Nazis [Canadian division] are not welcome here

And this is the same story from Ezra Levant via Small Dead Animals.

“A beautifully crafted and eminently fair review”

I’ve just written a book review for the eh.net website which I would not normally mention except that it attracted this comment from Tom Humphrey, one of the great historians of economics writing today:

A beautifully crafted and eminently fair review by Steve Kates. He takes a strong stand. But he does so in a spirit that few scholars could object to even if they disagree with him. In overall quality and readability his review rises far above the level of the average review. Wish all reviews could be so good. Nothing is as helpful and valuable as a good book review, if done right. Reviewing is an un- and under-appreciated art.

This is how my review begins:

There was a time that one might have said that economic theory was comprised of a series of concepts that help explain the way communities provision themselves and became more prosperous over time. Economic theory as it developed came in the wake of the pamphleteers of more ancient days who saw the world around them and thought there had to be a better way of getting things done. They therefore wrote polemical accounts aimed at addressing various problems as they saw them, to try to persuade others to take up the approaches they were attempting to advocate.

Meanwhile, almost from out of nowhere came the Industrial Revolution. It was not a consequence of Adam Smith having written his Wealth of Nations. The two just appeared on the scene at roughly the same time, and some — observing the world they were living in, while also reading Smith’s account of how economies worked — came to the conclusion that there was some actual theoretical knowledge that might assist in the improvement of the way in which economies grew and prospered. That is how we came to have the classical school first, and then the major critiques of the socialist writers, with Marx and Sismondi among the most significant.

The classical economists observed the world, saw the tremendous growth in output and living standards and, correctly in my view, came to the conclusion that it was the role of private entrepreneurs that had made the difference. Within the community, if it were designed in a way that allowed individuals to pursue their own best interests as they saw them, there would be a rearrangement of productive forces in response to where the greatest return on investments would occur. Output rose, innovations occurred, and as a direct result living-standards rose. It may appear to many of us looking back on those times that the social costs were immense, but many of those who were living at the time were content that England should exchange its “green and pleasant land” for a highly productive economic structure that allowed many individuals to move forward in what they could earn and in the range and quantity of the goods and services they could buy.

But the costs were high, and memories were short. Henry Mayhew’s London Labour and the London Poor, which he began in 1849 as an investigative journalist and which was finally published in 1861-62, brought the tremendous social costs into the limelight (Mayhew 1985). He was hardly the first to do so, but Mayhew’s work stands out as a depiction of the burdens that had befallen the newly formed proletariats of the industrial age. It was the appearance not just of poverty, which had till then been universal, that mattered, but the agglomeration of entire industrial suburbs that focused attention on the world as it had become. Dark satanic mills had become the way of the world.

What also was new in the world at the time was the business cycle, the periodic ebb and flow of economic activity which came at such a tremendous cost to the working classes. It was one thing to be mired in poverty. It was another thing entirely to find that the low wages upon which individuals depended would suddenly disappear, and for reasons utterly beyond the control of the workers themselves, indeed beyond the control of anyone. And while there was no denying the spectacular growth not just in the volume of output but in the assortment of goods and services that came into existence, there was also disquiet at the disruptions and harm that could be visited on individuals and their families because of the disruptions in their working lives.

And while this overview of the years of the Industrial Revolution is part of the background knowledge of every economist, the need for a means to account for how the industrial world operated was required as well as some means to control the forces that had been let loose upon the world. There was the positive side that came in terms of production. But there was the negative side that came in relation to the polluted cities that had sprung up and the uncertainties that had become embedded within the lives of so many individuals. And this is where the history of economic thought comes into the story.

Economists are the inheritors of the latest manifestations of the theory of the economy that more or less satisfies most of the profession. There are now theories of such astonishing abstraction that it is almost impossible any longer to look into what economists believe they know and truly understand how the economic world is structured or what can and should be changed to improve the operation of the productive aspects of our economies.

If you would like to read the rest, you can go here.

Lost generation

The Fearless Girl statue in Federation Square, a copy of the New York original by Kristen Visbal, is a symbol of the kind of strength and resilience we are seeing from Australian girls.

The photo above is from this story, Girls are flexing their power and they have plenty to teach their mums, with this the caption beneath the photo.

The Fearless Girl statue in Federation Square, a copy of the New York original by Kristen Visbal, is a symbol of the kind of strength and resilience we are seeing from Australian girls.

And this is the photo of the New York original, from which you can only deduce that this “fearless girl” is a complete fool. No one, male or female, would stand in the way of a rampaging bull.

So this is what this mother writes about her daughter’s generation.

Even before the national outrage triggered by the 5000 disclosures of past assaults committed on school-aged girls , this mob of girls was showing us they are less passive and prone to please than previous generations (many of us) were trained to be…. Every generation wants things to be better for their children, she says. How truly uplifting to see girls currently doing this for themselves.

What, exactly are these girls currently doing for themselves? When I was a lad, by the time we were in our late teens, or the early twenties at the latest, we were all – boys and girls alike – searching for someone to marry and have children with. Most did and some didn’t, but that was what boy-girl relations was about. What is it about today? If it’s still not about finding someone to marry and have children with, there are a lot of young people around who have no idea what will give them true satisfaction with life.

Or so it seems to me. Happy to hear otherwise but I will not be easy to convince.

“It’s never gonna end”

From Mark Steyn on Canada lock-up policy where the video is found:

As to the imprisonment of fully vaccinated Covid-negative populations, see, of all places, the CBC:

Chuck Ferkranus, a resident of a home in Newmarket, Ont., said no one in the building has COVID-19 and yet residents are stuck in their rooms. Ferkranus, who challenged those in authority to live as he does for even a week, said residents are being treated worse than criminals. “We did nothing wrong; we’re not guilty of any crime,” he said. “If vaccinations don’t end the rules, if no one having COVID doesn’t end the restrictions, then what does it take before this comes to an end?”

In the sense of a return to the pre-Covid world, it’s never gonna end.

And if you want to see the specific quote from Justin Trudeau on The Great Reset and Covid, see below. The really loopy bits start at around 2:00 minutes in.

The Liberal Party in Canada is now the equivalent of the ALP in Australia. Many (most?) Western governments around the world are now in the hands of totalitarians, but nice totalitarians.

“I’m sure Grace would agree”

Following up on Is it The Age or The Oz?, the first of the articles was from The Australian: Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews promoted after she made my life hell, says female staffer. They have now rectified their error of leaving out the story on The Australian of the Year – remind me what exactly she did to win the award – by including this today: Grace Tame attacks Scott Morrison for promoting Amanda Stoker. The PM did respond to her, however, trying to teach Ms Tame something about grace and sense:

Mr Morrison said he disagreed with Ms Tame labelling the ministerial reshuffle a “distraction”.

“I wouldn’t share those views. I respect Grace and I once again congratulate her on her strong advocacy on the issues that have been so front of mind but they’ve always been front of mind for people who have been dealing with these issues over generations,” he said.

“There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with each other, but I think we’ve got to find better ways to disagree and this comes and builds from a culture of respect in this country which I’m sure Grace would agree is something we need to continue to build.”

From the comments:

Tame received AOTY for her campaign about letting victims of sexual assault be allowed to speak……”Let her speak” was the campaign slogan. Certainly a worthy message. But she seems to be against Stoker or Arendt being allowed to speak their piece. Why?? Because their views don’t align with hers??

Amanda Stoker obviously worries the left. They have come out so quickly with a personal attack. Suggests she is very good and what I see she certainly is

I’ll back the senator any day against lefty accusations. I think Grace should do more homework before expressing opinions about things she doesnt have all the facts on.

I didn’t realise that the Australian of the Year could have a say in choosing a Cabinet Minister. Enough is enough Grace.

More than enough.

“To the Oz: Stop this nonsense. We already have the ABC”

Following up on Is it The Age or The Oz?, the first of the articles is from The Australian: Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews promoted after she made my life hell, says female staffer. You would not think the rest of the subscribers liked the news balance reflected by the story – front page even – than I did. These are in order from the Best Liked on down:

Is this what it’s come to?  The Australian publishing every grievance and complaint as though it’s news?  It’s not. This is an HR matter. Please focus on actual news. 

Couple of comments – what about the other side of the story? Having been a public servant for 30+ years, is the complainant ‘over the hill’ and stuck in a old school rut?  Job performance not up to scratch? Getting ignored because younger, fresher talent is seen as a threat? A mature, experienced operative should have been able to manage the situation to recovery. Secondly, those that are pushing for quotas need to reflect on the inherent risk of female to female conflicts like this situation. In my working life (45 years in banking and finance) the most difficult situations I faced were in the majority, females fighting amongst themselves. The blokes just flared up one day and had a drink the next.

A busy person with big responsibilities will always be focused which often leads to abrupt behaviour and little time for niceties.  They are not necessarily bullying, they simply cannot babysit the feelings of everyone on their staff, no time and no interest.  Positions of heavy responsibility are pressure cooker – if staff are offended maybe they are in the wrong job.

It is truly amazing that all perceived problems. irregularities and complaints seem to be only reported if they are on the government side. It must be truly boring on the Labor side. All champagne and roses. Nothing to see here so to speak or is it too dangerous to speak out ??

To the Oz: Stop this nonsense. We already have the ABC.

I am the victim, I am the victim. What a culture we are degenerating into.

Everybody has upset someone, somewhere at some time some where along the line. My 45 years of business experience has taught me that if you have to “get up someone” it means that “someone” has not done their job. Of course every employee who has been told off by the “boss” feels like they have been “humiliated and victimised” Maybe, just maybe this advisor was not up to the job? Maybe she is a case of Peter’s Principle? There are always two sides to every story. 

Could someone please get back to running the country?

Employees, particularly those in the PS, today work in a fluffy, cosseted little cocoon of sweetness and soft light, inured from the rigours and arrows of life. The slightest hint of unpleasantness and they’re off to HR closely followed by a pack of baying ABC reporters.

“He said … she said …” Is anyone else getting a little tired of this?

I have trouble understanding this world of allegation we live in, where unnamed sources and unverified statements that cannot be corroborated, are the central theme of an article. It just doesn’t sound fair. 

This is getting ludicrous, I joined the workforce 45 years ago and you just did your job without complaint. My boss bellowed and yelled most of the day but we respected him and everybody accepted it because he was capable and fair. This bullying phenomena is totally out of control.

So, instead of taking this issue to the Fair Work Commission, this person waits until the day the minister is promoted and goes directly to the media.  The only logical conclusion is that this person wanted to do the most damage possible to the reputation of the minister with these actions.  How do we describe that behaviour?

So, it took six months to take action. The alleged bullying couldn’t have been too bad. Politics is not a bed of roses. Except on pay days. 

This is exactly what happened to me after 20 years working in a corporate environment, where I had the respect of the board, senior staff and volunteers for the work I did. Then a new CEO and marketing director were appointed, both women, both half my age, and the job stripping and verbal abuse started. I finally left after a year of it ~ and since then four subsequent appointees have done the same. Female managers are not always manna from heaven. 

So, you mean to ‘say’ that all ‘abuse’ in a workplace is not perpetrated by men upon women! Who would have thought it?!

Yesterday, The Australian published a story in which it stated someone needed a ‘clip behind their tin ear’ and it often includes in its headline or the story that someone needs to be ‘slapped down’. I remember a headline that claimed “Turnbull slaps down Abbott” (an article by former Oz journalist David Crowe). So on one hand we have the media promoting physical violence and bullying by clipping someone behind the ear and slapping someone else down, and now another article about bullying by Govt Ministers. Is the media confused?

She clearly lost the confidence of the Minister. Happens all the time with CEO’s and Boards in the corporate world for reasons which are often complex and yes, unfair. 

In all my years in the workplace it has women bullying other women that was the most common and damaging behaviour that I witnessed.  It destroyed more women’s careers than men ever did.  However, this problem is not reported or given any prominence, probably because it doesn’t fit with the narrative that men are the cause of toxic work environments and that the answer is simple – put more women in positions of power and the problem will go away.

Cannot understand how fair it is that the “Victim” says she wants to remain anonymous but she can name and shame anyone she likes. There is probably two sides to this story but sadly one side can say whatever they like anonymously whilst the other side is immediately condemned and because of political correctness cannot defend themselves.

She said blah, blah, blah, but cannot be named. Allegations of this kind should not be printed, frankly the public have had enough.

Women aren’t always the victim you know.  They very much can be tyrants too. 

Here’s the thing.  Sometimes employees behave badly.  Employers deal with this all the time and it is not always the employer who is bad.  I disagree that the Australian keeps the complainant out of the press whilst allowing them to vilify the minister.  Either they deal with the matter using appropriate workplace rules, but when they leak to the media they shouldn’t be able to hide whilst vilifying someone else.  The Australian has gotten this wrong.

This simply is not news.

This is not remotely newsworthy. This an HR issue. Bullying claims happen in workplaces every day 

So what we are now hearing is there are female bullies out their as well? I would never have guessed. 

I love the way the media jump on the bandwagon and are ready to dish dirt but won’t name the person.  Just more muckraking by the media.  

Anonymous former staffers who hold a gripe are neither newsworthy nor proper sources for reporting. If you put one name on the record, put the accuser’s name on the record.

These days most disgruntled employees or group members who don’t get their way complain that they are being bullied. A boss expressing dissatisfaction with your attitude or performance is not bullying. Nor is allocating tasks to others rather than you. 

As I said yesterday some of the worst offenders I saw during my time on the hill were women. Bad women bosses generally think that they can get away with things because they are women.  Having said that, some of these advisers need to harden up. Politics is a tough business; it’s not the Holy Order of Saint Therese.

Could we have a deadline for next Friday to have all historical claims of bullying, rape etc to be lodged or summarily dismissed so we can  1  Stop the left tacticians drip feeding this on a planned daily basis.
2 Get back to balanced media cover of the main emerging issues which are essential for our future.

The first 28 were all taken in order but the last two were added just for the additional perspective they offered, but were numbers 31 and 32. There were also plenty more along the same lines after that. I didn’t get down far enough to find someone who didn’t think this was an idiotic story, filled with sound and fury signifying nothing. Will just add this, which was perhaps #100.

It seems like every day another negative story emerges about the Federal Government. There is a distinct effort by many to damage them in the lead up to the next election.

Exactly right, it seems to me.

 

 

Is it The Age or the Oz?

Queensland Senator Amanda Stoker.
Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews appears via video link during a virtual swearing-in ceremony with Scott Morrison on Tuesday. Picture: AAP

I now find reading The Age of a morning in no way politically different than from reading The Oz. Take this bit of nonsense from this morning: Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews promoted after she made my life hell, says female staffer. This mostly looked like a claim for Workers’ Comp but really seems to be just part of the job.

A senior Liberal adviser has taken stress leave from Karen Andrews’ office after claiming the new Home Affairs Minister bullied, humiliated and victimised her over a six-month period.

The complaint, first made by the long-serving female adviser in August and raised again on March 14, has come to light after Ms ­Andrews was promoted from the industry portfolio by Scott Morrison on Monday in a reshuffle ­designed to enhance focus on women’s issues.

In a letter sent to Ms Andrews earlier this month, the senior­ ­adviser — The Australian has agreed not to name her at her ­request — claimed the workplace bullying was so significant she was “suffering severe stress, anxiety, sleeplessness and depression”.

And this is woman-on-woman bullying. The story ends:

Ms Andrews was one of six women promoted in the ministerial shake-up on Monday — from industry, science and technology to home affairs — as part of Mr Morrison’s bid to neutralise the Coalition’s sexism row and after weeks of criticism about the government’s handling of rape and sex harassment claims. It increased female representation in cabinet to 30 per cent.

Some senior Liberal figures have privately said Ms Andrews was chosen for the role, above other contenders, such as Stuart Robert — widely considered the frontrunner but who became Employment Minister — in large part because of her gender.

In interviews over the past month, Ms Andrews has been outspoken about the treatment of women in parliament, last week describing the experience for some as “horrendous”.

Hmmmm. And then this: ‘Distractions posing as solutions’: Grace Tame criticises Scott Morrison’s cabinet reshuffle. Ms Tame was apparently Australian of the Year. She writes:

Ms Tame said improving the representation of women in the ministry wouldn’t address the abuses of power. She also accused Senator Stoker of endorsing columnist Bettina Arndt’s “‘fake rape crisis’ tour aimed at falsifying instances of sexual abuse on school and university campuses across Australia” and failing to support victims of sexual assault….

When asked by veteran interviewer Kerry O’Brien on SBS on Tuesday night if Prime Minister Scott Morrison was moved by her words after the awards were announced, Ms Tame paused and said: “moved, in what direction I don’t know”, to huge applause from the audience.

OK, which story was from which paper? If you don’t already know, I bet you couldn’t tell. As for management of our public affairs, what any of this has to do with anything is still to be revealed, although I was happy to see Peter Dutton moved over to Foreign Affairs.

The tragedy that so little is said and known about the many many failures of the left

Growing up at nice lefty, wildly expensive private schools, I learned history as a series of progressive triumphs over conservative intolerance.

It made me happy to know that was how the world unfolded. It made me happy to know I’d be on the righteous side. It made me happy to know that the good team would win out. Each day is better than the last, and the path forward is always clear.

Religious schooling does not impart that message. It can’t. The Bible’s myths are all about chaos and complexity, sin and redemption, destruction and forgiveness, cowardice and courage, idiocy, luck.

To instill blissful confidence in me, the educational system had to downplay or ignore leftist failure. Secular, liberal Americans like me are taught a very beautiful and simple myth. It goes a little like: every progressive program that has failed or caused suffering didn’t do so because of some flaw in the plan or some misunderstanding of human nature. It failed because of forces on the wrong side of history.

This is how the system popped me out, at 22 years old, with only the vaguest knowledge of why the Soviet Union was a disaster. I had absolutely zero awareness that Jews there had any issue at all. If any of this was taught, it was fast and light enough to scuttle across my mind without leaving a mark.

My ignorance hit me hard in my Jewish 101 class, where one student was the daughter of Russian Jews, but she knew very little about Judaism from her family. I had no idea Judaism has been illegal there, that the rituals and the community had been pressured for generations to erase all traces of religiosity, all traces of difference, any part of themselves that might be Jewish. I’d never heard about any of that.

“Why Do I Know Nothing About the Soviet Union?”, Nellie Bowles, Substack, Thursday.

Another troublesome fact has cropped up, gravely complicating the longtime dream of socialism. That troublesome fact may be best summed up in a name: Solzhenitsyn.

With the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and the invasion of Czechoslo­vakia in 1968 it had become clear to Mannerist Marxists such as Sartre that the Soviet Union was now an embarrassment. The fault, however, as tout le monde knew, was not with socialism but with Stalinism. Stalin was a madman and had taken socialism on a wrong turn. (Mis­takes happen.) Solzhenitsyn began speaking out as a dissident inside the Soviet Union in 1967. His complaints, his revelations, his struggles with Soviet authorities—they merely underscored just how wrong the Stalinist turn had been.

The publication of The Gulag Archipelago in 1973, however, was a wholly unexpected blow. No one was ready for the obscene horror and grotesque scale of what Solzhenitsyn called “Our Sewage Disposal System”—in which tens of millions were shipped in boxcars to con­centration camps all over the country, in which tens of millions died, in which entire races and national groups were liquidated, insofar as they had existed in the Soviet Union. Moreover, said Solzhenitsyn, the system had not begun with Stalin but with Lenin, who had im­mediately exterminated non-Bolshevik opponents of the old regime and especially the student factions. It was impossible any longer to distinguish the Communist liquidation apparatus from the Nazi.

—Tom Wolfe, “The Intelligent Co-Ed’s Guide to America,” 1976.

From Instapundit.

My advice, for what it’s worth, to anyone under thirty

The one spokesperson from the Libs who I find myself listening to most closely when I see her on the tele is the Liberal Party’s federal vice-president, Teena McQueen. Balanced and sensible and most impressively calm in what she says and goes about doing. I love her name as well. And there she was in today’s Age with this the headline: ‘I would kill to be sexually harassed at the moment’: Liberal Teena McQueen stuns colleagues in closed door meeting.

The Liberal Party’s federal vice-president, Teena McQueen, said “I would kill to be sexually harassed at the moment” according to three senior Liberal women who joined her at a meeting to discuss the NSW branch’s new code of conduct.

And Ms McQueen, who says she did not make this exact comment, has apologised for an attempt at humour about herself.

Ms McQueen said she “made a throwaway line, that ‘when women reach my age, we don’t have to worry about being sexually assaulted’,” during the meeting.

I see the joke but worry about not one, not two, but THREE senior Liberal women who reported this remark to the Fairfax Press. What a sorry bunch of twits seem to be advising Ms McQueen. The story continues:

The executive voted later that evening to adopt a new code of conduct that makes clear the party has zero tolerance for bullying, sexual harassment, vilification, physical violence and discrimination.

Of course it does, as it always did and always will. We really do live in an Age of Stupidity! And let me provide a piece of advice from Jordan Peterson from his astonishingly excellent Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life.

In our culture, we live as if we are going to die at thirty. But we do not. We live a very long time, but it is also over in a flash, and it should be that you have accomplished what human beings accomplish when they live a full life, and marriage and children and grandchildren and all the trouble and heartbreak that accompanies all of that is far more than half a life. Miss it at your great peril. [p. 283]

It is annoying to find the media and the left [I know, the same thing] fixating on fixing what no Parliament can repair – boy-girl relations in the age of of online porn and Sex and the City:

Criticism has been expressed about the influence the show has on adolescents and how the images displayed on the show affect the way women and young girls view themselves.

Tanya Gold of The Daily Telegraph stated, “Sex and the City is to feminism what sugar is to dental care. The first clue is in the opening credits of the television show. Carrie is standing in a New York street in a ballet skirt, the sort that toddlers wear. She is dressed, unmistakably, as a child. And, because she is sex columnist on a newspaper, a bus wearing a huge photo of her in a tiny dress trundles past. ‘Carrie Bradshaw knows good sex,’ says the bus. And there, before any dialogue hits your ears, you have the two woeful female archetypes that Sex and the City loves—woman as sex object and woman as child … In another [episode], Carrie realizes she is homeless because she has spent $40,000 on shoes and does not have a deposit for an apartment. (In this crisis, she cries and borrows the money for the deposit—what child would do anything else?).

My advice, for what it’s worth to anyone under thirty, is that they should read Jordan Peterson and straighten out their own lives by themselves. If you are taking your cues from Carrie Bradshaw you will find yourself adrift with almost no way home after that.