catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Open Forum 8/12/06

with 128 comments

Advertisements

Written by Admin

December 8, 2006 at 10:00 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

128 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Which is worse – inflation or unemployment?

    What would be a tolerable level of one of them in exchange for a zero level of the other?

    Should we aim for a zero level of either?

    fatfingers

    December 8, 2006 at 10:05 pm

  2. Fatso you don’t have to choose if thigs were running ship shape.

    JC.

    December 8, 2006 at 10:34 pm

  3. I would have thought most people would be aware and talking about the biggest story out of the US this week. A gripping story if there ever was one.

    No its not about the war, it’s not about the congress changing hands, it’s not even about nasa thinking it found life/water on Mars. There is an even bigger story that has gripped the country for a week now and it seems it hasn’t made it’s to these shores.

    What i am surprised about is how this blog that devotes itself to being deep thinking and topical could have missed this.

    The story that’s groped America is the several shots of Britney Spears stepping out of a car in a mini dress and exposing the fact er, that she didn’t have any undies on. There it was in full camera view.

    I love that country. i truly love it deeply. I just love stories like that. It’s what makes America great.

    See here. Don’t worry it’s well covered up.

    http://www.egotastic.com/entertainment/celebrities/britney-spears/britney-spears-upskirt-pics-now-with-pussy-00192

    JC.

    December 8, 2006 at 10:46 pm

  4. damn missed the link. Anyways, you get the idea.

    JC.

    December 8, 2006 at 10:47 pm

  5. Which is worse – inflation or unemployment?

    What would be a tolerable level of one of them in exchange for a zero level of the other?

    Should we aim for a zero level of either?

    Your question implies that the philips curve or the NAIRU have a basis in reality. That there is some form of causal linkage between unemployment and inflation or vise versa.

    In the 1970s high inflation led to high unemployment because inflation led to bracket creep which pushed up the overall tax rate and destroyed job creation incentives. In so far as inflation can interact with “progressive taxation” to bring about economic contraction there is a form of causal linkage. However rather than any fundametal relationship this behaviour is more an anomoly of progressive income tax systems. Without progressive income tax the two phenomena would operate independently.

    Inflation is purely a result of monetary phenomena. It is the value of money declining due to an excess in the supply of currency (or a shortage of demand for currency).

    Unemployment is essentially a choice. People decide not to sell their labour given the wages on offer or else employers refuse to offer a job given the wages being asked. Significant unemployment is almost universally a product of microeconomic barriers (eg wage laws) or else an issue with incentives (eg tax and welfare laws).

    If forced into the false choice I would rather have high inflation than high unemployment simply because of the social consequences. However there is no reason at all that we should have significant amounts of either.

    terjepetersen

    December 8, 2006 at 11:17 pm

  6. 41% is pretty impressive efficiency for a solar cell.

    http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7865/1066/

    terjepetersen

    December 8, 2006 at 11:23 pm

  7. The death of foreign policy “realism” – the ISG report dead on arrival. Heh.

    C.L.

    December 8, 2006 at 11:28 pm

  8. The nominations for the weblog awards this year are disappointing. No Catallaxy? Is it too late to nominate?

    Rob

    December 8, 2006 at 11:33 pm

  9. Not just Britney, Joe. Lindsay Lohan (when not otherwise busy writing emails about how Al Gore is going to save her career) and Paris Hilton too:

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/12/08/britney-you-might-get-hit-by-a-bus/

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 8, 2006 at 11:33 pm

  10. They’re calling it “Crotchgate”, JC, and Camille Paglia (amongst others) has weighed in to the scandal. A less welcome repudiation of realism, I gather the relevant images lack the au naturel beauty of Courbet’s L’Origine du monde.

    C.L.

    December 8, 2006 at 11:37 pm

  11. I missed the post Mark. So it’s just not her, the hole gangs at it. This is hysterical.

    That was a very funny post by Kim.

    And I thought I was up with the times. I feel humbled.

    JC.

    December 8, 2006 at 11:40 pm

  12. Kim has done some great work there but the Lindsay Lohan one looks doctored.

    Jason Soon

    December 8, 2006 at 11:41 pm

  13. “the hole gangs at it”

    was that an intentional typo, JC?

    Jason Soon

    December 8, 2006 at 11:41 pm

  14. I didn’t know the awards were on. Can we still nominate, or is it too late?

    skepticlawyer

    December 8, 2006 at 11:44 pm

  15. Thanks Rob, I’ve never paid much attention to these awards.

    Jason Soon

    December 8, 2006 at 11:45 pm

  16. CL
    This is even funnier, they have now a word for it!!!!!!

    I am totally humiliated. Thought no one knew about it. And now it comes out so to speak, that we even have a word for it.

    Even Ken parrish wrote about it seems. I’m lost.

    That means even homer must have known about it and didn’t tell me. I’m hurt as well as humiliated.

    The thre are such trashy gals though. it’s so funnier. It’s like a comp to see who is the trashiest.

    If madonna a late 40’s gal gets in the act, i’m going on suicide watch.

    JC.

    December 8, 2006 at 11:46 pm

  17. Looks like LP forgot to put their slips in too. If it’s based on voting Tim Blair will win at a canter.

    skepticlawyer

    December 8, 2006 at 11:47 pm

  18. Nothing wrong with Madonna, JC. She’s got way more flair than these Janey come latelies.
    She’s a MILF.

    Jason Soon

    December 8, 2006 at 11:48 pm

  19. Don’t worry jase, every second word of mine is a typo and that’s unintentional.

    Can you imagine what the photogs are getting for these pics and the conversation that goes with the sales spiel.

    Every porn studio must be going orgazmic. And the money changing hands.

    Meanwhile, Rudd’s telling us we’re commodified!!!!!! When pics of a celebs private parts gets around the wrold in 10 secs, we aren’t commodified, we’re stark raving mad. But you wouldn”t have it any other way.

    See what the first amendment can achieve?
    It’s the public’s right to know.

    The founding fathers were certainly the greatest men ever as they knew what we would end up doing with that right.

    JC.

    December 8, 2006 at 11:55 pm

  20. Typo or not JC, it was still pretty funny 😉

    skepticlawyer

    December 8, 2006 at 11:59 pm

  21. “Which is worse – inflation or unemployment?
    What would be a tolerable level of one of them in exchange for a zero level of the other?
    Should we aim for a zero level of either?”

    We should aim at zero unemployment and falling consumer prices.

    There is no trade-off between the two. That was just dumb-Keynesianism.

    GMB

    December 8, 2006 at 11:59 pm

  22. I think the Lindsay Lohan one probably is, Jason. But she’s made a fine contribution to cultural idiocy with her email about Al Gore:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2155028

    Joe and C.L. – Miranda Devine actually wrote a column on it on Sunday, but it wasn’t picked up anywhere much in the Blogosphere (except for a one liner from Ken) before today:

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/misogynys-rise-no-surprise-when-selfrespect-rejected/2006/12/02/1164777845118.html

    The photo of Britney accompanying the story is G rated but nevertheless rather frightening!

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 9, 2006 at 12:13 am

  23. Rob, they’re the American awards. Tim Blair always wins with about 80% of the vote. The Australian Blog Awards are timed to coincide with Australia Day.

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 9, 2006 at 12:14 am

  24. So it’s just not her, the hole gangs at it.

    Courtney Love is a reformed woman, Joe 🙂

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 9, 2006 at 12:17 am

  25. that’s so funny, mark. Miranda D seems to have lost it over all this.

    JC.

    December 9, 2006 at 12:19 am

  26. It’s a bit of a leap in logic to see Britney’s “vagoterrorism” as leading directly to some drunken yob hitting a woman on the Gold Coast!

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 9, 2006 at 12:20 am

  27. “vagoterrorism”

    Who made up that word? You know?

    JC.

    December 9, 2006 at 12:22 am

  28. Someone at Reason Magazine I think.

    skepticlawyer

    December 9, 2006 at 12:34 am

  29. Yep, the link is in Kim’s post. It’s one of the blogs from Reason.

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 9, 2006 at 12:37 am

  30. We weren’t on the ball with the Australian Blog Awards either – forgot to nominate & now nominations are closed, so no prizes for us 😦

    skepticlawyer

    December 9, 2006 at 12:39 am

  31. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/117012.html

    Here it is – it’s a hilarious piece.

    The Reason blog is very good btw – well worth a look:

    http://www.reason.com/blog/

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 9, 2006 at 12:40 am

  32. That’s as funny as a fit. The comments are pretty good, too – one guy trying to make a serious point and fifty other people just collapsing with laughter.

    skepticlawyer

    December 9, 2006 at 12:47 am

  33. The comments are hilarious SL.
    One mentioned that hillary could be getting ideas as the way to the White House in 08.

    JC.

    December 9, 2006 at 1:24 am

  34. Someone else suggested Shaved Hillary as a great name for a band.

    Scary.

    skepticlawyer

    December 9, 2006 at 1:28 am

  35. Hilarious, I cracked up….whoops

    rog

    December 9, 2006 at 7:58 am

  36. Terje is right. 41% efficiency for a solar cell is somewhat of a breakthrough.

    Bye bye Kyoto…

    Mark Hill

    December 9, 2006 at 11:29 am

  37. The Australian Blog Awards are promoted endlessly in the left-wing blog circle so you have no chance of winning them anyway SL.

    Some Lefty Blog you’ve never heard of will win every category though.

    yobbo

    December 9, 2006 at 1:17 pm

  38. Nominations for the 2007 awards haven’t been opened yet:

    http://kekoc.com/wp/archives/2006/11/28/2007-australian-blog-awards-coming-soon/

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 9, 2006 at 2:07 pm

  39. Yair now I just have to remember which will be interesting if I’m in the middle of a murder case.

    skepticlawyer

    December 9, 2006 at 2:32 pm

  40. In Firefox at least, the front page of this blog is very seriously broken.

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 9, 2006 at 4:32 pm

  41. thanks Mark, all fixed I think. I presume it was the font code that somehow found its way into Heath’s post.

    Jason Soon

    December 9, 2006 at 4:44 pm

  42. It’s been fine for me on both Safari & Firefox, and I’m well into a bottle of vodka.

    skepticlawyer

    December 9, 2006 at 5:00 pm

  43. Yes, working now, thanks, Jason.

    Mark Bahnisch

    December 9, 2006 at 5:21 pm

  44. if SL is on a murder case then it must be out of KILLter

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 9, 2006 at 5:53 pm

  45. Check out this Swiss army knife – 85 functions, courtesy of a feed from Nicholas Gruen.

    http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/consumer/story/0,,1965050,00.html

    Rafe Champion

    December 9, 2006 at 11:26 pm

  46. A Crikey reader’s letter reproduced by Andy Landeryou

    Lucille Martin writes: Would someone really, truly sock it to Mayne and quick?! I’m sick to death of his victim, superior, righteous attitude. He was not “pushed off the stage” as quoted in The Age. He was pushed but it was very mild, the man was two foot shorter than him and couldn’t even walk straight. Mayne was a complete wimp, scurrying away.

    It was extremely obvious that Milne was under the weather, to put it mildly, and instead of seeking mass sympathy Mayne could have gracefully shrugged it off. Instead he’s extensively dramatised an unfortunate incident that was simply his own doing. Continually criticising and targeting someone will eventually bring a result Stephen, what did you expect?! You sure can give it but can’t take it, can you?! Get over yourself and stop grand standing, it’s pathetic and sad.

    Jason Soon

    December 10, 2006 at 9:12 am

  47. I can see where she’s coming from.

    But I’m not going to hassle a man too much for doing the right thing and avoiding a bit of biff.

    He’s probably a better person then I am on that score. But then I haven’t read any of his alleged post-biff-avoidance whining. And this might be what is moving the commenter.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 10:07 am

  48. mark [40]

    It porbably was me that broke it, at least temporarily. I’ve been composing stuff in Writely (Google Docs) and then pasting it in here when I’ve finished writing it. This seems to do something funny to the fonts when I paste my text in though. Give me the plain .html version of Wirdpress anyday. Who needs WYSIWYG for somehting as simple as blog posts.

    HeathG

    December 10, 2006 at 2:45 pm

  49. re the whole Britney-Lindsay-Paris carry on. What i don’t get is what Spear and Lohan have to gain from all this.

    Paris Hilton has no claim to fame & celbrity other than being a rich socialite. Any publicity is good publicity for Hilton because she has no other way of keeping her profile up.

    On the other hand, Lohan and Spear are (were?) performers of some talent. i.e. at least initially, their celebrity was based on their performances in the entertainment industry.

    Since hooking up with Hilton, it seems to have been all downhill. Sure – they’re getting publicity – but it’s probably not the sort that’s going to help them.

    BTW – thre is also a questionmark over the authenticity of the Lindsay Lohan “Al Gore will help me” letter I believe.

    HeathG

    December 10, 2006 at 2:50 pm

  50. Maybe they have nothing to gain from this.

    Maybe they are just being good girls.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 3:19 pm

  51. On The BBC “In Our Time” show.

    Reluctant scientists admits that there is a sort of light that goes faster then the speed of light.

    Look its over.

    Its all bullshit.

    That theory is finished.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 5:54 pm

  52. Here is the link:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20061130.shtml

    Edney.

    Why didn’t you tell us?

    The fact is its all shit. And the subject of modern physics is now up for grabs.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 6:01 pm

  53. It wouldn’t surprise me if that letter turns out to be fake. When people get that famous the temptation to engage in stuff like that just to feed another headline must be huge, and the trashy entertainment media around these days is not populated by individuals with a finely calibrated moral compass.

    skepticlawyer

    December 10, 2006 at 7:07 pm

  54. Pinochet is dead. Just thought I’d share the good news. I’m going to go and uncork some champagne now. I just wish that bastard had lived long enough to pay for his crimes. If there’s a hell, he’s booked a room already. Maybe the rest of his thieving family will face justice at least.

    cosmo

    December 11, 2006 at 5:46 am

  55. Crimes?

    Looks like he saved the country from communism at minimal human cost.

    3000 deaths is good going in that part of the world.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 6:08 am

  56. Kramer

    How a boutOrtega in Central America? Didn’t that turd go round killing people who didn’t support him?

    What say about Danny, Kramer?

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 8:35 am

  57. Well said, cosmo, I only mourn the fact that he never faced justice. But champagne at 5.46am? I hope you’re a nightshift worker or you’re in some non-Australian timezone.

    Liam

    December 11, 2006 at 9:23 am

  58. Liam

    Isn’t you new found reason to toast a little misplaced?

    You kneel at the alter of socialism a religion repsonsible for the deaths of anything from 100 top 200 million people.

    Whats the matter with you and Kramer? Was it the wrong person doing the killing?

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 9:31 am

  59. Yeah Liam. Your ghoulish indifference to the victims of communism is just sickening.

    What if this sort of thing happened to your Mother?

    No wait. I won’t go down that path.

    And you told us last time that Chile under the general was a rouge terrorist state but you only came up with one terrorist attack.

    Where are the others?

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 9:40 am

  60. Boy weren’t those the good old days hey. A terrorist attack actually credited to a regime.

    You can’t prove anything Liam.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 9:43 am

  61. I’d like to see him dropped into his grave from a helicopter. Something for everyone.

    Andrew Elder

    December 11, 2006 at 9:50 am

  62. Cosmo’s in Canada, Liam. It’s probably evening over there.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 9:57 am

  63. Joe
    Objectively pro-terrorist as always.

    Liam

    December 11, 2006 at 10:06 am

  64. Libertarian foreign policy lesson no 1:

    Don’t back Great or Little Satan.

    Choosing between Saddam, The Shah and the Ayatollah did not pay off.

    I know what the Objectivist view is, that Iran started this in the 1940s and 1950s when they nationalised US and British interests. That is true. But backing Saddam and the repressive Shah did nothing but create blow back and help entrench Saddam and the Ayatollah.

    Should a western Government support Castro or a new Pinochet?

    Never. Avoid them and destroy them both if necessary.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 10:14 am

  65. No no Liam.

    Answer his questions you fucking idiot.

    Come on.

    Hurry up.

    Firstly where is your evidence of terrorism. Beyond that one example.

    And why are you singling him out.

    This is not fucking funny pal. There must be some reason why you are singling him out and quite frankly I’m fucking disgusted.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 10:14 am

  66. The most important thing you can do JC is keep reading my posts. Other people have more important things to do, but not you.

    Andrew Elder

    December 11, 2006 at 10:16 am

  67. By the way. Just to make this consistent.

    You cannot prove that this one act of terrorism was caused by Chile right!.

    You can’t prove anything right?

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 10:16 am

  68. Liam

    3,000 deaths is not an example of wholesale,industrial murder we have seen in the abbotoirs of leftist experiments.

    Bad as it is, this looks like it was a targeted plan to get rid of the worst offenders who were intent on destabilizing the country for a commie take over.

    If you wanna run a comparison accounting I would be glad to help.

    I have met enough Chileans through work to get a feel for the place. They all say that the general population never lived in fear of Pinochet. In fact people went round getting on with their lives when all this was going. In other words, if you weren’t a hard leftist looking to damage the country you were as safe as bricks.

    Compare that to the slaughter of Cambodia and Vietnam after the commie takeovers.

    Get a grip, Liam and stop your friggen lying and distortions, you little commie.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 10:22 am

  69. Castro and his prick of a murderous buddy, Che are responsible for countless more deaths of their democratic opponents.

    We don’t hear a word from them do you.

    Let’s see if Quiggin cheers when a real thug meets his maker. Hopefully Castro is under a lot of pain at the moment and I only wish he lives long enough to appreciate what it’s like.

    Liam, Elder and Kramer, what will you three dopes be saying about Castro when he croaks it?

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 10:31 am

  70. “The most important thing you can do JC is keep reading my posts. Other people have more important things to do, but not you. ”

    Andy, is the humor intentional? I find myself giggling everytime I red one. Keep it up. WHo cares, right?

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 10:34 am

  71. I’ve put a Pinochet post up the top of the blog for you SouthAm aficionados.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 10:36 am

  72. 3,000 deaths is not an example of wholesale,industrial murder we have seen in the abbotoirs of leftist experiments.

    And therefore, according to Cambriology, it’s okey-dokey to kill and torture your political opponents as long as you’re not a Commie. Libertarian or sociopath: With Joe, Your Choice Is Easy!

    Let’s see if Quiggin cheers when a real thug meets his maker. Hopefully Castro is under a lot of pain at the moment and I only wish he lives long enough to appreciate what it’s like.

    Do you even know what the subject of a sentence is, and the relationship it should have with the verb? Here’s exercise one in basic literacy, Joe: to what or who are you referring to with ‘it’?

    Liam

    December 11, 2006 at 10:37 am

  73. Don’t engage in spelling/grammar flames, Liam. That’s Tim Blair’s forte and he’s got it all over the rest of us.

    Just sayin.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 10:47 am

  74. No no Liam.

    Why are you letting the 100 million deaths off the hook and focusing on the 3000 deaths which is something of an acheivement for that part of the world in that era?

    This is sickening to watch you in this matter. But we’ll find some answers anyway.

    Now fucking hurry up and explain yourself you poxie leftist ghoul.

    Now also. You describe Chile as a terrorist rogue state.

    Yet you only have a single terrorist attack for you to say this. And not a proven one at that right?

    So you have some explaining to do. Because you are not getting disgusted over 3000 murders. You are being flippant about 100 million or 200 million and there must be some reason for this.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 10:48 am

  75. Liam

    It’s obvious what you want to avoid, isn’t it? You think Pinochet’s behaviour gives you commies cover for the 100 to 200 million innocents your disgusting experiments have laid on us the past century.

    Castro is dying a painful death. Are you going to cheer that like I am ?

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 10:51 am

  76. Answer my question Liam.

    Are you cheering Castro’s demise?

    In any event I never said I was in favour of Pinochet’s behaviour. That’s just you, projecting your commie thinking on to me.

    I’m telling you, that your cheerfulness over Pinochet’s demise is obviously aligned with your goulish support of leftist mass murder. You think it gives you cover.
    Now answer my question

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 10:57 am

  77. ABL

    You don’t have choices like that sometimes. You sometimes do have to make a pact with the devil.

    But you do have to pick your spots.

    The left always support these critters anyway. Enough leftists are saying that Castro was good for Cuba becsue he added a few medical clinics.

    Leftoids are always wheeeling out medical clinics to give cover to their kind.

    In any event we were playing for keeps during Allende’s demise. Allende staying on would have meant a major Sth Am nation falling into sov hands.

    It would have made things worse for us.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:09 am

  78. You sometimes do have to make a pact with the devil.

    Objectively pro-State murder.

    Liam

    December 11, 2006 at 11:14 am

  79. Yes there is always a choice. Pinochet was not a reliable ally against the Soviets and his ascension to power did not preserve liberty.

    There is always the choice of “none of the above”.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 11:17 am

  80. ABL:

    Who was better for Chile? Pinochet or Allende? Pick one because those were the only two choices you had.

    Allende was starting a mass thieving campaign. He had already stolen the assets of major US coroporations who had set up there legitimately and was progressively stealing the assets of Chilean nationals

    Once you start stealing assets all bets are off.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:23 am

  81. Laim says:
    “Objectively pro-State murder.”

    Liam, don’t project that shit on me when you go around supporting regimes that have killed in huge numbers.

    What a dishonest little prick you are. You cheer Pinochet’s death but can’t cheer the demise of Castro. You just can’t do it can you. Is it the clinics?

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:27 am

  82. ABL says:
    “Yes there is always a choice. Pinochet was not a reliable ally against the Soviets and his ascension to power did not preserve liberty. ”

    At the very least he was not pro-sov which Allende was as futher evidence came out. You got to appreciate our position, ABL. A few years before we almost got into a nuke exchange witht he svs over them installing missiles in Cuba aimed at the US.

    You could see what allende was up to with private property rights. There was also evidence he was turning Chile into a Sov client state.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:31 am

  83. “Once you start stealing assets all bets are off.”

    Perhaps. But did he institute Government supported gangs or end the democratic or legal process?

    Like I said to Graeme, it is a choice between Iblis and Ahriman.

    The other choice is to spurn them the way you would spurn a rabid dog.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 11:32 am

  84. The West was fighting the cold war.

    But fighting the Soviet Union or communism is not the primary objective of the Unites States or the West in general. It is to protect the liberties of its citizens. How does supporting any dictator do that?

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 11:33 am

  85. “Perhaps. But did he institute Government supported gangs or end the democratic or legal process?”

    Yes he did. Except for the instituting gangs business perhaps. You don’t need to institure commie-gangs. They are free forming.

    Now you have gotten back to your idiocy-via-dudmb-rhetorical-questions method of cognition.

    In a world-wide communist war the only way to win is to support anti-communists world-wide.

    Otherwise the communists win and you lose all your freedoms.

    Either that or you fight them head-on and get your own people killed.

    And you are yet to make much of a case against the General so lets hear it.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:43 am

  86. Why is it our primary concern what form of government was in Chile as long as it wasn’t one that was pro-sov?

    In a sense this argument aligns with your reasoning, in that the US primary objective was the protection of its citizens. As long as there wasn’t a pro-sov puppet in Chile that objective was being met.

    It also prevented Allende from stealing the assets of US citizens which also is a the duty of the government.

    US concerns were that further Sov encroahment into Sth Am could have meant the US had a nightmare developing on it southern border.

    Even as you say, Pinochet was not a reliable partner, he wasn’t openly pro sov either. That was the best thing that could have happened in the circumstances.

    You can’t play the cards you want, ABL.

    The cold war was mostly a proxy war…. which in the end turned into a good thing as real engagment would have been unthinkable.

    The other issue was giving a message to the Sovs that the west or western interest were not a push over.,

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:45 am

  87. There is no question that people like Liam are dirty on Pinochet as a roundabout way of getting his own murderers off the hook.

    Otherwise how could you explain his behaviour.

    He won’t explain himself.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:46 am

  88. “Now you have gotten back to your idiocy-via-dudmb-rhetorical-questions method of cognition.”

    No you Muppet that was an honest question and I am not particularly familiar with their history.

    End democratic processes and free speech after you violate my liberty and property and it is game on and I no longer recognise Governmental authority. Just my way of thinking.

    “In a world-wide communist war the only way to win is to support anti-communists world-wide.”

    Bullshit. A Nazi genuinely might say that.

    There should always be a struggle for freedom. We should sideline and attack dictatorship and oppression at every opportunity.

    A struggle for freedom is better than a struggle against one flavour of oppression. You have to start taking the Baskin-Robbins approach sooner or later. You don’t want to side with the nuts.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 11:48 am

  89. I think he WAS a reliable ally wasn’t he?

    He helped the Brits out during the Falklands didn’t he?

    Whereas the Soviets helped the Argentinians out.

    Where is it that he wasn’t a reliable ally?

    Look I must repeat that I don’t know enough about it. But all I’m seeing here is a commie-witch-hunt and I’d want to see more information.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:49 am

  90. “You can’t play the cards you want, ABL.”

    Who says you can’t? There’s no higher power in international law so I’ll upturn the table and drive a steam train through the saloon if necessary. I don’t have to play bridge with Hitler to send Lee Marvin and Stalin down the river.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 11:51 am

  91. ABL

    Greece is a good example of this proxy war. Greece going communist would have scored a few goals to the sovs, made the west more insecure and raised the stakes for a big nuke exchange.

    We did have success in supporting wayward regimes that later turned themselves into open societies.

    Iran was a loss, but Greece and Chile can easily be scored on our side. The loss of these two countries could have had dire consequences for us.

    In any event. If we did a cost benefit analysis for Chile and Greece our side comes out on top by miles.

    If the commies had taken over the death toll would have eventually reached huge numbers judging from evidence elsewhere.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:53 am

  92. “End democratic processes and free speech after you violate my liberty and property and it is game on and I no longer recognise Governmental authority. ”

    Right.

    So you don’t want to do that.

    What you want to do is instead force the conflict away from your part of the world.

    So you cannot let the communists start putting weapons on the Mexican border or start practising political warfare in your own country.

    So the idea is always to help people anywhere in the world who are willing and able to fight the communists.

    Naturally of course you want them to improve their human rights standards. But since no-one has really given us a great deal of information on that score against the General its hard to see if he didn’t live up to a pretty good standard.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:54 am

  93. ABL
    “There’s no higher power in international law so I’ll upturn the table and drive a steam train through the saloon if necessary. I don’t have to play bridge with Hitler to send Lee Marvin and Stalin down the river. ”

    The most important goals at the time were to beat the Sovs back and avert a nuke exchange.

    If the Sovs looked liked winning Chile, the US position would have been further undermined. The end result would have been an insecure super power with a trembling trigger finger.

    Chile being in the western camp was more favourable to our interests.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:58 am

  94. “So you cannot let the communists start putting weapons on the Mexican border or start practising political warfare in your own country.”

    Correct, so you build the Pershing II tactical nuclear weapons system and place it close enough to Minsk, Moscow, St Petersburg and Volgograd, and then negotiate a withdrawal.

    “Political warfare” – huh?

    You don’t support murderous fascists because the murdering commies are a bigger threat. You stick it to both of them.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 12:03 pm

  95. “You don’t support murderous fascists because the murdering commies are a bigger threat. You stick it to both of them. ”

    Sure you do, but one group at a time not both.
    We did that in the 2nd world war by aligning our interests with Stalin against the bigger threat.

    Leftoids are always showing Pics of Rumsfeld with Saddam in the 80’s. Yet they don’t see the irony of Yalta.

    We tried your approach during the Carter era in certain ways and it became obvious that you don’t pick fights with two bullies at a time. It becomes a distaster.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 12:10 pm

  96. “Sure you do, but one group at a time not both.”

    This does not justify an alliance with the Lesser Satan.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 12:13 pm

  97. 1. Why do you call him a ‘lesser Satan’

    2. It certainly does justify an alliance with Pinochet once we get this ‘lesser Satan’ JIVE out of the way.

    3. You want to WIN Mark. Winning is not the only thing. But its important. Because if you don’t win you lose everything.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:18 pm

  98. It doesn’t justify it but it sure helps out the effort.

    The West would have had a harder time of it if the Sovs had failed in the east. US support to the Sovs helped things out.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 12:20 pm

  99. “You don’t support murderous fascists because the murdering commies are a bigger threat. You stick it to both of them.”

    Who are these murdering fascists you alledge they were supporting. And why wouldn’t you support murdering fascists in all cases….

    I’m thinking of Iraq and Iran. The idea was to support the weaker side.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:20 pm

  100. If you won’t support regimes that are against the communists how on earth do you expect to be able to put nuclear missiles on the communist border?

    Thats the whole point.

    If you withdraw from the world they put missiles on your border. And you cannot do shit.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:22 pm

  101. 1. He is/was.

    2. No.

    3. You don’t win by forfeiting and playing the Premiers of the evil league.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 12:24 pm

  102. “If you won’t support regimes that are against the communists how on earth do you expect to be able to put nuclear missiles on the communist border?”

    This is a false dichotomy. No such ultimatum exists. An abundance of allies and military technology saw this to be true.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 12:30 pm

  103. “An abundance of allies and military technology saw this to be true.”

    Yes but they were falling over during the 60’s and 70’s . It did look like we were going to lose.

    We didn’t win because of the way we acted in the 70’s. We won because of the way we acted in the
    80’s by going right up to them and showing our clenched fist.

    But you do have a point that has strong merits too. I just think we aren’t always dealt good cards and Chile was a good example of that.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 12:37 pm

  104. “Yes but they were falling over during the 60’s and 70’s . It did look like we were going to lose.

    We didn’t win because of the way we acted in the 70’s. We won because of the way we acted in the
    80’s by going right up to them and showing our clenched fist.”

    Slow down there JC.

    1960’s Asia: halting of Communism driving Southwards.

    1970’s America: The building of the F-16, F/A-18 , F-15 and the F-117. Procurement of the Pershings.

    The Soviets were left with the basket cases in Africa. They merely squandered their already meagre resources there.

    In the 1980s, the anti-Soviet strategy was close to perfect. Pity about the other scandals, despite your feelings about them (Iran-Contra etc).

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 12:44 pm

  105. 1. He is/was.
    2. No.
    3. You don’t win by forfeiting and playing the Premiers of the evil league.

    1. No no. You haven’t brought forward any evidence for that.

    2. NO you are wrong about that. Unless you have something going for number 1.

    3. Who said that becoming Premiers in the evil league was the way to win.

    Now you just have to stop talking bullshit Mark.

    Or come up with some evidence that Pinochet was this unworthy ally that we couldn’t support.

    So far he looks to have been a good and faithful ally. And probably a reasonably humane one.

    Now because you showed yourself to be so full of shit I’ll have to repost:

    1. Why do you call him a ‘lesser Satan’

    2. It certainly does justify an alliance with Pinochet once we get this ‘lesser Satan’ JIVE out of the way.

    3. You want to WIN Mark. Winning is not the only thing. But its important. Because if you don’t win you lose everything.

    Now do you have a REAL answer to these points. Not BULLSHIT answers like the last time but real answers?

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:51 pm

  106. 1. I wasn’t there for the big bang. Reliable sources yadda yadda…

    2. No. Only if your strategy is to win at any cost, including supporting fascism to defeat communism, not to defeat communism as the most well suppoorted opponent of liberty.

    3. What are you playing for? Anti-communism or freedom?

    I’ll decide if my answers are bullshit or not, chump.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 12:59 pm

  107. No look.

    Your still talking nonsense because you are yet to build a case against Pinochet that doesn’t look to be cast-offs from leftist lunatics.

    You don’t have reliable sources.

    Now you might get them. And you might yet successfully build your case.

    But you don’t want to run ahead bullshitting all the way unless you have that case.

    So lets go again:

    1. Why do you call him a ‘lesser Satan’

    2. It certainly does justify an alliance with Pinochet once we get this ‘lesser Satan’ JIVE out of the way.

    3. You want to WIN Mark. Winning is not the only thing. But its important. Because if you don’t win you lose everything.

    Freedom is impossible with a communist victory.

    Now I made it quite clear that you have to retain your own freedom as well:

    “Winning is not the only thing. But its important. Because if you don’t win you lose everything.”

    Thats pretty clear Mark. So don’t be talking this bullshit:

    “What are you playing for? Anti-communism or freedom?”

    So lets go again. This time try not to bullshit:

    1. Why do you call him a ‘lesser Satan’

    2. It certainly does justify an alliance with Pinochet once we get this ‘lesser Satan’ JIVE out of the way.

    3. You want to WIN Mark. Winning is not the only thing. But its important. Because if you don’t win you lose everything.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 1:06 pm

  108. “Your still talking nonsense because you are yet to build a case against Pinochet that doesn’t look to be cast-offs from leftist lunatics.”

    BS. A murdering swine he was.

    “Freedom is impossible with a communist victory.”

    Freedom is impossible if you give any of the anti-humanist bastards a free run. Opposing Pinochet wouldn’t have resulted in a communist new world order.

    Winning at any cost is never good, especially when you are fighting for liberty. It merely engenders more oppression.

    My answers are fine and your criticisms are bunk. Make some better criticisms or go elsewhere for advice.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 1:16 pm

  109. Greenie “expert” Peter Garret blunders badly during the Ruddard Fork In The Road Tour.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 2:27 pm

  110. “The Federal Opposition’s deputy leader, Julia Gillard, says more funding and more dentists are the key to ending the crisis in dental health.”

    What “crisis” in Dental care. Can’t she get a teeth cleaning appointment.

    this reminds me of Hillary care when the gal was on a mission to “end the crisis”. trouble is there was never any crisis in US health care.

    People didn’t understand what the hell she was talking about.

    I bet it the same with Gillard and the Dental care “crisis”

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 2:53 pm

  111. Via Landeryou – another Melbourne leftist thug who went to private school. I’m starting to wonder whether knocking public schools is such a good idea …

    http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2006/12/gotcha-university-of-melbourne-student.html

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 8:39 pm

  112. Yea I know.

    “It looks like the private school brats think they are above the law.”

    There is a certain self satisfied, self aborsbed left wing middle class element In melbourne that simply deserves to be burned at the stake.

    The best thing that happens to them is the last heart beat.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 9:06 pm

  113. are entire posts disappearing? or is it me?

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 11, 2006 at 10:23 pm

  114. Rafe the techno-phobe stuffed up and accidentally deleted his post, that’s my best guess.

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 10:33 pm

  115. “Freedom is impossible if you give any of the anti-humanist bastards a free run. Opposing Pinochet wouldn’t have resulted in a communist new world order.”

    Look. You may be right. But you’ve got to make a case. And you are remiss calling this fellow names without trying to make a case and trying to bring back the context.

    I remember those days when he was the leader.. And believe me almost no-one was going missing or getting killed. Though I think it was quite repressive early on.

    I don’t remember the days when the coup happened. And so I assume that most of the killing was right there. A sort of pre-emptively finished civil war.

    Thats the way to do it if there was to be a war. Win it in about 3 months.

    Now I don’t know that this is how it was. But you don’t seem to know either.

    I had assumed that they were the worst dictatorship outside the Soviet block. But it occurs to me that I just got that indirectly off leftists and probably it wasn’t all that bad at all.

    So until you can bring some more information to it you are building on almost nothing at all.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 10:55 pm

  116. Look we need a whole thread devoted to the maintenance of sovereignty.

    The maintenance of liberty and the winning of wars and the maintenance of the peace.

    I remember reading Geofrey Blainey.

    He seems to see the influence of the Manchestor School in the allowing of things to slide towards World War II.

    I was shocked when I first read that. But now looking at how extremely dangerous (yet paradoxically very good and cutting edge) ideas leaking down from the Miseans could be the death of us all.

    There is this very wrong idea that we can run a guerilla war from this country and hope to win.

    This is not feasible in Australia. Perhaps if Australia was all bushland and we all had weapons and strategic bush ammo dumps and stuff we could wait till the enemy hit our coast.

    But in any case put your hand up anyone who wishes to be a guerilla fighter and be looking after your kids in the bush like an actual Gorilla.

    But there is a problem here. There is very little bush cover.

    I don’t want to fight. Thankfully if we all learn about war and peace and so forth none of us will have to fight except our volunteers who we will pay massive benefits to if they are injured (in my way of thinking)………

    But then if we are smarter then that hey won’t have to fight either, or at least not in the most hazardous positions on the fight-scape because we will have our act so together and be so awesomely powerful that no-one will try it on.

    There is just no substitute for being able to set up a sub/air-fighter/missile defense sheild so that no-one can mess with our trading and no-one but those of our choosing can even get close to the Continent.

    Now being a libertarian ought to not single people out as being idiotic, being naieve about international relations, or being some day-dreamer who one day wants to be a guerilla fighter.

    Even if someone harboured such daydreams this would be unethical.

    There is no chance of Australia being an expansionist power except perhaps by referendum. That is some people may wish to join us and vote to join us.

    For this reason it can be said as a generalisation that Australia doesn’t want war. Australia doesn’t want to fight and grab territory off people.

    For this reason it is our ethical duty to get to be awesomely powerful militarily. That is the way to peace.

    If we were a naturally belligerent country like Germany in the 1900’s it would not be our duty to get to be that powerful.

    In fact one might even suggest that good people within such a society ought to be working to reduce defense expenditure.

    But this is not the case. And we cannot defend ourselves if we let people make it onto our shores.

    Or at least we cannot GUARANTEE a victory.

    So I’m saying we need a thread to talk about the history of warfare.

    Because we are seeing a shocking ignorance in these matters. And it seems to be coming often from the liberatarians just as much as the commies who afterall actually want us to lose them being house-slave wannabes.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:13 pm

  117. ‘Look we need a whole thread devoted to the maintenance of sovereignty.’

    Simple. Make a token commitment to the US as we have done so far and free ride on their defence shield. All those idiots protesting about our being involved in Iraq forget that while it may be bleeding the US dry, we’re getting a lot of bang for our buck because we’re tight with them.

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 11:37 pm

  118. Well thats fine.

    But they are now a debtor nation.

    And they are rapidly becoming a post-moder Blue-State debtor nation.

    And we don’t yet know whether any country can stay civilised under decades of currency debauch.

    Look our total armed forces, both full and part-time.

    They can only fit inside the MCG.

    If the Americans take Lew Rockwells advice and pull back from the world we do not have what it takes to fight a war of attrition.

    Its not normal to be relying so much on another country.

    You might be forgetting just how extraordinary the Americans were.

    They weren’t just the biggest economy on the globe.

    They were the biggest economy and the richest per capita by a long shot as well. And this massive creditor nation.

    They have proven to be the most conscientiously ethical nation but paradoxically its lead to a lot of killing.

    They would go everywhere and bleed money and blood.

    They were actually pretty useless at winning wars funnily enough.

    But this was when they were a creditor nation.

    What now when they are crippled by debts.

    Or alternatively when their body politic is poisoned by such a long spell of currency debauch.

    I don’t know why libertarians are relying on them when by their own testimony the Americans ought leave us to our devices.

    I say start this thread.

    Because a GMB libertarian setup is one where we don’t send our lads to the frontlines if we can help it but make up for it in other ways.

    And where our lads have the absolute best gear and there is a sheild of proxy fighters ahead of them anyhow in most cases.

    I’m just not seeing this committment to freedom here from the alleged libertarians.

    Not seeing the committment to freedom or to our lads who say they will be willing to fight.

    And my acid test that you are not committed to your own freedom or that of Australians more generally is that everyone goes silent when I mention Chinese spies.

    Not one person has responded when I’ve mentioned the existence of Chinese spies.

    And maybe they are smarter then me and less foolhardy.

    But if so its totally poxy of them to even imagine scrimping on defense until we feel we are strong enough to claw back that strategic position and send them all home.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:50 pm

  119. Don’t be scared, Graeme 🙂

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 11:57 pm

  120. Don’t fucking encourage the fucking idiot Jason.

    Just look to your own sense of ethics.

    You obviously don’t have a real committment to freedom.

    And it turns out that you were scared because you didn’t mention the Chinese spies.

    Mention them now.

    Don’t be scared.

    Now you should be scared and you know why?

    The first people they hurt are ethnic Chinese. We’ve had at least one Australian who is ethnic Chinese kidnapped.

    Now you would know or you could find out if they are hassling our ethnic Chinese brothers and sisters.

    And of course they are right?

    So it makes me want to puke that you alleged libertarians care so fucking little for your fellow Australians that you would wish to scrimp on defense spending while this is going on.

    Now you don’t be scared!!!!!!

    Because I’m fucking not scared.

    But evidently you are.

    Do you want to be a guerilla fighter.

    Do you think its ethical to not spend enought to ensure our liberty (no matter what our ethnicity) and to ensure that you never have to be either a Quisling or a guerilla fighter.

    Do you not think we ought to not spend enough so that you would never ever even be TEMPTED to be a Quisling.

    Talk to me Chinese man.

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 12:05 am

  121. Is it that easy to push your buttons, Graeme? And Terje still claims to believe in free will …

    Where did I say anything about scrimping on defence spending? Where did I talk about guerillas?

    All in your head, along with the spies …

    Jason Soon

    December 12, 2006 at 12:12 am

  122. Are you then doing a Humphreys?

    Is it your contention that if you say the spies aren’t there. And if you pretend they aren’t hassling our ethnic Chinese Falun Gong supporters (just for starters) then they are not there.

    Is it you claim indeed that there are no mainlander spies in this country.

    Lets hear you go right ahead and make that claim and take all ambiguity out of it………….. Quisling?

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 12:31 am

  123. Look.

    Lets say you’ve got the love of your life to look after. And you got a little baby girl and a sick mother. And your lady is pregnant with a sure-to-be-genius boy.

    Would you not be open to intimidation and or bribes by outsiders?

    Don’t you see my point that you ought never allow things to get to that where you might be tempted to let the rest of us down.

    Try and think about that situation.

    Would you be ready to take your girl and your Mother and your kid and go out and then become this guerilla fighter like some of those East Timor heroes?

    And why would you do that when the Chi-Coms might be waving $5000 a week cheques in front of your nose?

    Now I say morality is all about never letting any moral dillemmas like this ever come close to coming to pass.

    Somethings rotten in the State Of Denmark says the Prince.

    And in so saying he kicks off our greatest drama. But is it not the case that great drama means bad civics?

    Ethically speaking I want things to be boring.

    I want our guys to have so much the best training and equipment that there is no great drama and so we don’t have to fight.

    I don’t think you are taking as ethical a position on these matters as I am.

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 12:38 am

  124. Graeme
    Stop Lambirding 🙂

    Jason Soon

    December 12, 2006 at 11:34 am

  125. Are you in fact claiming that the Mainlanders don’t have all these spies in this country?

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 12:16 pm

  126. I’m sure they have a couple. Every country does. whether they’re going around kidnapping people I strongly doubt.

    Dude, I was born in Malaysia. I can’t speak a word of Mandarin. Kevin Rudd speaks better Mandarin than me. What would they want with me? I’m not scared. I’m not being Lam-birded 🙂

    Jason Soon

    December 12, 2006 at 12:20 pm

  127. Rudd does speak Mandarin but, according to Greg Sheridan, his mastery in the language is being overstated.

    On one occasion [Ross] Garnaut was having a conference with some official Chinese of extreme eminence and remarked that Australia and China were enjoying good relations at that time.

    Rudd, who speaks a kind of upper-class Mandarin, tried to render this with a certain flourish, which produced grins from the Chinese translators and a befuddled frown from the potentate involved. Rudd had said in Mandarin that Australia and China were enjoying simultaneous orgasms.

    No word on whether Womble had a cigarette shortly thereafter.

    C.L.

    December 12, 2006 at 12:50 pm

  128. If that’s true, that’s pretty damn classic.

    skepticlawyer

    December 12, 2006 at 1:25 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: