Pakistan Shows Whose Side It's Really On

As if we didn’t already know.

Pakistan has charged the doctor who helped the CIA locate Osama Bin Laden with high treason and sentenced him to 33 years gaol. To add to the travesty, he was tried in a tribal court in Bin Laden sympathetic north western Pakistan, despite his actions taking place in an entirely different province in north eastern Pakistan.

His real “crime” of course was to expose the abject duplicity of the Pakistani government and military, by helping to reveal that Bin Laden had been hiding for some time in Abbottabad, a city of 300,000 people, only 50 km from the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. No sensible person would believe that Bin Laden and his sizeable entourage could have remained in such a location without the knowledge and support of some high ranking Pakistani military and intelligence personnel and possibly also government ministers.

Even now, the Pakistanis muster the predictable outrage at the “invasion of their sovereignty”, but at least most of their decision makers knew full well that they deserved it. There was no way the Americans could ever have shared intelligence in such an operation, given the clear evidence of Pakistani complicity in hiding Bin Laden. If you harbour our enemies, you can stick your “sovereignty” up your greasy arses.

The fact that the exposure of Bin Laden and his Pakistani support base resulted not in a clean out of Islamist radicals from the military and intelligence agencies by shocked and embarrassed, more moderate, secular forces, but instead resulted in the persecution of the man who helped expose him indicates Pakistan is an enemy of the West from top to bottom. It may have some modern, secular voices who to some degree share common, liberal goals with the West, but there just aren’t enough of them and they don’t have sufficient power. Often the ones who are in power are indolent and corrupt, par for the course in Pakistan.

The Americans and particularly the CIA, have been idiots in the way they have handled the doctor. This is too often the case with foreign US intelligence contacts: they burn them. Who will work for you if you don’t look after them when there’s trouble?

Why tell everyone the doctor helped you? Why not just say the CIA posed as a UN health bureau conducting hepatitis B vaccinations and the local medical staff didn’t know anything about it? They just thought they were vaccinating Pakistani children. Couldn’t you idiots work out that there would be substantial blowback on the doctor and his family in this corrupt, shame based culture?

The CIA should have predicted a significant probability of punishment for the doctor and spirited him out of Pakistan as quickly as possible, giving him asylum in the US, if he wanted it. Instead, they’ve ignored him and now they’ll fuck around with some ineffective diplomacy, then forget him in six months.

Nice working with you to catch your #1 enemy, dickheads! I’m sure recruiting operatives will be so much easier in future.

As for the Pakistanis, the only language which produced any meaningful co-operation from them was: "Be prepared to go back to the stone age".

Short Facebook If You Want A Profit

Investors who wanted to profit from the Facebook IPO should have bought puts with strikes of around $35 (or taken some other short position) when the stock jumped over its $38 offer price on the opening day. The stock’s intra day high hit $45 and it closed at $38.23.

Buyers who are whingeing because Facebook stock didn’t double on listing like LinkedIn’s IPO are naive idiots, as is anyone who bought LinkedIn at $90 (other than to sell at $91). Its earnings guidance was for a net loss in FY 2011. Its shares are not worth the $45 IPO price, let alone $90.

People are blaming Morgan Stanley et al for a dodgy Facebook IPO in which an extra 84 million shares were added to the offer pool last Wednesday. After all the post-GFC exposure of investment banking practices, does anyone believe these institutions are honest? They are only interested in fees and profits. The dilutionary addition of the extra shares should have rung alarm bells. By then, it was too late for the IPO subscribers, but they could have dumped their stock once it began falling from $45 on the opening day.

The only way traders will make a profit from Facebook in the near future is either by short term volatility trades or short positions such as put options. I say traders, because longer term investors will need to wait some time for the stock to fall to a sensible price / earnings (PE) multiple.

The Facebook offer price of $38 set the stock at a PE ratio of around 100. This is insane. Most stocks trade at PEs of 10 - 15. Apple currently trades at 14. An investor might occasionally consider buying at a PE of 20 if there was good reason to expect well above normal earnings growth, sustainable for the next few years. But a PE of 100 is idiotic. It’s starting to look like the tech bubble, with its bullshit exponential earnings growth assumptions in new technology valuation models.

What are Facebook shares really worth? Look at the lessons from the first tech bubble. Don’t buy stock with a PE above 20 unless you’re a volatility trader or short term investor looking to profit from a momentum trade. A PE of 20 puts Facebook stock at around $7.50. Even a PE of 25 puts it at $9.50. I reckon if you’re patient, it will get there some time in the next 2 to 3 years. It’s already down to $30.

Of course, had Facebook not deleted the user accounts of the popular characters Bummy McDick and Goate Reamer, the stock may well be worth $38.

Update:

In after hours trading on 27/07/2012, Facebook shares hit $23.83. They will almost certainly fall below $20 before the end of 2012. Even at this price, don't buy them unless you're trading a bounce. There is no genuine value in FB above $US15 a share. I'd wait and see if they get to $10.

Let Hunger Strikers Die

Why is it part of the state’s duty of care to force feed hunger strikers? Why should they not be allowed to starve themselves to death if they are not mentally ill?

About 2,000 Palestinian prisoners have ended a hunger strike after the Israeli government gave in to many of their demands. But why did it? Why didn’t it just keep giving them food, video them refusing it and let them die?

Because it feared the backlash in the wider Arab world, who of course would blame the Israelis and not the Palestinians who refused to eat. But was this the best strategy? If you’re going to give in, do so because the requests are reasonable, in which case you should do it at the start, not after eleven weeks of a hunger strike. Now the lesson is that self torture works.

It shouldn’t. Passive aggressive, self harming behaviour is to me the dumbest form of protest. I’d just let them do it, unless they were mentally ill, which these people aren’t.

Hunger strikes are hardly a new tactic. Members of the Baader Meinhof Gang tried it in 1974 to protest against their prison conditions. They were force fed and Holger Meins died. Bobby Sands and 9 other IRA prisoners died on a hunger strike in 1981. In fact, Irish Republican prisoners had been staging hunger strikes since 1917.

There’s a common theme here: it’s usually prisoners who stage hunger strikes.

I’m not going to discuss here the legality or morality of the detentions, because each prisoner’s case is different. I’m only interested in how people should react to the obvious emotional blackmail of someone trying to starve themselves to death in front of you.

“See what you’ve driven me to? Oppressor! You’ve murdered me!”

No they haven’t. If the food was there and was edible, you killed yourself. It’s all very well to say that you’re martyring yourself for future “victims”, but if you’re allowed to die by your own actions, it’s only an act of faith that your suicide will be meaningful.

In prison, the state has a duty of care to see that prisoners are given adequate shelter, bedding, sustenance, exercise, medical care, a fair and independent hearing of legitimate grievances, rehabilitation opportunities and are not subjected to violence from other prisoners, especially rape, dishonest treatment, or violence from prison staff, other than in legitimate self defence.

If adequate meals are provided and refused, by a prisoner judged by a qualified professional to be of sound mind, that’s where the duty of care ends. If you’re sane and refuse to eat, smear the walls of your cell with your own shit or sleep naked until you die of cold, that’s your own fault. It is not the state’s duty to save you from yourself.

In cases where the hunger strikers are not incarcerated: don’t eat. That’s your right. It’s not going to change my opinion. In fact, I’ll think you’re an idiot and good riddance.

Principles of Liberalism require open, independent bodies, such as the Ombudsman to assist citizens in resolving legitimate grievances against government or private institutions. They do not imply the success of self harm in dispute resolution, nor that people who refuse to give in to such tactics cannot be Liberals.

Spoilt Brat Sues School For Being Too Dumb To Get Into Sydney Uni Law

There’s no satire as effective as self parody. A spoilt brat and her delusional mother are suing Geelong Grammar school because she failed to get into first year Law at Sydney University, despite the fact that she only attended the school in 2008 - 2009, then completed her HSC at a Sydney TAFE college in 2010 - 2011.

Of course, it was totally impossible to follow the path of so many other students who have previously failed to get into Law: enroll in a B.A., take Government 1 and Legal Institutions 1, get distinctions, then transfer to Law in second year. She couldn’t take the first year B.Ec. route because she is extremely thick at maths and thus couldn’t handle the quantitative side of the syllabus.

Apparently it was also not good enough for Miss Rose Ashton-Weir (self parody apparently extant from birth) to attend one of the other Australian universities which may have accepted her into their LL.B.

One valuable outcome of this episode is that the publicity will hopefully cause people to remember the name Rose Ashton-Weir and her picture. Someone that spoilt and delusional is basically unemployable. Can you imagine being in a relationship with her? Being married to her (with accompanying mother-in-law)?

Suing the school for not “getting the support I needed to really excel'' is the epitome of Generation Me. So deluded with an almost constant stream of undeserved affirmation, no failure to realize their wants is ever their own fault.

If you’re looking for someone to blame for your failures, go and stand in front of a mirror, with your mother behind you. If you can only get 8 out of 68 in an ordinary high school maths test, you are just plain thick. Did it occur to you that the real reason you didn’t get into Sydney Uni Law is simply that there are many people your own age who are more intelligent and hard working than yourself?

Of course not; we discourage children from competing these days, because losing might harm their fragile self esteem. Actually, it teaches them that there is almost always someone more capable than you, so if you want to achieve a meaningful goal, you’ll need to work hard and persevere through setbacks.

The mother is just as bad. She’s also suing, for the cost of moving to Sydney and foregone revenue from her fortune cookie business (seriously). Quite right. It’s all Geelong Grammar’s fault you decided to move interstate. Your daughter couldn’t have gone to any other private or government school in Melbourne.

The real problem here is the law. Citizens should have the right to make formal civil complaints, but there should be a reasonableness test. If a complaint would be viewed by any reasonable person as frivolous, vexatious or speculative, full costs should be awarded jointly and severally against the plaintiffs and their lawyers as a deterrent. That is in theory partly what already happens, in that the court should award costs against the plaintiff, which is in a punitive sense jointly against their lawyers if the plaintiff is unable to pay their bill. However, sometimes judges lack resolve and simply find in favour of the defendant without sufficient redress as to costs. Additionally, if the plaintiff cannot pay the defendant's costs, the defendant has no legal avenue to pursue the plaintiff's lawyers.

That is likely the case here. Why should Geelong Grammar have to foot any amount of legal costs to defend this claim? Not only should this patently ridiculous, frivolous and speculative suit be thrown out, this is exactly the type of case where full costs should be awarded against the plaintiffs AND their lawyers for pursuing it.

Australia should not head down or even anywhere near the American path, where every suboptimal outcome is manufactured into an injustice and compensation sought from whomever is blamed via their overbearing legal system. In particular, defendants should be confident they can fight and win costs in cases which appear to have an element of legal blackmail; that is, to pressure the defendant to offer an out of court settlement.

I know what would do this spoilt little bitch a world of good: that pouting, whiny, but quite attractive face, full of petulant entitlement needs to be covered in a big load, preferably straight from Fingo’s rainbow coloured schlong. The mother can just put a bag over her head.

A Cheap Way Of Adding To The Stock Of Public Housing

Every liberal democracy has some need for public housing. There will always be people who want employment but cannot find it, often because of physical disabilities or low intelligence and educational achievement. These people cannot afford to rent the vast majority of private accommodation in a prosperous society. In periods of low rental vacancies, landlords will not rent to unemployed or very low income people anyway, since they are greater risks.

If an economy is in recession, the proportion of such people will significantly increase, as people lose their jobs because their employer is struggling financially, or even went broke. Of course, for people in such positions, a mortgage is out of the question. In fact, an increasing number of people lose their homes due to an increase in mortgage defaults.

When there is an oversupply of residential property, due to a combination of speculative construction and poor financing decisions, property prices can fall rapidly. This is what has happened in the USA and Europe, particularly Ireland and Spain.

Although the governments of these countries have greatly decreased revenues, they are attempting to stimulate recovery, or at least ameliorate their recessions by continuing spending on infrastructure, while running large deficits.

If the alternative is massive social unrest due to large scale homelessness, public housing is an imperative. It seems that the massive residential property oversupply and greatly reduced prices in all three of Ireland, Spain and the USA present their governments with a cheap solution to the need for quality public housing: wait for the owners or in particular, the developers to default, then buy the properties cheaply from the bank’s receiver.

The government has no responsibility to bail out speculators, or even people who cannot repay their mortgages. In fact, governments may well have a responsibility not to do so, to avoid the moral hazard of private and corporate investors believing they can socialize losses.

Governments often worry that making large investments in public housing will be inefficient by leaving them overcapitalized when the economy recovers and many public housing tenants can afford private rents or even mortgages.

Firstly, most nations’ populations grow over time. Currently, the populations of the USA and Spain are growing at an average rate of approximately 1% per year, with Ireland (Eire) at about 1.5% after a decline until the late 1960’s. So, long term, the amount of public housing probably needs to increase at these rates.

But it can mostly be built during recessions, when it is needed at a faster rate, then none built in more prosperous times. In fact, some public housing can be sold off to free up government capital for other public works. Alternatively, as more public housing tenants regain employment, they can stay where they are and their rents can be increased to market rates.

Why should governments give people rental vouchers to rent properties from investors who have bought them cheaply from receivers when the government can buy those same properties, then rent them to public housing tenants, at far lower all up cost? When the economy improves, home ownership can be encouraged through purchase schemes, while returning the government’s capital, together with a profit as the property values increase.

True Liberals Vote Coalition or ALP, But Never For The Greens

Belief in the political principles of liberalism does not necessarily wed one to a particular party. There are and always have been liberals in the Liberal Party fighting to prevent it being taken over by conservatives. There are and always have been liberals in the ALP fighting to prevent it being taken over by socialists and their great rule making enterprise.

I voted for Hawke in 1987 and 1990, partly because the Liberal Party under Howard / Peacock did not offer a credible alternative government, but also because the ALP under Hawke’s leadership had implemented productive policies.

No-one but Hawke had the clout to put together The Accord. It worked: lasting, productive microeconomic reform was achieved, via consensus rather than confrontation. The dollar was floated. Tax rates were lowered. The Superannuation and Medicare levies were introduced.

There will always be a minority who oppose the Medicare system and it could certainly be improved, but the overwhelming majority of Australians want a comprehensive public health system, funded by differential insurance premia which are a proportion of people’s incomes.

The Superannuation Guarantee Levy (SGL) was decried as forced savings, but Australians actually needed to be forced. The alternative solution to the growing, unfunded public pension liability was increased taxes going into general revenue. This would not only have meant trusting that future governments would quarantine it for pensions; there is no way an Australian government could pass a bill which set pension entitlements at a proportion of income earned during working life. Yes, the SGL is a tax of sorts, but at least you get to keep the proceeds and then decide how to spend them when you retire. Just because the rules need improvement does not mean the principle isn’t sound. The consequent increase in national savings has been a major contributor to the low interest rate regime of the past 20 years and the increase in local capital available for investment.

One thing that the Hawke / Keating ALP governments did not do well was listen to finance minister Peter Walsh and cut spending. As a result, we had a needlessly high public debt and needlessly high interest rates. This however, was insufficient to warrant a vote for the alternative until 1993 when the ALP lost its way economically as Keating ousted Hawke as Prime Minister and Peter Walsh was succeeded in the Finance portfolio by a succession of weak performers: Ralph Willis, John Dawkins and Kim Beazley.

I voted for the Liberals under Howard, even though the leadership were conservative and not liberal. The ALP alternative was not credible. They had weak leaders, a poor grasp of economic policy and were by then being taken over by a mixture of slippery careerists and middle class social engineers, as if being beholden to corrupt trade unions was not bad enough.

Apart from the obvious and eternal problem of trade unions believing they should control economic policy, one facet of left wing ideology rejected by liberals and conservatives alike is the fractious identity politics and its associated culture of grievance, entitlement and regulation of social interaction which has found a home in the ALP (and is fundamental to the Greens’ platform). That’s why you’ll find many liberals who have voted Liberal for the past 15 years, despite not liking the conservatives.

What prompted me to write this post was an amusing quote from hopeful ALP candidate for Lord Mayor of Sydney, Cassandra (Cass) Wilkinson:

“Inner Sydney Labor is controlled by elitist lefties intent on spending other people’s tax dollars on pet projects”

How right you are, Cass. Additionally, the outer suburban branches are controlled by greasy careerists and wogs with anti Anglo-Saxon agenda.

I’ve been talking about voting for either the Liberals / Nationals or the ALP because in the vast majority of cases your ultimate (preference) vote either goes to one of them or no-one. Sensible liberals do not vote Green because genuine freedom is anathema to the far left. When liberals vote, their primary choice is often a minor party, but then you need to think about who you will ultimately preference: the Libs / Nats, the ALP or if one exists, a strong independent.

I vote for a lot of minor parties to encourage them: the Marijuana Party when they used to run, the Natural Law Party (lunatics, but brightened the political landscape), any non-religious right wing loonies (not because I agree with them - I just like watching the self righteously indignant responses of the left). Then I preference either the Liberals or the ALP (though not lately - given the corrupt, incompetent circus into which they have descended).

Cass Wilkinson wrote an article in the Australian about 12 months ago which summarises the dearth of choices very well. I particularly like the observations:

“Labor is busy turning itself into what its opponents have long accused it of being, a party of clumsy big government socialism.”

“Progressives support some freedoms that suit their social preferences such as gender equity but they don't support freedom as a goal in itself and most of their policy prescriptions are for more government interference in private transactions, decisions and expression.”

I partly disagree with her claim that

“The Liberals are turning into what Labor has long accused them of being: a Tory party.”

The Liberals are not turning into a Tory party: since its inception, there has always been a battle within the party between liberals and conservatives. The Menzies and Howard eras, in which the conservatives held sway are more the historical norm. Their partners, the Nationals have always been dominated by conservatives. At least conservatives believe in small government, economic liberalism, freedom of speech and social liberalism in a few areas. Liberals often have a better chance of converting them on other social issues, one at a time, than they have of converting the left wing ideologues within the ALP on matters of freedom of speech and economic activity.

She summarises:

“The only group which is comprehensively and philosophically liberal is the Liberal Democratic Party, which has a platform of major tax reform and embraces the free movement of people and capital as well as acceptance of recreational drug taking, extreme sports and sex work, taking the policy position ‘if we prohibited everything we disapproved of, nobody would be free.’"

True, and I agree with most of their policies. However in practice, they are a disorganized rabble, with an historic tendency toward equivocation on many practical issues. It’s difficult for a party which covers a broad, centrist spectrum not to be, since some members will hold mostly left of centre views, for example support the left on Aboriginals and asylum seekers, whereas other members will hold views which are mostly slightly to the right of centre.

Although their policy positions are clearly enunciated, their practical application to particular issues often causes divisions within the party membership. It’s very hard for such a party to formulate coherent policy positions via consensus and then stick to them without public bickering by some members, although it seems the party has in recent times moved to the right of centre on many issues, which would cause a lot of middle class do gooders to abandon it. This may ultimately be a good thing in terms of the presentation of coherent, consistent policy.

I’ll vote 1 for the LDP if I see them running, but as discussed above, if you believe in liberalism, it’s pointless voting this way unless you then preference either the Liberals, Nationals or the ALP.

I never would have voted for the Australian Democrats. Despite being created by former Liberal government minister Don Chipp, they quickly attracted the left of centre, namby-pamby middle class do gooders, many of whom have now drifted to the Greens. Some of these people are genuinely unperturbed by (or unaware of) being in bed with socialist extremists in green clothing.

So, in summary, what can believers in liberalism achieve with their vote?

Firstly, be familiar with the positions of any strong independents on the ticket. Many of these people are independent because they are liberals in most respects. Give them your primary vote if you believe they have consistent positions across a wide range of areas. Then make the effort to allocate preferences, below the line if necessary. Remember that the downside of electing independents is that their seat is never safe. Unless their agenda are made absolutely clear, they may well end up being pulled in all directions as they try to please the majority and retain their job.

Vote for the single issue parties if you like that sort of thing. Vote for the LDP if you agree with them - they need the encouragement, or at least need to get their bond back. Don’t vote Unity: they are an ethnic front.

Then preference the Liberals, Nationals or ALP. Put the Greens and the Christian Democrats last. They are extremists and as far from liberalism as they come.

Can’t Have Been Doing Much Then

A government department cutting its staff levels by one third is very strong evidence of overstaffing, lack of productivity, management incompetence and the irrelevance of a large proportion of its function.

Even the staff at the Department of Climate Change knew that many of their tasks were of negligible (or even negative) value. So did the government. But instead of exercising its duty to the taxpayers and shedding unproductive staff, then responsible minister Penny Wong wasted another $175,000 of our money on a consultant’s report into departmental morale. To add to this insult, new Climate Change and Energy minister Greg Combet has now provided a de facto admission of the waste by sacking one third of the department.

Even though the cuts are part of 1500 public service job losses, 300 jobs in the Department of Climate Change are 20% of that total. None of the other departments lost a third of their staff. That’s because the Department of Climate Change itself is unnecessary.

It’s the epitome of the left’s model: respond to problems by creating a huge bureaucracy, preferably with a whole new department, many of whom will be middle level management and utterly useless. Produce mountains of regulations, policy and procedure, instead of actual research and investment. A gigantic fart-fest of technocratic socialism; the great rule making enterprise in action.

If you’re going to have a carbon tax, then you’ll need staff to administer it. But shouldn’t that be done by the ATO?

Climate change research? Fund university departments and the CSIRO adequately through research grants. That’s where you’ll get the most sensible, comprehensive research. If you want some economic analysis, commission the Reserve Bank.

Solar and wind power schemes? The Department of Energy should administer them, after a budget audit from Treasury.

Government venture capitalizing key green power industries like solar panel manufacturers and geothermal power stations? They haven’t yet done this. They already should have.

Where’s this Renewable Energy Fund? It could be making some very useful investments. I bet it has enough staff of its own. But what are they doing? Not much, as far as I can tell.

An equity investment in Silex Solar Panels to prevent the factory’s closure? Didn’t happen. 45 jobs lost. Hopefully they will support Tindo Solar.

Geodynamics has received some government grants, but more sensible would have been an equity investment when it needed to raise capital.

All the departments and institutions necessary to handle climate change policy already existed. It just needed some competent, innovative people to be employed within the ministry to co-ordinate the plan (if there is one).

But no, we’ll create a whole new department, so bloated that even its own staff cannot deceive themselves as to the value of its output, then quietly decommission it, though not before a few hundred million dollars of our taxes have been wasted.

New Greens’ leader Christine Milne said the government:

“Should not be sacking people whose job it is to help protect the climate. It's hard to see how the carbon price and investments in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency can be rolled out effectively if the Department of Climate Change loses a third of its staff.”

I can see how: as discussed above.

I suppose the saving grace is that the extreme left is not in charge of climate policy implementation. If Christine Milne had her way, the Department of Climate Change staff would have gone from 900 to 6000, not 600.