Housing Bubble - Boom or Bust?

Quick Quiz:

Consider an investment: You have a 50% chance of doubling your money, and a 50% chance of halving it. Quick now: do you take the investment?

The correct answer, clearly, is yes. If you take out a large number of investments like this you would (on average) increase your capital by 25% each time.

So, let's apply this to buying real estate. You don't really know if house prices are going to go up or down. Doom-sayers talk about a 'correction' of 50%, while every real-estate agent seems to insist that you will double your money 'in only a few short years'.

So what do you do? Clearly, you buy now! You borrow the most money you can to buy the most expensive house you can. Not only did the strategy work well for your parents, but the logic above is inescapable. Follow the crowd, and you can't go wrong. Or can you?

Well, the logic makes a bubble which eventually collapses. The probability of a fall (versus a rise) gets greater and greater, and then property becomes a loss investment.

So what does this mean? Property won't fall until an overwhelming majority believe that it will fall. When will that be? Who knows.

In the meantime people will continue to make money. After all, even fools can be right by chance, like one of the most foolish economists in history proclaimed: "Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent".

comments

Latest PLAthing

China's PLA has oft been criticized as being little more than a mountain of corrupt flesh. Over-manned, but under-skilled and under-armed. A million collective tonnes of cannon fodder to stand between a billion sullen malcontents and their self corrupt serving government.

Overwhelming numbers have worked well for the Chinese leadership since building The Great Wall. The government of the day ordered that human flesh be turned into stone and mortar, and it was. A dead body for every meter of wall is a bargain as long as bodies are plentiful and therefore cheap. When it comes to puting a low price on a human life, the Chinese are surpassed only by Muslim terrorists.

Losing 94 percent of the army in the Long March might have spelled the mother of all defeats for Mao and his band of psychopathic commies, but he still had enough manpower to seize control of Middle Kingdom. Mao understood that The Mob rules. The Mob will always defeat the individual, however powerful, however righteous. It wasn't just the voices of the many which drowned out the few. The sheer mass of numbers assures victory for The Mob.

The PLA successfully followed that model for half a century, so it might surprise some of us that it has now changed tack. They have copied the American model of spoilt military generals demanding newer and more exciting toys from the technology sector. In this case they have demanded (and apparently received) a shiny new stealth fighter. The Chinese J-20 made an 18 minute maiden flight in Chengdu on January-11.

Whether this is truly a great leap forward remains to be seen but it does indicate a small revolution in culture. The Chinese are moving away from their flesh based strategy, in pursuit of technological one. Why? Because a mountain of flesh does not make for very effective forward deployment. A stealth fighter does.

China is about to move from a self-absorbed childhood into a narcissistic but extroverted adolescence. Eventually the best we can hope for is a reserved, if spiteful, adulthood.

The times are going to be very interesting.

comments

Redneck fashion

Feminists love to scream 'victim' of course, and now they are exploiting the genitalia of Australia's new PM to score political points.

It seems that our new Prime Minister Julia Power-Woman Gillard has made a few fashion faux pas. Like mistakenly wearing a cheap hotel bed-spread, thinking it was a coat.

Apparently this makes her a victim because 'society' judges women by the way they look, not by the way do they do their jobs. Of course the feminists don't say that 'society' in this case is basically other women (since most men think that a fashionable women is one who is still wearing lacy lingerie in their internet download). But somehow that still makes women victims of a male dominated patriarchal society waging an undeclared war against WIMMIN!. Confused? Well, it gets worse ..

Now there are calls for fashion-model Julia to be given a special clothing allowance ($70,000 a year of tax-payers money has been suggested) because she is a woman.

Of course a powerful and confident women couldn't possibly just do what men do - wear a dark colored business suit with a few changes of shirts and splash of color from a cravat or something. No no, the first woman to break the ultimate glass ceiling, the woman who runs the country has no choice but to conform to society's stereotypes.

In other words, Dear Reader, women should be paid more than men for doing the same job. And here we were thinking that feminists just wanted equal pay for equal work!

Of course some equal pays are more equal than others.

comments

Reelection chances refloated

Every proponent of free markets likes to watch an auction. An auction cuts through the socialist rhetoric about needs, social justice, and humanitarianism. The rubbish about 'the rights of the stakeholders' counts for nothing. The auctioneer doesn't care how much you want something. Saying 'but I really, really want it' doesn't cut much at an auction. The auctioneer will just sell to the highest bidder. If you want it more than the other guy, you'll bid more for it.

And of course politicians big against each other for votes. Usually they get elected by promising to spend more money than their opponent, but there are bids on other things too. US politicians are well known for having execution auctions ('vote for me because I'll execute more convicts than my opponent'), but in Australia we are more civilized, and politicians normally confine their auctioneering to wasting greater and greater sums of hard-earned for taxpayers money.

Well, normally.

Astonishingly, yesterday saw a policy auction between Australian politicians which didn't simply involve spending more money. This auction was about asylum seekers. The Labour and Liberal parties were having a 'we'll deport more asylum seekers than you will' day.

Julia Australia-needs-a-woman's-compassion Gillard threw down the gauntlet by proclaiming that people should not be labelled 'rednecks' simply for expressing concern over the ever increasing number of boaties.

Then Tony he-man Abbott started the bidding by saying that he would immediately send anyone back who deliberately destroyed their documentation (asylum seekers are well known for throwing their documentation overboard just before being picked up by Australian Authorities - it makes it harder for Australian Authorities to disprove fabricated claims, and helps to protect their employees - the so called 'people smugglers', who supply transport, logistics, GPS units and the satellite phones they use to ring the Australian navy, demanding to be 'rescued').

So Julia look-at-what-I'm-wearing Gillard promised to set up an offshore processing center in East Timor. Uninvited boaties would be sent to the center to have their claims processed, and many (like nearly everyone from Sri Lanka) would never even step foot on Australian soil.

Of course Julia's solution was nothing like Johnny we-will-decide-who-comes-here-and-the-manner-in-which-they-do-so Howard's 'Pacific Solution'. No no. Little Johnny's solution was to have forlorn and destitute asylum seekers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Julia's solution is to have forlorn and destitute asylum seekers in East Timor. See the difference? Umm .. anyway ..

This is actually a master stroke by the fashion challenged PM. Because they couldn't possibly reuse infrastructure set by the previous government in Nauru or Papua (that would be inhumane), negotiating with the East Timorese, choosing a site, and setting up the much-more-humane infrastructure in East Timor, will all take time. That is, Dear Reader, it can't possibly happen until after the next election.

In other words, Julia can call the election, and survive the election campaign without actually doing anything - just making more promises.

Nice work if you can get it.

There will be a few awkward moments after the election of course (having to explain why the promised policy changes are now suddenly totally inappropriate), but that is what politicians do. And everything in politics is about winning the next election - focussing on later elections is pointless if the next election is lost, particularly with the half-life of the average political leader resembling a Chernobyl meltdown.

So Julia has found a solution to take her through an election win. Not a Pacific Solution, not even really a Timor Sea solution. Just a temporary solution. Until the next Labour back flip.

Julia is seeking asylum in the rhetoric of a tough border protection policy.

comments

Why fuss over this?

For the proletariat, Ayres Rock is the place to go to have your babies eaten by wild dogs, but the big red rock means considerably more than that to us intellectual elites.

Uluru (ie Ayres Rock), is an important symbol of traditional Aboriginal culture, and many of us remember being forced to sit in school watching grainy anthropological films of overweight topless Aboriginal women performing their not-so-secret women's business - dancing around at their corroborees, before being forced to write essays on the sanctity of multiculturalism.

This is a traumatic image which for most of us, thankfully, fades from memory over time. But not so for 25 year old French exotic dancer Alizee Sery, who apparently was to taken by these anthropologist gems that she felt the need to make a tribute to the traditional owners of Ayres Rock, by doing as the local Aboriginal women traditionally did - going topless and dancing. Fortunately for the sake of posterity, she had the presence of mind to bring her own amateur anthropologist to film the event, and then (in the interests of sharing) put the film up on youtube.

At this point, one could comment merely on the artistic nature of the film. It is foreign film made in Australia, which captures the harsh and rugged beauty of the Australian landscape, and yet contrasts it skillfully with the soft curves of the female form. But that would miss the significant cultural contribution of the film itself.

It would be hard to imagine the Aboriginal population objecting to anyone doing what they had done themselves for the last 40,000 years or so, but the local Elders seem to have gotten upset once Alizee's film went viral. Local Elders have been so fired up over Alizee's film that they have even demanded her deportation.

Why on earth would they do such a thing? Maybe they are trying to create a monopoly on topless films? Or maybe they just don't like French?

comments

Coming soon to a politician near you

In this day and age we are expected to be tolerant of those who are 'different'. 'Different', of course means lots of things, but some of us old timers, 'different' generally meant homosexual.

Like in the footy for instance - where gay footballers have recently been advised to stay in the closet. Whether closet means 'water closet' or 'locker room' in this instance isn't clear, but basically it's between them, their friends, families, and their locker-room shower-mates. It's none of our business, and most of us like it that that way.

There is, of course, a principle here. The price we pay for keeping people out of our bedrooms is that we stay out of other people's. And in the case of gay footy players, most of us are happy to oblige.

But does the same standard apply to politicians? Well, in an ideal world it would. If a senior state-ALP minister were to, say, frequent gay sex clubs (to pick a completely random example), would it be anyone's business apart from his friends, family, gay sex partners, anyone with a video camera, any of his constituents, those who came under his power as a state politician, and everyone disgusted with the fact that state ministers continually set themselves up as the high priests of personal and sexual morality?

Well, probably not, but that's an awful lot of us.

Maybe when NSW Transport Minister and closet homo David Campbell campaigned on platform of 'family values' he should have let us know whether he regarded anonymous gay sex partners as 'family'. Maybe calling him self 'Camp Bell' should have rung a .. well .. camp warning bell with the voters, but such things are not generally regarded as reliable indicators. Unlike video evidence.

In a more rational world, government would limit itself to stopping murder, rape, assault and theft. But politicians with power are like drug addicts. They need more and more control over people's lives.

What do you say to someone who dictates what people can watch on the TV, what they can access on internet, what they can eat or drink, and who they can marry, and then blames the media for 'unfair media attention of their private lives'? Only three words: ha ha ha.

Just because the State displays a keen interest in your personal life, does not mean the state is your friend.

comments

A nose for political opportunity

We all like to explore our feminine sides occasionally .. getting pampered when we are sick, watching the occasional chick flick, employing that Asian lady with the big boots and the whip ..

But most of us have no interest in exploring our feminist side. Surely only the most retarded spineless gender apologist would want to to explore total self-loathing. Which brings us to Tony (Sluggo) Abattoir.

It all started with Sluggo playing to the conservatives, and insisting that a Sluggo-led government wouldn't raise any taxes, or to introduce new ones. Good move Sluggo, and self respecting rednecks raised a glass to you. Or at least a cold can.

But then he let his teenage daughters talk him around, and convince him to force the taxpayer to finance their reproductive ambitions. Suddenly he was in favor of paying middle class women up to $75,000.00 to pop out a baby - paid for by a great big new tax on big business.

Then he got cornered by Kerry O'Brien on everyone's ABC and admitted that the two were 'not entirely consistent', and said that he was 'not always entirely accurate' in the heat of verbal combat, that his words couldn't be taken as 'gospel truth' unless they were in writing.

What was Sluggo thinking? Maybe telling a lie is okay if you say it quickly enough? ABC journalists do present themselves as the high priests of of democratic thought. Maybe Sluggo thought he was back in confessional or something?

Sluggo is perhaps the first politician honest enough to admit lying. Thanks for your honesty, Tony, but it's a bit hard to sing your praises for this. It's a bit like the partner who loves you enough to admit to having an affair. 'thanks for your honesty you deceiving b...'.

But enough about the ex- ..

Normally it's easy to tell when a politician is lying - his lips move. But Tony (Sluggo) Abattoir has proven to be the exception to the rule. A politician telling you that he is a liar, is clearly telling the truth.

Sluggo is, of course, not the first politician to break promises. Bob Hawke had his 'no child in poverty' mandate, Paul Keating had his 'L.A.W. law' tax cuts, Howard had his 'core promises', Kev's ETS commitments are now on hold indefinitely, and of course there was George Bush Senior's classic: 'Read my lips. No new taxes'.

But broken promises are not the same as lies. Sluggo, admitting you are lying doesn't make you seem more trustworthy.

And that's the gospel truth.

comments

Debt squeeze for the PIIGGS!

Some of us mere mortals struggle with the complexities and subtleties of international finance and government borrowing, but in a nutshell Dear Reader, the Greek sovereign debt crisis can be summarized as follows.

A bunch of thugs (the 'Greek Government') borrowed a whole bunch of money from some loan sharks (banks in France and Greece) and signed a form promising that the money would be paid back by someone else (the Greek people). They then used the money to try to retain power (mostly though buying votes from stupid Greeks), while all the time lying about how much they were spending and how much they were borrowing.

Eventually they got caught out in the lies, and two things happened. Firstly the loan sharks wanted their money back, and secondly, no one wanted to lend them more money. The thugs weren't able to extort enough money from the Greek people to pay the interest on the loans, so the whole charade was close to collapsing.

Exactly why having this charade collapse would be a bad thing is beyond us mere concrete thinkers. If some common street thugs tried this stunt, then the lenders would lose their money and everyone would say "It serves you right. Why did you think that anyone else had an obligation to pay you the money you lent to those thugs?". Apparently though, basically morality and common sense don't apply to big governments. Everyone panicked and screams of 'market failure' convinced the proletariat that a regulated government solution had to be found.

So the thugs got some other thugs (in this case the German government) to lend them some money, so they could pretend that all the debtors would get their money.

So how did the German thugs get the money to lend to the Greek thugs? Well they borrowed it from some other loan sharks, and signed a form saying that someone else would pay it back (in this case the German people).

And everyone said how good it was for the German thugs to do this. Thank heavens that the 'market failure' was dealt with with unprecedented government intervention! Even Wayne Swan made obscure references about the Greek crisis reminding us that the world economy was not out the woods. And then promptly used this as an excuse for borrowing another 50 billion dollars on behalf of the Australian taxpayer.

Is everyone suffering lead poisoning here? Or just the voting public?

Think for a moment, Dear Reader: what would happen if market forces were allowed to do their thing here? Well, the Thugs (the Greek government) would be unable to tax the Greek people highly enough to pay the interest, and then simply default on the loans. The banks would lose money. Shareholders would be unhappy. Heads would roll. Investors would look nervously at all the other governments who have borrowed trillions of dollars promising repayment by people who haven't even been born yet, and these governments would have to pay higher interest on their loans. Irresponsible government defaults would spread around the world like Greek Fire.

And the fiction that loans to governments are risk free would be totally discredited. The interest on government loans would be so high that it would no longer be regarded as responsible to governments to borrow money for 'social justice', 'equality' or 'economic stimulus'. Governments would still steal from the populations, but at least they would be stealing from the current generation (who are better position to stop it) and not from future generations.

And none of this would be market failure - it would be simply the market at work. Investors would think very carefully about where to entrust their money in the future. And fifty years of moral hazard could be avoided - specifically the expectation that bad investment decisions can be undone simply by large enough government interventions.

But alas this will not happen - at least not yet. The governments of the world fear the facade dropping to reveal wizard behind the curtain, as the faces of millions of deceived voters decide that the needs of the many really do outweigh the greeds of the few. And politicians around the world are closing ranks. Even the Turkish government has rushed to support its Greek counterpart. Apparently hundreds of years of hostility, border disputes, invasions, and religious wars count for nothing when politicians' mutual interests are involved.

Some of us were taught to be wary of Greeks bearing gifts, but maybe now the Greeks should show some wariness of German favours - wooden horses of the world of global financing are disguised as piggy banks.

comments

Size matters!

Anyone who thought the Punch-drunk Tony was a bit bird-brained had their worst suspicions confirmed this week as the opposition leader announced a maternity leave scheme to top all maternity leave schemes. In a brand new scheme to populate the nation, Australia's favorite budgie smuggler announced that women would receive six months full pay if they popped out a baby. And all paid for a new Great Big Tax!

Of course the Great Big Tax wouldn't be paid by us commoners, no no. It would only be paid by Large Corporations. That is - out of our compulsory superannuation contributions, which are largely invested in (you guessed it) Large Corporations.

Worried about having to eat dog food in your old age? Well don't be, because your savings went towards impregnating some woman who was earning $150,000 a year. Feel better now? Those of you who thought that impregnating women was supposed to be more fun than that need to reconsider their priorities. Like getting Tony Abattoir elected.

Political parties are well known for panicking when an unwinnable election looms, and hard-nosed conservative politicians are not immune. A Liberal ideology about greater responsibility and small government is all very well, but it's just not sexy. Voters, like naive young girls, want promises of care, commitment, and the ability to live at someone else's expense. At least in the short-term. And how long does seduction take?

Well, in the case of the federal election, possibly until the the start of next year. The cement might already be dry by then. Tony started his run too early.

The last laugh though, had to go to Peter 'not-my-job' Costello, who compared Punch-drunk Tony's antics to those of Crocodile Dundee who, when confronted with a knife announced "that's not a knife, this is a knife" before producing a bigger and more impressive knife.

Tony's Maternity Scheme is bigger that Kevin's Maternity Scheme. And it seems that size is important. Especially when you are wearing budgie smugglers.

comments

Explosive undies - silent but deadly!

Normally exploding undies are the butt of people's humor. The merest whiff of an undies joke is enough to make the bottom feeders of the sophistication hierarchy chortle with delight. And make The Elites sniff with disdain.

But there is nothing funny about this particular set of exploding undies because they were being worn by a member of one of the Religion of Peace (a group not known for their lighthearted humourous nature).

An angry little psychopath named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab thought that exploding vests were just .. like .. sooo 2002, exploding shoes were just sooo 2001 and exploding backpacks were just sooo 2004. He decided to get down and personal with his suicidal obsession and blow up the airplane he was on by lighting up his undies.

Farouk returned to his seat after an extended visit to the toilet, then passengers heard 'popping noises and smelled a foul odour'.

But it's not what you think.

This wasn't the normal lighting up of the undies that drunken cowboys get into sitting around a camp fire after a few too many beans in a B-rate movie. Young Farouk put something more potent in his undies than the Good Lord provided. Apparently Allah provided him with undies made of pentaerythritol - an explosive related to nitroglycerine.

Unfortunately for Farouk, who was clearly unexperienced in such matters and probably hasn't even seen Blazing Saddles, he suceeded only in causing severe burns on his bum before some of the other passengers tackled him to the floor.

Farouk's family warned authorities that he could be dangerous, but he didn't show up on a 'search this guy's undies' alert. And the Americans are now talking about a whole lot more security measures, including not letting people do potty in the last hour of flight, keeping their hands in plain sight, and having nothing on their laps. Are they going to let them cross their legs?

The government has to be seen to be doing something - anything. Except that actually doing the sensible thing and and stopping ratbags entering the country is just too politically incorrect. Besides, why just stop a few ratbags when this can be used as a justification to control everyone's life? A capitalist knows that every problem is an opportunity. A politician knows every disaster is an also opportunity - to create bigger more powerful government.

Looks like everyone's going to be on the undie search alert. What a pain in the arse.

comments

Hot Stock!

Amidst much hysteria about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming for anyone who has been locked in a fridge for the last few years), it's sometimes a good thing to keep a cool head and look at it from the cold hard view of an entrepreneur. Like Malcolm Talkbull for instance.

Malcolm Talkbull acquired considerable capital over the years by buying and selling stocks. And right now he's evaluating the future worth of a stock with a ticker symbol of "AGW" - an influential little enterprise with heavy dependencies on enviro-science, pseudo-scientific hysteria, and international air-conditioning.

And in fact, most canny politicians have to make a call about whether they will adopt a short-term or long-term position on AGW. Right now it's trading higher than ever, but what about the future? What if the hysterical cries of 'WE'RE ALL GONNA BURN!' don't eventuate? What if they do? Will the share price go up or down? Should a politician use his political capital to sell short or buy long on AGW?

A politician can take the short term view - wring his hands about AGW and scream for greater government intervention to create ineffective feel-good measures like the ETS - or he can take a long term view and try to capitalize on post-hysterical cynicism. Puerile taunts of 'I told you so, nah nah nah nah nah nah' go a long way in our sophisticated Westminster system if they are delivered with poise and self-confidence.

Many in the Liberal party have taken a long term position. They intend to ride out the hysteria, and be in a position to capitalize on the possible collapse of AGW shares two elections from now. But party leaders can't wait that long. Party leaders have short lives in the Westminster system. Malcolm Talkbull is only looking to the next election. He has no choice but to jump onto the AGW band-wagon and ride the stock through high and low.

The current leadership tension in the Liberal party is not an ideological difference, but just a tension between the positions of 'Party Leader' and 'Long Term Sitting Member'.

Are the sea levels really rising or are we just witnessing a Poseidon bubble?

comments

Aww .. shucks!

We all know what a great service affirmative action has done to minority groups. Letting everyone know that members of certain groups get promoted merely on the basis of their race, gender, sexual preferences, pregnancy or other victim producing formula reinforces the knowledge that that they are just as competent and capable as everyone else. And it proves that there is no discrimination.

Like for example the story of the photo of the three white firemen taken at 9-11 which was to be made into a statue - of a black man, a Latino and a white. Unfortunately the project got canned. Someone must have thought that a Latino, a black man and a white man sounded like the opening to a bad joke.

The latest bad joke comes from Microsoft. And no, it's not their Vista operating system.

Microsoft used a photo of an Asian guy, a white woman and a black guy to promote their web site (no point including any white males - we all know white males don't go into IT). However when they made up the Polish edition, they felt the need to make a few Stalinist changes.

For the Polish site, Microsoft photo-shopped the black guy into a white guy.

How politically incorrect!

Apparently political correctness hasn't made it to Poland. Maybe the population of the former Soviet Socialist Empire People's Paradise aren't as enlightened as us mere running dog lackeys of the military industrial complex. Perhaps being raised in a communist state doesn't awaken one's natural leftist political philosophical leanings.

It's hard to imagine why. Maybe we need more capitalism?

comments

Uncle Kev's housing solution

There are two kinds of people in the world. There are looters (who live off the tax tit) and tax cattle (who actually work, and are forced to give up a large proportion of their wealth to the government, who in turn gives much of it to the looters). This is easy for most people to understand - except for Public Servants. For some strange reason they regard themselves as tax-payers, because on paper they pay tax.

It never actually occurs to them that if someone is forced to give you 100 dollars and is then allowed to take back 45, then you have received 55 dollars in stolen property. This is totally different to someone who generates 100 dollars worth of wealth, and is forced to give 45 dollars of it to some slimy bureaucrat.

But the worst thing about the Public Service is not the theft, it's either the sanctimonious belief that they have the right to control other people's lives ('for the common good'), or the incredible inefficiency and waste in everything they do.

Particularly when Australia's traditional land owners are involved.

Two years ago Kevin ('economic stimulus') Rudd allocated 672 million dollars to build houses for Aborigines. Now, dear reader, let's do a quick calculation on how many houses that might build. A friend of mine spent $350,000 building a house recently. Add 50,000 for servicing a block, and that's probably around $400,000 to build a lovely spacious modern house. So 672 million hard-earned tax dollars should build around 1920 houses, right? In fact if we were willing to do without the double garage with internal access we could easily do over 2000.

So how does that get allocated? Well, Tenant Creek was allocated $36 Million for 20 houses. That's 1.8 million dollars per house! But it gets worse. It was then revised down to nine houses. That's four million dollars per house! Apparently "training costs and fees for consultants" were significant (who'd have thought). But still it gets worse. Now it's been revised to zero houses. Yes, that's right - zero houses will be built with the $36 million. The money is going to be spent on fixing up some existing houses.

In fact no houses at all have been built on the scheme so far. Anywhere. With the whole 672 million dollars. Some houses might be built in 2011. Maybe. And they are talking about a total of 300 houses. That's 2.2 million dollars per house! If they even build that many.

Many Australians were overjoyed when Kevin Rudd apologized to the Aborigines. All the child abuse, the drug problems, the health issues were all going to be solved. Because we apologized. Kevin had the solution. Kevin was smart. Kevin could close the gap. Kevin could make everyone happy.

Except that 672 million of hard-earned tax-payers money and two years has not produced a single house.

Now that deserves an apology.

comments

Racist? Me?

Many years ago, some of us oldies recall the excesses of our Islamic guests after a certain Salman Rushdie published a tacky little novel which poked fun at the Religion of Peace. A fatwa was proclaimed against Salman Rushdie for daring to mock Islam, and the Islamic community called for Salman Rushdie's execution.

This was at the dizzying heights of political correctness and any of us who expressed nervousness about the behavior of our excitable guests were quickly shouted down by the academe, the feminists, the international socialists and any of the factions generally associated with leftist ideology. Even television programs showing graphic female mutilation at the hands (well, actually the knives) of members of the Religion of Peace were merely met with tut-tuttings and vague mutterings about tolerance and the importance of cultural relativism.

Over time, of course, the proponents Religion of Peace realized that the conversion of Western countries to Islam required a smarter game. They appointed spin doctors to assist the mainstream to avoid 'mis-understandings' about what Allah fan-bois were actually saying.

"Cut off the Kaffir's fingers one by one" apparently didn't actually mean any such thing - it just meant "show your enemy your are strong". "The Kaffir must die" actually meant "we want peace" (presumably after the Kaffir are all dead). We were warned against literal translations of Islamic sermons, because "the Arabic language is full of simile and metaphor".

Apparently in Arabic it is impossible to say "the cat sat on the mat" without including loudly shouting "Death to the Kaffir", or at least making references to leaving the meat out. Arabic is indeed a strange and subtle language.

But the Islamic spokesmen were there help us mere Kaffir through these cultural difficulties, and to loudly proclaim "mistranslation" or (when that failed) "out of context". One such spokesman is Keysar Trad.

Some of the Kaffir have been rather critical of Keysar Trad over time, and recently Keysar took 2GB Broadcaster Jason Morrison to court for defamation over statements made on air. Apparently Keysar took umbrage to being called 'racist'.

Unfortunately Keysar lost the case, and has to pay costs because the judge said .. well .. that he was racist. Oops.

The president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ikebal Patel, was 'surprised' and commented: "I thought that what [Keysar] was saying was quite conciliatory".

Maybe that's a translation for "he wasn't calling for the sudden and painful death of the Kaffir for a change".

Anyway, after playing the race card for all of his career, Keysar has just been trumped.

Read'em and reap, Keysar.

comments

Police credibility shot down in flames

There is an childish school-boy Confusion joke to the effect:

Confucius say no such thing as rape: woman with skirt up run faster than man with trousers down.

This is offensive, silly and wrong of course. Its only real merit is its lack of political correctness. That, and the fact that there are times when the running away objection surely applies. Like when someone is running at you with a jerry can full of petrol.

Today's true story goes something like:

36-year-old (Aboriginal) Ronald Mitchell was (allegedly) threatening police with a container of petrol and a cigarette lighter when he was tasered by the police.

'No problem there' you might say, 'nothing like a few thousand volts to calm the nerves, and create peace and harmony with the local brudders', except for one thing: Ronald caught fire, and suffered third degree burns to his face, arms and chest. Oops.

Perhaps firing up a spark-plug on someone already dowsed in petrol is not the smartest thing to do. Perhaps the Western Australian police force has discontinued their policy of only recruiting the brightest applicants?

Not so! Declared the West Australian Police Union. In fact a spokesman appeared on our TV screens insisting the taser use was necessary because 'the man was a threat to himself and the police felt they were themselves at risk'.

Huh? Surely a fit, able bodied and intelligent (?) police officer can run faster than someone carrying a jerry can and a cigarette lighter.

Personally, I think I could do the 100 meters in 9.8 seconds in such a situation, even when weighed down by a handgun, handcuffs, baton, radio, notebook, taser and those gloves they use to do illegal cavity searches. Actually I could probably even make pretty good time in full riot gear if someone were chasing me with a jerry can and a cigarette lighter.

So it really comes down to the police setting someone on fire because there was a risk of him .. well .. setting himself on fire.

What ever happened to 'Serve and Protect'?

This is actually a reflection of the attitude of the police force, which is a reflection of attitude of The State. It is acceptable to use any kind of force to prevent 'self harm', even if the harm is greater than any self inflicted kind. Enforcement of any kind of victimless crime follows the same pattern: if someone is hurting themselves, hurt them even more to stop them! Because they have no right to damage State Property!

Remember: The State owns you, it is not there to be your friend.

comments

>> Please Sir, I want some more