Peter Walsh and Richie Benaud on the same day

This is quite a tragic day. I only knew Benaud from his commentary days for which he was exemplary. It was Peter Walsh I knew – he would not have known that he had known me, however. This on Peter Walsh from the AFR, picked up at Andrew Bolt, is exactly how I remember him. They really don’t make ’em like that any more.

[He] came to despise the hand-out, protectionist and regulatory populism of the then Country Party and the sway it held over the fate of the Australian economy in the post-war decades.

But Walsh was not selective in his hatred of rent-seekers and protectionists: He despised trade union leaders as much as he despised farm and business leaders for their special interest pleading. And he was just as withering in his critiques of the environmental movement’s anti-growth agenda.

His contempt for the Green movement remained with him after he left politics and motivated him to be a founding member of the climate change sceptic lobby. He was a founding member of the Lavoisier Group which disputes the scientific basis on which climate change forecasts are based.

Walsh described global warming as “highly speculative science” and argued that those most active in proposing legally binding greenhouse emissions limits as “self-serving propagandists and bureaucrats”.

He abhorred the rising influence of the environmental movement on the Labor Party and wrote that “since the 1980s Australian Labor Party policy has been incrementally hijacked by well-heeled, self-indulgent, morally vain and would-be authoritarian activists whom the media often describes as the intelligentsia”.

Walsh became increasingly disillusioned by what he saw as modern Labor’s infiltration by “the chattering classes”.

And let me add a quote from the article which has a certain resonance today:

Walsh hated wasteful spending, especially on politically fashionable causes. And he hated the rent seekers who cruised (and still do today, in greater numbers than ever) the corridors of Parliament House trying to convince ministers that their cause is the one that really deserves support.

Because of this, Walsh played a critical role in the transformation of Labor’s economic policy reputation during the Hawke and Keating era.

Mathias Cormann, please take note.

For goodness sake, do not introduce an effects test

There I was, minding my own business, quietly reading the AFR at lunch when I came across a column by Chris Bowen that I agreed with. And not just a little, and not just a lot, but 100%. I cannot even believe this long-dead idea has been resurrected and brought to life by the Harper Review. My advice is to bring out the garlic, the silver bullet or whatever else it takes, and despatch this back into the nether worlds from whence it came.

This is the post but it is locked away inside the AFR, but the title tells you all you need to know: Government must steer clear of effects test recommendation. How it got through the Harper process you will have to ask them. One quote from the story:

Former ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel described the directions recommended as ‘bewildering’. Expensive and extended processes will no doubt ensue if the effects test is introduced.

An effects test is always sold as a friend to small business. It isn’t. But what it does do is make the economy run far less efficiently with no benefit to anyone at all. Why throw sand into the crankcase? This is stupid policy which no one should go anywhere near.

It’s Iran, not Chicago, so they don’t get it

Obama keeps up with the nudge, nudge, wink, wink but these ayatollahs just don’t get it. Ayatollah Khamenei Accuses WH of ‘Lying,’ Being ‘Deceptive,’ and Having ‘Devilish’ Intentions. If only they would play along, pretend that everything is just like Obama says it is, then there would be no problem in getting this stitched up. It must frustrate the daylights out of Obama that the Iranians weren’t brought up on Alinski. Instead, we have this:

Beginning earlier this month and in the days since, Obama and his advisers have attempted to portray the negotiations as major step forward. During an appearance in the Rose Garden on April 2, Obama said the U.S. and its allies have “reached a historic understanding with Iran.”

Khamenei does not agree. “There was no need to take a position” on the supposed deal before today, Khamenei said. “The officials are saying that nothing has been done yet and nothing is obligatory. I neither agree nor disagree [with any deal].”

“What has been done so far does not guarantee an agreement, nor its contents, nor even that the negotiations will continue to the end,” Khamenei elaborated.

“I neither support nor oppose it,” Khamenei reportedly said of the proposed deal. “Everything is in the details; it may be that the deceptive other side wants to restrict us in the details.”

It gets much worse.

When Obama announced that a “framework” for the deal was in place earlier this month, the administration released a fact sheet purportedly showing the agreed upon “parameters.” The White House said the terms outlined in the fact sheet “reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran.”

Khamenei would beg to differ.

“The White House put out a statement just a few hours after our negotiators finished their talks…this statement, which they called a ‘fact sheet’, was wrong on most of the issues,” Khamenei said, according to Reuters. Khamenei added that the fact sheet, which doesn’t match Iran’s understanding, exposes America’s “devilish” intentions.

So it’s unanimous then. Obama is lying.

Making the media the story

https://youtu.be/3EtgjxZHeC8

Early stages but Rand Paul being the only candidate I have ever met and spoken with, and who I liked on the spot, there is a certain partiality I must confess to. He, like Marine LaPen, has a family past he must overcome but still embrace. I am nevertheless encouraged by his foray yesterday having put himself forward for the nomination. And what really appealed to me was that he has decided to take on the media, who are enemies not only of every Republican, but enemies of good governance and common sense.

Tuesday night, Paul came out swinging. “The media tells you and I that we should choose a GOP nominee with a track record full of sellouts, compromises and betrayals,” he tweeted. “So even though I’m at or near the top of every state poll for the nomination, they continue to try and dismiss my message of liberty!

“Thankfully, our national media doesn’t get to pick and choose our Republican Party’s presidential nominees. Patriots like YOU do!”

But by the end of the day Wednesday, the candidate seemed to recognize that perhaps that approach was bringing the wrong kind of attention to his nascent campaign, conceding that he often didn’t handle tough questions particularly well. “I’ve been universally testy and short-tempered with both male and female interviewers,” he admitted explained to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Gage echoed Paul’s description, saying that in the interview with Guthrie, the senator had seemed to “come across as a bit of a bully. I don’t know if that’s specific to her being a woman, or in­cred­ibly bad manners.”

It’s an approach that usually fails to deliver in the long run, she added. “I think particularly when you’re trying to appeal to women voters, they’re a little turned off by that level of aggressiveness when it comes across as cranky and mean,” she said.

Whether he wins or not, this seems to necessary from the Republican side that I can only hope it is blessed with great success. The media has ruined the US by its lickspittle backing of parties to the left. Someone has finally tried fighting back. Even if it doesn’t work for Rand, it will help clear a path for others.

This was especially good: Rand Challenges Press: Ask DNC Head ‘If It’s Okay To Kill A 7-Pound Baby In The Uterus’. Only one journalist has to ask her to have her either reply or walk away from the question. No one has, of course, but it is the kind of pushback that should have been done years ago.

And having written the above, I now come across this: Cruz blasts ‘yellow journalism,’ mocks fact-checkers, accuses media of anti-conservative bias. First below is the journalist who is merely an agent for the Democrats, then Cruz’s reply. It’s not at the same level or temperature as Rand’s, but he’s getting the idea.

“You’ve said a few things that don’t necessarily comport with the facts, like, ‘125,000 IRS agents, send them to the border,'” Harwood said. “They’ve only got 25,000 agents or something like. You’ve talked about the job-killing nature of Obamacare. We’re adding jobs at a very healthy clip right now. Why shouldn’t somebody listen to you and say, ‘The guy’ll just say anything — doesn’t have to be true?'”

Cruz responded by accusing fact-checker groups of not making a good-faith effort to hold all politicians accountable, adding that such groups often subject conservatives to extra scrutiny.

“There is a game that is played by left-wing editorial writers. It’s this new species of yellow journalism called PolitiFact,” Cruz said. “Colloquially I was referring to all the employees as agents. That particular stat is in a joke I used. So, they’re literally fact-checking a joke. I say that explicitly tongue in cheek.”

Make the media defend itself. Here no one is in any doubt that the ABC tells the truth only when it suits Labor. This needs to become recognised as an established fact across the divide. If you hear it on the ABC, everyone should immediately recognise that they might as well have heard it from the ALP.

UPDATE: Rand Paul’s interview with Megyn Kelly on these issues, with Megyn’s interesting and to-the-point comment at the end.

The media and Senator Paul

Early stages but Rand Paul being the only candidate I have ever met and spoken with, and who I liked on the spot, there is a certain partiality I must confess to. He, like Marine LaPen, has a family past he must overcome but still embrace. I am nevertheless encouraged by his foray this morning having put himself forward for the nomination. But what really appeals to me is that he has decided to take on the media, who are enemies not only of every Republican, but enemies of good governance and common sense.

Tuesday night, Paul came out swinging. “The media tells you and I that we should choose a GOP nominee with a track record full of sellouts, compromises and betrayals,” he tweeted. “So even though I’m at or near the top of every state poll for the nomination, they continue to try and dismiss my message of liberty!

“Thankfully, our national media doesn’t get to pick and choose our Republican Party’s presidential nominees. Patriots like YOU do!”

But by the end of the day Wednesday, the candidate seemed to recognize that perhaps that approach was bringing the wrong kind of attention to his nascent campaign, conceding that he often didn’t handle tough questions particularly well. “I’ve been universally testy and short-tempered with both male and female interviewers,” he admitted explained to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Gage echoed Paul’s description, saying that in the interview with Guthrie, the senator had seemed to “come across as a bit of a bully. I don’t know if that’s specific to her being a woman, or in­cred­ibly bad manners.”

It’s an approach that usually fails to deliver in the long run, she added. “I think particularly when you’re trying to appeal to women voters, they’re a little turned off by that level of aggressiveness when it comes across as cranky and mean,” she said.

Whether he wins or not, this seems to necessary from the Republican side that I can only hope it is blessed with great success. The media has ruined the US by its lickspittle backing of parties to the left. Someone has finally tried fighting back. Even if it doesn’t work for Rand, it will help clear a path for others.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT: More media baiting: Rand Challenges Press: Ask DNC Head ‘If It’s Okay To Kill A 7-Pound Baby In The Uterus’. Only one has to for her to have to either reply or walk away from the question. But it is the kind of push back that should have been done years ago.

It’s 150 years today that the American Civil War came to an end

appomottox

I guess it’s not yet the 9th April in the US so we get to commemorate this great moment before the Americans do.

The odd thing for someone my age is that the Democrats were the party of slavery and the Republicans the party of freedom. It is still the case now. If you would like to see the racist past of the United States laid bare, you need only look at the policies of Woodrow Wilson and then at Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was Lincoln who fought the Civil War and Eisenhower who began the desegregation of schools in the American south. And then there are, you know, George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Bull Connor, Democrats all. The solid south was the Democrat south of segregation.

Freedom leaves you alone to live your own life. Tempting individuals into dependence on the state is the opposite.

LET ME JUST ADD THIS: Grant ended up being one of the great presidents, finally bringing “reconstruction” to an end and doing much more than he is usually given credit for. Here is a quote that I think helps capture his greatness:

Grant also revealed that he struggled to reconcile his respect for brave and dedicated Southern soldiers, including Lee, from his complete contempt for the depraved institution — slavery — that had induced them to take up arms against their own nation in the first place.

“I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly,” he wrote, “and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”

What exactly is Dick Cheney getting at here?

You know that thing about if it walks like a duck. This is Dick Cheney discussing Obama:

If you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing.

But still no one comes right out and says what everyone thinks.

And here is Hugh Hewitt’s full interview with Dick and Liz Cheney in which the above quote appears. The whole thing is short and should be

“There’s no reason for anyone to believe a word he says about anything ever again”

Mark Steyn:

Last June I said of Bowe Bergdahl that he was “a deserter at best and at worst enemy collaborator”. It took officialdom another ten months to conclude he was a deserter; now they’re figuring it’s time to reveal that he was an enemy collaborator:

A 2009 NCIS investigation into Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s activities while in Afghanistan reveal that there is clear evidence Bergdahl was “going over to the other side with a deliberate plan,” Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday night.

So the Government of the United States had reason to believe six years ago that Bergdahl was a traitor. As I asked last year and again only two weeks ago, why, knowing what he knew, did Obama stage that Rose Garden ceremony? Why did Susan Rice tell the American people that Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction”? Why did Obama put his hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness?

Setting aside the propriety of trading five Taliban A-listers for a traitor, it’s impossible to look at that Rose Garden theatre as anything other than a conscious deception of the American people by the President. Why would he do that?

Launching his presidential campaign by channeling Ronald Reagan, Senator Rand Paul called for “strong verification measures” with the Government of Iran. Yeah, that’s a great idea. And if the “strong verification measures” work with the Government of Iran, maybe we could try putting them into place with the Government of the United States. Until President Obama explains the fraudulent ceremony he staged for Bergdahl, there’s no reason for anyone to believe a word he says about anything ever again.

Reading Mark Steyn Online should be compulsory although what you get for it, other than being sick to death of the dishonesty and corruption, I cannot honestly say.

Mass hysteria and the American left

The article I am quoting from is about “mass hysteria” which, the author argues, “has been a feature of American life since at least the time of the infamous witch trials in Salem.” He doesn’t think it’s quite the right word for what he has in mind, but you be the judge. But it’s not quite America, I think, but the American left, the kinds of people who reliably vote Democrat, who are typically the crazies he describes. This story is one of the most grotesque tales I know about social insanity. I remember it well since my wife was working in childcare at the time. It is a story worth remembering whenever you hear about Democrats, or the American left in general, running off on some incomprehensible tangent that could happen in no other country on earth.

Anxiety about wayward adolescents is eternal. But widespread anxiety about toddlers was, at the time, a relatively new phenomenon, the tykes of Generation X having been the first generation of Americans to have been entrusted to professional daycare services in such large numbers.

Music had Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest, and daycares had the Little Rascals case and a few others like it. The criminal cases brought against those accused of carrying out theatrical episodes of ritualized sexual abuse within the walls of American daycares look absolutely unbelievable in retrospect [!!!!!].

The phenomenon of “recovered memories” that drove many of these cases is pseudoscientific poppycock, and the details of the abuse suffered by the children in these cases is obviously [!!!] the result of adult anxiety filtered through the juvenile mind: Little girls insisted, for example, that they had been sexually violated with butchers’ knives, while others told of being buried alive, being flushed down toilets, etc.

There was no physical evidence that any of this happened, of course — and even in the happy era before toilet capacity became a federal obsession, flushing an entire child down the commode was a physical impossibility — but that did not seem to matter very much. The nation was convinced — not in its mind, but in its always-unreliable heart — that there were monsters afoot, that somebody, somewhere, was doing terrible things to our teenagers and children. . . .

My Hillsdale students [to whom he was relating this story] were by turns horrified and amused by the lurid and not coincidentally cinematic tales of improbably theatrical abuse in the Little Rascals case — children claimed, among other things, to have been thrown into tanks of sharks and to have been spirited away via hot-air balloon, but there were (and this detail seems to matter more than a little) no sharks or balloons to be found. My students laughed at how odd and unlikely it all sounded, because they are too young to know what the outcome of that case was.

Everybody was convicted.

Robert Kelly Jr., the principal defendant in the Little Rascals case, was convicted on 99 out of 100 charges of abusing children, and received twelve consecutive life sentences. There were 143 witnesses at his trial, including a number of little children, whom the jury found quite convincing.

Dawn Wilson, who rejected a plea bargain, was sentenced to life in prison. Betsy Kelly, after being imprisoned for two years awaiting trial, entered a no-contest plea and accepted an additional seven-year sentence.

Eventually, the courts threw all that out, but not before a half dozen people had spent years in prison, some of them without ever having had a day in court. Such was the moral panic inspired by the case that bonds were set as high as $1.5 million, which used to be real money. So all but one defendant remained incarcerated until the criminal-justice system — hampered though it was by the dishonorable actions of prosecutors in the case — finally got around to exonerating the accused. [My bolding]

I cannot believe how he plays this down as a form of social madness. This was by no means the only instance and these people spent years in jail and have never been compensated even though they have been released. He almost makes it seem that the story is one that Americans can be proud of:

Even when American justice miscarries, as it did in the daycare cases, the appeals process generally provides an opportunity for evidence to be properly examined, for all accounts to be heard and evaluated, and for the rights of the accused to be considered.

I suppose if you are prone to believe anything, no matter how farfetched, you can end up believing in socialism or vote for Obama. He specifically describes this approach to politics as a Democrat strategy.

There are the usual grotesque opportunists who attempt to profit from these things: Tipper Gore began her activism in earnest just after the 1984 presidential election in which Ronald Reagan won a 49-state landslide; the Gores calculated, not incorrectly, that a Democrat who could maintain the loyalty of traditional left-wing constituencies while not bleeding to death among more conservative middle-class whites would have a pretty good chance against what looked, at the time, like a pretty solid Republican coalition.

But this is merely a cautionary tale. What practical lessons you can draw are hard to know.