How Socialist Is Your Government?

Notice I asked how socialist your govt was and not IF it was socialist. Because every govt I know of is more socialist than not.

Now let me explain how this is so...

Socialism is where the state owns and/or controls the means of production, capital, land, etc.

Now I ask you, can you name a govt that doesn't own - or control - the means of production, capital, land, etc.? Because I can't.

During the recent election down here in Australia, the conservative Liberal party ran an interesting ad going against the leftist Labor party. The ad mentioned how Latham (Labor's leader) was inept at running a local council so how was he going to manage Australia's $800 billion economy.

Most people didn't see it. But there it is for all to see. An admittance from the conservative govt that they are socialist. As they are about "managing" the economy. Just like any good socialist would do - manage everything.

Granted we aren't fully socialist, yet. We are more of a collectivist society. But the govt still controls most everything.

Consider. You cannot open a business without govt approval. Can't even run a business without govt approval. Can't buy a car without the govt getting a slice and controlling the transaction. Can't even run the car without the govt controlling that by yearly registration.

Can't choose to not school your child. Can't choose to go to doctors not on the govt's approved list. Can't even buy certain food stuffs because the govt won't allow it - such as stores are not allowed to sell Apricot kernels. Can't even make and sell food items without govt intervention, approval and control.

And anyone who does try to interact business outside of govt control, is labeled a member of the "black economy" - as if it is a bad thing. And almost all of what they do is illegal.

Think about this. Try and name just one thing the govt doesn't control. And then try to convince me we aren't living under a form of socialism.

At least we can still vote with our feet. But that really only allows us to go to a place with a little less govt control. Not to a place with no govt control - unless you book onboard The World - ResidenSea. But even here you are still subject to controls as your money will be held in some govt's jurisdiction and will be subject to various govt controls. Even disembarking from your home requires your international ID - passport.

Let's face it. The world is far more socialist than our govt's let on. And it could be said we are living on a Prison Planet - were we can only do what our master's allow us to do, and if they don't allow it we are removed from society - just like any common criminal.

We're All Going On A Gamblin' Holiday

I can't believe the thieving nature of the majority of people. It's despicable.

Most people will take every chance they get to bludge at work. To slack off. To do nothing. Little do they realize that when they do that, they are stealing from their employer. For they are being paid for their time... in exchange for that time being spent in productive means. So any time a worker accepts payment for their time, and they do nothing with that time, they are stealing from their employer.

But this isn't what triggered this entry. No. What triggered it was the "cry" for a public holiday to be declared on Melbourne Cup day.

The "Melbourne Cup" - for my non-Australian readers, is a horse race. And every year, the entire nation seems to slow down for the race. Radios in workplaces across the country are tuned to the event. Offices and factories have Sweeps. And the govt owned betting system rakes in millions and millions of dollars.

Those who gamble and who want the day to be declared a public holiday, are also thieves. For if it is a public holiday they are "entitled" to get paid. So here they would get a full day's pay without doing anything whatsoever. And the business would be forced into this.

If that business wanted to open for business on that day - and it was a public holiday - they would have to pay their staff extra money because it is a holiday.

Again. Those who call for this are effectively calling for the right to steal more money from their employers. Of course, they would deem it alright because the govt would be forcing the business to comply. But that doesn't make it right.

You cannot go into your workplace and tell the boss, "Hey boss, I am having today off and you have to pay me a full days pay. And if you want me to work instead, then you have to pay me at least time and a half."

If you tried that you'd be out on your ear. And you would have no right to force your boss into accepting such an ultimatum. Seeing as an individual cannot do it, what right does the govt have for doing it?

You want a day off on Melbourne Cup day, then use one of your holiday days. And stop trying to force the govt into forcing your boss to pay for your gambling and getting drunk.

The US Election Reveals A Lot Of Stuff. Much of It Unspoken

What you're going to see in this entry is a bit of commentary about the election itself and its numbers; a bit about the news coverage; and some summation thoughts. It will be interesting.

Onward.

Without being pedantic about the numbers, Bush got about 58 million votes to Kerry's 54 million. This number voting for Dubbya is the most votes any President has received in the history of the US elections.

Consideration # 1: All those 54 million who voted for Kerry could have stayed home and not voted and the outcome would still have been the same.

Consideration # 2: Bush's 58 million votes represents 19.3% of the population if the US has 300 million people, or 21.5% of the population if the US has 270 million people. Which means that ALL the people (270 million or 300 million) are now ruled over by what 19.3% - 21.5% of the people wanted. This could actually be called "minority rules".

That 19.3% - 21.5% of the people can "dictate" to the remainder of the population is deemed as "democracy" and called "fair". And the winner - Bush - is now considered to have a mandate, by some.

It is interesting to note that my prediction came true. An increase in the House and the Senate, and increase in the electoral college numbers. When you INCREASE your numbers across the board it is NOT close.

Observations.

When the vote in Ohio showed Bush 125,000 votes in front with 130,000 votes still to count, Fox news called the state for Bush. CNN, on the other hand, refused to do so and instead played silly "if we give this state to Kerry and that state to Kerry, we could go to bed tonight with Kerry leading the electoral college vote but behind in the popular vote." Which was quickly followed by one of the panelists who said, "Yes. But it is only the electoral college that matters." Of course, this was not the mantra when Bush won the first time, though it was the mantra when Clinton won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote.

Larry King - on CNN - was wondering why they were still there. He was willing to give Ohio to Bush - and therefore the presidency - but Wolf Blitzer wouldn't have a bar of it and kept on ignoring Ohio. Choosing, instead, to drag the thing out. Maybe they thought they could keep people hanging on for longer and make a bit more money from advertising revenue. Or maybe they were just trying to deny reality. Hoping against all hopes for some kind of 11th hour miracle. Who knows.

ABC America likewise refused to give Ohio to Bush. And watching the BBC was literally like watching a communist propaganda show. It was so blatantly anti-Bush you could not take anything they said seriously. And what was odd about it was, it was all said in the most kind-sounding British accents. Strange stuff.

Perhaps the interesting thing to come out of all of this was the result based on the mass media input and the "star power" input.

Every little bad Bush thing was blown right up out of all proportion - even if it wasn't true. While Kerry was given a pass on almost everything. He was not ripped to bits on his flip-flopping. His anti-war stance which cost lives and his self-confessed war crimes were hardly heard about. Films like "Fahrenheit 9/11" were considered "free speech" while anything that was against Kerry was called an "attack". There were countless anti-Bush books released. And the rhetoric from Hollywood was never-ending anti-Bush pro-Kerry.

And yet, despite all of this. Despite Dan Rather trying to make Bush look bad with forged memos, as well as reading out names of soldiers killed in Iraq every night. Despite the constant accusations of lying aimed at Bush. Despite it all. Bush won. And increased his winning margin. Winning by more votes than even Ronald Reagan won by!

It was funny watching the reaction of the "network" talking heads over the exit polls. IT was as if they couldn't believe it. Kinda like... but Bush can't be winning, the exit polls said Kerry was in front. Truly some funny stuff watching their disbelief.

And now in the US, as in Australia, the population has spoken and voted in the incumbent with an even great majority than before. To normal people like you and me, this would mean something. To the vast left-wing conspiracy (as was behind the likes of moveon.org and other George Soros funded "groups"), the people's choice won't mean anything. It won't be too long before they are back to their old ways - denial of reality, trying to make us all live in their fantasy world where THEY rule the roost.

US Election Eve Musings

As I sit at my desk down here in the asshole end of the world (Australia), my thoughts wander to and fro, here and there. Thinking about this and that. All of it to do with the coming election - which we will see tomorrow, our time.

Who do I think will win?

I shall tell you in a bit. But first, consider these...

There is a town in the US that refuses to be ruled over. And so it came to pass that they elected a dog as mayor. And recently, they had to put the dog down. So now they are the only town in the world that had to euthanise their mayor. HA!

It also means they need a new mayor. And last I heard there were five dogs up for the position.

Obviously with a dog as mayor no-one rules the town. And you know what? The town doesn't notice.

As I've said before and will say again... when govt leaves a town the town survives, but when business leaves a town the town dies.

There is another town where the mayor has won every election for over 30 years. So successful is he that no-one has bothered running against him since 1974! And they haven't bothered because they wouldn't win.

You see. That mayor believes govt is to serve the people not the other way around. And so, to best serve his town he turned the govt office into something more akin to being a business. And when the town has excess money - which is every single year - he gives it back to the residents by way of a rebate/refund on their land taxes.

His goal when he came to office all those years ago was to give 100% of the land taxes back. And he is nearly there. He is at the 75% mark. That is, he is giving back 75% of the money the people pay in land tax. And he says he will continue to stay on as mayor until he reaches the 100% rebate mark.

He has achieved this remarkable feat by running the town as a business, as I said. But that specifically means: selling off equipment that might get used once or twice a year and outsourcing all the work to private contractors.

Not only does this save the town money in maintaining equipment, it also means they do not have idle employees to pay money to. As such, the entire town is able to be run with just 6 govt employees - including himself.

His town is a model which more towns could do with following. But alas, most politicians - mayors of towns included - don't give a shit about the towns folks. They just want a cushy job.

My thoughts also turned to how the US election is rigged. Yes rigged.

For all intents and purposes there are only two candidates - Bush and Kerry. But in reality there are more candidates. There is Ralph Nader, as many may already know. But there is also the Libertarian party candidate - Michael Badnarik. And a Green party candidate - David Cobb.

Bet you didn't know that, eh?

I bet you also didn't know they tried to get included in the debates - as well they should considering they are candidates and it is a debate of candidates. But the Commission on Presidential Debates refused to accept the judge-issued paper. So they went to the debate anyway - with papers in hand. Got past police with the intent of getting on the debate and both were arrested!!! You can read the account on Badnarik's site here and the WorldNetDaily piece here ("Two third-party presidential candidates were arrested at the presidential debate in St. Louis when they tried to serve the debate commission with a show cause order....")

Not one major media network picked it up. Not one. (See the Google news search results for it here - note how any mentioning of it apart from WorldNetDaily is AFTER the debates.) You would think that when two presidential candidates are arrested it would be newsworthy, wouldn't you? Not in the US where the two big parties - Democrats and Republicans - rule the roost and won't have a bar of any newcomers.

This is why the election is rigged. You really only have a choice of two candidates and no others really get a chance. Why even poor Nader is refused to be on the ballot in many states. So much so even if he won all the states in which he is on the ballot, he still couldn't win the presidential election. As Cobb said of the debates, "These are not debates, these are infomercials."

And now my thoughts turn to the election proper. Where, under the cloud of an Osama Bin Laden diatribe, Bush and Kerry will find out what the people really think.

Interestingly, the Bin Laden tape was misinterpreted by the US govt - accidentally on purpose maybe. And instead of saying countries that vote with Bush will be attacked and those who don't won't be attacked, he actually said "US STATES." So any US state that votes Bush in the election is a target and any state that does not will be spared Al Qaida's wrath.

Anyway. Who will win?

In my opinion it will be Bush. And it will NOT be close.

Polls are designed to show a close race. So everyone will keep watching the news. And sit on the edge of their seat waiting for the next poll to see if their guy is in front or not. It sucks the masses into the whole voting thing - which the govt needs because more and more people are pissed off by the bull shit that calls itself govt these days. But by having many people vote, the govt claims some kind of legitimacy.

Also, people really only care about themselves. What the US does in Iraq is not really a concern except for the "anti" crowd. Normal people care about their jobs - and the prospects look good - and how they feel about things. And with the economy starting to pick up (only to be smashed shortly after the election as inflation hits home as I've written about before) people's current view is a good one. Incumbents are harder to topple.

After the election, the Democrats will wonder how they ever thought they could have won with Kerry - much like the Labor party in Australia is trying to figure out why they lost with Latham.

Only time will tell if I am right in my prediction. I have a 50/50 chance. But as I say it won't be close, I am really hanging my hat on one side in this election. So we'll see how close I am.

One thing is for sure, however, no matter who wins, the size of the US govt will continue to get bigger, more and more freedoms will be taken away and replaced with "security" and the US - once a bastion of freedom - will step ever more closer to IngSoc.

Revealed: Newspaper Propaganda Tricks (More Iraq Bull Stuff)

A newspaper called The Independent - which from all appearances is really a leftist propaganda blurb and not independent at all - ran a story with the headline "Revealed: War Has Cost 100,000 Iraqi lives". If you want to read it you can read it here. Before you do read it, I've analyzed it below.

Read my analysis to see how manipulative the story is. And then you will know why I don't bother reading the print media. It's full of misleading verbiage and dodgy science and extrapolations. Another reason is that by doing so I would be allowing someone else to choose what news I will see.

Anyway. Let's begin...

Revealed: War Has Cost 100,000 Iraqi lives

Right off the bat the headlines is wrong. It makes a positive statement... that the war HAS cost 100,000 Iraqi lives. The use of the word HAS implies this is a known and indisputable fact. Which just is not the case.

The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003.

This part "tricks" the reader into believing it by use of the words "scientific study". This tells the reader it is not guess work but a real bonafide scientific study - whatever that really means.

But then it covers itself by saying the "study" only suggests that number of lives was lost.

Also tricky is that in this paragraph no mention of HOW the life was lost is made - how it was lost. Just that life is lost. By referencing the war it implies the life was lost as a result of the war. Implied without stating it. Very tricky.

More than half of those who died were women and children killed in air strikes, researchers say.

Note how the use of the clarifier "researchers say" comes at the END of the claim. So it reads as fact before we find out it is just an opinion. And there are no facts or hints at where this estimate comes from to back it up. It is just put out there as a statement of fact.

Previous estimates have put the Iraqi death toll at around 10,000 - ten times the 1,000 members of the British, American and multi-national forces who have died so far.

This also kind of just sits out there because no mentioned of what kind of toll the previous estimates are about. Is this previous death toll a toll of those killed in combat, by insurgents, or other? We aren't told. But it is important to know because the source of the death is what makes or breaks this new 100,000 claim.

For instance: A visit to www.iraqbodycount.net reveals a range of 14,000 - 16,000 based on reported incidents. Which I would certainly find more credible than the way these so-called scientists gathered their data (which I'll discuss in a minute).

But the study, published in The Lancet, suggested that Iraqi casualties could be as much as 100 times the coalition losses. It was also savagely critical of the failure by coalition forces to count Iraqi casualties.

The start of this paragraph with the word BUT negates all that came before. Its use dismisses off hand the other claims of the other estimates of around 10,000. Again lending more cred to this claim.

Then it SUGGESTS the number COULD be as much as 100 times. And we are supposed to believe it because it was published in The Lancet. As if being published in The Lancet makes it true.

And what makes me laugh is the use of the words "savagely critical." It's not just critical.. it is SAVAGELY critical.

It's the reading of the rest of the article, however, in which their questionable results really come to the fore. I won't bother displaying any more text snips otherwise this would get way too long. I'll just make comments...

How did these scientists arrive at their 100,000 number?

They did a survey. That is it. That is their "scientific study". A survey. Of people living in towns. A survey which we are supposed to believe is accurate because those who were hired to conduct the survey risked their lives by doing the survey in dangerous Iraq.

They didn't go into a hospital to ask how many people had been pronounced dead due to gunshot or being blown up. Nope. They get their numbers by asking the opinion of some people on the street. And then they have the hide to call it "scientific."

Of course, the life-threatening conditions under which the survey was conducted don't make the survey any more accurate. And considering as the only measure they report is that of "violence" - which they then use to claim is a result of the coalition - I question exactly what this death by "violence" is.

A suicide bomber blows themselves up and those who die - the citizens who were deliberately targeted - have died "violently." These kinds of people become a statistic for these "scientists" to use as a number to extrapolate their 100,000 number. Do they then blame this on the coalition airstrikes? It seems so.

The researchers already admitted to ignoring numbers from towns like Falluja. Though it begs the question: What else did they ignore? And even if the towns were chosen at random, as claimed, was WHERE the survey was conducted in the town also chosen at random?

We could all got to the seedy side of town to do surveys to get whatever results we wanted. It doesn't mean the results of that survey are accurate enough to base an entire claim on.

Either way... doing a bunch of surveys of many hundreds of citizens on the street in a war zone, instead of asking those who would be in a position to know, is hardly the science needed to give a credible claim that 100,000 people have been killed by coalition fighters.

A death by "violence" does not mean death by coalition fire.

The entire article reads as one designed to serve a purpose... the usual anti-war purpose, and how bad it is that the US, Britain and Australia attacked poor old innocent Saddam who never did anything wrong to anyone. - end sarcasm.

Perhaps the biggest joke of articles like this one is that they were nowhere to be seen when Clinton and Co invaded Yugoslavia - bombing civilian targets and companies that Milosovic had shares in to weaken him financially for when the trial began. There were no anti-war rallies then. No "Clinton lied to us. The ethnic cleansing was not taking place as claimed". No "Revealed: War Has Cost 20,000 Serbian Lives" headlines. No big ta-do about bombing the Chinese Embassy. And no outrage over the whole thing other than from Russia.

And the mass graves that were supposedly there, seemed to have vanished like Saddam's WMDs - although I think it would be harder to move a mass grave than a bunch of weapons. And those graves they have been found have been full of Serbs and not the poor innocent Kosovars!!! But we hear nothing of that.

Why is that? Why did/does Clinton get a pass and Bush not?

I think we all know the real answer to that one. And if not, let me tell you... because the mass media are a bunch of leftists and no fellow leftist can do any wrong in their eyes - hence Clinton, the fellow leftist, is given a pass for the MISTAKE he made going into Yugoslavia and about the LIES he told to make it happen.