Questionable Research From The Political Left

According to research conducted by the Australian Labor Party (The Australian version of the Democrats)...

The top 5% of Australian's wealthiest people increased their gross income by $4,000, last year. Which is to say, they made $4,000 more last year than they did the year before.

Compared to the poor and middle class, many of whom's real income showed they were $430 worse off last year compared to the year before.

A few things about this "research":

It was conducted by a political party which is grounded in socialism. In other words, their mandate is about taking money out of the hands of productive people and giving it to unproductive people. So right off the bat you need to question the motives and the wording of the results.

And when you do you discover they are comparing the top 5% of the country's wealthiest - the people who create jobs, are the biggest employers of people, and who basically keep the economy going because they own the businesses - with some middle class employees and unemployed social welfare recipients.

Also, they are comparing the GROSS income of the wealthiest with the REAL income of some of the middle and poor classes.

This, in itself, will mislead you. Because with pay increases across the board, the gross income of the middle classes has actually gone up!

What explains their reduced real income? The same things that would reveal the wealthy also have a lower real income... over-inflated housing prices and rising interest rates in housing as well as consumer credit.

With housing costing more, you get less house for your buying dollar. Thus, your real income has gone down.

With interest rates on home loans, personal loans and credit cards going up, you also get less for your buying dollar as more of your income now goes in debt service. Your real income has gone down.

As the poor and middle classes are also taking on more debt (because they don't have the same level of financial intelligence as the wealthier do), they also have reduced buying power, reduced real income.

Inflation will also cause reduced buying power (reduced real income) for a period of time until pay rises catch up.

If you were going to conduct this research fairly, you would compare real income of the wealthy with real income of the middle class. You would compare gross income of the wealthy with gross income of the middle class. And, you would compare the wealthy as a whole with middle classes as a whole.

You would NOT compare gross income of the wealthy as a whole to real income of some of the poor and middle class.

And you wouldn't pick just the very top 5% of the country's wealthy. These people are multi-millionaires. You cannot compare a multi-millionaire's income with a middle class worker's income. That's ridiculous.

Doing so, reveals that ulterior motives are at hand. And in this case... this is also an election year for Australia, so if the Labor Party can convince Australians (specially the poor and middle classes) that they are worse off now than they were last year, they might get some extra people to vote for them in the upcoming election.

"Just Policy" Madness

Dealing with government departments can be trying, as you will see...

With the introduction of the new passport rules in Australia, there is also a new passport application form to be filled out. New, as in, different to the old passport application form.

One of the noticeable differences is in the section dealing with confirmation of your photograph.

On the old form, confirmation of the photograph could be done by a Justice of The Peace - like a Notary Public.

With the new form, the confirmation is done by a non-relative. In fact, it specifically says, "To qualify as a Guarantor you must not be related to the Applicant by birth or marriage."

I called the passport office to inquire about this odd rule. And I'll tell you what they said a little further on. For now, let me tell you why this is an odd requirement.

In the past, your photo was confirmed by a government appointed person who had the legal authority to "sign" documentation after seeing verifiable proof of you identity.

With this new requirement, the person to verify your identity is not a government appointed person, but rather, an acquaintance.

You could have told these acquaintance people a different name... or be known to them by another name. Thus, they would be the ideal people to use to verify your identity if you want to get a passport under a false name!

(One guy I knew, I knew by the name of Craig. His wife called him Craig. His other relatives called him Craig. Yet, EVERYONE he worked with called him Ron! So his workmates would confirm the photo as that of one belonging to Ron, and not Craig.)

Obviously, the best people to verify your photo (to confirm the photo is a photo of you) are your relatives - mother, father, brother, sister, etc.

But these people are not allowed to, by the new regulations.

How far down your family line does it go?

All the way. If they are living and part of your family tree, you cannot use them. No brothers, sisters, parents, nieces, nephews, uncles, aunties, nor spouses of the said relatives.

Further to this madness. The same applies to your spouse. So I cannot use any of the above people on my wife's side of the family to confirm my photo.

Nor can I use step mothers/fathers and their offspring from a previous marriage. Nor anyone in their family line! So no spouse of a step brother/sister.

BUT. IF there is a divorce, then the non blood related person can be used.

So, if my mother marries someone else, I cannot use her new husband to confirm my photo. However, if they were to get a divorce, I can then immediately use that same person to confirm my photo.

And still the craziness doesn't end.

The Guarantor, as the passport application form calls these people, only has to know you for 12 months.

That your family has known you for years, doesn't matter. A passing acquaintance, who may really hardly know you at all, is quite all right according to the new rules.

Your neighbor is ok. Even though you might not ever speak to each other - as seems to be the case with most neighbors. But they can confirm your photo.

AND. It doesn't matter how many previous passports you have had. As far as the passport office is concerned, my previous three passports don't mean anything and carry no weight in confirming the photo is a photo of me.

Basically, any person who is not related, no matter how well you know them, and even if you never socialize with them or have anything to do with them at all, can confirm your photo as long as they have "known" you for 12 months.

Sheer lunacy!

And what was I told when I asked WHY this rule was in place?

I was put on hold while the "Advisor" went and asked someone for the answer. And when they came back they told me it's

Just Policy.

I said, "Look. Someone had to make it policy for a reason. Maybe a whole bunch of them sitting around a table discussing it. And they determined that the Guarantor has to be a non relative because [...]. I want to know what that reason is, that you haven't been told. You seem to have been told everything else about it apart from WHY no relatives can confirm your photo."

Their response was a bit if UMing and AHing. And a repeat that it is "just policy."

Obviously, once you get the "just policy" line you know the conversation has ended. And you are speaking to a sheep person who doesn't know, but can't/won't admit it and can't/won't bother finding a proper answer either.

Just Policy is the "no responsibility" and "no authority" answer. And you get no further once you hear it.

But besides the photo fiasco, it gets better (worse)...

To prove your identity you can show your

Property lease
Home insurance papers
Utility bill

Which, of course, can all be had without proving your identity.

In other words, Home Insurance can be done over the phone. Without the insurer ever verifying your identity. Same with utility bills. And property managers likewise do not ask to see proof of who you are - sure they "might" ask for a license, but will still lease you a property if you don't have a license.

So here you have a situation where you can prove you ID by providing documents you don't need ID to obtain. And have a person who hardly knows you at all confirm your photo.

Oh well. I am sure the passport office knows what they are doing, based on years of experience. If you want a passport, you just have to abide by the government regulations, no matter how crazy those regulations are.

Passport To BioTechnology

Australia has now joined the ranks of the BioTechnology using countries.

As announced today, all new Australian passports will now contain a computer chip with the passport holder's image on it.

The idea is simple: The passport holder hands their passport to an entry point officer in the country they have just arrived in. The officer scans the chip through a reader which displays a picture of the passport holder on a screen. If the picture on the screen matches the picture on the passport, the passport is real and unaltered.

If the picture on the screen does not match the picture on the passport, the passport is likely to be "doctored" from a stolen passport - and the holder of said passport will almost immediately be taken into custody for some intense interrogation.

This is another "tool" to curb illegal entry and exit to a country.

It also means, I have to subject myself to this BioTechnology if I wish to leave Australia for a holiday, or for good. So there is now no point boycotting any country which makes use of this technology because it is part of getting a passport in Australia. And it would not make sense to accept the technology down here and then object to it overseas. (So now New Hampshire is looking pretty attractive.)

Sometimes there is just no escaping new technologies - thanks to "The Network Effect."

Do I like the idea of a computer chip on my passport?

Not at all!

I cannot be sure exactly what other information is also contained on that chip. Nor can I be sure that the chip isn't written to by the chip reader in the entry point officer's entry point station. For all I know, the reader not only reads the picture at the point of entry but also writes to the chip - date, time, entry point, location, etc. And that this information can be read off the chip by a government-owned super reader. So they can easily check up on where I have been and how long I have been there.

Conspiracy theory stuff?

Sure it is. But the fact I thought of it, and that it is well within the realms of the current technology, means it is quite possible. And possible now - not at some fictitious point in the future.

To make plane travel safer, each passenger's passport should be read before boarding the plane - and not after the plane has landed. This makes sure only the proper passport holder gets on the plane.

Aliens Amongst Us

So President Bush has a plan to issue illegal immigrants from Mexico, temporary working permits which will be valid for three years.

As could be expected, there was a LOT of objection to his plan.

One objecting group is a group which represents these types of illegal workers. Their objection was that by having three year permits, it would create a throw-away workforce. Employers would discard the workers whenever they wanted to, safe in the knowledge they can always get another worker desperate to earn $US.

Let's look at this objection without the emotion of ripping off workers and throwing them on the scrap heap: An employer makes an investment when they take on new staff. There is an investment in time and money in training and orienting the worker. The employer is NOT going to up and discard a good worker on the off-chance they might get a better one. Reality says it ain't gonna happen. The economics of business says it ain't gonna happen.

The other comment made by some is that this is a ploy from President Bush to win votes. They think, by allowing these illegal workers to stay and earn proper money, those who are of the same ethnicity will vote for Bush in the election this year.

Let's look at the reality of this comment without emotion clouding it: Most of the people of the ethnicity hinted at, live in California. California almost always goes to the Democrats in elections. They aren't known as "Liberal West Coasters" for nothing.

The size of the swing needed for the GOP to win California would be larger than any swing in history. Almost impossible.

So obviously President Bush isn't doing it to win votes - although he may get a few extra.

If he isn't doing it to win votes, and if he isn't doing it so employers can have throw-away labor, why is he doing it?

President Bush is allowing illegal south of the border workers to have work permits so the government can get them on file.

He realizes he isn't going to stop the illegal border crossings. But by allowing work permits which are valid for three years, he will effectively put an end to illegal border crossing profiteering

No more need to pay some low-life to hide you in a truck as you cross the border. Nor more need to risk getting shot or injuring yourself as you cross the border in the dark of night.

By having a permit the government knows WHO you are and can collect income tax. This move by the president will put a stop to the non tax paying labor force. And enable the government to have a list of those people on file.

From a War On Terror point of view it works beautifully in conjunction with US Visit. If terrorists are too scared to come in via a route which would have them caught by US Visit, they might try the alternate route from south of the border. By getting a permit they will also be on file - and double checked against terrorist lists. And if they try to get in to the US via a non-controlled entry point, they will stand out like sore thumbs because they will be the only ones doing so.

This move from President Bush is genius!

Nothing To Hide, Nothing To Fear. Dangerous Thinking

As expected, with the introduction of US Visit, there has been a great outcry.

Unfortunately, almost all the outcry the media is publishing, consists of people complaining about being discriminated against due to the country they live in (an "it's not fair" complaint). And there is very little - if any - published objection based on sound reasoning.

Hardly any mention has been made of the relatively free border crossing unchecked by fingerprinting from Mexico and Canada. Thus, a terrorist could fly to Mexico or Canada and then cross into the US with ease. Highlighting the fact, the US is only as secure as their most unsecure point of entry.

Also, if US Visit had been installed prior to 9/11, and if the hijackers had to have gone through the system to gain entry into the US, the system [US Visit] would not have caught them. And it wouldn't have caught them because they were 'clean' of prior infringements.

Which also begs the question: How many other clean "sleeper terrorists" are already in the US?

Anyway. To this natural emotion-based outcry against US Visit, some news commentators have basically said, "Get over it. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."

Okay. Fine. Lets stick with that "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" comment.

Why not have full-on surface mail inspection where ALL surface mail is opened in an effort to catch drug dealers and terrorists communicating. Hey, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, right?

How about we let the government install video cameras into all of our homes. After all, if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear.

Why not allow wholesale telephone listening. After all, if you have nothing to hide you will have nothing to fear.

How about we have cross-state-border control points to make sure the bad guys can't go from state to state? After all, if you have got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Why not issue identity cards with fingerprints on then as well as a DNA sample and have random street spot checks. If you have nothing to hide you will carry your identity card with you and thus have nothing to fear.

How about having a national firearm registration and database. So a police officer could plug in your street name and instantly get a read out of everyone who owns a firearm, and what type it is. As well as the name and other details of the firearm owner. After all, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

See what happens once you accept the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" line? You give away all privacy. Because once you accept that line for one thing, you cannot object to it when it is applied to something else. It is a dangerous line to bandy about.

US Visit, No Visit

It has been said, "If you sacrifice freedom for security, you end up with neither."

Well, today, the US has visibly started a Big Brother program they call "US Visit." This is the US version of the infamous Checkpoint Charlie and a part of the new Iron Curtain.

With US Visit, all international visitors will have their photo and fingerprints taken upon arrival in the country - each and every time they arrive. All under the guise of "protecting" US citizens from terrorists and others of that ilk.

The secretary of the department of Homeland Security even mentioning how after screening some 20,000 people they got 21 matches - who ranged from people on FBI wanted lists (like rapists) to people guilty of breaking Visa rules.

So they screen 20,000 people and pat themselves on the back because they caught a rapist and another guy whose Visa had expired. Not exactly the terrorists the system is supposed to find, are they?

As someone who lives outside of the US, I am appalled at this new BioTechology. And see it as treating all visitors to the US as a criminal.

Before you (who live in the US) object to my words, ask yourself... How would you like to visit a place (any place) and be forced to have your photograph and fingerprints taken before you could go in?

You wouldn't like it, I bet.

And neither will thousands - maybe even hundreds of thousands - of others. And when given the choice between visiting the US or another country without fingerprinting of all visitors, those visitors - and their money - will avoid the US.

The secretary also claimed this new procedure would speed people through. He then commented that it would only add fifteen seconds to the time it takes to go through the entry procedures. Please, someone explain to me how adding fifteen seconds to a procedure equals speeding people through?

The information collected by US Visit is supposedly protected under the privacy act with only authorized people to have access.

People with authorized access can include the FBI. Who, by law, are now required to hand over information to the Department of Homeland Security upon request. Sounds like Big Brother to me.

Also, as with other similar "laws" passed by the government, only the honest people will be effected. And how soon will a regular traveller who gets photographed and fingerprinted each and every time they enter the country, get "red flagged" as someone to look out for?

This system will still not stop the illegal boarder crossings which have been going on for years. Thus, it won't stop the terrorists who are dishonest.

Oh, sure, there are exceptions. Visitors from certain countries who won't have to be photographed and fingerprinted like a criminal before entering the US. But now that the law is in place, it will only be a small step to add those countries to the list of countries to photograph and fingerprint. After all, the terrorists could start using those countries as their jumping off point, couldn't they?

And what will you say then? You can't object because you allowed it with the other countries, and besides, those new countries will make you safer, right?

WAKE UP, AMERICA!

Your freedoms are slowly being eroded away. Under the guise of protecting you in the name of terrorism. Your government has found the dragon you are scared of and is using it to pass laws you would have totally objected to and screamed and yelled about some ten years earlier. (Much like the previous administration passed laws "for the children.")

I would love to come to your country. To visit. Even to set up a home. But if my welcome is to be treated like a criminal and have my photo and fingerprints taken, then your country is on my boycott list, unfortunately.

Media Going Overboard

So the crocodile man - Steve Erwin - did a show holding his newborn baby. Big deal.

Here is a PROFESSIONAL, doing what he does every single day, adding another element to his performance. IF you bother listening to the show you hear him telling the audience what the croc is doing. In other words... his experience enables him to know the signals the croc sends before doing various movements. (Much like a boxer can read another boxer's signs that a punch is about to be thrown.)

You will also notice, after the piece of chicken was given to the croc, the croc turned and walked away. A sign the croc goes through this same performance on a daily basis, and that the performace was over.

There is a big difference between a professional croc guy working with a croc he has worked with for years in a zoo, and a layman trying the same thing with a croc out in the wild.

All this fuss by the talking heads and do-gooders while real abuses perpetrated on defenseless children by their violent, alcoholic, and/or unfit parents are ignored.

By the way, it was no coinincedence the cameras just happened to be there. Can you spell publicity?

Well, it seems the media can because they are the ones making the fuss over it. The public just couldn' really care less. It is the media making the noise about it - even calling him stupid. And the media raking in all the money splashing the pictures all over the front pages of their publications, to generate increased sales.

In other words... the media is making a big deal out of it to sell newspapers and magazines. One TV current affair show even setting up a poll to ask whether Steve should have his "Australian of the Year" title revoked.

These people [media] just go too far. And as I said... where is their outcry at those who abuse children on a daily basis?