Thoughts on Freedom

The problem with censorship is **** **** ****

For anyone who has been in a coma over the last few weeks, there is some political upset in Iran.

Some Muslims pretended to set up a democratic government. Some Muslims objected to the farce and started to protest in the streets. Some other Muslims didn’t like the protests, and so started shooting them. Or maybe it was the first bunch. Or something.

This of course is markedly different to every other upset in the Middle East. And before you all say “of course it’s different – this is one is a struggle between freedom and oppresion, between good and evil”, well think again.

Actually it’s just different because of cell phones. Iran is a wealthy country (compared to most of the other poverty stricken Islamic cess-pits in the world), and protestors and passers-by have cheapo cell phones, which do two interesting things which conventional phones don’t.

Firstly, they do texting, so written reports of bloodshed and oppression can be thumbed out in glorious 160 character sound-bytes (er .. I mean text bytes). Secondly, and more importantly, they have cheapo video cameras in them. Video cameras which can actually record the bloodshed in even more glorious (if low resolution) color.

Humanitarians all over the world were outraged by the youtube video of the murder of a pretty young girl called ‘Neda’, shot through the chest by government forces, and bleeding out of her mouth and nose as she died on the street.

Then we learned that the Iranian government was using technology supplied by Nokia and Siemens to detect ‘subversive activity’ on the internet, and the cell phone network. And they used it to censor data and shut down the protests. Naughty Nokia and Siemens.

Now Slashdot reports that two US senators (Schumer and Graham) want to punish Nokia and Siemens for providing that technology. Apparently supplying governments with the technology to restrict internet access is an evil thing to do.

Funny thing is, there are many governments with that this kind of technology. Including the US, and including Australia.

In fact Uncle Kevin is part way through an internet filtering trial which would stop us mere citizens from accessing ‘unwanted’ material (so ‘unwanted’, apparently that we wouldn’t want to access it anyway).

Are they willing to punish multinationals for selling that technology to Australia as well – or just to Axes of Evil?

Selling internet censorship technology must be only evil if it it is sold to bad governments, not to good governments. Because we all know that the likes of Uncle Kev would never abuse their power.

Remember: Other governments are evil, but YOUR government only wants what’s good for you.

New government mascot

Every intellectual Leftist is well aware of the faults of their government. The endless whining and bitching about what the government should and could do features highly over the morning latte. But like a bitter wife complaining about a dead-beat hubby who she refuses to divorce: all would be better if only hubby was nicer to her and had more money and power. The answer to government failure is always the same: bigger and more powerful government will solve the problem.

There are two recent laughable examples of this belief. And while they don’t actually involve the four riders of the Apocalypse (pestilence, plague, famine and war), they do involve plague and fire.

The first example was the political stumble from Queensland’s Premier, Anna Bligh. On the threshold of a swine-flu epidemic she suggested that people might like to stock up on food. Common sense suggests that a few extra tins of soup and some dried milk powder might be a good thing to keep in the back of the pantry.

But there was an immediate outcry at the mere suggestion. Apparently people would panic. And in the panic they would buy, well .. food. And then the shops would run low on food, and then that would cause even more panic and then people would stock up on even more food, and then the children would starve (apparently because there was so much food about), and the dead would walk the earth, and .. well .. it would be better just to make people feel safe.

Of course if she had stuck to her guns and there had been mass scale food buying, several things would have actually happened.

• People would have ended up with a stock-pile of food, and be more prepared for an emergency.
  
• People would have realized how fragile supply mechanisms are in the short term.
  
• People would have realized how robust supply mechanisms are in the longer term.
  
• People would have realized how helpless The Gummint is to do anything about it.
  

All of which would have undermined people’s confidence in the Gummint. So she ‘clarified’ her statement to say that she had only meant ‘a day or two worth of food’. Right.

The second example was the number of calls which were ignored during the Victorian bush fires. Some 80% of calls to the 000 emergency number went unanswered on the day. Apparently people who’s houses were being engulfed in flame were ringing 000 emergency in the belief that the Gummint would (or even could) come and rescue them. Why would anyone think, as their homes and all their neighbours’ bush homes burned, that the Gummint fairy God mother type force .. er .. thing would magically appear and protect them from Mother Nature’s fury? Apparently they believed that spending 20 minutes on hold to the Gummint was better than spending 20 minutes protecting themselves and their families from dying. And die they did.

Clearly the Gummint is a more powerful force than Mother Nature. Or it would be – all they need to do is to create a new law. Right?

Well actually, people’s faith in the government kills them.

Pick a card, any card

There is an old joke about the Rear-admiral’s vice being the Vice-admiral’s rear, (and the Vice-admiral’s rear being the Rear-admiral’s vice). But in the case of Rear-admiral Geoff Smith, his vice seems to have been of a quite different nature. Apparently the chief executive of Sydney Ferries made some $237,000 worth of questionable purchases on his corporate credit card.

Now, all of us who have a corporate credit card know the score. The card is a bit of a perk. You can make a few questionable purchases on the card, and effectively avoid a bit of income tax. Think about it – you make a few grand of purchases on the card – a few taxi fares, some boozy lunches, a new set of clothes, and even the occasional interstate trip, and these quietly get charged to the plastic, with the silent approval of The Boss.

The money is charged to the company (your employer) instead of having to be paid as bonuses. You end up better off because you don’t have to pay income tax on the money (it shows up as a company expense, not taxable income), and your employer doesn’t have to pay payroll tax on the money. Every one ends up better off. Everyone except for Wayne Swan that is, and let’s face it – he’d just use the money to lend to his used-car-selling mates anyway.

So The Corporate Card is a functional tool in tax minimisation, as well as being a powerful symbol of status and trust. Trust, that is, that you won’t over spend on school fees, alcohol, furniture, trips to the theatre and overseas trips for the wife – like the Rear-admiral did. His excuse was that “No one told me I shouldn’t”, and that he thought that using the cards for personal expenses was “an entitlement”.

Many public servants claim to have a strong sense of ‘social justice’. Apparently it’s not as strong as their sense of entitlement.

Of course it’s one thing for a private company to give a little extra to a loyal employee. It’s quite another for those in government to give a little extra to their mates. That’s why the public service has much stricter guidelines about employee conduct than the mere public who pay their wages. The endless (and expensive) paperwork, the double and triple checking that goes into just buying a paper clip – it’s all for the common good to protect your taxes.

But where were the checks and balances on the Admiral’s vice? Apparently no-one was taking up the Vice-admiral’s rear. Apparently no-one told them they should. Or maybe the vice goes further than the Rear-admiral?

Or maybe privatization would mean that at least it wouldn’t be the tax-payer’s problem.

.. to the dog

Another day another fatal dog attack. Your ABC reports that a three year old girl was mauled to death by pet dogs in the the NSW Riverina. According to everybody’s ABC, the local community is (collectively I presume) shocked that this happened.

How could anyone be shocked by a dog attack? I mean – if you were the actual victim, and suddenly found yourself having your flesh ripped off faster than an Abu Ghraib inmate you might go into shock. But shock is normally regarded as a state of great surprise. How could people possibly be surprised at another vicious dog attack?

Haven’t enough children been killed, maimed or permanently scarred by vicious dogs for people to understand that keeping large pack animals around small children will result in many of them being eaten alive? Apparently not.

Dogs are of course, much like Leftists.

• They are supposedly loving, warm and only want to be friends with everyone.
• They are cowards when they are alone with something bigger and more powerful than they are.
• When they mob together in sufficient numbers they attack anything and everything weaker than they are.
• They have no responsibility for anything they do.

This, of course, qualifies them to be ‘man’s best friend’, or maybe even ‘friends of the Earth’.

And in this case a woman looking after another someone else’s children decided to leave the meat out. And the pack of cute little lovable doggies helped themselves.

The woman herself claimed to be ‘in shock’ (no point in letting the police interview you until you get your story straight eh?). Her husband was later quoted on the ABC as saying that it was just an accident, and was no-one’s fault. Presumably ‘society‘ is to blame. Somehow. Again.

It might baffle some that people would want to keep such animals as pets – in their houses, around their children (or in this case around other people’s children). But the reason is actually quite obvious.

There is a popular notion that the Left need peace, tranquility and calm. They don’t. In fact, they crave conflict, confrontation and aggression. That’s why they surround themselves with it.