See EU later – they’re out

brexit headlines

The papers of the left – the Mirror and Guardian – clearly wanted to stay while The Times stayed neutral. The rest wanted to leave. A definite left-right split.

And on the morning after? Listening to the BBC commentary, it is Labour and the Greens who are most downcast while it is the UKIP and the Tories who are obviously pleased beyond measure, although David Cameron might be in a spot of bother. Listenting to the grizzling on the BBC, the left even admits how hard it is to get medical services or to buy housing but just think they ought to increase medical service and have built more houses without a thought to the migration that had been a big part of the problem. And, of course, Obama wanted the UK to remain, so add that to the total.

And while they are different parts of the Anglosphere, the results do have a bearing on the American presidential election, and even on our own. National sovereignty still matters.

No comments here, but continue on the main Brexit thread.

The real question is why they didn’t see it coming

The title is Obamanomics: R.I.P. and the data are nothing no one knows:

The previously bullish Fed finally and openly acknowledged that sluggish growth is the long term new normal for America. Secular stagnation is here to stay. The growth rate has limped out of the 2008-09 recession at a 2 percent pace now for seven years. The Joint Economic Committee of Congress tells us a normal recovery gives us about 3.5 percent growth and the Reagan and JFK booms were closer to 4 percent. So the GDP today thanks to President Obama is about $2 to $3 trillion smaller than it should be. This is roughly the equivalent of losing the entire annual output of every business and worker in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana combined.

And on and on he goes. If you elect your own version of Chavez, none of this should come as a surprise. But it is not that they didn’t see it coming, they have no lens through which to make sense of what is going on. How ridiculous is this:

The lesson of the Fed under Ben Bernanke and now Yellen is that easy money is no economic solution to this decade-long malaise. As economist Larry Kudlow puts it: “The Fed can print money, but it can’t create jobs.” Our central problem now is not with our monetary policies. It is severe regulatory and tax drag.

Of course it’s with your monetary policies and your fiscal policies and your regulatory policies and your tax policies. They are blinded by their own economic theories, and it is apparently not suicidal for Hillary to say that her intention is to carry on where Obama left off.

Bolt on Sky

I never watch television with the only exception I used to make was the Bolt Report on Sunday mornings. But then Bolt switched to Sky on weekdays @ 7:00 pm which meant I would get home too late, and I don’t anyway like to find myself shifting my timetable to fit into what’s on when. And although I can video, other than an occasional ball game of some sort, the main reason I have videoed things in the past is so that I could happily miss them and not worry about it when the program was finally deleted unwatched a month later.

But here it is. I now do watch Bolt most days. I find I get home that half hour sooner so that I can watch the program in real time. So let me note this from Bolt:

The audience for this difficult 7pm to 8pm time slot on pay TV (note: not taxpayer-subsidised free-to-air) was once very tiny. When I took over less than two months ago, it rose to the 20,000 Barry claims.

But since then we’ve grown, with your very welcome support. On at least two days last week, we topped 50,000 viewers. The word is getting out and, clearly, some people appreciate the alternative enough to pay to watch it. If Barry cares to test his own pulling power, I am sure Sky News will offer him a slot, too.

Well, part of that rise is the two of us, and we usually make it through to the end. If you can watch, that is, if you have cable, you should when you can. It’s the only current affairs on TV worth the effort, not that I watch any other so perhaps I am being unfair, though I doubt it.

Anti-capitalism is a form of hate speech that has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions

I have been reading David Solway’s The Problem with Hate Speech which has brought this to mind. It is about how the left is doing what it can to make arguments contrary to its own beliefs illegal by transferring the normal expression of one’s own opinion into forms of hate speech, which is then made against the law. His article concludes:

If we do not speak our minds, or prefer to huddle under a canopy of pietistic complicity, as many do, we will awaken one day soon to find our freedom of expression even more severely compromised than it now is—or worse. Indeed, “microfascism” has a way of morphing into macrofascism. The upshot is that we will have reaped the bitter harvest of our cowardice, and an ironic form of justice will have been served.

If ever there has been a belief system that has led to the death and misery of more people than the various forms of socialism that have been tried and are still being tried, I do not know what it is. Venezuela stands before us today as a living dying example of how rapidly a society can be devastated by socialist leaders, and even while the example has been there before us, something like a quarter of the voting population of the richest and freest country that has ever been have been following Bernie Sanders – their own Hugo Chavez – and sincerely wish to see him become president of the United States.

Socialism is not the welfare state. It is not trying to assist the disadvantaged and the poor. It is not trying to lift the fallen and comfort the afflicted. It is a desire to run an economy from the centre, to steal the property of the capitalists and make everyone better off by making the most economically illiterate people in a society its political leaders.

In which socialist experiment has this not followed as night follows day: Venezuelans Ransack Stores as Hunger Grips the Nation.

Venezuela is convulsing from hunger.

Hundreds of people here in the city of Cumaná, home to one of the region’s independence heroes, marched on a supermarket in recent days, screaming for food. They forced open a large metal gate and poured inside. They snatched water, flour, cornmeal, salt, sugar, potatoes, anything they could find, leaving behind only broken freezers and overturned shelves.

And they showed that even in a country with the largest oil reserves in the world, it is possible for people to riot because there is not enough food.

This is from The New York Times, and therefore you might think the evils of anti-capitalism are at least being exposed. Not a bit of it. The entire article is purely descriptive. There is not a sentence in it that lays blame on anyone for the catastrophes being described. It is not entirely certain that anyone among the reporters at The New York Times actually knows. This is the only part of the story that tries to explain a thing:

Economists say years of economic mismanagement — worsened by low prices for oil, the nation’s main source of revenue — have shattered the food supply.

Sugar fields in the country’s agricultural center lie fallow for lack of fertilizers. Unused machinery rots in shuttered state-owned factories. Staples like corn and rice, once exported, now must be imported and arrive in amounts that do not meet the need.

The reporter cannot even bring himself to name the particular form of “economic mismanagement”, not even so much as to describe it as the guaranteed fruits of an anti-capitalist, socialist government. And there is no doubting that this has added to the socialist death toll, as described by this story from a month ago in the same journal of record: Dying Infants and No Medicine: Inside Venezuela’s Failing Hospitals. And they are not dying, they are actually dead.

Doctors kept ailing infants alive by pumping air into their lungs by hand for hours. By nightfall, four more newborns had died.

“The death of a baby is our daily bread,” said Dr. Osleidy Camejo, a surgeon in the nation’s capital, Caracas, referring to the toll from Venezuela’s collapsing hospitals. . . .

“It is like something from the 19th century,” said Dr. Christian Pino, a surgeon at the hospital.

The figures are devastating. The rate of death among babies under a month old increased more than a hundredfold in public hospitals run by the Health Ministry, to just over 2 percent in 2015 from 0.02 percent in 2012, according to a government report provided by lawmakers.

The rate of death among new mothers in those hospitals increased by almost five times in the same period, according to the report.

And what does this reporter say about the causes of such horrors? Does he explain that this is the natural consequence of following a socialist policy?

“This is criminal that we can sit in a country with this much oil, and people are dying for lack of antibiotics,” says Oneida Guaipe, a lawmaker and former hospital union leader.

But Mr. Maduro, who succeeded Hugo Chávez, went on television and rejected the effort, describing the move as a bid to undermine him and privatize the hospital system.

“I doubt that anywhere in the world, except in Cuba, there exists a better health system than this one,” Mr. Maduro said.

Can we lock up anti-capitalists for their hate speech, their insanity, their ignorance, their murderous beliefs? No we can’t and, of course, we shouldn’t and there is no chance that we will. Nevertheless, anti-capitalist rhetoric remains at the centre of political discourse in the West. It is the most lethal belief system on earth and you can find it not just on street corners but in every legislative body across the world.

Through gritted teeth

Reading The Australian has become something of a chore. Now that I have stopped doing sudokus, there is almost no reason to have the paper delivered every day except out of life-long habit. Let me however start with Van Onselen and his efforts to back his puny judgement about our PM. He starts with a statement that absolutely no one in the world could disagree with:

Both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten have underwhelmed voters.

Shorten has, however, lived up to expectations. Malcolm, on the other hand, was brought in because he was the one-man rescue party for a floundering party. Instead, the certainty is that there will not be a single additional Coalition vote because Malcolm is PM and there will be many others lost that might even sink the party on the final day. But here is that same columnist at the end of a different story also in today’s paper

There is a feeling within the Liberals that Abbott would have been more effective on the hustings, attacking Shorten, shifting media focus to Coalition strengths beyond the economy. And he certainly would have exhibited more energy than Turnbull has.

And as for an out and out deranged judgement, since we all know that Turnbull made his move just before the by-election in WA which the Libs were going to win hands down with Tony as the leader, what can one say about this?

The Coalition research that shows marginal seats holding up, is in contrast to research before the change of leader. That certainly wasn’t the sense marginal seat MPs had of their electorates back then.

You have to cringe reading such stuff. The only thing Malcolm has going for him is that he doesn’t have Malcolm inside cabinet shafting the leader. So I turn to this interview with Tony Abbott where we find:

With less than two weeks until election day, Abbott’s immediate concern is seeing the Coalition re-elected. He thinks Labor can win the election and issues a warning to disillusioned conservatives who may be thinking of parking their vote elsewhere in protest over the leadership change last year.

“Think again, because it’s absolutely essential that we have the best possible government and that is a Turnbull-led Coalition government,” he says. “If they are thoughtful conservatives, even through gritted teeth, they will put the Coalition ahead of the Labor Party.”

Funny he should say that. What sort of feedback do you suppose he’s been getting? Gritted teeth isn’t the half of it. Where I am it’s a choice between Labor and the Greens which makes it easy since the only thing that will matter is which order I put them. Where the Libs go will make no difference. As for the Senate, on this there will have to be some deep consideration before the evil day arrives.

“It’s been a long time since the media in this country told the truth about anything”

From Stacy McCain: [Redacted] Is a Religion of Peace.

The Obama administration and the liberal media have decided that when a radical Islamic terrorist kills Americans, the one thing the narrative cannot be about is radical Islamic terrorism. It’s OK to talk about the Orlando massacre in terms of homophobia, gun control or “toxic masculinity,” but don’t you dare mention Islam. Don’t mention that Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat, or that he’s the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan or that his father supports the Taliban.

This obvious pro-Muslim bias has become increasingly blatant:

Justice Department Replaces ‘Allah’ With ‘God’ in Censored Orlando Terrorist Transcript
— Katie Pavlich, Townhall

FBI Omitted ISIS From Orlando 911 Transcript
— Mary Chastain, Legal Insurrection

FBI releases 911 transcripts of Omar Mateen — with references to ISIS omitted
— Allahpundit, Hot Air

The media would have you believe that this sensitivity is necessary because, if radical Islamic terrorism were identified as the cause of a gruesome mass murder, Americans would be seized by irrational “Islamophobia” and commit hate crimes against random brown people. In fact, the reason that the administration and the media are so intent on downplaying the role of Islam is because they are afraid that if they told the truth, people might vote Republican in November.

Therefore, the media won’t tell the truth. Then again, it’s been a long time since the media in this country told the truth about anything.