Here's an article from the American ABC News ("Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran") regarding a covert operation into Iran that has just been approved by George W Bush:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2jefnp
The article was written by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito.
The basic thrust of this article is that an anonymous source has confirmed that Bush has given approval to a CIA operation to destabilise the Iranian Government.
"President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions."
The gall of these people to even think they have the right to meddle like this in someone else's country! A country that has not initiated any force against the US.
In my opinion, this is the same sort of meddling that encouraged the retributions of 911.
It also raises a number of key questions:
1) What sort of action will Iran respond with?
2) If this triggers a military action (remember the last war that the US was in was WWII, the others were not constitutionally declared) then how will it be paid for?
3) If this triggers the scare of a "nuclear threat" from Iran then will that be sufficient to invoke the "National Continuity Policy"?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Genocide, Intolerance and a changing Western World
My response to an accusation levelled at me that I support the influx of Moslems into Europe to the detriment of Western culture:
I don't want to see European and Western culture destroyed. I love being a white, middle-class Westerner of Christian background. I love how my culture has developed. I get a real kick out of the diversity that has allowed my culture to grow and flourish.
A pertinent example of just why I love the influence of all the cultures that the West has absorbed, and been influenced by, is a typical Australian cuisine choice that now exists.
Speaking generally, in my youth (I'm 42 now) you basically had a choice of English style food, Chinese food and some badly done Italian food. With this you could drink Aussie beer or plonk out of a cask. Dessert was inevitably cake or ice cream served with tea or crappy instant coffee.
Nowadays if I go into a general cuisine Australian restaurant I have a choice of (well prepared) foods from all around the world. I can have: a good lump of steak with roast vegies and some steamed bok choy; a cheesburger with fries; some pork loin and mortadello tortellini; some stir-fried vegetables. I may have this after an entree of Moroccan meatballs or maybe some tasty scampi. I can choose beer from all over the world from Budweiser to Tsingtao or wines from Western Australia's Margaret River through Spain's Rueda to California's Napa Valley. I can then finish off with dessert of Tira Misu, Apple pie, ice-cream or maybe just a morsel of Baklava. I can then complete the meal with a long macchiato, cup of tea or maybe just a refreshing glass of San Pellegrino or Coca-Cola.
All this gastronomic joy is brought to me through the many cultures absorbed by the the West. This flexibility and desire to grow is one of the great strengths of my culture.
It's not just food. For me, food happens to be an exceptional example of the benefits of tolerance. Have a look at the inventions, customs and advances that have come to the west from the Muslim world, from Asia and from the Americas. How on earth do you think we've come as far as we have?
The intolerance that you propose is the marker of times throughout history when the West stagnated. The hate and violence that you preach is what holds back the progress of the West.
Look back in histoy and you'll find that there is always a "boogey man". In my time it has been Italians and Greeks, then it was the Vietnamese, then it was Indians and Pakistanis. Now it's the North Africans. Look again at the lessons from History and you will see that one day it will be the Americans that are the world's problem refugees.
The idea of growing and adopting new and unfamiliar cultures and beliefs can cause fear and concern. It doesn't mean loss of identity it simply means a new perspective on a changing world.
The world will always change and be full of challenges. When fear of the unknown is abused and exploited as a "solution" (final?) to this change then that is always the dark hour of humankind. The dark hour where hate oozes sickly from our pores in a rancid, unstoppable puss that pollutes all that is good and kills all that grows and changes to nourish us.
I don't want to see European and Western culture destroyed. I love being a white, middle-class Westerner of Christian background. I love how my culture has developed. I get a real kick out of the diversity that has allowed my culture to grow and flourish.
A pertinent example of just why I love the influence of all the cultures that the West has absorbed, and been influenced by, is a typical Australian cuisine choice that now exists.
Speaking generally, in my youth (I'm 42 now) you basically had a choice of English style food, Chinese food and some badly done Italian food. With this you could drink Aussie beer or plonk out of a cask. Dessert was inevitably cake or ice cream served with tea or crappy instant coffee.
Nowadays if I go into a general cuisine Australian restaurant I have a choice of (well prepared) foods from all around the world. I can have: a good lump of steak with roast vegies and some steamed bok choy; a cheesburger with fries; some pork loin and mortadello tortellini; some stir-fried vegetables. I may have this after an entree of Moroccan meatballs or maybe some tasty scampi. I can choose beer from all over the world from Budweiser to Tsingtao or wines from Western Australia's Margaret River through Spain's Rueda to California's Napa Valley. I can then finish off with dessert of Tira Misu, Apple pie, ice-cream or maybe just a morsel of Baklava. I can then complete the meal with a long macchiato, cup of tea or maybe just a refreshing glass of San Pellegrino or Coca-Cola.
All this gastronomic joy is brought to me through the many cultures absorbed by the the West. This flexibility and desire to grow is one of the great strengths of my culture.
It's not just food. For me, food happens to be an exceptional example of the benefits of tolerance. Have a look at the inventions, customs and advances that have come to the west from the Muslim world, from Asia and from the Americas. How on earth do you think we've come as far as we have?
The intolerance that you propose is the marker of times throughout history when the West stagnated. The hate and violence that you preach is what holds back the progress of the West.
Look back in histoy and you'll find that there is always a "boogey man". In my time it has been Italians and Greeks, then it was the Vietnamese, then it was Indians and Pakistanis. Now it's the North Africans. Look again at the lessons from History and you will see that one day it will be the Americans that are the world's problem refugees.
The idea of growing and adopting new and unfamiliar cultures and beliefs can cause fear and concern. It doesn't mean loss of identity it simply means a new perspective on a changing world.
The world will always change and be full of challenges. When fear of the unknown is abused and exploited as a "solution" (final?) to this change then that is always the dark hour of humankind. The dark hour where hate oozes sickly from our pores in a rancid, unstoppable puss that pollutes all that is good and kills all that grows and changes to nourish us.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Cost of Health Care
I was lucky enough to have the following article pointed out to me by an anti-gunner that I debate issues with at aus.politics.guns. Thanks Trevor.
This article appears in the Sydney Morning Herald April 18, 2007. Author is Mark Coultan. Piece is titled "Gouged and gutted by medical insurance".
http://tinyurl.com/34gw3z
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/34gw3z (if you want to preview the site first)
There were several highlights in the article for me.
"Corzine was not wearing a seatbelt, in violation of his own state's laws."
This is the lawmaker disobeying the very laws he seeks to punish his constituents with. He was in a vehicle with a police officer who obviously did nothing to enforce the law that he is supposedly sworn to uphold.
If the lawmaker doesn't respect the law then why should a citizen have any respect or trust for that leader?
If the law enforcer doesn't enforce the law (presumably he liked his/her job) then what sort of respect should he expect from the community?
What does this really say about these type of laws that try to legislate common sense?
"Unlike the stories you sometimes hear about American medical care"
Yeah, from rags like the Sydney Morning Herald (and the Telegraph, Sun etc). So now they are giving us accurate information (btw I think they probably are) and not sensationalising this time? I'm sorry but they cry wolf so often that I have *no* respect for them.
"A New York state politician did a survey of New York hospitals' costs, finding that one, Mount Sinai, charged $US224,000 for intestinal biopsies, a one-day procedure."
Found *one*. What did the others charge? Are people forced to use this service? Why does it cost so much?
"With breast cancer on her medical record, insurance companies did not want to cover her"
Nor should they have to cover her if they don't want to. It's their business isn't it? See further down for why she has no alternatives to consider.
"To save money, she takes her $US300-a-month medication three or four days a week, instead of daily."
$300 a month! Imagine how affordable it would become if the company did not have to:
- Pay hundreds of millions of dollars ($USD100,000,000+) to get their drug approved by the FDA (not to mention government organisations in other countries).
- Pay annual license fees, regulatory fees, fees for submissions of reports to the government.
- Comply with complex accounting procedures required by the government.
- Pay exorbitant insurance costs to defend themselves against a legal system that has decayed into a lottery for civil litigants.
"As some Americans penny-pinch to afford health care, the nation as a whole binges. The US spends 16 per cent of its gross domestic product on health, about 50 per cent more than Australia or other industrialised countries, yet its health outcomes are no better, and on some measures slightly worse, than comparable countries."
This is an incredible amount of money. To get results that are no better than other industrialised countries just underscores how inefficient the government is as a delivery mechanism of resources.
Worse still is that they are *forcing* (ultimately at the point of a gun) their citizens to finance their squandering.
"Not surprisingly, health care is a constant political topic. Several states, including Massachusetts and California, are introducing universal coverage reforms."
A constant political topic :). I don't know about you but I get sick of all the talk, investigations, commissions, hearings and chest-beatings that ultimately produce the same old tired, expensive and inefficient results.
It's also typical that a "law must be introduced". Great, one more law that people can't reasonably know about.
"There are too many powerful, entrenched and vested interests - doctors, pharmaceutical groups and insurance companies."
This is a massive problem in this area. These interests have:
- jumped through the hoops of government
- paid the over inflated fees required to conduct their business
- paid the onerous annual license fees
Why wouldn't they fight to keep competition out? They have too much time and money invested in the system to want to see someone else come in without going through the same pain that they've had to go through. In fact the more competition that they can keep out, the better.
What most people don't understand is that it is *only* through the *force* of government that monopolies and oligopolies exist. Most of these "big, evil" corporations are there only by the grace of government force.
"with the cost of health care rising rapidly"
Why is it rising? Look at the cost of doing business that is imposed by government. Look at the concentration of power facilitated by the government rules. Look at inflation created by government mismanagement and corruption of the monetary system.
"societies have a choice: either restrict health care on the basis of medical need, which is what a Medicare system attempts to do, or restrict it on the basis of income or employment, which is what happens in the US."
Great! The constant inability to think outside the box is always frustrating. These are *not* the only two choices. How about taking the government out of our lives and letting people choose how they want to live?
To all those do-gooders who want to make me live the "right" way using the violence and force of government - pull your whining little heads in, piss off and leave me alone.
This article appears in the Sydney Morning Herald April 18, 2007. Author is Mark Coultan. Piece is titled "Gouged and gutted by medical insurance".
http://tinyurl.com/34gw3z
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/34gw3z (if you want to preview the site first)
There were several highlights in the article for me.
"Corzine was not wearing a seatbelt, in violation of his own state's laws."
This is the lawmaker disobeying the very laws he seeks to punish his constituents with. He was in a vehicle with a police officer who obviously did nothing to enforce the law that he is supposedly sworn to uphold.
If the lawmaker doesn't respect the law then why should a citizen have any respect or trust for that leader?
If the law enforcer doesn't enforce the law (presumably he liked his/her job) then what sort of respect should he expect from the community?
What does this really say about these type of laws that try to legislate common sense?
"Unlike the stories you sometimes hear about American medical care"
Yeah, from rags like the Sydney Morning Herald (and the Telegraph, Sun etc). So now they are giving us accurate information (btw I think they probably are) and not sensationalising this time? I'm sorry but they cry wolf so often that I have *no* respect for them.
"A New York state politician did a survey of New York hospitals' costs, finding that one, Mount Sinai, charged $US224,000 for intestinal biopsies, a one-day procedure."
Found *one*. What did the others charge? Are people forced to use this service? Why does it cost so much?
"With breast cancer on her medical record, insurance companies did not want to cover her"
Nor should they have to cover her if they don't want to. It's their business isn't it? See further down for why she has no alternatives to consider.
"To save money, she takes her $US300-a-month medication three or four days a week, instead of daily."
$300 a month! Imagine how affordable it would become if the company did not have to:
- Pay hundreds of millions of dollars ($USD100,000,000+) to get their drug approved by the FDA (not to mention government organisations in other countries).
- Pay annual license fees, regulatory fees, fees for submissions of reports to the government.
- Comply with complex accounting procedures required by the government.
- Pay exorbitant insurance costs to defend themselves against a legal system that has decayed into a lottery for civil litigants.
"As some Americans penny-pinch to afford health care, the nation as a whole binges. The US spends 16 per cent of its gross domestic product on health, about 50 per cent more than Australia or other industrialised countries, yet its health outcomes are no better, and on some measures slightly worse, than comparable countries."
This is an incredible amount of money. To get results that are no better than other industrialised countries just underscores how inefficient the government is as a delivery mechanism of resources.
Worse still is that they are *forcing* (ultimately at the point of a gun) their citizens to finance their squandering.
"Not surprisingly, health care is a constant political topic. Several states, including Massachusetts and California, are introducing universal coverage reforms."
A constant political topic :). I don't know about you but I get sick of all the talk, investigations, commissions, hearings and chest-beatings that ultimately produce the same old tired, expensive and inefficient results.
It's also typical that a "law must be introduced". Great, one more law that people can't reasonably know about.
"There are too many powerful, entrenched and vested interests - doctors, pharmaceutical groups and insurance companies."
This is a massive problem in this area. These interests have:
- jumped through the hoops of government
- paid the over inflated fees required to conduct their business
- paid the onerous annual license fees
Why wouldn't they fight to keep competition out? They have too much time and money invested in the system to want to see someone else come in without going through the same pain that they've had to go through. In fact the more competition that they can keep out, the better.
What most people don't understand is that it is *only* through the *force* of government that monopolies and oligopolies exist. Most of these "big, evil" corporations are there only by the grace of government force.
"with the cost of health care rising rapidly"
Why is it rising? Look at the cost of doing business that is imposed by government. Look at the concentration of power facilitated by the government rules. Look at inflation created by government mismanagement and corruption of the monetary system.
"societies have a choice: either restrict health care on the basis of medical need, which is what a Medicare system attempts to do, or restrict it on the basis of income or employment, which is what happens in the US."
Great! The constant inability to think outside the box is always frustrating. These are *not* the only two choices. How about taking the government out of our lives and letting people choose how they want to live?
To all those do-gooders who want to make me live the "right" way using the violence and force of government - pull your whining little heads in, piss off and leave me alone.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Guns and the Drone Theory
In another newsgroup post (to talk.politics.guns) there were some interesting comments by a bloke called Jim Bianchi. He sparked some comments in me that I would like to share with you.
Jim's comments:
"There you go again with the "western, developed nations." Interesting thought: Might it be that the 'undeveloped nations' with such high rates of criminal activity in spite of also having extremely strict guncontrol are third world nations *in part* BECAUSE they have strict guncontrol? I'm refering to the mindset such legislative bushwa instills into those who must live under those systems.
Those that rise to power think of those under them as ..well, serfs (for want of a better term), and the 'serfs' think of themselves as totally defenseless against any kind of assault at all except for their own physical strength (which, of course, they ARE). Since this has always been that way, it's taken for granted that it WILL always be that way. And guess what? It IS always that way, for as EVERYONE KNOWS, guns are the root of all evil in the world -- so that's why only the polititians have them and why the serfs (and the Australians) can't be *trusted* with them.
Those serfs are the people who, in spite of their nations' being possessed of vast wealth and resources, etc, continue to be stepped on by anyone who comes along including the polititians who rise from their own ranks and their nations continue to be dismissed as just another 3rd world shithole.
Well, it's only a thought and I'm NOT saying it's the whole answer. I'm also not saying that arming everyman in a given 3rd world nation would help. I'm merely putting the thought that extreme, preemptive guncontrol laws may tend to affect the way people think about themselves and thus affect the ..ah, status, their nation has. I'd like yours (and anyone elses) comments."
My Response:
Jim,
You're spot on mate.
I don't know what it is that gives many gun owners the ability to grasp the concept of freedom. For me it is the knowledge that I own a machine/tool that has a certain amount of power. I respect that power and I believe that I am responsible enough to use that power judiciously. When someone or something (like a government) tells *me* that I am not responsible enough to own this tool yet deems that those it anoints *are* responsible then I see a glaring contradiction. If those in power (who generally forget that they are in power to serve us) protect themselves with guns and seek to make my own personal ownership of that very machine illegal then I see an obvious inequity. If they believe that they are worthy of protection and deem that I am not (by prohibiting the very means that they themselves use) then they are saying that I am less equal than they.
It is an old adage that power corrupts. When I see our elected officials (*not* leaders, but elected officials) espouse double standards then I know that I am being treated as a lesser person. Not only do these double standards encompass the use of guns but extend to areas such as superannuation (your U.S. 401K plans I believe), work benefits and self defense.
The mindset of "that's just the way it is" is playing right into the hands of those who see the structure of power in our societies for what it really is. They realise the personal benefits and catch on quickly to the rules of the game. Whatever the endevour, hard work and persistence will get you to your goal, be it: the best boilermaker; the fastest runner; the top CEO; the most powerful politician. It is in our genes to strive for that supremacy, to be the best we can within the mental limits that we impose on ourselves. It's how we survive.
To get so caught up on the pro and anti gun debate that we fail to see the bigger picture is to play right into the hands of those that would rule us for their own benefit. If I was in power and enjoying the spoils of my position then what would I care if there was a raging debate on whether or not guns should be legal. The old Roman Emperors (at the height of slaughtering the Christians and just before their downfall) had a saying "Give them bread and circuses". It's no different to the tactics of today's power abusers - distractions buy time and jumping out in front of a parade buys votes.
It drives me mad that people accept the status quo. Where is the questioning? I believe (because I feel it myself) that the rule of fear is currently running rampant in our societies. Sitting back in the privacy of our own home and bemoaning the state of the nation is just akin to whimpering in a corner, under a blanket, hoping that the bogey-man won't find you.
Unless we talk and face the reality of the situation that we are in then we will never be in the position to overthrow the tyranny that is slowly descending upon us like a cancer that takes one cell at a time until it arises undetected, too late, to slaughter it's host...gorged on blood lust and self satisfaction, waiting in the wings to rise again.
Jim's comments:
"There you go again with the "western, developed nations." Interesting thought: Might it be that the 'undeveloped nations' with such high rates of criminal activity in spite of also having extremely strict guncontrol are third world nations *in part* BECAUSE they have strict guncontrol? I'm refering to the mindset such legislative bushwa instills into those who must live under those systems.
Those that rise to power think of those under them as ..well, serfs (for want of a better term), and the 'serfs' think of themselves as totally defenseless against any kind of assault at all except for their own physical strength (which, of course, they ARE). Since this has always been that way, it's taken for granted that it WILL always be that way. And guess what? It IS always that way, for as EVERYONE KNOWS, guns are the root of all evil in the world -- so that's why only the polititians have them and why the serfs (and the Australians) can't be *trusted* with them.
Those serfs are the people who, in spite of their nations' being possessed of vast wealth and resources, etc, continue to be stepped on by anyone who comes along including the polititians who rise from their own ranks and their nations continue to be dismissed as just another 3rd world shithole.
Well, it's only a thought and I'm NOT saying it's the whole answer. I'm also not saying that arming everyman in a given 3rd world nation would help. I'm merely putting the thought that extreme, preemptive guncontrol laws may tend to affect the way people think about themselves and thus affect the ..ah, status, their nation has. I'd like yours (and anyone elses) comments."
My Response:
Jim,
You're spot on mate.
I don't know what it is that gives many gun owners the ability to grasp the concept of freedom. For me it is the knowledge that I own a machine/tool that has a certain amount of power. I respect that power and I believe that I am responsible enough to use that power judiciously. When someone or something (like a government) tells *me* that I am not responsible enough to own this tool yet deems that those it anoints *are* responsible then I see a glaring contradiction. If those in power (who generally forget that they are in power to serve us) protect themselves with guns and seek to make my own personal ownership of that very machine illegal then I see an obvious inequity. If they believe that they are worthy of protection and deem that I am not (by prohibiting the very means that they themselves use) then they are saying that I am less equal than they.
It is an old adage that power corrupts. When I see our elected officials (*not* leaders, but elected officials) espouse double standards then I know that I am being treated as a lesser person. Not only do these double standards encompass the use of guns but extend to areas such as superannuation (your U.S. 401K plans I believe), work benefits and self defense.
The mindset of "that's just the way it is" is playing right into the hands of those who see the structure of power in our societies for what it really is. They realise the personal benefits and catch on quickly to the rules of the game. Whatever the endevour, hard work and persistence will get you to your goal, be it: the best boilermaker; the fastest runner; the top CEO; the most powerful politician. It is in our genes to strive for that supremacy, to be the best we can within the mental limits that we impose on ourselves. It's how we survive.
To get so caught up on the pro and anti gun debate that we fail to see the bigger picture is to play right into the hands of those that would rule us for their own benefit. If I was in power and enjoying the spoils of my position then what would I care if there was a raging debate on whether or not guns should be legal. The old Roman Emperors (at the height of slaughtering the Christians and just before their downfall) had a saying "Give them bread and circuses". It's no different to the tactics of today's power abusers - distractions buy time and jumping out in front of a parade buys votes.
It drives me mad that people accept the status quo. Where is the questioning? I believe (because I feel it myself) that the rule of fear is currently running rampant in our societies. Sitting back in the privacy of our own home and bemoaning the state of the nation is just akin to whimpering in a corner, under a blanket, hoping that the bogey-man won't find you.
Unless we talk and face the reality of the situation that we are in then we will never be in the position to overthrow the tyranny that is slowly descending upon us like a cancer that takes one cell at a time until it arises undetected, too late, to slaughter it's host...gorged on blood lust and self satisfaction, waiting in the wings to rise again.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Bush tilts missiles at cloud that looks like Al Queda
If we look hard enough we can find threats anywhere.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Gun Control advocates blindly unleash Genies of oppression
I would love to say that all good intentions turn out for the best. I would love to say that the majority of people can decide what’s best for everyone. I would love to say that we can trust our governments to stop when enough is enough. The disappointing truth is that none of these statements are correct.
It doesn’t matter how good your intentions are, when you give away your ability to choose what’s best for yourself to our governments then you give away your ability to choose anything that’s best for you.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
We protect them to keep their numbers up
Sometimes I fear that we will "protect" some of our endangered species to extinction rather than eat them or keep them as pets.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
National Security and Religion
The crimes committed in the interests of National Security are often as bad as those committed in the name of religion.
History has demonstrated repeatedly that religion can be abused to commit crimes and hate against innocents and innocence. Fundamental Christians and Fundamental Muslims today show that this treachery against harmony and self actualisation is still possible.
History has also demonstrated that the bones of common decency and self responsibility can be sadistically snapped in the interest of National Security.
When I put the testing questions: "Is it justified?"; "If justified, will it fix the problem?" against the sorry lineup of National Security's foul ups, I find it wanting. Not always, just nearly always.
When those in power are virtually absolved of responsibility by the apathy and inactions of those who serve them (the sheeple) then an outcome of abuse is a natural evolution.
At the very least, I feel I am obliged to think about what is on the spoon that is attempting to ram down my throat.
History has demonstrated repeatedly that religion can be abused to commit crimes and hate against innocents and innocence. Fundamental Christians and Fundamental Muslims today show that this treachery against harmony and self actualisation is still possible.
History has also demonstrated that the bones of common decency and self responsibility can be sadistically snapped in the interest of National Security.
When I put the testing questions: "Is it justified?"; "If justified, will it fix the problem?" against the sorry lineup of National Security's foul ups, I find it wanting. Not always, just nearly always.
When those in power are virtually absolved of responsibility by the apathy and inactions of those who serve them (the sheeple) then an outcome of abuse is a natural evolution.
At the very least, I feel I am obliged to think about what is on the spoon that is attempting to ram down my throat.
Stem Cell research - a miracle from God
There's always another way to look at a problem.
The debate over stem cell research is being whipped to fluffy peaks by the mixer of religious zealotry. I can't help but be reminded of the joke where a preacher is sitting on top of his flooded house, about to be drowned by the rising water. He knocks back 3 rescue boats while crying out "No, I'm going to keep praying, God will save me!" When he drowns and comes face to face with God he asks "Why didn't you save me God?" God snorts and retorts "I sent you 3 boats."
Friday, February 02, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)