We in Australia look around the world and see terrific injustice being meted out to the victims of crime brought about by justice systems gone haywire.
However, we have plenty of problems at home, should we choose to look, as demonstrated again in the following story.
From the ABC on Mon Jul 21, 2008:
Bail opposed for woman in kidnapping case
Victorian police have opposed bail for a woman accused of fleeing interstate with her partner's seven-year-old son earlier this month.
The Melbourne Magistrates court heard 36-year-old Danielle Boundy of Winchelsea attacked Eric Kruger with a bread knife and a hammer in the days before she took his son. It is alleged she sped off with the boy in Mr Kruger's car in Ballarat. An intervention order has been taken out against Boundy, who consented to it in court. She is charged with nine offences. Police told the court Boundy's family does not want her released from prison.
Boundy's lawyer said the authorities are keeping her in a 23-hour lockdown.
The bail hearing will resume tomorrow.
That's from last year. A woman knowingly kidnaps a young child, terrifying the family as to his safety.
So how did things work out for her?
Fast forward a year...
Woman who stole child avoids jail time
A Victorian woman who stole her internet lover's seven-year-old son and drove him to South Australia has avoided serving jail time. Danielle Boundy, 37, ordered her lover out of the car during an argument near Ballarat, in July 2008 and with, the child still in the back seat, she drove on to Port Augusta in South Australia.
The Victorian County Court heard on Tuesday that Boundy rang the child's mother later that night falsely saying she was near the country Victorian town of Winchelsea. Police tracked the call to Port Augusta and arrested Boundy late the next day.
Boundy pleaded guilty to child stealing and two counts of intentionally causing injury, relating to fights she had with her lover.
County Court Chief Judge Michael Rozenes said child stealing was a very serious offence.
"Parents suffer great distress in cases worrying about what will ultimately happen to their child and it makes no difference to them whether the offender was ill or wicked," he said.
But noting reports from psychiatrists about the effect further prison time would have on Boundy, Judge Rozenes suspended the sentence.
Judge Rozenes sentenced Boundy, of Winchelsea, to two years' jail, wholly suspended for three years.
He also placed her on a community based order for two years on the causing injury charges.
Judge Rezenes needs to be sacked immediately for not enforcing the law. If his job is not to do that then what is it?
Judge Rezenes relied on psychiatrists' reports about the effect that prison time would have on the kidnapping lunatic. Did the Judge allow a victims' impact statement to be read to the court? If so then it obviously carried no weight. Were there psychiatrists' reports on the effect on the victims of such a sentence?
It is a travesty of justice that this disgusting woman should be treated so leniently by an obviously morally confused judge.
There's a reason that jails are called penitentiaries.
It's because that's where penitence is done. That's where the word penitentiary comes from.
Judges should remember that before they inflict such appalling decisions on society in general and the victims, especially, in particular.
(Nothing Follows)
This is hilarious.
Apparently, the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Firouzabadi, has written a letter to the Hidden Imam, aka the Mahdi, asking him, basically, to quit with the occulation and return to earth in order to help Islam take over the world.
I have a question.
What address did he put on the envelope?
Would the Tehran post office treat it the same was as the US Postal Service treats letters addressed to Santa c/- North Pole?
Did he send it via email to hiddenimam@occulation.ir?
On July 12, 2009, the Iranian news agency ISNA published a letter written by Iranian chief of staff Hassan Firouzabadi to the Hidden Imam (the Shi'ite messiah, also called the Mahdi). In his letter, Firouzabadi depicts the post-election protests as a conspiracy against the Iranian regime by the West and the reformists in Iran. He also rejects accusations of Basij brutality, saying that the group did not act against the Iranian people in suppressing the protests, but rather tried to protect them. He concludes by urging the Hidden Imam to come speedily and launch a worldwide Islamic revolution.
Following are excerpts from the letter:
"O Lord of Time, peace be upon you... I wish to speak to you once again... [In 1979,] as the celebrations and rejoicing over the Islamic Revolution still reverberated [in the streets], America, the West, as well as the [Iranian] infidel parties on orders from their masters, [were already hastening] to turn every corner of Iran - including Kurdistan, Gonabad, Khuzestan, Amol and Tehran - into arenas of brutal psychological warfare and hotspots of secessionism, essentially striving to annihilate the Islamic Revolution and [its] regime...
"[Today] another round has begun in the cultural attack [on Iran]... In the current round, some of those involved [meaning Mousavi and his supporters] turned their backs on the glorious past of the [Islamic] Revolution, and wished to join Uncle Sam, thereby bringing shame upon the sacrifice and istishhad of our nation. They wished to launch a dialogue with those who attack the rights of the free [peoples] and condemn and assault the values of the [Islamic] Revolution, [i.e. those who attack] freedom, the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini], the rule of the jurisprudent, and the clerics...
"Those [Iranians] who constantly spoke of tolerance towards the dissidents, chanting [pluralistic] slogans like 'long live those who oppose me,' [actually] wanted the Basij philosophy dead. The essence of the reforms that they wanted was to eliminate the Basij and its philosophy... They targeted the very foundations of the regime, viewing the Basij, and all the revolutionaries and believing [Muslims] in the nation, as an obstacle in their path. They brought about a catastrophe, harmed [the regime] and violated its sanctity, started fires, and fanned the enemy's hope. They blamed the Basij for crimes that they themselves had committed [a reference to allegations of Basij brutality during the suppression of the protests]...
"When the Arrogance [i.e. the U.S.] saw its hope of toppling the regime dwindle, it mobilized the anti-Basij front, composed of old anti-revolutionary [Iranian] forces and fragments of [groups] that had been disbanded, whose common denominator is hostility towards the Basij and its philosophy, and towards [Iran's] national awakening.
"This front began its war, orchestrated by [the West], under the guise of [participation in] the presidential elections. When it failed to win, thanks to the praiseworthy participation of 40 million voters, it became enraged, and instigated a bitter civil war. This civil war, which from the outside looked like a 'velvet revolution' but from the inside was harsh and brutal, targeted the culture and people of my homeland.
"[O Hidden Imam], you are my witness that [the members of] the armed forces and the Basij regarded all the [presidential] candidates as [honest] revolutionaries, and [some of them] voted for [these candidates]..., as did [other] Iranians, according to the dictates of their conscience. Despite this, you witnessed the curses and accusations that [these presidential candidates] hurled at us. They harmed the people's security, and when we stood up to defend the people, they called us dictators and tried to disgrace us...
"Dearest Mahdi, we have taught our children and our grandchildren to await your arrival, and to raise the banner of this holy regime until you do... O lord, please beseech God, as we do, that the Islamic Revolution take root alongside the worldwide revolution that you [will bring]...
"Awaiting your arrival,
Hassan Firouzabadi."
How does the left react when they see such stuff?
These are the same people who excoriate anyone who proclaims religion while in the service of the state in any capacity.
Why is it that nutjobs like those at the top of the Iranian heirachy do everything in the name of Islam but still receive the support of the Western left?
The world is surely upside down.
Whatever way up it is the regime in Tehran is not one that can be negotiated with in a normal manner.
(Nothing Follows)
Climate Liars are those people who use deliberately dishonest examples to prove that climate change (aka global warming, aka new age astrology) is real.
Here are some signs that you're talking to one.
1. They use the Hokey Stick as proof that we're in a period of unprecedented warming. In the history of science there have been very few more egregiously dishonest pieces of science. That it became so widely used by the so-called leaders of the climate change 'debate' should give people pause for thought.
2. They are Al Gore, James Hansen, George Monbiot or any other offical spokesperson for the IPCC.
3. They tell you that Tuvalu and the Cartaret Islands are being inundated because of sea level rises associated with climate change. Both islands are, in fact, atolls. What's the difference? An atoll is an island of coral formed during volcanic activity. Over time the volcano subsides and the atoll disappears under the sea, which is exactly what's going on with Tuvalu and The Cartaret Islands. Tuvalu is the 4th smallest country in the world with a size of just 26 sq kms (10 sq miles). Check it out:
4. They tell you that the British judge did not find at least 10 'errors of fact' in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
5. They tell you that all of the dissent by highly regarded, highly qualified scientists is simply due to the power of Exxon to buy people off. At the same time they'll tell you that the tens of billions of dollars being spent by governments around the world will not encourage climate scientists to, basically, make shit up.
6. They tell you that the models used by the IPCC have made accurate predictions historically and will do so in the future. The truth is that the sum total of models used by the IPCC that have made accurate predictions is zero, nil, nada, none which is, not coincidentally, the number of financial models that predicted the global financial crisis.
7. They tell you that solar cycles have no meaningul role in the earth's temperature in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If they can't pin any increase on CO2 then they have no way of implementing their socialist agenda.
8. They tell you that creating green jobs will not be at the cost of real jobs. If that were the case then unsubsidised green jobs would exist now by the million. Being closer to Karl Marx than Milton Friedman it comes as no surprise that they don't understand how the jobs market works. The green jobs lie is similar to the lie that increasing the minimum wage won't also increase unemployment.
9. They are an owner or commentor at Realclimate.
10. They tell you that carbon dioxide is pollution.
(Nothing Follows)
Somehow or other, your erstwhile correspondent Jack Lacton has managed to get himself banned by Little Green Footballs.
For those of you who are regular readers of Charles' site and mine this might come as somewhat of a surprise given how close our views are on most topics.
Dennis Prager describes LGF as 'one of the most important sites on the web' and I agree. Charles' exposure of the Dan Rather phony Bush document and doctored Israeli missiles photo were extremely important. Hopefully, his vigilance can expose more fraud in the future.
Charles has a pretty much fair minded view of all topics and calls a spade a spade even if it's against his own side, which I also do, as for example in my recent post on the Australian opposition's emissions trading policy.
He and I agree on about 90% of topics including that Pam Gellar is a nut, as is alternative health 'expert' Jenny McCarthy. The nirthers are simply 9/11 troofers rebadged and the Republican cause is not helped by having people like Judge Andrew Napolitano and Glenn Beck feature so prominently on Fox. He also has a lot of fun with the Ron Paul supporters, as do I.
Charles understands that creationists dressed up in the Intelligent Design cloak are not only a threat to the Republican Party but also to Christian values in general, as when people reject ID they also reject Christianity, values and all. This will come at a massive cost to a fabric of society that is already being damaged by a myriad of left wing, activist groups.
We disagree on Climate Change. Charles seems to accept the so called 'consensus', which I put down to him not having delved into the issue in any great detail. He even provided a link to the anti-science climateskeptics propaganda site recently, which seeks to disprove all of the arguments put forward by we supposed deniers. He might like to spend some time at WUWT and Climateaudit to get a real look at the fraud behind the 'consensus'.
The thing that I think I got banned for was giving this post a minus on the LGF post rating:
Is this photo funny?
Not especially.
Is it clever.
Nope.
But is it racist?
Here's where I thought that Charles had gone too far and why I gave it the thumbs down.
This is only racist if you only see President Obama as a black man and not as a regular human being.
Consider, is the following picture racist?
If not then why not if you're using the same standard as the Obama picture?
Hitler is one of the most evil people to ever walk the earth. He was a white man. Why isn't it racist to put Bush's head on his body?
The answer is that his race had nothing to do with it.
The comparison is with the evil and not with the race.
The Obama photo comparison is with witch doctor-ism, not the fact that the witch doctor is black.
So, anyhoo, banned by LGF.
I used to think it was just the foul mouthed left and over zealous Ron Paulians that managed to get themselves banned. Maybe Charles thinks I'm one of them or part of the Gellar, Belien, Spencer unhinged crowd?
I still visit LGF every day and suggest you do also. Prager is right about it being one of the most important sites on the web. It's just a shame that I can't post comments or articles there anymore.
(Nothing Follows)
The healthcare debate currently raging in the United States has produced some terrific comments not least of which was when one wag asked why President Obama was trying to slam healthcare reform through Congress in 3 weeks when he took 6 months to choose a dog for his kids.
On one side of the argument are those who understand that the US provides the highest level of healthcare in the world but accept there are issues that need to be addressed.
On the other are those who think that the moral high ground is achieved through a government provided scheme, which requires tearing down the existing structure and starting again.
Organisations such as the United Nations and The Economist don't help the argument by coming up with world rankings on healthcare that show the US a long way down the list.
How can this be when it's the US that all world leaders choose to fly to when they're ill? The country that has John Hopkins, Mayo Clinic etc etc?
The answer is that these rankings heavily weight whether the healthcare is 'free', insofar as anything is when provided by the government. When health outcomes are analysed, how long people live when diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, heart disease etc the US far exceeds the rest of the world.
Quality
Time and again we are asked by proponents of Obamacare, and its predecessors, whether it is fair that only the wealthy can afford the best healthcare.
For some reason, the questioners fail to appreciate the truism that wealth means health. One only needs to compare the outcomes in Africa to any halfway advanced country to find the proof.
Here's another question. Is it fair that only the wealthy can buy $100,000 Mercedes?
If the government provided cars to everyone then do you think everyone would get a Mercedes or, perhaps, something of much, much lower quality?
If there were no wealthy people then there would be no $100,000 Mercedes.
Equally, no wealthy people means no high cost medical procedures.
The fact is that the advancement in the quality of healthcare that has come about due to the remarkable achievements of the pharmaceutical companies in the US - which are responsible for two-thirds of the world's medicines - can only occur because of the free market system that allows them to spend billions of dollars developing a single drug and getting it to market. Even the large European drug companies can only develop the solutions they do because of the sales they achieve in the US.
Make no mistake about it. Without US drug companies the world will have lower quality medical solutions going foward.
Comparisons with the rest of the world fail to take into account that the rest of the world is sponging off the US health dollar by being able to buy treatments that it couldn't afford to produce itself.
Do proponents of the government plan think that these drugs will still be developed when it's the government deciding how much will be spent?
Rationing lowers quality. It increases the length of time to receive treatment including for serious conditions.
Is it fair that people die who otherwise wouldn't simply because they can afford better healthcare but can't get access to it?
If the public option was so great then Congress wouldn't exempt itself from it.
Public kills Private
Most non-Americans don't understand how the US health insurance system works.
Here in Australia we take out insurance with our preferred insurer and to the level we desire/can afford, pay the premiums for the rest of our lives and receive an OK level of service. With our low population and large area it's not possible to make a proper comparison with other countries, as we have issue unique to Australia, as do all countries.
Most insurance in the US is provided by a person's employer. You can look up the history of how that came about but it dates back to World War II and companies' attempts to attract workers in a low unemployment environment in which salaries were fixed by the government due to the war effort.
A major issue in the US is that when someone leaves a job then they have no health insurance until they start their new job. These people who are between jobs need to take out temporary insurance until they start their new job. Bizarrely, the ten or so million of them are included in the statistics that add up to the "47 million Americans without healthcare", as do more than that many illegals. The question asked in the health insurance survey is 'Have you at any time through the year been without health insurance?' Obviously, if you've left your job and haven't taken out temporary cover, or can't afford to, then the answer is yes in spite of the fact that it might only be for a week or two.
After taking into account the fact that young people choose not to take out health insurance when they can afford to - preferring to spend their money on clothes, a car or a now upside down home mortgage - there are only 15 or so million who are in genuine need.
Better tear down the system to address the 5% of the population with a problem, then.
So how does the public option kill private health insurance?
Let's leave aside the fact that Congress has a bottomless pit of money to play with and is not going to be inclined to see it fail thus guaranteeing even further increases in spending into the future.
Consider two companies:
Acme Corporation has 1000 employees involved in the production of a very popular widget. It's a publicly listed company that turns over $150 million and makes an after tax profit of $3 million.
Acme's major competitor is Blue Sky Enterprises that, coincidentally, has 1000 employees, makes a competing product to the Acme widget, turns over $150 million and produces a profit of $3 million.
Both companies provide the same health insurance cover to their employees, sourced from the same insurance company. The insurance costs them $5,000 per person.
Now, let's say that Obamacare enters the market offering $3,000 health cover. It's not quite the same level as the $5,000 cover but people think it'll generally be OK unless you get really sick.
The management team at Acme decide to shift all of their employees from the private option to the public option. Blue Sky chooses not to.
So what happens?
After one year with this new health insurance in place, Acme has turned over the same $150 million but due to lower insurance cost has increased its profit to $5 million from $3 million (1000 employees x $2000 saving = $2 million).
Meanwhile, Blue Sky has also had a solid year, posting $150 million in sales and at the expected profit of $3 million.
See the problem?
No?
If you're an investor then which company are you going to invest in?
Obviously, Acme Corporation.
Therefore, Blue Sky Enterprises is forced to take up the public option, as well. Otherwise its competitor gains a huge advantage.
While this is all happening, private insurance companies are having to raise costs to maintain the same health cover level or reduce the level of cover to compete with the government option.
Thus, private health insurance slowly withers on the vine as more and more companies are forced into the government plan.
Who wins?
Not anybody who gets sick, that's for sure.
Medicare and Medicaid
No pro-Obamacare proponent has yet explained how the public option will not end up the financial black hole that is Medicare and Medicaid.
The following graph highlights the coming crisis, and when I use the term crisis I use it accurately:
Simple improvements are there for the taking
All Congress needs to do to make a huge improvement is the following:
- Allow healthcare to be portable between health companies and across state lines. This also deals with the situation in which people develop a condition that would inhibit their ability to obtain health insurance if they changed jobs.
- Implement tort reform. This is the biggest single cost in the medical system. Loser pays will stop people bringing frivilous lawsuits. Trial lawyers are the Democrat Party's second largest donor behind labour unions so don't look for this any time soon.
These two steps would allow many more Americans to afford health insurance cover.
President Obama
From President Obama the other day:"We've got some work to do. I don't mind, by the way, being responsible. I expect to be held responsible for these issues because I'm the president," Obama said. "But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.
"I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking," Obama said.
I wonder whether the President also includes the architects of the current financial crisis - Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Alan Greenspan, Larry Summer and Ben Bernanke - in the list of those who should shut up and get out of the way?
(Nothing Follows)
