It only takes a minute to scan over the list of projects below.

I recommend you do.

You'll quickly realise what bold visionaries we have in this country.

You can't help but be amazed at how much money they're willing to spend to "get the country back on the right track," "ensure Australia's future," "provide jobs and stimulate the economy," and so on. Read more

While the British government is trying to offload their high-speed railway in an attempt to mitigate years of terribly bloated spending, here in Australia the government is not so cost-conscious. Read more

The Punch ran an article a few months ago where they posed the question as to the most appropriate theme song for each party's electoral campaign.

The Black Eyed Peas gets a big mention for their song "Yes We Can." Remember that one? It's received over 21 million views on YouTube and Peter Lewis, the author of the article, says that it "shows what an inspiring campaign can deliver."

Well, if it can work for Barack Obama I think it can work here too.

No, I don't think either party should use that song...

But I do think Labor and Julia Gillard can capitalize on the popularity of The Black Eyed Peas as well by using their oh-so catchy 2005 tune "My Humps."

After all, how could they possibly pass up such memorable and apt lyrics as these?:

(sing along now!)

She's got me spending.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me and spending time on me.
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me, up on me, on me

What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside that trunk?

We'll leave it up to the electorate to assign meaning to the phrase "junk in the trunk"... Permalink

Well this comes as a shock:

THE government has been accused of cynically using the National Broadband Network and the GP super clinics program to sandbag marginal seats.

The accusation came after Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan yesterday travelled to Townsville to launch construction of the NBN on the mainland in the ultra-marginal electorate of Herbert -- one of several marginal seats that benefit from the early rollout.

It is a common characteristic of those who champion liberty to draw attention back to the fundamental difference between civil society and the market on one hand and the state on the other. Classical liberals and libertarians believe in the primacy of the rights of the individual and contend that the only societal arrangement that is conducive to liberty, justice, peace and prosperity is one where the power of the state is minimized to the greatest extent possible. This gives people the freedom to pursue their own goals, to unleash their creativity and apply their talents in the best way they see fit. But what, then, should the role of government be in a free society? Does government protect and promote our interests – or is it antagonistic to them? Should there even be a government? These are some of the most fundamental questions in political philosophy. Read more

If re-elected, the Labor Gov't will attempt to entice unemployed people to relocate elsewhere in the country by offering them varying sums of money to cover their moving expenses. Up to $6000 for regional areas and up to $3000 for metropolitan areas. Employers who take these people on will also receive an incentive of $2500.

Gillard justifies this policy by saying that:

"There are parts of the country that are experiencing rapid growth and crying out for more workers...We want Australians to get the benefit of those opportunities."

You've got to wonder, though, how good these opportunities really are if both the employer and the employee need to be given thousands of dollars to strike a deal. If both parties expect to benefit from such an exchange (a certain amount of money as payment for a certain number of labour hours) then why would they not enter into an employment contract voluntarily? Why the need for a taxpayer subsidy?

Obviously, either one or both of the parties perceive the costs as being greater than the benefits. By offering these subsidies, though, the gov't wants to alter this equation by making the benefits outweigh the costs. 

But it shouldn't be too difficult to see the sleight of hand here. The money for this subsidy has to come from somewhere. All the gov't is doing is shifting the burden onto other Australians.

Yet again, we have an illustration of the Broken Window Fallacy. With an estimated cost of $14.8 million, Gillard is only looking at the 'benefits' of this proposal. But what would those Australians who earned this cumulative total of $14.8 million otherwise have spent the money on? We won't know. These are the real opportunities but they'll remain hidden as they will never come into existence. Permalink

Dick Smith also says that candidates for his $1 million prize:

"...must be able to communicate that we cannot continue to squander the resources that will be needed by future generations..."

That is, unless one happens to be a millionaire who enjoys flying around the world solo in a helicopter perhaps?  Permalink

I happened to miss this story from a couple weeks ago. Isn't it great living in a "free country" such as Australia?

The federal government has censored approximately 90 per cent of a secret document outlining its controversial plans to snoop on Australians' web surfing, obtained under freedom of information (FoI) laws, out of fear the document could cause "premature unnecessary debate". Permalink

In the great Australian, libertarian movie The Castle, the Kerrigan family (and their neighbours) receive a notice of "compulsory acquisition" from the government. A new airport is to be built and their homes just happen to be in the way of this development. Ultimately, though, justice prevails and the court rules in favour of the Kerrigans.

Strike one for liberty against government theft and crony capitalism. 

But what if the movie had ended with the Kerrigans losing?  Read more

According to Amnesty International, "since June 2001, more than 351 individuals in the United States have died after being shocked by police Tasers.... [Amnesty] is concerned that Tasers are being used as tools of routine force -- rather than as an alternative to firearms." Perhaps police officers' enthusiasm for reaching for their Taser is because they're not viewed as 'real' weapons? Maybe they see them more like the baton, something that can be used if the sheeple do not respect their authoritah?

Some police officers in WA, at least, certainly see them as just a bit of fun and games. It's been revealed that Tasers were being used in initiation ceremonies. The article states that "a sergeant and a senior constable have been stood down on full pay [of course] and two constables have been confined to office duties." If police officers use these things on their mates for a laugh, how hesitant will they be to use them on members of the public?

 Permalink