Having my two cents worth

What exactly are you advocating Mr Rudd?

Maggie — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:02:13 +0000

Kevin Rudd (also known as Kevin Krudd) is about to have an essay released in which he calls for a New World Order. Without a doubt what Krudd is actually advocating is a lot more than socialism – he is advocating Communism. In his essay, Krudd denounces what he terms the “unfettered capitalism of the past three decades” whilst he calls for a new era in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily.

The problem here is that this form of heavy government intervention has failed in the past. The New Deal experiment by Roosevelt is a prime example of how this kind of intervention fails in its task to bring an economy out of the morass of high unemployment, and other ills.

Also, Krudd has a bit of a problem if he describes the way in which the economy has worked for the past 30 years as a “great neo-liberal experiment”, rather, it is what he wants that will be the the “neo-liberal experiment”, and if it is allowed to proceed then we will find ourselves falling further and further into an economic depression.

Krudd has decreed:

“Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy. And, ironically, it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself.”

Mr Rudd writes in The Monthly that just as Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt US capitalism after the Great Depression, modern-day “social democrats” such as himself and the US President, Barack Obama, must do the same again. But he argues that “minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do” and advocates a new system that reaches beyond the 70-year-old interventionist principles of John Maynard Keynes.

The problem with the Krudd analysis is that Franklin Roosevelt did not rebuild US capitalism. The reality happens to be that the USA took longer than necessary to come out of the Great Depression because of the failure of the Government intervention. What Krudd fails to appreciate is that unemployment actually got worse during the Great Depression, not better. What saved the USA was not the policies of Rossevelt, but the Second World War.

The neo-liberal socialists like Kevin Rudd seem to think that they understand Keynsian economics. They cling to the fact that Keynes advocated that there should be government intervention during times of high unemployment. What they fail to understand is that J.M. Keynes actually understood that what is also needed is private investment to help keep the economy working or well-oiled.

Like his rather incompetent counter-part in the USA, the new POTUS, Barack Obama (Sotero perhaps is more correct), Kevin Krudd believes that it is necessary to bash the CEOs of businesses and banks and to grandstand about what has gone wrong. The Kevin Krudd “fix” has been a stimulus package that will cost the tax-payer dearly, but it will not help to bring the economy out of the present recession.

When Kevin Krudd blasts CEOs for awarding themselves bonuses, he should think about how this is hypocrisy in its worst form because members of Parliament do not exercise any restraint at all. The essay by Krudd seems to be indicating that he wants to plunge Australia into a government that is based upon communism. He is talking the double talk, attacking the straw-man that he refers to as neo-liberals, when in fact it is his policies that are those of the neo-liberals.

Also, he is attacking the trade and economic policies of the Hawke-Keating years (when Keating was Treasurer) which has led to Keating’s own attack upon Kevin Krudd (and a well deserved attack by Keating). Paul Keating was responsible for most of the changes in the Australian economy that have been very painful. The fall-out from those changes has seen an end to Australian manufacturing industry. At this moment we are seeing that one of the few remaining companies has made a decision to lay off employees and head to China – the company owns the brands of Bonds and Dunlop. In some ways it is inevitatble because these brands simply cannot compete against the Chinese imports. The costs of manufacturing are just too high, and with all of the Green nonsense that we suffer these costs will continue to rise in the future.

I happen to agree that we need to have some kind of justification for some of the CEO bonuses that are handed out, especially when they are given at the expense of employee jobs (QANTAS) but it is not right for the Prime Minister to bash these compnanies by implying things that are not necessarily true.

There is little chance that the Krudd stimulus package will work. The reason? There is too much pork in the package, and that pork is not going to help job creation. If Krudd had been following true Keynesian economics, then the solution would have been to lower taxes first. Those companies that are struggling need to start looking at ways of reducing their waste and bloat. They should not be relying upon a government handout. The government handouts to companies such as General Motors Holden are in reality quite wasteful. That money is not going to fix the underlying problems within the motor industry. We are a small nation, and if we were to continue to have a viable motor industry then we need to be able to sell the cars in the overseas markets. Is this happening? In other words why is the product not being sold on the world market? Why is the product so uncompetitive? Throwing money at these car manufacturers is jut not the way to resolve these questions.

I do not believe in the level of government intervention advocated by Kevin Krudd. Perhaps it could be said that I am a libertarian because I believe in less intervention, not more, but I do not see myself in that light because I have certain differences of opinion with the Libertarians. There are many areas where Government intervention is somewhat necessary, but I think that the intervention should be short-term and not long-term as Krudd seems to be advocating.

I suspect that few Australians have any knowledge of the real Kevin Krudd agenda. I just hope that more Australian voters will become aware of his very dangerous policies, especially when they begin to realise that he wants to drive us towards communism, which is the real name for what he is advocating.

The Williamson affair – why ex-communication does not apply

Maggie — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:58:29 +0000

The SSPX bishop Richard Williamson was recently reinstated to the Catholic Church after an ex-communication applied by Pope John Paul II over disciplinary matters concerning the SSPX. This ex-communication was lifted by Pope Benedict in an effort to reconcile the SSPX to the main body of the Catholic Church. If Catholics do not totally understand what took place then how on earth are Protestants, Jews or other interested parties to understand what has taken place.

The issue that has arisen is related to personal remarks made by Williamson. The man is not infallible and what he has stated – I disagree with him totally – is a private opinion that is not related in any way to his role within the Church.

The Catholic Church does not ex-communicate people because of their stated political views, unless those views are diametrically opposed to the moral teachings of the Church. In this case the views expressed, of holocaust denial, even though very repugnant has nothing to do with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. We need to see the issue of his reinstatement from that point of view.

However, the political views expressed by Richard Williamson about the 6 million Jews and the 2-3 million Catholics who also perished in the Hitler death chambers are very repugnant to the majority of Catholics, including Pope Benedict XVI, a German who was himself opposed to Hitler.

Richard Williamson, in an interview on Swedish TV denied the possibility that so many perished, despite the evidence to the contrary that exists at the concentration camps. It seems that he also denies the fact that so many Catholics and other Christians also died in these same camps. Since we are supposed to have free speech, he is entitled to express:

“I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against — is
hugely against — 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas
chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler,” Williamson said
recently in an interview with a Swedish television station, which also
appeared on various Web sites after its broadcast. “I believe there
were no gas chambers.”

but Williamson is not an historian, so what evidence has he seen to in fact deny what took place? His claim that there were no gas chambers shows that he has not read the records relating to the existence of the gas chambers, neither has he given any indication that he acknowledges the death of the disabled and weak in German society by gassing at hospitals prior to the outbreak of the second world war, and the travesty against the Jews that took place during that time. It would seem that he did not read the diary of Anne Frank and he dismissed other evidence provided by eyewitnesses to the experiments that took place.

However, the Vatican is taking steps against Williamson over his holocaust denial, and I do believe that these are the correct steps to take:

The Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, has said
Williamson will not be allowed to perform priestly functions if he does
not recant. He said the pope was unaware of the comments when he
rehabilitated Williamson and three other members of the Society of
Saint Pius X.

Pope Benedict himself has distanced himself from the views of Williamson. The young Josef Ratzinger was forced to join Hitler Youth, but he did not attend the sessions – he got away with the non-attendance. He displayed extraordinary courage through his own defiance. For Pope Benedict the comments are a searing reminder of the past travesty against Jews from Germany, Poland, Holland, and other European nations.

Do I believe that Williamson should be disciplined? Yes, I believe that the disciplinary measures that are being taken are appropriate. If he is to be ex-communicated again then it needs to be for church disciplinary reasons and not the political reasons behind the present uproar.

I have no doubt that Angela Merkel is a good woman. I have no doubt that she has a Christian background, but she has no understanding of the Catholic Church and her comments and demands are unhelpful. I fully support those who are upset about Williamson’s remarks.

kill the unborn – hand out contraceptives that can kill to boost the economyKi

Maggie — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:58:31 +0000

Gateway Pundit: Pelosi Tells ABC Birth Control Will Help Boost Economy

The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi believes that funding birth control – aka abortion funds being given to Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills will boost the economy.

I guess, Nancy is an admirer of Malthus and Mills.

If Obama gets these measures wrong the world economy will be screwed

Maggie — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:38:29 +0000

There were many things that Congress put in place during the Clinton presidency, and it was 8 years later that there was a giant sneeze – much more than a hiccup – when the excesses from the Bush and Clinton periods came to a sudden halt. There is no doubt in my mind that the rot was put in place during the Clinton years.

All the same, now that Umbama is president of the United States, he is the one that has to face the rapid slowing of the USA economy as well as a rapidly slowing world economy. If he gets the ecomonic measures wrong – and looking at the proposed packages I do fear that the measures being suggested will make matters worse, not better.

More and more people are being thrown out of work now than a few years ago, although many who lost their jobs early last year are still unable to find new ones. The pressure is there to give these people a welfare package. However there is a cost involved in handing out this money without getting something in return.

Amongst the measures being considered by the Umbama administration are:

cutting the working week to try and avoid retrenchments;
paying companies to cut working hours (this is a bad idea)
a tax cut to all taxpayers including low income earners who do not already pay tax;
spending on alternative energy (a waste of money);
money to build an extended energy grid;
make federal buildings more energy efficient;
money to weatherproof homes;
protection of health insurance cover for 8 million at risk of losing their cover;

On top of this there is concern about the health of the banking sector. Throwing funds at this sector is not going to bring about reform which is needed – reform is necessary because of the excessive salary packages in that sector which means the shareholders and other stakeholders were losing out.

Policies on the fly, which will probably be the hallmark of this presidency could be very harmful to the US economy and since when America sneezes, the world sneezes too, it could be worse for the rest of the world. Socialist policies do not always work, if anything they tend to entrench the unemployed, taking away their incentive to want to work. It is a very fine line to get this right.

Money to be wasted on the push for abortion

Maggie — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:11:49 +0000

Family Planning Associations such as Planned Parenthood are nothing more than abortion mills. Using taxpayers’ money to fund these abortion mills is going against the moral principles of a Christian nation.

The family planning organizations claim that they are trying to help women and children in the poorer nations but that is absolute garbage. Abortion funding and the pushing of abortion in those countries is not going to resolve the underlying problems that exist. It is the wrong answer for the crisis.

In those poorer countries girls are forced into marriage at a very young age. Most are no more than 12 years old when they are forced into marriage. They are too young to be having babies. They should be receiving an education. However, in those same poor countries girls are denied the right to an education.

Take Bolivia for example, the girls as young as 14 are forced to find work as maids, and yes some are forced into marriage. There is no such thing as real consent in these situations. The poverty cycle continues so long as girls are being denied the right to an education. However, do the liberals who scream for abortion on demand also scream about the rights of these children? No. There is a deafening silence on these very issues.

In the African nations, and in particular Sierra Leone, which is extremely poverty stricken the women are left without any proper medical care. Is it just about economics though? No. Sierra Leone, like a lot of other African nations is dominated by Islam. There is your answer – about how women are treated.

The aid workers should be expelled from these countries if they are going to advocate abortion as a panacea. They are just peddling more death and there will be a surge in maternal deaths, not a drop if these people are allowed to continue with this form of advocacy.

Black Box confirms bird strike

Maggie — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:51:10 +0000

The flight data recorder has been examined and has confirmed the story of the pilots that a bird-strike caused the double engine failure which led to the crash landing on the Hudson River.

photo courtesy BBC NEWS

You can read the story here.

photo courtesy BBC News

New York hails pilot who landed jetliner in Hudson River

Maggie — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:19:20 +0000

The Hudson River New York has been the scene of a dramatic landing for a stricken aircraft. The pilot, Chesley B. Sullenberg III, an ex-USAF fighter pilot and a professional pilot for 40 years, made what has been described as a text-book landing, thus saving the life of all 155 on board the A320 Airbus.

The plane had just taken off from La Guardia airport, when it crossed the path of a flock of geese. There was a thud and both engines lost power. The geese also hit the windshield of the aircraft. The captain of the plane took the controls from the co-pilot so that the co-pilot could concentrate on trying to restart the engines. Sullenberg notified the control tower that there had been an incident and that both engines had lost power. They briefly discussed action to be taken for a landing. Sullenberg ruled out returning to La Guardia and then ruled out Teterborough airfield in New Jersey. There was a high risk of a greater tragedy by attempting either landing. The only avenue left was to attempt the landing on the water.

Sullenberg knew that he had to get this landing right, and he narrowly missed a bridge as he approached a point an area of the river that would mean the best chance of a rescue. He managed to do everything necessary to execute the perfect landing on water such that the airplane did not break up on landing. The passengers were ordered to brace for a hard landing, and they did. The cabin-crew gave quick instructions before sitting and bracing for the landing on the water. Unfortunately one member of the crew has been injured. As soon as the plane landed the cabin crew and passengers went into action. Women and children were the first to exit, followed by the other passengers, and finally the captain of the aircraft. He paced the length of the aircraft twice before leaving, making sure that no one was left on board the sinking plane.

The crash is now the subject of an investigation. The investigation will include what went wrong – why did the engines lose power? In other words verifying that there was a double bird-strike. It will also investigate what went right during the flight and subsequent landing and rescue of the passengers.

There are lessons to be learned from every aircraft accident. This one is different because a tragedy was prevented. No doubt pilots will now practise in their flight simulators the steps taken by Sullenberg to safely land his bird on the water. In the past few days comparisons have been made between this landing and that of the plane that crashed off Ethiopia. The footage of the Ethiopian crash shows that the plane had banked before it hit the water – in other words it was not absolutely straight. However, in that incident the cabin crew were most likely fighting with the hijackers who were on board, and therefore the pilot did not have the ability to be able to straighten the plane prior to the crash into the sea. It is in fact not a very good comparison because of the extraordinary circumstances.

It is a miracle that no one died as a result of this incident and calling it a miracle does not in any way discount the actions of the aircrew as well as that of the passengers, and the rescue workers. What we saw was a well coordinated effort that saved 155 lives. The man who made that happen is Chesley B. Sullenberg.

Dramatic video of crash landing in the Hudson River NY

Maggie — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:51:36 +0000

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | A pilot’s eye view of NY crash flight

It is worth checking out this dramatic footage of the landing of the Airbus A320 in the Hudson river. The passengers are seen scrambling out of the emergency exits within seconds of the landing on the river.

The perfect crash landing

Maggie — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:32:43 +0000

Airplane crash-lands into Hudson River; all aboard reported safe – CNN.com

This has to be a miracle landing. The pilot, through his actions and cool approach has saved the lives of all on board the aircraft when it landed in the Hudson River. The potential catastrophe occurred because of bird strike just after take off. The pilot’s quick thinking and actions are to be commended.

Flight 1549, headed to Charlotte, North Carolina, was airborne less than three minutes, according to FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown.

The pilot radioed to air traffic controllers that he had experienced a bird strike and declared an emergency, a New Jersey State Police source said.

Sources identified the pilot as Chelsey B. “Sully” Sullenberger.

“I think a lot of people started praying and just collecting themselves,” said passenger Fred Berretta. “It was quite stunning.”

Witness Ben Vonklemperer said he watched the plane from the 25th floor of an office building.

“If someone’s going to land a plane in the water, this seemed the
best possible way to do it,” Vonklemperer said. “The way they hit it
was very gradual. A very slow contact with the water.”

Passenger Jeff Kolodjay said he was sitting in seat 22A, near one of the engines.

“The plane started filling with water pretty quick,” he said. “It was
scary. There was a lady with her baby on my left-hand shoulder, and she
was crawling over the seats.”

US Airways CEO Doug Parker said 150 passengers and five crew
members — two pilots and three flight attendants — were on board.

The Coast Guard took aboard 35 people, according to Coast Guard Cmdr. Ron LeBrec.

“I had a long conversation with the pilot,” said New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg. “He walked the plane twice after everybody else was off, and
tried to verify that there was nobody else on board, and assures us
there were not.”

“It would appear that the pilot did a masterful
job of landing the plane in the river and then making sure that
everybody got out,” Bloomberg said.

US Airways CEO Doug Parker said 150 passengers and five crew
members — two pilots and three flight attendants — were on board.

The Coast Guard took aboard 35 people, according to Coast Guard Cmdr. Ron LeBrec.

“I had a long conversation with the pilot,” said New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg. “He walked the plane twice after everybody else was off, and
tried to verify that there was nobody else on board, and assures us
there were not.”

“It would appear that the pilot did a masterful
job of landing the plane in the river and then making sure that
everybody got out,” Bloomberg said.

“We circled around … the captain came on and said, ‘Look, we’re
going down. Brace for impact.’ Everyone looked at each other and we
said our prayers. I said about five Hail Marys,” said passenger
Kolodjay, who is from Norwalk, Connecticut, and was headed to Charlotte
to play golf.

Jerry Wallis, who said he was a private pilot, said he watched the plane go into the water.

“I’ve got to tell you, the people flying that airplane deserve all the recognition and commendation they can get,” Wallis said.

Don’t Miss

“If someone’s going to land a plane in the water, this seemed the best
possible way to do it,” Vonklemperer said. “The way they hit it was
very gradual. A very slow contact with the water.”

Passenger Jeff Kolodjay said he was sitting in seat 22A, near one of the engines.

“The plane started filling with water pretty quick,” he said. “It was
scary. There was a lady with her baby on my left-hand shoulder, and she
was crawling over the seats.”

Fun with Traffic Exchanges – The dawning of a new era?

Maggie — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:09:59 +0000

As a newbie I am still making my way around the free traffic exchanges, joining this one, deleting that one, and trying to win surfing competitions. Some exchanges are manual only and others offer manual surf, auto surf as well as pay to click. The pay to click can be the offer of cash or it can be in the form of cash and credits. Since the beginning of January there have been several new traffic exchanges, and I have been jumping aboard most of them. I have even had some success gaining new referrals. Some are offering a surfing competition, which is fun, and I have managed to win one of them to date, however, I do not like having my credits being sucked up because of surfing cheats. I will cover the topic of surfing cheats in another post, since I think that this is quite a serious matter.

The purpose of a traffic exchange is to help drive traffic to your website. If you are a blogger, then it helps to give your blog a high profile and almost guarantees a readership (until the TEs start taking over all your waking hours). If, on the other hand you want to establish a business and make money online, then the Traffic Exchange helps to give you ideas about what is available to someone who does not have a lot of capital in the first place.

Using a traffic exchange requires some work in surfing pages daily in order to keep up the credits to your site. Most exchanges offer a credit ratio such as 3:1 or 2:1 for free members and as high as 1:2 for upgraded members. Another aspect of the Traffic Exchange is the promotion effort to bring in referrals. Usually you join more than 1 exchange so that you can promote the others according to the number of websites and banners allowed. The sites that offer paid to click do have an alternative for increasing credits, both manual and auto quickly. This is good when the credits have been running a bit low, the bandwidth is being chewed up and one ends up going over the limit, and one wants to keep the sites in rotation (except where the credit suckers are operating – why let them chew up all of the credits with their cheating).

This month has seen what is supposed to be the dawning of a new era in traffic exchanges with the launch of what is touted to be one of the top traffic exchanges. This new exchange has been rolling out its launch, taking on members, and then bringing them together in groups and teams. What is so very different about Traffic Era is the concept of surfing in actual teams in order to win credits. There are several levels of membership, silver is for free members, or one can upgrade to Gold and Platinum. Upgrading is a monthly commitment and is not to be taken lightly if there is a lack of funds to cover this kind of upgrade.