"Canadian Reporters Have No Idea What Visiting Australian PM is Saying" - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: jolshefsky
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 02:25:36 pm
content: As The Lapine's slogan goes, "Rabbits eat onions". A little Canadian humor directed at the big island of Oceania:http://thelapine.ca/canadian-reporters-have-no-idea-what-visiting-australian-pm-is-saying/.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 06:08:25 pm
content: Have you ever turned on the subtitles on any of Dave's videos? Those auto generated transcriptions are hilarious and often have absolutely no bearing to what is being spoken by Dave.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 11:44:41 pm
content: The last few seconds say it all

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 03:06:37 am
content: Garbage collection of nonsense laws. That's a refreshing idea. We need it here as they keep piling. The recent ones are bans on free supermarket bags and leaf blowers. No surprise the 'common good' types hate him.http://www.mychristiandaily.com/index.php/aus/169-news-item-1-australia-nz/9870-tony-abbott-s-war-on-red-tape-starts-with-repeal-day

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 03:35:43 am
content: Quote from: zapta on June 14, 2014, 03:06:37 am"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. … because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. I believe our government is too large and intrusive, that we do not get our money's worth for the roughly 40 percent of our income that is spent by government ... How can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government, that means cutting taxes." - Milton Friedman

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 05:41:56 am
content: QuoteAs a concept repealing nonsense laws has alotof merit, and simple law does seem to discourage loopholes.But which so called nonsense laws are being repealed?I for one think that you should pay for the disposable of goods you buy as you buy them. Including plastic bags.And leaf blowers, well if you want to use energy blowing leaves then I think you should pay some amount of tax for any polluting byproduct of this process.IMO some laws that do need repealing or fixing are Family Trusts, Diesel rebate, discounted capital gains tax, superannuation tax loopholes, offshoring of profits by multinationals, Family tax benefit, RnD incentives, Drought relief (they should get insurance like anyone else). Yeah the more you look at it the list gets bigger, I'm not holding my breath waiting for these changes though.This guy who is Prime Minister is a bad joke and is well summed up by the word 'dickhead'.What would be good for Australia and the world for that matter is if the Liberal Party got rid of him and brought in Malcolm Turnbull.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 06:02:56 am
content: I am all for getting old redundant stuff off the law books. Things like needing a walker in front of a car to warn horses and other old superceded stuff. Ideally many things can be repealed and made simpler. Who can comply with a 900 volume tax law? Or local law that has stuff dating back to when horses were the fastest method of transport, and houses were lit by candles. Ideally any new law should also repeal one old one or more at the same time, so that it gets down to a manageable level where " the average competent person" can understand at least the broad principles of all of it.

author: ecat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 06:56:54 am
content: Quote from: Stonent on June 14, 2014, 03:35:43 amSo to paraphrase that quote from Mr Friedman:"The problem is taxes. The problem is not taxes. I'm in favour of cutting taxes. The Government should cut taxes."I think I know the book he got that idea from..."Money is a national resource and as such belongs to every citizen but every resource needs guardians to ensure it is put to the best possible use and not squandered away.Time and time again history shows the best guardians of money are the rich. They became rich through their skilled handling of finances and they remain rich through these same means. The poor most often remain poor. We live in the same country, befit from the same systems, have access to the same opportunities, yet they still remain poor. The evidence is all around, the evidence is obvious.Taxation is insanity. It removes money from the very hands of those most capable of keeping hold of it and puts it into the hands of those most likely to squander it. Allow a rich man to keep a million dollars and you can be assured he will invest it in an attempt to make himself two million dollars but take that million from his hand and distribute it amongst a million poor people and it is spent in an instant on drink and drugs and whores.So government, please listen to we the economists and financiers. Have we ever lied to you? No. Have we ever let you down? No. We have never robbed a bank or held a gun to your head demanding handouts. We are the guardians, the trusted and indeed some less humble than I would say, the rightful owners of the money. All of it." - A.N.O Economist (Masters Degree in Self Interest and Sucking Rich Dick)Apologies for drifting off topic.

author: TMM
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 07:24:24 am
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on June 13, 2014, 11:44:41 pmThe sad thing is that they didn't have to search high and low for those clips - almost all of his speeches are like that. I'm still lost for words as to how he got elected.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 02:26:33 pm
content: Quote from: ecat on June 14, 2014, 06:56:54 amIt's not about class war and rich and poor, it's about personal liberty. Taxes are confiscation of one's property and are often transferred to other citizens.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 02:43:00 pm
content: It's interesting that in Australia, 'liberal' really mean a liberal, as in classic liberal. I like it. Around here the term has now an opposite meaning referring to big government labor and socialists.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 02:57:17 pm
content: Here is another proof that garbage collection is importanthttp://www.click2houston.com/news/man-living-on-roof-after-home-too-littered-to-live-indoors/26469224We have a class of legislators who measure their success by the number of laws they pass.Kudos to Abbott for performing a garbage collection, even a modest one.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 03:28:36 pm
content: QuoteWhat you don't understand is that he isn't actually performing a garbage collection. He is going to start some sort of enquiry into performing a garbage collection.They are not the same so don't think that they are.So no kudos till he actually does some garbage collection and then decide whether to give him kudos or not.QuoteThe Liberal party apparently does hold liberal ideals close, but some glaring exceptions are Gay Marriage, Immigration policies, Euthanasia.Really they are just profession politicians who dont seem very liberal, run their own agenda (which is fine as we voted for them) but really will say anything if it suits.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 03:47:18 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 14, 2014, 02:26:33 pmLand is not property, land is the commons.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 04:13:36 pm
content: Quote from: ecat on June 14, 2014, 06:56:54 amI realise the satirical intent of your posting,but where did you get that load of old codswallop from?Not the quote from General Pinochet's best mate,the other one.It sounds a bit extreme,even for Gina Rinehart.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 05:41:02 pm
content: Unfortunately, in the USA (and other parts of the world) the masses have mostly been suckered into the false blue versus red, liberal versus conservative, go team go mentality. The corporate state has been able to hoodwink people into focusing on emotional hot topics such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. They goad the naive on the right by throwing around emotionally charged labels like "socialist" while getting them to do their dirty work in the name of "lower taxes" while they goad the naive on the left by having their sock puppet politicians give lip service to the idea of "social justice' - while they take away their civil liberties and steal more of the their wealth by other means.The newest twist is the Tea Party- which is being used as catch basin to pull in the shallow thinking Libertarians who don't quite understand the game but have figured out that the radical right wingers in the republican party aren't doing enough to further their idealistic goals.The problem with Libertarianism is that just like Communism, it sounds great in theory but in practice it's a whole different matter. It's become just another facade to provide pseudo intellectual cover for the greedy and uncaring who already have gotten theirs. They want to indulge in all the benefits of a civil society in a country with a developed, publicly funded infrastructure and social safety net but don't want to pay for any of it - "get your government hands off my Medicare'.... etc, etc.It all designed to keep the eyes of the masses off the ball. Get them to vote against their self interest and play right into the hands of the Plutocracy...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 09:43:15 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 14, 2014, 05:41:02 pmPersonal liberty is the core value on which the US was established upon. It's sad that elements on the left try replace it with the socialist 'greater common good' and 'equal outcomes' that increases the population' dependency on big government and stir a class war as an excuse to take from citizen A and give to citizen B.Voting for personal liberty and government fiscal responsibility is not against my interests.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 10:20:29 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 14, 2014, 09:43:15 pmPerhaps, but it's not the one it grew up upon ... it grew on the confiscation of land, it grew on the massive monopolies granted railroad companies and their subsequent trust busting, it grew on the imminent domain powers necessary to form the interstates, it grew on cheap oil and the large income derived from it by government for federal lands allowing it to spread some wealth around.The core values did not shape the US, the state did in their direct opposition ... and in the last half century it created vast wealth inequality in the process, it seems strange to me to see cementing that wealth inequality in place as a good idea (by slashing most taxes except those needed to pay for protecting property rights of course).Especially where it concerns land.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 12:05:43 am
content: Quote from: Marco on June 14, 2014, 10:20:29 pmFreedom creates inequality of outcomes. So is the FIFA world cup. It's not the role of the government to force an equal outcome, taking from citizen A to give to citizen B. That's oppression.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 02:57:12 am
content: Mostly,it isn't citizen "B" who wants the rich to pay a bit more---it's citizen"C",who is a normal working person,tired of paying for everything,& who would like those who benefit more to pay more.Many people are rich because their father,grandfather,or great-grandfather became wealthy by hard work,or in some cases,chicanery.They don't really like Capitalism,they really would love to be Feudal "Lords & Ladies of the Manor",with Serfs bowing & scraping to them.Great-Grandad might have been the archetypal Ebenezer Scrooge,living in a cheap & nasty house,begrudging every penny spent on non-essentials,but this mob think it is their right to live like kings.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 07:10:48 am
content: I'll toss another quote, this time from former President, Calvin Coolidge:QuoteOf course back then there was no system for the unemployed. If you didn't work, you didn't eat.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 11:20:42 am
content: Quote from: Stonent on June 15, 2014, 07:10:48 amAnd,of course,dear old Cal had a University education,was the product of reasonably prosperous parents & had a Grandparent & Great-Grandparent who were both elected Politicians.Hardly in the "log cabin to White House" tradition.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 11:26:58 am
content: QuoteI am all for having the rich AND the poor to pay more.If it is a government of the people for the people, it better be funded by the people, all of them.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 11:30:53 am
content: The rich actually pays more today than they did decades ago, both in terms of absolute $s or percentages. I think in NYC, like 5000 richest pay something like 60% of the city's income taxes.Our issue is that there are always going to be people who want to redistribute other people's money. The easiest solution, and the happiest solution for all, is to separate them into two parts, the Right States of America where you keep your money, and the Left States of America where you redistribute other people's money to your hearts' content.In 10 years (likely sooner), we will know for sure which system doesn't work.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 11:41:40 am
content: Who is going to look after all you rich guys when "everybody is rich & nobody is rich"?By the way,it's not all about you Yanks!

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 11:52:38 am
content: QuoteI am OK to sacrifice myself as long as we realize your dream of having "those who benefit more to pay more."

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 11:54:38 am
content: QuoteThat's a valid point.Maybe we should just let you have the freedom to fight global warming while we enjoy cheap oil. Win-win for all.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 12:20:25 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on June 15, 2014, 11:54:38 amWhy not? Works for China!

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 12:46:19 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 15, 2014, 12:05:43 amI don't agree with that, but my point is that the inequality in place has been partly created by the state ... even if you don't acknowledge that a laissez faire society can lead to unstoppable wealth concentration, the state did concentrate it and beyond what is desirable IMO.Lets just take it to the logical extreme, lets say the state has conspired to concentrate all land ownership into the hand of a single person. After that it goes small and eliminates all property taxes. Would the ideological purity of your freedom ideal be worth that outcome? Or would you compromise and argue in favour of wealth redistribution? (Like most classical liberals did, the Rothbardian madness didn't exist when the US was founded ... the Lockean Provisio did already exist though.)PS. Wilfred, it was very veiled sarcasm (until the last few lines). I failed to notice it at first too.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 12:59:55 pm
content: QuoteThat sounds like an example of inefficient market. The developer was simply taking advantage of it. The same opportunity (to buy the hospital) presumably was available to you and others and too bad you didn't take advantage of it.Cannot blame the developer for being smart or savvy.QuoteDon't see a problem here. Maybe he can argue for a lower rate on the basis that it is more efficient for the city to provide utility services to 100 units at one location rather than 100 units at 100 different locations.QuoteSo it is fair for them to get more out of the system as they pay more into the system. I think we agree on that.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 01:04:38 pm
content: QuoteI saw the extreme in your example, just not logic.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 01:11:24 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on June 15, 2014, 01:04:38 pmPithy, but the margins here are large enough for the logical flaws to be pointed out ... I'm going to assume you have nothing until proven wrong though.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 01:31:29 pm
content: Quote$500K is more than $5K, right?If you are arguing that he isn't paying more on a per-unit basis, you need to justify why he needs to? Each of his units presumably is enjoying the same services from the city government, so why should he pay more on a per-unit basis?QuoteYeah, unless the developer is living in 100 of those units himself.Or from his tenants point of view, why should they pay more for the same services that you are getting?QuoteYeah, but that doesn't answer the question of why you think he should pay more, on a per unit basis - if that's your argument.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 01:51:25 pm
content: QuoteEasier said than done. They tend to have a tendency to get bloated.To me, the best way to reduce taxes is to increase taxes by broadening the tax base so everyone has skin in the game. Returning the government really to a government of the people by the people.I happen to live in a society where 50%+ of the people don't pay income taxes. As such, there is every incentive for those people to vote for an ever larger government. In essence, it has become a tyranny of the majority.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 02:08:31 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on June 15, 2014, 01:51:25 pmYou may have to add a few correction factors to your figures.In most countries,large sections of the population don't pay taxes,as they are Dependent Children,or in some cases,Dependent Spouses.In earlier times,there were many more Dependent Spouses,as many married women did not work.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 03:10:44 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on June 15, 2014, 01:51:25 pmMe too, and when some political figure recently pointed out this fact he was nailed by the mainstream media.The best way to keep government efficient is to limit it to its core responsibilities. Providing free food and cell phone to citizens are not among them.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 04:03:02 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 15, 2014, 03:10:44 pmGuys, your propaganda gets a bit boring. Especially, because you sound uninformed. Didn't you know that you already have what you want in the US of A?The USA has the worst conversion rate of GDP per capita to social progress among the rich countries. You are beaten in the sense of even worse conversion rates by countries which effectively have a slave system of foreign workers. Like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, or Kuwait. But maybe you can manage to get that slave thing (re)established, too?So why do you complain? Could it be that you are not benefiting from the anti-social US system? Why not? Maybe you aren't rich enough? Ha, ha, ha,tough luck. Your fault that you didn't manage to get filthy rich and benefit from the system. And how does it fell to be on the way to a society like Kuwait?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 05:42:45 pm
content: QuoteSo he doesn't "pay" taxes as long as he could price the taxes into his services and / or pass them to his customers?What happens if he cannot find enough tenants? or he cannot price his units sufficiently high due to weak demand?QuoteBy your standards, you certainly didn't pay for any of that: you also priced your services to your employers to cover your living expenses and taxes, etc. So you had passed your taxes onto your employers or customers. That's why you didn't take that $52.54/yr job last year because you knew it couldn't cover your taxes / expenses.By that token, you didn't pay for your flat, or your food, or your cab, or your diner or your cloth or .....If you have to stretch that far by defining what "pay" means, that's a little bit too far.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 06:06:27 pm
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on June 15, 2014, 04:03:02 pmI am complaining because my government takes money from me and gives to others.Quote from: Bored@Work on June 15, 2014, 04:03:02 pmIt's not for the government to decide how much each of us need and how much is 'enough' ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need").Quote from: Bored@Work on June 15, 2014, 04:03:02 pmKuwait? I don't live there. I will leave to to you to manage your internal affairs.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 06:16:08 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 15, 2014, 06:06:27 pmIMO from a Rothbardian point of view it's easier to just see the US government as the owner of all US land (lets ignore how they got that ownership, ultimately that's what Rothbard does as well ... there isn't a piece of land which hasn't been stolen at some point in history after all). Immediately everything they do is 100% kosher.IMO as a progressive the moral right of government to tax and redistribute derives from the fact that artificial monopoly privileges are granted on the commons ... you get to have some legal rights over land (non perpetual, non absolute rights ... but still rights) and in exchange your taxes go to people who are thus deprived of that part of the commons. Don't like it, go pick another community which gives you rights on the commons on more palatable terms.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 07:58:36 pm
content: QuoteSure, it is easier to simplify things to a point where this Rothbardian guy can understand. But that doesn't lend any validity to this conclusions.QuoteI think that may be the biggest difference between you and me. You want to be governed. You want the government to dictate your life and take care of you. I fully respect your right, including the government's right to redistribute your money.All I want is for you to respect my right to keep my money. However you want to redistribute money, I only ask that you exercise that right with respect to ***your*** money - you can redistribute ***your*** money however way you want. I just don't want you to redistribute my money.Your money is yours, and my money is NOT yours. As simple as that.I want to live free.

author: Tinkerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:05:22 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on June 15, 2014, 07:58:36 pmI dont even have to read the entire thread to say "this".People should be free to spend their money how they wish. I think my state government deserves my money, I dont think the federal government does, but if I dont pay, they will throw me in jail and take it anyway.(I thought debtors prison wasnt allowed today?)This is why there should only be sales tax based on item(luxury items get taxed more etc etc). You can choose how much you buy and get taxed.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:10:50 pm
content: QuoteSuch a scheme would be too simple and too fair for the government and the political class to manipulate to their own interests.So it is not going to happen.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:15:46 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on June 15, 2014, 11:41:40 amThen who?;-)

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:20:49 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on June 15, 2014, 08:10:50 pmThat's the power of the politicians, to grant favors, subsidies, quotas, amnesties and tax breaks to special interests and blocks of voters. Having a flat tax rate or any other simple and unified formula will take away most of this power.BTW, I heard that countries such as Ireland and China the tax code is indeed simple and uniform, so we shouldn't give up.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:23:41 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on June 15, 2014, 07:58:36 pmNo, I want to live in a world of infinite natural resources ... but here we are.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:25:57 pm
content: QuoteOn the other hand, I want to conserve and preserve. A simple and minimalist life style has tremendous appeal to me.Plus, I live in a 3rd world country and that's all I could afford anyway.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:36:26 pm
content: A lifestyle only possible with ownership of an amount acreage and amount of water resources accessible only to a minority of the population ... I find that a strange definition of minimalist.

author: Tinkerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:44:07 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on June 15, 2014, 08:10:50 pmYep, but its such a good idea. Maybe one day... We are on an unsustainable path as it is.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:45:44 pm
content: QuoteI thought you said that only the government owned 100% of the land here. Now, you have decreed that ownership to me?Accusing me of vast ownership of water is like accusing the islanders in the pacific of luxurious lifestyle because of their beachfront view,

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:46:27 pm
content: QuoteTrue. I miss that pizza guy already,

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 08:59:39 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on June 15, 2014, 08:45:44 pmNo I said for a Rothbardian that would be a good view to take.QuoteNo, I said that kind of lifestyle requires it.QuoteI don't do either, I'm simply pointing out that only a small part of the population could ever have exclusive access to such resources ... not enough of it for the amount of people.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2014, 12:21:07 am
content: Quote from: Marco on June 15, 2014, 08:59:39 pmMarco, no need to be obsessed with 'resources', in this technology age you can do a lot virtually with your brain only. Time to update the slogans.Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2014, 12:53:44 am
content: Quote from: zapta on June 16, 2014, 12:21:07 amNo, a small number of high aptitude people can find a lot of opportunities in this technology "age" (mostly the bubbles of this age, like the one we're currently in). For the majority it doesn't help, median value of farmland has increased far faster than the median value of labour over the last decade.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2014, 01:04:14 am
content: Quotewhy do you think that's the case?

author: Tinkerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2014, 01:47:07 am
content: If there are not enough resources to go around, people will be forcefully shown that they shouldnt procreate at an uncontrolled rate. This is currently whats happening in Africa. There isnt enough food to go around and they dont exactly try very hard to grow their own, so they all starve and die. Granted, not everyone there is at fault because of wars and such, but if I was in a place like that I would be trying my hardest to move elsewhere. They just keep having children though and stay put.An interesting consequence of the above is that generations are passing more quickly with people having children at a younger age, this is going to lead to faster evolution and likely a quicker maturation rate eventually.

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 16, 2014, 02:35:19 am
content: This thread has drifted way off topic which was making fun of Australian politicians (and Canadians)