Monthly Archives: February 2016

Repellent versus Repulsive

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the distinction:

“Repellent” and “Repulsive” both speak to dri­ving oth­ers away, but REPULSIVE is more REPULSIVE than REPELLENT is REPELLENT.

Repellent is more about distaste.

Repulsive is more about disgusting.

Here’s the context:

Malcolm Turnbull risks punishing more than nine million workers with higher taxes on their retirement savings as he prepares a drastic change to superannuation alongside controversial plans to increase the GST.

The super changes would hit every worker earning more than about $18,000 a year if the government proceeds with a tax ­increase on super contributions, highlighting a grave political danger at a time when Coalition MPs are nervous about a GST hike.

Modelling obtained by The Australian shows the government would have to scale back the super reform — and sacrifice $6 billion in extra revenue — in order to limit the damage to millions of workers on average incomes.

The modelling also highlights the challenge the government will face to ensure 200,000 Australians earning more than $300,000 are not left untouched or even better off under the key super ­reform plans being considered.

Angry MPs are pushing back at the Prime Minister’s reform ambitions amid fears of a voter backlash against a GST increase, but the increase in the consumption tax and the separate overhaul of super tax breaks remain the leading ways to pay for generous cuts to income taxes.

I get it, they are going to raise taxes so that they can cut taxes. Makes as much sense as the rest of it. Cuts to spending are for a parallel universe. Taxing superannuation so that they can blow more of our money on projects of their own choosing is not only a loser so far as the economy is concerned, it is a vote loser as well.

The fact that Labor is worse only works for someone like me since there are lots of other issues that matter. But this business how Julie prefers Rudd to Helen Clarke as Secretary General of the UN only makes her marginally preferable to Tanya, and that is only because of the party she represents and whose standards she must more closely conform to. What she personally believes about anything at all I have almost no idea. How Tony must have suffered having to deal with such people over the years.

When you finally get down to it, this is the Turnbull strategy for the likes of us. To be less repulsive, if even only by the slimmest of margins, than Labor. But you try for a 50% increase in the GST and then raise taxes on super, even if you did get my vote you will lose millions more along the way at the same time. Malcolm has the worst political instincts of anyone I have ever seen in politics, with the possible exception of John Hewson, whose own fate he may soon himself mirror.

The parties of the left no longer stand for a single thing

Posted on by
Reply

labor and islam

They really are vile and disgusting. The parties of the left are unhinged in so many ways that it is hard to keep up. They now only seem to be for sale to the highest bidder. This is from Andrew Bolt the other day, Labor stirring up Jew-hatred.

The modern Left seems to have a Jew problem. The obsession with Jews even within Labor is extraordinary – and ominous.

Sharri Markson:

Former Labor national president Warren Mundine has launched a blistering attack on the party, saying its move to ban sponsored trips to Israel is “verging on anti-Semitic’’ and is “sickening to watch”….

The NSW ALP international relations policy committee chairman Michael Forshaw told The Australian yesterday that 39 resolutions had been received concerning Israel and Palestine, compared with 17 resolutions dealing with other international issues, such as the Syrian war, the Myanmar junta, Paris terror bombings, China free trade and foreign aid.

There were none on Saudi Arabia or Iran.

There are moves to recognise Palestinian statehood and to boycott products from Israel that originate in settlement areas, and many concerning banning trips to Israel while Benjamin Netan­yahu is Prime Minister. The move by Labor is partly driven by political motivations to secure the vote from Muslim communities in marginal southwest Sydney seats..

Mr Mundine said Labor MPs should remember that Israel was the only democracy in the region with a parliament of Jewish, Arab, Christian and Muslim politicians sitting within a vast region of problematic countries…

Members of the pro-Palestinian group include federal MPs Jason Clare, Sam Dastyari and Tony Burke, with former NSW premier Bob Carr a high-profile advocate.

One on five of Burke’s electorate are Muslim. The surrender of principle for votes seems only too clear. And that careful cultivation of religious bigotry and ethnic resentments leads to the return of sentiments too similar to the kind I once thought the Left had disowned:

Jewish advocacy groups are “cancerous” and “malicious” and try to “deny, misinform and scaremonger”.

A NSW Labor politician voiced these incendiary words — the first NSW Muslim MP, in fact, Shaoquett Moselmane. He didn’t utter them in the privacy of his own home. He felt comfortable enough broadcasting this anti-semitic sentiment within the walls of the NSW Parliament. This is terrifying in itself.

The MP, who ironically decried racism in his first speech to parliament, made the remarks just two years ago, in May 2013. He was not shouted-out of the high office he holds for racist commentary. On the contrary, Labor continues to support him and Moselmane is now a vocal advocate behind a push to ban Labor MPs from visiting Israel on trips funded by Jewish organisations…

The father of the anti-Israel movement is Bob Carr, whose speeches have on at least one occasion, in July last year, elicited anti-semitic commentary from the audience, with a remark made about “the Jews” and their “3000-year fundamentalist influence.”

And I remain deeply concerned by comments by Burke which I reported two years ago – comments by a Labor frontbencher which seemed to legitimise Islamist terrorism against Israel:

Tony Burke, gave a frightening speech last month to the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network in which he savaged Israel as a child-killing, water-polluting, land-stealing aggressor.

He also gave what would have struck some there as praise for extremists fighting Israel: “For those who are political advocates within Palestine itself, I will never know the bravery that comes with putting your life on the line and at risk, in engaging in politics in different ways.”

Burke’s Sydney seat has a Muslim vote of more than 20 per cent, but this is playing with fire.

What is it with the Left and Jews? What is it with the Left and pandering to Islamists?

There must be more to it than few measly votes but I cannot for the life of me see what it is. Malcolm Turnbull or not, nothing will make me vote in any way that might allow the ALP to win at the next election.

All comedy is critical

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a story on John Cleese and the modern left. And I have to say that the title of the story, John Cleese is tired of campus political correctness, as well as the title of original story from which it is linked, We Can’t Have Comedy and Be Politically Correct at the Same Time (which is better since it does not restrict its compass to a university campus), still doesn’t get there. The title of the video “1984” does get you there, which has the statement scrolled across the top, that “political correctness can lead to an Orwellian nightmare” which makes it very plain how serious he thinks this issue is. It tells you exactly what he really means, that if you forbid people to say certain things in the name of political correctness, then you are living on the edge of a totalitarian state. This is what he said, which you can see is transcribed directly from his own words in the video:

Cleese said that it’s one thing to be “mean” to “people who are not able to look after themselves very well,” but it was another to take it to “the point where any kind of criticism of any individual or group could be labeled cruel.”

Cleese added that “comedy is critical,” and if society starts telling people “we mustn’t criticize or offend them,” then humour goes out the window.

“With humour goes a sense of proportion,” Cleese said. “And then, as far as I’m concerned, you’re living in 1984.”

And the point, of course, is not restricted to humour but all statements of any kind about any subjects whatever. You might also after this then look at George Carlin’s Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be Manners……………….

[Picked up at Instapundit]

Who do you support for President?

Posted on by
Reply

I came out:

Trump 94%
Rubio 91%
Cruz 90%
Santorum 87%
Carson 86%
Paul 84%
Bush 79%
Clinton 15%
Sanders 13%

So far as the parties went:

Republicans 98%
Constitution Party 93%
Libertarians 74%
Democrats 30%

Not much of a surprise to me. You can try it yourself right here.

I might just mention here Conrad Black’s assessment, Donald Trump knows how to make a deal in which he writes:

In fact, Donald Trump is reasonably conservative. He opposes tax breaks for the rich and back-handers for rich cronies, if not as histrionically as Warren Buffett does (though Buffett has often been a beneficiary of them). Moreover, he spares the country the tedious spectacle of politicians ambling about with begging bowls or cupped hands asking for money, because Donald is paying his own way. His presentational methods grate on the nerves of sophisticated people, but it is an Archie Bunker approach by a man who is a successful businessman rather than, like Archie, a blue-collar clock-puncher. And the approach works: He is leading the polls. In a democracy, the people are always right, and if he wins, it will be because an impatient and disserved people wishes it so.

It’s just an opinion, of course, but I do see his point.

Trump has been talking about illegal immigration since 2013

Posted on by
Reply

This is from Ann Coulter’s latest column:

In more than a dozen tweets that year — the very year that Marco Rubio nearly destroyed the nation with his amnesty bill, as the “conservative” media cheered him on — Trump repeatedly denounced the maniacal push for amnesty:

— “Immigration reform is fine — but don’t rush to give away our country! Sounds like that’s what’s happening.” (Jan. 30, 2013)

— “Amnesty is suicide for Republicans. Not one of those 12 million who broke our laws will vote Republican. Obama is laughing at @GOP.” (March 19, 2013)

— “Now AP is banning the term ‘illegal immigrants.’ What should we call them? ‘Americans’?! This country’s political press is amazing!” (April 3, 2013)

— “TRUMP: IMMIGRATION BILL A REPUBLICAN ‘DEATH WISH'” (June 4, 2013)

You may not like what he says, but he is certainly consistent. He may even be right, and just think what it means if he is.

The Trump phenomenon has changed everything in American politics

Posted on by
Reply

An unusually acute examination of the American election from The Wall Street Journal by John O’Sullivan, Quadrant‘s interim editor. It is now almost universal among elite opinion on the right that Donald Trump is a disaster in the making, with an anyone but Trump the standard response. That there are people who classify themselves as Republican who would vote for Hillary over Trump only proves how empty their views must be about the nature of the problems that must be solved. If they really cannot see the certainty that Hillary would be the final nail in an American decline then it is beyond me why anyone should listen to a thing they say.

It is almost an understatement, at this point, to say that the Trump phenomenon has changed everything in American politics, but it has. Here’s a brief laundry list:

Immigration. From the start of this century, both Democratic and Republican elites have wanted to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” of a broadly liberal kind. Popular opposition prevented this, but the party elites headed off any movement toward a more restrictive approach. Mr. Trump, encouraged by the European migrant crisis, picked up the issue, made it the booster rocket of his campaign and now advances a policy that would reduce immigrant numbers overall. Comprehensive immigration reform is not quite dead, but it is collapsing.

Libertarianism. Young people were said to see it as a respectable modern version of conservatism. But libertarianism and its prophet, Sen. Rand Paul, have been pushed aside by the rush of popular support to Mr. Trump, who represents, if anything, a movement from libertarianism to activist government.

Isolationism versus interventionism. This was going to be the debate between Sen. Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio to determine the future direction of the GOP’s national security policy. Instead, despite remarks on Vladimir Putin that are silly and worse, Mr. Trump has swept aside this debate. He plays to a widespread mood in American life that is perturbed about Mr. Obama’s failing foreign strategy and responds, in effect, that the U.S. should fight “no more unwinnable wars.” Mr. Trump promises that he won’t pick fights but will definitely win those fights he gets into while pursuing a fairly narrow version of America’s national interest.

Reforming the welfare state. Walter Russell Mead, writing in the American Interest, has called for the reform of what he labels the “Blue State Model”—that is, the fiscally failing American welfare state of entitlements and urban programs, resting on budget-busting public sector salaries and pensions. Mr. Mead and others have advanced serious schemes for cuts that would make the system sustainable in the long run. Again, Mr. Trump has sweepingly promised to preserve entitlements against such reforms, discouraging other Republicans from making this tough case.

All this is true, but for myself, the most important change Trump may bring is a weakening of the media’s narrowing the range of acceptable opinion and some lessening of the grip that political correctness has on policy and public discourse. America is heading for the rocks and we will join them if nothing is done to turn things around. It is this most of all that O’Sullivan sees and understands making him alone of all of the major commentators to have accepted that Trump is not an unmitigated bad.

We conservatives are not going away any time soon

Posted on by
Reply

The fact remains that we conservatives have yet to be impressed with Malcolm as PM who is still to achieve anything of any use other than to end the political instability at the top of the party which he himself was the sole cause of. So far he has held on because he has not done a thing to reverse any of the policies put in place by Abbott. For example, I noted in a post of my own yesterday that:

If conservative means to preserve what is good while allowing positive change to occur, the Donald may well be the most conservative candidate in this election. It is also what I liked about Tony Abbott even though no two people may be farther apart personally than he and Donald Trump.

And then John Comnenus, in a guest post that followed mine, made the following suggestion to Barnaby Joyce to ensure that Malcolm listens to the conservatives among his Parliamentary party:

Upon becoming the Nationals leader you should immediately go to Bill Shorten and ask him what the ALP is happy to offer the Nationals if it were a junior Coalition parter. Think about the potential power of such a move.

And then there is Merv Bendle, in an article at Quadrant Online, The Coming Conservative Revolt, in which he wrote:

Ultimately, history will reveal that it is not conservatism but progressivism that is in crisis. What this nation needs are politicians able to comprehend the ominous trajectory of global events and articulate a conservative response for the Australian people.

We like the Australia we have and don’t want to lose it. That is what is meant by the verb “to conserve” and that is what we are looking for the leader of a party on the right to do. Which brings me to the post by Andrew Bolt this morning who says the same again and then some. This is from a post on The hounding out of Abbott. Why does the Liberal Left fear him?

But bottom line: it says something very sad about the Liberals under Turnbull and Bishop that conservatives like Abbott are so unwelcome. The party is being hijacked and the public increasingly denied a genuine argument or choice on some big issues. Just see how both sides now don’t think slashing spending is good, despite the warnings of the Treasury Secretary that it’s dangerously high. See how both agree global warming is a potential disaster. How both Labor and Liberal leaders agree on a republic, same-sex marriage, Aboriginal recognition in the Constitution and a bloated ABC.

Andrew finishes with this astonishing story which is behind the paywall at the Daily Telegraph:

TONY Abbott has met US President Barack Obama privately in Washington in a move that is bound to further frustrate Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The former PM also held secret talks with Mr Obama’s spy boss and was urged by the Americans to maintain a role as a global voice on critical issues such as terrorism….

He also met the elder statesman of US foreign affairs, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, as well as the president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass and former US Republican presidential candidate John McCain…

Mr Abbott also accepted lunch invitations from the former president of the World Bank James Wolfensohn and the head of investment firm Morgan Stanley James Gorman.

The world is not the kind of world those at the top of the Liberal Party think it is. Abbott represents the proper response to our times and Malcolm, unless he gets with the program, will increasingly find that he and his motley crew do not.

Megan McArdle – idiot

Posted on by
Reply

If you would like to see an example of unpersuasive, this one is near the top of the line: How can Trump voters possibly trust this guy? It’s a short article that focuses on how we cannot be sure what a Donald Trump will do as president. I am happy to concede exactly that if she will concede you cannot say what any of the others will do either. And a large part of the reason is that while we ask people running for office what they would do in known circumstances and deal with already existing problems, when they arrive things suddenly spin out of control. But let us look at the issues of the moment through her eyes. She starts by characterising people who lean towards Trump in the following way:

You are sick to death of well-paid folks in Washington and New York and California calling you bigots because of your stance on immigration, trade or foreign policy.

If they did so, I would be offended and such people would have no influence on me. But then writes in the very next sentence:

I don’t happen to agree with you on immigration policy.

Well that’s that. You can now take your snooty condescension and be on your way, you buffoon. And then she concludes with this:

Trump voters seem eager to ignore the fact that their candidate is theirs only until he doesn’t need them.

Well listen, Megan. It is still a political system that needs to work through Congress and the public service. Although Obama may have given you this impression, you are not electing a king, but an administration. There is plenty of politics after an election. And with the media filled with shrews and scolds like yourself, doing things, even the kinds of things people would like done on immigration, will not be as easy as all that.