Thoughts on Freedom

New research has led to the discovery of a new element - the heaviest yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium  (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- to 6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

via The Adam Smith Institute

“The general principal is that it’s not sustainable that we continue to give criminals and corrupt police a monopoly to sell cannabis. I don’t want to see that [industry] fall into the hands of tobacco companies or rapacious businessmen. I’d like to see it fall into the hands of the failed business people Australia seems so good at producing or the Australia Post that seems so successful in driving away customers.”

Great quote from the director of the alcohol and drug service at St Vincent’s Hospital, Alex Wodak.

Miranda Devine and Harry Clarke are not impressed. Whilst Andrew Bolt hasn’t commented specifically on Wodak’s postal plan, he never makes any secret of his strong feelings against decriminalising drug-using. Which is odd for a man who last week wrote this insightful little piece about the pernicious effects of Rudd’s state bossy-boots ordering us around like naughty schoolchildren (Nanny’s a ninny).

It’s also odd that Miranda Devine couldn’t care less about the 1 in 5 sixteen year-olds who admit to binge drinking every week but is terrified that 1 in 7 high school students have used cannabis ‘at some time in the past 12 months’!  When was the last time you saw a spliffed up dope-head violently assaulting a innocent passer-by?

Harry’s a nanny-stater through and through but MIranda and Bolty aren’t.  Guys - where’s the consistency in your arguments?

So as a reminder, here’s the anti-nanny state, pro-choice, treat-an-adult-like-an-adult argument.  

Binge drinking, smoking Marlboro 20-a-day, never exercising, eating junk food all day and regularly smoking joints are all dumb things to do. Really dumb. The government’s job is to educate us as to just how dumb this is. It can incentivise us to give up these dumb habits by taxing them. It can run adverts on TV with actors dressed up as ghouls warning us of the horrors of the mid-morning ciggie break. However, their job is not to ban stuff or order us around. That’s what they do in Cuba.

Smoking the odd joint is not going to kill you. But that’s not the point. By legalising drugs you ensure quality control (the biggest threat to a sensible, adult drug user), you collect a small fortune in taxes which you can recycle back into education and treatment clinics, you release half the (non-violent) prison population, you free up 80% of police time to pursue violent criminals, you put organised crime out of business and you stop infantilising adults. What’s not to like.

By the way - check out the comments section from Harry’s article.  They rip him to shreds as a jurassic old fogey.

Update I - Mark points to this Cato article which reveals the costs of policing the drugs war to be 16 times the benefits.

Sukrit makes the excellent point that if we can’t even keep drugs out of securely guarded prisons, what hope do the streets have?

The newly formed British Libertarian Party now has a manifesto. Their policies are broadly similar to Australia’s own libertarian party, the LDP, with a few differences.  Interesting to note the much more robust defence policies of British libertarianism as compared with the more passive variety that exists in Australia and the US.  Also note that aim to abolish income tax rather than introduce a flat 30% tax favoured by the LDP.

The British electoral system does not favour small parties. Hence there has been much reluctance from British libertarians in the past to set up a new party, believing that they would rather have their prominent supporters in parties that are capable of gaining power.  There is no chance of the BLP ever gaining a single seat.  The other key difference is that there is arguably a much greater need for a classical liberal party in Britain as the state is so much more prevalent in people’s lives than here in Australia (hard to believe, i know) and the Opposition Tories have become much more statist than their Thatcherite predecessors.   Government spending as a proportion of GDP is around 43% in the UK versus 23% in Australia (not counting the UK’s massive off-balance sheet liabilities such as pensions and PFI) and the economy is sagging under eleven years of regulation and state interference.

Their main policies are;

i) The abolition of personal income tax

Read more »

Senior nephrologist, Dr. Gavin Carney, wants the law changed so that young Australians can sell one of their kidneys to the government for $50,000. 

Trading in organs is illegal in Australia carrying a penalty of six months in jail. Last year just 343 kidneys were donated despite over 1800 people on a waiting list. Dr. Carney is exasperated at the low organ donation rate in Australia - apparently one of the lowest in the developed world at just 9.4 donors per million people. 

“People just don’t seem willing to give their organs away for free.” said a frustrated Dr. Carney. 

The chairman of the Renal Transplant Advisory Committee, Scott Campbell, disagrees with Dr. Carney, saying, 

“There’s little doubt that you’ll get more kidneys if you offer money but it will only bring out people who are willing to gamble on adverse health outcomes in exchange for $50,000 because they are in desperate need, such as those in mortgage stress or drug addicts.  Money alters perspectives on honesty and you’ll get people who do not tell the truth because they risk losing the cash.”

He is right. 

Britain has the same problem. Last year the government caused outrage amongst large sections of the population by attempting to change the donation of organs to become the default option rather than a conscious choice. (ie if you don’t want to donate your organs, you have to specify so).

Neither option seems workable to me (one for practical reasons and one for moral reasons). So how do you encourage people to donate?

Update I - apparently 30% of SMH readers would flog their kidneys for $50 grand.

 Last Sunday, i took my eight year-old son and father-in-law for an evening fishing trip on Sydney’s Middle Harbour. As we motored past a good spot for bream and flathead near Castle Rock beach, my father-in-law suddenly yelled to me to turn sharp right. Two guys were fishing no more than 20 yards in front of us sat in a little tinny anchored up in a main shipping channel. There were no lights on the boat, the only illumination coming from a hand-held torch inside the boat. Without the moon, Sydney Harbour is pitch black. It was a very near miss.

Early yesterday morning, a bunch of partying youngsters were not so lucky. Their boat was hit by a fishing trawler near Bradley’s Head and six of those on board died. It was a tragic accident. Our prayers are with the relatives of those who lost their children. I cannot imagine how they must be feeling today.

But a ‘tragic accident’ is not good enough for our salacious media.  They need an angle and that means finding someone or something to blame. The local papers repeatedly quote a local fisherman, Andrew Ogle, who claims that he was ‘deeply concerned” about overcowding and too much alcohol and predicted that ‘there goes tomorrow’s front page story’.  Already our sympathies are checked - alcohol?   overcrowding?  stolen boat? too fast? (‘the boat roared off engines screaming’).  Bloody hoons.

But let’s save our damning commentary until the inquest is held. Let’s leave open the possibility that this might just have been a tragic accident where no-one is to blame. And please, for the love of God, let’s not introduce yet more regulations for those wishing to use Sydney’s beautiful waterways.

NSW secretary of the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, Andrew Williamson is clear that more regulation is needed. He won’t wait for the findings of the inquest to be aired. He knows who is to blame. “It is an indictment of NSW Maritime that we have had 10 deaths [on the harbour] in two years on their watch. If we want to stop people killing themselves on the harbour, reform is what has got to happen.”

Mr. Williamson - you are a fucking idiot and a fucking disgrace.

Update I - the inevitable cry of ’something must be done’ just got louder.  

It certainly is very easy to obtain a boat license in NSW. Applicants have to take a written test but unlike a car, no practical test is required.  But this is a red herring. Boating deaths are not caused by new drivers failing to remember 100 pages of theory or being unable to reverse into a tight mooring space. They are caused by carelessness, drunkenness, stupidity and bad luck - none of which can be reduced by more regulation. 

Victorian schools are being encouraged to begin assemblies with a ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremony acknowledging the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land.

Victorian Principals Association President, Fred Ackerman, heartily encouraged the trend describing it as ‘good practice, and appropriate’. 

To illustrate the offensivenss of this ‘appropriate good practice’, let’s take an example from my home country.  Imagine if schools in England began their assemblies by reminding England’s growing population of Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Slavs and Africans to ‘respectfully acknowledge the [Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, Normans and Celts] who are the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we stand.’ 

Fair enough?  No, of course not. It would be rightly slammed as offensive, divisive and appallingly racist.  One of the great features of citizenship in England and in Australia (i thought) is that all are equal in the eyes of the law. This new direction would mean judging people by the colour of their skin rather than their personality; it would mean valuing them on the basis of their ancestors not themselves. It would be racism and it would be wrong.

So why is it ok in Australia?

In July, i am due to take my Citizenship Test, having been a permanent resident in this fine country for two years. Am i right in thinking that i will be a second class citizen in Australia because i am not ‘indigenous’?

Andrew Bolt has more.

Update I - my sincerest apologies for using the word ‘indigenous‘. I hadn’t realised that it is no longer politically acceptable to use it. I wasn’t aware that it ‘robbed the traditional owners of Australia of an identity’. Won’t happen again.

Update II - thanks to Andrew Bolt for the link to this post.  Check out the comments section for an ancient English history lesson!

Forty years ago, one US dollar bought 900 mg of gold. This morning you would only get 29.57 mg - a 97% devaluation.  In just eight years, it has halved in value against the AUD $$. But is this the beginning of the end?  Is the US $$ bear market almost over?   You know the saying that when the financial news moves from the pink pages to the front pages, it’s time to change strategy.

As the proud holder of no US dollars, i’m less concerned by Ben Bernanke’s eagerness to swap mortgage securities for treasuries, his desperation in bailing out third tier investment banks, his urgency in slashing interest rates in the face of rapidly rising inflation and his manic flooding of the repo market with liquidity.  I am concerned, however, that Gisele refuses to be paid in US dollars and that Jay Z chooses to flash a wad of Euro notes rather than $$. Buy dollars.

watch at 0:50

Now that the 2020 magic-dust is settling, some themes are starting to emerge. The over-arching vision of this middle class love-in is a desire for a much bigger, more powerful and more controlling state. A state that pokes its beak into every aspect of our lives. A state that no longer simply seeks to help its citizens make better-informed decisions, but one that reduces individual choice, removes personal responsibility and forces its people to change their behaviour.  

So is this now consensus thinking? Is an all powerful nanny-state now the Establishment view?  Is George Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ no longer read as a warning but an instruction manual? Are there are any dissenters?  Rather worryingly, the editorials of all four national newspapers were very positive about the summit as was the leader of the Opposition.

Brendan Nelson, has said he will take these ideas ‘seriously’.

The Age believes these ideas deserve ‘prompt backing‘. 

The Australian was more guarded but generally offered an upbeat view of the summit.

The SMH was very excited though did note that the ‘individual recommendations were largely unremarkable.’

The Daily Telegraph called the summit a worthwhile exercise and was generally the most fawning of all four major papers (though they were furious with the ‘irresponsible‘ idea to legalise drugs).

So is anyone in Australia in favour of liberty anymore?

A more benign view is that this is a ‘top of the market trade’ - the product of an economy with 100% employment, half a generation of uninterrupted economic growth and unprecedented health and wealth.

Let’s hope it’s the latter.

Update I

Thank goodness for the IPA. 

Most bloggers (from all political shades) were unimpressed. So why does the media love it so much?   Are they losing touch?  Or do they feel pressured to report it in glowing terms?

Update II

Andrew Norton was there but bored

Kevin Rudd set the tone for the 2020 summit with this, ‘the job of government is to set a strategic vision for the nation.’  The PM then urged delegates to ‘ignore’ critics of the summit. Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, agrees with Kev saying he quite likes the summit, as there is ‘some method to the madness’.

So that’s it folks - there is simply no opposition to 2020. What they said is going to happen. So what did they come up with? What are the ideas that our brightest and best 1,000 (gender balanced of course) have produced? 

I’ve tried to pick up the actual ideas as opposed to the vapid, nauseating, white picket-fence, white middle class, patronising apple-pie dirge (for example in the ‘productivity’ room, the participants proposed encouraging ‘children to try new things without fear of failure’). Fuck me, why hadn’t i thought of that before? 

So take a deep breath, pour yourself a stiff brandy (whilst you still can) and come with me for a walk about as far as you can travel away from Liberty Street…

Social Policy

“We’ve got our fair share of welfare workers who came with a clear focus on 5% of the population” remarked Chair, Tim Costello. Do you really want to hear what they came up with?  ok - big deep breath needed …

A national paid maternity scheme.

A new health equality commission.

To legalise all drugs to reduce prison overcrowding. (yes!)

Barry Jones wants everyone to be forced to live in densely populated urban hubs. (jeez -who the hell invited the Brownshirts?)

The introduction of a rent-to-buy scheme by 2020 whereby the government guarantees the mortgages of those who can’t afford them. (err…anyone here heard of sub-prime?)

Federal recognition of gay marriage.  (yes!)

Maxine McCew wants a 50% quota on female MPs (a teensy bit sexist perhaps?  why not a quota on all Christians, Muslims and ginger-haired people too?) 

Read more »

Magic…

via Andrew Bolt.

Judge him by what he does not what he says.

So far Kevin Rudd is proving to be every bit as politically astute as his hero, Tony Blair. He has signed Kyoto, apologised to the Stolen Generations, ripped up the hated WorkChoices legislation, declared war on plastic bags, made all the right noises about Tibet, won glowing praise for his foreign trip and has now gathered 1,000 of Australia’s finest for a chin-wag about the future. In the process, he has utterly destroyed the hapless Dr. Nelson. 

But will Super Kev, like Tony, be a man of words not deeds?  A man of grandiose vision but incapable of action? Or does he actually have an agenda beyond simply staying in power.  I suspect he does, and the early signs are not good.  

In addition to getting rid of WorkChoices, and being forced into an acutely embarrassing U-turn over their plan to reduce carer’s payments, Kevin Rudd’s government has now made or are mulling two small but significant policy changes; 

i) Yesterday he announced that he was forcing petrol companies to fix their prices for the following day and that the ACCC would then distribute this information to motorists. The scheme will start on Dec 15 and will be reviewed after one year. Consumer Affairs Minister, Chris Bowen, thinks this is a ‘pro-market, pro-competitive reform’.  This Orwellian doublespeak is straight out of the Tony Blair handbook. Note to Mr. Bowen - when the government forces a company to take action under threat of fines or imprisonment, that is not a pro-market action. It is called regulation. Some are convinced it will lead to higher prices. It may do. Or it may not. But that’s not really the point.  The point is that it’s yet more government interference into private business. And that’s an ominous start.

ii) Two years ago, single parents were entitled to full welfare payments until their child turned 15. There was no need to seek work. The Howard government sensibly lowered this age requirement to when the child started school. However, there is a clause stating that single parents may turn down an offer of work if it only leaves them $50 a week better off. The Rudd government is thinking of raising this. Peter Saunders of the CIS has an excellent piece on this mad poverty-perpetuating idea in The Australian. Is Kevin Rudd not aware that Bill Clinton in 1996 was able to dramatically raise the living standards of American single parents by reducing their entitlemements?

Kevin Rudd always makes a big deal about the need for a more competitive economy but his first four actual policy changes (WorkChoices, Carer’s U-turn, petrol regulation and more welfare) will lower the productivity of the economy requiring higher interest rates. Is he aware of this but just doesn’t care? Or worse, is he unaware of the consequences of his decisions?   It’s still too early to tell but the initial signs are that the Rudd government is not going to be as ‘pro-market’ as previous Labor administrations.  The Budget next month is an excellent chance for the (so far) disappointing Swan, the very promising Tanner and the ‘who the hell knows’ Ruddster to show us what they are really made of.  

“Liberty, if it means anything at all, is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”

There is one ideal that unites all those who love liberty, a concept that also unites the free world - the right to speak freely.

Freedom of speech is not the right to say anything to anyone. There are caveats. These include inciting violence (Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain is perfectly entitled to his opinion that homosexuality is ‘not acceptable’ but he would not be entitled to incite physical attacks on gays - not that he does, of course). Defamation, slander and libel are illiberal (i cannot accuse someone of being a drug dealer without firm evidence) and inciting a riot (i cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre) is also a no-no. Free speech is also subordinate to private property rights. For instance, commenters here who shout ‘you’re a f***ing idiot’ will see their comments deleted.

That said, the act of ‘causing offence’ is most definitely not an exception. As Orwell wrote over 60 years ago, it is the essence of free speech.

Every so often, our belief in free speech is tested. Geert Wilder’s latest movie, Fitna, is such a test. Let’s see how the world fared;

Fail

i) Australia - ‘In Australia, we believe in the right to freedom of expression, but we don’t believe in that right to incite racial hatred.’

Stephen Smith, Australia’s Foreign Minister

ii) The EU - ‘The European Union and its member states apply the principle of the freedom of speech which is part of our values and traditions. However, it should be exercised in a spirit of respect for religious and other beliefs and convictions.’

Slovenia, rotating head of the EU

Read more »

1. Oh the shame. Power useage in Sydney actually increased during Earth Hour last night.

2. Any political party looking to write a new environmental policy would do well to take a look at these Top Ten Tips from Depleted Cranium.

3. Sir Posh-Double-Barrelled-Surname, ex-head of Shell wants all cars that fail to run at more than 35 miles to the gallon banned. Shame he didn’t think of that during his 39 years at Shell.

4. Ever wondered how much you should charge for a job interview?

5. Is this George Orwell’s Ministry of Love?

6. More casualties in the War on Drugs.

7.Yobbo points out that a line of cocaine is now cheaper than a pint of beer.

8. More support for John McCain from libertarians.

9.Michael Totten on why Kosovo and Israel have more in common than you might think.

10. A review of Paul Krugman’s article praising bank regulation. ‘Let’s party like it’s 1929′.

11. And finally, the blog hit of 2008, ‘Stuff White People Like’, has secured a book deal.

Well, Fitna is out. You can watch it here.

Some thoughts on the movie -

It’s a much more professional production than i had been expecting.

Geert Wilders is either a very brave or a very suicidal man.

It is quite likely to provoke a wider and more violent reaction than the cartoons.

It doesn’t pull any punches and is very graphic.

Further comment from Andrew Bolt.

Update I - Wilders may be in hot water from places he didn’t expect.

1. Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist of one of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Muhammed is upset because his cartoon is used in the film without his permission. He believes this is a copyright infringement, and has asked the newspaper Jyllands-Posten to take legal steps.

2.Wilders mistakenly used a photo of Dutch-Moroccan rapper Salah Edin instead of Mohammed Bouyeri, Theo van Gogh’s murderer. He is also suing.

The video has now been uploaded 2.2 million times.

Update II - Liveleak have now pulled the movie from their website citing “threats of a serious nature made to staff”. Wilders appears to have made his point loud and clear. However, it is still available here. (thanks Skeptic)

The EU and the UN have both somewhat predictably called it a ‘hate film’ and are trying to get it banned (hell, who cares about free speech anymore). Despite this, Dutch legal authorities have claimed the film breaks no Dutch laws.

Update III - Australia’s Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, shows his total lack of understanding of the concept of free speech. “In Australia, we believe in the right to freedom of expression, but we don’t believe in abusing that right to incite racial hatred.”

Translation - we don’t believe in free speech.

A guest post by David Leyonhjelm

Legislation currently before the South Australian parliament introduces a new concept in law enforcement - Firearms Prohibition Orders. It is a further step in the advance of the police state.

The SA Minister for Police says the legislation is a response to the Tonic Nightclub shootings last year and “targets criminals such as criminal bikie gangs and their associates that resort too readily to violence to advance their illegal activities.”

He also says it represents a “first step in a process of refocusing the attention of police from regulation of the legitimate firearms community toward combating criminals who wield firearms in the pursuit of their criminal endeavours.”

The explanation to the Bill says that the focus should be on the behaviour of persons rather than the firearm itself. That all sounds good. Sporting shooters have long argued that the focus of the law should be on those who use guns for illegal purposes, not those who harm nobody else. However, as with similar laws involving drugs and terrorism, the consequences go well beyond what is intended. What the government says and what it is doing are quite different.

The key purpose of the Firearms Prohibition Order (FPO) is to give the police a new tool to control bikie gangs by focusing on access to guns. However, the legislation does not define a ‘criminal bikie’ and FPOs are not confined to them. Rather, it relies on the term ‘fit and proper person’. Thus, apart from applying to anyone with a known history of serious crime or violence, FPOs can also be applied to anyone suspected of being a danger to life or property if they possess a firearm. Life includes their own.

The Bill places a legal onus on medical professionals to report to the Registrar anyone they consider ‘may’ be a risk to themselves or others if they possessed firearms. They are indemnified if they get it wrong.

Read more »

A very happy Easter holidays to all of our Christian and non-Christian readers!

Contrary to the predictions of a demographic Islamic boom by the likes of Mark Steyn, it would appear that, somewhat surprisingly, Christianity is the world’s fastest growing religion. This claim is made in ‘The Next Christendom’ by Philip Jenkins and is reviewed in Quadrant and the NY Times.

But it is not the Western-centric Christianity that is providing the growth. The self-loathing and guilt-ridden calls by the head of the Anglican Church, Dr. Williams, to accommodate Sharia Law, or by our very own Reverend John Evans to dump Good Friday as a national holiday and replace it with a National Reconciliation Day recognising Aborigines, or by the Vatican to desist from buying plastic bags are not exactly putting bums on pews.

No - the growth is coming from ‘the poorest of the poor’ in Africa and Asia and the brand is Pentecostalism. It is spreading so fast because of the instruction to its members to go forth and proselytise. Pentecostals (or ‘Charismatics’) are even growing fast here in Australia, thanks to the Hillsong Church (as made famous by Australian Idol).

Authoritarian, patriarchal and deeply conservative, the Pentecostals are now a force to be reckoned with.

Dutch authorities are in full scale panic mode after Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, pleaded that “there is no reason for panic”. Controversial politician, Geert Wilders, has made an anti-Islamic film called ‘Fitna’ (the Arab word for ‘discord’) and according to the Washington Post is threatening to show it on a special website, www.fitnathemovie.com, after all of Holland’s national broadcasters have refused to air the 15 minute film. The socialist Interior Minister, Guste Terhoorst, has even accused Wilders of ‘destabilising the entire country’.

Said Wilders, “The film will show that the Koran isn’t a dead work, but the face of Islam - a tremendous hazard”. He calls the Koran “the latest test to Western democracies since Nazism and communism”. The Iranian justice minister has requested his Dutch counterpart to ban the film, calling it “satanical and undermining”.

The Dutch government has thus far refused to act, citing the principle of free speech. The film is rumoured to be shown on Easter Sunday - the most important day of the year for Christians. Read more »

The ALS poll is currently showing a massive two women libertarian readers out of 63 who have voted.  Is the ALS site a bastion of aggressive men asserting their dominance over their peers like my dog pissing on the boundaries of his territory?  Or is it just that libertarianism is a guy thing?

If the latter (which i suspect is the case, because unlike that rowdy rabble at Catallaxy, we are all very polite over at the ALS and in touch with our feminine sides), then why are there so few women libertarians? Perhaps only a woman can answer this question. It would be wonderful to get a variety of views from female readers but sadly, if past history is anything to go by, i suspect it will largely be up to us guys to ponder this question amongst ourselves.

Lew Rockwell’s blog is a good place to start. A bunch of libertarian women looked at this issue a few years back. Allison Brown holds the view that the first step is to acknowledge the obvious truth that men and women are different creatures.

‘Women’s behaviour is governed by feelings whilst men are governed by logic. We are nurturers and we expect the ‘have’s’ to take care of the ‘have-nots”, the strong to take care of the weak. We want everyone to like us and we want everyone to like each other. Men, to put it simply, are more independent in thought and in action.’

Allison is unlikely to win first prize in the feminist’s annual convention.

Read more »

VIVA, or the Vegetarians International Voice for Animals, are picking a fight with Pete Garrett about the planned culling of 400 kangaroos on government property in Canberra.The Minister for the Beds are Burning is being made to sweat by none other than Sir Paul McCartney, who has urged Australians to protect kangaroos from ‘a barbaric industry that slaughters them for meat.’  Quite what business it is of Sir Paul, who lives on the other side of the planet, will have to remain a mystery.  Or Chrisse Hynde for that matter. Or Heather McCartney.

McCartney’s message of loving the ‘roo was posted on the website,  www.savethekangaroo.com.. This site helpfully points out that 6.5 million kangaroos are legally culled every year.

And we are arguing about 400?

The whole animal rights movement is as bonkers as the Vatican’s ‘Sins and Penances’ Chief.

The Catholic Church has added to the list of the seven deadly sins.

Apparently polluting, genetic engineering, obscene riches, taking drugs, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice are to join pride, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and sloth as originally defined by Pope Gregory the Sixth in the 6th Century.

Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, named the new mortal sins in an interview with the Vatican newspaper yesterday, saying,“New sins have appeared on the horizon of humanity as a corollary of the unstoppable process of globalisation. God was offended not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour’s wife but by ruining the environment, conducting immoral scientific experiments and genetic manipulation.”

I confess i’m not a Bible expert but i can’t find the one about ruining the environment anywhere.

Via Andrew Bolt.

Update; Catholics in full damage limitation mode! Some commenters have referred us to this article suggesting that it’s all a fuss about nothing. Yes - of course The London Times was not suggesting that the Vatican intended to officially update the Seven Deadly Sins. They were merely doing what we and many others are doing - poking fun at a ridiculous statement from the Vatican’s Chief ‘Penances and Sins’ guy. Talk utter nonsense and expect to be ridiculed.