Quote of the decade (0)
Posted 11 January, 2008 in Politics
“My mother always said democracy is the best revenge.” - Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, son of the late Benazir Bhutto.
As much as I love to see Islamofascists and their terrorist brethren get dispatched for a trip on the Allah Express, nothing rubs it in the faces of these turds like seeing the populace embracing democracy, benefiting from it and nurturing it until it flowers in a society where hardliners had previously managed to smash it down.
Weekend at Bernies…for real!!! (0)
Posted 10 January, 2008 in Humour
People often consider it weird when I tell them I don’t read fiction and that I haven’t read a fiction book in 15 years. I generally don’t feel the need to retreat into fiction or believe it’s particularly valuable as a vehicle to explore ideas. That’s not to say it hasn’t been used in this role very effectively; Ayn Rand’s work being an excellent example. I simply believe that the real world is much more interesting and is just as diverse as anything the most imaginative writers can produce. When you consider the fact that things like the event below have actually happened in a first world country, in one of the largest cities in the world, then fiction can’t even compete as far as I’m concerned.
As they say, only in America. Surely this shit happens in other parts of the world? Is the reason we always hear of this stuff coming out of the US simply the social diversity, high level of individualism and media saturation within America?
Corpse Wheeled to Check-Cashing Store Leads to 2 Arrests
Even for the once-notorious Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood, it may have been a first: Two men were arrested on Tuesday after pushing a corpse, seated in an office chair, along the sidewalk to a check-cashing store to cash the dead man’s Social Security check, the police said.
When Virgilio Cintron, 66, died at his apartment at 436 West 52nd Street recently, his roommate and a friend saw an opportunity to cash his $355 check, the police said.
…..
Their sidewalk procession had already attracted the stares of passers-by who were startled by the sight of the body flopping from side to side as the two men tried to prop it up, the police said…….. While the two men were inside the check-cashing office, a small crowd had gathered around the chair. A detective, Travis Rapp, eating a late lunch at a nearby Empanada Mama saw the crowd and notified the Midtown North station house.
Bizarre.
Short documentary on why the UK sucks and the US rules (0)
Posted 6 January, 2008 in Humour, Politics
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt0KhGJyayM
As much as I find Jeremy Clarkson a very entertaining guy and a great presenter (although, in truth, a pretty average motoring journalist), this very ordinary effort to send up all the US as a gun-toting redneck hicksville wasteland really only serves to reveal the true differences between the homeland of the presenter and the location of the documentary. One is still a free county where a ‘rugged’ individualist can actually do what they want in their own backyard, and the other is full of euro-wusses who try too hard to be all sophisticated and who can’t actually do anything without a myriad of government approvals and political correctness checks. One has hope for a future and the other is too far gone to be saved. Now, I’m not saying ‘Billy Bob’ is the epitome of the ideal man. But I am saying that any culture that mocks individualism, self-reliance, resilience and personal freedom probably doesn’t have all that much going for it.
What Clarkson would do well to remember is that he has made a very comfortable living out of promoting a macho-ish culture where he is the rogue who operates politically incorrect machines in an irresponsible manner - in fact, this is the essence of him bagging out the Toyota Prius. What he’s got with ‘Billy Bob’ is someone who does that better than himself. So I don’t know if it’s ironic or just simply sour grapes that he chooses to mock this guy and the US gun-totin’ God-fearin’ good ole boy culture this guy reflects. Either way, as entertaining as it is, it’s a bit of a cheap shot at the US.
(BTW: this rant aside, I think Top Gear is a great show.)
Scheme for Sutcliffe world domination progressing nicely (3)
Posted 4 January, 2008 in Diary
The Sutcliffe clan grew to a total of four at 9:13am today with the arrival of Riley Michael Sutcliffe - 4.32kg (9lb 8oz) and 53cm. Mum and baby doing well.
Help some academics work out where rights come from (0)
Posted 3 January, 2008 in Philosophy, Politics
Academia can be a disturbing thing. Especially when a lot of the humanities types don’t actually believe in absolutes in knowledge i.e. they don’t believe you can really know anything for sure. If you think about it, this has a lot of implications in making moral decisions, because you can’t really ever know right from wrong. Probably why a lot of them are left wing.
With this epistemological position you can’t really know where rights come from either. Here’s a survey so you, dear reader, can tell some academics the good news that we can actually make accurate and reasonable moral decisions.
My answers below the fold.
SBS: taking left-wing bias to new levels of subtlety (6)
Posted 1 January, 2008 in Politics
SBS World News never fails to intrigue me with their ingenious and subtly disguised left-wing bias. The way they slip that little lefty jab into every story makes me believe the news writers are some sort of socialist special-operations psych-trained propaganda unit. Which, if you looked into the tertiary studies of the writers, probably isn’t too far from the truth; at least with regards to the socialist or psych parts.
Tonight’s edition begins with a story on the Kenyan election riots. The report states that regardless of which way they voted, ‘voters are angry that democracy has let them down’. (Note: this quote isn’t in the link but it was definitely verbally stated in the report).
Now, what is inherently wrong with this statement? Firstly, let me say it can be taken two ways. On the surface you could say that the elections have failed in that a government hasn’t peacefully been elected, hence peaceful people are angry that the democratic process hasn’t been carried out. You can’t argue that the statement couldn’t be interpreted to have this meaning. This is very clever, because the writer can’t be accused of denouncing democracy. But wouldn’t a professional writer actually say this, with something like ‘voters are angry that the democratic process has not resulted in a peacefully elected government’, if that’s what the writer really wanted to say?
What are the other possible interpretations of this statement? Well, quite frankly, ‘voters are angry that democracy has let them down’ can clearly be interpreted to mean that democracy has failed. Why do I have a suspicion - which, I admit, is completely unsubstantiated - that the writer wanted that interpretation to linger in the back of viewer’s minds? Of course, this interpretation raises the question: if the liberal democratic process has failed then what are the alternative social and political systems that might give better results? After all, it’s now clear that liberal democracy is not the ‘be all and end all’ because it doesn’t always work.
The report continues and another SBS phenomenon pops up: an unwillingness to report the brutal truth of a non-Western society. While the Kenyan opposition might have been encouraging people to riot, the government has, as per standard, got the police to quell the uprising. Our reporter advises that they’ve been doing this with ‘water cannon and live rounds’! Now, I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I can see a lot of a difference between these two methods of uprising extinguishment. One involves a non-lethal methodology to arguably support civil society, and the other is Tiananmen Square circa 1989. Strangely, our reporter didn’t clarify.
Now, upon calling up the SBS link I’ve noticed it says ‘police beat protesters with clubs, fired off tear gas and shot live bullets in the air.‘ Fine. But I also notice the article is titled ‘More than 185 dead in Kenya riots’, and it does say that ‘Three police officers independently told AP journalists that they had been ordered to shoot to kill to stop rioters.’
Personally I feel that viewers of SBS World News would have considered this point critical to the article and felt it was significant enough for a sentence or two of clarification. Which never came. Why do I have a suspicion - which, I admit, is completely unsubstantiated - that in order to have an article on SBS World News evening edition you had better not allege that a black African nation’s government is ruling via the gun. Unless, of course, they are sanctioned unfashionable enough by the UN, and generically acknowledged as such a basket case that you can’t report otherwise i.e. like Zimbabwe.
As my wife put it to me: ‘Sometimes I find it hard to watch World News. A good world round-up, but with a distinctive reddish taint!’. I couldn’t agree more. I think this guy might have the solution to what we should do with government owned media. After all, it’s publicly funded to provide balance to the popular media, and media services to those who otherwise wouldn’t have them. If it’s no longer required in these functions, and is instead pushing some other agenda, then it’s no longer required as a government provided service.
History of the Liberal Party by Dr John Hewson (0)
Posted 30 December, 2007 in Humour, Politics
Sure it’s tongue-in-cheek. But it tells you pretty much everything you need to know!
Why I’m an Objectivst: Objectivists and service (2)
Posted 28 December, 2007 in Philosophy, Diary
I’m an Objectivist because I make all my decisions based solely on reason and empirical observation of the world in which I live, and I hold human life as the only yardstick of value.
But I’m also an Objectivist because I want to live a satisfying existence, surrounded by beauty and being delighted at every turn. This is my definition of the good life, and my formula for happiness.
Even if I couldn’t live this type of life I’d still live by reason alone; it would make no sense to do otherwise. But it makes me wonder why anyone, let alone (relatively) free and educated people, would choose to live according to religion, environmental mysticism, collectivism or self-sacrifice to the point of their own detriment. Why would someone choose to hold unhappiness and subservience as their personal values? My only explanation is that they haven’t worked out what is really going on in the world. I guess there is a lot of bullshit out there to confuse the ‘average punter’.
I am often challenged by friends, both religious and non-religious, who suggest that individualism can’t be a way to happiness, that there are values higher than yourself that should be served. Having spent most of my working life in military service I attempt to answer their challenge by going on the offensive: how can I, a person who holds my own happiness as my moral purpose, serve in the military where my life could potentially be put at risk and therefore everything I value be potentially destroyed? I’d say this question was answered quite effectively by John Stuart Mill*:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
Living boldly, efficaciously and pursuing your own happiness without reservation is not a timid exercise. Once you identify the values necessary for human happiness they need to be pursued and upheld, and this requires effort and risk. So yes, there are values that I would defend at risk to myself, that I would ’serve’, you might say. However, the only values that I could ’serve’ without compromising my morals would be ones that could be shown through reason to uphold the value of human life. Or more simply, keep your religious mysticism, collectivist idealism and statist tyranny to yourself, because I’ll fight against it but never for it.
Any other twist on ’service’ is a violation of these values and would compromise my morality. As Ayn Rand herself said:
It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
* This quote was put on a plaque above the Cadets Bar at the Royal Military College Duntroon in 1996, as a gift from the Commanding Officer (LTCOL S. Ellis) who was resigning. I wonder if it’s still there.
Quote of the day (1)
Posted 27 December, 2007 in Humour, Politics
Found on a diesel engine performance site, of all places:
A fine is a tax for doing something wrong. A tax is a fine for doing something right!
A half-truth, I suppose.
Taxation should be considered as a fee paid for services rendered. The problem people like me have with taxation is that:
1. You have no choice whether you are going to buy the services or not;
2. You don’t get sent a bill based on what you consume; the guv’mint takes a sliding percentage of what you earn under threat of force and then skims, as surreptitiously as possible, whatever transactions you make with the remaining funds - mafia extortion style; and
3. Then they give some of your own money back to you and behave like they’re giving you something bought with wealth they’ve created themselves.
Lefties and the ‘means of production’ (0)
Posted 17 December, 2007 in Philosophy, Diary, Politics
Most right-wing people who have sniffed around the political fringes know that hardcore lefties, and especially anarchists, have some sort of hang up about the ‘means of production’ in that they are obsessed with not having an individual person or entity controlling this sacred cow. They also know this strange obsession generates an undercurrent that drives a lot of left-wing ‘logic’.
As with so much left-wing logic there’s a half-truth that is extrapolated into a lie. The Great Unwashed have correctly identified the power source that allows human quality-of-life to be developed to a point that makes it enjoyable and satisfying; it’s called ‘production’ i.e. employment or enterprise.
But, in true lefty form, they then extrapolate this into a fantasy. They define ownership of ‘production’ to be the ownership of a factory, or a farm, or a business. Therefore, they conclude the ownership of ‘production’ is kept in the public interest by making sure these things are public property i.e. owned by the state for lefties and effectively owned by nobody for anarchists. Kill the bosses, start a commune and all that.
This is a fantasy because the ‘means of production’ has very little to do with the ownership of a building, or a piece of land, or having employees. These things are important, but in themselves they do not constitute ‘production’. The clincher that they overlook is the fact that ‘production’ comes from the genius of the producer. The intellect of the guy/girl who puts it all together and makes it happen is the primary reason that ‘production’ occurs.
Now lefties and anarchists can’t take a line that any individual is owned by the state, or by others, even if they are the ‘means of production’. This would make them look silly and expose the pathetic contradictions in their philosophies. So they pretend that ‘production’ rests with ownership of an inanimate object like the factory, farm or business, and definitely can’t be due to the genius of any particular individual.
But while pretending this is the case they actually do support the ownership of the productive individuals by the state. You only need to look at what lefties want done to the Richard Pratts or the (late) Kerry Packers. They want special restrictions put on these people so they are made to produce, so everyone else who doesn’t produce can consume. They effectively support less freedom for these people because they are productive.
In other words, our left-wing and anarchist friends get comfortable with the contradictions in their beliefs, and basically ignore them, even if this means taking a false view of reality that is essentially destructive to the whole community they claim to be protecting and nurturing.
« Previous Next »