I yam in the grate saten

In New York, in fact. The main purpose of my trip was originally to debate the author of a book called Seven Bad Ideas in Economics about Say’s Law, which was bad idea Number 2. The venue was to be at Freedomfest in Las Vegas. In the end, he decided discretion was the better part of valour, and so, I will be having that debate, with me taking both sides. As I tell everyone else, I will be having a one-man show in Vegas.

But other stops along the way as well, which mostly includes meeting and discussing authors I am bringing together in my Modern Critics of Keynes, of which there are hardly any. These are economists who have each already written extensive critiques of Keynesian economics. If you can think of more than two, you are doing well. I am happy to say that on a previous such appeal, I was given one name that will now appear and star in this volume. Given how few there are, this was a reason for serious gratitude.

Meantime, blogging will be lighter than usual.

The Zaki Chronicles

These are the six posts I have put up since Monday when Zaki Mullah appeared on Q&A. It follows my own reaction to the ABC using a jihadist against a government minister, basically siding with the jihadists against a government that is trying to deal with a terrorist threat to this country. But it also follows a second trail, which is the refusal of some elements within the government, who do not wish to see the ABC made to live up to its charter of evenhandedness. If you cannot even get Liberal Members of Parliament angry with the ABC siding with the terrorists against the elected government of this country, then we are at a strange place indeed. It’s one thing to be on the left. It is quite another to have one’s views so distorted that they prefer to take the side of a convicted terrorist against a government that is trying to deal with the terrorists who are already in our midst.

Q&A has made Abbott’s anti-terrorist laws a certainty

The question really is just how depraved is the ABC?

“Heads should roll”

What an insufferable hypocrite

The only issue is the indelible green-left bias of the ABC

Where’s the outrage?

And what is particularly disturbing, as the last of these posts show, is that there are members of the right-side party that see personal advantage in maintaining the status quo at the ABC.

Where’s the outrage?

I just watched Steve Ciobo on Bolt and what a disappointment. Where’s the “heads will roll” attitude? I want an ABC version of The Bolt Report, and whatever it takes to get it, should be high on the government’s agenda. Along with a savaging of that billion dollars of funding.

Why is there still a pro-ABC faction in the government?

Dead man talking

First at Tim Blair and then Andrew Bolt, so why not here? An interview with Bill Shorten not to be missed! The problem is that Shorten is the walking dead. He will not lead the ALP into the next election. Labor will make the switch as close to the next election as possible to maximise the potential for Tanya to run at the same time as Hillary. Meantime, there is this to help see us through the night.

Onwards and downwards

The problems caused by Keynesian theory is not that you end up with a sudden downturn, but that you squeeze the life out of the economy by a form of slow asphyxiation. If you have a job and a house, and you continue to work and live where you lived before, nothing much changes around you, other than a rise in prices and a slowdown in income after tax. You are affected but not a lot. Those in transitions, either entering the economy to work, looking for better jobs at higher pay or trying to buy a house, all these are at the pointy end. They notice, since the ability to rise up the income scale is obstructed by some invisible barrier. Things just don’t work out. Which brings me to this story: Americans Are Delaying Major Life Events Because of Money Worries. Life is getting harder so corners are being cut.

ABOUT half of American adults have postponed a major life decision in the past year for financial reasons, mainly because they lack sufficient savings or are worried about the economy, or both, a new survey finds.

The survey, conducted for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, found that the proportion of people delaying big decisions like buying a home or getting married had risen to 51 percent, from 31 percent in a similar survey in 2007, before the start of the financial downturn.

The change was striking, and the percentages more than doubled in some areas. Nearly a quarter said they had delayed higher education, up from 11 percent in 2007, and 18 percent said they had put off retiring, compared with 9 percent in the earlier survey. Twenty-two percent said they delayed buying a home in 2015, compared with 14 percent in 2007.

That’s the way it goes. And these are the people who might most at the front in encouraging governments to increase their spending to stimulate demand. So onwards and downwards, and no one has a clue why.

Finding the straight and narrow

Finding the straight and narrow has never been more difficult. The only time I ever seriously shocked and angered my mother with anything I ever said was when I quoted a friend of mine:

“Better a sexual revolution than no revolution at all,” he said.

I didn’t understand her attitude then but I do now. The values of the adult world allowed restraint because there were genuine moral restraints that were felt and understood. There is almost nothing there now. For a reminder of how things once were, read Stacy McCain’s Let’s Bring Back Guilt and Shame. It’s a thought, but for the moment that’s all it is. But if you read it, you will also see why the video’s been posted.

The only issue is the indelible green-left biases of the ABC

Let me come back to this Zaki business one last time because it does worry me that either the government doesn’t get the point, or doesn’t want to. I don’t care that they gave Zaki air time. In fact, the more they let him talk, the more he demonstrates what a danger he and others like him are. That was not the problem. The problem was that he was brought onto Q&A by the ABC specifically to ambush a government minister. It was the ABC’s intent that is so vile, not the particular means they chose on this occasion. What the program demonstrated, far better than anything else in recent times, is that the ABC is out to harm the government because the ABC, contrary to its charter, is pursuing a green-left agenda of its own. The entire organisation is now a billion dollar version of the Green-Left Review. That is the problem. That is what you must deal with.

My worry is that no one seems to get it. All the quotes that follow are from The Australia today. Each is one more example of missing the point. Here first is Julie Bishop:

The ABC’s action in allowing a former terror suspect to air his views runs counter to the government’s work in attempting to protect Australians from terrorism, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says.

This is from Christopher Pyne discussing Mark Scott:

“He’s trying to pretend the government is trying to close free speech at the ABC. This is typical of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; rather than ’fessing up to their mistake, which was to bring a convicted terrorist on to the audience of Q&A and give them a platform … (and) put at risk the people in the audience,” Mr Pyne told the Nine Network.

Then Peter Reith:

Peter Reith, a former Liberal cabinet minister, accused Mr Scott of reducing the ABC’s blunder to a question of audience security and not the “shocking and offensive” decision to give Mallah a platform.

“The ABC head was basically saying the real problem is that ‘we didn’t manage the security side of it’ as if, you know, if they’d got that right then having this guy on would be OK,” Mr Reith told Sky News.

Even Malcolm got into the act:

“This guy on social media not so long ago nominated two female journalists and said that they should be publicly raped,” Mr Turnbull said. “What if he had said that again in the Q&A live audience? Why would you ever put a person (like that) in a live audience? It’s incredible.”

The issue is neither terrorism nor free speech. The issue is the ABC. Nothing else. The issue is whether the government is going to take on the the fanatical leftist bias of the ABC, or is instead going to leave it alone until it conspires with the Greens and ALP to see it defeated at the polls. I would have thought that an instinct for self-preservation would have driven the government towards some such conclusion already.

I am in no doubt how difficult this task is. But I am also in no doubt that unless you identify the problem for what it is and then deal with the problem itself, you and we will never be rid of this deformed monstrosity of the far left. This is what you must do if you are to survive. You must set down a strategy for dealing with the indelible green-left political biases of the ABC and then do what you can to counter this malignant publicly-funded cancer in our social midst.