The non-existent principle of free speech on the left

Here is where the controversy over Tim Wilson’s appointment to the HRC overlaps with the controversy in the United States over Duck Dynasty:

Our current social understanding of free speech is this: You can speak your mind freely if you have a large enough army of supporters to pressure a company [and in Australia the Government itself] into resisting pressure from a large army of Speech Police.

This is not free speech. This is free speech as an exceptional thing — only for those with a wide, passionate following — not as a routine thing.

A&E is a cowardly organization. First it puts Robertson on ‘indefinite hiatus’ under pressure from one group of people, then it puts him back on the air because they’ve been pressured by a somewhat larger group of people.

At no point did they trip over anything resembling a general principle of speech free from ‘consequences’ of broad application.

Number 700

Actually it turns out it’s Number 702! How did that happen? I must be going at the rate of around 80 a month which is much too many. Still fun to do.

Most interesting development is that I am about to edit a book on The Best Australian Political Blogs which will be a way of helping each of us bloggers to preserve at least some of what we write from falling into a black hole from which it can never be retrieved.

Hi Joshi.

The rules for radicals keep on changing

There’s something new every day. This one is “Ten New Rules for Radicals“. Here’s the list:

1. SPELL YOUR ENEMIES’ NAMES WRONG
2. PRETEND THAT LOGICAL FALLACIES CONSTITUTE AN ARGUMENT
3. MAKE YOUR HEADLINES HYPERBOLIC AND PATENTLY FALSE
4. USE FIGHTIN’ WORDS SUCH AS “TAKEDOWN”
5. NEVER DISCUSS THE FACTS
6. BE OBSESSED WITH RAPE
7. SAY THE WORD “EVIL” A LOT
8. DISH IT OUT, BUT DON’T TAKE IT
9. BE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF NUMBERS
10. TRY TO MAKE YOUR ENEMIES GO BROKE

Oh My Dear Sweet Papa

How much I love this song cannot be estimated. I had known it all my life but only found out where it was from by going to a presentation of Puccini’s Il Trittico of which this is from the third and last of the one act operas – Gianni Schicchi – where in this song (I am going from memory here) the daughter of the house is asking her father to risk his life so that she can have a dowry to marry her beau. O mio babbino caro – Oh My Dear Sweet Papa – please get into that bed, pretend you are the deceased and get the notary to certify the will that you relate to him of the wealthy man who has just died. If you succeed, we get his money. If you are found out, they will take you out and boil you in oil. All ends happily but the song has heavy freight of both enormous risk and unspeakable fraud. But this nine year old singing it is unbelievable.

From Andrew Bolt.

If he’s not a delusional fantasist then how do you explain it?

Obama is a sink hole of incompetence. Disaster follows him at every step and it is impossible to know whether this is by accident or by design. There is this minor story today, or at least it looks minor by the way it is placed on the page at Drudge, that the Saudis may be about to break diplomatic relations with the US. Now that is some level of incompetence! And given the low, low bow Obama gave to the Saudi king, suggests he just screwed up. It is not what he wanted. But do you think his constituency cares. I don’t even think they notice.

Anyway from Instapundit there are three related stories on the Obama approach. Not just tuned out but positively mentally ill. It’s more than just disengaged and aloof. He doesn’t want to know any of the bad stuff. Perfection will not accept that it has flaws. Each of these stories reinforces the others, but they are from obscure websites and never from the mainstream media where Obama remains a god. But this is the Obama that is readily seen if one actually looks.

OBAMACARE AND THE Absentee Presidency. “He and his close-knit advisers insist on a bad-news-ban around the Oval Office. Obama operates in a world without critical information — and that is his defense to two debacles. Critics understate the reluctance and inability of this president to lead and to govern. . . . This is a president who set up a system in which he imagines he is relieved of responsibility.”

Related: “He often appeared impatient or disengaged while listening to the debate, sometimes scrolling through messages on his BlackBerry or slouching and chewing gum.” Plus: “If the story were about a conservative GOP President, one suspects the Times editors would have used stronger language and done much more to bang readers over the head with the clear inference that the man in the Oval Office engineered what the story calls a worst case scenario in Syria (maximum bloodbath, maximum danger of al-Qaeda gains, maximum chance of ugly Assad survival, maximum chance of Iranian victory, maximum danger for Jordan, maximum damage to prestige, interests and alliances of the United States) through a mix of empty and unrestrained rhetoric, awkward flip flops and half measures.”

UPDATE: Obama Disassociates From Reality. “The president spoke about ObamaCare as if it were a work of art, one or two brushstrokes away from being a masterpiece. Which created the impression that the president is living in a make believe world. . . . Mr. Obama, who at this point in his presidency has developed certain stale and unhealthy rhetorical habits, mocked Republicans and said it’s time for them to ‘stop rooting for [ObamaCare’s] failures.’ But the problem the president faces isn’t Republicans rooting for its failures; it’s that the program is collapsing on its own. The GOP had nothing to do with its development. The president desperately wishes he could share the blame for what has gone wrong. Except that every Republican in Congress opposed the Affordable Care Act. This is Barack Obama’s signature achievement; he and his party are joined at the hip to it. They are as inseparable as salt and water in the ocean.”

Hold the line

Well it’s not a lot but it is something. Obama has knocked back the Republican proposals for ending the supposed government shut down which at least shows there actually had been some proposals. This is from Politico:

There is no agreement, Boehner said in a room in the Capitol Saturday, and there are no negotiations between House Republicans and the White House, since Obama rejected the speaker’s effort to lift the debt ceiling for six weeks and reopen government while setting up a budget negotiating process.

The Obama position is that there is nothing to negotiate. There is nothing to negotiate about debt, deficits, spending, the abusive use of the IRS, the domestic spying program, the stonewalling on Benghazi, the Obama-initiated wars and drone attacks, and on it goes. There is nothing that needs to be said to the Republicans because there is no need for compromise of any kind on any issue.

So now a crisis has been reached and it is not just who’s going to blink as if it’s nothing but a test of wills but how will the US be governed and its economy managed. Obama at best is a gross incompetent, and that’s the best alternative. I can only hope the Republicans hold the line and do not relent.

The new head of the Fed

janet yellen in star wars

They’ve made Janet Yellen the new Chairperson of the Federal Reserve in the US and the quantitative easing crowd are in ecstasy. It will be a flood money until recovery sets in which means it will be a flood of money for near on ever. As it happens, I met Janet (why not first names, as we were then) when she worked for the OECD and I was representing Australian employers at an OECD meeting in Paris, this one if my memory serves me right, on some aspect of the business cycle – I think it was on consumer and business confidence surveys. I remember the meeting well for a lot of reasons but one that stands out was that the OECD wanted us to agree with them that the economics profession had conquered the business cycle and that recessions were a thing of the past. So I led the rebellion against such idiocy (true) in the person of Janet Yellen who was the OECD person responsible for trying to get us all to agree. It was her bad luck that she had to deal with me because the probability that I then or now would have agreed to such a thing would be in the vicinity of zero-point-zero. She was just another specimen of that same macro menace that continues to lead us from one disaster to another. At the OECD her potential for damage was generally limited. Now, however, there is no end to the harm she might yet do.

This is from one of her big supporters although I suspect her detractors would say exactly the same thing:

The Fed will be looser for longer. The FOMC will continue to print money until the US economy creates enough jobs to reignite wage pressures and inflation, regardless of asset bubbles, or collateral damage along the way.

On past performance there is little doubt she will do exactly that because that was the mentality I met up with all those years ago. But if you would like to see the other side of this same question, you could do worse thanto read this article from The American Thinker. Many fascinating paras to choose from but let me just jump to the section outlining a sketch of the kind of world Janet Yellen and her approach may be laying out for the US as everything finally falls apart, “the perfect storm” as he calls it. Not at all my own forecast; I provide it merely as a contrast to the belief that all will be well as long as we keep flooding the market with money and distorting factor markets for as long as it takes until Janet Yellen finally realises that things are not working out.

As the perfect storm approaches, the regime will address it the only way it knows how — as a revenue, rather than a spending, problem.

And, as the regime becomes more desperate, unwilling to make cuts to anything other than the military, it will look for opportunities to increase revenue, all the while being indifferent to, or ignorant of the negative economic impact of taking more money out of the private sector and transferring it to the government. Like throwing gas on a fire to put it out, it has the opposite effect.

Here are prototypical examples, not literal predictions, of an increasingly desperate regime:

One-time tax on all IRA account balances as though they are current income, without deleting future taxes on gains from the remaining balance, but removing tax credits for subsequent losses;

Reduce the face value on all short-term (2-3 years) Treasuries if redeemed at maturation, plus subtract interest gained from the pay-out, unless, that is, the holder renews their T-bill at the same rate of interest as at the last renewal, or purchase, whichever is lowest;

Forgive student loans to placate young voters disaffected by the unexpected – to them -high cost of their health insurance under the ACA;
Offer federally-subsidized, reduced-interest loans for first-time “poor” home buyers;

Remove tax-exemption on debt incurred by major municipalities (over 500,000 residents);

Remove interest deductions on all mortgages over $300,000;
Require 401Ks, IRAs and Pension Funds to have a certain portfolio percentage in Treasuries;

Accelerate the schedule of required minimum withdrawals from IRAs to kill the stretch IRA concept and boost tax revenues;

Install a national federal sales tax at 1% on all goods and services (soon rising to 2%, and then up);

Remove the tax-exempt status of all non-profit organizations, including churches and charities;

Collect a yearly tax on the endowments of religious and educational institutions (For example, Harvard University received $650 million from the federal government during their last fiscal year. At the end of 2012, Harvard’s endowment was $30,745,534,000 – #1 among universities. It’s time to tax Harvard. It’s only fair.);

Eliminate deductions for state income tax payments;

Install a yearly tax on vehicles based on miles driven (a 2011 CBO suggestion);

Install a minimum tax rate of 50% on all former members of Congress for five years after leaving federal service and joining think, lobbying firms, and PACs.

Gruesome, of course, but by no means impossible. We live in dangerous times.

UPDATE: A trimmer version of the above article may now be found at Quadrant Online under the perfect title, “On Planet Janet the Spending Never Ends“. Comes with the above picture as well.

The morality of global warming is all on our side

You really have to wonder why the information found in this diagram is not pure plain common knowledge.

global temperature sept 2013

The harm that the IPCC does to the poor and destitute, in the first world and in the third, is one of the great scandals of our times. The probability that global warming is a problem is near zero as is the probability that temperature change is being driven in anything other than a trivial way by human activity.

But the harm these people do, the IPCC and its enablers, is almost beyond calculation. It is one of the great moral issues of our time but the morality is exactly the other way round from how they like to portray it. The purveyors of global warming have a lot to answer for but they could not care less, wrapped up in their smug indifference to the harm they cause.

UPDATE: I have put the second graph up and removed the one I had originally posted because I have been asked for the source of the original one which I cannot recall. The new one is from The Global Warming Policy Foundation run by Sir Nigel Lawson.

Julia Gillard on Julia Gillard

Julia Gillard really could not help herself and I can’t say that I blame her. She has a long article at The Guardian, itself an interesting choice on where to speak out, which comes under the title, “Julia Gillard: power, purpose and Labor’s future“. I picked this up at Andrew Bolt who has quite a bit to say on the article as well. But the part that gets to me is that sense of how wonderful Labor has been in all the handouts they have manufactured. She sees no down side in all of the visionary stuff she has been responsible for. Let me draw on just one:

It is impossible to imagine modern Australia without Medicare, our universal healthcare scheme, which was introduced by the Whitlam government, repealed by the Coalition and then introduced by Labor again. This reform has become so significant a part of our national story that the political contest which surrounded its birth is now over. No serious candidate for public office runs on a platform opposing Medicare. Today’s Australia is not home to the kind of conservatives who would be ideological enough or dumb enough to contemplate such a political campaign. If anything, the national mood around Medicare is one of smug complacency. How much smarter are we than the Americans, still struggling with health reform, we think to ourselves.

Let me just stop you right here. Australia does not have a universal healthcare scheme. It has a dual track system which is why ours is the best in the world. Left to Whitlam, there would have eventually been no private healthcare option. It was intended to be a universal health care scheme. We would have been like the Poms, the Canadians and as the US is about to become. But under Malcolm Fraser, before he became a socialist, there was this one change made that has made all the difference: “‘Medibank Mark II’ was launched on 1 October 1976 and included a 2.5 per cent levy on income, with the option of taking out private health insurance instead of paying the levy.” They are slowly slowly introducing the private component into overseas universal healthcare systems as the Americans go about ruining theirs. We have had it all along. For a hilarious look at the Canadian system you have to see The Barbarian Invasions. This is where the Whitlam/Labor approach would have taken us.

This is the economic problem with the sainted Julia’s way of thinking. The government will remove market considerations to the greatest extent possible to fix whatever is not in their minds working perfectly by getting the government to do whatever it is itself. Everything is then fantastic except the outcome. And as for it being “impossible in modern Australia to find an advocate for the Howard government’s Work Choices laws” I wouldn’t be all that sure of this myself. But while on policy, as in making the economy work and that sort of thing, she is utterly wrong; on the politics of what draws votes I am more than sure that if not quite 100% correct she is pretty close. We still do not have the dependency class in the way others do. We have managed to maintain just enough of the ancient work ethic and notions of self reliance to still make an Abbott electable. But how long this will be it is impossible to know. But as these attitudes erode a less certain future beckons.

Even on the smaller question of whether it was right to switch to Kevin, it is not the number of seats that matters but the way in which the lies, chaos and policy incoherence of the Gillard government has more or less disappeared from the active memory of the country. Julia was a disaster and not only would have led her side to defeat but would have remained a symbol for inept governance for a generation. That has now gone completely. There is no horror within the community at the six years of Labor in the way there ought to be. That is why she is able to write this article and maintain her dignified pose. It amazes me how thoroughly Kevin has saved Labor from an entrenched communal memory of incompetence and deceit it so completely deserved. Now, sadly, it is possible to imagine a Labor Government if not quite within three years but certainly in six.

An “unexpected” deterioration in the labour market

employed persons aug 2013

unemployment rate aug 2013

The left hand picture shows the level of employment and the right hand side the unemployment rate. The one that should be going up is thus going down and the one that should be going down is going up.

This ought to be seen as the benchmark moment with the unemployment rate having returned to its peak level at the height of the Global Financial Crisis. The rate is going to get worse before it gets better but there needs to be some clear recognition that the stimulus was not all that stimulating after all.

The reporter in The SMH is either a regular reader of Instapundit or doesn’t read him at all since he describes this turn of events as “unexpected”. Even the participation rate fell which means things are even worse than the stats actually show.

The economy unexpectedly shed jobs in August, taking the unemployment rate to a fresh-four year high and reviving the chance of a rate cut.

The number of people employed fell by 10,800 from the previous month, when it declined by a revised 11,400, the statistics bureau said today. That compares with expectations of a 10,000 increase. The jobless rate rose to 5.8 per cent from 5.7 per cent. . . .

The number of full-time jobs declined by 2600 in August, and part-time employment fell by 8200, today’s report showed. The participation rate, a measure of the labour force in proportion to the population, dropped to 65 per cent in August from 65.1 per cent a month earlier, it showed.

This is with record deficits and public spending continuing to rise. Needs explanation is all I can say.

[The data and the SMH story first noted by Andrew Bolt.]