Tag: politics

It is time to regulate the Pet Food industry in Australia!

It burns me to write this post.

It is at odds with my belief of limited government interference. I admit I will sound hypocritical but I will justify my position.

According to the RSPCA approximately 62% of Australian households have pets and it is expected that in the next 12 months a further 13% of Australian households will make a pet part of their family. Long are the days where we see a pet as just a pet, now they are seen as loved family members. Australians are spending approximately $12 billion a year on our pets and this proves that we want the best for our furry friends, in fact we are seeing a trend especially amongst millennials that they are opting to have pets rather than children.

 

If we are to adopt Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs on our pets, you’ll see that both human’s and pets need basic (and psychological) needs.

maslow-5

Billy – the Golden Retriever – still needs food, water, warmth and rest just like his Masters. Billy also needs security and safety and of course interaction with his Masters and other dogs (which can lead to self-fulfilment needs). Unfortunately Billy cannot provide food or water for himself, he relies on his Masters to do this. It is important that pet owners have a full understanding on what they are feeding their pets. This can be rather difficult given that there are many products available and given our busy lifestyles we tend to be lazy, humans are like that when it comes to their own choices. (It’s easier to go to McDonald’s than to cook a meal).
The difference between humans making a choice about their own food options and that of their furry friend is that human food is regulated. There are many regulations on food for humans and often can be punishable under law. For example in Queensland, a local Government shut down a Chinese Restaurant after finding rat urine and droppings in its kitchen. Another example of how food regulation (for humans) has worked well is Heinz ordered to pay $2.25 million after misleading consumers that their product was healthy but in fact contained 60% sugar.

In Australia, pet food is self-regulated through the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia (PFIAA). Pet food companies are not obliged to stick to these standards as they are voluntary. These standards are not made public unless you want to pay $128.19.
Currently there is a parliamentary inquiry into regulatory approaches to ensure safety of pet food. The terms of reference of this inquiry is;

  1. the uptake, compliance and efficacy of the Australian Standard for the Manufacturing & Marketing of Pet Food (AS5812:2017);
  2. the labelling and nutritional requirements for domestically manufactured pet food;
  3. the management, efficacy and promotion of the AVA-PFIAA administered PetFAST tracking system;
  4. the feasibility of an independent body to regulate pet food standards, or an extension of Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s remit;
  5. the voluntary and/or mandatory recall framework of pet food products;
  6. the interaction of state, territory and federal legislation;
  7. comparisons with international approaches to the regulation of pet food; and
  8. any other related matters

As a free market, free enterprise kind of guy I should be against these regulations because it will put a burden on business, rise up the cost of the product and possibly cost jobs.

Wrong!

In 2008-2009 only 4,543 people were employed in Australia within the Animal and Bird food manufacturing industry. This would hardly make a blip in the economy if regulation were to be implemented and jobs were lost.
As already mentioned earlier, households are choosing to spend more on their furry friend, therefore if the cost of the product increases most households would accommodate this as Billy – the Golden Retriever – is a family member.
Even under a regulatory framework, competition would still be available and it will provide the consumer greater options when deciding what food to buy for their pet therefore pet food companies would be forced by the free market to be better than their competitors.

It’s a win-win!

Overall I generally do not support regulation but when it comes to pets that’s a different story. Pets trust us to make sure we make the right choice when it comes to feeding time. The pet food industry is a self-regulated industry which have standards that are only made available if you pay money to receive it. This alone is ludicrous and proves that the industry is a closed shop. By regulating this industry, you open it up to scrutiny, it provides greater choice to consumers, increases competition, which in return makes the product better. Whilst I sound hypocritical when it comes to regulation the difference here is that animals don’t have a choice when it comes to food. We do!

 

 

 

RIP Apu 1989 – 2018

Manjula: Apu, it’s 4 am. You’re late for work.
Apu: Oh. I just had the most beautiful dream where I died.
Manjula: Oh no you don’t! Not til they’re out of college.
Apu: Listen, I’ll die when I want to!

Season 11, Episode 7, Eight misbehavin’

And with a little bit of push by cultral lefties, Apu dies in 2018.

For 29 years from 1989 until 2018, Apu has been on our screens. Actor Hank Azaria has done the voice of Apu from day one. Recently, Hank has come out and states that he will hand over his wobbly head character’s voice to an actual ‘Indian’ stating that he is saddened to hear Indians being bullied because of his Apu voice, he further mentions that he would like to listen to Indian people and to bring in Indian writers into the writers room.  Well where was this opinion 29 years ago? 19 years ago? 9 years ago? or even 2 years ago? This phenomenon is not new, it’s not like Apu is a new character in the Simpsons and is there any anecdotal evidence that racial disharmony is caused by Apu?

Given the rise of the alt-left in America it is no wonder why Hank has had a sudden change around. Their bullying tactics gives anyone the heeby jeebies. I guess for Hank Azaria, he has made his fame and the fact the Simpsons is close to a finale he doesn’t give a shit who does the voice for Apu.

For those who are not snowflakes and are not ‘offended’ by ‘cultural appropriation’ cause lets be honest only pussies are offended by this shit, there is always hope in Seth McFarlane. Family Guy does not hold back on political correctness.

RIP APU – your dream has come true!!

Australian’s Emotions are the sign of Hypocrisy over US Gun Control

TRIGGER WARNING!!: This opinion is not discussing pro or anti gun control but merely the reasons why Australians should not be so emotive about this issue. For the reasons outlined in this opinion is the reason why there will be no opinion on gun control on theseedweekly.net

—————-

There are calls amongst many Australian’s that the US should adopt stronger gun laws similar to that of Australia. The latest mass shooting massacre at Parkland High School has created a swell of protest in America, but the concerning aspect of all of this is the increasing interference of emotions by Australian’s. Everyday on social media Australian’s are posting memes, statuses, videos and news reports in support of pro gun control, whilst this is a noble gesture and the fact that no one wants to see children being shot up like a practice target, Australian’s need to remember that guns are part and parcel of American way of life whether they like it or not.

In Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran it is punishable by death to be homosexual. In Iran, women are treated like second class citizens and must wear a head scarf or a veil. In Afghanistan it is illegal to criticise any aspect of islam and the punishment is rather severe. We don’t see Australian’s post memes, statuses, videos and news reports on social media condemning these acts of cultural bastardry, yet there is an over abundance of attack on the American culture. Many Australian’s are not bothered about the draconian laws of Islamic nations because they feel it is non of their business then why feel the need to comment on America’s unique culture?

The second amendment states that;

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This amendment which was authenticated by Thomas Jefferson was adopted in December of 1791. It is no secret that most American’s love their Country and their Bill of Rights which gives them the title of being Patriotic (which disgusts the left). Given that this amendment has been ingrained within the American psyche for just over 226 years and as American’s love their country, one cannot push change over night. Many Australian’s think that because Australia was able to change it’s laws so quickly that America can do the same thing, the difference being is that Australian’s never really had a love affair of guns as it was not a constitutional right, if it was a constitutional right, former Prime Minister John Howard would not have been able to adopt his hard stance as there was a good chance it would have been rejected. Since 1901 in Australia there have been 44 referendums (constitutional changes) only 8 of these were successful, the last referendum was in 1998 to make Australia a republic. These failures are living proof that people are cautious of change and to expect American’s to change their thought process over night is nothing but hypocrisy being displayed by many Australian’s.

Whether you believe in tight gun control or not, it is difficult to change a mindset over night especially when it has been part and parcel of their culture for at least 226 years. Australian’s need to take a chill pill and understand that it isn’t as easy as just banning guns as there are many factors that need to be examined. Only American’s can start this change if they want change, this change cannot be forced on them otherwise they will rebel against the system. If American’s want change they need to own it and only then will they accept their fate.

Since when have Australians cared about Morality? Barnaby should stay!!

Who is else sick and tired of hearing about Barnaby Joyce? Every channel we turn to, we see and hear something about Barnaby and his new flame Vikki Campion. The only thing that we should be hearing about from the #barnabygate is whether or not he misused taxpayer funds to give her a job. Thats it really in a nutshell.

We see on all corners of the political spectrum that Barnaby committed poor moral judgment. Well sorry since when have Australians cared about morality? For heavens sake, Australians voted in their masses to support same sex marriage and the left spent millions of dollars to convince Australians that #loveislove. In the case of Barnaby Joyce he found new love with Vikki, regardless of morality – #loveislove right?

There is a push within the National Party for Mr Joyce to resign. Given that the National Party is a pseudo conservative party (conservative when they want to be) I get that he probably should respect their wishes but only if the grassroot membership want it. As a lay person, I do not believe he should resign on his poor morality judgement, at the end of the day what he does behind closed doors is non of our business and clearly Joyce recognised this hence why he didn’t want the public to know about his love affair. Barnaby should be judged purely on his performance and whether or not he has misused public funds.

In saying all of that, if this #barnabygate is affecting his ability to perform as Deputy Prime Minister, given that next week he will be the Acting Prime Minister maybe he should strongly consider stepping down as Deputy PM and PM Malcolm Turnbull with the approval of the National Party appoint Julie Bishop as Acting Prime Minister given that she is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. I say that because if the Nationals appoint a new leader before then, will they have enough experience to be the Acting Prime Minister? At the end of the day this is a decision Barnaby needs to make.

What are your thoughts?

‘Racist’ Huffington Post Blogger attacks Senator.

Social Justice Warriors – or in other terms – extreme left wing imbeciles love to move the goal post whenever it suits them. SJW’s often claim that they are warriors against racism and promoters of equality and a diverse society but what we have seen the last couple of days is one SJW in particular moving the goal post to suit his needs.

Huffington Post Blogger Andy Ostroy tweeted;

To suggest that Senator Tim Scott was merely a ‘black prop’ goes to show how far the alt-left will go to attack the Trump Administration, they will use racist vitriol to try and get their message across. Typically, after he was owned by Senator Tim Scott, in usual SJW style, he deleted the tweet and apologised on Twitter saying;

I responded to this by suggesting that he should resign from Huffington Post given his racist vitriol and as expected, he blocked me on Twitter. This is what the SJW does, if you call them out on their own principles they either ignore you or block you.

The question now should be, what will Huffington Post do about this racist? I believe they should distance themselves from Andy Ostroy, whether they do that is up to you. My suggestion would be to email Huffington Post and ask for his scalp. Time to fight fire with fire.

Social Justice Warriors target ‘OBESE’

Western Civilisation has a problem with overweight people. As a fat man myself I understand the risks involved in being fat such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. In Australia this is putting extra burden on our health system costing approximately $21billion in 2005[1], this figure can be assumed to have increased in 2017.  It is important for doctors to be able to tell their patients that they are overweight or for the mega fat – obese.

The social justice warriors within NSW Health have designed new guidelines to make it ‘offensive’ for doctors to tell their patients that they are overweight [2]. They want doctors to use friendly terms such as:

“Well above healthy weight”

They also do not want doctors to say “Skinny” or “malnourished” because these apparently stigmatise a condition and may significantly offend an individual.

The idea to tell a patient that they are obese is suppose to be a wake up call. As mentioned fat people are costing society, the taxpayer, billions of dollars in both direct and in direct health costs not to mention the emotional aspect it causes on family and friends if an individual develops health related complications due to them being fat.

Think about it, if a doctor told you;

“Sir/Madam you are Obese”

or

“Sir/Madam you are well above healthy weight”

Which one is more likely to be a wake up call?

Unfortunately people need strong words or some sort of negative event in their life to change their attitudes. Often people who have experienced a heart attack and have had either Stents put in or a By-pass, change their lifestyle because they have had an epiphany during their event.

This folly by NSW Health just demonstrates that our government departments have been taken over by social justice warriors. It has nothing to do about making life better, in fact this change will make fat people fatter, increase cost to our health system, and make it harder for doctors to actually treat patients. Shame on NSW Health, and shame on the NSW alleged conservative Government for allowing such nonsense to take place.

Cancer can be treated, Feminism can’t!

Milo Yiannopolous once stated that Feminism is Cancer. I recently tweeted that Feminism is worse than cancer because at least Cancer can be treated. It was in reference to this photo.

DP2FdJPVwAANVox

I had a couple of people who were critical of my comments. As a respectful human I will not mention anyones name on here but if you go to my twitter account you’ll see their responses.

I want to clarify my point.

As you see in this photo there are a hand few of women and a couple of probably gender neutral males leeching off them. They are holding up signs saying “My outfit is not an invitation” and some chick has written on her abdomen “Fuck your Morals”. As a conservative male rape is abhorrent and the full force of the law should be thrown at the perpetrator.

The SJW aim isn’t to try to convince those who are already convinced. No matter what they do they won’t be able to convince the convinced but instead they are trying to appeal to those who are either not interested in politics or those who are just sitting on the fence.

Pretend you are a young mother in her 20’s, your husband works full time and you are either at work yourself or you are a stay at home mother. You have no interest in political issues, in fact you are too busy to worry about what is going on in the world because right now your world is you, your husband and your little pride and joy. You decide to take your little pride and joy in their pram for a little stroll down to the park. You get there, you see a lot of comotion, you see police, riot police, police on horses, ambulances on standby and from a distance you see partly naked women, women with breasts out but duct tape covering their nipples and the first sign you see is “Fuck your Morals.” You then hear screeching from these females, your pride and joy gets scared, starts crying and you can’t settle him or her. Instead of a nice day out going for a stroll you then go back home, put on your tv and watch Tucker Carlson. Once you got home you kinda wonder what all the fuss was about but because it ruined your day you don’t care, in fact it infuriated you. Their goal to try and get their message across failed.

My point to this is, and in my Twitter I was directing it to Clementine Ford, are feminists proud of this? If so, then how can they expect to win over the unconvinced. Most people see this type of protest, grotesque and will either turn the tv off or actually, out of spite, go side with the opposing point of view. If feminists want to get their message across stop acting like millennial SJW’s and start being a little more professional.