So the founder of Roxy has come out and told all about being a 'pleasure wife' of a Saudi arms dealer.
What's interesting to note is that she's on her 3rd (and hopefully last) marriage, so clearly living that lifestyle had taken a toll on her in more ways than just taking up her time.
I do give her full marks for telling her story. Hopefully it will dissuade women in a similar situation to her from doing the same thing. That is unless women today are more likely to treat relationships like this as transactions and attach less emotion to it.
A bit like prostitution.
The moral code wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of old men just looking to ruin the fun of everyone, it was developed over a long period of time by people who worked out that it works out better, in general, for people who follow it.
Yes, there will always be people who follow the code who don't do well and vice versa, but the moral code increasing the probability of success. If wearing a seat belt increases the probability of you surviving a car accident, aren't you more likely to want to wear one?
Monday, May 29, 2017
Autistic boy attacked again by gang
So, here's a couple of articles that have appeared over the weeks that follow the usual 4th paragraph shenanigans:
So an autistic boy has been attacked by a gang again.
A bakery has be broken into, with the baker attacked.
No mention of the background of the gang members, despite the photos clearly showing a group who are anything other than white.
Par for the course, really.
I'm just waiting for a vigilante culture to spring up to take these thugs on. It only takes a few hard men from Eastern European countries to band together to decide enough is enough.
Remember, Eastern Europeans don't care about being called racist. They care about themselves more than that.
So an autistic boy has been attacked by a gang again.
A bakery has be broken into, with the baker attacked.
No mention of the background of the gang members, despite the photos clearly showing a group who are anything other than white.
Par for the course, really.
I'm just waiting for a vigilante culture to spring up to take these thugs on. It only takes a few hard men from Eastern European countries to band together to decide enough is enough.
Remember, Eastern Europeans don't care about being called racist. They care about themselves more than that.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
A penny saved is a penny earned - Benjamin Franklin
I thought I'd take some time off from writing about the onslaught of Marxism in our current society to focus on a few financial matters that I think everyone should know about to help them in the current world.
A lot of the things I write about may not apply in countries other than Australia, but a lot of the concepts are the same, regardless of where you live.
I'd like to start with the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin: "A penny saved is a penny earned".
I believe that statement is actually no longer true in this modern day. His statement was true in his day and age when income tax rates were zero (and the money supply was governed by the government, not a private organisation, but that's a whole other kettle of fish) but a penny saved is actually less than a penny earned.
With income tax being what it is, the average salary for a male is $83,902 p.a. which falls in the 32.5% tax bracket in Australia. So that means that for every dollar I spend (over the $37k income), I have to earn $1.48. It may not seem like much but consider if I'm able to save myself $40 a week on something, say transport expenses.
Assuming I'm only working 48 weeks of the year (we have four weeks annual leave a year) and ignoring public holidays (because when you're buying monthly tickets, it doesn't always work out to have monthly tickets start & finish around those dates) that's $1,920 per year AFTER tax.
The BEFORE tax amount on this is $2,844 (rounded off to the nearest dollar).
For a person living on the median salary, that $2,844 is the equivalent to a 3.4% pay rise. Given this current economic climate, I know heaps of people who don't even get that.
Think about that for a minute: small things we can do every day, that might save $5 here and $10 there add up very quickly and, when you start to think about money you're spending in terms of how much you had to earn rather than what you're paying, it becomes very different.
$4 per drink for morning tea and afternoon tea (which is more like about $4.50 for a bottle of soft drink in the cafeteria in my building)? That's $8 a day or $40 per week right there!
The same also applies for big purchases too. People who are upgrading their phones every couple of years (many of them unnecessarily so) may spend about $1,200 on the new iPhone or Samsung phone (not including the case or cover that a person should buy to protect their expensive new piece of equipment). That's about $1,800 in pre-tax money. Or the equivalent of 2.1% of the median salary. So, putting off replacing an otherwise working mobile phone until the old one actually stops working (or becomes obsolete) is like giving yourself a pay rise.
People who kid themselves into thinking they've avoided that cost by opting to buy the phone on a 24 month plan, are just paying the same price (or higher!), with the spend just spread out over 2 years.
I'm not suggesting we should all live like monks and not enjoy living in our country, but the lifestyle we lead may be more expensive than we think it is and, with intelligent decisions on where to cut, where to substitute and where to find cheaper alternatives, we'll be far better off than arguing or begging for that pay rise to be 4% rather than 2%.
The money we save will go a whole lot further than incremental pay rises. We may not have a latte with every morning tea or the latest mobile phone, but we'll be financially better off in the years ahead.
Remember how many people you know who say "I wish I'd drank more coffees over the years" vs the number of people who say "I should have started saving more money years ago".
A lot of the things I write about may not apply in countries other than Australia, but a lot of the concepts are the same, regardless of where you live.
I'd like to start with the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin: "A penny saved is a penny earned".
I believe that statement is actually no longer true in this modern day. His statement was true in his day and age when income tax rates were zero (and the money supply was governed by the government, not a private organisation, but that's a whole other kettle of fish) but a penny saved is actually less than a penny earned.
With income tax being what it is, the average salary for a male is $83,902 p.a. which falls in the 32.5% tax bracket in Australia. So that means that for every dollar I spend (over the $37k income), I have to earn $1.48. It may not seem like much but consider if I'm able to save myself $40 a week on something, say transport expenses.
Assuming I'm only working 48 weeks of the year (we have four weeks annual leave a year) and ignoring public holidays (because when you're buying monthly tickets, it doesn't always work out to have monthly tickets start & finish around those dates) that's $1,920 per year AFTER tax.
The BEFORE tax amount on this is $2,844 (rounded off to the nearest dollar).
For a person living on the median salary, that $2,844 is the equivalent to a 3.4% pay rise. Given this current economic climate, I know heaps of people who don't even get that.
Think about that for a minute: small things we can do every day, that might save $5 here and $10 there add up very quickly and, when you start to think about money you're spending in terms of how much you had to earn rather than what you're paying, it becomes very different.
$4 per drink for morning tea and afternoon tea (which is more like about $4.50 for a bottle of soft drink in the cafeteria in my building)? That's $8 a day or $40 per week right there!
The same also applies for big purchases too. People who are upgrading their phones every couple of years (many of them unnecessarily so) may spend about $1,200 on the new iPhone or Samsung phone (not including the case or cover that a person should buy to protect their expensive new piece of equipment). That's about $1,800 in pre-tax money. Or the equivalent of 2.1% of the median salary. So, putting off replacing an otherwise working mobile phone until the old one actually stops working (or becomes obsolete) is like giving yourself a pay rise.
People who kid themselves into thinking they've avoided that cost by opting to buy the phone on a 24 month plan, are just paying the same price (or higher!), with the spend just spread out over 2 years.
I'm not suggesting we should all live like monks and not enjoy living in our country, but the lifestyle we lead may be more expensive than we think it is and, with intelligent decisions on where to cut, where to substitute and where to find cheaper alternatives, we'll be far better off than arguing or begging for that pay rise to be 4% rather than 2%.
The money we save will go a whole lot further than incremental pay rises. We may not have a latte with every morning tea or the latest mobile phone, but we'll be financially better off in the years ahead.
Remember how many people you know who say "I wish I'd drank more coffees over the years" vs the number of people who say "I should have started saving more money years ago".
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Anti-vaccination people forced underground
One really does have to wonder why, if we actually have freedom of speech, that people who want to see a documentary on the 'dangers of vaccinations' have to do so in secret.
Now, I'm all for vaccinations (my daughter has had all of them, but I'm so sick of people trying to make out that people who CHOOSE not to vaccinate their children are evil.
Much like how Medical companies have big funds set aside for compensation claims for people whose children have negative effects (why would they do that if the vaccinations were 100% safe?), the people who don't vaccinate are choosing to play the lottery the other way.
Are they putting other people's children at risk? Maybe. Are they putting their own children at risk? Maybe.
Does the medical industry pretend like there's no risk? Surprisingly, especially given how parents are expected to sign a waiver prior to being given the vaccination for every set of them.
I guess that's where the compensation fund comes in. You're only signing away for mild side-effects like fever and illness. If side-effects like death, disability or Autism were on the list, then you can bet your bottom dollar that:
Remember, you can only sign away your right to compensation for side effects they tell you about. Anything else is fair game. The difficulty is proving that your otherwise healthy and active child changed after the vaccination.
I was particularly annoyed when medical staff tried to claim my daughter's reaction "must have been something she ate", even though the rota-virus vaccine was THE ONLY common factor in her short term (as far as we know) symptoms.
Now, I'm all for vaccinations (my daughter has had all of them, but I'm so sick of people trying to make out that people who CHOOSE not to vaccinate their children are evil.
Much like how Medical companies have big funds set aside for compensation claims for people whose children have negative effects (why would they do that if the vaccinations were 100% safe?), the people who don't vaccinate are choosing to play the lottery the other way.
Are they putting other people's children at risk? Maybe. Are they putting their own children at risk? Maybe.
Does the medical industry pretend like there's no risk? Surprisingly, especially given how parents are expected to sign a waiver prior to being given the vaccination for every set of them.
I guess that's where the compensation fund comes in. You're only signing away for mild side-effects like fever and illness. If side-effects like death, disability or Autism were on the list, then you can bet your bottom dollar that:
- People wouldn't choose to vaccinate
- People who did vaccinate wouldn't have a right to compensation ("you signed it!")
Remember, you can only sign away your right to compensation for side effects they tell you about. Anything else is fair game. The difficulty is proving that your otherwise healthy and active child changed after the vaccination.
I was particularly annoyed when medical staff tried to claim my daughter's reaction "must have been something she ate", even though the rota-virus vaccine was THE ONLY common factor in her short term (as far as we know) symptoms.
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Famous person pays through the nose to see his children, media doesn't care
So Karl Stefanovic is no saint and I'm certainly not a fan, but when he walks away from his marriage with less than 10% of the assets, on the condition that he can see his children whenever he wants, you know the Family Courts system isn't fair.
But notice how the media chooses to focus on how Karl liked getting drunk, rather than asking WHY he liked getting drunk.
That being said, the man makes $3 million a year, so it'll only take him a few years to recover from the hit (assuming his career doesn't drop off), but he'd never get that time back with his kids if his ex-wife had chosen to withhold access.
I'm hoping that someone in the media talks a bit about this, but I seriously doubt it.
But notice how the media chooses to focus on how Karl liked getting drunk, rather than asking WHY he liked getting drunk.
That being said, the man makes $3 million a year, so it'll only take him a few years to recover from the hit (assuming his career doesn't drop off), but he'd never get that time back with his kids if his ex-wife had chosen to withhold access.
I'm hoping that someone in the media talks a bit about this, but I seriously doubt it.
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Woman who killed eight children probably not going to be punished
So Raina Thaiday, the woman who killed seven of her own children and one child of another family, probably won't be punished because she thought she was saving them.
But don't worry, she's being treated now and is allowed out into the hospital grounds despite having two relapses since being taking into custody.
Her schizophrenia, brought on by excessive cannabis use, was to blame, she's just an innocent victim in all of this.
Don't worry though, she's being treated.
Just forget about any kind of punishment of any kind because it's not like cannabis is illegal or that it's not her fault that she used to smoke more of it in a day than most people see in a lifetime.
It's also not like we force schizophrenic people from being treated, so I guess that's 'punishment' enough.
So I guess our benevolent lawmakers are happy to chalk all of these deaths up to mental illness and not Domestic Violence. Because it's not socially acceptable to show a woman committing Domestic Violence.
I wonder how many cases of man on woman Domestic Violence could be discounted if they were allowed to do the same. But we all know that the anti-male establishment wouldn't allow that.
I'll put money on her ending up with a lucrative government position as a spokesperson for mental illness and wind up as Australian of the Year, a bit like Rosie Batty. Ironically, if they don't count Thaiday's victims deaths as Domestic Violence, then we can't count Luke Batty's death either, since his father had a history of mental illness. There surely can't be one rule for men and another for women, can there?
I don't know what makes me more sick, the media excusing some of the most inexcusable actions of women (not one word of the article does anything other than try to explain how it wasn't her fault) or the legal system being 'compassionate' to women, deciding that she shouldn't receive any kind of punishment, not even for endangering children when she was smoking the excessive amount of cannabis that resulted in the condition that contributed to eight deaths!
The simple fact is that the media has an agenda, that gender is to paint men as violent and women as victims. But if we're comparing Greg Anderson to Raina Thaiday, the score is 1-8, but I don't see a SINGLE MAN being promoted to the level Rosie Batty is for what Raina did. But I guess Greg is an easier target for allegations for what transpired in the lead up to that fateful date, since dead men tell no tales.
But don't worry, she's being treated now and is allowed out into the hospital grounds despite having two relapses since being taking into custody.
Her schizophrenia, brought on by excessive cannabis use, was to blame, she's just an innocent victim in all of this.
Don't worry though, she's being treated.
Just forget about any kind of punishment of any kind because it's not like cannabis is illegal or that it's not her fault that she used to smoke more of it in a day than most people see in a lifetime.
It's also not like we force schizophrenic people from being treated, so I guess that's 'punishment' enough.
So I guess our benevolent lawmakers are happy to chalk all of these deaths up to mental illness and not Domestic Violence. Because it's not socially acceptable to show a woman committing Domestic Violence.
I wonder how many cases of man on woman Domestic Violence could be discounted if they were allowed to do the same. But we all know that the anti-male establishment wouldn't allow that.
I'll put money on her ending up with a lucrative government position as a spokesperson for mental illness and wind up as Australian of the Year, a bit like Rosie Batty. Ironically, if they don't count Thaiday's victims deaths as Domestic Violence, then we can't count Luke Batty's death either, since his father had a history of mental illness. There surely can't be one rule for men and another for women, can there?
I don't know what makes me more sick, the media excusing some of the most inexcusable actions of women (not one word of the article does anything other than try to explain how it wasn't her fault) or the legal system being 'compassionate' to women, deciding that she shouldn't receive any kind of punishment, not even for endangering children when she was smoking the excessive amount of cannabis that resulted in the condition that contributed to eight deaths!
The simple fact is that the media has an agenda, that gender is to paint men as violent and women as victims. But if we're comparing Greg Anderson to Raina Thaiday, the score is 1-8, but I don't see a SINGLE MAN being promoted to the level Rosie Batty is for what Raina did. But I guess Greg is an easier target for allegations for what transpired in the lead up to that fateful date, since dead men tell no tales.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)