Defending the indefensible

As Orwell said, “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” What brought this to mind was this passage from a story in today’s Australian: Sydney siege: one year anniversary

On the first anniversary of the Sydney siege, the city’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore has said that it “wasn’t a terrorist event”.

“I thought it was really important as a city leader to stress that this is a one-off, isolated event by someone who shouldn’t have been out on bail, a very violent background, clearly a mental illness,” Ms Moore told ABC TV this morning.

“It wasn’t a terrorist event. I didn’t want our multicultural harmonious community to be divided,” she said.

Ms Moore will now have to provide a definition of what is a terrorist event so that we will know one when we see one.

Well then, who should we vote for?

First this about Mr 41%: Trump Is Going To Break Your Heart. The central point:

When he dumps you, when he goes back to the New York liberal roots that are at the core of his being and starts talking about how he’s decided to switch back to his old positions, that it’s reasonable to take your guns, to liberalize immigration, and to keep Obamacare, you’re going to feel like fools. You’re going to be humiliated. And the GOP establishment, which is terrible, is going to be looking at you saying, “I told you so.”

Then there is this about Ted Cruz: Ted Cruz: The Anti-Reagan.

Like many of his rivals for the Republican nomination, Ted Cruz has embraced the mantle of Ronald Reagan. He regularly cites the Gipper as an inspiration, and last week gave a foreign policy address at the Heritage Foundation that was laced with tributes to him: “As Reagan knew well, the best way to project America’s leadership is by protecting and promoting America’s strength and this principle should always guide our actions.” I didn’t know Ronald Reagan (neither did Cruz), but I do know a lot about him. And from what I know, it’s fair to say that Ted Cruz is no Ronald Reagan. In many ways, he is actually an anti-Reagan.

That is, he criticises fellow Republicans, is unreliable on foreign policy and cannot get on with anyone. Trump feels like the emergency bailout position if there was no one else around, that is, if the next Republican President fails to deliver balanced budgets, a freer economy and a sound immigration policy.

Jihad free zones

jihad free zone

David Solway on the impossibility of dealing with Islamic terrorists. As part of an interesting and reflective article, he answers this question, where do such jihadists derive their power?

First, they are not bound by the Geneva conventions, they do not wear uniforms, they do not regard civilians as non-combatants, they do not care for the wounded, they do not respect the sanctity of rescue and medical corps, and, what should be immediately obvious, they do not take prisoners; they take hostages. Which is to say, they are out-and-out barbarians with no redeeming traits and their only connection with what we call civilization is deceptive and parasitical. As PJ Media columnist David Goldman writes in the Asia Times, “The trouble is that very large numbers of Muslims are willing to kill themselves in order to harm enemy noncombatants, and the number appears to be increasing. To my knowledge that is something new under the sun. Japanese kamikazes and Nizari assassins in the Middle Ages, like the pre-1917 Bolsheviks, were willing to die to kill public officials or soldiers. But the murder of noncombatants through suicide attacks (or attacks likely to prove suicidal) is something we have never before witnessed.”

Second, they are subjectively invincible. They do not take casualties. Their bodies are like weapons; when these are spent, they can be discarded. In other words, they do not die, but are immediately translated into Jannah, the Muslim heaven, where they will revel eternally in sparkling brooks, fruited orchards, and harems of sloe-eyed virgins. In a sense, they are the zombies of the modern world, the armies of the living dead who, as they are fond of saying, love death more than we love life. They cannot be defeated, they can only be quarantined, kept at bay, left to rave and rampage in the killing grounds of their own countries.

Why is anyone talking about an early election?

An interesting bit of tittle tattle from today’s paper.

Malcolm Turnbull is facing his Kevin Rudd moment. Should he call an early election?

Several cabinet ministers have privately urged the Prime Minister to go early next year to bank the political capital he has in the opinion polls as Bill Shorten and Labor flounder at historic lows.

My first question is, who is leaking? Who could possibly know that several cabinet ministers have done anything, especially something as sensitive as that? Really, I thought with the change, leaking would become a thing of the past.

Second, why the rush? If Mr Popular is so fantastic, why not wait till the three years are up before testing the market? Whether it’s Bill Shorten or anyone else, the future is bright and certain. Seems a bit impetuous. This being an unlosable election, can’t see what all the pressure is about. Why not just bring down the budget, give the ABC another few million, promise to raise the GST after the election and go for it then? It’s all such a puzzle.

Oikophobia

I have heard the term but never knew what it meant. Now I know.

The British philosopher Roger Scruton has coined a term to describe this attitude: oikophobia. Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’ ” . . .

There is one important difference between the American oik and his European counterpart. American patriotism is not a blood-and-soil nationalism but an allegiance to a country based in an idea of enlightened universalism. Thus our oiks masquerade as–and may even believe themselves to be–superpatriots, more loyal to American principles than the vast majority of Americans, whom they denounce as “un-American” for feeling an attachment to their actual country as opposed to a collection of abstractions.

Yet the oiks’ vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . .”

This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false.

If you are young and also if you are stupid, your wish to be distinct from the herd drives you into this kind of herd-like behaviour. Not one in a hundred (a thousand) could provide an articulate expression of their beliefs that would make genuine sense. See below, although it does take a Dinesh D’Souza to apply the cure.

High IQ idiots

It would be one thing if I thought these people were saying what they’re saying and doing what they’re doing because that is where the votes are. What amazes me more than anything is that these people really believe it. From The Oz just now: Paris Climate Deal: Turnbull government stares down dissenters, from which:

Environment Minister Greg Hunt has defended the non-binding nature of the Paris climate agreement, as the Turnbull government stares down climate change dissenters within its own ranks.

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen, an outspoken climate change sceptic, warned the agreement was “essentially meaningless” and Australia should avoid “metaphorically burning our economy just to appear good on the global stage”.

“Basically countries set their own targets and there’s no enforcement strategy. It provides flexibility to do anything essentially,” he told ABC Radio.

“The entire globe needs to have similar commitments and be similarly achieving those goals.” . . .

Mr Hunt regretted there would be “no sanctions or penalties if a country falls short of its target”.

“Our preference would have been for that. That’s probably the only real and significant element that we would have wanted, but we all knew that that wasn’t possible for the United States, it wasn’t on China’s agenda,” he told Macquarie Radio.

“Others haven’t always honoured their agreements in the past, that is true. But the difference this time is everybody’s in the cart, everybody’s made their commitment; if countries fall short of that or indeed they renege on it I think there would be enormous internal and external pressure and criticism.”

There is such a thing as a high-IQ idiot and there are plenty of them around.

IN ADDITION: I was reminded by Old School Conservative in the comments of the reaction by the journalists in Paris which is useful in understanding the kinds of media coverage these meetings and agreements get. More HIQI in action as may be seen in their incredible reaction.

“We are all Jews” he said, a gun to his head

RoddieEdmonds1

There are some people who are beyond my wildest understanding of their bravery and virtue, and this is one. The story’s title, ‘We are all Jews’: Israel honors US soldier who stared down Nazi 70 years ago, and here are the opening paras:

It was January, 1945 and Master Sgt. Roddie Edmonds had a gun to his head.

The commandant of the Stalag IXA POW Camp near Ziegenhain, Germany, ordered Edmonds, of the 422nd Infantry Regiment, to turn over the Jewish-American soldiers under his command. Edmonds and his men – Jews and non-Jews alike – stood together in formation.

“They cannot all be Jews,” the German said, looking over the more than 1,000 POWs.

“We are all Jews,” Edmonds responded.

“I will shoot you,” the commandant warned.

But Edmonds had his own warning: “According to the Geneva Convention, we only have to give our name, rank and serial number. If you shoot me, you will have to shoot all of us, and after the war you will be tried for war crimes.”

The commandant stood down.

Those four words uttered by Edmonds echo 70 years later, as a testament to the solidarity he and his men showed to their Jewish brothers in arms. And because of that, Edmonds’ name will be etched in history when he becomes the first American soldier to receive the Yad Vashem Holocaust and Research Center’s Righteous Among the Nations recognition and medal.

This is a description from one of the soldiers who was there:

Lester Tanner and Paul Stern were two of the Jewish POWs Edmonds protected, and recall how they stood next to him during the tense exchange with the German commandant.

“It was 70 years ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday,” Stern, 91, said from his home in Reston, Va. “He was very calm, even with a gun to his head. It’s amazing even to this day.”

I don’t know how a story like this has stayed buried so long.

I really did change my mind

I put up a post a while back on millennials and especially their choice of someone to admire in Egon Musk. As the recipient of $4 billion of government handouts, not my perfect example of the entrepreneurial spirit. My son, however, wrote me to say this:

Musk made $22 million for himself by creating an app when he was 27 years. He then invested 3/4 into a new business that became PayPal and sold that and made $180 million. He was 31 at this point. Only after that did he get into Tesla and building rockets and other things. Lots of risk and lots of hard work.

So I wrote him back with this reply:

Ah my son. You should read my Economics for Infants to get your Dad’s take on these things. Musk is no Thomas Edison. His app plus PayPal on your arithmetic comes to around a $200 million increase in value to the world. His Tesla, on the other hand, has soaked up $4 billion so he is now a net debtor, socially speaking, to the tune of $3.8 billion. Not really that much risk when the government forks over so much. Green scams irritate me, and whatever he may have contributed to the world, he is no Steve Jobs. In fact, he reminds me of Malcolm Turnbull who made his fortune by being part of Ozemail which he sold for around the same amount as Paypal, as I recall. But I will stay tuned to further developments.

So he wrote to me again.

Musk didn’t sell PayPal for $200 million, he sold it for $1.5 billion. But he made $180 million (after taxes) for himself. PayPal’s Market Cap is currently at $43 Billion. Also, he sold Zip2 (his first business) for $307 million, but personally received $22 million from the sale.

He’s also a genius. At the age of 9 he got his first computer and finished the “how to program” guide in 3 days. By 12 years old he invented a game and sold it to a computer magazine for $500 (this was in 1983).

He then started three companies, with his own cash on the line. This is how much he personally invested: $100 million in SpaceX, $70 million in Tesla and $10 million into Solar City. This was a huge percentage of all the money he had earned.

SpaceX is now worth $12 billion and has allowed companies to launch things to space for the lowest cost in history. Yes, this does include government agencies like NASA. But NASA was spending much more to do it than SpaceX.

Tesla is now worth $30 billion and their newest models are a massive success with the highest ever consumer report and safety ratings in history for a car company.

SolarCity, which went public in 2012, now has a market cap of just under $6 billion and has become the largest installer of solar panels in the US.

The definition of an entrepreneur is “a person who organizes and operates a business or businesses, taking on greater than normal financial risks in order to do so.”

He now operates businesses that employ more than 30,000 people and has taken on massive financial risks, with his own money.

Anyway, that’s my thinking.

To which I replied, via my iPhone and was therefore of necessity being brief:

OK. I’m convinced.

To which he has now replied once again:

Haha… Really? Or do you just want to drop the discussion?

Yes, yes, really. I am convinced. Selling a product to NASA is not the same as having money given to you as a typical form of government waste. It’s even possible that the Tesla is the car of the future and Musk is the Henry Ford/Thomas Edison of our time. Astonishing in every respect. These millennials may be onto something after all.

Hi Joshi. LtU

And Yuri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind

First this, which might get lost in the wash of today’s events: Malcolm Turnbull has lifted Tony Abbott’s wind power investment ban.

Malcolm Turnbull has lifted Tony Abbott’s controversial ban on government investment in wind power, in his first major break from the former regime’s environmental policy.

Fairfax Media can reveal that Environment Minister Greg Hunt has issued the Clean Energy Finance Corporation with new orders that negate the Abbott government’s June decree, which prohibited the $10 billion green bank from investing in new wind power projects. . . .

Under the new mandate, the corporation will be allowed to invest in any wind projects provided they involve “emerging and innovative” technology, although it does encourage it to “focus on offshore wind technologies”.

This is what innovation apparently means: wasting our money on useless projects that will never provide any benefit to anyone other than those who get to spend the money (see the NBN for the prototype). The reality is you cannot trust them to keep their word. And why this is especially grievous is that the agreement signed in Paris commits the government to do precisely nothing it does not want to. If they are stupid enough to fall for all of this, then they can continue believing that Yuri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind and act on this belief. This is from Skeptics Central in London, explaining how empty the agreement is.

London 12 December: Dr Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), has welcomed the non-binding and toothless UN climate agreement which was adopted in Paris tonight.*) Dr Peiser said:

“The Paris agreement is another acknowledgement of international reality. The deal is further proof, if any was needed, that the developing world will not agree to any legally binding caps, never mind reductions of their CO2 emissions.”

“As seasoned observers predicted, the Paris deal is based on a voluntary basis which allows nations to set their own voluntary CO2 targets and policies without any legally binding caps or international oversight.”

“In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal removes all legal obligations for governments to cap or reduce CO2 emissions. This voluntary agreement also removes the mad rush into unrealistic decarbonisation policies that are both economically and politically unsustainable.”

Lord Nigel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, added:

“The UK’s unilateral Climate Change Act is forcing British industry and British households to suffer an excessively high cost of electricity to no purpose. Following Paris, it is clearer than ever that the Act should be suspended until such time as a binding global agreement has been secured.”

*) We would like to apologise to editors and correspondents as this is exactly the same statement we issued a year ago, with the sole change of Paris for Lima; but since there has been no substantive change in the COP21 deal there is no change in our assessment.

You get the same message here at Climate Depot.

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: ‘Now that the United Nations has officially ‘solved’ man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about ‘global warming’ fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding ‘climate change’ studies? Does this mean we can stop worrying about ‘global warming’s’ ability to end civilization and cause wars, and increase prostitution, bar room brawls, rape, airline turbulence, etc.? Can we finally move on to other issues? I spent the last week in Paris marveling at how so many believe a form of modern witchcraft: That a UN agreement or EPA climate regulations can alter Earth’s temperature and the level of storms. But now I realize that if they truly believe the UN has solved ‘climate change’ even skeptics should rejoice! Now that the UN treaty has ‘solved’ global warming, can we all just move on to something else?’

Morano on UN’s 2C Limit: “We had one UK scientist, Philip Stott, who has said there are quite literally hundreds of factors governing global climate. For the UN to pick one politically-selected factor — CO2 — and then try to tweak it at the margins and then come up with some temperature goal 50 -100 years in the future, is akin to scientific nonsense. You could call it modern day witchcraft.”

That’s all very well, but if governments want to they will as our own government is about to demonstrate. The government is unbelievable – in the most literal sense the word has.

The Coalition of Obsolete Industries needs your support

Filmed in Sydney but found at Instapundit of all places, VITAL OBSOLETE INDUSTRIES need bailouts!. From the Australian Taxpayers Alliance. But the thing is this. If governments can see a vote in it, they will do it, irrespective of anything else. We can only stop them if we stop voting for them. Until then, the March of Regress will continue.