Demonstration = Riot In The Making; Nepotism Warne-ing

It has come out that the Aboriginal Community of Redfern will hold a demonstration at the Redfern police station, when the funeral of the Aboriginal youth who impaled himself last week, is held.

Unless this is a "sit in" demonstration - and they seldom are - then this particular demonstration could very well turn into another violent, property damaging riot. And with their blood still up, then this is quite likely.

The funny thing during the media reporting of this, is they don't ever flat out mention the deceased youth was a criminal. They never mention WHY he was running from police. But they do keep mentioning "unsubstantiated claims" - which have been refuted by police - that the police were chasing him and that the chasing led to the youth's death. Always trying to make out that the police are the bad guys.

Even Islamic convert and Aboriginal boxer Anthony Mundine has harped in on it. Making excuses about growing up in a drug environment and how hard it is to get off drugs once you are addicted.

Hey Mundine, no-one is forcing these people to take drugs. To drink alcohol and smoke pot. They choose to do that to themselves. And given all the handouts and freebies they get from the Government for being Aboriginal (even if they are three quarters white), their excuses are baloney. And certainly do not justify throwing fire-bombs at people.

And that's the entire issue... willfully destroying property and assaulting police officers - even trying to kill them - while simultaneously pleading the victims, again.

It's really time for the leftist media and the state's leftist leader to lose this political correctness and call their acts exactly what they are - criminal acts. And to call those who committed those acts exactly what they are - criminals. And to charge them with the crimes they committed - willful destruction of property, assault occasioning bodily harm, attempted murder, and whatever else they get them for. And to not duck the issue because of race. But to stand tall and proud despite their protests and do the right and legal thing. If the leader of the state can lead the way on this he will cement a stronger position for himself. But at the moment he appears quite silent - after his initial blabberings of holding investigations into the actions of the police. It's almost as if he wishes the whole situation would go away.

Anyway. It will be interesting to see how this "demonstration" turns out. If handled correctly, the Aboriginals can swing people (dupes) to their cause. If handled stupidly - like the riots - then it will further isolate them.

I Warned You

Shane Warne, the cricketer who was found guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs, and who has also been busted having affairs behind his wife's back - is set to come back into the Australian cricket team after his one year suspension.

This is one I just cannot figure. A known drug taker is suspended for a year and is welcomed back into the Australian team without so much as a try-out. While other people have been playing full-time and devoting their time and effort to the sport and don't get a look in, this man is just up and welcomed. No record to prove he still has it and can still do what he used to be able to do. Just a free welcome back pass.

This shows the nepotism and pissing in the pockets politics that goes in the sport of cricket - a sport already rife with match fixing.

Aboriginal Angst

The Redfern Aboriginals are upset again. This time it is over the arrests of several of the rioters who threw fire-bombs (Molotov Cocktails), exploding fireworks, bricks, glass and other harmful items at police.

They (the "Elders") don't think it was good to just arrest these criminals in the street. It wasn't right and it could have been done in private at the criminal's homes (the use of the word Criminal here is my doing because that is what these people are).

Never mind that these criminals tried to KILL police officers. After all, what other reason is there for throwing Molotov cocktails at people if you do not wish to set them on fire and burn them? What other reason is there for setting off rocket fireworks directly at police so the shell would explode upon hitting a police officer who is just standing there without their weapon drawn?

And what of the deceased youth who started all this? Oh, he was caught on video tape grabbing a woman's bag, causing her to fall and dragging her onto the street! He was a criminal!!! THAT is why he ran when he saw police - he thought they were coming to get him. He was NOT the innocent little boy the Aboriginal community is making out. And even less so when you consider, grabbing a person's bag and dragging them onto the street is something a person works up to, not something they start at. Meaning, he had already done it previously, as well as other lesser crimes - shoplifting, for instance. He was NOT innocent at all. He was a CRIMINAL.

So we have a situation were a criminal died trying to flee from police who were not chasing him. Other criminals then attacked police trying to kill them. And the Aboriginal Community cries hard done by, by the police

Perhaps the biggest travesty of this is the lack of outrage portrayed by the media. They are not reporting (or under reporting) the criminal acts of the Aboriginal people in this situation. And by their lack of proper reporting they are condoning those criminal actions.

I have no such compunctions. The youth who died was a criminal who had previously done criminal acts. Those who tried to kill the police and the others who willfully destroyed property are also criminals. And those who condone or try to justify those criminal actions - as well as those who praise such actions - are poor examples to be showing on nightly news broadcasts. The Aboriginal Community have a LOT to answer for in this situation and the media needs to buck up their reporting.

Gitmo Or Bust

So some Gitmo detainees are going home to face their respective laws. All the while, baby kisses like Mark Latham - the leader of the Australian Labor Party - continue to complain that the Australian soldier who was caught in Afghanistan fighting WITH and ALONG SIDE the Taliban, isn't receiving legal representation and it's not fair.

Hey Latham.... listen up... he was trying to shoot and KILL the coalition forces - some of which were Australian. He is thus a traitor and an enemy combatant. And with this knowledge you complain about his lack of legal representation!? (While being terribly quite on the lack of rights his kind allow other people.)

What's next? Complaining that Osama is being harshly treated and we should give him a break?

The man was trying to kill Australians and you want him to have a lawyer so he can get off!?

Let me ask you: Is this about "justice" as you claim - OR - is it atypical of the socialist mentality that "one of your own" can do no wrong - because a group who is in total control (state run) is the ideal socialist utopia you espouse to? Or maybe you think this will score you some political browny points with the anti-war crowd and the other leftist of that ilk?

Listen up. Are you listening? Normal Australian's do NOT care about him. As far as normal unbrainwashed Australian's are concerned, he can rot over there. Got it?

Those Blasted Business Owners Are Taking My Job, Again

Today Tonight - an Australian current affair program - runs a story on how some of the big bad mean companies are outsourcing telephone call center jobs to places like India.

As is usual with these shows, they find some bleeding heart to complain that their job is being stolen away from them and given to someone in another country. There is the usual "it's not fair" commentary thrown around. As well as the predictable call for "more protection".

Let's have a look at this in a little more depth - without the emotional baggage...

A large public company has a large payroll. They also have an obligation to their shareholders (the owners of the company) to increase profits. One way they do this is by reducing expenses. And one way expenses are reduced is by getting rid of staff and/or hiring cheaper staff.

Because the company still needs to function, getting rid of staff is not an option. That leaves finding cheaper staff to do the work. Hence, the outsourcing to places like India.

The extra profit this gives the company can then be used by the company to EXPAND its operation - which will ultimately mean MORE JOBS.

By restricting the outsourcing (via protectionist thinking and lobbying leading to protectionist laws), a company is strangled, and may eventually perish.

By allowing the outsourcing, not only does the company increase their profits and thus enable expansion which leads to more local jobs, it also creates employment and jobs in other countries - increasing the state of that country's economy and the financial picture and outlook of the foreign companies the work is outsourced to.

Also, outsourcing leads to competition within the more affluent country. Driving prices down which benefits consumers. Cheaper prices result in higher stock turnover. Which means cashflow. Which is good for a company.

In short, protectionism stifles and leads to stagnant conditions, outsourcing frees and leads to expansion and flourishing conditions.

Antibiotics Cause Cancer? Nah.

So new research reveals people who have had 25 courses of antibiotics are more likely to get breast cancer compared to people who have never had a course of antibiotics.

The conclusion drawn is that somehow - in an as yet unknown process - the antibiotics causes the cancer.

Hello? Did IQs just drop sharply? That kind of conclusion is typical of the medical industry. My take on the research results are somewhat different.

Antibiotic taking does not cause cancer. A poor functioning immune system allows cancer to form. The use of antibiotics indicates a poor immune system - if it was functioning at an optimal level the antibiotics would not be needed, right?

The antibiotics also need to be processed by the immune system - hampering it more. But this is a secondary lowering. The first immune system function lowering is due to poor lifestyle and dietary choices. With a poor functioning immune system illness can take hold. The sick person then goes to a Doctor to get some antibiotics - which helps take care of the bug which caused the initial illness, but also needs to be dealt with by the immune system.

So it isn't so much that the antibiotics cause cancer. They indicate poor health and a poor immune system which allows cancer to form.

John Kerry Is Not Wanted

So John Kerry is wining the majority of caucuses and primaries during his bid to become the Democratic Party's candidate for US President. However, the majority of voters do NOT want him!

Take the Wisconsin vote, for example. Kerry got 40% of the vote, Edwards got 34% and Dean got 18%. This means, more people did not want Kerry (60%) than did (only 40%). And yet, Kerry's crowd preaches their dominance.

I seem to recall a great outcry at such results when it was Gore vs Bush - despite Bush winning 2,434 counties to Gore's 677. And for those who wish to dispute it, here is the Red/Blue map showing the counties which Bush won and the counties Gore won: http://www.2000gop.com/countymap.jpg

How will more people NOT wanting Kerry reflect when it comes to the election in November?

The die-hards will vote Democrat no matter what. But there will be some of those 60% who didn't want Kerry, who will vote for Bush. And not just because they don't want Kerry. Because by then Kerry's monotone voice will become incredibly boring and irritating (almost as irritating and annoying as Bush's supercilious-like grin). Not to mention his liberalism which will come shining through.

Personally, I would have gone for Lieberman if I were a Democrat. But I don't think he really stood a chance. The US populace would not vote in an obvious Jew as President no matter how nice he appears or how center he is.

And I conclude that Edwards would be a more formidable opponent for Bush. Kerry is too tainted with Kennedy liberalism as well as his staunch anti-everything stance and subsequent flip-flopping when it suited him politically. Edwards is more like a motivational speaker. And it will be interesting to see how the upcoming primaries go when the two main players left are Kerry and Edwards. We may just see a shift away from Kerry.

Your Right To Vote Has Been Rescinded

We have, at this point in time, a political system whereby the politicians are voted into power by the lowest common denominator.

It just so happens the lowest common denominator people are also the least productive while simultaneously being the fastest breeders.

This results in a system where those who produce little are determining how the producers get by in life, by voting for politicians who promise to take from the productive and give to the unproductive.

We can put an end to the welfare state this creates, and boost the economy at the same time, by having those who are employed (by a boss, company, or self) as the only group who is allowed to vote. And rescinding the right to vote of those who are not employed in any capacity and those who are on welfare.

Suddenly, the politicians will do things for the productive members of society. And no longer will it pay to be on welfare. The welfare sponges will thus be more determined to get off welfare.

Fewer people on welfare will ease the welfare burden the government has, plus get the economy going even more as these people find gainful employment and reduce the Unemployment and Positions Vacant rates. Of course, once employed, they will again be able to vote. And people being the selfish creatures they are, will vote for politicians that promise them something in their new employed status - ignoring the welfare crowd even more.

Will there be an outcry at such a situation?

Of course there will be. And the biggest complainers will be the leftist crowd - and those on the welfare. But hey, why should a leech on society who produces nothing have a say on how my money is taken and spent?

With only the gainfully employed voting, the politicians will also be free to ignore the silly demands of welfare crowd - to steal more money from the productive members of society to give to them. And can get down to the business of what they are supposed to be doing - protecting our property rights from being infringed upon (for that is truly the only purpose of a government).

Believe it or not, this system is already in place and in widespread use. Every public company operates just like this...

Only those with a stake in the company decide - by their votes during shareholder meetings - how the company should move. And those employed by the company vote - by way of enterprise bargaining or union talks - how production takes place.

People not employed by a company and who have no vested interest in that company - such as charities the company many give money to - have no say in how the company runs and spends its money.

And yet, when it comes to government, those with no part to play in society do have a say. That is, people who add nothing to the government, nor produce anything, have a say in what the government does with its money. Rescind this right and watch the economy improve.

Doing It For The Aborigines

Picture this: It's dark - about 11:30 at night. You're standing on a small, sandy, isolated and unknown beach you need to walk three miles to get to, near a man-made rock wall at the end of an airport runway, and you have a line in the water hoping to catch a fish or two. You haven't had any bites for an hour and you've just tossed an empty beer bottle into the water. In your boredom you start throwing rocks at the floating bobbing bottle - hoping to hit it and sink it. You feel like you're in the navy trying to sink an enemy ship, making sound effects. And generally having a better time in your make-believe world than fishing.

The small stones you throw are missing the bottle. Then suddenly your friend (who spent time as a police officer in Redfern) yells, "Here's one for the Abos" and throws a brick at the bottle.

The brick misses but the wash goes over the bottle's opening, sinking it right away.

That is the memory that popped into my head watching footage of the young Aborigines throwing bricks, half bricks, paving stones and glass bottles at the police the other night. (Because it is the same kind of thing my friend told me all those years ago.)

Their excuse, as one "elder" said, "they are angry about their friend dying."

Well excuse me from here until next week. Lots of people get angry over the death of people they know. You don't see them destroying the property of others. You don't see them setting fires. You don't see them throwing fire-bombs at police.

This "just angry" excuse is just that, an excuse. Some half-assed reason to riot. And destroy. And damage. And just plain exhibit the characteristics which has the Aboriginal community stereo-typed like they are - a community of drunks who have no regard for property and destroy it at will, often playing the race card to prevent prosecution.

I know an Aborigine - at least I did, he is dead now (car crash). And he used to brag about how he would do pretty well whatever he wanted at school knowing the teacher could not do anything because he was an Aborigine.

This riot is the same... Aborigines, leeching off of the system (sit down money, they call it) and then abusing that same system.

Despite this wanton destruction, the media harp on how the police had, the previous day, supposedly chased a young Aboriginal who died when he crash his bicycle and impaled his neck on a steel spike. (Despite the fact the police were not chasing him.)

They conveniently ignore (or under-report) that this riot took place the next night. Ignore (or under-report) that wheelie bins full of glass bottles, bricks and paving stones were brought to the riot (indicating planning). Ignore (or under-report) that almost all the rioters were wearing things over their faces to avoid identification. Ignore (or under-report) that a great deal of damage was done to property which belonged to others. Ignore (or under-report) that other people have to now come in and fix, repair and clean up after these criminals - Yes, criminals, because if you or I did what they did we would be put in jail, taken to court, found guilty and sentenced to time in jail and/or a hefty fine (but these "youths" will probably get off with a slap on the wrist good behavior bond because they are under age). Ignore (or under-report) that police were injured while the rioters sustained no injuries at all.

Instead, the media concentrate on the Aboriginal-claimed police actions of the previous day. And if the police manage to capture those responsible - highly unlikely because they will not put themselves in - the media, in typical fashion, will show how the Aborigines are being picked on.

Let's lose the emotional BS. Fact is, these citizens - and I use that term loosely because they aren't worth being classified citizens due to their disregard for property rights - planned and implemented a riot which caused a tremendous amount of destruction to property and INJURY to police officers. THEY - not the police - are the criminals. THEY - not the police - need to be exposed for what they did. THEY - not the police - need to be punished for the crimes they committed.

The Art of Fluff

"Help support Australians doing it tough" is the reason line behind national pancake day.

I ask the question... what does "support" mean?
I ask the question... what is meant by "doing it tough"?

Support: To maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for. Maintenance, as of person, family, etc., with necessities, means, or funds.

Tough: Difficult to perform, accomplish, or deal with; hard, trying, or troublesome.

So the reason line could mean: provide with necessities, means, or funds, those people who are trying to get by in life.

Hands up all of you who feel you are also "doing it tough".

WOW. Look at that. Everyone has their hands up. Even Donald Trump and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

It makes sense everyone feels they are "doing it tough" because everyone is doing it tough. There are no free rides. Either you work hard physically or mentally. And if you don't do a lot of physical work and outsource a lot of tasks, you are still doing it tough due to the increased responsibility you have now taken it on.

In short, "help support Australians doing it tough" is fluff. A line designed to appear to actually say something without actually saying anything. Thus proving the "charity" tremendous flexibility with the distribution of their funds.

But this ad is just one small example in a sea of fluff.

John Edwards, in his phone spiel to potential voters during his presidential campaign, has a set of responses for possible questions. On questions relating to the Middle East his answer goes something like "I will work together with other countries to find a better solution."

What does that mean?

Please define "work together".
Please define "better solution".

By saying it like this, he cannot be nailed down to actually saying anything.

NASA's now famous line is "better, faster, cheaper".

Faster and Cheaper are self evident. But what does "better" mean? How do you (NASA) define "better"?

Without a clear definition we never know if this state of better has ever been achieved.

Sure, the dictionary definition is: Of superior quality or excellence; of superior value, use, fitness, desirability, acceptableness, etc.

But this is meaningless unless we know what it is being compared to.

There used to be a toothbrush ad which claimed their toothbrush cleaned your teeth 51% better.

I always used to ask "better than what?"

Better than cleaning my teeth with my finger?
Better than cleaning my teeth with a piece of paper towel?
Better than cleaning my teeth with a blade of grass?
Better than cleaning my teeth by swishing water around in my mouth?

Without knowing what the claim of "better" is compared to, the claim is just more fluff.

By fluff doesn't end with the ads. Much advice is of a fluff nature too.

Picture the person asking a question on a discussion board. Imagine they are asking how to market their good/service. Now imagine the typical replies this person might get...

Send postcards to prospects, run classified ads that target your market, do a direct mail campaign, do a flyer drop, etc.

At first, this seems like a good answer offering wise advice. But in reality it is next to useless. For now the advice seeker needs to ask...

How do I make a postcard and what do I put on it? What kind of ad will target my target market? How do I do a direct mail campaign? What goes on a flyer?

To some of these additional questions there might come answers like...

Use your desktop publishing software to make a postcard and put an attention getting headline with a compelling reason to do business with you.

Treat your classified ad like a small headline with a call to action. Something that will entice the reader to call you for more information.

Get a list of people most likely to buy your good/service and mail them a sales letter which gets them to buy.

After reading these additional replies, the advice seeker is STILL not any better off because all those answers are fluff. Take the last one as an example, "Get a list of people most likely to buy your good/service and mail them a sales letter which gets them to buy."

Where is such a list found and how do I get hold of it?
How is this sales letter written?

In short, the usual advice does as much good as telling someone, "to become rich, just make a lot of money selling things people want/need."

Unfortunately, the fluff doesn't end there either. It is often found in books. And books are often riddled with it. So much so, the reader might feel inspired after reading the book. Or like there is a chance they can "do it" - whatever "do it" means. But because the book was fluff, the reader finds they cannot take action on the advice within the book because no actual advice was given.

There is a Work by a well know internet marketing "expert." This person has been successful inasmuch as making money. Their advice which is now "common knowledge" online goes something like this...

Find/Create a product people want to buy, create a website/webpage to sell it, plug in an automatic payment processing system, run ads in ezines attracting people to the site.

So simple. Just four small little steps which appear to be about as easy as they come. Until you think about it and realize much of it is actually fluff. Let me show you...

"Find/create a product people want to buy". And just HOW are we supposed to do that? And don't tell me "do research." Tell me how to do this research. I need step by step details that give me specifics and not fluff.

"Create a website/webpage to sell it". I know how to create a website, but how does one define a site that sells a product? Full of persuasive copy? Well, that sounds like more fluff. What is persuasive copy and how do I write it? Copy that sells is persuasive copy. Thanks. Just as useless and an answer that cannot be applied.

"Plug in an automatic payment processor." This is the clearest bit. Because after being pointed in the direction of some of these payment processors they give directions about using their services to accept payment.

"Run ezine ads to get people to your website." At first, this seems good advice. The challenge is quickly discovered that HOW does one write an effective ezine ad? You can point me in the direction of ezine directories and teach me how to find ezines related to my product's theme, but how do I write this ad? Specifics needed please.

In short, the advice, while sounding good on the surface, doesn't really help the person it is designed to help - a new inexperienced person. If you already know how to write persuasive copy and know how to create effective ezine ads, your only hurdle will be finding/creating the product people want. And this has been a MAJOR hurdle of entrepreneurs and businesses from the time they first existed. If it was truly as easy as the fluff advice suggests, we would all be doing it.

So what makes a non-fluff claim or piece of advice?

Something which actually aids in increasing a person's knowledge or enables them to take real action.

For instance: This toothbrush cleans 51% better than our previous toothbrush because the ends of the bristles have been rounded more and the outside bristles are slightly higher than the inside bristles.

This new claim shows what is being compared and gives reasons why the claim is justified.

For instance: Create a classified ad by writing "ATTENTION MARKET" where MARKET are the people you are targeting. So if you are selling to soccer players start your ad with "ATTENTION SOCCER PLAYERS". Then ask them a question about a problem your product solves. So if your product protects shins better, then you could add "Bruised shins got you down?" Your ad now reads, "ATTENTION SOCCER PLAYERS. Bruised shins got you down?" Now to this, add, "We have the solution. Call 555-5555." Making your full ad read...

ATTENTION SOCCER PLAYERS. Bruised shins got you down? We have the solution. Call 555-5555

So the formula is

ATTENTION MARKET
Ask if problem has them down
Tell them you have the solution and ask them to call

This is one formula. Another is to simply tell them what you do...

We sell shins protectors for soccer players. Call for details. 555-5555

Or

SOCCER PLAYERS. We sell shin protectors. Call 555-5555.

Any product or service can have a simple ad like this. Just change the people you want to read, from soccer players to your group.

An answer like this gives the reader something they can use. It is good but the reader may still then need to ask about knowing where to run such an ad. To which some general publication mentions (major daily newspaper, etc.) coupled with "where your competition advertises" and/or " where other businesses advertise who also sell to that market" help further. As long as it is coupled with advice to visit a newsagent store to look through the racks to find the publications needed. And examples given. And so on.

In short, the better answer which has use is one which is more like a step-by-step action plan with specifics which can be followed. If the advice cannot be followed without needing tremendous amounts of further information, the advice is just more fluff.

Because most of the "How To" books are filled with this fluff, the reader is left feeling excited but also wanting to know more because they cannot really take action based on what was in the book - unless the book has specific exercises which can be done, as the exercises usually contain the much needed extra guidance.

Often, the "How To" book is close to providing the much needed extra information but doesn't. And it doesn't because the writer assumes the reader already knows certain information and/or has experience within the subject matter - whether the writer consciously assumes this or not.

Look for the fluff around you. It is everywhere. In TV and Radio ads, in advice and in "How To" books and information. Take a stand and call it out for what it is when you see it. Perhaps, if we all do this, writers will make more of an effort to improve their Work and make their Work usable without the reader needing extra information to fill in the gaps.

Homosexuality Is A Sexual Fetish

A homosexual is a person who claims to be attracted to other people of the same gender as they are. They claim this is their being. Their make up. The way they are. On a genetic level.

They are wrong.

Homosexuality is NOT a state of being, a quirk of DNA or any other thing the homosexuals claim.

Homosexuality is a sexual fetish. Nothing more. Nothing less. And as a sexual fetish, it makes all their claims for homosexual rights meaningless. And they carry as much weight as someone with a stocking fetish claiming they need Stocking-Lover Rights. And if you don't like them you must be a "Stocking-Lover Phobe". And they have to have special Stocking-Lover Marriage Rights written into law.

Think about it. Little kids don't go around exhibiting homosexual tendencies. It is only once puberty is hit that this homosexuality surfaces.

Whatever the sexual experience, if it creates arousal, it gets cemented into the brain. Repeated exposure to the same arousal cements the association further. Until you arrive at a situation where arousal can only be had by stimulation of someone of the same sex.

This is exactly as it is with other sexual fetishes. Arousal surrounds the wearing of tight leather. Repeated exposure to arousal with leather cements the two together. Resulting in a person who can only get aroused while wearing leather or while their lover wears leather.

Same goes with high heels, stockings, pantyhose, blonde wigs and nearly any other sexual fetish you can think of. There is even a documented case where a young man could ONLY get aroused by washing a woman's hair! - putting his hands through a woman's hair while washing it aroused him and nothing else would.

It is proven that homosexuals are MUCH more sexually promiscuous and have MANY more partners than heterosexual people. Thus indicating the fetish is a sex-based fetish.

Of course, the homosexuals will never admit to this because it would mean an end to all their claims of rights and the like. As no group of people with a certain sexual fetish would ever be given special treatment just because of their sexual fetish.

Also, a homosexual reading this will call me a homo-phobe. And be done with it. This is their standard response.

To those I say... prove your homosexuality is NOT a sexual fetish. Prove it is not a sexual fetish like leather wearing - accept that with homosexuality it is same sex partners.

Prove that your homosexuality is not the result of conditioning based on sexual arousal.

You won't. And you won't because you can't. And you can't because homosexuality IS a sexual fetish.

And to those who have accepted the line put out by the homosexuals about their state of being... now you know the truth. Spread it. Let as many people know as you can. The only way to stop this lie from being perpetuated and stopping groups of these liars from getting special treatment is to get the word out that homosexuality is nothing more than a sexual fetish.