Money Means Healthier Kids - More Leftist Research

According to the news media, new research reveals having money means you have healthier kids. With the obvious implications being, we need to tax the rich some more and give the money to the poor, for the kid's sake.

I have a different take on it. And think the researchers are using deductive logic again.

It would appear they have observed two things... healthy children are nearly always only found in families with money. Based on this they deduce that having money made the children healthy.

How about this instead...

To achieve wealth requires a certain type of person. That person is usually disciplined in all areas of their life. Their appearance, grooming and hygiene. Their discipline it what enables them to make money. Their discipline is what keeps them healthy. This discipline effects those under their care - their children. And as a result, their children are also value-producing people in better health.

Compare this to the welfare rip-off artists. They have this tendency NOT to care about anything. They don't care about bettering themselves, which is why they stay on welfare. They eat crap food, smoke cigarettes, drink copious amounts of alcohol and generally do not look after their children - they don't care about themselves and certainly likewise do not care about their children. As a result, their children, who spend most of their time unsupervised, are sick more often. And I bet if we researched further we would also find them borderline malnourished.

The leftist researchers will blame this on lack of money and NOT lack of caring, self-discipline and a desire to better yourself. Because to do such a thing would be telling the welfare person, they are in the position they are in and remain there because of themselves. And saying such a thing is just not PC.

These kinds of questionable results need to be knocked on the head the moment they come out otherwise they gain acceptance. And they become another wedge the socialists can use to leech money out of the value-producing and productive members of society. And always for their good works of "helping the disadvantaged" and doing it "for the children".

Another Socialist Attack On Business Owners

Unions are the epitome of socialism. They produce no values whatsoever, and survive off of the efforts of others. With some jobs being totally union controlled - you can't get a job within that industry unless you are a member of the union.

The union makes its money not from producing values, but from sucking the money out of the worker. Just like any good socialist undertaking.

Anyway. Recently there has been an attack on business owners from Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. They are DEMANDING an ADDITIONAL 12 days of PAID leave a year for menstrual pain!!!

Does the worker have to produce anything extra for this?

Of course not.

They just get an extra two weeks of paid leave a year for "claiming" they have period pain. And the business owner has to suck it up and hand over the money.

At the moment, these DEMANDS are only being made at Toyota. However, if they go through, watch out. The rest of the country will be up shit creek. Imagine nearly 50% of the population getting an extra two weeks off a year. Not only do you have to pay money without getting anything back, the business also loses productivity. So it is a double loss.

The union's excuse? Simply this... "it was common sense that workplaces should accommodate the individual circumstances of their employees."

And to accept this is really opening yourself up for all kinds of claims. Why not 10 days of headache leave (paid) each year? Or how about 12 days of fishing leave (paid) - after all, it is an individual circumstance and there might only be 12 really good fishing days when the tide and everything is right. And so on.

Their menstrual claim would be based on what happened eight years ago. Eight years ago the National Tertiary Education Union successfully negotiated 12 days "special leave" for women suffering severe period pains at four Australian universities. Of course this would go through because universities are leftists organizations. But it sets bad precedents.

But that's not all. The union has 600 demands! Two of which are "employer-provided child care" and "10 per cent pay rises each year for the next three years".

Instead of letting competition reign and choosing to work only at businesses that provide childcare, these bastards want to force the business to provide childcare for them.

And 10% pay increase EACH year!? That means, if the employee is on $600 per week, they immediately go to $660. The next year they go to $726 and the year after they go to $798. That sees their yearly pay go from $31,200 to $41,527! And do they have to produce more to get this increase? Not if the union has anything to do with it. Just like the women don't have to produce anything extra to get "paid menstrual leave".

This is obviously a ploy of the union to ask for ridiculous things so they can let them be negotiated away. And then they can play the "but we gave up on this demand" game.

Unions have had their time. They are defunct and there is no need for them. They produce nothing and leech of the efforts of others, while simultaneously trying to do so much damage to the business the workers they represent work for, it has to either close down or ship its staffing off shore.

In this day and age of global business, to make such outlandish claims while businesses experience increased international competition, is a detriment to the workers.

Of course, the union has the union's interest at heart. Increased income means more union fees. So the union gets richer for nothing. While achieving its socialist aims... more control of the business.

It's things like this that bring to mind the comedy show Kingswood Country and its main character Ted Bullpit with his famous saying when he encountered such stupidity... "someone should blow unions up". Of course, he usually leveled his comments at nuns and pigeons that pooped on his car. But we could all understand his frustrations.

It also reminds me of some of the stupid claims made during the construction of the Sydney Entertainment Center. With one such claim being, "The workers could smell Chinese cooking coming from the nearby Chinatown part of town, and it was distracting them and preventing them from working properly. So they wanted FREE Chinese food for lunch everyday." And when they didn't get it, they went on strike. And in fact, there were more days spent on strike on that construction job than days spent working. All thanks to unions.

See How Good We Are? We Up Our Charges Then Give The Money Away

While I am all in favor of entities doing what they want with what they earn, the following entry is one of disbelief, and bewilderment from a shareholder's point of view.

My bank, I have just discovered, gives away $31 million dollars each year to various charities. And as I just said, they can do with their profits whatever they want to. My beef with them is as follows...

They complain about dwindling profits. They increase my fees. All of which is quite fair in a user pays system. But then GIVE AWAY the extra money they are now charging me. Making no real improvement in their bottom line. Hence, they have, in a round about way, misled me.

As a stockholder, which I am not, I would be mighty pissed. Because a company's management team has one purpose... to increase the value of the stock for the stockholder. And they can do this by either increasing real profits, buying back stock (reducing the supply and thus the price goes up due to demand), by re-investing IN the company to make the company worth more, or by paying out the profits as a dividend (large dividend payments increase demand for the stock and send its value up). So the management is failing in their fundamental purpose.

DuPont saw declining profits and a dropping stock price many years ago. A look through back issues of their newsletter revealed something interesting. While the stock was up and profits were good, the newsletter was full of business stuff. How best to grow the business, capture new markets, etc. As the profits and stock price fell, items that appeared in the newsletter were about helping disadvantaged youth, giving money away! And so on.

Stockholders do NOT want the business they own a part of, to give its money away without anything to show for it. Every time that kind of thing happens, it drains a company of its lifeforce. And the stock is weaker.

And this is why my bank's shares are not worth as much as they could be. Because they give away $31 million each year.

So who does it go to?

You'll love this...

First is the matching of monies their employees give. So if an employee gives $100 to the "Priest Retirement Fund" (this is an actual "charity" that gets money from them), then the bank will match that $100. A look at the list sees money going to a plethora of building funds (all of them religion based - the St Augustine School Library building fund, for example), different churches and what not (including Jew, Christian and Islamic groups), and the usual Save The Whale type of animal thing (including greenpeace).

How would you feel to know your money is going to support "charities" and religions you do not believe in?

As well as these items, they also give money to... Aboriginal Tourism and other Aboriginal groups!!!

Yep. My bank gives money to Aboriginal groups. And by doing so, are playing a part in helping segregate the races. Why not a group of whites? Why just Aboriginals?

When I found out how much was going to these "leech on society" groups, I was gobsmacked. I couldn't help but feel the many hundreds I pay in banks fees each year, where being spent on areas that did not help my bank.

Community "good will" does not get customers into the bank. And certainly not $31 million dollars worth of customers. All it does is drain a business of money. Money it could use to increase the business and make it stronger and worth more to the shareholders.

I have a stake in the bank. Not as a shareholder. But as a customer. And my stake wants the bank to be as strong as it can be, because then my money is safer, and I am likely to get better deals from them. So it disappoints me to know they are wasting so much money on such useless things as community good will.

If you want to give $31 million away, give it back to the customer in reduced bank fees. The money will certainly be appreciated more. And the bank will be more competitive. But what should be done with it is, reinvested into the company in some way - stock buy back, expansion, etc. - that increases and produces values.

Cats Are More Important Than People, According To Some

With fires there are two rules...

Rule # 1: Look after number one. If you are at work and a fire breaks out, look after yourself and get out. Trying to be a hero will, almost always, result in your death. Leave the rescuing to the professionals.

Rule # 2: People are more important than animals. Quite simply, never risk your life trying to save an animal - even a pet that is part of the family.

These two rules are about saving HUMAN life. Because to us humans, human life is sacrosanct.

In Nepal there is a woman. Her name is Latika Rana and she is married to the Prince of Nepal. Now this entry isn't a dig at the King of Nepal for just up and taking over the country, as he did the other week. It is about Princess Latika - the inhuman princess who can rot in hell as far as I am concerned.

You see. Latika is a Tiger conservationist. She spend millions and millions of dollars every year trying to "protect" tigers. She visits tiger conservation parks and goes on sight-seeing tours to see how they are doing. All the while millions of people in Nepal starve for lack of food and clean water.

When asked about this. About how she could spend more time and money on the welfare of a few tigers while millions of human-being Nepalese die in abject poverty, she could not answer. Her answer was, "It's a difficult question. And it's one that is too emotional to answer." And that was that. That was her answer as to why she values the life of a few tigers OVER her subjects - whom, by her position, she is obligated to look after.

She has the millions of dollars because of these people. But instead of doing the right thing, she milks them dry for her "good works" and leaves them to die. Without lifting a god damn finger to do anything to help them. She just ignores them and goes on her way.

No wonder the King of Nepal controls the military. If he didn't he'd be set upon by the starving masses, as they set upon the French all those years ago. By controlling the military, he is assured any uprising by the poverty stricken to better themselves, won't go anywhere.

And such is the result of the caste system. Born into poverty, tough luck. You aren't allowed up the ladder. Your life is worth less than that of a cat. As long as you pay your taxes and make the ruling bastards richer, you will be left alone. But not helped. And snobby princesses will simply delve into their crockpot full of baloney stew and tell us all it is a question that is too emotional to answer.

The entire Nepal "Royal" family can go rot in hell for failing in their fundamental role as monarchs - to be guardians of the people, not slave masters.

Of course, the greenies and others of their ilk will love Ms "People Can Rot As Long As Tigers Live" as she keeps on putting the highest life form on the plant (humans she has been entrusted with), under her muddy, tiger shit encrusted boot. As far as I am concerned, the people she steps on and sucks the life out of for her "escapades", are worth far more as human beings than she is. She is a property rights infringer of the highest order. And could learn a thing or two from Princess Di. (Somehow I don't think there is a Prince of Nepal Trust like the Prince of Wales trust to help people.)

Lobby Group Wants To Steal My Money To Buy Human Organs

I am an advocate of property rights - what I own, buy, earn, make, create and trade-for are all my property and no-one has a claim on any of it; and I likewise have no claim on the property of others.

Unfortunately, many other people do not see it this way. And, in fact, think the exact opposite. And use "democracy" to infringe upon my property rights.

Some examples of this are:

Maternity leave. It is the woman's choice to have a baby. The employer has no responsibility to pay her for not producing any value for the business. And yet, the lobby groups have brought pressure to bear to force employers to pay woman who choose to have babies, while getting nothing back in return.

I know a company that experienced this. The woman left on maternity leave. Came back after a bunch of months, worked for a month, and then left for another job. So the employer never got their maternity leave payments back.

Smoking in Restaurants. It is the restaurant owner's choice whether to allow smoking in their place or not. And yet, pressure has been brought to bear and now restaurant owners are NOT allowed to do with their property as they wish. What people can and cannot do in the restaurant has been forced onto them by the govt acting due to lobby group pressure. And if you fight it and allow smoking, YOU will be fined heavily.

Medicare. If I am sick it is ME who chooses to see a doctor or not. And if I use a doctor's services I should pay - just like I pay for the services of a lawn guy, or dentist. The govt sees it differently and TAKES my money to fund the medical treatment of people who do not want to pay for doctors. So they get free medical treatment at my expense. Seeing as I have not been sick since 1991, I have paid a lot of money into this health racket without getting anything back for it.

Ambulance. It used to be, if I used the services of an ambulance I paid for it. Which is only fair, right? User pays is as fair as it gets. Alas, my state govt decided it would tax me, call it a levy, and use those funds to provide ambulance services to other people. So now I am paying to provide ambulance service for others who don't want to pay. And if I don't pay, my electricity is cut off.

In all these cases, my right to keep what I have earned has been infringed upon by the govt, after some stupid group has lobbied it for this "free" money, or to gain some kind of control.

And now a new infringement is in the wings... the govt paying people for the organs they donate. Somehow this is to encourage people to donate organs - specially kidneys, because people can live with one kidney and so could donate the other.

If this does go ahead, then it will see more of my money being used to fund medical treatments of people who have been irresponsible with looking after themselves. Like that idiot politician whose name escapes me for the moment. He got a new liver because he buggered up his old one with too much boozing. Once the new one had settled in he's gone right back to boozing again - assured he has a few good years of getting drunk before his new liver is screwed up like his old one.

My money will have already been spent to provide hospital for the person with the bad kidney, and now spent to go directly to the donor - so they can do whatever they want with it.

If I came into your house and took your money, gave it to my friend Joe because he had cut his toe and needed medicated plasters, and let him spend the rest as he wanted, you would be pissed. And the police would come after me.

There is no difference when the govt does. When they take the money you have rightfully earned by exchanging your labor for dollars, and give it to someone for getting some surgery done. If I am not allowed to do it, then the govt should also not be allowed to do it either.

If there is an organization that will accept donations, and those donations are used to pay people for donating a kidney, I have no objections because it is all voluntary. My objection is with the forced/coerced method the govt uses. Where the citizen has no say, because if they say "No" they are fined, or the money is taken by force anyway.

These lobby groups think they can deal with the devil. They think they can use the power of the govt to get what they want, but that it won't ever be used against them.

Taking my money to pay people for donating a kidney? To hell with that. But what would be fair is this, the person who needs the kidney pays the donor for it - just like any other transaction involving property (car, house, furniture, etc.).

Death in Daycare

Every parent's nightmare has come true. One mom dropped her little precious off at daycare, only to be called and told there had been a terrible "accident". Somehow, little Miss Precious had gotten hold of a pebble from a bird bath water feature, the pebble had gotten stuck in her throat choking her, and as a result of her subsequent collapse and lack of oxygen in the blood, the heart stopped pumping (heart attack) and the child died.

There is a lot to be said about the entire daycare plague which is sweeping the nation... none of it any good.

I have had the occasion to be in some of these daycare centers after hours. And I've got to tell you, these places are filthy pigstys no child should be allowed into. Unclean toilets, filthy floors (which the children sit and lie on), riddled with cockroaches crawling all over the place. It makes you shudder.

Not only that, they all take in more children than they are truly licensed to handle. They do this to help justify getting a license to have more children. And that is important to them because of the govt subsidies they get.

Oh yes. ALL daycare centers get money from the govt ON TOP OF the money the working parents pay. So that means MY TAX DOLLARS are going to fund the looking after of someone else's child while they go to work.

You see. The daycare centers have conned the govt into accepting that it costs something like $70 per day per child in a daycare center. So when the parent pays $20 per day, the govt takes care of the $50 per day short fall they have been conned into believing. So every extra space/kid is an additional $250 per week in freebie money, as far as the daycare center is concerned.

And just like all govt departments, they can only get more money by proving they need it. And they prove they need it by taking in more kids than they are allowed to. Forcing the govt to give them more money while also allowing them to take in more children.

It's the biggest and most silent con perpetrated on the public you can imagine.

Poor Hygiene and Property Rights Infringing and conning money aren't the only bad things about daycare centers. They also see childless people looking after and teaching children, while the parents shirk their responsibility.

I can always tell a child that has spent time in daycare centers. They yell and scream and carry on - because they picked it up at daycare.

To me, unless you are willing to raise your child, you should not have a child. Period.

But what of the nature of daycare? It sees parents just fob off their kids and drive off. It seems them GIVE UP full responsibility to a stranger! A young stranger who has no children of their own!!!

Go ask a parent who takes their kids to daycare, if you can have their car for the day. Ask them if you can live in their house for a few weeks. Ask them if you can have access to their bank account for a couple of days. And you will be met with resounding NOs on all counts. They protect and cherish their possessions and won't let just any old person have control of them. And yet, they willingly go out of their way to give up their most precious possession - their child - to someone else whom they do not know.

Some will say it is ok because other people do it (social proof). I say, so what? Just because everybody does something doesn't mean it is right and not dangerous, does it?

Sorry. I see NO REASON to pass off the responsibility of raising your children, to someone else. If you have a kid, you raise it. Simple. It's a lesson one very upset mother and father have had to learn the hard way.