Look what’s happening at the U of T

Apparently Warren Farrell is about to speak at the University of Toronto which has led to some kind of protest at his presence. Ah those glory days seem to be with us yet. This is how his presentation begins:

Some 200 Canadian and American men’s activists will gather this Friday at the University of Toronto, where they will be met by angry feminists dedicated to tearing down their posters, heaping abuse on speakers, blockading events and denouncing police as “f—ing scum” if they try to restore order. At least that’s what happened last November when I spoke before the same group–the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE)–on the same campus.

As if calling a communist a communist will get you votes in New York

Bill de Blasio is the Democrat running for mayor of New York City. Joe Lhota is the Republican. This is from a report on that election:

Mr. Lhota had already criticized Mr. de Balsio yesterday following a New York Times report that described Mr. de Blasio’s past support for revolutionary Nicaraguan politics, as well as his desire for a ‘democratic socialism’ vision for society. . . .

But Mr. Lhota doubled down today in far harsher words–calling on Mr. de Blasio to ‘explain himself’ and equating Mr. de Blasio’s views with communism. . .

‘Mr. de Blasio’s involvement with the Sandinistas didn’t happen in 1917; it happened 70 years later when the cruelty and intrinsic failure of communism had become crystal clear to anyone with a modicum of reason. Mr. de Blasio’s class warfare strategy in New York City is directly out of the Marxist playbook. Now we know why.’

Ah but now Mr de Blasio has replied.

‘I’m very proud to be a progressive.’ . . .

This morning, during an appearance on PIX 11 news, he was asked whether he was a ‘radical, left-wing Democrat.’

‘I’m a progressive and I’m a Democrat, that’s right,’ he responded, describing his philosophy in the tradition of President Franklin Roosevelt. He went on to criticize the ‘wrong . . . failed Reagan-Bush policies’ of the 1980s and said he was ‘very proud’ to have been involved in work opposing them.

Progressive being the new word for communist apparently, why should he hide his views? Mr de Blasio will now win in an even bigger landslide than was originally expected. Such is the world in which we now live.

UPDATE: Shall we or shall we not call Bill de Blasio a socialist? This is the question raised by Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online. His final word:

Conclusion: Too risky. Best not.

The US being a socialist state it is no good trying to say a Democrat is a socialist. Not only does no one care, for his side of politics it’s a feature and not a flaw.

Andrew Bolt on David Suzuki at Instapundit

In its own way, the ABC may have done its own cause more harm than good (and why does the ABC have causes of its own anyway?). I have now seen David Suzuki’s session on Q&A posted at a few international websites but now Andrew Bolt’s post David Suzuki proves he’s pig ignorant about global warming is linked to at Instapundit. This is all that’s written . . .

REVEALED: Climate Change Activist David Suzuki Doesn’t Actually Know Anything About Global Warming Data.

. . . but the story is there underneath for all to read and many many will.

Still, for the know nothings of the environmental movement knowing nothing is not much of a disadvantage amongst its leaders. It may even be a positive advantage.

The trillion dollar question

Right before our eyes we are being lied to by official institutions of the state, by large slabs of the media and by a majority of the scientists of the world publishing in this area. There was a theory: increases in atmospheric carbon would lead to a greenhouse effect which would warm the planet by a few degrees which would in turn lead to a series of climatic changes which would cause immense damage. The one piece of evidence was the correlation between higher concentrations of CO2 and rising temperatures. Now that the correlation has broken during the past 15 years, there ought to be a bit of mea culpa and a major re-evaluation of the science and the associated carbon abatement policies. Well you would think.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, set up by Nigel Lawson, has published this quite interesting series of comments on the problems now being faced by the IPCC and the rest of the scientific community on this incredible gravy train of research grants and fellowships. Accurately titled as The IPCC’s Great Dilemma it highlights how they are going to keep this going for just a bit longer. Mostly just quotes but they are all of a piece with the first of them:

The IPCC’s dilemma is this. How can it expect the public to believe that recent warming is mostly manmade when the models on which it has based this claim have been shown to be fatally flawed?

The question comes down to what Groucho Marx once asked, “Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes.” This is not even the million dollar question, or the billion dollar question but the trillion dollar question. In fact, what comes after trillion because if we continue with this into the future that is the kind of impact this will have on global living standards even over the short time span of the next twenty years.

UPDATE: It’s not Groucho but Chico from Duck Soup:

Mrs. Teasdale: Your Excellency, I thought you’d left!
Chicolini: Oh no, I no leave.
Mrs. Teasdale: But I saw you with my own eyes!
Chicolini: Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

The German election

The German election is another milestone of governments moving to the right with the re-election of Obama the standout exception. But my interest is the economic policies that led to such a stunning outcome. Where is the textbook that will explain any of this to you?

During the campaign, Merkel said that insisting on reforms in euro countries that received aid was the only way to raise Europe’s competitiveness, citing the fall in German joblessness from a post-World War II high of 12.1 percent in 2005 following a labor-market overhaul. The German unemployment rate is now 6.8 percent compared to 12.1 in the 17-nation euro region. German 10-year bond yields are 1.94 percent, while comparable U.K. gilts yield 2.92 percent and U.S. debt 2.73 percent. . . .

For now, with wages rising and the budget deficit virtually eliminated, voters backed her handling of the domestic economy, and her push for austerity in the euro zone in exchange for aid.

Right now I have arrived at the macro section of my course and am teaching the standard aggregate demand-aggregate supply mantra of the 99%. It just strikes me as utterly incredible that this is still what we make every student of economics learn. Evidence based policy is not much in evidence it seems to me.

The 2016 American presidential election has already begun

rand paul and wife sept 2013

It will in many ways be too late but the one person who might be both electable and may make a difference for the good is Rand Paul who is without any doubt working his way towards the nomination. As part of the getting to know you process there is this article on Rand Paul in Vogue which is about as good as it gets for the American media about a Republican and conservative. But it’s early days yet. The article is fascinating from end to end but it is this comment by his wife Kelley I found particularly striking.

She sinks down next to Paul on the couch, folding her legs under a tasseled pillow, and explains that, in fact, she is not sold on a Rand Paul 2016 presidential campaign. ‘Because in this day and age it’s mostly about character assassination,’ she says. ‘When I think of the tens of millions of dollars in opposition research that they’d be aiming right at us and our family—that’s what it’s about.’

Becoming president is an endurance test that may not test the right kinds of qualities for someone who actually becomes the president. Winning elections and governing are not at all the same especially in trying to cope with the American media.

But a man is also known by his enemies and Rand Paul has just the right ones, including the Governor of New Jersey, the certain media favourite on the Republican side come 2016, or at least he will be up until he is actually nominated. Rand may dislike Christie almost as much as I do:

In fact, our interview coincides with a scrap between him and Governor Christie over their opposite philosophies on national security. Paul gleefully notes to me that his latest Christie-baiting tweet is ‘really going to escalate the war’ between the two Republicans.

People will be in no doubt who they are voting for by the time the primaries are done. Christie I would never support. There is no doubt that his helping Obama in the last week of the campaign was an all out attempt to keep Romney from the White House so that he could run himself in 2016. Roger Kimball on Christie, who has titled his article “Bully, Blowhard” doesn’t think it made the final difference but so what. It’s that he tried that counts and there is no way to say one way or another that we do not have four more years of Obama because of what Christie did to make Obama look presidential. But even if we don’t agree on the role Christie played in Romney’s defeat, Roger’s article is dead on about what a useless incompetent Christie actually is.

The Ministry of Truth and the new media

This is from the Wikipedia post on The Ministry of Truth. In Orwell’s 1984 workers within the Ministry are actual government employees and oddly that’s the bit Orwell got wrong. Yet had he actually predicted what really has happened it would have been seen that step too far, farfetched beyond endurance. Nevertheless, there they are, the journalists of the world, free conscripts to our various media organisations, some even run under free enterprise principles, who will lie, deny and distort, do whatever it takes, to shield their leftist cult leaders from all criticism. But aside from that failure to predict to the very last measure of accuracy, everything else has taken place as Orwell predicted almost to the letter. In place of Newspeak the language is now the language of PC, the politically correct. Speak outside of its confines, you will be spotted the moment you say a word.

The Ministry of Truth is Oceania’s propaganda ministry. It is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. The word truth in the title Ministry of Truth should warn, by definition, that the ‘minister’ will self-serve its own ‘truth’; the title implies the willful fooling of posterity using ‘historical’ archives to show ‘in fact’ what ‘really’ happened. As well as administering truth, the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, truth is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. . . .

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the ‘how’ of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

I am not the first to notice this, of course, but it is always astonishing to come back to it again and see once more just how accurate Orwell was. Apply the above to each of the following – Bengahzi, Syria, the IRS, Obamacare – and you will immediately see how uncanny this statement is given Orwell published 1984 in 1948 and not just last year.

The new defender of the West

You really do have to wonder just how bad things have become before the religious left* finally acknowledges they have screwed up and that some other approach is required. The wheels do grind slowly but a decade or two is not that long in the history of nations and civilisations. Time is also not on our side. From Roger Kimball discussing the United States, with the bad news first:

Now that the transformation is well underway, there are fewer if any cheers. The economy is moribund. Obamacare is more unpopular than ever. Racial tensions are far worse now than when Obama came to office. Everywhere one looks, Obama’s domestic agenda is in shambles. And when it comes to international affairs — well, let’s just say that Obama must be rueing the day he drew that red line about Syria or heard the name Vladimir Putin. Has there ever been a more cringe-making presidential speech than the incoherent bilge that oozed out of Obama’s mouth last Tuesday? Jimmy Carter’s infamous ‘malaise speech’ is the only thing that even comes close, and at least Carter’s speech had the intelligence of Christopher Lasch’s book The Culture of Narcissism as a source.

But he thinks the problem with electing the hollowest of men as president is finally beginning to dawn on the left. This is the good news, such as it is:

I believe that we are witnessing the gradual, or possibly not so gradual, decomposition of the emotional consensus that put Obama into the White House in 2008 and, not without a struggle, returned him in 2012.

I’ll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, Obama has ceded the defence of the West to Vladimir Putin.

* The religious left are socialists of one kind or another who have substituted their political beliefs in place of an actual religion.

UPDATE: You have to click over to Powerline to see just how unlikely it is that the American media are going to walk away from their own creation, the man who represents their values almost down to the ground. The media are a fifth column of immense power. Until they are dealt with, the answers to our problems will not be forthcoming.

New Aussie President

I have been asked by an American friend, “are you happy with this election?” His email message line is the title of this post. This is what I wrote:

Thank you for the question because I am really happy to be able to answer. We have just ended six years of the worst government in Australian history with a landslide win to the conservative side of politics. Almost anything would have been better, but this government has all the markings of one that could be special. The new Prime Minister is a solid liberal-conservative in the nineteenth century meaning of the words, a deeply religious Christian and a moral and ethical man leading a sensible, moderate and pragmatic party. They are not libertarian but they are a nice mix of Rand Paul and Mitt Romney, my two favourite American politicians. He is also the Prime Minister and not the President which makes an enormous difference. Here the Prime Minister is similar to being the Majority Leader in your House of Representatives. The Prime Minister therefore cannot be aloof from day-to-day politics in the way an American president can. The Leader of the Opposition can quiz the Prime Minister on every sitting day of the Parliament and all members of the cabinet are on call to answer questions put to them. Lying to the House can almost instantly end a political career if someone is genuinely caught out trying to mislead but will anyway cause serious problems.

Tony Abbott, who has become Prime Minister, was considered unelectable by the previous government but they couldn’t evade him and there he was asking the questions that needed to be asked and becoming better known to the country as he grew every more confident in his role. Romney, alas, had to go through a wearing and grinding series of preliminaries where he was criticised day after day by people on his own side of the fence before he became the nominee. It makes it harder to get to the top and then have to deal with a sitting president who just has to wait until the other side’s candidates have knocked each other out. Even then Romney almost won but here is the difference. Romney has completely disappeared from all political involvement. He’s gone and even though I recently saw an article, “Was Mitt Romney Right About Everything?” what difference does it make? As it happens he was on near enough right about everything he said but so what? He is now gone and there is no platform for him to continue stalking Obama for all of his errors and stupidities. Our new PM, however, led his side of politics into the election in 2010, almost won and now has won big time. A different system that has allowed us to fix a mistake. And with only three year Parliaments, even though the three years seemed a long, long time it has finally ended sooner than it might otherwise have done.

My expectation is that although the new government has been left a legacy of serious problems created by the previous government over the past three years, and even though I expect the international economy to sour over the next three years before getting better, they have the ingredients to be one of our best governments ever. The times will try them but I expect they will be up to it. But we shall see. The euphoria of seeing Tony Abbott as Prime MInister has not worn off. Will keep you posted.

Kindest best wishes