the bad eggs will move on - they do not want to confront a large group only to discover the group is too large or other groups join in to force them away. If people are armed, the bad eggs might get hurt so will look for softer targets. If private protection is hired, the bad eggs will then be dealing with a trained person and will look for softer targets. Left up to their own devices, the people will find their own solutions to the problem and the problem will be sorted out.

But that is obviously not an option as long as we have a state that wants to be the sole provider of force - and enforces that no end too. So we are stuck with expectations which are not lived up to. Thus, to solve the problem is a simple matter of bringing in more police so there is a visible police presence. Not only does this keep people behaving, the bad eggs choose to go elsewhere for fear of getting in trouble.

Two solutions. None of which require the state to infringe upon the property rights of the business owner. None of which the state is choosing to take. Choosing, instead, to blame the business owner for the problem - while forgetting the city exists in the first place because of the business owner. And that if it wasn't for the business owner, the city would be dead as tourists would have no reason to come and spend their money - including going to nightclubs.

I don't know. Sometimes I feel I am living on a planet full of morons. And I think the end of hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy - where the morons of one race were rounded up, put on a spaceship which crash landed on earth and became us - has some merit to it.

Here's Comes Big Brother... Look Out!

2005-02-26T07:58:00.000+10:00

A fundamental part of my belief system is this... other people are NOT your property. They own their own lives, minds and bodies. They own their labor and the fruits of that labor - whether money, or what the money is exchanged for, or what they make, create or inherit. And they have the freedom to choose to VOLUNTARILY associate and interact with any other person, or group.

Obviously, such a stance is diametrically opposed to the idea of a government. For government is about coercion - forced interaction whether you like it or not, theft of the fruits of my labor, and ongoing taxes on my labor. Effectively reducing me to nothing more than a serf from the middle ages. They just don't call it that.

Anyway. This new threat is the epitome of big brother owning the citizens...

Politicians from the "conservative" National Party in Australia want the federal govt to investigate the idea of giving babies an "anti junkie" vaccination. With such a vaccination being designed to make children immune to becoming smokers or drug users. Effectively removing the freedom of choice a human being has to partake of a certain substance or not.

The danger of this bullshit idea is that it is "for the children." But if it goes through, where do we draw the line? Why not a vaccination to stop people becoming couch potatoes? How about a vaccination to stop people eating whatever we deem not appropriate for them? How about a vaccination to make people calm docile sheep - prevention of behavior that might disrupt a classroom of "eager to learn" children?

See where this can lead, once we open the door to any kind of vaccination that removes our freedom of choice.

Let's not teach our children to be strong-willed and what is good and not good for them, and leave them to decide. No. Let's just put another chemical into them at the expense of the citizens, while making the pharmaceutical companies richer.

It is an abomination and a disgrace. And what makes it worse is... politicians in Britain are also considering such a vaccine!?!?!?!

I don't care if drug addiction is estimated to cost the Government $6 billion a year (Which govt? And who is doing this estimate anyway? Also, it's not the govt it costs but the tax payer as the govt spends collected money giving shots to the junkies to keep them in the habit - if THAT was stopped then it wouldn't cost the tax payers anything). Vaccinating babies to remove their freedom of choice is a violation of the highest order. Period. And it is an outrage.

If I would not be allowed to come and jab you with something I deem ok for you, and do it against your will, then the govt has no right to do it either.

Again I am reminded of the words of Kurt Russell (a Libertarian) as the character Snake Plissken in Escape from L.A. When at the end of the movie he asks for a smoke and is told "The United States is a no-smoking nation. No smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no women unless you're married, no guns, no foul language, no red meat."

And Snake replies... "Yeah. Land of the free."

Your Neighbor Is A Govt Spy

2005-02-25T05:36:00.000+10:00

A never-ending bogeyman. That's what this "War on Terror" is. And the Australian govt, amongst others, is using this perpetual war to encourage its citizens to spy on each other.

I say this war is perpetual because there is no clearly defined enemy. It is a war against a tactic... a strategy... a method... and not any particular person or group in particular. If it was against a clearly defined enemy, then we would be able to gauge its progress. We would know if we are winning or not. But because it is a war against a method, us citizens have no quantifiable way to know if we are winning or not.

If this "war" was serious, it would be a war against terrorists. For then we define what is and isn't a terrorist. We are able to identify terrorist groups. And can start to formulate a plan to prevent them from killing us.

But as it is, there is no clearly defined target. The target becomes whatever the govt claims is "part of" the war on terror. And that can be anything - from infringing upon our property rights at airports, indiscriminate surveillance, searches conducted without warrants, unrestricted phone taps, and so on. Because it can all be claimed to be "part of" the war on terror. And the podies just lap it up.

If the enemy was clearly defined as I said, then the public would jump up and down - and rightfully so - in objection that tapping their phones without limit, or free range searches without warrant, have anything to do with catching the clearly defined enemy. Makes sense, right?

I mean, you would have every right to object at being searched at an airport. For you would not match the clearly defined enemy, would you?

This is why I have mentioned that it is dangerous to allow property rights infringement on such a wholesale scale - or any scale. Because we WILL suffer the laws of unintended consequences as mindless bureaucrats carry out "their orders" forgoing all ability to think for themselves.

Anyway. Australia is urging its citizens to spy on each other and then tell the police about it. Every week in my local paper there is a one fifth page ad with two blocks of text. The first block is like so...

HELP PROTECT AUSTRALIA
FROM TERRORISM
Small pieces of information from members
of the public can help keep Australia
safe from terrorism. Police and security
agencies are working hard but you
could help them complete the picture.

If you see anything suspicious call
the 24-hour National Security Hotline
on 1800-555-555. Our trained operators
take every call seriously and you can
remain anonymous.

Remember, every piece of information helps.

And this is followed up with another block of text next to it. That block of text is as follows...

Some Things To Look Out For
Terrorists rely on surprise, so there's no
definitive list, however local and overseas
experience has given us some possible warning
signs to look out for. Examples include:

*Unusual surveillance, videotaping or photography of
official buildings, energy installations and important sites

* Vehicles parked near significant buildings or in busy
public areas for long periods of time

* Packages or bags abandoned in public areas such as
malls, buildings or train stations

* Suspicious purchases or possession of large quantities
of fertilizer, chemicals or explosives

* Unusual uses of accommodation such as garages
being used at odd times of the day or night

And it is this list I will comment on...

First, the first bullet point: "Unusual surveillance, videotaping or photography of official buildings, energy installations and important sites". The govt is asking US to know what "unusual" means as opposed to a tourist video tapping a building or taking a photo. The govt is asking us to know what an "important site" is.

Second, the second bullet point: "Vehicles parked near significant buildings or in busy public areas for long periods of time". Again, we are magically supposed to know what a "significant building" is. And how are we to interpret what a "long period of time" is when it comes to public areas? Those areas have 2 hours parking sometimes. And many people overstay and get fined - which then allows them to stay as long as they want because you only get fined once a day.

Next we have "Packages or bags abandoned in public areas such as malls, buildings or train stations." How are we supposed to know a bag has been abandoned as opposed to accidentally left behind, left while just going back to the car, or left while going to the toilet? How do we know it is even left at all and that the bag's owner isn't really just a few feet away looking at goods in a store window?

We have all accidentally left items behind. Remembered, then rushed back only to find our bag still sitting there. And to expect us to make these kinds of judgments in areas notorious for bags and packages all over the place, is really stretching it. Not to mention that this piece of advice cannot stop someone carrying a bomb who wants to blow themselves up.

Next is "Suspicious purchases or possession of large quantities of fertilizer, chemicals or explosives". How do we know if someone has even bought these items, let alone that their purchase is suspicious? And what constitutes a large quantity? A 25kg bag which is standard at the garden store? A couple of bags bought which is also standard?

And last we have "Unusual uses of accommodation such as garages being used at odd times of the day or night". What is an "unusual use" of accommodation? What are considered "odd times" of the day or night? What time during the day is odd? What time during the night is odd?

Apart from the stupidity of expecting us citizens to know what a "significant" building is, what "unusual" surveillance or uses are, and what an "odd" time of the day - or night - is, and then expecting us all to NOT mind our own business and to report our neighbors to the authorities, the govt is publishing this list for everyone to see - including the terrorists!!!

So now all a terrorist has to do is make sure they do not use their garage at an odd time during the day, or buy a bag of fertilizer in a suspicious way, or take photos of significant buildings in a way that looks unusual. Or do anything on the list that the govt publishes every week in the newspaper. And no-one will notice them.

Surely, the govt knows this. So why continue pushing this "please spy on your neighbor" thing. Could it be to create a situation where the citizens distrust each other - as they did in George Orwell's 1984?

The similarities with that book are kind of scary. The perpetual war, the "be on the look out for dangers within", the main bad guy who would be shown on the TV during the 2 minute hates, and so on.

And notice how similar it is to the "reds under the bed" era which flourished back in the 1950's. When citizens were encouraged to keep an eye out for anything "suspicious" and report it to the authorities. Encouraged to spy on their neighbors, as it were, because they could be the enemy.

With the only difference being that back then it was Communism we had to be on the lookout for. But today it is Terrorism. It's like it's the same old ploys being used by the govt to gain more control of us, just the reason behind the method has changed. With, I expect, the same results... totally ineffective in its supposed objective. But the unintended consequences will sure have an effect.

If the govt's police force at all levels (State and Federal) is only able to respond to crimes AFTER they have been committed and is incapable of preventing them from happening, why does anyone think it will be any different by calling it a War on Terror?

And if the terrorists hate us so much already, how come they haven't committed a terrorist act on our soil? Could it be the existing security measures are adequate?

Detractors of my words will say, "But don't you want to prevent an attack?" To which I reply, "Yes. But there is no evidence that taking away my freedoms will prevent anything."

It's the same kind of twisted argument the anti-gunners would use... don't you want to prevent a child from being shot?

Sure I do. But taking away MY guns ain't gonna make that happen. And is not the point of the argument. Likewise, taking away my freedoms and infringing upon my property rights, is NOT going to prevent a single terrorist attack one iota. And printing information about what to look out for, so the terrorists can make sure they don't do that kind of activity, is counter productive and only helps them avoid detection.

It would have to be a pretty dumb terrorist to act and do things that are on the "list of things to look out for" that has been repeatedly published. The terrorists have the patience of Job. If one avenue of attack is deprived they will simply venture down another. Can't use planes anymore? Fine, they'll do something else - whatever that is. And if they do, the govt will respond and change the rules for the particular thing. If it's backpacks and a train (like in Spain) then those things will be banned from trains. It will be a never ending series of greater and greater infringements upon our property rights. Goodbye freedom (what little we currently have) and hello 1984 - all in the name of part of the war on terror.

Want to enter the US? Be prepared to have your mugshot and fingerprints taken. Something normally reserved for criminals. How this will prevent any terrorist getting into the country is not revealed. We are just told it will only add 15 seconds to entering the country. All the while, the INS reports millions of illegals getting into the country from Mexico. And once again we have a "law" that only hinders the honest people.

National ID cards; restricted travel; crazy bank monitoring; etc. Won't stop a single terrorist attack. The govt knows it. But can't admit it. Otherwise it would be admitting to its fallibility. Like Yoda said to Mace Windu, if we reveal our weakness, multiply our enemies will. So the govt has to put up a front that makes the people think it can prevent such attacks. Otherwise, people might see the folly and powerlessness of govt. Because, as Winston Smith said in George Orwell's 1984, the power lies with the proles. It's just that our govt wants them to spy on each other. Make them distrust their fellow citizen and they are easier to control.

From The "Only In America" Files

2005-02-24T06:04:00.000+10:00

If you go to certain places on the planet, you see nudity. We are all born nude. Many cultures see people walk around nude, or nearly nude, as an everyday thing. They don't seem to be "disturbed" by it. And I really do not see the problem with it, specially when it is done in private between consenting adults. Which is to say, I like to walk around without having nudity shoved in my face - but - if you want to get nude behind closed doors somewhere, even if someone sees you nude who is also behind those doors, then go right ahead, as far as I am concerned.

Unfortunately, Big Brother knows better. He knows that seeing a naked woman behind closed doors is not good for me. And so he has banned it. At least, that's what the Big Brother who controls the city of Boise in Idaho figures.

You see, Boise's Big Brother banned total nudity in publicly accessible places - UNLESS - it has "serious artistic merit."

Effectively, what this did was shut down every strip club within the city.

See how clever the Big Brother bastards are? They don't ban strip clubs... they ban what goes on inside of them... nudity.

Ahhh... but they have been outsmarted. For you see, there is one strip club that charges customers $15 for a sketch pad, pencil and a chance to see a naked dancer. And they call it their "Art Club Night."

Each "Art Club Night" draws a full house and, more importantly, NO police citations for breaking the law.

It won't be long before other strip clubs cotton on to the idea and start having their own "Art Nights". Then what will Big Brother do? He can't ban drawing otherwise art at school and college will be gone.

If the "Art Nights" had not begun, I would have said that Black Market Stripping would have taken off. Where people would have to pay to become members of private clubs - maybe even one on one stuff with a "protector" hiding in the wings (another room) while the stripper does her thing in the lounge-room of whatever dwelling she rented for the purpose.

Obviously, stopping people from wanting to look at a naked body, is not going to happen. Stopping people from charging others to see a naked body, isn't going to happen. Nor stopping people from taking off their clothes for money. As such... and because Big Brother knows this... this is just another element of control and revenue raising and govt growth.

We tell people what they can and cannot do (control), we fine them when they do what we know they will (revenue raise) and we need more govt employees to enforce the new rules (govt growth). And when we catch them breaking the new silly law we made, we can then claim how effective our crime fighting is, or use it to justify even more police be employed.

In this case, it looks like Big Brother has been shown up to be the useless institution is really is. Always trying to protect us from our selves and justifying everything as being done "for the children."

What two people mutually and voluntarily agree to do, is none of anyone's business. If that includes one person paying another person so they can see some skin, then so be it.

What's next from Boise's Big Brother? Skirts of a certain length? Blouses with full length arms? No shoulder to be seen anywhere because it hints at nudity? Hey, if they can ban someone from being nude behind closed doors, and that self-created law can be gotten around by calling it "Art Night" and handing out sketch pads and pencils, then anything we think is ridiculous is possible. Just another case of "Only in America". But soon to be coming to a city near you.

Evolution Due To Meat, It Is Claimed

2005-02-23T11:42:00.000+10:00

Before getting into this latest claim, you need to know two important things...

Important Thing # 1: I do not eat meat. Not to "save the animals" or any such. I avoid it for my own health reasons - artificial hormones, pesticides, bacteria, etc.

Important Thing # 2: I do not believe in evolution as touted - nor do I believe in the "creationist" angle. And I'll cover this further.

Knowing my take on those two things is important as it relates to this next bit. So you can make an informed decision about my conclusions, or motivations behind my conclusions.

Anyway. Craig Stanford, an anthropologist, reckons that because chimpanzees eat meat they have an advanced social structure. And that meat eating helped chimps and humans evolve.

Well. This is another example of deductive logic instead of inductive logic.

Which is, seeing two things in common and concluding that one thing leads to the other. In this case, chimps sometimes eat meat, and so do humans. As both species have advanced social structures it must be due to eating meat.

A similar but different conclusion can be drawn... having an advanced social structure enables chimps and humans to catch animals and eat them.

See the difference. The professor says eating meat leads to an advanced social structure. I say, an advanced social structure enables both species to eat meat.

He says: meat eating = advanced social structure.

I say: Advanced social structure = ability to catch animals to eat them.

The reason I take my point is that we are effectively weaponless. We are too slow to catch prey in a race. We are too weak to bring any kind of animal down, if we do manage to catch it. And we have no natural body weapons to inflict damage on animals we catch - no claws, fangs or horns. Our ONLY weapon is a brain. And our brain enables us to have an advanced social structure. And thus organize and co-ordinate the capture of an animal for meat. So we HAD to have the advanced social structure first.

The other point the professor fails to acknowledge is that physiologically speaking, we are a closer match to gorillas than chimps! Meaning, we are designed to eat a diet that resembles what a gorilla eats. And that doesn't really include meat.

The "meat creates advanced social structure" theory, also doesn't apply across the board. Panthers, cougars, leopards, and cheaters, are all lone animals. Yet they all eat meat. So eating meat hasn't enabled them to have an advanced social structure. So obviously the theory doesn't hold up under even the most cursory glance. Let alone an indepth investigation.

Now to the professor's "evolution" claim...

I am getting fed up with scientists claiming we evolved from some kind of primate a long time ago. In fact, I am fed up with any claim of anything evolving into anything else.

The way they talk about it is as if the animal decided to evolve. Like, the lions needed a weapon to be able to bring down animals by themselves, and so evolved long claws. As if the lion awoke one morning and decided it needed claws and just willed them into being - and that somehow imprinted on the sperm and eggs produced so that when offspring were born they were born with claws.

It's all bollocks. I am yet to know of any evidence of any animal evolving from something else into what we see today.

To accept the evolution theory as it is, I would expect to see a range of animals with the better suited one surviving. Like maybe seeing a range of giraffes with different length necks. But that doesn't happen in the fossil record at all. It shows a time where there are no giraffes and then, suddenly, there are giraffes. And they are exactly as we see them today.

This means I am expected to believe, this animal "evolved" from something as yet unseen, and then remained unchanged for a million years or so. And this pattern - suddenly appears and then remains totally unchanged to this day - is repeated for all animals, including us!

In short, there is NO evidence that anything evolved into anything else. Animals just appear in the fossil record and remain unchanged until they disappear, or to this day - for those species still alive. Don't worry about our missing link, no animal has a missing link!

This isn't to say that animals don't share similar characteristics and can maybe be classified into groups. But just because some animals share certain traits doesn't mean they all evolved from the same single source and then mutated - miraculously gaining or dropping chromosomes or DNA as the case may be - so much so that they can no longer interbreed.

Does this mean I believe in creation?

Nope. I don't believe in that either.

I am happy to admit, I do not know for sure where we, or any animal on this planet, comes from. And just because I do not know, doesn't mean I HAVE to either believe evolution or creation. I am quite satisfied I do not know for certain. For all I know, maybe some lifeforms from outer space terraformed the earth and planted the animals here, like a large intergalactic zoo, or breeding pen. (Hey, you can't prove this right or wrong, right?) And after each mass extinction, they restocked the planet with different lifeforms more suited to the conditions of the time. (A theory which fits the available fossil record. And which cannot be disproved.)

Anyway. Seeing as "evolution" is a questionable theory at best, and that the "meat eating creates advanced social structure" theory is repudiated all throughout nature, me thinks this so-called anthropologist needs to go back to the drawing board before trying to make a name for himself.

How Does Your Sex Life Compare To Others?

2005-02-22T08:47:00.000+10:00

The podies are obsessed with sex and whether they are getting enough. Single guys envy those who are married cause they think it means "sex on tap". Married guys envy single guys cause they think it means going to nightclubs, picking up a girl, and having sex - repeated each weekend.

Single guys who aren't getting any, or much, think their "mates" are getting heaps. Married guys think other married guys are getting more than they are.

And girls are made to feel like there is something wrong with them if they aren't horny 24/7. Magazine articles claim to reveal "how to please your man" and other bullshit. As if to imply, they aren't pleasing their man now and won't be able to unless they do what the article says.

Besides articles and magazines catering to this market, there are regular "surveys" to help make everyone feel like they aren't getting enough. And ads promising to solve your erection disfunction through hypnosis, injections, or popping a little pill. And women too are being led to believe they need shots of testosterone to help bring their libido to "normal."

But what exactly is "normal"?

Is it what the medical profession says? In which case, you are accepting someone else's opinion.

Is it what friends reckon? In which case, you are accepting someone else's opinion, who has a motive for making out like they are some kind of sex expert so they can try to put one over on you.

Is it what some sex expert says? In which case, you are accepting someone else's opinion.

Is it what some article in a magazine says? In which case, you are accepting someone else's (a journalists) opinion?

Or is normal actually "normal for the couple"? Which may mean three times a week, once a week, once every two weeks, once a month, or any other frequency. Depending upon what the couple voluntarily and mutually agree upon without pressure from outside interference.

Physiologically speaking, a man is ready to go all the time, because he is fertile all the time. Whereas, a woman is only fertile for a brief period of time once a month, so is likely only to be "in the mood" for a brief period of time once a month.

To say that a woman who only wants sex once a month has a low libido, is a misnomer. Because it is only the OPINION of someone else - and that someone else is most probably a leftist journalist or researcher, as the left seems pre-occupied with people having sex all the time.

And it is even more of a misnomer when so-called researches claim this "low libido" (whatever they mean by that) is a "problem" that needs fixing with some drug or another. Specially when they then claim that a majority have this problem. (Hasn't anyone realized, if a majority of women feel a certain way about sex, maybe THAT is the norm and not what the minority feel, assuming the minority are honest in how they feel about sex and aren't just pretending to want it all the time as the magazines claim they should.)

But women aren't the only ones targeted by drug companies. Men have been bombarded with Viagra. The little pill to help a man get an erection.

Hey. It's a free market. If men want to use a drug to get it up, then so be it. But I draw the line when such a drug is to be made available through medicare. Because then *I* am subsidizing someone else's sex life. And screw that.

If Viagra can be obtained from medicare, why not funding for going to a strip club or dominatrix? Or porn DVD rental/purchase? After all, if it helps me "get it up" (just like Viagra does), then it serves the same function as Viagra and should thus be included, right?

Not getting an erection can be caused by so many things it is not funny. Most of them self-inflicted - too much booze, coffee, work, etc. The person's health is not at risk because they aren't having sex. So Viagra has no business being subsidized by the govt. Simple.

Liars Can Rot

2005-02-21T07:45:00.000+10:00

In a previous entry called Liars At The Door/Phone I mentioned my disdain for people who lie. Consider this entry a continuation with another example...

Joe Sugarman, the man behind Blue Blockers sunglasses and internationally known direct marketer, does not like liars much either. As he expressed so eloquently in his first book "Success Forces."

In that book his logic is, "If you will lie to me about something small, what else are you lying to me about?" And there is just no real way to know. Hence, any lie you catch means you cannot trust anything that person says, ever again. And he chooses NOT to do business with them.

This is an approach I fully agree with. If a person is willing to lie about something, and you bust them in some way, what else are they lying about, and how can you know anything they say is true?

Take this classic example. A guy needs some work done so calls my business. The work is done and we go our individual ways, until a week later when he calls again. He arranges a time to get more work done and that is that.

The day before the work is due to be done he calls me and changes the day to a different day and a little later in the day. All seems fine, right?

When I get there, he is not there and he doesn't answer his cell phone. But I am early so begin getting things ready for the work to go ahead, figuring he'll be there as promised. While chatting to the woman whose house my client shares, she tells me he told her I couldn't come on the other day because my vehicle had broken down (lie # 1). He tells her I can't come during any weekday morning because I work (lie # 2). That I can only come on the weekdays in the afternoon (lie # 3). Or that I can only come on weekends (lie # 4).

After 20 minutes he is still not there and so I leave. Never to return either, seeing the man is not only a liar, but is telling lies about me!!!

Years ago I did some work for a guy's business. He'd needed some help and called me.

Now the work he needed done was ongoing. So I was generating business for my business without needing to market. And this is an ideal situation because reduced costs mean more money stays in your pocket.

Anyway. Within the first hour of helping him, a call comes through on my cell phone, for him! It's his mom (who was doubling as his answering service). Passing on a message she had received over the landline. So I hand the phone to him. When he finishes the call and gives it back he says, "I don't take my cell phone on jobs anymore because clients started complaining about it ringing all the time."

I thought this was odd. But hey, if you are in a client's home/business and meeting with them, it is rude to constantly interrupt the meeting to "take a call". So I could see the merit in that.

Over the course of the following month, some of the things I heard him tell clients were quite out there. But as I never knew different... as I never knew his side... I couldn't say he was lying. Until we went to one client.

This client wanted all people entering their premises to have a police clearance - which simply means a piece of paper from the police saying you are not a convicted criminal, and which can be had for $30 or so. I had one but he had never asked to see it or even asked if I had one. And as we entered he told them I was cleared.

Ah Ha! A bold faced lie told right in front of me. He didn't know if I did or didn't have this clearance. And here he was telling them I had one.

I subsequently found out, he didn't have a cell phone because it had been cut off due to not paying his bill. And the business phone was in his mother's name because the phone company refused to let him have a phone of any kind. Which means, he told me a lie on the very first day.

That was the end of that. I won't work or have anything to do with liars. And told him not to call me for anymore "work".

And then there is the other guy, whose name is John. I was doing some work for him and he is telling me all kinds of hardluck stuff. Then during the course he gives me three different stories about WHO has the money to pay for the work... and tells them to me as if he hadn't told me the other story. Needless to say, his life wasn't going so well.

Or how about the guy who was selling his business and we were considering buying it. Tells me his wife can't be at the meeting because she is in New Zealand due to a death in the family. Then ten or fifteen minutes later he tells us his wife can't be there because she is 50 miles away in another city buying stock. If he is lying about his wife's location (another city or another country), what else about the business is he lying about? We didn't buy.

The interesting thing about liars is, they tend not to be successful. Sometimes all areas of their life are down the crapper. Sometimes they may look successful but the inner side, the emotional side and the relationship side are all crap.

But when you look at people in good solid relationships and with good solid businesses, you find honest people. So it seems the old cliche' "cheaters never prosper" has some truth to it after all.

Zero Sum - Games, Professions, Jobs

2005-02-19T18:26:00.000+10:00

Watching some European Poker last night, I couldn't help but see how much of a zero sum game it is. Which is to say, for one person to get ahead, another person MUST lose. Everyone at the table cannot accumulate more wealth. The wealth always comes at the expense of the other players.

No values are created. Values merely change hands.

And, due to some research I am doing at the moment, it is obvious there are other areas of life where the zero sum game is played at regularly.

For instance: Most lawsuits are zero sum suits where one person desires to get wealthy off of the effort of the other person.

Consider the case of the home owner who was renting her house out. There was a small hole in a particular piece of carpet. This small hole was covered over with a rug. The tenant took the rug outside exposing the hole, then subsequently claimed to have tripped over the hole and now suffers from back pain - no actually quantifiable damage, just pain.

To all of us sensible people, if you perform an action which exposes a possible danger to yourself, and then you experience that danger, it was all your fault.

Not so in this case. The silly judge said the home owner was at fault and awarded... ready?... $1.2 MILLION in damages to the tenant!!!

This would obviously be greater than the value of the rental property. And probably greater than the value of the rental property as well as the owner's own home. Which means, both dwellings would be sold and the home owner would then have to pay the tenant the difference until it was paid off, or until X number of years had passed, whichever came sooner.

The odd thing that no-one seems to question is... why should one person be made wealthy and another totally destroyed by having everything they have ever worked for taken away, as well as taking everything they work for for the next ten or so years?

In this example... if someone just came and took both houses of the landlord, there would be an outcry and "justice" would be called for. But when the "court" does it and says it's ok, then nobody questions it.

Anyway. The tenant would get wealthy by bankrupting someone else. This is an example of a zero sum event.

And what makes such frivolity possible?

Ambulance chasing lawyers!

Consider the lawyer. They create no values, they make a living taking values from others. Almost like a modern day robbin hood - trying to legally take the values someone else has worked darn hard to create and to give them to someone "they" deem worthy.

Now consider this... you fall over in a supermarket because you were NOT watching where you were going and you step onto some icecream on the tiled floor. You then go to a lawyer who is seeking Personal injury cases. You run your story by the lawyer and he says... "You'll win."

Of course he says that. For what would happen if he said, "you won't win?" Why, you'll go to another lawyer, and keep on going to other lawyers, until you find one who will say, "You'll win."

So you sue the shopping center. The logic is, they are insured and/or they have plenty of money.

The shopping center receives your letter and takes it to a lawyer who says... "You'll win." Because if they said anything other than that, such as "you won't win" or "settle now", you would go to another lawyer, and keep searching, until you found one who says, "You'll win."

So we now have two different people engaging/hiring two different lawyers. One lawyer is probably working on a "no win no fee" basis. But what he won't tell his client is, if they lose the client still has to pay the other person's legal costs.

And the other person has to pay money to a lawyer for defense.

Now, we tend to do more of what we get rewarded for doing. And in the case of the defense lawyer, they get paid for as long as the case drags on. So it is in their interest to string this along as long as possible. Otherwise their cash cow has disappeared.

Neither lawyer is creating values. One is trying to take the values off of a hardworking person. The other is taking those same values in high-priced "counsel" without actually giving anything of value back.

After a few years of this, the case is about to go to court and suddenly, it is settled out of court. All during that time, the defense lawyer has been sucking money out of their client. And the suing lawyer has been filing lawsuits all over the place hoping to win the sue lottery.

The point being, neither of the lawyers has created values. They just leeched off of the values others created.

In ALL conflict between two parties, resolution IS possible and would take place bar one factor...

A third party!

If you have a close look at any conflict between two people, a conflict that doesn't seem to be able to be resolved, you ALWAYS find a third party. And it is that third party, who is not directly involved in the conflict, which prevents the conflict from being resolved. And that third party could be anyone - friend, lover, workmate, lawyer, etc.

Think of a relationship break up, for example. And let's say, there is conflict over a HiFi Stereo worth $200. The girl wants the stereo and so does the guy.

Left alone to sort if out without outside interference, they WILL come to an agreement. Maybe she will pay him $100, maybe he will pay her $100, or they will give the stereo to the other in lieu of something else, or nothing else.

But now let's throw in a third party. Let's say a friend of the girl. This friend might say things like,"You should get the stereo after all you've done for him" or, "You pay him for the stereo? Huh, if he wants the stereo he should pay you the full amount so you can get another stereo", and other such verbiage.

And maybe the guy has a third party in his ear too. Maybe some "mate" who "reckons" the bitch shouldn't get anything, and certainly not $100 for the stereo.

To us sensible people, if either of them gives $100 to the other, the problem is solved. But when a third party is involved, conflict cannot be resolved.

Imagine if either of them sees an attorney. The attorney will say, "You'll win" and then the fight really begins in earnest.

Think of the case I heard on Judge Judy the other day (I heard it because I was in a client's home and they had it on). The woman hired an entertainer for a certain date. The booking conditions were "non refundable deposit." Which she agreed to.

Before the event, the woman's husband died. As the event was their wedding anniversary, there was now no need for an entertainer. And so the booking was cancelled.

In this example, it is really up to the entertainer to refund the money. And under normal circumstances he probably would. But you can just imagine it... "Honey," says his wife, "she knew the deposit was non refundable from the start. So she isn't entitled to a refund. That's just her tough luck."

At the woman's house, her sister is in her ear, "That bastard should refund the money. It's not like you cancelled for a silly reason."

And now with a third party(s) involved BEHIND the scenes, the conflict will NOT be resolved. And may result in one suing the other - as did happen. In which case, it goes before a judge to make a common sense ruling - such as upholding the agreed upon non-refundable deposit, or encouraging the business owner to do what will get him good word of mouth marketing and refund the money.

There are other value leeches playing a zero sum game. And they are mostly govt employees. As roughly 50% of the workforce are employed by the govt in some capacity, there is a good chance, many of my readers are also govt employees. Who, by no fault of their own, play a part in a zero sum game.

Look at the simple act of registering a business...

If I pay an official some money to be allowed to do something, that is called a bribe. But when that same payment is "sanctioned" and "forced" upon me, they call it business registration. Either way, the result to me is the same: I hand money to the govt to be allowed to do something. Whether the money changes hands does not change my ability to conduct business or enhance my ability to conduct business. And I get nothing back in return other than being allowed to conduct business. Thus, business registration is just a nice way to disguise the fact I am paying a bribe to the govt. The govt gets richer off of this money at my expense. Hence, it is a zero sum game.

The world can become a wealthier place for everyone, as soon as more people concentrate on creating values instead of taking values other people have created. And it can start with simple things...

When a person offers a cleaning service, for example, they are offering people a chance to gain more time. Time with which to pursue leisure activities or more productive activities. So, the cleaning service is creating life values for people.

Creating such values is what has enabled the "west" to progress. We no longer have to make our own clothes or fetch our own water or grow our own food. Other people offered to do that for us, creating life values for us. This gave us the time to better our situation with leisure activity or productive activity. And the productive activity often created values for others as well. And by concentrating on value creation instead of zero sum game value taking or terrorist value destroying, we have become more advanced.

How many values have you created today?

Weakness, Not Power, Corrupts

2005-02-15T19:20:00.000+10:00

We have all heard the saying, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Have you considered that it isn't power that corrupts but weakness?

Think about it... if you are put into a position of power, it is your weakness to be able to handle the responsibility that sees you corrupted. The stronger you are, the less corrupted you will be.

Which mean we can say, "Weakness corrupts. Absolute weakness corrupts absolutely."

Consider the movie The Lord of The Rings...

It is actually a movie about power and its corrupting influence due to the weakness of those who have power.

Gollum's inability to resist the ring (his weakness) lead to his downfall and the ring's. It caused him to murder for it. And to plot and scheme.

Even Frodo, who did not want the burden but who took it on anyway, was finally overcome due to his weakness to resist.

All through the movie, the weak characters lust after the power. Lust after it and to yield it. Exposing their weakness for all to see.

When the city of Minas Tirith was being attacked, the Steward sent his only son to his death, and then, when the son returned hurt but alive, his weakness came through again as he tried to burn his son alive.

The entire saga of how the ring first came to dominance, was also one of weakness. As the 12 Men were too weak to handle the power of the rings they had.

But movies aren't the only places the weakness is seen. It is just that The Lord of The Rings is the best movie example of it because it permeates all the way through. The weakness of the characters dominates the story. Weakness and power.

In real life, the best examples of weakness are the countries with dictators. Even if initially they claimed to have wonderful ideals of how to run the country for everyone's benefit, their weakness saw them succumb to the power until it is the be all and end all for them.

Look at the King of Nepal. Recently, because he decided he wasn't happy with the government, his weakness saw him take full control of the country.

But weakness of power isn't the only place it is seen. In everyday life we see weakness everywhere. Especially with sex and drugs.

People, many people, live for sex. They are weak. And allow themselves to be influenced to the extent that sex is the primary thing of their life.

Drugs too - and this includes alcohol - are the result of weakness. Only weak people take drugs of any kind.

Bad relationships are also seen to be due to weakness. Two lots of weakness. The dominator is too weak to allow the other person freedom. And the dominated person is too weak to take back their life.

Everywhere you look you see weakness...

Those who follow the trends and buy an entire new wardrobe every season are too weak to be able to control themselves and be their own person. Those who bow down to peer group pressure are weak. Most overweight people are too weak to put the fork down and eat proper food. Cigarette smokers are weak. As too are those who are religious!

Yes. Religious people are weak. For they choose to fob the responsibility for their life onto some deity.

If there is a plague which afflicts the human race in the modern world, it is weakness.

Fame

2005-02-14T05:10:00.000+10:00

There is a show playing on Pay TV in Australia. It's called "Fame" and it's a reality TV show from the US. It's premiss is like that of the Idol TV shows... a bunch of people sing and dance in an effort to win the contest.

During this show, I saw three performances before flicking away. All the performances were not great. And all performances were not given honest appraisals by the judges. They were given commentary to make them feel good - a typical leftist thing to do.

When one of the contestants was being honest - he said his eyes were too small for his head, his cheeks were too big, and comparing himself to the other contestants, he felt they could all be models but not him - he was told he was being down on himself and he shouldn't be so negative.

Negative? He was calm. NOT self deprecating. And said what everyone was thinking. But he is told that is a bad thing. And given some BS "feel good" stuff.

The next performance was bad. But she was excused due to a slightly sore ankle. She didn't have the same amount of time to rehearse as the others and bale bale bale. It wasn't her making the excuse, it was the judges making the excuse for her!

The third and last act I saw, was equally bad. And again the judges made an excuse for her saying, she was so good the week before she had raised the bar too high for her to reach this week.

How does this help a person deal with the real world of let downs and disappointments?

They are only young, we are told. And I ask, at what age do we introduce them to the realities of the world. Where everyone is not super talented at every task. Where some people are better than others.

Why must we forever protect the sensibilities of people striving to perform, or achieve any goal? We don't have to put them down. I am not saying that. But neither should we lie to them. For when reality does smack them upside the head, they experience incredible disappointment like never before. And they do not know how to deal with it. Yet it is only through our disappointments that we learn to handle disappointment in a mature way.

Early in my Tennis days, I went undefeated. It was incredible to go through an entire season without losing. And devastating to then lose my singles in the final.

Not having experienced this kind of defeat, I did what any young boy would do and cried. Big match. The match of the season, and I was experiencing something new... massive disappointment.

Next season it happened again. All season I won everything. Until the final. When I lost my singles again. And again the waterworks appeared. But I learned something. I learned that you don't win all the time. And that sometimes you do lose, for now, while you can win overall. And from that moment on I was fine. I was able to handle loss. Massive loss. And I was not yet 13.

For years after, while playing representative tennis, one of the guys in my team would cry after EVERY match he lost - which was every singles he played on a weekly basis. And I couldn't understand WHY he never learned to deal with it. Until I played a tournament with him, that is.

We were in the doubles. Due to play a doubles pair I had been in a squad with previously. I knew our opponents from experience. And they were a VERY good doubles pair. In fact, I had never seen them lose a match.

All the while we were waiting to play, my partner's father kept saying how we were better and we were going to beat them, and bale bale bale. It was actually becoming annoying.

We lost. My partner was destroyed again. And I understood why. He had been so built up by his father he couldn't mentally handle the crushing defeat, that shouldn't have happened as far as he had been told.

And this kind of mindless protection of someone's feelings so they won't experience disappointment, creates weak people. Weak and incredibly immature people. Immature like a child. Even as they are young adults and grow into older adults.

It is then easier to stay on that side of the political spectrum and not deal in reality. But deal in the "don't saying anything because it might upset someone" fantasy world.

This show, Fame, produces no character of strength. It just reinforces the bullshit the liberal "protection at all costs from reality" instills in people. When you have an adult who never learned to handle disappointment, you have a danger.

While a child cannot do much harm when disappointed. An adult can do massive harm economically and other. Their immaturity can lose people jobs, cripple companies, and can do financial damage to their family. All because they were protected from the realities of the world and not let experience true disappointment.

We live in a time were lack of talent is ignored. And whatever skill - or lack thereof - someone has, is praised beyond all sense for fear of upsetting them.

This has the effect of stopping all progress to a better attainment of skill. For if the individual is told how wonderful they are at doing something, they will stop trying to better themselves.

The other week a new show in Australia came on the air, called X Factor. Another Idol-like show.

One of the judges is John Reid. A guy who has worked with the likes of Elton John, Queen, etc. So let's just say, he knows talent because he has worked with it directly.

One hopeful came on and was terrible. Didn't sing a single note in tune. Pitch all over the place. Dreadful, she was.

When she was given all "No" responses from the judges she asked why. And John told her, because you can't sing.

That destroyed her. She cried. Accused the judges of "destroying her dreams" and yadda yadda yadda.

You can just imagine it. Told by everyone how wonderful she is - for fear of upsetting her. But when she is given a truthful answer she can't handle it. Collapses into a whiney heap and complains about it to anyone who will listen - which will be other's like her who have been deluded into thinking they are good when they really have no talent at all, as far as singing goes.

And because she has not experienced disappointment like this - because everyone is walking around on egg shells for fear of upsetting others - when she does experience it she cannot handle it. She does not have the maturity to handle it.

Maybe when she gets back home and sees herself on the TV she will accept reality. But that is even questionable. As it is more likely she will continue to be in self-denial and won't even watch the show. Thinking it is all bullshit.

Such is the legacy of the "don't say anything to hurt someone's feelings" leftist mumbo jumbo which permeates our society. We end up with a bunch of adults too immature to handle disappointments. And so their reactions are the same as a child, except with the power of an adult to effect certain changes. And that's dangerous.

Heartless, Some Would Say

2005-02-13T07:26:00.000+10:00

Someone I know of was in a car crash recently. Their wife died. They lived.

I knew of this person just like I know of the people that audition for talent-based reality TV shows; just like I know of anyone who gets their mug on the news; just like I know of Richard Branson or Donald Trump. In other words, they are as much a stranger to me as any other person on the planet whose name I haven't heard of. I know OF them, but do not know them.

Anyway. While what this person has gone through is certainly not happy, it is no more special than any other person who experiences a tragedy of any kind. And therefore no more deserving of any kind of special treatment.

A few of those who know him - and, I suppose, met him at some marketing event somewhere - have taken it upon themselves to get the biggest goodguy badge they can. And are urging people to buy his product - all designed to aid him financially "in his time of need."

One has sent a message to his list of subscribers. Another has spammed a message board with the "appeal". Another has set up a brand new discussion board where people can leave messages of condolence (oh puh-leeeeease).

And people are jumping onto the "I'm a goodguy too everyone because I offer my sympathy" bandwagon. All seeking their own goodguy badge.

Bollocks to that.

When I was at a company helping them design their training materials, one of the workers lost a brother. And during some staff meeting, a collection was started up - just like passing the collection plate around at church, which uses social pressure to get people to give. When the collection plate - which was an empty and clean tub of margarine - reached me I grabbed it, said it was bullshit to collect money this way, said if someone wanted to give let them do it without pressure, and put the tub on the table.

As far as I am aware, the money that had been collected due to group pressure and no-one wanting to look like they didn't care, was all the money that was collected. When the instigator of the collection went around the business by themselves, asking for donations on an individual basis, everyone said "No".

Obviously I gave nothing. I know of the man. Had even spoken with him a few times. But that is no reason for me to give up the fruits of my labor for some gesture of sympathy.

It's like funerals. I do NOT go to them. I see no reason to go. No reason to surround myself with people who cared so little about the deceased they never bothered having anything to do with them in life for over 20 years, but make time to see their corpse. To me, they are making a show of it, as if attending the funeral shows they care. Because what would people think if they didn't turn up? Besides, attending the funeral doesn't help the dead person. They are gone.

If a person wants to mourn. They can mourn, in a way that suits them. There is no rule that says they have to do their mourning at a set point in time, at a set location, in front of other people.

I want to keep happiness in my life. Attending funerals does not achieve that aim. So I do not go. Simple.

And this recent event is like that. Just because someone I know of experienced some tragedy is, no reason for me to give up the fruits of my labor to help them financially - specially when they reckon they were very successful anyway. (If they are as successful as claimed they don't need this financial aid.)

I'll leave the goodguy badge collecting to the sheep, and the head sheep with their "cause of the moment". (I notice none of these "let's all give to the tragic event" appeal instigators, were so vocal about giving to other tragic events that have happened over the years. Obviously they feel they can get a monster-sized goodguy badge out of this one.)

I know some of my readers who know of which event I speak, will think me a heartless bastard (and maybe some of those who don't know of the event will think it too). But I ask you what makes my comments heartless? And why should I be anything other than honest? I am not going to buy a book I don't want or need to help a stranger who claims to be super successful anyway, just because someone died. I am not going to be superficial or fake and offer sympathies I don't have.

Arthur Miller died. Should we all go buy some Arthur Miller products? Maybe we should all go buy some Buddy Holly stuff. Or James Dean products? Maybe some Hendrix stuff? How about we all buy Bill Clinton's book so he can have more money for heart surgery? Or we need to buy Hillary Clinton's book so she has enough money in case Bill dies? After all, it's the same thing when you boil it all down.

Look. I live in the really real world. And in that world, on an hourly basis, someone somewhere loses a loved one. If I were to "give" to all appeals that come my way I would have no money left for myself. And quite frankly, me and my immediate family come before helping some stranger with the fruits of my labor, no matter how many people reckon he is a good bloke.

I don't know the man. And I would no more buy something from him because of a personal tragedy than if the tragedy had not happened. Using sympathy to get sales, for whatever reason, is blatant goodguy manipulation. Those who lead the way wearing the biggest goodguy badges. Because they can walk around all smug about how they helped their charity case for the moment, before moving on to other things. Sorry. But I don't play those games. And to do so would be to start being a fake person.

If you want to give to things. Then give and be done with it. But don't try to rope other people into your cause. No matter how noble you think your cause is. Because I can tell you, there are other causes where people are really and truly suffering, but there is an odd silence about helping those people. And it kind of becomes hypocritical because while you won't help those people because you don't know them, you want others to help people they don't know, because you might know them or have decided it is your pet cause of the week/month. Again. I don't play those fake-person games.

Money Means Healthier Kids - More Leftist Research

2005-02-12T04:55:00.000+10:00

According to the news media, new research reveals having money means you have healthier kids. With the obvious implications being, we need to tax the rich some more and give the money to the poor, for the kid's sake.

I have a different take on it. And think the researchers are using deductive logic again.

It would appear they have observed two things... healthy children are nearly always only found in families with money. Based on this they deduce that having money made the children healthy.

How about this instead...

To achieve wealth requires a certain type of person. That person is usually disciplined in all areas of their life. Their appearance, grooming and hygiene. Their discipline it what enables them to make money. Their discipline is what keeps them healthy. This discipline effects those under their care - their children. And as a result, their children are also value-producing people in better health.

Compare this to the welfare rip-off artists. They have this tendency NOT to care about anything. They don't care about bettering themselves, which is why they stay on welfare. They eat crap food, smoke cigarettes, drink copious amounts of alcohol and generally do not look after their children - they don't care about themselves and certainly likewise do not care about their children. As a result, their children, who spend most of their time unsupervised, are sick more often. And I bet if we researched further we would also find them borderline malnourished.

The leftist researchers will blame this on lack of money and NOT lack of caring, self-discipline and a desire to better yourself. Because to do such a thing would be telling the welfare person, they are in the position they are in and remain there because of themselves. And saying such a thing is just not PC.

These kinds of questionable results need to be knocked on the head the moment they come out otherwise they gain acceptance. And they become another wedge the socialists can use to leech money out of the value-producing and productive members of society. And always for their good works of "helping the disadvantaged" and doing it "for the children".

Another Socialist Attack On Business Owners

2005-02-11T07:49:00.000+10:00

Unions are the epitome of socialism. They produce no values whatsoever, and survive off of the efforts of others. With some jobs being totally union controlled - you can't get a job within that industry unless you are a member of the union.

The union makes its money not from producing values, but from sucking the money out of the worker. Just like any good socialist undertaking.

Anyway. Recently there has been an attack on business owners from Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. They are DEMANDING an ADDITIONAL 12 days of PAID leave a year for menstrual pain!!!

Does the worker have to produce anything extra for this?

Of course not.

They just get an extra two weeks of paid leave a year for "claiming" they have period pain. And the business owner has to suck it up and hand over the money.

At the moment, these DEMANDS are only being made at Toyota. However, if they go through, watch out. The rest of the country will be up shit creek. Imagine nearly 50% of the population getting an extra two weeks off a year. Not only do you have to pay money without getting anything back, the business also loses productivity. So it is a double loss.

The union's excuse? Simply this... "it was common sense that workplaces should accommodate the individual circumstances of their employees."

And to accept this is really opening yourself up for all kinds of claims. Why not 10 days of headache leave (paid) each year? Or how about 12 days of fishing leave (paid) - after all, it is an individual circumstance and there might only be 12 really good fishing days when the tide and everything is right. And so on.

Their menstrual claim would be based on what happened eight years ago. Eight years ago the National Tertiary Education Union successfully negotiated 12 days "special leave" for women suffering severe period pains at four Australian universities. Of course this would go through because universities are leftists organizations. But it sets bad precedents.

But that's not all. The union has 600 demands! Two of which are "employer-provided child care" and "10 per cent pay rises each year for the next three years".

Instead of letting competition reign and choosing to work only at businesses that provide childcare, these bastards want to force the business to provide childcare for them.

And 10% pay increase EACH year!? That means, if the employee is on $600 per week, they immediately go to $660. The next year they go to $726 and the year after they go to $798. That sees their yearly pay go from $31,200 to $41,527! And do they have to produce more to get this increase? Not if the union has anything to do with it. Just like the women don't have to produce anything extra to get "paid menstrual leave".

This is obviously a ploy of the union to ask for ridiculous things so they can let them be negotiated away. And then they can play the "but we gave up on this demand" game.

Unions have had their time. They are defunct and there is no need for them. They produce nothing and leech of the efforts of others, while simultaneously trying to do so much damage to the business the workers they represent work for, it has to either close down or ship its staffing off shore.

In this day and age of global business, to make such outlandish claims while businesses experience increased international competition, is a detriment to the workers.

Of course, the union has the union's interest at heart. Increased income means more union fees. So the union gets richer for nothing. While achieving its socialist aims... more control of the business.

It's things like this that bring to mind the comedy show Kingswood Country and its main character Ted Bullpit with his famous saying when he encountered such stupidity... "someone should blow unions up". Of course, he usually leveled his comments at nuns and pigeons that pooped on his car. But we could all understand his frustrations.

It also reminds me of some of the stupid claims made during the construction of the Sydney Entertainment Center. With one such claim being, "The workers could smell Chinese cooking coming from the nearby Chinatown part of town, and it was distracting them and preventing them from working properly. So they wanted FREE Chinese food for lunch everyday." And when they didn't get it, they went on strike. And in fact, there were more days spent on strike on that construction job than days spent working. All thanks to unions.

See How Good We Are? We Up Our Charges Then Give The Money Away

2005-02-10T13:18:00.000+10:00

While I am all in favor of entities doing what they want with what they earn, the following entry is one of disbelief, and bewilderment from a shareholder's point of view.

My bank, I have just discovered, gives away $31 million dollars each year to various charities. And as I just said, they can do with their profits whatever they want to. My beef with them is as follows...

They complain about dwindling profits. They increase my fees. All of which is quite fair in a user pays system. But then GIVE AWAY the extra money they are now charging me. Making no real improvement in their bottom line. Hence, they have, in a round about way, misled me.

As a stockholder, which I am not, I would be mighty pissed. Because a company's management team has one purpose... to increase the value of the stock for the stockholder. And they can do this by either increasing real profits, buying back stock (reducing the supply and thus the price goes up due to demand), by re-investing IN the company to make the company worth more, or by paying out the profits as a dividend (large dividend payments increase demand for the stock and send its value up). So the management is failing in their fundamental purpose.

DuPont saw declining profits and a dropping stock price many years ago. A look through back issues of their newsletter revealed something interesting. While the stock was up and profits were good, the newsletter was full of business stuff. How best to grow the business, capture new markets, etc. As the profits and stock price fell, items that appeared in the newsletter were about helping disadvantaged youth, giving money away! And so on.

Stockholders do NOT want the business they own a part of, to give its money away without anything to show for it. Every time that kind of thing happens, it drains a company of its lifeforce. And the stock is weaker.

And this is why my bank's shares are not worth as much as they could be. Because they give away $31 million each year.

So who does it go to?

You'll love this...

First is the matching of monies their employees give. So if an employee gives $100 to the "Priest Retirement Fund" (this is an actual "charity" that gets money from them), then the bank will match that $100. A look at the list sees money going to a plethora of building funds (all of them religion based - the St Augustine School Library building fund, for example), different churches and what not (including Jew, Christian and Islamic groups), and the usual Save The Whale type of animal thing (including greenpeace).

How would you feel to know your money is going to support "charities" and religions you do not believe in?

As well as these items, they also give money to... Aboriginal Tourism and other Aboriginal groups!!!

Yep. My bank gives money to Aboriginal groups. And by doing so, are playing a part in helping segregate the races. Why not a group of whites? Why just Aboriginals?

When I found out how much was going to these "leech on society" groups, I was gobsmacked. I couldn't help but feel the many hundreds I pay in banks fees each year, where being spent on areas that did not help my bank.

Community "good will" does not get customers into the bank. And certainly not $31 million dollars worth of customers. All it does is drain a business of money. Money it could use to increase the business and make it stronger and worth more to the shareholders.

I have a stake in the bank. Not as a shareholder. But as a customer. And my stake wants the bank to be as strong as it can be, because then my money is safer, and I am likely to get better deals from them. So it disappoints me to know they are wasting so much money on such useless things as community good will.

If you want to give $31 million away, give it back to the customer in reduced bank fees. The money will certainly be appreciated more. And the bank will be more competitive. But what should be done with it is, reinvested into the company in some way - stock buy back, expansion, etc. - that increases and produces values.

Cats Are More Important Than People, According To Some

2005-02-09T07:10:00.000+10:00

With fires there are two rules...

Rule # 1: Look after number one. If you are at work and a fire breaks out, look after yourself and get out. Trying to be a hero will, almost always, result in your death. Leave the rescuing to the professionals.

Rule # 2: People are more important than animals. Quite simply, never risk your life trying to save an animal - even a pet that is part of the family.

These two rules are about saving HUMAN life. Because to us humans, human life is sacrosanct.

In Nepal there is a woman. Her name is Latika Rana and she is married to the Prince of Nepal. Now this entry isn't a dig at the King of Nepal for just up and taking over the country, as he did the other week. It is about Princess Latika - the inhuman princess who can rot in hell as far as I am concerned.

You see. Latika is a Tiger conservationist. She spend millions and millions of dollars every year trying to "protect" tigers. She visits tiger conservation parks and goes on sight-seeing tours to see how they are doing. All the while millions of people in Nepal starve for lack of food and clean water.

When asked about this. About how she could spend more time and money on the welfare of a few tigers while millions of human-being Nepalese die in abject poverty, she could not answer. Her answer was, "It's a difficult question. And it's one that is too emotional to answer." And that was that. That was her answer as to why she values the life of a few tigers OVER her subjects - whom, by her position, she is obligated to look after.

She has the millions of dollars because of these people. But instead of doing the right thing, she milks them dry for her "good works" and leaves them to die. Without lifting a god damn finger to do anything to help them. She just ignores them and goes on her way.

No wonder the King of Nepal controls the military. If he didn't he'd be set upon by the starving masses, as they set upon the French all those years ago. By controlling the military, he is assured any uprising by the poverty stricken to better themselves, won't go anywhere.

And such is the result of the caste system. Born into poverty, tough luck. You aren't allowed up the ladder. Your life is worth less than that of a cat. As long as you pay your taxes and make the ruling bastards richer, you will be left alone. But not helped. And snobby princesses will simply delve into their crockpot full of baloney stew and tell us all it is a question that is too emotional to answer.

The entire Nepal "Royal" family can go rot in hell for failing in their fundamental role as monarchs - to be guardians of the people, not slave masters.

Of course, the greenies and others of their ilk will love Ms "People Can Rot As Long As Tigers Live" as she keeps on putting the highest life form on the plant (humans she has been entrusted with), under her muddy, tiger shit encrusted boot. As far as I am concerned, the people she steps on and sucks the life out of for her "escapades", are worth far more as human beings than she is. She is a property rights infringer of the highest order. And could learn a thing or two from Princess Di. (Somehow I don't think there is a Prince of Nepal Trust like the Prince of Wales trust to help people.)