Monthly Archives: March 2017

The average reader of a right-side blog is better informed than the average viewer of television news

Posted on by
Reply

There was this in the comments on the previous thread that quite caught my eye:

George Wallace
#2335836, posted on March 24, 2017 at 7:17 pm (Edit)
One of the biggest stories on earth right now – the illegal surveillance of a president-elect by a sitting president in the USA – is being totally ignored by the ABC. No mention at all. Quite incredible.

And you know what, he’s right. One of the genuinely astonishing parts about discussing politics with most people is that the only things they know about are what they find on the news or in the papers, which means everything that might in any way contradict their leftwards worldview is kept from them by every means possible. This is what their ABC does. They either do not report, or distort what they do report or misstate the significance of what they report or just outright lie. But as an example of the way in which the community is mis-informed, just as Mr Wallace said, it really is incredible that no one who depends on the ABC is aware of this: OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE: Obama INVOLVED in “Wiretapping”. They might be told that Trump has said as much, but they would never ever have an inkling that any of it might be true, or that these are issues they might wish to weigh up for themselves. Instead, the story, even where it is reported, is bundled up for their viewers so that not only are they told what the right view on each and every issue is, but the proper response is provided as well.

For us over here, we get an almost lethal dose of the ABC and friends’ pre-digested news, since how could we not, even if we tried. But for ABC types, they are kept in their safety zones to prevent their ever having to come across news that might disturb their peace of mind, even if that peace of mind requires an almost complete ignorance of what is going on in the world.

Yet you do have to wonder how this will be kept from going through the roof. From Drudge, right now:

NSA To Provide ‘Smoking Gun’ Proof Obama Spied on Trump…

Gathered, disseminated secret electronic communications prior to inauguration….

So we shall see if it is still news come Monday, whether the don’t-want-to-know crowd will get their wish and end up not knowing.

UPDATE: I just don’t think it comes across exactly what we are dealing with. Let me take you to the words of that last story linked above. This is from the story:

Nunes said he was alarmed by what he saw in several dozen intelligence reports that include transcripts of communications, including communications directly from Trump. The reports were based on a foreign electronic spying operation between November and January. They were revealed by an intelligence community insider who alerted Nunes.

Nunes said on CNN that after reading the reports he was confident the Obama White House and numerous agencies “had a pretty good idea of what President-elect Trump was up to and what his transition team was up to and who they were meeting with.” . . .

The intelligence reports, which number in the dozens, suggest that the names of Trump and his advisers were not properly “minimized” in the foreign intelligence reports, as required under intelligence rules protecting the privacy rights of Americans.

“We don’t have the full scope of all the intelligence reports that were produced, or who ordered the unmasking of additional names, and we’re hoping to get that,” Nunes said.

The transcripts appeared to be the result of legal intelligence collection against a foreign target. The problem, Nunes said, was that someone in government ordered the names of the Americans to be unmasked and the reports to be distributed to government agencies. . . .

The explosive reports uncovered by Nunes contradict public testimony Monday by FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers.

Comey and Rogers stated during an intelligence committee hearing that they had no information to support Trump’s claims in a series of tweets that he had been placed under electronic surveillance by President Obama. . . .

Asked if he could rule out that Obama was personally involved in the surveillance, Nunes said “No, I cannot.”

He said she said media edition

Posted on by
Reply

The me in the title is Scott Adams, Dilbert’s Scott Adams: Some Fake News About Me from Bloomberg. A true exposure (via Instapundit and Small Dead Animals) of the cretinous actions of the media. This is how the article begins:

Last autumn, before the election, a writer for Bloomberg asked to spend a day with me to interview me for a feature piece about my blogging on Trump, and my life in general. I could tell from the initial conversation that it was going to be a hostile article. The reporter was open about being deeply frightened of Trump, believing him to be a racist, sexist, homophobic monster. So you can imagine how she felt about me for writing flattering blog posts about his persuasion talents.

I quickly determined that agreeing to the interview would be foolhardy. Obviously it was going to be a hit piece. The writer weakly tried to conceal that fact, but failed miserably.

If I agreed to the interview, I knew I would be making myself the target of ridicule and shame, baring my flaws to the world – both the real ones and the fake news ones. No rational person would agree to such an interview. It was a suicide mission.

So I agreed to the interview.

Regular readers know I don’t experience embarrassment like normal people. I just thought it would be funny to have them write about how wrong I was… just as the election was about to prove how right I was.

The day I agreed to the interview, I told my girlfriend Kristina that I was going to be the subject of a “hit piece” in Bloomberg. When the writer asked to speak to my brother, for background, I told him it was a hit piece, but I invited him to do it anyway, just for fun. Obviously, no sane person would agree to be interviewed for hit piece on his own family.

So my brother agreed to the interview.

We’ll have a good laugh about it later today. He got framed as a gullible idiot for “believing” something my mom told us when we were kids.

Check the article here and see if you can spot the fake news and the places where context has been tweaked to make things look both true and misleading at the same time. I’ll tell you what you missed, if anything, after you read it. Compare your impressions to my Fake News Report Card below.

Here’s the Bloomberg article by Caroline Winter.

OK, now read the Bloomberg article and then go back to the original link at the top to read what he says about what she says. And I will confess that I could not get through the Carol Winter article, neither before I read what Adams wrote nor after. But you will get the point nonetheless.

Waleed says what he thinks

Posted on by
Reply

This is from Tim Blair and although he doesn’t say it, represents as blatant an example of anti-semitism in the public space as ever I have seen in this country. Tim’s title is: WALEED SPEAKS FIRST, THINKS LATER.

Even for an intellectual, Waleed Aly is surprisingly dumb.

His assumptions are often informed more by media class groupthink than by any study of objective reality. Recall, for example, his 2013 claim that the Boston Marathon bombers could have been “self-styled American patriots.”

Brainiac Waleed subsequently offered another theory, this time about a Melbourne self-defence training program:

The class at the gym in Caulfield, Victoria, in Melbourne’s south-east, teaches people Israeli Army combat techniques to ‘take down terrorists’.

During a panel discussion after the segment was aired, Aly, a Muslim, raised his eyebrows, smiled and asked: ‘If I rocked up with my mates Mustafa and Hamoudi, do you reckon they’d let us train?’

Waleed should have asked a few more questions first:

The Krav Maga program’s founder, Avi Yemini, said a Muslim had been enrolled in that same class and demanded the TV host take back his ‘underhanded’ remarks.

Nailed it, Waleed. The Logie-winning bore, by the way, yesterday described the London terror attack as an example of “international extremism”, whatever the hell that is.

“Whatever the hell that is” is misdirection. A euphemism for radical Islamic terrorism, the invisible and non-existent – that is, invisible and non-existent on the left – form of mass murder that will only get worse until it is dealt with. Here is a more accurate approach.

Doing the left’s work for them

Posted on by
Reply

This is the question Powerline’s John Hinderaker asks: SO, WERE TRUMP’S TWEETS RIGHT AFTER ALL?. This is what he quotes:

Members of the intelligence community collected “incidental” communications of the Trump transition team during legal surveillance operations of foreign targets, a top Republican lawmaker said Wednesday afternoon.

House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said this produced “dozens” of reports which eventually unmasked several individuals’ identities and were “widely disseminated.”

He said none of the reports he had read mentioned Russia or Russians and he was unsure whether the surveillance occurred at Trump Tower — as President Trump has suggested. Nunes also was unsure if then President-elect Trump was captured by the surveillance, which occurred in November, December and January.

That the intelligence agencies of the American government under a Democrat administration should be undertaking surveillance in any respect of the Republican nominee for President is a scandal of the most extraordinary kind. This is the work of a police state, not an open and democratic society. The issue of the moment is to make it clear that IF this happened, then that is an INDICTABLE OFFENCE that should cause individual to END UP IN JAIL. Since we know that as far back as January, before Trump was inaugurated, exactly this kind of surveillance was being reported in the New York Times, there should be no doubting that something absolutely unacceptable was going on. This is from the NYT of January 19:

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

How did the NYT know? Who authorised such leaks? Why is there no one being prosecuted? What was the role of the previous administration – the administration of the then-president – in any and all of this? That is what we would like to know. Instead, this is what we find at Powerline, and so many others who are on the conservative side of politics:

Closer to the heart of the matter may be Nunes’s observation that the identities of Trump associates subject to such incidental surveillance were “widely disseminated.” This “unmasking” is a federal crime, as House members discussed with Comey and Rogers on Monday. So, while President Trump may have been wrong in believing that the Obama administration directed surveillance at him or his associates–the jury is still out on that question–he was certainly right to be angry about the fact that information reflecting badly on his associates, collected through apparently legal surveillance, was leaked to the press in an effort to damage his campaign or his administration.

Weak, weak, weak! Every conjecture might be wrong, but that is taken for granted. Here the issue is what did happen and who did it and for what reason? Because it certainly looks like something very wrong, very illegal and very ominous really did take place.

Mark Steyn explaining the inexplicable

Posted on by
Reply

The main problem I have with watching or reading Mark Steyn is that everything he says is so entirely sensible and obvious I come away thinking no one could possibly be so idiotic that they could miss the point or see it any other way. Alas, the one thing I actually do know is that being on the left means that you are capable of ignoring all evidence from the past, are completely devoid of common sense and are prepared to see your entire way of life descend into oblivion based on no discernible principle at all. The above is his interview with Tucker Carlson from a few days ago. And then below are some from among his cancelled show which really is a major loss to us all.

Not hilarious, not funny but funny and hilarious in its own way. That was the second and here is the first also worth your time.

There were nine that I’ve so far found. If money cannot be made putting Steyn on TV our side is definitely the losing side.

[Via Five Feet of Fury]

How I think of my own economics text

Posted on by
Reply

Why would you write a book if you didn’t think what you had to say was different from what others had to say? This is part of a letter I have written to my publisher who is about to publish the third edition of my Free Market Economics: an Introduction for the General Reader.

I will just restate that I think this book is the best introductory economics text in the world. It is the only book from which someone can actually learn how an economy works. It does so by being the only book that takes the economics taught back to classical times and explains economic theory in the way it was explained by the first great economists, from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill. I have now been teaching from this book for nine years and my students (around 1400 so far) truly do get it and since I teach a graduate course, two thirds of them have already done an economics course. I watch the mess that modern macro has created across the world with the various stimulus packages leaving major wreckage in their wake and have had no reason in all that time to reconsider a single word of anything I have written. That others who come to my text after having learned from some modern framework – whether Keynesian, monetarist or Austrian – cannot see the point is part of the problem since preconceptions and presuppositions make it almost – but not totally – impossible to see things in a different way. But the thing for me about this book is that its very existence gives me hope that others will eventually see the point. In some ways you might think I am teaching the economic theory of the past, but in my view I am teaching the economic theory of the future.

Modern economics is preferred by governments since it allows them to parcel out oceans of money disguised as economic stimulus. The failure of our economies and the fall in living standards which is becoming unmistakable is in no small part due to modern economic theory which was specifically understood in classical times as fallacious to its very core. I live in the modern world of economic mismanagement but mostly read textbooks which are now almost always at least a hundred years old if not much older than that. Here for your interest is the link to my article on the hundredth anniversary of Clay’s Economics which was published last year. This is the abstract:

Clay’s Economics was first published in 1916 with no pretensions to be anything more than just a summary of the state of economic theory as it then was. Yet so well was it written that it became one of the most widely used economics texts of its time, found on reading lists from workers’ colleges and mechanic’s institutes through to the leading universities of the world. Its interest today is therefore twofold. It is, firstly, a near-perfect summary of pre-Keynesian economic theory, incorporating Say’s Law, J.S. Mill’s theory of value and the classical theory of the cycle, along with many other of the most important features of the standard classical model. Secondly, the text makes clear how wrong Keynes in The General Theory had been in his description of what the economists he had described as “classical” had actually believed and taught. Even a century later, Clay’s Economics may well remain the single best introduction to economic theory ever written.

So if you don’t want to read my version you can always read his. And if you don’t like either, you can always try your luck with Mill.

Staring into the headlights

Posted on by
Reply

From Andrew Bolt, the Coalition is ten points down. Two years out from an election, polls are typically misleading, with the governing party always lower than it ought to be since no actual government can ever live up to expectations. Ten points is not, however, slightly down but a chasm. What I have done is cull from the comments at Bolt those that discuss Malcolm directly. I need hardly mention no one has had a good word to say about the PM.

It is clear that the disgruntled conservatives or Delcons or the Deplorables have NOT fallen for the BS that Turnbull expects us to swallow especially the Snowy river scheme Mark two because there is going to be a long interval between turning the first shovel of earth and Cutting the Ribbon IF it it ever gets started. If the Liberal senators ever think to ask questions in their electorates they MIGHT find that Turnbull is on the nose everywhere and if THEY want to survive the election they are going to have to come up with some answers namely to DO something about Turnbull or we are going to have to endure a Labor Government.

A few decades ago Australia was a wonderful place for our Families, the best place to bring up kids, easy going lifestyle and People were safe to go about their Business. Now no one is safe in our Homes, Schools, Business and even at Leisure times. Our Politicians are so far up themselves and only have two considerations their Political Parties and Themselves. Everything is about staying in Power, not the Welfare of the Country or the Man in the Street. We have Leaders who are so blatant with their lies, it seems none of them have any idea of how the People feel, they are oblivious to the needs of the People especially the Majority. And the Media, well no one believes anything that is Printed or Spoken by them anymore, the two words FAKE NEWS are becoming the most frequent words spoken when People are gathered. Is it any wonder that the People of the US voted for Trump.

Does anyone think that Turnbull’s ‘road to Damascus’ conversion to defend freedom of speech is anything but a ploy to mitigate terminal polling numbers? I would wager the final proposal would depend on the blessing of Triggs or her ilk after a chardy and sausage sizzle/vegan burger. No real change, but another attempt to make it look like change. Treat the voters like mugs…again.

During the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, I remember seeing anger in the community. People were furious with the ALP, and rightly so. With the Turnbull Government I don’t see the same thing, despite similar polling. I witness exasperation and disappointment with the Government. The Sydney Morning Marxist will say it is because we aren’t seeing the ‘real Malcolm’. This is garbage. People are used to seeing centre-right Governments balancing the budget, maintaining a strong economy and keeping us safe. They are let down on all three counts. The Coalition must sort it out, or else we will be getting Prime Minister Bill Shorten, and that would be a catastrophe.

Not surprisingly, the poll results reflect a wishy washy P.M. with thought bubbles that seem like a good idea at the time. Provide a warm fuzzy feeling for a while until reality sets in and the voters again feel betrayed eg, Telling W.A. that he would scrutinize the GST carve up, telling us about the Snowy Mountains scheme mark 2, only to find a day or two later, that it involves pumping water uphill, so it can flow down hill. And is years away. He should invoke emergency powers and ensure Hazelwood continues in operation, until energy supply is stable. On 18C, again he dips his toe in the water, with a suggestion that provides considerable uncertainty, instead of scrapping the HRC, something unnecessary which we can’t afford. Our human rights record is very good compared to numerous overseas atrocities. Mal. has difficulty departing fantasy land and his policy of trying to keep everyone happy all of the time is a weakness.

The Liberals will struggle to get 30% here in Qld. As things stand, the loss of seats in Qld alone dooms the Libs to a devastating defeat in 2018. No amount of useless, hypocritical posturing on “amending S18C” will improve the cellar-dwelling rating he has in Qld. He can act the Conservative all he likes over the next 24 months or so, but up here we know him for what he truly is. And he’d revert to his idiotic leftism if he was, somehow, re-elected to Government in 2018.

You have to be wondering what internal LNP polling has also been saying? If its wipe out material no wonder Mr Turnbull and his government are trying to find their traditional Liberal agenda. Mr Brandis was on radio this morning and gave a fairly forceful rationale for changes to 18C (admittedly to a more friendly interviewer). However, now expect the major of the media to act like they did when Mr Abbott was the Prime Minister. Mr Turnbull will be seen as betraying the media for all the support they have given Mr Turnbull in the last 24 months. Mr Turnbull will need to take it to the media forcefully and consistently. Any retreat now would see him completely smashed.

Also take a look at that apocalyptic Coalition primary vote of 34! The time for beating around the bush and “give Turnbull a chance” is LONG since over. Here are the brutal facts – Turnbull was fatally damaged the moment he knifed Abbott to become PM in the first place. Conservatives have long memories and a fierce moral code, and the reality is that the base will NEVER accept such a serpentine leader. But when you combine that with the sheer arrogance and catastrophic ineptitude that Turnbull has displayed in the job as PM (especially obliterating the giant seat majority he inherited from Abbott), and the crippling primary vote in polling, then you have clear and present evidence that Turnbull is FINISHED as a viable option. And no desperate 11th hour appeasement-offering of 18C reforms will save him. The base have rendered their judgement loud and clear: “We don’t want Turnbull!”

As much as Malcolm Turnbull appeared revitalised I still cannot forgive his treachery and no matter what he does and his cohorts that bitter taste will remain. It did yesterday feel less likely we would be returned to the People’s Prime Minister but today is a new day and I am hoping politicians will not continue to play us for fools. We now have Corey Bernardi’s Conservatives and Hanson’s One Nation, I am not going back to the LNP. The Nationals could have stopped the descent into this abyss but said nothing.

Whatever the case, Turnbull is still a dud and it is only the increasing pressure on him from One Nation, that is causing him to appear much more conservative lately. All the more reason to make sure One Nation or Australian Conservative Party or ALA or any coalition between them is maintained so long as Turnbull is Liberal leader. Without them Turnbull will revert to his left green character. Just look at the way he has been very busily filling the Liberal Party (and the ABC) with all his left green mates.

The real problem is Mal giving his lefty mate the ABC job. Just when he showed signs of improvement he shores up the alt left faction of the ABC to ensure their continued left wing bias.

Just an indication of the fragility of MT’s position. They’re behaving like problem gamblers who have just had a rare good day at the TAB.

Turnbull’s problem is Shorten is running rings around him. And Shorten is a lightweight opportunist. If a horrible little man like Shorten can better you, then it’s all over.

Much better news … the party still has time in front of it to recognise the disaster that is Malcolm Turnbull and then turn on their real opponent —— Shorten

It doesn’t matter anymore what Turnbull and the Bedwetters do, they are “dead men walking”.

Waste not, want not is not a socialist slogan

Posted on by
Reply

This is from the comments thread at Tim Blair. The point being made was that the money wasted paying Soupstain and Triggs is mere chicken feed compared with the amount of money being wasted on maintaining the desal plant in NSW which is $500,000 a day. Hence this comment:

“Yet still it costs around $500,000 per day to keep this monument to climate panic in functioning order.”

Victoria would love to have this problem…….our mighty desal plant costs us $1.7M per day (yep you read that right) to produce……nothing.

Did Tim say leftists are good with OPM.

Which then led to this comment which really does make you even more angry:

If their Premier could just cancel a freeway then he can just cancel the de-sal plant payment’ ………………….Oh, wait.

Maybe they can pump it into the Murray so they don’t have to keep stealing water from the farmers.

If these voters on the left truly understood how their lives are being blighted by the governments they elect we really would have a revolution. They are lucky to get back ten cents on the dollar, but the ten cents is visible and the dollar is made up of the goods and services they will never enjoy because the economies in which we live are so badly mismanaged.

Ayn Rand discusses Say’s Law

Posted on by
Reply

Say’s Law starts from the proposition that demand is constituted by supply. This is excerpted from Francisco’s money speech from Atlas Shrugged.

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Aconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. . . .

Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. . . .

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money’. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.

I don’t think productive effort is the whole of morality which means that much of what I believe on the moral plane differs from what she believed. But at the centre of an exchange economy is the role of money whose value can only come from the production of the goods and services the money earned can be used to buy. If the money you receive is not for the production of saleable output, then the money you spend will limit what those who actually have been productive can buy.