BARVENNON.COM
15th & 19th November 2004
AUSTRALIAN DIARY
-
JUSTICE SHAW(2) -
Justice Shaw returned the state's sample of his blood, unopened,
after three weeks. (tested 0.225). He said that he was
given both samples (his and the police's) in a bag at the
hospital. Both the doctor responsible and a nurse witness
initially reported that the sample was placed into the locked police
box.
Only the police have a key to that box. Under extreme cross
examination pressure by eminent barrister Barker, the doctor admitted
the slightest possibility that he might have remembered procedure
rather than actuality. Despite the press accepting that as fact,
I have formed the opinion that the doctor did put the police vial
sample in the box. On that assumption:
- Who
does he think he is kidding? Better question, who would that story be
designed to protect?
- Still better question, is that an example of
the thinking of one of our (supposedly) cleverer Supreme Court Judges?
I can's see $200K/pa value of brains there. Come to think of it,
DUI is murderously negligent. This man was appointed by our
State Premier Bob Carr.
I repeat the mantra from last diary.
Our
system of selecting public officials seems to be a
little bit incestuous. Are we encouraging a system of mates who
give quid pro quo. Perhaps our judicial officials should be
elected, not appointed by politicians?
- THE
WINDSOR ALLEGATION -
Independent Federal Parliamentarian Tony Windsor has alleged that he
was offered a diplomatic posting (To Ireland, no less!) if he did not
contest his seat at the election held last September. Considering
the circumstances, I am inclined to accept that his allegation is
fact. Such offers are apparently quite common in Australian
politics. The case of DLP senator Gair who was offered the same
posting a few decades past immediately springs to mind, as does the
Peacock posting.
Your diarist reiterates the thought above with a variant:
Our
system of selecting public officials seems to be a
little bit incestuous. Are we encouraging a system of mates who
give quid pro quo. Perhaps our senior diplomatic officials
should be selected from diplomatic staff, not appointed from external
sources by politicians?
-
STUDENT UNIONS -
One of the primary blots on the
Australian economy is union power. One of the worst
excesses that compounds that problem is compulsory unionism. For
many years the major training ground for politicians of all flavors
has been the
university student unions. (e.g. Liberal Tony Abbott at Sydney
University, Labour MP Tania Plibisek at Adelaide.) Fees of $500
pa
are common, and constitute a heavy financial burden on less well off
students. All too often that money is wasted by student
politicians on grandiose schemes that lose millions of dollars, or on
the (quite expensive) alcohol and food requirements of political
meetings, or to donating funds to the various clubs (I understand that
one club, minimum size 5 members, was formed for the sole purpose of
attracting that subsidy and disbursing it to the members), or even on
donations (usually to the Labour Party, which supports compulsory
unionism.) Only a small amount goes to the Union canteens, a task
which could more efficiently be performed by private enterprise.
(For instance at Sydney University, the coffee at the Wentworth canteen
is only 20c less
Prime minister John Howard has promised to remove the compulsory
element of Unionism. Number 2 daughter is ecstatic. Good
work John. Do not get bought off.
- TAIL
OF THE TIGER -
Both the Euro and the US Dollar are floating currencies.
Both are somewhat "dirty" floats, in that importation of certain
agricultural goods is restricted (to Australia's detriment). However,
purchase by central
banks of foreign currency to adjust the exchange rate is not (so far as
I know) in operation.
The Chinese have fixed their exchange rate to the US dollar by
purchasing appropriate quantities of US treasury bonds. This
brings back memories of Breton Woods, when central banks were expected
to maintain the parity of their falling currency by
borrowing. The system eventually disintegrated because
currency speculators spotted the systemic weakness, and sold into a
falling market, buying back after devaluation. This has meant
that interest rates for US bonds fell to a very low figure.
As a result:
- US citizens benefited by having cheap goods, US businesses
benefited by having cheap credit, on the downside some US workers lost
their jobs as importers undercut the goods that they were producing,
and the US will eventually have to pay that money back.
- Chinese workers benefited from having employment (between
600 and
1,000 Yuan/month, about US$70 - US$120.) This might not sound
like
much, but it removed the fear of starvation. On the downside,
China now owns a very large number of US treasury bills that attract
practically no interest, and cannot be sold on the secondary market
without suffering considerable exchange risk.
-
UNHOLY JIHAD -
According to the "Weekend Australian Magazine" of 13-14/Nov/2004,
Reem Raiyshi, mother of two babies, was persuaded by Hamas (under
threat of a dishonorable death for adultery) to become a martyr.
If that allegation is true then Iranian sponsored Hamas has acted as
Mahommed would have acted himself. Mahommed condoned the
breaking of the law
if it was for the greater good. For having been found committing
adultery Reem was already a dead woman. As a wife-martyr her
family gained honor, instead of the dishonor of having a
wife-adulteress. I give top marks to Hamas for creative and
innovative thinking. Having found an effective strategy for
providing martyrs (which no doubt meets with theocratic approval) I
expect that more Muslim girls will be seduced into martyrdom.
-
FALLUJA -
Al-Jazeera
reported that US casualties to Sunday 14th were 38, while terrorist
casualties to Friday had reportedly passed 1,000 and several hundred
prisoners taken (of whom about 50% were not Iraqi nationals).
The terrorists left to die (martyrdom) in Falluja
had stated that half of the terrorists left before investiture,
with
orders to raise mayhem in other cities.
If that is so then their efforts are marked by a singular lack of
success. After the vocal threats the terrorists have made, I
would have expected that Iraq would be a raging inferno. Instead
it is a damp squid. I expect that as their central command is now
dispersed, supply will become a problem, and terrorist activity will
further diminish.
It is perfectly understandable that the Sunni tribes around Baghdad
(which is where Falluja and most terrorist activity is concentrated)
should wish to prevent a fair, democratic election. For decades
the Sunni tribes
have had "their man" ensconced in the presidential palace, and they
have
benefited enormously. They want elections that the Southern Shia
would
win with about as much fervor as they would want two left hands.
It is also reasonable to expect that from the two or three hundred
million
Muslim crabs there would be a few thousand idealists would heed the
call to Jihad. It is understandable that most of the
volunteers to the Iraqi police and army would be Kurds or Shia.
I would anticipate that after the elections there might be an
accounting. The Sunni in central Iraq might fear the same
treatment as happened to the Jews in Jerusalem under Turkish rule, or
to the Shia in South Iraq under Saddam's rule.
The elections should be held next January regardless of whether polling
booths can be established in all cities. If the vote proceeds as
I suspect, the Kurds in the North and the Shia in the South will vote,
and they will account for 70% of the national population. I
suspect that the candidates from those regions will overwhelmingly
(72%) elect a government, giving a majority government representing
more than 50% of the nation, even though 30% of the population did not
vote. If the voting is spread over a week, all Iraqis, even
those around Baghdad, could reach a polling booth. It might be
necessary to travel a fewscore kilometers.
Alternatively Iraq could be split into three. Of course there
would be some argument about the oil riches around the city of
Kirkuk. Before Saddam Kirkuk belonged to the Kurds. However
Saddam moved the Kurds out, and moved his people in. The
inheritors of Saddam's legacy (the Shia around Baghdad) would argue the
Palestinian paradigm, that the population Status Quo at the ending of
the last government should be used to determine the borders. The
Kurds would take the Israeli position, that they were forcibly removed
from their homeland, and should have a refugees "right of return" with
expulsion of the intruders.
To me the fair solution appears quite obvious, but I am sure that to
people on the other side the opposite solution is quite obvious.
EMAIL
ARCHIVES.