Category Archives: Politics – Australian

Private security

Posted on by
Reply

Don’t know why it has taken so long for the penny to drop, but just how ludicrous is this:

A senior Department of Jobs official has been shifted from their role as evidence mounts that the decision to use private security guards at Melbourne’s quarantine hotels was partly driven by a well-meaning attempt to provide jobs under “social inclusion” policies.

The phrase looked so innocuous. Private, I was thinking, as in from the private sector. The notion that that socialist nitwit would prefer to use security guards hired from the private sector is ZERO if not less. What a lying swindler he is, finding yet another way to help bankrupt the state. Meanwhile, how much do you believe this?

Mr Andrews told the official inquiry into the ill-fated hotels program on Friday he had no knowledge of how private security had been put in charge of guarding people.

Those words again.

The Andrews virus

Posted on by
1

News and Opinion | Herald Sun

What I found most remarkable about the cartoon was the implication that it is women in particular who find Daniel Andrews’ approach to dealing with the virus most appealing. As for the virus, this is really where we are at.

Can we eliminate the virus? No.

Can we be sure that the death rate will never come back to its previous level? No.

Can we stay in lockdown forever? No.

Can we put an end to domestic travel forever? No

Can we put an end to international travel forever? No

Can we keep the productive parts of the economy subdued forever? No

So what are we going to do? At some stage, in spite of all of the uncertainties, even Daniel Andrews will have to open not just the economy but the whole of society up again, however much his totalitarian instincts may stand in the way.

Going to the comments section of the article by Chris Uhlmann on Daniel Andrews, which was published online but not in the paper itself, these seem to be the arguments of those who support the hard lockdowns and the approach taken by Andrews in Victoria. This is the link to the comments section of the article. You can also find the article at the link as well.

So easy to be wise after the event. If Victoria had just let it rip and many thousands died you would have been criticising the government for not doing enough.

When an existential threat appears, I want a leader who takes the cautious approach.

He seems to suggest that it is possible to ring fence aged care facilities. Chris Uhlmann makes it a choice between saving the lives of the elderly and saving the economy.

The only reason the death rate is as low as it is in this country is because we have taken extreme measures.

Until a vaccine is developed (if ever) quarantine and reduction of face to face contacts is the only effective method at the disposal of Governments to protect society.

The Victorian restrictions have been extreme and damaging. However it was the only acceptable response to suppress infection rates to a manageable level.

Chris is entitled to his opinion but he is no health expert, virologist, or scientist. Nor does he even quote or refer to any that might backup his view.

200,000 US deaths in 7 months indicates that this virus is a highly contagious killer. Aust could have had similar (per capita) stats if we didnt act as swiftly and as seriously as we did.

This is not an ordinary pandemic disease like influenza. When it gets any foothold at all, it does not advance incrementally, but exponentially.

The chief medical officers, most scientists and the WHO advises what we should do. The vast majority of leaders and intellectuals of the world advises what we should do. The politicians are listening and acting on said advises.

The ugly truth is we know that you and some other people either measure success in monetary terms or political terms, whilst you say that the elderly are affected you ignore that there is a growing after affect of Covid in younger people, chronic lung disease, heart damage and neurological damage, what does that do to the economy, how would massive chronic disease where people aren’t dead, but unable to conduct a full days work ever again, or wait and manage as we are.

What bizarre logic: using the success of lockdown in keeping cases/deaths low to argue that there should be no lockdown.

Let’s not just consider the death rates when asking was lockdown worth it. Let’s ask if we really want a large percentage of our community suffering from long term disabilities.

Our society has not been destroyed at all Mr Uhlmann, in fact it has been made stronger bar a few in the tin foil brigade.

Andrews has his constituency shrinking though it may be. There will be quite a post mortem on the psychology of the lockdowns which will come in company with the visiting of the phenomenal costs on the whole of Victorian society. Eventually, Andrews will be remembered as a reckless villain who brought so much destruction of virtually zero compensating gain. Here’s another cartoon that captures other aspects of the Victorian disaster.

Johannes Leak Letters Cartoon published on Wednesday September 9.

The Melbourne Syndrome revisited

Posted on by
1

Let me take you back to my post of August 6:

The Covid pandemic has brought on our modern version of The Stockholm Syndrome: “feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim towards a captor.” We now have the Melbourne Syndrome, which I come across versions of every day:

Feelings of trust or affection felt during a lockdown by its victims towards their most authoritarian political leaders.

Since Melbourne has now implemented the hardest lockdown at the hands of the dumbest and most incompetent political leader in the world, I believe that Melbourne should have the honour of bearing the name of this widely observed form of insanity.

And what do we find in the papers today: Victoria backs Dan Andrews in Newspoll.

A majority of Victorians have backed Daniel Andrews’ management of the second COVID-19 outbreak, with two-thirds of voters across the country also rating the state’s lockdown as “about right”.

Lots of reasons for this gross stupidity, but a deep insight into the actual risks of the coronavirus is non-existent. I meet up with these people all the time, who will quote oceans of stats on Sweden and Florida to prove that we are doing well here in Victoria and it’s all thanks to Dan. I suppose democracy works after a fashion, but these totalitarians have worked out ways to deceive half the population plus one in one election after another.

And not necessarily the stupider ones since there are plenty of college professors who vote for parties of the left and will on no account ever do anything else.

Meanwhile, the State goes further into bankruptcy. If ever there were a project that will never cover its costs, this is the one, with this the latest news: West Gate Tunnel’s toxic soil removal to cost Victorian taxpayers up to $750m.

Taxpayers are set to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars to help get rid of West Gate Tunnel’s toxic soil.The state government will stump up the extra cash to move and store contaminated soil that has stalled the $6.7 billion project for almost a year.

Why people vote for parties of the left is beyond me. Do they really believe they will become better off with such massive waste as the hallmark of government.

Honestly how off the planet do you have to be to believe we are in danger of global warming along with this pandemic? Yet there these people are, as filled with fear and ignorance as it is possible to be, ready to follow the single most incompetent political leader we have ever had into both poverty and a police state.

“The Victorian Premier is under intense pressure”

Posted on by
1

I already know you cannot trust the media to get anything right, but this today reached the absolute limit of my credulity:

The Victorian Premier is under intense pressure …

Pressure? From whom? Where? When? State? Federal? There is, of course, we at Catallaxy. There is late night Sky: Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Paul Murray. There are The Outsiders. And then, what, who?

Had Daniel Andrews done nothing at all, absolutely nothing, which would have included not banning HCQ, there would almost certainly have been fewer deaths in Victoria, and the economy, both state and national, would be miles ahead of where we now are. Andrews is a true contender for having been the worst political leader, with the greatest cause of harm and damage, of any leader Australia has ever had. Part of the reason is that Victoria may also now have the worst opposition party in Australian history. I went looking for “Michael O’Brien belt and road” and this is what I found: ‘Dud deal’: Victorian Opposition Leader Michael O’Brien vows to scrap Belt and Road initiative. It begins:

Victoria’s Opposition Leader says he will dump the State Government’s controversial involvement in China’s Belt and Road Initiative if he is elected leader at the next state election.In a statement issued on Saturday morning [obviously designed for maximum impact], Michael O’Brien said the decision was not made lightly but the deal was “not in Victoria’s interests”.

“It doesn’t support our sovereignty, our security or our jobs,” he said.

“Daniel Andrews’ dud deal has failed to advance Victoria’s interests.”

“Has failed to advance Victoria’s interests” !!!!! Wow! As bad as that, was it? Failed to advance Victoria’s interests. Talk about fire and brimstone, that has gone to the far limit. If we are looking for a more edgy approach to a critique of Daniel Andrews, you will have to turn to Power-hungry Premier Andrews must consider partyroom views on coronavirus in today’s Oz by Adem Somyurek, a former Labor minister for small business and local government, who now sits on the crossbenches in the Victorian Legislative Council. Two comments really say it all:

C’mon Adem – you’re the numbers man. If Victorian Labor believes that Andrews has overstepped the mark, there is an easy way for them to fix that. The Victorian people have to wait for the next election, BUT the Victorian Labor Party can act now, if they truly give a stuff – but I think they don’t.

AND

Mr Somyurek, If you feel so strongly on this issue, why did you abstain from the vote to extend Dan’s powers?

This is a bit more like it.

Johannes Leak Letters Cartoon for 21-09-20, Version: Letters Cartoon (1280x720, Canvas Added), COPYRIGHT: The Australian's artists each have different copyright agreements in place regarding re-use of their work in other publications., Please seek advice from the artists themselves or the Managing Editor of The Australian regarding re-use.

The case for calling off the Covid dogs

Posted on by
1

This is from Chris Uhlmann in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald, and yet for all that, I find I agree with the whole thing. There is some minor softening of his criticisms but he does seem to get to the heart of the matter and relentlessly makes the case for calling off the Covid dogs. Is Australia reaching some kind of consensus on the madness of the past few months? It’s titled, COVID-19 has hammered home some uncomfortable truths about us as a people.

Soon enough there will be a global reckoning on whether the coronavirus defences did more damage than the disease. It will be driven by the swingeing economic destruction imposed by governments that will deliver millions into poverty, driving internal and external conflicts. Beggared states will turn inward, the world will become more polarised, angrier, more dangerous. In time it’s a fair bet the cure will be seen by many as the real curse, as people whose lives have been destroyed seek retribution.

The COVID cure will be seen as worse than the disease, particularly in Victoria. Though it will be a small wave in the storm, here the Victorian solution and internal border closures should be counted among those judged as doing much more harm than good. That’s because there was abundant evidence by mid-year that pointed to more road maps to recovery than the “only way” decreed by the Victorian Premier or the self-interested, colonial-era border wars led by his peers.

You can forgive the early response of all governments to the horror of a novel virus. Plagues are in the front rank of human threats. In February and March little was known about COVID-19 and the worst was rightly assumed. Australia’s leaders reacted quickly, worked in unison and chose to buy time; to lock their populations down while health systems were fortified with a timetable set for easing their way out. That was a sensible, defensible plan. Now there is no nation plan and that is as indefensible as Victoria’s panic-stricken response. Because now we know much more about the disease and, while it is a serious illness, it is a whole lot less frightening than it is made out to be.

COVID-19 is nowhere near as deadly as the Spanish Flu, which killed an estimated 50 million, mostly young, people worldwide. Fifteen thousand of those deaths were in Australia, in a population that was then just 5 million. At the time of writing, COVID-19 had killed about 930,000 people globally. Here 816 have died in a population now pushing towards 26 million. No matter how hard the death of anyone under 50 is spun, it is so vanishingly rare among Australia’s body count as to be close to zero. If you are a woman, it is zero. In Australia there is a far greater statistical chance that someone under 60 will die in a car accident.

COVID-19 mostly kills the elderly, especially if they have an existing chronic disease. That is not an argument to let them die but it should guide government responses. Of the 816 Australian deaths the vast majority, 606, were in residential aged care. So if you are going to throw a ring of steel around anything it should be around aged care homes, not Melbourne. The rest of the population should be liberated to get on with their lives while taking sensible health precautions.

Governing should be about balancing risks against costs and only fools and sophists make arguments based on false choices. The debate is not between what we are doing and doing nothing. It should be about what response delivers the greatest good for the greatest number. The Victorian solution punishes the many for the few. It preferences the very old over the young, mortgaging the future of the entire school and working age population. It is hard to imagine how you could design a policy which is more profoundly unfair or damaging to a society.

If the argument is we must do everything in our power to protect the elderly then were are already doing well. Federal Health Department data, first published in The Australian, shows that there were almost 1000 fewer deaths in residential aged care in the first seven months of this year than in the same time last year. I sourced the same data from the department and received two a tables and a note.

“The lower number of deaths for this period in 2020 (32,398) compared to the same period in 2019 (33,383) is likely the result of increased influenza immunisation rates, and increased infection control protocols introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the health department note said. So, why is it a crime for someone to die of COVID-19 in care but it’s OK if they die of absolutely anything else?

This disease has revealed the character of our leaders and hammered home some uncomfortable truths about us as a people. As a nation we seem comfortable with authoritarianism and too many relish the role of prefect [he means dictator, but that’s the only bit where I feel he may have pulled his punches – SK].

And nowhere in this often-opaque democracy has a less transparent court system, bureaucracy, police force or government than Victoria. The people there have been badly served, even as some revelled in the servitude. Its systems of power have combined to deliver the wanton destruction of its vibrant society. Its government has condemned its people to a poorer future, to higher unemployment, more poverty and less opportunity.

Rejoice. Dan Andrews has destroyed the village to save it.

If the mainstream of the mainstream media are worrying about threats to our freedoms and prosperity from centralised government controls and an overbearing politicisation of the public service and the police, we may yet be able to save ourselves.

Liar Dan and the fine art of casuistry

Posted on by
1

This is the front page of the Oz: Andrews letters: PM’s offers met by silence. And then see precisely what Silent Dan says:

Revelations of the Prime Minister’s offers of help to Mr And­rews came as the Premier said on Wednesday that he stood by his statement to a state parliamentary committee hearing last month that it was “fundamentally incorrect to assert that there was hundreds of ADF staff on offer and somehow someone said no”.

Get it. No one said no. What a disgusting weasel. Responsible for hundreds of deaths and he wants to start defending himself by parsing the meaning of words. Will accept no responsibility for the catastrophe he has overseen and largely caused by his incompetence.

As for casuistry, perhaps he learned it when studying the classics, one of the fine arts of dishonest politics:

the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry.
“the minister is engaging in nothing more or less than casuistry”

I wonder if he was crossing his fingers when he said what he said. I also notice that on the new citizenship test there is this question:

Should people’s freedom of speech and freedom of expression be respected in Australia?

I wonder how Dan would go with that.

LET ME ALSO ADD THIS: Despite 10,000 new cases a day, the French are embracing life – not imposing new rules.

The cafes of Paris are packed

No one is dying from the Covid any longer. The contrast between Melbourne and Paris is incredible.

AND FROM THE COMMENTS:

The 20 traits of a psychopath

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is composed of 20 salient traits that a psychopath may have:
1. Pathological lying
2. Glib and superficial charm
3. Grandiose sense of self
4. Need for stimulation
5. Cunning and manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow emotional response
8. Callousness and lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioural controls
11. Sexual promiscuity
12. Early behaviour problems
13. Lack of realistic long-term goals
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist categories four major traits. These traits are Interpersonal, Emotional, Lifestyle, and Antisocial. Here are the discussions of each trait.

1. Interpersonal Traits
Pathological lying is one of the most salient characteristics of psychopaths. They use lies to cover up their true purpose. By using the charm that they have, psychopaths win over their target victim.

Their high self-worth makes them crave for more power. As a result, they want to maintain the authority and power they have.

2. Emotional Traits
Psychopaths lack remorse and guilt. Consequently, it is easy for them to manipulate or inflict pain on their victims. They will simply get away with the crime they commit.

The lack of empathy makes the psychopaths unaware of their victims’ emotional or physical turmoil. They never hold the responsibility of their acts.

3. Lifestyle Trait
Psychopaths are impulsive and irresponsible. They typically have no long-term and realistic goals.

4. Antisocial Traits
Psychopaths always have difficulties in controlling their behaviour. As a result, developing a social relationship is a constant and huge challenge for them.

Although psychopaths are rare, they are difficult to spot. You have no idea whether one of your co-workers, classmates, or friends is a psychopath. The 20 traits of a psychopath listed in the scale (PCL-R) will help you assess the suspected person.

The help of a mental expert may aid the assessment process. Like other psychological disorders, diagnosing psychopathy is also a tricky thing to do. It requires expertise and experience.

Being stupid is not a barrier to political success

Posted on by
1

Let me add a bit more on Daniel Andrew’s lack of intelligence. Being stupid does not mean one does not have other attributes that might make for political success. The school bully is seldom the same person who sits on top of the Honour Role.

When I say he is stupid, what I am saying is that he is unlikely to be able to make sense of complicated arguments. You will not be able to reason with him since he has his own agendas, he is too thick, not just to follow what others are saying, but is bored by such things.

We policy types like to sit and discuss ends and means with a specific matrix of theoretical and practical considerations that lead to various conclusions that are embedded in policy proposals which are then implemented. Daniel Andrews has never shown the slightest ability or interest in any of that. He’s a brute with his own ideas of what to do, who wants his own way at all times and is determined to get it, however much harm he may do. He is a far-left Marxist-Leninist without the slightest interest in creating an environment in which the private sector can succeed. And he is as dumb as a box of rocks as well.

Reading the comments from the previous thread brought two things to light of particular interest to me. This was from Rohan:

In fact, Daniel Andrews has botched every single thing he has done. He has not had a single success in anything he has done since becoming premier. Try to find anything he has achieved with all the billions he has gone through. Victoria was already bankrupt even before the virus arrived. Dwell on this from the link.

It wasn’t just his current stint as Premier either. Remember the ER waiting times where people were waiting over 24 hours on gurneys to be admitted as a patient, when he was health minister?

Remember how he told the bureaucrats to fudge the figures so he wouldn’t look bad but the front line ER docs blew the whistle?

Remember how he never addressed the root cause of the problem and it only got better after the LNP won in 2010?

Because he can’t solve problems. But he has rat cunning, is a master in the art of bullying, obfuscation and lying his arse off to cover for his lack of intelligence and practicality and common sense.

Then there is this from Tim Neilson commenting on the six years it took for Andrews to get through his pass degree at Monash in politics and classics. I was surprised by the classics which does show some intellectual interest but see below:

He is of above average intelligence by today’s standards. He has a BA, majoring in Classics and Politics. Granted, that is not what it used to be, by a long shot, but stupid people don’t earn such degrees, even today. There is real work and intelligence required, even today.

It’s pretty difficult to fail an Arts subject if you hand in assignments and turn up to exams.

The Classics should have more rigour than some pseudo-disciplines. However, Andrews would have had the Classics belted into him at his Catholic school. Then he could go back to square 1 at Uni and get a Classics minor in his pass degree pretty much just off what what the Brothers had strapped into him.

As for a Politics major, if you think pass marks in that required anything much more than “four legs good, two legs bad”, you’re sadly overestimating Australian universities.

Yes, he’s not full illiterate level stupid, but his pass degree in the Arts doesn’t mean that he’s got any real intellectual ability.

He has superficial polish and a determined ruthlessness which work for him. He is also well supported by the many many standard-issue cliches of the left on being kind and caring and the evils of capitalism. I am only pointing out his vast intellectual limitations to help explain the predicament we are in. And how useless it would be to try to talk him out of the kinds of things he is doing that are ruining the State.

I don’t say that intelligence is the be all and end all of political ability or even common sense. Universities are filled with people whose political views are unbelievably idiotic. What I am saying is that Andrews stands out as much stupider than the average and his limitations are having a terrible effect all over the place. He is certainly doing much to ruin the Labor brand in Australia.

It’s that Dan is really stupid that makes it so much worse

Posted on by
1

See what they’re saying about us around the world: Australia Is A Full Scale Pilot Test For The New World Order

Several journalists and content creators have noticed that Australia looks like the most totalitarian police state that has existed in recent history.  It has become a full-scale pilot test for the elitists to see how well they can implement the New World Order.

Australians have been subjected to some of the most horrendous basic human rights and dignity violations during this entire scamdemic.

“These guys know full well what they are doing. They are psychopaths, but they aren’t stupid.” 

I can agree with most of that but not all. They are far-left totalitarians, psychopaths perhaps, but on that last point, I don’t agree. When it comes to Daniel Andrews, on top of everything else, he really is stupid. Along with so much else that is wrong with him, Daniel Andrews is the thickest politician I have come across in quite some time, and there’s a lot of competition at the moment. That he never discusses or explains anything is how he has been from the start. This was from the weekend: Labor unrest grows as Daniel Andrews botches crisis management. In fact, Daniel Andrews has botched everything he has done. He has not had a single success in anything he has done since being elected.

Andrews is a political dictator who comes across as a strong leader. But, sadly, he is not a chief executive who weighs up the view of many groups before making a decision. Like all dictators Andrews relies more on his gut instincts than advice from others. Business people who attend the Andrews advice committees say he rarely listens. In the latest Victorian aid package the payroll tax deferral will scare the banks. Prior to COVID-19, the best example of Andrews disregard for commercial outcomes was in the infamous gas bans where somehow gas that did not require fracking got mixed up with the fracking bans. The fact that the bans on Victoria’s immense non fracked gas reserves sent gas prices and energy costs through the roof just didn’t register.

He is too stupid to know what he is doing, and the more he gets wrong the further forward he goes. He cannot explain, he never takes responsibility, he never defends. He just shuts up because he is basically a blank space between the ears.

What frustrates ALP members is that they now know that provided a series of co-ordinated alternative strategies are introduced there is absolutely no need for prolonged harsh restrictions that will send the state into recession for many years. The alternative strategies have been successful in other states and will work in Victoria. But as so often happens with dictators once they are headed in a direction nothing will change them.

They of course assume that Andrews is able to sift these different points of view, analyse them and come to a conclusion. The reality is that he has no capacity to evaluate anything that is said to him. Dumb as an ox but stubborn along with his arrogance.

There is the old political rule, “never apologise, never explain.” Andrews of course never does either, but not because he doesn’t wish to. It’s because he cannot. It may well be that other are looking at the example he has set, but it’s not because he’s some kind of genius. He has blundered into where we find him and ourselves through sheer stupidity. He is wrecking Victoria, and indeed the entire Australian economy. He has turned the police force into a Gestapo. He has made Melbourne a place of ridicule across the world. It’s a tragedy at every turn. Just don’t expect any serious explanation for anything he does since he has none.

“It is a principle of our law that fundamental freedoms cannot be invaded or overruled unless the law specifically allows it”

Posted on by
1

Both videos are found on an American post titled ‘I couldn’t breathe’: Aussie woman dragged from car in dramatic altercation with police at lockdown checkpoint (VIDEO). And no matter how you look at it, it is impossible to defend the police. It would not have mattered had they arrested her for some reason associated with CV-19, but madly that was not even why.

An officer had told her that it was illegal to have a mobile phone mounted on a windscreen and that the device was obstructing her view.

This tweet contains footage similar to the original video which has already been widely seen with commentary by Rita Panahi.

This is an extended video of the aftermath at the “scene of the crime”.

This is more than just an Australian story, although it is shameful just as it is. Peter Hitchens writes with regard to the UK: How the Government is wading into the swamp of despotism – one muzzle at a time. What he writes applies to Australia as much as it does to the UK.

The Government has no legal right to impose the severe and miserable restrictions on our lives with which it has wrecked the economy, brought needless grief to the bereaved and the lonely and destroyed our personal liberty.

This is the verdict of one of the most distinguished lawyers in the country, the retired Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption.

He said last week in a podcast interview: ‘I don’t myself believe that the Act confers on the Government the powers that it has purported to exercise.’He was referring to the Public Health Act of 1984, the basis for almost all the sheaves of increasingly hysterical decrees against normal life which the Health Secretary Matt Hancock has issued since March. I promise you that it is not usual for a retired senior judge to use such language in public.

This 1984 Act was drawn up mainly to give local magistrates the power to quarantine the sick.

Nothing in it remotely justifies these astonishing moves – house arrest, travel restrictions, harsh limits on visiting family members, interference with funerals and weddings, closure of churches, compulsory muzzles, bans on assembly and protest.

English law just does not allow an Act of Parliament to be stretched so far.

Lord Sumption was referring to the Public Health Act of 1984, the basis for almost all the sheaves of increasingly hysterical decrees against normal life which the Health Secretary Matt Hancock (above) has issued since March. I promise you that it is not usual for a retired senior judge to use such language in public. +4
Lord Sumption was referring to the Public Health Act of 1984, the basis for almost all the sheaves of increasingly hysterical decrees against normal life which the Health Secretary Matt Hancock (above) has issued since March. I promise you that it is not usual for a retired senior judge to use such language in public.

Magistrates are never given such powers. It is a principle of our law that fundamental freedoms cannot be invaded or overruled unless the law specifically allows it.

We seem to have found a very important flaw in how our laws are drafted and applied. The elections to come will be about little else but remedying these major flaws in our legal systems.

In the meantime, read the whole of Hitchens’ article.