Monday, 22 October 2007

ABC - Australian Bureau of Communists?

I just heard a report on the ABC radio program "AM" that was compiled by their "North American correspondent" - I think it was Alison Fan.

The item was about "Gun crime in Philadelphia". Why this is news in Australia, I have no idea, but the entire report was either a deliberate falsehood or the worst case of journalistic ignorance that I have ever heard.

The report started out with the standard "{some big number} of Americans are murdered every year, and 75% of these deaths involve firearms", followed by the perennial favourite "{some other big number} of those murdered are children".

The news "reporter" then interviewed a member of some organisation, members of which walk the streets of certain districts in Philadelphia in an effort to reduce crime among the young of a particular ethnic group.

In this interview, the following question was posed:
"Are handguns easy to get in Philadelphia?"

The answer (predictably):
"Too easy. Every kid in this neighbourhood knows where to go, or who to ask to get a handgun."

From that point the reporter states: "In Pennsylvania, all anyone has to do to buy a handgun is pass a criminal background check and a mental health check, pay the processing fee, and buy the gun".

Does anybody else see the elephant in the room? The elephant that everyone is ignoring, while the reporter is installing a SEP field generator (think Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).


Well, I'll explain.

The reporters question seems almost reasonable, but the response is about ILLEGAL guns, while the reporters next comment is about LEGAL guns, AND SHE DOES NOT MENTION THIS DIFFERENCE.

Not a single one of the "kids" in the neighbourhood could POSSIBLY pass a NICS check (the criminal background check mentioned) as they are either too young (must be 21 to buy a handgun), or already has a criminal record.

The whole piece is decrying kids having easy ILLEGAL access to guns, while doing a hatchet job on the LEGAL process.

I remain absolutely convinced that this was a deliberate attack on lawful gun ownership, but I can't figure out why. What on earth is the benefit to the ABC of this activity?

Thursday, 10 May 2007

A Policeman's Job - Revisited

Insanity is contagious.

How else can you explain the fact that all government officials are insane?

You want an example? Here's one prepared earlier.

Remember the pizza shop hold-up? Yes, that one - where the shop owners resisted and over-powered a hold-up merchant.

Well, read the latest:

Meanwhile, WorkSafe WA Commissioner Nina Lyhne said today she was investigating the actions of the pizza store staff who overpowered the armed robber.

"We're very concerned that people may get the impression that attempting to overpower an armed robber is a good idea," she said.

"If a person is desperate enough to commit an armed robbery, you can never be sure how violent that person may become."

Workplaces such as late-night food outlets, chemists and service stations needed to have an established armed hold-up procedure, with all staff trained in its use, Ms Lyhne said.

"The best course of action is to co-operate with the robber – it is never worth putting yourself and others at risk in these situations by trying to be a hero," she said.

Fisking is such a gentle sport, and entirely inappropriate when the target deserves a royal rogering with a clue bat.

This harlot among harridans manages to lump together most of the failed, leftist, feel-good, psycho-babble of the last 30 years into four sentences.

Addressing those four sentences:

1. It is ALWAYS a good idea to resist robbers. Maybe not the BEST idea, and perhaps only when opportune, but it is ALWAYS a good idea.

2. Armed criminals are not 'desperate', they're criminals first, foremost, and forever. This guy had already committed a number of robberies. How could he possibly be described as 'desperate'?

3. So everybody needs to have "an armed hold-up procedure". Mine is simple: At first opportunity, hit the robber with something heavy. Keep doing it until he stops resisting. Somehow I don't think Ms Lyhne had something like that in mind. I'm sure she intends that the robber is allowed to get away unharmed.

4. The best course of action is to take the opportunity, if it presents, to convince the robber to take up another profession; I suggest tiddly-winks champion at the Home for the Physically Enfeebled. You don't HAVE to resist, but not resisting is NEVER the best policy, even if it turns out to be appropriate.

Now maybe I am being harsh, but the thought of this womyn investigating people who have committed no crime, from the immunity of her position of privilege is abhorrent, and contrary to every ideal of liberty and justice.

I'll say it again.

Those shop owners deserve a medal, not a lecture. Nor do they deserve "an investigation".

Wednesday, 9 May 2007

Hey, that's MY money..

The Federal budget has been handed down like Moses' tablets, and everybody is happy in the Land of Oz.

Except me I suppose.

I can't help wondering why nobody is complaining about the last line in most news reports. The one about the forecast surplus being AUD$10+ billion.

What on earth is wrong with people?

According to reports, the Australian Federal Government paid off its foreign debt several years ago. So that means that the Commonwealth of Australia owes no foreigner any money, and the government doesn't need to collect taxes to make the payments on non-existent loans.

(The PEOPLE of the Commonwealth of Australia are a different thing entirely, they are apparently up to their eyeballs in debt; most of it owed for nice shiny imports.)

So this government is proposing to take $10 billion more then they are committed to spending over the next year, not to repay debt, but just because they can, and nobody is complaining?

Like I said, that's MY money. I don't want it back in vote-buying handouts, I don't want them to take it in the first place.

A Policeman's Job

Well, that didn't take long.

There has been a number of robberies at fast food shops in Perth lately that were attributed to a single individual who menaced staff with what was described as "a silver handgun".

That individual has been apprehended, but NOT by police. Instead he was "detained" by his intended victims ... and then the press report went on to say:

Although the shop owners were able to successfully apprehend the offender, Police Inspector Pryce Scanlon discouraged members of the public to do so if faced with a similar dangerous situation.

"While the staff at the pizza shop last night did a good job in apprehending an offender in relation to that armed robbery it is not something we would encourage especially when dangerous weapons are involved the potential for tragic circumstances are greatly increased," Inspector Scanlon said.

He recommended staff members comply with an armed offenders and let police do their job.

This CANNOT go unchallenged.

The job of the POLICE is to:
1) investigate crime (after the event)
2) gather evidence (after the event)
3) present that evidence to a court (after the event)
4) prevent the arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, and jailed criminal from escaping legal custody.

It is commonly understood that it is NOT the job of the POLICE to protect citizens, or prevent crime (except by point 4 above, and any deterrent effect that may have).

So, let's start from the beginning.

Point 1
Any animal has the inherent (some might say God-given) right to self-defence.
I am a self-aware, sentient, and sapient individual animal.
Ergo, I have the right to self-defence.

Point 2
As a consequence of living in our increasingly specialised society, I choose to delegate to other, better qualified people, the tasks that I cannot or will not do.

I DON'T butcher my own meat, I DON'T build the roads, I DON'T prescribe medicines.

I DO repair my car, I DO paint my house, I DO raise my children to know right from wrong.

Point 3
One of the jobs that I have delegated (through the mechanisms of society) is that of the POLICE OFFICER as described above.

Note this VERY WELL. I said delegated, NOT abdicated.

Further, there is not a single clause in the job description above that mentions "defend Sendarius and his kin". That is MY job, and not one that I have delegated or abdicated in any way.

Any person faced with a threat to their life and/or liberty has a RIGHT to self-defence. There is no requirement to delegate anything to a police officer, and even if you choose to do so, it is NOT a nullification of your own rights.
The POLICE are NOT expected to be everywhere, and citizens have a right (and maybe a duty) to resist the bad-guys.

These shop owners did the right thing and they deserve a medal not a lecture.

PS I have as yet made no comment on the standard of the writing in the press report, but the quoted portion was a direct cut and paste from proving conclusively that you can trust a journalist to mangle the prime tool of the trade - the language.

A beginning ....

Post number one.

Ummm .... Errr ..... I can't have writer's block already!

First, a "raison d'etre".

As a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, I have exactly NO rights. Shocking I know, but Australia does not have a "Bill of Rights" on the US model, not even a pale European shadow of it. If the Federal, State , or Local governments want to trample all over me and mine, they have but to cause a regulation to be made. No need to pass a law, no judicial review, no legal recourse available: just promulgate a regulation.

Don't believe me? Well, I wouldn't have thought so either, but that's why this blog exists.

So I can whine. And whinge. And perhaps cause others to think, and thereby come to realise that there is something wrong with "The Lucky Country" when individual rights are so carelessly and resolutely ignored by those in power.

Maybe I can cause enough ruckus to change things, but I doubt it. Still I refuse to let Don Quixote be the only one to have the fun of tilting at windmills.

So join in if you have something to say. Just don't expect to have what you say go unchallenged, and be warned: I'm Occasionally Blunt.